Truth Behind The Movie | Zulu
Вставка
- Опубліковано 24 лют 2022
- In this video we take a look at the real events upon which the movie Zulu in based upon. The Battle of Rorke's Drift 1879.
Pictures used are in the public domain and come from sources unknown. Footage is from the 1964 movie Zulu, owned by Diamond Films, Paramount Pictures and used under Fair use for the propose of criticism and parody. Diamond Film, Paramount Pictures in no way endorse this video.
Watch the History of William the Conquer here: • Historical Figures | W...
Watch the History of The Duke of Wellington here: • Arthur Wellesley | The...
Watch Pompeii | Pliny The Younger & The Eruption Of Mount Vesuvius documentary here: • Pompeii | Pliny The Yo...
Watch all episodes of Historical Churches here: • Historical Churches
Like and follow the channel on Facebook: / sarhistories
Buy all my books on Amazon: www.amazon.co.uk/S-A-Richards...
#History #Zulu #RorkesDrift #Movies
When this movie came out I was 10 yrs old and lived in Derbyshire, UK. Overnight, every dustbin lid in the village disappeared, there were Zulu impis roaming the streets with dustbin lid shields and bean cane spears. As an air rifle owner, I was quickly inducted into the Empire Oppression forces. In truth, we mainly aimed at the galvanised iron shields, rather than our savage enemies. Eventually, they cornered us in a shed on someone's allotment. The carnage was terrible, I have PTSD to this day... Shit! It was fun. Yes, better than any video game, and I have played a fair few.
I saw this movie in 64 when it came out in the Natick drive in and have watched it dozens of times since then great movie
I have been lucky enough to do the Zulu battlefields tour in 2006. What an experience. Rorke's Drift itself, is nothing like where they filmed the movie. What was very humbling was that I discovered that one of my relations was killed there. His name is on the memorial stone. Sadly, the historian who was doing the tours out of Isandlwana Lodge, was murdered by some locals for money, a year or so later.
I recommend all Zulu history enthusiasts to go there ! If you stand close to the Cairns at the British battlefield camp and look down-hill, you can understand the fear when the Zulus appeared out of the dongas.
Yeah, the movie was filmed in the Drakensburg mountains in South Africa, much bigger than the two little hills at Rorke's Drift.
David Rattray was an absoule star and fabulous story teller as well as a great historian, laid it down from the point of the Zulu's, such a shame about his death, I did the tour with him in 1995 with several other British servicemen who were on exercise in Swaziland at the time.
Womderful memories but you also need to do Brecon Cathedral to finish it off 🙂
How far were the furthest cairns from the camp mate ? I read the forward line of soldiers were positioned far forward of the camp , over half mile ! ? also not at all shoulder to shoulder as portrayed in the movie Zulu Dawn > more like 2-3 paces between each man !
It's something I wouldove to do. When I saw the film, I could never have afforded to go. Now I can, I am too old with mobility problems.
I saw that movie in 1965. Funny how 57 years later i am getting the true history of the battle. Thanks so much.
Born in Churcham, Gloucestershire, Henry Hook originally served in the Monmouth Militia for five years before enlisting in the regular army in March 1877, aged 26. Previously serving in the 9th Xhosa War in 1877, he received a scalp injury during the battle of Rorke's Drift, and retired from the regular army 17 months later in June 1880, but later served 20 years in 1st Volunteer Battalion, Royal Fusiliers, reaching the rank of sergeant-instructor. He received his VC from Sir Garnet Wolseley, GOC South Africa at Rorke's Drift on 3 August 1879.
My father and I would watch this every time it came on Family Classics on WGN Channel 9, when I was a kid. I loved, loved, loved this movie. Colour Sergeant Bourne was my all-time favorite character in the movie.
My brother worked with a guy several years ago, who had a distant uncle who was batman too colour sargeant bourne. In reality, sargeant bourne was a young man around 30 or so i think.
The actor that portrayed Colour Sergeant Bourne was Nigel Green. Green also played the role of Hercules in "Jason and the Argonauts".
And the real Colour Sergeant Bourne was just 26 years old at the time!
One must always realise films are films, a story, not a historical documentary. I remember seeing it in the Regal picture house in the early 1960s and being terrified as well as enthralled. I swore then I would get to Rorke’s Drift. I did, in 1977, as well as Isandlwana. I’ve since been back 3 times and am determined to return 1 last time.
I've always loved this movie. I understand most directors and producers use artistic license to make the movie more interesting. The negative portrayal of Hook was completely unnecessary, but I'm ok with artistic license, generally. A great story of incredible bravery by the defenders that honors the real men involved.
I kind of agree. As a narrative device Hook is brilliant. The ne'er-do-well that puts his selfishness aside in the time of ultimate crisis yadda, yadda, Han Solo, yadda. But they did the real historical Hook, and his family, a grave disservice. That was dirty. If only the film makers had called him Hood, Holmes, or Cooke. Something.
Totally agree. I'm not surprised his children walked out of the premier.
It's not a question of "artistic" license. It's a matter of "Hollywood" privilege to rewrite White history with an invented narrative that suits their needs.
Yea, love this movie and have ever since I saw it when I was a kid back in the 70's, picked up the DVD first time I saw one for sale in a Walmart.
And as far as historical accuracy I learned a long time ago not to think I've learned history from watching a movie, a perfect example of that is the movie Ford vs Ferrari, among the many wild inaccuracies in it is the fact that Bruce McLaren crossed the finish line first, a full car length ahead of Ken Miles which can clearly be seen in the photographs of the finish of the actual race, so that rule about McLaren traveling the further distance yada yada never applied, in all reality what really happened was the announcer at the race couldn't see the finish very well due to the fact that it was raining and mistakenly thought Miles crossed a car length ahead of McLaren so one of the officials called that ruling and the announcer quoted it but the fact is it didn't apply anyways because McLaren was actually driving the car that was a car length ahead of the one in 2nd, which was Miles not the other way around like what was portrayed in the movie.
