You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly. You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
alternatehistory.com
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.