Chauvel was not a New Zealander. This history video is a very lightweight and less than accurate account of Australia’s conquest of The Holy Lands who led from the front at every conquest.
Boy, talk about a mixed-up "historian". Tel el Saba (now Tel Beersheba) and the right flank was taken by the ANZAC Mounted Division (Major General Chaytor (a New Zealander)) (NZMR Bde, 1 (AS) LH Bde, 2 (AS) LH Bde) eventually by 1500. It was the NZ ers who finally took the position. So late in the day, and needing water for the horses, Lieutenant General Chauvel (an Australian) commanding the Desert Mounted Corps ordered his reserve 4 (AS) LH Bde to attack. They were Light Horse (mounted infantry organises as cavalry but without shock weapons), not Cavalry, the approach was to be at the gallop, dismount on position, a manoeuvre so unusual that it took the Turks (waiting for a dismount point and approach on foot) by surprise.
It is amazing this is "understanding"when this guy has so MANY things wrong. Indeed, the Australians actually came across and out of the Sinai - before Lawrence!
Yes, and the Australian Light Horse took the surrender of Damascus hours before Lawrence and his Arabs arrived on the scene. This second "surrender" was stage managed by the British for Lawrence and political reasons.
Part of the surprise achieved was due to the fact the light horse weren't cavalry but mounted infantry. The Turks were expecting them to dismount and continue the assault on foot.
Australians and New Zealanders did not fight here to claim territory for Israel. They came here to assist the British Empire in defeating a strategic enemy in the war. Israel didn't even exist until the British drew some lines on a map after this war.
Sorry mate but your story may be close but not 100% accurate. It was the Aussies that took the Wells of Beersheva. You cris crossing New Zealand and Australian’s is like mixing up Canadians with Americans. Yes there were the ANZAC’s but it was a pure voluntary Army from Australia that defeated the Turks’ . You need to listen to Col Stringer’s version for a more accurate story on the attack as he holds diaries of the troops that were in that battle. 800 young horseman that only lost about 32 young soldiers in the battle.
We have no problem to receive any clarifications and correction in these comments. You are welcome to add the link to Col Stringer's version for those who want to go deeper.
At first, it went well; the Turks in outlying positions were caught by surprise. But a large hill which overlooked the plain in front of Beersheba needed to be taken before mounted troops could approach the town itself. The machine guns dug in on the hill known as Tel el Saba would have mown down horsemen in minutes. The job of capturing Tel el Saba was given to the New Zealand Mounted Rifles. It was defended by 300 Turks who were now well prepared. The attack started at 9.10am but progress was slow and casualties mounted. It took nearly six hours of fighting before the Auckland Mounted Rifles managed to capture the first enemy position. Two or three machine guns were taken, along with 60 prisoners. The machine guns were turned around and used to good effect on the Turks. The "Aucklands" (as they were known) were joined by the Wellington Mounted Rifles and with bayonets fixed they charged up the hill on foot. Fleeing Turks were shot as they ran. 25 Turks were killed and another 132 taken prisoner. Eight New Zealanders (mainly Aucklands) died and 26 were wounded. Israeli military historian Avi Navon told Newsroom “all the advantages lay with the Turkish troops. They were fresh, had the high ground and plenty of firepower. The only advantage the New Zealanders had was bravery.” “The cavalry charge and the Australians are much talked about but really the New Zealanders deserve a lot of credit," said Navon. The Aucklands had cleared the Tel but there was a big problem. Dusk was approaching and ANZACs had run out of time to attack the town.
No one was "chosen" to go in and I also take exception that this guy says they lost BIG at Gallipoli - not an educated statement at all. He didnt do ANY research it seems but you wont understand what happened listening to this guy!
Yes they did ,the Australian charge was the last part of the Battle ,the New Zealanders had been in action all day clearing the way and taking the high ground knocking out the Turkish machine gun and artillery support on the ridge lines.
If you’re going to understand the Battle of Beersheba, understand that it was the AUSTRALIANS who charged and won that day. NOT the New Zealanders. The kiwis were of course very important but the onus lies with the Australians. Learn your facts, old mate.
