Our Zulu guide at Rorke's Drift said that the Zulu's short stabbing spear was called after the sound it made stabbing into a body and the sound it made when withdrawing it - eech-schuk! The same guide told us at Isandlwana that his great-grandfather was an eyewitness that fought in the battle who described that when the redcoats ran out of bullets, and facing certain death, they all shook hands with each other and met their fate with great equanimity and calmness, fighting on with bayonet and rifle butt until they fell; bravery which deeply impressed the Zulus.
Such brave men invading a vulnerable people and killing them for their land... It was ALL about cutting off the Ottoman empire's monopoly on opium trade with China so we could take it over for ourselves. The Zulus occupied land the Ottomans had financed and militarised to protect a critical trade route. The only reason we hear about the Zulu's is because they were the only ones with the resources to try and compete with our superior firepower, the rest of the trade route was swallowed without a fight... Those men were fools and cowards who died believing they fought for a flag when it was all about resources and opium for corporations profit.
@@omnipotentpumpkin9755 Calling those men cowards is stupid and disrespectful. The average foot soldier has no say in what wars are fought or where. I'm pretty sure the flag is the least of their motivations - more likely feeding their families back home is the main reason they join the army, not fame or glory.
@@omnipotentpumpkin9755 yes because they always do a fine job of running they're countries, I know let's return south Africa to them, it will go from strength to strength and they'll all work hard and everyone will live in a land of milk and honey... O wait 🤔 give it a rest leftard.
One side armed with rifles with a lethal range of 1-200m and the other with a stabbing weapon with required the wielder to be within arms length. Lets face it the isiZulu were the brave ones. The Brits got taken by surprise at Isandlwana.
I was very privileged to spend 2 days on the hill looking down over Isandlwana with David Rattray. Hearing on the first day the story from the Zulu perspective and the next day from the British perspective. An amazing experience.
I also was fortunate to hear Rattray describe the story while sitting at the base of Isandlwana. You could hear a pin drop. A marvellous story teller and sadly murdered.
I was incredibly fortunate to be a part of an Earthwatch sponsored archaeology dig at the Mission station at Eshowe in 2000 with Tony Pollard's team; we also had a chance to visit the sites of the battles at Rorke's Drift and Isandlwana....very moving.
I thoroughly enjoyed this interview. I've been fascinated by the Zulu War ever since I saw the film Zulu when I was about 7 years old. Leaving aside all factual considerations, it is still a very rousing film. Especially the sing-off between the Rorke's Drift defenders and the Zulus.
One of my favourite scenes of all time. Even as a child I was thrilled by it and glued to the screen. Such beautiful, stirring, terrifying, magnificent music!
One of the VC recipients from Rorke’s Drift, Surgeon Reynolds was from my home town Dun Laoghaire, Co Dublin. Not sure where his pet dog was born though. 😀
One of the VCs is buried in a church in Llantarnam near Newport my hometown. After my kids first watched Zulu, I took them to the church to pay our respects.
@@Andrew-yb1uv Funnily enough, one of the few survivors (Horace Smith Dorrien) from Isandlwana went on to command 2 Corps at the battle of Le Cateau August 1914 in which my great grand uncle Lt Vincent Fox was killed in action. Vincent was the first veterinarian surgeon to be killed in WW1 and he was inside a Church tending to wounded humans (not animals) when the Germans shelled the village.
I bought the book all those years ago and used it for an A level course. I’ve always been interested in the Zulu war, something shared with my father who first peaked my interest when I watch ‘Zulu’ with him and he pointed out all the historical inaccuracies which I now do to anyone who will listen 😂 great interview of a great author.
Ironically, he just came out with his own inaccuracies in this talk. He said Isandlwana was a morning attack and the Zulus used captured Martini Henry rifles at Rorkes Drift. Neither of those claims are true.
Their is a famous photograph taken in 1929, on the 50th anniversary of isandlwhana. The photograph showns many Zulu now in their 70s Who fought there. There was no animosity between Zulu and British, in fact quite the opposite, many recounted the battle Tales were told, stories swapped, The photograph taken on the base of the mountain, among the white cairns marking the places were soldiers died in heaps. A Zulu, "each man fell in his place" Testiment to the line "a man came down, with his sword above his head, he charged and cut down the Zulu, before the Zulu killed him", he, and another in a cave, we're the last. The escape across the nek, toward the river, young husbands stand, Hamilton browns description of the attack on the camp, the Zulu children who went to see the dead white men the following day, And their description of things they found hard to understand, Even down to Durnford epic stand on the british right, and the discovery of his mummified body some months later, and cetswayos horror that the dead Zulu are so many they can not be counted. Cestswayo knew, being a very intelligent man, that this day spelled the end of his nation.
Living in Brecon and having links with the regiment I spend time at the SWB museum , it was interesting to meet the Great Granddaughter of Robert Jones who is reported to have shot himself whilst depressed from the constant dreams about the battle, she was insistent that he tripped over a fence and the shooting was an accident, also discussed his VC medal which she told us was'stolen' and sold by a member of the family. Interesting hour sitting in the backroom of the museum and in truth a high lite in my life. I was informed that in fact the Zulu had more fire arms than the British but of course not as accurate but at hundred yards that made little difference, like Custer on the Little Bighorn, distance was the key, unfortunately for both they could not keep it. Excellent posting very interesting to listen too, thank you.
Yes. Around 1 in 5 Zulus were armed with a gun. As you said, not modern guns (at least not at Isandlwana and Rorkes Drift) but they still killed and injured. A considerable number of British casualties at Isandlwana were from Zulu gunfire (the actual totally will never be known), while at Rorkes Drift 18 of the 32 British casualties there were due to Zulu gunfire. Source, Like Wolves On The Fold by Col Mike Snook.
@@lyndoncmp5751 a government report of August 1878 claimed there were 20000 firearms in Zululand of which 500 were breech loading rifles (Schneider, standard British infantry firearm 1866-74 until replaced by the Martini Henry but still used by some Colonial forces), 2500 percussion cap muskets (Enfield), 5000 older percussion cap muskets and the rest flintlock muskets The Zulus had a lot of guns
Overexaggeration in the film that was. The Zulus certainly didn't run 50 miles to Isandlwana. They took a number of days to get there and were not in any rush. They also preferred a rest day in between.
The absolute arrogance and over confidence of some of the officers at this time is unbelievable. Especially as this had happened after the retreat of Kabul. Saul David explains this so brilliantly within this interview. Excellent as always
The retreat from kabul, and the ensuing massacre was not down to arrogance. Elphinstone agreement with the afghans was that he would withdraw and be given safe passage Assured by the afghans, It was just an empty promise by another savage, and Elphinstone column was massacred. No arrogance do I see there at all In fact just the opposite, a British commander willing to take the word of honour of a Muslim chief, That faith which became treachery cost all their lives.
@@caractacusbrittania7442 take the word of an enemy that you have invaded to give you safe passage is arrogance no? Considering we didn’t really understand how the country was run and the importance of the tribes, to think we would be aloud to retreat unopposed by a word given from someone who had no real control over the tribes along the pass, seems rather cocksure? Who dare would undermine the authority of the British empire after all?
I watched this as a young Para recruit in form up in '67. The atmosphere in the SKC cinema was electric, I'll never forget how our trg staff were cheering and shouting out advice. Wonderful times.
@@anandmorris I don't think anyone in the British Army has formed a square since Wellington's time Anand, that was a defence against mounted Cavalry, and they haven't been around for a long, long time,
@@adambrowne01 absolutely worth the time I think. If you're not in the military side of things you can easily skip those. Both books are of such wide breath that I found myself learning about european institutional history, economics, technology while reading a seemingly simple couple of paragraphs on telegraph and dispatches between London and Capetown. Can't recommend highly enough. Of the English speaking history books I've read only Hobsbawm with his 'Ages,' and beevor 'the Spanish civil war' packed more information per page.
@@jimzimmer2048 True, but for some reason the British always find a way to go beyond and above for their epic failures of leadership wiping out whole armies.
My brother has one as well he bought about ten years ago. He restored it and was able to secure a few boxes of ammo for it too. It's loud, kicks hard, and fouls the crap out if the barrel after just a few rounds.
Saul David made a very interesting point about the similar military tactics of the Romans and the Zulus (closing with and annihilating the enemy). While I suppose it's possible that someone taught Shaka about Roman tactics, I suspect the guy simply realized that if he wanted a different military outcome, he needed different military tactics. Going from the 'relatively benign tactics' previously used by Zulu tribes to the outright destruction of opposition meant just that; destroy the opposition. I'm sure Shaka also realized that this tactic had an amazing ability to get other tribes to 'see things his way'.
If we are looking at Classical battles, the Athenian led Greeks also reinforced their flanks and thinned their centre before annhiliating the Persian beachhead at Marathon.
Saul David is incorrect when he claims the firearms used by the Zulus at Rorke's Drift were Martini-Henry rifles captured at Isandlwana. This myth is perpetuated in Cy Enfield's film, "Zulu". The warriors who fought at Rorke's Drift weren't present at the earlier battle. The firearms they used were old trade guns, typically flintlock, smoothbore muzzle-loaders.
It’s been a long established fact according to historians that it was the Zulu reserves that attacked Rorkes drift and were not armed with martini Henry’s. I was enjoying this interview until I heard him giving the version that was in the film! Anyway I’ll watch the rest and see how many other alternative facts he comes up with!
rockster He also said Isandlwana was a morning attack and the British had poor reconnaissance. The Zulus never got within miles of the camp before being spotted. Their movements in the hills to the north were seen at first light then their impi was discovered. Of course, reconnaissance and encountering a sizeable number of Zulus to the south east was the reason Chelmsford went out there. Because reconnaissance saw Zulus there.
I was fortunate to spend some time in the area staying at the Rorkes Drift Hotel (recommrnded) including a whole day with a local expert who took us around in his Landrover and gave us a detailed insight into both this battle and Rorkes Drift. It was interesting to compare the films Zulu Dawn and Zulu with the real truth. He said Zulu Dawn was closer. The film Zulu was, well, almost totally inaccurate!
I understand that the Director of the Russel Crowe movie Gladiator was fascinated by the Zulu War Chants. Check out the opening battle in Gladiator and the Germanic Barbarians are actually yelling Zulu
Really insightful. What stands out was the hubris that lay behind the events. That the Zulus had not choice and that Rockes Drift battle later that same day, was deliberately used to save face./cover up the reality. 11 VC medals awarded (all and most likely more besides deserved) but it feels like some higher up wrapped themselves in the flag, to save their careers and reputations.
Bit of a myth that, otherwise those at Inyezane that same day would have had VCs dished out willy nilly to them too. They didnt. The VCs at Rorkes Drift were fully deserved. Extremely brave men who put up tough and stubborn resistance in the face of overwhelming odds.
@Iguazu65: Chelmsford was a particular favourite of Victoria. His clusterfuck at Isandlwana was covered up by glorifying Rorke's Drift. The British public swallowed the whole thing without question.
No. The Zulus did not have Martini Henrys at Rorkes Drift. The regiment led by Dubalamawayo had not been at Isandlwana. Some Zulus had muzzle loading weapons and took up position above Rorkes Drift in caves. Bad historical mistake. Seems to be relying on the film Zulu not history.
