Everytime my mother-in-law shows up at my door, my mind instinctively screams "form square...form square !!! "

@josephhyland8904

5 жыл бұрын

LMAO!!!!

@brianplatts9990

5 жыл бұрын

What brilliant comment I could not stop laughtlng

@dmitryisaev5955

4 жыл бұрын

Excellent!!! LOL)))

@danilorainone406

4 жыл бұрын

offer mam in law a camel

@paulmcintyre4235

4 жыл бұрын

LoL , spat my tea all over myself when I read that.

As a historian of British imperial history allow me to make a few comments; both are meant to show episodes in the 1898 Soudan Re-conquest but the uniforms of the 2nd clip are all wrong since the British Army used khaki (and not scarlet) from after 1882. The 2nd clip however bears some resemblance to the battles of Abu Kru and Abu Klea in the 1884-85 Sudan War. I always love the earlier version because it was actually shot in the Sudan and certainly the military advisors on the picture had served in the 1898 war. The big error in both scenes is to show the enemy charging on mounted animals; the dervishes had a "cavalry" but largely fought en masse and on foot. The "fuzzy-wuzzies" shown in the first clip are genuine Hadendowa tribesmen of the Sudan.

@pfarquharson1

5 жыл бұрын

That is true, but even at the beginning of the Second Anglo-Boer from 1899-1902 some of the British regiments still fought in scarlet uniforms. But they then soon changed to Khaki, as the scarlet uniforms were to good a target for the Boers.

@countryboy2123

4 жыл бұрын

The second movie is the most recent of the various versions of The Four Feathers, set during the Mahdist Revolt in the Sudan in the mid-1880s, not during the later conflict in the 1890s; if memory serves reference is made in the 2002 version to the Siege of Khartoum as a contemporary event, which dates the movie quite nicely. The second clip is somewhat closer to the reality of the Mahdist wars in the 1880s, given that it shows troops formed in squares and armed with Martini-Henry rifles (though they are the Mk. II variant, as opposed to the Mk. IV which was in service at the time) and it shows Egyptian forces, who comprised a substantial percentage of the British forces engaged in the campaign. As to what the second movie shows, I could not say whether it is the 1880s or the 1890s conflict; if in the 1890s, then Lee Metford rifles should be in use, not Martini-Henry rifles and certainly not the WWI-era SMLE No. 1 Mk. III* which can be seen in several shots; the use of the Martini-Henry and the fact that I think the earlier version is the 1939 version of The Four Feathers would make it the 1880s conflict as well, not the 1890s.

@BoerChris

4 жыл бұрын

The first (1939) clip resembles the Battle of Omdurman, the second the Battle of Abu Klea. I am not absolutely sure you are right about the khaki in the first Sudan War; there was some debate about which colours provided the better camouflage, and it was pointed out at the time that red (when dusty) was often less conspicuous than dark blue. Nevertheless, I agree with you that khaki or light grey was mainly adopted for the Gordon Relief Expedition. My main objection, to both films, is that the British - especially the artillery - fire far too late. (This also applies to the film 'Zulu'.) At the Battle of Omdurman, few Mahdists got much within 800 yards of the British parts of the line (where Lee-Metfords prevailed) or within 500 yards of the Egyptian sectors (where Martini- Henrys/Metfords prevailed). And where were the thorn bushes? Why the huge gap around those late-firing gun batteries?

@BoerChris

4 жыл бұрын

@@pfarquharson1 Sorry, but no British soldiers fought in scarlet at the beginning of the Second Anglo-Boer War.

@tamlandipper29

4 жыл бұрын

@@BoerChris I think he may be thinking of the first war, when you chaps thrashed us hollow.

The first one (original) is far more accurate than the second, though, the second was really intense and entertaining to watch.

@Artorius009

3 жыл бұрын

Yes their was a ton of intensity in number 2. The shot of cavalry closing on all sides was great!

British infantry discipline was amazing!