Without the New Zealanders taking Tel el Saba,the Australian charge would have been slaughtered. At first, it went well; the Turks in outlying positions were caught by surprise. But a large hill which overlooked the plain in front of Beersheba needed to be taken before mounted troops could approach the town itself. The machine guns dug in on the hill known as Tel el Saba would have mown down horsemen in minutes. The job of capturing Tel el Saba was given to the New Zealand Mounted Rifles. It was defended by 300 Turks who were now well prepared. The attack started at 9.10am but progress was slow and casualties mounted. It took nearly six hours of fighting before the Auckland Mounted Rifles managed to capture the first enemy position. Two or three machine guns were taken, along with 60 prisoners. The machine guns were turned around and used to good effect on the Turks. The "Aucklands" (as they were known) were joined by the Wellington Mounted Rifles and with bayonets fixed they charged up the hill on foot. Fleeing Turks were shot as they ran. 25 Turks were killed and another 132 taken prisoner. Eight New Zealanders (mainly Aucklands) died and 26 were wounded. Israeli military historian Avi Navon told Newsroom “all the advantages lay with the Turkish troops. They were fresh, had the high ground and plenty of firepower. The only advantage the New Zealanders had was bravery.” “The cavalry charge and the Australians are much talked about but really the New Zealanders deserve a lot of credit," said Navon. The Aucklands had cleared the Tel but there was a big problem. Dusk was approaching and ANZACs had run out of time to attack the town.
Chauvel was not a New Zealander. This history video is a very lightweight and less than accurate account of Australia’s conquest of The Holy Lands who led from the front at every conquest.
It was the 4th & 12th Light Horse that charged Beersheba, not just the 12th. It was led by the 4th. My grandfather was a sgt. In the 4,th Light Horse.
Boy, talk about a mixed-up "historian". Tel el Saba (now Tel Beersheba) and the right flank was taken by the ANZAC Mounted Division (Major General Chaytor (a New Zealander)) (NZMR Bde, 1 (AS) LH Bde, 2 (AS) LH Bde) eventually by 1500. It was the NZ ers who finally took the position. So late in the day, and needing water for the horses, Lieutenant General Chauvel (an Australian) commanding the Desert Mounted Corps ordered his reserve 4 (AS) LH Bde to attack. They were Light Horse (mounted infantry organises as cavalry but without shock weapons), not Cavalry, the approach was to be at the gallop, dismount on position, a manoeuvre so unusual that it took the Turks (waiting for a dismount point and approach on foot) by surprise.
Thanks ruclips.net/video/_VoFTLF3hpA/видео.html
10th Light Horse Regt (Battalion sized though) - there is also an excellent movie on the topic called the Light Horseman
Harry Chauvel was Australian.
general henry george chauvel was australian.
It is amazing this is "understanding"when this guy has so MANY things wrong. Indeed, the Australians actually came across and out of the Sinai - before Lawrence!
Yes, and the Australian Light Horse took the surrender of Damascus hours before Lawrence and his Arabs arrived on the scene. This second "surrender" was stage managed by the British for Lawrence and political reasons.
@@blueycarlton ruclips.net/video/_VoFTLF3hpA/видео.html
Part of the surprise achieved was due to the fact the light horse weren't cavalry but mounted infantry. The Turks were expecting them to dismount and continue the assault on foot.
The Turks were petrified of hand to hand combat with australians
@@williambristow9610 ruclips.net/video/_VoFTLF3hpA/видео.html
Harry was an Aussie not a Kiwi en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Harry_Chauvel
So cool to now that australia and new zealand came to israel to gain back the territory for israel
Australians and New Zealanders did not fight here to claim territory for Israel. They came here to assist the British Empire in defeating a strategic enemy in the war. Israel didn't even exist until the British drew some lines on a map after this war.
Sorry mate but your story may be close but not 100% accurate. It was the Aussies that took the Wells of Beersheva. You cris crossing New Zealand and Australian’s is like mixing up Canadians with Americans. Yes there were the ANZAC’s but it was a pure voluntary Army from Australia that defeated the Turks’ . You need to listen to Col Stringer’s version for a more accurate story on the attack as he holds diaries of the troops that were in that battle. 800 young horseman that only lost about 32 young soldiers in the battle.
