《 Battle Of ISANDLWANA 》( 1879/01/22 )_Final 

Pulleine would have defended tighter had Durnford not turned up to upset the apple cart. During the morning false alarm (circa 8.00 to 10.00 am) Pulleine ordered a stand to order right in front of the tents, when news of thousand of Zulus in the hills was first given. Pulleine did not send the troops out far and wide. He only did that later as he was obliged to cover Durnfords retreat if he got into difficulties, which he did. Durnford even ordered two companies of the 24th Foot to follow him miles out, before Pulleine said no. Pulleine did little wrong, and the camp was far too large to laager it. It was a km in extent. Creating a smallish laager would have handed much of supplies, all the tents, all the oxen etc to the Zulus, and it wasn't until the end of the battle that the true gravity of the situation set it. It was too late by then.

I think they should've fortified the camp from the start, this was common pratice against "primitive" opponents, I never understood why they didn't, perhaps they reputed their enemies too "inferior"...

Isandalwhana was supposed to be a very temporary stop which is why no defensive work was put into it. Chelmsford had adequate intelligence of the Zulu movement's including the impis to the north of the camp but in his incompetent wisdom believed they were feints to distract his drive onto Ulundi. When the British government found out what freer and chelmsford had done they were going to order a halt and retreat back to natal ironically the victory at Isandalwhana was the Zulu's downfall as Britain was then forced into the war with a completely predictable end once the full support was given to the war. The martini rifle used by the British was a problem after firing 30 to 50 rounds the chamber heats to the point that thin casing of the cartridge swells and the rifle isn't able to eject it having to be forced out usually done with the bayonet. At the former firing range i worked at we had a member who had the rifle and a supply of ammunition and was happy to conduct an experiment, in the cool of an English winter we were able to fire 49 rounds at the prescribed rate of the army at the time of this battle it jammed on the 50th round but we were more gentle in getting it out. What most also don't realise is how fragile these cartridges were it was very easy to damage them to the point of deformation it's not hard to imagine in the heat of battle more then few being damaged. Bottom line is chelmsford was an incompetent moron who was the architect of this defeat but that takes nothing away from the Zulu's they suffered huge casualties in this victory and went on to lose many of their best at Rourke's drift. Should have said earlier we did the experiment on 3 different days and never managed to fire 50 rounds.

@@andrewaustin6369 Right, but temporary or not it's better stay safe than sorry, if you look f.e. to the ancient romans they always fortified their camps as a rule, just to avoid some nasty surprise, the english at Azincourt lose more men in their acampment's attack from some French stragglers than in the real battle, just because it wasn't properly defended.

@@alessiodecarolisYour correct It was procedure to prepare defences but Chelmsford refused as he decided that they would be moving out before the defences could be finished, his ability to ignore qualified advice, intelligence and procedure was incredible.

24thRegimentOfFoot You have a cool channel, bro!

Good Mauro Malta

Was only given to Melville Coghill was fleeing the battlefield when he came upon Melville and proceeded to help him try and save the colours He was Adjt of the regiment at the time

Long lives South Africa....

How can we be sure Pulleine did say so? The three of them all died on the field.

Well put.

Yes, I agree. I really do hate today's battle scenes. You can barely see anything, and the camera shakes like crazy.

If it was today the movie wouldn't even been on the theaters because RACISM.

Or CGI that looks like a low budget game.

I agree completely. They almost always fail to give a sense of scale, heavily overusing close in shots and shaking the camera like crazy. Directors always try to make a big artistic statements, spoiling scenes that would work far better if shot more conventionally. Older films were not immune to this, but it is becoming absurdly common these days.

Except it didn't happen like this in reality.

And now it has been 140 years. Only 10 years now until the 150 year anniversary. Quite remarkable how much, and yet at the same time so Little has changed.

@@danielwhyatt3278 Yeah

And then the Brits win on Rorkes Drift despite being very very heavily outnumbered, bruh what the fuck its happening

@@Tankbattlion761 damn you message back after 6 years loool how old are you now and how are you doing haha

Well they learnt from massacre because they beat the Zulus later in year. Then British annexed the Zulu lands.