And the one gentleman here in the comments is correct, if they're going to dump on a character for dramatic effect they should really change the characters name so as not to cast a bad light on him if for no other reason than the sake of his family and the family name.
But like just about any movie Micheal Caine is in it'll certainly be worth watching, especially if you get him together with someone like Sean Connery in The Man Who Would be King, there's a great one, throw in Christopher Plummer as Rudyard Kipling and you can't go wrong there.
It's because of watching movies like this growing up that I'm a movie buff, shame they don't make actors like these guys anymore.
I'm ok with artistic license, but not so much when it actually contradicts the facts. By all means pad out the story a little, but leave the known facts as facts.
The Welsh myth is one of the biggest inaccuracies. Most of the men were English. Still a magnificent film
Very true 👍
Thanks for this. One of my all time fav films too, my dad took me to se this and I just got hooked, god knows How many times I have seen it now. Loved the music and the Zulu chants. Thanks for telling us about Henry Hook, nice to know the true story behind him. I guess the film makers needed a character like him, but it would have been better if they had just made up a fictional one for that role. It is a shame that his name has been tarnished like this.
Went to see this my dad as a kid back in the mid '70's on its second run at the cinema. Has always been in my top 5 movies. Thought I knew the real history but certainly learned from this video. The behind the scenes extras released with the dvd are a great watch and illustrate how well Cy Enfield did to put the film together considering the constraints and financial needs required in the '60's to actually film in Natal. No CGI required here and illustrates how movies should be made. John Barry always a magician with theme music.
TC, I saw it with my dad during the first run in 64, and ditto to everything you said with one caveat.
John Barry was THE GREATEST composer of modern times his film score catalogue is breathtaking.
All the best my friend.
the sound (and the music) are awesome in this movie. i can still hear those haunting chants of the advancing zulu army. "zooo...looooo!"epic movie
Zulu was one hell of a movie.
This is also my favourite film. My dad took me to the cinema to see it. Thank you so much for mentioning "Harry" Hook . His family have fought for years to restore his reputation. Shame on Stanley Baker and Cy Endfield.
But he becomes a hero in the film.
From what I have found about him he was 180* from the way the actor played him in real life . Was just movie stuff . Still a great movie .
@@lyndoncmp5751 Pvt Alfred Henry Hook WAS a hero in the real battle and was well worthy of his VC... there wasn't any need to malign his name the way the film did.
Family legend says the film makers apologised to them but I can't find any record of it. Harry wasn't made a hero by the film he already was and that film will forevermore taint his name. If you hadn't guessed my husband and daughter are descended from him. So i get very cranky about this film. Ty for trying to set the record straight.
I seriously doubt you can lay any blame on Stanley Baker! He was an actor, not an historian.
Love this movie! If you want total historical accuracy, watch a documentary, not a drama.
But don't present it as fact.
And not a biased one as most are
Not a documentary, it's a Hollywood movie. Get over it. Based on actual events, yes: but never let the truth spoil a good story! You're lucky the writers didn't add some Zombies or space-aliens.
Another of my favorite movies is " The Dam Busters " full of inaccuracies. Wallis never fired marbles across a baby's bath tub . Didnt take off socks and shoes to paddling at Reculver Bay. // Gibson never hand picked the Squadron , 5 Group squadrons were told to send their most experienced crews , many sent their dead wood. Gibson picked Hopgood as his deputy , they were together at 106 sq . Hoppy was very experienced with two DFCs. Gibson had nothing to do with the lights giving them accurate height above the water , Farnborough came up with that. The loss pf 4 out of 5 from the third wave was navigational error , crossed the coast at the wrong place. // There is one film that rings completely true , a masterpiece and one of Spielberg's fav. movies " The Cruel Sea " .
'The Cruel Sea' is without doubt the best British war movie ever made, probably because the author of the book served in a corvetter, and experienced at first hand many of the events. I believe that Lockhart is based upon him.
Talking of accuracy and realism, try 'Das Boot'.
The Zulu chants in this movie were absolutely chilling.
This was Micheal Cane's first movie and he almost was replaced because the directors didn't care for him.
Cane said that they didn't have 5,000 natives warriors to stand on the hill surrounding Rourkes Drift so they had each warrior hold a shield that had 4 other shields attached to it . This made it look like more warriors. You can see this for a second or two when they pan around showing the warriors on the hills.
Caine actually went to audition for the part of Hook; it wasn't his first film but was his first major role. The director decided to have him audition for Bromhead in a "posh" voice, as opposed to Caine's usual south London accent.
Believe it or not: Michael Caine had appeared in 16 films prior to 'Zulu'. Mostly uncredited appearances. He first appears in a credited role as 'Pte Lokyear' in 'A Hill in Korea' (Hell in Korea in some markets) in 1958. Zulu is his first 'Starring' Role; hence the ' and Introducing' tag affixed to his credited appearance in Zulu.
This was not his first movie by far, but it was his biggest part and led to his career exploding.
Micheal Caine had 17 movies in the bag before he got to Zulu in 1964?. Perhaps you were trying to say was, “That This was Caines big break” as an actor. A lot of the previous 17 movies had Caine as uncredited!. My 10cents worth.
+Larry Jones. They didn’t have CGI to solve such problems back in 1964. They did, however, in the 90’s (as in “Braveheart”)
Another error were the helmets worn , the cloth covers were actually stained brown with tea to reduce the glaring white effect , and most of the helmet plates were removed (see Fripp's painting of Isandlwana) . Also the Zulu regiments that attacked Rorkes Drift were composed of mature warriors , not the younger men who played the role in the movie.
Michael Caine, a bit of a ladies man in his day, commented about the attractiveness of black women. When he flew into South Africa to film the movie a customs officer who had heard Caine's remark warned the actor that the Apartheid laws in South Africa banned interracial sex and the penalty was ten strokes of the cane. Caine's reply was "Can I have them while we're doing it?"
