You must be kidding!! In this day and age make a historical movie with the obvious end result of the Zulus losing against “ colonialist exploiters!” You would be stoned! No matter that it may be accurate and of the same excellent quality of the original Stanley Baker movie “Zulu” which portrayed the Zulus rightly as brave warriors. Loved that movie and would enjoy other great historical movies even if you and I were the only two watching!🤓
@@LOVECATO1Stanley Bakers film "Zulu" was fantastic but it would have historians tearing their hair out due historical inaccuracies. I personally prefer "Zulu Dawn" which is on a bigger scale and deals with the Battle of Isandlawana.
Ulundi would make for a good total war show but it was even more one-sided than Nyezane. The British formed a huge square with Gatlings and cannon. Chelmsford always denied there had been need to 'laager' at Isandlwana but his square at Ulundi was almost an admission he was wrong, as if 1400 dead didn't make the point clear enough. Edit: This channel has already done others of the battles of the Zulu war, including Ulundi (the final battle) using Total War.
@@patrickkelly6691 If you read the books by Ian Knight,Saul David and Ian Castle who are experts on this conflict they will confirm the following. The ground at Isandlawana was rocky soil and would take literally back breaking work to try and dig entrenchments. So that was not feasible in the circumstances.The wagons the British army were using were big and would take 12-15 men to try and overturn which again would take hard physical work. The camp at Isandlawana was only temporarily and the wagons were also needed to bring up supplies from Rorkes Drift. When people think that the British should have formed a laager they no doubt are getting images of wagons forming a circle in the wild west or the later Boer War. The wagons in tbe aforementioned instances were much smaller and lighter than the heavy duty British army transport wagons. You cant have your men doing hours of back breaking work and not knowing the location of your enemy. You would have to have your men in top fresh physical condition in case of battle. Another myth is that the ammunition boxes were screwed down and delayed the supply of ammo. A couple of years ago on a TV documentary made by Ian Knight it showed the ammo boxes even when screwd down could easily he opened by a blow from the butt of a Martini Henry rifle. Another myth debunked. People also get the casualty count wrong from Isandlawana. People think well over 1,000 scarlet clad British soldiers were killed at Isandlawana but this is not the case. There was about 850 white men killed at Isandlawana which were obviously British soldiers and colonials. It is the addition of several hundred killed black auxiliaries including disgruntled Zulus that bring the casualty figure well passed the 1,000 mark. Check out the Battle of Maiwand(July 1880) during the 2nd Anglo-Afghan War which was another major colonial defeat for the British in the Victorian era.
"He said that still through chaos works on the ancient plan And two things have altered not since first the world began The beauty of the wild green earth and the bravery of man."
One minor point. The British were not using muskets, They were armed with the latest weapon, the Martini Henry .455/750 rifle, a very reliable weapon based on the Patt1853 musket
Great action! This style lends itself to the colonial skirmish type world. This is also a period not really done much; boers, Sudan, NW frontier etc etc etc. 😊
This was wild. When the Zulus hesitate you know the firepower is overwhelming. Still they where mad brave for making those charges and getting close before being fought off.
Probably rear echolon units later involved in the fighting. E.g. sappers or engineers would wear their fatigues rather than the redcoat on a work detail
A lot of people are amazed at how Zulu warriors seemed so fearless. What they don't know is that the warriors families would all be slaughtered if there was any hesitation on the battlefield. The warriors would attack with reckless abandon or their families would be killed. It's that simple.
greetings. Were these videos put in order of historical events? There are no dates. Edit. Looks like this video is first, then the Battle of Isandluana is second.