IMHO, seems a cliche ...

@@andrewkamoha4666 Sounds like you're the kind of person who tries to shit on something noble out of your own insecurity.

@@evsal8087 "Sounds like you're the kind of person who" is too dumb to know history. The *hero's journey* exists since Ancient Mesopotamian.

@@andrewkamoha4666 I see I hit a nerve. Good. Eat shit fucker.

@@andrewkamoha4666 What? Cat got your crotch? No witty reply for me calling you a cowardly pedant? No self-respect?

The close-in battle scenes of "Zulu", especially when those 3 ranks of riflemen with their backs to the outside face of the redoubt wall - are,at least, on par!! 👍

@@tim7052 That's true.

I dont think there is nearly enough Zulus. The wide shots in this film are disappointing because they lack scale. It's much better when the action is close up or at medium distance. The long distance shots don't do it for me.

​@@lyndoncmp5751 true, still massively impressive tho

It's a shame we'll never get scenes like this in a movie ever again. Every single one of those men in the shot is a real human being and the scene plays out exactly as it appears. Now 90% of armies in grand battle sequences are digitally added. Just doesn't hit the same.

One of the few FICTICIOUS parts of the film. Oh well, gotta give something for the Brits something to cheer about.

@@willmoore8708 Right? They are now a slovenly nation of 3rd World trash run by unelected marxist bureaucrat dictators.

@@The_OneManCrowd That doesn't take away from the fact that that scene was pure Neo-Victorian propagandist horsesh1t. But, hey, "Rule Britania", huh? By the way... Who elected that horse faced queen anyway? Let alone the present day mule face King?

​@@willmoore8708 This film is notable for being surprisingly accurate, but it's still a movie, not a documentary. The director's idea to add that scene brought the battle to a wonderful and very symbolic close. This film didn't fare well with critics at the time, but I think it has aged very well and the battle scenes compared to contemporary CGI are a pure delight to behold. The chaos is captured brilliantly.

Wendy Austin underrated comment

Very good.

скорее всего Британцев на марше разбили , не успели они свою артиллерию развернуть

There's the door, get out..

@@tabasco599 jmj Jmjm Mkmjj

Войны только зулусы, британцы оккупанты

What did the men come back to .Poverty

And high gas bills

@@michaelmcginley7930 this was years ago what does my statement have to do with modern problems ? I know things suck right now but everything isn’t about the current state of affairs or political issues. Your comment is unwarranted.

Needless death and suffuring?

@@becky2235 agreed, war sucks and always will.

Ikr, absolutely love them

@@kazzatermination7867 Someone actually died in the filming of the battle; note the artillery carriage that flips.

​@@BenKlassen1 damn rip they died making some of the best cinema known to man

Regis

@Plutarch Notice how he said "scene" he was talking about the scene of the film. There's no point on trying to be that condescending prick to feel cool.

@algogy The truth is even better than fiction.

I think that guy was 1 of the Generals of the zulus

@@Dom-fx4kt what happened?

Plentisaki, my Great Great Uncle was at the same holiday camp and died of food poisoning before he could complain about the noise.

@@pjohnson4718 My Great Great Uncle was also at the holiday camp but he survived the battle. He mentioned that he warned some dumb a$$ not to complain about the noise, and another one not to eat the pork.

@@afisemenaborevlaka48 Are you guys kidding? LOL

My great great great uncle's best friend was in charge of troop entertainment and had hilariously blacked up for a matinee slot. He survived the onslaught due to his accurate impression and fled the battle field only forgetting to wash off before reaching the relief column and was shot by an outrider.

Good to see humour is still alive and kicking! :-)

All the 24th Foot officers died with their men and didn't flee on their horses.

@@lyndoncmp5751 Chads. Every single one of them. I salute them all.

@@clonecommanderfoggy682 Me too. Cheers.

as they should.

I really loved the representation of that officer + his badass uniform

Every time!

Some of them had White shirts with suspenders

stay away from other countries

The Zulu warriors had been carefully instructed before they set out that their enemy would be wearing red tunics. But many of the British troops were wearing blue tunics that day, and these were often ignored by Zulus who could easily have killed them. it's said that not a single one of the battle's survivors was wearing red.

