Only about 1,400 British and 500 Colonial soldiers were killed during the entire Zulu War. The Zulu lost a far greater number of warriors, estimated at 10,000+, true figures are difficult as many wounded were remove from the battlefield to die later and of course the Zulu kept no records. Sadly the Zulu War was instigated by local politiceans and not the Government in London.
Government in London still profited from exploitation, plus who appointed the "local politicians". Can't be claiming no responsibility 150 years later.
@@Kruppt808All Colonial powers exploited Africa, compared to some British rule was relatively peaceful. The Germans killed 100,000 tribesmen in South West Africa in only 4 years. In 19 years Belgians killed between 5 and 10 Million in the Congo. Italy killed 150.000 in Libya and East Africa. Not including famine and natural disasters.
@@billballbuster7186 So what you are saying is because of other colonial powers killing local inhabitants in order to plunder their resources it is a valid excuse for brits. to do the same? Brits then and now claim to be "great Britain" ???? Great pirates and plunderers yes. When you claim to be better and "greater" you should act accordingly. Why mention famine and natural disasters, does not belong here.
@@billballbuster7186 This one here is dealing with brit government, dont point a finger/s in other directions in a attempt to mitigate invasion, murder, plunder and all the rest! BTW this force plus, was directly from the Eastern Cape/Transkei where brit government had been waging ONE HUNDRED years war on the Xhosa people. Combine them all and then see the picture.
Nonsense! The devious brit government was responsible. Local politicians and the London missionary society were agents of the brit government. If one were to consider your statement having any creditably, they then did the brit government not rectify the situation? No, instead they took King Cetewayo to England for three years to bedazzle him and farm his brain!
Rorke's Drift had a defensive position, 150 determined British defender's! 4000 Zulu warrior's, british lost 17 K.I.A.! Zulu's 600+ K.I.A.! the importance of defensive position! Isandlwana was in the open, better for Zulu bullhorn's!
Ironic that the type of rifle used by the Britsh troops was of the same or similar vintage as the rifle supposedly used by Lee Harvey Oswald , fifty or so odd years later!
@@johnstoddard4692Not even remotely similar Martini Henry had a powder cartridge under lever loading not bolt , so where is the similarity other than being a rifle?
The Zulut did not fight for any 'fatherland'. They were similar to imperialists as the British. Zulut had wandered south of Central Africa from the early 19th century, subjugating other tribes. It was only the whites that this terrorism was under control of the group.
There was no Zulu nation at the time of the Bantu expansion from central Africa. It formed centuries later. Most of King Shaka's wars were wars of consolidation and nation-building. Nearly all the battles he fought were between clans of the same ethnic group (the northern Nguni) to decide who was boss among them. The closest analogy to the British is the Anglo-Saxon kingdoms fighting each other until they became united as "England".
Aha ! Good to talk about this and create balance , so few people discuss the genocide of the Xhosa nation in and around the borders of natal , it's was by all accounts horrific , Shaka Zulu could have killed and displaced up to a million people alone
I have visited Isandlwana, and it was not a place I would have chosen as a defensible position. Lord Chelmsford was strategically inept for doing so. Given a better position from which to fight, the result may have been rather different, just as it was at Rourke's Drift. Zulu tactics were ideally suited to Isandlwana where overwhelming force in hand to hand fighting in open terrain was used to very good effect, though I will make the observation that the Zulus are not the large, muscular warriors popularly portrayed on film - they tend to be small and wiry. The many Zulu men I met were about the same size as a fourteen or fifteen year old boy, so one on one would not be a match for the typically rather more robust and better fed Victorian soldier. Chelmsford's assumption that the Zulus would offer the same level of opposition he had encountered when fighting against the Xhosa set the path to this defeat. After the subsequent victory at Ulundi, he never again took field command. This period saw the beginning of the end of the British military tactics from the era of Waterloo and Crimea. The subsequent stern lessons learned at great cost during the Boer wars led to long overdue reforms.
The british had realized that the tactics of napoleon and Crimea were vastly inferior to new weapons. The American Civil War showed them what would happen using those tactics. I personally feel it was the ineptitude of the british officer Corps that was their undoing. Yes, islandlwana was a bad place to defend. Yet when you aren't even set up to defend it from an enemy that is fluid and fast moving falls on the officers . The supply wagon debacle showed the same mentality.
I beg to differ. You cannot compare a 20th or 21st Zulu with his relatives back in the 1870's. They led a much harder life then, and they were a warrior society- anybody raised in that Spartan like society would have been very tough physically and very fit- a formidable opponent in close combat.
Was it Chelmsford who chose it? Or the commander on the scene? I understand Chelmsford was else where in that area of operations and not close to the battle site.
@@JD0124 The Zulu lost between 4-5 ,000 Warriors at Isandlwana and Rorkes Drift in one day! The battle does not seem such a great victory when you see the price. Cetshwayo the Zulu king called the day "a spear through the heart of the nation' but this is seldom quoted.
The day was lost because- *The firing line(s) were over extended and too far away from the camp *Colonel Durnfords newly arrived column should not have left in the camp *The ammunition was available, but there were issues getting it to the men in their formations Capt. Penn Symons of the 2/24th, who, at the time of the battle, was with Chelmsford's column, took it upon himself, immediately after the battle, whilst at Rorkes Drift, to interview and collate evidence. His report was later passed on to Horse Guards and Queen Victoria. He wrote The reserve ammunition was in the wagons, at the nearest point 5oo yards to the rear. Every available man was in the ranks and there were absolutely no arrangements whatsoever for bringing it up to them
Yes. And I have a hunch that the British had to fire too many shots. They'd never been in a battle where they'd have to fire continuously over and over again. That would overheat the weapon. The smoke from the excessive shots might have obscured their aim.
There were 12 -16 3" Screws in very strong wooden Ammo boxes and only a Few screwdrivers . Half the screwheads snapped ... The battle was lost due to Ammo Boxes .
@@MondoBeno I agree. At Rorke's Drift about 351 Zulus were dead on the battlefield and approximately 500 wounded. Given an excellent defensive position from behind which the long reach of the bayonet accounted for many, it is amazing that of the 20,000 rounds of ammunition available, 19,000 were expended by the hundred fit men. Chard was aware that he had insufficient ammunition for any further attacks which luckily for the Brits did not come.
Chelmsford never once got his boots dirty. Rich men like him sometimes financed their own regiments. Lord cardigan of the Light Brigade folly was a perfect example. The ranks of chinless wonders that filled the ranks of the Officer class came in handy in the 1st WW, as Bullitt stoppers. Half way through that war it became necessary to promote Officers up from the ranks. This was the beginning of caring commanders men cared about the men under their command.
Indeed…let’s also remember most if not all officers in those days bought their place in the army they didn’t earn their rank by dint of ability or experience, the same as they bought their place in university and their degree’s. A bunch of incompetent but rich men.
You are correct about the negative aspects of the 19th century practise of people buying commissions. However, you are completely wrong about 'chinless wonders' in WW1. The vast majority of infantry officers in line regiments gave good service. My paternal grandfather served in the Royal Lancashire Regt- which became the King's Own Royal Border Regt subsequently. He told my father that the Toms generally had a great deal of respect and regard for their platoon commanders. When they were killed, it usually came as a major blow to morale. He recounted to my father how the death of one PC, "Left the lads devastated." He himself was a Grammar school boy. His battalion was paraded at one point and the command. "Would all Grammar school educated men take a step forward!" They were then TOLD that they would be going on a commissioning course. My GF didn't make the course, he was injured by shrapnel from a 5.9 inch that landed in a school yard in Ypres. My GF was no more than 30 yards away from the impact, and the blast picked him up and dashed him against the school building. He was wearing his steel lid, which saved his life, the force of the impact against the wall bent his helmet. He was evacuated to Blighty, and subsequently graded unfit for further service on the western front. He was posted ot Kilmainham gaol in Dublin as part of the garrison.
I served in the Aussie Army for over twenty years, and officers from the ranks usually made effective officers though I have not heard of one in my time who made it above Lt Col.
The Punch Magazine cartoon of 1st March 1879 shows a Zulu warrior writing on a blackboard with a British politician sitting on a stool watching as the Zulu writes "Despise Not Your Enemy"
Zulus were just as brutal as any body in Africa their leader Chuka Zulu slaughtered 1.5 million fellow Africans now ther're naming an airport after him...
