Recommend
7 
 Thumb up
 Hide
38 Posts
1 , 2  Next »   | 

Wargames» Forums » General

Subject: [Epic Rap Battles of Wargame History] Shaka Zulu v. Julius Caesar rss

Your Tags: Add tags
Popular Tags: [View All]
Daryl McLaurine
United States
Chicago
Illinois
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
So, if you haven't seen any of the "Epic Rap Battles of History" on Youtube, basically it's a humorous lyrical throwdown between two parties over who's best. They could be anybody, from anywhere, any time (Seriously, Julia Child OWNED Gordon Ramsay!)

Anyway, THIS

had me wondering, Shaka had forces with great discipline, Regimental tactics and cohesion, and were not cowed by advanced technology. Julius had forces with great discipline, Regimental tactics and cohesion, and were adept in reforming units mid-battle.


Who do you think would win? Would the Romans get gored by the Horns, or would Shaka end up a wheat farmer for Julius' Table?

Who would win? Who's Next? EPIC WARGAME RAP BATTLES OF HISTORY!!!! cool

Poll: Who Won?
Shaka v. Julius
Shaka Zulu
Julius Caesar
Wargamers. This will be great fodder for game play!
It doesn't matter - Whomever wins, WE ALL LOSE!
      85 answers
Poll created by Black Omega
7 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Robert Stuart
United States
Los Alamos
New Mexico
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Black Omega wrote:
So, if you haven't seen any of the "Epic Rap Battles of History" on Youtube, basically it's a humorous lyrical throwdown between two parties over who's best. They could be anybody, from anywhere, any time (Seriously, Julia Child OWNED Gordon Ramsay!)

Anyway, THIS

had me wondering, Shaka had forces with great discipline, Regimental tactics and cohesion, and were not cowed by advanced technology. Julius had forces with great discipline, Regimental tactics and cohesion, and were adept in reforming units mid-battle.


Who do you think would win? Would the Romans get gored by the Horns, or would Shaka end up a wheat farmer for Julius' Table?

There's one major difference between Shaka and Caesar: Caesar inherited a powerful military machine, developed over a few centuries, and used it brilliantly.

Shaka assessed the style of warfare in his part of the world, and then invented a military machine, and a weapon (the short stabbing spear) which enabled him to break the tactical deadlock which existed at the time.

Quite frankly, I think that a Roman formation would have done much better against the Zulus than the British did, because the Romans were armored, and the Roman weapons -- pilum, short sword & iron shield -- were much more effective at hand-to-hand combat than the bayonet. The Zulus had no fire power.

However, having said that, Shaka was very innovative, strategically as well as tactically. If the campaign were conducted in southern Africa Shaka would have had great advantages. The Romans were much slower than the Zulus, the heat would have exhausted them on the march, weighed down as they would have been with their armor, and supply (especially water) would have been a problem for them.

Caesar would have defeated the Zulus under Cetshwayo (the victor at Isandlwana). But my guess is that he would have lost, decisively, to Shaka.

13 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Daryl McLaurine
United States
Chicago
Illinois
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
bob_santafe wrote:


Caesar would have defeated the Zulus under Cetshwayo (the victor at Isandlwana). But my guess is that he would have lost, decisively, to Shaka.



If only we had a group of armchair Generals, and some system, say, with rules, to simulate this matchup. Hmmmmm...whistle

(For what it's worth, I believe Shaka's mobility in large force, and the individual stance on martial action would have given to Shaka taking some heavy initial losses in trying to break Julius' line...but ultimately Shaka would win, 4 out of 5 times. Even with Julius' use of reserve power, once Shaka got in...he was IN!)
2 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Jason Cawley
United States
Anthem
Arizona
flag msg tools
mbmbmbmbmb

Go tell Vercingetorix. Bug on a windshield.
13 
 Thumb up
1.00
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Michael Rinella
United States
New York
flag msg tools
designer
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Chicken Caesar with the wild bugs eyes just made me laugh.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Carl Paradis
Canada
montreal
Québec
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
The Zulus would never had a chance against Caesar’s Legions. I mean, the Romans defeated the Gauls and other tribes, who were very similar to the Zulus albeit better equipped. Poor unarmored Zulus, they would have been murdered in close-combat! After a few Pilum volleys that is.
I suspect the Roman casualty list would have been extremely light given their large sheilds, armor protection, ability in close-combat, missile fire and discipline. Not even talking about their allied cavalry here.

