What difference would better armed Zulus have made?

[Mitchell Hundred]

The anglo-zulu war has struck me as being not too dissimilar from the american-indian wars. In that you had a much more organized and advanced military force against a less well equipped and advanced enemy.

However the differences i note is that the indians actually often had much better arms than the zulus but much worse numbers. While it wasn't uncommon for the indians to be fighting with Winchester repeaters against the single shot trapdoor springfields of the US army.

It was usually the zulus armed with nothing but their iklwa short spears against the british and their martini-henry rifles. Let's say for some reason the zulus were able to get much better arms let's say henry repeaters, what differences do you think would have been felt on the battles? The zulus had much better numbers than the indians ever did and could put many thousand warriors on the battle field.

I'm assuming there would also have to be some shift in zulu mentality to be more open to using firearms.

 

[Elfwine]

How much ammunition do the Zulus have?

 

[othyrsyde]

How much ammunition do the Zulus have?

That's a big important part of it, and the ability to manufacture more.

If you combine the Lakota level of firearms to the Zulus numbers, I could imagine it would make a significant impact on South African history. In the end, the Zulu were doomed by this point in the colonial game, but they might have been able to work out a greater deal of autonomy. At least that's my opinion with what little knowledge I have so far.

 

[unprincipled peter]

since they acquited themselves well without rifles, one has to logically assume that they would do much better with them. Invent a timeline where Zulu are more amenable to using arms and has the means to purchase them (maybe Portugal gets tired of Britain constantly being P's 'friend' while using and abusing P, an thus decides to stir up trouble? Of course, if Portugal actually tried that, they'd end up in a world of hurt when Britain no longer pretends to be their friend), and you have a battle on your hands. IF Britain had the will, they could ultimately beat the Zulus, but the cost would be high. As Britain showed a year or two later in the first Boer War, they didn't have the will at the time, so perhaps they simply retire from the battlefield and allow a Zulu victory. Britain was also engaged elsewhere (India) and didn't want the war to begin with, but some factions of gov't started it anyway.

The butterfly ripples off that scenario are enormous. At a minimum, the Boers keep their heads down and don't start the first Boer War. they feared the Zulus and didn't want to get engaged in one foe while another threatened. Instead, they waited for the Brits to wipe out the Zulu threat. This whole thing probably Butterflies away Rhode's grand schemes, which probably allows Portugal to continue pretending the future Rhodesia region was still theirs. Up to this point, Westerners have been able to push their will onto the natives. A setback at this juncture may affect the whole scramble for Africa. Eventually, if not immediately, the Zulus are going to want to expand their empire, and an additional war is going to ensue. Britain might give up on expansion of their south african empire (ala OTL first Boer War), but they're not going to allow the cape regions to be threatened. The Boers probably find themselves fighting Zulus instead of Brits.