Good interview. I would have liked to hear a little more about the actual battles of Rorke's Drift and Ulundi which were rather skated over, but otherwise, very interesting.
the best account was written by Lt Col. Mike Snook in his two books about the battles, 'How Can Man Die Better' and 'Like Wolves On The Fold, The Defence of Rorke's Drift'. Very well written and detailed, highly recommended reads.
Absolutely. Snook and Knight are the supreme authorities on this subject. Regarding Isandlwana, too many other authors spend too much time on the before and after and relatively little on the actual battle itself. Snook reaches his conclusions based on evidence, eye witness testimony and the standard practices of the time, to piece together what happened. Saul David, in contrast, makes basic schoolboy errors in this interview. He claims Isandlwana was a morning attack, that there was poor reconnaissance, and that the Zulus at Rorkes Drift used captured Martini Henry rifles. All three claims are absolutely false. Yes stick with Snook, or Knight, and ignore the likes of David.
I should add as well to take Quantrill and Lock with a grain of salt. They too have a bias. Thankfully their The Missing Five Hours revisionism, where they claim the Zulus deliberately decoyed Chelmsford out, and were moving on the camp to attack it in the morning (must be THE slowest attack in history because they were still en mass at their bivouac spot 8 hours after Chelmsford left) did not gain any widespread support except for some Durnford supporters on a forum.
In the 1930s, Colour-Sergeant Bourne gave an interview to the BBC. In that interview, he states that all of the British casualties at Rourke's Drift, were the result of rifle fire.
Just over half of the 32 British casualties at Rorkes Drift were via Zulu gunfire. 18 of them, including 6 fatalities. Source Mike Snook Like Wolves On The Fold.
RC Fokker, In his book Like Wolves On the Fold, Mike Snook actually names every single soldier who was shot or stabbed. Its finely detailed and sourced by the army records. Bourne was clearly misremembering and exaggerating.
I was left some Zulu artefacts in a will from a much travelled uncle. Short stabbing spear, a headdress and nobkerry (spelling)?.I treasured them for a while but times got hard and I had to auction them.Great shame.
No mention of the genocides perpertrated by the Zulu's, when they would depopulate a area they had conquered, its estimated that the Zulu's murdered one to two million men women and children, in the lands bordering the transvaal, a atrocity replicated in almost all the regions they conquered.
If that's even true, which, i dunno, it's literally nothing in comparison to what we were doing all across africa and asia lmao. We literally put boer families in camps and used to BLOW SEPOYS FROM A CANNON SO THEY COULDN'T GO TO THE AFTERLIFE.... google "blowing form a gun"
Yeah not like the british ever killed millions of peolle and depopulated land , id check with your closest neighbour :) also india. I really dont understand how some people think the british empire came about? By invading and killing the local population, most problems in the world today can be linked back to the the british empire, middle east and africa for a start. Carving up countrys and dividing peope and robbing there resources. In the same league as the romans and nazis, millions of deaths at there hands, nothing to be proud of.
@@michael_177 Usual nonsense yes people died in the camps from old age in childbirth and from disease, the death rates in the camps were no greater than in a general population. But now all death was the fault of the British, there is no comparison at all wiith these camps and concentration camps in Germany those were extermination camps. When the war was over the people from the camps went home. Your talking about twelve men Mutineers who would have been hung anyway, so that's twelve men compared to millions men women and children murdered by the Zulu's, amazing that the Nazi's The Zulu's The Turks Russians etc, who all committed real genocides are treated with adoration by you and your's but the one country on earth who preserved life, is subject to your constant rabid attacks.
@@thomasmain5986 You sound like george in blackadder when he says the first world war was caused by the villainous Hun and his empire building. Also massive L on clearly liking your own comment there.
A few things ... First off - Shaka _may_ have served at one point in time in his youth - as a body guard for a traveling merchant - and this Merchant _MAY_ have been the one who passed on to Shaka the tales of Roman Legions and their short, stabbing swords. Next - there is to little consideration given to the locals who were scared shit less of the Zulu's. There were previous occasions in which the Zulu's - usually in pursuit of a fleeing Royal Family Member his relatives wanted dead - briefly invaded Natal. There were 30,000 Zulu Warriors in total. A significant Army by anyone's standards and with them being Justly refereed to as Black Spartans - anyone who wasn't scared shit less of them - was a fool. The Zulu's had begun a process by which, like a series of falling dominoes a series of African tribes displaced each other with large bands of them roaming about and in fact resorting to cannibalism as much of the future territory occupied by the Boers was depopulated. For anyone wishing to see an end to the constant tribal warfare that was normal, removing a power like the Zulu's was a requirement. People who condemn the invasion of Zululand - didn't have to live with the Zulu's as neighbors. There is entirely to much foisting of current, popular Western morals on people of a different age. One of the things that is common for people to do - is to take their past experience and use it in future endeavors. As with Custer - Chelmsford's previous experience was difficulty in catching the natives he was trying to fight. In all these cases - the Technologically Advanced People had good reason to believe in their power - but - when faced with drastically greater numbers of natives - they couldn't make any mistakes ... The person to blame for Isandlwana - was Pulliene. Regardless of any orders Chelmsford had left - HE was the one in command and HE should have adjusted his tactics to the threat at hand. Here - a problem may have been to much Staff Work in his history and to little Command in the Field. As to the Zulu's being mercilous - that would depend. They had been told to kill all the RED Coats - and they did - but some British Officers were not wearing Red - and there were more of them that survived. Yes - the Governments of many of these colonial powers didn't actually want empires - that they would have to come up with the money to defend. It was usually mercantile interests who got a nation involved - got in trouble - and then had to have the Army come bail them out. India in fact was conquered for the British Empire by the British East India Company - using Native troops with British Officers. The influence of Merchants should not be discounted. Merchants like things to be nice and quiet so they can make money without worries bout their inventory being set ablaze. Merchants are seldom shy about voicing their concerns to the local political people so it's not like local politicians were just doing things on their own. .
It was a clash of empires basically. From what I’ve researched, the Zulu were not actually native to that part of South Africa. The Zulu massacred every tribe in their way. They literally caused the Mfecane.
Incoherent ramblings here. What is a mercilous Zulu? Shaka could have been captured by British slavers when he was very young. He would then have been sent up to Oxford to get an education. He would have studied Roman History and learned about military formations. He would also have learned about English grammar and context. The reason why more British Officers survived was not down to the fact that they were not wearing Red uniforms. It was because they placed themselves at the rear where they were in no danger. Chelmsford gave the orders. His orders were carried out. The blame lay with him. Arrogance on his part. To suggest that the invasion of Zululand was an altruistic gesture is totally misleading.
Could you argue that the British did want to annex Zululand in the end? Doing this through breaking the land into chieftanships, hoping that they would get into fighting each other, and then they could come in claiming that they are there to keep the peace?
Growing up in Africa, the Zulu war, Isandlwana and Rorke's Drift were of immense interest. Donald R Morris' (an American perspective maybe) The Washing of the Spears, was my bible on this. Magnificent book filled with magnificent detail that tells the story of the Zulu nation better than any other account I have read, and not heard anybody tell it better since.
An amazing book. It is showing its age, and sometimes says things that have been shown to be false. But still the single best book on the Anglo-Zulu war. Touches on the founding of the Zulu nation, the British involvement in Natal, the Boer Great Trek, the war and aftermath. Anyone wanting a copy can find one easily.
And what meagre fortifications they were, too. Biscuit boxes, mealie bags, and two small buildings never designed to be defended. Plenty of ammunition, though, and some pragmatic leadership.
So often the British lose because of arrogant and ignorant leadership, as well as underestimating the enemy. Chelmsford should have been court martialed.
A bit of technical trivia: Part of the legend of the massacre at Isandlwana revolves around the ammunition transport boxes for the rifle ammunition. Something about needing a screwdriver to open them and nobody having a screwdriver handy. I have actually had my sticky paws on one of these original type of ammo box. Yes, the lids (plural) were, indeed, held on with screws. HOWEVER, the centre lid panel was essentially "tapered", i.e., trapezoidal and designed to slide sideways for removal. On a nice, polite English rifle range, the properly-equipped ammunition party would have the correct screwdrivers for the job..However, the wooden ammunition box was designed to be opened more roughly in an emergency.. A solid butt-stroke in the "narrow" end of the trapezoid with a Martini Henry would shear off or tear out the retaining screws and the centre lid section would depart rapidly, allowing access to the ammunition.. Like many good military procedures; crude but effective.. Now, if the troops in that column had never been taught that drill, that would be a big part of the problem. The second alleged part of the problem was that the Quartermasters in charge of the stores, including ammunition, may not have been in a serious combat frame of mind when they apparently refused to issue ammunition to troops from other units / sub-units. The old Q-Store mantra being: "You can't have it, somebody else might need it" / "Show me your signed authorization and sign here, sunshine", and all that. The approaching roar of thousands of asegais drumming on greenhide shields, overwhelming the rapidly diminishing rattle of rifle fire, notwithstanding
The problem with those old myths though is that its bern shown that the British infantry still had plenty of ammo when they fell back to camp. The other myth is based solely on one anecdotal remark and there was no follow up to that remark. The British didn't run out of ammo until the Zulus entered the camp, cutting off the ammo wagons. Only Durnfords men ran out of ammo on the firing line, but that was because he didn't make sure he knew where his own ammunition wagon would be in the camp. He rode out before it arrived and overlooked this crucial aspect.
@@lyndoncmp5751 The other thing that one might learn from British and other infantry doctrine and training, is that the PRIMARY weapon of the infantry soldier was the BAYONET. The rifle to which it was attached was merely an expensive noisy stick; an extension of the bayonet. "Proper" soldiers got up-close and personal to ply their trade an a "civilized fashion". The "spirit of the pike" died very slowly; much slower than millions of young men in the coming years. There were two other problems with all this antique weaponry. The .577-450 cartridge is large and powerful as black-powder military cartridges go. The standard issue cartridges were literally hand-made, composite cases with a steel base rim and a rolled brass foil body; not particularly robust. Note also that the single-shot Martini Henry went into service about the same time several other European countries were starting to field-trial black-powder-fueled magazine rifles that fired deep-drawn, solid brass cartridge cases.. One of the other designs competing with the Martini was the Alexander Henry, which initially used a cartridge of similar performance, but which was too long to work in the short, tilting block Martini action. That is why the .577-450 became one of the first "bottle-necked" military cartridges in use. As the name suggests, both rifles used the complex but effective Henry form of rifling. Another interesting bit of trivia is that the British Army was toying with early "machine-guns". There of course HAD to use proper, deep-drawn brass cartridge cases as the mechanical feed mechanism would tear the "rolled" MH cases to pieces in operation. These "machine" guns were not the sleek kit that was to develop in the next couple of decades, but massive, multi-barreled affairs mounted on horse-drawn wheel and trail arrangements. They were also regarded as artillery, and deployed and maneuvered as such. Man-portable, mostly-reliable, smokeless powder fueled, standard cartridge machine guns were, in conjunction with parallel rapid developments in actual artillery, the means by which industrialized warfare came about. (See also: "railways").And, as usual, the infantry doctrines were about the last to be amended to deal with this new state of affairs.