We have no problem to receive any clarifications and correction in these comments. You are welcome to add the link to Col Stringer's version for those who want to go deeper.
@@RootSource Thanks this is a video that I’ve made on the End Times ruclips.net/video/_VoFTLF3hpA/видео.html
At first, it went well; the Turks in outlying positions were caught by surprise.
But a large hill which overlooked the plain in front of Beersheba needed to be taken before mounted troops could approach the town itself.
The machine guns dug in on the hill known as Tel el Saba would have mown down horsemen in minutes.
The job of capturing Tel el Saba was given to the New Zealand Mounted Rifles. It was defended by 300 Turks who were now well prepared.
The attack started at 9.10am but progress was slow and casualties mounted.
It took nearly six hours of fighting before the Auckland Mounted Rifles managed to capture the first enemy position. Two or three machine guns were taken, along with 60 prisoners.
The machine guns were turned around and used to good effect on the Turks.
The "Aucklands" (as they were known) were joined by the Wellington Mounted Rifles and with bayonets fixed they charged up the hill on foot.
Fleeing Turks were shot as they ran.
25 Turks were killed and another 132 taken prisoner.
Eight New Zealanders (mainly Aucklands) died and 26 were wounded.
Israeli military historian Avi Navon told Newsroom “all the advantages lay with the Turkish troops. They were fresh, had the high ground and plenty of firepower. The only advantage the New Zealanders had was bravery.”
“The cavalry charge and the Australians are much talked about but really the New Zealanders deserve a lot of credit," said Navon.
The Aucklands had cleared the Tel but there was a big problem. Dusk was approaching and ANZACs had run out of time to attack the town.
Is he really a historian
Chanel was Australian not a kiwi
Agree, it was a mistake. Here is more information. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Harry_Chauvel
No one was "chosen" to go in and I also take exception that this guy says they lost BIG at Gallipoli - not an educated statement at all. He didnt do ANY research it seems but you wont understand what happened listening to this guy!
He’s clearly a dill.
Lest we Forget
The New Zealanders did not take part in this particular fight.
Yes they did ,the Australian charge was the last part of the Battle ,the New Zealanders had been in action all day clearing the way and taking the high ground knocking out the Turkish machine gun and artillery support on the ridge lines.
If you’re going to understand the Battle of Beersheba, understand that it was the AUSTRALIANS who charged and won that day. NOT the New Zealanders. The kiwis were of course very important but the onus lies with the Australians.
Learn your facts, old mate.
Sorry for any confusion. No disrespect intended.
Without the New Zealanders taking Tel el Saba,the Australian charge would have been slaughtered.
At first, it went well; the Turks in outlying positions were caught by surprise.
But a large hill which overlooked the plain in front of Beersheba needed to be taken before mounted troops could approach the town itself.
The machine guns dug in on the hill known as Tel el Saba would have mown down horsemen in minutes.
The job of capturing Tel el Saba was given to the New Zealand Mounted Rifles. It was defended by 300 Turks who were now well prepared.
The attack started at 9.10am but progress was slow and casualties mounted.
It took nearly six hours of fighting before the Auckland Mounted Rifles managed to capture the first enemy position. Two or three machine guns were taken, along with 60 prisoners.
The machine guns were turned around and used to good effect on the Turks.
The "Aucklands" (as they were known) were joined by the Wellington Mounted Rifles and with bayonets fixed they charged up the hill on foot.
Fleeing Turks were shot as they ran.
25 Turks were killed and another 132 taken prisoner.
Eight New Zealanders (mainly Aucklands) died and 26 were wounded.
Israeli military historian Avi Navon told Newsroom “all the advantages lay with the Turkish troops. They were fresh, had the high ground and plenty of firepower. The only advantage the New Zealanders had was bravery.”
“The cavalry charge and the Australians are much talked about but really the New Zealanders deserve a lot of credit," said Navon.
The Aucklands had cleared the Tel but there was a big problem. Dusk was approaching and ANZACs had run out of time to attack the town.
@@terryharris1291 totally agree
Chavelis Australian
As soon as the Bible blah blah started....I'm out.