@@kenmay1572 They did when they returned a few months later for round two of the Anglo/ Zulu war > Chelmsford's main column > 2 cavalry regiments (the King’s Dragoon Guards and the 17th Lancers) ! five batteries of artillery 2x Gatling guns 1,000 regular cavalry. 9,000 regular infantry and a further 7,000 men with 24 guns. Google: the battle of Ulundi .
@@kenmay1572 If they had listened to the boer wagon master to laager the wagons into a large circle , he actually pleaded with them but it fell on deaf ears , I read he took his bedroll and camped well away from isandlwana , the Boer's knew very well what the Zulu were capable off !
@@sheepsfoot2 you saw that in the film😂 The facts are - men spaced to far apart in a line, guns Jammed because of carbon build up plus dodgy copper bent bullets and Zulus ran through the gaps. Them spears didn't need reloading did they.😂 But yes maybe if the wagons were circled or whatever they might have lasted half hour longer before being encircled. The ground favoured the Zulu's.
A huge underestimation of the Zulu power, however, future conflicts went as expected. Spears can never defeat repeating rifles and established tactics. Sadly, it was a bloodbath after this battle.
A lot of the British troops being attacked , were hampered by their own Ammunition boxes , they were of thick wood and about 12 -16 3" screws , that half the time screw heads snapped or broke , and the Quartermaster had 1 or 3 screwdrivers . Once under close attack , the Soldiers had to use Rifle butts to smash open the strong boxs , bare in mind the Soldier did this as the very very last resort , as he had to pay for any damages to his Kit . .... Now just imagine under attack , allowing 1 minute per screw , probably took 12 - 20 min per box .
Not taking any prisoners in that particular battle lead to Britain not taking prisoners for the rest of the war. Many retreating Zulus got cut down by calvary. The British did treat the King Shaka Zulu with respect, he was twice exiled and twice forgiven for rebellions, I believe he eventually lived out his days in London
Shaka Zulu died in 1828. 50 years prior to the Anglo/Zulu war. He built the Zulu tribe into the dominant force in that region of the African continent.
5:17 Chelmsford made several critical errors. Dividing your for es and not establishing a defensive position. Last error not returning to reenforce Iswalanda.
This wasn't a fair battle. You don't bring a knife to a gun fight. The British fought behind their guns & canons. The zulus fought vigorously with courage and valor. Sacrificing their numbers to reach the enemy. They have my respect because I wouldnve did it.
The zulus fought vigorously with courage and valor ? They were annihilated By Brains against Braun ! This is why these people have never contributed to mankind. They are basically talking animals.
Zulus should have chosen the battleground and it would have been another Isandlwana. Spears against batteries of artillery, rockets and Gatling guns and cavalry, no great achievement.
Nope. 50% were not black levees. Out of the 1500 men wiped out at Isandlwana, 800+ were regular British infantry soldiers, then there white colonial militia, Natal police, and then the rest were levees- probably 2-300 in total.
Those Zulus were brave warriors. Much respect to them as a people who were defending their homeland. I think black culture and white culture will always have conflict. It's worse in the USA now than ever. Obama could have done so much, instead it was a wasted opportunity. He's done fine for himself, that's for sure. I miss the Chicago that was.
Not so much “homeland” as their “territory.” Like the large swaths of territory taken by the Comanches from other Indians as well as Europeans on the South Plains of the United States. Except that the Comanches were light cavalry unequaled by their opponents until their numbers were finally worn down and their pony herds destroyed.
@johnschuh8616 - people aren't bothered about such facts nowadays 😉 Easier to believe all white is bad and everything else is good ... And still think you're a the 'good guy'.
They built the modern world, including this internet thingie that you are using to complain about them. Their world has no widespread famine and the people of earth are richer than they have ever been under the hegemony of any other nation or ethnic group. Yes, we still have government induced famines, but none due to the failure of the harvests.
@@odysseus2656 I know, it's like complaining about the laws of biology or the right of the strongest. When they were the biggest boy in the yard, they bullied everyone around. Yes, you are right that they gave the world a lot but at the same time took away a lot. Remember the beginning of the Russian invasion of Ukraine? There was a peace proposal on the table. Ukrainians didn't intend to go to a full-scale war with their powerful neighbor. Enter Boris Johnson who put the foot in the door and effectively shut down any hope of peace. Sure enough, the US-led NATO initiated the conflict, but you can't deny the role of the UK in stirring it up. Two years later, Ukraine is in ruins, Europe pays heavy toll for energy price and consumption, inflation and economic slowdown, defense costs and refugee impact, while Russia is in no position to lose. Still wonder why many call the UK the Evil Empire?
Its a common misconception that the Zulu were only armed with spear and club in fact the Zulu had been buying up firearms for over a decade they had many rifled muskets and although slower to load than the Henry Martini were still very accurate upto 200 yards but the lack of training meant the Zulu were poor shots.
2:00.."the mist lifted and the Advance Guard were able to capture an armed Zulu and some Cattle..." A Zulu Herdsman guarding his Family's prized possession, their wealth, Tribal status, trading leverage, Daughters Dowry, sustenance, their lives revolve around their assets, their Cattle. The Zulu Herdsman would defend all that with his life, it's why he carries a Spear, they always have. Then, the British in all their brilliant, ignorant-arrogance, decide that the only way of understanding the Zulu, is by deeming him a threat. The Zulus were already aware of the British, there would be eyes on them constantly. Taking out the Zulu Herdsman had no value whatsoever, but his Family would suffer greatly.
If we are talking Boxoffice, the British low budget movie ZULU was a smash hit, one of the greatest of all time, running for 12 years in the cinema. It was a true inspiring tale of 120 British soldiers defeating 4,000 savage Zulu against all the odds. The American movie Zulu Dawn was a big budget production with an all star cast. But based on the battle of Isandlwana, the story of 25.000 Zulu overrunning 1,200 British and Colonials, did not have the same public sence of heroism, it was a outcome you would expect. The movie was a flop. a boxoffice disaster that never recouped production costs. The star, Burt Lancaster, had to be paid out of the producers own pocket!
@@hannah1943 It was a British made in 1964 with budget of only 655,000 Pounds. It made over 10 Million initial boxoffice, more with home media entertainment
@@billballbuster7186 In 1964 £655,000 was worth $1.6M, as there were no sets or CGI to pay for and no over paid Americans, I wouldn't think it was low budget. It sounds more like the usual American down-playing anything not "Made In U.S.A". The "star" of Zulu dawn was Burt Lancaster who portrayed Durnsford who was blamed in place of Victoria's friend Chelmsford. Zulu had notable actors such as Jack Hawkins, Stanley Baker and Nigel Green.
@@photoisca7386 Cost is a matter of opinion I think. I don't know about Durnford getting blamed, most of what I have read Chelmsford is the villain of the piece, though the Zulu victory was greatly over exaggerated, it was the baggage train and not the main army. Zulu Dawn cost 12 Million, expensive for a piece of pro-Zulu propaganda. and a total flop ar the boxoffice.
"Charlton Heston" was not in "zulu dawn' numb nuts !!!! the name you're looking for is burt lancaster. you should learn to get your facts straight before running that yap of yours. citing wrong actors and quoting bulls**t budget amounts is no way to enter the conversation !!!!!!
For goodness sake.... stop using predictive text to support the oral presentation. It is rubbish as it stands, and detracts from an otherwise decent, factual story. ALWAYS check before you publish!!
To be fair the much smaller British force may have fallen to a far, far larger force of Girl Scouts with spears. Could 100 Navy Seals make a stand against 10,000 armed women? I'm just saying that this Zulu victory wasn't impressive at all.
The main objective of this war was to ensure there was no alliance between Boer and Zulu in perpetration for the Brit invasion of the Transvaal. It did not work or help the Brits less than a year later at the outbreak of the first Anglo Boer war. If the Boer and Zulu alliance existed during the second Boer would it was have meant utter devastation of Brit forces in no time at all.
Watching half naked men with a flimsy non bullet proof shield charging towards a bunch of soldiers with high powered rifles is sickening to contemplate.
Rifles? Yes the soldiers did have rifles, BUT the Zulu faced banks of artillery, machine guns and rocket batteries, that is what defeated the Zulu, not soldiers with rifles.
