>>221142240(OP) Even with guns this battle should’ve been a one sided stomp for the Zulus. All they had to do was run like two dozen meters once outside of cover, and even if it was a straight charge the British’s guns shouldn't of been able to fire enough times to stop them. Why are black bois so bad at war?
>>221142270 Blacks are naturally cowardly. The Zulus won their battles against the other tribes for three reasons:
1, they prioritized close quarters combat instead of flinging spears at long range. Prior to the Zulu way of war battles were essentially two mobs shouting at each other and throwing inaccurate projectiles long range. When guys with short spears run up to melee range, the tribal skirmishers were totally outmatched, they did not even know how to fight effectively in melee so the Zulus would win by default.
2, having the reserves look away from the battle so that they could not tell if they were winning or not. This was a massive change, because prior to this reserves would simply refuse to attack if they saw that their side was already losing, to avoid throwing good away after bad, as it were.
3: Encirclement. African tribal warfare tended to be two broad skirmishing groups without dedicated flank movements, the Zulus to their credit came up with an effective encirclement doctrine described in the film very well as the Bull Formation, with the two horns circling around the sides while the main body engaged from the front. This completely wrecked their tribal rivals and indeed had worked against the British before--but it wouldn't work against a fort in a narrow pass.
The British simply did not retreat when the Zulu charged, the combat did not devolve into a swirling melee massacre. The times the British were defeated were because they were caught in stupid positions and ended up stretched into a line while being outflanked as at Isandlwana. Rorke's Drift was the perfect defensive position to exploit both the Zulus' tactical weaknesses and the British Army's tactical advantages. Being forced to make a monofrontal attack against a fortified position of trained marksmen with bayonets and nowhere to retreat to, without even the room to outflank the defenders in the typical Zulu fashion.
00
Anonymous06/14/26(Sun)11:31:49
>>221142240(OP) these guys are dressed just like those nordic aliens trump was meeting yesterday
00
Anonymous06/14/26(Sun)11:33:20
>>221142270 Poor show from the cavalry who fled guys without guns and horses.
00
Anonymous06/14/26(Sun)11:37:23
>>221142270 Those stupid niggers didn't know what hit them
00
Anonymous06/14/26(Sun)11:38:59
>>221142240(OP) Why the sandbags? Did the Zulus have rifles?
00
Anonymous06/14/26(Sun)11:46:31
>>221142606 Don't know. Yes, they had some rifles. I think shorter range ones than the brits
00
Anonymous06/14/26(Sun)11:48:57
>>221142606 If they had time and mortar they'd have erected actual walls but they were operating on a strict timetable and so had to make do.
>>221142606 Even if you're not expecting to face gunfire, a sandbag wall can be useful. It breaks the momentum of the enemy charge, so that instead of instantly overrunning your position, the Zulus have to pause and climb over the wall before continuing on. Having a couple of extra seconds where each approaching Zulu is basically stationary gives you a massive advantage when you've got a gun.
>>221142547 Afrikaaners have had a bone to pick with England since the first Anglo set foot on the Cape. they wouldn't piss on an Englishman if he were on fire
00
Anonymous06/14/26(Sun)13:08:06
>>221142270 Its pretty nuts to think, even today, a small handful of whites could go conquer most any African country for the lulz.
00
Anonymous06/14/26(Sun)13:25:31
>>221143338 It'd be a lot more difficult today because they have about 10x the population they did back then due to improvements in medicine and technology from the west, and they also have soviet arms like AKs from the cold war, which, while outdated, are definitely better than spears. And then of course consider all the illegal arms dealers who would be happy to give them even better shit.
They'd still get BTFO by krakkkaz, but it wouldn't be as bad as it was back then.
00
Anonymous06/14/26(Sun)13:37:40
Dishonest movie uses cinematic tricks to fool you into thinking that was a stroke of tactical genius they cooked up in the last moment, when it would have been a thing that they had trained since the beginning. It is manipulative and insults the intelligence of the viewer.
