At the time Chard, who defended Rorkes drift successfully with 100 men was called "stupid" and "dull".... he faced even worse odds (40 - 1), as against 20-1 in this battle, and was successful. Lots of historians have tried to discredit him and explain away his success. He certainly had good help. But he was also humble and knew good advice when he heard it. He made a simple and clear decision, to fortify and shorten lines and to have a fall back position that everyone knew about. He fought without cavalry and artillery so had no ability to recce or supress. And he was only a lieutenant of Engineers. A General and two colonels failed at Isandlwana. And the zulus did everything right, executing their battle plan perfectly. In tight formation, with the 24th shoulder to shoulder, regular supply of ammo and well protected by a wagon laager, with the artillery firing grape shot and the cavalry picking at the zulu wings, this would have been a one sided fight the other way. Pride, arrogance, poor communication, unclear orders, no contingencies... a copy book example of poor leadership, equally in my view shared by Pulleine (indecisive), Durnford (reckless) and Chelmsford (outplayed). Comments below about failures of the Martini Henry don't stack up. At Rorkes Drift the garrison fired an amazing 20000 rounds from approx 100 rifles - they were still working at the end of the battle. The difference was leadership and strategy.
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.
@@AndrewAustinFrustrated 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.
there is a real sense of a desperate battle going on in this movie, I mean it is quite intense and actually in cinematic terms it is superbly realised with what looks like thousands of extras, no Cgi or flashy jump cuts or crash editing, just traditional cinema visual language at its best.....a very underrated movie, I have it on a so so quality DVD but it really should be released on a good quality blu ray....it really deserves it.
Deberían hacer un remake , paro usando la tecnología actual ( CGI) y sin censura mostrando como quedaron los cadáveres de los ingleses a manos de los Zulues. ( Látex porsupuesto), porque estas batallas fueron muy sangrientas en extremo .
Dude I swear I thought this was just a live stream clipped from Minneapolis. I visited the year Floyd OD'd, and I literally saw this exact thing playing out. Crazy how history tends to repeat itself. I wonder which Black person OD'd in police custody for this historical event to play out the way it did?
It's a beautifully made film. It was released in 1979, on the 100th anniversary of the battle. I still remember the posters on the London Underground tunnels at Tottenham Court Road.
The dumb-dumb Brits could have had very cheap US Civil War Spencer repeating rifles. After the end of the US Civil War in 1865, the US gov basically threw the Spencer rifle away. The Spencer had a 7 round magazine, and was effective at close range. Used in a ratio of 1 to 1 with the powerful British rifle, this would have greatly increased the firepower of the Brits.
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
Probably one of the best battle scenes ever Filmed!! And by the way, they don't make movies like this anymore. A sheer spectical, deserving of an Oscar in my opinion
You should watch Dino Laurentis' "Waterloo" Starring Christopher Plummer and Rod Steiger and thousands of "extras" from the Red Army!! It's an absolutely stunning film and extremely historically accurate.
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”).
@@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?
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.
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.
At 3:30, this has got to be the best clip to look at regarding the filming. It gives a fantastic vibe to the insanity of the battle and the hundreds of troops from both sides moving about. I love it!
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!! 👍
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.
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.
I cannot watch the movie `Zulu``without also watching this one `Zulu Dawn``. Both are awesome films, and I cannot say neither are historically accurate because I believe they both are for the most part. Stunning films, the both of them, towering above most anything Hollywood has put out.
Whereas they are both excellent films Zulu Dawn is mostly accurate whereas Zulu is not particularly accurate in its portrayal of characters and depiction of events.
My dad took me to see this in the theater and that scene where he shot the flag free lives forever . In the theater it made the audience cheer. Bloody damn good movie, way underrated.
@@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.
The Zulu had one battle in it and this was it, when the British returned with even more artillery and cavalry the next year, the Zulu had lost their best men and had nothing left.
The British Little Big Horn, and caused by similar blunders of overconfidence, like division of forces and underestimating enemy strength and mobility.
Thanks. I glad Zulu people for this victory, as a Hispanoamerican proud of my Spanish Jewish (Sephardi) ancestry. But you had noted in short, the errors that made possible for the Zulu Impi the encircleing, and anhilation of the defensive disposition of Brits. Without the red coats' fails, for all the wonderful gallantry, discipline, stamina and organization of Zulu royal army, it wouldn't be enough to defeat and expell the British from there.
@@gatonasrani5700 it is widely acknowledged that the decision to widen the defensive perimeter to the extent which their fire was not sufficiently concentrated enough to stop the zulu advance. Had they formed a laager or a defensive square around the camp. They should have had enough fire power to stop even 25,000 zulus. They had the latest weapons and were able to fire 10 rounds per man, per minute. That would have been more than sufficient. There are also theories about the solar eclipse too but it was a tactical nightmare and not one which chelmsford repeated the following year at the kings Kraal at Ulundi
It was actually lost because the main force had left the encampment to persue what they thought was the main zulu force in the mountains near-by. It was valid deception by the enemy force in my opinion.
Peter O'Toole, Bob Hoskins, Burt Lancaster, Sir John Mills, Simon Ward, Denholm Elliott, Ronald Lacey...so many Great Actors and such a great piece of cinematic work, ZULU DAWN is criminally underrated (as is ZULU, starring Michael Caine)! Great Film!
At 8.15 Col Durnford looks up toward Isandlwana hill and sees the right horn of the Zulu army coming around the hill to encircle the British, knows the battle is lost. An amazing movie. 👍
2:46 this scene is really impressive, he's facing death but he picked up a bullet and easily loaded his gun, aims for one of enemies and shot him, after that he smiles but soon he died. I pick this for madness of war.
@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.
I love the British Colour Bearer in this. Stays for a long time holding the flag, then when it's time to relieve his flag, whips out his revolver and stays the Zulu. Such heroism. The 24th Foot is a legendary unit!
This is what happens when both sides of the battlefield is full of men with utter grit and balls of Steel. One can help to cheer on both sides during the engagement.
@@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.
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.
"We'll fought, Gentlemen. The time has come to save the colours" Hahaha love officers. It's all going Pete Tong and they still maintain dignity, respect and the stiff upper lip.
One of my very favorite military movies.Outstanding production work in recreating Islawanda,with very great accuracy.Africa is a fantastic place on Planet Earth. - Definately a land of high adventure.It's people are not just intriguing;Very often times they are fascinating truely.I believe the Human Suffering and poverty are significantly declining,Issue matters that definately have been steadily beginning to deminish.It may be,with no clear ending sight but the African people will someday both eventually see a.light at the end of the tunnel and will glorious succeed and reach the promise land.This great film from one of Africa's fantastic historic milestones -winning the battle,the battle of Islawanda proves it.
