The Real Story Behind The Anglo-Zulu War With Historian Saul David
Вставка
- Опубліковано 14 сер 2024
- 'The Real Story of Isandlwana and Rorke's Drift With Historian Saul David'
In this video, Dan Snow talks to Saul David - historian, broadcaster and author - about what was arguably the most brutal and controversial British imperial conflict of the 19th century: the Anglo-Zulu War of 1879.
As well as the causes of the war and British colonial expansion in Southern Africa, he explains how the British blundered their way into a catastrophic defeat at the Battle of Isandlwana, the real story of the last stand at Rorke's Drift, and how the Zulu Nation was eventually defeated at the Battle of Ulundi.
#AngloZuluWar #SaulDavid #DanSnow
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.
"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!
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 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.
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. 👍
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"
History Hit has some awesome videos, and for me as a South African this is one of the best. Thank you 🇿🇦👍
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
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
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
Excellent interview. I'm a fan of history, as well as of all things South African.
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! 🍻
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.
'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.
this channel is so underrated..... this needs a blow up... do the magic algo
I have read & watched videos for information on Islandlwana & Rorks Drift for many years and this is by far the best most informative presentation I have seen. Well done.
Its actually quite inaccurate in places.
Please, try listening to Mike Snook, Ian Knight and others. They are considerably more knowledgeable than Saul David and have written superior books.
It's got errors in it - numbers of British troops is wrong at isandlwana and use of guns at rorkes drift as well
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...
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 🤝
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.
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.
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.
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.
Could listen to Saul for hours , interesting and knowledgeable man
He gets basic things completely wrong here though.
1. Isandlwana wasn't a very early morning attack. It was an afternoon attack.
2. There wasn't poor scouting. There were scouts and sentries posted miles out. One of these outpost sentry positions saw large numbers of Zulus manoeuvring in the direction of the main impi at first light on the day of the battle. Bit hard to see them before this when the Zulus only arrived there just before dusk the evening before.
3. Chelmsford didn't go out on a wild goose chase. His recon patrol encountered a couple of thousand Zulus and requested assistance. It was actually a logical decision at the time.
4. At Rorkes Drift, the Zulus didn't use Martini Henry rifles captured at Isandlwana.
For a supposedly renowned historian to make such glaring errors, particularly points 1 and 4, is astonishing.
@@lyndoncmp5751 I mean unless you have a PHD in history , I’d really probably have a word with yourself 😂 he’s written about this in extensive ways and likely seen material you don’t have access to - sure his referencing isn’t Wikipedia 👍🏼
Its a FACT that he got points 1 and 4 completely wrong. Saul David is a generalised history author. He's not a specialist on Isandlwana specifically. There are superior authors than him on the subject of Isandlwana such as Ian Knight, Mike Snook etc. These are my sources, not Wikipedia.
Judging by his basic errors Id say that I know more about Isandlwana than Saul David does.
You need to inform yourself more widely than Saul David. 👍
And let me get this straight. Dan Snow asks Saul David:
"is it a night attack they make on the British camp?"
Saul David categorically replies at 9:40:
"Its very early in the morning".
Are you seriously claiming Saul David is correct there? Really?
"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?"
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?
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
Thank you so much for making this, very informative and well presented…..thank you
This channel is actually so good, fantastic content guys keep it up
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.
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
I love this content! Very insightful interview with a fantastic historian.
Fascinated by the parallels between Isandlwahana (sp?) and the Little Big Horn.
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.
Another great interview 👏
Very interesting thank you
I saw the movie back in the mid 70's in school, these two movies are mine and my kids favorites.
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.
Halfway through this book and its a great read. Since watching the movie Zulu (on repeat ha) when I was young I've always had an interest in the period. Glad I chose this book as my first to learning more about what happened.
Hopefully you can move on to more knowledgeable and renowned Anglo Zulu War authors such as Knight and Snook.
In this one video alone, he repeats basic mistakes and myths.
@@lyndoncmp5751 I’ll most definitely check them out, appreciate that. Are there any books you could recommend?
