Did the British really 'win' Rorke's Drift?

[@BrandonF]

Thank you again to Skillshare for sponsoring this video! The first 1,000 people to use my referral link will get a one-month free trial of Skillshare: skl.sh/brandonf08211

[@Ewperty]

Maybe

[@fredrickii4732]

maybe

[@robertrayes4566]

sellout smh

[@_0_restart_0_]

Naybe

[@andrewphillips8341]

Get stuffed!

[@atomicexistentialism8428]

It was an important victory because the army doesn't like more than one disaster in a day. Look's bad in the newspapers and upsets civilians at their breakfasts.

[@winstonchurchill1787]

I like your style sir

[@billylauwda9178]

@@winstonchurchill1787 that is stalin's stache

[@winstonchurchill1787]

@@billylauwda9178 and?

[@billylauwda9178]

@@winstonchurchill1787 a *glorious* stache

[@russellcollins52]

That is a quote from the movie

[@SRP3572]

They won the battle. They maintained their position and caused their attackers to retreat from the field of battle. It's still stunning that they even made it.

[@twoscarabsintheswarm9055]

And inflicted pretty one sided casualties

[@coling3957]

ONLY the British could have done this.. the Prussians had the report of the engagement read out to all their troops as an example of superb soldiering and junior officers leadership. 100 vs 4000 is astounding by any means

[@theodoresmith5272]

The British won. That isn't a question. That it was a suprise isnt.. The boars had figured out years before to lager there wagons together into a tight formation with earthworks like a fort when in camp and do it every night. They had fought the Zulu off heavily outnumbered several times in the past doing that. They told the British to do it to make camps but they didnt listen. It cost them at more then islanwana as 1 other smaller group was wiped out camping on a river and a pretty large force almost wiped out on a bluff they thought they were amushing the Zulu but it was a trap. The problem for the Zulu was 3 fold. Even in victory they often took heavy casualties. They couldnt siege forever when they did corner the British in 2 places. The Zulu generals decide to attack fixed defenses at those seiges and got beaten back badly. That was basically the war.

[@declanroberts8934]

@@theodoresmith5272 kind of reminds me of the Romans who built heavy encampments after each march. When your fighting against guerilla warfare with more conventional forces its the best and only way of maintaining superiority otherwise your fighting an enemy on their terms.

[@DaReaperZ]

@@coling3957 Don't be silly, plenty of others could have and have done the same. One example coming to mind, the Voortrekkers at the Battle of Blood River. The Voortrekkers were fighting from a wagon fort being attacked by Zulu warriors, they suffered 3 wounded for more than 3000 killed after breaking out of the wagon fort to chase down fleeing Zulu.

[@sirderam1]

I think being outnumbered 40 to 1, and still being alive at the end of the battle, pretty much counts as a victory.

[@krixpop]

beats even Thermopylae in terms of ,number-odds . - -but, but the Brits had rifles ... -so did the Zulus ! -Zulus had no proper training in using rifles ! -exactly ...

[@sirderam1]

@Prkau telek But the Zulus had more guns than the British - they just weren't as good at using them.

[@zombieguns3773]

Might as well be

[@haraldisdead]

Only Brandon F would call Verdun "one of these new fangled styles of battle."

[@Basilmoment]

He's probably a vampire. Let's be real.

[@ianmacfarlane1241]

The Zulu simply wanted to hear Men of Harlech, so they clearly achieved their main objective.

[@michaelsommers2356]

The movie Zulus may have achieved that goal, but the real-life Zulus did not, since that scene was entirely made up.

[@ianmacfarlane1241]

@@michaelsommers2356 I know.

[@ianmacfarlane1241]

@@michaelsommers2356 Next you'll be telling me that Stanley Baker, Michael Caine and Jack Hawkins weren't really there either.

[@michaelsommers2356]

@@ianmacfarlane1241 I would never suggest such a thing. That would be heresy.

[@thefrenchareharlequins2743]

It certainly is an improvement over their top tenors.

[@thepuffin4050]

When do we get a video about a certain Prussian army in a certain wheat field? No I haven't forgotten it Brandon.

[@blockmasterscott]

You lost me on this one. Which battle was it?

[@thepuffin4050]

@@blockmasterscott it's a reference to some previous Napoleon: Total War streams where someone suggested Brandon make the Prussians fight in a wheatfield, at least I think that's how it went

[@blockmasterscott]

@@thepuffin4050 Ahhh ok, thanks!