4:38 This topic is presented in the book _Washing of the Spears_ by Donald Morris. The author discusses the developing influence of the Zulu nation and the British colonials in southeastern Africa, neither of them being native to the area. The phrase, as I remember it, was that the British out paced the Zulus "in the twinkling of a century".
@Simon Appleton: That would appear to be correct. The Zulus at Rorke's Drift were held in reserve at Isandlwana. They were essentially made up of older men. Having been denied any glory at Isandlwana, they saw Rorke's Drift as an opportunity to be part of the action. Their withdrawal was not as a result of British resistance. They were satisfied that honour had been served and they buggered off home.
The splitting of the English force at Isandlwana was intentionally baited by the Zulu. They had used the same diversionary tactic before when Shaka split Zwides army at Gqokli Hill. Even though it was Cetshwayo who fought the British at Isandlwana, they wouldn't have forgotten the tactic.
1878 was also the year Manchester United was created, abeit called Newton Heath Lancashire Yorkshire Railway Cricket and Football Club. No idea why i had to point that out.
1800 well armed troops vs 10 to 20 thousand warriors is not equivalent to 20 to 1 lol...I read a lot of these comments and there are so many excuses, admit you faces a fearless enemy lol
Really interesting question whether Shaka had any knowledge of the Roman army. It certainly isn't a requirement to produce a similar military machine. The combination of a throwing weapon, large shield and short hand weapon optimised for a one-stab kill was reiscovered / re-implemented on several occasions. The Romans learned the Pilum from other Italian states, the large shield form the Gauls and the short sword form the Spanish. It wasn't long before kingdoms all over Greece, North Africa and Asia Minor were fielding their own "imitation legions". The mercenary Catalan Company adopted similar aggressive tactics during the late days of the Byzantine empire. The Spanish conquistodor "rodolero" relied on sword, shield, breastplate and aggressive tactics in their conquest of Mexico. Maurits of Nassau suggested Roman style armaments when designing a Dutch army to repel the Spanish. He ended copying the Roman small-unit command/control, but using modern weapons of pike and musket. It's an effective system, so no reason why it should not be re-invented independently.
The Martini-Henry rifles taken from Isandlwana WERE NOT used in the Battle of Rorke's Drift. The Zulus at the battle for Rorke's Drift were Impi reserve warriors who had not participated in the battle of Isandlwana. These reserve Impi warriors were lead by the brother of Zulu King Cetshwayo, Dabulamanzi kaMpande, and they were upset that they had been denied (i) glory in the battle of Isandlawana and (ii) denied the opportunity to enrich themselves via looted items from the British at Isandlwana (such as the Martini-Henries.) The Impi warriors at Rorke's Drift were predominantly older (35-40 years of age and above) while the few firearms at their disposal were likewise old -- principally a hodgepodge of muskets and older rifles the Zulu had purchased or bartered for from the Boers and other European traders. In fact, very much like their muskets, the rifles at their disposal primarily fired black powder cartridges. Ultimately, Dabulamanzi kaMpande and his reserve warriors chose to attack the British at Rorke's Drift despite the express order from King Cetshwayo that they not do so. Again, no Martini-Henry rifles from Isandlwana were used at Rorke's Drift. Zero. Nada. Zilch. None.
This is f-ing cool. Just a couple of dudes talking history. Maybe in the next piece with the same guest or another one, we could start in the kitchen getting a brew ready and the camera walking you to the parlor with all the tidbits of getting nicely comfortable in your seats, positioning the mug just, taking your first sip and so on. Just milking the footage and the audience.
Couple of errors here which surprised me - there weren't 1000 British soldiers at islandlwana, but about 580 infantry and another 100 or so from the royal artillery and rocket troops. Second, guns were not used from isalndwana at rorkes drift because the zulus who fought there didn't fight at isandwlana
8:56 "Zulus take no prisoners" but this historian neglects to mention that they were instructed by their chief to let all non-combatants run away.. so by modern standards - uniquely humane..
They did not. The Zulus butchered everyone and everything, including civilians, cooks, servants horses and even camp pets. If the Zulus caught up with you.... you were a dead man.
In actual fact the Zulus didn't use weapons taken from the bodies at Isandlwana. They were still using the outdated weapons that they had prior to the attacks. That said, I thoroughly enjoyed this video.
Can someone please clear something up for me? Saul David repeatedly refers to Isandlwana as "Islandwana" (At least that's how it sounds, maybe my hearing isn't great). Have I been mispronouncing it all these years?
15:48 What he says here is an important rebuttal to an argument I have often heard that, if the Confederacy had won the American Civil War, the British Empire would have annexed both North and South shortly afterwards. That was a century out of date. By the time of the American Civil War, the British understood that it is more efficient to apply other forms of pressure, particularly economic pressure. The British might well have imposed some sort of limitations on the American navy -- which would probably have been unnecessary anyhow -- and they would certainly have imposed some trade agreements that would be very lopsided in favor of Britain. That would certainly be enough. For crying out loud, Canada was given independence in 1867 in much the same way. They probably would not have insisted on either North or South having the British monarch as head of state because it would be unnecessary and generate too much resentment; they would just lean a bit more heavily into the "special relationship" with both North and South and treat them as client states.
The counter factual game of history is always interesting to conjecture on. The Britush would not militarily be in a position to annex both the South & North. Crikey if the British were hostile it would galvanise both North & South against a common enemy. Remember the Americans fought the British twice in the American War of 8ndependence and War of 1812.
In all likelihood it would have reunited the North and South to take on a common for from 85 yrs. before and if any army went up against a battle hardened United American army that would have been all she wrote for them. No sir, not some European army messing with our Yankee brethren, no sir.
The Zulus that fought at Rorkes Drift never fought at Isandlwana so how did they get the rifles from that battle . always belived the Zulus always had fire arms but not the latest models like the British had hence shooting was very random affair at the Drift action ,, just saying i would look more into this as the idea Zulus never had firearms yet had been in contact with Europeans since Shaka was alive seems very far fetched they never already had rifles of some type
Formed drift is within shouting distance of Islwanda so what makes you think the zulus who wiped out 1500 the previous day didn't show up to take out a group of 100. Did you check the Zulu rosters and see which Zulu units under which Zulu group leaders were present or are you a seed and mystic.
Much like Custer at the Little Big Horn, the conventional wisdom was that the difficult part was managing to find them and engage them in battle. Hancock and others had chased the Sioux/Cheyenne all over creation and never caught up with them. When presented with a battle that weren't sure they could win, the villages would break up into family units and melt away into the wilderness...until the Little Big Horn, when Custer found the largest concentration of Natives ever seen before or since.
The "clap-trap" of her accusation of "theft" of Zulu land by the British troops is as always "a little knowledge is a dangerous thing". But the result of British occupation certainly paved the way for the confederation of Provinces which unite into the unique country of SOUTH AFRICA in which a "diverse RAINBOW NATION" evolves and remains the only TRUE example of UBUNTU on the African continent. It is quute clear that Rachel Meghan Ragland has no concept of the meaning and its practise of UBUNTU.
Amazingly, he came up with inaccuracies here. He said Isandlwana was an early morning attack and the Zulus used captured Martini Henry rifles at Rorkes Drift. Both of these are not true. The Zulus attacked Isandlwana in the afternoon and the Zulus at Rorkes Drift were not at Isandlwana, so they couldn't have used captured Martini Henry rifles. What's more, none of the 18 British troops shot by Zulus at Rorkes Drift were shot by Martini Henry Boxer bullets. Just saying.
Even 1700 men in an unlaagered camp should have been enough to defend it - there were problems with ammunition supply and the question of whether Durnford should have been in command.
Yes, if Durnford didn't ride off and make a stand too far out its at least possible the camp, or some of it, could have survived until Chelmsford returned to sandwich the Zulus. The infantry lines would surely have been drawn in earlier had Durnford defended near the camp. Pulleine wouldn't have had a choice, in seeing the Zulu left horn come around Amatutshane. He would not have kept the infantry companies out there with the Zulus racing in behind them.
"One of the greatest defeats in colonial history"--and of no strategic consequence whatever. Just like Little Big Horn. Embarassing, yes. Great, no. The defeat of the French, and later the Americans, in Vietnam 100 years later--now those were great defeats with actual consequences
The Zulus did not bring firearms - taken from the bodies of dead British soldiers at Isandlwana - to Rorke's Drift. This is an old, tired myth that has long since been thoroughly discredited. The Zulus at Rorke's Drift did indeed have (British) firearms, but these firearms had been acquired by the Zulus through discreet but assiduous trade over the years immediately preceding the Anglo-Zulu War of 1879. The Zulu firearms at Rorke's Drift had most definitely NOT been taken from dead British soldiers at Rorke's Drift. How do we know this? Because - as Saul David himself acknowledges at 14:17 in this video - the Zulu forces that attacked Rorke's Drift had taken no part in the Battle of Isandlwana. The Zulus that attacked Rorke's Drift had been in the right wing of the Zulu impi at Isandlwana, which wing had been assigned to circle around behind Isandlwana and cut off any attempt by British forces to retreat to and back across the iMzinyathi (or: 'Buffalo') River, which formed the acknowledged border between Zululand and British Natal Province. How then could these Zulus lift firearms from the bodies of dead British soldiers, if they remained so far from the actual fighting at Isandlwana that they took no part therein? The Zulus at Isandlwana certainly did lift rifles from the bodies of dead British soldiers, but these Zulus took no part in the attack on Rorke's Drift. The Zulus themselves have said as much, as those who did attack Rorke's Drift were disobeying the explicit orders of King Cetewayo.
Having a Left Right and Center to your army formation and throwing spears before closing with the enemy and having a good stabbing sword are all Very Sound military precepts.....and THAT is the connection between Zulu and Roman....very good military sense
Chelmsford was an arrogant yo-yo who was dismissive of pretty much all the indigenous people he tried to steamroll. He did fairly well until he ran headlong into a people who were willing and able to fight. The same sort of thing happens eventually to all bullies. But when this particular bully was also the favourite of The Queen, things got a lot worse awfully fast. If Chelmsford had led 3 columns made of his own Arrogance alone to Isandlwana, I would freely say that he and his officers deserved what they got. But 1500 people with him in a very Custer-like fashion did not deserve to die. Chelmsford, who never got his hair mussed, (unlike Custer) would go back to Jolly Old England and LIE to Queen Victoria about the reason for the defeat. I think this is ample evidence of the sort of man Chelmsford was.
This Zulu War parallels so many of the Indian Wars instigated by the US Army in the same century. An ambitious territorial governor wants all 'threats' on his border removed (Frere in Cape Colony and Governor John Evans in Colorado, who order the Sand Creek Massacre); white settlers complain to the government that they need protection from raids (the Boer Republics and the pioneers in Arizona) even though those settlers otherwise refuse to live under that government's authority; and an arrogant military commander gets his due (Chelmsford and Custer).
Hannibal used the double envelopment tactic long before the Romans ever did! the short stabbing spear changed the entire dynamics of warfare in Southern Africa, hence the overwhelming success of the Zulus!
I am amazed on how nations find weakness with history's super-powers! Think Little Big Horn on my side of the pond! Arrogance is what I completely agree with!
