| Date | Original Topic |
| 10th October 2002 | One on One.
By TREVOR
If you put two combatants of the Zulu War up against each other. (One Redcoat. One Zulu Warrior.) Both the same age, build. and in their best physical condition. The Redcoat has no bullets!!! So its Bayonet against Spear and shield. Who do you think would triumph, and why? |
| Date | Replies |
| 10th October 2002 | Glenn Wade
I would say that the Zulu would triumph because of their manouvre of lunging under-arm with the spear and deflecting the bayonet by pushing sidewards withe the shield. |
| 11th October 2002 | Brian
Not sure I would agree entirely with you Glenn. In `Nothing Remains but to fight', Ian Knight mentions that several times threatening Zulu assaults which almost breeched the RD perimeter, were driven back by aggresive bayonet charges by small groups of defenders. Ian also makes mention of the Zulu's fear of a bayonet fixed to an MH rifle; they found the extra length gave the red-coats a distinct advantage in close-quarter fighting. |
| 11th October 2002 | TREV
Thanks for the reply's lads. But I think "One on One" I would agree with Glenn. I would imagine the redcoat would have one chance. One lunge. If he missed, or the bayonet was deflected by the shield. The Zulu would be in close. "Game over" I aslo believe the British had as much fear of the Spear. I know I would have! The small groups of defenders bayonet charges mentioned by Brian at RD, is a differant thing. I would think that was like a large porcupine coming at you. "That fired bullets" |
| 11th October 2002 | Chuck Hoskinson
As a former bayonet instructor, I have to agree with Brian.
With the increased reach of the rifle w/bayonet, a long thrust with a parry, regardless of which hand the assegai is in, gives a well-trained soldier a distinct advantage over the Zulu warrior.
The parry would have to be executed against the spear, not against the shield.
If he misses, the "long-thrust" maneuver should allow the soldier enough space to avoid the spear thrust, meanwhile allowing the soldier to re-assume the "en garde" position for the next attack while the Zulu is off-balance..
Keep in mind, the Zulu missing his thrust would now place him in a more vulnerable position, something the soldier is hopefully trained for and prepared to exploit.
Having said all this, my observation of such combat in the film "Zulu" presumably gave editorial license to dramatize actual tactical training.
Considering the number of casualties on each side during the defense of RD, I have to believe that the soldiers were trained essentially, with possible variations, as I described above. |
| 11th October 2002 | Ian Essex
Both have weapons, and both know how to use them to their best advantage. So it probably comes down to who is the fitest, fastest and who wants to live the most at that particular time. |
| 12th October 2002 | Gwyllim Parry
The one aspect not mentioned so far is that no matter how well trained you are, no matter what your motivation is. When in first time combat and the first bullet or brick whizzes past your head from a mob of charging angry people bent on doing you harm, all thoughts of what you should or should not do is long forgotten and its a race between losing the fight or your bowels, and may the best man win. |
| 13th October 2002 | Trevor
Very good points chaps! This is mainly to Chucks response. In having to concede to your own actual expertise with the bayonet. Could I just say that in hand to hand combat conditions I would imagine it 's probably not the one your facing that gets you. It's the sly little devil to the right or left. Or behind you! that will put your lights out. Which reminds me of a battle the Scots fought against the Brits. "Who's name escapes me at the Moment" I know it was the Jackobite rebellion! Anyway! The brits had been given some extra bayonet tactics prior to the battle. Which consisted mainly of once the Jocks reached the british line. To lunge for the man to your immediate right. Not the one in front of you! Reason being, that the scots would charge in with shield to front and claymore raised in the air to strike. So there was an obviouse opening under the right arm of the attacker. Boy! did you have to trust your mate on the left!!!! And what about the left handed Jocks!!! |
| 13th October 2002 | James Garland
Trevor
The ancient greeks had a problem when advancing to contact with the enemy that may well also apply to the Zulus. The greek line would tend to move to the right as soldiers tried to seek shelter behind their neighbours shield which of course is held in the left hand. Good commanders tried to compensate for that tendancy by having a reserve to join the left flank, or by starting the advance overlapping the enemys right flank.
|
| 14th October 2002 | Gwyllim Parry
Trevor
Was that `Good point' a pun? If I remember correctly, while the Taffs at Rorke's Drift were standing close together, the soldiers at Isandlawana were at least six feet apart if not more thrying to cover that "Huge Expanse. It would make any bayonet work quite a one on one until they were pushed back into the tent area. |
| 14th October 2002 | Trevor
Gwyllim. No pun intended! As far as Isandlawana's concerned. I would imagine once the Zulu reached the british line. It was far from One to One. The Brits that stood their ground, would have been totally overwhelmed by the shear numbers. Those that tried to make a disciplined withdrawel. Ditto! And lets face it, some would have just run for their lives. But the outcome was bound to be the same. Not many "one to ones" there mate. More like one to twenty. |
| 14th October 2002 | Trevor
James. Who do you imagine would come of best in an Infantry Battle between a Roman Legion, and a Zulu Impi. As far as I know, They both use the same stabbing style when in close. |
| 14th October 2002 | John Young
Gwyllim,
If all 'the Taffs' were standing next to one and other at Rorke's Drift, they would not have presented too broad a front. To paraphrase and correct from the film 'Zulu' - this is an English regiment, although there are some men from Wales & Monmouthshire in it, mind.
John Young,
Chairman,
Anglo-Zulu War Research Society. |
| 14th October 2002 | James Garland
Trevor,
The Romans .Because they had armour as well.
|
| 14th October 2002 | Alex Rossiter
And they would have fought the zulus in a solid mass (sheilds locked) . the zulus might have better luck against a greek phalnx with no flank or rear protection. |
| 15th October 2002 | Chuck Hoskinson
Appreciating all of the excellent comments re: historical conffontations, my analysis was based on Trevor's original premise, i.e., "one-on-one"
I understand completely how the "fog of battle" tends to migrate to one's bowels. Having said that, however, we have an expression that says "if you train like you"ll fight, you'll fight like you trained". I can personally attest to this truism, that the "fog" diminishes proportionate to the increase in training.
Put succinctly, the more one sweats in training, the less he will bleed in combat. |
| 16th October 2002 | Trevor
Having only suffered the daily combat of putting bread on the table for me and mine. I happily concede to Chucks final analysis |