[@amandajones8841]

It's only Victory if it's in Portsmouth Historic Dockyard. Otherwise, it's just sparkling military success.

[@TheInsaneCommander]

I imagine a lot of the negative comments come because of the mentality that Rorke's Drift were a battle between the "Evil Western Colonizers" and the Native Zulus. And all matters related to colonialism must allways be viewed with a moral lense according some, even where it doesn't make sense...

[@allangibson2408]

Without consideration that the Zulus were colonists as well…

[@coling3957]

without the consideration the Zulus were a militaristic conqueror too. the British didn't march a regiment over a cliff just to prove their discipline ... in fact Zululand essentially kept on going, without the militarism. Ceteshwayo was still king, and in fact had been taken to London where he was lionised and met Queen Victoria as well as ministers from govt to discuss their future within the British Empire.

[@Azdaja13]

Basically those comments translate to: "Ree! I don't like the British so I'm going to fanfiction a means by which I can say the Zulus won so there, aha!" Funnily enough, that Goebbels comment may be a slight bit of projection given how deceptive it is...

[@Azdaja13]

I just thought about this some more. There's a subtext to them of holding the Zulus to a much lower standard than the British, like they're trying to find excuses to have them win anyway even though they objectively didn't. It comes off as a little bit... racially patronising, which is interesting because I imagine these people to be the sorts who would claim to be against that sort of behaviour, especially with how righteously outraged they seem to be.

[@Pooknottin]

Don't post those ruddy comments at me. ;P

[@odysseusrex5908]

@@Azdaja13 Those people always practice the soft bigotry of low expectations.

[@Tareltonlives]

I've always considered that odd since the Zulu completely destroyed a much larger British force a few hours earlier. It's basically playing into the hands of British propagandists by focusing on the secondary battle instead of the one that decided Chemsford's first push

[@Pooknottin]

@@Tareltonlives There's little reason in bigotry.

[@ethanmeiring7128]

With that comment dispute, it’s almost like people don’t watch the video but see the title and think they know what he says

[@RobertGrif]

Ah, the things people do when blinded by ideology

[@moritamikamikara3879]

We won as soon as they engaged. Regardless of whether or not Rorke's drift was wiped out or not, the British public had their propaganda that gave them reason to support throwing another army into Zululand rather than accepting the victory they had at Isandlwana and leaving alone for a while. As soon as the Zulus attacked Rorke's drift, they'd already lost.

[@Tareltonlives]

Exactly. That's what Cestwayo was so adamant about the Zulu army fighting defensively. He envisioned a guerilla campaign ceding ground but raiding British supply lines. A field battle was costly. Isandlwana was fought because Ntshingwayo saw no other way to force an engagement before it got too far, and he needed a victory to negotiate with the British with. He achieved his objective with great but acceptable cost. Taking Rorke's Drift may have added to Zulu prestige, but by going on the offensive completely undermined Cestwayo's political aims.

[@blockmasterscott]

@@Tareltonlives Wow, I never knew this!

[@coling3957]

the British govt did not support the invasion of Zululand , in fact a Royal Commission had only shortly before sided with the Zulu king over incursions into Natal. it was the governor of the Cape Colony and Lord Chelmsford ( army commander ) who wanted a war.. Chelmsford led THREE columns into Zululand, then split his main column to go searching for the Zulus. the ones left back at the base camp were those overwhelmed at Islandawana .. Chelmford's column , and the other 2 divisions then withdrew. the British lost about 15 00 men , including Natal contingents, irregulars etc as well as 24th regiment infantrymen.. the Zulus lost considerably more men. and were pretty traumatised by the battle.. when the British reformed and attacked again, learning all their lessons pretty quickly, they had a crushing victory ay Ulundi , where perhaps 30 000 zulus were killed.

[@Tareltonlives]

@@coling3957 The central villain was Frere, who invented excuses for war to the point of pretty much lying. He wanted more and more of South Africa. This eventually backfired when he ran up against an enemy who had equivalent technology. The First Boer war was abject humilation and Frere was finally sacked.

[@odysseusrex5908]

Interesting analysis. Similar to Little Big Horn then.

[@88porpoise]

While there is a ton of grey area in victory vs defeat. Particularly at the tactical vs strategic levels and when objectives of the two sides are not mutually exclusive. But Rourke's Drift seems like an absurd battle to try to make a point on. The British clearly won tactically, by holding their ground and driving off the Zulus while the Zulus failed at destroying the British force, and strategically, the Zulus were driven off and a big morale value generated for the upcoming invasion of Zululand.

