I read a very good story about John Chard several years ago. A year or so after the Battle of Rorke's Drift the now-Major John Chard was in London and staying at one of the officer's clubs in the city. He was having dinner one night and as was the custom he was in full uniform and wearing his decorations. He'd finished his meal and was leaving the dining room when a loud voice was heard: "Huh! There goes Chard with his VC! There's nothing special about him! Any one of us could have done what he did!" Chard stopped in his tracks, turned around slowly, and began looking over the now-silent room. No one knew what to expect. Would there be a fight? Maybe a challenge to a duel? (Duelling was illegal by this time, but one never knew, did one?) Then he spoke, in a quiet but firm voice: "Gentlemen, I would GLADLY have traded places with any one of you!" Then he gave a polite nod, and left the room. Isn't that something?
He got to be apart of one of the early alpha tests of modern war. I can't imagine it's a pleasant realisation understanding what the power humans are coming to wield is capable of when compared to what he would have been taught about how people are supposed to fight.
@@MrArthoz You're probably right, but of course we'll never know. Here's the thing, people think it's easy being a hero, especially a military hero. It's not, they all pay a price, some more so than others. There was a Marine general named Smedley Butler who had the distinction of earning the Medal of Honor twice. Concerning both the engagements where he earned it he said at the time he would rather have been anywhere else than where he was!
It’s a great victory when you realise that 1,300 British soldiers had previously been cut down at Isandlwana, makes you realise how hopeless the men at Rorkes drift must have felt hearing the news, and yet still held out despite the odds.
I feel this is the point Brandon is missing in his analysis. Sure the British may have been in a ad hoc fortified position with rifles and a rouge element of the enemy that is not as superhuman as they appear. However all those Brits knew at Rourke's Drift is one of their units got wiped out by the same army and they could be next. And let's remember they still had to fight for a whole day and were down to their last few crates of ammo before the Zulu retreated.
At Rorks Drift they were ready, a fortified position, they had the ammo (Main Depo) maxim guns and field artillery, the idiot (?) commander running the main column made two fatal errors, #1 his camp wasn't fortified and #2 he walked into a TRAP & 1300 were slaughtered to a man MTRIP.
@@rifleair2899 they had everything, Roark's Drift was a major (forward) supply depot with millons of bullets and field guns, grapeshot....Canon Fodder.
@@SEAZNDragon They had 900 bullets left when the Zulus headed off. They had gone through 90% of their ammunition. Think about it, if the Zulus had made one more big push, they likely would've over run the Brits.
Having lived in SA as an expat for many years, and having made relationships with many a Zulu of that time, which was 1982-1987 I was surprised to be invited into Soweto, near joburg, by a Zulu man who assured me I would be safe in his company. I went to a shebeen with him, a 'bar' where I was the only white person there, and went back to his house to sleep. It was difficult to get drunk on what was known as 'kaffir beer' in cartons, but we managed it. Next day he escorted me out, and the police were utterly amazed I had survived. Gerry was his 'english name', I will keep his real Zulu name to myself. I will forever remember him and those times.
As a certain general Cervantes from a forgotten JRPG once said “After that battle I never shaved my mustache again. Ergo, my mustache makes me invincible. It’s science my boy, science!”
That line cracks me up every time I watch the movie. It reminds me of something Sherman once said (and I am bound to get it wrong): "Fame is when you fight and die valliantly for your country so that your name gets misspelled in the papers."
@@2manyIce It always makes me think of a couple of bits from Flashman at the Charge - "They wanted blood, gallons of it, and ti read of grapeshot smashing great lanes through Russian ranks, and stern and noble Britons skewering Cossacks, and Russian towns in flames - and they would be able to shake their heads over the losses of our gallant fellows, sacrificed to stern duty, and wolf down their kidneys and muffins in their warm breakfast rooms, saying: 'Dreadful work, this, but by George, England never shirked yet, whatever the price. Pass the marmelade, Amelia;I'm proud to be a Briton this day, let me tell you.'" as he's describing the public mood before the Crimean War. And this little excerpt, as he reflects on the aftermath of the Battle of the Alma: "The Russian wounded lay in piles by the hundred round our bivouacs, crying and moaning all through the night - I can hear their sobbing "Pajalsta! pajalsta!" [Please! please!] still. The camp ground was littered with spent shot and rubbish and broken gear among the pools of congealed blood - my stars, wouldn't I just like to take one of our Ministers, or street-corner orators, or blood-lusting, breakfast-scoffing papas, over such a place as the Alma hills - not to let him see, because he'd just tut-tut and look anguished and have a good pray and not care a damn - but to shoot him in the belly with a soft-nosed bullet and let him die screaming where he belonged. That's all they deserve."
Same way the Americans won at Wounded Knee. By being an industrialized white state willing to slaughter a bunch of indigenous people of color for economic gain.
@@penultimateh766 bit more complicated than that. Most of the local tribes that helped the British had been pushed out if their own lands by the Zulu. The local governor of Natal wanted prestige by making Confederation work in South Africa like he'd done in Canada, the Boers wanted to escape British control by pushing into the interior. It was more a matter of prestige than economics after Islandwana as well since the defeat of the first invasion was seen as a national embarrassment to be corrected. The conflicts between Europeans and later Americans, Canadians and Mexicans against Native American tribes were also not so black and white. The Native Americans were not united and most hated and warred against each other as much or more than they did against whites. White expansion is also not merely due to economics and industrialization, but a myriad of cultural, political, social and ethnic reasons. Historical motivations and outcomes are never as simple as one thing.
I've heard over the years that the reason they won was because they were fighting for their lives, but for a situation of about 122 men against thousands of natives, that is not enough. Having the foresight to set up defenses and having highly trained fire discipline had a lot to do with them winning.
Fortifications do SO MUCH. They are a force multiplier. Agincourt, Saratoga, Gate Pa, Saragarhi, the Modoc War, Adobe Walls, Dyrrhachium, Nagashino, Mobei, Vítkov Hill, the Entire Great War.
It is the same as the superiority of the Roman legion. When they fought in formation and kept the formation the tribes had no chance. If the formation was broken and became individual one to one the Barbarians would probably win ,being stronger and bigger. The average British soldier was not particularly strong or big ,but he was disciplined and courageous and fought well in a disciplined formation.
Never underestimate the utility of fortifications - especially against an enemy which relies on hand-to-hand combat: > Fortified positions mitigate any numerical advantage of an attacking force, by limiting how many men can fight at once. > Ramparts deny any attacking force the ability to close with and bear down on the defenders, blunting any charges. > The Zulus relied on encirclement tactics, but a position fortified on all sides cannot be meaningfully outflanked.
Volley fire, bayonets and those famous big balls the British army had in spades since the formation of the 1707 act of Union ps the Zulu had hundreds of rifles taken from all those dead Redcoats a short time earlier.
Plus when you put someone in a position like that and they feel like fighting is the only way out, then they're gonna fight like absolute devil's. Just look the battle of Mirbat, or the siege of Jadotville.
@@LeggieGlasgow The Zulus did have rifles, but they weren't drilled in how to use them. They reloaded clumsily, couldn't keep a steady aim, and didn't know how to adjust the sights to compensate for longer ranges. This means that Zulu warriors were not reliable riflemen, unlike British infantry, who were well-trained in the use of their rifles. This being said, the capacity for Zulus to rain fire down upon the defenders was still useful. It forced the British to keep their heads down, and dedicate troops to counter-fire at the Zulu marksmen rather than keep them on the perimeter. Bullets don't need to hit the enemy to be useful. I daresay the Zulus appreciated this fact during the battle, even if the lion's share of the Zulus' fighting was done in melee, because that's what they were undeniably the best at.
Remember the fortifications. Had they been in a square in an open field, different story. To climb the ramparts the Zulus had to drop either the shield or the spear as they needed one free hand to climb. Nor could they effectively throw spears at troops behind ramparts as they could at a square formation in an open field. The force multiplier effect of even modest defenses, ramparts or fortifications is very considerable.
At isadawana the column wasn't even deployed as a square but as a firing line. Only when the line had been overrun did some members of the 24th regiment of foot (a single company) deploy in a square (as at that point they were surrounded on all sides and a square was their only option). In subsequent engagements the entirety of the British forces would deploy in square and doing so vastly reduced the casualties. If the entire force had been deployed in square with ammo readily available to each company at isadawana and the artillery protected in the middle of the formation they might have been able to hold off the Zulu's.
They did this with Bela Lugosi’s character in Ed Wood when Martin Landau was playing him as an angry man who swore a lot, it was primarily a storytelling device rather than an accurate depiction of the real life man and should be taken as such. Bela’s family didn’t understand it or like it, but in the context of the film it was mostly to show his fighting spirit in the face of pain, irrelevance, aging and drug addiction.
This is what Hollywood does, I keep hearing how good a film Bridge on the River Kawi is by people who don't know it was a work of fiction and based on a book by the same author as Planet of the Apes. The actual senior officer on the Burma Siam railway was Col Philip Toosey RA, he was a friend of my late father who considered him a god among men and was the complete anthesis of Alec Guinness's character. My great uncle Tom was a Dunkirk veteran who later served in Burma, he was a Chindit wounded on Operation Wednesday and also fought at battle of Kohima where he was again wounded during the action at the Tennis Court. After his long recovery in India he was returned to the UK just in time to get arrested for his part in a minor riot at a cinema after he attended a showing of the Errol Flynn film Objective Burma.
@@robertdraper5782 i don't think you can blame 'Hollywood'...it was from an era when the UK still produced films....& if 'Zulu' hadn't been made (inaccuracies & all) very few people would know of these events
The fact that Rorke's Drift was nestled in a valley also helped. The Zulu's main maneuver is an encirclement called the horns of the buffalo where first comes the main force head on and while the enemy is focused on that two detachment come around of the flanks. The terrain of Rorke's drift made that tactic impossible.
If we want to really be practical, a lot of the problem is the film Zulu. People have a very misguided notion of how the siege of Rorke's Drift really played out. It was more like an extended lengthy skirmish with Zulu raiding parties, not the dramatic, large scale assaults that all the paintings suggests. Not to downplay the achievement of the men involved, but it's worth reminding ourselves that after the disastrous battle of Isandlwana, Chelmsford, the British army, and the government had a vested interested in blowing out of all proportion the victory at Rorke's Drift. Political spin.
I did read that Stanley Baker moved "Rorke's Drift" into the mountains for the more exciting scenery. The real Rorke's Drift was/is on a flat river plain, where the Zulus could be seen coming from miles away... My own gobsmack moment, the first time I ever saw the film, was the fact that the unit was there "to build a bridge"... over a ten-foot wide 'river' that the soldiers were literally walking through.
Can confirm, my nephew came back from fighting at rorkes drift, one of the few zulus to survive. He told me that half of the battle it was actually just a fashion contest between the officers and infantrymen. The zulus were too distracted by the show being put on in front of them to realize they had lost the battle
How nice to hear a US enthusiast on this subject! I'd love to hear him on some other British triumphs, disasters and vandalisms: The Battle of the Nile, Arnhem, the Retreat from Kabul, the Destruction of the Summer Palace .. pretty please? PS. Subscribed.
I'm sure that was what they're hoping, but I doubt that they placed too much faith in that idea. They were probably hoping more for reinforcements to come to their aid.
Nothing should be taken away from the brave British soldiers and Zulu warriors, they may have been on rival sides but they both done what they believed to be their duty.
The zulu warriors fighting the british is the equivalent of planet earth as a whole fighting against super technologicaly advanced aliens that somehow own half of the galaxy
The British soldier did respect the Zulu and had no ill feelings toward them,and vice versa. One old Zulu talking to James Rattray said that they were boys who disobeyed the King and got trounced. Chuckling as he said it. Listen to Rattray’s ,’day of the dead moon ‘.
