Did the Zulus stand a chance?

[Georgie Porgie]

Originally Posted by Alamo

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

The Boers lost the war (and took massive civilian casulaties etc.) but I would argue they won the peace, hence South Africa developing the way it did.

This was made possible by the Prussians supplying the arms and ammo that defeated the Brits.

[wolf_brother]

Originally Posted by 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.

Ethiopia is as old as the Egyptians, Mesopotamians, Indus, Chinese, or any other 'cradle of civilization'. The Zulu were a splinter tribe of a splinter tribe of a splinter tribe from the late stages of the Bantu Expansions that had only reached the area by the 9th century, at the latest; as an independent polity they'd existed only since 1709, and Shaka's kingdom was only formed in 1816. They're not comparable situations, at all. Especially considering the Ethiopians didn't so much modernize and keep pace with the Europeans as they did simply flee to the highlands and wage guerrilla warfare.

[Marius]

Originally Posted by TyranicusMaximus

Is that the origin of Lesotho?

Yeah, basically.

[Simreeve]

Originally Posted by wolf_brother

Especially considering the Ethiopians didn't so much modernize and keep pace with the Europeans as they did simply flee to the highlands and wage guerrilla warfare.

I wouldn't exactly label the Battle of Adowa as "guerilla warfare"...

[wolf_brother]

Originally Posted by Simreeve

I wouldn't exactly label the Battle of Adowa as "guerilla warfare"...

One battle isn't a war, and I was talking about the bigger picture. The Ethiopians did in fact largely abandon the lowlands and retreat to higher ground.

[LegionoftheUnitedStates]

Originally Posted by 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.

Yes, either that, or the Zulus winning a battle for pride and then offering peace on similar terms. Autonomy is their best chance. If they can show themselves as a tough nut to crack, but then offer to accept a protectorate, it the British might consider it cheaper than a war to conquer them.

How would the British government react if after Isandlwana and Roarke's Drift, the Zulu's had offered peace and accepting the British Crown as their "feudel overlord"?

[carlton_bach]

Originally Posted by LegionoftheUnitedStates

Yes, either that, or the Zulus winning a battle for pride and then offering peace on similar terms. Autonomy is their best chance. If they can show themselves as a tough nut to crack, but then offer to accept a protectorate, it the British might consider it cheaper than a war to conquer them.

How would the British government react if after Isandlwana and Roarke's Drift, the Zulu's had offered peace and accepting the British Crown as their "feudel overlord"?

I think they would have felt there was too much "white prestige" at stake to do that. Though i guess after they get in one good lick of their own, there might be readiness to accept such terms.

Could a more Macchiavellian British government decide to use the Zulu as a local client to torment the Boer states?