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.
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.
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.
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!
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.
Ian Knight is brilliant!
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.
I wonder if they have any war-shields with Martini-Henry bullet holes in them..😁 Number One relic!
Конечно есть ! Ведь это война... Точно так же найдутся английские мундиры со следами копья.
Marvelous history. Never knew any of this
I had planned to get to the exibition, but unfortunately that will not be possible, rotten luck. Keep sharing Chris, thanks a bundle mate.
Good interveiw.
I did not know how the white/black shield works
Thank you.
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 wish they had won.
There is just something about a pretty girl and her falcata.😃👍
In one of regiments I served in (26 Regiment Royal Engineers) the Zulu shield was the symbol of one of the squadrons (30 Field Squadron).
Fascinating how much meaning and symbolism there is in a cow hide shield. Thanks for the upload.
Yes terrific isn’t it? Ian really is an amazing and knowledgable man
Plus they look really cool!
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.
It's a great design. Much lighter than European shields.
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.
You must be German
Have you ever felt a dogs rawhide chew? The cowhide will be of the thickest hide and can be 2-3+ milimetres thick, allowing it to be so rigid.
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.
. 50 calibre?
Ian knight is the best man for the Zulu wars ...love listening to this guy proper knows he's stuff ..love to meet him and talk about the Zulu wars ...
Yeah he is a really great guy. He’ll be at the clash of empires in London till the end of the month if you can make it?
Great to see another awesome Zulu video!
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.
"africa"
What did he do after his mother's death...?
@@NobleKorhedrondidn't he genocide other tribes around him? I just speculate
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...
@@P-Alob Yes.
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.
Great video and talk! Looking forward to all your new videos on the exhibition. Have fun in London, and enjoy! Wish I was there too😢
No doubt no Zulus were attending this exhibit.
A excellent video Mr Ian knight no one expert on all thing Zulu wars and culture I could listen too Ian always on all things Zulu
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.
Yes I’ve read similar things. It’s certainly interesting. Ian’s book anatomy of the Zulu army covers a lot of that sort of thing 👍🏼
Still a widespread belief in SA today. Google the Zulu word MUTHI in the context of crime.
Interesting to know that colouring of the shield represents the experience of the holder.
Great interview with Ian Knight. Keep up the great content Christian.
Thanks a lot
I imagine they were used in a way that suggests they attempt to block things.
A lot more to it than that. Perhaps you will enjoy the film 👍🏼
Gladdus and Roman shield was used about the same way
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.
@@3vimages471 The approach to the firing line must have been brutal. The Zulus bodies were the only thing stopping the bullets.
@@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,
Brave but ruthless and merciless to their enemies.
@@golden.lights.twinkle2329 Savage.
🎵Mighty Zulu nation
They have found the perfect beat🎵
Inuits not Eskimos! How insensitive!
?
Hello Christian, great video mate, very very interesting.
Thanks - I'm chuffed you liked it.
Very good looking forward to seeing more.
Thanks -‘I’ll hopefully be posting another film tomorrow
I am attending the symposium on Thursday. Can't wait.
Great see you there
Lucky guy!
Imagine if the the Zulus had the tech of the ancient Greeks and made their shields. Wood with a bronze face.
That would significantly change their combat tactics though.
Honestly I don't think it would be worth because of their fighting style
I bought a Zulu Shield from IMA US, and it looked absolutely nothing like that. I was so disappointed
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
I am surprise that the Zulus don't have bow and arrows,
Fascinating and sophisticated.
Any footage of the shields being made?
Many thanks.
At 5:40 Ian Knight states King Shada, not Shaka. Did he make a mistake there?
Brilliant as always Chris
Thanks mate
Can't wait to see this and more on Saturday!
That was interesting!
Imaging devoting your whole life too one battle or one brief war.
It’s amazing. I wish I had the focus and the dedication but my mind wanders too much.
What a fantastic display! Enjoy your time in London and please keep the reports coming!
Thanks a lot will do. Just released another video now 👍🏼
You've got educational and nice videos on the Martini-Henry Rifle, the Zulu shields...how about a video on dumdum ammunition?
Hi I will look into it 👍🏼
@@redcoathistoryThat'd be great!!
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
Bet a Martini-Henry could shoot clean through ten of those Zulu Shields.
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.
good vid ty
Does anyone make a good quality full sized replica?
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
and they ended napoleon line
I have a video on that - I think you'll enjoy it.
I have a Zulu shield three feet high from Zululand, but id love a bigger version.
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..
erm...Perhaps you missed my other 120 videos?
Great content 👍
Thanks Jim
My question would be if a shield was damaged in battle would it have been patched to show the warriors experience or would it have been retired?
Good question
@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.
J
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!
They cut the shield from the still living animal.
The shield lacing is very much like the modern MOLLE equipment mounting system for combat vests and packs.
WTF - what equipment did the Zulu carry on their shields then ??
@@billballbuster7186 Looks like they were smart enough not to carry anything on their shields.
The Zulus still lost the war.
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 !
The colour the distinguish the different units is a clever idea really impressive 👍
Soaking the shield in water did in fact give it bullet resisting properties.
How?
It softened the leather, absorbing the impact of the bullet.@@MichaelSaunders-y2m
They were crap ….look at any army in the last 2000 yrs and their shields were all of a better quality and value than these skin shields…..
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.
True, but Chelmsford, demolished the Zulu with very few casualties later.
@@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.
@@raywhitehead730 Its hard to name a General who has never committed an error. Chelmsford's campaign as a whole was highly successful.