The Romans made a speciality of killing exactly that type of army. Vae Victis! devil
10 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Clay Woody
United States
Albuquerque
New Mexico
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Bob,

You make many good points about Shaka here. But I also have to believe that Caesar would've won. He wouldn't have won in an Alexander the Great sort of way, but would've found a way to prevail. Shaka would've probably defeated most of the run-of-the-mill Roman commanders however.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Clay Woody
United States
Albuquerque
New Mexico
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Black Omega wrote:
bob_santafe wrote:


Caesar would have defeated the Zulus under Cetshwayo (the victor at Isandlwana). But my guess is that he would have lost, decisively, to Shaka.



If only we had a group of armchair Generals, and some system, say, with rules, to simulate this matchup. Hmmmmm...whistle

(For what it's worth, I believe Shaka's mobility in large force, and the individual stance on martial action would have given to Shaka taking some heavy initial losses in trying to break Julius' line...but ultimately Shaka would win, 4 out of 5 times. Even with Julius' use of reserve power, once Shaka got in...he was IN!)


Shaka was one of those generals who was a natural; his innovations turned the Zulus into an empire. I think Napoleon would've admired his senses of tactics and strategy. But I just can't see his Zulus defeating a Roman army under Caesar. Both armies employed stabbing tactics, and both only used missile fire in skirmishing roles, but IMO the heavier armed and protected Romans would've ultimately prevailed. I just can't see the Zulus breaking a Roman line. They probably would've attempted turning movements and feints, but those tactics wouldn't have broken Caesar's lines--particularly with cavalry protecting his flanks.
1 
 Thumb up
1.00
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Carl Paradis
Canada
montreal
Québec
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Borodin wrote:
Bob,

You make many good points about Shaka here. But I also have to believe that Caesar would've won. He wouldn't have won in an Alexander the Great sort of way, but would've found a way to prevail. Shaka would've probably defeated most of the run-of-the-mill Roman commanders however.


I just don’t see how almost naked brave Zulus would have defeated armored Roman Legionaries that thrived on hand-to-hand combat and dicipline, unless they had ovewhelming numerical superiority. especially given what happened to similar Rome ennemies. Talk to the Gauls about it. shake
4 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Clay Woody
United States
Albuquerque
New Mexico
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
licinius wrote:
Borodin wrote:
Bob,

You make many good points about Shaka here. But I also have to believe that Caesar would've won. He wouldn't have won in an Alexander the Great sort of way, but would've found a way to prevail. Shaka would've probably defeated most of the run-of-the-mill Roman commanders however.


I just don’t see how almost naked brave Zulus would have defeated armored Roman Legionaries that thrived on hand-to-hand combat and dicipline, unless they had ovewhelming numerical superiority. especially given what happened to similar Rome ennemies. Talk to the Gauls about it. shake


That's a good point, Carl. I do believe that some of the Roman generals were so inept that Shaka could feint them out of position--maybe hit them on the line of march, ala Teutoburg Forest. Course that latter battle did take place in the woods, instead of the African savannah. But the Zulus were masters of ambush--and the Romans showed they were susceptible to that in the 2nd Punic War, etc, at least with inept commanders.
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Carl Paradis
Canada
montreal
Québec
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Borodin wrote:
licinius wrote:
Borodin wrote:
Bob,

You make many good points about Shaka here. But I also have to believe that Caesar would've won. He wouldn't have won in an Alexander the Great sort of way, but would've found a way to prevail. Shaka would've probably defeated most of the run-of-the-mill Roman commanders however.


I just don’t see how almost naked brave Zulus would have defeated armored Roman Legionaries that thrived on hand-to-hand combat and dicipline, unless they had ovewhelming numerical superiority. especially given what happened to similar Rome ennemies. Talk to the Gauls about it. shake


That's a good point, Carl. I do believe that some of the Roman generals were so inept that Shaka could feint them out of position--maybe hit them on the line of march, ala Teutoburg Forest. Course that latter battle did take place in the woods, instead of the African savannah. But the Zulus were masters of ambush--and the Romans showed they were susceptible to that in the 2nd Punic War, etc, at least with inept commanders.