These graphics are superb and bring the battles to life. The Battle of Nyezane River is overshadowed by the great Zulu victory at Isandlawana and the great British defence at Rorkes Drift. What is amazing is that all three battles took place on the same day with Rorkes Drift continuing into the next day. What is forgotten about is the following. Modern historians due to new historical evidence are putting the combined Zulu KIA of these 3 battles at 2,500-3,000 warriors. That is a lot of men to lose in just 48 hours and it is a statistic never mentioned in Zulu War books by established historians. I forget his exact words but if I paraphrase Chief Cetswayo when he heard of the casualties from the 3 battles he said something like "A great assegai has been thrust into the heart of the nation". Lt Hart would later command the Irish Brigade at the Battle of Colenso(December 1899) where it took heavy casualties during the 2nd Anglo-Boer War. For our international friends the "Buffs" are the East Kent Regiment. Look how devastating the Gatling guns were and just 3 years earlier in 1876 in the USA Custer refused to bring them on campaign as he was afraid they would impede his mobility and slow his Calvary column. How different the result of the Battle of the Little Bighorn could have been if he did. Will you be doing graphics for the 2nd Anglo-Afghan War? The Battle of Maiwand(July 1880) is the second biggest colonial defeat for the British in the Victorian age after Isandlawana. Fans of Sherlock Holmes like myself know that Dr.John Watson was a medic at the Battle of Maiwand!
Thanks for your comment it was very informative, yes in the near future I will cover the 2nd war and also the American civil war hopefully- thanks for watching!
3,000 men KIA would be 10% of the Zulu fighting men, a heavy blow indeed, there were also of course a great many wounded. I have seen Photos taken after the war with warriors showing the huge wounds the bullets made. The Zulu's were a tough lot.
@@patrickkelly6691 In this conflict people erroneously think the Zulus had a lot of wounded. In fact the number of Zulus that survived gun shot wounds was small. A lot died from their wounds in the days and weeks after the battles.The Zulu witch doctors did not have the medical technology or skill to treat serious gun shot wounds. The Martini Henty was a formidable rifle and the calibre of bullet had great stopping power. A Matini Henry calibre bullet could penetrate through two Zulus one in front of the other. This was demonstrated by Ian Knight in a documentary about the ballistic power of the bullet during live shot tests. There was no doubt the British were going to win this war in the end. A major global imperial industrial power at the time. However in recent years there has been a major criticism of Zulu tactics when looking at the conflict through strictly military eyes. Cetswayo wanted to portray the Zulus as the victims and not the aggressors in this conflict which dictated a lot of Zulu strategy. Some historians argue the Zulus could have invaded Natal which was vulnerable during the opening stages when British invasion columns were entering into Zululand. This would have forced the British to return some of the invading force. Historians are also critical of the use of rifles displayed by the Zulus. By 1879 the Zulus were well acquainted with the firepower of obsolete muskets and a couple had experience with modern firearms. The Zulus had experience of the firepower of muskets due to their history of fighting the Boers. I know some historians argue the Zulus thought the rifle was a cowardly weapon and had more respect for the bayonet. Remember the Zulus captured a lof of rifles and ammo after Isandlawana,Ntombe and Hlobane battles. Some historians argue the Zulus should have formed regiments who had experience of rifles. These regiments could have been used in large scale ambushes in CQB(Close Quarter Battle) where marksmanship was not a factor due to the proximity of the combatants. Historians also argue that the Zulus should have attacked British columns while the latter were on the move. Again at such short distances the British infantry would not have sufficient time to form squares or rows of firing lines. Remember the Zulu commanders had the harsh lesson of fighting white men in fixed defensive positions as a result of the Battle of Blood River in the mid 1830's against the Boers. Zulu commanders knew the firepower of muskets and modern rifles and the consequences of fighting fixed defensive positions. Cetswayo gave instructions not to fight the British when the latter were in fixed positions. Zulu commanders were too versed in the tactics of the "Horns of the Buffalo". They should have displayed more flexibility by 1879. Some historians state the Zulus could have embarked on a guerilla campaign from the story but this is also open to criticism. Look how the native American Indians incorporated modern weapons into their wars against the US government. No one can doubt the prowess of the Zulu warrior as a first rate light infantry soldier. Also the Zulu warriors displayed monumental bravery and courage. However their traditional tactics were ideally suited to the British methods of colonial warfare. All of the aforementioned is pure conjecture but some military historians argue the Zulu War of 1879 could have been a more devastating experience for the British than what was actually the case.
@@johnroche7541 I have not a single disputation of any of these points. All I said was that a lot more were wounded, not they all survived those wounds. Some did and I have seen photo's of the wounds. Yes the MH .577/450 round caused big wounds and being hit, even if a 'minor' wound, meant you were not going to be interested in sticking pointy things in anybody for a while. Your final point is also unobjectionable and it is clear that every time the British Forces were attacked in Laager or Entrenched (as per Standing Orders), the result was disastrous for the Zulu.