>>221142270 >>221142371 You guys realise the Britishers lost the battle that led up to this one, despite having an actual army last time? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Isandlwana
>>221145669 It screeches ineffectively in its master's tongue
00
Anonymous06/14/26(Sun)16:03:25
>>221145669 India doesn't even exist other than by the grace of the British showing up and freeing the unwashed, helpless peoples of the region from the muslims Put your jam on before you speak to me, boy
00
Anonymous06/14/26(Sun)16:04:19
>>221142240(OP) >Using dress uniforms instead of service uniforms Even that parody skit in Monthy Python got it right.
00
Anonymous06/14/26(Sun)16:07:31
>>221142270 Africans have an average IQ of 68. They literally can not comprehend that the noisy sticks that the White men were carrying were dangerous weapons.
>>221142270 The Battle of Rorke's Drift is NOTHING compared to the Battle of Blood River.
00
Anonymous06/14/26(Sun)16:09:37
>>221142240(OP) I'll never forgive the british for giving up their Empire.
00
Anonymous06/14/26(Sun)16:11:37
>>221145877 >200 servants their broken bucks won that fight for them
00
Anonymous06/14/26(Sun)16:15:20
>>221145900 >giving up wasnt economically feasible
00
Anonymous06/14/26(Sun)16:25:36
>>221145877 >3 wounded wouldn't make for an engaging film thoughbeit. at least the rorke's drift guys took some casualties.
00
Anonymous06/14/26(Sun)16:31:20
>>221142532 >these guys are dressed just like those nordic aliens trump was meeting yesterday They were British Aliens then
00
Anonymous06/14/26(Sun)16:31:50
>>221145988 Oh yeah, because the pre-Thatcher crypto-commie years that followed were so fucking economically feasible, right? They sold the design of the Spitfire to Joseph Stalin for fucks sake.
00
Anonymous06/14/26(Sun)16:34:17
>>221146215 Clement Attlee was the best PM in British history by far.
>random african dude assumes power >revolutionizes warfare at the time by basically copying the roman legion despite being relatively isolated and having no real access to literature >goes batshit all over south africa >brothers get jealous and kill him >everything falls apart and whites make them slaves the assassination of shaka zulu is proof that the "crabs in a bucket" thing about black people is genetic
00
Anonymous06/14/26(Sun)16:44:02
>>221146249 No retard, he was a fucking traitor. The best PM in British history was Benjamin The Israeli.
00
Anonymous06/14/26(Sun)16:45:26
>>221146399 The bull prongs was actually used by Carthage to defeat the Romans first, so it's an African invention.
00
Anonymous06/14/26(Sun)16:47:56
>>221146399 >Shaka had made enough enemies among his own people to hasten his demise.[11] It came relatively quickly after the death of his mother, Nandi, in October 1827 and the devastation caused by Shaka's subsequent erratic behavior. According to Donald Morris, Shaka ordered that no crops should be planted during the following year of mourning, no milk (the basis of the Zulu diet at the time) was to be used, and any woman who became pregnant was to be killed along with her husband. At least 7,000 people who were deemed to be insufficiently grief-stricken were executed, although the killing was not restricted to humans; cows were slaughtered so that their calves would know what losing a mother felt like.[19] He might have had it coming
>>221145900 They had no choice after 2 brutal world wars. They had also spent a lot of time training and educating their subjects, particularly in India, and conscripted them for the war. The jeets felt they were owed independence, and they weren't wrong. There was absolutely no way they were going to keep India, and if they couldn't keep India then who really gives a fuck about the rest. The African colonies were hardly even worth it in the first place.
>>221147365 Not to be confused with the cow dung god.
00
Anonymous06/14/26(Sun)19:16:01
>>221146478 >the difference between fiction and reality is that fiction has to be believable
00
Anonymous06/14/26(Sun)19:53:49
why did i not hear of this movie until i saw it on 4chan
00
Anonymous06/14/26(Sun)20:21:18
>>221143511 None of that matters because what would kill the whites is what killed them in the 60s: politics and the media.
00
Anonymous06/14/26(Sun)20:41:55
>>221146478 Jesus...I knew he was an asshole but I didn't know he was a fucking maniac
00
Anonymous06/14/26(Sun)20:53:49
>>221143338 >Its pretty nuts to think, even today, a small handful of whites could go conquer most any African country for the lulz. it's pretty nuts to be this delusionally retarded when the americans did this 35 years ago and got shit on in a very public manner by somalians