Haha i can hear his voice saying that 😂
The authorities were explaining the above to the crew - the punishment was flogging - it was Stanley Baker who asked if he could receive a flogging whilst engaged in the act
Having a trooper named “Hook” with the description from the movie has become a trope in military sci-fi. Sad way to remember a gallant man, don’t blame his daughters at all.
I was glad to see that you mentioned them opening fire at 500 yards, I believe there have been archeological finds indicating that the pickets opened fire earlier also.
You are right the true story is better than the fictional one. Thank you for this episode.
Being of Welsh ancestry I am sorry that they didn’t sing lol. I sang ‘Men of Harlic’ to my sons when the nurse hand them to me. Also ‘Wild Colonial Boy’ for their very Irish mother.
Sorry I failed to mention that if you look closely when the troopers are waiting for the charge, you will see that the men in the back ranks have Lees not Martini-Henrys. Which should of course be called Peabody-Martinis. Henry was the designer of the rifling, Peabody designed the original rifle that Martini modified the action of.
Australian written song.
@@jacksoncz8536
Love those Martini-Henry rifles, they're just so cool.
About 30 years ago a batch came into America and since they were manufactured before 1898 could be purchased by anyone without needing a Federal Firearms License or having to have someone like a local gun shop get it for you, you could just order one directly from the distributor who had them, to this day I still kick myself in the ass for not obtaining one, they were the long lever variant.
I particularly like the one in the movie Jaws that Quint has that's been converted to a take-down action with a marine coating that he uses to shoot the mini harpoons into the shark with.
The only British made firearm I like even more than the Martini-Henry rifle is the legendary .455 Webley revolver, like a Model 1897 Winchester pump shotgun they're just plain mean looking.
A Welshman without music is like a man without a wife.
Note: The Color sergeant was only 23 years old and was literate he helped the soldiers write home on a regular basis he much later accepted a commission and retired as a Lt Col.
Excellent job, exploring truths behind the famous movie. It leaves us free to still enjoy the classic, while having all the more appreciation for the real men who were present at the time.
Thank you for this posting- you did a wonderful job. As with all war films I've ever seen, the story portrayed on the screen never matches 100% with what really happened (IMO the two worst were the 1936 "Charge of the Light Brigade", and the 1965 "Battle of the Bulge"). So yes, there were inaccuracies in Zulu, but the film did a wonderful job in recording MOST of the cold hard facts, but perhaps more importantly, it captured a realistic SENSE of the battle. And although I shake my head when a "historical" film goes out of its way to introduce some spurious details, I gotta admit, that my two favorite scenes in the movie were in fact fictional: 1. the sing-off mentioned in you posting, and 2. the retreat to and battle of the "redoubt".
Love any and all stories of soldiers from any period or side that fight till the end. It's inspiring.
My favorite lines are: "Lieutenant John Chard: The army doesn't like more than one disaster in a day. Lieutenant Gonville Bromhead : Looks bad in the newspapers and upsets civilians at their breakfast."
British Newspapers... and ALL mainstream Western Media.... have been under control of Rothschild Central Bankers of The City of London - (who strategized, and profited from, most wars & revolutions) since the fall of Emperor Napoleon.
Most likely, highest realms of the British Military get that philosophy along with the rest of their marching orders.
Great movie,
"When the legend becomes fact, print the legend." John Ford.
Said in Liberty Valance but illustrated as early as FORT APACHE.
That was absolutely amazing thank you so much for your hard work
As an accurate historical reenactment, the movie ZULU might have been wrong, but as such, it would have been a FLOP at the box office! The movie, one of my favorites, is an outstanding motion picture and I have watched it several times. By your own, words, it's a great movie, leave it that way and enjoy it again when you watch it, wherever that may be. AJH
Hard to say if it would have flopped, per se. The acting talent is incredible in this movie and the true history is brimming with potential for a good script. But I can only speak as someone who finds truth far more interesting than fiction.
Regarding the Zulus' salute to the British at the end of the battle, when I was a teenager in the 1950s I remember, reading a newspaper article that described this. So it was already part of British folklore even then
THis movie is a classic. Portraying the bravery against overwhelming odds.
I agree 👍
Thank you very much for finally setting the record straight [it is known by many scholars of this battle the truth of what happened but a wider audience only saw what they were given believing this to be true - I will admit I did until I looked closer at the entire set up] However it was depicted it must be said that those who stayed and fought where extremely brave men carryig out their duty despite their own misgivings which must have been many!
I don't know why writers think they have to take artistic license to make the stories more exciting. This event is amazing the actual way it happened...
great video! very informative and well researched. The only criticism I have is that in the British forces, it's pronounced "LEF-TEN-ANT" (not the American "Loo-Ten-Ant")
And it's the Natal Carbin-neers.
But he also says ‘Smiff’, ba’le and ca’le (for ‘battle’ and ‘cattle’), hospi’al, (oddly pronouncing the aitch), Bri’ish, distriBU’ed, twenty-forf, frough (for ‘through’) etc etc - very interesting accent overall.
I was thinking the exact same thing!
Although 'Hook' was unfairly maligned by the film. His Family may well take heart from the fact that His name is now remembered above most others who received VC's for their actions on the day.
R. I. P.
Yep, he was portraid very poorly in the film, where in fact he was very heroic in his actions and conduct.
I had a First Lieutenant who told us about being prepared for combat and said he and his classmates had to watch this movie as West Point.
The three ranks of soldiers set up to fire then reload while the next row fired and did the same, while the third row fired, and so on.
By the time the third row fired, the front row was reloaded and ready to go.
It is a brutal scene, not to mention frightening!!
He got his point across in a hurry and was a fine leader of his men!
This was a Phalanx!
Israelite armies used this type of defense. This is verified by Scripture in the Old Testament 📖
the highlight of the film was it's depiction of the breech-loading Martini-Henry rifle and
its highly effective use through a disciplined manner of ranked lines of fire - effectively creating a near continous hail of bullets. Was the best single-fire breech loading military rifle of its time - the US, in contrast was using the Trapdoor Springfield which as essentially a conversion design where Civil War Springfield muzzle loaders were converted into breech loaders. It was the rifle mostly used at General Custer's last stand at Littke Big Horn. Ironicaly the opposing Inian tribes to some extent had repeating lever action rifles.