"Whatever happens, we have got the Maxim gun, and they have not."- William Blood

I bet Cpl Jones is in there somewhere amongst those British troops. "They don't like the cold steel .They don't like it up 'em "

@patkearney4666

5 жыл бұрын

Got a good laugh! Good old CPL JONES Thanks Chris P.S I wonder is he RIP? RISE. IF POSSIBLE

@jamestheman1962

5 жыл бұрын

@@patkearney4666 there is a line in the first movie,when the old sweat gives advice to young lad as he says'I cant watch them come on like this Sarge' and the old sweat says Close your eyes then son I will tell you when to open them' and that part really reminded me of old Jonesy ha ha with they don't like it up em sir''

@guyplayfair8349

4 жыл бұрын

Don't Panic! Don't Panic! They don't like it up 'em. Very good! Laughing hard! Good comment!

@ventura9388

2 жыл бұрын

Corporal Jones: "We used to get a lot of sun in the Sudan. Except at night, of course...we didn't get much sun at night."

@chrisholland7367

2 жыл бұрын

@@ventura9388 🤣👍

The troops looked a lot sharper and better trained in the first film.

@jakejackson1914

3 жыл бұрын

Probably because they're real soldiers, the film contracted with the East Surrey Regiment and many of the British soldier extras are actually fully trained soldiers, just dressed in period costume.

@WielkaStopa-qh1rr

18 күн бұрын

How old were these real soldiers? Today's cadets looks far more worst.

Can't beat Zulu or Lawrence of Arabia for gravitas, cinematography and realism.

@freebeerfordworkers

5 жыл бұрын

I don't know, Lowell Thomas, the American journalist who made the Lawrence of Arabia legend said all the film got right was the camels and sand. It was still a damn good movie , though.

@kinggeorgeiii7515

2 жыл бұрын

Zulu was a great movie, but terribly inaccurate. And Waterloo tops them both.

@tessierashpoolmg7776

2 жыл бұрын

All else aside, the portrayal of the British square in Zulu was exciting as hell. It's not like we're discussing reality here. As to which Mahdist film was better, I will go with the 1st one.

@juliodyarzagaray

3 ай бұрын

@@tessierashpoolmg7776 I don't think a British square was portrayed in the movie Zulu.

Hands down the 1939 version, although the modern remake does show some excellent field maneuvers, mainly courtesy of the 'Die Hards' reenactment group.

No British force of any size lost a battle to Mahdists, no massacres, etc. An Egyptian army under General Hicks, with British officers, was massacred in the 1880's,but no British army lost a battle.... As you would expect, given their advantages in weaponry.

@MOBXOJ

4 ай бұрын

It’s honestly not a great flex when you’re fighting against men on foot with swords and spears while you have mortars and rifles

@edpzz

2 ай бұрын

Yep them British trying to stop the slave trade interfering in thousands of years of local culture @@MOBXOJ

@freebeerfordworkers

Ай бұрын

@@MOBXOJ Not as easy to might think if you look up Kipling's fuzzy wuzzy He said the memory of a fuzzy on the rush was as good as a laxative for a year.

Personally I prefer the original “The Four Feathers” 1939 and “Young Winston” 1972

We British didn't fanny about in those days. Now, that's all we do thanks to weak politicians.

I choose the first one rather than the second.

1939 will always be the best version

The horse holders have more modern rifles than the troops.

A movie, that's no longer possible today!

@lweneousmaxey7860

5 жыл бұрын

Praise GOD for that!

@tusk70

5 жыл бұрын

@@lweneousmaxey7860 Technological possible, political inpossible!

@tamlandipper29

4 жыл бұрын

Punctuation, that is. Not possible; today.

I like both but the original I love it growing up

Thats when the uk had balls

@franzjoseph1837

Жыл бұрын

genocidal maniacs should have stayed on their island.

Must have been awesome to see your calvary riding to your aid..like your big brother walks up while your fighting a bigger boy on the playground.

The problem with the second one is depicting the British British loosing which in reality the British never lost a single battle and wasnt 1 single square but had several different squares and biggest mistake didn't wear red jackets .

Late in the war, the British Army was using magazine fed rifles, as in the first clip. That made a huge difference.

Wrong uniforms for the recent version. The British were in khaki in 1885.

@ianhornby

5 жыл бұрын

Khaki wasn't fully standard issue until 1903, took over 50 years!