John Cornell How so? (If you still exist after a year)

The filming and direction, yup. The history....not so much: 1. Some of the strategy and tactics are mischaracterized. The British infantry were not entirely concentrated (as seen in this movie) but deployed much further away from the camp. The Zulu didn’t just charge en masse but also employed infiltration and ambush tactics to surprise the enemy and keep combat up close and personal. 2. Recent research and a reexamination of written sources has revealed that the British at Isandhlwana had lots of ammo. The problem is that the camp was poorly sited by Chelmsford and the deployment of troops was poorly managed by both Pulleine (basically a supply officer) and Durnford (who had literally just arrived at the camp before the battle began and did not have time to properly inspect or prepare defenses). Durnford also over-extended himself on the right flank and was forced to retreat (as seen in the movie), exposing portions of the 24th to an entire assault by the Zulu “right side” of the “horns.” 3. While the African auxiliaries working for the British are depicted in the movie, most of them did not have proper rifles, and most of them began fleeing as the battle intensified. This was only partially depicted in this movie. 3. The ending (flag scene) was completely fictional and was designed - as much of this film apparently was - to portray the arrogance and overall incompetence of the Isandhlwana Campaign. I also detect in this movie quite a bit of “white guilt” over what happened during the Victorian Age when it comes to British Imperialism and South Africa. This “guilt” has a tendency to mischaracterize not only the whites in this film but also the Africans on both sides (although the film makes a fair effort to portray the Zulu in greater depth, especially when compared to the original “Zulu”).

Agreed my friend 👍

@@malafunkshun8086 to be honest in zulu it was specifically the point of view of the british and the zulu were regarded with fear, I havent seen this film in entirety but I have zulu. I mean to suppose in zulu you dont get the chance but a few scant scenes to see any indication of their culture outside of battlefield tactics?

I want to watch this movie bad eben though im just a 11 year old

Overconfidence!

***** Errr, no they didn't. The British were the pricks in this war; they wanted to colonize Zululand for their natural resources but the Zulu people refuse. So the British took it by force. They thought that it'd be easy since they had superior firepower, but this battle proved them wrong. The Zulu people lost the war, but from then on they were forever immortalized as fearsome warriors that not even guns could faze them.

Rworld Tactically, it was the final major battle of the war, the Battle of Ulundi that broke the Zulu military power once and for all. The British deployed in a massive square (which they should have done here), which proved impossible for the Zulus to even reach, let alone break. Some accounts say no Zulu got within 30 yards of the British line. With a little over 100 total casualties (10 dead, 87 wounded), the British inflicted about 1,500 Zulu casualties (roughly 500 dead and over 1,000 wounded).

Rworld "BLOODY KIDS THESE DAYS. YOU GOT TO WAIT YOUR DAMN TURN YOU YOUNGSTERS!"

+Rworld Don't blame the quartermaster. He'd been warning them to construct additional pylons throughout.

Durnford WAS largely to blame tactically for the defeat.

The Brits had some doozies. Montgomery comes to mind. I read where at the late stages of WW2 his contemporaries openly laughed in his face. And he had the balls after the war to claim if he had been listened to the war would have end sooner. Maybe if he had fought his way out of Caen it would have ended sooner too.

@@B25gunship Utter tosh. Sure your MAGA hat's not too tight?

And before all that, dividing his force and not scouting properly.

@@B25gunship Always welcome the input of an American.

+bobst657 Unless you are there. On the wrong side, I mean.

It was caused by superior tactics and strategy on the day.

It wasn't incompetence or last stand. It was utter defeat of the British and decisive Zulu victory.

I mean what else could you do? You can't flee since the zulu warrior is much faster than you, and can cut you off from fleeing and stab you in the back while running. You can't really surrender either since in the heat of the battle no warrior is going to stop and take you prisoner, they would kill you and move on. You could try to pretend to be dead but there is a risk that some of the warriors in the up coming groups double tap the dead to make sure they are dead and are most likly to loot the bodies like we see in the last scene and for someone to be that still and hold their breath for that lost in near impossible to do.

