OK we've had the knight vs samari scenario.  What about something a little different.

Work with me guys.  Based on tactics, weapons, military formations, and warrior's skills, a Roman Army headed by Julious Ceasor meets and equally sized army headed my non other than Shakka Zulu.  Both armies are equiped with their best equipment.  

The geographic location is dry rolling plains on a sunny day the tempature about 75 Farenhiet.

The Romans.
Formations, cavalry, chariots and discipline.

sgf,

I don't intend to belittle the Zulus, but I suspect they would be routed in short order.  The Romans were an extremely effective fighting force that faced and beat most all comers.  The Zulus faced only disorganized opposition for the most part.

FWIW.

James

[rolleyes]

Don't forget armor and forged weapons.

I missed the samurai/Roman thread. My vote would be for Samurai.

tough call. both very disciplined, well-led killing machines. i'd go with the romans, but i wouldnt want to bet the farm.

it's convenient to think that the zulus couldn't beat Impirial forces, but i wouldn't have wanted to be british at Isandlwana.

Romans from which period in their history?  Pre- or post-Chaka Zulus?  If we say units of both from when they were at their military peaks meeting in open combat rather than an ambush or one side attacking the other's base, my money is on the Romans because of their technological edge and combined arms.  Likewise, if the Romans attacked a Zulu "city", they would roll right over it.  Zulus were not, to my knowledge, particularly skiled in siege warfare in either the offense or defense.

Romans, even today considered a well dicipined army.  Don't forget their artillery and archers.

Better ask the Brits what they think of the Zulu.

Especially at places like Isldhwana and Rourke's Drift.

Zulu had their own short stabbing swords and battlefield tactics.

And to become a Zulu warrior you had to be tested fighting a lion with a sword and spear.

I suspect the Zulus would fare no better than the Nubians and Aethiopians. I dont believe there was ever a Roman defeat at their hands. The Romans were, as was most nearly always the case, sorely outnumbered. Believe most of those contests were 3rd century.

Meroitic Nubia was a fairly advanced civilzation; from my faint recollection much more economically and technologically complex than the Zulus.

This kind of speculations is always tough. Who would have put money on the Mamluks Ayn Jalut?

Luck
Alac

Arock,

In the above scenario he mentioned equal numbers.  I think the Brits did well unless the numbers were overwhelmingly in favor of the Zulus (which only makes sense - short spear meet mr 303).

The lion thing has me curious.  I mean, how many lions were there in Africa?  Seems like there couldn't have  been THAT many.

As I said above, I don't intend to belittle the individual Zulu warrior.  In their era and in Africa they were the dominant fighting force.  I just think the Romans were more experience,  better technology, and had superior tactics.  

James

James is exactly right. The Battle of Hlobane 675 Brits - 26k Zulus. Kambula - 2k Brits and some arty - 25k Zulus. Ulundi - 4k Brits, 1k Aux., couple of Gatlings, Dozen or so field guns, 15k-21k Zulus = 12 Brits, 1.5-2k Zulus dead at Ulundi. None of these were a victory for the Zulus, though some could be termed draws.

Most of the victories of the Zulus were due to incredible disparities of force. Which is not to diminish their success - hell thats the name of the game. But Isandlwana is more an exposure of British overconfidence leading to poor deployment then any Zulu tactical superiority. Once the Brits 24th camp was overrun, there was no chance for resupply. Those Martini’s made poor clubs; they’d been better off with a Gladius.

Luck
Alac

Battles are not won by killing your foe; it is won by effectively removing his ability to attack - by rendering his formations ineffective through disruption and destroying cohesion of units.  Nearly every battle ever fought has resulted in the death of merely a fraction of the defeated. It is not the dead who determine battles but the runners.

Edited to fix some glaring errors

Allright...here is my .02. I would put money on the Romans, but not without putting the spread at around 3 points :-) The Zulus while exponentially less technically developed than Nubia were a much more solid fighting force, with unity, common leadership, well developed group movement techniques and quite a sharp tactical prowess when given the ability...

I would beg to differ about the odds being the only deciding factor to Zulu victories... for instance Isandwhana wasn't as lopsided numerically as one would suspect, and Rourke's Drift was exactly the opposite... many Zulus and few Brits...wounded, sore, and old at that. Rourke's Drift was certainly no victory.

In an open battle scenario the Zulu's would use their classic tactic of drawing the Roman Army's Phalanx into their lightly manned middle and then strike from the flanks with their hidden main force ... If they could succeed in breaking into the Romans' ranks it would then be over as the Zulus would be able to decimate the Roman force in their heavy armor. The Asegai and Knob Kerrie were superior weapons for close combat and mobility compared to Roman Heavy Equipment.

