A very British problem

[wesw]

that horse should fit right in with his high wheeler bike......

[MajGenl.Meade]

We are "THE United States of America". Not "AN United States of America". If other people want to hero-worship us by borrowing part of our name; well that is only natural. And I understand why it makes you jealous and resentful.
yrs,
rubato

Pretty sure you're riding the high horse, with your saddle of "exactitude."

[liberty]

Whatever, lib. I'll read your book when it comes out. You said this:

Jim, if you remembered the British were a little desperate at the time; in my opinion, it was a miracle that they were able to fight off the Zulu and survive even with superior weaponry.

The battle of Isandlwana was different there they should have defeated the Zulu Militia rather easily.

The first para must refer to Rorke's Drift. There, a small British force, thoroughly forewarned, prepared and fortified held off 3-4000 Zulus long enough for the natives to give up and go home (the hall mark of a militia). The Zulus fought amazingly well given the distance they'd already travelled, their humiliation at having missed out on the kudos for iSandlwana and the fact that they had so few rifles and were piss-poor shots.

It may have been a miracle but not nearly as surprising as an imperial victory at iSandlwana would have been given the actual circumstances (despite your second contention). The British there were surrounded in open country and defeated by superior numbers and tactics. The available "cavalry" was colonial horse such as Durnford's mounted infantry who bravely fought themselves out on the British right until the Zulu left horn swept past and around them while the right horn was doing similarly from the opposite heights and behind iSandlwana mountain itself. The superiority of the rifle vs. stabbing spears is negated once the hand to hand combat begins.

I commented upon Chelmsford's (possibly racist but more likely classist) belief that the Zulus could not possibly mount such a determined assault. But he believed if they did, he'd left more than enough men to beat off such a militia handily. British experience didn't doubt the bravery of native peoples - it did rely on superior firepower and discipline. Had they been laagered, as the Boers continually advised, Pullein and his men would have been as successful as the Boers had been at Blood River (also worth a visit).

So I tend to agree with you that things would have turned out differently if things had turned out differently. Your best example of that would be the Battle of Ulundi - the British had learned their painful lesson

General, I bow to your superior knowledge on this subject, but do you agree that in the age of cavalry the side without it would be at a severe disadvantage. There are so many ways a cavalry can be used to weaken and destroy an infantry especially if the Cavalry is armed with longer range weapons such as the re recurved bow.

[wesw]

so..., are we talking about the mongol hordes and their composite short bows now?????

that is the only calavry that I m aware of that can hang theirsuccess on the bow

[MajGenl.Meade]

lib, cavalry these days is equipped with tracked vehicles and helicopters, most of them under the command of Robert Duval. They are the ultimate expression of the development of cavalry, providing mobility, speed and delivery of superior firepower at specific points. It seems these things are rediscovered over the ages and people are slow to learn.

In an age of superior magazine infantry rifles, the Anglo-African war and the US War of the Rebellion both reinforced the true utility of the horse as (in effect) a carrier of carbine-armed infantry. They became the helicopter of the day. But by 1914 the cavalry of the Western Front reverted to the pig-sticker, charge the enemy and give 'em steel, ride 'em down chaps kind of elite (and rather useless) arm - as if the enemy were equipped with Napoleonic muskets rather than machine guns.

Horse cavalry swooping in terrifying raids against infantry rather went out of fashion when they were all shot down by infantry carrying rifles capable of killing at a mile range. It was only useful as long as it was better at dealing death than the guys standing on their own two feet. That stopped somewhere around 1864. You make this point with the reference to (wesw got it) the Mongol and presumably Scythian forces - they outranged the infantry and hence were used in different ways to other cavalry thru the ages.

Recon, screening, massed charges, delivering firepower to the needed place in the fastest way... against Zulus or any inferiorly armed enemy all of those functions could be deployed and were. But cavalry was not necessary to the success of the imperial forces against the Zulu.