No mention that Chelmsford ordered Pulleine to keep his forces drawn in and act only on the defensive, and for Durnford to get there at once with all his available forces. If only Durnford followed his orders and those given to Pulleine instead of riding off on the attack pressuring Pulleine to support his rash and brazen adventure.
Saul let's have some real talk about the current world status, could you please give some insight into the genocide commited by European Israeli 's on Palestine... 🙄 Never going to happen is it.. be honest
Another historian says that the Zulus that fought at Rork’s Drift didn’t see battle at Isandlwana, they were the “Loins” of the Bull. Thus wouldn’t have had rifles taken from the fallen there.
I would not, in fact, allow the argument that if the Disraeli Ministry fell it would have been unfair, for the simple reason that even if Chelmsford didn't act on orders from London, the government in London appointed him, and then failed to control the man.
I often wonder if Chelmsford is given a raw deal in some regards by historians with regard to his acting on the recce reports and splitting his force. With the benefit of hindsight we know they were faulty, but at the time perhaps they had credibility when information was scarce ?
I read about the zulu army from my dad when I was a child... They were a great army but unfortunately there downfall like a lot of the eastern world was simply down to advances in technology
Well add 2 and 2 together. If the British had the largest empire in human history and they vastly underestimated natives of various lands. That assumption is one that has been made with experience. Meaning, that they had learned to underestimate them because from past experience resistance was very underwhelming
@@Michael-yl4ch also I don’t know how truthful his statement is. The British have many examples of not underestimating natives. They didn’t underestimate Indians and Chinese and used grand strategies to defeat them both. The other natives weren’t usually able to fend them off. I can only think of the afghans and the zulus which were both defeated completely in round two.
Yes but there was no internet or books about said natives back then so? Why SHOULDN'T the British have underestimated the Zulus? Their only significant battle against Europeans was a disaster for them, and no notable Zulu force had opposed the crossing into Zululand or attacked them in the two weeks prior to the battle. You don't overly fear what you haven't experienced yet.
While researching the battles of Isandhlwana and Rorke's Drift, I came upon the traditional purging rites that the Zulus were obliged to perform before going into battle. To say that these rites were nauseous would be a massive understatement. (I would recommend that those readers with a weak stomach refrain from reading on. What follows is not very nice at all, so you are warned). I will spare readers the most vile details, but a brief description is necessary to understand the point I am trying to make. Each Zulu warrior was made to drink a vile concoction brewed up especially for the rites by the "izinyanga", the nation's "witch doctors" as the British called them - which forced the warrior to vomit his entire stomach contents into a pit especially dug into the ground for the ritual. Now, try to imagine what this pit would have been like when the entire army of about 25,000 men had finished this horrid ordeal ! It even gets worse, for at the end of the whole process (which I refrain from describing in detail) the warriors spread some of the disgusting contents of the pit over their heads, their hair, their faces and their whole bodies !!! My main point comes now - just imagine if you can, how the whole Zulu army of circa 25,000 warriors must have stank when they attacked the camp of the 3rd Column at Isandhlwana and later, in part, the mission at Rorke's Drift ! To tell the truth, I am surprised that the British soldiers were not bowled over by the horrendous stench, let alone by the weapons of the Zulus. Sorry if I have spoiled anybody's day, but I thought that these seldom told details are worth telling, and I did warn you, remember.
I was lucky enough to go to Trade School with a Zulu lad. And he was so Wonderfully Friendly. He stayed over at my house for a Wkend and I at his. But unlike my house, where he slept on the Lounge. I however was given the Oldest Sons Bed..! I was treated with Respect and Honour that I found Embarrassing. Every memeber of the Family was So nice and Giving..! Not so in my House, my Mum told me Not to invite him again. And I am still struggling with that Shame. I didn't know my Parents were Racist until that Week end..! If I knew where he went, (lost touch after Trade School, Sadly) I would try to Repair that..! My Shame is Still Raw..!! Cheers kim in Oz. 😎
Not your fault, not your guilt. I am from see Ala. USA. I invited black friend home over 60yrs. ago for lunch on school day. Mom served lunch and asked him several questions and joked with him, surprised me. Turns out when she was young she stayed with black kids families, ate with them, played with them, formed strong bonds. She used to invite black domestic house keepers, nannies etc. to stop, have a glass of ice water or tea and sit in the shade for awhile on hot afternoons as they struggled with bags and other burdens as they made their way home after working in the wealthy homes all day. My mom would ask me to drive some of the older less able bodied women home so they wouldn't be absolutely worn out carrying their burdens in the heat. My mom was like this because she had grown up hard and strong working on others farms as a child in South Central Ala. and remembered what it was like. When I got out into the world I carried these values but was castigated as being a SW Ala. white, redneck, racist scumbag who was semi illiterate and shambled like a brainless moronic hick as I was told. Instead of dwelling on this I made the best of any opportunity and situation and kept going straight ahead. The detractors and haters got bogged down in their spite and hate and for the most part got pulled down by it. I moved ahead, instilled the same in my sons and daughters, saw it instilled in my grand children and now hold and rock or take my youngest great grand children to see things and talk to them of things because even though they are young they absorb some and will be curious for more.
@@josephdowling3745 Thanks for your Reply, it was in Retrospect not my Shame but my Mums. When she Ended up in a Nursing Home ( here in Australia) at the End of her Life, she Complained that most of the Staff were African, Indian or at least not White. I had very little sympathy as I knew how Rude she could be..! I was in the Room when she spoke very Curtly to a Lady, who was just clearing away her Meal. After leaving Mum, I spoke to the Lady and Apologised, She just Smiled and Said, "She's in Pain and Un happy, its my job, don't Worry..! But Thank you..!" My Mum was a Nice Lady if you were White. If not she was a Cow..! I struggled to Love her ( at times ) as She Played on the 'Nice Little Old Lady' until your Back was Turned..!! But Thx for your Comment, how nice the world would be if we were all Colour Blind..!! Cheers kim in Oz. 😎
ITS INTERESESTING THE SIMILARITIES BETWEEN THIS battle and the bighorn 3 years before...multiple armies converging, a hidden enemy, splitting of forces, overwhelming numbers converging on smaller forces and of course massive arrogance. It could be argued repeating rifles were the decisive factor for native Americans at bighorn and yet we see here how the assegai and surprise could still be used to gain victory
The Zulus also had far more guns than the British. Older guns yes but they could and did kill. As many as 1 in 5 Zulus were armed with a gun, so thats at least 4,000 Zulu guns at Isandlwana, compared to around 1,000 British guns. All engagements with Zulus during the war are full of accountants of Zulu gunfire as commonplace. At Rorkes Drift, over half the British casualties were via Zulu gunfire. Zulu gunfire was very likely a high proportion of the British casualties at Isandlwana as well.
![ลองสั่งของจากแอพ temu ถูกจริงหรอ?? ( part : 1/2 ) [โกงไหมครับ ep.89 ] | DOM](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/RTcZSQTiDZw/mqdefault.jpg)
Our Zulu guide at Rorke's Drift said that the Zulu's short stabbing spear was called after the sound it made stabbing into a body and the sound it made when withdrawing it - eech-schuk! The same guide told us at Isandlwana that his great-grandfather was an eyewitness that fought in the battle who described that when the redcoats ran out of bullets, and facing certain death, they all shook hands with each other and met their fate with great equanimity and calmness, fighting on with bayonet and rifle butt until they fell; bravery which deeply impressed the Zulus.
They weren't meant to impress the Zulus, they were meant to beat them.
Such brave men invading a vulnerable people and killing them for their land... It was ALL about cutting off the Ottoman empire's monopoly on opium trade with China so we could take it over for ourselves. The Zulus occupied land the Ottomans had financed and militarised to protect a critical trade route. The only reason we hear about the Zulu's is because they were the only ones with the resources to try and compete with our superior firepower, the rest of the trade route was swallowed without a fight...
Those men were fools and cowards who died believing they fought for a flag when it was all about resources and opium for corporations profit.
@@omnipotentpumpkin9755 Calling those men cowards is stupid and disrespectful. The average foot soldier has no say in what wars are fought or where. I'm pretty sure the flag is the least of their motivations - more likely feeding their families back home is the main reason they join the army, not fame or glory.
@@omnipotentpumpkin9755 yes because they always do a fine job of running they're countries, I know let's return south Africa to them, it will go from strength to strength and they'll all work hard and everyone will live in a land of milk and honey...
O wait 🤔 give it a rest leftard.
One side armed with rifles with a lethal range of 1-200m and the other with a stabbing weapon with required the wielder to be within arms length. Lets face it the isiZulu were the brave ones. The Brits got taken by surprise at Isandlwana.
I was very privileged to spend 2 days on the hill looking down over Isandlwana with David Rattray. Hearing on the first day the story from the Zulu perspective and the next day from the British perspective. An amazing experience.
You are very lucky to have been there. Extraordinarily lucky to have met Mr. Ratray, who was taken too soon.
Bastoigne,
He was murdered by a local Zulu.
Why on earth would you think he was murdered by a British person? He wasn't even in Britain.
@@lyndoncmp5751 it was an interrupted burglary, if I recall correctly.
I also was fortunate to hear Rattray describe the story while sitting at the base of Isandlwana. You could hear a pin drop. A marvellous story teller and sadly murdered.
Were the perspectives very different?
I was incredibly fortunate to be a part of an Earthwatch sponsored archaeology dig at the Mission station at Eshowe in 2000 with Tony Pollard's team; we also had a chance to visit the sites of the battles at Rorke's Drift and Isandlwana....very moving.
I thoroughly enjoyed this interview. I've been fascinated by the Zulu War ever since I saw the film Zulu when I was about 7 years old. Leaving aside all factual considerations, it is still a very rousing film. Especially the sing-off between the Rorke's Drift defenders and the Zulus.
One of my favourite scenes of all time. Even as a child I was thrilled by it and glued to the screen. Such beautiful, stirring, terrifying, magnificent music!
@@madiantin One of my all time favourites too.
I was about 10 ya same i was amazed at the brutality. The singing and music were really good.
I love the film. The British and the Zulus were at war. There was a battle at Rorke's Drift.
Just about everything else, they got wrong.
@@ImperialistRunningDo the film was pretty accurate from my own reading and knowledge with only minor elements of artistic licence.
"Ritual disembowelment" is a word you never want to hear if you're about to be on the losing side.
do you think on the favourite punishment in merry old england?
@@michaelpielorz9283 They certainly loved to take part in their share of disembowelment; and it was also pretty ritualistic as well!
They did it with the women and children too with the Voortrekkers at the Weenen massacre
@@michaelpielorz9283 medieval England...
This was to release the soul after death according to Zulu beliefs.
Throughly enjoyed the interview, this channel is consistently posting some bangers. Looking forward to the next!
Thank you, we really appreciate your support!
One of the VC recipients from Rorke’s Drift, Surgeon Reynolds was from my home town Dun Laoghaire, Co Dublin. Not sure where his pet dog was born though. 😀
One of the VCs is buried in a church in Llantarnam near Newport my hometown. After my kids first watched Zulu, I took them to the church to pay our respects.