[@coogrfan]

I'm pretty sure the survivors of B Co., 2nd Battalion, 24th Reg't of Foot considered not being slaughtered to be a victory.

[@vintageadventure-l6m]

You are absolutely correct. Wars and battles are all about objectives. If you achieve your objectives, you win. Their objective was to survive and they did. So yeah, they won.

[@ChristheRedcoat]

23:30 Someone please GIF this.

[@alexmanfred]

This is what I like about your channel: You get confronted with a topic you have never thought of and leave with having learnt something. Nice work.

[@lukedelport8231]

Good day sir i was wondering if you would ever make a video about each class of ships in the napoleonic wars

[@BrandonF]

ooh that would definitely be a fun one!

[@watchface6836]

Maybe a potential crossover between Brandon and Drachinifel

[@phantomJK]

@@watchface6836 was exactly what i was thinking

[@bofoenss8393]

And trying to fit the USN frigates into the Royal Navy rating system and type classification would be a fun chaos to watch :)

[@sirderam1]

@@bofoenss8393 I've always felt that the big American frigates fulfilled the basic criteria of the more modern Cruiser class of ships. That is: powerful enough to outfight anything they couldn't outrun, and fast enough to outrun anything they couldn't outfight.

[@TheLesserWeevil]

My pre-watch prediction: The British objective was to survive, which they did, making it a British victory. More importantly, the army doesn't like more than one disaster in a day.

[@zacharyhobia159]

were you right?

[@liamw6562]

Looks bad in the newspapers

[@guardman6806]

And upsets civilians at their breakfast

[@comradebraveheart7218]

As you said early in the video, i can’t believe it was actually necessary to explain this. Still very enjoyable and informative of course. Great video.

[@simonsimons1252]

It was a victory for the (insanely brave) men that lived to tell the tale of it. It didn't go like the movie, but I'm pretty sure even the Zulus (brave at Rorke's too) had respect for the British here.

[@paulmckearney4945]

It probably went pretty much like the movie, apart from the singing and final assault at the end.

[@thehulkster9434]

I think a lot of comments are misunderstanding what a win is in a defensive battle. In defending a garrison point, particularly one of strategic value (I don't know the campaign/war enough to know the strategic value of Rorke's drift), victory is not killing all the enemies, it's simply holding the position, and usually just long enough for a relief force to arrive. It doesn't really matter the losses on either side, or the reason for the enemy withdrawal, if you still hold the position when the enemy is gone, you won the defensive engagement.

[@zacharyhobia159]

TBF, most of us are Americans, we kind of forgot what a victory is

[@benholroyd5221]

Sure you do. George Bush. 'Mission Accomplished'...

[@totalwar1793]

K/D above 5:1 means winning right? It’s not like war is ‘politics through other means’ or anything like that!

[@bofoenss8393]

Being Danish, we are literally only taught about defeats in school. And yet we have had plenty of victories - and great ones at that - through history, but we are only allowed to dwell at our failures. Even in films and TV, we only make productions about defeats. We are not allowed to feel victorious. It's like a national fetish, a culture of masochistic defeatism.

[@renngretsch]

@@bofoenss8393 Danes are not losers! They always bring home the bacon!

[@A_Person7307]

@@bofoenss8393 We talk more about victories in the U.S then defeats. I am surprised that Denmark does that.

[@danstrickland8908]

Helpful translation of the “sports reference”. It’s a football (soccer) term referring to tournament football. The teams involved play at each other’s stadiums (“home” when playing at your own stadium, and “away” when playing at the other teams). The winner is the team that wins on aggregate scoring (if you win the first match 1-0 but lose the second 0-2, then the aggregate score is 1-2 to the opposing team and they go through). If the score is tied at the end of the two fixtures, then the team that scored more goals “away” will go through - eg if your “home” game finished 1-1 and your “away” game finished 2-2, then the aggregate score is 3-3 but you would go through because you scored more goals “away” than your opponent. Therefore his reference is that a score draw away is still a draw, but with a net positive result as you now have some away goals which could end up significant at the end of the round.

[@WarlordWulf]

It's been so many years! The great one has returned!