@palibrae

5 жыл бұрын

@@ianhornby All British infantry in the Sudan wore khaki. The last redcoats in battle were those in South Africa during the Zulu War, 1879. Egyptian Campaign in 1882 was in khaki. Pretty big, obvious mistake in this movie--one among many.

@StooTV

5 жыл бұрын

The 1880-81 Boer War was in red. The 1882 Egyptian campaign was in red. In the Sudan, red was worn at the Battle of Kirbekan, Feb. 1885 and at the Battle of Ginnis, Dec. 1885 and, lastly, at the Battle of Ferkeh, June 1896. Since this depicted battle is supposed to Abu Klea, the troops actually should've been wearing GRAY tunics! The film's director, Shekhar Kapur, said it was a conscious decision to put them in red, even though he knew it was wrong.

Not one dead camel. Obviously the mutant Medina strain of bulletproof fur camel ,lent to the Sudanese in exchange for some African hashish in 1871.

@freebeerfordworkers

Ай бұрын

Probably too expensive and the British are queasy about that sort of thing. Unlike the Americans in Errol Flynn's Charge of the Light Brigade when horses were reportedly brought down by tripwires and died as a result.

They don't like it up em sir, no nothing like a bit of cold steel.

Both have their charm. The original was fine for its time; orderly, biased and rather fun in an odd way. The New take is more real, gritty and lets you appreciate brave men who don't run away from a fight.

@Delogros

5 жыл бұрын

To be fair i don't overly remember the first 1 but given the time it was made it shows Turkish forces where involved (The ship was Turkish as i believe where the black troops) and shows a British trooper dying and (again presumably) a Turkish soldier bayoneting the one who did it, unless I am misunderstanding the "biased" part of your comment to mean something other then the scene.

@Katzbalger001

5 жыл бұрын

The 1939 version is certainly better--they even used actual natives that had fought in the real war. The uniforms were certainly more correct as were the numbers of figures involved and the tactics used. The recent version is such a wasted opportunity--with the advances in technology, film, techniques, the battle scenes could have been so much better than they were.

@Delogros

5 жыл бұрын

@@johnbuckley1584 You mean like the Germans being mass murdering fuck heads? They screwed up big time if your going to kill millions of people you do it over time not one less then a decade shot, amateurs :)

@paprskomet

5 жыл бұрын

@@Katzbalger001 however those two versions are not depicting the same battle.1939 version segment shown here depicts decisive big battle of Omdurman while smaller battle in modern version is based on earlier battle in mahdist war when British troops still wore recoats.

@pfarquharson1

5 жыл бұрын

@@Katzbalger001 The first version was by far the better film. You are right with the correct uniforms being worn

Both are good, but I prefer the first. ;-)

Which movie showed the battle of Abu Klea, with the Camel Corps in grey? Let's not forget the scene on Young Winston as well

8:01 that camel though

Nice video 👍💯

In any case about which movie is better the battle with Islam is far from over and I whole heartedly believe open war like this with Muslims who have immigrated into Europe and the USA as well in Muslim countries are just over the horizon. Some people would say sooner than later and get it over with and done once and forever. 🇮🇹

Khartoum 1966 battle of abu klea clip wasn’t included ?

Well, I don't like the magic shells and bullets that kill Mahdists but not horses or camels.

@yahulwagoni4571

5 жыл бұрын

The horses and camels are innocent.

@PaletoB

5 жыл бұрын

Well guess Monthy Python had the right idea.

@bernardashton9328

5 жыл бұрын

@Yahul Wagoni. They have you fooled....

@henriquebitencourt5253

5 жыл бұрын

It's the 2000s,humans can be butchered but if animals are hurt in the movie everyone gets pissed

@richardcampbell2206

5 жыл бұрын

They were aiming high

Cavalry against formed infantry, never ends well for the cavalry. Except for the one time the Fuzzy Wuzzie broke a British Square, but that was mostly an infantry attack.

@drogomuircastle7175

5 жыл бұрын

And this is THAT war...