@@davethorstry6700 Explain the use of the term 'banks' please. From my understanding there were very limited amounts of artillery and a few Gatling guns available, as it all had to be shipped out and dragged across the area of campaign. The rifleman would of been the majority of British forces by far. I believe you are exagerrating greatly.
@@jimbo5973 Your understanding is poor and not well informed. Banks/Batteries. "Everything" had to be shipped out, so what? "Dragged across area of campaign". So what, that was and is done in all wars. In all the comments here it is inferred that the Brit soldiers outfought the Zulu, The Zulus could not get near them for hand to hand, they were cut down by all that artillery etc, and were safe in their "square". Here are a few extracts from various reports. Google and research yourself. Lastly there in no greater exaggerator than a Brit. Excuses, embellishments and outright lies. If the Zulus had let Brits come to them and even with their red line they would have perished as they did at Isandlawana. War tactics are just that but keep the fact right. Chelmsford would have to utilize a number of troops that could be sustained in the field.[8] In the event, for his main column, he fielded two cavalry regiments, five batteries of artillery and 12 infantry battalions, amounting to 1,000 regular cavalry, 9,000 regular infantry and a further 7,000 men with 24 guns, including the first ever British Army Gatling gun battery.[9]The lumbering supply train consisted of 600 wagons, 8,000 oxen and 1,000 mules As the cavalry cleared their front at about 9 a.m., the four ranks of the infantry with the front two kneeling, opened fire at 2,000 yards into the advancing Zulu ranks. The pace of the advance quickened and the range closed between the British lines and the Zulus. The British were ready and the Zulu troops faced concentrated fire. Zulu regiments had to charge forward directly into massed rifle fire, non-stop fire from the Gatling guns and the artillery firing canister shot at point-blank range. Charges were made by the Zulus, in an attempt to get within close range, but they could not prevail against the British fire. There were a number of casualties within the square to Zulu marksmen, but the British firing did not waver and no warrior was able to get within 30 yards of the British ranks. The Zulu reserve force now rose and charged against the south-west corner of the square. Nine-pounders tore great chunks out of this body while the infantry opened fire. The speed of the charge made it seem as if the Zulu reserves would get close enough to engage in hand-to-hand combat but no warrior reached the British ranks. After half an hour of concentrated fire from the artillery, the Gatling Guns and thousands of British riflemen, the Zulu military power was broken. British casualties were ten killed and eighty-seven wounded, while nearly five hundred Zulu dead were counted around the square;[18] another 1,000 or more were wounded. This is from Isandlwana. Also, there were some irregular colonial cavalry units, and a detachment of artillery consisting of six field guns and several Congreve rockets.
@@davethorstry6700 You make my point for me. '24 guns' among and army of approx 20 000 spread across various formations, is indeed very few as I previously claimed. Just look at the numbers used in prior European wars. You mention 'thousands' of riflemen opening fire at point blank range. What do you think did most of the killing?The riflemen obviously, the occasions infantry formations failed against more numerous, lesser armed foes was when formation was broken, outflanked or ammunition ran out. The square is reknowned as a solid formation against any force that does not have artillery itself to defeat it. Artillery used in these numbers would be more of a terror weapon and a form of harrasment than the main killing blow of an Army. I misunderstand nothing. Southern Africa was a far flung part of the Empire at the time and supplies in the field were a continual issue. The riflemen was the essential unit.
Won a battle or two but lost the war. Then the Zulu chef was taken to England, spent rest of his life there. When he died we sent him back and he was buried with full honours in Zulu land under a huge tree.
@@d.i.l.l.i.g.a.f.594 Just where did you learn your history? LOL! The Zulu King Cetewayo was first exiled to Cape town, Then he was taken to England for THREE YEARS, not the rest of his life!! He was taken there to bedazzle him and farm his brain so that when he returned to SA and his tribe there would be no chance of an allegiance between Zulu and Boer, that was what it was all about for as a short five months after Ulundi, with the same force and more, they attempted the same tactics on the Boer farmers and were soundly thrashed in four encounters and no less than four major battles over a mere three months! Brits were that terrified of Boer and Zulu. Cetewayo was used to influence Zulus for the future and turn them against the Boer.
This has to be one of the most idiotic comment I’ve read in a long time. Complaining about pictures lol. Look up some of the people who made this. Top notch historians everyone.
This geographic location and all of its history is the subject of my current private studies . Im wringing out accessible libraries and archives n struggling to find anything i have not read yet. I picked up on something which i cannot mention yet, a hint here and there leaves me without a doubt that another player was involved but never mentioned, and watching how things played out afterwards and up until today that presence still pulls many strings.
@@memento_mori6454 Africans have been ALL OVER the continent since ancient times. Pick up "The Men of Nubia" or ANY other book that deals with ancient African civilization. They were even in Asia, centuries before Europeans, long before the industrial era.
No one can dispute the courage of both sides. But we should remember that it was the British and the Dutch who invaded Zulu land, pushing their country back smaller and smaller. The Zulu fought for freedom, the Dutch and British for self gain.
The Zulu were invaders themselves. Most of South Africa was inhabited by various Khoisan tribes until just a thousand or so years ago. The Zulu were pastoralists and the Khoisan were hunter gatherers. They mix like oil and water. The Zulu committed mass genocide against the Khoisan. Their empire was built by conquest of weaker tribes. Zulu are Bantu speakers whose homeland is Central Africa. The path of Bantu migrations is marked by total genetic replacement of the Pygmy and Khoisan tribes who were once the majority. Today, Pygmies make up about 2% of the population. The Khoisan have been pushed to the most inhospitable land such as the Kalahari Desert. The Zulu were fighting for their empire built off of their conquests of other Africans. The Zulu way of life wasn't sustainable. Nobody was left for them to conquer. It's much the same with the American Indian tribes such as the Comanches, who built their empire by raiding. It wasn't sustainable.
I beg to differ but while the Dutch Boers may well have fought for land, the average British redcoat can hardly be accused of fighting for "self gain". he fought because he was a professional soldier under orders at that place and time. The people who stood to gain are rarely if ever in harms way.
Zulu fought for their empire, not for freedom. Zulu kingdom was a feudal, imperialistic, aggressive, patriarchal state. Hated by the sorrounding african power. Cut the crap, please.
I have no experience in the military but it seems common sense that every soldier should have been loaded up with as much ammunition as they could possibly carry before the battle started rather than just the standard issue 40 rounds. 1,800 British soldiers times 100 rounds each would have been 180,000 shots! That would mean 9 shots at every Zulu and would have been more than enough to take down all 20,000 warriors. I have read that the British camp had a supply of 500,000 rounds to fit the British rifles but never got the ammunition distributed once the battle started. Just saying.
...consider the rifle (Martini Henry single shot) and especially the gunpowder used (old time black powder). I submit even if each and every soldier had piles of ammo, within easy access - most of the rifles would have jammed solid from unburnt powder after a while anyway. For a soldier to fix that requires disassembling and cleaning the rifle - imagine having to do THAT in a fire-fight? Black powder leaves a huge mess inside the rifle once touched off, a mess that quickly jams the rifle if not completely cleaned off. Now imagine being required to fire the rifle repeatedly while fighting for your life! ... The mess created by firing thousands of rounds of the ammo of the period, never seems to get mentioned during analysis of the battle - but it would have been a major hindrance to the British nevertheless. The mess inside the Brit's rifles would have hindered if not stopped them from fighting, just as much as a shortage of ammunition ultimately did.
@@issimondias WRONG, the British soldiers were wiped out in this battle because they kept running out of ammo on their belts while having a practically unlimited supply stored in the wagons. There is a reason that most countries, including the USA have a civilian in charge of the military...because military officers who come up through the ranks tend to become regimented to blindly follow rules and regulations and often ignore common sense which is exactly what happened in this situation. It doesn't take a military genius to see the problem and simple solution that would have changed the outcome of this battle.
probably the worst subtitles I have ever seen. Apparently the British commander was called 'dartel' and they all went to 'Santana'.... someone clearly didn't give a sh...
They were not a Welsh Regiment;the Regiment was the 24th Regiment of foot manned mainly by English and Irish soldiers.The myth comes from the film "Zulu";a very good film but thoroughly inaccurate in detail.