[@openshutterfilms]

That was very intresting, some people just make very little sense with those comments, great to see you take them apart and it made for a brilliant video

[@grapeshot]

There is such a thing as a pyrrhic victory after all the British did win the Battle of Bunker Hill but they suffer such heavy casualties. General Howe said any more victories like this and it will ruin us. And many British soldiers admire the bravery of the Zulus and in that battle many admitted that if the Zulus had been British many of them would have won the Victoria Cross.

[@stamfordly6463]

There is such a thing as a pyrrhic victory... but this wasn't one of them because at the end of the day the garrison's losses weren't incapacitating. An example of a pyrrhic victory would be the Charge of the Light Brigade, they achieved their objective but not only were they no longer an effective brigade afterwards but they didn't achieve the correct objective.

[@kchishol1970]

Definitely about the Zulus' opinions: as much as they were the enemy, they were impressed at how disciplined the British soldiers were in battle. "They stood their ground like stones." was apparently a common observation.

[@JJfromPhilly67]

"Yes, you silly person of course they did." Love it!

[@gavving8364]

Exactly, YOU now agree that the British/Canadian forces won the War of 1812! President Madison specified to Congress what the war would achieve if they won. Unfortunately for President Madison, the Treaty of Ghent did not address any of three American objects of the war!

[@themistva]

if the British did not accomplish their objectives it was not a british victory, and they seemed to think they did not accomplish their objectives

[@steveramsey7983]

@@themistva there was no British objective! The Canadians were defending their country! They prevented the Americans from stealing Canada!

[@themistva]

@@steveramsey7983 the war started because of the British disrupting American trade with France as well as impressing sailors into the royal navy. the objective was not to seize canada but to stop those things from happening

[@glynquigley7278]

On the whole I fully agree with you Brandon, the Battle of Rorkes's Drift was a British victory. I am astonished that anyone can call it otherwise. There is however one aspect where the victory did significantly and negatively affect the war effort for the British. The use of the reserve ammunition (almost all of the 20.000 rounds held there were firerd) that added to the wagons of ammunition lost at Isanbhlwana meant that the remnants of No 3 Column were down to 70 rounds a man and could not take any part of the ongoing war..

[@bofoenss8393]

Seriously, I love your definition and it fits well and proper. And considering how a lot of people bicker back and forth about "true" victory or how a conflict was won even without any objectives achieved - and with the enemy achieving most, if not all of their objectives - is astounding and mindblowing. Take the War of 1812, for example. I would love you to try and define the victor in that conflict given the premises and objectives when it started. But you will rarely hear anyone acknowledging anything less than their own side winning... And I am not just looking at the Americans going "New Orleans! So we won the war (where we failed to invade Canada twice, although it was our original objective)", but the British and Canadians as well.

[@wayneantoniazzi2706]

The War of 1812 ended when both sides came to the realization of "What the hell did we get into, and how do we stop it?" A pity the First World War didn't end that way.

[@bofoenss8393]

@@wayneantoniazzi2706 That is kind of true, but since the British didn't want a war in the first place and the American politicians wanted to "liberate" Canada which didn't happen, one could argue Britain and Canada won because they denied USA the annexation of Canada and they had just wanted to end the war all the time. USA wanted Canada, didn't get it, so didn't fulfill their objective.

[@wayneantoniazzi2706]

@@bofoenss8393 Did the US really want Canada? That's something historians have been kicking around for years. Why invade Canada when the US had more territory in 1812 than it knew what to do with? AND the fact that Canada was loaded with Roman Catholics which many of the American Protestant governing class had no use for. It made no sense. The only logical reason would have been to hold Canada hostage until American demands were met. Long story short, the US invaded Canada and couldn't take it and hold it. The British made forays into US territory and didn't stay. Eventually the British lost control of the Great Lakes and the war along the US/Canada border settled into a stalemate. It's been suggested, and it's probably true, that had the Atlantic (telegraph) cable existed in 1812 the war might have been avoided, but of course it didn't exist and wouldn't for another 50 years. We also have to throw in the Anglophobia of the Jefferson and Madison administrations as well. When the war of the French Revolution began Presidents Washington and then Adams took the realistic (Federalist) view that the British navy owned the Atlantic Ocean, and rather than antagonize the Brits the smart thing to do was reach an accord, which they did. As soon as Jefferson came into office all that went out the window and it was all downhill from there. The Democratic-Republican party (That's what they called it back then) anti-British ideology of Jefferson and Madison won out over a realistic world-view and the results weren't good. When it comes to foreign policy ideology should stop at the water's edge. See the world as it IS, not as you'd like it to be.