@@Xycomm Yes of course. They thought that a stronger tribe had come into their land and they wanted to beat them. They tried and failed. The Zulu themselves had conquered weaker tribes .
I live right across the road from the 24th Foot regimental museum here in Brecon. It holds eight VC’s from Rorkes Drift & Isandhlwana. Spent awesome nights at the annual Rorks Drift dinner talking to the descendants of these brave men. Have also been lucky to have visited both battlefields in SA with work and talked to Zulu descendants from the battles too. Thanks for the video, this old soldier enjoyed it immensely!
@@CivilWarWeekByWeek they why does it seem like a mob of 20 people against another mob of 20 people? i REALLY wanna like the game but the regiments have soo few soldirers in them when there should be hundreds. It does have a great overhead map though.
@@RamonesFan201 Yeah its hard with the current throw your men around, but I think using skirmishers. Focusing around crossings can be very useful for making the game more fun/realistic.
Same way the Americans won at Wounded Knee. By being an industrialized white state willing to slaughter a bunch of indigenous people of color for economic gain.
IIRC, Byron Farwell makes the point (in "Queen Victoria's Little Wars") that most of the Imperial adventures in this period followed a predictable sequence: a humiliating massacre or defeat to the British forces, a valiant stand by a small force against victorious hordes, and then a crushing campaign utilizing overwhelming resources to "win" the conflict. Certainly this war follows those steps perfectly.
@@MrNipperthedog Poor Stanley Baker! One of the driving forces behind the film being made but now when most people think of "Zulu" they think of Michael Caine in his first starring role. Sir Michael's even the one on the video cover art that Brandon used! Maybe if Stanley Baker (A fine actor in his own right!) hadn't been taken from us so soon...
Saw it when it came out in 64 and been one of my most watched films. I was ten at the time and went home to reenact it. We lived in the countryside and had a very defensible garden with a good field of fire.
@John Ashtone I think the Zulus could also be said to have had sheer bloodymindedness. One can't fault their bravery, nor the understanding of Cetshwayo (or his advisers) for the international scene and his appreciation of the position for his people.
I'm a South African and Historian. Your pronunciation of "Kraal" is good and I'm impressed with your research. I visited the battle fields of Isandhwana and Rorke's drift. Did you mention that Chard responded on the advice of a Boer to turn the wagons on its sides, built the mealie bag walls, etc. ? Look at the wagons during the battle of Blood river. There were 10000 Zulus vs 464 Boers. Only two Boers slightly wounded.
My understanding it was Comissionariat James Langley Dalton VC, a veteran ex British soldier who reinlisted, who convinced Chard and Bromhead to stay at Rorkes Drift and form a kraal. If anything it highlights positively how both Lieutenants showed significant flexibility in listening and acting upon the advice and direction of an experienced ex-staff sergeant. This interesting challenges the myth of pompous British officers and unimpowered soldiers. Clearly they collaborated effectively and dynamically. The above point does not undermine the advice and direction also being provided by Boer colleagues. I visited both battlefields a decade ago it was a humbling experience. Please feel free to correct me if I am wrong, as its always great to learn more. Kind regards from the UK to our kith and kin in RSA, USA and abroad.
It was Dalton who came up with the plan for the defences and Chard executed the plan, very well. As Rattray says: the British high command considered Chard and Bromhead to be 'below average' officers, but there was nothing 'below average' about their conduct at Rorke's Drift, whilst the 'above average' officers lay on the field at Isandlwana...
A lot of that "below average" commentary directed at Chard and Bromhead was more than likely petty jealousy. Both men performed outstandingly! Read my Chard story from earlier today for an example of the jealousy.
@@clivenewton7609 Good job it wasn’t an American battle there’d be 10,000 dead & it would be put down as collateral damage& their leader hailed as a hero
Well said. Chard and Bromhead showed good collaborative management in listening too and acting upon the experienced veteran Dalton and Boers as well as effective situations awareness and decision making. Its something which really should be the centre of a presentation on its own.
Brits are at heart a very martial people. They have won battles and wars in every continent and in every type of climate and terrain around the world. They have fought on others territory thousands of miles away from home for hundreds of years. They rarely back down from a fight and they dig in hard when others might run. They meet aggression with ever greater aggression and in the worst adversity they grow stronger and fight harder. They won at Rourke's Drift for the same reason they have won countless battles and wars. They are warriors and very very tough.
The one thing that caught me by surprise is that the harder the fight, the more desperate the situation, they will always, somehow manage to come up with the most absurd, incomparable humor you could possibly imagine. Once I experienced that first hand, I then began to understand the true spirit of the UK warrior mindset.
@@garrisonsmith8136 You should see Russians if you like dark humor. We'll watch a man get his leg blown off by artillery and find a way to make a joke about it
@@Bullet-Tooth-Tony- main difference with Alamo the Mexicans had Cannons If the Zulus had taken even one of the Guns they captured at Ishlwandana they would have won
Along with this analysis let's not forget that the men on both sides were extremely brave facing each other and fought to protect themselves and their brothers in arms. When the metal met the meat neither side cared about politics, just the next minute of life.
Colour Sgt Bourne was in fact only 22years old and was known as the kid. He retired from the army as a Lt Col. His daughters who were still alive when the film was made walked out of the Premier of the film. He died in 1945 and is buried in Beckenham, now part of the London Borough of Bromley.
After your first video, I immediately re-watched the movie. After I learned of its accuracy, I immediately purchased it, and have enjoyed it many times. However, not one of the previous critiques, went into the informative depth, that you have. I very much appreciate your research. And, your analytical approach. One thing, that I think you may have missed, the Zulu warriors were trained, in much the same way as Spartan warriors. They were tough.
This is true. The Zulus were a warrior nation and immensely brave. But the fact that they had not eaten for several days was probably also a major factor in the victory.
Q: How did the British win at Rorke's Drift? A: Contrary to popular belief, there is a finite amount of stupidity in the universe at any one time. The earlier fiasco at Isandlwana temporarily exhausted the supply.
You should read up about the Gloster Regiment in Korea at the Battle of Imjin. They held off 10.000 North Korean and Chinese troops and eventually ran out of ammunition and resorted to fighting with only their knives and rocks, and did repeated bayonet charges. They were eventually overrun but their last stand is amazing, they knew that surrendering meant likely torture and execution so they fought to the last man.
I'd imagine the Glosters knew what happened to British POW's that fell into the hands of the Japanese. They weren't going to take a chance on mercy from any other Asian enemy.
All because of cultural mistranslation. They did let the Americans know, but Americans did not understand that when a Queen's commissioned officer refers to the situation as a bit sticky, its probably hell running lose
He was technically an acting cook. He'd been appointed either the day before or two days earlier after someone said he had some rudimentary culinary skill. He was a model infantryman to an almost laughable degree when you consider his portrayal in the film (contrast with Corporal William Wilson Allen, VC, who'd been busted down from Sergeant for drunkenness multiple times); the myth of the 2nd/24th wearing their dress uniforms has at least been posited to come from Hook, who said he put on his dress uniform. Whether he deliberately did this or it was simply the first uniform available has been debated. He rose to the rank of Sergeant-Instructor in the Monmouthshire Militia.
There is one unknown about Harry Hook; sort of an urban legend of sorts, and I'll ask you to keep in mind this may well be apocryphal. The only man to successfully perform a fighting retreat off the battlefield at iSandlwana while leading an intact unit was Sergeant Simeon Nkambule, No. 5 (Edendale) Troop, Natal Native Horse. Sergeant--later Troop Sergeant-Major, and later with a DCM to his name--Nkambule was also both a devout Methodist and a teetotaler as well as humble and fluent in English in spite of being a Basotho. General Sir Henry Evelyn Wood, whose column Nkambule was attached to, maintained for many years that Nkambule would have gotten a VC had he been white--that for political reasons, he was seen as "too close" to the Zulus--and that no less than a Rorke's Drift VC agreed with him. Nobody has ever identified this Rorke's Drift VC since Wood never said who he was. Assuming that Wood wasn't just angry at seeing a man whom he believed deserved the VC passed over for political reasons, let's see: both Hook and Nkambule were Methodists who actively promoted temperance and Hook was fond of the hymns that Nkambule had his men sing before they went to bed each night. Hook spoke highly of the NNH as "good, Christian men", but interestingly enough, he noted they were "fully uniformed". This is particularly interesting in light of No. 4 (Hlubi's) Troop retreating after running out of ammo at Rorke's Drift, which had neither boots nor spurs, and whom Chard was angry at for retreating (although apparently, Dalton defended their reason for leaving and said they'd have been a drain on ammunition supply, which was enough for Bromhead, and they never faced court martial). Actually, only one NNH Troop--No. 5 (Edendale) Troop--was indeed fully uniformed with boots and spurs. Did Hook and Nkambule ever meet, leading Hook to vouch for Nkambule's character? At this point, we will likely never know.
This is the first video of yours I've seen. Love your enthusiasm, love your style of presentation, but the D&D reference is what pushed me over the edge to Subscribe. Look forward to future videos!
Just a few notes and clarifications - the NNC is the Natal Native CONTINGENT, recruited from the native population of Natal and some units from Zulu tribes who had fled from Zululand in the years before the war. They largely fought with their own weapons (assegais and knobkerrie war clubs and shields) were armed with roughly one rifle for every five men and wore their normal native garb, with just a red rag tied around their head to distinguish them from the Zulus. The Natal Carbineers was a small irregular cavalry unit, recruited from the wealthier (they had to provide their own horses and uniforms) white Natal settlers and farmers. They were largely wiped out at Isandhlwana, losing 22 of 29 members. You make an excellent point on the height of the barricades, but it is also worth mentioning that along the whole "front" of the post the barricade was built outwards to a rocky ridge, which added 2-4 feet to the height of the barricade, making it all but impossible for the Zulus to leap over. Finally, the average age of the Zulu army was slightly younger than you mention. The regiments of Dabulamanzi's Undi Corps range from the inDluyengwe, who were 28-30 years old, to the senior uThulwane at c.45 years old. But a really engaging and entertaining talk. All best.
If memory serves the average age of the RD garrison was 23! I think the historical consensus is the Brits were down to their last few hundred rounds from a starting point of something like 20000 rounds! As B. Says just one more push and it would have been all over and dusted!👍
1. Good commanders/nco's. 2. Good defensive position. 3. Modern firearms. 4. Plenty of ammunition. 5. Men had to depend on each other, "band of brothers". 6. Defense changed according to the attack.
Cetshwayo came to England after the war. He was stunned by the magnificent structures in London. He met the Queen, he was actually quite popular in England. The English gave him a pension and a place to rule over, a supervised return to his old Kingdom. The Zulus were very aggressive empire builders and were responsible for the deaths of around 2 million Black Africans in their various attacks on the weaker tribes.
What you're referencing is the Mfecane. It should be noted that the Mfecane was a much more complicated happening than simply "the Zulu killed these people", and it should also be noted that the Mfecane's actual death toll is... unknown and heavily debated.
@@chillin5703 I know what it is and I am not writing a book, just posting a comment. The Zulu were a devastating force for a lot of the weaker tribes and killed many people with estimates up to around 2 million. They were not victims.
@@forthfarean My point is that a lot of that _wasn't the Zulu_ though. And no one is characterizing them as "victims" here, because that is a poor way of framing things to begin in this situation. By the same token, Chetswayo was not the cause or creator of these events.
@@chillin5703 The Zulu were a strong Imperialist people , it needed a strong power like Britain to keep them them In check. They were a continuing threat to the whole region and were an obstacle to development. These primitive peoples could not be allowed to stand in the way of the progression of Southern Africa and the modernization of that part of the world . They lived by the rule of conquer or be conquered. They were conquered. Luckily they were conquered by Britain and the British were neither cruel nor vindictive ; they were practical though and the nineteenth century was the age of Empires, the time for expanding and utilizing the much needed raw materials that these areas had. It was a vital part of the development of the modern world. That age has now gone. We are now in the age of chaos and escalating chaos . We need a strong ,benign power to guide the still undeveloped world . There isn’t one which is why China is taking control. I don’t think they will be a kindly power.
