Pretty sure Boers did not have swords and would have used muzzle-loaders in 1838, which would have been hopeless for a small force against a massed enemy. Boers were penniless and would not spend the little money they had on a sword. They used their personal hunting guns with no pistols or bayonets, there was no state armoury. There was no uniform for men on commando duty, they would all be dressed differently (mostly in homemade corduroy and canvass-type clothing) and be of very different ages from 14 to 60. This was still the case in the Anglo Boer wars, although they had Martini-Henrys in the 1st A/B war and later Mausers. The video make a valid point about Free State Boers and Transvaal Boers seeing each other as distinct nations and struggled to co-operate.
He is using a computer game set in Napoleonic era in Europe that has been modified to look like boers and zulus. So the guns and movement is not quite right. But it's a simple way to add some decent visuals. I'd be interested to know what guns they used. I'm sure it can be looked up. They definitely would be using muzzle loaders. Some of the guys might have had breech loader or a revolver but it would be very, very few. I'm now also wondering if they had any weapons that could be used while on horseback. It doesn't really seem like it.
LOVE ❤ your videos. Please don’t stop producing them… I’m always DELIGHTED when I see that you’ve uploaded a new one. 🥳👍 As for this particular engagement… It’s BEYOND foolhardy that the Boers - who were already facing a much more numerous (& extremely wily & resourceful!) force of Zulus - DIVIDED their grossly outnumbered Men, again… & again… & again… with inevitable consequences. 🤦🏻♂️
Its unbelievable that the Zulus were the villains in this fight & the UK was the villain when it fought the Zulus.The Zulus didn’t write/tell the reports of their treachery/aggression.
The Boers let some narcisstic leader separate the units, the British weren't good at land wars either, Waterloo was wan by the Prussians and the Dutch as the British were not even 20% of the whole Anti French force and when Blücher wouldn't have retreated to better attack, Napoleon would have wan over the British. Britain never missed a chance a victory wan by somebody making it to their own. In WW2 Canadians fixed all theAmerican and British blunders in Italy and Normandy.
like the "WELL ORGANIZED* British retreat at Duncerk where upper class British officer abandoned their troops to safe their sorry hides and the French fought and died and the Brits called em surrender monkeys or as in Singapore where a British general safely sitting behind the Gin Line called the 5K Canadian recruits fighting 50K Japs in Hong Kong and only retreated when running out of ammo, later the British had to surrender to Japanese on bicycles and yes the same general called the Canucks COWARDS or as Canadians liberated as a first Rome and entered also the city as first and a British officer menaced to shoot at them since this honour belonged to the British which before had hidden behind the Canadian Strom Troopers...or after the Anglo American blunder in Arnhem it was Canadians which liberated Belgium and the Netherland since the Old Men and Boys British Monty intelligence foresaw came out to be EASTERN FRONT Waffen SS same as in Bastogen without air support the Yanks got again their asses kicked.
The Zulus loose at the end because took very long to learn how to use horses and powder. They should have learned quicker. No chance at all. Only a very few victories with extreme looses of men.
I think the problem was they didn't really have money to get the gear and also to pay foreign military advisors to train them etc. They were a force to be reckoned with until the breach loaded guns came in as standard.
Wrong! The reason the Zulu were defeated by the Voortrekkers was because they had learnt their lesson during the battle of Italeni and had adopted a completely new tactics ( being on horseback in restrictive thorny bush with many warriors around had not worked). Instead they constructed a “ laager” with wagons, with the side and rear protected by the Blood river. They goaded the warriors into attacking them by sending out skirmish riders and then massacred them as they tried to attack over and over again. If the Zulu had surrounded them and just waited ( I.e siege) they could have defeated them by starving them out - The strength of the Voortrekkers lay in them being experienced hunters firing from the safety of the laager. Had king Chaka still been alive instead of Dingane, he would likely not sent his warriors to attack the fortified laager over and over and there would have been a different outcome. It wasn’t the lack of guns that defeated the Zulu, but the lack of an effective strategy to the laager.
The Zulus learned pretty fast. They obtained guns pretty fast upon encountering European traders. Whole units of Zulus had traded their throwing spears in for muskets, which they would use to the same effect by firing an initial volley then charging their opponents. The problem was they had no means of making their own nor supplying the ones they had beyond outside trade. And muskets were not very accurate, so the Zulus didn’t put as much emphasis on their use as they could have.