I recently discovered my Great Great Uncle was killed at the Battle of Isandlwana. He wasn't in the battle itself, but was on a camping holiday nearby and went to 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.
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.
Colonel Henry Pulleine's goodbye letter to his wife. "Isandlwana Zululand" "January 22nd '79." "My dearest" "I write to you at a moment of great destiny for us out here at Isandlwana, a place of great strange beauty." "Whatever happens you must know that my throughts are with you and our children now and forever." "With my fondest love."
@@lyndoncmp5751same as Durnford killed commanding the men unlike several officers who tried to make it out on horse like Sir Horace Smith Dorrien who was given his mount by an artilleryman One company is actually found halfway towards fugitives drift as they attempted to launch a fighting retreat under their OC but were cut down after running out of rounds
@@wargey3431 Yes Durnford stayed and made a stand. Are you referring to Lt Anstey of the 24th, who was found along Fugitives Trail with around 40 other 24th Foot men?
@@lyndoncmp5751 yes didnt realise it was so few men thought it was a bit more of his company but at least their officer stayed with them to try and fight out they just didnt have anywhere near the amount of rounds needed to conduct a fighting withdraw
@@wargey3431 All I know is that in Snooks book How Can Man Die Better he writes Anstey and around 40 men of the 24th were found two miles down Fugitives Trail. He says individual 24th bodies were found along the route so probably about 60 men of the 24th initially made their break out with Anstey.
Zulu dawn is a very exciting film;Interesting from beginning to end.Action packed. - Excellent 19th century Battle recreated Warfare scenes;Super great effective Military Film! Always a Ball and a Blast to enjoy watching.
British imperialists went to Africa occupying local land, looting local resources, destroying the existent structure of local society and call local Aficans "Barbarian". Bragging Britishmen "Bravery". What a shame to brag "Bravery" in Pirate/Bandit behavior!
One of the best soundtracks I have ever heard and although inaccurate, the film was a perfect encapsulation of Chelmsfords arrogance and incompetence. On both counts, his men paid with their lives.
Vos ancêtres étaient soumis à un roi qui était un véritable Tyran psychiatrique, et assez stupide, pour ne pas comprendre, que ses victoires faciles sur les tribus voisines noires, ne pourraenti pas se poursuivre, contre le puissant empire britannique, et sa technologie bien supérieure à celle des africains !
Sad to relate that it was only some months AFTER the battle, that the battlefield was cleared. Reports state of how eerily silent the place was, and that only skeletal remains of the fallen were found and recovered.
@@AudieHolland No. Not in the African sun. Putrefaction would've rotted the tissues away. Mummification, however, requires a stable environment out of sunlight and the elements to be successful.
The incredible, indomitable, bravery of the Zulu warrior, knowing fully well that they stand no chance against the disciplined British line infantry, but unmatched at hand to hand combat. Knowing they have to cover miles to get up close, losing wave after wave of warriors to every round of fire and still charging on. Unmatched bravery by the Zulu warrior fighting for his nation. Respect to the Zulu warrior.
Fun fact about this battle: the Zulus were ordered to kill all the men in red, so those, who had non-red uniform (cavalry, cannons crew etc) were more likely to survive.
No, its because those in red were on foot. Those non redcoats who survived did so because they were on horseback. The Zulus killed everyone and everything they got their hands on, including horses and camp pets.
Geez.... these Wakanda Warriors are a formidable opponent in numbers.
8 лет назад+75
Should not have split their forces and should have formed a defensive square very early in the battle. The Zulus themselves were no angels, they attacked and enslaved other less powerful African tribes.
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)
The best part about these old films is, a ton of it well fallowing directions was improvised on the spot, like when that soldier fell and the General just said "Get Up" and yanked him by the scruff!
The saddest thing, Chelmsford couldn't even own up to what was obviously his own failure. He placed the blame on Colonel Durnford, despite that he ha left Lt. Colonel Pulleine in command, and he had neglected to order the camp to laager up with the wagons, despite the numerous warnings from the locals, and he all but blatantly ignored the numerous messages that were sent from the camp to him, begging him to come back and reinforce them. He may have regained the Queens favor some time later, but it is a small satisfaction that after the Anglo-Zulu War, he never held another active military command again.
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.
Shout-out to the stuntmen performing the stunt at 7:40. That's no simple task overturning an artillery wagon by going over a steep grade and not getting anybody hurt. It looks like it practically rolled over that one guy.
***** 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).
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'
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.
This of course, is a showing of tactical and logistical failures. As where of course the battle of Rorke's Drift, is one of logistical, tactical and man to man successes. The real differences here folks, is ground. Rorkes drift was small, easily fortified. Less ground is always easier to hold, than more. Sun Tzu would call it death ground, where men are turned into heroes because they will fight and die for every inch. That's the primary reason for victory in Rorkes, but it is added upon, by proper use of defensive tactics of a siege. What they called a flying platoon, is better known by the Prussians and French who invented it, as a Buttressing Force. A unit to move from place to place and stop up the flow of any foe who might be making a breach. As well as being able to funnel the foe into killing zones, where the famous English Volley Fire could be used to greatest effect. This is the Art of War all the way. Small area, easy to defend, with no hope of retreat, properly fortified, allowed less than 200, to throw back more than 20 times their own number. Sun Tzu would have been proud I am certain.
gunslinger1911a1 How can the Prussians and French both invent the buttressing force? Either it was the one or the other - if indeed your statment is correct.
Uh no. They both invented the same tactic, at the same time within a couple years of one another. So they both invented it. They pioneered its use. Neither one is dated as the first to use the concept, but both dated as using it around the same time. Thus they both invented it. Until you can bring empirical proof that one or the other did first. Do that and I will concede my position.
The Japanese commander during the Boxer Rebellion told the American and European troops trying to relive the foreign legations under seige that if you surrounded or cut off the Chines troops, they would fight to the death no matter what. However, if you gave them an avenue of retreat, they would take it and give up the position with minimal bloodshed. They'll be back lol.
I totally side with the Zulu, they are fighting for their way of life,in 1879 my people, the Apache were fighting for the same. They in the end won, and we, the Apache, lost.
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.
@@thegreatdogzilla5855 you y can come out with all this colonist bollocks, i am talking from a purely military view point. You can argue all you like about the rights and wrongs of the british empire but one thing you cannot argue with is the fact they were tremendous soldiers.
