Zulu

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Furious Mental

I'm not totally insane about historical correctness, but a modern European army should beat an army of blokes with spears and hide shields.

---

You have to remember though, the further away you get, the smaller your modern European army is going to be due to the costs and logistics of shipping it over to where you want it, and the further away you get from 'civilisation', the larger the hordes of angry blokes with spears and hide shields will be.

And when they're coming in waves like in Zulu, then you have quite a challenge. Especially when we're dealing with the 18th century, where you only have muskets, as opposed to bolt-action rifles. It would require a lot of skill to defeat the hordes of trained warriors with your small expeditionary force.

Yeah I realise that but a European army should still be able to defeat a larger primitive force, unless it is much, much larger. Rather than creating some ridiculous illusion that stone age weapons were equivalent to flintlock muskets and artillery, the game should have a realistic system for the proliferation of technology. Information on the game says that the slave trade will be abstract. Hopefully at the very least the game will have African states acquire large quantities of firearms and cannon since that is chiefly what they exchanged slaves for- those weapons were then used to carry on wars against neighbours thereby acquiring more slaves to sell to Europeans. The Musket Wars in New Zealand are a good example of the huge advantage that even untrained tribal warriors can acquire over their rivals with gunpowder weapons. If trade and diplomacy are not made vectors for the spread of technology it will be a pretty silly.

I agree with mikeus caesar numbers and pure hatred of the english would be the only advantages the zulus would have and any attempt to re-balance this for the sake of game play would be ridiculous.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by sassbarman

I agree with mikeus caesar numbers and pure hatred of the english would be the only advantages the zulus would have and any attempt to re-balance this for the sake of game play would be ridiculous.

---

Some years ago there was a show on Discovery about some Zulu-English battle, the Zulus won. A couple of reasons were mentioned, of course numbers and hatred. But also jamming rifles. A Zulu medicine man (?) also mentioned special forces. Those used some 'snuf' to become berserk. Such pain ignoring warriors are not easily stopped.

I guess Zulus are also physically stronger and better suited to the local climate (though that very battle took place in the cool morning).

Probably about Isandwhala, the battle that took place before Rorkes Drift. British defeat at Isandwhala was more to do with having flanks exposed instead of concentrating on defending a small area, and problems in supplying ammo along the long line the British formed. Rorkes drift showed what a smaller force could do when their firepower was concentrated into a small area.

The British spread themselves over too much of an are meaning a weak spot was massive instead of their usual close formations

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TosaInu

Some years ago there was a show on Discovery about some Zulu-English battle, the Zulus won. A couple of reasons were mentioned, of course numbers and hatred. But also jamming rifles. A Zulu medicine man (?) also mentioned special forces. Those used some 'snuf' to become berserk. Such pain ignoring warriors are not easily stopped.

I guess Zulus are also physically stronger and better suited to the local climate (though that very battle took place in the cool morning).

---

As has been pointed out, incompetent deployment and distribution of ammunition were central to this battle.

As for "special forces" using "snuf" this has long been a factor in many battles. Dutch Courage in the form of alcohol and drugs is not particular to the Zulus nor does it make the users "special", just off their heads. Incidentally this is still a feature of many African battles. The massacres in Rwanda were largely fuelled by alcohol and drugs, similarly, mind bending drugs were often a feature of the African enemies mercenaries met in the Congo. Chinese combatants in the Boxer rebellion also partook. The net effect is it's much easier to make superstitious and credulous cretins believe claims of physical "invincibility" if they are off their collective mammary glands! Simple, not special - sad.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Freedom Onanist

As has been pointed out, incompetent deployment and distribution of ammunition were central to this battle.

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TosaInu

A couple of reasons were mentioned, of course numbers and hatred.

---

When you mention numbers, you also mention density (and how you deploy the forces).

Quote:

---

As for "special forces" using "snuf" this has long been a factor in many battles.

---

Has, is and not only in wars.

Quote:

---

Dutch Courage in the form of alcohol and drugs is not particular to the Zulus nor does it make the users "special", just off their heads.

---

The medicine man was not talking about encouraging the whole tribe, he was talking about a small group of commando like warriors and they already manoeuvred into position before the Zulus attacked in force.

Tough, skilled and brave warriors were used for that, so special forces.

Quote:

---

Tough, skilled and brave warriors were used for that, so special forces.
by TosaInu

---

Being tough, Skilled or Brave, most certainly does not make anyone speical. Let alone speical forces.