@@patrickkelly6691 Again I was not disputing or refuting any points you made. I was replying to a fellow student of the conflict and as I stated previously I certainly was not criticising. I know I digress but if you can indulge me for one moment please. Just an example. I am not sure if you are familiar with the Nine Years War in Ireland. Anyway an English relief column (estimated at 4,000) was ambushed in several places by the Irish. The Irish also had camouflaged positions. The Irish had muskets and pikemen(just like the English) and killed an estimated 1,500-2,000 of this column. It is known as the Battle of Yellow Ford(1598). It was like an Irish Teutenberg Forest in miniature. The point I am making is that not even with the benefit of hindsight I cant comprehend or understand like some historians the British invading columns were not attacked by the Zulus whilst in motion. As you are well aware there is plenty of examples of columns being attacked in history. Look at the British experience in the First Anglo-Afghan War during the retreat to Kabul.
The disparity in numbers may well have been nullified if the Zulues had roughly equivalent firearms. Despite Artillery or Gatling guns. But this is nothing but speculation. The movie was indeed pulse- quickening. But this is more philosophy than reality. How brave and Gallant those soldiers of either side!
Had a little more trouble picking on the Boers ? Generally preferred under armed Natives ? Near as I can tell the Zulus never wanted a war but were goaded into it rather unfairly ( local Governor with Big Ideas ? 🤔😊
Sorry but this is just full of misinformation . 1) The British Army were not equipped with muskets that was decades earlier , they used martini henry single shot rifles . 2) Yes Zulus did have some muskets but they had actually traded for them many years earlier at Rorkes drift when it was a trading post . 3) The Zulus also had a number of martini henry rifles which were captured after the battle of Isandalwana , somewhere between 1000 and 2000 of them.
@@cinematicbattles559 I like to see the birds, but the planks are distracting. 😆 Hopefully the gaming design company will continue to improve until it's as good as your content!
The zulu hated and feared the British bayonet, called the lunger .... At isandlwhana many zulu veterans commented that the bayonet would not allow them to kill, As the zulu were often fixed through the throat.
@@cinematicbattles559понимаю Вашу иронию , но считаю этот пример не слишком удачным.. Я говорю именно о ночном нападении , а первая атака на Дрифт Роркс началась около 17:00.
If you don't like this country or our history, woke, you know what to do. You probably knelt down for the rip off blm lot also, they made mugs of you lot didn't they.?.
Anyone think British was badass's ,especially when they had guns and Cannon's and endless resources. Only ones who was badasses was the men fighting with spear and animal skin shields.
1 in 5 Zulus were armed with a gun of some sort. They outnumbered this British in guns in nearly every battle, except this one. They still had over a thousand guns at Inyezane though.
Awesome? And what is "Awesome" about Killing natives who fight with stones and spears to Defend their Homeland? The "Greatness" of the British Empire was established thanks to the Piracy, the Slavery, the Massacres, the Opium Trade, and the Weakness of many abused sovereign nations. The English have provoked with total impunity, 9 Genocides and 12 Massacres in India, Burma, China, Malaysia, Australia, the Middle East, Africa and America. What's so "Awesome" about being a nation of Looters and Criminals?
Pearson stayed and reinforced the garrison at Eshowe. With Officers, and men dead, or dying from dysentery he held out against several zulu raids...although not once did they attack the garrison, always it was outside skirmish. Eventually Chelmsford sent out a 5,000 strong relief column, to replace the defenders of Eshowe, and in turn got attacked the day before it reached Eshowe. Chelmsford was able to defeat the zulu impi, and lost only a dozen men or so. he later went on to release the garrison at Eshowe.
ถ้ามีอาวุธใกล้เคียงกัน ถึงแม้คนน้อยกว่า ก็เอาชนะได้ เพื่อเอกราช เช่น robert the bruce กษัตริยของชาวสก๊อต ชนะking edward 2 ของอังกฤษ ที่มีทหารมากกว่าหลายเท่า.
""I say old chap, that Zulu is waving his spear at you""
""Damn it man, that's not his spear""
🤣
😂😂😂😂😂😂😂
Hilarious 😂
They finally need to make a movie about the final battle. Where the British won and the Zulus were defeated.