Yes indeed. Zulu Rising and Zulu by Ian Knight, How Can Man Die Better and Like Wolves On The Fold by Colonel Mike Snook. Just some examples. Cheers.
@@lyndoncmp5751 thank you very much appreciated.
They are very well worth reading. Hope you enjoy.
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
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.
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.
Saul David is a superb historian.
I would love to hear that gentleman's analysis of the two Zulu movies.
Saul Davids book Zulu and The Washing of the Spears are the definitive works on the Zulu War. An excellent interview, thank you.
The Washing of the Spears is a brilliant book, followed closely by the audio narrative of David Rattray.
Ian Knight and Mike Snook have written the best works.
Read this book years ago, well written and researched and truly gives you an insight of what happened in this campaign and at Rorke's Drift. Great interview.
@@lyndoncmp5751 I consider Ian Knight to be the best.
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.
So often the British lose because of arrogant and ignorant leadership, as well as underestimating the enemy. Chelmsford should have been court martialed.
Zulu is a brilliant book. Anyone with any interest in this subject should read it.
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.
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
One of the best books I've read
This is a great explanation. Love it
Great interview!
History is so much more interesting than the incessant arguments about it in the comments.
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.
please keep creating videos like this
Plenty more on the way!
What a fascinating interview. I had no idea about most of the subject matter. It's an area of history I've never delved into much, but I'm going to have to now. Off to amazon for a new book.
Jason might I suggest you buy Lt. Col Mike Snook's two wonderful books on the Zulu War, How can man die better and Like wolves in the fold. The former perhaps the most definitive account of the disaster at Isandlhwana and the latter a first class account of the defence of Rorke's Drift. Nobody and I mean nobody describes these engagements better. You have some great reading ahead of you, good luck.
@@paulkelly8456 Brilliant. They sound ideal. I'll definitely be checking those out. Thank you, Paul.
If you want an incomparable audio narrative try David Rattray's Day of the Dead Moon. An extract is available on UA-cam. David was a brilliant orator.
@@paulkelly8456 Off topic but How can man die better is itself part of a brilliant poem by Thomas Babington Macaulay.
And how can man die better
Than facing fearful odds,
For the ashes of his fathers,
And the temples of his gods
@@MS-sb9ov As I discovered when I bought the book. I shall look into David Rattray's narrative as you suggest. Thanks.
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.
If your reading this Saul David please come back to History Hit and do a interview about Rorkes Drift on detail!
The book was written when I was 50. My son now has it.
Really enjoyed this. Great video 👍
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
The answer is gold.
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".
Brilliant interview! Been interested in the Zulu wars for years! Will definitely be buying the book thanks
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.
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!
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).
Underestimating the enemy’s abilities and willingness to fight for their homeland coupled with an overestimation of your own forces has often proved costly for armies and governments in historical terms. Britain has experienced this several times, and the United States fell victim to it in Vietnam. I was an infantry officer in RVN in 1967 and, having studied the French Indochina war as a young man, was surprised at the arrogance of senior command towards the failure of the French military and the spirit of the VC and NVA to fight for the reunification of their homeland. Johnson, McNamara and Westmoreland believed our technology and American courage and skill would kill so many of “them” as opposed to our losses their political will to fight on would fail. Even a casual study of the Vietnamese history of taking on bigger, supposedly tougher invaders, including the Chinese, when their sovereignty was threatened should have produced healthy caution in our leaders, not exaggeration of our capabilities. A lesson not learned but repeated in Afghanistan not long after Vietnam.
The British learned from this defeat but the Zulus showed the same overconfidence again and again at Khambula and Gingindlovu, despite their heavy defeats at Nyezane and Rorkes Drift.
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.
Does Prof David have stain glass windows in his study? That’s pretty cool.
GREAT vid
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.
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.
You bring history to LIFE! THANKS... 😷👍👣
Great interview, have to look for the book.
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.
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.
Brilliant 👏
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
My great grandfather travelledwith Cetswayo as his interpreter.
Very interesting keep up the good work.