A "speical forces solider" is one that has under gone an extensive, and extended training in a structured form for a certain task.
The Zulu's had no evidence of such.

Moving troops to a pre assigned position, is quite simply a tactical decision.


PS: PLease note, the discovery channel is hardly a historical fact finder. They push their own version of events. I find it very concerning when people quote, or alude to Television in a historical sense.

The Zulus did not hate the British (not english, but British, another example of people moving things to suit themselves).
They where stirred up by the Boers, in some respects, and zulus wanted more territory, and to protect what they had, pretty standard military human stuff.
The Zulus always paid great respect to the british, and even today, the Zulu will only ever listen to the british. The Zulu class the british as their equals, and are very much a warrior base culture. I for one can honestly say, the zulu have honour. But no speical forces.
Espeically when, the medic man said so, therefore it's right.

As for the Zulus being stronger? Who said?

When 136 Hampshire regiment soliders can lay waste to a few thousand zulus, and alot of that as hand to hand combat. Who are you to say the Zulu where physically stronger?
Sounds like television to me.

Sincerely

fenir

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by fenir

PS: PLease note, the discovery channel is hardly a historical fact finder. They push their own version of events. I find it very concerning when people quote, or alude to Television in a historical sense.

---

Hello fenir,

I don't know whether they pushed their version, or more so than any other source. The show mentioned several things: from the major ones to the small ones. I think it was great that a Zulu could also share his view and that it wasn't edited out by 'we just made a tactical mistake'.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by fenir

A "speical forces solider" is one that has under gone an extensive, and extended training in a structured form for a certain task.
The Zulu's had no evidence of such.

---

By todays measurements. Different time, different culture.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by fenir

Moving troops to a pre assigned position, is quite simply a tactical decision.

---

The Zulu said those moved inside the British lines during night. That is something different from simply moving troops.

Quote:

---

The Zulus did not hate the British (not english, but British, another example of people moving things to suit themselves).

---

The Zulus didn't attack to take supplies, rout invaders or take prisoners. For the moment of the battle: hate.

Quote:

---

As for the Zulus being stronger? Who said?

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TosaInu

I guess Zulus are also physically stronger and better suited to the local climate (though that very battle took place in the cool morning).

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by fenir

When 136 Hampshire regiment soliders can lay waste to a few thousand zulus, and alot of that as hand to hand combat. Who are you to say the Zulu where physically stronger?

---

Conditions? Is finishing off a shot man counted as hand to hand combat?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by fenir

A "speical forces solider" is one that has under gone an extensive, and extended training in a structured form for a certain task.
The Zulu's had no evidence of such.

---

The entire Zulu army was made of soldiers that had under gone an extensive, and extended training in a structured form .
They recieved at least as much training and regular drill as did the British army of that period and some of their training was notably superior {such as their field marching ability -they could out march any army of Europe quite easily- and general field craft as appilies to foraging in particular} .

Primative does not mean stupid !



Also , your definition of special forces is wrong , whomever it may be that told you .
Special forces are carefully picked troops meant for decisive action .

Pedites Extraordinarii and their cavalry counterparts were special forces just as much as are U.S. Army Rangers , but so too were the Gaesatae bodyguards of Hannibal Barca and their "certain task" consisted of killing Romans better than the other troops did .

Training special forces doesn't require computer simulators or exotic facilities and especially does not require a "civilised" society . Real life special forces such as the S.A.S. are shown historical examples of special forces troops which include small units of picked Hebrew warriors lead by King David in the Bible . The Hebrews were at about the same level of social "development" as the Zulus of the timeperiod the game will be set in and were actually technologically inferior {the Zulus were early Iron Age technologically , the Hebrews of King Davids' time were merely Bronze Age !} .




What could possibly give you to think the Zulus were not capable of handpicking the best troops for a particular battlefield task and grouping them together ?
They already had a sophisticated military structure {well defined units that that meshed together effectivly and were well understood and adhered to by all in the Army} , well established officer corp {or something that did the same job but was called annother name} , ongoing and regimented {and very demanding} training regiem ... they were as modern as their British enemies in every way that mattered except equiptment .
What makes you think they did not maintain one or more such special units of carefully chosen "badarses" .

Again , primative does not mean stupid . Creating a special forces unit is simply a matter of appilied intelligence and nothing more .
The Zulus might not have maintained such units constantly {but don't be supprised if they did ! Infact , it is very likely !} , but they could certainly have gathered one for that particular battle .

