As a historian of British imperial history allow me to make a few comments; both are meant to show episodes in the 1898 Soudan Re-conquest but the uniforms of the 2nd clip are all wrong since the British Army used khaki (and not scarlet) from after 1882. The 2nd clip however bears some resemblance to the battles of Abu Kru and Abu Klea in the 1884-85 Sudan War. I always love the earlier version because it was actually shot in the Sudan and certainly the military advisors on the picture had served in the 1898 war. The big error in both scenes is to show the enemy charging on mounted animals; the dervishes had a "cavalry" but largely fought en masse and on foot. The "fuzzy-wuzzies" shown in the first clip are genuine Hadendowa tribesmen of the Sudan.
That is true, but even at the beginning of the Second Anglo-Boer from 1899-1902 some of the British regiments still fought in scarlet uniforms. But they then soon changed to Khaki, as the scarlet uniforms were to good a target for the Boers.
The second movie is the most recent of the various versions of The Four Feathers, set during the Mahdist Revolt in the Sudan in the mid-1880s, not during the later conflict in the 1890s; if memory serves reference is made in the 2002 version to the Siege of Khartoum as a contemporary event, which dates the movie quite nicely. The second clip is somewhat closer to the reality of the Mahdist wars in the 1880s, given that it shows troops formed in squares and armed with Martini-Henry rifles (though they are the Mk. II variant, as opposed to the Mk. IV which was in service at the time) and it shows Egyptian forces, who comprised a substantial percentage of the British forces engaged in the campaign. As to what the second movie shows, I could not say whether it is the 1880s or the 1890s conflict; if in the 1890s, then Lee Metford rifles should be in use, not Martini-Henry rifles and certainly not the WWI-era SMLE No. 1 Mk. III* which can be seen in several shots; the use of the Martini-Henry and the fact that I think the earlier version is the 1939 version of The Four Feathers would make it the 1880s conflict as well, not the 1890s.
The first (1939) clip resembles the Battle of Omdurman, the second the Battle of Abu Klea. I am not absolutely sure you are right about the khaki in the first Sudan War; there was some debate about which colours provided the better camouflage, and it was pointed out at the time that red (when dusty) was often less conspicuous than dark blue. Nevertheless, I agree with you that khaki or light grey was mainly adopted for the Gordon Relief Expedition. My main objection, to both films, is that the British - especially the artillery - fire far too late. (This also applies to the film 'Zulu'.) At the Battle of Omdurman, few Mahdists got much within 800 yards of the British parts of the line (where Lee-Metfords prevailed) or within 500 yards of the Egyptian sectors (where Martini- Henrys/Metfords prevailed). And where were the thorn bushes? Why the huge gap around those late-firing gun batteries?
@@patkearney4666 there is a line in the first movie,when the old sweat gives advice to young lad as he says'I cant watch them come on like this Sarge' and the old sweat says Close your eyes then son I will tell you when to open them' and that part really reminded me of old Jonesy ha ha with they don't like it up em sir''
Probably because they're real soldiers, the film contracted with the East Surrey Regiment and many of the British soldier extras are actually fully trained soldiers, just dressed in period costume.
I don't know, Lowell Thomas, the American journalist who made the Lawrence of Arabia legend said all the film got right was the camels and sand. It was still a damn good movie , though.
All else aside, the portrayal of the British square in Zulu was exciting as hell. It's not like we're discussing reality here. As to which Mahdist film was better, I will go with the 1st one.
Hands down the 1939 version, although the modern remake does show some excellent field maneuvers, mainly courtesy of the 'Die Hards' reenactment group.
No British force of any size lost a battle to Mahdists, no massacres, etc. An Egyptian army under General Hicks, with British officers, was massacred in the 1880's,but no British army lost a battle.... As you would expect, given their advantages in weaponry.
@@MOBXOJ Not as easy to might think if you look up Kipling's fuzzy wuzzy He said the memory of a fuzzy on the rush was as good as a laxative for a year.
Probably too expensive and the British are queasy about that sort of thing. Unlike the Americans in Errol Flynn's Charge of the Light Brigade when horses were reportedly brought down by tripwires and died as a result.
The problem with the second one is depicting the British British loosing which in reality the British never lost a single battle and wasnt 1 single square but had several different squares and biggest mistake didn't wear red jackets .