@@hisdudeness8328 By this stage the Zulus had long since abandoned throwing spears for their “assagai” which was a stabbing spear. They had a similar fighting tactic to that of the Romans, using a shield and instead of the broadsword, using their stabbing spear. Despite being vulnerable to the breech loading rifle, they were able to defeat the British at the battle of Insandlwana using numbers and stealth.
Napoleon Total War i think with the Anglo Zulu/Sudan mod. Actually it's the Victoria at War mod although the Anglo Zulu mod is good for cinematic battles as well, quite afew of those on YT.
@@valjadsplodgny4455 I think you have a valid point , but there is always a danger of our own morals being applied to other cultures or the actions of other people, it may be that murdering people who were not of your tribe and culture was perfectly acceptable and a practical way of dealing with land grabbers for the Zulus as they were the (I think) dominant power in the region at the time and had wiped out or absorbed most other tribes, they had a practice of killing any one not of military age and absorbing the rest. This being said it is difficult from our point of view to not view this as aggression but the Zulus May say this was just their way of dealing with enemies.
@@oliverpearson1577 It isn’t an argument it is an attempt to put a perceptive on that event, you could say that in a later battle when the Boers killed 5000 Zulus and chased the fleeing Zulus for three hours killing as many as possible and suffered a few wounded from the Boers perspective that was the right thing to do, I think the battle is shown in this great series though I can’t remember the name might be Blood River? Check it out see what you think. From a modern day view slaughtering people who are running away may be looked at as an atrocity or to some others just good sense?
Heroes!! They entered a country not their own, Subdued ill armed people with firearms. The kept slaves. Then proceeded to enforce a cowardly political system, which gave them the illusion of safety, and lasted well into the 20th century!! At Sharpesvill they massacred unarmed protesters! Heroes!!
@@truth-Hurts375 What do u mean shit!! We all know apartheid existed!! Many of us here in Ireland constantly protested against it! As for eugene terrablanche! Dont get me started! He couldnt control his horse. Some hero! Boer kommando tactics were what helped them to defeat the Zulus. Gallop up, shoot, gallop off! Big deal! Oh! And what was with the beating to death of Steve Biko in prison! Is that the best you lot could do! AMANDLA!!!!
Hat's off to the brave fighters , the Boers were mainly farmers who just wanted to be left alone to make a better life for their family, but were ready to pick up the rifle and sword when it became necessary to defend land and family.
@@darrenmonks4532 The mod is not on steam, this is the link: www.moddb.com/mods/hardcore-zulu-mod I'd also recommend watching this video on how to install it: th-cam.com/video/jeMzDciZ5lU/w-d-xo.html&ab_channel=TSJ
@@michaeldoolan7595 You are obviously a person who likes to condescend to people and act superior when they ask genuine and sincere questions. Be a better person.
Repeating firearms was very rare in 1838. I believe the Colt was the first major repeating firearm that was mass produced and it only came into existence in 1835, and that was in the USA so very few places outside of the USA even knew about it. Most armies were using the single shot muzzle-loading firearms at the time.
The British used the Lee-Metford and Martini-Henry rifles as the main firearms in the Boer War. The Lee-Metford was a bolt-action rifle that fired .303 caliber rounds and had a magazine that held ten rounds. The Martini-Henry was a single-shot rifle that was breech loading, meaning the bullet was put into the beginning of the gun barrel rather than the end. The Martini-Henry was also used by the British in the Second Afghan War and the Zulu Wars.
@@cinematicbattles559nooooo I dint want the British and the Zulus to end I loved it However I do love tribe and musket battles I really like the British fighting tho
I feel the same, It is definitely my favourite series, there is another battle I have not yet covered but It is only very small, I, I might cover it in the future but I'm not too sure yet
To make a recurved bow takes three months. Also bows are often seen as not being a "man's weapon" so there was a cultural preference for hand-to-hand fighting. Easy to mass-produce assegais, which also don't need any training to use. To use bows properly requires training. Maybe there was a shortage of materials to make bows. If they used simple bows, the shields would have provided protection against them and their range wouldn't be much better than that of a javelin. Probably it all boils down to economics - the simple tribal structure of the Zulu state didn't have the necessary manufacturing capability of sophisticated states like say , the Persians. The Zuiu wars against other native tribes worked without bows and were over pretty quickly.