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.
To be fair to Chelmsford, splitting into self-sufficient columns wasn’t a bad idea. The columns struggled logistically on their own (one big column would have been impossible as well as being less flexible) and the Zulus aren’t stupid; even they wouldn’t be drawn into battle if the British went in with one big army.
I also don’t think Isandlwana was his fault as it was only meant to be a quick supply camp with wagons coming in and out (making a wagon laager defunct). The ground was also too rocky to dig in.
Colonel Pulleine should have formed a square while using Isandlwana as a defensive position but that’s only with the power of hindsight. He didn’t know that the Zulu force was so big and was probably influenced by previous engagements (such as the battle of Nyumaga, only a year before, where thin British skirmish lines battered a larger Xhosa force).
Have you not heard of the maxim, "don't divided your forces in the face of an unknown enemy"? Of course it was Chelmsford's fault he was the commander. Did you not listen, the pickets were too close to camp and the defence was mounted too far out. They assumed they weren't going to be attacked and so were unprepared. The soldiers ran out of ammunition and so a bayonet against an assagai = no contest .
Chelmsford was trying to take the initiative and fight the Zulus on his terms (a difficult thing to do with a large baggage train in tow). Otherwise, the Zulus could have used the tough terrain in that area to ambush his column when it was strung out on the road. This is what forced him to split his forces, although he did leave half of his force in the camp to protect it against attack.
I agree that more should have been done in terms of scouting but their pickets were well placed enough to notice any enemy force approaching from the northern Nqutu Plateau. They were also hamstrung by the fact that a large part of the cavalry was scouting to the east. When Pulleine did have a sufficient number of cavalry from Durnford they did use them for scouting; that’s how the battle happened in the first place.
Zetectic,
Saul David actually gets things wrong here. Chelmsford only divided his force at Isandlwana because the recon patrol got into a pickle and had to spend a terrifying night in the hills. They just tangled with around 2,000 Zulus late in the afternoon before and could not get back to camp. They sent word in the middle of the night requesting help from Chelmsford. They were certain they would be attacked by the main impi in the morning. Chelmsford chose the right military response. He took a strong force out and he left a strong force back to act on the defensive and protect the camp. He also ordered Durnford with his 250 armed mounted men up to the camp as well. Unfortunately Durnford ignored this order to get to the camp to reinforce and instead Durnford rode out chasing after retreating Zulus and brought the battle of Isandlwana on.
Zetectic,
The defence was too far out because of Durnford. When Durnford rode off he told Pulleine he expected to be supported in case he got into difficulties. This absolutely obliged Pulleine to have to keep his infantry companies far out, supporting Durnfords left flank. Durnford decided to make a stand in a donga (dried river bed) a mile in front of camp.
During the morning false alarm, when a group of around 4,000 Zulus were sighted by outlying sentries, Pulleine actually had the 24th Foot infantry companies 'stood to' in readiness for a Zulu attack just in front of the tents, in a very close tight defensive position. This he did from 8.00 to 10.30 am until Durnford arrived and stood the men down. If Pulleine was left to his own devises he would have defended much closer to the camp. His orders were to act on the defensive and that is what he did. Then Durnford turned up and upset the apple cart with his determination to take the fight to the Zulus and then his decision to make a stand a mile out in front of camp.
The tactical mistakes at Isandlwana were primarily by Durnford.
Paul Newton
I wouldn't even say Durnford was under pressure. He just went a bit maverick, desperately looking for action. His excitable decisions lead to the battle and subsequently the defeat. The Zulus did not even plan to attack that day, but Durnfords men rode into their bivouac spot, thus bringing the battle forward a day.
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.
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.
Really good video 👍
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
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.
Very interesting and would love to read whatever he has on this topic.
Read Snook and Knight. Much better.
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!
Great historian Saul David he is a must read on history,best author on the Zulu campaign.
No, that would be Ian Knight
Agree with that totally.
The historian did not explain how troops with single-shot rifles at the Drift could hold off 4,000 Zulus.
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..
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.