@@forthfarean Any other imperial propaganda you want to recite verbatim? Now then, historical documentation would support the idea that Zululand was actually significantly less violent (or "threatening") by the end of the century when compared to the massive explosion of violence they prompted, directly and/or indirectly, during the early 19th century during the Mfecane. This is by no means an attempt to call the Zulu or their society perfect, it's just a simple fact. The Zulu war was prompted by a series of border disputes, and was justified by three incidents - two of which involved wives fleeing Zululand, being seized in British territory, and then executed for violating Zulu law, and the third involving a more ambiguous incident in which British surveyors crossed the Zulu border and were captured, then released unharmed later. If these are the great acts of violence that made Zululand a threat to the stability of British colonies, then the British are truly terrible at setting up competent and strong colonies. As for the other point - if the goal of the British was to incite progress in Southern Africa including for her people, then they were truly pathetic at their jobs. Maybe you're right that they had pathetic and weak colonies, then. The benign British, who set up and enabled the creation of two practically Apartheid states in both of the colonies they turned to Settler Colonialism. And then the other "colonies", which were in reality more like "protectorates" forced to accept a British crown as an overlord but not much else, barely changed at all. Have you seen modern Lesotho? eSwatini? Where is the massive "progress" that colonization was essential for? Even Botswana, one of the most "developed" countries in the region, largely attained this status _after colonialism_ . If you look at pictures of her capitol city in the 1930s, it's the same kind of urbanism that the Tswana were doing in the 1810s.
Bravo! This is an awesome video, well researched and presented, Brandon, I think that you have outshone yourself. I love the thought of the enemy turning up, "Yoo hoo, don't worry lads, we'll be down in a few minutes to polish you off!" Very Pythonish. Have you done, or are you considering a similar video of the 1854 Charge of the Light Brigade? There is a good film of this made in 1968, with a heavy hitting, British cast. The backdrop of the film is the 1850s Crimean War that pitted the Imperial Russian Empire against the British, French and the Ottoman Empire, with a little help from contempoary smaller European states.
You made a great explanation as to the importance of reserves. I wish the Total War games would make some mechanics to make reserves actually useful in their battles. Subscribed!
The presence of walls to fight from behind makes a huge difference in this kind of battle as it makes up for the shortcomings of the Martini Henry Rifle and its .577/450 ammunition, standing shoulder to shoulder behind that wall allows interlocking fields of fire that also allows any jams to be cleared without a hole being punched in the line.
Two things: one, good video. Two, I feel that people forget that castles, fortresses, and strongholds are ultimately the same thing: force multipliers, where the defenders can possibly defeat attackers despite how outnumbered the former may be. Interesting how numbers do not, in fact, always win battles.
I played Sid Meier's "Civilization" for a while, but wasn't much of a leader. However, I noticed that even a Iron-Age-tech Militia in a castle could hold off even an armored force for a while.
Even light fortifications could hold off the Zulus, which is why the Boers used kraals and even wagons in a circle and often defeated major Zulu attacks that way.
@@stevekaczynski3793 It's an interesting comparison to cavalry: even the one battle where the British won without entrenchments involved the use of squares.
@@Tareltonlives In the old days well-trained infantry was an immovable object that an irresistable force like cavalry beat on in vain. In fact, the British at Isandlwana treated the charging Zulus the way they would have treated cavalry and in fact held their own, until the ammunition ran out.
@@wayneantoniazzi2706 Indeed, the Romans did that to infantry in the Gallic Wars as well. The British managed to counter the Highland Charge during the Jacobite Wars by using deeper formations. The only reason the thin red line worked at Balaclava is that Ryzhov was just probing, and the thin line made him anxious that it was a British trap with reserves waiting behind it. It was simply a bluff, but it worked.
I think you may be giving the reserves less than their due, these regiments were the reserve of the forces at Isandlwana, whose job was to mop up at the end and reinforce where necessary. Yes, they were older married men but they were also some of the most experienced warriors the Zulu's had.
I made a comment on your previous video about running a 1/4 mile at competitive speeds. I didn't have this different perspective, so I was wrong in my assumptions. Thanks for explaining in detail how this battle took place.
This battle made me think about the thousands of infantry troops slaughtered in W.W.1 because the brass ordered them to leave the protection of the trenches and run at the entrenched enemy mowing them down. It's a similar situation. No matter how many troops you have, if they need to run at a fortified position manned by man with guns the outcome seems rather obvious. They got shot.
@@JohnsonTheSecond if it just comes down to boredom you could just have two diplomats face off across the the dinner table and save the expense of having a army
My thoughts were immediately turning to what happened to the initial French assault at Waterloo with the discussion about sending all your forces in at once without a reserve and the disaster that that was. Some of the quotes from Sun Tzu also came to mind at various times in this video like, "Do not advance counting on sheer numbers alone.. they confer no advantage", or something like that.
Job well done. I enjoyed the presentation and oddly enough I came to the same conclusion some 25 years ago while researching the Zulu War of 1879, and comparing it (mostly Isandlwana) to the Battle of Little Big Horn. :) Thanks for sharing. Cheers!
Big Horn is in a League above of Isandalwana or Rorkes, the Sioux had horses and were expert horse-riders; they had fire arms, knew how to use them, and had plenty of ammunition.
I’m reminded of the words of a Canadian professor in the History Channel documents of The Art of War: “Never allow operational developments to drive strategy”. When you’re diving for seashells and all you have is the air in your lungs, it’s easy to get too far down saying “Oh, just one more, just one more”
Rather fitting this video is uploaded the same day I get a pair of Victorian style leather gators for my reenactment impression, Same style used at Rorke's Drift!
@@ianmills9266 Brecon is a place in France? Faded Glory was an Antiques/militaria business as mentioned. I've only owned one French button, but have dug a U.S. Great seal made by John Gaunt and in May dug a Hawaiian Kingdom 2pc., also from London. I use a screen and dig dumps, often sloppy 4ths.
What a nice job of explaining the whole battle. Really your details where awesome and I learned some things I don’t know. I will be looking forward to supporting your channel and watching it also .
If you get a chance to watch the excellent movie, you get a feeling right away that for the British, there is no freakin' chance. Experts in military history say the same thing. How the remarkable Thin Red Line held -- well that is still a question and a marvel. Stirring, epic engagement for British arms.
Although not shown in the movie, one of the reasons they lost was because half their force never got involved. The general in command of the second Impi had been against crossing the Buffalo River and refused to let his warriors fight at Rorke's Drift. He also didn't like the Prince who commanded the first Impi and figured that if he lost, he would be disgraced.
Colour Sgt. Bourne "It's a miracle", Lieutenant Chard " If it's a miracle Colour Sergeant, it's a short chamber Boxer Henry point 45 caliber miracle." Colour Sgt. Bourne "And a bayonet, Sir, with some guts behind it." The troops at the time of the battle of Rorke's Drift were issued with the breach loading Martini Henry single action rifle, not a musket. Other than that your eloquent rendition of the battle is very much appreciated.
Colour Sergeant Frank Edward Bourne depicted in the film did not get a VC instead he got a Queen`s Commission eventually reaching the rank of Lieutenant-Colonel, he served in World War 1 and retired from the Army with an OBE and a DCM, he died in 1945 aged 91 on the 8th of May which just happened to be VE Day, RIP Colour Sergeant Bourne and God bless you. Oh and as Michael Caine might have said not a lot of people know that.
If you think this battle seems like historical fantasy, you should read the accounts on the battle of Bicocca. I'll just mention that it was a battle in the Italian wars fought between Spain (won) and France, and that even today in Spanish we call "Bicocca" to an easy to obtain prize.
The traditional view is to not consider Rorke's Drift the outlier and have to explain it. The history of warfare would indicate that you can do many things wrong and still win a battle as long as you do one or two things right. Rarely does anyone fight the "Perfect Battle". At both Islandlwana and in the First Boer war the British did nothing right.
When you described the need for reserve forces at 22:47 it reminded me of when Austria went up against Frederick the Great's much smaller army, and thought "His favourite strategy is to outflank his enemy, so we'll deploy our entire reserves so our line will be too wide to outflank!" Which may have made sense given they had twice his numbers. But when the mist finally cleared on the day they found the Prussian army deployed entirely on their flank (left if I remember correctly). And that's why you always keep a reserve.
Similar to Gamelin running the French Armee in 1940. He moved "the reserve" into Belgium leaving no significant unit to plug the hole once the Germans broke through at Sedan.
I mean, this is the same reason why a single small tower house could hold up an entire army in the medieval period, fortifications are very hard to take as long as there are enough men to defend them. Small forts require few men to defend them, and can be shockingly tough nuts to crack. Even at battles like Thermopylae, another battle with seemingly nonsensical numbers, the Greek defenders make use of an old wall in the already naturally defensible pass and are able, at least for a time, to throw back enemy forces many times their size.
The same thing happened at the battle of Wizna in early September 1939. 720 polish soldiers held a line of small fortifications against a german force of 40,000 with tank and aircraft support. The poles held for 3 days before being overwhelmed.
One of my favorite example is that of the Battle of Saragarhi fought in 1897 in Afghanistan. 21 British Indian soldier held out against 12,000-24,000 Pashtuns. While the Indians did eventually all fall they stalled the advance of the Pashtuns for long enough that reinforcements arrived at Fort Lockhart. The fort being the object of the Pashtun assault and which successfully repulsed the Pashtuns. A good example of a tactical defeat but a strategic victory.
@@Bullet-Tooth-Tony- The defenders at Blood River had muzzle loading guns......no bayonets etc.....and wagons in a laager with thorn bush between them......one gun they had was called a ROER.......it was like a blunderbus with a huge barrel diam and could fire pieces of broken cooking pots etc......they have some in the Transvaal museum in Pretoria from that battle.
Yeah, Hook and Witt really got the short end of the stick in the film Never understood Dabulamanzi's logic before; never thought of it before but I get his logic as a military man instead of a politician. It not only matches with how Isandlwana was won-Ntshingwayo acted on his own initiative as well-but also with Zulu tactical doctrine of pursuit and destruction. In most classical battles most casualties occur in the pursuit, and the Zulu practiced a relentless pursuit like the Romans and Macedonians to prevent further battles by wiping out the enemy entirely. Cestwayo was thinking in the larger political terms, but Dabulamanzi was thinking tactically. Makes me wonder if Rorke's drift really settled anything; if the British had lost, that would have still outraged the men at home. Ulundi is the only British victory in the war won without fortifications, with British squares supported by artillery and Gatling guns as well as a cavalry force all working in close concert. Every single other victory involved field fortifications of some kind and using terrain to dig in and nullify Zulu speed and numbers. Excellent point about fatigue being a factor for both sides. I kinda wish this film would be remade, and we'd get a look at Dabulamanzi's arc of pride and resentment to regret and horror. "What have I done" is the eternal sentiment of war's survivors, especially those who see defeat Loved these videos, and it'd be nice someday to look at the use of fortifications in the American Revolution as tactical context: Savannah, Saratoga, Bunker Hill, Harlem Heights, etc.
The Zulus most likely knew they wouldn't be able to stand up against a concerted British invasion but it's good you talked about this at the beginning and the trouble with the sortie on Rourkes Drift, even if the Zulus won that battle, it might have been even worse for them as a result.
I had always thought that Rorkes Drift was on Zulu land and that it was like a staging supply line and medical post in enemy territory that was there to help the main invasion force, but because i assumed that, I never really looked deeper into it, it makes more since to me now that in the movie they where a bit surprised and unprepared.
This video made me realize I don’t know very much about warfare and how to conduct it, historically or modern. I would be annihilated against any commander.