@@Andrew-yb1uv Funnily enough, one of the few survivors (Horace Smith Dorrien) from Isandlwana went on to command 2 Corps at the battle of Le Cateau August 1914 in which my great grand uncle Lt Vincent Fox was killed in action. Vincent was the first veterinarian surgeon to be killed in WW1 and he was inside a Church tending to wounded humans (not animals) when the Germans shelled the village.
@@IrishManJT Wow. That's some story. Thank you for sharing 🤝
I bought the book all those years ago and used it for an A level course. I’ve always been interested in the Zulu war, something shared with my father who first peaked my interest when I watch ‘Zulu’ with him and he pointed out all the historical inaccuracies which I now do to anyone who will listen 😂 great interview of a great author.
Ironically, he just came out with his own inaccuracies in this talk. He said Isandlwana was a morning attack and the Zulus used captured Martini Henry rifles at Rorkes Drift.
Neither of those claims are true.
"piqued"
Their is a famous photograph taken in 1929, on the 50th anniversary of isandlwhana. The photograph showns many Zulu now in their 70s
Who fought there.
There was no animosity between Zulu and British, in fact quite the opposite, many recounted the battle
Tales were told, stories swapped,
The photograph taken on the base of the mountain, among the white cairns marking the places were soldiers died in heaps.
A Zulu, "each man fell in his place"
Testiment to the line
"a man came down, with his sword above his head, he charged and cut down the Zulu, before the Zulu killed him", he, and another in a cave, we're the last.
The escape across the nek, toward the river, young husbands stand,
Hamilton browns description of the attack on the camp, the Zulu children who went to see the dead white men the following day,
And their description of things they found hard to understand,
Even down to Durnford epic stand on the british right, and the discovery of his mummified body some months later, and cetswayos horror that the dead Zulu are so many they can not be counted.
Cestswayo knew, being a very intelligent man, that this day spelled the end of his nation.
Living in Brecon and having links with the regiment I spend time at the SWB museum , it was interesting to meet the Great Granddaughter of Robert Jones who is reported to have shot himself whilst depressed from the constant dreams about the battle, she was insistent that he tripped over a fence and the shooting was an accident, also discussed his VC medal which she told us was'stolen' and sold by a member of the family. Interesting hour sitting in the backroom of the museum and in truth a high lite in my life. I was informed that in fact the Zulu had more fire arms than the British but of course not as accurate but at hundred yards that made little difference, like Custer on the Little Bighorn, distance was the key, unfortunately for both they could not keep it. Excellent posting very interesting to listen too, thank you.
Yes. Around 1 in 5 Zulus were armed with a gun. As you said, not modern guns (at least not at Isandlwana and Rorkes Drift) but they still killed and injured. A considerable number of British casualties at Isandlwana were from Zulu gunfire (the actual totally will never be known), while at Rorkes Drift 18 of the 32 British casualties there were due to Zulu gunfire.
Source, Like Wolves On The Fold by Col Mike Snook.
@@lyndoncmp5751 a government report of August 1878 claimed there were 20000 firearms in Zululand of which 500 were breech loading rifles (Schneider, standard British infantry firearm 1866-74 until replaced by the Martini Henry but still used by some Colonial forces), 2500 percussion cap muskets (Enfield), 5000 older percussion cap muskets and the rest flintlock muskets
The Zulus had a lot of guns
"How far can u march in a day?" "20 miles" "the Zulus can RUN 50 then fight"
Overexaggeration in the film that was. The Zulus certainly didn't run 50 miles to Isandlwana. They took a number of days to get there and were not in any rush. They also preferred a rest day in between.
I believe the next line was, "Why would anyone want to run to a battle?"
"Well there's daft, isn't it?"
The absolute arrogance and over confidence of some of the officers at this time is unbelievable. Especially as this had happened after the retreat of Kabul. Saul David explains this so brilliantly within this interview. Excellent as always
Arrogance seems to be a theme even in much later conflicts
The retreat from kabul, and the ensuing massacre was not down to arrogance. Elphinstone agreement with the afghans was that he would withdraw and be given safe passage
Assured by the afghans,
It was just an empty promise by another savage, and Elphinstone column was massacred.
No arrogance do I see there at all
In fact just the opposite, a British commander willing to take the word of honour of a Muslim chief,
That faith which became treachery cost all their lives.
Custer also adopted the same over self confidence and like Lord Chelmsford made similar errors when engaging indigenous peoples of those countries.
@@caractacusbrittania7442 take the word of an enemy that you have invaded to give you safe passage is arrogance no? Considering we didn’t really understand how the country was run and the importance of the tribes, to think we would be aloud to retreat unopposed by a word given from someone who had no real control over the tribes along the pass, seems rather cocksure? Who dare would undermine the authority of the British empire after all?
Arrogance of Great Britain. They considered everyone they conquered inferior.
I watched this as a young Para recruit in form up in '67. The atmosphere in the SKC cinema was electric, I'll never forget how our trg staff were cheering and shouting out advice. Wonderful times.
Do Para's still "form square"? (I know they didn't in the film!)
@@anandmorris I don't think anyone in the British Army has formed a square since Wellington's time Anand, that was a defence against mounted Cavalry, and they haven't been around for a long, long time,
@@anandmorris ah, unless of course you're referring to me as being an Old Fart, in which case you are right, but I'm not quite that old LOL
@@jimfrodsham7938 they used to still form square in Crimea until they realised new rifle power meant it was obsolete ie. The thin red line
@@Ukraineaissance2014 Did they george? I didn't know that, I'll have to read up on the Crimean War. 👍
'The Boer War' by Pakenham is a fantastic book about it. Also 'The scramble for Africa'.
Both books are great ! I have recently added them to my collection.
Thank you, I just realized I have that book in a rank down in my basement!
Shamefully I have a copy of Both but haven't read either. I think pakenham's book is going to be my next read after I finish Papillon
@@adambrowne01 absolutely worth the time I think. If you're not in the military side of things you can easily skip those. Both books are of such wide breath that I found myself learning about european institutional history, economics, technology while reading a seemingly simple couple of paragraphs on telegraph and dispatches between London and Capetown. Can't recommend highly enough. Of the English speaking history books I've read only Hobsbawm with his 'Ages,' and beevor 'the Spanish civil war' packed more information per page.
Sometimes I truly wonder how many soldiers Britain has lost over the centuries due to how arrogant and incompetent their officers were.
Reminds me of certain leaders today 😅
you can say that about every country though
@@jimzimmer2048 True, but for some reason the British always find a way to go beyond and above for their epic failures of leadership wiping out whole armies.
@@Tadicuslegion78 I suppose, but we still somehow end up on top, it is extremely weird
@@jimzimmer2048 at the end of the hundred year war they were indeed on top of the pile, where that tornado had dropped them...
I've always been fascinated by both battles. I also loved both movies. I am lucky to own an 1878 Martini Henry in working condition!
My brother has one as well he bought about ten years ago. He restored it and was able to secure a few boxes of ammo for it too. It's loud, kicks hard, and fouls the crap out if the barrel after just a few rounds.
Where did you get it from?
@@willdavis6504 I'll ask him for you. Give me a day or two.
@@The_OneManCrowd great thank you
@@willdavis6504 No worries mate. Cheers! 🍻
Another great interview 👏
Saul David made a very interesting point about the similar military tactics of the Romans and the Zulus (closing with and annihilating the enemy). While I suppose it's possible that someone taught Shaka about Roman tactics, I suspect the guy simply realized that if he wanted a different military outcome, he needed different military tactics. Going from the 'relatively benign tactics' previously used by Zulu tribes to the outright destruction of opposition meant just that; destroy the opposition. I'm sure Shaka also realized that this tactic had an amazing ability to get other tribes to 'see things his way'.
reminded me more of Hannibal at Zama..
If we are looking at Classical battles, the Athenian led Greeks also reinforced their flanks and thinned their centre before annhiliating the Persian beachhead at Marathon.
I saw the movie back in the mid 70's in school, these two movies are mine and my kids favorites.
Saul David is incorrect when he claims the firearms used by the Zulus at Rorke's Drift were Martini-Henry rifles captured at Isandlwana. This myth is perpetuated in Cy Enfield's film, "Zulu". The warriors who fought at Rorke's Drift weren't present at the earlier battle. The firearms they used were old trade guns, typically flintlock, smoothbore muzzle-loaders.
Indeed. He gets a fair few other things wrong as well.
It’s been a long established fact according to historians that it was the Zulu reserves that attacked Rorkes drift and were not armed with martini Henry’s. I was enjoying this interview until I heard him giving the version that was in the film! Anyway I’ll watch the rest and see how many other alternative facts he comes up with!
Agree totally with your opinion.
rockster
He also said Isandlwana was a morning attack and the British had poor reconnaissance. The Zulus never got within miles of the camp before being spotted. Their movements in the hills to the north were seen at first light then their impi was discovered.
Of course, reconnaissance and encountering a sizeable number of Zulus to the south east was the reason Chelmsford went out there. Because reconnaissance saw Zulus there.
Saul David is not very well regarded in Zulu War circles
I was fortunate to spend some time in the area staying at the Rorkes Drift Hotel (recommrnded) including a whole day with a local expert who took us around in his Landrover and gave us a detailed insight into both this battle and Rorkes Drift. It was interesting to compare the films Zulu Dawn and Zulu with the real truth. He said Zulu Dawn was closer. The film Zulu was, well, almost totally inaccurate!
Zulu Dawn is just as inaccurate.
I understand that the Director of the Russel Crowe movie Gladiator was fascinated by the Zulu War Chants. Check out the opening battle in Gladiator and the Germanic Barbarians are actually yelling Zulu
Really insightful. What stands out was the hubris that lay behind the events. That the Zulus had not choice and that Rockes Drift battle later that same day, was deliberately used to save face./cover up the reality.
11 VC medals awarded (all and most likely more besides deserved) but it feels like some higher up wrapped themselves in the flag, to save their careers and reputations.
Bit of a myth that, otherwise those at Inyezane that same day would have had VCs dished out willy nilly to them too. They didnt.
The VCs at Rorkes Drift were fully deserved. Extremely brave men who put up tough and stubborn resistance in the face of overwhelming odds.
@Iguazu65: Chelmsford was a particular favourite of Victoria. His clusterfuck at Isandlwana was covered up by glorifying Rorke's Drift. The British public swallowed the whole thing without question.
No. The Zulus did not have Martini Henrys at Rorkes Drift. The regiment led by Dubalamawayo had not been at Isandlwana. Some Zulus had muzzle loading weapons and took up position above Rorkes Drift in caves. Bad historical mistake. Seems to be relying on the film Zulu not history.
The answer is gold.
Good interview. I would have liked to hear a little more about the actual battles of Rorke's Drift and Ulundi which were rather skated over, but otherwise, very interesting.
There is also Nyezane, Gingindlovu etc.
the best account was written by Lt Col. Mike Snook in his two books about the battles, 'How Can Man
Die Better' and 'Like Wolves On The Fold, The Defence of Rorke's Drift'. Very well written and detailed, highly recommended reads.
Absolutely. Snook and Knight are the supreme authorities on this subject. Regarding Isandlwana, too many other authors spend too much time on the before and after and relatively little on the actual battle itself. Snook reaches his conclusions based on evidence, eye witness testimony and the standard practices of the time, to piece together what happened.