They where not trained for that, and all that extra stuff would of been cumbersome. They where light on their feet and had to run 100 or so miles and fight a battle at the end of it. In videogame terms, My ancestors the Romans, where the tank version of them, while Zulus where DPS. lol
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.
Le courage du fanatique enrolé dans un régiment, où le moindre refus d'obéir, signifiait la mort dans la torture. Les Zoulous ne ramassaient pas leurs blessés. Il est vrai que en Afrique, être blessé signifiait en général la mort. La coutume était d'achever également les blessés ennemis, après éventration pour laisser s'envoler les hirondelles, au nom de croyances permettant de se protéger d'une vengeance des âmes. Le village ennemis était détruit et les femmes, les enfants mis en esclavage ou tués. Les Zoulous furent responsables d'un immense massacre de noirs. Ils multiplièrent par 20 la surface de leur territoire, ce qui fatalement les rendaient dangereux pour les paysans noirs ou hollandais qui cultivaient la terre pour approvisionner les navires qui faisaient escale au cap. Attaqué, un convoi hollandais se forma en cercle et écrasa la troupe Zoulou.
@@francoisblachon4690 это такие мелочи, по сравнению с тем, что творили цивилизованные европейцы отправляя целые народы в газовые камеры, даря одеяла с оспой, стравливая целые народы, что бы освободить от них территории и пр.
Such a great movie showing the fight for independence from foreign power. Invading other nations with negative purposes does not benefit anything and the British were taught a lesson. The Zulus were brave soldiers of Africa 🌍 🇿🇦
A stunning victor for the Zulu's but at a very high cost. As Cetshwayo, their chief proclaimed. "It is as if an assegai has been thrust into the belly of the Zulu Nation"
Stunning in what way? They outnumbered the English 10 to 1, and still loss three times more troops than they killed. If you measure by troops killed the English won. If by who was left standing on the land it would be the Zulus. Of course, no denying beating the most advance army with just spears is impressive but in terms of military I would not call it stunning.
@@justinthebeau2590 VERY phyrric, they were repelled not only at Rorke's Drift, but also at Eshowe (where a single Gatling destroyed the horns of the impi!), and in various minor engagements, then at Ulundi they were litterally butchered by British firepower (10 deaths vs.more than 1000!). Probabilly with a more competent commander the war would've ended at Ishaldnwana, with the Zulus suing for peace after a disastrous defeat.
@gary roberts feelings? For the Zulus? Ask to the others tribes of Transvaal and co. how loved were them, it wasn't a struggle for freedom, on the contrary was a clash btw empires, one from the age of iron (the Zulus), the other from early industrial age, don't forget that a LOT of natives supported the British against the Zulus, that had just invaded their lands (with many more deaths than this war)!
People forget Zulu Dawn but it is an excellent film as commented by others. Britain's arrogance in just walking into Zululand was astounding. I have been on the Zulu battle-fields tour and for any enthusiast, it is well worth going. It's only when you stand next to the cairns on ISandlwana and look down to where the Zulus attached from, do you appreciate the fear in the British soldiers. Rorke's Drift is nothing like in the film as the film was made in the Drakenburg mountains. If you get a chance to stay at the hotel that is built into the side of the Nqutu hills, do it.
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.
brave and heroic Englishmen ... against the half-naked attacking Zulu Warriors with leather shields, spears, machetes and arrows ... cannons, rifles and pistols ... poor Englishmen ...
I love the feeling of suspension and grit, without the use of excessive gore. War is gore, yes, but its use in movies today almost feels like a cheap fallback, rather then a detail in the grand scheme of the scenario.
I do not understand what all this arguing is about. Let us see the heroism on both sides of this batle. The British fought to their last in this one and the Zulu were courageous enough to charge the guns in frontal assault. The massive casualties on the Zulu side could not have been avoided since their inferior technology would only give them the advantage of discipline, morale and in this case superior strategy. They made the best they could to defend their homeland from an unjustified invasion. The war must have taken a gruesome toll on this African nation from which it could not recover until today. The British soldiers did their duty ad the individual heroism of them is focused in this film and that is understandable. Soldiers are not responsible for imperialism.
Lemuriafilm In most wars, soldiers were brave. The root of the problem is the leadership to be honest. In this case, the leaders of the zulus and of the british. They sacrificed their mens in the name of conquest
Don't let the spears and animal skins fool you. The Zulus were just as Imperialistic as anyone in that time.If they were not fighting the English, they would have been trying to subjugate their neighbors. Like the Mafia, every 10 years or so, you need a little blood to calm things down.
Stratégy.... HHUUMMM when you are maximum 1 thousand against 20 thousand, you can get superior by technology or anything else, it's normal to lose this battle
Clearly some here have missed the point of a movie like this. Back when it was made it was not about white or black imperialism , it was simply a war movie, like so many in those days. And in this case they decided to make one where it goes badly for British, that's all there is to it. But of course nowadays some people , like for example BLACK DEATH here would use a movie like this to make somekind of political statement that has no place here at all. I personally would watch a movie like this simply because i'm a fan of military history , nothing more.
If you pay attention in the movie Gladiator with Russel Crowe in the first part of it on the battlefield you can hear the warrior cry of the Zulus from the movie made about the same time as this one just titled ZULU. Very memoirable. I remember that movie from my childhood in the 60s and Saturday spent at the movie theaters.
The British totally underestimated the enemy they were facing, which is why they lost. But they did bought enough time for rorkes drift. The two officers who died defending the colours (red is melvill, and coghill is in blue) both earned Victoria crosses for their actions posthumously.
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.
you may correct me if 'im wrong, but (like the tribes in north America at little big horn battle in 1876), the zulus intended to defend their land, right ?
If you had the slightest clue about Zulu society you wouldn't have posted such a silly juvenile statement. I suggest the definitive history of the Zulus, The washing of the spears, by Donald R Morris
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
PBS: Secrets of the Dead has an episode about this battle. Based on the metal hinges and brackets found, they think many of the ammunition crates were smashed open with the buts of the rifles. They also believed the initial British lines were set to far away and the men to far apart. If they were in a small area close together, shoulder to shoulder, two or three rows deep, they would have had a better chance. Far apart they each fired one round and then tried to retreat with no cover.
Ngobamakosi As I recall, British, American, and Commonwealth forces would receive the total and unconditional surrender of Japan on the deck off the USS Missouri less than four years latter.
