Could Roman Legionaries Beat the Zulu at Isandlwana?
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 18 сен 2024
- Could Roman Legionaries Beat the Zulu at the Battle of Isandlwana? What if Two Imperial Roman Legions Were at the Battle of Isandlwana?
Welcome back to another episode of Parry This Alternate History! Today, we delve into a captivating "what if" scenario surrounding the infamous Battle of Isandlwana. Rather than sending modern soldiers back in time, as we typically do in this series, we're flipping the script. Imagine if two Roman legions, at the height of Imperial military power, led by none other than Gaius Julius Caesar, replaced the ill-fated British forces at Isandlwana. How would history unfold?
Real Battle of Isandlwana Recap: On January 22, 1879, the British Army suffered a devastating defeat at Isandlwana during the Anglo-Zulu War. Underestimated and outnumbered, the British faced a Zulu force of 20,000 warriors led by Ntshingwayo kaMahole Khoza. The battle marked a turning point, highlighting the Zulu's tactical superiority and discipline against modern weaponry.
Historical Context and Main Takeaways: The British defeat at Isandlwana underscored the importance of overwhelming force and strategic preparation. Despite technological advantages, the British were overwhelmed due to inadequate fortifications and underestimated enemy tactics. This contrasts sharply with their successful defense at Rorke's Drift the same day.
The Historical Roman Legions: Two Roman legions, totaling approximately 10,000 men, were structured with disciplined hierarchy and formidable combat capabilities. Armed with gladii, pila, scuta, and lorica segmentata, Roman soldiers were renowned for their organized formations like the testudo and cohort tactics.
Gaius Julius Caesar as Commander: Gaius Julius Caesar, known for his military genius and adaptability, emerges as the ideal leader for this hypothetical scenario. His experience in handling large-scale battles and innovative tactics, such as at the Battle of Alesia, would be crucial against the Zulu's numerical advantage and aggressive tactics.
The New Battle of Isandlwana: Imagine the scene: Roman legions, disciplined and organized, facing the advancing tide of Zulu warriors. Under Caesar's command, the Romans deploy their strategic formations and unleash volleys of pila. Will Caesar's leadership and the Roman legion's formidable tactics be enough to withstand the Zulu onslaught?
Join us as we explore this compelling alternate history scenario, analyzing how ancient Roman military might could fare against the Zulu warriors at Isandlwana. Don't forget to like, subscribe, and hit the notification bell for more thought-provoking alternate history content!
#AlternateHistory #BattleofIsandlwana #ParryThis
As Flavius Josephus once wrote about the Roman Legion…..”their drills were bloodless battles and their battles were bloody drills”.
@@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.
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.
there is also another no mention of the bolt throwers or onagers the romans would have also had
@@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.
@@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
@@Donkeyearsa
Calvary = The area of Jerusalem associated with the final hours of the crucifixion and death of Jesus
Cavalry = soldiers fighting on horseback
@@timothysettle921 onagers were siege machines (scorpions on the other hand were used against infantry , I think).
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.
Note: lorica hamata was the norm during Caesars time, not segmentata...that came a generation later.
Well ya but the Zulus had guns.
@@WynandMeyeringdiscipline wins wars. The Roman discipline and formations would win over Zulu enthusiasm
@@juanzulu1318I read somewhere that Shaka would kill complete families of deserters and soldiers who fled in battle
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
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.
The Romans fought, and defeated armies comparable to the Zulus.
The Zulus never had to face an army like the Romans.
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.
@@Yiannis2112
I don't think that would have been the case agaist the Zulus, that's the attitude that cost the British so dearly.
@@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?
Point blank it would've been a slaughter. The Roman tactics and weapons were basically designed to kill armies like the Zulus.
@@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.
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.
Paulinus also had found the battlefield where he could fight more effectively with those numbers
SPQR
"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.
@@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.
@@bobsyoruncle4583 Much like in Gaul, Caesar would have also recruited Africans into his army much like he recruited Gauls and Germans into his army
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 !
1 legion would’ve won, better trained and 10x better armed. Easy W
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".
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.
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.
@@keithmcwilliams7424 they did. At Rorke`s drift the 24th took plenty of casualties from sniper fire.
@@floriangeyer3454 most of the defenders survived
At Rourke's Rift Zulus didn't use volleys, they have ONLY few skilled riflemen And knew nothing about volleys tactics.
@@morriganmhor5078 read again. Rorke`s Drift. Sniper fire. Not aword about volley.
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.
It is just part of the issues leading to the defeat. Being too far out and not being able to access ammunition was more of an issue than the box screws although that probably did lead to some delay.