@@jakethomas3205my mistake, at rourke's drift 49 soldiers out of 122 were english (CELTS win the battle AGAIN for the oppressors !!) At isandlwana 1,200 were english out of aprox. 1,800 (battle lost, obviously not ENOUGH celts!!)
The Zulu King Cetshwayo had ordered his general, Ntshingwayo kaMahole Khoza, not to engage the British at Isandlwana. The king could hardly afford the 5,000 casualties given the total Zulu army strength numbered 40,000 with 29 active regiments The following battle at Rorke’s Drift cost even more soldiers at no strategic gain Poor decision from the military brass
The subtitles were shoddily written with too many splelling mistakes ( 'daggar', 'logger' and 'lagr'for lager ) and an indifference to punctuation, capital letters, and syntax. I assume 'Bullah' was Redvers Buller. Such carelessless with language devalues the historic narrative
They(brits) have big mouths, but when they heard the Germans were coming through the Arden they did not even stick around but hi tailed it for Dunkirk where they hunkered down waiting for any old dingy to get them out of there!
We all make mistakes. Little Big Horn was a bit of an Custer ego thing. Patton had to get across the Rhine first. Mark Clark disobeyed orders from Eisenhower to get to Rome - prioritising his own glory rather than drawing the German divisions away from France. All three put personal glory before ultimate objectives.
What spoils this …….the incessant Zulu chanting while an African,with their difficult accent,is trying to relate their point of view of the battle.Probably spoiled in the final edits.
@@johngaither9263 Wrong. The Boers did have a alliance with the Zulu's earlier. The Brits were terrified of both. A combined force would have annihilated the brits. The war against the Zulu was concocted and to ensure they would not join Boers when the brits attacked Boers just five months later and were thrashed by just the Boer farmers in four battles in a mere three months. Imagine what a combined Boer/Zulu force would have done to them with Boer leadership.
North America as if that is relevant. Try long before those little skirmishes you mentioned. Like medieval times and even before that. War was there long before Europe 2.0 called USA.
Like other colonial expansions by many countries I find it funny that in this one the Brits actually believe they own the Zulu Land and how dare they attack, same as Indonesia, French "Viet Nam" and get their asses handed to them by the plate full. Goes for every. war we have been in, as well as the Roman Empire, they all ended the same, the larger armies lasted a short while but in the end they lost and I have no feelings for thee Brits for their arrogance and never hold in any regard the idea that whether Zulu, Viet Minh, High landers, Germania and Africa are no longer called by the former colonial countries. No French Indochina, no Dutch Indonesia, no with the same as other countries yet here we are thousands of years latter and we are still trying to do the same. Good luck,I spent my time in hell in Viet Nam and know we did not belong there. Sad experience.
Those were not soldiers,most likely low lives wildlife poachers.Its a total diferent game slaughtering a wild creature or another wildcreature that has fingers that can use weapons.
Это загадочны пропагандистский русский язык. Погибли 95% и потери зулусов 90%. А то что проценты это соотношение к общему колличеству пропагандисты не пишут. Для них жизнь - проценты. А то что "англо-саксов" было в десять раз меньше - молчок. Это не выгодно озвучивать. Канал КГ/АМ.
"de se retirer à la hâte de Zululand. Tandis que" ou "de se retirer à la hâte de Zululand, tandis que" ??? La langue se meutre en Moselle et en douceur.
Only about 1,400 British and 500 Colonial soldiers were killed during the entire Zulu War. The Zulu lost a far greater number of warriors, estimated at 10,000+, true figures are difficult as many wounded were remove from the battlefield to die later and of course the Zulu kept no records. Sadly the Zulu War was instigated by local politiceans and not the Government in London.
Government in London still profited from exploitation, plus who appointed the "local politicians". Can't be claiming no responsibility 150 years later.
@@Kruppt808All Colonial powers exploited Africa, compared to some British rule was relatively peaceful. The Germans killed 100,000 tribesmen in South West Africa in only 4 years. In 19 years Belgians killed between 5 and 10 Million in the Congo. Italy killed 150.000 in Libya and East Africa. Not including famine and natural disasters.
@@billballbuster7186 So what you are saying is because of other colonial powers killing local inhabitants in order to plunder their resources it is a valid excuse for brits. to do the same? Brits then and now claim to be "great Britain" ???? Great pirates and plunderers yes. When you claim to be better and "greater" you should act accordingly. Why mention famine and natural disasters, does not belong here.
@@billballbuster7186 This one here is dealing with brit government, dont point a finger/s in other directions in a attempt to mitigate invasion, murder, plunder and all the rest! BTW this force plus, was directly from the Eastern Cape/Transkei where brit government had been waging ONE HUNDRED years war on the Xhosa people. Combine them all and then see the picture.
Nonsense! The devious brit government was responsible. Local politicians and the London missionary society were agents of the brit government. If one were to consider your statement having any creditably, they then did the brit government not rectify the situation? No, instead they took King Cetewayo to England for three years to bedazzle him and farm his brain!
ズールー族は槍と鉄砲に対し役に立たない盾で近代軍のイギリス兵に勇敢に戦った。
これは驚異的な精神力です。ズールーの兵士は驚異的です。尊敬に値する。
Rorke's Drift had a defensive position, 150 determined British defender's! 4000 Zulu warrior's, british lost 17 K.I.A.! Zulu's 600+ K.I.A.! the importance of defensive position! Isandlwana was in the open, better for Zulu bullhorn's!
It was a pyric victory for the Zulus any rate or way considering their losses in Isan
Ironic that the type of rifle used by the Britsh troops was of the same or similar vintage as the rifle supposedly used by Lee Harvey Oswald , fifty or so odd years later!
@@johnstoddard4692Not even remotely similar Martini Henry had a powder cartridge under lever loading not bolt , so where is the similarity other than being a rifle?
Don’t forget Stanley Baxter , without the Sarge they’d have been goners. 🏴👏
Stanley Baker
The Zulut did not fight for any 'fatherland'. They were similar to imperialists as the British. Zulut had wandered south of Central Africa from the early 19th century, subjugating other tribes. It was only the whites that this terrorism was under control of the group.
There was no Zulu nation at the time of the Bantu expansion from central Africa. It formed centuries later. Most of King Shaka's wars were wars of consolidation and nation-building. Nearly all the battles he fought were between clans of the same ethnic group (the northern Nguni) to decide who was boss among them. The closest analogy to the British is the Anglo-Saxon kingdoms fighting each other until they became united as "England".
HAHAHAHAHA "terrorism" with whites but "subjugation" with blacks? STFU
Pish absolutely horse shit the English was murdering all over worse than the Nazis
NADA tenían que hacer en África al igual que ahora.
Aha ! Good to talk about this and create balance , so few people discuss the genocide of the Xhosa nation in and around the borders of natal , it's was by all accounts horrific , Shaka Zulu could have killed and displaced up to a million people alone
I have visited Isandlwana, and it was not a place I would have chosen as a defensible position. Lord Chelmsford was strategically inept for doing so. Given a better position from which to fight, the result may have been rather different, just as it was at Rourke's Drift. Zulu tactics were ideally suited to Isandlwana where overwhelming force in hand to hand fighting in open terrain was used to very good effect, though I will make the observation that the Zulus are not the large, muscular warriors popularly portrayed on film - they tend to be small and wiry. The many Zulu men I met were about the same size as a fourteen or fifteen year old boy, so one on one would not be a match for the typically rather more robust and better fed Victorian soldier.
Chelmsford's assumption that the Zulus would offer the same level of opposition he had encountered when fighting against the Xhosa set the path to this defeat. After the subsequent victory at Ulundi, he never again took field command. This period saw the beginning of the end of the British military tactics from the era of Waterloo and Crimea. The subsequent stern lessons learned at great cost during the Boer wars led to long overdue reforms.
The british had realized that the tactics of napoleon and Crimea were vastly inferior to new weapons. The American Civil War showed them what would happen using those tactics. I personally feel it was the ineptitude of the british officer Corps that was their undoing. Yes, islandlwana was a bad place to defend. Yet when you aren't even set up to defend it from an enemy that is fluid and fast moving falls on the officers . The supply wagon debacle showed the same mentality.
4 v x n c
😂😂,'❤,😂'c😢y
I beg to differ. You cannot compare a 20th or 21st Zulu with his relatives back in the 1870's. They led a much harder life then, and they were a warrior society- anybody raised in that Spartan like society would have been very tough physically and very fit- a formidable opponent in close combat.
