Could Roman Legionaries Beat the Zulu at Isandlwana?

[@bobsyoruncle4583]

2 Legions - 10,000 fully equipped Romans against 20,000 Zulus with short spears and no body armor? Only one word comes to mind - slaughter. Once the Zulus reached their lines the British were not equipped to fight in hand-to-hand combat against superior numbers - this is exactly the form of combat the Romans were masters of. At the Battle of Watling Street in 61ad a Roman force of the same size defeated and slaughtered an army of 80,000 Britons who were better armed and armored than the Zulu army at Islandlwana - and they didn't need Caesar to accomplish it. Each Roman soldier carried 2 pilum which they launched into an attacking formation at close range, making it almost impossible to miss striking somewhere on the unprotected bodies of the Zulus - their animal hide shields affording no protection from these weighted javelins. That's 20,000 deadly Javelins launched into the mass of unprotected warriors. The survivors who reached the Roman line would have fared little better with their short spears against a wall of heavy shields and disciplined soldiers with helmets and body armor who were well versed in the practice of killing up close and personal. This would have been short work for 2 Roman Legions.

[@bloodrave9578]

Paulinus also had found the battlefield where he could fight more effectively with those numbers

[@billyvan8362]

SPQR

[@fergusmason5426]

"the British were not equipped to fight in hand-to-hand combat against superior numbers" Er yes, they were. That's why the Zulus quickly learned not to close into bayonet reach. The British remnants were killed with guns and thrown spears.

[@bobsyoruncle4583]

@@bloodrave9578 true yes and any capable Roman commander would chose the most favorable ground available. In the case of Paulinus he was vastly outnumbered - at least 5 to 1 and by as much as 8 to 1 or more - at Isandlwanda the ratio would only be 2 to 1. In Caesar's campaign in Gaul the Romans were almost always outnumbered - sometimes heavily - and defeated their opponents in open terrain - opponents with cavalry and who were much better equipped for fighting against heavy Roman infantry than the Zulus.

[@bloodrave9578]

@@bobsyoruncle4583 Much like in Gaul, Caesar would have also recruited Africans into his army much like he recruited Gauls and Germans into his army

[@alexius23]

As Flavius Josephus once wrote about the Roman Legion…..”their drills were bloodless battles and their battles were bloody drills”.

[@phantomstrangermedia]

@@alexius23 Chelmsford was not only over confident, he was also stuck with a schedule - it would take about 6 weeks for full news of the invasion to reach London (where the British Government had ruled against military intervention). Chelmsford aimed to ensure that, by the time the Government found out, they’d be presented with tidings of his great victory & be stuck with the consequences. However, the Zulus also had a time limit because they needed to use their manpower to bring in the harvest.

[@MunchyDean-h8x]

@@alexius23 I merely heard this quotation from the excellent drama " I Claudius " or as the man himself may have stuttered to CLCLCLAUDIUS (not poking fun just brilliantly acted and no less a Caesar of Rome).

[@dragospeta3812]

I suppose it's the other way around : "Drills were like bloody battles.... Battels were like drills ..." It's much better from the rhetorical style. "Every drop of blood you spill during the drill, it's one pound of blood you spare during the battles." It's still in use by the NCO's in boot camp and desert, mountain, jungle camps today in the army.

[@snowdogthewolf]

@@MunchyDean-h8x Wasn't Claudius the uncle of the lovely Caligula... that guy voted to throw the wildest of parties (to put it lightly)?

[@justynmatlock8873]

The Romans fought, and defeated armies comparable to the Zulus. The Zulus never had to face an army like the Romans.

[@Yiannis2112]

The Romans fought and won against much more sophisticated armies. In a pitch battle they (and all others before them) would have had a walk in the park.

[@justynmatlock8873]

@@Yiannis2112 I don't think that would have been the case agaist the Zulus, that's the attitude that cost the British so dearly.

[@Yiannis2112]

@@justynmatlock8873 I'm amazed I have to explain, yet here we are... Lets talk numbers from either side. In the battle of Isandlwana, there were 20k Zulus. 5k Assyrians, Carthaginians, Hellenes, Egyptians, let alone Romans in a pitched battle, would beat the living daylights of any 20k force, attacking as a pack. Especially as a pack of ridiculous even for the era, "no tactics" and straw (!) armoured, force. Mate, get real. There's no comparison at all. If what you mean is a scenario of 20k Zulus and a 500 Greeks, Romans or Persians, then its the wrong question. By that logic 10 modern day soldiers, all of them with MG3 machine guns, would still lose. Is that what you're asking?

[@georgestauber2636]

Point blank it would've been a slaughter. The Roman tactics and weapons were basically designed to kill armies like the Zulus.

[@justynmatlock8873]

@@Yiannis2112 War is a great exposer of hubris. Of course a smaller force can win over a larger, (Azincourt, (sic) for example), especially if the smaller force is better armed, better trained, etc. But other factors always play into it. A larger number of very poor troops can simply overwealm an army of better troops. People defending thier land, friends and family can beat a larger, militarily superior invading force because their are more motivated, (the Israelis n 1948 and 1973). Logistics, training, leadership. All thee things play a part. But going into a battle thinking, "This is going to be a walk in the park", is always asking for trouble. Pride Goeth Before A Fall.

[@davidfinch7407]

Romans would have won so handily that people would be calling it racist. Zulus would have charged and met a heavy rain of pilum. Survivors would have slammed into the Roman shield wall and would have been stuck there. The gladius would then been employed to cut through the basically unarmored Zulu warriors, whereas Zulu spears would struggle against shields and lorica segmentate. Caesar would have been smart enough to maintain a reserve to counter the "horns of the bull", including cavalry, which could have ridden through any flank attack. He would not have been content with ditches and archers to cover his flanks. The British lost because they relied on their rifles, great at range, but the Zulus got in close where the British were at a disadvantage. Bayonets are not superior to Zulu spears, and it just came down to numbers. Romans vs. the Gauls would have been similar, and Rome usually won those contests. Another example would be the battle of Watling Street.

[@libertycowboy2495]

Note: lorica hamata was the norm during Caesars time, not segmentata...that came a generation later.

[@amyclas]

Well ya but the Zulus had guns.

[@juanzulu1318]

​@@Relaxingpeacefulcalmingdiscipline wins wars. The Roman discipline and formations would win over Zulu enthusiasm

[@johndoe8729]

@@juanzulu1318I read somewhere that Shaka would kill complete families of deserters and soldiers who fled in battle

[@ruviklychee4308]

Roman soldiers are discipline incarnate, they march very long distances and are expected to create well fortified forts within a single day once they reach destination, once they were done, they packed up and repeated this wherever they went. They did so efficiently and often. The celts and germans had similar wild enthusiasm and fury to their attacks as the Zulus and yet they were almost always defeated by roman legions.@@johndoe8729

[@andrewcombe8907]

The closest analogue was the Battle of Watling Street when 10,000 legionnaires defeated 100,000 Celts under Boadicea. The Celts used tactics similar to the Zulus, the Romans used a series of wedge formations with forests on their flanks to prevent being outflanked by Celtish chariots. The Romans held a tight formation and just slaughtered the Celts.

[@damionkeeling3103]

That 100k+ figure is likely the total number of Britons up in arms, not present at the final battle. As they were all apparently killed and there were reprisals afterwards including a famine then you'd have to wonder why the local population didn't completely collapse and yet the Romans retained a military presence and didn't go further north for another decade. The Romans were definitely fudging the numbers here. But yeah, whatever the numbers it was a comprehensive Roman victory and the battle seems akin to Agincourt.

[@historyisawesome6399]

Or the battle of alesia 50k to 250k romans slaughtered them basicaly any anceint well orgnized army whould have won carthage assryia perisa parthia the qin are just some examples.

[@ET-jv1wm]

Watlington street is not an analogue at all. 😂 The Zulu were a professional army and not a milita of farmers raised from separate tribes who never fought together and weren't trained in battle tactics. Also the Zulu weren't stupid enough to confront a prepared and entrenched position on their chosen ground. The Zulu lured the main body of soldiers and cavalry away and mounted a surprise attack on an unprepared supply camp full of rear echelon soldiers and personnel. A far better analogue would be the Battle of the Teutoburg Forest. Here a professional soldier lured the Romans int a trap and ambushed them on favourable terms on their chosen ground. 3 legions were utterly destroyed by the the german tribesmen they underestimated!

[@historyisawesome6399]

@@ET-jv1wm i think rorkes drift or the battle of ulundi show the zulus attacked well fortifed armys quite often!

[@curtisjohnson2804]

Auxiliary troops?

[@lyndoncmp5751]

The Zulus at Isandlwana had around 4,000 guns. At least 1 in 5 Zulus were armed with a gun of some sort. Why is this never mentioned? In fact the first British unit at Isandlwana to be defeated was the rocket battery. It was taken out by Zulu forward skirmishers with guns. The British troops did not panic and flee as stated here. They mostly died in identifiable large clusters in and around the camp, overwhelmingly still retaining company or section cohesion. Even those who withdrew down Fugitives Trail remained grouped together and died in a 40 strong identifiable cluster and managed to hold together for 2 miles until overcome. Very very few British infantry fled in panic.

[@MrLantean]

The Zulus were not ignorant about guns. Their battles with the Boers had taught them about the deadly effects of guns during battles. They tried their best to obtain as many gun as possible. Unfortunately the ones they managed to obtain were antiquated and obsolescent types. Even the quality were often of shoddy type. Even the quality of gunpowder were poor. Nevertheless the Zulus did use them at Isandlwana. The British had underestimated the bravery of Zulus as they did not flee as expected but held out and moved forward despite suffering many casualties. The British also held out until they got taken out by Zulu cold weapons like the iklwa stabbing spears.

