It is quite fascinating that the shield seems to consist only of the central stick, the cowhide and some binding straps. I would have expected something more structural to give the shield more strength, especially in lateral direction. Along the center, where the hide is tightly bound to the central stick, the shield will be quite strong; but in the lateral direction, where the shield is broadest, there's only the strength of the cowhide giving the shield its shape and providing strength. I had no idea that hide could be that strong.
The Romans and other ancient peoples often made armour from boiled cowhide. When dried it becomes like a sort of stiff and fibrous sheet that can be worked almost like sheet metal and "panel beaten" to the required shape. The muscled corselet that you sometimes see Romans wearing in statues was made in this way, though it was just parade armour, made for show. In practical use, armour made from boiled hide was worn by light or medium troops, and while it wouldn't stop an arrow or a strong thrust from a sword or spear it was very resistant to a slash or cut.
I make shoes... The thickest bovine leather is about 5,5mm... When tanned well you can make heels for shoes that people constantly confuse for being made out of wood.
No leather shield will stop a .50 cal lead bullet from a martini Henry rifle with a 2 foot pig sticker on the end of it. The Zulus had built an empire using military force, the British just did exactly the same, as did the Europeans in the Americas.
Good to see you here Mr Ian Knight!! Read his excellent book some time ago 'Zulu Rising' (Covers magnificently in detail the battles of iSandlwana & Rorkes Drift) The segments are well researched & proper detail given to the failure of negotiations on the lead up to war. There's a rare picture showing one of the imperial companies (24th) that perished at iSandlwana months prior to the fight. A terrific read.
The Zulus I spoke to years ago, explained that Zulu warriors hooked the enemy's shield and pulled it away and across his body. The Zulu warriors would then stab the enemy under his unprotected left armpit. The book Shaka Zulu is a good read. He was utterly ruthless: and what he did following his mother's death was atrocious.
I'm not going to speculate either way, @@P-Alob; I'm also ignorant of this. I know he was reputed to be ruthless, but I haven't really read anything recent/up-to-date about him...
Tshaka implemented similar tactics to the Roman Legions. The patterns on the shields denoted the different regiments/Impi's. The shield covered their whole body. When in the shield, it could be used for bashing the front. It was mainly used to pry open the opponents shield just enough to drive the short stabbing spear in, twist, and out. As it was long broad blade, the damage was sufficient to mortally wound the opponent. The shield was closed, and lines moved forward.. Throwing spears were considered a waste of time, resources, and energy.. Shake changed the whole concept of tribal conflict.
I do not know if this is true or no. But I have read, that they the Zulu warriors were told . Bullets would bounce off their shields by their witch doctors or what ever they were called.
I always wondered if the Zulus could have used extra shields to stop a Marini Henry bullet. Although it would have been cumbersome to carry extra shields. They no doubt were a very brave warrior tribe.
The redcoats were brave too. And massively outnumbered The Martini Henry was pretty powerful .... it would probably go through 30 sheilds lined up so not a practical plan.
@@sweethomeburgy1227 Very true. And the redcoats knew they were in for a horrible death if they lost .... so they never stopped and fouhjt like demons,
Compared with other sheilds hundreds of years previous in other regions, its a bit rubbish lets not beat around the bush, against the much better equipped Brits it was almost useless, unless up close as he mentions. All very interesting however, how they used the colours to tell age
Isandlawana they've got get down, or be cut down, the fire slackens, stops, then, the 1/24th get, it boy. God rest the Zulu, the British my sainted ancestors
About as much use as a chocolate fireguard against a Martini Henry rifle. A bullet would undoubtedly pass through the shield, through the warrior, and probably the same again to whoever was behind him.
Close up the Zulus usually won ...... well if the Zulu got close it means the redcoat was overwhelmed by numbers and was fighting a dozen or so enemy so of course they would win.
I would like to see more ultra modern versions of the shield. Even if a bullet does manage to penetrate the kinetic energy of the bullet will have been reduced dramatically. The other thing is the shelter aspect. Think armour plated umbrella
If only we were as interested and passionate about our own history, I suppose that's what comes with being beaten over the head with cultural guilt our entire academic lives, hey ho..
