Well if you didnt already know the history you would think they were about to finish them all off, when I first saw this film I didnt know the history so the fear was real as it wouldve been for the real life men Im sure, but then in the real event the Zulu's didnt give them a farewell and the last fighting ended during the night, not daybreak.
@@theyellowlightsaber3193 - good point. Most people take movies as actual history. When in truth the movie takes liberties for cinematic value. Not sure if most people watched until the end of the credits reel, the film makers credit the Paramount Zulu chief for his cooperation. This is a live action movie, all those Zulu warriors aren't actors, they're infact real Zulu warriors. Imagine a movie portraying them in negative light. How do you convince them to play their part as they did in the movie? That's like asking the Taliban or Al-Qaeda to play as themselves. For people who want to learn history - Books!
It's your body letting you know we British have nothing but glorious tales of victory in our history, but the zulus didn't do bad conceding defeat, we became Nobel rulers and even introduced the zulus to CB Radio eventually and how to sing like issac Hayes
Actually there's a conversation between Lt Chard and one of the singers among the troops during the movie. The singer says that Zulus have good base, but don't make the top 10.
I like the fact that the film makers showed respect to both the British and the Zulu warriors. Like Dances With Wolves in that respect. I wish we were well past the era of portraying indigent people as savages .
Janice C. Barrera What ya mean 'like when natives in New Guinea take folks and roast them on a spit' it should be regarded as only natural? Or maybe all beheadings in the middle east should be listed as 'tragedys whilst having haircuts, that kind of portraying? Etc
Good show Brits and Welshmen! , a STUNNING victory, 140 against 4 000, and with ONE shot rifles and a bayonet (not 600 round per minute machine guns or field cannon.)...ripping!!, New Zealand Bob at 67. God save the Queen!
They had reinforcements waiting, they never tell youthat bit of the history, and the Zulus who attacked were all in thier 40s and 50s not 20s so the Brits had some odds in thier favour, they werent taking on men in thier prime and the Zulus couldve finished them off if they wanted but this attack was already going against the wishes of the Zulu King so they were cutting thier losses essentially by letting the brits have it.
@@bobmalack481 A spelling mistake does not make the statement wrong do you understand. I am 63 but after that ignorant statement let hope you do not handle heavy equipment we will be all in trouble
Something that this movie gets wrong is that this battle wasn't suppose to happen. The Zulu King ordered his army to only attack the British forces at isandlwana, the reserve forces disobeyed orders and as seen in the movie that attack the outpost.
Fallen Knight Tyler Yes, you are right. The “reserves” were probably the elderly if I remember correctly. But they were hyped up and embolden to fight after Isladwanda. sp.
iam a proud Welshman and the Zulus are a truly great warrior tribes people, and iam also proud that my fellow Welshmen fought so bravely against thease also proud Zulus. but witch ever way you look at it we didn't belong there the Zulus were only defending their ancient homeland . and so to all Zulu tribesmen outthere us Welshmen respect our fellow braves.
there were only 32 welshmen confirmed to have been present at rorke's drift, the largest presence was by far englishmen. the soldiers were from the 1st battalion of the 24th regiment of foot, which also had some irishmen and at least one scotsman present at the time. it was the second battalion of the 24th that was predominantly welsh, and they were not present. the film calls them 'the south wales borderers' which is what their name was changed to two years after rorke's drift.
for the battle of rorkes drift zulu actually invaded natal also Zulus actually destroyed other tribes and took their land before their war with the British :)
+mozzy747 Also the Zulu King recently came out and said he would like to see the return of Apartheid because the Brits were reasonable rulers and tended to let the Zulu govern themselves with more autonomy.
""they had the basic sense of honor of warrior cultures"" Did that honor include butchering camp cooks, drummer boys, pet dogs and all the horses tied up to pickets?
Plus the zulus never saluted them in real life. They only left when they spotted a relief army approaching. And shortly afterwards they were pursued and eliminated by the british.
Remember these are the survivors of islandwana they had to stay here. It started when a fighter from Zulu saw the British stalking and the whole Zulu army attacked their camp In islandwana
Wonder why in the film you never see that Dutch bloke kill any zulus? In fact you don't see him at all when there's any fighting? Is there a reason for this? Did he hide in a tree perhaps? Could anyone give me a clue?
Everyone was trying to dominate the world! The British get so much stick only because we were better at it than anyone else! Think about it before you reply.