[@lyndoncmp5751]

​@@MrLantean Yes, around 20,000 guns were in circulation in Zululand by the start of 1879. As you say, they were old and outdated by 1879 standards but they could and did still kill at a couple hundred yards range. Nobody knows how many British troops were killed by Zulu gunfire at Isandlwana but at Rorkes Drift the same day, just over half of the British casualties were by Zulu gunfire. 18 out of 32 and the British picked up over 100 guns among the circa 500 dead and dying Zulu bodies. It was really the camp underestimating the sheer Zulu numbers. There were various reports and sightings that morning that put the Zulus in the 4,000 to 7,000 figure. The battle began with this figure of Zulus in mind. They had no idea there were over 20,000 and there was really no way to tell that through much of the battle. Two two Zulu horns could not be seen from the same position. They were miles apart so it was difficult to gauge the numbers. Nor were they rushing forward in one mass but using the cover of the ground, the dongas, the grass, crouching and even crawling at times. Cheers.

[@MrLantean]

@@lyndoncmp5751 The outdated guns were still deadly and effective if they were used the right way. I am sure that you are aware of the myth that the guns used by the Zulus during their attack on Rorke's Drift were Martini Henry rifles picked up from dead British soldiers at Isandlwana. However the Zulus at Rorke's Drift never fought at Isandlwana were reserved units. Field surgeons had written in their medical reports that the bullet wounds on injured British soldiers were inflicted by musket balls. The guns used by Zulu warriors at Rorke's Drift were the antiquated smoothbore muskets.

[@broncosgjn]

Yep this clown of a commentator is repeating tropes. He is repeating silly nonsense about the British soldiers.

[@ChongLi99]

@@MrLantean Forgot to say that is often mentioned that although Zulu had guns they were not highly trained like British, they had poor marksmanship which reduces guns effectiveness. Of course im not a scholar but i believe that Zulus didnt have a routine of training with guns like europeans.

[@unojayc]

The Brits were looking for the Zulu army when attacked. They, against Boer advice, never made a lagger, wagon's in a circle, for defense.

[@MunchyDean-h8x]

@@unojayc exactly right and lagger that was the term absolutely, that's why the vastly out numbered force at Rourke's drift held out and from what I hear it was made up of indeed south Wales borderers but also more than " a few foreigners from England mind" it was also if memory serves a brummie unit , not to mention Hookie was not so bad in real life as portrayed in the filim.

[@fishyc150]

​@@MunchyDean-h8x it was an English Regiment called "the Warwickshire regiment", not a welsh one. It didn't become the south Wales borderers until well after the battle. Just another thing the film gets wrong either deliberately or through neglect. They even use their line Regiment members "2nd battalion 24th Regiment of foot" to avoid using "2nd Warwickshires".

[@lyndoncmp5751]

The camp was to large for a laager. It was a kilometre wide. There were not enough wagons and it would have taken ages to do. British Army wagons were large larger and heavier than small Boer wagons. British Army wagons took 20 men to manoeuvre into positions. Besides, the wagons were in service for shuttle duty to bring up supplies from Rorkes Drift. There was an invasion to supply. They didnt need a laager at Isandlwana. Just a compact defensive line in front of the tents, but Durnford scuppered that by riding out to attack the Zulus (against the orders from Chelmsford) and he pressured Pulleine to support him, so Pulleine sent and kept the 24th Foot out far and wide.

[@morden279]

There were too few wagons to encircle a camp of that size, and they were of a type (fixed wheel oxen-drawn) that were too cumbersome to maneuver into laager without this process taking a multitude of hours. Crucially, many of the wagons were earmarked to return to Rorke's Drift to pick-up more supplies, and were not to remain at camp.

[@davidsoulsby1102]

@@MunchyDean-h8x It wasn't the South Wales borderers at the time, it was the 24th (2nd Warwickshire) Regiment. An English regiment that had plenty Welshmen but the majority were English. It was 1881 when they became the borderers. 2 Militia units from Wales were added and the HQ became the barracks of Brecon, hence the change to a Welsh regiment.

[@phantomstrangermedia]

The notion that the British ammunition dried up because the boxes were hard to open or required a special tool is an invention. The ammunition boxes could, in emergencies, be broken open with a rifle butt or boot without undoing any screws. Ammunition supply problems did contribute to the defeat, but mostly because the British units were too far from the camp & very spread out. Durnford’s unit was very removed from the camp & had already conducted a fighting retreat so when it’s ammunition began to run out, they decided to retire towards the camp, but in the process opened up a big gap in the British lines which the Zulus exploited. Once the Zulus reached & infiltrated the British skirmish lines, their superior numbers & close fighting advantages overwhelmed the Redcoats. The myth of the too secure ammunition boxes was a face saving exercise.

[@fergusmason5426]

Superior numbers, yes. Close quarter combat abilities, no. The Zulus quickly learned not to close with the redcoats; "Some Zulus threw assegais at them, others shot at them; but they did not get close - they avoided the bayonet; for any man who went up to stab a soldier was fixed through the throat or stomach, and at once fell." - Mehelokazulu kaSihayo, iNgobamakhosi regiment. The final British remnants were shot or killed with thrown spears, because nobody wanted to get within reach of their bayonets.

[@spikespa5208]

Even if the boxes were difficult to get into, they were designed and constructed by the *Brits* . No excuse.

[@photobygary]

I concur. The defense was badly bungled.

[@phantomstrangermedia]

@@spikespa5208 The boxes were practical & designed to both keep the ammunition in good condition & yet allow fast, tool free access if necessary. The myth that the ammo boxes could not be opened fast enough to adequately supply the firing lines was invented in order to present the battle as a defeat caused by a logistical problem, rather than a Zulu victory. Chelmsford acted with rapid & ruthless steps to remove blame from himself & lay it on others - even to the extent of tarring Durnsford one of the senior officers who died at Islandwhana. Chelmsford did not fool any members of the government, but he did convince Queen Victoria of his victimhood & the Press were motivated to portray the worst defeat ever at the hands of a ‘native enemy’ as a freaky accident caused by lack of bullets. The backstabbing & fake excuses are fascinating & appalling in equal measure.

[@spikespa5208]

@@phantomstrangermedia Note the first two words of my comment. Never said it was a factor in the defeat. Just that if it _was_ used as an excuse, it was lame.

[@chrisstewart7420]

As I always thought, Chelmsford was an overconfident buffoon. He split his column and failed to dig in. A proper general like Julius would have beaten Cetawayo hands down. Thanks for this. it only goes to show !

[@darrylmarbut47]

The British had gotten soft And stupid this battle and many more later in WW2 where without American support they'd if been Doomed,as it was them and the Frenchies got kicked around quite easily by the Germans,another group that fought for hundreds of years..

[@bullwinkle5445]

good point the Romans would have been dug in

[@lyndoncmp5751]

It was Durnford who messed up tactically at Isandlwana. Chelmsford gave orders that the camp will keep it's forces drawn in and act only on the defensive. He told Durnford to get there immediately and reinforce the numbers. Unfortunately Durnford ignored those orders and went on the attack, dispersing forces out far and wide and pressured Pulleine into supporting him. Had all forces remained at the camp, drawn in tightly and acting only on the defensive, the Zulus wouldn't have won.

[@lyndoncmp5751]

@darrylmarbut47 The British stopped themselves from being doomed in WW2. It was the Royal Air Force and Royal Navy that stopped the Germans in the Battle of Britain and Battle of the Atlantic in 1940/41. The US Army didnt even cross the Atlantic until the Germans were in retreat at El Alamein and Stalingrad.

[@Bryan-b8b]

​@lyndoncmp5751 Without lend lease from America, the UK would have been screwed.

[@marksheen4873]

1 legion would’ve won, better trained and 10x better armed. Easy W

[@Yiannis2112]

Yep. Stupid, clickbait arguments. Not only the Romans ffs. In a pitched battle, any army with relatively enough numbers, from a thousand years before the Romans, would beat the living daylights out of any pack, that the yt woke era of nowadays, defines as an "army".

[@petergleave7807]

'Eezy peasy, lemon squeezy' !

[@Nerdlikehistory]

Me when I don’t know history

[@marksheen4873]

@@Nerdlikehistory lol are you saying I don’t know history/im wrong? Cause it does seem like this is a situation where you dont know history then

[@saffron5802]

I wouldn't say that the Roman legionaries were better trained. Zulu warriors also underwent harsh training through the form of forced marches and repetition of executing advanced tactical manouvres. When it comes to armament, no question about that. Zulu's would have been at a severe disadvantage for this type of engagement. The thing is, the Zulu army was designed to operate on their home soil, against other tribes. For this, their equipment was highly effective. Armour was almost non-existent, because it would have been a burden in the hot African desert sun. The savannahs were/are vast, and infrastructure was underdeveloped. In order to protect their kingdom, the Zulu had to rely on speed and mobility to cover large distances and get to places where they were needed. The Roman army was designed to fight against the enemies they were up against. And their equipment proved to be highly effective for that job. At it's peak, the Roman army was immense, and well-developed infrastructure allowed them to get to places where they were needed. TLDR; both armies were trained and armed excellently for the enemies and challenges they faced.

[@Duke_of_Lorraine]

It depends on the quality of the legion. Even at the same time, if you look at the beginning of Caesar's civil war when newly raised italian legions outright refused to fight Caesar's veteran legions that had just conquered Gaul, it would be day and night. A green legion would rout quickly, while for a veteran legion it would be a wednesday.