When the Romans tried to attack the Parthians. The Romans were on foot the Parthians were mounted archers. They, kept a distance from the Romans.. They launched their arrows at the Romans, they kept up until the Romas decided to le
The drawings in the beginning were not even close to reality. Relief and his men, including his son, were seized inside the king`s compound while unarmed. The graphics are some war game program and the history is superficial at best, lacking detail. When they mentioned about attacking Boer compounds later these were camps of men women and children and not fortified. I sincerely hope that people who watched this don't consider themselves truly knowledgeable about this history.
@@chrishamilton2527 tried to get the tongue to curl with the insertion of the y. But yes in short Ace would be the closest to the correct pronunciation. Cheers 🍻
Firstly, the Boers were invited into Dingane's kraal but had to leave their weapons outside. Once inside, Dingane had the Boers, who also had servants and young boys amongst their number, beaten to death and massacred. The Zulus then went on a rampage and attacked various Boer encampemnts, including Weenen where they massacred every man, woman and child. The Boers NEVER used bugles or swords so your cinematic is wrong. the Boers, at this stage, only had muzzle loading muskets, not Martini Henrys.
True, they had muskets, but each man usually had several of them, which was the main reason they were able to keep steady/sustained fire, which kept the Zulu from breaking their wagon-line (Battle of Blood River -- December 16, 1838). The Zulu had trouble if their victims had time enough to build a defensive wall/barricade (like at Rorke's Drift) but had it way easier if they didn't encounter any such defense (as at Isandlwana). -- BR
The depiction of events during the first few minutes of the video are TOTALLY incorrect. Piet Retief, his men and servants had been invited by Dingane to the royal kraal and were sitting and drinking while watching warriors dance. They had left their weapons at the entrance to the kraal. The warriors had also left their assegai and shields at the entrance and were only armed with clubs. At the orders of Dingane the party was taken to a nearby hill and beaten to death by the warriors using clubs. The rest of the video is pretty accurate.
Pretty sure Boers did not have swords and would have used muzzle-loaders in 1838, which would have been hopeless for a small force against a massed enemy. Boers were penniless and would not spend the little money they had on a sword. They used their personal hunting guns with no pistols or bayonets, there was no state armoury. There was no uniform for men on commando duty, they would all be dressed differently (mostly in homemade corduroy and canvass-type clothing) and be of very different ages from 14 to 60. This was still the case in the Anglo Boer wars, although they had Martini-Henrys in the 1st A/B war and later Mausers. The video make a valid point about Free State Boers and Transvaal Boers seeing each other as distinct nations and struggled to co-operate.
He is using a computer game set in Napoleonic era in Europe that has been modified to look like boers and zulus. So the guns and movement is not quite right. But it's a simple way to add some decent visuals. I'd be interested to know what guns they used. I'm sure it can be looked up. They definitely would be using muzzle loaders. Some of the guys might have had breech loader or a revolver but it would be very, very few. I'm now also wondering if they had any weapons that could be used while on horseback. It doesn't really seem like it.
LOVE ❤ your videos. Please don’t stop producing them… I’m always DELIGHTED when I see that you’ve uploaded a new one. 🥳👍
As for this particular engagement… It’s BEYOND foolhardy that the Boers - who were already facing a much more numerous (& extremely wily & resourceful!) force of Zulus - DIVIDED their grossly outnumbered Men, again… & again… & again… with inevitable consequences. 🤦🏻♂️
Thanks a lot for the feedback I'm very glad you enjoy them!
Its unbelievable that the Zulus were the villains in this fight & the UK was the villain when it fought the Zulus.The Zulus didn’t write/tell the reports of their treachery/aggression.
This looks so chaotic compared to the British.
The Boers let some narcisstic leader separate the units, the British weren't good at land wars either, Waterloo was wan by the Prussians and the Dutch as the British were not even 20% of the whole Anti French force and when Blücher wouldn't have retreated to better attack, Napoleon would have wan over the British. Britain never missed a chance a victory wan by somebody making it to their own. In WW2 Canadians fixed all theAmerican and British blunders in Italy and Normandy.
@HansJuergBangerter
Utter bullshit.
