Question about Zulu metallurgy and tools

How far was the extent of the Zulus knowledge of metallurgy by the time of the Anglo-Zulu wars? What metal was most of their weapons made of(I assume iron)? Did they know how to mine the ore for their weapons or did they buy most of it? Why didn't they invest the resources in making metal shields and/or armour instead of stiking with cowhide sheilds? Also what model of guns was most commonly bought by the Zulus before the start of the Anglo-Zulu war? I assume that was the Brown Bess but I'm not sure if their were others that were more common.
 
How far was the extent of the Zulus knowledge of metallurgy by the time of the Anglo-Zulu wars? What metal was most of their weapons made of(I assume iron)? Did they know how to mine the ore for their weapons or did they buy most of it? Why didn't they invest the resources in making metal shields and/or armour instead of stiking with cowhide sheilds? Also what model of guns was most commonly bought by the Zulus before the start of the Anglo-Zulu war? I assume that was the Brown Bess but I'm not sure if their were others that were more common.
I don't know much about the Zulu, per se, but the Bantu peoples in general have had ironworking for something like a couple of thousand years. In fact, IIRC, they had some techniques that were more advanced than Europe at certain points.

My guess is that the Zulu have slave workers doing the mining, but probably produce their own ore.

I assume that their weapons are made of steel, or at least the edges are (with the bodies possibly being iron).

Why not make shields out of iron? Ouch. That's 1) heavy, and 2) expensive.

Note that e.g. Norse shields were made of wood with a metal boss and rim. Similarly Roman shields were plywood. Not sure what Norman kite shields were made of, and can't be bothered looking up ATM.
 
In addition to Brown Bess muskets, I think they also had rifled muskets in smaller quantities. It didn't really matter that much since their marksmanship was very poor, quality and supply of powder and shot dreadful, maintenance non-existent and attitude towards firearms was very unenthused.
 
I don't know much about the Zulu, per se, but the Bantu peoples in general have had ironworking for something like a couple of thousand years. In fact, IIRC, they had some techniques that were more advanced than Europe at certain points.

My guess is that the Zulu have slave workers doing the mining, but probably produce their own ore.

I assume that their weapons are made of steel, or at least the edges are (with the bodies possibly being iron).

Why not make shields out of iron? Ouch. That's 1) heavy, and 2) expensive.

Note that e.g. Norse shields were made of wood with a metal boss and rim. Similarly Roman shields were plywood. Not sure what Norman kite shields were made of, and can't be bothered looking up ATM.
Thanks, but that makes me raise another question. Why didn't they reinforce more of their sheilds with wood? All of the ones that I have seen are made of a single wood pole with a peace of oval shaped cow hide fit over it. Wouldn't fitting the hide over a wooen frame give it more support and allow it to block attacks better by being less, for lack of a better term, floppy?
In addition to Brown Bess muskets, I think they also had rifled muskets in smaller quantities. It didn't really matter that much since their marksmanship was very poor, quality and supply of powder and shot dreadful, maintenance non-existent and attitude towards firearms was very unenthused.
Thanks, I was hoping for the specific names of the models that the Zulus had bought though for a story that I might write. I want to make sure that my facts are straight of course.
 
A simple wooden frame would make the shield more rigid. It depends on the thickness of the wood now. Wood thick enough to withstand an axe blow would make the shield relatively heavy. Less thick wood would easely break after a hit with an axe or a club onto the frame.
The floppy cow hide (I asumed thick cured leather) is actually quite decent as it provides an elastic cushioning against the blow, taking the force out of the swing by elastic absorbtion. Similar to what kevlar does with bullets.
 
Rawhide isn't floppy. It provides more than decent protection against most of the weapons the Zulu routinely faced, and is much lighter than wood for a given size of shield. The real problem here is engineering: You can make small and thin wooden and (given good metallurgical skills) even iron shields. Once they get bigger, though, their own weight and rigidity means they become unstable unless they are thicker. A relatively thin iron sheet would provide adequate protection from javelins, but if you make it 1 metre by 1.5 metres, it will buckle under its own inertia before you even hit it. An iron shi8eld that size would need to be so thivck as to be almost unmanageable for structural reasons (Renaissaancve european smiths made 1-metre shields that were iron sheets on a wooden core for that reason). Rawhide, on the other hand, is flexible enough to withstand that kind of stress. The central fold you see on a lot of African shields has an additional stiffening function. All of this at less weight than an equivalent wooden shield - even the light, disposable kind the Vikings used.