+Jack McCall Yes, you recall correctly, but four years earlier in 1941 they got chased out of Malaya and Singapore. Every time there is a video about the Zulus, some British/ white pride nationalist starts talking rubbish. The Brits have run away and been defeated just like everyone else.
+Ngobamakosi You seem to have neglected the brave Indians, Fijians, Jamaicans, and Nepalese that have fought and still fight for the United Kingdom. The only one concerned about race is you, my misguided young friend. You can acknowledge that the bravery and dogged determination of the British soldier despite the colour of the man in uniform.
+Jack McCall Oh come on, don't play that race crap with me. You know very well what I'm talking about and what I mean. You made a blanket statement and I felt obliged to check you. You were probably feeling a little jingoistic when you made it, but anyway I'll take my little race feelings and say goodnight. Bye.
The country near Isandlwana is very rough, and there are only a few routes horsemen could take. The Zulus identified these quickly and had the numbers to effect a very deadly presence along them.
You may be British pal - But are by no means alone;We Yanks from our American Army got also,if not even worse than you all did,OUR ass kicked At the battle of Little Big Horn By the Sioux Indians AKA Custer's Last Stand.Even though eventually we won The Sioux War from 1876-77.Like Britian eventually won The first Anglo-Zulu War.Just as the Indians, the Zulus bravely tried to fight back doing their best;their very best and hardest,but could not win with Stone Age weapons. Both American,British and doggone it,Films made from all the Worlds leading world power nations painfully teach us a lesson, - As we were humilatedly both defeated right in front of every eye on Planet fucking Earth. - No race of people is superior to any other.😢
At the time Chard, who defended Rorkes drift successfully with 100 men was called "stupid" and "dull".... he faced even worse odds (40 - 1), as against 20-1 in this battle, and was successful. Lots of historians have tried to discredit him and explain away his success. He certainly had good help. But he was also humble and knew good advice when he heard it. He made a simple and clear decision, to fortify and shorten lines and to have a fall back position that everyone knew about. He fought without cavalry and artillery so had no ability to recce or supress. And he was only a lieutenant of Engineers. A General and two colonels failed at Isandlwana. And the zulus did everything right, executing their battle plan perfectly. In tight formation, with the 24th shoulder to shoulder, regular supply of ammo and well protected by a wagon laager, with the artillery firing grape shot and the cavalry picking at the zulu wings, this would have been a one sided fight the other way. Pride, arrogance, poor communication, unclear orders, no contingencies... a copy book example of poor leadership, equally in my view shared by Pulleine (indecisive), Durnford (reckless) and Chelmsford (outplayed). Comments below about failures of the Martini Henry don't stack up. At Rorkes Drift the garrison fired an amazing 20000 rounds from approx 100 rifles - they were still working at the end of the battle. The difference was leadership and strategy.
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.
@@AndrewAustinFrustrated 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.
there is a real sense of a desperate battle going on in this movie, I mean it is quite intense and actually in cinematic terms it is superbly realised with what looks like thousands of extras, no Cgi or flashy jump cuts or crash editing, just traditional cinema visual language at its best.....a very underrated movie, I have it on a so so quality DVD but it really should be released on a good quality blu ray....it really deserves it.
Deberían hacer un remake , paro usando la tecnología actual ( CGI) y sin censura mostrando como quedaron los cadáveres de los ingleses a manos de los Zulues. ( Látex porsupuesto), porque estas batallas fueron muy sangrientas en extremo .
Absolutely right
Dude I swear I thought this was just a live stream clipped from Minneapolis. I visited the year Floyd OD'd, and I literally saw this exact thing playing out. Crazy how history tends to repeat itself. I wonder which Black person OD'd in police custody for this historical event to play out the way it did?
It's a beautifully made film. It was released in 1979, on the 100th anniversary of the battle. I still remember the posters on the London Underground tunnels at Tottenham Court Road.
The dumb-dumb Brits could have had very cheap US Civil War Spencer repeating rifles. After the end of the US Civil War in 1865, the US gov basically threw the Spencer rifle away. The Spencer had a 7 round magazine, and was effective at close range.
Used in a ratio of 1 to 1 with the powerful British rifle, this would have greatly increased the firepower of the Brits.
Most memorable line:
"Well fought, gentlemen. It's time to save the colours. Get to Rorke's Drift. You must warn them." ~Lt. Col. Pulleine
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.
It’s a perfect battle scene ,perfectly filmed at all angles ,made it so realistic , this is what we are missing today .
Except it didn't happen like this in reality.
Probably one of the best battle scenes ever Filmed!! And by the way, they don't make movies like this anymore. A sheer spectical, deserving of an Oscar in my opinion
Bro this actually happened this movie is based off of a true movie
@@spicy_rice0 Dang! Youre right!
You should watch Dino Laurentis' "Waterloo" Starring Christopher Plummer and Rod Steiger and thousands of "extras" from the Red Army!! It's an absolutely stunning film and extremely historically accurate.
Yeah but they didn't have to kill Burt, last time we ever loan England any actors.
@@garymartin1040 America killed him plenty of times.
A thoroughly underrated film. Well researched, well filmed and directed.
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
It is exactly 134 years on this day that this battle took place. This battle shows that should never underestimate an enemy force.
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.
"I was obliged to remain here with my infantry." ....that line makes me tear up everytime.
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?
You wouldn't get scenes like this nowadays. It'll be all shaky cam closeups of the same six people doing the same aaaargh sound.
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.
At 3:30, this has got to be the best clip to look at regarding the filming. It gives a fantastic vibe to the insanity of the battle and the hundreds of troops from both sides moving about. I love it!
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.
I cannot watch the movie `Zulu``without also watching this one `Zulu Dawn``. Both are awesome films, and I cannot say neither are historically accurate because I believe they both are for the most part. Stunning films, the both of them, towering above most anything Hollywood has put out.
Whereas they are both excellent films Zulu Dawn is mostly accurate whereas Zulu is not particularly accurate in its portrayal of characters and depiction of events.
My dad took me to see this in the theater and that scene where he shot the flag free lives forever . In the theater it made the audience cheer. Bloody damn good movie, way underrated.
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.
Respect to both Brits & Zulu, true warriors
Войны только зулусы, британцы оккупанты
The Zulu had one battle in it and this was it, when the British returned with even more artillery and cavalry the next year, the Zulu had lost their best men and had nothing left.
Indeed
the Brits may have lost 1,800
but they took 3,000 with them
The British Little Big Horn, and caused by similar blunders of overconfidence, like division of forces and underestimating enemy strength and mobility.