@robertstallard783645 every man would have one or two personal shields. So although those personal shields weren't the size and shape of the kings shield, would your personal shield might have been in a few scraps before being completely ruined? I like the idea that every regiment of the king's shield had the same cow hide pattern on it and that your rank is shown in how much white hide is in your shield.
Considering that brave warriors ======================================= were so often recruited as soldiers once defeated, why were Zulus not recruited by the British?
It’s a fair question. I would have to find the sources to back this up but I think the politics in SA meant that they didn’t want to have too many armed black men in the country. But it certainly seems a missed opportunity.
@@redcoathistory Plenty of Blacks enlisted during the Zulu War, so clearly there was no blanket ban. Maybe there was a concern that teaching Zulus the use of modern weapons and tactics might not be a good idea? / It is a question that had never occurred to me before, but now I have thought of it, I have to wonder why the thought never arose before! / Considering the run-around that Von Lettow-Vorbeck gave Britain in WW1, I would have thought Zulus would have made good infantry? Afyer all, they had a martial tradition, endured fearsome disciplie without question, and displayed great courage in battle.
What is known about the people in the Zulu culture who manufactured the shields and weapons? They clearly had to have been very skilled, and would've required a significant apprenticeship to manufacture such well made items. Were they exempt from the duties of the typical Zulu warrior, given their importance in logistically supporting the Zulu army? Could they possibly have been made by women? Such a fascinating people and history!
Very interesting, expecially if you think that we europeans got rid of the shields at the end of 15th century, a little answer, how would 've fared a late medieval/early renaissance army against the Zulus? After all, a pike square was a tough nut to crack, and the armour would've given a strong edge against warriors almost naked .
That's an interesting question but I'm afraid my knowledge of medieval/early renaissance period is zero. Perhaps someone else in the comments may have thoughts?
Some form of shields were actually still in use up to the 1740s. In pike and shot tactics the shields and armor of the melee units could indeed resist bullets to a point making it more likely that they can close the distance into melee. However, once guns became more accessible rather than getting shot from under shields and armor as they approach and hoping that is enough for them to survive it was more practical to fight at the same range as the guy with the 2 handed gun.
Depends where they fight. In Europe obviously they’d lose. In Africa it would be tougher! That armor would harm instead of protect so they’d likely not use it. Plus horses etc can’t survive in some regions so horsemen knights wouldn’t be much use.
I would guess that Zulu skirmishers with acquired rifles were able to engage the dense British formations. Those formations necessary again at the melee weapons and shields. An British ammunition expenditure high as the shield and movement caused misses. The arrival of reinforcements would have seen British formations impaled rearward on stakes but deceased. What a sight to see the Red Pants !
As explained, you have to put this into context. Those shields were absolutely sufficient for the time and place. When all your enemies have wooden stabbing weapons and no metallurgy to make slashing weapons like swords, thick cowhide becomes armor.
The majority of people in southern Africa had very rudimentary weapons even compared to West Africa or East Africa. Xhoisan were literally only equipped with Bows so yea it makes sense
Its interesting that so many of these historians and military experts don't know the difference between a "Baggage Train" and an Army. At Isandlwana the Zulu's attacked the Baggage Train of one column (there were 3 Columns) of Chelmsford's Army. The Zulu did not defeat a British Army, only a small part of one.
It was still a British force of around 800 and a further 400 or so armed native levies wiped out bar a few mounted men who managed to flee. It ranks alongside the Ethiopean defeat of an Italian army at Adwa in 1896 as one of the worst defeats inflicted on a colonial power.
@@PaIaeoCIive1648 Adwa 1896 was 100,000 against 15,000 Italians. It was a more significant victory as the whole army was defeated. Ethiopia was left alone until the Italians returned in 1935. This was not the case with the ZULU, Chelmsford's Army was not defeated, it remained as a fighting force inflicting heavy casualties, defeating the Zulu several times before the final decisive battle at Ulundi only 6 months later. It should also be pointed out that the Zulu were not the peace loving society some would have us believe. They were feared as a very ruthless tribe subduing other Africans. They murdered the sick and wounded and took no prisoners.
