Why Can't Niggers Fight?

Maybe it was because they are niggers? They are borderline retarded.

>Maybe because Brits had muskets and Zulu had spears
That's just the technological situation at the time. Spain had the arquebus when we went to America, the numbers were vastly more unbalanced and we still won.
I'd bet the brits or any european could still defeat those zulus even with no firearms involved. Longbows, cavalry charges, pike formations or even roman legions would have had total victory while vastly outnumbered.

Attached: f9937aa2722fe6273c0ec74f4e36ef34.jpg (640x427, 62K)

Ow snap

Exactly. Muskets take forever to reload and by sheer numbers the Zulus charged and much of the fighting was bayonet vs spear. Nigger will never accept defeat though.

Attached: NiggerZuluBayonet.gif (588x439, 199K)

Imagine if niggers were smart enough to use bows and arrows.

Yaay, they were fortunate enough to get enslaved, had their natural resources taken, had their gold and valuables stolen, had been treated literally lower than animals, have been kept in human zoos and if they were real lucky they would be sailed across to world to be slaves in a different continent.

Why do you retards keep talking about muskets when the British were using the breech loading Martini-Henri

Zulus weren't taken as slaves. That was west Africans, whitey would pull up along the west coast like a mcdonalds drive thru and then sail to America/Carribbean.

>manlihood
>manhood
>manliness
learn english you fucken wog.

Colonialism lets you run amok eradicating whole crowds and calling yourself the Hero of Mgawa Valley when your opponents were armed with sticks and mangoes.

Hitler tried the colonial thing but against fellow europeans so there wasn't the massive tech gap that lets you pwn crowds. Actually ended up flattening and impoverishing his country.

TLDR Colonial Imperialism made some people think they were all that and a bag of chips, the got rekt.

Go back chang

Before Shaka Zulu wars were pretty much ceremonial, buncha boys throw a few spears at another bunch, spectators can watch in comfort, someone gets a stabbed leg, everybody goes home. Shaka Zulu designed a short stabbing knife modelled on his cock and led the boys into actual fights to kill people. Basically he did what King David did, took advantage of the ritualized nature of warfare at the time to say "Fuck getting the harvest in, let's kill them, take their harvest and THEN go get ours, no summer break!"

The British arived with basically lasers and that's what the whole colonial era was about, wildly one-sided violence.

Chink spell checker detected. Mad about the opium wars I guess.

Attached: 1563011980187.png (314x638, 132K)

Nice trips, shit bantz, link another mauling of low tech jigaboos.

Someone post the Haitian revolution stats

>Martini–Henry
>forever to load
Breech loading rifles like Martini-Henry, that was used during the Zulu war, had a rate of fire around 12 rounds/minute. That is an excellent rate of fire compared to earlier muzzle loaded muskets.

bic stron nigar cok slippery slidin in wyte boihole lil slimy slick botty bungus sticky icky licky sicky get revenge on slvery guna fuky suky all dem hos ya herd

Here you go ;)

Attached: Battle of Isandlwana.jpg (290x871, 119K)

Attached: ChingChong.jpg (379x400, 30K)

Well Africans have been conquered by Europeans over a century ago and they still lack civilization so what is your excuse today?

This. The longbow was a vastly superior weapon to the musket. The musket was used because any peasant could fire one, it took strength and skill to use a longbow.

Dumbest low-effort banter i've seen on Jow Forums and that's a low bar.

Has the UK done anyhting lately?

Illustrates the point better if we ignore that fact. But since you bring it up maybe there were some Africans who could fight as well as Europeans. It wouldn't matter we would have outsmarted them instead of using brute force and conquered them just the same.
I mean the Comanche used to be the best warriors on the planet, but they couldn't understand strategy that involved taking loses to gain a tactical advantage, they would stop fighting anytime their leader got injured, and in general had the mentality of a child and their greatest war chief was a half-breed.

Can't handle the bant, look how hard he is seething kek. If you're not a chink then what are you?

>Africans were the only people to ever suffer conquest

The reason Africa, and blacks, constantly complain about colonialism is because they try to use it to save face for their civilizational failures.

>15k vs 35k
these pussies never fought 500k with 50k
this is how you remove kebab
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Didgori

Attached: battle of didgori.png (318x438, 19K)

When one looks at the record of the British, French, Spanish, Dutch, Belgians and Portuguese against blacks, chinks, arabs and native americans; one quickly begins to lose all respect for Italians and Americans.

Even going back to the early days of the islamic conquest; the arabs got absolutely ravaged man for man. People make out that the Crusades were this confrontation between two near-equals; but the Crusaders were vastly out-numbered and low on supplies are pretty much every moment.

And to modernity; with America's shocking defeat in Vietnam, whilst the British anally ravaged the Malayan communists. Then we have the Korean theatre where Americans, British, French and Belgians were involved; with the Americans getting wrecked over and over, while tiny forces of Brits and Belgians whittled down gigantic hordes of slitty-eyed folk despite the insane odds.

