"Wellington in Africa." Topic

Of course these is a crazy "What if" but reading about the performance of the Duque at India, I wonder to know what would had happened if the British Army under his command could manage to survive a battle against the Zúlu like Isandlwana forming a big square?.

The discipline of that troops with the Duque inside the square, same quantitie of cannons and added some more troops because of the difference of the weapons, can those read coats defeated the Impis?.
Maybe 4 thousand british and 600 natives?.

Or they would be totally decimated as had happened at Zululand?.

Amicalement
Armand

Would not have made any difference as he was dead by then! The British could have won at Isandlwana if they had adopted the right formation and fortified the camp. The British came back and defeated the Zulus at the Battle of Ulundi. Isandlwana was a classic case of under estimating your enemy – the same mistake Custer made at Little Big Horn.

The Boers defeated the Zulus at Blood River, with muzzle loading muskets and rifles and a couple of cannon, so of course he could have won.

Dead? No problem. Place his corpse in a harness placing him upright in the saddle. Come to think of it, that would make a great command figure.

Cheers,
Robert
18thcenturysojourn.blogspot.com

Damn zombies are everywhere in gaming now…

Gotta love VSF. Wellington's Head in a Jar. Put it on some brass mechanical crab legs a'la The Wild Wild West. Great scenario!

I have a spare Burger King Wild Wild West tarantula…

Victorian era British never changed their tactics except for "after the fact"… change was made in the field only after they found the way they had always done it just didn't "done it" anymore… then it still took awhile for the official "the way we do it" to redo it….

If you mean, the Duke taking a force to Zulu land to fight Shaka. Forget it, if the impis could defeat breach loading rifles, think what they would have done to muzzle loading armed troops

Who cares??? It's obviously 'silly season' on the boards…

Dear Sirs, the question appoint about the differences with the drills with the bayonnette and the square defensive formation between the Wellington Army and that who fought at Isandlwana.

I thought that instead of forming in line, a big closed square with bayonnets pointed to the enemy, "may be" the Zulus cannot broke it.
As the British formation at Zululand defended themselves in line instead of a square, if Wellington would be there with the practice that his Army had with the square formation and the bayonnete hand to hand fighting "may be" they can defeated the Zulu Impis.
As they did on India.

Amicalement
Armand

I can only answer this question by using my full range of expression, for which this forum is ill suited.

Forget it, if the impis could defeat breach loading rifles, think what they would have done to muzzle loading armed troops

Actually breech loading rifle equiped troops could defeat the Zulus as the subsequent history of the Zulu war showed conclusively.

We'd have more of those bloody awful Sharpe novels……

Sharpe's Isandlwana!

It does never cease to amaze me that despite us winning the Zulu War 4-1 that Isandlwana appears to count double or something. As has been mentioned a few Boers with knackered old guns managed to batter the Zulus, so I don't see well-drilled and led redcoats having much problem, whether led by Wellington or anybody else.

If any army has been overated for so long by certain elements of the wargaming populace it's the Zulus.

What if The Zulus attempted Picket's charge?

About the same number of Zulus at Isandhlwana and such (OK, a few more) as the Rebel attacking force.

:)

BTW, no doubt that a square at Isandhlwana would have have made a diffence. Heck, anything would have been better than the historical deployment.

Sharpe's Isandlwana!

Transported there by Captain Hornblower.

I was going to go for "Sharpe's Knobkerry".

The boers at Blood River fought behind a wagon lagger. Zulu doctrine had no way of dealing with fortified positions, which also explains Rorke's Drift. There is a story, perhaps apocryphal, that Shaka was given a demonstration of musketry. He dismissed the weapon, pointing out that in the 15-20 seconds it would take to reload, his warriors could run from long range to hand to hand combat. There assegai was better weapon than the clunky combination of musket and bayonet. Squares would have been of little value.
Of course a professional soldier would never discharge all of his muskets at once. Also, Wellington would never have got into a situation like Isandlwana. Isandlwana is remembered because it was an upset like Little Big Horn. The Zulus were good soldiers, but they didn't have the technology or the tactical flexibility of the British.

And if the Duke went to Africa before 1828, he would be facing a Zulu army commanded by Shaka himself.

Old Bear

You make a good point. The 'myth' around Isandlwana is enormous and seems to grow with every telling. If you read travel guides or magazine articles in South Africa (where I live) you will always hear the British force refered to as 'an army' or how 'thousands of red coats' were killed.

I am not sure if I agree that the tally was 4-1, but certainly Isandlwana was very much the exception to the rule in terms of 'native' forces against Colonial / Imperial forces.

Lord have mercy…

The boers at Blood River fought behind a wagon lagger. Zulu doctrine had no way of dealing with fortified positions, which also explains Rorke's Drift. There is a story, perhaps apocryphal, that Shaka was given a demonstration of musketry. He dismissed the weapon, pointing out that in the 15-20 seconds it would take to reload, his warriors could run from long range to hand to hand combat. There assegai was better weapon than the clunky combination of musket and bayonet. Squares would have been of little value.
Of course a professional soldier would never discharge all of his muskets at once. Also, Wellington would never have got into a situation like Isandlwana. Isandlwana is remembered because it was an upset like Little Big Horn. The Zulus were good soldiers, but they didn't have the technology or the tactical flexibility of the British.