@robertofulton

5 жыл бұрын

Well there was Hernandez García where two squadrons of kings German legion heavy cavalry and one of light broke four French squares

@davidscoltock3970

5 жыл бұрын

robertofulton yeah but thats the KGL. Those buggers where some of the best soldiers in Europe

@toraguchitoraguchi9154

4 жыл бұрын

@@robertofulton Yes, those were French squares, the Brits were always better soldiers than the French...and that is a fact supported by history - From the time of Edward III all the way to the time of Wellington...actually they were still better in WW1 and WW2, but they just didn't fight the French.😁

@douglastaggart9360

4 жыл бұрын

Yes they did but the British reformed the square and won the battle

What movie is the second clip from?

Original is better its also more historicly accurate.

two different Battles the first was the original and the last battle in the old movie the battle of Omdurman,and more accurate in the uniform's style being Khaki and the second was the first battle of the new movie in which Holywood licence has taken over again and given them red coats and white Pith helmets so yes they are both different,both good,but the first has it for the uniforms and the sheer volume of fire from modern weapons over older and more dated weapons and cavalry and it is a British army in the first movie not one Battalion as the second one has in front of thousands

That was a rectangle...

1939 - - -Hands Down!

@lweneousmaxey7860

5 жыл бұрын

1879 or there abouts

@rizzlebazzle5845

4 жыл бұрын

@@lweneousmaxey7860 the battle it's depicting occurred in 1898 but the film itself was made in 1939 (at least the first version)

@Georgejmh

2 ай бұрын

@@lweneousmaxey7860 Try 1898, or the actual battle.

Problems with how the artillery worked in both movies. In the first movie for some reason guns didn't fire prior to the rifle fire...they could've weakened the attackers from afar. In the second movie, guns didn't fire with shrapnel at the close distance - that would've devastated the attackers. Very odd...

@gueststrivler

3 жыл бұрын

Historically the infantry opened fire with section volleys at 1,400 yards. The Mahdists never got within 300yds of the main positions (although the Anglo-Egyptian cavalry nearly came to grief on the right flank). It was a massacre.

To me, both are accurate in their own ways. The first probably captures whatever Aristocrat was in charge of the British Unit's feeling on the matter, while the second captures more what it must have been like for the actual soldiers on the ground. I don't know anything about this battle in particular, but I would also guess the Tactical, Strategic, and Operational details are more accurate in the second.

Amazing that the animals weren't terrified by all the noise and cannon explosions

The 2nd one was thrilling

where is gatling machine gun?

@whiterosecicero4802

4 жыл бұрын

kakouille999 in most armies of the mid to late 19th century Gatling guns were considered part of the artillery. They were heavy having to be draw by horses. Due to this most armies may only have one or two of them. Keeping them with the artillery near the back (The British did used them like in the late Zulu war). As machine guns got lighter and easier to move did they become more widely used.

@thatguyinelnorte

3 жыл бұрын

IIRC, it was a Gartner that jammed at Abu Klea.

Fuzzy Wuzzies to the front and rear.

The difference between a defending a fixed position and being hung out on a limb as ‘bait’!

Artillery was poorly used.

Video interesante. Saludos.

what is the name of the movie?

"for all the odds agin' you, Fuzzy-Wuz, you broke the square".

@kleinjahr

4 жыл бұрын

Yes, one of the few times it was broken.

@guyplayfair8349

4 жыл бұрын

Yes, heres to you Fuzzy Wuzzy, and the missis and the kid... Thats the poem that brought me here. you broke the square!

@hassanabdikarimmohamed2505

3 жыл бұрын

@@kleinjahr Somalis during the anglosomali war against the Dervish movement also not only broke the square but defeated the army and killed the commander..this is how Richard corfield died . .we defeated the british and italian empires for 21 years until aeroplanes were used to bomb our castles for the first time in african history..only a new unprecedented technology allowed the british to finally win after 21 years of constant defeat

@thatguyinelnorte

3 жыл бұрын

@@hassanabdikarimmohamed2505 You must have a pretty big chip on your shoulder to be so noisily off-topic. Go make your your own neighborhood better and quit bragging about dead people who aren't really important to the movies discussed here.

@hassanabdikarimmohamed2505

3 жыл бұрын

@@thatguyinelnorte you ,yet have a miniscule cerebellum to erroneously think I was off topic, clearly history isn't your forte ...do yourself a favour, stfu and shove that malarkey up your rear end

Fire at will would have ended a while ago

Which movies r these clips from?