But the reality is that most of the soldiers were actually from the 24th Warwickshire regiment. So unfortunately it was Englishmen that never yield......!!!!!!
Actually frank it was mostly Welsh and not the english in that battle. Men of Harlech is a Welsh song, read a history book or actually watch the film and ud know this.
i love the politics expressed on both sides. blind, to the horrific reality of war.Taking offence and credit to actions they had no part in. those who live in a world where you can make coments on a youtube video, i think you need to check your privallage.
Oh, you have to expect statements that you will disagree with. I’ve always been interested in history, military history too. Even did 8 yrs in the Army to see what it was like. I’m an old guy, most here are younger. I didn’t grow up with PC’s. I read a lot, a whole lot. Starting with Herodotus, Plutarch etc. Herodotus was often called the Father of History. The point I am making is that without history we are surely doomed to keep making the same mistakes. I’ve seen it happen many times in my 65 years. I’ve seen a small misstep turn into a huge problem that we are still paying for. These small mistakes started out as a meaning of goodwill and led to war. I bet none of these leaders and advisors opened a book on Foreign Policy. So ya see, I have gripes too, buddy. Good luck mate...
+13 Tooth Honestly if you compare Africa to places where the british ruled longer it's clear they would have benefitted from a longer colonial tenure. Colonialists build infrastructure and Africa, outside a few parts like Nigeria and South Africa, has very little. but self determination is important too, and at any rate britain had no ability to maintain its empire any longer.
13 Tooth its the " what did the romans ever do for us?" sort of thing. if you play that game and go back and back you will just end up to the conclusion that we are all africans.
In battle the wounded usually outnumber the killed by a ratio of 2 or 3 to one though out history. The British mention the number of Zulus they believe died here. However they do not record the number of captured wounded , wonder why? they killed the wounded .
Shane Bairstow well judging how, at islandawana the British wounded were killed, 1500 men killed, out of all infantry companies, not one man of them lived. With the bodies being stripped and mutilated. I'd be pretty pissed off
Yes they killed the Zulu wounded, just as the Zulus massacred everything at Isandlwana. The British at Rorke's Drift were in no mood to spare Zulu wounded after they saw how the Zulus tortured and killed their own men at Rorke's Drift. Poor Williams, Horrigan, Adams and Hayden were found horribly mutilated. The majority of Zulu wounded were suffering majorly and couldn't even move away from the battlefield so they were put out of their misery. The lighter injured wounded Zulus were not on the battlefield. They got away. Only the severely wounded remained and it was better for them to be dispatched. There was no butchering, no mutilation and no torture of Zulu wounded.
There are reports from British field surgeons who treated wounded Zulus after this and other battles, most didn't make it, that's not particularly surprising given the state of medical science in those days. It's also not surprising considering that the Martini Henry was one of the most powerful military rifles in the world at that time, its huge 405gr .45 caliber bullets created devastating wounds.
@@jimpaul5925 - I think his parents were from Ireland (and I think he holds Irish citizenship), so perhaps it stems from that. I vaguely remember that he was actually born in the US but moved to Australia when he was young.
How did the same Zulus hold off and defeat at the Battle of isandlwana with a lot more British soldiers but they lost at rorke's drift to over a hundred something's wrong with this
The Zulu impis at Rourke's drift defied their officers' orders and rushed the British positions. Very little about this movie is accurate; I suggest you go to the library and read some history.
With all respect, friends. You are all mistaken. The Zulu’s that attacked the drift did not fight at Iswaldonda! The Zulu that attacked the drift were the old reserves, I think 6,000.? They watched the victory over the Brits and against the Zulu King’s orders decided to march against the drift to get their own glory. They were fresh impi troops. And almost squeezed out a victory being old seasoned killers. If the Zulu impis that fought at Isladuwanda turned on Rourkes Drift the English would have been easily overrun by sheer numbers alone. Sorry for the misspelling of Iswaladuanda...ugh. I don’t have my Zulu books in front of me.
T Hitsugaya, Hello, Also don’t forget that the Zulu’s used what they called “the Bull’s Head” in most of their tactics. The Head would fix the enemy in place and the horns would encircle or flank. I don’t really see that tactic against the Brits. It probably was only used out in the Great Plains attacking other tribes. But you do see it in later wars. The Germans used it to great effect on the Russian plains. The US Army uses it today called “Fix and Flank”. Don’t get me wrong, You are correct in your assessment of the tactics on that day. I don’t see how the Bulls Head could work at the Drift.