@@ianhornby All British infantry in the Sudan wore khaki. The last redcoats in battle were those in South Africa during the Zulu War, 1879. Egyptian Campaign in 1882 was in khaki. Pretty big, obvious mistake in this movie--one among many.
The 1880-81 Boer War was in red. The 1882 Egyptian campaign was in red. In the Sudan, red was worn at the Battle of Kirbekan, Feb. 1885 and at the Battle of Ginnis, Dec. 1885 and, lastly, at the Battle of Ferkeh, June 1896. Since this depicted battle is supposed to Abu Klea, the troops actually should've been wearing GRAY tunics! The film's director, Shekhar Kapur, said it was a conscious decision to put them in red, even though he knew it was wrong.
Both have their charm. The original was fine for its time; orderly, biased and rather fun in an odd way. The New take is more real, gritty and lets you appreciate brave men who don't run away from a fight.
To be fair i don't overly remember the first 1 but given the time it was made it shows Turkish forces where involved (The ship was Turkish as i believe where the black troops) and shows a British trooper dying and (again presumably) a Turkish soldier bayoneting the one who did it, unless I am misunderstanding the "biased" part of your comment to mean something other then the scene.
The 1939 version is certainly better--they even used actual natives that had fought in the real war. The uniforms were certainly more correct as were the numbers of figures involved and the tactics used. The recent version is such a wasted opportunity--with the advances in technology, film, techniques, the battle scenes could have been so much better than they were.
@@johnbuckley1584 You mean like the Germans being mass murdering fuck heads? They screwed up big time if your going to kill millions of people you do it over time not one less then a decade shot, amateurs :)
@@Katzbalger001 however those two versions are not depicting the same battle.1939 version segment shown here depicts decisive big battle of Omdurman while smaller battle in modern version is based on earlier battle in mahdist war when British troops still wore recoats.
Cavalry against formed infantry, never ends well for the cavalry. Except for the one time the Fuzzy Wuzzie broke a British Square, but that was mostly an infantry attack.
@@robertofulton Yes, those were French squares, the Brits were always better soldiers than the French...and that is a fact supported by history - From the time of Edward III all the way to the time of Wellington...actually they were still better in WW1 and WW2, but they just didn't fight the French.😁
To me, both are accurate in their own ways. The first probably captures whatever Aristocrat was in charge of the British Unit's feeling on the matter, while the second captures more what it must have been like for the actual soldiers on the ground. I don't know anything about this battle in particular, but I would also guess the Tactical, Strategic, and Operational details are more accurate in the second.
Problems with how the artillery worked in both movies. In the first movie for some reason guns didn't fire prior to the rifle fire...they could've weakened the attackers from afar. In the second movie, guns didn't fire with shrapnel at the close distance - that would've devastated the attackers. Very odd...
Historically the infantry opened fire with section volleys at 1,400 yards. The Mahdists never got within 300yds of the main positions (although the Anglo-Egyptian cavalry nearly came to grief on the right flank). It was a massacre.
two different Battles the first was the original and the last battle in the old movie the battle of Omdurman,and more accurate in the uniform's style being Khaki and the second was the first battle of the new movie in which Holywood licence has taken over again and given them red coats and white Pith helmets so yes they are both different,both good,but the first has it for the uniforms and the sheer volume of fire from modern weapons over older and more dated weapons and cavalry and it is a British army in the first movie not one Battalion as the second one has in front of thousands
@@kleinjahr Somalis during the anglosomali war against the Dervish movement also not only broke the square but defeated the army and killed the commander..this is how Richard corfield died . .we defeated the british and italian empires for 21 years until aeroplanes were used to bomb our castles for the first time in african history..only a new unprecedented technology allowed the british to finally win after 21 years of constant defeat
@@hassanabdikarimmohamed2505 You must have a pretty big chip on your shoulder to be so noisily off-topic. Go make your your own neighborhood better and quit bragging about dead people who aren't really important to the movies discussed here.