@hotdogproductions1857

3 жыл бұрын

The newest it from" four feathers"

i Like The Form Square Fromation Cuz The British Are More powerful to Those Horses

@texanman1998

5 жыл бұрын

battle of waterloo proved it

@John-rr9fv

3 жыл бұрын

@Daniel Gehad 😂😂

@phoenixrose1192

2 жыл бұрын

@Daniel Gehad The Zulus were obliterated, what are you talking about?

Fortunately they never heard of BLM.

Too bad, I didn't see Jonesy!

Which battle is it?

Did anyone else notice that the Union Flag in the second clip is incorrect ? Just me then !

@fabrizioruffo1799

3 жыл бұрын

It's the Queens colour not just a regular old Union Jack.

First one is the 1898 War and the second is the 1884-85 Uprising. The first one is definitely more authentic (the dervish were probably the sons of veterans of Omderuman) and filmed in the Sudan. The second one has the British lose the battle of Abu Klea, which they didn't and also, where's the fecking Nile?

@suleimanthemagnificent8985

5 жыл бұрын

2003 is still an okay film though. 1939 is a classic.

I liked the first one

🙌

What is the second movie

6:40 The British seem to have misheard the order to form square and instead formed an awkward oblong shape, a formation better suited to the wide-angle camera shot rather than repulsing the enemy.

15,000 rounds fired 12 dead?

1939 was the date the movie was made for the confused out there. Love both films though. Young Winston has good action as well for that Sudan campaign

If im correct the British didnt loose any battles in the sudan wars and no records of any british prisoners being taken and the 2002 version as the British loose the battle of abu klea which they actually won

Esta es una escena de la pelicula Kartum mucho antes de 1939

History is written down by the victors and the victor here, the British Empire that does not set the sun, Winston Churchill said, "We killed them and did not defeat them." Also English writers wrote epic poems celebrating the courage of the Sudanese, and we are also proud to stand in favor of Great Britain and rebel for our dignity and supply from the rest of our soil, in the battle of Reprisal that followed the killing General Gordon lost every Sudanese house a martyr in an unequal battle in which the British army practiced the most severe and cruel kinds of revenge from defenseless dervishes who had nothing but a heart who believed in the message of Imam al-Mahdi and the courage of being able to die in order to defend the soil of his homeland, despite the relatively calm relations between our two countries after his departure The last British soldier from Sudan was in 1956, but these battles remain confined to memory. I have lived in Britain since 2012 and I do not feel that I am a stranger to this great country with its people, civilization and leadership, as for its colonial past remains part of its great history as every nation has a past and history until it does not come Generations are ashamed of this date. Parliament must push the government to apologize to the Sudanese people for the victims of the Karary battle (massacre) and its policies in southern Sudan, which or We inherited a sick nation burdened with civil wars and tribal conflicts, --I do apologize for my trouble writing 😬 but am trying to deliver what we as Sudan think about our common history, I think you need to visit Sudan and learn more about those people .

@thatguyinelnorte

3 жыл бұрын

The British invaded to try to stop the slave trade. That is still going on...

@TheSteveRobinson

2 жыл бұрын

My step father was a member of that last British regiment to serve in Sudan in 1956 during the Suez Crisis, and served in Khartoum at this time. The Royal Fusiliers!

Thats the way to do it.

OOOOPS! Being a legend in my own mind is a heavy thing to carry! Need to oil or find a better sense of humor! Thank you for showing me a mirror! Enjoy your day!

Some, indeed many, of the Hadendowah acting in the first clip would have been the grandsons of the Mahdist warriors that they were representing.

Horse vs camel

I don't think I saw a single Mahdist shoot back in the 1st clip, very few casualties (for the weaponry being used), and everything looks very neat, tidy, and orderly (how stereo-typically British). The second looks more like how a crisis moment goes from "Oh...it's ok. We've trained for this" to "oh sh*t!" followed by "wtf is going on!" as things often go in reality. I'll take the 2nd version all day.

A clip from the 1939 version of "The Four Feathers" would have been nice to add (author of Renee: St. Mary's Virus).

The first one

Engländ

In the 2002 version, not only are the uniforms and rifles incorrect; the union flag is upside down.

