think about it
I am not trolling, this isn't some attempt at a Wewuzian
but the Zulus were able to go toe to toe with the British Empire in the 19th century..They went up against people with guns, and although they lost in the end, they gave the Brits hell
doesn't this tell us they could of defeated the following:
>The Spartans
>Alexander's Macedonian army
>Rome
We Wuz Human Waves an Shiet
>20,000 zulus vs 300 dutch men
who wins?
>but the Zulus were able to go toe to toe with the British Empire in the 19th century
But then again, the British army was never exactly known for its quality (unless you're an uneducated normie), quite the contrary
It's the navy that made Britain's strength
so could the Zulus of defeated Alexander's Macedonian army?
There were better warriors in fucking Africa
Ashanti, Somalis, Beja and Ethiopians all fought Europeans way better
Given that the Boers defeated Brits and Brits defeated Zulus, the Dutch win
The Zulus were defeated by Europe's worst land army (Britain)
It means they couldnt have won against any european nation
what advantages would Alexander have over Shaka and his army?
Not him, but metal armor seems to be a good starting point. Did the Zulus even practice agriculture?
If Zulu Dawn is to be believed, Zulu victory over the British had more to do with British screwdrivers than Zulu spears.
>Did the Zulus even practice agriculture?
LOL of course
You realize they were not native to the region but a result of continued bantu expansion due to the advent of agriculture in West Africa right?
the british defeated the zulu in the anglo-zulu wars
what "victory?
Isandhlwana
If Brits brag about Agincourt, why can't Zulus brag about this one?
battle of isandlwana
well brits are most likely going to brag about rorke's drift if anything
I mean that Brits love to brag about that one battle they won in a war they lost, so why shouldnt Zulus do the same?
Except Italy.
Zulu's had guns too, and they lost to the British despite outnumbering them.
How do you know any of those armies wouldn't have won given the same numbers?
>Implying the Hundred Years War was a single war and not a succession of them.
>Implying the British lost that war
Have you ever actually read the Treaty of Troyes?
Guns are only as useful as their cartridges. The british army could replenish its ammunition by ordering more, simple stuff. The Zulu's had only what they could take.
It's the paradox of early stages in counter-insurgency: you gotta spend bullets to get bullets.
go to bed lindybeige
>It's the paradox of early stages in counter-insurgency: you gotta spend bullets to get bullets.
What? Not even the guy you're responding to, but this makes no sense. The counterinsurgents usually have regular supply lines as long as the state isn't completely fucked. And despite the romantic image, the insurgents usually have some sort of backers, and aren't relying on seizing arms from the enemy to have something to fight with.
>Treaty of Troyes
Was irrelevant and didnt end the war
Agincourt was part of the Lancastrian War (1415-1453) that England lost
Please, that fucker's a retard.
But you're insane if you don't think that the conflict between the Crown of England and the Armagnacs was the same as the one between the English and the Dauphan. They won the former, lost the latter and with it all the gains of the former.
It's like saying that since Germany lost WW2 overall, they didn't actually defeat Poland in 1939.
*blocks your path*
But in all seriousness, the only thing Zulus had were numbers and savagery. Their whole tactics of "the bull and the horns" is so fucking simplistic it's laughable. All of the nations you listed would fucking annihilate them.
>Was irrelevant and didnt end the war
It ended the war with Charles the Sixth and his supporters, and eventually started a new one with the Dauphin.
>Agincourt was part of the Lancastrian War (1415-1453) that England lost
Nice wikipedia skills. Clearly, the changing of the line of succession, or the yielding of fiefs throughout northern France were completely meaningless gestures.
Keyword, early stages. This is unsung insurgencies, like militant struggle by very small urban-based groups in brazil during the dictatorship, or the bolsheviks in 1907. There's even the case of filipino insurgents during the philippine american war, who despite having a very large amount of territory and munitions initially, found that they had no means of replenishing ammunition beyond going at americans with machetes. They tried to get ammo out of the japanese, but it didn't work out.
But the philippines was a unique case.
>It ended the war with Charles the Sixth and his supporters, and eventually started a new one with the Dauphin.
It didnt end any war at all, it didnt even pause it since the war with the Dauphin started as soon as the treaty was signed
>Clearly, the changing of the line of succession, or the yielding of fiefs throughout northern France were completely meaningless gestures.
Held territories can change within one war
Are you gonna claim that the Soviet-German War during WW2 wasn't one war because territories held by both sides in 1942 werent the same as in 1944?
>It didnt end any war at all, it didnt even pause it since the war with the Dauphin started as soon as the treaty was signed
It completely ended one war. The Armagnac party was pretty much dead and gone, and you had a completely different re-aligning of French nobility around Charles VII and his powerbase in Bourges.
>Held territories can change within one war
Are you gonna claim that the Soviet-German War during WW2 wasn't one war because territories held by both sides in 1942 werent the same as in 1944?
It's not about the territories. It's about the political alignments. Hell, the changing of the Burgundians, a huge player in the Hundred Years war post Arras would almost certainly qualify it as a different conflict as the one that had been going on before they flipped. The complete shattering of one faction and their replacement with a different one changes the war.
Why not say the wars of the 3rd-7th coalitions in the Napoleonic wars were really one big war?
>Why not say the wars of the 3rd-7th coalitions in the Napoleonic wars were really one big war?
Because Russia wasnt part of all of them and Britain was an irrelevant player
So, in other words, the entrance or exit of a major power in a war changes what war it is. Why then, is the Burgundians changing sides in the overall conflict not count as the end of one war and the start of another?
They wouldnt have defeated the aztecs thats for sure.
>The Spartans
>Alexander's Macedonian army
>Rome
Nah, unless they had large number advantages. Metal armor and infantry formations were a huge advantage.
Mongols would have annihilated them any way. As far as pre-gun armies go, the Mongols were literally the ultimate peak.
>Europe's worst land army
Say that to my face you little bitch
Maoris did better
Were the Nazis the greatest warriors
think about it
I am not trolling, this isn't some attempt at a Wewuzian
but the Germans were able to go toe to toe with the Soviet Union, America, and Great Britain in the 20th century..They went up against people with numerical advantage and more resources, and although they lost in the end, they gave the soviets, americans, and brits hell
doesn't this tell us they could of defeated the following:
>The Spartans
>Alexander's Macedonian army
>Rome
>but the Germans were able to go toe to toe with the Soviet Union, America, and Great Britain in the 20th century..They went up against people with numerical advantage and more resources, and although they lost in the end, they gave the soviets, americans, and brits hell
If you think that's impressive, look at this one
Was the Koolaid-Man the greatest warrior
think about it
I am not trolling, this isn't some attempt at a Wewuzian
but the Germans were able to go toe to toe with the Soviet Union, America, and Great Britain in the 20th century..They went up against people with numerical advantage and more resources, and although they lost in the end, they gave the soviets, americans, and brits hell
doesn't this tell us they could of defeated the following:
>The Spartans
>Alexander's Macedonian army
>Rome
Romans wouldn't have cared about losing a legion or two. Their people were desperate to become military members.
They would have wiped the Zulus off the map in time. They were pugnacious, smart, and experienced.
I don't know about the others.
One thing I know: the Mongols would have fucked up the Zulu.
Still, they put up a good fight. Probably not as great a fight as Haile Selassie (forgive drunk spelling please).
Mongol's horses would have died from heat exhaustion and flies I think. It's the reason Brits weren't using horses there.
They should make a film about the battle of adwa using the cinimatic template of old historical war movies like Zulu ( and Lawrence of Arabia, Patton, Sahara ect.)