History shows that that US martial arms were always a step behind the leading technology of the times. After the Civil War, the US was looking for a cheap way to go to a breechloader so the Allin conversion of the ex-Civil War muskets was chosen, resulting in the trapdoor. There was new production on the trapdoor through 1891, IIRC, long after the British had replaced the M-H with the Lee-Enfield bolt action repeater. The Brits also used a musket conversion before the M-H but the Snider conversion of muskets was not best and the .577 Snider cartridge had a rainbow trajectory compared to the .577/450 Martini. The Martini was produced in several Marks, the Mark I, short lever and socket bayonet, was the one in use in 1879. Later, the Mark IV long lever with sword bayonet was adopted. For martial single shot rifles, the Martini was the superior arm, better than the trapdoor, the Snider, the Remington rolling block, et al. I own a Mark IV and I wonder if it could talk, what stories it could tell.
The fight came down to British Bayonet vs. Assegai. British pluck won.
Custer's men were heavily outgunned. The whole fight lasted no longer than 15 minutes, or as one Indian witness said " as long as it takes a hungry man to eat his lunch ". Winchesters vs. Springfields.
@@Diogenes-ty9yy This is not true. Revolvers and lever action Spencer repeating carbines were used in great numbers by Union cavalry during the Civil War. During that time period most other countries were still using muzzle loading pistols and carbines. Between the Civil War and WWII budget cuts forced the Army to use poorer weapons. John Moses Browning was an American who designed many weapons for the US Army. Browning's most successful designs include the M1911 pistol, the water-cooled M1917, the air-cooled M1919, and heavy M2 machine guns and the M1918 Browning Automatic Rifle. The US also adopted the M1 Garand semi-automatic rifle when most other countries were still using bolt action rifles.
@@Diogenes-ty9yy
The British adopted the Lee-Metford rifle only 4 years before the US adopted the Krag, 4 years is "long after"?
And it was the Lee-Metford that replaced the Martini-Henry not the Lee-Enfield.
The Martini-Henry doesn't have some type of inherent advantage over the Springfield Trap Door simply because the Trap Door was a conversation from a muzzle loader, they both take the same amount of steps to reload and both shot metallic center fire cartridges and have rifled barrels, so explain to me exactly how the Martini-Henry is supposed to be "a step ahead" of the Trap Door.
The film is one of the best war films ever made, it does contain a few historical inaccuracies and a couple of complete howlers, but at the end of the day it gives people an idea because that’s all people want, very few of the millions of people who have watched Zulu would have sat through an historical documentary on the battle?
I have read in one book that Dalton was the officer most responsible for planning the defense, as he was the most experienced officer on the scene.
Dalton was not an officer but had at one time been a color sergeant and was in the commissariat at the time of the battle, so he was a long service NCO.
@@brucenorman8904 Dalton was an Irishman.
I've heard this too.
It was in fact the local colonial troops who arranged the defences.
Had the British taken the advice of the Boer and colonial scouts at Isandlwana that battle too would have turned out better for the British
Someone you didn’t mention was Natal mounted police officer Schiess. There were a couple of incidents in the battle which merited him the Victoria Cross, as i recall. Again, good presentation.
Hi Besh, "he's a peeler 716, come to arrest the Zulus!"
Tragically he died in a shipwreck returning to Europe not many years later.
@@jodypitt3629 The Natal Mounted Police were no "peelers" armed with whistle and truncheon like a British Bobby.
The Southern African colonial police forces were paramilitary police forces. And were referred to as regiments. They even had their own artillery batteries.
Is was not till 1913 and 3 years after the formation of the Union of South Africa and the formation of the South African Police Force, that the artillery was transferred over to the then Union Defence Force.
The SAP remained the first line of defence right up to 1994.
In fact the SAP fielded 2 Battalions of infantry during WW2. No other police on earth has trained infantry battalions.
In fact the Police accounted for more enemy kills during the South African border war from 1966 to 1989, than the army, navy and Airforce combined.
So watch who you call a "peeler" as many of my family members, including myself, served as Police officers in South Africa and Rhodesia from the mid 1800's right up to the traitorous betrayal of 1994.
I've always loved this movie ever since I sat down the first time with my father to watch it who also loved it. Easily Stanley Bakers best performance in a movie IMHO. Thank you so very much for putting this together and providing the real story behind the movie.
My favourite line in the film......
"Scouts report Zulus to the East....... thousands of 'em."
Another reason why Chard commanded the forces at Rorke's Drift was due to his training. As an Engineer officer he attended the Royal Military Academy at Woolwich where, as well as engineering studies he was taught tactics and warfare. Bromhead, on the other hand, attended Royal Military College Sandhurst where the emphasis was more on staff work and drills. It is likely that both officers realised that, not only did one have superiority over the time by virtue of time in rank, but he also had greater experience and training in defensive works and tactics.
Chard commanded Rorke's Drift because the CO of the post, Major Spalding, placed him temporarily in charge before departing to Helpmakaar. That was in the morning before Isandhlwanda and his famous last words were...".I'll be back by Evening, but nothing will happen." Chard had more than 3 years seniority over Bromhead.
Dalton organised the defence of Rorkes Drift.
Excellent. Absolutely enjoyed watching and learning. Shared with family. friends, colleagues. 👍🏻😎🙏🏻✝️🇺🇸👍🏻🇬🇧🏴🏴
Nice vid. Very enthralling 😉
Thank you for giving me the true facts of what happened before, during, and after the battle of Rorkes Drift. On its release, I saw this movie for the first time in Weston Super Mare. I suspect I have seen it as much as 50 times since and never tire of the story. i now live in Colombia and rely on UA-cam for much of my viewing. Thank you again, and I look forward to seeing more of your videos.