Big difference in Zulu numbers at Isandlwana and Rorke's drift.
Was it Chelmsford who chose it? Or the commander on the scene? I understand Chelmsford was else where in that area of operations and not close to the battle site.
Why was the zulu body count said to only be 1000? Historians think it was at least three times and maybe six times that number.
Right. An annihilation of a British force usually cost the Zulu armies at least twice as many lives than the ones they took.
I’ll bell my grandpa when he finishes work and ask him and get back to you later.👍
@@JD0124 The Zulu lost between 4-5 ,000 Warriors at Isandlwana and Rorkes Drift in one day! The battle does not seem such a great victory when you see the price. Cetshwayo the Zulu king called the day "a spear through the heart of the nation' but this is seldom quoted.
The day was lost because-
*The firing line(s) were over extended and too far away from the camp
*Colonel Durnfords newly arrived column should not have left in the camp
*The ammunition was available, but there were issues getting it to the men in their formations
Capt. Penn Symons of the 2/24th, who, at the time of the battle, was with Chelmsford's column, took it upon himself, immediately after the battle, whilst at Rorkes Drift, to interview and collate evidence. His report was later passed on to Horse Guards and Queen Victoria. He wrote The reserve ammunition was in the wagons, at the nearest point 5oo yards to the rear. Every available man was in the ranks and there were absolutely no arrangements whatsoever for bringing it up to them
inexcusable!
Yes. And I have a hunch that the British had to fire too many shots. They'd never been in a battle where they'd have to fire continuously over and over again. That would overheat the weapon. The smoke from the excessive shots might have obscured their aim.
There were 12 -16 3" Screws in very strong wooden Ammo boxes and only a Few screwdrivers . Half the screwheads snapped ... The battle was lost due to Ammo Boxes .
Logistics again.
@@MondoBeno I agree. At Rorke's Drift about 351 Zulus were dead on the battlefield and approximately 500 wounded. Given an excellent defensive position from behind which the long reach of the bayonet accounted for many, it is amazing that of the 20,000 rounds of ammunition available, 19,000 were expended by the hundred fit men. Chard was aware that he had insufficient ammunition for any further attacks which luckily for the Brits did not come.
Chelmsford never once got his boots dirty. Rich men like him sometimes financed their own regiments. Lord cardigan of the Light Brigade folly was a perfect example. The ranks of chinless wonders that filled the ranks of the Officer class came in handy in the 1st WW, as Bullitt stoppers. Half way through that war it became necessary to promote Officers up from the ranks. This was the beginning of caring commanders men cared about the men under their command.
Indeed…let’s also remember most if not all officers in those days bought their place in the army they didn’t earn their rank by dint of ability or experience, the same as they bought their place in university and their degree’s. A bunch of incompetent but rich men.
If only Sharpe's rifles had been there.
You are correct about the negative aspects of the 19th century practise of people buying commissions. However, you are completely wrong about 'chinless wonders' in WW1. The vast majority of infantry officers in line regiments gave good service. My paternal grandfather served in the Royal Lancashire Regt- which became the King's Own Royal Border Regt subsequently. He told my father that the Toms generally had a great deal of respect and regard for their platoon commanders. When they were killed, it usually came as a major blow to morale. He recounted to my father how the death of one PC, "Left the lads devastated." He himself was a Grammar school boy. His battalion was paraded at one point and the command. "Would all Grammar school educated men take a step forward!" They were then TOLD that they would be going on a commissioning course. My GF didn't make the course, he was injured by shrapnel from a 5.9 inch that landed in a school yard in Ypres. My GF was no more than 30 yards away from the impact, and the blast picked him up and dashed him against the school building. He was wearing his steel lid, which saved his life, the force of the impact against the wall bent his helmet. He was evacuated to Blighty, and subsequently graded unfit for further service on the western front. He was posted ot Kilmainham gaol in Dublin as part of the garrison.
"C H I N L E S S W O N D E R S"....!!! Gold, solid gold...
I served in the Aussie Army for over twenty years, and officers from the ranks usually made effective officers though I have not heard of one in my time who made it above Lt Col.
Very well done video, great illustrations and on site commentary.
RIP to the very brave souls on both sides in this awful conflict.
The Punch Magazine cartoon of 1st March 1879 shows a Zulu warrior writing on a blackboard with a British politician sitting on a stool watching as the Zulu writes "Despise Not Your Enemy"
Zulus were just as brutal as any body in Africa their leader Chuka Zulu slaughtered 1.5 million fellow Africans now ther're naming an airport after him...
Brits have and do the same.
@@davethorstry6700 ah there we go, zulus good, brits bad. Got it.
You mean Shaka.
You are so ill - informed. The Zulus were fighting the defensive wars not the offensive ones .
Never hear of Zulus slaughtering lesser tribes, more history airbrushing...
We have lost battles but nearly always won the war. Our defeats are a matter of hubris. The Zulu were mighty warriors but had definite limitations.
Yea they didn't have a gatling gun
@@kenmay1572 They did when they returned a few months later for round two of the Anglo/ Zulu war >
Chelmsford's main column >
2 cavalry regiments (the King’s Dragoon Guards and the 17th Lancers) !
five batteries of artillery
2x Gatling guns
1,000 regular cavalry.
9,000 regular infantry and a further 7,000 men with 24 guns.
Google: the battle of Ulundi .
@@kenmay1572 If they had listened to the boer wagon master to laager the wagons into a large circle , he actually pleaded with them but it fell on deaf ears , I read he took his bedroll and camped well away from isandlwana , the Boer's knew very well what the Zulu were capable off !
@@sheepsfoot2 you saw that in the film😂
The facts are - men spaced to far apart in a line, guns Jammed because of carbon build up plus dodgy copper bent bullets and Zulus ran through the gaps. Them spears didn't need reloading did they.😂
But yes maybe if the wagons were circled or whatever they might have lasted half hour longer before being encircled. The ground favoured the Zulu's.
@@d.i.l.l.i.g.a.f.594
Rorke's Drift is proof of his Thesis
Zulus kicked big butt here.
Well 20,000 v 2,000 is not very hard to think of the kill ratio.
A huge underestimation of the Zulu power, however, future conflicts went as expected. Spears can never defeat repeating rifles and established tactics. Sadly, it was a bloodbath after this battle.
It was a bloodbath at this battle too.... the Zulu attack almost broke.
Oh No! ...etc.
Martini Henrys were single shot rifles. Not repeating rifles.
@@michaelrichardson6051 oh well, they repeatedly reloaded them. 😊
of course the Zulu won.
British 1,250 men, against 50,000 Zulu
Control of de population
@user-wi9rfzx5b Thank you Zulú warriors
Actually 700 British troops, 1,000 locals Vs 27,000 Zulu.
Try to verify before you comment figures.
You talk like the Zulu should’ve won every battle then? They always outnumbered the British
@@MultiSpunkymunky But did not have gattling guns, rockets, artillery, rifles in numbers and cavalry.
35:07 "......just two sentries posted..." How is that even possible?
A lot of the British troops being attacked , were hampered by their own Ammunition boxes , they were of thick wood and about 12 -16 3" screws , that half the time screw heads snapped or broke , and the Quartermaster had 1 or 3 screwdrivers . Once under close attack , the Soldiers had to use Rifle butts to smash open the strong boxs , bare in mind the Soldier did this as the very very last resort , as he had to pay for any damages to his Kit . .... Now just imagine under attack , allowing 1 minute per screw , probably took 12 - 20 min per box .
Nonsense! Just another excuse that did not happen at Rourke's drift, Ulundi or any other battle. Only where brits lost!
The Zulus were defending their homes just like the Sioux at Little Big Horn.
Zulu history is interesting, arising from forced amalgamation of several tribes in that area (if memory serves)
The zulus were an invading force who were not from that area. They subjugated and conquered any smaller tribes that were in their way.
@issimondias they were not invading Natal. Cetsawayo did not c want a,war with the Brits he knew he could not win
Not taking any prisoners in that particular battle lead to Britain not taking prisoners for the rest of the war. Many retreating Zulus got cut down by calvary. The British did treat the King Shaka Zulu with respect, he was twice exiled and twice forgiven for rebellions, I believe he eventually lived out his days in London
Not Shaka 😊
British Britain no no English English Westminster English English
Shaka Zulu died in 1828. 50 years prior to the Anglo/Zulu war. He built the Zulu tribe into the dominant force in that region of the African continent.