@@thatguyinelnorte you ,yet have a miniscule cerebellum to erroneously think I was off topic, clearly history isn't your forte ...do yourself a favour, stfu and shove that malarkey up your rear end
If im correct the British didnt loose any battles in the sudan wars and no records of any british prisoners being taken and the 2002 version as the British loose the battle of abu klea which they actually won
First one is the 1898 War and the second is the 1884-85 Uprising. The first one is definitely more authentic (the dervish were probably the sons of veterans of Omderuman) and filmed in the Sudan. The second one has the British lose the battle of Abu Klea, which they didn't and also, where's the fecking Nile?
I don't think I saw a single Mahdist shoot back in the 1st clip, very few casualties (for the weaponry being used), and everything looks very neat, tidy, and orderly (how stereo-typically British). The second looks more like how a crisis moment goes from "Oh...it's ok. We've trained for this" to "oh sh*t!" followed by "wtf is going on!" as things often go in reality. I'll take the 2nd version all day.
In any case about which movie is better the battle with Islam is far from over and I whole heartedly believe open war like this with Muslims who have immigrated into Europe and the USA as well in Muslim countries are just over the horizon. Some people would say sooner than later and get it over with and done once and forever. 🇮🇹
@@LeeRaldar I'm just saying their border patrol wasn't effective against the Brits. I'm assuming you were referring to the Sudanese maintaining a border patrol, right? It was the Brits encroaching on their borders after all, or did you mean that the other way around?
kakouille999 in most armies of the mid to late 19th century Gatling guns were considered part of the artillery. They were heavy having to be draw by horses. Due to this most armies may only have one or two of them. Keeping them with the artillery near the back (The British did used them like in the late Zulu war). As machine guns got lighter and easier to move did they become more widely used.
@@owusu369 But It doesn’t say that on my thing when I’ve looked it up it says it was protecting, Egypt, Egypt fought with the British against these people.
6:40 The British seem to have misheard the order to form square and instead formed an awkward oblong shape, a formation better suited to the wide-angle camera shot rather than repulsing the enemy.
I loved the 1939 version, found that the 2002 version didn't have the same vibe to it. Question though, when firing, wouldn't the British have fired by ranks. I understand that with the advent of the breech loading cartridge and the box magazine, this might have changed, but it still should have been in use in 1898.
OOOOPS! Being a legend in my own mind is a heavy thing to carry! Need to oil or find a better sense of humor! Thank you for showing me a mirror! Enjoy your day!
History is written down by the victors and the victor here, the British Empire that does not set the sun, Winston Churchill said, "We killed them and did not defeat them." Also English writers wrote epic poems celebrating the courage of the Sudanese, and we are also proud to stand in favor of Great Britain and rebel for our dignity and supply from the rest of our soil, in the battle of Reprisal that followed the killing General Gordon lost every Sudanese house a martyr in an unequal battle in which the British army practiced the most severe and cruel kinds of revenge from defenseless dervishes who had nothing but a heart who believed in the message of Imam al-Mahdi and the courage of being able to die in order to defend the soil of his homeland, despite the relatively calm relations between our two countries after his departure The last British soldier from Sudan was in 1956, but these battles remain confined to memory. I have lived in Britain since 2012 and I do not feel that I am a stranger to this great country with its people, civilization and leadership, as for its colonial past remains part of its great history as every nation has a past and history until it does not come Generations are ashamed of this date. Parliament must push the government to apologize to the Sudanese people for the victims of the Karary battle (massacre) and its policies in southern Sudan, which or We inherited a sick nation burdened with civil wars and tribal conflicts, --I do apologize for my trouble writing 😬 but am trying to deliver what we as Sudan think about our common history, I think you need to visit Sudan and learn more about those people .
My step father was a member of that last British regiment to serve in Sudan in 1956 during the Suez Crisis, and served in Khartoum at this time. The Royal Fusiliers!
The "Tactics" in in movie 1 were a suck fest. In #2 at least the formed a square but the English waited to long to repel the attack. BUT....The first volley would have happened when the attackers were farther off.
love our empire, it did a lot of things that are good and yes things that was not so good, No different to the ottoman empire, the Roman Empire the German empire, French empire,
In the first movie the British soldiers are using the Lee Metford which was and 8 round magazine bolt action rifle which was the correct rifle for the period. In the second later movie they are using the breach loading lever operated Martini Henry which had been replaced by this time the Lee Metford. Also in the second movie they are wearing the Red tunics which were also redundant before this campaign that being said both are good movies.