Hello Tosainu,

sorry haven't been back for while.

Quote:

---

By todays measurements. Different time, different culture.

---

So speical forces by your measure? in that time? and because of their culture? Interesting.
And even by the standards of the day, hardly speical. Good fighters, oh yes, speical? No. Not by any standard.
Unless you have one you can historically prove? Because no one else can.

Quote:

---

The Zulu said those moved inside the British lines during night. That is something different from simply moving troops

---

Again, the Zulu said, what over 100 years later someone said? Sorry by everyone lies. And after that long, and no written record, hardly even worth a mention. Again, someone said so it must be right.

PS: From my military experiance, moving inside another lines is hardly an amazing or spiecal feat. Moving inside the lines means, you have passed the forward sentries.
And it is not anything speical.

Quote:

---

The Zulus didn't attack to take supplies, rout invaders or take prisoners. For the moment of the battle: hate

---

WIth that coment, I know two things.
1. you have never been a solider, and you have never been in combat. If you think people go to war, and fight for hate? You do not understand combat.
I say this because hate is the last emotion, in an otherwise un-emotion happening. The emotion comes after. It is more often the author that includes their own feelings when endearing such comments. In my personal experiance.
If soliders hate their enemy, it clouds their judgement, and means you don't respect them. I would not like denigrate the Zulus with such comments, not with the honour i have seen in them.

Quote:

---

Conditions? Is finishing off a shot man counted as hand to hand combat?

---

Oh, now the miss-informed or opinion is revealed. You have obviously only watched Television, and never read the accounts of the battle relayed by the zulus, that placed this battle at the highest of honour among them. Yur disain for the British is certainly revealed. Espeically when you put them down with that sort of comment.
NOw you are trying to make out the usual Television pushed version that everyone was an idiot back in the day. ANd real intelligence only happened since you where born. how Disgusting.
I will leave you to actually find a book. Why? Because you own feelings and opinion is shining to bright for the truth.
You have not been objective, nor given credit to either side.

As for the conditions, the British had been incountry for longer than 6 weeks if i remember correctly, and it takes 10 days to aclimatise to new environments.
If you really beleive that experiance soliders that have fought so many wars, when always out numbered cannot put up a good fight, good enough to impress the Zulu in this case, then you have never read the history of the zulu.

And a quote from Jeff, who use to work with me here in sydney, The Zulu people hold the british in the highest of honour, because they came small in number, and fought like a warroir possed.
So there is another quote, from a zulu. So who can you believe now?

**********************************

Mr Frost.

For one, I never said the Zulu where stupid, in fact I pay them the highest honours for there battle expertise.
As for recieving as much training as a regular force british solider, or in fact even an officer. I would like to see your evidence, because no one else has any.
However, I certainly agree, Zulu's could out pace anyone in there day, as they where effectively light infantry.

As for the rest, My orginal observation stands.
In the British army we are shown, as with the USA. Examples of Elite, not speical forces.
And every exmple you have given is exactly that, elite, but not speical.
The Idea of speical forces is generally that of Strategic, not tactical. Though not always.

A tactical force is Elite, a speical forces is Strategic. Is probably the best way to discribe them. And to have speical forces, you do actually need to have a stable structured culture. And the Zulus did have that. But did not have speical forces.

So a hand picked group, is not speical forces, they are elite forces. They are picked because of Courage, Determination, and fighting prowess. Speical forces are trained to do certain tasks/jobs. They are not picked for their fighting prowess, or their courage. They are actually picked for determination. What is called never say die attitude.

And who trained me? HM forces.

Too many people today see something and say, speical forces. As if it raises the ira a little. When in 99% of all cases they are Elite forces. Like guards Units, like the Preatorian Guard, et cetera...
USA marines are considered elite, I would however from experiance, say only certain parts of them are. British Royal Marines are elite forces. SAS is speical forces. SBS are speical Forces. Guards units are elite forces. Navy seals are Speical Forces. French Legion, is considered to be an Elite force. But G3G9 is a Speical Force.
ALl these and others have several things in common. They are all trained for very specific tasks.
Elite forces are trained hard, and comprehensively, for regular duties.
The Zulu had elite forces within their troops, but no speical Forces.

And half of your post deals with things I have never said mr Frost. So i put it to you, are you not an apolegist?

You say primative does not mean stupid, but ignorance is stupidty. Just like blind faith, just like those that can't read and evaluate.