On the other and stronger hand... THe Roman Phalanx would never have broken and if it had the Roman generals wouldn't have hesitated to decimate their own infantry along with the Zulus by sending in heavy cavalry.

The Romans, no question.

And I missed the knight vs. samurai, but the knight would win there.

If it came down to heart and will to win...the ZULU's are the fiercest fighters on the planet.I lived in South Africa for year...and actually worked with the Zulu people. What I found most impressive about the Zulu men..even after Shaka and his legacy are over...the Zulu's were created to fight. Period. They can't work worth a damn, they don't really have motivation to move into the 21st century lifestyles..but, God do they love to fight and kill each other.

They have a special Army division of the S.A. army, it's called the Zulu 101 border patrol. When these bad boys go on patrol, the other surrounding countries military, HAUL ASS! They don't EVEN won't to fight the Zulu's...they'd rather run than come up against these men.

I'm not sure how they'd do against the Romans in a head to head...but, they would ALL die trying and they'd take a lot Romans with them. What Army can boast that? Umtakhata is Zulu for "enemy to be destroyed". And they also have a word for "No surrender", not sure of that one. The point is...Zulus are bad mf's..it's scary to think if they'd be armed with modern weaponry and knowledge..Brrrrrrrr...I shudder to think.

I'd love to see us invite some Zulu's over for an exchange program with the Rangers or Marines...and then keep them for national shtf situations...DAMN! Who's watching that wall??? The American Zulu Rangers, sir!brrrrrrrrrrr!

What was the question?
[b][blue]NAKED[/blue][/b]

Agwheeler,
Asegai and knob carry....oh yeah, I have 2 Asegai's and 2 knob carries. The Zulus rold me that they kill a man with one blow from the knob carry...they were right. How many South African tribe skirmishes ended with the knob carry hitting the temple and it was over. Shaka of course designed the Asegai for close encounter fighting...also genious and deadly. Bayetee'!! Enkosi!! Umshlanga babakosi!

Shaka brah!
[b][blue]NAKED[/blue][/b]

Agwheele:

I didnt mean to connect civilization with battle prowess. Been my experience the name Nubia conjures up images that are mostly inaccurate. Was just an informational aside. I'd not argue the Nubians were any great fighting force, and certainly were'nt Zulus.

As far a Isandlwana, I thought the British were outnumbered 20:1. Even if it was a quarter of that, I'd think that would constitute great disparities.

Even numbers of Romans v. Zulus. I'd spot the Zulus 21 and take odds.

Luck
Alac

Everyone loves the Pilium.

Based on Arty and bows, I would take the Romans.

I must have missed Romans versus Samurai, I would again choose Romans.

I am with you on both counts there.

FWIW, the movie [i]Zulu[/i] was pretty cool IMO.

Tyler

chariots were for mobility, not combat. Persians and others used them for skirmishers, but when used as a substantive battle force they performed poorlu, like at the battle of  Gaugamela, 331 BC, where Alexander the Great simply ignored Darius's chariots, because they needed runways to remain stable.

It depends which organization of the Roman Army.  In the early days of the citizen soldier they fought with three lines staggered in a checkerboard formation, later Marion(sp) reformed the army to be professional with every line having the same training and equipment.  

ahhh, that's better.
this is the kind of stimulating conversation i come here for. not "will i go to hell if i take my kids to see harry potter?" ad nauseum.

thanks, boys you just brightened my crappy day

anyway, my money would be on the romans.
numbers being equal, i think the leigonaires could hold their own in close quarters. their stand-off weaponry would have already tipped the balance.

Yes, stimulating question.  My bet would likely go with the Romans but it wouldn't be a walk over by any means.  Romans were perfectly capable of losing to less technological foes, the Germanic tribes cut at least one Roman army to shreds.  Interestingly enough standard Zulu tactics emulated the Roman's great defeat at Cannae.  Suck in the center, then crush the lighter wings and surround the foe. Zulus certainly could have won an encounter with the Romans, just not very likely.

With Russel Crowe - Romans
Without Russel Crowe - Draw

This, gentleman, is a gladius....you do not want to be on the receiving end of this weapon....any questions?

**jimmybcool sez..."The lion thing has me curious. I mean, how many lions were there in Africa? Seems like there couldn't have been THAT many."