Biggest rule. Enviornment and training. Learn your weapon. Learn where you'll use your weapon. Ambush. Repeatedly. Done. Mujahadeen, Taliban, Al Qaeda, Vietnamese, Americans. Use your enviornment or modify your enviornment in ways that only you would know. Win 6/10 times.
I'm currently writting a book about Hungarian revolution and I'm trying to cover every aspect of it: military tactics, history, economics, politics and the context of geography and else. And I'm stunned at the level upon which people ridicule projects like this. They cover it up with simplified stories. Well, yesterday I spent an hour trying to explain the effect of the frost bite on the unpreppared Hungarian army with few supplies, tired and irritable, with no information about the geography of the area and the army they were facing. In short, Hungarian forces were decimated and many people died in and after the brutal and honestly depressing battle. Took me four full pages to explain the effect of the extreme cold(- 4 F= - 20 C) on these soldiers as to why did they die in such large numbers. The battle itself took me almost 20 pages and the aftermath another five. That number from hundreds of documents, thousands of pages of literature and many documentaries, not more than a hundred pages of my book so far. History needs to be written in it's entiriety, because if not you can miss the lesson from it and I hope there will be more channels like this one. Cheers, lad!
The movie got a lot of things wrong for the sake of drama as most war films do but the one thing it did get right is Bromhead and Charles feeling shame at the end of the battle. Their conversation really sums up the correct attitude to war that we need to have
The real Colour Sergeant Bourne was only 24 at the time, he was the youngest NCO of his rank in the army, he was nicknamed the ‘Kid’ by the troops, he was also the last of the defenders to pass away, he died on May 8th 1945, VE Day.
Unusually, he was clean-shaven. Almost every other man had some sort of facial hair, but Bourne did not. Shame he had to turn down the VC because it would have come with a a promotion to Lieutenant, which meant quartering himself, which he couldn't financially afford. A large number of the RD defenders tried finding ways around it and Bourne ultimately did get some special privileges because it revealed such a flaw in how the VC was awarded, but he had to accept the DCM.
I just found your channel, and I already like it. You've clearly done you research and know what you're talking about. Plus I like the gamer reference:)
@@bradmiller2329 The Spartans would have lost eventually though, I mean 1,700 versus 70,000 - 250,000 is absurd, but the three day last stand was quite something.
Part of my Regimental History, which was celebrated every year, by the Royal Regiment of Wales (Now sadly disbanded and merged with the Royal Welsh, I served with great pride with B Coy (Rorkes Drift) Company. More VC’s won in one battle than anytime since.
@@Confederate-hj2dc Many of the soldiers of the junior battalion, the 2/24, were Welshmen. Of the 122 soldiers of the 24th Regiment (still an English regiment at the time ) present at the Battle of Rorke's Drift, 49 are known to have been of English nationality, 32 were Welsh, 16 were Irish, one was a Scot, and three were born overseas.
@@Confederate-hj2dc The SWB recruited on the borders between Wales and England, if I recall correctly, the percentage was higher on the English side for recruitment, at that time.
Though there were 1,800 men at Isandlwana camp, which was the Baggage Train of No3 Column, of these there were just 727 British, including 600 Infantrymen. So the battle was really between 600 British Infantry against an attacking force of 25,000 Zulu warriors. Though mistakes were made such as failing to circle the wagons it is hard to believe 600 Infantry with single-shot rifles would prevail against such a large force. At Rorke's Drift the troops had warning and were able to build barricades from which to defend the station. Though there were only 155 men (130 British) the defensive perimeter was small and more easily defended, also the soldiers had a good supply of ammunition prepared. It took a lot of guts to defend the station against 4,000 Zulu, but they knew that if they ran they would have soon have been overtaken and massacred. Zulu King Cetchwayo called the battles of Isandlwana and Rork's Drift a "spear through the heart of the nation" because of their heavy casualties.
They still possibly would have if the defensive lines were pulled in sooner to a much tighter perimeter. If Durnford didn't ride out chasing after Zulus then choose to defend a donga a mile out (obliging Pulleine to keep his infantry line out far) that would have been an additional 300 rifles. Durnford had around 250 armed riflemen, plus there were armed Colonials. The Natal Carbineers, Natal Mounted Police, Newcastle Mounted Rifles, Buffalo Border Guard which gave another 70 rifles then that's around 1,000 rifles, with the armed NNC men. Its feasible this far more concentrated gunfire could have allowed the camp to hold out until Chelmsford returned.
@@lyndoncmp5751 The whole invasion of Zululand was on the sly without British Goverment knowledge. Bartle Frere acted on his own using local forces that were not trained to the same standard as British regulars, or had the same discipline. The only British regiment being the 24th Foot, and of those the 2/24th had literally just got off the boat from India. It was by definition a poorly led rushed expedition hoping to annex Zululand before the Government in England found out. Which I think was why so many mistakes were made. We can only speculate on how the battle would have been fought if it had been an official British army campaign.
I know this is a joke comment, but having recently read up on the "Great" Emu War it's a question you can almost genuinly ask. Because it ends up being a genuinly interesting read on how much damage incompetence can cause. The Aussies had fucking machine guns! Mounted MGs! And they still couldn't effectively kill the birds! I genuinly reccomend anyone to read up on it because it's fucking fascinating to read from a genuinly military perspective and absolutely hilarious just as an event.
![BLACK BAG - Official Trailer [HD] - Only in Theaters March 14](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/Du0Xp8WX_7I/mqdefault.jpg)
I read a very good story about John Chard several years ago.
A year or so after the Battle of Rorke's Drift the now-Major John Chard was in London and staying at one of the officer's clubs in the city. He was having dinner one night and as was the custom he was in full uniform and wearing his decorations.
He'd finished his meal and was leaving the dining room when a loud voice was heard:
"Huh! There goes Chard with his VC! There's nothing special about him! Any one of us could have done what he did!"
Chard stopped in his tracks, turned around slowly, and began looking over the now-silent room. No one knew what to expect. Would there be a fight? Maybe a challenge to a duel? (Duelling was illegal by this time, but one never knew, did one?)
Then he spoke, in a quiet but firm voice:
"Gentlemen, I would GLADLY have traded places with any one of you!"
Then he gave a polite nod, and left the room.
Isn't that something?
One can only imagine the PTSD that haunted him. Anyone would be willing to trade away their VC and fame just for a normal life free of nightmares.
He got to be apart of one of the early alpha tests of modern war. I can't imagine it's a pleasant realisation understanding what the power humans are coming to wield is capable of when compared to what he would have been taught about how people are supposed to fight.
@@MrArthoz You're probably right, but of course we'll never know.
Here's the thing, people think it's easy being a hero, especially a military hero. It's not, they all pay a price, some more so than others.
There was a Marine general named Smedley Butler who had the distinction of earning the Medal of Honor twice. Concerning both the engagements where he earned it he said at the time he would rather have been anywhere else than where he was!
As someone said of soldiers “All gave some, some gave all”.
To be noted, he committed suicide not all that long after.
It’s a great victory when you realise that 1,300 British soldiers had previously been cut down at Isandlwana, makes you realise how hopeless the men at Rorkes drift must have felt hearing the news, and yet still held out despite the odds.
I feel this is the point Brandon is missing in his analysis. Sure the British may have been in a ad hoc fortified position with rifles and a rouge element of the enemy that is not as superhuman as they appear. However all those Brits knew at Rourke's Drift is one of their units got wiped out by the same army and they could be next. And let's remember they still had to fight for a whole day and were down to their last few crates of ammo before the Zulu retreated.
At Rorks Drift they were ready, a fortified position, they had the ammo (Main Depo) maxim guns and field artillery, the idiot (?) commander running the main column made two fatal errors, #1 his camp wasn't fortified and #2 he walked into a TRAP & 1300 were slaughtered to a man MTRIP.
@@tommyodonovan3883 they had no maxims or artillery.
@@rifleair2899 they had everything, Roark's Drift was a major (forward) supply depot with millons of bullets and field guns, grapeshot....Canon Fodder.
@@SEAZNDragon They had 900 bullets left when the Zulus headed off. They had gone through 90% of their ammunition. Think about it, if the Zulus had made one more big push, they likely would've over run the Brits.
Having lived in SA as an expat for many years, and having made relationships with many a Zulu of that time, which was 1982-1987 I was surprised to be invited into Soweto, near joburg, by a Zulu man who assured me I would be safe in his company. I went to a shebeen with him, a 'bar' where I was the only white person there, and went back to his house to sleep. It was difficult to get drunk on what was known as 'kaffir beer' in cartons, but we managed it. Next day he escorted me out, and the police were utterly amazed I had survived.
Gerry was his 'english name', I will keep his real Zulu name to myself. I will forever remember him and those times.
Why would you not be “safe”?
@Plutarch 😂😂😂But now it's safe, the city has been developed from just a township to a tourism suburb/city.
@@Officialnrb because South Africa is one of the most racist countries on earth if you're a white person. for good reason if yk what I mean
@@reqzr7435
Yea. You’ve never experienced racism until the black has the whip hand !
"Kaffir" is a slur in South Africa.
The reason it's hard to get drunk on it is because that basically translates to "Fucking shit beer"
The British had more moustache's than the Zulus, this was clearly a decisive factor.
And snazzy uniforms. People underestimate the power of one's own presentation.
As a certain general Cervantes from a forgotten JRPG once said “After that battle I never shaved my mustache again. Ergo, my mustache makes me invincible. It’s science my boy, science!”
And beards. Very impressive facial hair indeed sir !
The moustaches helped keep those upper lips stiff.
@@josephnigel8811 Do your top button up lad
The Army doesn't like more than one disaster in a day.
Looks bad in the newspapers and upsets civilians at their breakfast.
That line cracks me up every time I watch the movie.
It reminds me of something Sherman once said (and I am bound to get it wrong): "Fame is when you fight and die valliantly for your country so that your name gets misspelled in the papers."
@@2manyIce It always makes me think of a couple of bits from Flashman at the Charge - "They wanted blood, gallons of it, and ti read of grapeshot smashing great lanes through Russian ranks, and stern and noble Britons skewering Cossacks, and Russian towns in flames - and they would be able to shake their heads over the losses of our gallant fellows, sacrificed to stern duty, and wolf down their kidneys and muffins in their warm breakfast rooms, saying: 'Dreadful work, this, but by George, England never shirked yet, whatever the price. Pass the marmelade, Amelia;I'm proud to be a Briton this day, let me tell you.'" as he's describing the public mood before the Crimean War.
And this little excerpt, as he reflects on the aftermath of the Battle of the Alma: "The Russian wounded lay in piles by the hundred round our bivouacs, crying and moaning all through the night - I can hear their sobbing "Pajalsta! pajalsta!" [Please! please!] still. The camp ground was littered with spent shot and rubbish and broken gear among the pools of congealed blood - my stars, wouldn't I just like to take one of our Ministers, or street-corner orators, or blood-lusting, breakfast-scoffing papas, over such a place as the Alma hills - not to let him see, because he'd just tut-tut and look anguished and have a good pray and not care a damn - but to shoot him in the belly with a soft-nosed bullet and let him die screaming where he belonged. That's all they deserve."
@@f0rth3l0v30fchr15t i should really find these books and read them. They sound really good.
Same way the Americans won at Wounded Knee. By being an industrialized white state willing to slaughter a bunch of indigenous people of color for economic gain.
@@penultimateh766 bit more complicated than that. Most of the local tribes that helped the British had been pushed out if their own lands by the Zulu. The local governor of Natal wanted prestige by making Confederation work in South Africa like he'd done in Canada, the Boers wanted to escape British control by pushing into the interior. It was more a matter of prestige than economics after Islandwana as well since the defeat of the first invasion was seen as a national embarrassment to be corrected.
