The Zulus as a matter of fact had by some estimates over 20.000 guns before the war started. Granted these were old rifles or even muskets, but they were still used at the battle of Isandlwana and many British/Allied troops were killed or wounded by firearms in that battle and others Let me make clear, the average Zulu was a terrible shot and was only really a danger to European soldiers through massed fire. But they still had access to many firearms if the need arose
You're right. In fact the majority of British casualties at Rorke's Drift were caused by Zulu gunfire. A fact usually not usually discussed by historians.
Obsolete muskets, typically old Brown Besses or percussion conversions of the same. Also some Zulus owned trade muskets of such poor quality they were called "Birmingham Gaspipes." Still, sling enough lead in the direction of the enemy and you're bound to hit someone.
In addition to the points below, if the Martini Henry was similar in ballistic performance to the Trapdoor Springfield, the slug has a loping trajectory that takes some skill to master. I doubt the Zulus had the time, skill or knowledge to perfect it. But close on it probably didn't matter much.
Right, most of the Zulu fire at Ulundi was at very close range. Firearms were a recent introduction, introduced by Cestwayo's father and used in civil wars. However, the state lacked the apparatus to support this new arm- this wasn't the Asante or Abyssiain empires with their developed firearms tactics and logistics. They didn't have any kind of regular drill; if you had a gun you'd have to learn how to use it yourself. It didn't help that the civil war was their last battle, so veterans were old paunchy chiefs and the recruits had to learn as they went. There were many parts of Isandlwana where the Zulu, unable to close, resorted to fire. Often it was just enough to cover the advance of the spearmen, but sometimes they were able to drive away British pockets of resistance or snipe off artillerymen.
As one whose knowledge of the Zulus pretty much started and ended with the movie "Zulu Dawn" I appreciate such an informative (and entertaining) video. Very easy to watch, while packed with information.
@@haraldisdeadyou gotta explain yourself with this one cuz as far as I can tell no it doesn’t that’s the shortest war lol but I’m open to learn if you have something to ad.
God bless you Brandon! You are making content that no other channel is creative enough to tackle, spare for maybe the History chap. Thank you for this video!
the quality of research and care you put in every video is just impressive. and to produce this quality in this frequency just boggles my mind. i am not at all knowledgeable in most of the subjects you cover put i am always captivated by your videos. you always make the very difficult tightrope walk of staying objective and historically accurate but still never lose sight of the humanity and the personal histories behind all the statistics and numbers. i am especially very glad that you never get captured by any political narratives. if the world would be fair you would have millions of followers. great job and thank you for all the knowledge, entertainment and (dare i say) wisdom
That is very much appreciated, thank you. Not just the money, which goes a long way, but the kind sentiment as well! I definitely try in my work to maintain a respect for the humanity of historical agents and I am glad you feel that I do so well. Though, I could definitely improve my overall output, I have to say! Something I am still working on. But again, thank you so much!
3 things of note,1 the British creation of the Zulu princedoms would cause in fighting for local power over their fellow Zulu, this would escalate and the British feared it would lead to a complete revolt so the former king was returned, but "he was but a shadow of the man he once was" he died within 2 months of returning. 2 the British laws they imposed on the Zulu is good in our modern understanding, but where they good for the Zulu people then? No not really, the laws where nothing but the colonial authority showing up and imposing their rules and laws on people that didn't want them. And 3 the British "occupation" of the Zuid Afrikaanse Republic (Transvaal) in the lead up to the British Zulu war was agreed on by the Boers as the boers where afraid of the Zulu kingdom's might, how ever the British dropped the deal and instead annexed the Boer republic, this would lead to another war, the first freedom war (first anglo boer war) and would lead to the British losing the war and the territory, also set up tensions for the 2 sides going into the late 1880's and early 1890's witch would then lead to thr second freedom war (second Anglo Boer war)(called the Boer war by the British)
During the Boer Wars the British Empire forced Boer populations into concentration camps where many starved to death, a horrid foreshadowing of what was to come the next century.
@@hermocrasbreadlord9557 the concentration camps started in the 20th century, the first British concentration camp started operations in September of 1900.