Now I will ask you a question.
How did the Zulu rank their best Warriors, and in what type of unit did they put them in?

I would still like to know, mr frost, where your fancy words came from, as their is no evidence to back them up.

Zulu did this, did that?
The Zulu where fantastic warriors. As for your other comments, they are your words, something i haven't, nor would say.

ONe final note: Speical forces are not used, In comabt. That is an utter waste. Elite force are.

Sincerely

fenir

Hello fenir,

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by fenir

So speical forces by your measure?

---

His measure.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by fenir

Espeically when you put them down with that sort of comment.

---

A fired bullet does not always kill even when it hits.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by fenir

When 136 Hampshire regiment soliders can lay waste to a few thousand zulus, and alot of that as hand to hand combat.

---

This suggest you have data, and use that to refute the guess that Zulus were physically stronger. How much is a lot? What were the conditions?

A Google on Hampshire Zulu battle
http://www.information-britain.co.uk...tes.php?id=180

Not fresh, barricade, long range fire, bayonet wounded Zulus.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by fenir

.
If you really beleive that experiance soliders that have fought so many wars, when always out numbered cannot put up a good fight, good enough to impress the Zulu in this case, then you have never read the history of the zulu.

---

I haven't claimed that the British soldiers did not put up a fight.

Quote:

---

And a quote from Jeff, who use to work with me here in sydney, The Zulu people hold the british in the highest of honour, because they came small in number, and fought like a warroir possed.
So there is another quote, from a zulu. So who can you believe now?

---

One doesn't exclude the other.

This is the Q&A topic and this discussion spinned of from some balance issue. Maybe we should move this to a new topic?

Fenir has a point, but he is being a bit harsh. They DID have special forces! An elite, infiltrating group of warriors counts as special forces!

EDIT: Your military experiance? Clarify please, I was once met by a man that made himself out to be n army expert due to massive training - he was in the catering corps and had only ever been posted in Germany!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TosaInu

A Google on Hampshire Zulu battle
http://www.information-britain.co.uk...tes.php?id=180

Not fresh, barricade, long range fire, bayonet wounded Zulus.

I haven't claimed that the British soldiers did not put up a fight.

---

That link is a little bit suspect, looks like a wiki job to me done by some liberal anglophobic fascist.

But jokes aside...

~100 odd men held off 4,000 odd men with only a 6ft high wall of sand bags. That is a an achievement and a half and cannot be refuted. I'll get that straight now. Additionally, the Zulu's had a large collection of rifles taken from Isandlwana.

The Zulu's also had a very nasty habit of butchering their prisoners and doing unspeakable things to the dead. Such acts include ripping out the stomach of a fallen foe and in some cases eating it as a 'right of passage'. This should somewhat alleviate the guilt of those evil British bastards bayoneting the dead and dying Zulu's on the field after the Rorke's Drift stand off; Zulu's who could not be taken care of and were probably going to die anyway.

The Zulu's did hold British soldiers with some high regard, so much so that they often said that they were more afraid of British bayonet* than British rifle fire. The Zulu's were probably physically fitter than your average British redcoat but he certainly wasn't stronger or more skilful...

You can read accounts of the war and the perspectives of different people from this book: Zulu 1879 - D Moodie. Lots of first hand accounts.

* - Zulu 1879 - D Moodie

Spin off topic from https://forums.totalwar.org/vb/showthread.php?t=96892 after post 87.

These battles are reminiscent of events in classical times, with complacency being rewarded in usual way.

Wiki :

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rorke's_Drift
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Isandlwana
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zulu_Dawn (Film - which whilst attempting to be accurate, shows some ideas overturned by battlefield archaeology).

"The British saw obvious parallels between their own position and that of the Roman Empire after the Battle of Teutoburg Forest. Until then, one of the arguments against a war with the Zulu was that the costs could not be justified, but if the Zulu victory at Isandlwana encouraged rebellion elsewhere in the Empire, then committing the resources necessary to defeat the Zulu would in the long term prove cheaper than suppressing other rebellions in other parts of the Empire."


Rorke's Drift - prepared defensive position. Guess the Zulu's would have done better with some field artillery, or sappers with charges.

Isandlwana - non prepared positon. Small force skirmish force expected, hit by main army and caught by a flanking envelopment maneuver.

"hard ground and a lack of belief that they were in any danger, did not fortify the camp"

"Pulleine, left in command, was an administrator and had no experience of front-line command on a campaign."