[@tmclaug90]

I really don't think a green legion would route. And certainly not easily. They would no they were the superior force.

[@Duke_of_Lorraine]

@@tmclaug90 by "green" I meant levied in haste as an emergency to face Caesar. So they didn't have nearly near the regular standards of training. Indeed a proper legion would be far above them.

[@tmclaug90]

@@Duke_of_Lorraine I had a pretty good idea what you meant by "green".

[@roycarvana3903]

Blabla.. 18:43

[@morgs5118]

I see you in every comment section

[@wanderer0013]

Why am i imagining that this is being narrated by kermit the frog?

[@nicholasparish1968]

Trying to impress Miss Piggy

[@philholding6975]

😂😂😂😂😂

[@ordinaryrat]

There is a different channel that has scenarios like this that has a kermit the frog avatar or smth. Its called Blinkovs Battlegrounds or something like that.

[@secundus1927]

ROFL. Now that you mention it.

[@FishingNature87]

Because he sounds like he has a clothes pin on his nose .

[@tombrennan6312]

The testudo wasn't used in field combat, nor did the Romans fight in a shield wall; they left room between files for the swordsmen to work, room that also let a second rank man step forward to guard a first rank man's unprotected side if needed. Much was left to the individual initiative, agility and skill of the common legionary.

[@aaronburdon221]

Are you talking before or after the Marian reforms?

[@senpainoticeme9675]

​@@aaronburdon221Marian reforms were mostly about the administrative side of the legions. I dont think they simply threw away their Manipular tactics when it comes to fighting. Heavy infantry of that era would still form a quasi shield wall to present against their opponents.

[@aaronburdon221]

@@senpainoticeme9675 in the early days of the republic, they fought with an actual phalanx taking cues from the greeks. it evolved considerably over time. There was no one reform that turned them into what they were, but centuries of fighting and improving unit tactics and compositions.

[@alexstoyanov6108]

We don`t know for sure how exactly Romans were fighting. I mean particular distance between the files during the melee etc. We have our speculations and re-constructions based on pieces of ancient scripts and our assessment of Roman weapons and armour. We know how they marched and maneuvered on the field though. It is SUPPOSED that Legionarae`s primary weapon were pilums and direct hand-to-hand combat was secondary, since the rain of pilums was usualy enough to rout inferior militaries.

[@drakonos79]

not used in the field. are we forgetting Carrhae?

[@rc59191]

Putting an army like the Roman Legions against the Zulu would be like that scene in South Park where the kids hockey team went against a professional NHL team.

[@ricky6608]

But the zulus had guns

[@rc59191]

@ricky6608 lol ones they captured and some old antiquated muskets they didn't have any way to make their own. Even if some of their warriors had a few captured muskets it's not nearly enough to make a difference against the legions.

[@Nerdlikehistory]

@@rc59191more than enough to make a difference, & your incorrect, hundreds of Zulu’s would’ve had weapons.

[@rc59191]

@@Nerdlikehistory doesn't matter because they'd only be using the weapons that they can make themselves not captured at one point or another.

[@MunchyDean-h8x]

@@rc59191 Brilliant analogy hilarious 😂 and let me guess they killed Kenny😂.

[@Donkeyearsa]

I have one problem with this and that is Caesar just having his archers slaughtered when the Zulu light infantry got around the entrenchments instead of having them retreat and having the heavy infantry covering their retreat. The archers would be very helpful when the Zulu lines broke as light infantry can out run heavy infantry where the archers could shoot the Zulu in the back as they ran away.

[@timothysettle921]

there is also another no mention of the bolt throwers or onagers the romans would have also had

[@Donkeyearsa]

@@timothysettle921 There was also no mention of the light calvary but that was not my point. My point was the wast of resources. Ceaser was not overly concerned if a few hounderd troops under his command where killed if it was nessasery but he would not just wast them if they could be saved for future use if it was not necessary for his battle plan for them to die.

[@timothysettle921]

@@Donkeyearsa on that i completely agree as well i love history and everything i have studied points to Caesar didn't waste lives like you say

[@captainsensiblejr.]

​@@Donkeyearsa Calvary = The area of Jerusalem associated with the final hours of the crucifixion and death of Jesus Cavalry = soldiers fighting on horseback

[@rodrigorincongarcia771]

@@timothysettle921 onagers were siege machines (scorpions on the other hand were used against infantry , I think).

[@DukeOfTheYard]

Are you joking?! The Romans would be back to camp in time for lunch with hardly any losses.

[@lyndoncmp5751]

Against circa 4,000 Zulu guns?

[@DukeOfTheYard]

@@lyndoncmp5751 Muskets and old fashioned rifles which they were poorly trained to use. Their only chance was for the Romans to get scared at the sound of gunfire and run, but... very unlikely. If their firearms would have been any good, they would have killed the British that way, but the fact is that most British were killed with spears and other bladed weapons.

[@Cm38271]

​@@DukeOfTheYardThey aren't accurate but they are still formidable weapons against people with nothing to reply to them with.

[@drunkenork5373]

@@DukeOfTheYard You aren't thinking this through. The reason the Zulu's didn't employ their guns against the British is that the British rifles were more accurate, had far longer ranges and far higher rate of fire. Plus the disparity of training that you mentioned. The only way for the Zulus to even stand a chance was to close into melee range. Against the Romans the Zulu's had the technological edge. 4000 Zulu's with rifles shooting into tightly packed Roman formations, being elusive and not committing to mass melee would devastate the Romans.

[@jacobahn9998]

The Zulus had no armor beside shields, no cavalry, no artillery. The Romans did. The gladius is definitely superior to the iklwa. In addition to a religious routine of crafting fortifications, a Roman legion always maintained 2 orbits of scouts in every direction. Isandlwana was in a hilly savannah that is easily observable from high ground unlike Teutoburg forest where Romans suffered heavy losses.

[@Defender78]

Thank gosh the Zulu's didn't have bows and arrows like the Native American Indians did or the Romans and Greeks did, I'm not sure if the aztecs had Bozen arrows but who knows, of course there is no treason that region of Africa where the zuluves lived, but what if they did, it's scary to think that even rorke's drift would have been overrun if the Z's had Bs and A's

[@lyndoncmp5751]

1 in 5 Zulus were armed with a gun of some sort by 1879. There were circa 4,000 Zulu guns at Isandlwana. Zulu gunfire characterised all of the battles during the 1879 Anglo Zulu War.

[@brendanukveteran2360]

OK, lets now give the Zulus some cavalry and go deeper into this pointless rabbit hole

[@2TrackMind-c6i]

@@Defender78 Very possible, especially by concentrating fire and attack.

[@madogthefirst]

The Zulu shields are not armor. They are just hide stretched out on a stick any and everything would cut through. They were used to mask movements and distract than be any kind of protection.

[@pshehan1]

It was not the lack of prepared defensive positions which led to the massacre. The British were strung out in lines with the ends 'hanging in the air". Had the British formed squares, there would have been no open flanks, and a triple line of bayonets may have held off the Zulus with their assegais. Especially if the rear rank was reloading and firing.

[@CaptainFrood]

The Testudo was a purely defensive formation- great for sieges, but awful for close combat fighting, because you have people holding up shields in the air rather than bracing their front line. The Romans would be using a formation much more akin to a phalanx It’s not going to be a close fight, I think, because Roman battle tactics were practically designed to defeat Zulu-like forces. Phalanxes tend to be underestimated by people who look at infantry in other eras and assume they break off into 1-on-1 fights when the lines clash That’s not the case. Phalanxes stay in formation, and light infantry bounces off them. Romans had units that could move independently and reform facing any direction, so you can’t flank them effectively either without overwhelming force

[@jkiker7918]

Roman deployments beat the phalanx

[@RichardDCook]

I think you're right, are there any accounts of the Testudo being used offensively?

[@MunchyDean-h8x]

@@CaptainFrood you make very good points though for me Testudo was a great strategy for relief of short counter attack for instance though only in film form IE Cleopatra when Caesar sends out a Testudo to take out Egyptian catapult forces as those who attacked were killed with pilums that were sticking out from the formation, though not for a long battle against thousands hurling themselves at it.

[@MunchyDean-h8x]

@@RichardDCook yep as I have mentioned to the person in question at least in movie form anyway though only for short staged counter attacks that is IE CLEOPATRA and The Eagle. As to historical fact I am not sure.

[@bogdanbotis1524]

@@RichardDCook It was mainly used offensively in actions during sieges. I guess in a pitched battle the last thing you would want is to get caught by an enemy counter-charge in testudo.... Formation is not made for melee combat and I don't think there is time to switch to regular line and maintain order if rushed by enemy infantry....not to mention anything resembling heavy cavalry....

[@patricktracey7424]

the roman legions fought as a tight nit unit, they were more of an unstoppable mincing machine, they would stop the zulus and cut them to pieces piecemeal. Roman legions on open ground were pretty unstoppable, their few major defeats came when the were caught either in line of march in a forest (teutenburger) or in a desert where they couldn't get to grips with heavily armoured cataphractii and thousands of light horse archers (carrae). the bloodiest battles in history were between roman versus roman, although Hannibal's tactics were also amazing.

