The Zulu Impi versus Imperial Rome

[Provolution]

I wonder if the Zulu Impi, the best Bantu African army prior to 1900, would stand a chance against the Roman Legions of Julius Caesar.

The British lost against these in Isandlwana 1879.

 

[pawpaw]

I wonder if the Zulu Impi, the best Bantu African army prior to 1900, would stand a chance against the Roman Legions of Julius Caesar.

The British lost against these in Isandlwana 1879.

well the british killed 3-1 in the battle and lost for others reasons.

the real question is where or when. roman legions in africa are at a disadvantage. zulu's in europe wouldn't fair as well. the roman commanders would have a wealth of more experience at large scale warfare.

 

[North King]

Good question. The Zulus have about equal tactics, better mobility, but the Romans have better equipment and experience. I'd guess Rome. The Zulus would simply be destroyed by the simply better Roman troops.

 

[stratego]

If you're talking about the Zulu force that fought against the British in Isandlwana vs the Roman Legionaries then of course the Zulus would win. The Impi force in Isandlwana consist of only 25 traditional Impi spearmen. Many of the others were musketmen. If you're talking about just an army of Zulu spearmen vs Roman Legionaries, it's hard to tell.

 

[BOTP]

I imagine the legionaries would slaughter all the peasants, and then deal with the out numbered elite Zulu warriors. Knowing the Romans, they'd probably buy off at least a few Zulu warlords to join their side, and then proceed with the old divide and conquer. And woe betide any Zulu warlord who retreated to his castle - very bad move.

 

[BOTP]

A spear would fair no better on a scutum than a Gaul's sword would. The shield is a big advantage for the legionary. Zulu weapons were not magical, nor were all swordsmen. A Zulu warrior would look for individual combat and never find it unless the Romans broke. A consul’s legion was greater than the sum of its parts. Impi’s army was the sum of its parts. Romans certainly knew how to deal with spears. The spear is a pike not unlike those common in the Mediterranean world. Zulus were also not known to fight in formation much and this is where spears shine. The Zulus would attack like Germans or Gauls, screaming and charging. The Romans would stoically wait before unleashing pila into shieldless adversaries clad in armor that would not defeat so massive an impact. Initial Zulu casualties would be dreadful. It would be an ugly fight.

 

[Pangur Bán]

I wonder if the Zulu Impi, the best Bantu African army prior to 1900, would stand a chance against the Roman Legions of Julius Caesar.

The British lost against these in Isandlwana 1879.

Sorry, this post contradicts the title. Julius' legions were not Imperial, they were (late) Republican!

 

[privatehudson]

I'd have to say it depends on the situation, mostly I'd go with the Romans, but if the battle was an ambush or similar then the Zulus would win.

 

[Longasc]

Who comes always up with these difficult comparisons?

May be the Zulu would be experts in jungle and steppe warfare, but BOTP put it bluntly, the legions fought with more discipline as a unity and not as a horde of more or less single warriors.

We should perhaps discuss the tactics of Arminius against Varus, this is a good comparison of tactics and how to make the best use of terrain and counter-tactics.

Furthermore, it is not hypothetical, I personally would like to hear BOTP elaborate on this topic, he always makes interesting posts regarding such topics.

 

[Yuri2356]

I imagine the legionaries would slaughter all the peasants, and then deal with the out numbered elite Zulu warriors. Knowing the Romans, they'd probably buy off at least a few Zulu warlords to join their side, and then proceed with the old divide and conquer. And woe betide any Zulu warlord who retreated to his castle - very bad move.

I aggree entirely. If it came down to any kind of fortress Vs fortress, the Romans would dominate. The way leigons operated, they would build a small fort and the end of each days march leaving a chain of outposts in their wake. Anf with the invention of concrete, the Romans couls easily create a near invicible fort given time to set things up. And then of course the sige weapons... did Zulus even have ways to sige castles? Romans were working with balista, catapults and siege tower. IN an overall war I belive Rome would win, the zulus might win a few battles, but Rome would have the war.

 

[TrailblazingScot]

Depends on numbers, but I'd go with the Romans over the Zulus simply as their track record for military victory over numerically superior hordes of barbarians using massed charges was prolific, even though the Zulus had an interesting variant on the theme.

Of the two Empires, only one can really be considered as capable of winning an actual war, never mind just a battle between the two. The Zulus did not have the level of organisation, the population, nor the experience to go toe to toe with the Romans and actually win, whilst it would be less inconceivable that the Roman Empire could if desired meet the requirements that the task would involve.