You must be kidding!! In this day and age make a historical movie with the obvious end result of the Zulus losing against “ colonialist exploiters!” You would be stoned! No matter that it may be accurate and of the same excellent quality of the original Stanley Baker movie “Zulu” which portrayed the Zulus rightly as brave warriors. Loved that movie and would enjoy other great historical movies even if you and I were the only two watching!🤓
You are correct and it's sad
@@LOVECATO1Stanley Bakers film "Zulu" was fantastic but it would have historians tearing their hair out due historical inaccuracies. I personally prefer "Zulu Dawn" which is on a bigger scale and deals with the Battle of Isandlawana.
Ulundi would make for a good total war show but it was even more one-sided than Nyezane. The British formed a huge square with Gatlings and cannon. Chelmsford always denied there had been need to 'laager' at Isandlwana but his square at Ulundi was almost an admission he was wrong, as if 1400 dead didn't make the point clear enough.
Edit: This channel has already done others of the battles of the Zulu war, including Ulundi (the final battle) using Total War.
@@patrickkelly6691 If you read the books by Ian Knight,Saul David and Ian Castle who are experts on this conflict they will confirm the following. The ground at Isandlawana was rocky soil and would take literally back breaking work to try and dig entrenchments. So that was not feasible in the circumstances.The wagons the British army were using were big and would take 12-15 men to try and overturn which again would take hard physical work. The camp at Isandlawana was only temporarily and the wagons were also needed to bring up supplies from Rorkes Drift. When people think that the British should have formed a laager they no doubt are getting images of wagons forming a circle in the wild west or the later Boer War. The wagons in tbe aforementioned instances were much smaller and lighter than the heavy duty British army transport wagons. You cant have your men doing hours of back breaking work and not knowing the location of your enemy. You would have to have your men in top fresh physical condition in case of battle. Another myth is that the ammunition boxes were screwed down and delayed the supply of ammo. A couple of years ago on a TV documentary made by Ian Knight it showed the ammo boxes even when screwd down could easily he opened by a blow from the butt of a Martini Henry rifle. Another myth debunked. People also get the casualty count wrong from Isandlawana. People think well over 1,000 scarlet clad British soldiers were killed at Isandlawana but this is not the case. There was about 850 white men killed at Isandlawana which were obviously British soldiers and colonials. It is the addition of several hundred killed black auxiliaries including disgruntled Zulus that bring the casualty figure well passed the 1,000 mark. Check out the Battle of Maiwand(July 1880) during the 2nd Anglo-Afghan War which was another major colonial defeat for the British in the Victorian era.
"He said that still through chaos works on the ancient plan
And two things have altered not since first the world began
The beauty of the wild green earth and the bravery of man."
What’s with the musket statement, the British had the Martini rifle which last time I checked was a cartridge load.
Correct
One minor point. The British were not using muskets, They were armed with the latest weapon, the Martini Henry .455/750 rifle, a very reliable weapon based on the Patt1853 musket
We know that
@andrewstackpool4911 They were using Martini Henry...Did you get confused by the bayonets? The rifle could have a bayonet fixed if wished in battle.
Great action! This style lends itself to the colonial skirmish type world. This is also a period not really done much; boers, Sudan, NW frontier etc etc etc. 😊
The Cinco De Mia moment for blacks....
I did notice that they included some of the script from the film “Zulu”
🧐"don't throw.....these bloody spears........at me" 👈(say in Micheal Caine voice) 😁
Zulus moral should be way higher. In Roarke's drift and islandawala (sp?). They got way closer before retreat
This was wild. When the Zulus hesitate you know the firepower is overwhelming. Still they where mad brave for making those charges and getting close before being fought off.
Yes the bravery of those warriors was insane, its a shame because nothing can be done against the modern weapons the British had - thanks for watching
@@cinematicbattles559 Indeed. The Zulus bravery is the stuff of legends. Your content is top notch and you've got a new subscriber. 👍
@@manuelacosta9463 thanks a lot, I appreciate it
Why were some British soldiers wearing red coats while others were fighting in their shirts?