Sadly, modern movie makers no longer have what it takes to produce GOOD war movies. Way too much PC content and back stories. Give me the old ones every time!!
Everytime my mother-in-law shows up at my door, my mind instinctively screams "form square...form square !!! "
LMAO!!!!
What brilliant comment I could not stop laughtlng
Excellent!!! LOL)))
offer mam in law a camel
LoL , spat my tea all over myself when I read that.
As a historian of British imperial history allow me to make a few comments; both are meant to show episodes in the 1898 Soudan Re-conquest but the uniforms of the 2nd clip are all wrong since the British Army used khaki (and not scarlet) from after 1882. The 2nd clip however bears some resemblance to the battles of Abu Kru and Abu Klea in the 1884-85 Sudan War. I always love the earlier version because it was actually shot in the Sudan and certainly the military advisors on the picture had served in the 1898 war. The big error in both scenes is to show the enemy charging on mounted animals; the dervishes had a "cavalry" but largely fought en masse and on foot. The "fuzzy-wuzzies" shown in the first clip are genuine Hadendowa tribesmen of the Sudan.
That is true, but even at the beginning of the Second Anglo-Boer from 1899-1902 some of the British regiments still fought in scarlet uniforms. But they then soon changed to Khaki, as the scarlet uniforms were to good a target for the Boers.
The second movie is the most recent of the various versions of The Four Feathers, set during the Mahdist Revolt in the Sudan in the mid-1880s, not during the later conflict in the 1890s; if memory serves reference is made in the 2002 version to the Siege of Khartoum as a contemporary event, which dates the movie quite nicely. The second clip is somewhat closer to the reality of the Mahdist wars in the 1880s, given that it shows troops formed in squares and armed with Martini-Henry rifles (though they are the Mk. II variant, as opposed to the Mk. IV which was in service at the time) and it shows Egyptian forces, who comprised a substantial percentage of the British forces engaged in the campaign. As to what the second movie shows, I could not say whether it is the 1880s or the 1890s conflict; if in the 1890s, then Lee Metford rifles should be in use, not Martini-Henry rifles and certainly not the WWI-era SMLE No. 1 Mk. III* which can be seen in several shots; the use of the Martini-Henry and the fact that I think the earlier version is the 1939 version of The Four Feathers would make it the 1880s conflict as well, not the 1890s.
The first (1939) clip resembles the Battle of Omdurman, the second the Battle of Abu Klea. I am not absolutely sure you are right about the khaki in the first Sudan War; there was some debate about which colours provided the better camouflage, and it was pointed out at the time that red (when dusty) was often less conspicuous than dark blue. Nevertheless, I agree with you that khaki or light grey was mainly adopted for the Gordon Relief Expedition. My main objection, to both films, is that the British - especially the artillery - fire far too late. (This also applies to the film 'Zulu'.) At the Battle of Omdurman, few Mahdists got much within 800 yards of the British parts of the line (where Lee-Metfords prevailed) or within 500 yards of the Egyptian sectors (where Martini- Henrys/Metfords prevailed). And where were the thorn bushes? Why the huge gap around those late-firing gun batteries?
@@pfarquharson1 Sorry, but no British soldiers fought in scarlet at the beginning of the Second Anglo-Boer War.
@@BoerChris I think he may be thinking of the first war, when you chaps thrashed us hollow.
The first one (original) is far more accurate than the second, though, the second was really intense and entertaining to watch.
Yes their was a ton of intensity in number 2. The shot of cavalry closing on all sides was great!
"Whatever happens, we have got the Maxim gun, and they have not."- William Blood
British infantry discipline was amazing!
I bet Cpl Jones is in there somewhere amongst those British troops. "They don't like the cold steel .They don't like it up 'em "
Got a good laugh! Good old CPL JONES Thanks Chris P.S I wonder is he RIP? RISE. IF POSSIBLE
@@patkearney4666 there is a line in the first movie,when the old sweat gives advice to young lad as he says'I cant watch them come on like this Sarge' and the old sweat says Close your eyes then son I will tell you when to open them' and that part really reminded me of old Jonesy ha ha with they don't like it up em sir''
Don't Panic! Don't Panic! They don't like it up 'em. Very good! Laughing hard! Good comment!
