Zulu

[Mikeus Caesar]

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.

[Furious Mental]

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.

[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.

[TosaInu]

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).

[Lusted]

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.

[Freedom Onanist]

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.

[TosaInu]

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

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).

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

Has, is and not only in wars.

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.

[Abokasee]

A Zulu medicine man (?) also mentioned special forces. Those used some 'snuf' to become berserk. Such pain ignoring warriors are not easily stopped.

A bit like starcraft with the medics and firebat stimpacks?

[The Wandering Scholar]

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

[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). 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.

[Furious Mental]

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.

[RLucid]

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.

[Matt_Lane]

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.

[RLucid]

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.

[PBI]

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.

[Veho Nex]

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.

[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).

[Pantsalot]

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.

[RLucid]

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,

[TosaInu]

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?

[Veho Nex]

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.

[TosaInu]

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.

This topic is a spin-off, and it started with a question about balance. ETW balance, so 17th-18th century. The Zulus popped up in a what if scenario I think.

[Veho Nex]

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.

I mis spoke... Dont know what I was getting at there. I believe that was a 'slip of the tongue' so to say.