Piet Retief was just so completely naive to assume the Zulu would not commit any kind of treachery and go so far as to surrender his rifles "out of respect" for the king. You must always have a backup plan and assume the worst. I would only have sent a few men to negotiate the contract and left the rest outside with their horses and rifles, ready for anything. Never ever give up your weapons to unknown entities with unknown intentions.
A British man called Owen who lived nearby at the time of the massacre said that Dingaan had sent messengers to him, reassuring him that he and his family would not be harmed, but also telling him that they intended to kill the Boers because they believed that Piet Retief was planning to assassinate Dingaan. The Zulu sangoma (traditional healer) Credo Mutwa (who died a couple of weeks ago at the age of 98) said one of his ancestors was a sangoma at Dingaan's court, and that a story had come down to him through the generations, saying that Dingaan had Retief and his men killed because Retief's interpreter had peered over the wall into Dingaan's harem, and apparently this was considered to be some kind of sacrilege.
@@johnnyb8825 interesting...it wouldn't surprise me if that was true. I believe they also thought the boers were some kind of wizards or sorcerers and had to be killed for that. Not sure exactly. Retief was brave but ultimately naive in this case.
nice feedback. i did not know that. thanks for teaching me that. i knew that Shaka had to deal with a lot of intrigue and infighting. it was not easy for him.
well well NTSAKO the boere left you the most advance country in the world ,and the 7 th world strong economy .and you think they stripped your land??? the colonial powers the french and the English did it.so now you will be taken by the CHINESE they need the space and the land and the resources. say good by to Africa .it might take years .but it will happen .in 18 years you did nothing except destroying SOUTH AFRICA
I usually don’t reply to such comments because they are based on a Eurocentric point of view and one needs to fathom that there are various ways of life in this diverse planet. In a Eurocentric point of view, yes, the predecessors of the Afrikaners did leave a rather potent legacy of economic and social development. However there are various philosophies, and therein lies a deeper emphasis on the preservation of the planet, flora and fauna, harmony, morality and equality between all men.
The Boers were a superior force because of their guns, it was a dirty way to fight but so is using firearms against people armed with melee weapons. War doesn't care, history doesn't care. They had to level the advantage as much as possible. In a subsequent battle Dingane lost his cattle and therefore the source of his power as King while his army was using them as a shield against the guns, it was a desperate move. AmaZulu were brave and cunning but they could only do so much without the right weapons (and therefore tactics too). Defeat was inevitable.
With clever tactics Zulus have won against firearms, like when they destroyed the British army during the first invasion of Zululand at Isandlwana. A stunning victory for the Zulu! They were also very brave charging at British firing lines, balls of steel on the Zulu impi. Dingaan was simply not that good a leader or tactician. Otherwise he would never have allowed the Boers to form a laager. Mind you there was a lot of Boer groups massacred by the Zulus before the Battle of Blood River, civilians included. If Dingaan was clever he would have sought to make an ally of the Boers like the tribes around modern Rustenburg did. Boers and Zulus are both great warriors of their respective peoples. Maybe if they allied they would have been able to keep the British at bay.
The Boer for context owned slaves before being kicked out capetown and during the journey to find a new home(The great Trek) some boer split off and took out the Mdebele tribe similar to the movie Rhodes and another tribe and of course the most known, Digane thought they were wizrds. Obviously that doesnt justify The zulus actions but just for context since some people are confused on that
did zulus ever use horses in battle? did they ever create a calvary? mounted zulu warriors on horseback? or did they never adopt the technology of the whites?
They didn't use horses in battle. They actually said horses were for white people, let them ride them. I guess they preferred running and building their endurance that way.
The reason South Africa "fell apart" after 1994 was because during the 1980's South Africa spent lots of money to ensure the harm of their own people, or sorry, "control". Then later in that decade, sanctions began to appear and South Africa was in tons of debt. Those companies didn't say: ' Yay, they're liberated so we don't need our money back, De Klerk didn't pay off the debts, South Africa had to."
Aziz... ????? and SA was the strongest economy in Africa back then with R2- 1 us$....? control of its own people...???? that's what u suppose to do idiot...
So Retief's 500 trekboere, men, women and children, were not innocent and deserved to be butchered? So murdering your honoured guests after successful negotiations is not foul treacherous back-stabbery? I wouldn't want to live too near you...
EnglishDreadnought Dingane was right to retaliate and fight for the preservation of his land, culture, and people but what he did was savage, immoral, and barbaric even for the zulus
@@krugerissexy5994 the zulus were too numerous for the Boer to conquer. They had no desire to randomly fight the zulu. There was more than enough land around.The boers just wanted to escape the british and ultimately left natal shortly after their confrontation with the Zulu. Really the boers and the zulu had more conflict with the british than each other.
![ละลาย (LALALYE) - DAOU PITTAYA ต้าห์อู๋ พิทยา [OFFICIAL MV]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/wo6r9TgausI/mqdefault.jpg)
Piet Retief was just so completely naive to assume the Zulu would not commit any kind of treachery and go so far as to surrender his rifles "out of respect" for the king. You must always have a backup plan and assume the worst. I would only have sent a few men to negotiate the contract and left the rest outside with their horses and rifles, ready for anything. Never ever give up your weapons to unknown entities with unknown intentions.
so n bek kort jam !
Dingane came to power in 1828 after assassinating his half-brother Shaka
The boers & Zulu were very impressive .This was a unique battle
excellent reply. thanks.
If you are actually interested in an unbiased history of South Africa, I highly suggest "The Making of South Africa" by Aran S. MacKinnon.
Two of my family members were murdered along with Piet Retief and his men.
They should have stayed off of zulu land
what were they doing there in the first place ?
@@likkewaan88p33 Or maybe the blacks were fools for trusting us.