Corporal Jones: "We used to get a lot of sun in the Sudan. Except at night, of course...we didn't get much sun at night."
@@ventura9388 🤣👍
The troops looked a lot sharper and better trained in the first film.
Probably because they're real soldiers, the film contracted with the East Surrey Regiment and many of the British soldier extras are actually fully trained soldiers, just dressed in period costume.
How old were these real soldiers? Today's cadets looks far more worst.
Can't beat Zulu or Lawrence of Arabia for gravitas, cinematography and realism.
I don't know, Lowell Thomas, the American journalist who made the Lawrence of Arabia legend said all the film got right was the camels and sand. It was still a damn good movie , though.
Zulu was a great movie, but terribly inaccurate. And Waterloo tops them both.
All else aside, the portrayal of the British square in Zulu was exciting as hell. It's not like we're discussing reality here. As to which Mahdist film was better, I will go with the 1st one.
@@tessierashpoolmg7776 I don't think a British square was portrayed in the movie Zulu.
Hands down the 1939 version, although the modern remake does show some excellent field maneuvers, mainly courtesy of the 'Die Hards' reenactment group.
We British didn't fanny about in those days. Now, that's all we do thanks to weak politicians.
Personally I prefer the original “The Four Feathers” 1939 and “Young Winston” 1972
No British force of any size lost a battle to Mahdists, no massacres, etc. An Egyptian army under General Hicks, with British officers, was massacred in the 1880's,but no British army lost a battle.... As you would expect, given their advantages in weaponry.
It’s honestly not a great flex when you’re fighting against men on foot with swords and spears while you have mortars and rifles
Yep them British trying to stop the slave trade interfering in thousands of years of local culture @@MOBXOJ
@@MOBXOJ Not as easy to might think if you look up Kipling's fuzzy wuzzy He said the memory of a fuzzy on the rush was as good as a laxative for a year.
1939 will always be the best version
I like both but the original I love it growing up
Late in the war, the British Army was using magazine fed rifles, as in the first clip. That made a huge difference.
Thats when the uk had balls
genocidal maniacs should have stayed on their island.
They still do but what you gonna do when the only governing body that isn’t full blown Muslim is Parliament (I think correct me if I’m wrong
Must have been awesome to see your calvary riding to your aid..like your big brother walks up while your fighting a bigger boy on the playground.
I choose the first one rather than the second.
They don't like it up em sir, no nothing like a bit of cold steel.
Both are good, but I prefer the first. ;-)
A movie, that's no longer possible today!
Praise GOD for that!
@@lweneousmaxey7860
Technological possible, political inpossible!
Punctuation, that is. Not possible; today.
The horse holders have more modern rifles than the troops.
Not one dead camel. Obviously the mutant Medina strain of bulletproof fur camel ,lent to the Sudanese in exchange for some African hashish in 1871.
Probably too expensive and the British are queasy about that sort of thing. Unlike the Americans in Errol Flynn's Charge of the Light Brigade when horses were reportedly brought down by tripwires and died as a result.
The problem with the second one is depicting the British British loosing which in reality the British never lost a single battle and wasnt 1 single square but had several different squares and biggest mistake didn't wear red jackets .
Wrong uniforms for the recent version. The British were in khaki in 1885.
Khaki wasn't fully standard issue until 1903, took over 50 years!
@@ianhornby All British infantry in the Sudan wore khaki. The last redcoats in battle were those in South Africa during the Zulu War, 1879. Egyptian Campaign in 1882 was in khaki. Pretty big, obvious mistake in this movie--one among many.
The 1880-81 Boer War was in red. The 1882 Egyptian campaign was in red. In the Sudan, red was worn at the Battle of Kirbekan, Feb. 1885 and at the Battle of Ginnis, Dec. 1885 and, lastly, at the Battle of Ferkeh, June 1896. Since this depicted battle is supposed to Abu Klea, the troops actually should've been wearing GRAY tunics! The film's director, Shekhar Kapur, said it was a conscious decision to put them in red, even though he knew it was wrong.
Nice video 👍💯
Both have their charm. The original was fine for its time; orderly, biased and rather fun in an odd way. The New take is more real, gritty and lets you appreciate brave men who don't run away from a fight.