Is that so? How come Chief Buthalashi with the consent of the zulu king allowed the film to take place in Natal when they decimated their people in history? Dont see any logic in your statement, considering the Zulu are doing quite well as a nation.
People have to remember this film is mostly fiction, only small parts have any element of truth, having read many books on the Zulu wars this film portrays Zulu warriors in completely the wrong light, these brave warriors were tactically very astute and far superior to the British infantry in many ways.
Doug Pfeiffer, show me where that is a historical axiom? I’ve always wondered. That may have had validity in some ancient times. I agree. And I have a book called Caesar and the Gauls about the battle of Alesia and their are no records from the Gauls. So you are right until everyone could write. For example everyone knows about the Revolutionary War from both sides and the histories agree. Same thing with the Civil War which is a Great War to study because you get both sides view. We all know how Lee lost at Gettysburg as told from the losing side, from Lee, his generals and letters, diaries from his troops.So only the victors get to write the history is incorrect.
@@bobmalack481 I agree with you that it was a great movie; however, like many movies, directors and writers like to "add" fiction for more excitement. Another fact: there was no final battle - the Zulus dispersed, seeing the relief column heading towards the Drift.
Konstantinos Nikolakakis; I agree with you, buddy. The first books I read were Herodotus and Thucydides. Must reads for Spartan history. Yeah, I’m not fond of the comic book movie either. I see similarities between the Spartans and Brits. The Brit last stand was like a tight Spartan phalanx. And they would of died like Spartan’s. “ We few, we brave few; We band of brothers.”
Personally, I think they’re closer to the Roman Legionnaire because of their battle tactics, formations and fighting style. Nonetheless, the Zulu warrior was a fierce combatant.
The Battle of Rorke's Drift happened on 22 January 1879. The same day, the British lost at Isandlwana. Part of the Zulu army broke off from the main force to attack Rorke's Drift, where the British won. The film isn't completely accurate, but the battle did happen.
The producers of this movie took more liberties than the two elderly daughters of Henry Hook could accept. They both walked out of an advance screening of it, outraged at how their father, who had actually been a model soldier and not the goldbricking "insubordinate barracks room lawyer" Bromhead describes him as and James Booth portrays him as, had been portrayed.
How so? Explain precisely how it is 'inaccurate'. It IS a movie, but inform us with the historicle facts, lets here it, we will wait for your responce..Robert at 69.
Love Colour Sergeant Bourne reading the roll, no fuss - 'Hinch - Hinch I saw you, you're still alive!'
One of the best movies ever. I have seen it a few times.
First saw this in Jr high in 1974 for movie activity day. Loved it then and now. Great movie.and actors.
Every time I see that scene, I get a shiver down my spine.
Well if you didnt already know the history you would think they were about to finish them all off, when I first saw this film I didnt know the history so the fear was real as it wouldve been for the real life men Im sure, but then in the real event the Zulu's didnt give them a farewell and the last fighting ended during the night, not daybreak.
@@theyellowlightsaber3193 - good point. Most people take movies as actual history. When in truth the movie takes liberties for cinematic value. Not sure if most people watched until the end of the credits reel, the film makers credit the Paramount Zulu chief for his cooperation. This is a live action movie, all those Zulu warriors aren't actors, they're infact real Zulu warriors. Imagine a movie portraying them in negative light. How do you convince them to play their part as they did in the movie?
That's like asking the Taliban or Al-Qaeda to play as themselves.
For people who want to learn history - Books!
It's your body letting you know we British have nothing but glorious tales of victory in our history, but the zulus didn't do bad conceding defeat, we became Nobel rulers and even introduced the zulus to CB Radio eventually and how to sing like issac Hayes
@@sztypettto well it was either the zulus or Al Jolson to do the attacking with spears with the passadinas doing the salute song.
This and that sing off they get into.
When Stanley Baker died, the paramount chief of the Zulus sent a wreathe saying Baker was the best white man he ever met.
Awesome.
He saluted a fellow brave 😂😂😂
I didn't know that!
That is so cool.
The most manly ending to any movie
One of the events to visit when I finish building my time machine.
Great song by the band 'Zulu Dawn'. Number one on iTunes in 1879.
lol
And off they go for their tea.
Actually there's a conversation between Lt Chard and one of the singers among the troops during the movie. The singer says that Zulus have good base, but don't make the top 10.