What were they thinking, charging well-positioned riflemen and guns and machineguns like that, in the open??

Red coats needed in recent movie to show they are British to an American audience.

The British Army of course!

@joehall3232

5 жыл бұрын

britan

@BabyGreenToe

Жыл бұрын

Ye they are protecting Egypt

🇬🇧

No denying those people knew how to maintain an efficient border patrol force.

@Kwamu22

5 жыл бұрын

You're spot on. Yet they still weren't able to keep the foreigners (British) out of their country due inferior weaponry.

@LeeRaldar

5 жыл бұрын

@@Kwamu22A lesson most kids would recognise these days, don't expand your empire without levelling up your tech tree first.

@Kwamu22

5 жыл бұрын

@@LeeRaldar I'm just saying their border patrol wasn't effective against the Brits. I'm assuming you were referring to the Sudanese maintaining a border patrol, right? It was the Brits encroaching on their borders after all, or did you mean that the other way around?

I loved the 1939 version, found that the 2002 version didn't have the same vibe to it. Question though, when firing, wouldn't the British have fired by ranks. I understand that with the advent of the breech loading cartridge and the box magazine, this might have changed, but it still should have been in use in 1898.

Why did all the camels suddenly become horses ?

What is the name of the first movie

@matf8649

3 жыл бұрын

The Four Feathers

Does anyone know the name of the movie? Please

@paulmcintyre4235

4 жыл бұрын

The four feathers, the first version in my opinion is the best.

Ah the golden age of linear warfare. By this time it was perfected

🌟🌟🌟🌟🌟

love our empire, it did a lot of things that are good and yes things that was not so good, No different to the ottoman empire, the Roman Empire the German empire, French empire,

this is just slaughter

@BabyGreenToe

Жыл бұрын

Ye but they’re protecting Egypt it’s more necessary.

@owusu369

Жыл бұрын

@@BabyGreenToe cmon please imperial propaganda

@BabyGreenToe

Жыл бұрын

@@owusu369 well not rlly just look it up

@owusu369

Жыл бұрын

@@BabyGreenToe mate i know the history it was an invasion but the British in a country not theres or even near theres

@BabyGreenToe

Жыл бұрын

@@owusu369 But It doesn’t say that on my thing when I’ve looked it up it says it was protecting, Egypt, Egypt fought with the British against these people.

Unless they're firing grapeshot, it beats me why the canon wouldn't be firing non-stop once they get in range, rather than waiting till rifle range.

How could you aim properly and fire a rifle while riding at a full gallop? Doesn't seem possible.

1939😂😂😂😂😂😂🤔🤔🤔🤔🤔🤣🤣😭😭😭😭😭😭

Whatever happens... We have got, The Maxim Gun And they have not.

sabe oq as crianças foram fazer na biblioteca kkk

If Zulu was a 10/10 (which I feel it was) then this would get a 7/10 ...just not in the same class of movie.

I feel like both are represented by the their era they were made in, both good in their own ways

How were the infantry able to reload so quickly?

@benitomussolini7382

5 жыл бұрын

Martini henry rifles are not muskets thats why

@RobertGarcia-wv8vx

5 жыл бұрын

Try fear, it's a great motivator.

@johnadams-wp2yb

5 жыл бұрын

metal cartridges.

@paulmcintyre4235

4 жыл бұрын

In the first movie the British soldiers are using the Lee Metford which was and 8 round magazine bolt action rifle which was the correct rifle for the period. In the second later movie they are using the breach loading lever operated Martini Henry which had been replaced by this time the Lee Metford. Also in the second movie they are wearing the Red tunics which were also redundant before this campaign that being said both are good movies.

The "Tactics" in in movie 1 were a suck fest. In #2 at least the formed a square but the English waited to long to repel the attack. BUT....The first volley would have happened when the attackers were farther off.

the sudanese had no idea they were crappy soldiers

Sadly, modern movie makers no longer have what it takes to produce GOOD war movies. Way too much PC content and back stories. Give me the old ones every time!!

To this comment section : All I care about is ACTION ! I do not care about the model of cannons the British used , or their uniforms have 13 buttons , not 10 . 2nd clip , definitely ! Although , I enjoyed the action inside the fort of the first clip .