@@MNM-lq9te There is a way to survive... Take a horse and run away! Because if I'm not mistaken the only British soldiers who survived this battle escaped because they were on horseback.

fear animals is always there

It wasn't Britain that did it. It was the local govern without authorization from parliament. It only became British after the battle was lost and parliament took control

It wasn't official British policy to enter Zulu territory. Sir Bartle Frere, the governor of Natal took that upon himself. The official British government policy was to seek a peaceful settlement with the Zulu. B-F decided that the Zulu's had to be defeated to remove the potential threat that they presented to Natal. Ergo, you really ought to be attributing, "arrogance," to Bartle-Frere, NOT Britain ;)

Considering there was only 750 British troops and some 25,000 zulus yeh ignorance 😂😂 the still won the 2nd boer wars and took full control of South Africa so maybe it Paid off lol

They didn't just walk into Zululand. They took a large army. Despite some good tactics and brave/skilled fighting the Zulus just got somewhat lucky at Isandlwana. Had the full 3rd Column been there, they would have lost. They would have lost even against the forces that were there if Durnford didn't make massive tactical blunders.

uh, no. They were responsible for large scale slaughter and genocide in Natal.

@@hanznel8488 Tell that to Hector Pieterson. Xhosa and Zulu children were shot protesting the apartheid government in Soweto. 🇺🇸🇿🇦

Regis

Todo pudo ser posible. Lo concreto es que los zulus mostraron superioridad tactica y lo ingleses mucho prejuicio. Así se ganan las batallas. Inglaterra=1300 muertos. Zulus= 1000 muertos. Por otro lado, los ingleses de aquella época eran conocidos en diferentes lugares por ser unos sanguinarios cerdos imperialistas (américa, africa, china, india, etc)

@BLACK DEATH Calm down there. How's your day going? Bad it seems.

@@xarv368 Actually, the Zulus lost about 2,000 dead, and considerably more wounded.

Zulus have never enslaved anyone. They united many tribes under one rule. In the same lands they were in.

You need to shut up.

Custer was a cavalryman through and through. He knew that the plains indians couldn't have a large camp, as they couldn't support it with food. He arranged an attack on one end of the camp, and planned to use that diversion to outflank the resistance and capture the women and children at the other, forcing the rest to surrender. His diversionary attack didn't work, because the indians had a large camp (though only briefly, it would have broken up in a few days) and his outflanking movement was stopped. Like our liberal friends, he wasn't stupid, he just knew too much that wasn't so.

Don Meaker chelmsford and Custer represented the worst in both armys. As a good old Italian yank that wasn't the worst colonial disaster. Adowa in the 1890 was worse.

Christopher Kealy What he said is true, both men were arrogant and greatly underestimated their enemy, simply because they were technologically inferior, to quote an old biblical saying "Pride goes before destruction, and a haughty spirit before a fall"

googy goog His actions in the actual battle speak otherwise, not only did he underestimate the Zulu simply because they weren't as advance as the British were. But he broke one of the key rules of warfare when facing a numerical superior army in their own territory, never divide your forces. Before the battle he divided his force to chase after a small Zulu party, who lured him away from the rest of his army, allowing the main Zulu army to wipe them out, Had he not underestimated the Zulu and not been so overconfident with his own forces, the defeat of Isandlwana might not have happened.

Excuses excuses

In the US Army, the problem was the ammo as well. In the Springfield rifles, the copper case would sometimes expand and split in the chamber as it was fired, leading to a jam. It was fixed with an improved brass case, I believe.

Gun jamming didn't cause this defeat. Poor operational planning and ISR caused this defeat.

@@LouisE-mp8lx Is that why the Union lost the Battle of Fredericksburg? Because their guns jammed? Or was it because General Burnside was an incompetent operational planner? (Its the latter.) Same reason here. The British lost because they arrogantly underestimated their enemy; invaded an area without knowing the size or location of the enemy; then divided their force; and allowed the enemy to get within 5 miles of their base without detection.....but yes explain to me again how they lost because a few rifles jammed...

@@LouisE-mp8lx I think you're ultimately making excuses for poor operational planning. That's my point.