My understanding is a GROUP of youths would surround a full-grown lion and take turns individually attacking with assegai and spear.  All who wanted to attain adult warrior status were required to participate.

A lion is a serious animal.  I spent a day in Pilansberg South Africa last year "treed" by a pride of six lions.  Just me, my professional hunter, the Game Ranger and two Zulu trackers!  We didn't want to shoot them and didn't have enough ammunition anyway.  I thought about that Zulu ceremony several times that day.

There are a LOT of lions in the south of Africa.

Romans. For all the reasons previously stated. And they had some bad ass uniforms.

In this post many of you talk about how the Zulus always had a numerical superiority to the Brits.  Remember one important fact.  The Brits had rifles.  You could have sent a Roman force against the Brits and the outcome probably would have been the same.  In fact with the Roman formations the high-powered rifles would have been more effective.  Bullets would zip through men wounding several in one shot.

Remember God created men equal, but Samuel Colt made one equal to many.

Since the Romans encountered dozens, possibly hundreds of such races, tribes, city states and plain mobs during the Republic and the Empire and won most of the ensuing battles, campaigns and wars, my vote goes with the Romans.
That is NOT to say that the Zulus were a bunch of wussies.  Far from it.  They were clearly the fiercest and toughest of all of the tribes in south central Africa and might have maintained their empire longer than the Romans, were it not for the white man with his guns, steel, and germs.  History has set in concrete the paradigm that [relatively] primitive indigenous peoples have little hope when faced with technologically superior invaders.  The natives may win some significant battles, but the endgame is foretold before the first weapon is raised in anger.
The Romans were absolute masters in the offense, in the defense, and in training and diplomacy.  It would be a collosal battle between the two but I believe the Romans would prevail in the end.  Finally, this argument presupposes the Zulus are the foe of the Romans from about 150 BC to 400 AD.
I damn well wouldn't want to fight either one!
Hmmmm...Legio X (Led say...by the Great Scipio Africanus)...against an entire Impi or two of Cetawayo's finest.  Now THAT would be interesting.
USUTHUUUU!!!!

[soapbox]

Arock,

>>My understanding is a GROUP of youths would surround a full-grown lion and take turns individually attacking with assegai and spear. All who wanted to attain adult warrior status were required to participate.<<

OK.  I misunderstood you to mean they each had to KILL a lion.  I don't  think I would want that "opportunity".  Damn right a lion is a serious animal.  Hell, I've been given some nasty looks by their little cousin, the bobcat, and that is enough cat for me.  BTW, do they still do this or is this not permitted any longer?

I am also curious why the rest of the pride did not jump in and help the surrounded lion.   I thought they worked as a team.

>>I spent a day in Pilansberg South Africa last year "treed" by a pride of six lions. Just me, my professional hunter, the Game Ranger and two Zulu trackers<<

Obviously none of you were cat lovers [rolleyes]

So, what happened?  The lions got bored and left?  This reminds me of the scene in "Quest for Fire" where the three cavemen are treed by lions.  They fall asleep and one falls out of the tree screaming.  Luckily - the lions had left.

I have never been to Africa.  My wife grew up near (Seychelles) and visited often.  She commented that the Zulus were "very scary".  According to her, the other tribes are still afraid of the Zulus.

Again, I don't mean to belittle the Zulus as warriors.  I just think the technology advantage and extended reach of the Romans would have prevailed.

Interestingly, last night I saw (again) the movie Zulu.  This is the Michael Caine film of the battle between British and Zulu forces.  If I'd been there I sure would have liked a modern magazine fed rifle.

Cheers

James  

Did the Romans have specialist who moved in small lightly armed squads??? Say an Archer,Crossbowman, and a couple of Soldiers.

Benjamin

I spent a year in Northern Rhodesia (Zim) and have a little knowledge of the Zulu phenomena... Shonas are downright scared of them.. got their asses whipped once and never want any piece of it again.

jimmybcool...thanks for the post!  Brings back memories.

**jimmy sez..."So, what happened? The lions got bored and left?"

I am proud to say YES! that's exactly what they did!  

We were looking for an eland.  Found a likely spot and positioned ourselves between a waterhole and a salt lick.  Climbed on top of a boulder maybe ten feet off the ground and waited to see what stopped for a drink.

After about an hour, up the hill behind us an impala barked and we thought a leopard might be about.  So we watched both the waterhole to our front and the forest behind.  Soon a stampede of impalas streamed behind us never noticing our party.  As we watched we saw a shadow cross a footpath to our left.  Our Zulu trackers motioned "LION".

NOBODY MOVED.