Like yourself I have seen Zulu many times. It’s an excellent film, a classic, but the real battle is far more interesting. Thank you for your kind words 👍
I agree that Zulu is a terrific movie, certainly one of my favorites. I see though that it relates to history about as well as The Alamo does. Not surprising really, you have to tell a good story and sometimes the facts get in the way. Very good video, I learned a lot.
Yup. When watching any "historical drama", don't ever forget the old Hollywood adage, "Never let facts get in the way of a good story!" It's like "Bridge On The River Kwai". About the only thing accurate about that film is the fact that there was a river, it was WWII, and there were POW laborers. Everything else is more or less a sham... but it's still a really good film! In any case, it is nice that "Zulu" at least gets relatively close to the truth. It allows us to at least remember those men and what they did. As well as the bravery (or perhaps fanaticism) of the warriors facing rifles with primarily Assagais.
Absolutely my favourite movie, despite all the historical inaccuracies
After having watched the film so often my partner and I had the opportunity to tour South Africa for a few months in 1980 and visited Rorkes Drift and Isandlwana
It later became quite commercialised but at least it offered income for the local community.
The barracks and museum in Brecon is another venue to visit for further info. This more accurate depiction of the events needs to be voiced for the sake and memories of both Zulu and British forces who had bravely fought for what they saw as right. The muck sticks firmly on Chelmsford in my mind .(?) Thank you for sharing.
A good solid war movie with very good battles , with Great actors !!
Thanks Sir - Great Job !
Excellent...it is one of my favorite movies too.
Thabks very much love this film and watchrd yet again recently, i love the dry humour in some parts Stanley Baker was superb
Movies don't have to be historically correct. It's not a documentary. It's entertainment.
Hence why so many people genuinely think this film IS historically correct...its 50% BS
Like you. This is my best film ever. I first saw it when I was 9 at the local cinema. I’ve seen it many times since. Always in awe of those phenomenal soldiers.
Obviously the Zulus were outstanding warriors, charging at those guns just armed with spears and hide shields.
Thank you for putting Hook to rights.
Excellent video thanks
Zulu showing today on film four …….great film . Great cast . Michael Caine is a London treasure and a national treasure. Thank you 🙏
Thanks for shedding light on the killing of prisoners/wounded normally ignored in accounts of these battles.
That was a common practice carried out all over Africa and especially by the Zulu who had no medical facilities or knowledge at all.
Only women of breeding age or younger were ever saved if captured.
There are reports that many seriously wounded Zulus were dispatched by fellow warriors, as they had no chance of travelling many miles home.
The number of VC's and other gallantry medals is absolutely phenomenal, the average British soldier was incredibly brave and highly trained and they still are now. I'm almost 49 so I remember this film well when I was a boy, my Dad loved it and so do I. It's one of the best films I've ever seen and even though some of the facts are wrong, I always watch it any time it's on TV.
Very well done. Well written and produced. It is common that I find myself raging at people for saying or implying that the British Army, or RN or RAF are 'English' services. Not only was there no such mistake here, but the author even stated the nations present and their numbers. Thereby helping to undo false statements made by others.
I would like there to have been mention of Colour Sergeant Frank Bourne, the youngest Colour Sergeant in the British Army and who at 5'3" was very well represented by the towering 6'4" Nigel Green. Perhaps his is a story for another time. New subscriber. (Obviously)
Enfield & Baker wanted a 'more traditional movie nco' - hence the age gap - Nigel Green was given a brief run down of the character but his low key approach was his own idea based on a Chief Petty Officer he served with in the Royal Navy - he thought there were 'too many square bashing ncos' in films. Mind you I've read a number of reviews of the film which refer to a 'barking sgt major' - I'm still looking for one every time I see the film!
Thank you for sharing
Thank you for clarifying the encounter.
Thank you for the truth.
I enjoyed seeing the film Zulu. It is still memorable after not seeing it for so many years.
Good to see James Dalton mentioned. His earlier experience and service as a Light infantry man greatly contributed to the defence. He had to wait a long time before his actions were finally recognised with a deserved VC.
George the coward!
Use your real adult name.
Who cares anymore?, this country is f****** already. We’ve never seen a government as criminally corrupt as this one we're suffering from today. Easily, the most irresponsible, dangerous, treacherous government we've ever seen before. Today we watch our own PM supporting Ukrainian Nazism!
The lies these people tell are so out of control today it's really embarrassing seeing it. Yet incredibly, they'll stand and lie to your face today, and with no shame! As they actually don't care. This so-called propaganda against Russia and Putin, is only laughable as it's just so remedial in its context it shouldn't fool a teenager?, only looking around, you have to say, how on earth has this country ended up with such a remedial thinking society?
We read them all today, all wanting an opinion on these issues in Ukraine, yet they clearly know nothing about it? It's simply backwardness, and backwardness on full display today.
Why is this government even involved in Ukraine, let alone supplying the Nazis with our weapons and just dishing out a billion pounds to that coke head Zelenskiy?
But It's really all been about the EU, NATO, and the USA, right? Well, we left the EU, so why are we giving those Nazis a billion and all those weapons? And not only that, no, but we're leading this criminal show of patheticness? Why?
We all knew this government never wanted to leave the EU, but incredibly, we elected that same "remain government", to lead us out of the EU, while we all knew they never wanted to leave? Hahahaha how embarrassing, how insane was that? LMAO.
People in this country today, are, without question, easily the least educated society we've ever seen or experienced before, it's shocking!
Who were the two main countries we were going to need a good relationship with, and able to trade with, once we'd left the EU, if we were going to succeed? Both Russia and China, of course. Well, why are the only two countries this government has gone out of its way to destroy our relationship with, (with all their non-stop lies and demonization's) are both Russia and China? That makes such sense, right?
Today we could be having cheap oil from Russia, who'd of been one of our trading partners. Only this criminal shower were determined to see us fail just so they can get us back in the EU. That's where many of their ill-gotten gains they fill all their offshore accounts with come from. What was the going rate to bribe an unelected British MEP for our powerful vote on which countries get extra financial support?