@@lyndoncmp5751 bring valable contre arguments and facts otherwise STFU
like the "WELL ORGANIZED* British retreat at Duncerk where upper class British officer abandoned their troops to safe their sorry hides and the French fought and died and the Brits called em surrender monkeys or as in Singapore where a British general safely sitting behind the Gin Line called the 5K Canadian recruits fighting 50K Japs in Hong Kong and only retreated when running out of ammo, later the British had to surrender to Japanese on bicycles and yes the same general called the Canucks COWARDS or as Canadians liberated as a first Rome and entered also the city as first and a British officer menaced to shoot at them since this honour belonged to the British which before had hidden behind the Canadian Strom Troopers...or after the Anglo American blunder in Arnhem it was Canadians which liberated Belgium and the Netherland since the Old Men and Boys British Monty intelligence foresaw came out to be EASTERN FRONT Waffen SS same as in Bastogen without air support the Yanks got again their asses kicked.
@@HansJuergBangerter Did well to conquer a third of the world without winning any battles then didn't they old chap.
Just another correction
They weren't known as boers at the time
The were called voortrekkers
The term boers came very later
That was a great video. Subscribed.
The Zulus loose at the end because took very long to learn how to use horses and powder. They should have learned quicker. No chance at all. Only a very few victories with extreme looses of men.
lose and loses
I think the problem was they didn't really have money to get the gear and also to pay foreign military advisors to train them etc. They were a force to be reckoned with until the breach loaded guns came in as standard.
Wrong! The reason the Zulu were defeated by the Voortrekkers was because they had learnt their lesson during the battle of Italeni and had adopted a completely new tactics ( being on horseback in restrictive thorny bush with many warriors around had not worked). Instead they constructed a “ laager” with wagons, with the side and rear protected by the Blood river. They goaded the warriors into attacking them by sending out skirmish riders and then massacred them as they tried to attack over and over again. If the Zulu had surrounded them and just waited ( I.e siege) they could have defeated them by starving them out - The strength of the Voortrekkers lay in them being experienced hunters firing from the safety of the laager. Had king Chaka still been alive instead of Dingane, he would likely not sent his warriors to attack the fortified laager over and over and there would have been a different outcome. It wasn’t the lack of guns that defeated the Zulu, but the lack of an effective strategy to the laager.
The Zulus learned pretty fast.
They obtained guns pretty fast upon encountering European traders.
Whole units of Zulus had traded their throwing spears in for muskets, which they would use to the same effect by firing an initial volley then charging their opponents.
The problem was they had no means of making their own nor supplying the ones they had beyond outside trade. And muskets were not very accurate, so the Zulus didn’t put as much emphasis on their use as they could have.
@@hisdudeness8328 By this stage the Zulus had long since abandoned throwing spears for their “assagai” which was a stabbing spear. They had a similar fighting tactic to that of the Romans, using a shield and instead of the broadsword, using their stabbing spear. Despite being vulnerable to the breech loading rifle, they were able to defeat the British at the battle of Insandlwana using numbers and stealth.
Which Total War is this? Love these videos. 👍
Napoleon Total War i think with the Anglo Zulu/Sudan mod. Actually it's the Victoria at War mod although the Anglo Zulu mod is good for cinematic battles as well, quite afew of those on YT.
Way to go, bro!
"perceived aggression"...wow...
Maybe cultural or the equivalent of get off my land?
@@balinthebrave9996The Boers were invited for discussions etc., and then killed in cold blood.
@@valjadsplodgny4455 I think you have a valid point , but there is always a danger of our own morals being applied to other cultures or the actions of other people, it may be that murdering people who were not of your tribe and culture was perfectly acceptable and a practical way of dealing with land grabbers for the Zulus as they were the (I think) dominant power in the region at the time and had wiped out or absorbed most other tribes, they had a practice of killing any one not of military age and absorbing the rest.
This being said it is difficult from our point of view to not view this as aggression but the Zulus May say this was just their way of dealing with enemies.
@@balinthebrave9996 With that argument you could justify any atrocity from any period.
@@oliverpearson1577 It isn’t an argument it is an attempt to put a perceptive on that event, you could say that in a later battle when the Boers killed 5000 Zulus and chased the fleeing Zulus for three hours killing as many as possible and suffered a few wounded from the Boers perspective that was the right thing to do, I think the battle is shown in this great series though I can’t remember the name might be Blood River? Check it out see what you think. From a modern day view slaughtering people who are running away may be looked at as an atrocity or to some others just good sense?
Very nice video mate, keep em comming
Cheers bro I appreciate the support
The Boers are absolute heroes. If only we had more such men today.