Right!

If we need inept commanders to guarantee victory, then the Zulu’s provebial writing is on the wall... BTW did not the said zulus won most of their battles against such inept British commanders? Still, the Zulus just did not have the weapons to defeat Roman armor and large sheilds anyway if they cpuld rush them: no swords, no arrows, no battle axes... They would have to go almost naked with a short spear and a cowhide sheild against Roman legionaries. Ouch... In fact they would have fared badly against medieval and renaissance armies also.
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Clay Woody
United States
Albuquerque
New Mexico
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
licinius wrote:
Borodin wrote:
licinius wrote:
Borodin wrote:
Bob,

You make many good points about Shaka here. But I also have to believe that Caesar would've won. He wouldn't have won in an Alexander the Great sort of way, but would've found a way to prevail. Shaka would've probably defeated most of the run-of-the-mill Roman commanders however.


I just don’t see how almost naked brave Zulus would have defeated armored Roman Legionaries that thrived on hand-to-hand combat and dicipline, unless they had ovewhelming numerical superiority. especially given what happened to similar Rome ennemies. Talk to the Gauls about it. shake


That's a good point, Carl. I do believe that some of the Roman generals were so inept that Shaka could feint them out of position--maybe hit them on the line of march, ala Teutoburg Forest. Course that latter battle did take place in the woods, instead of the African savannah. But the Zulus were masters of ambush--and the Romans showed they were susceptible to that in the 2nd Punic War, etc, at least with inept commanders.


Right!

If we need inept commanders to guarantee victory, then the Zulu’s provebial writing is on the wall... BTW did not the said zulus won most of their battles against such inept British commanders? Still, the Zulus just did not have the weapons to defeat Roman armor and large sheilds anyway if they cpuld rush them: no swords, no arrows, no battle axes... They would have to go almost naked with a short spear and a cowhide sheild against Roman legionaries. Ouch... In fact they would have fared badly against medieval and renaissance armies also.


I think you're right--it would've had to have been an inept Roman commander, and Zulus in overwhelming numbers. And you're also right about the medieval armies--particularly with their archer power. Technology would've prevailed.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Carl Paradis
Canada
montreal
Québec
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Borodin wrote:
licinius wrote:
Borodin wrote:
licinius wrote:
Borodin wrote:
Bob,

You make many good points about Shaka here. But I also have to believe that Caesar would've won. He wouldn't have won in an Alexander the Great sort of way, but would've found a way to prevail. Shaka would've probably defeated most of the run-of-the-mill Roman commanders however.


I just don’t see how almost naked brave Zulus would have defeated armored Roman Legionaries that thrived on hand-to-hand combat and dicipline, unless they had ovewhelming numerical superiority. especially given what happened to similar Rome ennemies. Talk to the Gauls about it. shake


That's a good point, Carl. I do believe that some of the Roman generals were so inept that Shaka could feint them out of position--maybe hit them on the line of march, ala Teutoburg Forest. Course that latter battle did take place in the woods, instead of the African savannah. But the Zulus were masters of ambush--and the Romans showed they were susceptible to that in the 2nd Punic War, etc, at least with inept commanders.


Right!

If we need inept commanders to guarantee victory, then the Zulu’s provebial writing is on the wall... BTW did not the said zulus won most of their battles against such inept British commanders? Still, the Zulus just did not have the weapons to defeat Roman armor and large sheilds anyway if they cpuld rush them: no swords, no arrows, no battle axes... They would have to go almost naked with a short spear and a cowhide sheild against Roman legionaries. Ouch... In fact they would have fared badly against medieval and renaissance armies also.


I think you're right--it would've had to have been an inept Roman commander, and Zulus in overwhelming numbers. And you're also right about the medieval armies--particularly with their archer power. Technology would've prevailed.


Yep. The Zulus won some battles against British armies that were not “close-range melee” armies, they got close, and they had numerical superiority. Against better-protected “close-range melee” armies they would have lost badly: the Romans would have LOVED them to get close and personal...
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
JPotter - Bits77
United States
Tulsa
Oklahoma
flag msg tools
I enjoy designing / manufacturing game components and upgrades. Got a project? PM!
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Against Romans, and presumably on the Zulus turf, the Zulus would win some engagements, through surprise a/o home field advantage a/o sheer numbers.