And it's all of us paying for these illegal sanctions placed on Russia, again, and again, without cause or reason to do so, as again, nothing they say has been proven, but most has been debunked today, we could not be more wrong in what we're doing, while Russia could not be more right, if they really tried.
I can hear it already..... "We have decided, (for our own security), to rejoin the EU". We must all understand, we're stronger together!
How long till we hear that? But also, who ever believed we would see the day that British people become traitors against everything we've been brought up believing in? I never believed I'd ever see such backward stupidity in all my life. Just what sort of people am I actually living with today?
These fools we see supporting Ukraine today are just anti-British idiots who hilariously consider themselves well-educated individuals, while the truth is, they're by far, the worst sort of people, and least educated people we could possibly find ourselves with, and right at a time we need the exact opposite.
It's shocking we could ever see any Brit fooled by these outright lies about Russia, as all the facts, all the footage, and everything that's been going on since the US coup of Ukraine in 2014, is so freely available to watch and learn.
Everything we've seen is all documented, and it's completely undeniable, as we can watch it all, (and from both sides)? Just look up a British (freelance journalist), Graham Phillips, whose channel has every battle fought in 2014, all available to watch. Also, an American freelance journalist, Patrick Lancaster, whose been reporting all of this today, from the ground during these fights in Ukraine, showing us, and proving to us all, what the truth really is.
These fools we see supporting Ukraine, are nothing but anti-British traitors, and so anti everything we've been brought up believing in, they're traitors against all those people, our own families and relatives who fought and gave their lives to defeat Nazism, while this shower today, we unbelievably see supporting Ukrainian Nazism.
It's a disgrace we could ever see this. Britain the only country in the world, that's always fought against every attempt at tyranny in our world's modern history, (and is unbeaten doing so), today, with a society of propaganda believing imbeciles and cowards. We should never be supporting this clear and obvious attempt at global military control, as well as, global financial control by the USA, as we should all know, that's what always becomes global tyranny?.
Surely, we would only fight against that, and never for it? Otherwise, why aren't you all asking, when will it be our turn?
Today, we're inundated with these treacherous fools, who believe they're bright, fools who seem to want to go to war with the USA, why? They've no idea at all, but it will see them only fighting for American global tyranny, against many others who will be fighting for their freedoms!
When Putin came to power in 2000, Russia was as deep in the toilet as they could have been, the economy was broken down, the people were starving to death, and all Russian resources had been illegally sold off in corrupt CIA led auctions. We have all watched Russia improve, we have watched him rebuild the country, we've seen him doing all the things we all should know we should have been seeing from our own governments? Fighting against the USA's supported terrorism in Syria! While we support it!!
He has done everything right, and he's done it transparently, and well within international law. It's only the uneducated and propaganda led fools in this country that have no idea about this. The Russians all know, and they do understand this perfectly. And with all they've been through so many times in history, surely if any society could select you a great leader, it must be them?
Go back and look at Russia throughout the 1990s, and then look from 2000, to today. How anyone does not recognize what he's achieved is astonishing. As the undeniable truth really is, nobody has ever taken a country that had collapsed from a leading global superpower to a country on its knees, a broken corrupted nightmare of a country, that had been dilapidated to the point the people were starving to death, and all felt they had no hope! -
- To within 20 years, taking that country, improving that country, and leading that country to once again become a leading global power, sitting at the top table? With a society who've seen their dream answered, and all have so much hope today, who are all working, earning again, and whose country has seen improvement after improvement in all areas.
Nobody from any time in history has ever got remotely close to achieving all that Putin has for Russia, is the truth and reality? Knowing all that, is impressive, for sure. Now think about it again, only this time while recognizing all the Illegal sanctions we placed on Russia, (for no reason), while recognizing the truth, and while understanding what he has had against him through every day of it? You can only see a man that's being demonized by the worst, most criminal, terrorist supporting leaderships, the west has ever seen.
Putin, (quite rightly), said, that any weapons sent into Ukraine by the west, is a red line, that if crossed Russia will, without question, respond to, and respond this time, in a way that leaves nobody in any doubt Russia is protecting its own security. Pretty much what the USA said when the USSR placed its missiles in Cuba, that saw the USA threaten the USSR with nuclear war.
But today these idiots must expect Russia to just put up with over 400 USA military bases surrounding Russia, and just put up with several EU countries close to Russia's border with American missiles in them, targetting Russia? Oh sure, they'll just put up with that! But then, the very next day, and for the first time, we then saw the UK unpacking weapons in Ukraine?? Tell me, just how irresponsible, pathetic, clueless, stupid, and dangerous, do you all see this Government of only Washington puppets today? It's commonly known as provocation.
What better country is there in this world today for either China or Russia to merely wipe out to force the USA to back right down than the undefended UK? Today, Russia could remove us from this planet in under 5 minutes, or could even land and take this country by force in under 12 hours, and there is nothing at all we, or anyone else could do about it.
The truth really is, every one of our so-called allies, Europe and the USA, would both like to see that happen more than anything else. And with this leadership, and people like you in this society, today, they'll more than likely get their wish.
Russia have already shown us they have tabs on all our Nuclear subs! When May gave the stupid order to attack Syria with our cruise missiles (an illegal act), we watched one of our own subs surface, and prepare to fire at Syria, only then we saw a Russian sub surface right behind our own (basically saying to us, if you fire we will sink you). And idiots will have no idea that if Russia had just remained submerged, and sunk us? They'd have done so, while remaining well within International law. So, we watched our own sub submerge and disappear, with the Russian sub following, so if any of you think those 2 or 3 sh** subs scare Russia? Think again, they'll simply sink them first. Even the weapons it carries, Russia can simply shoot down today. This is today's reality, right now, as we speak, only nobody in my country has a clue about any of this, because they're not interested, they'll soon be interested when London is removed.