Indeed
Thanks.
I glad Zulu people for this victory, as a Hispanoamerican proud of my Spanish Jewish (Sephardi) ancestry.
But you had noted in short, the errors that made possible for the Zulu Impi the encircleing, and anhilation of the defensive disposition of Brits.
Without the red coats' fails, for all the wonderful gallantry, discipline, stamina and organization of Zulu royal army, it wouldn't be enough to defeat and expell the British from there.
@@gatonasrani5700 it is widely acknowledged that the decision to widen the defensive perimeter to the extent which their fire was not sufficiently concentrated enough to stop the zulu advance. Had they formed a laager or a defensive square around the camp. They should have had enough fire power to stop even 25,000 zulus. They had the latest weapons and were able to fire 10 rounds per man, per minute. That would have been more than sufficient. There are also theories about the solar eclipse too but it was a tactical nightmare and not one which chelmsford repeated the following year at the kings Kraal at Ulundi
It was actually lost because the main force had left the encampment to persue what they thought was the main zulu force in the mountains near-by. It was valid deception by the enemy force in my opinion.
@Dodadeus That's right. Their big mistakes in Isandlwana were corrected and British learned very well how to deal with a much better known enemy.
This was a surprisingly realistic depiction of a chaotic battle, beats modern movies by a long shot. They just don't make em like they used to...
I didn't know capture the flag could be this intense
Gamers Moment
In the end it was a tie anyways so gg
That has lit up my day.
@@danielomar9712 I don't think that there was a problem to zuluss to swim and take the flag again in reality
Fr, had to respawn multiple times 😭🙏
The battle scenes were some of the best ever put on film.
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
Peter O'Toole, Bob Hoskins, Burt Lancaster, Sir John Mills, Simon Ward, Denholm Elliott, Ronald Lacey...so many Great Actors and such a great piece of cinematic work, ZULU DAWN is criminally underrated (as is ZULU, starring Michael Caine)! Great Film!
O
At 8.15 Col Durnford looks up toward Isandlwana hill and sees the right horn of the Zulu army coming around the hill to encircle the British, knows the battle is lost. An amazing movie. 👍
2:46 this scene is really impressive, he's facing death but he picked up a bullet and easily loaded his gun, aims for one of enemies and shot him, after that he smiles but soon he died. I pick this for madness of war.
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.
@ The truth is even better than fiction.
I think that guy was 1 of the Generals of the zulus
@@Dom-fx4kt what happened?
They caught the Brits napping. Remember: you snooze, Zulus.
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
I love the British Colour Bearer in this. Stays for a long time holding the flag, then when it's time to relieve his flag, whips out his revolver and stays the Zulu. Such heroism. The 24th Foot is a legendary unit!
Rapists, killers as usual.
@@RS-nh9gu that's just brits
Get the Zulu’s!
@@user-yd4om1qw3n do you know how the zulu's treated other tribes?
Revolver? bloody luxury....
This is what happens when both sides of the battlefield is full of men with utter grit and balls of Steel. One can help to cheer on both sides during the engagement.
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.
No wonder the British lost.
They were all red-shirts. By Star Trek logic they had to die.
Every time!
Some of them had White shirts with suspenders
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.
"We'll fought, Gentlemen. The time has come to save the colours" Hahaha love officers. It's all going Pete Tong and they still maintain dignity, respect and the stiff upper lip.
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.
@@lyndoncmp5751 if im not mistaken almost all of the officers died with their man only around 5 or 6 survived from the original 50 or so officers
One of my very favorite military movies.Outstanding production work in recreating Islawanda,with very great accuracy.Africa is a fantastic place on Planet Earth. - Definately a land of high adventure.It's people are not just intriguing;Very often times they are fascinating truely.I believe the Human Suffering and poverty are significantly declining,Issue matters that definately have been steadily beginning to deminish.It may be,with no clear ending sight but the African people will someday both eventually see a.light at the end of the tunnel and will glorious succeed and reach the promise land.This great film from one of Africa's fantastic historic milestones -winning the battle,the battle of Islawanda proves it.
11:45
The salvaging of the colours, as the ol’ Union Jack swims her way back to safety. Beautiful.
I recently discovered my Great Great Uncle was killed at the Battle of Isandlwana. He wasn't in the battle itself, but was on a camping holiday nearby and went to complain about the noise!
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! :-)
Well that was an awesome round of Capture the Flag mode!
hannibal kills South Africa’s Little Bighorn
Flag taken!.... iNtanga dropped the flag!
Time for another capture the flag but it halo mode.
Lol
Its a draw, the zulu capture it, but then the guy that has the flag died, the flag drop into the river, so its a draw
Colonel Henry Pulleine's goodbye letter to his wife.
"Isandlwana
Zululand"
"January 22nd '79."
"My dearest"
"I write to you at a moment of great destiny for us out here at Isandlwana, a place of great strange beauty." "Whatever happens you must know that my throughts are with you and our children now and forever."
"With my fondest love."
No goodbye letter in real life. Pulleine was shot and killed near the front line, Commanding his men. He wasn't in a tent writing a letter.
@@lyndoncmp5751same as Durnford killed commanding the men unlike several officers who tried to make it out on horse like Sir Horace Smith Dorrien who was given his mount by an artilleryman
One company is actually found halfway towards fugitives drift as they attempted to launch a fighting retreat under their OC but were cut down after running out of rounds
@@wargey3431
Yes Durnford stayed and made a stand. Are you referring to Lt Anstey of the 24th, who was found along Fugitives Trail with around 40 other 24th Foot men?
@@lyndoncmp5751 yes didnt realise it was so few men thought it was a bit more of his company but at least their officer stayed with them to try and fight out they just didnt have anywhere near the amount of rounds needed to conduct a fighting withdraw
@@wargey3431
All I know is that in Snooks book How Can Man Die Better he writes Anstey and around 40 men of the 24th were found two miles down Fugitives Trail. He says individual 24th bodies were found along the route so probably about 60 men of the 24th initially made their break out with Anstey.
Zulu dawn is a very exciting film;Interesting from beginning to end.Action packed. - Excellent 19th century Battle recreated Warfare scenes;Super great effective Military Film! Always a Ball and a Blast to enjoy watching.
Brilliant film and with some magnificent acting, what a great depiction of the day and with excellent filming. Thanks for this, so very good.
Should have been a trilogy, the third movie being Battle of Ulundi - now that was a battle!