To be fair i don't overly remember the first 1 but given the time it was made it shows Turkish forces where involved (The ship was Turkish as i believe where the black troops) and shows a British trooper dying and (again presumably) a Turkish soldier bayoneting the one who did it, unless I am misunderstanding the "biased" part of your comment to mean something other then the scene.
The 1939 version is certainly better--they even used actual natives that had fought in the real war. The uniforms were certainly more correct as were the numbers of figures involved and the tactics used. The recent version is such a wasted opportunity--with the advances in technology, film, techniques, the battle scenes could have been so much better than they were.
@@johnbuckley1584 You mean like the Germans being mass murdering fuck heads? They screwed up big time if your going to kill millions of people you do it over time not one less then a decade shot, amateurs :)
@@Katzbalger001 however those two versions are not depicting the same battle.1939 version segment shown here depicts decisive big battle of Omdurman while smaller battle in modern version is based on earlier battle in mahdist war when British troops still wore recoats.
@@Katzbalger001 The first version was by far the better film. You are right with the correct uniforms being worn
Cavalry against formed infantry, never ends well for the cavalry. Except for the one time the Fuzzy Wuzzie broke a British Square, but that was mostly an infantry attack.
And this is THAT war...
Well there was Hernandez García where two squadrons of kings German legion heavy cavalry and one of light broke four French squares
robertofulton yeah but thats the KGL. Those buggers where some of the best soldiers in Europe
@@robertofulton Yes, those were French squares, the Brits were always better soldiers than the French...and that is a fact supported by history - From the time of Edward III all the way to the time of Wellington...actually they were still better in WW1 and WW2, but they just didn't fight the French.😁
Yes they did but the British reformed the square and won the battle
I liked the first one
Well, I don't like the magic shells and bullets that kill Mahdists but not horses or camels.
The horses and camels are innocent.
Well guess Monthy Python had the right idea.
@Yahul Wagoni. They have you fooled....
It's the 2000s,humans can be butchered but if animals are hurt in the movie everyone gets pissed
They were aiming high
8:01 that camel though
The 2nd one was thrilling
Khartoum 1966 battle of abu klea clip wasn’t included ?
To me, both are accurate in their own ways.
The first probably captures whatever Aristocrat was in charge of the British Unit's feeling on the matter, while the second captures more what it must have been like for the actual soldiers on the ground. I don't know anything about this battle in particular, but I would also guess the Tactical, Strategic, and Operational details are more accurate in the second.
Original is better its also more historicly accurate.
Fuzzy Wuzzies to the front and rear.
That was a rectangle...
Personally, I prefer the 1978 made for tv version with Beau Bridges and Jane Seymour
Video interesante. Saludos.
The difference between a defending a fixed position and being hung out on a limb as ‘bait’!
Problems with how the artillery worked in both movies. In the first movie for some reason guns didn't fire prior to the rifle fire...they could've weakened the attackers from afar. In the second movie, guns didn't fire with shrapnel at the close distance - that would've devastated the attackers. Very odd...
Historically the infantry opened fire with section volleys at 1,400 yards. The Mahdists never got within 300yds of the main positions (although the Anglo-Egyptian cavalry nearly came to grief on the right flank). It was a massacre.
They knew how to deal with Jihadis in those days!!
1939 - - -Hands Down!
1879 or there abouts
@@lweneousmaxey7860 the battle it's depicting occurred in 1898 but the film itself was made in 1939 (at least the first version)
@@lweneousmaxey7860 Try 1898, or the actual battle.
What movie is the second clip from?
Fire at will would have ended a while ago
Amazing that the animals weren't terrified by all the noise and cannon explosions
two different Battles the first was the original and the last battle in the old movie the battle of Omdurman,and more accurate in the uniform's style being Khaki and the second was the first battle of the new movie in which Holywood licence has taken over again and given them red coats and white Pith helmets so yes they are both different,both good,but the first has it for the uniforms and the sheer volume of fire from modern weapons over older and more dated weapons and cavalry and it is a British army in the first movie not one Battalion as the second one has in front of thousands
Too bad, I didn't see Jonesy!
Which movie showed the battle of Abu Klea, with the Camel Corps in grey?