A bloody hot day ole bean.
cgi
Just woke up
Probably rear echolon units later involved in the fighting. E.g. sappers or engineers would wear their fatigues rather than the redcoat on a work detail
The costume department for this channel ran out of funds, all of them extra actors not cheap you know😁
A lot of people are amazed at how Zulu warriors seemed so fearless. What they don't know is that the warriors families would all be slaughtered if there was any hesitation on the battlefield. The warriors would attack with reckless abandon or their families would be killed. It's that simple.
Just like our Arab enemies today?
I love how that small line of white-bloused Brits were left to die outnumbered, while the main line was right behind them! 😬
Modern industrial killing tech versus lowest level iron-age. Hats off to the Zulus. Disciplined and brave.
Foolish and worth getting rid off
That zulu king got to where he was by doing the exact same as the British lol
greetings. Were these videos put in order of historical events? There are no dates.
Edit.
Looks like this video is first, then the Battle of Isandluana is second.
When You Live By The Sword - Okay Assegai, WHATEVER - Then Karma. Eventually ...
3:02 soldier walks straight into a tree.....shoud've gone to Specsavers.
These graphics are superb and bring the battles to life. The Battle of Nyezane River is overshadowed by the great Zulu victory at Isandlawana and the great British defence at Rorkes Drift. What is amazing is that all three battles took place on the same day with Rorkes Drift continuing into the next day. What is forgotten about is the following. Modern historians due to new historical evidence are putting the combined Zulu KIA of these 3 battles at 2,500-3,000 warriors. That is a lot of men to lose in just 48 hours and it is a statistic never mentioned in Zulu War books by established historians. I forget his exact words but if I paraphrase Chief Cetswayo when he heard of the casualties from the 3 battles he said something like "A great assegai has been thrust into the heart of the nation". Lt Hart would later command the Irish Brigade at the Battle of Colenso(December 1899) where it took heavy casualties during the 2nd Anglo-Boer War. For our international friends the "Buffs" are the East Kent Regiment. Look how devastating the Gatling guns were and just 3 years earlier in 1876 in the USA Custer refused to bring them on campaign as he was afraid they would impede his mobility and slow his Calvary column. How different the result of the Battle of the Little Bighorn could have been if he did. Will you be doing graphics for the 2nd Anglo-Afghan War? The Battle of Maiwand(July 1880) is the second biggest colonial defeat for the British in the Victorian age after Isandlawana. Fans of Sherlock Holmes like myself know that Dr.John Watson was a medic at the Battle of Maiwand!
Thanks for your comment it was very informative, yes in the near future I will cover the 2nd war and also the American civil war hopefully- thanks for watching!
3,000 men KIA would be 10% of the Zulu fighting men, a heavy blow indeed, there were also of course a great many wounded. I have seen Photos taken after the war with warriors showing the huge wounds the bullets made. The Zulu's were a tough lot.
@@patrickkelly6691 In this conflict people erroneously think the Zulus had a lot of wounded. In fact the number of Zulus that survived gun shot wounds was small. A lot died from their wounds in the days and weeks after the battles.The Zulu witch doctors did not have the medical technology or skill to treat serious gun shot wounds. The Martini Henty was a formidable rifle and the calibre of bullet had great stopping power. A Matini Henry calibre bullet could penetrate through two Zulus one in front of the other. This was demonstrated by Ian Knight in a documentary about the ballistic power of the bullet during live shot tests. There was no doubt the British were going to win this war in the end. A major global imperial industrial power at the time. However in recent years there has been a major criticism of Zulu tactics when looking at the conflict through strictly military eyes. Cetswayo wanted to portray the Zulus as the victims and not the aggressors in this conflict which dictated a lot of Zulu strategy. Some historians argue the Zulus could have invaded Natal which was vulnerable during the opening stages when British invasion columns were entering into Zululand. This would have forced the British to return some of the invading force. Historians are also critical of the use of rifles displayed by the Zulus. By 1879 the Zulus were well acquainted with the firepower of obsolete muskets and a couple had experience with modern firearms. The Zulus had experience of the firepower of muskets due to their history of fighting the Boers. I know some historians argue the Zulus thought the rifle was a cowardly weapon and had more respect for the bayonet. Remember the Zulus captured a lof of rifles and ammo after Isandlawana,Ntombe and Hlobane battles. Some historians argue the Zulus should have formed regiments who had experience of rifles. These regiments could have been used in large scale ambushes in CQB(Close Quarter Battle) where marksmanship was not a factor due to the proximity of the combatants. Historians also argue that the Zulus should have attacked British columns while the latter were on the move. Again at such short distances the British infantry would not have sufficient time to form squares or rows of firing lines. Remember the Zulu commanders had the harsh lesson of fighting white men in fixed defensive positions as a result of the Battle of Blood River in the mid 1830's against the Boers. Zulu commanders knew the firepower of muskets and modern rifles and the consequences of fighting fixed defensive positions. Cetswayo gave instructions not to fight the British when the latter were in fixed positions. Zulu commanders were too versed in the tactics of the "Horns of the Buffalo". They should have displayed more flexibility by 1879. Some historians state the Zulus could have embarked on a guerilla campaign from the story but this is also open to criticism. Look how the native American Indians incorporated modern weapons into their wars against the US government. No one can doubt the prowess of the Zulu warrior as a first rate light infantry soldier. Also the Zulu warriors displayed monumental bravery and courage. However their traditional tactics were ideally suited to the British methods of colonial warfare. All of the aforementioned is pure conjecture but some military historians argue the Zulu War of 1879 could have been a more devastating experience for the British than what was actually the case.
