1879 Britain produced as much crude iron as the rest of the world combined. They were building steamships made of more than a thousand tons of iron. You're telling me the Brits were such massive israelites they wouldn't use a few kilos on their own men?
Because moving faster is more important than having armour. Isandlwana is literally, as I said here
Isandlwana was 3000 vs 20,000. And moronic decisions (no defensive encampment, army was still in marching formation, quartermaster and nailed shut the ammo boxes because the darkies kept stealing ammo, no range markers were placed, artillery wasn't unhitched and set up). As for the effect of the battle, while the Zulu's won the tactical battle, they lost the war. They lost thousands of men dead and many more wounded and that basically crippled their entire country because those men were basically farmers needed for the harvest and, as such, they starved and got rekt.
a major anomaly born by poor tactical decisions by the general and overwhelming numerical superiority of the enemy. Therefore, in 99% of cases, the British rekt their opponents without armour. There was never going to be a decision to equip their forces with armour because of Isandlwana.
"By 1850, at the apogee of its power, Britain had 1.8% of world population. The area of the
British Isles is only about 0.16% of the world land mass. Yet Britain then produced two-thirds
of world output of coal and one half of world production of cotton textiles and iron"
It's crazy how much such little cities were responsible for. Like Swansea (a tiny city rarely remembered even in the UK) was responsible for like 70% of the worlds copper production.
Because unlike what is portrayed in paintings they completely dominated even without armor.
Sure, they lost a guy for every 250 enemies they killed but that's basically nothing compared to what they'd lose fighting an armed enemy.
Do nogs have heavy cavalry?
Do they have Longbowman/crossbowmen?
If the answer is no to either of these questions then they get stomped by any Medieval European Army
Yeah but they were literally outnumbered 10:1 and basically did the most to not use their force multipliers. Any medieval army that did the same thing would get destroyed by sheer weight of numbers.
he literally says in the video that the crossbow wasnt used as a weapon of war, it's a device that just yeets a small poisoned stick a short distane away. It didnt have the range or penetrative power of a european medieval crossbow.
1 year ago
Anonymous
That's one type of many.All muslim africans had berber or arab style crossbow through trading with them
1 year ago
Anonymous
>All muslim africans
so not the ones we are talking about then.
1 year ago
Anonymous
Don’t discount poison. In a book I read on African warfare, a slave raid expedition carried out by English pirates was thoroughly beaten by poison arrows and some African throwing hammers. I don’t recall exactly if crossbows were used but I know they were mentioned. Specifically, that the Yoruba had an indigenous crossbow but no more effective than the copies made when Arabs and Euros came.
The Islamic golden age was built on the back of them invading christian lands and plundering the poor innocent Christians and enslaving Christians the first crusade ended it, the only reason they had wheels is because they stole the technology.
Black person what ended the Islamic golden ages was infighting between various nobles, same shit that collapsed Rome and China and Alexander’s empire. The Crusades happened at a very fortunate time for them as the Seljuk Turks were warring with what was left of the Fatimids and the holy land was essentially a free for all at the time. Egypt wasn’t willing to get involved too much at the time, this would later change. I swear you Black folk don’t have even a baseline knowledge of this shit beyond memes and maybe a YouTube video by CrusaderBro1488. Read some actual fricking scholarly material for fricking once. You fricking brain dead Black folk make PrepHole unusable and you should be euthanized.
Isandlwana was 3000 vs 20,000. And moronic decisions (no defensive encampment, army was still in marching formation, quartermaster and nailed shut the ammo boxes because the darkies kept stealing ammo, no range markers were placed, artillery wasn't unhitched and set up). As for the effect of the battle, while the Zulu's won the tactical battle, they lost the war. They lost thousands of men dead and many more wounded and that basically crippled their entire country because those men were basically farmers needed for the harvest and, as such, they starved and got rekt.
because armor is heavy and practically not needed since most times native forces wouldn't be able to really get within range of any colonial force to do that much damage
>french/italian/belgian/german troops lose in africa against jezzail wielding guerrilla cavalry >lmao they lost against spearchuckers >bongs lose against literal ooga booga cavemen >YOU DON'T COMPREHEND THE FULL PICTURE!
this is why everyone hates you, cause you're all arrogant pricks
>Bongs also controlled 25% of the planet
That's why everyone hates us. Euro homosexuals just sucked at empire shit. Sorry your ancestors are homosexuals
Note how they don't even address their embarassing performance against fricking zulus of all
>Bongs also controlled 25% of the planet
That's why everyone hates us. Euro homosexuals just sucked at empire shit. Sorry your ancestors are homosexuals
I'm coming at this from a very Conquistador, Conquest of the Americas lense since Mesoamerican history and archeology is what i'm into, but most conquistadors didn't have full suits of plate armor even necessarily steel breastplates and helmets either, a lot of them had to make do with Gambeson or just heavy cloth garments since Conquistadors paid for their own gear.