[@wayneantoniazzi2706]

Oh boy, this was worth the wait! LOVE the backdrop and the piano arrangement of "Men of Harlech" as the closing music! (Couldn't help but sing along!) I got some laughs out of this one too! Now, that being said, of COURSE Rorke's Drift was a British victory. Prince Dabulamanzi exceeded his orders (Fine if you can pull it off, but if you don't...) attacked what he thought would be a push-over garrison, and retired from the field with several hundred of his men dead for no purpose and the garrison intact. That's a win for the Brits anyway you look at it. Look, one side attacks, the other side holds, and holds, and holds, and the attackers withdraw without achieving the goal. You doubters tell me who won and who lost. And if Prince D had won, THAT would have been a "Pyhrric Victory." Would losing several hundred men to kill 120 have been worth the effort? I don't think so. At any rate, I'm more than sure Prince D had a lot of 'splainin' to do when he reported to King Chetswayo. He's lucky it wasn't Shaka, Shaka would have killed him personally for being such an idiot. Shaka Zulu didn't suffer fools gladly, and that's putting it mildly!

[@chriswinks9811]

I haven't seen you in a while, good to see you here and again with some sound content

[@kchishol1970]

Thank you. By that definition, Britain /Canadian colonies definitely won the War of 1812 against the U. S. although the First Nations definitely lost as well.

[@5h0rgunn45]

Wait, there are people who think the British didn't win at Rorke's Drift? How? Are they trying to decolonise history or something?

[@allangibson2408]

Without regards for the fact that the Zulu were a conquering power that engaged in genocide…

[@nonya1366]

"You call that a victory? It was clearly a victory at best!"

[@bruceismay5440]

Ah finally another video, this rorkes drift thing is turning into a mini series

[@adamgati6264]

I find these videos informative. I appreciate how historical events and their relevant contexts are digested and presented with minimal bias. Stay the course and don't wade too deeply in the dross of youtube comments.

[@randomobserver8168]

Hey, in a defensive action against odds like that, holding the position until the enemy spots the relief column is practically the battle of Cannae for the Carthaginians.

[@stevenlowe3026]

In Viking times a battle was usually regarded as victorious if your side had possession of the field at the end of the fighting. There are any number of examples of "lost" battles that led to strategic victories - the Alamo for example, where Santa Ana's army was held up long enough for the Texans to marshal their forces. The fighting withdrawal on the Kokoda track in New Guinea where, despite losing a number of indiviual engagements the Australians held the Japanese long enough that they were exhausted, debilitated and starving by the time they were in sight of their goal of Port Moresby and had to withdraw, losing huge numbers of their own army during the retreat. The siege of fort St Elmo in Malta in 1565 - a tiny fort with weak walls that was expected to fall in 5 days, held out for a month, and the Ottomans expended huge resources of men and materials before finally capturing it, and were unable to take the *main* forts of Malta, so had to give up and go home, after suffering huge losses. So a "lost" battle can actually win a war. And don't forget Pyrrhus, whose victory against the Romans was so costly he had to abandon his campaign.

[@johnnotrealname8168]

Brandon philosophising War makes my head rack.

[@rupertthedrone4717]

What if the battle never even happened? The British made it up to cover up the fact they got drunk, wasted a bunch of ammo and partially destroyed some buildings? The zulus never even existed

[@spiffygonzales5160]

Honestly glad he referenced Clauswitz for the definition. The guy is unmatched in millitary philosophy.

[@olivercuthbert1321]

A fantastic video as always sir! Keep up the good work. Have a good day/night. 💂🏻‍♀️😃

[@fredrickii4732]

Thank you for the content, Mr. F! Is that a new camera?

[@BrandonF]

No, I've had this one for a good while.

[@fredrickii4732]

@@BrandonF Oh, forgive me, my lord.

[@RobertGrif]

So Frederick II is calling Brandon "My Lord". It's official, Brandon is the Holy Roman Emperor!

[@polygonalfortress]

god save our good emperor!

[@JD-mf9cv]

Another great video. Thank you. And thank you for those people who comment on matters they clearly have no idea on. Made me chuckle... Keep up the fine work Brandon, always interesting. J.

[@Schattengewaechs99]

Great content as always! This time I also enjoyed the editing.

