Romans Vs. Zulus.

[The Duchess of Zeon]

I suppose this is sci-fi after a fashion.

One Augustan-organization Legion at full strength, against 10,000 Zulus; on Zulu home terrain.

Who would take it?

[Patrick Ogaard]

Well, if the battle takes place in a southern African environment, I'd give the fight to the legion troops, albeit with substantial losses.

A typical legion of the time should have a total of roughly 5,200 personnel: 9 480-strong cohorts, 1 cohort of 800, and assorted supernumeraries.

If the legion troops managed to bring along their horses, 120 troops would have been mounted on horses as scouts (and likely armed with darts [short javelins] and the hasta, a long thrusting spear.

A by-the-book legion of the time would have also had a regulation 1 stone-throwing war engine and 1 bolt-throwing war engine per century to support the troops. Those weapons were often mounted on carts to serve as field artillery.

A typical trooper would have carried a short thrusting sword, a dagger, two similarly-sized heavy javelins, a large shield of Roman-style plywood covered with leather and rimmed with bronze or iron, and the familiar torso-covering mail shirt and bronze or iron helmet.

I will assume that the Romans did not come complete with their auxiliary forces. A Roman legion normally did not travel without an equal number of auxiliary cohorts, composed of assorted archers, slingers, cavalry, light infantry/skirmishers, and regular infantry. That would put the Roman force on a numerically equal footing with the Zulu force, which would be overkill.

Zulu equipment was designed for the same kind of conflict as that of the Romans, and was therefore conceptually similar: light javelins to break up enemy formations; large-bladed short-hafted spears and hardwood clubs for close combat; and large shields of tough hide stretched over wicker/wood frames.

Tactically and organizationally, the two sides would be fighting the same type of fight. However, the Romans have flexible lower echelons of unit organization in the form of cohorts and centuries, body armor and stronger shields, heavier javelins, war engines, and a more versatile playbook (including more varied formations) based on their experience against variously equipped and organized interior and exterior enemies. Drawn up in formation for a set-piece battle, the Romans would almost inevitably win against twice their number of Zulu warriors.

[meNNis]

yup yup, the romans take it.

they were the badasses, no doubt about it

[Sokar]

A question, are these Zulus of the pre or Post Shaka Era ?
I ask because before the rise of Shaka and the unification war he waged over the other Zulu Kingdoms , Zulu Warfare had becomed a highly ritualized event where there was little or no bloodshed. It was more akin to the north American Indian custom of counting coup on an enemy rather than killing him. After Shaka warfare became a far more bloody event with armies slaughtered, captives spitted for display and kralls(Zulu vilages) burned. A Pre-shaka Zulu Army would stand no chance aginst a Legion and would run after the first casualties. A post Shaka style army would be a diffrent matter entirely.

[Balrog]

Post-Shaka would still be defeated by the Romans, it's just they'd wait a bit before running with their tails tucked between their legs

[Master of Ossus]

I suppose this is sci-fi after a fashion.

One Augustan-organization Legion at full strength, against 10,000 Zulus; on Zulu home terrain.

Who would take it?

The Legion wins easily. It uses armor, better weapons, and better tactics. It is well disciplined, and extremely effective. There is some question as to which would be a more effective army, because the Roman equipment is unsuited to the environment, but since this is a simple battle the Romans win.

[Sea Skimmer]

In combat the Romans have a massive advantage, though the heat may drop quite a few of them.

[ArmorPierce]

The Romans would be able to take this with substantial loses, alot having to do with heat exhaustion because of all the armor they would be wearing.

[Patrick Ogaard]

The Romans would be able to take this with substantial loses, alot having to do with heat exhaustion because of all the armor they would be wearing.

A legion posted in North Africa would be familiar with the necessary techniques to avoid having troops die left and right. Also, a standard legion trooper's armor was limited to the classic jockey cap-style helmet and, at that time, a shirt of mail reaching from the base of the throat to just above the knees and with sleeves just barely long enough to shield the armpits against thrusts through into the chest cavity via that gap in the ribcage. If one adds in the typical ratio of one slave/gofer/attendant per squad to take, and employs them as water bearers to keep the troops half-soaked and well hydrated, a battle should be quite survivable even in substantial heat.