Although I already watched it on recast I have to rewatch here. Not just to help with the algorithm but also to check in on little Timmy. (Edit) where’s little Timmy, has he been slain? I can’t imagine that a child soldier could have anything bad happen to him.
Love this period of British Victorian history, They where getting involved in a lot of places, Fascinating stuff, and at a time when things are getting well documented in official paper, news papers and personal diaries that still survive for us to learn about and enjoy. Good work Brandon, I know ur channel covers more from a slightly earlier period that is also well documented too, and is also very interesting. Another guy here on RU-vid that mostly covers the Victorian stuff and is very good at it is. Redcoat:British military history's channel
I tend to feel that the Zulu succeeded too hard. Britain couldn't allow a public loss of face like that so had to came back and be seen to Win... Grinding it out with logistics and worldwide coordination.
Sadly the Zulus had only needed to win one or two more Isandlwana to defeat the British. The Victorian British Army was very small but very elite. The British couldn't afford to take massive loses, say 10-20000. Unfortunately the firepower of British army more than made it impossible for th Zulus to inflict such looses to the British. Here at this battle of Ulundi, the British did not display any tactical flare. They simply formed a defense square and shot the living hell out of Zulus. Wining the battle. Lord Chelmsford wasn't particularly good general in fact he was pretty awful. A testimony of why don't let birth determine your position in life. But he a rather poor general could manage to form defense square. So basically once the British stop being stupid the Zulus were doomed cause their firepower was too much for Zulus to deal with.
@@skibbideeskitch9894 Didn't stop the Germans from sending weapons to the Boers. And the Boer nearly broke the British till they became ruthless and used tactics that wouldn't be repeated until some Germans used them in 30-40s.
@@Cavalier1645 And as you would expect, German gun shipments to Africa were intercepted by the Royal Navy. The British seized several German ships, leading to a diplomatic furore between the two empires. I'm also very suspicious of dubious comparisons between British camps in South Africa and German camps in the 1940s.
@@skibbideeskitch9894 Still got enough guns to Boers to make a pain in the ass for British. And sorry if truth hurts. The British have lot blood on their hands. Almost all modern nation do. It's the price of having an global empire. Still doesn't absolve them of the act. Nor am saying they need to reparations or apologize for doing what all empires do. They just need to understand and acknowledge it just like they US need acknowledge they nearly exterminated their native American population and Japanese need to acknowledge the horrible things they did in China during WWII
The modern revisionist history has the Zulus as the good guys against a brutal colonial power however when you read deeper into the subject you will find the Zulu Empire actually committed mass Genocide on other tribes and enslaved or displaced whole tribes , Estimates range from as low as 500,000 to as high as a million people died because of Zulu expansion not 50 years before the Anglo/Zulu war. To this day people praise and throw accolades at Shaka who was nothing more than a despot both cruel and brutal , I can only assume these people who praise such atrocities are using his name to fit their own agenda and are incapable of digesting any element of truth. Great Video Brandon.
Shaka was called "The Black Napoleon" back in the 19th Century, but only because Hitler and Stalin hadn't come along yet. He'd have understood those two perfectly. Shaka was a military genius and a great organizer but not a very nice man, to put it mildly. Finally his own people had enough of him and wasted him.
@@arwing20literally including the guy you're responding to. The Zulus being the French Empire of southern Africa is not mutually exclusive with the British being dicks. The Zulu don't have to be "good guys" for the British to be "bad guys."
@@CaptainHat That makes no sense , Your looking at it from 21st century viewpoint , Were British being dicks when they abolished slavery for the world when they introduced life saving medicines , infrastructure , and judicial systems for countries that had none the amount of hypocrisy that's banded around the internet is staggering. That's not say the British or any other colonial power did not take in return they did but the pros certainly outweigh the cons , Did you know the British restored Zulu lands stolen from them by the Boers in 1843? Of course you didn't , The British also stopped many tribes from being wiped out and the only reason they exist today is because of British intervention if not other tribes like the Zulu and Swazi and the Boers would have eradicated them the Sotho and Griqua owe their existence to the British.