[@DrNickAG]

Came for the pedantry. Stayed for the sarcasm. Example example of what to do with negative and unconstructive comments. Use them to make more content without having to do any work!

[@Fusilier7]

This is an classic example of "Moving the goalposts", if at first you don't succeed, redefine "Success". By the way, the British had an Roark's Drift during the American War of Independence, the Cliveden house during the Battle of Germantown, on 4 October 1777. 120 British soldiers of 40th foot, and some light companies, where cut off and surrounded by a surprise Continental attack, sought shelter in a stone house owned by Chief Justice Benjamin Chew, for hours the Continentals charged the British position, taking heavy casualties, but the stone house withstood shot and shell, and the British counterattacked relieving the garrison, and Germantown was definitely a British victory.

[@wayneantoniazzi2706]

The difference between Rorke's Drift and Germantown is I doubt anyone here questions the fact Germantown was a British victory, although for a while it was a close-run thing. Anyway, as the saying goes "Close only counts with horseshoes and hand grenades."

[@micahistory]

I can't believe people seriously argue that someone didn't win because they don't like that side

[@sirfox950]

Brandon is back, HUZZA!!!

[@alancrane4693]

Bravo more 👏 more 👏. Brandon sir another great lesson.

[@reaver1414]

At the start of the video I gave my definition of a victory and then you gave the exact same definition word for word.... great minds 👍

[@davehopkin9502]

At the time the importance of Rorkes Drift was hugely magnified by the British press to divert attention from Chelmsfords utter disaster the previous day (Chelmsford was highly connected socially and politically) and it was important to extoll the virtue of the Zulu Arny and to blame the ammo boxes. So a relatively unimportant engagement at the Drift was portrayed as a hugely significant victory for domestic reasons

[@wayneantoniazzi2706]

Chelmsford was connected, no doubt about it, but after the Zulu War he never held another field command, which tells you what the British Army really thought about his command abilities. He did manage to pull off the victory at Ulundi which ended the war before Sir Garnet Wolseley showed up to relieve him, but he was relieved just the same.

[@The_13th_Hussar]

21:25 I don't see how letting your enemy retreat prevents a victory, the union army didn't pursue the confederates after Gettysburg but I'm pretty sure they still won.

[@Lee_Enfield95]

Even though that Movie is a Movie, it did a good job showing the desperation and idea of an overwhelming force near exhausting the defenders. thanks for continuing to address this subject. will you review the movie?

[@pablojn4826]

A blessing of our Lord Brandon! Huzzay!

[@tb1271]

For the people saying that the British did not win at RD my questions for them is... What would a British victory have been? What objective would they have needed to have met to class it as a victory? Also, the battle of Isandlwana could be classed as a pyrrhic victory for the Zulus. As winning there guaranteed that the British would return with overwhelming force and destroy the Zulus. Isandlwana turned the Anglo-Zulu War from a low importance imperial border dispute to a war of national pride and revenge.

[@tabletopgeneralsde310]

Great video Brandon, keep these troll at the door steps. You are doing very well, thanks for your work.

[@Dreadnought586]

He is back!!!!

[@shayneloeung4182]

Omg he uploaded I been wait so long I got worried

[@micahistory]

It's a clear cut victory for the British. This is quite evident, even more so given the odds

[@sanjivjhangiani3243]

An example of war being holistic might be McClellan's victory at Antietam. It was not a crushing victory militarily; Lee withdrew with his forces intact. But politically, it was the turning point of the Civil War because it enabled Lincoln to publish the Emancipation Proclamation. That was the political turning point of the war. After that, the South lost any hope of European support.

[@DavidisWarpd]

Clear and fair definition of victory which applies in all circumstances across all battles.

[@hadesdogs4366]

Another example would be say The rear guard who’s mission is to delay the enemy for as long as possible ie again Dunkirk where French forces and British forces stalled the Germans long enough for the rest of the allied forces to evacuate

[@cdub668]

never stop

[@James-en1ob]

Nice background! : )

[@jonoxes8662]

The only way you can argue that the British "didn't win" is asking, can you really win a one sided massacre. It's more of a philosophical question than anything. But both sides were fighting, and laying down to die isn't really an option.

[@TobiasBroad]

Who in the hell gains any benefit from from denying the British victory at Rorke’s Drift in this day and age?!?!

[@fullsuit6711]

When I looked at my notifications and saw a strapping young lad in such a dapper uniform I thought to myself who could this be and then in reading the title instantly knew that a profile picture had been changed!

