Well int?
Discuss
>>58745827
WE
WUZ
CONQUERORS
N
SHIET
>>58745827
Racebait, etc belongs on >>>/pol/
>Shaka Zulu
>defeated by a sophisticated army with advanced technology
>Caesar
>defeated by primitive forest men with spears
He's got a point desu
>>58745994
Shaka never fought the Brits though, I don't know why idiots just pretend they know history.
Shaka Zulu's method of warfare would have been something equivalent to the development of the phalanx, or at least maybe roman infantry manouevers.
You can't really compare the two, one was a system that would have revolutionized african warfare and might have led to a major empire, the other was tactical and strategic prowess.
an analogy would be, comparing the guy who designs a jet with a jet ace, the roman military system was already set up under caesar, he just performed really well with it.
This shit isn't even that long ago if you think about it.
The Battle of Isandlwana (alternative spelling: Isandhlwana) on 22 January 1879 was the first major encounter in the Anglo–Zulu War between the British Empire and the Zulu Kingdom. Eleven days after the British commenced their invasion of Zululand in South Africa, a Zulu force of some 20,000 warriors attacked a portion of the British main column consisting of about 1,800 British, colonial and native troops and perhaps 400 civilians.[12] The Zulus were equipped mainly with the traditional assegai iron spears and cow-hide shields,[13] but also had a number of muskets and old rifles[14] though they were not formally trained in their use.[15] The British and colonial troops were armed with the state-of-the-art[16] Martini-Henry breech-loading rifle and two 7-pounder (3-inch, 76 mm) mountain guns deployed as field guns,[17][18] as well as a rocket battery. Despite a vast disadvantage in weapons technology,[19] the numerically superior Zulus ultimately overwhelmed the poorly led and badly deployed[20] British, killing over 1,300 troops, including all those out on the forward firing line. The Zulu army suffered around a thousand killed.[21]
The battle was a decisive victory for the Zulus and caused the defeat of the first British invasion of Zululand.[22] The British Army had suffered its worst defeat against an indigenous technologically vastly inferior foe.[19] Isandlwana resulted in the British taking a much more aggressive approach in the Anglo–Zulu War, leading to a heavily reinforced second invasion[23] and the destruction of King Cetshwayo's hopes of a negotiated peace.[24]
>>58746808
Is that the one where the British were in a single log fortress and the 20,000 Zulus all rushed them at once?
I was reading accounts of that. The British manning the walls couldn't take it, since the Zulus started crawling up the logs.
The Zulus got inside and killed everyone, even the sick and defenseless
Can someone explain the pic in op?
>>58745994
>Caesar
>defeated
american education
>>58746808
quite a pyrrhic victory if you think about it
>>58745994
if you are that clueless about history, just watch Rome it's a good series, and it could multiply YOUR knowledge about that era a hundredfolds.
spoiler: Ceasar gets killed by the members of the senate, because of his greed for power
>>58745946