If I was the Rimans, I'd hire a few Boers to deal with the Zulu menace

 

[storealex]

Dicipline is everything. As long as the Zulu had no guns, Rome would win any day.

 

[TrailblazingScot]

Even with the sort of guns the Zulus were totting, the fact is the numerical weight of the Roman Army would be overpowering. The Zulu army was never particularly big, whilst the Romans could at times launch vast armies.

Doing some reading online on this topic it is clear that the customs of the Zulus would have messed up in many respects any war with the Romans as much as it did fighting the British.

http://members.aol.com/glipoid/Zulu.html

(A v.interesting webpage, hope it is properly sourced.)

 

[Headline]

Roman will win. Roman legions can always rely on assassination to achieve the goal. Once the legions kill Shaka, Zulu will fall apart. Assassination is perhaps Roman's greatest tactic.

 

[Provolution]

Sorry, this post contradicts the title. Julius' legions were not Imperial, they were (late) Republican!

Of course it was a Republic, but nevertheless an Imperial Power, so do not come
with these poision ivy belittling comments Galcacus. I know my Roman history as
good as any, Rome was indeed an imperial power under the proconsul as well.
Today, we talk aboyut the British, the French and the American Empire.
So some quick fix semantics too look sharp does not fly well...

 

[Zardnaar]

Romans most of the time if not all the time if the numbers were equal. Also in civ compare 15 Zulu Impi attack 10 Legionaires (300 shields). Legions all the time

 

[TrailblazingScot]

Roman will win. Roman legions can always rely on assassination to achieve the goal. Once the legions kill Shaka, Zulu will fall apart. Assassination is perhaps Roman's greatest tactic.

Rome were good at assassinating their own, but against the leaders of other powers? Get real.

I'd be very interested to see what information you can provide to back up this claim of Rome being highly successful with the assassination of the leaders of foreign powers.

Also you've posted the stupid statement of "Roman Legions can always rely on assassination to achieve the goal." If that is the case, why'd they lose wars, fail to achieve objectives and in the end have to fight bloody wars if they've won by assassinating the leaders.

As I've wrote more than once in this sub-forum, can posters stop making **** up and then posting it as fact.

 

[CruddyLeper]

Zulus. For sure.

Anyone who thinks legionaries would stand against gunpowder rifled weapons is a dreamer.

 

[Headline]

Rome were good at assassinating their own, but against the leaders of other powers? Get real.

I'd be very interested to see what information you can provide to back up this claim of Rome being highly successful with the assassination of the leaders of foreign powers.

Also you've posted the stupid statement of "Roman Legions can always rely on assassination to achieve the goal." If that is the case, why'd they lose wars, fail to achieve objectives and in the end have to fight bloody wars if they've won by assassinating the leaders.

As I've wrote more than once in this sub-forum, can posters stop making **** up and then posting it as fact.

It's a joke, so don't be serious. Zulu versus Roman is not even a history, so I can make whatever prediction I want.

 

[Xen]

a few interesting notes

A)The Romans have a huge history of taking on numerically superior armies, and not only winnign, but totally dominateing the opposition; in no case is this more clear then the fabled battle fo Watling Street (a modern name for a major Rome roadway in Britian) when 10,000 legions over took at least 80,000 British clets- I add, that the traditional number of enimies is over 100,000, and the Romans themselves claim it was a quater of a million (250,000) british celts who fough in the battle

B)terrian matters for so little to a late republican, and early imperial Roman army its almost funny; the same army operated efficentlly in every terrtian from Scotland to Sudan, and From Spain and North Africa to the depths of Iraq.

C) it is a great falsitude that the Roman troops did not fight individual comabts; its well known that the space between each legionary was, for the intial deploment at least, 3 feet of space between troops to give each man the space needed to fight effectivlly; the real difference is, that the Roman formatiosn were fleible enough to chage the formation to where indivdiual comabts were and impossibility, and that, if abel the man to the side of who was fighting would quicklly end that little duel, by jabbign the barbarian through...

@CruddyLeper; I do belive that the person who wrote the thread imagined the Zulu army as it was before it got its hands on rifles; as that is certianlly how the Zulu army is portrayed more then often, even during islandiwana; I've even heard that Zulu spearmen beat the brits because the brtiish guns pruced smoke upion thier discharge, and so many guns fireing, causing so much smoke...

@Headline; the Romans never resorted to assasination of an enemy leader unless it was a complete necssity. This is because of the Romans tradition of capturing the enemy leader... the only time I can recal of the Romans even being considered to have tred assasination jas no definitive proof that they did anything, as the circumstances may have just been bad judgment on part of Attilla the hun...