Saul David, in contrast, makes basic schoolboy errors in this interview. He claims Isandlwana was a morning attack, that there was poor reconnaissance, and that the Zulus at Rorkes Drift used captured Martini Henry rifles. All three claims are absolutely false.
Yes stick with Snook, or Knight, and ignore the likes of David.
I should add as well to take Quantrill and Lock with a grain of salt. They too have a bias. Thankfully their The Missing Five Hours revisionism, where they claim the Zulus deliberately decoyed Chelmsford out, and were moving on the camp to attack it in the morning (must be THE slowest attack in history because they were still en mass at their bivouac spot 8 hours after Chelmsford left) did not gain any widespread support except for some Durnford supporters on a forum.
In the 1930s, Colour-Sergeant Bourne gave an interview to the BBC. In that interview, he states that all of the British casualties at Rourke's Drift, were the result of rifle fire.
I think a few were stabbed in the hospital
Just over half of the 32 British casualties at Rorkes Drift were via Zulu gunfire. 18 of them, including 6 fatalities.
Source Mike Snook Like Wolves On The Fold.
@@lyndoncmp5751 I dunno. Even that number does not accord with Colour-Sergeant Bourne's own testimony. Which should I believe?
RC Fokker,
In his book Like Wolves On the Fold, Mike Snook actually names every single soldier who was shot or stabbed. Its finely detailed and sourced by the army records.
Bourne was clearly misremembering and exaggerating.
@@lyndoncmp5751 That's interesting. Did the author suggest why his own findings differ from those of Bourne?
I was left some Zulu artefacts in a will from a much travelled uncle. Short stabbing spear, a headdress and nobkerry (spelling)?.I treasured them for a while but times got hard and I had to auction them.Great shame.
No mention of the genocides perpertrated by the Zulu's, when they would depopulate a area they had conquered, its estimated that the Zulu's murdered one to two million men women and children, in the lands bordering the transvaal, a atrocity replicated in almost all the regions they conquered.
At last, someone who knows their subject....
Well done
If that's even true, which, i dunno, it's literally nothing in comparison to what we were doing all across africa and asia lmao. We literally put boer families in camps and used to BLOW SEPOYS FROM A CANNON SO THEY COULDN'T GO TO THE AFTERLIFE.... google "blowing form a gun"
Yeah not like the british ever killed millions of peolle and depopulated land , id check with your closest neighbour :) also india. I really dont understand how some people think the british empire came about? By invading and killing the local population, most problems in the world today can be linked back to the the british empire, middle east and africa for a start. Carving up countrys and dividing peope and robbing there resources. In the same league as the romans and nazis, millions of deaths at there hands, nothing to be proud of.
@@michael_177 Usual nonsense yes people died in the camps from old age in childbirth and from disease, the death rates in the camps were no greater than in a general population. But now all death was the fault of the British, there is no comparison at all wiith these camps and concentration camps in Germany those were extermination camps. When the war was over the people from the camps went home.
Your talking about twelve men Mutineers who would have been hung anyway, so that's twelve men compared to millions men women and children murdered by the Zulu's, amazing that the Nazi's The Zulu's The Turks Russians etc, who all committed real genocides are treated with adoration by you and your's but the one country on earth who preserved life, is subject to your constant rabid attacks.
@@thomasmain5986 You sound like george in blackadder when he says the first world war was caused by the villainous Hun and his empire building.
Also massive L on clearly liking your own comment there.
I've walked over both of those battlefields - it's an eerie experience.
I agree wholeheartedly. I came away with admiration for both the British and the Zulus. Brave men on both sides
A few things ...
First off - Shaka _may_ have served at one point in time in his youth - as a body guard for a traveling merchant - and this Merchant _MAY_ have been the one who passed on to Shaka the tales of Roman Legions and their short, stabbing swords.
Next - there is to little consideration given to the locals who were scared shit less of the Zulu's. There were previous occasions in which the Zulu's - usually in pursuit of a fleeing Royal Family Member his relatives wanted dead - briefly invaded Natal.
There were 30,000 Zulu Warriors in total. A significant Army by anyone's standards and with them being Justly refereed to as Black Spartans - anyone who wasn't scared shit less of them - was a fool.
The Zulu's had begun a process by which, like a series of falling dominoes a series of African tribes displaced each other with large bands of them roaming about and in fact resorting to cannibalism as much of the future territory occupied by the Boers was depopulated.
For anyone wishing to see an end to the constant tribal warfare that was normal, removing a power like the Zulu's was a requirement.
People who condemn the invasion of Zululand - didn't have to live with the Zulu's as neighbors.
There is entirely to much foisting of current, popular Western morals on people of a different age.
One of the things that is common for people to do - is to take their past experience and use it in future endeavors. As with Custer - Chelmsford's previous experience was difficulty in catching the natives he was trying to fight.
In all these cases - the Technologically Advanced People had good reason to believe in their power - but - when faced with drastically greater numbers of natives - they couldn't make any mistakes ...
The person to blame for Isandlwana - was Pulliene. Regardless of any orders Chelmsford had left - HE was the one in command and HE should have adjusted his tactics to the threat at hand. Here - a problem may have been to much Staff Work in his history and to little Command in the Field.
As to the Zulu's being mercilous - that would depend. They had been told to kill all the RED Coats - and they did - but some British Officers were not wearing Red - and there were more of them that survived.
Yes - the Governments of many of these colonial powers didn't actually want empires - that they would have to come up with the money to defend. It was usually mercantile interests who got a nation involved - got in trouble - and then had to have the Army come bail them out. India in fact was conquered for the British Empire by the British East India Company - using Native troops with British Officers.
The influence of Merchants should not be discounted. Merchants like things to be nice and quiet so they can make money without worries bout their inventory being set ablaze. Merchants are seldom shy about voicing their concerns to the local political people so it's not like local politicians were just doing things on their own.
.
It was a clash of empires basically. From what I’ve researched, the Zulu were not actually native to that part of South Africa. The Zulu massacred every tribe in their way. They literally caused the Mfecane.
Incoherent ramblings here. What is a mercilous Zulu? Shaka could have been captured by British slavers when he was very young. He would then have been sent up to Oxford to get an education. He would have studied Roman History and learned about military formations. He would also have learned about English grammar and context. The reason why more British Officers survived was not down to the fact that they were not wearing Red uniforms. It was because they placed themselves at the rear where they were in no danger. Chelmsford gave the orders. His orders were carried out. The blame lay with him. Arrogance on his part. To suggest that the invasion of Zululand was an altruistic gesture is totally misleading.
Could you argue that the British did want to annex Zululand in the end? Doing this through breaking the land into chieftanships, hoping that they would get into fighting each other, and then they could come in claiming that they are there to keep the peace?
No. They had no interest in it. They left it to the Zulus.
We don’t want a war. Wait; what they have diamonds and gold? Better get the breech loaders boys.
True for the mineral-rich northwest of (future) South Africa, but not of the Zulu territories. Good grazing for cattle there, but not much else.
Growing up in Africa, the Zulu war, Isandlwana and Rorke's Drift were of immense interest. Donald R Morris' (an American perspective maybe) The Washing of the Spears, was my bible on this. Magnificent book filled with magnificent detail that tells the story of the Zulu nation better than any other account I have read, and not heard anybody tell it better since.
Thanks for the reference 👍
I read the Washing of the Spears years ago and it is a fascinating book.
An amazing book. It is showing its age, and sometimes says things that have been shown to be false. But still the single best book on the Anglo-Zulu war. Touches on the founding of the Zulu nation, the British involvement in Natal, the Boer Great Trek, the war and aftermath.
Anyone wanting a copy can find one easily.
There have been better, more accurate books since then, most notably by Ian Knight. The single best work on Isandlwana is Col Mike Snooks book.
That true brother I also read that book very accurate
History Hit has some awesome videos, and for me as a South African this is one of the best. Thank you 🇿🇦👍
One thing that is commonly missed in regards to Rorke's Drift was the fire discipline combined with fortifications.
And what meagre fortifications they were, too. Biscuit boxes, mealie bags, and two small buildings never designed to be defended. Plenty of ammunition, though, and some pragmatic leadership.
this channel is so underrated..... this needs a blow up... do the magic algo
So often the British lose because of arrogant and ignorant leadership, as well as underestimating the enemy. Chelmsford should have been court martialed.
Really good video 👍
A bit of technical trivia:
Part of the legend of the massacre at Isandlwana revolves around the ammunition transport boxes for the rifle ammunition. Something about needing a screwdriver to open them and nobody having a screwdriver handy.
I have actually had my sticky paws on one of these original type of ammo box. Yes, the lids (plural) were, indeed, held on with screws.
HOWEVER, the centre lid panel was essentially "tapered", i.e., trapezoidal and designed to slide sideways for removal.
On a nice, polite English rifle range, the properly-equipped ammunition party would have the correct screwdrivers for the job..However, the wooden ammunition box was designed to be opened more roughly in an emergency..
A solid butt-stroke in the "narrow" end of the trapezoid with a Martini Henry would shear off or tear out the retaining screws and the centre lid section would depart rapidly, allowing access to the ammunition.. Like many good military procedures; crude but effective..
Now, if the troops in that column had never been taught that drill, that would be a big part of the problem.
The second alleged part of the problem was that the Quartermasters in charge of the stores, including ammunition, may not have been in a serious combat frame of mind when they apparently refused to issue ammunition to troops from other units / sub-units. The old Q-Store mantra being: "You can't have it, somebody else might need it" / "Show me your signed authorization and sign here, sunshine", and all that. The approaching roar of thousands of asegais drumming on greenhide shields, overwhelming the rapidly diminishing rattle of rifle fire, notwithstanding
The problem with those old myths though is that its bern shown that the British infantry still had plenty of ammo when they fell back to camp.
The other myth is based solely on one anecdotal remark and there was no follow up to that remark.
The British didn't run out of ammo until the Zulus entered the camp, cutting off the ammo wagons. Only Durnfords men ran out of ammo on the firing line, but that was because he didn't make sure he knew where his own ammunition wagon would be in the camp. He rode out before it arrived and overlooked this crucial aspect.
@@lyndoncmp5751 The other thing that one might learn from British and other infantry doctrine and training, is that the PRIMARY weapon of the infantry soldier was the BAYONET. The rifle to which it was attached was merely an expensive noisy stick; an extension of the bayonet. "Proper" soldiers got up-close and personal to ply their trade an a "civilized fashion".
The "spirit of the pike" died very slowly; much slower than millions of young men in the coming years.
There were two other problems with all this antique weaponry.
The .577-450 cartridge is large and powerful as black-powder military cartridges go. The standard issue cartridges were literally hand-made, composite cases with a steel base rim and a rolled brass foil body; not particularly robust.
Note also that the single-shot Martini Henry went into service about the same time several other European countries were starting to field-trial black-powder-fueled magazine rifles that fired deep-drawn, solid brass cartridge cases..
One of the other designs competing with the Martini was the Alexander Henry, which initially used a cartridge of similar performance, but which was too long to work in the short, tilting block Martini action. That is why the .577-450 became one of the first "bottle-necked" military cartridges in use. As the name suggests, both rifles used the complex but effective Henry form of rifling.
