Please turn on javascript in your browser to play chess.
Debates Forum

Debates Forum

  1. Subscriber AThousandYoung
    Poor Filipov :,(
    03 Aug '10 23:29
    A thread for armchair historians and gamer geeks.

    utherpendragon: You think the Zulus could beat the Romans in their hey day? Spartans?

    zeeblebot: think the Zulus could have beaten the Romans or the Spartans.

    without superior technology, could the British have defeated the Zulu?

    their advantage was based on technology! national engineering ability is not genetic! it's an accumulation of greater/lesser technological advances and methods, cascading as more and more such advances are made.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Isandlwana

    The Battle of Isandlwana on 22 January 1879 was the first major encounter in the Anglo-Zulu War between the British Empire and the Zulu Kingdom. Eleven days after the British commenced their invasion a 20,000 strong Zulu army attacked a portion of the British main column consisting of 1,700[11] to 2,000 mixed British and colonial forces. The Zulus were equipped mainly with the traditional Assegai iron spears and cow hide shields,[12] but also had a number of muskets and old rifles[13] though they were not formally trained in their use.[14] The British and colonial troops were armed with the then state of the art[15]Martini-Henry breech-loading rifle, and two 7 pounder artillery pieces as well as a rocket battery. Despite a vast disadvantage in weapons technology,[16] the numerically superior Zulus ultimately overwhelmed the poorly led and badly deployed[17] British, killing over 1300 troops, including all those out on the firing line. The Zulu army suffered around a thousand killed.[18]

    The battle was a decisive victory for the Zulus and caused the defeat of the first[19] British invasion. The British army had received its worst defeat fighting against a technologically inferior indigenous force.[20] However, the defeat of the British forces at Isandlwana resulted in Britain taking a much more aggressive approach in the Anglo-Zulu War, resulting in a heavily reinforced second invasion[21] and destroying King Cetshwayo's hopes of a negotiated peace.[22]

    UP: I am aware of this battle. 20,000 on less than 2000. Muskets or not they were no match for the Zulus and their great leader.
    However, 20,000 Roman soldiers about 4 legions fighting hand to hand I think would win hands down.
    Terrain would be a big factor though.
    As far as the Greeks, 20,000 Spartans? They would kill the Zulus.
    Greece under Alexander the Great? C'mon now!
    But Like I said terrain and other factors would play a big part.
    Look at Britan under King Edward I. No way in hell the Zulus could stand up to that under equal conditions.

    zeeb: the Spartans and Zulus had somewhat similar training regimens...


    Thread 132433
  2. Standard member Palynka
    Upward Spiral
    03 Aug '10 23:54
    I weep for you all.
  3. Subscriber AThousandYoung
    Poor Filipov :,(
    04 Aug '10 00:27
    Originally posted by Palynka
    I weep for you all.
    I'd rec this if I could.
  4. 04 Aug '10 01:22
    Originally posted by AThousandYoung
    I'd rec this if I could.
    I am a armchair historians and long time gamer geek.
    What point are you trying to make?
    You disagree w/my analysis?
    Or is this another attempt to poke fun?
  5. 04 Aug '10 02:28
    Originally posted by AThousandYoung
    A thread for armchair historians and gamer geeks.

    utherpendragon: You think the Zulus could beat the Romans in their hey day? Spartans?

    zeeblebot: think the Zulus could have beaten the Romans or the Spartans.

    without superior technology, could the British have defeated the Zulu?

    their advantage was based on technology! national engi ...[text shortened]... artans and Zulus had somewhat similar training regimens...


    Thread 132433
    I'd rather play 500 Navy Seal against the Zulu,, My imagination will run wild...