Thick as shit @@koosvonlandsberg5353
His brother killed him for a little cash. (Surprised?)
5:17 Chelmsford made several critical errors. Dividing your for es and not establishing a defensive position. Last error not returning to reenforce Iswalanda.
That is why he ran and formed a square, had the Zulus caught him in the open it would have been a totally different outcome.
Wonder how many British killed really. Its pretty cool history. Its not racist, its everyones history. The zulu were pretty cool.
Mighty warriors
95%? I have never heard of there being any survivors on the British side from the Slaughter of Isandlwana
Yes there were, no Europeans survived however, which is probably what you mean
This wasn't a fair battle. You don't bring a knife to a gun fight. The British fought behind their guns & canons. The zulus fought vigorously with courage and valor. Sacrificing their numbers to reach the enemy. They have my respect because I wouldnve did it.
The zulus fought vigorously with courage and valor ? They were annihilated By Brains against Braun ! This is why these people have never contributed to mankind. They are basically talking animals.
You don’t go to a gun fight with a knife
boxoffice| history&societies: i see we're deleting comments eh'
And the Zulu's still lost.
Zulus should have chosen the battleground and it would have been another Isandlwana. Spears against batteries of artillery, rockets and Gatling guns and cavalry, no great achievement.
It's not smart to keep running into guns like that.
Half were black levies. Although the Zulus won the battle, their losses were catastrophic and cost them the war.
Nope. 50% were not black levees. Out of the 1500 men wiped out at Isandlwana, 800+ were regular British infantry soldiers, then there white colonial militia, Natal police, and then the rest were levees- probably 2-300 in total.
Those Zulus were brave warriors. Much respect to them as a people who were defending their homeland. I think black culture and white culture will always have conflict.
It's worse in the USA now than ever. Obama could have done so much, instead it was a wasted opportunity. He's done fine for himself, that's for sure. I miss the Chicago that was.
Not so much “homeland” as their “territory.” Like the large swaths of territory taken by the Comanches from other Indians as well as Europeans on the South Plains of the United States. Except that the Comanches were light cavalry unequaled by their opponents until their numbers were finally worn down and their pony herds destroyed.
@johnschuh8616 - people aren't bothered about such facts nowadays 😉
Easier to believe all white is bad and everything else is good ...
And still think you're a the 'good guy'.
The Brits are the most likeable when they stay at home and don't stir trouble outside their island, but 1,300 out of 1,800 makes it about 72% at best.
They built the modern world, including this internet thingie that you are using to complain about them. Their world has no widespread famine and the people of earth are richer than they have ever been under the hegemony of any other nation or ethnic group. Yes, we still have government induced famines, but none due to the failure of the harvests.
@@odysseus2656 I know, it's like complaining about the laws of biology or the right of the strongest. When they were the biggest boy in the yard, they bullied everyone around. Yes, you are right that they gave the world a lot but at the same time took away a lot. Remember the beginning of the Russian invasion of Ukraine? There was a peace proposal on the table. Ukrainians didn't intend to go to a full-scale war with their powerful neighbor. Enter Boris Johnson who put the foot in the door and effectively shut down any hope of peace. Sure enough, the US-led NATO initiated the conflict, but you can't deny the role of the UK in stirring it up. Two years later, Ukraine is in ruins, Europe pays heavy toll for energy price and consumption, inflation and economic slowdown, defense costs and refugee impact, while Russia is in no position to lose. Still wonder why many call the UK the Evil Empire?
Good video 👍
I can’t understand much of what starts at 10:02, the unknown warrior. The captions aren’t correct either.
Its a common misconception that the Zulu were only armed with spear and club in fact the Zulu had been buying up firearms for over a decade they had many rifled muskets and although slower to load than the Henry Martini were still very accurate upto 200 yards but the lack of training meant the Zulu were poor shots.
2:00.."the mist lifted and the Advance Guard were able to capture an armed Zulu and some Cattle..."
A Zulu Herdsman guarding his Family's prized possession, their wealth, Tribal status, trading leverage, Daughters Dowry, sustenance, their lives revolve around their assets, their Cattle. The Zulu Herdsman would defend all that with his life, it's why he carries a Spear, they always have. Then, the British in all their brilliant, ignorant-arrogance, decide that the only way of understanding the Zulu, is by deeming him a threat. The Zulus were already aware of the British, there would be eyes on them constantly. Taking out the Zulu Herdsman had no value whatsoever, but his Family would suffer greatly.
As Dianne Abbotts great grandmother did the counting we can take her figures with a pinch of salt.
If we are talking Boxoffice, the British low budget movie ZULU was a smash hit, one of the greatest of all time, running for 12 years in the cinema. It was a true inspiring tale of 120 British soldiers defeating 4,000 savage Zulu against all the odds. The American movie Zulu Dawn was a big budget production with an all star cast. But based on the battle of Isandlwana, the story of 25.000 Zulu overrunning 1,200 British and Colonials, did not have the same public sence of heroism, it was a outcome you would expect. The movie was a flop. a boxoffice disaster that never recouped production costs. The star, Burt Lancaster, had to be paid out of the producers own pocket!
how was it low budget?
@@hannah1943 It was a British made in 1964 with budget of only 655,000 Pounds. It made over 10 Million initial boxoffice, more with home media entertainment
@@billballbuster7186 In 1964 £655,000 was worth $1.6M, as there were no sets or CGI to pay for and no over paid Americans, I wouldn't think it was low budget. It sounds more like the usual American down-playing anything not "Made In U.S.A". The "star" of Zulu dawn was Burt Lancaster who portrayed Durnsford who was blamed in place of Victoria's friend Chelmsford. Zulu had notable actors such as Jack Hawkins, Stanley Baker and Nigel Green.
@@photoisca7386 Cost is a matter of opinion I think. I don't know about Durnford getting blamed, most of what I have read Chelmsford is the villain of the piece, though the Zulu victory was greatly over exaggerated, it was the baggage train and not the main army. Zulu Dawn cost 12 Million, expensive for a piece of pro-Zulu propaganda. and a total flop ar the boxoffice.
"Charlton Heston" was not in "zulu dawn' numb nuts !!!! the name you're looking for is burt lancaster. you should learn to get your facts straight before running that yap of yours. citing wrong actors and quoting bulls**t budget amounts is no way to enter the conversation !!!!!!
Oh well, the Zulus were deathly afraid of cavalry and very many of them fell victim to the saber!
And then the British returned the favor in later battles
For goodness sake.... stop using predictive text to support the oral presentation. It is rubbish as it stands, and detracts from an otherwise decent, factual story. ALWAYS check before you publish!!
The narrators of the Zulu position were overwhelmed by battle chaos playing in the background. It would be interesting to understand what was said.
Poor decisions by British leadership doomed them
Yes just like modern day Britain.
poor decisions by ENGLISH leadership appeared to be an on-running problem !
You guys must read a bit about the battle of blood river where a handful of farmers defeated the mighty zulus
Just like the Afghanistains against the British 4 attempts and same result.
@FHIPrincePeter sitting in a cave for years while the whole country is taken control of is hardly the same as winning an against the odds battle.
To be fair the much smaller British force may have fallen to a far, far larger force of Girl Scouts with spears. Could 100 Navy Seals make a stand against 10,000 armed women? I'm just saying that this Zulu victory wasn't impressive at all.
The main objective of this war was to ensure there was no alliance between Boer and Zulu in perpetration for the Brit invasion of the Transvaal. It did not work or help the Brits less than a year later at the outbreak of the first Anglo Boer war. If the Boer and Zulu alliance existed during the second Boer would it was have meant utter devastation of Brit forces in no time at all.
LMAO ! You Voted for Biden for sure.
@@wodenviking How weak, is that the best you can do? I am not in school and type fast - many trolls to deal with!
I'm the last Zulu warrior..... Born and raised willy wonka
You literally said nothing
That is why it was called a massacre
Watching half naked men with a flimsy non bullet proof shield charging towards a bunch of soldiers with high powered rifles is sickening to contemplate.
Rifles? Yes the soldiers did have rifles, BUT the Zulu faced banks of artillery, machine guns and rocket batteries, that is what defeated the Zulu, not soldiers with rifles.