Get a legion posted in northern Europe in the winter and suddenly transport them to southern Africa to participate in battle with no time for acclimation and improvisation of summer kit and, yes, dozens or even hundreds could die of heat stroke.

[Sokar]

Post-Shaka would still be defeated by the Romans, it's just they'd wait a bit before running with their tails tucked between their legs

Ok , first off, please enlighten me as to why a people unafraid to take on Boers and British soilders , armed I might add with very very good repeating rifles, would run in fear of a Legion , which is armed on a similar tech level(ie sword and shield combined with armor)? Have we done any reading on the Zulu Wars that would back up this ascertation of cowardice and lack of fighting spirit?

More likely you've watched Zulu or Zulu Dawn once or twice and think you can debate their merits as warriors.

Reasons I think the Zulu's have a chance:
1) Warrior Ethos - Zulus lived for a chance at combat and their belief system rewarded a fighter who fell in battle for his Chief or King.
2) Training and Endurance - Zulu warriors may very well have been the finest light , non-firearm equiped, light infantry ever. All of them could carry out a battle after a 20 to 30 mile run. This is backed up by British and Boer reports from the two Zulu Wars fought in South Africa which often remarked at the speed with which Zulu troops could move and mass in a given area) Plus they had spent literaly their entire lives training in one way or another to be warriors. Their spear and shield were like extensions of their hands
3) Speed - Once battle was joined Zulu troops could close with the enemy like no one else. Zulus did not walk or march into battle , they would run and crash into a line wike a tidal wave. Roman archers and heavy weapons(ex Ballistas and Catapults) would only get a few shots in before battle would be joined between the Legionarie and warriors. During the Zulu Wars, even disciplined troops with repeatig fire arms , such as the British Rifle Platoons often only got 2-3 volleys in before fighting would go hand to hand.

The Roman Legions were fine fighters but even they tasted defeat on a regular basis, wether it was Saxons on the Rhine, Picts in Britanniaa or Selucids in Asia Minor. I give eiether side in this a 50/50 chance for eiether side to win.

[HemlockGrey]

Could a Zulu spear even get past the overlapping Roman shields?

Romans are used to ferocity. In the Gallic wars the barbarians would leap over the Roman lines and stab at them over their shields.

Futher, the Romans are superior in organization, articulation, and logistics. Remember how Caesar took Iberia, trapping an entire army and defeating it without a battle?

[Balrog]

Hmpf, just making light of the situation

Anyways, the Legions are better equiped then the Zulu, espcially with their spears designed to pierce sheilds and break so that the enemy couldn't throw it back at ya (wasn't it called a Pilium??), plus with mobile artillery, better armor and IMO better tactics, they could defeat the Zulu, albiet with casualties.

[Sokar]

Could a Zulu spear even get past the overlapping Roman shields?

Romans are used to ferocity. In the Gallic wars the barbarians would leap over the Roman lines and stab at them over their shields.

Futher, the Romans are superior in organization, articulation, and logistics. Remember how Caesar took Iberia, trapping an entire army and defeating it without a battle?

You could ask the same question about a Gallic Spear, or any other sharpened edged weapons.......

Never said that they werent used to fighting ferocious opponents , Im sure a Legionair worked up in a battle frenzy was quite ferocious as well.

The Zulu Kingdoms of Southern Africa lacked for neiether organization, articulation or logistics. When talking about the peoples and civilizations of Sub-Saharan Africa you really need to get this "barbarian horde" or disorganized villages concept out of your head. Both of these are an severly euro-centric view point that totally relegates over a dozen civilizations to the ash heap of history, because God forbid BLACKS could be as civilized as Europeans........ The Zulu Kingdom established by Shaka and his successors streched from the northern border of Angola to the Atlantic and Indian Coasts. An area almost the size of Western Europe with a population of millions (Not all of these were Zulus mind you, many were other Bantu peoples conquered by the Zulus). Zulu forces gave modern armies(as compared to the Iron Age weapons they emploted) absolute hell in not one but three seperate wars despite having a techinical inferiority that should have damed them to a quick slaughter and subjugation, yet they still held on for years aginst first the Dutch/German Boers and then later aginst the might of Imperial Britian. Given an opponent if similar tech and limmitatins and advantages , I see this as a even match between Zulu and Roman.