[@John-d7p]

Yeah, pretty much the way I would have predicted it. But, some details: 1) Caesar would not have sacrificed his archers. They would have pulled back before being engaged. Archers were valuable and often hired from foreign sources. They were probably not inexpensive and Roman generals payed the wages and recruitment costs of their troops. 2) the Zulu force would have been engaged from about 800 yards by Roman artillery, which all legions travelled with. Up to 32 scorpions in two sizes, and perhaps a dozen catapults capable of incendiary, grape, or solid shot. 3) In addition to archers, most Roman legionaries were well familiar with the sling, and most carried them. If there were auxiliaries with the legion, it might have included at least 200 professional slinger/skirmishers, devastating against unarmored opponents. 4) Zulu throwing spears would definitely have penetrated Roman scutae, just as Roman pilum penetrated other shields. The assagai was used similarly to the gladius, but was 4+ feet long, and was made of quite good steel. There would have been a LOT more than a few dozen Roman fatalities, despite the armor. 5) The Zulu were a disciplined army, but they were still a primitive on, using very limited formations. They had no ranks or files, nor did they rotate their warriors. They fought like the Gauls and Germanic tribes, using their best warriors in front until they either won or were all exhausted and killed. Once they were dead, the Romans would have been up against the second string. Finally, it is arguable whether or not the Romans broke formation when the enemy routed, preferring to leave the chase to the cavalry. Roman legionaries were not "swordsmen" in the classic sense. They were trained to be effective in a tight formation using well honed, careful, timed thrusting movements. Get a Roman soldier out of formation and he's as vulnerable as any other ancient soldier. More likely , the quick march/advance would have been signalled, and the whole line would advance quickly, dispatching any wounded enemy they walked over. Romans never took wounded prisoners unless they were inportant.

[@ByronBanger]

I agree with your take except #4. I wouldn't call it quite good steel. They used charcoal for smelting, so their iron weapons had steel like properties as a result. I would call it basic steel at best. Compared to the high quality steel of the Romans, it wouldn't have that great of an affect.

[@John-d7p]

@@ByronBanger IMO, it was good enough to penetrate a scutum to the degree that it would weight it down the same way a pilum would, which also were low carbon shafts. It's probable that the leaf shaped blades would not have punched clean through to strike the bearer, but it would have had a significant effect upon the use of the scutum. Of course there would have been a lot of deflected spear points, but I assume that the pilum did not alwys land at the perfect angle either. I do think that the assagai would be a more effective close melee weapon than the Zulu throwing spear. The Zulu would have been very good at using, as well. In any event, our scenario is one of fantasy, but the outcome would not have been in doubt. ✌

[@battler544]

What you are saying about the Zulu sending their most experienced warriors in to battle first is not true. Generally the younger less experienced warriors were sent first. This happened at the battle of blood river where the young warriors who were sent first began retreating, and were killed by the more seasoned warriors causing the massive casualties the Zulus suffered that day.

[@John-d7p]

@@battler544 Okay, I'll buy that. At the same time, the Romans also had their youngest and least experinced in front.

[@fergusmason5426]

"The assagai was used similarly to the gladius, but was 4+ feet long, and was made of quite good steel." It was about three feet long, a third of that blade, and the steel was almost unspeakably crap. It was often closer to wrought iron than true steel.

[@cameronwixcey9692]

The romans would have won. If 2 legions can beat 80,000 britons then they can beat 20 thousand troops with 0 armour.

[@Cm38271]

And 4,000 muskets?

[@robinmiller871]

If they were not trained with those Muskets, it would have just gotten in the way.

[@fergusmason5426]

Actually it WASN'T a morale boost for the Zulus. The scale of the casualties, and the ferocity of the British in close-quarters combat, were appalling shocks to them. King Cetshwayo's verdict on the battle was "An assegai has been thrust into the belly of the nation."

[@Gotterdammerung05]

Cetshwayo seemed to be rather a wise leader, hoping to avoid war knowing he couldn't win, and recognizing a pyrrhic victory and political disaster when he saw one. Too bad his British counterpart was a fool. Imagine what could have been done between the British, Zulus and Boers if Bartle Frere had been more diplomatic.

[@davidfinch7407]

Sitting Bull said something similar to Crazy Horse after Little Big Horn. I think it was, "Yes we won, but they have unlimited soldiers to replace their losses; where are the braves going to come from to replace our losses?"

[@doubleducks814]

The British did not encamp in a defensive position and paid the price. Rorke's drift was proof of sound tactics. A Roman Legion would encamp every night and dig in, it would never have been engaged on open ground unprepared.

[@aaronburdon221]

They could literally pop up a mostly fortified camp in 3 hours. I think they said it takes another couple hours to dig the trenches but yea They'd march for 8 hours, then spend 4 or 5 more setting up camp. It was WILD how good they got at it.

[@khatack]

The British were outnumbered like 20:1 dude. The military prowess of the Zulu have been VASTLY inflated by virtue signaling historians.

[@BRH0587]

Yes and no. The Zulus were trained harshly. A warrior couldn't marry or take a partner till they had been battle tested. This had a massive impact on their psyche. They had a phenomenal esprit de Corps. They also could move faster than a horse across rough terrain run for hours and fight at the end. Their stamina was legendary. I agree in a western sense they're maybe not as 'tactically' able. But for their equipment, the people they would fight and how they lived, they were unsurpassed.

[@khatack]

@@BRH0587 Harsh training and proper training are not the same thing. And the people fighting them were little more than apes technologically speaking so being the best of them isn't much of an achievement.

[@BRH0587]

@@khatack but again we'd argue proper training - as in western forces and the way we operate. Arguably, the Afghani nation is the best trained in the world as Afghanistan has never been conquered as the saying goes even when against superiorly trained opponents. 😂 We would be the apes in that case no? I get what you're saying. I understand your view. But to see the Zulu nation as little more than spear wielding rabble is what caused a lot of the issues. They were underestimated, not respected and so the British were lazy around them (That said as a Brit, and a serving soldier) Trust me I am not an apologist either mate not a bleeding hearts type.

[@ant208]

This argument makes no sense. The Boers beat a 20000 Zulu army with less than 1000.

[@khatack]

@@BRH0587 Afghan troops have never been trained even remotely to the standards of any proper nation. Afghanistan has never been conquered because it has always been more trouble than it is worth; the geography of the area makes holding it militarily incredibly painful and the area is pretty worthless, offering little incentive for any serious effort. I don't think Afghan soldiers have ever won a single battle against any serious military. Yes, the British underestimated the Zulu, a spear is still a deadly weapon, but they really WERE just spear wielding rabble, rather literally. Yes, they had grasped some rudimentary battlefield maneuvers, but they won that particular battle with 20:1 manpower advantage, and they still would've lost if the British had taken them seriously; it was less about the success of the Zulu and more about the failure of the Brits. That is NOT an achievement and it does NOT elevate them from being spear wielding rabble.

[@BearNecessities-X]

The Romans would have obliterated the Zulu.

[@Yiannis2112]

Not only the Romans. Anyone out of Egyptians, Assyrians, Persians, Hellenes, Cartheginians.

[@TomWagner-sk5dm]

@@Yiannis2112 Of course. They had formidable cavalry, archers and armored troops.

[@canemcave]

even Gauls, European barbarians or steppe tribe would have

[@erikjrn4080]

The Roman soldiers were equipped and trained to fight precisely this kind of battle: open ground, space to deploy, deliberate battle formation, prepared positions, cold steel weapons only. Under these conditions, they defeated virtually everyone: Celts, Gauls, Germanic tribes, Jews, Greeks, Egyptians, and more. It was especially effective against an aggressive enemy that charged their lines. An enemy matching their discipline and level of equipment could even things out, but the Romans kept winning, even then. The one, major vulnerability of the Roman army was ambushes. Most of their major defeats were to ambush tactics. When they were caught out of battle formation, or in a formation not pointed the right way, they could lose spectacularly. Not surprisingly, Hannibal, who crushed the Romans in every battle but the last, was an expert in precisely this. Meanwhile, the Zulus specialized in aggressive attacks and envelopment, exactly like the tribes that were beaten the worst by the Romans. With that tactic, they would be doomed to defeat. However, if the Zulu commander realized this, and adopted an ambush tactic, instead, things would look very different. Then we *might* have seen something like the battle at The Battle of the Teutoburg Forest, though presumably with hills as concealment of the Zulus and containment of the Romans, rather than forest and river/swamp. It would depend mostly on whether the Romans managed to form up.

[@williampoole1742]

My best guess: lasts between 30 minutes to an hour, the Zulu's would charge three separate times and try a surrounding kind of pincer move, to which the Romans would form a whole unit defensive orb. 75%+ of all pilum thrown would create a Zulu casualty, after half their number were downed by legionnaires, they'd completely break and scatter. Casualties: 3,000 dead, 6,000 to 9,000 wounded and captured (though with the great number of captured, Rome would probably kill a good number, if not all). This is a great concept for a video, I've always thought, what if the British had breastplates and swords/shields instead of just rifles and tunics. They would have benefited greatly by changing their tactics a bit to take advantage of both their range focused weaknesses and their enemy's unarmored weakness. I'm subscribing, if you make more conceptual videos like this, your channel will grow.

[@mike5d1]

The Ammunition boxes did NOT need special tools to open. That myth has been disproved on numerous occasions. People should stop using Donald Morris' Th3 Washing of the Spears as source material and read a wider selection of the books about the subject.

[@archdeaconwebb]

The Washing of the spears is still my favourite book on the Zulu Wars. His description of Rorkes Drift is gripping and the historical background very helpful.

[@alexius23]

Roman legions frequently faced much bigger armies than the Zulu. The battle against Boudicca: 10,000 Romans vs 200,000 Britons. Several times in Caesar’s Commentaries he defeated much larger Armies in Gaul. He was also a master of fortifications which played a vital part of Roman battles.