A British man called Owen who lived nearby at the time of the massacre said that Dingaan had sent messengers to him, reassuring him that he and his family would not be harmed, but also telling him that they intended to kill the Boers because they believed that Piet Retief was planning to assassinate Dingaan.
The Zulu sangoma (traditional healer) Credo Mutwa (who died a couple of weeks ago at the age of 98) said one of his ancestors was a sangoma at Dingaan's court, and that a story had come down to him through the generations, saying that Dingaan had Retief and his men killed because Retief's interpreter had peered over the wall into Dingaan's harem, and apparently this was considered to be some kind of sacrilege.
@@johnnyb8825 interesting...it wouldn't surprise me if that was true. I believe they also thought the boers were some kind of wizards or sorcerers and had to be killed for that. Not sure exactly. Retief was brave but ultimately naive in this case.
Good old historical movie-
When was this film recorded?
nice feedback. i did not know that. thanks for teaching me that. i knew that Shaka had to deal with a lot of intrigue and infighting. it was not easy for him.
Shaka himself was a cruel dictator who killed his own mother!
@@janiliebenberg4407 No he didn't kill his mother!! He turned super crazy and mad when his mother died !!
@@janiliebenberg4407 lies
@@edmondshall2923 He did go mad. I heard he killed about 40,000 in a rage over her death.
well well NTSAKO the boere left you the most advance country in the world ,and the 7 th world strong economy .and you think they stripped your land??? the colonial powers the french and the English did it.so now you will be taken by the CHINESE they need the space and the land and the resources. say good by to Africa .it might take years .but it will happen .in 18 years you did nothing except destroying SOUTH AFRICA
So bek moet jam kry!
Great work dingane
Skrik! Dit was vieslik wat die swartes gedoen het!
Verwag niks minder nie...
Steeds onverbasend nietermin
I usually don’t reply to such comments because they are based on a Eurocentric point of view and one needs to fathom that there are various ways of life in this diverse planet. In a Eurocentric point of view, yes, the predecessors of the Afrikaners did leave a rather potent legacy of economic and social development. However there are various philosophies, and therein lies a deeper emphasis on the preservation of the planet, flora and fauna, harmony, morality and equality between all men.
Did you drink all the beer again
The Boers were a superior force because of their guns, it was a dirty way to fight but so is using firearms against people armed with melee weapons. War doesn't care, history doesn't care. They had to level the advantage as much as possible. In a subsequent battle Dingane lost his cattle and therefore the source of his power as King while his army was using them as a shield against the guns, it was a desperate move. AmaZulu were brave and cunning but they could only do so much without the right weapons (and therefore tactics too). Defeat was inevitable.
With clever tactics Zulus have won against firearms, like when they destroyed the British army during the first invasion of Zululand at Isandlwana. A stunning victory for the Zulu! They were also very brave charging at British firing lines, balls of steel on the Zulu impi. Dingaan was simply not that good a leader or tactician. Otherwise he would never have allowed the Boers to form a laager. Mind you there was a lot of Boer groups massacred by the Zulus before the Battle of Blood River, civilians included. If Dingaan was clever he would have sought to make an ally of the Boers like the tribes around modern Rustenburg did. Boers and Zulus are both great warriors of their respective peoples. Maybe if they allied they would have been able to keep the British at bay.
Zulu war chants alone are enough to make an enemy's blood curdle.
The Boer for context owned slaves before being kicked out capetown and during the journey to find a new home(The great Trek) some boer split off and took out the Mdebele tribe similar to the movie Rhodes and another tribe and of course the most known, Digane thought they were wizrds. Obviously that doesnt justify The zulus actions but just for context since some people are confused on that
I don't know which history book you swallowed, but all that was 100%bs
What film is this. What's it called?
I believe it is called "Bloedrivier".
@@johnnyb8825 No: it is called "Die Bou Van 'n Nasie" aka They Built A Nation (1938).
NIKS HET VERANDER NIE...LES NOMMER EEN - VERTROU NOOIT N 'KAFFER NIE! DIT IS WAT GEBEUR AS DIE SWARTMAN JOU ONTWAPEN - EN NOU PROBEER HULLE DIT WEER!
did zulus ever use horses in battle? did they ever create a calvary? mounted zulu warriors on horseback? or did they never adopt the technology of the whites?
They didn't use horses in battle. They actually said horses were for white people, let them ride them. I guess they preferred running and building their endurance that way.
african revolution cuorse that made who is who whogs not
The reason South Africa "fell apart" after 1994 was because during the 1980's South Africa spent lots of money to ensure the harm of their own people, or sorry, "control". Then later in that decade, sanctions began to appear and South Africa was in tons of debt. Those companies didn't say: ' Yay, they're liberated so we don't need our money back, De Klerk didn't pay off the debts, South Africa had to."
Aziz... ????? and SA was the strongest economy in Africa back then with R2- 1 us$....? control of its own people...???? that's what u suppose to do idiot...
And Zuma stole the rest.
So Retief's 500 trekboere, men, women and children, were not innocent and deserved to be butchered? So murdering your honoured guests after successful negotiations is not foul treacherous back-stabbery? I wouldn't want to live too near you...
EnglishDreadnought Dingane was right to retaliate and fight for the preservation of his land, culture, and people but what he did was savage, immoral, and barbaric even for the zulus
@@krugerissexy5994 the zulus were too numerous for the Boer to conquer. They had no desire to randomly fight the zulu. There was more than enough land around.The boers just wanted to escape the british and ultimately left natal shortly after their confrontation with the Zulu. Really the boers and the zulu had more conflict with the british than each other.
Devils
Bulalani Abathakathi
bulani okaka
Shaya!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Inja
bulalani !!