But with Caesar in command, the overall war will always end on favorable terms to the Romans. Either complete domination as in Gaul, or at worst political restructuring to leave a Rome-friendly power-structure (enabling later expansion) in place, as in Britannia.

The guy knew how to work the angles. Even when defeated, he either backed up the truck, learned from experience and observation, and came back from a new angle and with revised forces and tactics, or he secured that front and struck out in a new direction.

He also had a history of bailing out surprised a/o less capable commanders.
2 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Robert Stuart
United States
Los Alamos
New Mexico
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Borodin wrote:
licinius wrote:
Borodin wrote:
Bob,

You make many good points about Shaka here. But I also have to believe that Caesar would've won. He wouldn't have won in an Alexander the Great sort of way, but would've found a way to prevail. Shaka would've probably defeated most of the run-of-the-mill Roman commanders however.


I just don’t see how almost naked brave Zulus would have defeated armored Roman Legionaries that thrived on hand-to-hand combat and dicipline, unless they had ovewhelming numerical superiority. especially given what happened to similar Rome ennemies. Talk to the Gauls about it. shake


That's a good point, Carl. I do believe that some of the Roman generals were so inept that Shaka could feint them out of position--maybe hit them on the line of march, ala Teutoburg Forest. Course that latter battle did take place in the woods, instead of the African savannah. But the Zulus were masters of ambush--and the Romans showed they were susceptible to that in the 2nd Punic War, etc, at least with inept commanders.

We aren't talking about 'Zulus', we're talking about Shaka. Shaka had the ability to impose iron discipline on his men, and in this case that would mean the discipline not to engage the Romans in anything like open battle, and the discipline to instill confidence in his people that they could let the Romans march all over the countryside, knowing that in the end they would win.

Shaka would have waged a guerilla-type war, except he would have had a coordinated control over his skirmishers which guerilla bands generally don't have. Caesar against Shaka would have been like Napoleon in Russia -- except that rather than the winter causing hardship on the invaders, it would have been the summer. The southern African terrain is perfect for reconnaissance. Shaka would have known, at all times, where the Romans were and what their strength was. On the other hand the Romans, less mobile and less numerous, would not know Shaka's dispositions. How would they defeat him? They march, they see nothing, they camp at night. Shaka moves his army, his villages, his cattle; his capital if necessary, out of their line of march. The Romans have to live off the land -- but that land isn't so easy to live off. Shaka, innovative as he is, would probably develop a fire arm to harass the Romans with near impunity. They wouldn't be nearly as effective as Balearic slingers, who have been trained from childhood, but still, a rock is a rock. A rock thrown from a hill top, a feature which abounds in the southern Africa terrain, could seriously harass the invaders. They would either remain in Zulu territory until they were worn out and destroyed, or they would withdraw.

From what I know of Caesar he would have won one small battle -- the first; he would have then marched around the countryside, being extremely careful about his supply, getting nowhere, having a few detachments wiped out, and under the pressure of a slowly increasing harassment, would have withdrawn.

At least, that's how I see it.
3 
 Thumb up
0.05
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Clay Woody
United States
Albuquerque
New Mexico
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Bob,

These are also good points. Shaka would've been far more effective against the Romans on an operational level than on a tactical. However, I have to agree with JPotter, that Caesar seemed to find a way to turn the situations to his advantage. I don't think he would've played Shaka's game of hide-and-seek. He would've established a spy and scout network, using local anti-Zulu tribes, and would've discovered their Achilles heel, likely their dependence on the cattle herds, and would've ultimately cornered them. Lesser Roman generals, tho, would've conceivably followed Shaka like a plodding slugger against a nimble boxer, and would've been frustrated in their efforts.
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Daryl McLaurine
United States
Chicago
Illinois
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Borodin wrote:
Bob,

These are also good points. Shaka would've been far more effective against the Romans on an operational level than on a tactical. However, I have to agree with JPotter, that Caesar seemed to find a way to turn the situations to his advantage. I don't think he would've played Shaka's game of hide-and-seek. He would've established a spy and scout network, using local anti-Zulu tribes, and would've discovered their Achilles heel, likely their dependence on the cattle herds, and would've ultimately cornered them. Lesser Roman generals, tho, would've conceivably followed Shaka like a plodding slugger against a nimble boxer, and would've been frustrated in their efforts.