Untrue; the soldiers with rifles did it. @@davethorstry6700
@@davethorstry6700 Explain the use of the term 'banks' please. From my understanding there were very limited amounts of artillery and a few Gatling guns available, as it all had to be shipped out and dragged across the area of campaign. The rifleman would of been the majority of British forces by far.
I believe you are exagerrating greatly.
@@jimbo5973 Your understanding is poor and not well informed. Banks/Batteries. "Everything" had to be shipped out, so what? "Dragged across area of campaign". So what, that was and is done in all wars. In all the comments here it is inferred that the Brit soldiers outfought the Zulu, The Zulus could not get near them for hand to hand, they were cut down by all that artillery etc, and were safe in their "square". Here are a few extracts from various reports. Google and research yourself. Lastly there in no greater exaggerator than a Brit. Excuses, embellishments and outright lies. If the Zulus had let Brits come to them and even with their red line they would have perished as they did at Isandlawana. War tactics are just that but keep the fact right. Chelmsford would have to utilize a number of troops that could be sustained in the field.[8] In the event, for his main column, he fielded two cavalry regiments, five batteries of artillery and 12 infantry battalions, amounting to 1,000 regular cavalry, 9,000 regular infantry and a further 7,000 men with 24 guns, including the first ever British Army Gatling gun battery.[9]The lumbering supply train consisted of 600 wagons, 8,000 oxen and 1,000 mules
As the cavalry cleared their front at about 9 a.m., the four ranks of the infantry with the front two kneeling, opened fire at 2,000 yards into the advancing Zulu ranks. The pace of the advance quickened and the range closed between the British lines and the Zulus. The British were ready and the Zulu troops faced concentrated fire. Zulu regiments had to charge forward directly into massed rifle fire, non-stop fire from the Gatling guns and the artillery firing canister shot at point-blank range.
Charges were made by the Zulus, in an attempt to get within close range, but they could not prevail against the British fire. There were a number of casualties within the square to Zulu marksmen, but the British firing did not waver and no warrior was able to get within 30 yards of the British ranks. The Zulu reserve force now rose and charged against the south-west corner of the square. Nine-pounders tore great chunks out of this body while the infantry opened fire. The speed of the charge made it seem as if the Zulu reserves would get close enough to engage in hand-to-hand combat but no warrior reached the British ranks.
After half an hour of concentrated fire from the artillery, the Gatling Guns and thousands of British riflemen, the Zulu military power was broken. British casualties were ten killed and eighty-seven wounded, while nearly five hundred Zulu dead were counted around the square;[18] another 1,000 or more were wounded. This is from Isandlwana. Also, there were some irregular colonial cavalry units, and a detachment of artillery consisting of six field guns and several Congreve rockets.
@@davethorstry6700 You make my point for me. '24 guns' among and army of approx 20 000 spread across various formations, is indeed very few as I previously claimed. Just look at the numbers used in prior European wars. You mention 'thousands' of riflemen opening fire at point blank range. What do you think did most of the killing?The riflemen obviously, the occasions infantry formations failed against more numerous, lesser armed foes was when formation was broken, outflanked or ammunition ran out. The square is reknowned as a solid formation against any force that does not have artillery itself to defeat it. Artillery used in these numbers would be more of a terror weapon and a form of harrasment than the main killing blow of an Army. I misunderstand nothing. Southern Africa was a far flung part of the Empire at the time and supplies in the field were a continual issue. The riflemen was the essential unit.
Good thing this isn't net flix or the History Channel, or Tom Cruise might star as shaka zulu.
Naw, they'd have Morgan Freeman play shaka!
More likely they'd have Lord Chelmsford played by Denzel Washington.
Where is pt1?
The underdog won a few battles against a way more powerful opponent. It went down as on of the biggest upset in that time period 😊
Won a battle or two but lost the war.
Then the Zulu chef was taken to England, spent rest of his life there.
When he died we sent him back and he was buried with full honours in Zulu land under a huge tree.
@@d.i.l.l.i.g.a.f.594 Just where did you learn your history? LOL! The Zulu King Cetewayo was first exiled to Cape town, Then he was taken to England for THREE YEARS, not the rest of his life!! He was taken there to bedazzle him and farm his brain so that when he returned to SA and his tribe there would be no chance of an allegiance between Zulu and Boer, that was what it was all about for as a short five months after Ulundi, with the same force and more, they attempted the same tactics on the Boer farmers and were soundly thrashed in four encounters and no less than four major battles over a mere three months! Brits were that terrified of Boer and Zulu. Cetewayo was used to influence Zulus for the future and turn them against the Boer.
@@davethorstry6700 😂😂😂 where did u learn that rubbish 😂😂😂
@@davethorstry6700 again what I said in previous comment can been found & proven if you look.
@@d.i.l.l.i.g.a.f.594 Give me the source and links to the load of crap you posted.
This may be one of the worst reproductions of those battles. The first sign of it was the NON ZULU pics. All downhill from there.
This has to be one of the most idiotic comment I’ve read in a long time. Complaining about pictures lol. Look up some of the people who made this. Top notch historians everyone.
This geographic location and all of its history is the subject of my current private studies . Im wringing out accessible libraries and archives n struggling to find anything i have not read yet.
I picked up on something which i cannot mention yet, a hint here and there leaves me without a doubt that another player was involved but never mentioned, and watching how things played out afterwards and up until today that presence still pulls many strings.
If war broke out in your country, it means that a British or American visited you yesterday
Naw, the Zulus made war on everyone around them. Read a history book.
Nah, Zulus didn't cross oceans and continents to go to war like America and Brits did for over a century.
@@malachimatcho7583 Only because they couldn't.
@@memento_mori6454 Africans have been ALL OVER the continent since ancient times. Pick up "The Men of Nubia" or ANY other book that deals with ancient African civilization. They were even in Asia, centuries before Europeans, long before the industrial era.
@@memento_mori6454 Fact is they did not! Sorry, no excuses for brits
But it should be understood to mean those British who participated in the war of ISandlwana not necessarily British Army which was too huge
Of course it was the British army with the help of white Natal colonists, levies and more.
No one can dispute the courage of both sides. But we should remember that it was the British and the Dutch who invaded Zulu land, pushing their country back smaller and smaller. The Zulu fought for freedom, the Dutch and British for self gain.
The Zulu were invaders themselves. Most of South Africa was inhabited by various Khoisan tribes until just a thousand or so years ago. The Zulu were pastoralists and the Khoisan were hunter gatherers. They mix like oil and water. The Zulu committed mass genocide against the Khoisan. Their empire was built by conquest of weaker tribes.
Zulu are Bantu speakers whose homeland is Central Africa. The path of Bantu migrations is marked by total genetic replacement of the Pygmy and Khoisan tribes who were once the majority. Today, Pygmies make up about 2% of the population. The Khoisan have been pushed to the most inhospitable land such as the Kalahari Desert.
The Zulu were fighting for their empire built off of their conquests of other Africans. The Zulu way of life wasn't sustainable. Nobody was left for them to conquer. It's much the same with the American Indian tribes such as the Comanches, who built their empire by raiding. It wasn't sustainable.
I beg to differ but while the Dutch Boers may well have fought for land, the average British redcoat can hardly be accused of fighting for "self gain". he fought because he was a professional soldier under orders at that place and time. The people who stood to gain are rarely if ever in harms way.
And the Zulus took land from other tribes so no difference then
Zulu fought for their empire, not for freedom.
Zulu kingdom was a feudal, imperialistic, aggressive, patriarchal state.
Hated by the sorrounding african power.
Cut the crap, please.
🤣
Would have been a different outcome of The Zulu's had rifles
Or if they kept the alliance with the Boers that they had, had. What if the Zulu's had Gatling guns, rocket and cannons. Many brit graves!
These are not Zulus .Not with these headdress.
It’s laughable isn’t it. They probably think Black Panther is a documentary.
Thanks, Boxoffice | History & S.
I have no experience in the military but it seems common sense that every soldier should have been loaded up with as much ammunition as they could possibly carry before the battle started rather than just the standard issue 40 rounds. 1,800 British soldiers times 100 rounds each would have been 180,000 shots! That would mean 9 shots at every Zulu and would have been more than enough to take down all 20,000 warriors. I have read that the British camp had a supply of 500,000 rounds to fit the British rifles but never got the ammunition distributed once the battle started. Just saying.