Reminds me of Custer's last stand on a much larger scale. A mixture of arrogance and incompetence of the leadership led to disaster.
David Smith That came to my mind also.
+David Smith The subsequent battle of Rorke's Drift (Zulu!) also reminds me of Custer's Last Stand, except the natives didn't win.
+David Smith Isandhlwana was considered a "Little Big Horn" for the British Army for many years after..
+John Reece More like the stand made by Reno and Benteen then.
b52gf16c I still get pissed when I think about that. They were asked to do the near impossible and not given the proper support to do it.
Just imagine being that surprised and outnumbered! It would definitely be terrifying to experience and live this!
Funny part is that 105 British did the same thing to 4,000 Zulus the next day. It's all about strategy. Chard seemed to understand that.
***** Chelmsford also spread his men out too thin and Chard kept a continuous firing rate.
Same day, actually.
British imperialists went to Africa occupying local land, looting local resources, destroying the existent structure of local society and call local Aficans "Barbarian". Bragging Britishmen "Bravery". What a shame to brag "Bravery" in Pirate/Bandit behavior!
irnagtx Oh, buhu. That was way in the past. I bet the africans would do the same if they were the first to reach the industrial age.
Bilbo Baggins It was a while ago, but it's effects are still with us today.
One of the best soundtracks I have ever heard and although inaccurate, the film was a perfect encapsulation of Chelmsfords arrogance and incompetence. On both counts, his men paid with their lives.
I am proud to be a Zulu our forefathers wasn't coward that why we're not scared for death
Vos ancêtres étaient soumis à un roi qui était un véritable Tyran psychiatrique, et assez stupide, pour ne pas comprendre, que ses victoires faciles sur les tribus voisines noires, ne pourraenti pas se poursuivre, contre le puissant empire britannique, et sa technologie bien supérieure à celle des africains !
Sad to relate that it was only some months AFTER the battle, that the battlefield was cleared. Reports state of how eerily silent the place was, and that only skeletal remains of the fallen were found and recovered.
I hear there's a lot of wildlife in Africa.
@@AudieHolland Moot point. But most skelons found were complete, disproving the theory of dislocation by predation.
@@tim7052 If they weren't eaten by vultures at least, their remains would have been mummified.
@@AudieHolland No. Not in the African sun. Putrefaction would've rotted the tissues away. Mummification, however, requires a stable environment out of sunlight and the elements to be successful.
They also found the camp dogs as well living in the area. Most of them had gone wild. I think you can imagine what they are to survive.
The incredible, indomitable, bravery of the Zulu warrior, knowing fully well that they stand no chance against the disciplined British line infantry, but unmatched at hand to hand combat. Knowing they have to cover miles to get up close, losing wave after wave of warriors to every round of fire and still charging on. Unmatched bravery by the Zulu warrior fighting for his nation. Respect to the Zulu warrior.
Fun fact about this battle: the Zulus were ordered to kill all the men in red, so those, who had non-red uniform (cavalry, cannons crew etc) were more likely to survive.
They were all killed.
@грец any proof ?
@@SillyPersonHere zulus killed everybody
No, its because those in red were on foot. Those non redcoats who survived did so because they were on horseback.
The Zulus killed everyone and everything they got their hands on, including horses and camp pets.
Epic. They don't have the balls to make raw movies like this anymore.
Geez.... these Wakanda Warriors are a formidable opponent in numbers.
Should not have split their forces and should have formed a defensive square very early in the battle. The Zulus themselves were no angels, they attacked and enslaved other less powerful African tribes.
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.
The best part about these old films is, a ton of it well fallowing directions was improvised on the spot, like when that soldier fell and the General just said "Get Up" and yanked him by the scruff!
The saddest thing, Chelmsford couldn't even own up to what was obviously his own failure. He placed the blame on Colonel Durnford, despite that he ha left Lt. Colonel Pulleine in command, and he had neglected to order the camp to laager up with the wagons, despite the numerous warnings from the locals, and he all but blatantly ignored the numerous messages that were sent from the camp to him, begging him to come back and reinforce them. He may have regained the Queens favor some time later, but it is a small satisfaction that after the Anglo-Zulu War, he never held another active military command again.
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.
I love the effort put into getting the colours across the river
Shout-out to the stuntmen performing the stunt at 7:40. That's no simple task overturning an artillery wagon by going over a steep grade and not getting anybody hurt. It looks like it practically rolled over that one guy.
He actually died bro
Gotta give that ammo quartermaster a facepalm, cause he's apprently blind to the zerg rush coming and still took his own bloody sweet time.
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.
Even with her overwhelming numbers. The Zulus ultimately lost the war 🇬🇧🇬🇧
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'
I'm not being ferocious when I say that there are some smart military and historical minds posting on here and i appreciate them
I know this one was caused by incompetence but a last stand fighting to the end is a magnificent thing.
+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.
Epic cinema. I dread to think how this might be cast in 2024!
idris elba would be durnford
Fortunately there's always a senior master sergeant that helps someone to get time sacrifing himself and killing a considerable amount of enemies
My distamt relative, Nevill Coghill, was awarded the Victoria Cross for his attempt to save the Colours
Militarized Walmart employees fight off horde of Black Friday shoppers, 2022 (Colorized)
''BLACK'' friday
It's a Colin Flaherty video.
2020 edition: FIghting off hordes of Toilet paper hoarders.
Hahaha brilliant
This needs an update: US Police vs. BLM Rioters
This of course, is a showing of tactical and logistical failures. As where of course the battle of Rorke's Drift, is one of logistical, tactical and man to man successes. The real differences here folks, is ground. Rorkes drift was small, easily fortified. Less ground is always easier to hold, than more. Sun Tzu would call it death ground, where men are turned into heroes because they will fight and die for every inch. That's the primary reason for victory in Rorkes, but it is added upon, by proper use of defensive tactics of a siege. What they called a flying platoon, is better known by the Prussians and French who invented it, as a Buttressing Force. A unit to move from place to place and stop up the flow of any foe who might be making a breach. As well as being able to funnel the foe into killing zones, where the famous English Volley Fire could be used to greatest effect. This is the Art of War all the way. Small area, easy to defend, with no hope of retreat, properly fortified, allowed less than 200, to throw back more than 20 times their own number. Sun Tzu would have been proud I am certain.
gunslinger1911a1 How can the Prussians and French both invent the buttressing force? Either it was the one or the other - if indeed your statment is correct.