@@CaptainHat The Zulu's literally tortured any captives they took to death. White or Black. It was simply part of their twisted culture. I know which ones I considered the bad guys
Imperial power is not winning every battle, it’s sending in a spare army when a battle is lost. As the sultan said after Lapante, it’s like losing a beard, it will grow back.
May you please do a video about the Honourable East India Company, it's commerce, influence and military history? Atleast, a brief overview (Yes, I shall take the honour of being the first comment) Also, don't question my name
Great presentation Brandon! Well done, and a FAST 35 minutes! When all is said and done the Brits in South Africa were nervous about the Zulu empire and as far as they were concerned it had to go, one way or another. Assuming King Chetswayo met one set of demands there would have been more he couldn't meet. One way or another the Zulu empire was doomed.
@@phunkracy No, they were in fact nervous and had a very good right to be, since the Zulu empire had been aggressively expanding in the previous years and with the limited number of British troops in the region there was a genuine fear of a Zulu invasion, into Boer areas in particular
@@arwing20 there were so nervous they kept provoking the Zulu into military confrontation? Which the Zulu kept trying to avoid? The were nervous about Zulu the same way Russia was nervous about Ukraine lol. The entire era of 19th century colonialism was based on imagined 'threats' and 'slights' from African and Asian states, where in fact it was the great powers that kept encroaching and expanding all throughout the world.
@@arwing20 Well, I don't know that the Brits had the right to be nervous, keep in mind the Zulu's weren't the aggrieved party in this war. They hadn't shown any intention of invading British territory and as shown in the video King Chetswayo tried his best to avoid war. In fact, Chetswayo showed some political savvy by fighting a defensive war demonstrating HE was the offended party, and not the other way around.
British imperial politics were generally extremely messy and quite often driven by the individuals on the ground. For example, the ultimatum to the Zulus was only sent to London after it was delivered and well after London could take action before it expired (the government in London were aware he planned to make demands from other correspondence but nothing more than that). Similarly, the Second Boer War was precipitated by Cecil Rhodes and his compatriots in South Africa against the wishes of the government in London. But, in any case London was not going to back down from a fight regardless of their desire to get into it in the first place (which men like Rhodes and Frere were well aware of) and were not going to pass up the opportunities such wars presented them.
Hmm.. My great grandfather was part of this British army in this region (his colouriszed portait hangs on the wall of my study) …… frankly if I was a zulu I would be pretty pissed off with having my land stolen by a bunch of well armed redcoats. Excellent video… subscribed. Props from the UK.
Broadly because there's not much honour in showing up at a guy's house and killing his family after he's spent the last three weeks trying to make peace with you. London was frankly embarassed to even be involved at all, and went through the motions of honouring Chelmsford afterwards because not doing so would have been to admit they'd lost control of one of their viceroys and he'd gone and done something awful, but really the British Government would rather have forgotten the whole thing ever happened if they could. Publicising Rorke's Drift heavily was part of the PR campaign after the fact to try and make the whole ting seem less sordid, and Isandlwana was pretty difficult to cover up due to the scale of the action, but everything else was quietly swept under the nearest rug at the first available opportunity.
No offense but it’s kinda funny how you mentioned how the British did bring various standards a modern state would need, when they took a very important standard for a modern state to need. Political independence. Granted that doesn’t change the various things they brought, but it’s rather odd to see one claim it brining qualities of a modern state when they took the largest and important one they already had.
Another very good video Brandon. As a British person I’ve always looked upon the Zulu campaign with great sorrow and shame. A real black mark on our supposed character. How it was instigated and it’s final conclusion at best very sad at worst criminal
@@BrandonF I have two adopted sister's who of Māori decent and it's part of their ancestors history on top of that it's important to learn history as you know wish you the best Sir!
Speaking of Shaka, have you seen the 1986 Henry Cele Shaka Zulu miniseries? It's very entertaining, I'd be interested to see a historical appraisal of it.
I don't know about anyone else, but I think the next video should be on William Robertson, the only British soldier in history to work his way up from Private to Field Marshall.