@@sztypettto he actually said they lacked a tenor.
Great end to a great movie.
Masterpiece
A great one,totally above the crap that is made today!
Yeah, today we get Ms Marvel.
I like the fact that the film makers showed respect to both the British and the Zulu warriors. Like Dances With Wolves in that respect. I wish we were well past the era of portraying indigent people as savages .
Aren't we. The Indigenous people are always the good guys in the films I've seen.
Janice C. Barrera What ya mean 'like when natives in New Guinea take folks and roast them on a spit' it should be regarded as only natural? Or maybe all beheadings in the middle east should be listed as 'tragedys whilst having haircuts, that kind of portraying? Etc
Indiginous
But, unfortunately, they were.
Anybody can be a savage at a given point and time.
Love the isicathamaya method of singing that they do............
Good show Brits and Welshmen! , a STUNNING victory, 140 against 4 000, and with ONE shot rifles and a bayonet (not 600 round per minute machine guns or field cannon.)...ripping!!, New Zealand Bob at 67. God save the Queen!
They had reinforcements waiting, they never tell youthat bit of the history, and the Zulus who attacked were all in thier 40s and 50s not 20s so the Brits had some odds in thier favour, they werent taking on men in thier prime and the Zulus couldve finished them off if they wanted but this attack was already going against the wishes of the Zulu King so they were cutting thier losses essentially by letting the brits have it.
the wesh are brits
@@Tony2438 Yes and no..
@@Tony2438 If the Welsh are Brit's..why can't you spell it as such?...WESH?!..you need another pork pie mate!..must be a sub 35 year old..LOL!!
@@bobmalack481 A spelling mistake does not make the statement wrong do you understand. I am 63 but after that ignorant statement let hope you do not handle heavy equipment we will be all in trouble
One of the greatest movies. To bad you can’t buy it on Amazon or UA-cam. They only allow you to rent it.
Its now free on youtube
Ebay
Thank you for posting, love this movie!
The Zulu at the end is like "Fort's all yours mate, we give in, seeya"
Enjoyed this movie when much younger
This is a freakin classic
Something that this movie gets wrong is that this battle wasn't suppose to happen. The Zulu King ordered his army to only attack the British forces at isandlwana, the reserve forces disobeyed orders and as seen in the movie that attack the outpost.
Fallen Knight Tyler 007 I believe that the mission wasn't on Zulu land.
Fallen Knight Tyler
Yes, you are right. The “reserves” were probably the elderly if I remember correctly. But they were hyped up and embolden to fight after Isladwanda. sp.
iam a proud Welshman and the Zulus are a truly great warrior tribes people, and iam also proud that my fellow Welshmen fought so bravely against thease also proud Zulus. but witch ever way you look at it we didn't belong there the Zulus were only defending their ancient homeland . and so to all Zulu tribesmen outthere us Welshmen respect our fellow braves.
there were only 32 welshmen confirmed to have been present at rorke's drift, the largest presence was by far englishmen. the soldiers were from the 1st battalion of the 24th regiment of foot, which also had some irishmen and at least one scotsman present at the time. it was the second battalion of the 24th that was predominantly welsh, and they were not present. the film calls them 'the south wales borderers' which is what their name was changed to two years after rorke's drift.
Craig Beavan
What a beautiful thing to say, mate!! Thanks
Not true. The Zulus had invaded Natal
for the battle of rorkes drift zulu actually invaded natal also Zulus actually destroyed other tribes and took their land before their war with the British :)
I told them not to blow the bloody doors off.
On a side note history forgets that the Zulu's destroyed whole villages and impaled the inhabitants if they refused to accept the Zulu king
+mozzy747 Also the Zulu King recently came out and said he would like to see the return of Apartheid because the Brits were reasonable rulers and tended to let the Zulu govern themselves with more autonomy.
DINDRAGON
Zulu have great respect for the Afrikaner whites, of all Africans i would say the Zulu have the greatest sense of honor.
Every side of war has many shades, history and the people involved in it are never black and white.
""they had the basic sense of honor of warrior cultures""
Did that honor include butchering camp cooks, drummer boys, pet dogs and all the horses tied up to pickets?
Plus the zulus never saluted them in real life. They only left when they spotted a relief army approaching. And shortly afterwards they were pursued and eliminated by the british.