So, say, the very best outfitted Conquistadors were signficantly more armored then say the best Aztec soldier, and the worst outfitted Conquistador would have worn more then Aztec porters or junior soldier, but in the middle or when not comparing people of equal status on both sides, many would have been comparably armored, since the Aztec also used gambeson, thick cloth warsuits, etc, albiet for their higher status soldiers. Some even had metal mail, though this was likely as much ceremonial then it was functional.
Of course, Gambeson was still armor, and thick cloth without necessarily being gambeson could offer some protection too, but I guess my point is where does one draw the line exactly? Would the coats in
https://i.imgur.com/694zVgP.jpg
Literally any medieval European army stomps Isandlwana.
not have arguably offered some protection as well?
>Literally any medieval European army stomps Isandlwana.
Most European countries haven't won a war since the 18th century... It's not that they couldn't per say defeat Africans in a war
It's that they wouldn't get the opportunity because they had already been outdone by better men
Because equipping red coats with medieval style armor is hard to justify from a procurement perspective. It doesn't help against Britain's modern enemies who were armed with advanced rapid fire rifles. And it only helpful against primitive spear chucking adversaries if your troops are actually getting stabbed a lot...which outside of Isandlewana, they weren't.
Armoring your guys up only makes sense if you're expecting an Isandlewana. But if you're expecting an Isandlewana, maybe it'd be more productive to summarily execute any of your invred officers who can't figure out how to circle the wagons.
It probably just came up too rarely for them to bother with producing, distributing, carrying, and maintaining thousands of pieces of body armour to lessen casualties in battles they were winning 99% of anyway.
If you look at the accounts of the Aztec vs the Spaniards, a simple torso armor would greatly improve survivability despite the overwhelming numerical superiority.
Cuz armor is expensive and heavy and not useful in a war where you actually have anything to lose
1879 Britain produced as much crude iron as the rest of the world combined. They were building steamships made of more than a thousand tons of iron. You're telling me the Brits were such massive israelites they wouldn't use a few kilos on their own men?
Because moving faster is more important than having armour. Isandlwana is literally, as I said here
a major anomaly born by poor tactical decisions by the general and overwhelming numerical superiority of the enemy. Therefore, in 99% of cases, the British rekt their opponents without armour. There was never going to be a decision to equip their forces with armour because of Isandlwana.
>british empire
ftfy
empire
>ftfy
Wrong, Britain.
"By 1850, at the apogee of its power, Britain had 1.8% of world population. The area of the
British Isles is only about 0.16% of the world land mass. Yet Britain then produced two-thirds
of world output of coal and one half of world production of cotton textiles and iron"
https://faculty.econ.ucdavis.edu/faculty/gclark/ecn110b/readings/ecn110b-chapter2-2005.pdf
>Thus by 1850 the Manchester area was producing about 40% of the world
cotton textile production
based as frick
It's crazy how much such little cities were responsible for. Like Swansea (a tiny city rarely remembered even in the UK) was responsible for like 70% of the worlds copper production.
Yes.
And it’s also hot.
Because unlike what is portrayed in paintings they completely dominated even without armor.
Sure, they lost a guy for every 250 enemies they killed but that's basically nothing compared to what they'd lose fighting an armed enemy.
>Literally any medieval European army stomps Isandlwana.
Lol, no they don’t.
Do nogs have heavy cavalry?
Do they have Longbowman/crossbowmen?
If the answer is no to either of these questions then they get stomped by any Medieval European Army
Not if the medieval army is heavily outnumbered and poorly positioned. They’d be taken apart faster than the brits were.
>hehe guys they'd lose if all of the following happened
Cope
>any medieval European army stomps Isandlwana.
>but only if they weren't facing the conditions experienced at Isandlwana
Not even him, but wut?
Yeah but they were literally outnumbered 10:1 and basically did the most to not use their force multipliers. Any medieval army that did the same thing would get destroyed by sheer weight of numbers.
Try to put yourself in their position.
Just imagine the technological and ideological mismatch between the two parties is unreal.
Heavy cavalry and longbows weren't omnipresent throughout the middle ages.
Do nogs have heavy cavalry?
Do they have Longbowman/crossbowmen?
yes
they did not.
yes
lol, those weren't used by the zulus. the zulus were literal spear chuckers.
he literally says in the video that the crossbow wasnt used as a weapon of war, it's a device that just yeets a small poisoned stick a short distane away. It didnt have the range or penetrative power of a european medieval crossbow.
That's one type of many.All muslim africans had berber or arab style crossbow through trading with them
>All muslim africans
so not the ones we are talking about then.
Don’t discount poison. In a book I read on African warfare, a slave raid expedition carried out by English pirates was thoroughly beaten by poison arrows and some African throwing hammers. I don’t recall exactly if crossbows were used but I know they were mentioned. Specifically, that the Yoruba had an indigenous crossbow but no more effective than the copies made when Arabs and Euros came.
sub-saharan africans never invented the wheel
That's not actually true. At one point they had several large kingdoms that were part of the Islamic world.
