"Quick Question, Ratio of Zulus with firearms" Topic
8 Posts
All members in good standing are free to post here. Opinions expressed here are solely those of the posters, and have not been cleared with nor are they endorsed by The Miniatures Page.
Please be courteous toward your fellow TMP members.
For more information, see the TMP FAQ.
Back to the Victorian Colonial Board Message Board
Areas of Interest19th Century
Featured Hobby News Article
Featured Link
Top-Rated Ruleset
Featured Showcase ArticleTod gives us another look at his "old school" Boxer Rebellion figures.
Featured Profile ArticleReader Michael Thompson sends in these Back of Beyond photos from the club where he games.
|
Please sign in to your membership account, or, if you are not yet a member, please sign up for your free membership account.
LeavingTMP | 11 Aug 2017 9:07 a.m. PST |
Says it all really. What would be a reasonable ratio of muskets in a zulu force. Would 25% be too many? |
Nick Stern | 11 Aug 2017 9:38 a.m. PST |
As discussed previously, by the time of the Anglo Zulu War, almost all Zulu warriors were armed with some sort of rifle or musket. In battle it was common practice to fire a volley, discard the rifle and charge in with the spear. Zulu small arms fire was extremely inaccurate due to many factors, including lack of practice, poor weapon maintenance and poor ammunition. I would say 25% would be too many in a big battle, but okay in a small action like Rorke's Drift. |
LeavingTMP | 11 Aug 2017 10:17 a.m. PST |
Thanks it's for a skirmish with some modifications for sharpe practice tonight. Hopefully be about right. Next time might let them all have a single volley. |
GreenLeader | 11 Aug 2017 10:43 a.m. PST |
From what I was told on a Battlefield visit to Isandlwana, about one-in-four of the Zulus (ie. 5000) had some sort of a firearm in that action. Nick's point about taking a shot and then discarding the rifle is an interesting one – would they really be so keen to chuck away a valuable item like a musket or rifle? |
Nick Stern | 11 Aug 2017 11:01 a.m. PST |
From Combat 3 British Infantryman Versus Zulu Warrior by Ian Knight: A few Zulu had been trained to use guns by the professional hunting parties that operated in Zululand from the 1850s, but most had not and had only the haziest idea of how to get the best results from their weapons. As a result of these factors, observers noted that Zulu musketry was often heavy in battle – but very little of it was accurate. Many Zulu, indeed, regarded a gun as merely an extension of their throwing spears, and rather than engage in prolonged fire-fights they preferred to advance and close as possible to the enemy, fire a shot and then throw down their firearm, and rush forward with their stabbing spears. GreenLeader – good question since Ian Knight also mentions that guns were a luxury item. Many Zulu decorated the stocks of their rifles, perhaps that was an attempt to make them easier to find after the battle. Another thought is that, especially after Isandlwana, the Zulu warrior could hope to exchange his discarded firearm for a more modern one if he was victorious. |
GreenLeader | 11 Aug 2017 11:14 a.m. PST |
Interesting thoughts, Nick. The impression I always had was that some Zulus were employed as 'marksmen' (for want of a more appropriate word!) while the rest simply surged forwards with nothing but the old cold steel. I shall have to delve a little more deeply into this now. |
Nick Stern | 11 Aug 2017 11:23 a.m. PST |
At Rorke's Drift, the Zulu definitely employed marksmen on the Oskarburg Terrace. Also, IIRC, almost all the fatal wounds the Imperial defenders at Rorke's Drift received were from gunshots, not spears. |
Durban Gamer | 12 Aug 2017 2:02 a.m. PST |
When gaming Sihayo's Kraal you can give nearly all Zulu's muskets. Also the Zulu hilltop defenders at Hlobani probably had a high proportion of firearms. |
|