Being a good soldier involves tactical ability. The Zulus were good fighters, NOT good soldiers. I don't seem to recall any wagon laagers or buildings at Ulundi either. If Shaka had been anything more than the best African tribal warfare could offer he'd have seen that a musket was a damned sight more useful than an assegai.

I am not sure if I agree that the tally was 4-1, but certainly Isandlwana was very much the exception to the rule in terms of 'native' forces against Colonial / Imperial forces.

Okay, 4-2 if we count Hlobane (which I didn't as it's more of a chaotic skirmish), and maybe Eshowe was a score draw.

Old Bear

Good points again. Both the Matabele and the Zulu utterly ignored orders not to attack laagers / entrenched positions and got slaughtered as a result. What part of those decisions makes them good soldiers? Orders do not seem to have been particularly closely followed.
The two major battles of the Matabele War saw thousands of warriors running towards prepared laagers – one at dusk, and the other in broad daylight. Had the Matabele instead been able to attack the Rhodesian forces when they were moving in column through thick bush – or, better stil, crossing a river, they would have massacred them.

"The boers at Blood River fought behind a wagon lagger. Zulu doctrine had no way of dealing with fortified positions, which also explains Rorke's Drift. "

Am I to conclude that Wellington will be forbidden by some higher power from using field works?

"There assegai was better weapon than the clunky combination of musket and bayonet."

Was it? RN sailors and Royal Marines defeated an army of samurai in the 1860's, using rifled muskets and bayonets against the usual samurai kit. British army doctrine argued that man to man, a soldier armed with a rifle and bayonet should be able to beat one armed with sword and shield.

BullDog69,

Quite so. The same idealism that surrounds the Zulus covers the Spartans as well. It seems that there is still a romantic ideal that a big tough warrior is automatically a good soldier. There is of course a world of difference between the two.

<<British army doctrine argued that man to man, a soldier armed with a rifle and bayonet should be able to beat one armed with sword and shield.>>

Presumably this was in combination with the solidity of an ordered formation, as opposed to the "looser" alignment of irregular opponenets. Or was this considered to apply to a "general melee" as well? Personally, I would have thought that the availability of a shield to block or "shift" the bayonet (whether being thrust, or simply held out) would have given the irregular the advantage in the open.

Chouan

What was the battle you refer to, where the RN defeated the Samurai? I would love to read more about that.

Storming of the forts at Shimonoseki, September 1864. The RM depot at Lympstone has some of the Japanese guns that were captured there.

I was going to go for "Sharpe's Knobkerry".

Now that is too much information.

Presumably this was in combination with the solidity of an ordered formation, as opposed to the "looser" alignment of irregular opponenets. Or was this considered to apply to a "general melee" as well? Personally, I would have thought that the availability of a shield to block or "shift" the bayonet (whether being thrust, or simply held out) would have given the irregular the advantage in the open

The British (George's) troops that fought at Culloden (1746) had been taught to fight in formation & to thrust their bayonets at the unprotected side of the clansman attacking the man next to them, so avoiding the targe. Of course that assumed that your comrade on the other side was doing the same thing to protect you! It worked well at Culloden though & negated the Highlander ability to parry away the bayonet.

Although the Zulu shield was larger than the targe a similar drill would probably have been as effective in 1879.

This tactic (call it "Cumberland's Bayonet Drill", for convenience) also assumes that the Jacobite soldiers will all be arriving at the same time, in the same kind of ranks as the Government Army. Of course they wouldn't, no more than would Zulus! Whatever the theory, in practice this Drill did have the effect of bolstering morale among the Government Army, and lessening the risk of the kind of panic flight, in the face of an unexpectedly swift advance by irregular fighters, which had happened to Sir John Cope's army at Gledsmuir. In the event, as in the other Colonial cases mentioned, it was sheer weight of regular, disciplined firepower which broke the "Highland Charge"; even so, on the Jacobite right, the clansmen did get close enough to break into the Hanoverian lines.

I suppose in the case of small, isolated groups of regulars fighting against limited numbers of colonised peoples fighting for their freedom (whether they were in Africa, India, New Zealand or Scotland), something like this drill would wrok, in theory; but then, haven't small groups of soldiers generally (though not invariably) banded together in order to give & receive mutual support/protection?

It would work better if the opposition were disordered, as your 'protector' would be less likely to be opposed himself.

C'moan then, we'll get together a mob and try it…

I suppose the soldier at the end of the line had got on the wrong side of the Sergeant. Anyway, what happened when the Jacobite soldier was armed not with broadsword and target, but a Lochaber Axe (rather like a halberd)?

No worries, after it stuck in your skull the guy in the second rank pinned him for you

Yes, no doubt for the High Command that would be an acceptable solution; "Eftah all, Sah, we do hev anothah two lines in suppoht…"

A Lochaber axe wielder is even easier to skewer, as he raises his axe.