"The Zulu attack then developed in the traditional horns and chest of the buffalo, with the aim of encircling the British position. From Pulleine's vantage point in the camp, at first only the right horn and then the chest (centre) of the attack seemed to be developing. Pulleine, therefore, rather than bringing in his troops into a tight defensive position, near the ammunition and with the Isandlwana feature protecting his rear, instead sent out first one, then all of his six companies of the 24th Foot into an extended firing line, with the aim of meeting the Zulu attack head on and checking it with firepower"


One thing I found interesting, was the suggestion that manpower shortage for harvest, would put the "non-civilised" nation at a disadvantage. Supply and being able to keep a standing army in the field, were key advantages of the imperial powers compared to native nations. Something that's been missing from TW games, so tends to mislead the player about campaign realities.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by fenir

In the British army we are shown, as with the USA. Examples of Elite, not speical forces.
And every exmple you have given is exactly that, elite, but not speical.
The Idea of speical forces is generally that of Strategic, not tactical. Though not always.

A tactical force is Elite, a speical forces is Strategic. Is probably the best way to discribe them. And to have speical forces, you do actually need to have a stable structured culture. And the Zulus did have that. But did not have speical forces.

---

That is a pretty funny thing to say because if the Zulus call them special forces, then I'd call them Zulu special forces. Just because the modern west has a different definition of special forces doesn't mean the Zulus have to share it. And just because I call my chair a table doesn't mean you can't sit on it. :dizzy2:

Maybe they weren't special forces according to the more closed definition today's westernized militaries use but for the Zulus they may have been special and thus they may have called them special forces, in a way elites are special or else they wouldn't be elites. :dizzy2:

Referring to the earlier posts in this thread; the Zulu would be able to put up a decent fight against Europeans since the time period of the game is 1700- early 1800's (at least thats what I've heard). The european factions will be using muskets, which ,like Mikeus Caesar said, have a very low rate of fire compared to the rifles used in the British-Zulu conflict. A Zulu charge should be able to hit them before they get off 5 volleys.

P.S- I'm new to this forum and this thread was the first to catch my eye.

Even flintlock muskets were devastating. Like I said above, when some Maori tribes obtained muskets from Europeans they absolutely devastated their rivals in spite of having only rudimentary knowledge of how to deploy the weapons. It was the same with the slave trading trades on the West African coast- once they obtained guns from Europeans in exchange for their usual export commodity, they improved their military advantage over tribes in the interior enormously and were able to enslave even more people. Or take a look at the European experience- drilled musketeers in line formation could regularly beat charging columns intended to overcome musket fire by sheer momentum, especially if skirmishers were used sap that momentum and to cause the column to misjudge its charge by concealing the line. The bayonet had plenty of advocates but not because a bayonet charge could be counted on to kill more enemies than were lost in making it, but because it could often be counted on to terrify the enemy into fleeing.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Aztec Warrior

Referring to the earlier posts in this thread; the Zulu would be able to put up a decent fight against Europeans since the time period of the game is 1700- early 1800's (at least thats what I've heard).

---

So they could muster a large army relatively quickly, but could they keep it in the field over a long campaining season, without their population undergoing famine?

The field artillery are going to cause vast casualties in a set piece battle, even without more advanced rifles.

The invaders are the ones who can afford significant cavalry, to scout, raid and lay waste to their crops.

The real key, is that invasion of their lands, is unlikely to be economic (at least until some mineral wealth like gold & diamond fields turns up). So in a sense, they were well enough defended, even though they could not have beaten off a determined conquest attempt.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mikeus Caesar

And when they're coming in waves like in Zulu, then you have quite a challenge. Especially when we're dealing with the 18th century, where you only have muskets, as opposed to bolt-action rifles. It would require a lot of skill to defeat the hordes of trained warriors with your small expeditionary force.

---

ok im sorry but did anyone else notice the main flaw in ceaser's point? musketeers..... Hardly most units that served Britain were some of the most technologically advanced units britain had. They used breach loaders with special rifling(the kind of rifling most british and french units used during WW1 in the trenches) the ridges in the barrel are slightly deeper allowing the bullet to come out faster but with a reduced range. and when your in a life or death situation you can fire a good 6-7 rounds in the mad 150 yard dash to your position now multiply that by 130(give or take) and see how many zulu you kill before they even reach you.

Just out of curiousity, has anyone seen the movie Zulu Dawn? It portrays the battle of Isandwhala, and I beleive it's pretty accurate (I saw it in a history class).