[@hardalarboard8876]

A NEW VIDEO!

[@martinsto8190]

4:05 reminds me of the first Ironclad battle in the American civil war where the Union wanted to stop the South from destroying more of their ships, while the Confederates wanted to keep the north from blockading the enterance of the bay.

[@geraldpfeffer]

This is interesting. I have always thought of it as the victor is the last one on the field once the battle is over, whether that means the other side surrendered, died, or something else. That doesn't however mean you can't successfully accomplish your goals without winning. Your objective simply doesn't require you to win the battle. Perhaps you are doing a scorched earth thing, and luring the enemy forces deep within Russia, just in time for them to have few supplies, and winter to come. You may have lost a lot of battles, but you still accomplished your objectives.

[@Highice007]

"A victory that effectedly ended their campain." Sounds like the battle of Jutland.

[@imperialcommisar5279]

VICTORY ONLY COMES IN SERVICE TO THE EMPEROR, NOTHING ELSE

[@ryangrider9607]

Proof that some people will argue over anything, geez.

[@MrMrsmijj]

I think kill ratio says a lot. Losses always tell eventually. A strategic win with heavy losses has its own consequences. Loss of manpower, experience, material, moral, etc. Russia might be the exception, those guys just soak up bullets then send in more.

[@philwilson4167]

How was this even a debate?? Seems like the comments were from people who dislike the British desperately trying to make excuses to claim they lost. It was a victory on the day, and even more so when looking at the bigger picture. Zulu's lost a large number of men attacking a relatively insignificant target, men who could have been used in later battles. It also provided a welcome distraction after the disaster that was Isaldwana, gave the British troops a huge morale boost, and provided a positive spin for folks back home so that they continued to be in favour of the campaign.

[@richardelliott9511]

I am amazed at the ferocity of this comment section. As to the question Brandon poses, I'm sure it will be debated long past my caring, but to be sure, if the outcome had been different Africa and perhaps the world might well be a very different place today. Good work Brandon, keep us thinking.

[@charleslathrop9743]

Brandon, Brandon, Brandon. The first objective of war in this period is to *let the British win.* See, they achieved their objective.

[@Woody-mu6hr]

One of my greatest personal victorys was capturing that blasted coward Charles Lee

[@wayneantoniazzi2706]

And you didn't do us any favors by giving him back! Mind you, I wouldn't call Charles Lee a coward, but he WAS an incompetant charlatan!

[@JJfromPhilly67]

And we wish you had kept him.

[@charlesdexterward4726]

This video's editing was far better than that of the last few Episodes.

[@BrandonF]

What did you like about this one over the others? Still trying to refine a 'style' with my editors!

[@wayneantoniazzi2706]

@@BrandonF I thought the camerawork was very well done, rock steady and a good simulation of speaking to a classroom of very engaged students. No useless zooming in and out, except for where it counted. The zoom in for the punch line: "Yes! They DO!" Brilliant! That floored me! A good basic rule of thumb as far as camera work is concerned is don't have the camera do anything the eye doesn't do. An occasional zoom for effect, OK, but don't over do it.

[@BrandonF]

@@wayneantoniazzi2706 Absolutely agree! We are definitely pushing for a 'less is more' approach now, though I suspect it will take a few videos to get right. Feedback is always welcomed!

[@wayneantoniazzi2706]

@@BrandonF Thanks Brandon! One thing I forgot to add, I loved that effect of the tapestry waving in a slight breeze, very nicely done! Just enough to be effective, but not distracting.

[@BrandonF]

@@wayneantoniazzi2706 Oh, that wasn't an effect- the tapestry was really behind me! But I was standing a little close to it, so whenever my arm went back it bumped against it, causing the flutter.

[@suchasillygoober1234]

One thing i wanted to say about your carolean video, the caroleans held there musket in there other hand while charging with rappiers.

[@pablojn4826]

They probably hang their muskets to their backs with the musket strap, though he admits that he isn't an expert in that matter.

[@Hendricus56]

I seriously doubt that. It would result in you not being able to use either weapon properly

[@suchasillygoober1234]

They did duel wield it, i have a reenactor friend that knows alot about the caroleans and he confirmed this.