...consider the rifle (Martini Henry single shot) and especially the gunpowder used (old time black powder). I submit even if each and every soldier had piles of ammo, within easy access - most of the rifles would have jammed solid from unburnt powder after a while anyway. For a soldier to fix that requires disassembling and cleaning the rifle - imagine having to do THAT in a fire-fight?
Black powder leaves a huge mess inside the rifle once touched off, a mess that quickly jams the rifle if not completely cleaned off. Now imagine being required to fire the rifle repeatedly while fighting for your life! ...
The mess created by firing thousands of rounds of the ammo of the period, never seems to get mentioned during analysis of the battle - but it would have been a major hindrance to the British nevertheless. The mess inside the Brit's rifles would have hindered if not stopped them from fighting, just as much as a shortage of ammunition ultimately did.
Glad you did not believe that feeble face saving excuse of no ammo.
@@robertmaybeth3434 But there was no mentioned black powder problem at Rourke's drift, other battles of most importantly at Ulundi in the square. LOL
‘I have no experience in the military’ you could have just stopped there.
@@issimondias WRONG, the British soldiers were wiped out in this battle because they kept running out of ammo on their belts while having a practically unlimited supply stored in the wagons. There is a reason that most countries, including the USA have a civilian in charge of the military...because military officers who come up through the ranks tend to become regimented to blindly follow rules and regulations and often ignore common sense which is exactly what happened in this situation. It doesn't take a military genius to see the problem and simple solution that would have changed the outcome of this battle.
The Zulus scored one basket and then wisely surrendered while there were still some left alive.
Unable to hear the narrative
O Império Britânico até não assumiu os crime cometidos contra os Zulus. Isso é vergonhoso.
And such a peaceful, peace-loving, non-invasive agrarian nation, too.
How dare they.?
probably the worst subtitles I have ever seen. Apparently the British commander was called 'dartel' and they all went to 'Santana'.... someone clearly didn't give a sh...
Me laughing in *Rorke's Drift*
Didn't even consider taking them as hostages? Oh well....
The Boers have sufferd to the hand of the Empire and so all afrikan natives.
You do realise that the Boers were not indigenous don’t you?
And yet we won the war...
No big deal.
Why were the Zulu fighting??? Because someone was taking their land???
The Zulus had recently conquered that country. They were from the north.
Yes, the British stole it!
@@Colonel_Blimp Wrong! It was uninhabited when they arrived from up North.
@@davethorstry6700 they traveled down from central Africa killing and subjugating every tribe in their path.
CORRECTION: the Welsh were doing the dirty work for the limeys on this one!!!!!!!!
They were not a Welsh Regiment;the Regiment was the 24th Regiment of foot manned mainly by English and Irish soldiers.The myth comes from the film "Zulu";a very good film but thoroughly inaccurate in detail.
@@jakethomas3205my mistake, at rourke's drift 49 soldiers out of 122 were english (CELTS win the battle AGAIN for the oppressors !!) At isandlwana 1,200 were english out of aprox. 1,800 (battle lost, obviously not ENOUGH celts!!)
I can't argue with that !!
@@casedismissed8581 At Isandlawana combined force of Brits of almost 2,500.
The Zulu King Cetshwayo had ordered his general, Ntshingwayo kaMahole Khoza, not to engage the British at Isandlwana.
The king could hardly afford the 5,000 casualties given the total Zulu army strength numbered 40,000 with 29 active regiments
The following battle at Rorke’s Drift cost even more soldiers at no strategic gain
Poor decision from the military brass
Les anglais se sont de bon soldats mais ils ont sous estimés l adversaire comme les français en indochine
The French along with the Americans both underestimated the Viet Minh and Viet Kong .
Both imperialists if perhaps not Imperialist Running Dogs .
The subtitles were shoddily written with too many splelling mistakes ( 'daggar', 'logger' and 'lagr'for lager ) and an indifference to punctuation, capital letters, and syntax. I assume 'Bullah' was Redvers Buller. Such carelessless with language devalues the historic narrative
LJ is F
O
S.
They(brits) have big mouths, but when they heard the Germans were coming through the Arden they did not even stick around but hi tailed it for Dunkirk where they hunkered down waiting for any old dingy to get them out of there!
Then rhe British killed 60%of the Afrikaners
A typical British blunder
Adds to the others
Somme dardanelles arnhem
To name a few
I think we won the odd thing though...
We all make mistakes. Little Big Horn was a bit of an Custer ego thing.
Patton had to get across the Rhine first. Mark Clark disobeyed orders from Eisenhower to get to Rome - prioritising his own glory rather than drawing the German divisions away from France. All three put personal glory before ultimate objectives.
The Zulus still lost the war
It doesn’t matter. This was still a devastating defeat. The greatest army in the world being defeated by spears.
A 'gorilla war'. Awesome!
😲"SIR !! Zulu's on the hills thousands of them waving there spears we're surrounded"
😦"My God man, thats not there spears there waving" !! 😂
Hahaha 😂😂😂..best comment by a mile
Not the doggos!
The Zulu's must have won the war then?
lol! the title is misleading….
You sure they are Zulus in the Picture? Look more like Aztec Warriors to me!
What spoils this …….the incessant Zulu chanting while an African,with their difficult accent,is trying to relate their point of view of the battle.Probably spoiled in the final edits.
Father of the woke is watching
And how many were 95%?
And yet they lost the war.
95 la sută,dar de ce nu spuneți numărul de trupe britanice și câți zulu au ucis
The British should have asked the Boers for help, since they kicked their buds my times over while being greatly outnumbered 💁♀️
The Boers didn't want anything to do with the Brits or the Zulus. They knew what price the British would exact once they controlled the area.
@@johngaither9263 Wrong. The Boers did have a alliance with the Zulu's earlier. The Brits were terrified of both. A combined force would have annihilated the brits. The war against the Zulu was concocted and to ensure they would not join Boers when the brits attacked Boers just five months later and were thrashed by just the Boer farmers in four battles in a mere three months. Imagine what a combined Boer/Zulu force would have done to them with Boer leadership.
Maybe poms were waiting for Muricans as always..LMAO.
And then...
No scouts? The British army should have learned from its battles in North America
North America as if that is relevant. Try long before those little skirmishes you mentioned. Like medieval times and even before that. War was there long before Europe 2.0 called USA.
Yeah little "skirmishes" like Yorktown (7500 Brits 4,000 French, 4500 Americans.. Try agin, once you can fathom it (which I doubt).@@Leon-bc8hm
Since when did Zulus dress like aztec Warriors? Ai is getting kind of ridiculous.
Like other colonial expansions by many countries I find it funny that in this one the Brits actually believe they own the Zulu Land and how dare they attack, same as Indonesia, French "Viet Nam" and get their asses handed to them by the plate full. Goes for every. war we have been in, as well as the Roman Empire, they all ended the same, the larger armies lasted a short while but in the end they lost and I have no feelings for thee Brits for their arrogance and never hold in any regard the idea that whether Zulu, Viet Minh, High landers, Germania and Africa are no longer called by the former colonial countries. No French Indochina, no Dutch Indonesia, no with the same as other countries yet here we are thousands of years latter and we are still trying to do the same. Good luck,I spent my time in hell in Viet Nam and know we did not belong there. Sad experience.
Arrogance, pompous. They even despised their own kind who were colonials and made the error of fighting for them.
LOOK AT THEM NOW
Those were not soldiers,most likely low lives wildlife poachers.Its a total diferent game slaughtering a wild creature or another wildcreature that has fingers that can use weapons.
Это загадочны пропагандистский русский язык. Погибли 95% и потери зулусов 90%.
А то что проценты это соотношение к общему колличеству пропагандисты не пишут.
Для них жизнь - проценты.
А то что "англо-саксов" было в десять раз меньше - молчок. Это не выгодно озвучивать.
Канал КГ/АМ.
Terrible audio
La câteva sute de britanici și zeci de mii de zulu,asta da mândrie britanică
Very badly done video with to-many background noise
e fizeram muito bem
"de se retirer à la hâte de Zululand. Tandis que" ou "de se retirer à la hâte de Zululand, tandis que" ??? La langue se meutre en Moselle et en douceur.