Ethnographic Arms & Armour
 

Go Back   Ethnographic Arms & Armour > Discussion Forums > Ethnographic Weapons
FAQ Calendar Today's Posts Search

 
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
Prev Previous Post   Next Post Next
Old 26th April 2021, 06:09 PM   #18
kronckew
Member
 
kronckew's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Room 101, Glos. UK
Posts: 4,215
Default

I think of it like Shaka 'Romanized' his infantry. Genghis Khan and the mongols were more cavalry oriented, tactics and weapons were different to infantry ones.

Shaka led a highly mobile Infantry regimental system, made use of the shield wall and short stabbing weapons of the Romans. European use of cavalry took advantage of a weakness Rome had, when they took warfare to the Parthians, they had few long range missile weapons, and horse archers massacred the Romans. It took 60 years for Rome to evolve with more missile weapons, archers and slingers, and plumbata to supplement the short range heavy Pilum, and with increased cavalry, they then massacred the Parthians. (The Mongols massacred them later on too.)

Shaka's 'Empire' was too small to support a real Legionary armament infrastructure, and no cavalry or artillery, or siege warfare traditions of any kind. The Brits didn't leave them alone long enough to develop (or pay for) any.
kronckew is offline   Reply With Quote
 


Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 08:46 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.11
Copyright ©2000 - 2025, vBulletin Solutions Inc.
Posts are regarded as being copyrighted by their authors and the act of posting material is deemed to be a granting of an irrevocable nonexclusive license for display here.