It really is more of a stuff up by the British than a Zulu victory though, it took a heavy toll on the Zulus.
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.
Even if the boxes were difficult to get into, they were designed and constructed by the *Brits* . No excuse.
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.
But the zulus had guns
@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.
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
Roman deployments beat the phalanx
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.
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?
Zulu can't outflank the best.
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.
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.
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.
@@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. ✌
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.
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.
Book suggestions?
The Romans would have obliterated the Zulu.
Not only the Romans. Anyone out of Egyptians, Assyrians, Persians, Hellenes, Cartheginians.
@@Yiannis2112 Of course. They had formidable cavalry, archers and armored troops.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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
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.
The role of slingshot, fustibalus and archers in Roman tactics can not be underestimated. Those were not typical for Zulus.
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.
Would the advanced experienced Roman legions with steel weapons and armor defeat stone age savages? Yes
In fairness, the Zulu had discovered how to smelt iron earlier in the century.
@@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.
Stone Age savages, that’s a bit harsh.
@@ceciljohnrhodes4987 their tech level was stone age. their military strategy was based on savagery not discipline.
this is not a disparaging comment, merely descriptive
They were actually extremely disciplined, many observers from the British side commented on the drill of the Zulus throughout the war
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."
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.
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.
As Joseph Stalin said " Quantity has a quality of it's own."
Iwisa, meet Caesar
He's a commander
Who thinks he can dance with Conan of the Savannah!
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
Caesar would had Iwisa as a guest in Rome...for his triumph!
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.
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!
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.
The romans would have won. If 2 legions can beat 80,000 britons then they can beat 20 thousand troops with 0 armour.
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.
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
@@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.
Love these alternate history battles. Keep up the great work.
This is one of my favorite ones so far. Really liked learning about this battle.
This was fantastic. Love the concept of switching the dynamic.
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.
Same outcome
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.
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.
Great video. I enjoyed every moment. I really like how you do the hypothetical battles, very entertaining.
Romans without breaking a sweat, no contest
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 particular 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.
The irony is that this same defeated British force would probably have been victorious over the Romans.
Well said. They would have KNOWN to NOT give the Romans ANY opening AT ALL!
@@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.
Either way you do these What if's, It always works for me.
Love alternate history and this is a great idea !
I'm pretty sure Sagitarii carried secondary arms for close quarters.
Yes and depending on where they were levied from they would be well armoured too.
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.
What about Teutoberg forest?
@@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.
Hannibal not Hanable, numpty
Google The remaining Romans at Carrhae attempted to flee, but most were captured or killed. According to the ancient historian Plutarch, Roman casualties amounted to about 20,000 killed and 10,000 captured, which made the battle one of the costliest defeats in Roman history. Parthian casualties were minimal.
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.
Bit of a myth. Rifle with Bayonet was far more formidable than asagi and there are numerous examples across the war of British soldiers out fighting Zulus hand to hand. The issue really was lack of ammunition, numbers and being too far out in undefendable positions. The British sold their lives dearly though.
"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.
Excellent. Thank you 🙂
Great to see another alt history video, these are my favorites of yours! This matchup is all about the Roman defensive advantage. The assegai and iklwa are more or less even with the pilum and gladius. But the Zulu don't wear armor, and their shields are cowhide, not wood. The Romans would deal with them much the same as they would Celts.
The one issue I'd like to raise is, the Zulu did have _some_ guns, mostly flintlock muskets. Small groups of sharpshooters were attached to large formations, usually in the "horns" or "loins." If they were able to figure out which Romans to shoot (the decanii, centurions, and signifiers, the senior officers would be in the rear), they might be able to create a little chaos, but probably not enough.
Possibly the best match up so far.
Your compilation of eventualities is outstanding,although 2000 years older,still more advanced in the art of war the Romans were!
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.
Maybe 50000 Zulu warriors might turn the tide
1:00 The only time I have ever heard Caesar's full name:
GAIUS Julius Caesar.
Nobody knows that Caesar's first name is really Gaius, not Julius.
@@jimm3093 even fewer know it’s pronounced gaius youlius kaiser
I actually thought it was common knowledge. His family name was Julius...and he was from the Caesar branch of the Julii
@@libertycowboy2495 Not just "family" it was the name of one of the original roman tribes.
Interesting idea. It certainly would be a more even match ON PAPER than spears vs rifles.
