Did the Zulus stand a chance?

[SPJ]

Is there any likely way that the the outcome of the Anglo-Zulu war could have ended in a Zulu victory? Perhaps not a decisive one but one at least similar to the Red River Rebellion that ends with the British making a treaty meeting the Zulus desires.

[Elfwine]

Originally Posted by SPJ

Is there any likely way that the the outcome of the Anglo-Zulu war could have ended in a Zulu victory? Perhaps not a decisive one but one at least similar to the Red River Rebellion that ends with the British making a treaty meeting the Zulus desires.

Only if the British have something better to do, in which case there's probably not an Anglo-Zulu war to begin with.

[CandyDragon]

I don't believe so.

[Georgie Porgie]

Not with the Gatling / Maxim guns the British had.
It is iron age technology against industrial age, no hope unless they were supported by another indrustial country.

1879 - may be Prussia / Russia?

[SPJ]

Originally Posted by Georgie Porgie

Not with the Gatling / Maxim guns the British had.
It is iron age technology against industrial age, no hope unless they were supported by another indrustial country.

1879 - may be Prussia / Russia?

How could they go about doing that?

[lucaswillen05]

The Zulus had little chance of victory. By the way Elfwine the British had another magor colonial conflict starting at the sam time, the Second Afghan War of 1879 - 1881. Yet the British, despite a couple of seriious defeats at Isandwalna and, less well known, at Kambula, were still able to crush the Zulus through superior firepower.

[Georgie Porgie]

Originally Posted by SPJ

How could they go about doing that?

I have no real idea, except by working with the Boers (which would be ironic to say the least). The Prussians supplied the Boers with guns for the Boer wars, it MAY be possible for the Prussians to do the same to the Zulu's?

[Elfwine]

Originally Posted by lucaswillen05

The Zulus had little chance of victory. By the way Elfwine the British had another magor colonial conflict starting at the sam time, the Second Afghan War of 1879 - 1881. Yet the British, despite a couple of seriious defeats at Isandwalna and, less well known, at Kambula, were still able to crush the Zulus through superior firepower.

I said something better, not something else. If Britain is facing Wannabe Hegemons in Europe, that's one thing, if its just facing the Afghanis (and in the context of imperial resources, "just" is the word I'd use, even if those on the dirty end would look at me as if I was insane), not so much.

[wolf_brother]

Not a snowball's chance in hell.

[Alamo]

Originally Posted by Georgie Porgie

Not with the Gatling / Maxim guns the British had.
It is iron age technology against industrial age, no hope unless they were supported by another indrustial country.

1879 - may be Prussia / Russia?

The Boers were supported by the Germans - it still wasn't enough to save them.

[B_Munro]

Originally Posted by Alamo

The Boers were supported by the Germans - it still wasn't enough to save them.

Mostly moral support, no? I don't recall anything about them shipping loads of weapons to the Boers...

Bruce

[Allerlande]

Originally Posted by lucaswillen05

The Zulus had little chance of victory. By the way Elfwine the British had another magor colonial conflict starting at the sam time, the Second Afghan War of 1879 - 1881. Yet the British, despite a couple of seriious defeats at Isandwalna and, less well known, at Kambula, were still able to crush the Zulus through superior firepower.

Is Wikipedia mistaken? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Kambula Or is that a different battle?

[Kooluk Swordsman]

Much as I love rooting for Africa, the Zulus had zero chance of successfully resisting Britain. By this time the Scramble for Africa was in full swing, and it was considered fashionable to conquer places in the continent. If the British didn't, the Boers would.

[Jonathan Edelstein]

Originally Posted by Allerlande

Is Wikipedia mistaken? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Kambula Or is that a different battle?

Kambula was a British victory; Intombe and Hlobane were the other Zulu wins.

I'd have to agree, though, that the Zulus don't stand a chance in a stand-up war. They won some battles where they had overwhelming numerical superiority, but whenever the numbers were anything close to parity (or even where the Zulus outnumbered the British only two or three to one), the superior British weaponry won the day. The Zulus also insisted on attacking British fortified positions, which worked once at Isandhlwana but otherwise was suicide.

There was only one southern African nation - the Sotho - that managed to beat both the British and the Boers, and they did so by fighting a different kind of war. They fought entirely on the defensive, never attacked enemy redoubts, accepted the loss of territory in order to hold their own fortified positions, and stuck to guerrilla ambushes in the mountains rather than stand-up battles. And even so, they ended up losing all their lowland territories, and never faced the number of British soldiers that the Zulus did. If the Zulus had a Moshoeshoe the Great, they might have been able to keep the war going longer, but I doubt the ultimate outcome would have changed.

[Blackfox5]

The Zulu War was in many ways a mistake. London did not want a war. The local High Commisioner took it on his own initiative to start one. This is not an uncommon situation on frontier situations where central authority is not able to exercise enough control. See Cortes and 1930's era Japan for other examples.

But let's say a different High Commisioner was appointed, who desired peace. In that case the Zulu War would be completely avoided. Instead, Zululand might become a British protectorate int he long run, but be in complete control of their internal affairs.

This may only delay a future war a decade or more later, but there's a chance the peace could hold indefinitely.

[TyranicusMaximus]

Is that the origin of Lesotho?

Originally Posted by Jonathan Edelstein

There was only one southern African nation - the Sotho - that managed to beat both the British and the Boers, and they did so by fighting a different kind of war. They fought entirely on the defensive, never attacked enemy redoubts, accepted the loss of territory in order to hold their own fortified positions, and stuck to guerrilla ambushes in the mountains rather than stand-up battles. And even so, they ended up losing all their lowland territories, and never faced the number of British soldiers that the Zulus did. If the Zulus had a Moshoeshoe the Great, they might have been able to keep the war going longer, but I doubt the ultimate outcome would have changed.

[Alamo]

Originally Posted by B_Munro

Mostly moral support, no? I don't recall anything about them shipping loads of weapons to the Boers...

Bruce

I'm pretty sure that the Germans supplied the Boers with arms and ammunition. There were a few diplomatic incidents when German merchant ships were stopped and searched by the British.

[B_Munro]

Originally Posted by Alamo

I'm pretty sure that the Germans supplied the Boers with arms and ammunition. There were a few diplomatic incidents when German merchant ships were stopped and searched by the British.

Not officially. Here's a short article: http://www.kaiserscross.com/40184/157701.html

Bruce

[eliphas8]

The only way to have it happen is for them to modernize in a similar way to Ethiopia, otherwise the tech difference is to big.

[carlton_bach]

Originally Posted by B_Munro

Not officially. Here's a short article: http://www.kaiserscross.com/40184/157701.html

Bruce

Different Boer War. I very much doubt that Berlin would be willing or able to do anything the first time around.