Heroes!! They entered a country not their own, Subdued ill armed people with firearms. The kept slaves. Then proceeded to enforce a cowardly political system, which gave them the illusion of safety, and lasted well into the 20th century!! At Sharpesvill they massacred unarmed protesters! Heroes!!
@@danielbutlerkelly8287Acting like the Zulu’s are innocent?? 😂
Kak praat nie !!!
@@truth-Hurts375 What do u mean shit!! We all know apartheid existed!! Many of us here in Ireland constantly protested against it! As for eugene terrablanche! Dont get me started! He couldnt control his horse. Some hero! Boer kommando tactics were what helped them to defeat the Zulus. Gallop up, shoot, gallop off! Big deal! Oh! And what was with the beating to death of Steve Biko in prison! Is that the best you lot could do! AMANDLA!!!!
@@danielbutlerkelly8287 the Zulus were already committing atrocities to other tribes way before the Boers came
You should do the 'Battle of blood river'
I have already done it just look on my channel :)
@@cinematicbattles559 Thanks, will do
Never divide your forces in the Face of the Enemy. Sound familiar?
Custer didn't listen😮
Hello, I was wondering how you made him the only person in the unit at 4:48
Hi, you just edit the unit number in the scripts file
Retaliation for the "perceived agression"?! WTF - it wasn't just their perception.
Lol the Zulus were such a menace😂. True african warriors
Hat's off to the brave fighters , the Boers were mainly farmers who just wanted to be left alone to make a better life for their family, but were ready to pick up the rifle and sword when it became necessary to defend land and family.
The Boers were mostly farmers, were good horsemen and hunted game for the table so were good shots.
Sorry for a dumb question, but what Total War game/series is this one? Not Empires is it? I'd appreciate a response, thanks in advance,
This is Napoleon total war with the Victoria at war mod
@@cinematicbattles559 Thanks mate. I'm a bit old and also new to all this. I do have Napoleon TW, but I can't seem to find that mod on steam.
@@darrenmonks4532 The mod is not on steam, this is the link: www.moddb.com/mods/hardcore-zulu-mod
I'd also recommend watching this video on how to install it: th-cam.com/video/jeMzDciZ5lU/w-d-xo.html&ab_channel=TSJ
@@cinematicbattles559 Thanks so much for the help mate, you're a champ.
Madness
Things have not worked out so well for the Boers after 180+ years. I wonder if there is any regret.
Couldn't the troops fire their rifles just as easily while seated on their horses?
Yes, but not accurately. The horse moves.
It was the loading the rifles which was more difficult mounted.
You have obviously never shot a rifle.
@@michaeldoolan7595 You are obviously a person who likes to condescend to people and act superior when they ask genuine and sincere questions.
Be a better person.
They were using muzzleloaders in 1838.
Can assegais be thrown? Did the Boers or anyone else have repeating rifles and pistols in 1838?
Yes they also threw the assegai. The boers had only muskets.
Repeating firearms was very rare in 1838. I believe the Colt was the first major repeating firearm that was mass produced and it only came into existence in 1835, and that was in the USA so very few places outside of the USA even knew about it. Most armies were using the single shot muzzle-loading firearms at the time.
The assegai could be thrown. No repeating rifles
No and no.
@@michaeldoolan7595 Assegai lose their throwing advantage due to the shortening of the shaft to make them primarily a stabbing weapon.
Wow. This is fascinating. In 1838? Who knew?
"Perceived aggression" of the Zulus?
Perceived aggression by the Zulu's????? Is that a joke or some PC nonsense?
Impressive- are the rifles in the Boers’ hands correct for the period?
The British used the Lee-Metford and Martini-Henry rifles as the main firearms in the Boer War. The Lee-Metford was a bolt-action rifle that fired .303 caliber rounds and had a magazine that held ten rounds. The Martini-Henry was a single-shot rifle that was breech loading, meaning the bullet was put into the beginning of the gun barrel rather than the end. The Martini-Henry was also used by the British in the Second Afghan War and the Zulu Wars.
@@allanfarr Italeni was in 1838, so muzzle loaders were all they had. The same as at the battle of Blood River in December of the same year.
These are great, and superbly done. Any chance of doing the battle of spion kop ? Thanks.
Thanks! Yes the Anglo-Boer war is something i'm definitely going to do
You'll Never Walk Alone.
Well, they did say it was a "special performance."