Uh no. They both invented the same tactic, at the same time within a couple years of one another. So they both invented it. They pioneered its use. Neither one is dated as the first to use the concept, but both dated as using it around the same time. Thus they both invented it. Until you can bring empirical proof that one or the other did first. Do that and I will concede my position.
@FlyingVualtDweller Out of curiosity, have you ever heard of a band called Sabaton?
@@josephpeck8723 Nice lol.
The Japanese commander during the Boxer Rebellion told the American and European troops trying to relive the foreign legations under seige that if you surrounded or cut off the Chines troops, they would fight to the death no matter what. However, if you gave them an avenue of retreat, they would take it and give up the position with minimal bloodshed. They'll be back lol.
I totally side with the Zulu, they are fighting for their way of life,in 1879 my people, the Apache were fighting for the same. They in the end won, and we, the Apache, lost.
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.
Зулусы молодцы.
Although they were ultimately well beaten you have to admire the discipline of the British Infantryman.
F*ck the British infantryman. Brutons just fought like US nowadays. Poor people and poor countries.
@@RS-nh9gu it was cos of these guys Britain used to rule 70 percent of the known world. You know fu_ k all big mouth.
@@markhamer7220 You mean rape, kill, tortured, and enslave poor people.
@@thegreatdogzilla5855 you y can come out with all this colonist bollocks, i am talking from a purely military view point. You can argue all you like about the rights and wrongs of the british empire but one thing you cannot argue with is the fact they were tremendous soldiers.
@@markhamer7220 The Navy was impressive. I love those old sailing ships.
Зулусы очень воинственная и мужественная нация, ни гром пушек, ни выстрелы ружей их не напугал...
Буду вдячный за назву фільму .- ніде не вказують...
@@ГоринІлля-л2ъ Zulu Dawn
@@ГоринІлля-л2ъ Зулусский рассвет
Have walked this battlefield many times,really atmospheric place.
Dont let the spears and animal skins fool you, those Zulus where a force of nature at one time!
I think the zulu warrior should of taken all.that british ammo and cannons too use it in the last battle, and they would of won
They where not trained for that, and all that extra stuff would of been cumbersome. They where light on their feet and had to run 100 or so miles and fight a battle at the end of it.
In videogame terms, My ancestors the Romans, where the tank version of them, while Zulus where DPS. lol
Finally a great comment.
***** they should of sneaked attacked and they would of won
***** not true they probably would of won a few more battles
8:09 Gotta love the last stand there, banding together, low on ammunition and still held their own against the masses of Zulus
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.
That General split his troops and that's how they lost. He to busy been a gentleman rather been General.
But is a wonderful film, extremely well done, great actors and a stunning sound and music coordenation ..!!! Nowadays nothing compares...
Зулусы молодцы, это же какое надо иметь мужество, что бы практически безоружными победить врага с огнестрельным оружием.
Le courage du fanatique enrolé dans un régiment, où le moindre refus d'obéir, signifiait la mort dans la torture.
Les Zoulous ne ramassaient pas leurs blessés. Il est vrai que en Afrique, être blessé signifiait en général la mort. La coutume était d'achever également les blessés ennemis, après éventration pour laisser s'envoler les hirondelles, au nom de croyances permettant de se protéger d'une vengeance des âmes. Le village ennemis était détruit et les femmes, les enfants mis en esclavage ou tués. Les Zoulous furent responsables d'un immense massacre de noirs. Ils multiplièrent par 20 la surface de leur territoire, ce qui fatalement les rendaient dangereux pour les paysans noirs ou hollandais qui cultivaient la terre pour approvisionner les navires qui faisaient escale au cap. Attaqué, un convoi hollandais se forma en cercle et écrasa la troupe Zoulou.
@@francoisblachon4690 это такие мелочи, по сравнению с тем, что творили цивилизованные европейцы отправляя целые народы в газовые камеры, даря одеяла с оспой, стравливая целые народы, что бы освободить от них территории и пр.
The part when the zulus came over the hill it gave me goosebumps
Such a great movie showing the fight for independence from foreign power. Invading other nations with negative purposes does not benefit anything and the British were taught a lesson. The Zulus were brave soldiers of Africa 🌍 🇿🇦
Just a great battle scene, I know it sounds cheesy, but they don’t make battle scenes like the movies from this era anymore.
Best battle scenes ever in any war film great stunts.
A stunning victor for the Zulu's but at a very high cost. As Cetshwayo, their chief proclaimed. "It is as if an assegai has been thrust into the belly of the Zulu Nation"
Stunning in what way? They outnumbered the English 10 to 1, and still loss three times more troops than they killed. If you measure by troops killed the English won. If by who was left standing on the land it would be the Zulus. Of course, no denying beating the most advance army with just spears is impressive but in terms of military I would not call it stunning.
Isandlwna was a pyrrhic victory for the zulus
Вся суть англичан! Имеешь преимущество-убивай! Нет -беги!
@@justinthebeau2590 VERY phyrric, they were repelled not only at Rorke's Drift, but also at Eshowe (where a single Gatling destroyed the horns of the impi!), and in various minor engagements, then at Ulundi they were litterally butchered by British firepower (10 deaths vs.more than 1000!). Probabilly with a more competent commander the war would've ended at Ishaldnwana, with the Zulus suing for peace after a disastrous defeat.
@gary roberts feelings? For the Zulus? Ask to the others tribes of Transvaal and co. how loved were them, it wasn't a struggle for freedom, on the contrary was a clash btw empires, one from the age of iron (the Zulus), the other from early industrial age, don't forget that a LOT of natives supported the British against the Zulus, that had just invaded their lands (with many more deaths than this war)!
We'll never see great movies like this again.
Its from Zulu: Dawn
If you saw the movie Zulu, this is based off the battle before that.
People forget Zulu Dawn but it is an excellent film as commented by others. Britain's arrogance in just walking into Zululand was astounding. I have been on the Zulu battle-fields tour and for any enthusiast, it is well worth going. It's only when you stand next to the cairns on ISandlwana and look down to where the Zulus attached from, do you appreciate the fear in the British soldiers. Rorke's Drift is nothing like in the film as the film was made in the Drakenburg mountains. If you get a chance to stay at the hotel that is built into the side of the Nqutu hills, do it.
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.
Been there and Rorke’s Drift 3 times. Unbelievable what happened.
brave and heroic Englishmen ... against the half-naked attacking Zulu Warriors with leather shields, spears, machetes and arrows ... cannons, rifles and pistols ... poor Englishmen ...