[Sokar]

Hmpf, just making light of the situation

Anyways, the Legions are better equiped then the Zulu, espcially with their spears designed to pierce sheilds and break so that the enemy couldn't throw it back at ya (wasn't it called a Pilium??), plus with mobile artillery, better armor and IMO better tactics, they could defeat the Zulu, albiet with casualties.

Never make light on a history question with me, Im a History Major

Secondly equipment is all in how you use it , and when it comes down to close quarters battle whhich the Zulu excelled in , it all comes down to skill and a hefty dose of luck. As to the Pilium( yes thats the right name) it was designed for the thick shields favored by European and Mediterrranean foes whos military ideology was shaped by the Greek Phalanx where heavy sheilds were common. The thin Bullhide shields used by Zulus would not stop a pilium type spear, but neiether would the encumberance encountered when it hit and bent off in the shield be a problem eiether , they would probably just fall out of the Zulu shield unbent.

Zulus always used tactics, feints , flank attacks , hit and fade were all in the Zulu repitiore. Their favored ploy was an envelopement tactic strikingly reminicient of that used by Hannibal at Cannae where a central force pinned the bulk of an army while flanking forces enveloped the opposing army from the rear.

[Sokar]

Bummer, I was hoping for more debate.........Oh well

[The Duchess of Zeon]

Bummer, I was hoping for more debate.........Oh well

Well: Yes, a Shaka-era contigent.... A legion without auxiliaries, of course, but with their horses (And they've all got their land-legs back, man and beast alike). We could assume this conflict takes place in the usual areas, or... Perhaps around Maputo and heading down the coast towards the Zululand? Not quite Zulu home turf, but in the general vicinity. The legion in question was previously posted to the Parthian frontier along the Euphrates in the region of Syria and has experience with the climate.

[Mr. Mister]

I have no useful information for this debate.

But, I have some sidenotes.

1) Despite its bias, the movie Zulu at least gets at least two things right: the Zulu were damn mobile, and damn good fighters.

2) I think (mis?)conceptions of the Zulu have had an influence on sci-fi and fantasy literature, in that the military of "barbarian" civilizations is going to be based largely on the Zulu. Now, it doesn't have to be something as blatant as Robert Jordan's Aiel (their mobility, weapons, and conditioning all smack of "I watched Zulu"), but it's there a lot, I think. Probably because the Zulu are the only sub-Saharan military power most white Canadamericans (a major chunk of the sci-fi producing and consuming population) have ever heard of.

[Typhonis 1]

A more interesting fight would be Zulus vs Mongols horsemen

[CJvR]

IMPO, in a standard straight up fight the Zulu would get massacred. They might have been the finest light infantry in the world but they would be going up against the finest heavy infantry in the world.
The Zulu army would have a speed advantage, but it would probably not be as great as some think. The Legions was known for their high marching tempo. The Zulu would also probably have a tactical speed advantage similar to that cavaly enjoyed but without the other traditional advantages of a cavalry force.
Roman Pila was designed to kill an enemy or force him to defend himself with the shield, causing the spear to get stuck rendering the shield useless. Zulus with their much thinner shields facing a Pila volley would die, Legionarys faced with Zulu spears could rely on their shields & armor to protect them.
The Zulu lack of armor and thin shields would be absolute murder once they closed in on the Legion, only lucky hits will do serious damage to the Legionaries while any unparried stab from a Legionary is likely to be fatal.
Given equaly competent commanders and no low % oddities occuring the Legion would win this one because it is the fight it is intended to fight and better suited to fighting than the Zulu.

If the Zulu instead use their mobility, the advantage that light units have over heavier ones, and hit the Legion on the march with harassment raids and attrittion tactics rather than a pitched battle then they would have their strenghts working against the Legions weakness rather than the other way around. The speed of the Zulu army and the home field advantage would guarantee that it could not be forced into battle and if the Zulu have defencive depth to play with then there is no reason to fight on the Legion's terms.[/b]

[CJvR]

btw, the Mongols would slaughter the Zulus with no more losses than the arrows spent in the butchery.