Let's not forget the scene on Young Winston as well
i Like The Form Square Fromation Cuz The British Are More powerful to Those Horses
battle of waterloo proved it
@Daniel Gehad 😂😂
@Daniel Gehad The Zulus were obliterated, what are you talking about?
Thats the way to do it.
🙌
Did anyone else notice that the Union Flag in the second clip is incorrect ? Just me then !
It's the Queens colour not just a regular old Union Jack.
"for all the odds agin' you, Fuzzy-Wuz, you broke the square".
Yes, one of the few times it was broken.
Yes, heres to you Fuzzy Wuzzy, and the missis and the kid...
Thats the poem that brought me here. you broke the square!
@@kleinjahr Somalis during the anglosomali war against the Dervish movement also not only broke the square but defeated the army and killed the commander..this is how Richard corfield died . .we defeated the british and italian empires for 21 years until aeroplanes were used to bomb our castles for the first time in african history..only a new unprecedented technology allowed the british to finally win after 21 years of constant defeat
@@hassanabdikarimmohamed2505 You must have a pretty big chip on your shoulder to be so noisily off-topic. Go make your your own neighborhood better and quit bragging about dead people who aren't really important to the movies discussed here.
@@thatguyinelnorte you ,yet have a miniscule cerebellum to erroneously think I was off topic, clearly history isn't your forte ...do yourself a favour, stfu and shove that malarkey up your rear end
And now they live among us !
Artillery was poorly used.
The first one
1939 was the date the movie was made for the confused out there. Love both films though. Young Winston has good action as well for that Sudan campaign
what is the name of the movie?
Engländ
Horse vs camel
If im correct the British didnt loose any battles in the sudan wars and no records of any british prisoners being taken and the 2002 version as the British loose the battle of abu klea which they actually won
Which battle is it?
Which movies r these clips from?
The newest it from" four feathers"
Esta es una escena de la pelicula Kartum mucho antes de 1939
First one is the 1898 War and the second is the 1884-85 Uprising. The first one is definitely more authentic (the dervish were probably the sons of veterans of Omderuman) and filmed in the Sudan. The second one has the British lose the battle of Abu Klea, which they didn't and also, where's the fecking Nile?
2003 is still an okay film though. 1939 is a classic.
Unless they're firing grapeshot, it beats me why the canon wouldn't be firing non-stop once they get in range, rather than waiting till rifle range.
In the 2002 version, not only are the uniforms and rifles incorrect; the union flag is upside down.
I don't think I saw a single Mahdist shoot back in the 1st clip, very few casualties (for the weaponry being used), and everything looks very neat, tidy, and orderly (how stereo-typically British). The second looks more like how a crisis moment goes from "Oh...it's ok. We've trained for this" to "oh sh*t!" followed by "wtf is going on!" as things often go in reality. I'll take the 2nd version all day.
Fortunately they never heard of BLM.
🇬🇧
In any case about which movie is better the battle with Islam is far from over and I whole heartedly believe open war like this with Muslims who have immigrated into Europe and the USA as well in Muslim countries are just over the horizon. Some people would say sooner than later and get it over with and done once and forever. 🇮🇹
No denying those people knew how to maintain an efficient border patrol force.
You're spot on. Yet they still weren't able to keep the foreigners (British) out of their country due inferior weaponry.
@@Kwamu22A lesson most kids would recognise these days, don't expand your empire without levelling up your tech tree first.
@@LeeRaldar I'm just saying their border patrol wasn't effective against the Brits. I'm assuming you were referring to the Sudanese maintaining a border patrol, right? It was the Brits encroaching on their borders after all, or did you mean that the other way around?
1939😂😂😂😂😂😂🤔🤔🤔🤔🤔🤣🤣😭😭😭😭😭😭
What is the second movie
where is gatling machine gun?
kakouille999 in most armies of the mid to late 19th century Gatling guns were considered part of the artillery. They were heavy having to be draw by horses. Due to this most armies may only have one or two of them. Keeping them with the artillery near the back (The British did used them like in the late Zulu war). As machine guns got lighter and easier to move did they become more widely used.
IIRC, it was a Gartner that jammed at Abu Klea.
this is just slaughter
Ye but they’re protecting Egypt it’s more necessary.
