How woudl heavy armoured armies fare against trives like the zulus, maori etc

Watching Zulu and seeing how the English were only at an advantage while the Zulu's were at a distance to allow time for reloading. I was wandering if a medieval era army, with all over heavy armour would fare against such people. Even with gunpowder such armies did cause extreme trouble for us.
What do you guys think?
 
The reason such armies were a problem were that they were close to their home territory, fought in their home terrain - and faced a tiny fraction of what their opponent could bring to bear. If the Zulus had faced similar numbers of medieval heavy infantry, they would have killed those men too. If they had faced a full medieval English army (feudal knights, retainers, heavy infantry, longbowmen), they would have been mowed down.

If they had faced a full British division, with cavalry and artillery at Isandlawana, they would also have been mowed down.
 
The French in the 1800s managed to defeat their own colonial wars' opponents, partly using closed formations with bayonets (their opponents also had spears and muskets, but no drill as to how to use both efficiently). Huge number disparity.

The Spanish fared very well in their colonial adventures despite pretty primitive personal equipment in the 16th and 17th c. Huge number disparity, though it's hard to estimate how much they could have done without allies.

I think that tactically, an army with better gear would be victorious most times, but medieval armies' greatest weakness was not in mortality due to wounds inflicted by bladed weapons.

It was logistics, morale, and cost of maintaining an army in the field. So you need to answer that question first: how do the two armies meet?
 

Orry

Donor
Monthly Donor
Well - against the Zulu in their home territory a heavily armoured force would lose most of its soldiers from heat exhaustion before they got into combat.....



1000th post.....
 
Well - against the Zulu in their home territory a heavily armoured force would lose most of its soldiers from heat exhaustion before they got into combat.....

Uh-uh.

So the Saheli empires were built by men on horses with layers upon layers of padded and mail armour, swaddled completely in layered cloth on top of all that (anti-arrow defense).

Sure you're not saying South Africa is hotter than the Chad?
 
Sorry - I was assuming a European Army

I can't see either a Saheli or a European army even making it that far, so strictly academic exercise :p

Yeah, no argument that armour was hot. But without armour on, your battles might look like Stamford Bridge a whole lot more often (initially a rout for the unarmoured Norwegians, only time bought by defense of the bridge allowed the shieldwall to be formed).

So basically, they would carry their armour in the baggage and wear it for the battle, and not die of heat exhaustion. How they are going to force the Zulu to give battle on their terms is another question entirely.

It also depends on what kind of armoured army we're talking about and from what timeframe.
 
The Spanish fared very well in their colonial adventures despite pretty primitive personal equipment in the 16th and 17th c. Huge number disparity, though it's hard to estimate how much they could have done without allies.
There were battles where the Spanish were on their own. They often lost these quite badly. Their first real battle in the New World ended in a retreat with about half the Spanish dead and all the others save for one wounded. For all their superiority in arms and armor, it turns out that being outnumbered by a foe who knows what they're doing usually doesn't end well. Though I don't suspect the Maori or Zulu would do so well against heavily armored armies. They didn't really fight at range, which is typically the best way to deal with such an army, especially given the disparity of equipment here.
 
There were battles where the Spanish were on their own. They often lost these quite badly. Their first real battle in the New World ended in a retreat with about half the Spanish dead and all the others save for one wounded. For all their superiority in arms and armor, it turns out that being outnumbered by a foe who knows what they're doing usually doesn't end well. Though I don't suspect the Maori or Zulu would do so well against heavily armored armies. They didn't really fight at range, which is typically the best way to deal with such an army, especially given the disparity of equipment here.

The Spanish were about as good as you'd expect in guerilla warfare (not at all as witnessed by the Chichimeca adventure), but they rarely lost in the field. The Zulu specifically arose as a power by taking large formations into the field. It won't really repeat the Mayan experience, I don't think, completely different armies. Though interestingly the Zulus with their stabbing spear did overcome armies that relied on throwing spears repeatedly.

Though I'm completely with you that nothing will really help you if you are outnumbered 20+:1, steel or guns or whatever. Maybe once machine guns come around...
 
Last edited:
Top