The conflicts between Europeans and later Americans, Canadians and Mexicans against Native American tribes were also not so black and white. The Native Americans were not united and most hated and warred against each other as much or more than they did against whites. White expansion is also not merely due to economics and industrialization, but a myriad of cultural, political, social and ethnic reasons. Historical motivations and outcomes are never as simple as one thing.
I've heard over the years that the reason they won was because they were fighting for their lives, but for a situation of about 122 men against thousands of natives, that is not enough. Having the foresight to set up defenses and having highly trained fire discipline had a lot to do with them winning.
Fortifications do SO MUCH. They are a force multiplier. Agincourt, Saratoga, Gate Pa, Saragarhi, the Modoc War, Adobe Walls, Dyrrhachium, Nagashino, Mobei, Vítkov Hill, the Entire Great War.
And the zulus had spears and bows and
@@joebrowne9217 Well those spears won at Isandlwana lol
It is the same as the superiority of the Roman legion. When they fought in formation and kept the formation the tribes had no chance. If the formation was broken and became individual one to one the Barbarians would probably win ,being stronger and bigger. The average British soldier was not particularly strong or big ,but he was disciplined and courageous and fought well in a disciplined formation.
@@forthfarean Yes, but the Zulu also fought in disciplined units . They actually resembled the Romans in their armament and strategy
Mark Twain put it best "Truth is stranger than fiction, but it is because Fiction is obliged to stick to possibilities; Truth isn’t."
Weird coming from the guy slandering Fenimore Cooper just for having the better genre and more creative character names.
Never underestimate the utility of fortifications - especially against an enemy which relies on hand-to-hand combat:
> Fortified positions mitigate any numerical advantage of an attacking force, by limiting how many men can fight at once.
> Ramparts deny any attacking force the ability to close with and bear down on the defenders, blunting any charges.
> The Zulus relied on encirclement tactics, but a position fortified on all sides cannot be meaningfully outflanked.
The Roman empire was built with the dolabra and ligo more than any gladius.
Volley fire, bayonets and those famous big balls the British army had in spades since the formation of the 1707 act of Union ps the Zulu had hundreds of rifles taken from all those dead Redcoats a short time earlier.
Plus when you put someone in a position like that and they feel like fighting is the only way out, then they're gonna fight like absolute devil's. Just look the battle of Mirbat, or the siege of Jadotville.
@@LeggieGlasgow The Zulus did have rifles, but they weren't drilled in how to use them. They reloaded clumsily, couldn't keep a steady aim, and didn't know how to adjust the sights to compensate for longer ranges. This means that Zulu warriors were not reliable riflemen, unlike British infantry, who were well-trained in the use of their rifles.
This being said, the capacity for Zulus to rain fire down upon the defenders was still useful. It forced the British to keep their heads down, and dedicate troops to counter-fire at the Zulu marksmen rather than keep them on the perimeter.
Bullets don't need to hit the enemy to be useful. I daresay the Zulus appreciated this fact during the battle, even if the lion's share of the Zulus' fighting was done in melee, because that's what they were undeniably the best at.
@@Grymbaldknight Not against less than 100 defenders it seems mate .
Remember the fortifications. Had they been in a square in an open field, different story. To climb the ramparts the Zulus had to drop either the shield or the spear as they needed one free hand to climb. Nor could they effectively throw spears at troops behind ramparts as they could at a square formation in an open field. The force multiplier effect of even modest defenses, ramparts or fortifications is very considerable.
At isadawana the column wasn't even deployed as a square but as a firing line. Only when the line had been overrun did some members of the 24th regiment of foot (a single company) deploy in a square (as at that point they were surrounded on all sides and a square was their only option). In subsequent engagements the entirety of the British forces would deploy in square and doing so vastly reduced the casualties. If the entire force had been deployed in square with ammo readily available to each company at isadawana and the artillery protected in the middle of the formation they might have been able to hold off the Zulu's.
They could hold both spear and shield at once as well, but it did add extra weight hence why they didn’t do it often.
Assegais weren't throwing spears. They were stabbing spears- the same length as the British rifle plus bayonet. Deliberately so.
"If it's a miracle, Colour Sergeant, it's a short-chamber Boxer Henry .45 calibre miracle"
"And a bayonet, Sir, ... with some guts behind it"
More likely by that time "with some guts on it"
Outstanding answer from the Senior NCO , Color Sargeant if Im correct?? Not sure so let me know. My active duty year were on Submarine duty
Sorry correction my active duty years were on Submarines, fast attack boats. Thank you. Great vid
Martini Henry thank you very MUCH! Mistake in film!!!
He actually died in 1945 on VE day
Henry Hook was wrongly portrayed in the film, he was teetotal methodist and model soldier, and was actually the cook in the hospital.
Yes. His family (his descendants) walked out at the films preview in disgust.
They did this with Bela Lugosi’s character in Ed Wood when Martin Landau was playing him as an angry man who swore a lot, it was primarily a storytelling device rather than an accurate depiction of the real life man and should be taken as such. Bela’s family didn’t understand it or like it, but in the context of the film it was mostly to show his fighting spirit in the face of pain, irrelevance, aging and drug addiction.
This is what Hollywood does, I keep hearing how good a film Bridge on the River Kawi is by people who don't know it was a work of fiction and based on a book by the same author as Planet of the Apes. The actual senior officer on the Burma Siam railway was Col Philip Toosey RA, he was a friend of my late father who considered him a god among men and was the complete anthesis of Alec Guinness's character. My great uncle Tom was a Dunkirk veteran who later served in Burma, he was a Chindit wounded on Operation Wednesday and also fought at battle of Kohima where he was again wounded during the action at the Tennis Court. After his long recovery in India he was returned to the UK just in time to get arrested for his part in a minor riot at a cinema after he attended a showing of the Errol Flynn film Objective Burma.
Why spoil a good story with the truth????
@@robertdraper5782 i don't think you can blame 'Hollywood'...it was from an era when the UK still produced films....& if 'Zulu' hadn't been made (inaccuracies & all) very few people would know of these events
The fact that Rorke's Drift was nestled in a valley also helped. The Zulu's main maneuver is an encirclement called the horns of the buffalo where first comes the main force head on and while the enemy is focused on that two detachment come around of the flanks. The terrain of Rorke's drift made that tactic impossible.
If we want to really be practical, a lot of the problem is the film Zulu. People have a very misguided notion of how the siege of Rorke's Drift really played out. It was more like an extended lengthy skirmish with Zulu raiding parties, not the dramatic, large scale assaults that all the paintings suggests.
Not to downplay the achievement of the men involved, but it's worth reminding ourselves that after the disastrous battle of Isandlwana, Chelmsford, the British army, and the government had a vested interested in blowing out of all proportion the victory at Rorke's Drift. Political spin.
I did read that Stanley Baker moved "Rorke's Drift" into the mountains for the more exciting scenery. The real Rorke's Drift was/is on a flat river plain, where the Zulus could be seen coming from miles away...
My own gobsmack moment, the first time I ever saw the film, was the fact that the unit was there "to build a bridge"... over a ten-foot wide 'river' that the soldiers were literally walking through.
How did we win? Our uniforms were so dazzling they blinded the Zulu Warriors, giving us the advantage
Can confirm, my nephew came back from fighting at rorkes drift, one of the few zulus to survive. He told me that half of the battle it was actually just a fashion contest between the officers and infantrymen. The zulus were too distracted by the show being put on in front of them to realize they had lost the battle
But we had those dazzling uniforms at isandlwana 😂
Dont make lite of people that died their arse holes
Don’t forget the moustaches
But wouldn’t they blind the Brits too, then? (sarcasm)
Nicely done! And what you said early in the video is true, wars DO take on a life of their own. Stopping them isn't quite so easy as starting them.
But just like wars, they can be ended with enough violence
'Wars begin when you will, but they do not always end when you wish' - Niccolò Machiavelli
How nice to hear a US enthusiast on this subject! I'd love to hear him on some other British triumphs, disasters and vandalisms: The Battle of the Nile, Arnhem, the Retreat from Kabul, the Destruction of the Summer Palace .. pretty please?
PS. Subscribed.
It always comes back to logistics, doesn't it?
They just had to hold out long enough for the Zulus to run out of steam.
I'm sure that was what they're hoping, but I doubt that they placed too much faith in that idea. They were probably hoping more for reinforcements to come to their aid.
@@Riceball01 It may or may not have been their plan, but it was how Rorke's Drift played out.
"Amateurs talk about tactics but professionals study logistics" Gen. Robert H. Barrow, USMC (Commandant of the Marine Corps)
@@1guncrazy1 Real professionals are proficient at both.
One thing is to ‘win,’ obviously and decisively. The other is to ‘not lose.’ This action falls into the second category
Nothing should be taken away from the brave British soldiers and Zulu warriors, they may have been on rival sides but they both done what they believed to be their duty.
The zulu warriors fighting the british is the equivalent of planet earth as a whole fighting against super technologicaly advanced aliens that somehow own half of the galaxy
The British soldier did respect the Zulu and had no ill feelings toward them,and vice versa. One old Zulu talking to James Rattray said that they were boys who disobeyed the King and got trounced. Chuckling as he said it. Listen to Rattray’s ,’day of the dead moon ‘.
@@forthfarean to be fair I’m pretty sure the zulus did feel a certain type of way about these white foreigners invading their land.
@@Xycomm Yes of course. They thought that a stronger tribe had come into their land and they wanted to beat them. They tried and failed. The Zulu themselves had conquered weaker tribes .
@@temporalmentetonto the British got whipped twice before. Silly comparison.
I live right across the road from the 24th Foot regimental museum here in Brecon. It holds eight VC’s from Rorkes Drift & Isandhlwana. Spent awesome nights at the annual Rorks Drift dinner talking to the descendants of these brave men. Have also been lucky to have visited both battlefields in SA with work and talked to Zulu descendants from the battles too. Thanks for the video, this old soldier enjoyed it immensely!
Are you asking me, because I thought you knew?
The real question is how I'm losing in grand tactician civil war, when the fort I'm attacking has 48 men and I'm attacking with 4000
@@coreystockdale6287 I've been there friend
@@CivilWarWeekByWeek they why does it seem like a mob of 20 people against another mob of 20 people?
i REALLY wanna like the game but the regiments have soo few soldirers in them when there should be hundreds. It does have a great overhead map though.
@@RamonesFan201 Yeah its hard with the current throw your men around, but I think using skirmishers. Focusing around crossings can be very useful for making the game more fun/realistic.
That is if you can explain it in such detail as he.
Simple, old boy Bromhead said “chin chin”, and just like that, all the Zulu were gone.
Close your eyes, say "Chin chin, old boy" and click your heels three times, and all the different cultures will go away.
@@BrandonF Based
@@BrandonF based wizard of oz reference
@@BrandonF Based
Same way the Americans won at Wounded Knee. By being an industrialized white state willing to slaughter a bunch of indigenous people of color for economic gain.
IIRC, Byron Farwell makes the point (in "Queen Victoria's Little Wars") that most of the Imperial adventures in this period followed a predictable sequence: a humiliating massacre or defeat to the British forces, a valiant stand by a small force against victorious hordes, and then a crushing campaign utilizing overwhelming resources to "win" the conflict.
Certainly this war follows those steps perfectly.
Because Michael Caine led the defense, that’s why.
Stanley Baker led the defence, Michael Caine was second in command having received his commision at a later date.
@@jacobduggan8008 No mention of Colour Sgt. Frank Bourne: "Because we're here, lad. Nobody else. Just us."
Stop throwing those bloody spears at me... Said M .Caine
And it's because Michael Caine took his mum to the original screening of the movie instead of some bimbo.....
@@MrNipperthedog Poor Stanley Baker! One of the driving forces behind the film being made but now when most people think of "Zulu" they think of Michael Caine in his first starring role. Sir Michael's even the one on the video cover art that Brandon used!