@@BabyGreenToe cmon please imperial propaganda
@@owusu369 well not rlly just look it up
@@BabyGreenToe mate i know the history it was an invasion but the British in a country not theres or even near theres
@@owusu369 But It doesn’t say that on my thing when I’ve looked it up it says it was protecting, Egypt, Egypt fought with the British against these people.
6:40 The British seem to have misheard the order to form square and instead formed an awkward oblong shape, a formation better suited to the wide-angle camera shot rather than repulsing the enemy.
What were they thinking, charging well-positioned riflemen and guns and machineguns like that, in the open??
I loved the 1939 version, found that the 2002 version didn't have the same vibe to it. Question though, when firing, wouldn't the British have fired by ranks. I understand that with the advent of the breech loading cartridge and the box magazine, this might have changed, but it still should have been in use in 1898.
OOOOPS! Being a legend in my own mind is a heavy thing to carry! Need to oil or find a better sense of humor! Thank you for showing me a mirror! Enjoy your day!
Some, indeed many, of the Hadendowah acting in the first clip would have been the grandsons of the Mahdist warriors that they were representing.
the sudanese had no idea they were crappy soldiers
If Zulu was a 10/10 (which I feel it was) then this would get a 7/10 ...just not in the same class of movie.
15,000 rounds fired 12 dead?
🌟🌟🌟🌟🌟
A clip from the 1939 version of "The Four Feathers" would have been nice to add (author of Renee: St. Mary's Virus).
The British Army of course!
britan
Ye they are protecting Egypt
History is written down by the victors and the victor here, the British Empire that does not set the sun, Winston Churchill said, "We killed them and did not defeat them." Also English writers wrote epic poems celebrating the courage of the Sudanese, and we are also proud to stand in favor of Great Britain and rebel for our dignity and supply from the rest of our soil, in the battle of Reprisal that followed the killing General Gordon lost every Sudanese house a martyr in an unequal battle in which the British army practiced the most severe and cruel kinds of revenge from defenseless dervishes who had nothing but a heart who believed in the message of Imam al-Mahdi and the courage of being able to die in order to defend the soil of his homeland, despite the relatively calm relations between our two countries after his departure The last British soldier from Sudan was in 1956, but these battles remain confined to memory. I have lived in Britain since 2012 and I do not feel that I am a stranger to this great country with its people, civilization and leadership, as for its colonial past remains part of its great history as every nation has a past and history until it does not come Generations are ashamed of this date. Parliament must push the government to apologize to the Sudanese people for the victims of the Karary battle (massacre) and its policies in southern Sudan, which or We inherited a sick nation burdened with civil wars and tribal conflicts, --I do apologize for my trouble writing 😬 but am trying to deliver what we as Sudan think about our common history, I think you need to visit Sudan and learn more about those people .
The British invaded to try to stop the slave trade. That is still going on...
My step father was a member of that last British regiment to serve in Sudan in 1956 during the Suez Crisis, and served in Khartoum at this time. The Royal Fusiliers!
I don’t get to choose accident of birth 🇬🇧🦖🇬🇧✊
The "Tactics" in in movie 1 were a suck fest. In #2 at least the formed a square but the English waited to long to repel the attack. BUT....The first volley would have happened when the attackers were farther off.
love our empire, it did a lot of things that are good and yes things that was not so good, No different to the ottoman empire, the Roman Empire the German empire, French empire,
Today they would order these soldiers arrested for harassing the Muslims.
How were the infantry able to reload so quickly?
Martini henry rifles are not muskets thats why
Try fear, it's a great motivator.
metal cartridges.
In the first movie the British soldiers are using the Lee Metford which was and 8 round magazine bolt action rifle which was the correct rifle for the period. In the second later movie they are using the breach loading lever operated Martini Henry which had been replaced by this time the Lee Metford. Also in the second movie they are wearing the Red tunics which were also redundant before this campaign that being said both are good movies.
1939. Shows the " Fuzzie Wuzzies " in a more realistic light.
What is the name of the first movie
The Four Feathers
How could you aim properly and fire a rifle while riding at a full gallop?
Doesn't seem possible.
Why did all the camels suddenly become horses ?
The 1st one easy
Sadly, modern movie makers no longer have what it takes to produce GOOD war movies. Way too much PC content and back stories. Give me the old ones every time!!