As a correction, the new British ammunition boxes were actually designed to be broken open with a hammer, included with each lot of ammunition boxes, (something like 1 hammer per 10 boxes, but I'm not sure) or, smashed open by a rifle or pistol butt. Unfortunately, these boxes were so new none of the soldiers were aware of this.
The boxes have been found smashed open. They also found the boxes further forward than expected. Meaning the British troops were spread out more than previously thought.
Sorry, you are stretching believe there. Moving Roman legions from 2000 years ago, even top performing legions under Caesar is just too hard to consider. The Zulus had rifles too and their mobility could have been dangerous.
Liked the alternate scenario…great choice Roman!!!
In another post about Ishandlwana I'd just hypothized such a situation, except with an early renaissance swiss phalanx or Spanish tercio, armoured soldiers, capable to repel HEAVY cavalry, logically would've literally butchered a primitive iron age "army". Surely the outcome of the battle would've been interesting, with the romans subziding the natives....and enrolling some of them as light auxilia/scouts!
And naturally the incredible resources of the Natal (gold, Diamonds, and others minerals) would've greatly helped Empire 's economy.
AT LAST!!!
I have for years looked for anyone who could compare the gladius with the assegai. Zulus reigned supreme against contemporary forces in Southern Africa. They were only defeated by superior technology, something the Romans did not have to cater for.
I always thought it would be the discipline of the Romans that would win the day.
Haven’t seen this fully yet, but 5 bucks on Caesar!
Hard to charge a solid line while stumbling over the bodies of dead fellow warriors.
Romans knew what they were about.
The thing about the Zulu advance they preferred to use war chants, in an effort to intimidate their opponents. Unfortunately for the Zulu, they would get likely no reaction from the Legionaries. Standing solidly and silent.
I do have to comment however, the likelihood of the Testudo being used in open battle is unlikely. As it wasn’t used for offense. The purpose of a Roman legion is not the same as a Greek Phalanx. They are meant to be fluid. IE their shields were not overlapping, as the swordsman to their left needed room for the Gladius to move. To stab, and chop. The end result would still be the same. Meat grinder.
Dude no way I was thinking of this exact scenario today
If you're gonna send this soldiers under Caesar's command, I think they should have Caesar's troop equipment (chainmail, oval scutum and montefortino helmet). 😁
A Zulu army would be the prefered dinner for an Imperial Legion, exactly the kind of opponent they like most. Remember Boudica.
Roman Archer's were armed with a short sword, and like most archer's they often were as skilled with the sword as they were with the Bow. They would have been no push over. Plus they would have saught shelter among the legionaries.
The Zulu tactics after Shaka shaped them were similar to Roman legion tactics. Except the Romans had better weapons and armor. Neither would typically fare well against firearms except in very specific circumstances. Nothing against the Zulu. Their warfare was ridiculous until Shaka reshaped them with stabbing spears and shields and encirclement strategy. Which was a vast improvement.
Roman Legions in war had been supported by auxillaery troops, being lighter troops, but regular troops. So the strength of a Roman Legions had been in wartime larger. This means Up to 6000 regular heavy Legionaires, and Up to 4000 light auxillary men. So Up to 10000 men. In peacetime the auxillary troops ( Auxilarii) served as borderguards.
Testudo? In open combat? No.
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.
Zulu ox hide shields were reported as stopping long distance rifle shots
It would have been like the Battle of Watling Street, two legions will hack through any sized mob.
Yeah, the Zulu army was kind of a one-trick pony; brave and strong, to be sure, but masterful tacticians, they were not. That's not to say that the horns of the buffalo couldn't have won the day, but it would've taken considerable planning in advance to do so; basically, they would've had to re-create the Battle of Cannae, where the Romans were forced to attack, robbed of their mobility, and engulfed on all sides so they could be cut down at Hannibal's leisure.
2 Roman legions v 20.000 Zulu, i would be surprised if the Romans lost more than 100 men.
I'm not taking anything away from the Zulus, but it's not hard for any army to encircle another army when it has that many more soldiers. I think a big consideration with this video is that the Roman legionaries, many would have been battle-hardened soldiers who had fought in close contact and been together for years. In other words much tougher men than the British redcoats
Spartacus crushed how many Roman legions and its simple battle tactics: a short and light weapon up close, speed and agility that the Spartacus gladiators showed, that's precisely what the Zulus showed with the 'Iklwa'.... speed, agility, running into close-combat, close fighting, gladiator style...
Haven’t seen the end of this.. but predicting Roman victory.
The Romans wouldn't just have archers on their flanks. They would have slingers as well. And they also would have their own sidearms such as swords, axes, and clubs. It also probably have auxiliary spearman reinforcing them using the hasta long spear.