Maybe Tom Jones the Welshman could of led the Brit singing call to arms...'it's not unusual'
The ZULUS are quite honorable people
But not in the U.S.
Remember these are the survivors of islandwana they had to stay here. It started when a fighter from Zulu saw the British stalking and the whole Zulu army attacked their camp In islandwana
Wheres this again, Brixton?
Stanley Baker really did it here for me as leading officer, even though this is the first important picture for Michael Caine.
Excellant movie !
How to take an L, and still look badass as hell doing it.
Great movie.
Wonder why in the film you never see that Dutch bloke kill any zulus? In fact you don't see him at all when there's any fighting? Is there a reason for this? Did he hide in a tree perhaps? Could anyone give me a clue?
Everyone was trying to dominate the world! The British get so much stick only because we were better at it than anyone else! Think about it before you reply.
echoes of brittanias rule magnificent Zulus and the British army
Good show Brian, ripping!! God save the Queen! New Zealand Bob.
One of the greatest movies ever made i never did get it who played the bridgeengeneur
The glory of the Red Coat. My god they fought like many of us would never. God Save the Red Coat. God Save the Queen.
Rule Britannia
You got that right mate, God save the Queen, (Elizabeth) New Zealand Bob.
@@bobmalack481 Amen to that.
And at the end of it all "WELSHMEN NEVER YIELD"
I hope that is true for these great men may be needed in the future..Welsh Grandmother
But the reality is that most of the soldiers were actually from the 24th Warwickshire regiment. So unfortunately it was Englishmen that never yield......!!!!!!
meant to read.... 'unfortunately for you Mr Sky Blue'
Born in Warwickshire.But I believe Welshmen never yield. Tamworth 1964
@@micktaylor9838 - if it was a Warwickshire regiment, perhaps it should be Brummies never yield!
Still chilling.
Bing
THIS is racial equality done right.
one. of. great. battles. fought. by. england. 1879. united. kingdm. was. truley a. great. empire in1700s. to. 1l948.
A thieving nation with no respect !!!!
Ken Joseph why are you whining just because your beloved continent Africa has had no empire
Actually Bobby, Egypt was an Empire, Ethiopia was an Empire for quite a long time and the Zulu's had their Empire for a while.
Killed more than nazi Germany, the soviet union or maoist china. This is not great. This is barbaric. Gey your morals straight.
Actually frank it was mostly Welsh and not the english in that battle. Men of Harlech is a Welsh song, read a history book or actually watch the film and ud know this.
Need this in Springfield Oh
Both sides were well dressed.
i love the politics expressed on both sides. blind, to the horrific reality of war.Taking offence and credit to actions they had no part in.
those who live in a world where you can make coments on a youtube video, i think you need to check your privallage.
Oh, you have to expect statements that you will disagree with. I’ve always been interested in history, military history too. Even did 8 yrs in the Army to see what it was like. I’m an old guy, most here are younger. I didn’t grow up with PC’s. I read a lot, a whole lot. Starting with Herodotus, Plutarch etc. Herodotus was often called the Father of History. The point I am making is that without history we are surely doomed to keep making the same mistakes. I’ve seen it happen many times in my 65 years. I’ve seen a small misstep turn into a huge problem that we are still paying for. These small mistakes started out as a meaning of goodwill and led to war. I bet none of these leaders and advisors opened a book on Foreign Policy. So ya see, I have gripes too, buddy. Good luck mate...
So many Zulu left on the field .
Over 300 killed and 500 wounded i believe The Fort lost 17
I suppose we would have treated them the same way if they came over to our place.
Is Africa happier and better off without the British Empire? The Cairo to Capetown railroad helped or hurt Africans, for example?
+13 Tooth Honestly if you compare Africa to places where the british ruled longer it's clear they would have benefitted from a longer colonial tenure. Colonialists build infrastructure and Africa, outside a few parts like Nigeria and South Africa, has very little. but self determination is important too, and at any rate britain had no ability to maintain its empire any longer.
13 Tooth its the " what did the romans ever do for us?" sort of thing.
if you play that game and go back and back you will just end up to the conclusion that we are all africans.
Crazy Wolfgang
Crazy Wolfgang peter sellers fart in the lift
No right to go there. I can't believe I've witnessed these comments
In battle the wounded usually outnumber the killed by a ratio of 2 or 3 to one though out history. The British mention the number of Zulus they believe died here. However they do not record the number of captured wounded , wonder why? they killed the wounded .