Zulu was filmed in 1963 I believe

​@@alexpaulyoungthemuso3937 no 1964

@@ste123456754 I said believe because I know the movie came out in 64 I don't know the date so I assumed they filmed it a year prior

@Alex Paul Young the Muso yes your probably right as it was first shown 22 Jan 1964👍

Exactly. Sub Urban myth. 2 totally different timelines. Crowe wasnt even born in 64. Jeez yous guys.

The so called desecration of the bodies was actually a zulu right reserved only for those who had died a brave death fitting a warrior to allow the spirit to leave the body the bodies found down fugitives drift were not desecrated

Ваш мир мы скоро унечтожим

Truth is even more amazing than fiction. You might read up on the last stand of Capt. Reginald Younghusband.

ImperialistRunningDo I have, shame it wasn't included in the film, 60 of them bayonet charged straight down at the Zulus

LIVERPOOLSCOTTISH If Chelmsfords dispatched force had been at Isandhlwana i reckon they may well have won the battle.

I remember when Custer's Last Stand was heroified like that for over a century. Then forensic team came in some time in the 2000s and found out it was more like a last route. Though opinion of the battle already started to change before that which lead to the investigation to begin with. Which is a pity, I remember reading an article of a writer who interviewed the native Americans on the battle, and he wrote a book on their accounts of the battle, it completely contradicted contemporary American History of The Little Bighorn, so much so it ended up ruining the man's career. I so badly wish I could find that article so i can find the name of the writer and the book. As it's a perfect example of how an amateur historian can be more right than the majority of historians. Similar to the discovery of the grave of King Richard.

LIVERPOOLSCOTTISH Ya, but I was referring to most of the little details. I honestly doubt the Zulu themselves kept very accurate accounts on specific parts of the battle. Definitely being so many of them later died, so you get a huge vacuum of information from both sides because of the casualties. Little Big Horn the Native casualties were very light, even the women partook in the after battle. So there is a mountain of information from the Native side of that story. It is obvious because of the Zulu Casualties that the British stood their ground. It's just thoe smaller details, that seem to be impractical but over glorifying that often bug me on Zulu Dawn.

thats because their numbers were actually *tiny* , like most of the tribal-based cultures. The Zulus may have 'won' this battle but it was a strategic defeat for them. The British force that was wiped out was not even one full regiment, and it was less than 1% of the total strength of the British Army. Replacement troops were shipped over within the month and the loss of the unit had little overall effect on the goals of the Army. The Zulu force however was pretty much 100% of the entire country's military strength. All 13 of the Zulu regiments were either in the battle or at Rourkes Drift. And the way the Zulu impi set up on the battlefield, the fittest troops they had (at the front of the 'horns') and the most elite troops (at the front of the 'chest') were the ones who recieved the majority of the British rifle and cannon fire, and hence the ones who made up most of the troops killed. The Zulus could not replace their losses from this battle. The British could. Its the same with all tribal-based cultures. Once they get into an open battle with an organised army, they may defeat them on the battlefield, but their martial strength is permanently gone. Organised armies dont have this problem - even defeated forces (think the Nazis and Japanese in WW2) never 'ran out of soldiers'

Younghusband, impressive name.

Yes they bayonet charged the Zulus after shaking hands.

Haha many a true word spoke in jest. .. exiled cockney in Spain. 38 yrs. Say the writing on the wall

redman382002 you realize the Zulu War a violent Empire right? many African tribes sided with the British and not the Zulu

@@dieselelectricrazor377 British was only there trying to rob Africa of it's natural resources British wasnt no hero

The Zulus in the end lost too.

None None, What natural resources are there in Zululand? The British didn't even settle on it. The Zulus were oppressors and even put to death wives who fled from their brutal husbands.

@@dieselelectricrazor377 every empire is inherently violent lmaooo. Did the British come to free the tribes who sided with them lmaooo.

idris elba would be durnford

They would make a woke version today, facts would not be taken into account.

Secrets Of The Dead: Zulu Dawn.

So here’s the thing. The British Empire thinks that they are beyond reproach. I think otherwise. Never forget about the people. As mentioned before. Arrogance and stupidity all wrapped into one.

That's spelt: Rourke's Drift, my friend.