I have stayed out of the discussion because I have a bias, I really believe Shaka would prevail. As pointed out above, this isn't "Caesar v. 'The Zulus'", this is Caesar v SHAKA. Now since the political angle has been brought to the fore, I will concede that Julius would try to gain support from the opposing tribes. That is logical, and well within his wheelhouse.

Shaka would counter with a simple method that is known for keeping those partisans out of the fight. Complete slaughter. Not all of Shaka's forces would be deployed against the Invader, the bulk would be reserve elements attached to his villages and centers, to assist in their defense and mobility. In truth, they also comprise a mobile strike force to carry out suppression raids. Those raids could turn into a direct campaign of terror at a moment's notice. "Work with them, and THIS is what will happen." Yes, the Nation did have a weakness in the form of their herds, but those herds would be on the constant move, away from the lines of battle, and the Romans would never be that mobile enough to threaten them.

Shaka, FTW.
2 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Tonny Wille
Belgium
9310 Meldert
Oost-Vlaanderen
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
I'm with carl. In a set battle, the zulu wouldn't stand a chance because of the obvious reasons.

A real campaign would go the the Romans as well. Just look at the number of assassination attempts and you know that shaka at quite a few enemies among his own people who would probably be more than happy to make a deal with the Romans.
2 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Daryl McLaurine
United States
Chicago
Illinois
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
durchske wrote:
I'm with carl. In a set battle, the zulu wouldn't stand a chance because of the obvious reasons.

A real campaign would go the the Romans as well. Just look at the number of assassination attempts and you know that shaka at quite a few enemies among his own people who would probably be more than happy to make a deal with the Romans.


"Obvious reasons" "Set Battle"...I think you might have to define these terms, and the reasons behind them.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
JPotter - Bits77
United States
Tulsa
Oklahoma
flag msg tools
I enjoy designing / manufacturing game components and upgrades. Got a project? PM!
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Black Omega wrote:
durchske wrote:
I'm with carl. In a set battle, the zulu wouldn't stand a chance because of the obvious reasons.

A real campaign would go the the Romans as well. Just look at the number of assassination attempts and you know that shaka at quite a few enemies among his own people who would probably be more than happy to make a deal with the Romans.


"Obvious reasons" "Set Battle"...I think you might have to define these terms, and the reasons behind them.


No need, Caesar was able to defeat enemies that refused to commit to a field of battle. Outmaneuver them, isolate them, until trick or goaded to give battle.

The only real question is, since we all seem to be assuming that Caesar would be invading southern Africa rather than Shaka crossing the Sahara, what is the logistical situation? How firm is Caesar's supply and reinforcement chain? If he has what he needs (i.e. fighting in Gaul while supplied directly over manageable distances through friendly territory), he wins, tho it may take a decade to quell all active opposition.

If the supply situation is insufficient / insecure (as when probing Britannia from a far from subdued Gaul), then he would ultimately withdraw, as the time is not yet right. Build up the infrastructure and try again later.
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Little Idiot
Scotland
Manhattan
New York
flag msg tools
mbmbmbmbmb
Shaka Zulu would have won the rap battle though.
Chaka Khan and Zulu Nation aren't named after him for nothing... whistle
2 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Robert Stuart
United States
Los Alamos
New Mexico
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Black Omega wrote:
Shaka would counter with a simple method that is known for keeping those partisans out of the fight. Complete slaughter.

This is, of course, where Shaka would have had a tremendous advantage compared to, say, Vercingeterix. Vercingeterix's forces were, man-for-man, no different from that of tribes that might be won over by Caesar. On the other hand, Shaka had achieved complete military dominance over other tribes in his region. And within his empire, there were no enemies.