And ?
Shane Bairstow well judging how, at islandawana the British wounded were killed, 1500 men killed, out of all infantry companies, not one man of them lived. With the bodies being stripped and mutilated. I'd be pretty pissed off
Yes they killed the Zulu wounded, just as the Zulus massacred everything at Isandlwana. The British at Rorke's Drift were in no mood to spare Zulu wounded after they saw how the Zulus tortured and killed their own men at Rorke's Drift.
Poor Williams, Horrigan, Adams and Hayden were found horribly mutilated. The majority of Zulu wounded were suffering majorly and couldn't even move away from the battlefield so they were put out of their misery. The lighter injured wounded Zulus were not on the battlefield. They got away. Only the severely wounded remained and it was better for them to be dispatched. There was no butchering, no mutilation and no torture of Zulu wounded.
+Shane Bairstow Killing the injured was exactly what the Zulus did at Islawanda. Pretty common practice then, on all battle fields.
There are reports from British field surgeons who treated wounded Zulus after this and other battles, most didn't make it, that's not particularly surprising given the state of medical science in those days. It's also not surprising considering that the Martini Henry was one of the most powerful military rifles in the world at that time, its huge 405gr .45 caliber bullets created devastating wounds.
Yeah! Come to my home!
If Mel Gibson directed this, 1 Zulu warrior would run into the camp and kill 10 British then run back out again.
Spot on mate!!!
Gibson is so anti British???
@@jimpaul5925 - I think his parents were from Ireland (and I think he holds Irish citizenship), so perhaps it stems from that. I vaguely remember that he was actually born in the US but moved to Australia when he was young.
How did the same Zulus hold off and defeat at the Battle of isandlwana with a lot more British soldiers but they lost at rorke's drift to over a hundred something's wrong with this
Tactics, at Islwanda they used small spread out groups and hit and fade tactics, at Roarks Drift the literally charged straight at the British guns.
The Zulu impis at Rourke's drift defied their officers' orders and rushed the British positions. Very little about this movie is accurate; I suggest you go to the library and read some history.
Achmed Hurt .. one is a simple tool used to open ammunition cases at Ishlanduwana. Two is military tactics at Rorkes Drift.
With all respect, friends. You are all mistaken. The Zulu’s that attacked the drift did not fight at Iswaldonda! The Zulu that attacked the drift were the old reserves, I think 6,000.? They watched the victory over the Brits and against the Zulu King’s orders decided to march against the drift to get their own glory. They were fresh impi troops. And almost squeezed out a victory being old seasoned killers.
If the Zulu impis that fought at Isladuwanda turned on Rourkes Drift the English would have been easily overrun by sheer numbers alone.
Sorry for the misspelling of Iswaladuanda...ugh. I don’t have my Zulu books in front of me.
T Hitsugaya,
Hello, Also don’t forget that the Zulu’s used what they called “the Bull’s Head” in most of their tactics. The Head would fix the enemy in place and the horns would encircle or flank. I don’t really see that tactic against the Brits. It probably was only used out in the Great Plains attacking other tribes. But you do see it in later wars. The Germans used it to great effect on the Russian plains. The US Army uses it today called “Fix and Flank”. Don’t get me wrong, You are correct in your assessment of the tactics on that day. I don’t see how the Bulls Head could work at the Drift.
The British went on to follow there enemy home and decimate the zulu nation
Is that so? How come Chief Buthalashi with the consent of the zulu king allowed the film to take place in Natal when they decimated their people in history? Dont see any logic in your statement, considering the Zulu are doing quite well as a nation.
@@johncusick5023 The zulu king did a deal with the british to prevent the whole sale slaughter of the zulu's
Do you ever do any research ??
People have to remember this film is mostly fiction, only small parts have any element of truth, having read many books on the Zulu wars this film portrays Zulu warriors in completely the wrong light, these brave warriors were tactically very astute and far superior to the British infantry in many ways.
If you're interested in how accurate this movie is historically I highly recommend "History Buffs". ua-cam.com/video/VygWpmwBO8M/v-deo.html
10.5 on the spinchter factor meter.
this is not historically accurate but it is good entertainment
Special Android The victors get to write the history books.