On the 'good' and the 'bad': Something that needs to be considered is agency and consent. Regardless of how 'progressive' some of the British laws were, at the end of the day, it was not a negotiated agreement made between the Zulu and the British crown for mutual benefit, it was the British imposing their will over a people who, at best, they saw as naïve savages to be 'civilised', and more realistically, saw as a problem to be resolved. Given that, I cannot view the British conquest as a positive event for the Zulu or any of the other indigenous people of South Africa. And it's negative impacts laid the groundwork for the racial tension and disparity South Africa is torn by right up to today.
I'm not sure why you're calling Roarke's Drift lesser known, it's a story of white "victory" over colonial "savagery". They've been shouting it from the rooftops since it happened and I don't think the British would have complained if Isandlwana had become a footnote. They didn't exactly make a habit of dealing with the Zulu fairly and honestly.
While that is true, I tend to think that even if the context of the British wars in South Africa, ( there were five of them), islanwana is the most well known. It was such a serious upset that some Considered it a military disaster In that sense Roake drift is something of a silver lining.
One thing i find pretty weird on this video is how you talk about the terms of surrender. It makes it seem like the British only really wanted to reclaim their honour and have their guns back but oh those other "political problems" are just the backdrop we don't need to look into those. It makes it so that the imperialist invasion of the area looks much more innocent than it was
It just felt like it'd be a whole other topic that would take up a lot of time when I primarily wanted to focus on the battle itself. I felt like the allusions I made to the greater causes did specify that the British demands were severe, and I certainly don't think I portrayed the British in a positive light in this video given all the (what we'd today call) war-criming.
Oh yeah you did certainly adress the nuances at play, I just personally felt like the way you adressed them looked a bit like you were dancing around the issue instead of it being a topic for another time. But that's just my personal opinion@@BrandonF
The video is great and all but the later segement of the video on British laying rule on Zululand kinda make me conflicted alot I dont think it should make out as a postive thing, even on paper, because in the end it just words on paper for the british government show their people and the world that they still "civilized" but in reality, they not actually want to abide or even care about these thing
Had the lads at Isandlwana been entrenched like they should have been, a well trained British regular using a modern (at the time) Mk II Martini-Henry rifle, a Zulu warrior should never get close enough to use his Assegai. The Zulu has the advantage in close, hand to hand combat. Otherwise, forget it.
oh brother, the Zulu were a militaristic ruthless kingdom before the British came. Should we treat this encounter differently just because a civilized nation came upon them and bear pity upon them? The only regretful thing is the shedding of blood but let's not make this into "the oppressive colonizer vs the innocent native", their innocence and oppressiveness is interchangeable
My birthday is coming up if anyone wants to get me a snazzy wallet 😊 but seriously, the Zulu were very brave to take on what was, at the time, one of the more aggressive forces out there
For the RU-vid history community playing at war and talking, listening about war is infinitely better than actually doing war bc nobody get's their body blow up.
Brandon F people often think The Zulu Empire were the victors in that battle/ war when it was The British who won they had a superior military, weapons, tactics and strategies and more well trained and experienced men. You can't claim that the Zulu were the winners when they're military was primitive and vastly inferior to Brittain's.
This is typical military campaigning, say what you will but the fruits of weakness have been shown by recent American military endeavours. If anything the British were relatively lenient by colonial standards. Though I would disagree with the idea that the policies weren't self serving (just because a policy is supported in the current western regime doesn't make it good, e.g. liberalism), likewise other considerations don't necessary mean it wasn't done out of genuinely pure motivations (all people's have a habit of favouring their own practices and so it is easy to think yourself to be doing a service by shaping others after yourself, and likewise if you are in the position to do it that might well be due to superiority and the changes may very well be positive, the opposite is frequently also the case however, especially with civilisations on a comparable level, such as the Americanisation of Europe or the cultural destruction of eastern and central europe).