[Patrick Ogaard]

btw, the Mongols would slaughter the Zulus with no more losses than the arrows spent in the butchery.

That is close to indisputable. Of course, an Augustan legion would face a similar fate. The composite bows of the sorts used by the Mongols, Parthians and others were rapid fire weapons with high striking power and accuracy so long as the user was suitably skilled. Roman shields and armor of the period were not noticeably effective against those weapons, and infantry without adequate long range missile weapons can not engage cavalry that refuses to come to grips.

[CJvR]

I think the Legion would do considerably better than the Zulus against the Mongols, not good enough perhaps but far better than the Zulus. The Legion did have ranged weapons, in their Balistas(IIRC) they had weapons that outranged even the Mongol composite bows. The Roman Legions were well armored to stand up to the arrows and fought and defeated archer equiped cavalry armies, although none quite as formidable as the Mongols. Given some warning of what to expect I think the Legions would preform better than the armies that actually fought the Mongols.

[Glare]

Time to throw in my 2 cents worth. As a South African I had to learn all this at school.

Firstly have any of you ever seen a Zulu Assegaai? It is not precisely a spear. What it is, is a 2 1/2 foot blade with a 2 foot handle. In effect the african version of the gladius. They used a decent forging method for it as well, so they weren't soft iron. The also used a knopkierrie - basically a hardwood mace.

Also before we go any further, the Roman shields are made of plywood. Yes you heard me correctly, plywood. It is stronger than a single lump of wood and only the edges and the boss were of metal.
The Zulu shields were also made in multiple layers of skins, stretched of a framework and allowed to dry. This made them harder than people may imagine.

Roman armour was of a scale nature, built onto a leather backing. So they can be pierced quite easily. They are more effective against slashing weapons, of the type used by the European barbs (who are the proto-typical barbarian)

As to the tactical side, the Zulu's used innovative tactics which took the nature of the terrain into account. They didn't just charge headfirst into the enemy (as depicted in Zulu). The flanking attacks used while the main line pinned the enemy was called the "Horns". Very useful to get into the back of the enemy and trash them there. True they had no dedicated artillery of any sort but the assegaai can be thrown as well as be used as a stabbing weapon.

To be honest I think the Zulus would win, but not after taking horrendous casualties.

[Sokar]

Ah , thank you Glare
This is what I was arguing, that its really a toss up between two very good fighting forces and it would come down to terrain, weather and luck. And the victory isa going to be costly for eiether side. Going back and doing a bit of re-reading, the one true up the Romans would have is cavalry. The Zulus had never seen horses before the arrival of the Boers and even as late as the second Zulu War had not come up with an adequate defense or overcome their superstitions regarding horses.

This is where I concede that a Mongol Army would murder the Zulus in very short order and take very few casualties doing it.

[Patrick Ogaard]

I think the Legion would do considerably better than the Zulus against the Mongols, not good enough perhaps but far better than the Zulus. The Legion did have ranged weapons, in their Balistas(IIRC) they had weapons that outranged even the Mongol composite bows. The Roman Legions were well armored to stand up to the arrows and fought and defeated archer equiped cavalry armies, although none quite as formidable as the Mongols. Given some warning of what to expect I think the Legions would preform better than the armies that actually fought the Mongols.

They definitely would not do well enough to survive if only the legion itself, with its mounted scouting elements and support weapons, were to try to engage a similar force of mounted archers. The classic example is the battle of Carrhae, in which a Parthian force composed primarily of horse archers, supported by a very small force of heavily armored cavalry, handily wiped out a Roman force composed primarily of heavy infantry.

An analogous thing happened with the heavily armored Spartan hoplite forces during the Battle of Lechaeum. Peltasts, unarmored light infantry armed with hide-covered wicker shields and bundles of javelins, managed to engage heavy infantry and, because the peltasts are more mobile and can therefore refuse contact, manage to kill 250 hoplites out of a formation of 600. (There were also Spartan cavalry troops involved, as well as a small force of friendly hoplites, but the peltasts won the day.)

Even in the ancient world, speed kills.