Doug Pfeiffer, show me where that is a historical axiom? I’ve always wondered. That may have had validity in some ancient times. I agree. And I have a book called Caesar and the Gauls about the battle of Alesia and their are no records from the Gauls. So you are right until everyone could write. For example everyone knows about the Revolutionary War from both sides and the histories agree. Same thing with the Civil War which is a Great War to study because you get both sides view. We all know how Lee lost at Gettysburg as told from the losing side, from Lee, his generals and letters, diaries from his troops.So only the victors get to write the history is incorrect.
What war film is Historically accurate they All change facts
It's accurate enough for a movie, get over it, Robert at 69.
Gg
Briliant shme stanly baker died at 49
Extremely inaccurate but a great movie nonetheless.
Yeah they only killed about 400 zulus i think and lost 17 or so of their own but thats hollyw$$d
Not EXTREMELY inaccurate, a few parts were enhanced, or minor INCONSIQWENTIAL parts were added. All in all, a fairly accurate portrayal, get over it.
Такая масса местногт населения от англичан ничего бы неосталось
I don't understand what's going on
Your a Millinial, that explains it.
I don't understand why you don't understand..I'm confused..
Sorry wales you got great singer's but you can't beat 12.000 zulus
Well, we got/had Tom Jones, isn't that enough? It's not unusual..
The final 'salute' never occurred during the battle.
How d'ya know, were you there? Where's the proof? Doe's it really matter? A great film all in all.
@@bobmalack481 I agree with you that it was a great movie; however, like many movies, directors and writers like to "add" fiction for more excitement. Another fact: there was no final battle - the Zulus dispersed, seeing the relief column heading towards the Drift.
So scary
Where are the women. :P
who cares
At home, where they should be.
They didn't fight in the battle
純粋すぎるよ、ズールー族・・・確かに勝ったんだろうけど
その後、英国の情け容赦無い反撃が待っているのに・・・
アイヌと同じくらい純粋すぎるよ・・・
Yep, Samurai blades would have been as effective as the bullet.
Too much Wang Chung here..
TRYING BOTH RIGHT NOW UK EYES AND ABDUCTION THOUGH I REALLY DONT BELIEVE E WILL OK
Eh..What??
Zulus to Africa, is equal to the Spatans in Greece.
Terry Dixon You could also say that this battle was similar to a British Thermopylae.
@@ms1535 Except they won (I'm Greek-Canadian btw, and I hate the mockery that is 300).
Konstantinos Nikolakakis;
I agree with you, buddy.
The first books I read were Herodotus and Thucydides. Must reads for Spartan history. Yeah, I’m not fond of the comic book movie either. I see similarities between the Spartans and Brits. The Brit last stand was like a tight Spartan phalanx. And they would of died like Spartan’s. “ We few, we brave few; We band of brothers.”
Personally, I think they’re closer to the Roman Legionnaire because of their battle tactics, formations and fighting style. Nonetheless, the Zulu warrior was a fierce combatant.
my tribute to flight attendants amy sweeny betty ong sarah low for service to the usa on 911
WTF!..whats a sweaty bing bong booey thing 'yer talkin about?..LOL!!
I don't think this happened in reality ???
It did there was a major battle not long before in which a whole British regiment was decimated
The Battle of Rorke's Drift happened on 22 January 1879. The same day, the British lost at Isandlwana. Part of the Zulu army broke off from the main force to attack Rorke's Drift, where the British won. The film isn't completely accurate, but the battle did happen.
I think your too young to grasp reallity, Robert at 69
who dares wins Rodders
What is wins rodders?.. spending too much time at the pub.
We
DID NOT HAPPEN!
+Andy Revell It may not be true to the actual story, but it's still a badass scene!
How do you know? We're ya there?
+Mushroom gamehouse by that logic, you can't know World War 2 happened because you weren't there
oh no a movie that took liberties; end of the world.
The producers of this movie took more liberties than the two elderly daughters of Henry Hook could accept. They both walked out of an advance screening of it, outraged at how their father, who had actually been a model soldier and not the goldbricking "insubordinate barracks room lawyer" Bromhead describes him as and James Booth portrays him as, had been portrayed.
so far from reality tho
How so? Explain precisely how it is 'inaccurate'. It IS a movie, but inform us with the historicle facts, lets here it, we will wait for your responce..Robert at 69.
P
Soccer
such a rascist film,how could they
Racist? History it really happened
Foolish comment it was a real event
Its probbly one of least Racist films, and still stands up today.
Made with full Zulu support.
How can it be racist when the Zulus were treated as respectfully as the British in the film????
Dovevano finirli .