I always wonder, would the Brits have done better in this particular scenario if their equipment was less modern and went back to the plate and mail of late medieval times?
Assuming of course the Zulu wouldn't have been armed with rifles either.
I think the only problem was underestimating a group of people who you want to enslave/colonize whatever you want to call it.
Africans didn't have the same mentality as Indians, they couldn't approach it like that.
>sorry to ignore you op.
>>1306537
The late medieval army of England was a few knights accompanied by semi professional men at arms who were more akin to mercenaries with a bulk of undisciplined peasants who were prone to fleeing at a moments notice
>>1306548
Well the core of the question was if they would have been better off trading firepower for armor.
But actually I am quite sure you are wrong and medieval armies professionalized quite a bit at the end.
>>1306537
no because their formation would be equally retarded for that style of warfare
>>1306537
if the brits hadn't run out of ammo they would have completly destroyed the zulu army
that being said they lost out of incompetence only
>>1306559
Not in England, the first true professional army in Britain was the New Model Army during the 17th century. Prior to that most full time soldiers were more or less contractors who showed up if there was conflict. Larger armies could not be fielded for long periods of time and would not even fight outside the vicinity of the city the unit was formed from
>>1306548
>Bulk of undisciplined peasants
That's just not true, most of the English archers that made up the bulk of their army during the 100 years war was made up of yeomen, a class of farmers that owned their own land. This almost middle class was certainly better off than the peasantry and certainly had access to training and equipment.
>>1306564
Well that's why I said 'in this particular scenario'. It's clear that modern warfare has a strategic advantage.
>>1306572
The Yeomen who showed up were there to plunder the french countryside, they were not by any means a permanently standing army with most of them going home after the particular campaign the signed on for was over. Should they lose they would not be paid either
>>1306548
That's not true is it??
The peasantry never made up a large part of european armies in that period.
>>1306537
British military is a joke. Can barely defeat spearchuckers
>>1307165
>how to tell a butthurt europoor or a muh heritage american in one sentence
>>1307168
>LITERALLY getting rekt by loin-cloth wearing, shit colored monkies with sharpened sticks
>B-butthurt, rule Britannia!
>>1306537
No.
If you'd give those soldiers plate and mail BUT let them keep their equipment they would fare better. Otherwise worse, much worse.
>>1306548
>Medieval armies used peasant levies
There's that meme again.
I'm going to say yes... but you'd have to have all the training and organization endemic to the time, not just a gear swap out.
cannon
pike square
heavy cavalry
full plate knights/men-at-arms who've trained their entire lives for armed melee combat
This would all be devastatingly effective against unarmoured zulus. Their ability to maneuver and surprise was highly leveraged against the British oriented towards Napoleonic order of massed firepower, and the prerequisite of distance and time and drilled organization to deal damage.
An interesting thought experiment would be to pit the British troops with their single shot rifles and bayonets against a late medieval army that had already closed to melee.
Also, look to Cortes campaign in the new world for parallels.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Otumba
>>1306608
How is that relevant? He said they weren't simple peasants...They weren't.
They were also paid like mercenaries.