This is funny: We lose the battle, but bloody hell, I got the guy carrying our flag! :)
I love the feeling of suspension and grit, without the use of excessive gore. War is gore, yes, but its use in movies today almost feels like a cheap fallback, rather then a detail in the grand scheme of the scenario.
I do not understand what all this arguing is about. Let us see the heroism on both sides of this batle. The British fought to their last in this one and the Zulu were courageous enough to charge the guns in frontal assault. The massive casualties on the Zulu side could not have been avoided since their inferior technology would only give them the advantage of discipline, morale and in this case superior strategy. They made the best they could to defend their homeland from an unjustified invasion. The war must have taken a gruesome toll on this African nation from which it could not recover until today. The British soldiers did their duty ad the individual heroism of them is focused in this film and that is understandable. Soldiers are not responsible for imperialism.
Lemuriafilm In most wars, soldiers were brave. The root of the problem is the leadership to be honest. In this case, the leaders of the zulus and of the british. They sacrificed their mens in the name of conquest
Don't let the spears and animal skins fool you. The Zulus were just as Imperialistic as anyone in that time.If they were not fighting the English, they would have been trying to subjugate their neighbors. Like the Mafia, every 10 years or so, you need a little blood to calm things down.
Stratégy.... HHUUMMM when you are maximum 1 thousand against 20 thousand, you can get superior by technology or anything else, it's normal to lose this battle
I have no clue what you said
Clearly some here have missed the point of a movie like this. Back when it was made it was not about white or black imperialism , it was simply a war movie, like so many in those days. And in this case they decided to make one where it goes badly for British, that's all there is to it. But of course nowadays some people , like for example BLACK DEATH here would use a movie like this to make somekind of political statement that has no place here at all. I personally would watch a movie like this simply because i'm a fan of military history , nothing more.
If you pay attention in the movie Gladiator with Russel Crowe in the first part of it on the battlefield you can hear the warrior cry of the Zulus from the movie made about the same time as this one just titled ZULU. Very memoirable. I remember that movie from my childhood in the 60s and Saturday spent at the movie theaters.
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 British totally underestimated the enemy they were facing, which is why they lost. But they did bought enough time for rorkes drift. The two officers who died defending the colours (red is melvill, and coghill is in blue) both earned Victoria crosses for their actions posthumously.
Both British and Custer were well armed with arrogance.
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.
Damn..the scene on this scale..
No way movies in this era can do the same..
After watching this....IT FEELS SO DAM GOOD TO BE ZULU!!!
you'e so dam right :)... but in the same time i feel it was a Pyrrhus victory for the zulus... i wonder...
i think it would be interesting to watch this, but with the point of view of the zulus... in the zulus side :)
you may correct me if 'im wrong, but (like the tribes in north America at little big horn battle in 1876), the zulus intended to defend their land, right ?
If you had the slightest clue about Zulu society you wouldn't have posted such a silly juvenile statement. I suggest the definitive history of the Zulus, The washing of the spears, by Donald R Morris
Gilles Teixeira,
It wasnt really the Zulus land. The Zulus were outside invaders who took that land by force off others that were there before them.
Zulus are proud people. They deserve our respects as the Native Americans do in our States.
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. 🇺🇸🇿🇦
I think it would have been a whole lot more awesome if they had showed Captain Younghusband's last stand in this movie.
Younghusband, impressive name.
Yes they bayonet charged the Zulus after shaking hands.
The Africans were the hero’s! They were defending their land.
The Zulus had a special bond with the 24th of foot.In later they admired their Bravery.Fighting literally to the death.
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
PBS: Secrets of the Dead has an episode about this battle. Based on the metal hinges and brackets found, they think many of the ammunition crates were smashed open with the buts of the rifles. They also believed the initial British lines were set to far away and the men to far apart. If they were in a small area close together, shoulder to shoulder, two or three rows deep, they would have had a better chance. Far apart they each fired one round and then tried to retreat with no cover.
What brave men. No one will stand and fight against all odds, even when out numbered and with no hope of support, like the British.
Yeah, just like the did during the Japanese invasion of Malaya in WWII, oh wait the British outnumbered the Japanese.
Ngobamakosi As I recall,
British, American, and Commonwealth forces would receive the total and unconditional surrender of Japan on the deck off the USS Missouri less than four years latter.
+Jack McCall Yes, you recall correctly, but four years earlier in 1941 they got chased out of Malaya and Singapore. Every time there is a video about the Zulus, some British/ white pride nationalist starts talking rubbish. The Brits have run away and been defeated just like everyone else.
+Ngobamakosi You seem to have neglected the brave Indians, Fijians, Jamaicans, and Nepalese that have fought and still fight for the United Kingdom.
The only one concerned about race is you, my misguided young friend.
You can acknowledge that the bravery and dogged determination of the British soldier despite the colour of the man in uniform.
+Jack McCall Oh come on, don't play that race crap with me. You know very well what I'm talking about and what I mean. You made a blanket statement and I felt obliged to check you. You were probably feeling a little jingoistic when you made it, but anyway I'll take my little race feelings and say goodnight. Bye.
Молодцы зулусы!!! С копьями против пушек и ружей!!! И победили!!!👍👍👍
Amazing how the Zulus seem to always be one step ahead of the men on horseback.
The country near Isandlwana is very rough, and there are only a few routes horsemen could take. The Zulus identified these quickly and had the numbers to effect a very deadly presence along them.
3:31 Imagine be there... Scary
I'm British and I'm not afraid to say we got our ass kicked
You may be British pal - But are by no means alone;We Yanks from our American Army got also,if not even worse than you all did,OUR ass kicked At the battle of Little Big Horn By the Sioux Indians AKA Custer's Last Stand.Even though eventually we won The Sioux War from 1876-77.Like Britian eventually won The first Anglo-Zulu War.Just as the Indians, the Zulus bravely tried to fight back doing their best;their very best and hardest,but could not win with Stone Age weapons. Both American,British and doggone it,Films made from all the Worlds leading world power nations painfully teach us a lesson, - As we were humilatedly both defeated right in front of every eye on Planet fucking Earth. - No race of people is superior to any other.😢
Si les zoulou aurai conquis l'Angleterre !!!chercher l'erreur !!!bravo au zoulou pour leur résistance !!!!👍👍👍👍👍👍👍❤❤❤❤👍👍👍👍🤘🤘
They didn't even know it was a ship xd
Now imagine what would've happened if the British had three machine guns with 30,000 rounds of ammo
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.
1:59 holy shit that looks epic
I am very surprised Burt Lancaster did,nt win this battle on his own, John Wayne would have.
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.