Even when defeated the people of Northern and Western Europe would score ridiculous losses on their foes and make them bleed. It is also quite striking when you see the foreign allies of the Brits, French and Spanish in their ways; always taking ridiculously high casualties in contrast to their white allies.

>outnumbered 10 to 1.
>still a 2:1 KW;D ratio
>fought to the death, standing their ground like true Englishmen

That last point actually brings up some interesting stats for a lot of the Asian campaigns. In several battles you will see the French and British take similar casualities to the Chinese or Arabs; but the Northern and Western European hold firm whilst the savages break and run for their miserable lives.

Their spawn was too good actually

see

>"how to civilization"

No one is going to give you gold here, niggerfaggot

>valuables
Kek

>learn english you fucken wog.
Oh, the fucking irony... Kill yourself, you spastic.

>Has the UK done anyhting lately?
...says the Aussie fool who has contributed absolutely nothing by comparison. Get the fuck out of here, convict.

did jamal bully you at school again?

Imagine being proud of defeating nigger tribe with spears

Jamal can't afford to live where I do. He lives in the gutter where he belongs.

Absolutely. The lack of cobalt and lithium being stripped away from africa is the reason they are less advanced than tool using orangutans.

Get rekt untermensch

Attached: Screen Shot 2019-09-09 at 11.51.52.png (316x559, 79K)

Only on Jow Forums can you see a paki and a chink argue about the cultural superiority of the anglo country theyve invaded. Honk Honk.

>gunpowder is a roman gift
For how much the anglos are barbarians gifted humanhood by us, gunpowder didn't come with latinisation.

Imagine being proud of saving turkroaches

>hes proud of dying for turks

Based roach anglo

lol that aint me in that pic. Found it on google

Attached: Screen Shot 2019-04-24 at 14.14.12.png (391x288, 34K)

>America's shocking defeat in Vietnam
American hasn’t tried to win a war since WWII. Vietnam and the Gulf War have been money making ventures for the MIC and the Gulf has also been a ZOG conquest. Gone are the days when you can nuke an enemy into submission.

Nope, it was about you threatening to cut off our supply route to India.

Why didnt spear niggers have guns?

>inb4 jareddiamond

Because they're dumb. We have superior technology and superior tactics.

100% route to India goes through Constantinople

If you took over Turkey, you'd have control of the Med. That was never going to happen, sorry mate

Still embarassing how many casualties u had, when whe had barely any against an entire empire and with less technological difference, i guess this is the true power of the anglo huh

Pre-colonial Africans were an advanced, peace loving people. No need for guns as there were riches for all. Whypipo were jealous of the vast utopia found south of the Sahara, so they destroyed it and have taught lies about it for centuries. Fact.

Poor tactics and lack of technology. These monkeys didn't even have the wheel or horses, and their only tactic is charging at the enemy.

Hahahahah lol.

> If you took over Turkey, you'd have control of the Med
Egypt, Italy, Greece, Cyprus don't exist?

>recycles screenshot weve all seen before
The absolute state of pol. P

If you don’t believe me Paco, go watch the documentary black panther.

What does that have anything to do with it? First off Egypt and Cyprus were under British control and the other countries had useless navies of no threat to ours.

If I wanted to recycle one I'd pick one that 23andme didn't Jew me on by giving me 0.1% Sub-Saharan African DNA

Muh eternal anglo, no mongol ruski in muh seas n shiet

Thats right boy, that is entirely correct, well done, now you get it.

>Before Shaka Zulu wars were pretty much ceremonial
Got some sauce? Never heard that claim (also dont remember a part like that about david in the bible) but sounds very interesting if true.
How did that come to be? Why did they even fight in the first place then or was it more like olympic games between tribes? Either way would radically alter my image of african history.

Muh GrEaT Bretan better support our muslim bros, give independence to Pakistan, n Laurence Arabian greatest anglish Hero evero

Leddit is missing you faggot

As proud as I am of the accomplishments of the British military; it should also be noted that Bavarian King and the Norman aristocrats were a bunch of cunts who absolutely hated the English and their sensibilities.

Edward Codrington stood by his Christian brethren in Greece and annihilated the Ottoman fleet in the battle of Navarino ensuring the independence of the Greeks. Codrington was seen as a hero by the English populace, and was hated to ridiculous extents because of his 'interfering with the balance of powers' by the monarch and many people in parliament. They were forced to give him medals because of his love from the English people, but stopped him from ever having a position where he could influence the world again - a good analogy might be how the effective policeman in a film is forced to stay in the office and only do paper work from then on, neutering their ability to actually make the world a better place.

So whilst I will defend the bravery and heroism and strength of the British forces at all times; the Ruski is right to point out a lot of Britain's decisions were not just questionable but out-right disgusting. Do note that such decisions were never made by the English (or Welsh, or Scots); and that it was always foreign kike sympathisers whose views were and continue to be at odds with their own populace over everything (Brexit being a prime example).

Based eternal ally

I guy I know through the army that was in Mali for peacekeeping and training troops. Said that it was due to malnourishment and their brain not developing right because of it. Under his time there 3 Mali guys shot each other to death during a 3 month boot camp

How was it questionable though? Russia had a good navy back then, that was a huge threat to our trade route with India.