Dreaded88 Actually its spelt Rorke's Drift ^_^

James Wilkins Are you sure?

Dreaded88 Yes

Dreaded88 James is right, It's spelt Rorke's Drift.

that would be over quick

What Song to sing while mowing down the Zulu's with a 12-Gauge Gatling Lazagna Maker!?! :D

All's fair in Love and War!

***** fair fucking fight? You fight to win, the only place you can fight fair is in a duel.

rmr1812 Nobody in war wants a fair fight.

What about the battle scenes from Waterloo, Lawrence of Arabia, The Battle of Britain, and of course Zulu (1964). ?

@@1960dave1960 also badass 👍🏼...but for me, zulu dawn is badder ass 👍🏼👍🏼

Sin duda

Что за чушь?! Эта империя принесла цивилизацию! А эти дикари не хотели подчиняться, а они такие хорошие дикари просто с замечательными духовными традициями зжигать заживо вдову! И так далее, сейчас в некоторых регионах это возвращается, я читаю просто в ужасе, там кого-то в жертву принесли там кого-то сожгли, а европейцы боролись против этого и они такие плохие? Первые путешественники в Африке и Индии писали что у детей был гной в глазах потому-что не было воды чтобы их промыть, а опять европейцы такие плохие что промывали глаза этим детям.

@@Adept_Ponasenkova 🤣🤣🤣🤡🤡🤡🤮💩💩

vse imperi prineslala qorya lyudyam

Все империи, особенно британская и росийская

+jgg204 lol

Lawless London is catching up.

Lmao

Medic311 yep

shut up cave man

Ha ha! Thank you - I knew that the face was familiar, and couldn't work out that cheeky smile!

Yeah, just like he did at the Alamo.

50*

If you send them in the wrong direction they'll be fucked after 40 miles.

I dont use burger eaters system, i use metric

Yes, a 20 mile run was not uncommon but if any Zulu fell behind or collapsed during these runs, they were put to death. It was an astonishingly brutal society.

@@samanth. I refer you to the bible of Zulu society, The washing of the Spears, by Donald R Morris

Sadly, you had pretty much no option but to die, some were only 18-24 and died really young. Even trying to run would get you chased, they cornered every escape. The escape route was still attacked while the British tried to flee. The Zulus did a very good job surprising pretty much everyone.

Zulu also weren't good. They enslaved many tribes. During Anglo-Zulu War auxilliary warriors allianced with British from tribes hostile to Zulu Kingdom massacred many villages. So Zulu weren't real owners of these lands.

No. Read about Shaka's cruel and bloody conquests. Zulus weren't real owners of Zululand.

Cybermat47

Lastly - hmm ... I was wondering COULD the Zulus have potentially have won in a battle like Pickett's Charge? Or if they faced Union Forces? I mean that is true most were armed with Asseigais and clubbed weapons rather than guns but could the numbers work? Or unlike at Islandwana the Union Forces at Picketts Charge had more gun cannons and more soldiers then?

Foom-zilla ゴジラ Too much dreaming bro.

Nope

@magic8 nope

*ruled.

You know the Zulu's where living in land they had taken and committed genocide of up to 2 million people to keep right? i mean i don't overly care if you don't like the British Empire but you should at least attempt to assign the same rules to both sides..

@@Delogros this is completely british bullshit. British army in India, africa, far east, middle east, afghanistan, etc. etc. etc. killed maybe 50 million people. Zulu people were great warriors. They tried to defend their country with spears against rifles and cannons. History always will remember them.

@@maerzable best to ignore the Irish, they like to whinge pretty much 24/7 and like to ignore the fact that the Scots are an Irish clan that annexed then enslaved of murdered all the local population of modern day Scotland. And Yes i am well aware of British History :) It was a famine, they happened in England as well including a particularly back one in Yorkshire on the Midlands not that much before Ireland, but i don't need to ask i know you won't know about that, Victim complexes have been all the rage for the last 5 years or so. England is not a political entity, England doesn't have it's own Prime minister. Indeed - alleged, it's also very interesting that you are assigning sole blame for that alleged "crime" solely to the British, it was the second largest force not the largest one that belonged to the USA. The problem is your a bigot, a people are not responsible for the actions of there 9 times great grand parents, we are not responsible for Ireland same as Denmark is not responsible for the mass slavery and murder of the Viking invasions of England, only real difference is the bulk of the UK doesn't whinge about things that happened century's ago while it's the favorite past time of the Irish and others.