Maybe if Stanley Baker (A fine actor in his own right!) hadn't been taken from us so soon...
"Zulu" -- one of my favorite movies, even with all the inaccuracies.
@John Ashtone +1. "sheer bloody-mindedness" - not to be underestimated
Saw it when it came out in 64 and been one of my most watched films. I was ten at the time and went home to reenact it. We lived in the countryside and had a very defensible garden with a good field of fire.
@John Ashtone I think the Zulus could also be said to have had sheer bloodymindedness. One can't fault their bravery, nor the understanding of Cetshwayo (or his advisers) for the international scene and his appreciation of the position for his people.
Its because it feels authentic
I'm a South African and Historian. Your pronunciation of "Kraal" is good and I'm impressed with your research. I visited the battle fields of Isandhwana and Rorke's drift. Did you mention that Chard responded on the advice of a Boer to turn the wagons on its sides, built the mealie bag walls, etc. ? Look at the wagons during the battle of Blood river. There were 10000 Zulus vs 464 Boers. Only two Boers slightly wounded.
My understanding it was Comissionariat James Langley Dalton VC, a veteran ex British soldier who reinlisted, who convinced Chard and Bromhead to stay at Rorkes Drift and form a kraal.
If anything it highlights positively how both Lieutenants showed significant flexibility in listening and acting upon the advice and direction of an experienced ex-staff sergeant.
This interesting challenges the myth of pompous British officers and unimpowered soldiers. Clearly they collaborated effectively and dynamically.
The above point does not undermine the advice and direction also being provided by Boer colleagues.
I visited both battlefields a decade ago it was a humbling experience.
Please feel free to correct me if I am wrong, as its always great to learn more.
Kind regards from the UK to our kith and kin in RSA, USA and abroad.
Why they survived? They knew a Sabaton song would be written about them.
"News that came that morning told that the main force had been slain"
That would be the ultimate accomplishment in my life, to do something so fucking cool sabayon writes a song about it.
"Chance for peace and justice gone and all talks had been in vain"
@@Fringlish A prince had been offended and he'd gone the path of war
@@livinghistory9701 now that 15,000 men are dead, and the Zulu's at the door!
@@averageweeb5302 ZULUS ATTACK
walls, also rest in peace Goodwill Zwelithini kaBhekuzulu, King of the Zulus, 14 July 1948- 12 March 2021.
One of the best politicians
RIP.
Bayete Nkosi. Humba kuhle.
😢😭
This is one of the most entertaining, informative military history channels on RUclips.
One thing I've always loved about this channel is how much detail you go into
It was Dalton who came up with the plan for the defences and Chard executed the plan, very well. As Rattray says: the British high command considered Chard and Bromhead to be 'below average' officers, but there was nothing 'below average' about their conduct at Rorke's Drift, whilst the 'above average' officers lay on the field at Isandlwana...
A lot of that "below average" commentary directed at Chard and Bromhead was more than likely petty jealousy. Both men performed outstandingly!
Read my Chard story from earlier today for an example of the jealousy.
If you put a brilliant pen pusher in charge of an army you still get the same result 1000+ dead red coats☹️
@@clivenewton7609
Good job it wasn’t an American battle there’d be 10,000 dead & it would be put down as collateral damage& their leader hailed as a hero
@@leeshergold103 if there had been 10,000 men in the column at isadawana the bayonet would of won them the day.
Well said.
Chard and Bromhead showed good collaborative management in listening too and acting upon the experienced veteran Dalton and Boers as well as effective situations awareness and decision making.
Its something which really should be the centre of a presentation on its own.
Brits are at heart a very martial people. They have won battles and wars in every continent and in every type of climate and terrain around the world. They have fought on others territory thousands of miles away from home for hundreds of years. They rarely back down from a fight and they dig in hard when others might run. They meet aggression with ever greater aggression and in the worst adversity they grow stronger and fight harder. They won at Rourke's Drift for the same reason they have won countless battles and wars. They are warriors and very very tough.
........ unless they're lead by general percival
The one thing that caught me by surprise is that the harder the fight, the more desperate the situation, they will always, somehow manage to come up with the most absurd, incomparable humor you could possibly imagine. Once I experienced that first hand, I then began to understand the true spirit of the UK warrior mindset.
@@garrisonsmith8136 You should see Russians if you like dark humor. We'll watch a man get his leg blown off by artillery and find a way to make a joke about it
don't leave out those that faught alongside the brits .......gurkhas
Why do you think the stiff upper lip steady attitude was a thing?
Prepared defensive position big enough for 100 men to easily cover (unlike the Alamo). Fire discipline. Breechloading rifles. Open terrain.
There was plenty of vegetation and undulations in the ground to hide infantry, and the Zulus took advantage of that.
The Alamo had walls though, Rorkes Drift was just a small hospital with some sandbags
@@Bullet-Tooth-Tony- main difference with Alamo the Mexicans had Cannons If the Zulus had taken even one of the Guns they captured at Ishlwandana they would have won
The Zulus did manage to use the heights to overlook with Snipers, with rifles they had captured rifles from iswandala.
The terrain is nowhere near as open as it was portrayed in the movie.
I love how you always explain the context so we understand why things happened
Along with this analysis let's not forget that the men on both sides were extremely brave facing each other and fought to protect themselves and their brothers in arms. When the metal met the meat neither side cared about politics, just the next minute of life.
"Let there be no talk of dogs / when wolf and gray wolf meet". -- R Kipling.
Colour Sgt Bourne was in fact only 22years old and was known as the kid. He retired from the army as a Lt Col. His daughters who were still alive when the film was made walked out of the Premier of the film. He died in 1945 and is buried in Beckenham, now part of the London Borough of Bromley.
He died on VE Day, no less - that always stayed with me as a kind of inadvertent passing-of-the-ages.
He was know as Baby Bourne by the battalion.
It was Henry Hooks family that walked out ! Hook was an excellent soldier and nothing like the malingerer in the film !
After your first video, I immediately re-watched the movie. After I learned of its accuracy, I immediately purchased it, and have enjoyed it many times. However, not one of the previous critiques, went into the informative depth, that you have. I very much appreciate your research. And, your analytical approach. One thing, that I think you may have missed, the Zulu warriors were
trained, in much the same way as Spartan warriors. They were tough.
This is true. The Zulus were a warrior nation and immensely brave. But the fact that they had not eaten for several days was probably also a major factor in the victory.
Q: How did the British win at Rorke's Drift?
A: Contrary to popular belief, there is a finite amount of stupidity in the universe at any one time. The earlier fiasco at Isandlwana temporarily exhausted the supply.
It was stupid to deploy in line against the Zulu's, at rourkes drift that was never an option.
I believe the amount of stupidity in the universe is indeed infinite.
You should read up about the Gloster Regiment in Korea at the Battle of Imjin. They held off 10.000 North Korean and Chinese troops and eventually ran out of ammunition and resorted to fighting with only their knives and rocks, and did repeated bayonet charges. They were eventually overrun but their last stand is amazing, they knew that surrendering meant likely torture and execution so they fought to the last man.
I'd imagine the Glosters knew what happened to British POW's that fell into the hands of the Japanese. They weren't going to take a chance on mercy from any other Asian enemy.
The glorious glosters!!!!!
All because of cultural mistranslation.
They did let the Americans know, but Americans did not understand that when a Queen's commissioned officer refers to the situation as a bit sticky, its probably hell running lose
@@michalsoukup1021 Too bad they didn't speak American. The American phrase for "The situation's a bit sticky" is "We're in deep shit!"
@@wayneantoniazzi2706 Someone speaking American should have been seconded to Glosters a vice versa.
'We fought native tribes at Rorke's Drift.'
'Zulus?'
'No, we won!'
(ducking now)
Ah ha! Profoundly dad joke.
Dad? Is that you?
GROAN!!!!
Perfect
AAAAARGH
Your energy is truly contagious as well as informative.
Bravo Sir.
Well done.
Explaining both the diplomatic and military situation puts this battle into much more perspective
In the film Zulu James Booth’s character Private Henry Hook VC was portrayed as a malingerer in reality he was a chef and a hero.
He had also signed the pledge and was teetotal
He was technically an acting cook. He'd been appointed either the day before or two days earlier after someone said he had some rudimentary culinary skill. He was a model infantryman to an almost laughable degree when you consider his portrayal in the film (contrast with Corporal William Wilson Allen, VC, who'd been busted down from Sergeant for drunkenness multiple times); the myth of the 2nd/24th wearing their dress uniforms has at least been posited to come from Hook, who said he put on his dress uniform. Whether he deliberately did this or it was simply the first uniform available has been debated. He rose to the rank of Sergeant-Instructor in the Monmouthshire Militia.
His daughter left the Premier of the film in disgust. Hook was a tee totaller and an extremely professional soldier and a Christian of deep faith.
There is one unknown about Harry Hook; sort of an urban legend of sorts, and I'll ask you to keep in mind this may well be apocryphal. The only man to successfully perform a fighting retreat off the battlefield at iSandlwana while leading an intact unit was Sergeant Simeon Nkambule, No. 5 (Edendale) Troop, Natal Native Horse. Sergeant--later Troop Sergeant-Major, and later with a DCM to his name--Nkambule was also both a devout Methodist and a teetotaler as well as humble and fluent in English in spite of being a Basotho. General Sir Henry Evelyn Wood, whose column Nkambule was attached to, maintained for many years that Nkambule would have gotten a VC had he been white--that for political reasons, he was seen as "too close" to the Zulus--and that no less than a Rorke's Drift VC agreed with him. Nobody has ever identified this Rorke's Drift VC since Wood never said who he was. Assuming that Wood wasn't just angry at seeing a man whom he believed deserved the VC passed over for political reasons, let's see: both Hook and Nkambule were Methodists who actively promoted temperance and Hook was fond of the hymns that Nkambule had his men sing before they went to bed each night. Hook spoke highly of the NNH as "good, Christian men", but interestingly enough, he noted they were "fully uniformed". This is particularly interesting in light of No. 4 (Hlubi's) Troop retreating after running out of ammo at Rorke's Drift, which had neither boots nor spurs, and whom Chard was angry at for retreating (although apparently, Dalton defended their reason for leaving and said they'd have been a drain on ammunition supply, which was enough for Bromhead, and they never faced court martial). Actually, only one NNH Troop--No. 5 (Edendale) Troop--was indeed fully uniformed with boots and spurs. Did Hook and Nkambule ever meet, leading Hook to vouch for Nkambule's character? At this point, we will likely never know.
There should made a new version of the movie
This is the first video of yours I've seen. Love your enthusiasm, love your style of presentation, but the D&D reference is what pushed me over the edge to Subscribe. Look forward to future videos!
You are more valuable to us as a history professor on RUclips than you would be at any university, and you reach far more students. Thank you.
Just a few notes and clarifications - the NNC is the Natal Native CONTINGENT, recruited from the native population of Natal and some units from Zulu tribes who had fled from Zululand in the years before the war. They largely fought with their own weapons (assegais and knobkerrie war clubs and shields) were armed with roughly one rifle for every five men and wore their normal native garb, with just a red rag tied around their head to distinguish them from the Zulus. The Natal Carbineers was a small irregular cavalry unit, recruited from the wealthier (they had to provide their own horses and uniforms) white Natal settlers and farmers. They were largely wiped out at Isandhlwana, losing 22 of 29 members.
You make an excellent point on the height of the barricades, but it is also worth mentioning that along the whole "front" of the post the barricade was built outwards to a rocky ridge, which added 2-4 feet to the height of the barricade, making it all but impossible for the Zulus to leap over.
Finally, the average age of the Zulu army was slightly younger than you mention. The regiments of Dabulamanzi's Undi Corps range from the inDluyengwe, who were 28-30 years old, to the senior uThulwane at c.45 years old.
But a really engaging and entertaining talk. All best.