Then, and only then, will we hear these uneducated brats crying and sobbing, asking what's going on. Pathetic traitors against all we've been brought up believing in. What an embarrassment we really are, it's extraordinary idiocy, idiocy like we've never seen or experienced before. Who ever believed we would see the day that British people become traitors to everything we've been brought up believing in? I never believed I'd ever see such backward stupidity in all my life.
Just what sort of people am I actually living with today? It actually sees me want to see this country, my own country, completely annihilated today. Wipe this urban jungle of the worst kind of filth imaginable, from the face of this earth, and do the rest of the world a massive favour.
Today, my own country, is nothing but a US lapdog, a parasite.
His direct descendent lives in Sydney and when Dalton's VC Group came up for sale he sold his medal collection to bid for it. He had enough to bid a little over the going rate how he was out bid and wou have to mortage the house for the extra money BUT she who had to be obeyed put a stop to that
Thank you so much for this
Very enlightening and well scripted. However, there is a certain irony in pronouncing the word "accurate" as "accriate" which raised a smile from me, more than once.
Overall, I loved it. Thank you.
I read Somewhere that the King was quite detailed about his brother's orders: Do NOT cross the river, Do NOT give the British any more excuse to invade and the like. The part I liked best was this advice: If you catch them in the open, you'll massacre them; if they are in a defensive position, they'll murder you. IF this was so, truer words were seldom spoken.
PS--one of my all-time favorite movies!
It’s true, the Zulu king ordered not to attack defensive positions. His words proved very true, a costly bit of disobedience.
Excellent video!
A good non-fiction book on the subject is Robert B. Edgerton's "Like Lions They Fought: The Zulu War and the Last Black Empire in South Africa."
This was great 👍🏻
I've seen this film many times an love it, but i also love milatry history the inaccuracies come from lack of research an the fact that the British hierarchy covered for Chelmsford, bless the men who stood a fought
Jones Vc is buried in our local churchyard
Very good ! ! !
Thank You ! ! !
🙂😎👍
The Blu ray restoration is brilliant, now all we need is the 4K
Another glaring error was the naming of the Regiment as the South Wales Borderers. At the time of the battle it was the Warwickshire Regiment. It was two years later when the regiment moved to Brecon that it was renamed the South Wales Borderers. Since the film's producer, Stanley Baker, was a proud Welshman we can assume he changed the name for that reason.
Nice catch. But the 24th Regiment was the 2nd Warwickshire Regiment, generally written as the 24th (2nd Warwickshire) Regiment of Foot, until it became the South Wales Borderers in 1881 under the Childers reforms. From about 1782 (when the British regiments were linked with counties to aid recruiting) the 6th Regiment of Foot became the 6th (1st Warwickshire) Regiment of Foot until about 1832, when it became the 6th (Royal Warwickshire) Regiment of Foot. Like the 24th, the 6th lost its number in the Childers reforms of 1881, albeit according to some of the regimental histories I've read, some officers continued to refer to their regiments by the regimental numbers long after the Childers reforms.
Great movie and soundtrack. I can also appreciate the facts in relation to the artistic license of the film.
They had to water it down for the movie. Nobody would have believed the real thing.
❤ Brilliant film a true work of art which I've watched probably 15 to 20 times and first saw on release as a boy. Your critique I think is spot on. Thankyou
It is a classic move, it captivated me as a young boy knowing that it was based on a true battle. Thanks for your comment 👍
I too max have watched this movie many times I share your comments on this superb film
What I'm always surprised by is how inaccurate their fire actually was. They used up almost 20K rounds of ammunition and only killed 350 and wounded 500 out of some 4 to 5 thousand zulu. Although I recall from my own army basic training how hard it was to hit a target at 300 yards with an m16A2.
The Martini Henry is a fairly accurate rifle but British army at the time was trained to stand in line and fire in volleys at massed groups of troops and very little training on individual marksmanship was given. A few years later when we fought the boers (who were incidentally brilliant marksmen), we suffered our first defeat (I mean a war, not a battle) since the American war of independence and we completely overhauled single-soldier tactics.
Another interesting point is that the British army used the single-shot Martini long after other countries switched to Mausers etc. The reason for this is because the ammo-clip hadn't yet been invented and it was possible for a well-trained soldier to keep up a rate of fire with a Martini comparable with one using a Mauser.
Hope you enjoyed reading.
The British army never deemed accurate fire to be important right up to the lessons learnt during the 2nd Boer War.
The doctrine at this stage was volley fire and would remain as such until just before WW1.
If this had been a Boer battle there would have only 4000 rounds expended and 3999 Zulu casualties.
That's incredibly accurate for battle. In earlier battles with muskets you'd 1 hit for 200 to 500 shots. In ww2 and Vietnam it was 1 per 50,000. Now it's 250,000 bullets a hit. So even 500 kills is 1 for 40. That's amazing
@@mazambane286 I don't think people appreciate how few soldiers even attempt to fire accurately aiming to kill, let alone how difficult it is firing accurately. In 1947, in America a study was done after ww2. Only 2% of men in a position to kill ever were willing to take those shots. So I'm not including supply troops. In an active battle only 2% of men tried killing each other. That's why soldiers do the swat team style practice to make shooting instinctive
The greatest problem they had was depicted in one of the paintings in this clip. They had to wrap their rifles in damp cloths because they became too hot to hold and given that they were black powder rounds, their rifles were dreadfully foul after about 40 rounds and probably incapable of accurate fire. I've fired a Martini Henry rifle and the recoil is unpleasant to say the least. Imagine firing one for about 10 hours. Although with their original pouch load-outs of 60 rounds, they'd have fired, on average, about 200 rounds in total. Its a wonder that broken shoulders weren't the commonest wounds.
One of my favorite movies
I wasn't even born until 1964 and I saw this movie when I was about ten years old as a rerun on the Sunday afternoon matinee and have enjoyed watching it on T.V. occasionally ever since. I have seen it so many times though that I know everything that is going to happen or be said so usually it is just something I will put on if I am home sick. I didn't know there were so many falsehoods about battles and outright lies about people that should have warranted a lawsuit!