We got occaisional glimpses of shadows moving closer to our rock.  Finally a lioness moved out of the forest behind us.  I sat there wondering if lions looked only front and sideways as they hunted or if they looked up as well.  The lioness got within fifteen yards of us before she got our scent, looked straight up at us and snarled.  Dumb question.

The PH and I had already made a hasty inventory of ammunition and discovered we had only what was in both rifles plus another three rounds on my belt.  More than one round for each cat but not enough for a fight.  (A friend of mine used eight rounds of .375 H&H and .458 Win to stop ONE determined lion a few months earlier.)

Our only option was to sit there and try not to act like food.  So we waited.  And waited.

Over the next quarter hour the remainder of the pride joined the lioness.  Now six lions were intently watching us.

The next seven hours passed v-e-r-y-s-l-o-w-l-y.  A waterbuck and a wildebeest came within a couple hundred yards of us before they smelled the lions and retreated.

It was getting dark and the temperature was dropping.  We were preparing to spend the night when finally the old lioness got up, yawned, stretched and slowly paced back into the forest.  The rest of the pride followed.

We waited another half hour, then eased down and quietly made our way single file back the mile to our safari wagon a rifle at each end of the procession.  Never saw the lions again.

So we get back to the truck and the Lovely Bride is there with a breathless tale of being stalked by a hippo and three leopards while we were gone.  And she had the camera to prove it.

D@mn.


**And jimmy also sez "Again, I don't mean to belittle the Zulus as warriors. I just think the technology advantage and extended reach of the Romans would have prevailed."

Never thought about comparative armaments what with the Roman Legion existing 2,500 years prior to the Zulu.  Zulu also had bows but had poison-tipped arrows.  Romans had metal shields.  Zulu shields are made of leather tanned hard as iron.


**And..."My wife grew up near (Seychelles)"  D@mn mister what are you doing HERE??!!  The Seychelles and Mauritius are as close to Heaven as you get on this planet!  Let's go NOW!


*Edited to say the Zulu in their native habitat are still imposing.  Only other tribe in all of Africa that compares are the Masai.  When the Zulu stormed up the east coast of Africa they conquered everything in their path until they ran up against the Masai with their long spears and absolutely incredible endurance.

**jimmyb also sez..."I've been given some nasty looks by their little cousin, the bobcat"

My family went to Turner Falls Park in Oklahoma a couple months ago.  We're driving down the road to the park entrance when a big, I mean BIG, bobcat crossed the road in front of us.  This bobcat was so big it took a second to realize what it was.  It stood maybe 3 1/2 feet at the shoulder.  It looked like something out of Star Wars it was so big.  They grow'em big in Oklahoma.  I spent the afternoon watching the three Mutant Offspring very closely after that.

What exactly did this "Roman Artillery" consist of?  I keep hearing about this and wonder what the posters are talking about.  I think too many of you guys saw the movie "Gladiator"!

DaMan

[url]http://www.unc.edu/courses/rometech/public/content/special/Kat_Smith/ROMANARTILLERY.htm[/url]


[url]http://www.romanarmy.net/page6.html[/url].

Thanks, Valveeta!  Interesting!  

DaMan

Actually the Zulus had firearms as well, mostly trade muskets, old and perhaps in poor repair. They were used for hunting and Zulus were familiar with "rifles" in general.

Estimates of 15k musket armed Zulu at Isandlwana seem exceedingly unlikely to me, but I have seen that figure reported credibly. After Isandlwana, they would have had quite a number of rifles available (they were stripped along with everything else from the camp), with sufficient ammunition, as well . They were used to no advantage, for a number of reasons. This is always a debate when discussing Anglo-Zulu War.

Doubt anyone would argue Romans v. Victorian Brits. We already know the score for the Zulus. Think it turned out 1-7-3, with a cancelation of further seasons (Zulu forfeit). Worse thing that ever happened to the Zulus was Isandlwana.

Luck
Alac

Arock,

Damn.  Treed by a pride of lions.  And I assume if you could climb that rock that they could have too.  I'm guessing here but they must not have been all that hungry or just didn't recognize you as food.  And I thought they saw EVERYTHING as food.  Lucky.

As to the Seychelles, the wife grew up in one of the wealthier families there and still owns beachfront property.  Only one problem - the country is run by a dictator/socialist.  He has ruined the economy and I suspect pretty soon will be gone (since there are no more rich to pillage).  Once he is gone who knows.  But since he was hitting on my wife since she was 14 (and he was her priest for goodness sake) it would be a bad idea for her to visit.

James