If memory serves the average age of the RD garrison was 23! I think the historical consensus is the Brits were down to their last few hundred rounds from a starting point of something like 20000 rounds! As B. Says just one more push and it would have been all over and dusted!👍
1. Good commanders/nco's. 2. Good defensive position. 3. Modern firearms. 4. Plenty of ammunition. 5. Men had to depend on each other, "band of brothers". 6. Defense changed according to the attack.
Cetshwayo came to England after the war. He was stunned by the magnificent structures in London. He met the Queen, he was actually quite popular in England. The English gave him a pension and a place to rule over, a supervised return to his old Kingdom. The Zulus were very aggressive empire builders and were responsible for the deaths of around 2 million Black Africans in their various attacks on the weaker tribes.
What you're referencing is the Mfecane. It should be noted that the Mfecane was a much more complicated happening than simply "the Zulu killed these people", and it should also be noted that the Mfecane's actual death toll is... unknown and heavily debated.
@@chillin5703 I know what it is and I am not writing a book, just posting a comment. The Zulu were a devastating force for a lot of the weaker tribes and killed many people with estimates up to around 2 million. They were not victims.
@@forthfarean My point is that a lot of that _wasn't the Zulu_ though. And no one is characterizing them as "victims" here, because that is a poor way of framing things to begin in this situation. By the same token, Chetswayo was not the cause or creator of these events.
@@chillin5703 The Zulu were a strong Imperialist people , it needed a strong power like Britain to keep them them In check. They were a continuing threat to the whole region and were an obstacle to development. These primitive peoples could not be allowed to stand in the way of the progression of Southern Africa and the modernization of that part of the world . They lived by the rule of conquer or be conquered. They were conquered. Luckily they were conquered by Britain and the British were neither cruel nor vindictive ; they were practical though and the nineteenth century was the age of Empires, the time for expanding and utilizing the much needed raw materials that these areas had. It was a vital part of the development of the modern world. That age has now gone. We are now in the age of chaos and escalating chaos . We need a strong ,benign power to guide the still undeveloped world . There isn’t one which is why China is taking control. I don’t think they will be a kindly power.
@@forthfarean Any other imperial propaganda you want to recite verbatim?
Now then, historical documentation would support the idea that Zululand was actually significantly less violent (or "threatening") by the end of the century when compared to the massive explosion of violence they prompted, directly and/or indirectly, during the early 19th century during the Mfecane. This is by no means an attempt to call the Zulu or their society perfect, it's just a simple fact. The Zulu war was prompted by a series of border disputes, and was justified by three incidents - two of which involved wives fleeing Zululand, being seized in British territory, and then executed for violating Zulu law, and the third involving a more ambiguous incident in which British surveyors crossed the Zulu border and were captured, then released unharmed later. If these are the great acts of violence that made Zululand a threat to the stability of British colonies, then the British are truly terrible at setting up competent and strong colonies. As for the other point - if the goal of the British was to incite progress in Southern Africa including for her people, then they were truly pathetic at their jobs. Maybe you're right that they had pathetic and weak colonies, then. The benign British, who set up and enabled the creation of two practically Apartheid states in both of the colonies they turned to Settler Colonialism. And then the other "colonies", which were in reality more like "protectorates" forced to accept a British crown as an overlord but not much else, barely changed at all. Have you seen modern Lesotho? eSwatini? Where is the massive "progress" that colonization was essential for? Even Botswana, one of the most "developed" countries in the region, largely attained this status _after colonialism_ . If you look at pictures of her capitol city in the 1930s, it's the same kind of urbanism that the Tswana were doing in the 1810s.
Matt Easton flashing on the screen when you mentioned context, of course xD
Oh thank you, I already thought I was seeing things...
Omg yea I wondered if I was seeing things too.
Bravo! This is an awesome video, well researched and presented, Brandon, I think that you have outshone yourself. I love the thought of the enemy turning up, "Yoo hoo, don't worry lads, we'll be down in a few minutes to polish you off!" Very Pythonish.
Have you done, or are you considering a similar video of the 1854 Charge of the Light Brigade? There is a good film of this made in 1968, with a heavy hitting, British cast. The backdrop of the film is the 1850s Crimean War that pitted the Imperial Russian Empire against the British, French and the Ottoman Empire, with a little help from contempoary smaller European states.
You made a great explanation as to the importance of reserves. I wish the Total War games would make some mechanics to make reserves actually useful in their battles. Subscribed!
The presence of walls to fight from behind makes a huge difference in this kind of battle as it makes up for the shortcomings of the Martini Henry Rifle and its .577/450 ammunition, standing shoulder to shoulder behind that wall allows interlocking fields of fire that also allows any jams to be cleared without a hole being punched in the line.
Thanks!
And thank you! Very much!
Again a beautiful video Brandon, keep up the good work. Greetings from the Netherlands.
Might be interesting to compare the structures at Rourke's Drift to a norman castle. Different scale, but instructive.
The fact they were effectively fighting for they're lives must have been a massive incentive
Two things: one, good video. Two, I feel that people forget that castles, fortresses, and strongholds are ultimately the same thing: force multipliers, where the defenders can possibly defeat attackers despite how outnumbered the former may be.
Interesting how numbers do not, in fact, always win battles.
I played Sid Meier's "Civilization" for a while, but wasn't much of a leader. However, I noticed that even a Iron-Age-tech Militia in a castle could hold off even an armored force for a while.
Even light fortifications could hold off the Zulus, which is why the Boers used kraals and even wagons in a circle and often defeated major Zulu attacks that way.
@@stevekaczynski3793 It's an interesting comparison to cavalry: even the one battle where the British won without entrenchments involved the use of squares.
@@Tareltonlives In the old days well-trained infantry was an immovable object that an irresistable force like cavalry beat on in vain. In fact, the British at Isandlwana treated the charging Zulus the way they would have treated cavalry and in fact held their own, until the ammunition ran out.
@@wayneantoniazzi2706 Indeed, the Romans did that to infantry in the Gallic Wars as well. The British managed to counter the Highland Charge during the Jacobite Wars by using deeper formations. The only reason the thin red line worked at Balaclava is that Ryzhov was just probing, and the thin line made him anxious that it was a British trap with reserves waiting behind it. It was simply a bluff, but it worked.
I think you may be giving the reserves less than their due, these regiments were the reserve of the forces at Isandlwana, whose job was to mop up at the end and reinforce where necessary.
Yes, they were older married men but they were also some of the most experienced warriors the Zulu's had.
I made a comment on your previous video about running a 1/4 mile at competitive speeds. I didn't have this different perspective, so I was wrong in my assumptions. Thanks for explaining in detail how this battle took place.
This battle made me think about the thousands of infantry troops slaughtered in W.W.1 because the brass ordered them to leave the protection of the trenches and run at the entrenched enemy mowing them down. It's a similar situation. No matter how many troops you have, if they need to run at a fortified position manned by man with guns the outcome seems rather obvious. They got shot.
That’s an oversimplification of what happened, but yes.
@@wisemankugelmemicus1701 if they call it "the brass" then you know he just read some kids' fiction book and took it as fact
both sides hiding in trenches does not end the war
@@graveperil2169 actually, says who? Neither can hide there forever, so one's gonna give up someday
@@JohnsonTheSecond if it just comes down to boredom you could just have two diplomats face off across the the dinner table and save the expense of having a army
My thoughts were immediately turning to what happened to the initial French assault at Waterloo with the discussion about sending all your forces in at once without a reserve and the disaster that that was. Some of the quotes from Sun Tzu also came to mind at various times in this video like, "Do not advance counting on sheer numbers alone.. they confer no advantage", or something like that.
Well…. Speaking of counting on sheer numbers… Cough Russia Cough Cough
This is a well balanced video on this battle. Well done sir.
Job well done. I enjoyed the presentation and oddly enough I came to the same conclusion some 25 years ago while researching the Zulu War of 1879, and comparing it (mostly Isandlwana) to the Battle of Little Big Horn. :) Thanks for sharing. Cheers!
Big Horn is in a League above of Isandalwana or Rorkes, the Sioux had horses and were expert horse-riders; they had fire arms, knew how to use them, and had plenty of ammunition.
“Here they come . As thick as grass and black as thunder”
Sergeant Henry Gallagher Irishman
I’m reminded of the words of a Canadian professor in the History Channel documents of The Art of War: “Never allow operational developments to drive strategy”. When you’re diving for seashells and all you have is the air in your lungs, it’s easy to get too far down saying “Oh, just one more, just one more”
Truly fantastic Brandon F. style documentary. Learned a great deal here, thank you very much!
Rather fitting this video is uploaded the same day I get a pair of Victorian style leather gators for my reenactment impression, Same style used at Rorke's Drift!
Gators or gaiters?
Is Faded Glory still in business? They had stuff for sale at Highland games in the 1980s Monterey and Santa Rosa. Victorian surplus & insignia.
@@tomfrazier1103 tell a guy from Brecon that it's faded glory
@@ianmills9266 Brecon is a place in France? Faded Glory was an Antiques/militaria business as mentioned. I've only owned one French button, but have dug a U.S. Great seal made by John Gaunt and in May dug a Hawaiian Kingdom 2pc., also from London. I use a screen and dig dumps, often sloppy 4ths.
I hope you do more of these analyses for misunderstood battles, especially in British history.
As I figured, history little records the humble contribution of the mealie bag and biscuit tin.
"Why didn't they just use machine guns?" -Ashtyn
it'll never get old
That's so dumb.
@@Persian-Immortal also they reviewed zulu and she called the warriors "african americans"
"tru dat" - Jon
lol, your Spanish flu pic from Xtra history. XD
What a nice job of explaining the whole battle. Really your details where awesome and I learned some things I don’t know. I will be looking forward to supporting your channel and watching it also .
You have great oratory skills my man. I could listen to you talk about history for hours.
Are you serious? I find him tedious, just tell the story Mr Easton, stop trying to act like some Shakespearian
....actor.
@@bazprice5677 I full heartily agree , less of the theatrics and just tell the story.
If you get a chance to watch the excellent movie, you get a feeling right away that for the British, there is no freakin' chance. Experts in military history say the same thing. How the remarkable Thin Red Line held -- well that is still a question and a marvel. Stirring, epic engagement for British arms.
So today was the first day of watching you. It will not be the last. I love love love the way you narrate these facts
Well thank you! Hope you enjoy my other stuff.
Although not shown in the movie, one of the reasons they lost was because half their force never got involved. The general in command of the second Impi had been against crossing the Buffalo River and refused to let his warriors fight at Rorke's Drift. He also didn't like the Prince who commanded the first Impi and figured that if he lost, he would be disgraced.
Great video! Never wargamed Rorke's Drift but wargamed Isandlwana as the British once-did not go well lol
Colour Sgt. Bourne "It's a miracle", Lieutenant Chard " If it's a miracle Colour Sergeant, it's a short chamber Boxer Henry point 45 caliber miracle." Colour Sgt. Bourne "And a bayonet, Sir, with some guts behind it." The troops at the time of the battle of Rorke's Drift were issued with the breach loading Martini Henry single action rifle, not a musket. Other than that your eloquent rendition of the battle is very much appreciated.
Colour Sergeant Frank Edward Bourne depicted in the film did not get a VC instead he got a Queen`s Commission eventually reaching the rank of Lieutenant-Colonel, he served in World War 1 and retired from the Army with an OBE and a DCM, he died in 1945 aged 91 on the 8th of May which just happened to be VE Day, RIP Colour Sergeant Bourne and God bless you. Oh and as Michael Caine might have said not a lot of people know that.
Oh and what was the name of the first Zulu killed at Rorke`s Drift ? It was Will just after the officer ordered the men to fire at will.
This guy is gunning for an Academy Award in acting.
it's a shame more viewers don't leave a like. This is good stuff ! BTW, I just subscribed, too !