[@gr8oone007]

My understanding is that the British lost because their commander was an idiot, he made no preparations, made every wrong choice. Under those conditions any army can be defeated. The Zulu's then went on to a humiliating defeat at Rourke's Drift because they were the ones making the errors and were defeated by a tiny force. Leadership, preparation, and command meant a lot in these old standing army battles, damn near everything.

[@tatumergo3931]

Your assessment is correct. In the broad general way as you have described it, you are spot on. Bad decisions by the command, not listening to the experience advice of the veterans. Failing to make adjustments during the battle, and careful preparations prior were the key factors for defeat.

[@michaeldoolan7595]

Our military leaders have always been fucking idiots. British General staff have killed more British soldiers than the French.

[@morriganmhor5078]

The role of slingshot, fustibalus and archers in Roman tactics can not be underestimated. Those were not typical for Zulus.

[@The_OneManCrowd]

Don't forget the Plumbatae!

[@canemcave]

also Roman cavalry and artillery

[@docbailey3265]

And the fire-breathing dragons, too!

[@canemcave]

@@docbailey3265 actually if you put it that way, they should seriously worry about Greek fire the Roman used from the 5th century with the 60 to 120 pieces of artillery the Roman used with each legion would have caused immense damage to the Zulus

[@canemcave]

@@docbailey3265 together with all other defenses like caltrops, spikes, ditches and traps, that would have made approaching the fortified castrum next to impossible. 20000 Zulus have no chance whatsoever against 10000 Romans, none.

[@yanceyricks2601]

Considering if, for whatever the reason, Roman’s had camped there just like the British, then yeah they would have had time to put up fortifications. It just depends on how far they were from camp.

[@alexbowman7582]

“You know Baldrik, when I joined the army we were fighting fuzzy wuzzies with sharp sticks”.

[@Warmaker01]

This was the sort of thing the armies of the Roman Republic and Empire repeatedly faced and often won. They've faced "barbarian" armies that were quite large and better equipped than what the Zulus had. The Romans would also have cavalry. If we're using a Roman army from the Principate, there is also a real chance that the army would have Cataphracts. Rome had faced Cataphracts from the Parthians and started having their own. This was more likely the later in the Principate we take these armies from, and most definitely with the later periods of the Empire when the army had to change after the Crisis of the Third Century. Zulus resorting to skirmishing and guerilla warfare doesn't quite work with the form of annihilation Rome and other armies of its time did. The goal of armies in classical and ancient warfare was to destroy / take over cities, towns, villages. The Romans were quite fond of outright destroying, killing most everything and enslaving the rest. Zulus not giving battle means they give up their settlements, herds, etc. Everything will be destroyed or seized, enslaved by the Romans. Good luck living in the countryside after that with little to nothing to eat. Maybe a few can do it, but an army? No. You need a support structure. And that support structure is gone when your towns and villages have been destroyed with occupants killed or led away in chains as slaves.

[@canemcave]

generally won

[@carinasmirnoff1780]

This was fantastic. Love the concept of switching the dynamic.

[@SeattleJeffin]

Well Julius Caesar had 4 veteran legions with him when he invaded Gaul against about 60,000 warriors so 6 to 1 odds. Assuming he took Legio IX and X with him. please note these are not quite as well armored as the Tragionic ere legionaries shown in the artwork, but the mail lorica would have been quite good. The odds against the Romans would be about 2 to 1. If the Zulu's attacked at dawn as they did against the British the Romans would have be occupying a fortified marching camp. I think the Romans would have not be at all non pulsed and carried the field but I imagine the victory would not have be decisive as the Zulus would have withdrawn. If the battle had been a field battle where the Romans could pin the Zulus against a terrain feature then they would have been able to really lay on the casualties. If the Zulus could have ambushed the Romans on the march then perhaps but by no means would it have been a sure thing, the Veldt is not the Tetuenburg forest.

[@painlord2k]

At Teutoburg the legions were stretched over many, many kilometers over a really tight road between the forest and the river. They were ambushed and never prepared to being attacked.

[@doug18d50]

If Roman Legions were attacked on the march in open terrain, a major portion of the men held off the attackers, while the rest retired behind the defenders with spades, mallets, and the long stakes that every legionnaire carried as part of his kit. A moated enclosure was dug, with the spoil dirt thrown toward the inside of the enclosure to form a berm wall. At the top of the berm, the long stakes were pounded in to form a palisade wall, behind which the legionnaires could fight. When the moated, palisaded enclosure was completed, those legionnaires holding off the attackers slowly retreated in fighting formation into the enclosure, the wall opening then being blocked. The warriors of the attacking force then faced the prospect of descending into the dry moat, climbing the berm, and trying to stab/spear the force within through the palisade. At Teutonburg, the route of march had not been cleared of trees and bush 50 yards on both sides, which was standard for areas the Romans had occupied for a long time. Hence, the forest came right up to road’s edges, leaving no space to enclose or deploy into fighting formations when the Romans were attacked. The Germans’ tactics of a series of small ambushes against the strung out Roman column caused the unaffected parts of the column to panic, resulting in a headlong, uncontrollable rush, which did not allow an effective use of Roman tactics.

[@aaronburdon221]

@@doug18d50 It's literally why they cut trees back so far off the roman roads, put ditches and other safety features on each side. So they couldn't be ambushed.

[@floriangeyer3454]

The fairytale that the Zulus only had traditional weapons again. They had firearms. Old patterns, but hitting an infantry square a volley from Brown Bess or Martini Henry has the same effect.

[@keithmcwilliams7424]

They did not know how to use them.they did not know you had to put a cartridge in the rifle to make smoke and fire to come out the other end.

[@floriangeyer3454]

@@keithmcwilliams7424 they did. At Rorke`s drift the 24th took plenty of casualties from sniper fire.

[@penguintaco9038]

​@@floriangeyer3454 most of the defenders survived

[@morriganmhor5078]

At Rourke's Rift Zulus didn't use volleys, they have ONLY few skilled riflemen And knew nothing about volleys tactics.

[@floriangeyer3454]

@@morriganmhor5078 read again. Rorke`s Drift. Sniper fire. Not aword about volley.

[@h.carson5414]

Hard to charge a solid line while stumbling over the bodies of dead fellow warriors. Romans knew what they were about.

[@Cm38271]

Before or after the volley fire of 4'000 muskets. The Zulus had firearms and muskets are still more than enough to punch through a shield and helmet

[@DeutzFarmer96]

Love these alternate history battles. Keep up the great work.

[@anomander-rake]

Romans without breaking a sweat, no contest

[@mikeevans96]

The legions were made for that kind of fight...the redcoats weren't...If the legions stayed in formation , no Zulu's would have made it back. 10,000 legionnaires beat many times their number of opponents as fierce as the Zulu... not taking away anything from them.

[@johnirby8847]

The red coats were more than capable... but at 20:1...that's modern military ktd ratios.

[@spervuurproduksies]

The irony is that this same defeated British force would probably have been victorious over the Romans.

[@supernautacus]

Well said. They would have KNOWN to NOT give the Romans ANY opening AT ALL!

[@spervuurproduksies]

@@supernautacus I am thinking that the Romans would have attacked slower, and their shields/armour would not have stopped bullets. They would have been picked off at range.

[@supernautacus]

@@spervuurproduksies ...The cannons and the first volley would have done the trick. The Romans would have thought it was Jupiter's thunderbolts.

[@spervuurproduksies]

@@supernautacus 😄

[@canemcave]

not so sure, romans had their own artillery and long range weaponry like onagers, balistae, scorpios, slingers and archers. They would have learned how to fortify and overcome even better equipped opponents. However, even though 1 legion would have been too small a force against almost 1000 British expeditionary troops with rifles and cannons, with 2 legions, I would not be so sure. I would think it would have depended on whether they were familiar with the technology of the opposing forces and the time available for preparations

[@craiglongan]

Your analysis is spot on.

[@GritimoTheOdd]

So, in all honesty, who else thought about that Epic Rap Battle of History Ceasar vs Shaka Zulu when they saw this pop up in their feed?

[@rc59191]

Zulu can't outflank the best.

[@TheGunNerd]

How many racial slurs would Ceasar shout? Having fought better equipped and trained enemies, there's no way he ain't being racist towards the zulus

[@TerryMcglone-z3z]

Very good i totaly agree bang on . I like your channal ideas.terry.

[@jarlborg1531]

It would have been like the Battle of Watling Street, two legions will hack through any sized mob.

[@imperatorvespasian3125]

you mean shield wall, the Testudo formation was for advancing against forces with heavy bow in static fortifications. A standard shield wall would be used, other than that not a bad description, but most likely the Romans would have had a fortress in the wagon park, much more like battles in Gaul.