This user reads. When you dont have to plan tomorrow because the season isn't changing and the food isn't migrating you dont have to ungrug yourself

It’s because they are subhuman niggers and it’s a shame they haven’t been exterminates yet. Death to the bigger race.

You have to look into each individual case. Some decisions were sensible and simply in our best interests; but stuff like letting the Greeks remain enslaved by the Ottomans, forced to pay jizyas and have their wives defiled and stolen - simply because it would slightly help Russia if we weakened the Ottomans; does not sit right with me, nor with any other true Englishman. Hence the whole Codrington controversy.

You frequently see these little explosive confrontations between English (and Scottish, and Welsh) and the 'ruling class's' sensibilities; for instance the Brits support the abolition of the slave trade whilst the monarchy simultaneously gives the kike Sassoon the ability and power to essentially enslave the Chongs with opium.

The British Empire seems like a contradiction to many who have not really looked into it. In reality it was the genuinely good people of Britain, often in the form of missionaries, generals, admirals, explorers and scientists - getting into conflict with the unprincipled Bavarians, Dutch, Normans and their kike friends.

It was just plain more important to bring the roach to its knees and potentially reconquer Constantinople and Anatolia and repair 1400 years of Mohametan villainy. When is that going to happen now?

>but stuff like letting the Greeks remain enslaved by the Ottomans
It's sad, but obviously the empire is going to come before Greek slaves. Any empire is going to put their empire before another populous.

It took 5 months for a bunch of armored white boys with guns and armor to defeat a bunch of naked black men with spears?

How shitty was Britiah leadership? and what does 'first invasion' mean?

Guns that fir 10 rounds a minute aren't going to hold back 35,000 charging niggers, most of the fighting was bayonet vs spear

>Put yourself before others
Like mentality. You understand that Europe is built upon our people rallying together to fight off others, right? The battles of the Catalaunian plains. The battle of Tours. The Crusades. And the coming Day of the Rope.

The good people of Europe, many English, Welsh, Irish and Scots counted among them; have signed up to fight and die for the good of others. Again I point to Codrington, I point to the abolition of slavery, and I would bring up those countless moral men who signed up to fight in what they fought was the defense of Poland and others against the Germans. Now obviously we know that the war was all for profits and stopping the destruction of the international banks; but the common man signed up because he wanted to help his cousins across the sea.

Don't buy into jew propaganda. Our people have selflessly fought on behalf of others many, many, many times before; putting themselves at risk to do what they thought was right.

>Our people have selflessly fought on behalf of others many, many, many times before; putting themselves at risk to do what they thought was right.
Exactly, I'm merely saying that any empire would do the same thing if it was under threat, it's the inherent behaviour of empires. Ruskie was saying the only reason Britain fought against Russia was for Turks, and nothing to do with the empires selfish reasons. Of course it was all about money and power, or in this case, ensuring the empires power remains on.

There were no real threat retard. Partitioning Turkey with Russia were better for "imperial reasons".

You miss the point. Maybe you're a Norman?

The good people of our nation saw an opportunity to use the power and reach of the Empire to bring civilisation to others, to bring Christianity to the heathen, to abolish slavery, to cure disease and spread wisdom. The kraut whore Victoria saw it as an opportunity to exploit others for material wealth, sending good Brits to fight and die for some jew in China. See the mental divide there?

The good of our nation were willing to take up the 'white man's burden' to aid the undeserving savages; meanwhile the kikes and their allies in government and monarchy were exploiting whoever they could with drugs and precious metals and all the other crimes often blamed on the English.

Britain is divided in thought based upon blood. If only English men were allowed to vote, Brexit would have been a landslide victory for leave.

africa WAS conquered by the romans

the continent is named after Africanus the general that conquered it

Browsing past this thread and these are based posts from redcoatpilled lads. Remember that most anti-Empire posts come from Amerikikes who sided with Spaniards and Frogs to fight their own brothers and sisters (literally at that time) afterwards handing their economy over to oligarchs who raised taxes further than ever before.

Attached: 38f18f9e481db9988d17e8553e24c23879312e599c505162f080a856a552b407.png (1142x1038, 305K)

> africa WAS conquered by the romans
If niggers understood history, they would stop being so uppity.

Attached: 1556396933973.gif (550x563, 88K)

Why it compares white woman with nigger man?

This is the best answer to my OP

Nogs had some guns, their tactics boiled down to 'charge all at once.' Everytime. It made them a bit predictable, hence the high casualties.

The prole don't have the temperament for geopolitics and just see muh Constantinople memes

Nah. It’s all about organization and planning. Any European nation, even if still fighting with swords, would have defeated niggers because niggers are low IQ and planning ahead never occurred to them.

Niggers are pussies.

Attached: Talking with niggers 3.webm (480x270, 681K)

To rig the test in favor of the niggers.
But we still couldn't make them win.

Nah but seriously that is a black woman and a white woman.

damn he packs a mean punch for a manlet!