I'm not sure if there'll be any point in this discussion because
I've only heard CA mentioning that India, North America, Europe &
North Africa would be included, but not South Africa. They'll probably
make access to India when the Suez Canal is fully made in the 1800's instead
of making the traditional route of going around the whole of Afirca so that
they don't have to include it, ven though it has a great history of
colonisation.. It is something we'd have to ask them as they've not mentioned
it. Nor have they mentioned Oceana or Eastern Asia. Not that I have any
problems with the idea of fighting Zulus or Abroginanies, it would be kwl to
see them being blown apart in masses by cannon fire.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by RLucid

So they could muster a large army relatively quickly, but could they keep it in the field over a long campaining season, without their population undergoing famine?

The field artillery are going to cause vast casualties in a set piece battle, even without more advanced rifles.

The invaders are the ones who can afford significant cavalry, to scout, raid and lay waste to their crops.

The real key, is that invasion of their lands, is unlikely to be economic (at least until some mineral wealth like gold & diamond fields turns up). So in a sense, they were well enough defended, even though they could not have beaten off a determined conquest attempt.

---

I tend to disagree, an attempt by a European power to conquer the Zulu's in the early 18th Century would have had been far less likely to succeed. For a start this period sees the birth of campaign logistics. Living off the land or resupply from Europe would have been almost impossible for a large military force. The wars raging through Europe at this time will also restrict the quantity and quality of troops available for such an endeavor. This period sees are far heavier reliance on cavalry than the late 19th century but resupply or mounts from the Cape Province or from Europe by sea will be limited.

The biggest factor however is weapons technology. 18th century infantry were armed with muzzle loading muskets that at best could manage three rounds a minute. This dictated the tactics of a couple of volleys then close to engage with the bayonet. It is here that the Zulu's greater numbers and skills at hand to hand combat would have come into play. When Chelmsford defeated the Zulu nation at Ulundi the infantry's Martini Henry breach loading rifles could fire 10 rounds a minute and they were supported by a pair of Gatling guns firing 600 rounds a minute. It is said that no Zulu warrior got within 30 yards of the British line and of the dozen or so British dead all had been shot, not one had been stabbed.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Jkarinen

ok im sorry but did anyone else notice the main flaw in ceaser's point? musketeers..... Hardly most units that served Britain were some of the most technologically advanced units britain had. They used breach loaders with special rifling(the kind of rifling most british and french units used during WW1 in the trenches) the ridges in the barrel are slightly deeper allowing the bullet to come out faster but with a reduced range.

---

If I understood it right: Mikeus Caesar is talking about a case of Zulu (like) warriors vs a (17th-)18th century European army. Not the 19th.

Breach loaders existed in the 17th century (and earlier), but the really high firing rate requires complete cartridges. That's early-mid 19th century?

I was unaware that europe had any troops that far into africa during the 18th century... I thought it was a typo on his part.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Aztec Warrior

Just out of curiousity, has anyone seen the movie Zulu Dawn? It portrays the battle of Isandwhala, and I beleive it's pretty accurate (I saw it in a history class).

---

Yes, and I put a link to the wiki page on it which details historical (in)accuracies,

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Matt_Lane

The biggest factor however is weapons technology. 18th century infantry were armed with muzzle loading muskets that at best could manage three rounds a minute. This dictated the tactics of a couple of volleys then close to engage with the bayonet. It is here that the Zulu's greater numbers and skills at hand to hand combat would have come into play

---

You're thinking on pitch battles, rather than the weapon of hunger. Whilst true, other commitments make such adventures unlikely, especially as they didn't happen. So the question is hypothetical. IMO the Zulu's could not have stood up to a determined attacking campaign using optimal & ruthless strategy & tactics, and I don't think man-power would be an issue, because the British Army had a track record of recruiting natives, with more or less success eg) India.

What is definitely true, is that the cost would have been prohibitive for the expected rewards of success.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Jkarinen

the ridges in the barrel are slightly deeper allowing the bullet to come out faster but with a reduced range.

---

How does this work? Surely the range is determined purely by the velocity, i.e. faster bullet = longer range.

I admit I don't know much about guns but I do know physics. Do you mean that the bullet comes out spinning faster but with a lower velocity, or that it is spinning slower & thus has higher muzzle velocity, but is less accurate as a result & thus has a shorter range to be able to hit anything at?

Sorry for the off-topic post, just a bit unclear about what you meant by this.