Uys is pronounced Ace.
Thought it was the end of the content on the Zulus. What is this?
I meant the British and the Zulus sorry if there was a misunderstanding
@@cinematicbattles559nooooo I dint want the British and the Zulus to end I loved it
However I do love tribe and musket battles
I really like the British fighting tho
I feel the same, It is definitely my favourite series, there is another battle I have not yet covered but It is only very small, I, I might cover it in the future but I'm not too sure yet
@@cinematicbattles559okay
Real men!
Battle of Blood River ... 8 months later!
The men on horses look like zombies😅
Also, very close to the battle of little big horn in its development.
first
Domkop Boere may have won the Battle....But they Lost the War !!!!
Jazuz you fod dsal😮
If he kept fainting every 5 minutes why did they just put him on 1 horse sideways instead of allowing him to sit upright
Wounded would have fallen of horse if carried sideways and slowed down party as a struggle to control horse.
Loving the pronunciation of Natal.
do you consider the Zulu a terrorist organization for fighting for the land
They were killing all the people on their way from central africa. The ndebele in zimbabwe is the same as the zulu. Know the history before spewing bs
@@righardvanniekerk7434 and the whites have the right to do whatever they wanted
?why didn't the Zulus ever utilize the bow as a weapon more.
To make a recurved bow takes three months. Also bows are often seen as not being a "man's weapon" so there was a cultural preference for hand-to-hand fighting. Easy to mass-produce assegais, which also don't need any training to use. To use bows properly requires training. Maybe there was a shortage of materials to make bows. If they used simple bows, the shields would have provided protection against them and their range wouldn't be much better than that of a javelin. Probably it all boils down to economics - the simple tribal structure of the Zulu state didn't have the necessary manufacturing capability of sophisticated states like say , the Persians. The Zuiu wars against other native tribes worked without bows and were over pretty quickly.
Because they had no wood to make them with...too dry and brittle...good for fire wood.
I wish you’ld get the pronunciation sorted out.
My apologies the narration was generated using AI
I think the Animation Is Getting WORSE!
Yes this is because this is an older game 👍
When the Romans tried to attack the Parthians. The Romans were on foot the Parthians were mounted archers. They, kept a distance from the Romans.. They launched their arrows at the Romans, they kept up until the Romas decided to le
The drawings in the beginning were not even close to reality. Relief and his men, including his son, were seized inside the king`s compound while unarmed. The graphics are some war game program and the history is superficial at best, lacking detail. When they mentioned about attacking Boer compounds later these were camps of men women and children and not fortified. I sincerely hope that people who watched this don't consider themselves truly knowledgeable about this history.
You are correct,this is just entertainment .
Woman is woman man is woman
Depends on what mood they wake up in
Ask the labour government
Same morals as today's thugs....
cartoons?
I always root for the Zulus
You have to pronounce the name Uys correctly. It is like Ayce
Ace!
@@chrishamilton2527 tried to get the tongue to curl with the insertion of the y. But yes in short Ace would be the closest to the correct pronunciation. Cheers 🍻
Firstly, the Boers were invited into Dingane's kraal but had to leave their weapons outside. Once inside, Dingane had the Boers, who also had servants and young boys amongst their number, beaten to death and massacred. The Zulus then went on a rampage and attacked various Boer encampemnts, including Weenen where they massacred every man, woman and child. The Boers NEVER used bugles or swords so your cinematic is wrong. the Boers, at this stage, only had muzzle loading muskets, not Martini Henrys.
True, they had muskets, but each man usually had several of them, which was the main reason they were able to keep steady/sustained fire, which kept the Zulu from breaking their wagon-line (Battle of Blood River -- December 16, 1838).
The Zulu had trouble if their victims had time enough to build a defensive wall/barricade (like at Rorke's Drift) but had it way easier if they didn't encounter any such defense (as at Isandlwana).
-- BR
It's a mod for a total war game
The Zulus won the Battle of Italeni against the Boers.
The depiction of events during the first few minutes of the video are TOTALLY incorrect. Piet Retief, his men and servants had been invited by Dingane to the royal kraal and were sitting and drinking while watching warriors dance. They had left their weapons at the entrance to the kraal. The warriors had also left their assegai and shields at the entrance and were only armed with clubs. At the orders of Dingane the party was taken to a nearby hill and beaten to death by the warriors using clubs. The rest of the video is pretty accurate.