@@dick_richards so? A small power like that Defeating the british even in one battle was a pretty big deal for them and the Zulu Monarchy never really died down, it simply doesnt have power anymore
An informative talk but...why do these kind of histories always seem to start from the same point. Why is the history of the Zulus never mentioned by way of context. Theirs was an extreme warlike nation known for its brutality and the terrorising of it's neighbours by constantly expanding its territory by means of conquest. When they were eventually subdued the region knew peace for the first time in generations which brought security and prosperity. (Of a sort.}
One expanding empire wiped out another expanding empire. Courage and uklewas (spelling ?) were not enough to defeat courage and Martini-Henry Rifles(❤❤). "Washing of the Spears" covers this biggly. My sympathies ALWAYS lie with the invaded. The African British landgrab included the Boer land invasion. A thoroughly disgustimg exercise of imperial colonial force as exercised by the Brits here in the Revolution and by us against the Plains Indians and tribes of thr southwest.😡😡😡
Native Americans weren't exactly angels themselves. Inter-tribal warfare was VERY common among the tribes long before the Europeans came on the scene, they all weren't holding hands around Grandmother Willow and singing "Colors Of The Wind." I'm sure you've heard of the Sioux Nation? There were originally an Eastern tribe forced into the plains by the Iroquois League, just one example. Land-grabs, raids, captures and enslavements, and tortures just for the fun of it were old stuff to the tribes. They weren't stupid, but they were definately a primitive people. North America wasn't stolen, nor was South America for that matter. But the Western Hemisphere WAS conquered, I'll give you that. Just another story of conquest in humanity's worldwide history.
@@wayneantoniazzi2706 I am very well aware of that. But we were so far beyond them. Repeating rifles, hotchkiss guns, Gatling guns, etc. The odds were far closer in the 1600s and I actually think the Narragansetts had flintlocks when we were still limited to matchlocks. Out west it was a new story - professional soldiers hardened by a civil war that reached new lows in intra-racial brutality versus warriors and non combatants - or at least semi-non-combatants. I am not a fan of the 1619 project by the way. Project 1620 - a response to Project 1619 is far better.
I could have done with more explanation of why the war started. I've never seen either movie. I guess I'll assume that a colonial power wanted something the Zulus had or the British were just being racist or something like that.
Brandon actually undersells how unreasonable the British demands were. Chelmsford had been told not to start a war by Parliament but he wanted military glory so he wrote up a "peace accord" that was specifically designed to be unacceptable and provocative so that Chelmsford could invade and claim "they started it." After Isandlwana the loss of face meant that the British felt forced to respond more vigorously but it's still likely that if the intended commander had managed to take over from Chelmsford he would have negotiated rather than burning Ulundi, but Chelmsford wanted to "prove himself." That's not to say the Zulus were "the good guys" exactly, they weren't exactly nice to their neighbours, but the whole war was essentially precipitated by Chelmsford being a petulant glory-chasing arse.
The Zulus crushed entire nations in their own conquests of what would from then on be called Zululand. The British doing the same to them was not some karmic justice, but it is likewise was no great crime. They lived by the assegai and iklwa, and died by the rifle and gun.
The most decisive battle in the war is ignored by the people who won it. Why? Because it's easier to justify invasions if you pretend they're defensive. Frere wanted to keep conquering all of South Africa until the Basuto and Boers humiliated him and he finally reaped consequences. The African kingdoms weren't exactly peaceful innocents, but neither were the allies in WW2. Most colonial battles were like this: short firefights where superior European firepower won the day. I think the reason Chelmsford's first campaign against the Zulu is so famous is that those first battles were atypical. The desperate fight against the odds at Rorke's Drift and the complete encirclement and annihilation at Isandlwana didn't usually happen. Think of the Sudanese wars: with the exception of the siege of Khartoum, the Anglo-Egyptian army won every field battle. The Madhists did damage before the firepower was too much for them. Or take French and British attacks on Vietnam and China: for the most part, the giant steam ships blasting apart forts settled things decisively. You usually don't get the indigenous empires getting the jump on them, outmaneuvering them to take one army apart and then rushing an supply depot. I'm glad this video continues the Anglo-Zulu War series of videos. Usually people only go "Oh, the British fended off a giant Zulu army and won" but there's a lot more to the story than the irrelevant heroism at Rorke's Drift. But again, there's this concept that all wars are decided in at most 4 battles. American Civil War is just Gettysburg. English Civil War is just Marston Moor. Napoleon is just Austerlitz, Borodino, and Waterloo. Even the american revolution gets shortened to Boston-Trenton-MAYBE Saratoga-Yorktown. The motivations of the leadership, the political maneuvering by king vs queen, all the Africans who weren't Zulu themselves just get ignored.