@@johnroche7541 I have not a single disputation of any of these points. All I said was that a lot more were wounded, not they all survived those wounds. Some did and I have seen photo's of the wounds. Yes the MH .577/450 round caused big wounds and being hit, even if a 'minor' wound, meant you were not going to be interested in sticking pointy things in anybody for a while.
Your final point is also unobjectionable and it is clear that every time the British Forces were attacked in Laager or Entrenched (as per Standing Orders), the result was disastrous for the Zulu.
@@patrickkelly6691 Again I was not disputing or refuting any points you made. I was replying to a fellow student of the conflict and as I stated previously I certainly was not criticising. I know I digress but if you can indulge me for one moment please. Just an example. I am not sure if you are familiar with the Nine Years War in Ireland. Anyway an English relief column (estimated at 4,000) was ambushed in several places by the Irish. The Irish also had camouflaged positions. The Irish had muskets and pikemen(just like the English) and killed an estimated 1,500-2,000 of this column. It is known as the Battle of Yellow Ford(1598). It was like an Irish Teutenberg Forest in miniature. The point I am making is that not even with the benefit of hindsight I cant comprehend or understand like some historians the British invading columns were not attacked by the Zulus whilst in motion. As you are well aware there is plenty of examples of columns being attacked in history. Look at the British experience in the First Anglo-Afghan War during the retreat to Kabul.
That was impressive. A nod to the excellent mods to Napoleon Total War
Thanks man
I can't be sure without checking, but I think the bugle call at 2:50 is to recall advance troops.
Excellent as always dude!
Thanks bro
The disparity in numbers may well have been nullified if the Zulues had roughly equivalent firearms. Despite Artillery or Gatling guns. But this is nothing but speculation. The movie was indeed pulse- quickening. But this is more philosophy than reality. How brave and Gallant those soldiers of either side!
nice work, do you like ww2 cinematics to?
I would definitely be up for making videos on it, its just difficult with the total war games available- thanks for watching
Had a little more trouble picking on the Boers ? Generally preferred under armed Natives ? Near as I can tell the Zulus never wanted a war but were goaded into it rather unfairly ( local Governor with Big Ideas ? 🤔😊
give name british did not interferience any country using Force .
Disney are making a movie where Charles Haughtrey plays chief Zulu.
I fail to see the humour In such a random comment,
And, by the by,
Charlie hawtrey is dead.
@@caractacusbrittania7442
I bet you're fun at parties.🤦♂️
Sorry but this is just full of misinformation .
1) The British Army were not equipped with muskets that was decades earlier , they used martini henry single shot rifles .
2) Yes Zulus did have some muskets but they had actually traded for them many years earlier at Rorkes drift when it was a trading post .
3) The Zulus also had a number of martini henry rifles which were captured after the battle of Isandalwana , somewhere between 1000 and 2000 of them.
There are no muskets in this game video you muppet.
Amo?
There is also a certain skill in using a rifle in battle.
4) Only 1 in every 10 warriors of the NNC had a firearm, in the video above they are all armed with rifles.
Excellent slaughter.
Now their descendents are occupying most of Europe and UK as payback.