[@ilejovcevski79]

Discipline and morale likely being equal (at the peak of what a human being could manifest) for both sides, only two factors would really decide this battle IMO, and that would be equipment and prior exposure/know-how to different fighting styles. And both favor the Romans in this scenario. 1. The legions are just better equipped, with nigh impervious to Zulu weapons armor (even the heavy pikes of the Hellenistic Sarissae had a hard time fighting them) and shields is self explanatory; 2. And this i think is far more interesting, is the overall experience and accumulated know-how of the Roman fighting machine. You can argue they are outnumbered and they are fighting in hot dry weather which would favor the natives, but by the time of the late republic and early empire, they have already faced such challenges and came out on top. They fought in Egypt, Tunis, Morocco, Syria, Palestine, Mesopotamia, in essence along the entire Mediterranean basin all the way to the middle east, including in deserts and dry steppes. And they fought against much more mobile armies based on horse archers and mounted nomads. Also, as far as tactics are discussed, double envelopment may have been all the rage in the Zulu lands in the 19th century, but for the Romans it was 2 centuries in the past since Hannibal goaded them into falling for that at Cannae. Finally, the numerical advantage could help the Zulu, as in conjunction with the open terrain, it would keep the Romans on the defensive, at least initially. But even poorly led Romans, even more outnumbered, in much less favorable terrain held for weeks in Teutoburg Forest. And those Romans were ambushed. By the early empire, the Roman armies were so professionalized, that except for major blunders, they were immune to poor leadership. The NCO's and the junior staff lead a well drilled mass of soldiers that needed very little micro management from the top in order to win battles. In other words, there was very little the Zulus could have thrown at the Romans, that the Roman's haven't faced before. And since you added a general like Caesar, who fought outnumbered before not just in Gaul, against other less professional native troops on their own home turf, but against other Romans that outnumbered him as well, the Zulus have very little chance. Even when this guy made blunders (and made them he did), it was never from a catastrophical nature. At best, i think, the Zulus could try to stall and skirmish, fight a delaying action, maybe a guerrilla war, but the terrain is again too open, and they aren't as mobile as the Romans are. If we assume that a standard Legion has its contingent if cavalry and skirmishers attached to them, we are looking at least a 1000 cavalry here, that can scout, skirmish and fight in melee when needed, as well as pursue. It will be a hard battle for sure, mostly because of the discipline, quality and courage of the Zulu troops, but in the end, the odds are just stacked against them. Even a 3:1 numerical advantage would be hard to win under such circumstances. And if the Romans actually did what the Romans do, when marching on hostile territory, and went and erected caps over the night? Then the Zulus don't stand any chance at all. Not even a hypothetical one. As for the actual battle as depicted above, i have only few minor issues. First, i don't think testudo would be used much. It was mostly used during siege battles, or when trying to withstand archer barrages, from enemies with large numbers of superior bowmen. This isn't such a scenario. Zulus throw javelins, so the Roman legionnaires and their auxilia skirmishers. Testudo would just make them less tactically flexible. Second, i don't think the flanks would left that exposed, even with the defensive ditches in place. A bait of light infantry would be placed for sure, maybe even some cavalry, but i don't think they would just stand there to die and be cut to pieces. If the battle of Pharsalus is any indicator, then a faint including a bait to charge is more likely, followed by a combined arms counterattack to the overextended Zulu flanks. Finally, the Zulus will give a very hard fight. These are warriors that don't fear firearms and canons after all. Breaking their moral would not be easy. And they are very disciplined and well lead. They can't win this one, but they will give such a good fight, it may take much longer to drive them off. Only after EXTRMELY high casualties and possibly a couple of days of fighting. This could lead to a multi day battle. Aside from that, yeah, i agree with your conclusions. Good video!

[@morden279]

I wrote my degree dissertation on the historiography of the Battle of Isandlwana; a few points: The Inaccessibility of the Mk.V ammunition box ("requiring special tools to open") has been largely discredited by historians. The boxes could have been opened through violent application of hammers, rifle butts, or the entrenching tools of the regimental pioneers. Bent retaining screws (from the box lids) have been unearthed in archaeological digs which suggest this occurred. The Zulu under Cetshwayo gave great prominence to the ownership of firearms. These ranged from obsolete smoothbore muzzle-loaders, to rifled muskets, to last-generation breech loading rifles such as the Snider-Enfield and other equivalent models. These would have told at close range in either scenario. (British) entrenchment would only have been effective and worthwhile (time, energy spent) against a modern enemy armed with rifles and artillery. Digging trenches would have been exhausting at the height of the South African Summer, which is also why this wasn't conducted. The building of stone redoubts as defensive anchor points would have been far more effective, but again, this wasn't done owing partly to concerns over troop fatigue as well as overconfidence in the Martini.

[@williamkirk1156]

Nearly every Roman defeat in camp was due to not setting up a camp. Roman camps were heavily reinforced. That alone is enough to defeat the Zulu. The British did not establish a proper camp.

[@damionkeeling3103]

They tried to cover too greater a distance thinking some guns and the high ground was all they needed. The fact they missed 20,000 odd men moving towards them is proof enough of their complacency.

[@bruceironside1105]

Thank you for this video. I really enjoyed it. A small critique - a very common issue with American content creators - please do some research beforehand on the pronunciation of some of the ‘foreign’ words that you may not be familiar with. Others a great video. Thanks again.

[@Dave_Allen]

2 Roman legions v 20.000 Zulu, i would be surprised if the Romans lost more than 100 men.

[@Cm38271]

4,000 muskets, they would have lost atleast 7,000

[@andreasfjellborg1810]

@@Cm38271 Not a chance check the battlefield statistics, hundreds of musket balls where spent for every killed soldier and that's from 18'th century line battles

[@NigelDeForrest-Pearce-cv6ek]

Excellent and Outstanding Video!!!!

[@nocturnalrecluse1216]

The main reason why the British lost that battle was poor leadership. Lord Chelmsford foolishly split his forces into two halfs and kept them separated where one half would be annihilated before the other half could reinforce in time. Also, the pilum didn't bend upon impact. That is a general misconception. What made it so effective was the heavy barb at the front end of the javelin, which made it very difficult for an opposing force to remove the pilum from their sheilds, rendering them useless.

[@TomWagner-sk5dm]

same mistake as Custer. he split his forces in three parts. each part of ca. 200 men stood against ca. 1000 - 1200 native warriors, many armed with rifles. as the combined force they would have been able to stood their ground, I think.

[@nocturnalrecluse1216]

@@TomWagner-sk5dm Very true and both roughly the same era.

[@darkwater5614]

I really enjoyed this! Veni,Vidi,Vici

[@DidierB2]

20k zulus versus 2 roman legions (5000+ each) ? no match legions win 99% of 100 such battles

[@aaronburdon221]

Unless the roman general did something extremely stupid, yea the romans win that one.

[@Cm38271]

Guys, are you forgetting about the 4,000 muskets the Zulus had?

[@aaronburdon221]

@@Cm38271 Even then, the odds of the zulus winning is highly improbable. They might get 2 volleys off (before the romans would be among them) which might take out 500 or so of the romans (depending on whether musket balls would be able to penetrate their Scutum and then their armor) Also, spears are not great against swords. Once you get inside the range of a spear, they're pretty much helpless unless they want to grapple with a bulky highly trained man that has been wrestling since they were 7 or 8. You're also forgetting that Romans have Pila (they were usually equipped with 3 of them in which all 3 can be throw before the musketmen could be reloaded)

[@lukemagro6060]

Great vid. Thank you.

[@johnrowley3007]

the problem is the brits had 1200 where the romans had 10,000, the romans had the lorica the brits no Armour. no one without Armour can survive an open battle with the romans

[@davidwright7193]

Lorica probably won’t stand up to the Zulu’s asagi let alone a musket ball or a rifle bullet. The Zulu’s did have some gun armed troops.

[@canemcave]

@@davidwright7193 lorica was good enough against real steel for millennia, it will be more than enough for the asagi. An asagi would probably not be enough to penetrate a scutum, never mind a lorica

[@tordsteiro9838]

Unless they have gatling guns 😉

[@davidwright7193]

@@canemcave The degree of ignorance and quite frankly racism in that post is huge. First Lorica wasn’t in use for millennia it was used from mid 1st century BCE to mid 2nd century CE. So 300 years at most. Lorica dropped out of use because it wasn’t as effective as the alternatives, principally early mail shirts. Secondly the Zulu were well capable of making high quality bloomery iron as good as anything being made in 12th or 13th century CE Europe. Far better than anything made in 1st Century CE Britain or Rome. Finally the asagi at Isandwana weren’t made with locally produced iron. The Zulu were well embedded into global trade networks and could get hold of the same grades of steel used to make the British swords and bayonets from the same sources. I have some San arrows made this century and despite being a classical Stone Age weapon they are tipped with a modern mild steel head. Very crude compared to modern competition points but could certainly go through a shield fired from a powerful enough bow.

[@canemcave]

@@davidwright7193 seriously just because someone expresses an opinion about a primitive instrument is ignorant, and racist? That's hilarious!

[@Lexi-vl5eh]

This is one of my favorite ones so far. Really liked learning about this battle.

[@WilkensTokarev3]

The Romans even beat the Macedonians and the Spartans how much more can the zulus do against the ancient world's mightiest military power? 🗡️🦅

[@zanchoredan2838]

Why they nerver go there?Only when they have guns they go

[@hooywamd00pe95]

@@zanchoredan2838 Because they already had the greatest empire on earth, were over extended, and technology at that time didnt allow for huge military operations so far from home base. Zulus stood no chance against Romans.

[@hooywamd00pe95]

@@zanchoredan2838 Also if Zulus were so great why didnt they conquer all of Africa and invaded Europe and middle east? Oh ya, because they were only good at defeating backwards armies of their neighbors, and stood no chance against western armies unless they had huge numerical advantage.

[@zanchoredan2838]

@@hooywamd00pe95 Never know Napoleon look also weak.and think they beat them with all the guns

[@hooywamd00pe95]

@@zanchoredan2838 Napoleon looked weak? Are you drunk?

[@davidkinsey8657]

A Roman legion under Julius Ceaser would have defeated the Zulu. But a lesser commander such as Crassus or Varus might have been defeated. Any army that underestimated the Zulu did so at their own peril. As to your question, yes, I like this approach. It reminds me a little of the old Deadliest Warrior series but with whole armies instead of individual warriors.

[@PhilK114]

Love alternate history and this is a great idea !

[@ksc888]

The Zulus would have had ancient but still terrifying firearms, would the legions been able to weather that? Maybe a couple hundred belearic slingers would have cancelled out the muskets.