Great analyses.. I too love this film and it inspired me to learn the truth about the Zulu war..
"The Anglo-Zulu War was fought in 1879 between the British Empire and the Zulu Kingdom. Following the British North America Act of 1867 for the federation in Canada, by Lord Carnarvon, it was thought that similar political effort, coupled with military campaigns, might succeed with the African Kingdoms, tribal areas and Boer republics in South Africa. In 1874, Sir Bartle Frere was sent to South Africa as High Commissioner for the British Empire to effect such plans. Among the obstacles were the armed independent states of the South African Republic and the Kingdom of Zululand."
I met the man who was the costume designer for the movie, he told me that for budget and the heat of the day, all the soldiers that were laying down due to being killed by the Zulu's. They wore red create paper tunics.
Strange,and hes not alone on UA-cam. someone declaring their love of the movie,probably seeing it like me for the first time many many years ogo,then unpicking everything great about it with historical accuracy,nerdy and yes,strange.
Zulu was a film that was very important to the cultural development of modern Zulu self identity; but I think it was equally important to the development of Plaid Cymru.
Most of the soldiers at Rorke's Drift came from the West Midlands. I doubt that 'Men of Walsall' would have sounded so impressive, however.
Plaid cymru this film?...i love irony...An ENGLISH REGIMENT
This is a celebrated moment in British military history. I'm somewhat surprised that those involved with the movie, especially their military advisors, incorrectly gave the commissioning dates for Chard and Bromhead.
I don't think they had military advisers - but it's a very well made film
A bloke I met used to go out drinking everyday, except when Zulu was on TV, then he would stay home to watch it with a bottle of scotch and a cribbage pegboard, which he used to try and keep track of the dead Zulu's.... Now that's a true fan of this great film🇬🇧🇬🇧🇬🇧🤣🤣🤣
This is one of my all time best liked movie i loved it when it first came out
I always have been curious about exactly what the Zulu were saying during their impressive and singing and chanting. It sounds so inspiring.
It still stands as one of my favourite movies to watch. Accurate - I never assumed it was. Based on true events - I never doubted that. Sadly cinema productions are always happy to sacrifice the truth for dramatic licence. However I don't watch this and other movies for their documentary value, but their entertainment value. It is the entertainment value that makes the movie a true classic and keeps bringing me back to it. I too saw it at the cinema in the 70s and often wish it would come back to the big screen. Oh well ... I'll just have to buy a good projector and sound system - hehehehehe. Wont that annoy my wife ...
Go for it !
I actually think Hook is played as a comedic loveable rogue, and he DOES end up being a hero.
In my humble experience it is the "awkward" characters and the rogues in peacetime who make the best soldiers in war. Because they can think for themselves and don't need orders to act.
No matter how they wanted to play Hook,it was a total Disservice to Him and His Family. If he was such a dickhead there is no way they would have given Him the VC, Hook earned that VC, with Martini-Henry Rifle and a Bayonet with some guts behind it! If you are using your bayonet or knife in a battle your in a shitstorm no doubt about it.
He was a model soldier and his memory was slandered. People still believe the film version. It's just wrong.
What’s sad Is the public watches a Hollywood movie and assumes it’s fact. Generally I think the public are less than knowledgeable in history and important events
That's true! You've made a great point. People don't understand that when it's written for ALL TO SEE, BASED ON TRUE FACTS, what do they think the rest of the story is?? When people don't care at all about History, ALL is lost!
I love this film but thank you for your clearing up the historical inaccuracies/errors.
Film makers have a lot of these cinematic sins to their discredit.
Very telling about Western culture. Film makers can tell tales (create fiction) and discount history to be more cinematic and fill a theater. So sad. Even still, I am a huge film buff but one with eyes wide open.
They have to necessarily be inaccurate because the filmmakers only have 2 hours to tell a story that took place over 10 hours of combat and a day or two before and after the battle. But still it's interesting to find out what they changed from the true story to tell their own movie story
Just picked up the Blu-ray, never seen it, but sounds like my kind of movie.
Saw the movie Glory when it came out in the 80's. Great movie but when I researched the details of the 54th Mass and the Battle of Battery Wagner, I was disappointed by the movie afterwards. I get that same feeling with Zulu.
Most films based on history was treated the same way in those days, The truth is always better!
The sad thing is that the enlisted men who were awarded the Victoria Cross at Rorkes Drift all met very sad ends, dying poverty stricken, one died in an Asylum, another actually died in the gutter another died in a Poor House. The Officers on the other hand thrived.
Officers came from well to do families. Enlisted men joined up to escape poverty. In the end, they had nothing to go back to....
Not that much different in our military, NCO's and the Officer Corp live on different planets, that's the way its always been.
@@PatrickJDoyle-bw3fu They are generally different people to start with
LT BROMHEAD , DIED IN iNDIA OF TYPHOID IN 1891 WHILE STATIONED THERE WITH HIS REGIMENT. LT CHARD DIED OF CANCER IN 1897. THRIVING NOT QUITE .
Except Bromhead who became deaf and Chard who died from throat cancer. Hardly thriving.
"Hitch... Hitch? you're alive... i've seen you..."
Hitch - 'I am, oh thanks very much sir'
The decision made to fortify what defensible position they had and to fight there saved them. Had they moved away from this they would have been slaughtered to the last man. “Steady lads..there’s a good lad”.
Bro your voice and the background music was healing to my soul. Make more. Do Lewis and Clark, Shackleton, the Essex… etc.
I wish a Flim producer would make a film based on the true facts. The sad part about it, people watch this type of interpretation of history and think it is what actualy happened. I can understand why Hooks Daughters walked out.
Perhaps a new, more accurate, version of this battle needs to be made; I'm not extremely hopeful that the Hollywood of today would do it justice, though. Perhaps one of the independent film houses could do it.
That would be fab