If the Romans were to peel off garrisons to defend those allies, the garrisons themselves would be ripe for attack. Early in his career Shaka masterminded the night attack -- not an assault as much as a night guerilla operation -- as a way of weakening and terrorizing enemies who were too powerful for him to meet in open battle. Isolated garrisons, charged with defending not only themselves but villagers and their cattle, would be highly vulnerable.
2 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Clay Woody
United States
Albuquerque
New Mexico
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Black Omega wrote:
Borodin wrote:
Bob,

These are also good points. Shaka would've been far more effective against the Romans on an operational level than on a tactical. However, I have to agree with JPotter, that Caesar seemed to find a way to turn the situations to his advantage. I don't think he would've played Shaka's game of hide-and-seek. He would've established a spy and scout network, using local anti-Zulu tribes, and would've discovered their Achilles heel, likely their dependence on the cattle herds, and would've ultimately cornered them. Lesser Roman generals, tho, would've conceivably followed Shaka like a plodding slugger against a nimble boxer, and would've been frustrated in their efforts.


I have stayed out of the discussion because I have a bias, I really believe Shaka would prevail. As pointed out above, this isn't "Caesar v. 'The Zulus'", this is Caesar v SHAKA. Now since the political angle has been brought to the fore, I will concede that Julius would try to gain support from the opposing tribes. That is logical, and well within his wheelhouse.


Shaka would counter with a simple method that is known for keeping those partisans out of the fight. Complete slaughter. Not all of Shaka's forces would be deployed against the Invader, the bulk would be reserve elements attached to his villages and centers, to assist in their defense and mobility. In truth, they also comprise a mobile strike force to carry out suppression raids. Those raids could turn into a direct campaign of terror at a moment's notice. "Work with them, and THIS is what will happen." Yes, the Nation did have a weakness in the form of their herds, but those herds would be on the constant move, away from the lines of battle, and the Romans would never be that mobile enough to threaten them.

Shaka, FTW.


Daryl--

You make good points here. I believe Shaka would have outmaneuvered and outthought many a Roman general. But, Caesar was at a higher militarily intellectual level than most of those, so I think he would've given Shaka far more competition, even operationally.

Course, other things would have to be taken into consideration--as JPotter noted, such as the question of who is invading whom, and if it were the Romans invading South Africa, how he'd keep those troops supplied. Realistically, of course, the Romans during Caesar's time would never have had the wherewithal to conduct such a distant invasion, nor, of course, would Shaka into Italy.

In a straight up chess match, with everything equal--armament, etc, perhaps Shaka would win.


1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Damo
Australia
Hobart
Tasmania
flag msg tools
Look Up! Stay Alive!
badge
http://australianmuseum.net.au/Drop-Bear
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
“You can grow my wheat for me, after you’re beaten.”

Zingo!
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Eddy Sterckx
Belgium
Vilvoorde
flag msg tools
designer
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
bob_santafe wrote:
The Zulus had no fire power.


Except they had fire power. Muskets and even rifles. What they didn't do was adapt their empire-winning close-combat tactics to the new technological circumstances. Shaka had build his empire around close-combat and was unwilling/unable to adapt to the changing technological circumstances.

"The arrival of Europeans introduced gunpowder to the Zulu. Accounts from English traders who arrived in the Zulu Kingdom in the 1920's reflect a fear of firearms on the part of the Zulus - not because of their lethality but because of the noise and sound they emitted when fired"

"Visitors recorded a number of conversations they had with the Zulu kings on the relative merits of Zulu and European arms and the tactics the Zulu should adopt against a force armed with guns"

"Shaka believed that the conventional Zulu tactics would succeed against soldiers using guns and that the Zulu could charge and overwhelm an enemy in the interval during which the musket was being reloaded"

"When it was demonstrated that volley firing in ranks ensured continuous fire Shaka retorted that although Zulu losses would be heavy they had sufficient numbers to sustain them."

Guy J.J. "A Note on Firearms in the Zulu Kingom with special Reference to the Anglo-Zulu War 1879 - The Journal of African History - vol 12 no 4 - 1971

Caesar every day of the week.
3 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
1 , 2  Next »   | 
Front Page | Welcome | Contact | Privacy Policy | Terms of Service | Advertise | Support BGG | Feeds RSS
Geekdo, BoardGameGeek, the Geekdo logo, and the BoardGameGeek logo are trademarks of BoardGameGeek, LLC.