Another interesting bit of trivia is that the British Army was toying with early "machine-guns". There of course HAD to use proper, deep-drawn brass cartridge cases as the mechanical feed mechanism would tear the "rolled" MH cases to pieces in operation. These "machine" guns were not the sleek kit that was to develop in the next couple of decades, but massive, multi-barreled affairs mounted on horse-drawn wheel and trail arrangements. They were also regarded as artillery, and deployed and maneuvered as such.
Man-portable, mostly-reliable, smokeless powder fueled, standard cartridge machine guns were, in conjunction with parallel rapid developments in actual artillery, the means by which industrialized warfare came about. (See also: "railways").And, as usual, the infantry doctrines were about the last to be amended to deal with this new state of affairs.
4:38 This topic is presented in the book _Washing of the Spears_ by Donald Morris. The author discusses the developing influence of the Zulu nation and the British colonials in southeastern Africa, neither of them being native to the area. The phrase, as I remember it, was that the British out paced the Zulus "in the twinkling of a century".
I read that the Zulus at Rorke's Drift did not use captured rifles from Isandlwana, as they did not participate in that battle.
@Simon Appleton: That would appear to be correct. The Zulus at Rorke's Drift were held in reserve at Isandlwana. They were essentially made up of older men. Having been denied any glory at Isandlwana, they saw Rorke's Drift as an opportunity to be part of the action. Their withdrawal was not as a result of British resistance. They were satisfied that honour had been served and they buggered off home.
And Isandlwana wasn't very early in the morning either. It was a midday/early afternoon battle.
Saul David is wrong on a number of things.
Fascinated by the parallels between Isandlwahana (sp?) and the Little Big Horn.
The splitting of the English force at Isandlwana was intentionally baited by the Zulu. They had used the same diversionary tactic before when Shaka split Zwides army at Gqokli Hill. Even though it was Cetshwayo who fought the British at Isandlwana, they wouldn't have forgotten the tactic.
Cestshwayo was NOT the commander of the army (he was still at Ulundi. The army was commanded at the battle of iSandhlwana by Ntsingwayo Kamole.
1878 was also the year Manchester United was created, abeit called Newton Heath Lancashire Yorkshire Railway Cricket and Football Club.
No idea why i had to point that out.
There is no dishonor is being defeated by a force that outnumbers you almost 20 to 1.
And has more guns.
And when you're being led by arrogant military officers who are taking you right into a suicidal situation.
1800 well armed troops vs 10 to 20 thousand warriors is not equivalent to 20 to 1 lol...I read a lot of these comments and there are so many excuses, admit you faces a fearless enemy lol
@@xlus3 The zulu could never win one on one.
Really interesting question whether Shaka had any knowledge of the Roman army.
It certainly isn't a requirement to produce a similar military machine.
The combination of a throwing weapon, large shield and short hand weapon optimised for a one-stab kill was reiscovered / re-implemented on several occasions.
The Romans learned the Pilum from other Italian states, the large shield form the Gauls and the short sword form the Spanish.
It wasn't long before kingdoms all over Greece, North Africa and Asia Minor were fielding their own "imitation legions".
The mercenary Catalan Company adopted similar aggressive tactics during the late days of the Byzantine empire.
The Spanish conquistodor "rodolero" relied on sword, shield, breastplate and aggressive tactics in their conquest of Mexico.
Maurits of Nassau suggested Roman style armaments when designing a Dutch army to repel the Spanish.
He ended copying the Roman small-unit command/control, but using modern weapons of pike and musket.
It's an effective system, so no reason why it should not be re-invented independently.
Convergent evolution.
The Martini-Henry rifles taken from Isandlwana WERE NOT used in the Battle of Rorke's Drift. The Zulus at the battle for Rorke's Drift were Impi reserve warriors who had not participated in the battle of Isandlwana. These reserve Impi warriors were lead by the brother of Zulu King Cetshwayo, Dabulamanzi kaMpande, and they were upset that they had been denied (i) glory in the battle of Isandlawana and (ii) denied the opportunity to enrich themselves via looted items from the British at Isandlwana (such as the Martini-Henries.) The Impi warriors at Rorke's Drift were predominantly older (35-40 years of age and above) while the few firearms at their disposal were likewise old -- principally a hodgepodge of muskets and older rifles the Zulu had purchased or bartered for from the Boers and other European traders. In fact, very much like their muskets, the rifles at their disposal primarily fired black powder cartridges. Ultimately, Dabulamanzi kaMpande and his reserve warriors chose to attack the British at Rorke's Drift despite the express order from King Cetshwayo that they not do so. Again, no Martini-Henry rifles from Isandlwana were used at Rorke's Drift. Zero. Nada. Zilch. None.
He also gets it wrong when he said Isandlwana was a morning battle.
This is f-ing cool. Just a couple of dudes talking history. Maybe in the next piece with the same guest or another one, we could start in the kitchen getting a brew ready and the camera walking you to the parlor with all the tidbits of getting nicely comfortable in your seats, positioning the mug just, taking your first sip and so on. Just milking the footage and the audience.
Please express your opinion of the movies accuracy.
Just say it. The British think they are fighting simple savages, rather than sophisticated military strategists.
And no reason to think otherwise at the time. Zulu reputation was build on Isandlwana, not before.
Couple of errors here which surprised me - there weren't 1000 British soldiers at islandlwana, but about 580 infantry and another 100 or so from the royal artillery and rocket troops. Second, guns were not used from isalndwana at rorkes drift because the zulus who fought there didn't fight at isandwlana
8:56 "Zulus take no prisoners"
but this historian neglects to mention that they were instructed by their chief to let all non-combatants run away.. so by modern standards - uniquely humane..
WHAT?? That is absolute bollocks my friend.
They did not. The Zulus butchered everyone and everything, including civilians, cooks, servants horses and even camp pets. If the Zulus caught up with you.... you were a dead man.
In actual fact the Zulus didn't use weapons taken from the bodies at Isandlwana. They were still using the outdated weapons that they had prior to the attacks. That said, I thoroughly enjoyed this video.
@Para738: The Zulus involved at Rorke's Drift were not involved in Isandlwana and wouldn't have had access to weapons used there.
@@mickeencrua Which is what I said
@@matthewjones9565 You don't say! 😄
@@mickeencrua I do say genius
I would love to hear that gentleman's analysis of the two Zulu movies.
Can someone please clear something up for me? Saul David repeatedly refers to Isandlwana as "Islandwana" (At least that's how it sounds, maybe my hearing isn't great). Have I been mispronouncing it all these years?
Does Prof David have stain glass windows in his study? That’s pretty cool.
15:48 What he says here is an important rebuttal to an argument I have often heard that, if the Confederacy had won the American Civil War, the British Empire would have annexed both North and South shortly afterwards. That was a century out of date. By the time of the American Civil War, the British understood that it is more efficient to apply other forms of pressure, particularly economic pressure. The British might well have imposed some sort of limitations on the American navy -- which would probably have been unnecessary anyhow -- and they would certainly have imposed some trade agreements that would be very lopsided in favor of Britain. That would certainly be enough. For crying out loud, Canada was given independence in 1867 in much the same way. They probably would not have insisted on either North or South having the British monarch as head of state because it would be unnecessary and generate too much resentment; they would just lean a bit more heavily into the "special relationship" with both North and South and treat them as client states.
The counter factual game of history is always interesting to conjecture on. The Britush would not militarily be in a position to annex both the South & North. Crikey if the British were hostile it would galvanise both North & South against a common enemy. Remember the Americans fought the British twice in the American War of 8ndependence and War of 1812.
@@johnroche7541 Right. But they would be in a good position to dominate both economically. It wouldn't be much different from what actually happened.
In all likelihood it would have reunited the North and South to take on a common for from 85 yrs. before and if any army went up against a battle hardened United American army that would have been all she wrote for them. No sir, not some European army messing with our Yankee brethren, no sir.
I once read an 'imperial' accont of the war which said about 800 men died at Isandlwana, the native levies didn't rate a mention.
The Zulus that fought at Rorkes Drift never fought at Isandlwana so how did they get the rifles from that battle . always belived the Zulus always had fire arms but not the latest models like the British had hence shooting was very random affair at the Drift action ,, just saying i would look more into this as the idea Zulus never had firearms yet had been in contact with Europeans since Shaka was alive seems very far fetched they never already had rifles of some type
Formed drift is within shouting distance of Islwanda so what makes you think the zulus who wiped out 1500 the previous day didn't show up to take out a group of 100. Did you check the Zulu rosters and see which Zulu units under which Zulu group leaders were present or are you a seed and mystic.
@@josephdowling3745 yes it was checked historically different zulus fought at the Drift
Excellent interview. I'm a fan of history, as well as of all things South African.
This channel is actually so good, fantastic content guys keep it up
Much like Custer at the Little Big Horn, the conventional wisdom was that the difficult part was managing to find them and engage them in battle. Hancock and others had chased the Sioux/Cheyenne all over creation and never caught up with them. When presented with a battle that weren't sure they could win, the villages would break up into family units and melt away into the wilderness...until the Little Big Horn, when Custer found the largest concentration of Natives ever seen before or since.
....and died
The "clap-trap" of her accusation of "theft" of Zulu land by the British troops is as always "a little knowledge is a dangerous thing". But the result of British occupation certainly paved the way for the confederation of Provinces which unite into the unique country of SOUTH AFRICA in which a "diverse RAINBOW NATION" evolves and remains the only TRUE example of UBUNTU on the African continent. It is quute clear that Rachel Meghan Ragland has no concept of the meaning and its practise of UBUNTU.
I love listening to the brilliant story telling historians.
Amazingly, he came up with inaccuracies here. He said Isandlwana was an early morning attack and the Zulus used captured Martini Henry rifles at Rorkes Drift. Both of these are not true.
The Zulus attacked Isandlwana in the afternoon and the Zulus at Rorkes Drift were not at Isandlwana, so they couldn't have used captured Martini Henry rifles. What's more, none of the 18 British troops shot by Zulus at Rorkes Drift were shot by Martini Henry Boxer bullets.
Just saying.
Even 1700 men in an unlaagered camp should have been enough to defend it - there were problems with ammunition supply and the question of whether Durnford should have been in command.
Yes, if Durnford didn't ride off and make a stand too far out its at least possible the camp, or some of it, could have survived until Chelmsford returned to sandwich the Zulus.
The infantry lines would surely have been drawn in earlier had Durnford defended near the camp. Pulleine wouldn't have had a choice, in seeing the Zulu left horn come around Amatutshane. He would not have kept the infantry companies out there with the Zulus racing in behind them.
"One of the greatest defeats in colonial history"--and of no strategic consequence whatever. Just like Little Big Horn. Embarassing, yes. Great, no. The defeat of the French, and later the Americans, in Vietnam 100 years later--now those were great defeats with actual consequences
The Zulus did not bring firearms - taken from the bodies of dead British soldiers at Isandlwana - to Rorke's Drift. This is an old, tired myth that has long since been thoroughly discredited.
The Zulus at Rorke's Drift did indeed have (British) firearms, but these firearms had been acquired by the Zulus through discreet but assiduous trade over the years immediately preceding the Anglo-Zulu War of 1879. The Zulu firearms at Rorke's Drift had most definitely NOT been taken from dead British soldiers at Rorke's Drift.