Well, that is most remarkable! Thanks for sharing that with everyone Billy Shane.

@@billyshane3804 bro forgot to switch accounts

Neither should have the Zulu given they were from an entirely different coast

Soooo...quick history lesson. The Zulu were a conquering empire themselves and *not in any way peaceful*. Their ancestors had moved into southern Africa from east-central Africa around 200 years earlier, conquering the local tribes, ethnic groups, chiefs, etc. who had lived their for centuries. The Zulu's most important king, Shaka, radically revised and strengthened the Zulu army and created a military-social structure in the early 1800s, effectively making it the Sparta of southern Africa. It was a very tough culture, though certainly not without honour. Not at a bad people at all, but proud, exclusive, and aggressively militaristic...in many ways rather like the British who came there. Shaka then set about attacking, killing, and absorbing, well, everybody around. The time from about 1810 to 1840 is referred to as "Mfecane" ("The Crushing and Scattering") when the entire region was ravaged by war and cost a HUGE percent of the local population their lives or livelihood. Some estimates run as high as 1-2 million people dead over a generation of wars. The lesson of don't be taking away land from its rightful owners could apply just as much to the Zulu as to the British (and, in fact, it ended even worse for the Zulu, so maybe that just proves the point even more!).

There was an event called in the local language as the m'fekane which means the crushing in which tribes fleeing from the conquering armies of Shaka of the Zulu caused a cycle of death and destruction in the Natal and apparently the defeatedfoes of the Zulu adopted their battle strategies and conquered their neighbours and so on.

+Sq12Sq22u22 That's total rubbish. It sounds like you're trying to justify white colonisation of Africa. Do yourself a favour. Just don't. You can never justify taking someone's home, dignity and freedom by making up excuses like 'white people were there first.' Total crap. It doesn't matter if the Zulus didn't have an ancestral claim to the land. They were living on it at the time, thus it was their home the whites were invaders. Pure and simple.

He wasn't justifying Colonism. He was stating, what he considered fact!

Jim Porter They used it earlier before this clip. It was pretty effective until the Zulu's closed the distance and they British tried to retreat. Ironic thing is the Zulu's were near ready to retreat when the British rifle fire slackened from lack of ammo.

+Jim Porter It's also because the Zulu got to close to British Troops and if they fired they would've killed their own men.

+Jim Porter I'm Wondering If They Didn't Have Canister Rounds? That Would have Helped a lot.

+Jim Porter I'm Wondering If They Didn't Have Canister Rounds? That Would have Helped a lot.

I think it got a lot of unfair reviews, and I believe it is truly up there with Zulu - if not better. I know one thing for certain, although I love the Zulu score (don't get me wrong), I also love the Zulu Dawn score and would take it any day over Zulu. By the way, I liked your points.

@@sgtmajorpatrickharper7728 Yeah, I absolutely agree. In my opinion John Barry did slightly better score than Elmer Bernstein although both are awesome. By the way I completely forgot about my comment and I'm positively surprised that someone saw it.

LOL the friendly fire made me laugh so hard

I say what was the best part of this video Vereker saving the colours regiment flag that’s what

Backwards

@@amir3508 ???

@@adankmeme651 british were the karens

@@amir3508 nah

@@adankmeme651 i mean they totally invaded thier land sooo yeah.

It's a movie enjoy it for what's it's worth People have been conquered since the days of apes and mankind don't put a political spin just because you don't agree with the politics of the two countries at that time enjoy it or erase it from your library and move on and we all just have to be good to others and respect all people 👍

Its almost as bad as under ww2 documentarys o.O So sad.

I take it as being a sign of humanities strength. Diverse opinions, all that. What a bore if we all agreed about the same things, the same ways, for the same reasons?

HotaruZoku Yup, can't have good without setting a standard for bad.

Ну десь так ....