The Islamic golden age was built on the back of them invading christian lands and plundering the poor innocent Christians and enslaving Christians the first crusade ended it, the only reason they had wheels is because they stole the technology.
>Implying
Iran was a major backer of it, known by its contemporaries under the moniker of Persia.
Black person what ended the Islamic golden ages was infighting between various nobles, same shit that collapsed Rome and China and Alexander’s empire. The Crusades happened at a very fortunate time for them as the Seljuk Turks were warring with what was left of the Fatimids and the holy land was essentially a free for all at the time. Egypt wasn’t willing to get involved too much at the time, this would later change. I swear you Black folk don’t have even a baseline knowledge of this shit beyond memes and maybe a YouTube video by CrusaderBro1488. Read some actual fricking scholarly material for fricking once. You fricking brain dead Black folk make PrepHole unusable and you should be euthanized.
Isandlwana was 3000 vs 20,000. And moronic decisions (no defensive encampment, army was still in marching formation, quartermaster and nailed shut the ammo boxes because the darkies kept stealing ammo, no range markers were placed, artillery wasn't unhitched and set up). As for the effect of the battle, while the Zulu's won the tactical battle, they lost the war. They lost thousands of men dead and many more wounded and that basically crippled their entire country because those men were basically farmers needed for the harvest and, as such, they starved and got rekt.
>nailed shut the ammo boxes because the darkies kept stealing ammo
The more things change
>quartermaster: oi ave you got an ammo loicense yer cheeky wanka
Isandalwana was a failure of leadership command and control. Superiority of equipment can only compensate so much for incompetence.
Armour is for maidens
Probably because armor development and production atrophied beyond repair at that point.
The Spanish and Italians did.
because armor is heavy and practically not needed since most times native forces wouldn't be able to really get within range of any colonial force to do that much damage
Zulu had guns you clown.
OP's question is dumb for many reasons, but I thought they got almost all of their guns from looting after Isandlwana. What did they have prior?
They had a tradition of flintlock hunting for a while when compared to their neighbors. I wonder how many British deaths were actually from firearms.
lots of surplus smoothbore flintlock muskets, often poor quality or worn out.
>The fault was not mine sir, Colonel Durnford must answer!
>french/italian/belgian/german troops lose in africa against jezzail wielding guerrilla cavalry
>lmao they lost against spearchuckers
>bongs lose against literal ooga booga cavemen
>YOU DON'T COMPREHEND THE FULL PICTURE!
this is why everyone hates you, cause you're all arrogant pricks
>everyone hates you
Some shit eating euros on PrepHole isn't everyone
Note how they don't even address their embarassing performance against fricking zulus of all
>Bongs also controlled 25% of the planet
That's why everyone hates us. Euro homosexuals just sucked at empire shit. Sorry your ancestors are homosexuals
>Literally any medieval European army stomps Isandlwana.
Okay now tell me the last time a European army didnt get it's ass kicked
were the brits really making people wait in a long ass line with certificates in triplicate to get ammo? lel
The Spanish did
I'm coming at this from a very Conquistador, Conquest of the Americas lense since Mesoamerican history and archeology is what i'm into, but most conquistadors didn't have full suits of plate armor even necessarily steel breastplates and helmets either, a lot of them had to make do with Gambeson or just heavy cloth garments since Conquistadors paid for their own gear.
So, say, the very best outfitted Conquistadors were signficantly more armored then say the best Aztec soldier, and the worst outfitted Conquistador would have worn more then Aztec porters or junior soldier, but in the middle or when not comparing people of equal status on both sides, many would have been comparably armored, since the Aztec also used gambeson, thick cloth warsuits, etc, albiet for their higher status soldiers. Some even had metal mail, though this was likely as much ceremonial then it was functional.
Of course, Gambeson was still armor, and thick cloth without necessarily being gambeson could offer some protection too, but I guess my point is where does one draw the line exactly? Would the coats in
not have arguably offered some protection as well?
>Literally any medieval European army stomps Isandlwana.
Most European countries haven't won a war since the 18th century... It's not that they couldn't per say defeat Africans in a war
It's that they wouldn't get the opportunity because they had already been outdone by better men
>per say
But they didn't
Because equipping red coats with medieval style armor is hard to justify from a procurement perspective. It doesn't help against Britain's modern enemies who were armed with advanced rapid fire rifles. And it only helpful against primitive spear chucking adversaries if your troops are actually getting stabbed a lot...which outside of Isandlewana, they weren't.
Armoring your guys up only makes sense if you're expecting an Isandlewana. But if you're expecting an Isandlewana, maybe it'd be more productive to summarily execute any of your invred officers who can't figure out how to circle the wagons.
It probably just came up too rarely for them to bother with producing, distributing, carrying, and maintaining thousands of pieces of body armour to lessen casualties in battles they were winning 99% of anyway.
Damn. The chick at 5th from left. She bout to get her uterus absolutely whooped to the dirt by choclate dongs
If you look at the accounts of the Aztec vs the Spaniards, a simple torso armor would greatly improve survivability despite the overwhelming numerical superiority.