How do we know this?
Because - as Saul David himself acknowledges at 14:17 in this video - the Zulu forces that attacked Rorke's Drift had taken no part in the Battle of Isandlwana. The Zulus that attacked Rorke's Drift had been in the right wing of the Zulu impi at Isandlwana, which wing had been assigned to circle around behind Isandlwana and cut off any attempt by British forces to retreat to and back across the iMzinyathi (or: 'Buffalo') River, which formed the acknowledged border between Zululand and British Natal Province.
How then could these Zulus lift firearms from the bodies of dead British soldiers, if they remained so far from the actual fighting at Isandlwana that they took no part therein?
The Zulus at Isandlwana certainly did lift rifles from the bodies of dead British soldiers, but these Zulus took no part in the attack on Rorke's Drift. The Zulus themselves have said as much, as those who did attack Rorke's Drift were disobeying the explicit orders of King Cetewayo.
Having a Left Right and Center to your army formation and throwing spears before closing with the enemy and having a good stabbing sword are all Very Sound military precepts.....and THAT is the connection between Zulu and Roman....very good military sense
Why did Chelmsford do what he did despite intelligence? ARROGANCE TRUMPS INTELLECT
Diamonds and gold
In Zululand? The British didn't even take or settle in Zululand.
Chelmsford was an arrogant yo-yo who was dismissive of pretty much all the indigenous people he tried to steamroll. He did fairly well until he ran headlong into a people who were willing and able to fight. The same sort of thing happens eventually to all bullies. But when this particular bully was also the favourite of The Queen, things got a lot worse awfully fast. If Chelmsford had led 3 columns made of his own Arrogance alone to Isandlwana, I would freely say that he and his officers deserved what they got. But 1500 people with him in a very Custer-like fashion did not deserve to die. Chelmsford, who never got his hair mussed, (unlike Custer) would go back to Jolly Old England and LIE to Queen Victoria about the reason for the defeat. I think this is ample evidence of the sort of man Chelmsford was.
This Zulu War parallels so many of the Indian Wars instigated by the US Army in the same century. An ambitious territorial governor wants all 'threats' on his border removed (Frere in Cape Colony and Governor John Evans in Colorado, who order the Sand Creek Massacre); white settlers complain to the government that they need protection from raids (the Boer Republics and the pioneers in Arizona) even though those settlers otherwise refuse to live under that government's authority; and an arrogant military commander gets his due (Chelmsford and Custer).
Conscripts on your flanks against the Zulu battle tactics doesn't sound very smart. Them horns will be in your reserves before you know it.
Great interview!
History is so much more interesting than the incessant arguments about it in the comments.
Hannibal used the double envelopment tactic long before the Romans ever did! the short stabbing spear changed the entire dynamics of warfare in Southern Africa, hence the overwhelming success of the Zulus!
I am amazed on how nations find weakness with history's super-powers! Think Little Big Horn on my side of the pond! Arrogance is what I completely agree with!
No mention that Chelmsford ordered Pulleine to keep his forces drawn in and act only on the defensive, and for Durnford to get there at once with all his available forces. If only Durnford followed his orders and those given to Pulleine instead of riding off on the attack pressuring Pulleine to support his rash and brazen adventure.
Saul let's have some real talk about the current world status, could you please give some insight into the genocide commited by European Israeli 's on Palestine... 🙄 Never going to happen is it.. be honest
Great marketing there by the Zulu's, killing everyone and disembowelling them is a spiritual practice...
Another historian says that the Zulus that fought at Rork’s Drift didn’t see battle at Isandlwana, they were the “Loins” of the Bull. Thus wouldn’t have had rifles taken from the fallen there.
please keep creating videos like this
Plenty more on the way!
Chelmsford survived because Queen Vicky liked him, so scapegoats were found.
I would not, in fact, allow the argument that if the Disraeli Ministry fell it would have been unfair, for the simple reason that even if Chelmsford didn't act on orders from London, the government in London appointed him, and then failed to control the man.
I often wonder if Chelmsford is given a raw deal in some regards by historians with regard to his acting on the recce reports and splitting his force. With the benefit of hindsight we know they were faulty, but at the time perhaps they had credibility when information was scarce ?
The historian did not explain how troops with single-shot rifles at the Drift could hold off 4,000 Zulus.
No tradition of written record by the Zulus. Quite the shame. The stories we have missed out on
I read about the zulu army from my dad when I was a child... They were a great army but unfortunately there downfall like a lot of the eastern world was simply down to advances in technology
Up the blues, MCFC Ok
@@tomben6180 yes rkid... MC ... Mcf ... Mcf ok..
For a nation that built the largest empire in human history, the British had such a habit of vastly underrating the natives of various lands.
Well add 2 and 2 together. If the British had the largest empire in human history and they vastly underestimated natives of various lands. That assumption is one that has been made with experience. Meaning, that they had learned to underestimate them because from past experience resistance was very underwhelming
In simpler terms a battle lost is only a battle, the object of war, is to win the war not a single battle.
@@Michael-yl4ch also I don’t know how truthful his statement is. The British have many examples of not underestimating natives. They didn’t underestimate Indians and Chinese and used grand strategies to defeat them both. The other natives weren’t usually able to fend them off. I can only think of the afghans and the zulus which were both defeated completely in round two.
Yes but there was no internet or books about said natives back then so?
Why SHOULDN'T the British have underestimated the Zulus? Their only significant battle against Europeans was a disaster for them, and no notable Zulu force had opposed the crossing into Zululand or attacked them in the two weeks prior to the battle.
You don't overly fear what you haven't experienced yet.
While researching the battles of Isandhlwana and Rorke's Drift, I came upon the traditional purging rites that the Zulus were obliged to perform before going into battle. To say that these rites were nauseous would be a massive understatement.
(I would recommend that those readers with a weak stomach refrain from reading on. What follows is not very nice at all, so you are warned).
I will spare readers the most vile details, but a brief description is necessary to understand the point I am trying to make. Each Zulu warrior was made to drink a vile concoction brewed up especially for the rites by the "izinyanga", the nation's "witch doctors" as the British called them - which forced the warrior to vomit his entire stomach contents into a pit especially dug into the ground for the ritual. Now, try to imagine what this pit would have been like when the entire army of about 25,000 men had finished this horrid ordeal !
It even gets worse, for at the end of the whole process (which I refrain from describing in detail) the warriors spread some of the disgusting contents of the pit over their heads, their hair, their faces and their whole bodies !!!
My main point comes now - just imagine if you can, how the whole Zulu army of circa 25,000 warriors must have stank when they attacked the camp of the 3rd Column at Isandhlwana and later, in part, the mission at Rorke's Drift ! To tell the truth, I am surprised that the British soldiers were not bowled over by the horrendous stench, let alone by the weapons of the Zulus. Sorry if I have spoiled anybody's day, but I thought that these seldom told details are worth telling, and I did warn you, remember.
In the days before deodorant, toothpaste, change of clothes and regular showers etc Im sure the 24th Foot infantry stank to high heaven themselves.
@@lyndoncmp5751 It’s all relative to what you’re used to. 25,000 vomits in a pit would be far beyond a bit of body odour and bad breath
Whats the source for this? Would zulu spiritualism/Ritualism not be exaggerated for British PR.
Took 20,000 zulus to take on 1500 british soliders, were different vreed of solider 🇬🇧
Chelmsford should have been court Marshalled but he was saved by his friends in the government,
Could you do a Plants Vs Zombies lore video?
That many Brits could hold out by sickening through rate of fire. Spreading out wide did them in
The movie Isandlwana shows the over confidence of Lord Chelmsford pretty well .
It goes too easy on Durnford as well.
Very interesting thank you
I was lucky enough to go to Trade School with a Zulu lad. And he was so Wonderfully Friendly.
He stayed over at my house for a Wkend and I at his.
But unlike my house, where he slept on the Lounge.
I however was given the Oldest Sons Bed..!
I was treated with Respect and Honour that I found Embarrassing. Every memeber of the Family was So nice and Giving..!
Not so in my House, my Mum told me Not to invite him again.
And I am still struggling with that Shame.
I didn't know my Parents were Racist until that Week end..!
If I knew where he went, (lost touch after Trade School, Sadly) I would try to Repair that..!
My Shame is Still Raw..!!
Cheers kim in Oz. 😎
Not your fault, not your guilt. I am from see Ala. USA. I invited black friend home over 60yrs. ago for lunch on school day. Mom served lunch and asked him several questions and joked with him, surprised me. Turns out when she was young she stayed with black kids families, ate with them, played with them, formed strong bonds. She used to invite black domestic house keepers, nannies etc. to stop, have a glass of ice water or tea and sit in the shade for awhile on hot afternoons as they struggled with bags and other burdens as they made their way home after working in the wealthy homes all day. My mom would ask me to drive some of the older less able bodied women home so they wouldn't be absolutely worn out carrying their burdens in the heat. My mom was like this because she had grown up hard and strong working on others farms as a child in South Central Ala. and remembered what it was like. When I got out into the world I carried these values but was castigated as being a SW Ala. white, redneck, racist scumbag who was semi illiterate and shambled like a brainless moronic hick as I was told. Instead of dwelling on this I made the best of any opportunity and situation and kept going straight ahead. The detractors and haters got bogged down in their spite and hate and for the most part got pulled down by it. I moved ahead, instilled the same in my sons and daughters, saw it instilled in my grand children and now hold and rock or take my youngest great grand children to see things and talk to them of things because even though they are young they absorb some and will be curious for more.
@@josephdowling3745 Thanks for your Reply, it was in Retrospect not my Shame but my Mums.
When she Ended up in a Nursing Home ( here in Australia) at the End of her Life, she Complained that most of the Staff were African, Indian or at least not White.
I had very little sympathy as I knew how Rude she could be..!
I was in the Room when she spoke very Curtly to a Lady, who was just clearing away her Meal.
After leaving Mum, I spoke to the Lady and Apologised, She just Smiled and Said,
"She's in Pain and Un happy, its my job, don't Worry..! But Thank you..!"
My Mum was a Nice Lady if you were White. If not she was a Cow..!
I struggled to Love her ( at times ) as She Played on the 'Nice Little Old Lady' until your Back was Turned..!!
But Thx for your Comment, how nice the world would be if we were all Colour Blind..!!
Cheers kim in Oz. 😎
I love this content! Very insightful interview with a fantastic historian.
ITS INTERESESTING THE SIMILARITIES BETWEEN THIS battle and the bighorn 3 years before...multiple armies converging, a hidden enemy, splitting of forces, overwhelming numbers converging on smaller forces and of course massive arrogance. It could be argued repeating rifles were the decisive factor for native Americans at bighorn and yet we see here how the assegai and surprise could still be used to gain victory
The Zulus also had far more guns than the British. Older guns yes but they could and did kill. As many as 1 in 5 Zulus were armed with a gun, so thats at least 4,000 Zulu guns at Isandlwana, compared to around 1,000 British guns.
All engagements with Zulus during the war are full of accountants of Zulu gunfire as commonplace.
At Rorkes Drift, over half the British casualties were via Zulu gunfire. Zulu gunfire was very likely a high proportion of the British casualties at Isandlwana as well.
@@lyndoncmp5751 interesting!