You keep signing off with your most humble and obedient of servants, am I supposed to challenge you to a duel ?
Pistols at dawn
I'd be up for that.
He just likes to pretend he’s the Phantom of the Opera
But he never says "I have the honnor..."
@@oz_jones Battle axes at forty fathoms.
If you think this battle seems like historical fantasy, you should read the accounts on the battle of Bicocca. I'll just mention that it was a battle in the Italian wars fought between Spain (won) and France, and that even today in Spanish we call "Bicocca" to an easy to obtain prize.
Excellent presentation!
The traditional view is to not consider Rorke's Drift the outlier and have to explain it. The history of warfare would indicate that you can do many things wrong and still win a battle as long as you do one or two things right. Rarely does anyone fight the "Perfect Battle". At both Islandlwana and in the First Boer war the British did nothing right.
When you described the need for reserve forces at 22:47 it reminded me of when Austria went up against Frederick the Great's much smaller army, and thought "His favourite strategy is to outflank his enemy, so we'll deploy our entire reserves so our line will be too wide to outflank!" Which may have made sense given they had twice his numbers. But when the mist finally cleared on the day they found the Prussian army deployed entirely on their flank (left if I remember correctly).
And that's why you always keep a reserve.
Similar to Gamelin running the French Armee in 1940. He moved "the reserve" into Belgium leaving no significant unit to plug the hole once the Germans broke through at Sedan.
wow, great video! The diplomatic and foreign policy side was something I never even thought about!
I mean, this is the same reason why a single small tower house could hold up an entire army in the medieval period, fortifications are very hard to take as long as there are enough men to defend them. Small forts require few men to defend them, and can be shockingly tough nuts to crack. Even at battles like Thermopylae, another battle with seemingly nonsensical numbers, the Greek defenders make use of an old wall in the already naturally defensible pass and are able, at least for a time, to throw back enemy forces many times their size.
The same thing happened at the battle of Wizna in early September 1939. 720 polish soldiers held a line of small fortifications against a german force of 40,000 with tank and aircraft support. The poles held for 3 days before being overwhelmed.
That being said Rorke's Drift was not the naturally impregnable, perfect defensive position some people assume it was. Far from it
@Owen Jones Yeah at least not compared to the laager Camp at blood river
One of my favorite example is that of the Battle of Saragarhi fought in 1897 in Afghanistan. 21 British Indian soldier held out against 12,000-24,000 Pashtuns. While the Indians did eventually all fall they stalled the advance of the Pashtuns for long enough that reinforcements arrived at Fort Lockhart. The fort being the object of the Pashtun assault and which successfully repulsed the Pashtuns.
A good example of a tactical defeat but a strategic victory.
@@Bullet-Tooth-Tony- The defenders at Blood River had muzzle loading guns......no bayonets etc.....and wagons in a laager with thorn bush between them......one gun they had was called a ROER.......it was like a blunderbus with a huge barrel diam and could fire pieces of broken cooking pots etc......they have some in the Transvaal museum in Pretoria from that battle.
Yeah, Hook and Witt really got the short end of the stick in the film
Never understood Dabulamanzi's logic before; never thought of it before but I get his logic as a military man instead of a politician. It not only matches with how Isandlwana was won-Ntshingwayo acted on his own initiative as well-but also with Zulu tactical doctrine of pursuit and destruction. In most classical battles most casualties occur in the pursuit, and the Zulu practiced a relentless pursuit like the Romans and Macedonians to prevent further battles by wiping out the enemy entirely. Cestwayo was thinking in the larger political terms, but Dabulamanzi was thinking tactically.
Makes me wonder if Rorke's drift really settled anything; if the British had lost, that would have still outraged the men at home.
Ulundi is the only British victory in the war won without fortifications, with British squares supported by artillery and Gatling guns as well as a cavalry force all working in close concert. Every single other victory involved field fortifications of some kind and using terrain to dig in and nullify Zulu speed and numbers.
Excellent point about fatigue being a factor for both sides.
I kinda wish this film would be remade, and we'd get a look at Dabulamanzi's arc of pride and resentment to regret and horror. "What have I done" is the eternal sentiment of war's survivors, especially those who see defeat
Loved these videos, and it'd be nice someday to look at the use of fortifications in the American Revolution as tactical context: Savannah, Saratoga, Bunker Hill, Harlem Heights, etc.
Sadly if the movie was remade it'd be to busy being woke not good
@@skirk248 Or both? Both is always an option.
@@Tareltonlives adding woke tends to do more harm to the movies involved mote often then not
@@skirk248 I can't recall that ever happening
@@Tareltonlives birds of prey, wonder woman 1984, Charlie's angels, the last 2 terminator movies, ect
The Zulus most likely knew they wouldn't be able to stand up against a concerted British invasion but it's good you talked about this at the beginning and the trouble with the sortie on Rourkes Drift, even if the Zulus won that battle, it might have been even worse for them as a result.
They won because Sabaton wrote a song about them.
I had always thought that Rorkes Drift was on Zulu land and that it was like a staging supply line and medical post in enemy territory that was there to help the main invasion force, but because i assumed that, I never really looked deeper into it, it makes more since to me now that in the movie they where a bit surprised and unprepared.
M
Kk
Just stumbled across your videos. Love your style. Great video as well very informative.
This video made me realize I don’t know very much about warfare and how to conduct it, historically or modern. I would be annihilated against any commander.
Biggest rule. Enviornment and training.
Learn your weapon. Learn where you'll use your weapon.
Ambush. Repeatedly. Done.
Mujahadeen, Taliban, Al Qaeda, Vietnamese, Americans.
Use your enviornment or modify your enviornment in ways that only you would know. Win 6/10 times.
Joseph Nigel If I ever do lead an army in the field, I will keep that in mind. Thanks
I'm currently writting a book about Hungarian revolution and I'm trying to cover every aspect of it: military tactics, history, economics, politics and the context of geography and else. And I'm stunned at the level upon which people ridicule projects like this. They cover it up with simplified stories. Well, yesterday I spent an hour trying to explain the effect of the frost bite on the unpreppared Hungarian army with few supplies, tired and irritable, with no information about the geography of the area and the army they were facing. In short, Hungarian forces were decimated and many people died in and after the brutal and honestly depressing battle. Took me four full pages to explain the effect of the extreme cold(- 4 F= - 20 C) on these soldiers as to why did they die in such large numbers. The battle itself took me almost 20 pages and the aftermath another five. That number from hundreds of documents, thousands of pages of literature and many documentaries, not more than a hundred pages of my book so far. History needs to be written in it's entiriety, because if not you can miss the lesson from it and I hope there will be more channels like this one. Cheers, lad!
Can I read your book when it’s done?
How's your book going?
You should set up a Patreon, I would donate.
Came for the historical content, stayed for the theatrical delivery. Bravo, Bravo I say old chap!
The movie got a lot of things wrong for the sake of drama as most war films do but the one thing it did get right is Bromhead and Charles feeling shame at the end of the battle. Their conversation really sums up the correct attitude to war that we need to have
Because Colour Sergeant Bourne and his magnificent muttonchops held the line.
The real Colour Sergeant Bourne was only 24 at the time, he was the youngest NCO of his rank in the army, he was nicknamed the ‘Kid’ by the troops, he was also the last of the defenders to pass away, he died on May 8th 1945, VE Day.
@@corditekid1 yeah I know. He was a cool dude.
Unusually, he was clean-shaven. Almost every other man had some sort of facial hair, but Bourne did not. Shame he had to turn down the VC because it would have come with a a promotion to Lieutenant, which meant quartering himself, which he couldn't financially afford. A large number of the RD defenders tried finding ways around it and Bourne ultimately did get some special privileges because it revealed such a flaw in how the VC was awarded, but he had to accept the DCM.
I always wondered why the Colour Sgt. did not receive a VC. Now I know. Thank you. J.W.
I just found your channel, and I already like it. You've clearly done you research and know what you're talking about.
Plus I like the gamer reference:)
I always like to refer to the battle of Rorkes Drift as the British Thermopylae.
But even the Spartans lost!
@@garethg7111 Only after they were betrayed.
@@garethg7111 Why does no one ever mention the Thespians or Thebans who formed the larger part of those that stayed to fight at Thermopylae ?
@@bradmiller2329 The Spartans would have lost eventually though, I mean 1,700 versus 70,000 - 250,000 is absurd, but the three day last stand was quite something.
Part of my Regimental History, which was celebrated every year, by the Royal Regiment of Wales (Now sadly disbanded and merged with the Royal Welsh, I served with great pride with B Coy (Rorkes Drift) Company. More VC’s won in one battle than anytime since.
I have heard that most of the guys at Rorkes Drift were indeed Welsh. Good job making Owen Glyndwr and King Arthur proud!
@@Confederate-hj2dc Many of the soldiers of the junior battalion, the 2/24, were Welshmen. Of the 122 soldiers of the 24th Regiment (still an English regiment at the time ) present at the Battle of Rorke's Drift, 49 are known to have been of English nationality, 32 were Welsh, 16 were Irish, one was a Scot, and three were born overseas.
@@Confederate-hj2dc The SWB recruited on the borders between Wales and England, if I recall correctly, the percentage was higher on the English side for recruitment, at that time.
@@watchdog8891 ok. My bad.
@@Confederate-hj2dc all good :)
Though there were 1,800 men at Isandlwana camp, which was the Baggage Train of No3 Column, of these there were just 727 British, including 600 Infantrymen. So the battle was really between 600 British Infantry against an attacking force of 25,000 Zulu warriors. Though mistakes were made such as failing to circle the wagons it is hard to believe 600 Infantry with single-shot rifles would prevail against such a large force. At Rorke's Drift the troops had warning and were able to build barricades from which to defend the station. Though there were only 155 men (130 British) the defensive perimeter was small and more easily defended, also the soldiers had a good supply of ammunition prepared. It took a lot of guts to defend the station against 4,000 Zulu, but they knew that if they ran they would have soon have been overtaken and massacred. Zulu King Cetchwayo called the battles of Isandlwana and Rork's Drift a "spear through the heart of the nation" because of their heavy casualties.
They still possibly would have if the defensive lines were pulled in sooner to a much tighter perimeter. If Durnford didn't ride out chasing after Zulus then choose to defend a donga a mile out (obliging Pulleine to keep his infantry line out far) that would have been an additional 300 rifles. Durnford had around 250 armed riflemen, plus there were armed Colonials. The Natal Carbineers, Natal Mounted Police, Newcastle Mounted Rifles, Buffalo Border Guard which gave another 70 rifles then that's around 1,000 rifles, with the armed NNC men.
Its feasible this far more concentrated gunfire could have allowed the camp to hold out until Chelmsford returned.
@@lyndoncmp5751 The whole invasion of Zululand was on the sly without British Goverment knowledge. Bartle Frere acted on his own using local forces that were not trained to the same standard as British regulars, or had the same discipline. The only British regiment being the 24th Foot, and of those the 2/24th had literally just got off the boat from India. It was by definition a poorly led rushed expedition hoping to annex Zululand before the Government in England found out. Which I think was why so many mistakes were made. We can only speculate on how the battle would have been fought if it had been an official British army campaign.
Then how did the Emus win the Great Emu War?
I’m guessing that the Aussies forgot to research their red uniform tech. All that khaki made them look like emu food.
cos theyre fast as fuck boy
Superior strategy by Birdolini.
I know this is a joke comment, but having recently read up on the "Great" Emu War it's a question you can almost genuinly ask. Because it ends up being a genuinly interesting read on how much damage incompetence can cause. The Aussies had fucking machine guns! Mounted MGs! And they still couldn't effectively kill the birds! I genuinly reccomend anyone to read up on it because it's fucking fascinating to read from a genuinly military perspective and absolutely hilarious just as an event.
@@Rodoet001 The Emu commanders adopted effective guerilla tactics after the initial engagements.