I believe ISANDLWANA is not pronounced with an "I" (eye) as the first letter, Also are Roman soldiers called LEGEONAIRES NOT LEGEONARIES? Anyway loved the video how about trying Japanese Samurai against New Zealand Maoris or even Aztec warriors????
Try some basic research, numpty.
Roman LEGIONARIES.
Legionnaires were French. From the early 19th Century.
Well about half of the Zulu had firearms taking that into account...
Remember: the Vritish had guns. They would have evened the odds, somewhat
The legions whether from the time of Julius Caesar or Flavius Stilicho would beat the Zulus but it would be a tough fight
One does not need to investigate too far, Watling street with Paulinus vs Boudicca forces.
I'm going to be that, it would be Late Republic if it was Caesar's legion. I think your read of this is right. Alexander the Great would be interesting in this scenario. I suspect that he would win as well, but not easily
Isandlwana was probably lost by Chelmsford's inept handing of his army more than anything else...Rows of disciplined troops volley firing breech loading rifles, like the Martini Henry, properly used would have been devastating. It fired a massive bullet and could inflict horrendous wounds ... there was no ''it's just a flesh wound' when hit by a round from those rifles.
The pilum was actually not intended to bend. That did happen sometimes, but was not designed for that purpose. It was designed to penetrate a shield and harm a person behind it. Even without bending the pilum was extremely difficult to extract from a shield because of the tip profile.
Mat Easton had a good video on that subject.
ruclips.net/video/lAe1krJFl78/видео.html
Who knows, the Zulus were pretty tough, but the Romans were well drilled, it would be close!
The Zulus at this point had firearms. If they could aim, the Zulus would win.
It was a great oversight not to address firearms, but i feel the outcome wouldn't change; the zulus had a modest number of firearms and of varying quality, and were not proficient enough at handling them. On the other hand the two legions have a sizeable cavalry contingent (which the video didn't address either) and hundreds of the best skirmishers of their time (again not addressed properly) which, given the context, would match the firearms advantage.
In my mind guns would either be so effective at spooking the romans that they retreat or they would just add to the roman death toll without influencing the outcome.
Cheers :)
The Romans even beat the Macedonians and the Spartans how much more can the zulus do against the ancient world's mightiest military power? 🗡️🦅
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
Roman Legion instead of German Wehrmacht fights at Battle of the Bulge.
American forces decimated and in full retreat.
I'm going to watch this video but my short answer would be, YES 1 to 2 legions would wipe the floor woth the Zulus as long they are well supplied and have the support of proper auxiliary units, like fine elite auxilia of the Empire as well as local auxilia for scouting and foraging. The legions were used to fight against numerical superior forces and beat them either through superior tactics or shear brute force thanks to it's cohesiveness and organisation. Only reckless and incompetent command could bring doom to the legions by position the legions in a disadvantage or eroding moral thru bad leadership and still there are plenty of accounts were even that wasn't enough to thwart the legionnaires.
Ceasers legions did not wear lorica segmentata, that was an later imperial roman armour, even so I think the zulu would have found mail a tough cookie anyway, tbh, and picking Ceaser as the general was a bit OP lol, still good video
I think you are pretty close to reality. Also had the British utilized the slope of the peak behind them giving them high ground they would have faired better perhaps. Their formation was too spread out and thin. The slope and concentration of fire power perhaps in a U shape may have given them enough edge to win, as long as the enemy could not get behind them. Making them climb the slope to get at them would cost energy and fatigue them.
If the Zulus were still a nation, they'd be doing exactly the same now.
I think Lord Chelmsford had a lot in common with Custer! They were both over confident egoists, whose thirst for glory was their downfall! At least Custer died with his men whereas Chelmsford weedled and conived to shift the blame onto dead men who could not answer back!!!!
Lorica segmentata was no use during Caesar’s period
First and foremost the Romans would have had a fortified camp. Improper defensive positions contributed to the British loss. Rourke's drift is an example.
Who is…..the deadliest warrior?
just two legions ?
against blood thirsty natives with inferior equipment and no clothes to speak of
ask Varus how it went
Zulu tactic's resembles that of Hannibal's at Cannae,but without cavalry. And we know what has happend with the Romans at Cannae! On the other hand, if Caesar is in command it's not likely that he would fell in such a trap,so yes,this is a very probable scenario!
The famed one-trick pony Zulu tactic was "pitch-battle 101", the most basic envelopment you can get; not at all comparable to Hannibal's at Cannae.
ROMA Invictus, hail Caesar!