[@Hendricus56]

@@suchasillygoober1234 he probably can provide sources then. Because a musket is to heavy and long to hold it with one hand and a rapier and still being able to use them properly. Either they charged with their muskets with bayonets or with rapiers, both doesn't make sense in any way, shape or form

[@Shadowace724]

Never underestimate the power of human stupidity. Any person perceiving the victory by the British as anything but is an idiot, plain and simple. Kudos to you for being as polite and understanding as you are in the face of sheer of idiocy.

[@friedwaldderlebendige8494]

love the pronounciation of clausewitz, is very... modern

[@03pn11]

Interesting definition. I've been trying to apply it to the battle of Thermopylae but can't decide who won.

[@Woody-mu6hr]

I need a Brandon F reaction to Saxons's "Thin red line"

[@jeremyszpicki491]

Victory is when (after a battle) you have men in the field alive, able to fight, and willing to fight. If your men live but have no will to fight, then you have lost.

[@filianablanxart8305]

Usually , but not necessarily . The ultimate factor is achieving the intended objectives , and surviving isn't necessarily one of them . As I mentioned in another comment , at the Battle of the Alamo resulted in 100% KIA for the Texas forces . But they were deliberately expendable , with the goal to delay the Mexican forces sufficiently to allow Texas forces time to consolidate to ultimately defeat the Mexicans , which they did .

[@cdcdrr]

From what little I know of the Zulu War, I can't really think of it as anything but a tragedy for the Zulus. They won at Isandlewana, but suffered worse in terms of human lives lost. They again lost more at Rorke's Drift and didn't achieve their goal of eliminating the post. And in the end, it didn't even prevent the British from taking over all of Zululand and taking their king prisoner. Only with the decline of imperialism have they achieved a moral victory, as a people who wouldn't meekly submit to the unacceptable demands from Britain, motivated by maniacal levels of national fervor to paint the map of Africa red. And I don't think the Zulus set out to inspire the future with their defiance of the British colossus, they wanted to save their nation from destruction. A goal they sadly failed to achieve.

[@matthiuskoenig3378]

Not sadly, the zulus were Spartans but worse. A culture intirely devoted to war, conquest and genocide. Modern zulus still brag about their pre-British genocidal campaigns against the other tribes of South Africa. And the other tribes still hate them for it, during apartheid the other tribes still hated the zulus far more than the oppressive government to the point there were massive street wars where both sides tried to kill each other over that old grudge. You can apply your logic to alot of people's around the world, but not the zulus.

[@TheKingOfJordan1]

I very much enjoyed the video, and I don't know if it's just me, but the background music was a bit too loud as to be distracting in my opinion.

[@michaelnewton5873]

The Zulu objective was to diestroy or make retreat the Rorke's Drift garrison. They failed in both. The British held the field at the end of battle and the Zulu retreated. Therefore the British win the battle.

[@suchasillygoober1234]

Nice backround

[@michael.bombadil9984]

That was one of the best videos thus far, great humor. And, your point was well made! Some of the responses were 'interesting' to say the least. 🙄.

[@conrailquality1999]

He's back! :D

[@awkward7777]

you sir would be a great history teacher

[@wayneantoniazzi2706]

I concur! What a teacher of any kind needs most of all is infectious enthusiasm for the subject they teach, and young Mr. Brandon has that in spades!

[@awkward7777]

@@kinggeorgeiii7515 interesting indeed

[@seandahl8441]

Yay he's back

[@seanspindleshanks2529]

One interesting situation where the definition of victory might not work is in situation where, for example, if you take a town, but you lost 15,000 men to the enemy's loss of 5,000 men, then that's technically a victory for you, as you have achieved your objective of taking the town. But have you stopped the enemy's objective? In all likelihood, the enemy wants to both keep the town, and kill as many as your men as they can. And your objective would be to take the town and keep as many men as you can. So ye've both sort of achieved your objectives. And ye've also both failed at your objectives. So is this a victory or a loss for you? Or it might just be neither. I guess you'd have to get into the specifics of how useful that town actually is, but it still is interesting to consider But yeah, the British definitely won. Like in every conceivable way

[@WiseMysticalTree7]

The dislike is from the Zulu warriors

[@edmundscycles1]

Doubt that . Zulus tend to have respect for their oponents .

[@mse5842]

6:58 best music

[@CMDRFandragon]

Secondary objective cannot be completed, mission successful!

[@TheTartKnight]

"Only a moron brings a sword to a gunfight" - Skulduggery Pleasant Hey, at this point it's obligatory I say it