[@ksc888]

These slings had a max range of about 300-400m, weighed 50g and traveled at about 100mph. You don't want to be on the receiving end of that even with a hide and wood shield.

[@damionkeeling3103]

The Zulu would have had mostly early to mid 19th century firearms and most would have been single fire. They had some capable shooters but overall lacked any skill in using firearms which is why they resorted to massed charges of guys with spears and clubs. It's a valid point though, how much morale would be lost from the Roman side at the noise? Perhaps after realising the lack of effect the Romans would quickly learn to ignore the noise. A crowd of 20,000 shouting makes about as much noise as an early firearm, I wonder how much fear the firearms might cause in that situation.

[@ksc888]

@damionkeeling3103 Good points too, it would have been so loud on the battlefield that the legionaries might not have noticed the boom sticks, depending on the distance. Also, bullets from even older firearms might have caused similar wounds to lead sling stones. So seeing their comrades keeling over when killed or wounded by firearms may not have phased a legionary. The experienced men were probably very used to ultraviolence - inflicting and seeing dismemberments, etc. It's hard to say how the legionary's moral would have been affected by the probable sporadic musket or rare rifle explosions. But a rolling volley from a company or two of British red coats would be a different story :)!

[@blindscience1701]

Either way you do these What if's, It always works for me.

[@PowhiroMus]

The overwhelming keys to Roman Legion victory would be two factors; 1. Julius Caesar always insisted on overnight quite sophisticated fortified encampments, ditches, traps, embankments and wooden walls, he would have insisted on this at Isandlwana. The Romans excelled at this, did it every night in enemy territory.. 2. The Roman Legions were quite experienced, very disciplined and accustomed to fighting "unruly savages" who attacked from any direction or all at once in superior numbers. So of course the legions would have withstood the assaults defending the gates and ramparts and they, the slingers, archers, war machines would have thinned out the Zulu warriors at long range, medium range and short range. And then when the Zulus broke and retreated, the Roman light cavalry would have ridden many down and the legionnaires would have surged forward to kill any wounded or those too slow. The next day the legions would have marched, killing, looting and burning, taking slaves, laying waste, no more Zulu Kingdom or Zulus. That is how Julius Caesar fought! It is really hard to see any probable scenario where the Zulus could prevail against Julius Caesar and two experienced legions. Great concept though

[@peterraab3411]

Would be the same as the Roman's defeating Budica.

[@GrantMackay-wm1pe]

Is a no brainer,heavily armoured heavy infantry ,drilled to automaton level ,as brave as the Zulu were ,they would be simply minced in the face of one of the finest killing machines in history . The Roman fought and defeated many warriors whose fighting style was similar to the Zulus ,the undoubted bravery of the Zulu would see them efficiently massacred to a man . This clip is a great lesson on each army ,but to enthusiasts like us its old news ,great and informative for those who are new to the fascinating world of ancient warfare .

[@triumphant39]

The gladius was a stabbing and cutting sword. That isn’t a minute detail to mention, because the iklwa is almost exclusively a thrusting weapon. The Zulu would be particularly susceptible to slashing and cutting weapons, they wore almost no clothing of any kind, and the gladius could likely bat the iklwa aside, or glide along it, easily striking the Zulu warriors hands or arms. Don’t assume the gladius was only for thrusting because of its length, most machetes (we could also use Thai and Filipino swords as an example) are much shorter, and people seldom call them thrusting weapons. The myth comes from people accustomed to seeing medieval long swords, and arming swords in movies, and comparing them rather than using logic.

[@darrylmarbut47]

The Zulus would've been chop suey/ground burger,as the Orcs say,"meats back on the menu today,boys!"😂

[@hobbyfarmer62]

Let's face it the Roman legions regularly faced superior numbers and nearly always won with minimal casualties. The only times Roman armies suffered high casualties were in times of either facing very similar armies say like Hanables, or other Roman legions during times of civil war.

[@phantasma9391]

What about Teutoberg forest?

[@painlord2k]

@@phantasma9391 It was an ambush prepared by a traitor that convinced Varro to travel a road was between the forest and the river in often swamp like condition. The Roman legions were moving from Summer to Winter camps and didn't expected any trouble. So they stretched the legions for many (maybe up to 10) km. Soldiers, wagons, materiel, etc. Then the Germanic tribes started to attack the romans from the forest. The romans could not counter attack or retire, just continue to move under the projectiles. IIRC, the Germanic took a couple of days to be able to complete the slaughter bit by bit and only at the end there was a significative battle: The romans were able to concentrate some exhausted soldiers in a camp and the German attacked and overwhelmed them.

[@captainsensiblejr.]

Hannibal not Hanable, numpty

[@ordinaryrat]

@@captainsensiblejr. numpy? The python module? Never heard that insult before.

[@geraldkriss1120]

GK. Various was not a good military leader. He alienated the Germanic Tribes. He also trusted a Retired Roman officer( German), who wanted to become famous by planning a very clever and well thought out ambush. Herman the German was very devious and.ruthless. His men were particularly brutal and sadistic to captured and wounded Roman's. Varius was not Rome's best and brightest. Herman the Gerrman became a hero, but was soon assassinated by someone close to him. Rome could not plan on conquering Eastern Germany, Northern Europe, and possibly Eastern. Europe . The disaster cost the Roman's 18- 20 thousand men. From that point on, Rome did not have the manpower to expand it's Empire. Instead, the Roman's conducted raids in and across the Rhine River and committed many acts of Genicide, costing hundreds of thousands of lives. All of this was a tremendous waste of lives- both German and Roman

[@edflores7193]

Very interesting!!!

[@Aureus_]

I'm pretty sure Sagitarii carried secondary arms for close quarters.

[@alessandroiorio6248]

Yes and depending on where they were levied from they would be well armoured too.

[@markpeterson8463]

This was a really interesting Alternate History scenario, thank you for this. I have often wondered what a conflict between Romans and Zulus would have looked like ever since noticing the somewhat similarities between their large shields and stabbing weapons. Still, like you I decided the Romans would have come out victorious because of their sturdier shields and body armour (that was completely absent from the Zulus). To add my 2c worth of thoughts to your video, the strength of the Romans were their discipline and formations, while for the Zulus it was their aggression and speed. The Zulus only real chance to defeat the Romans in my uneducated opinion would be to lure the enemy force into a well prepared ambush, as they did at the Battle of Italeni, and attack them while they are on the march. In addition, I would think that it will be advisable to drive the 'Horns of the Buffalo' through the Roman lines instead of surrounding the entire army IF AND ONLY IF the Romans hadn't seen the Zulu's coming and is still in matching order. Basically an African version of Battle of the Teutoburg Forest: Disrupt the Romans' ability to create their formations and overwhelm them piece at a time.

[@fergusmason5426]

You said "unlike the unarmoured British... the Roman legions were specifically designed and trained to fight at close quarters." This is inaccurate. 19th century British infantry did a LOT of training in close-quarters fighting. They did hours of bayonet drill, and they were very good at it. So good the Zulus learned, IN THE COURSE OF THE BATTLE, not to fight at close quarters, because the bayonet was an extremely effective weapon.

[@rhynzard]

Dude, shield, armor and short blade are optimised to close combat. Uniforms in cotton can't protect the body and bayonet is an adapted gun, not specialised to close Combats

[@fergusmason5426]

@@rhynzard So what range do you think a bayonet IS optimised for, then? The Zulus feared the bayonet. They quickly learned not to get too close. This is a fact, and not affected by whatever you happen to think.

[@rhynzard]

@@fergusmason5426 give you un example. Spears are doing the same of the bayonet in close combat. But better because lighters, easier to handle, longer range. Obviously can't shoot. But we are talking about close combat. Against light infantry in charge, armour, big shield, a one hand stabbing weapon is the best because designed to do it. A ruffle with bayonet is collateral setting.

[@damionkeeling3103]

@@rhynzard A bayonet is essentially a spear and the rifle/bayonet combo meant the British infantry had a reach advantage over the Zulu at close quarters. I'm sure a trained Zulu could turn a bayonet aside with their shield but I'm also sure if they didn't the British soldier could punch his bayonet through the shield into the warrior holding it. Compare that to the shields typically used by Europeans 2000 years ago which were made of wood, either solid planks or laminated like 3-ply which were very resistant to stab attacks. It took a weighted javelin to pierce such shields, a weapon the Zulu didn't have as their warfare didn't require it.

[@fergusmason5426]

@@rhynzard You've clearly never seen a Zulu or Ndebele stabbing spear. It isn't the sort of spear you clearly have in mind. It's a short stabbing weapon, around three feet long including a one-foot blade, and used almost exactly the same way as the Roman gladius - held in an underarm grip about halfway along the shaft, and thrust forward at the enemy's midsection. It doesn't even come close to matching the reach of a 20" bayonet on a 49" rifle. Zulu accounts from Isandlwana make clear that at close quarters the British had the advantage. As a Zulu who was there said, "Some Zulus threw assegais at them, others shot at them; but they did not get close - they avoided the bayonet; for any man who went up to stab a soldier was fixed through the throat or stomach, and at once fell."

[@bradbarnes8839]

I doubt the Romans would have used a testudo formation for a full charge from a short spear-based army that didn't employ bows, especially when outnumbered. They would have formed up in a slight crescent moon with likely 75% in the front line and the rest held back in the center and on the left and right flanks.

[@BHuang92]

Iwisa, meet Caesar He's a commander Who thinks he can dance with Conan of the Savannah!