Weight, of course, is the other reason the Zuilu went with rawhide. the Romans used shields of roughly the same size (the Greeks called it "fighting with doors"). We have (had?) a surviving one from Egypt, based on which reconstructions have been made. Scuta are massive weapons designed to take punishment and be used in close combat. You may march 35 km a day with one, but you will not run it. And that is of course exactly what Zulu armies did - run. If you are in good shape (as most zulu warriors were), you can do that with a rawhide shield, a stabbing spear and some javelins. Don't try it with a mail shirt, danglium, helmet and 15+lb shield, though.
 
I always learn a lot from these threads :) I had assumed that the weight issue was why they went with hide, as they could cover quite some ground!

Re the assegai - is this a generic name for their spear or a more elite weapon?

Best Regards
Grey Wolf
 
Zulus didn't mine for ore, they relied on surface deposits. Clans that lived in areas where these were common tended to specialise in the rendering of ore into metal ingots using basic bloomeries. Because they used charcoal to heat the furnaces the resulting output was usually low grade steel rather than iron, and once produced the ingots could be rendered into weapons or tools by specialist smiths.

The purpose of the shield BTW was more as part of a uniform than protection in battle (though it did that too) - the colour and pattern of the hide would denote which regiment the man holding it belonged to. The design of the shield also served a pragmatic purpose in that the leather could be detached from the shaftand rolled up to be put into storage when not in use.
 
Last edited:
I always learn a lot from these threads :) I had assumed that the weight issue was why they went with hide, as they could cover quite some ground!

Re the assegai - is this a generic name for their spear or a more elite weapon?

Best Regards
Grey Wolf

Assegai is originally an Arabic word, and was coined by people who tended to be on the receiving end of it. The usual Zulu name for the stabbing spear was Iklwa, allegedly an onomatopoeic term reflecting the sucking noise made when it's pulled out of a wound.
 
How was the shield used in terms of protection? Was it used to block attacks (the stereotypical view of shield use) or was it used to redirect an attack? A heavy, strong shield designed to block an attack really isn't suitable for redirecting attacks as they are difficult to move quickly, likewise a light weight shield for redirecting attacks would not be suitable for blocking them.

My guess (and it is a guess based on no info) is that the Zulu used their shields to redirect blows as opposed to blocking them
 
Shaka's preferred tactics tended to use the shield semi-offensively rather than defensively, to distract and disorganise an enemy rather than to defend against him. Off the battlefield the warriors would carry their shields underarm and only deploy them when they were formed up and ready to charge - the sudden appearance of rows of uniformly coloured shields having a similar chilling psychological effect to the Spartan lamda in an earlier age.

Once in battle a Zulu warrior would use his shield to batter an enemy to the ground ready to be stabbed, or if he was particularly skilled he would hook it inside an enemy's shield and pull it away, unbalancing the enemy and again exposing him to a lethal thrust with the Iklwa. A Zulu's shield should not be thought of as purely a defensive weapon, any more than a Spartan's was.
 
Did the shield do anything to stop or deflect a bullet? I know it sounds a stupid question, but bullets were fired at much less velocity then, weren't they?

Best Regards
Grey Wolf
 
I just assumed the Zulus didn't use wooden shields because there isn't a lot of timber in Zululand. If timber was readily available, maybe the slight advantages it gives over hide might be meaningful, and there could be an incentive to develop heavier infantry; but, with limited access to timber, it's not worth the effort to collect it.
 
I just assumed the Zulus didn't use wooden shields because there isn't a lot of timber in Zululand. If timber was readily available, maybe the slight advantages it gives over hide might be meaningful, and there could be an incentive to develop heavier infantry; but, with limited access to timber, it's not worth the effort to collect it.
This seems like the most logical answer to me and the one that I had already expected. As well I know that the Zulus had a cattle based economy so they would have had a large supply of cow hide to use for their shields. This is what I believe influenced them to choose cowhides over wood or wicker shields. In the history of combat though could anyone tell me what shielding has been proven more efficient with specific battle tactics used by the native African tribes? Was it the Zulu cowhide shield or the whicker shield used by central African tribes like the Zande?
 
Heh, ok, I amend my statement to #floppy compared to a rigid wooden shield'.

sorry, I thought it was clear that it was relative, especially as I said a bit below that the hide was fairly stiff.
 
I think the shield's design was mostly to do with the nature of Zulu warfare-up until Shaka's time, it was highly ritualised, with spears being thrown rather than used as stabbing weapons. This would obviously mean that the need for big, heavy shields to stop piercing blows was very small.
 
Top