Karma is sweet
@@kimchiba4570Karma for people who weren’t even alive during colonial times?
@@alexfilma16 I'm not other people
I really like this animation style, but what keeps flying around? Some resemble birds, but some look like ...flying planks?!
Thanks, they’re birds 😂
@@cinematicbattles559 I like to see the birds, but the planks are distracting. 😆 Hopefully the gaming design company will continue to improve until it's as good as your content!
@@retriever19golden55 hahah cheers mate
I have a question. How do columns of men marching on wet grass in the rain raise dust? CGI & computer nerds who never get outdoors...sheesh!
Also, "muskets" in 1879? I've seen enough. Done at the 1:56 mark. -Angelika's Husband
I thought Ulundi was where the British first used the Gatling gun, but it was here?
At these times, it was so common to fight and die for an Empire. Is it different than today, in UKR ?
Nobody Told you to stop working!
Nobody told you to stop working!
think about this. both British and Zulus on equal terms ,just spears and shields. whom would one wager a bet on. ?
Then make the numbers equal.
The zulu hated and feared the British bayonet, called the lunger ....
At isandlwhana many zulu veterans commented that the bayonet would not allow them to kill,
As the zulu were often fixed through the throat.
those weren't muskets.
Я бы , на месте Зулусов , напал ночью.
Yes you are right, they did at rorkes drift but that was the only time they did against the British
@@cinematicbattles559понимаю Вашу иронию , но считаю этот пример не слишком удачным.. Я говорю именно о ночном нападении , а первая атака на Дрифт Роркс началась около 17:00.
Invade a sovereign nation to steal their land and wonder why they fought back? So brave ... bullets against spears .. really?
If you don't like this country or our history, woke, you know what to do. You probably knelt down for the rip off blm lot also, they made mugs of you lot didn't they.?.
@user-sc3ts6lf8r you sound like a real savage
Is this the standard Orient MOD?
v nice
Colour Sgt Bourne! The dude.
"Why us Seargent ?", "Because we're here lad ........nobody else"
🇦🇿🇹🇷🇵🇰
go zulus
Anyone think British was badass's ,especially when they had guns and Cannon's and endless resources. Only ones who was badasses was the men fighting with spear and animal skin shields.
1 in 5 Zulus were armed with a gun of some sort. They outnumbered this British in guns in nearly every battle, except this one. They still had over a thousand guns at Inyezane though.
Sour grapes.
Someone salty they're not a part of the glorious oak just a pathetic twig
Awesome 👍
Thank you! Cheers!
Awesome? And what is "Awesome" about Killing natives who fight with stones and spears to Defend their Homeland? The "Greatness" of the British Empire was established thanks to the Piracy, the Slavery, the Massacres, the Opium Trade, and the Weakness of many abused sovereign nations. The English have provoked with total impunity, 9 Genocides and 12 Massacres in India, Burma, China, Malaysia, Australia, the Middle East, Africa and America. What's so "Awesome" about being a nation of Looters and Criminals?
"The British Tommy is never so brave as when he is standing behind a gatling gun and facing spear throwing natives." I forget who said that but...
They wasn't called Tommy s in the Zulu wars
@@pm-bg9mu that hardly matters....
When you are fighting someone use every advantage you can, war is never sporting its to win! Ask Ukraine!
Its in Blackadder Goes Forth I believe, along with the quote about facing the enemy who had "sharpened pineapples"
Can't blame them! I would glory in my power over them!!
Pearson stayed and reinforced the garrison at Eshowe. With Officers, and men dead, or dying from dysentery he held out against several zulu raids...although not once did they attack the garrison, always it was outside skirmish. Eventually Chelmsford sent out a 5,000 strong relief column, to replace the defenders of Eshowe, and in turn got attacked the day before it reached Eshowe. Chelmsford was able to defeat the zulu impi, and lost only a dozen men or so. he later went on to release the garrison at Eshowe.
ถ้ามีอาวุธใกล้เคียงกัน ถึงแม้คนน้อยกว่า ก็เอาชนะได้ เพื่อเอกราช เช่น robert the bruce กษัตริยของชาวสก๊อต ชนะking edward 2 ของอังกฤษ ที่มีทหารมากกว่าหลายเท่า.
Yes I might cover this on my channel in the future - thanks for watching bro