[@Duke_of_Lorraine]

You talk a lot of s*** for a man in a diaper, I heard you had poison spit, where was it in the cypher Cause all I hear is threat from a brute with no discipline And I'm ruling over you like a pool of my own citizens

[@libertycowboy2495]

Caesar would had Iwisa as a guest in Rome...for his triumph!

[@Cm38271]

4,000 muskets agrees

[@JustFlemishMe]

You can take your cow skin shield and hide under it You're fucking with the most triumphant third of the Triumvirate!

[@dendemano]

The aggressive nature and willingness of the Zulu warriors to bravely assault their enemy with full force in spite of their losses is exactly what a Roman military unit would be able to use to its advantage. Marauding Gauls, Britons, and Germanic tribes were all similar in initial conflicts with the Roman military, and deployed much the same tactics. Roman Legions were extremely effective against this type of threat and defeated countless enemies who would attack them with a full frontal attack. Organisation and discipline was the primary source for their continual battle victories.

[@shanecornwell232]

Excellent. Thank you 🙂

[@maximusjackassicus3042]

Would the advanced experienced Roman legions with steel weapons and armor defeat stone age savages? Yes

[@libertycowboy2495]

In fairness, the Zulu had discovered how to smelt iron earlier in the century.

[@maximusjackassicus3042]

@@libertycowboy2495 yes but had they put it to any use yet? Also smelting iron from ore is a far cry from steel weapons and armor.

[@ceciljohnrhodes4987]

Stone Age savages, that’s a bit harsh.

[@emameyer]

​@@ceciljohnrhodes4987 their tech level was stone age. their military strategy was based on savagery not discipline. this is not a disparaging comment, merely descriptive

[@captainsensiblejr.]

The Zulu were .not stone age (iron assegai) and some muskets.

[@CRT_sRGB]

Caesar's legions win, it's a foregone conclusion. The context they appeared in had already seen thousands of years of large-scale warfare, on three continents. What's really interesting are the Zulu. Their way of waging war was very new to them, and quite revolutionary. Given an isolated continent, and some millennia, who knows what more could have emerged.

[@orincoon5585]

ROMA Invictus, hail Caesar!

[@LookHereMars]

Rome would have bummed the Zulu side ways, likewise would be the case for the British in such a scenario against Legionaries. Roman Legions were, for the majority of its long history, among, if not the best and most deadly, effcient, and professional close combat fighting forces in human history. The convertion by the Zulu to make the Asegai a secondary platform and the implementation of the short stabbing spear, Iklwa, as a close in primary was genious for its period. The Zulu were fantastic fighters and brave to a man, they conquered by might, and certainly gave us Brits a good licking when we came knocking. But while the Zulu were conquering their small part of South Africa, the Romans had already a Millenia before conquered, by Gladius, a large chunk of the known World, and by the time of the Zulu Wars with Britain in the 19th Century, the last remnant of Rome had only been gone for 4 centuries. I give it to the Legionaries, by an absolute mauling.

[@arkwill14]

I think they would do better -- if only because the Romans would EXPECT to engage in a close-quarter melee. They were BUILT to fight in that manner. The British were relying on their modern rifles and didn't expect the Zulus to be able to close with them. When that happened, the British were thoroughly panicked, discipline broke down, and they were slaughtered in the unexpected rout. Romans armor and weapons were still more advanced than what the Zulus had in 1874 -- and they were prepared to use them in a sustained defensive manner. In other words, they were not dependent on guns and thus limited by ammunition supply and a need to keep the Zulus at a distance like the British were.

[@fergusmason5426]

"the British were thoroughly panicked, discipline broke down, and they were slaughtered in the unexpected rout." That's not what the Zulus said though, is it? They said the British stood their ground and fought ferociously, to the point Zulus declined to close into bayonet range and killed the last British remnants with guns and thrown spears.

[@anathardayaldar]

The real main difference is that you gave the romans their most competent commander in their history. The Brits had an incompetent commander who squandered their strengths.

[@evilstorm5954]

Same outcome

[@evilstorm5954]

The ammunition “supply” issues were that due to the quality of the ammunition in those days the Martini Henry FOULED, very quickly, it couldn’t fire 20+ rounds without a thorough cleaning. In fact they needed cleaning after 10-15 rounds or the build up of lead in the rifling prevented the projectiles from leaving the barrel, and there were examples of rifles with 3-5 projectiles stuck in the barrel.

[@alessandroiorio6248]

It's not like the zulus were well led either; besides, i feel like the quality of the officers is what counts here, since the video didn't address zulu guns, and roman cavalry and skirmishers(properly). With competent officers and barely veteran troops (to keep spirits high while under gunfire) you just need a decent enough bloke leading the roman army to win the day.

[@sokandueler9578]

This was interesting, though I would have been interested to see something like 16th-17th century pike-shot vs the Zulu. The Romans vs the Zulu is basically just Rome vs [insert outmatched indigenous force here]. Fun video and fun concept as always, though.

[@johndorney7812]

The Zulus in 1879 actually had quite a lot of guns. Most warriors had a rifle or musket as well as spear and shield.

[@5h0rgunn45]

Did they? I know they had rifles and muskets (and the video's lack of mentioning them is *apalling*), but did they really have that many of them? I was under the impression that they only had a few guns.

[@johndorney7812]

@@5h0rgunn45 yes, the Zulus had been fighting people with guns since the 1830s and knew their worth. Cetshwayo in particular, as king, bought thousands of muskets (Ian Knight says up to 20,000) from the Portuguese in Delagoa (modern Mozambique). Now the caveat is that most of their guns were poor quality and the Zulus hadn't had much training in their use. But still, against an enemy who couldn't fire back they would have done a lot of damage. At Isandlwana firepower was used to break up the various British last stands.

[@jensphiliphohmann1876]

The rectangular shield as well as the segmentata probably weren't used at Caesar's times. AFAIK, they both came later.

[@keithmcwilliams7424]

The romans would win and i have not evan watched this video no contest.

[@Cm38271]

4,000 rifles would disagree

[@Basileios1974]

Great video! I think with a proper formation the Romans might well have survived an even larger numerical disadvantage. The Zulus were said to be able to out run cavalry in favorable terrain. Therefore a square formation might well have served the purpose with out the need to suffer too much casualties in the ranks of the auxiliaries. In addition to that the segmented armor of the Romans seemed to have offered superior protection against javelins compared to even chain mail. Another advantage of the Romans was that they were used to fight properly even when the commander was average at best...

[@darylhoskins919]

As Joseph Stalin said " Quantity has a quality of it's own."

[@jamesricker3997]

Except when charging head long into a shield wall while not waring armor

[@fergusmason5426]

And Stalin managed to get over 20 million Russians killed, so fuck what Stalin said.

[@powerpointpaladin6911]

2 Roman legions at Isandlwana would have made Rourke's Drift look like a Zulu victory in comparison.

[@bladerunner951]

I've considered this scenario before and I agree with the outcome. There are similarities between Zulu warriors and Roman legionaries, i.e. large shields and short stabbing weapons. However, the Romans would be plain better armed with much sturdier shields and armor while the Zulu would have no protection to speak of other than their oxen hide shields. The Roman army was designed for close quarter slugging while a British redcoat with his bayonet without fortifications would not necessarily have an advantage over a Zulu warrior in close combat. There are also several cases of well led Roman armies overcoming numerically superior forces, so they definitely have this in the bag.

[@captainsensiblejr.]

Zulu ox hide shields were reported as stopping long distance rifle shots

[@damionkeeling3103]

@@captainsensiblejr. How long distance? Ox hide wont stop a sword in any case. They'd be useful for protecting against the standard weapons they faced which were light javelins and short spears and even then the warriors would be turning those away, not taking the full force on the flat. A Roman shield cannot be penetrated by a Zulu spear but a Roman sword can penetrate a Zulu shield. If what I wrote sounds contradictory it's because a toughened surface like hide can block a glancing blow quite well but it needs to moving to guide the full force of the weapon away. If they shield is held rigidly then a spear could certainly pierce through.

[@canemcave]

@@captainsensiblejr. they won't stop a Pilum or a Roman Hasta. Roman legionneirs would have had 2 pila and 1 hasta as standard in addition to the gladio, scutum and pujoi.

[@canemcave]

@@captainsensiblejr. and never mind the casualties they could inflict at a distance thanks to the Roman artillery onigers, scorpions, ballistae or slingers and archers the Roman army included as standard

[@Crimea_River]

Yeah, I don't think it would even be close. The Romans would annihilate the Zulu. The only reason the British lost the initial battle of the Zulu war is because they were vastly outnumbered and short on supplies. Riflemen don't do so well in hand to hand combat but Roman legions excelled in this area.

[@HenryKobyla1407]

I enjoyed this. Would love to see a similar battle against American Indians from the early Colonial Period. If you can find a significant battle recorded during that era, it would be cool to see a similar situation.

[@damionkeeling3103]

They were more raiding parties so it would be a guerilla type warfare and the Romans may do worse than first imagined.

[@GregDunne-zf2ep]

My great grandfather was there at that time then fought in world war 1 before retirement as a general cavalry officer so I'm told my family have served for 150 years that I know of

[@RT-ko5hl]

Never heard this battle pronounced this way. But good video learned a lot

[@garyarmitage9359]

Ammunition boxes being tough to open was not a factor in my opinion. The Zulus cutting off the British from the ammunition carts was more of the tipping point of the battle. Zulu Horns of the Buffalo worked against the poor British deployment. However, this video will make for a great wargaming game with miniatures.

[@Swede-js9jq]

I think you were spot on. My only question is how the heat would have affected the heavily armored legionaries?

[@McNubbys]

I now need to listen to Epic Rap Battles: Shaka vs. Ceasar lol🤣