The role of firearms in African military history, and the guns of the Benin kingdom.
"The Zulus appeared almost to grow out of the earth. From rock and bush on the heights above started scores of men armed, some with rifles others with shields and spears. Gradually their main body; an immense column: opened out in splendid order upon each rank and firmly encircled the camp from their heights above."
The significance of firearms in the military systems of pre-colonial African societies has been the subject of much scholarly interest since the emergence of modern African historiography. From the collapse of medieval Songhai to the rise of the kingdoms of the Atlantic coast to the Ethiopian defeat of the Italians, firearms have acquired an outsized importance in mainstream discourse on African military history. In most popular narratives of African military history, the apparent lack (or abundance) of firearms is thought to have been decisive in the outcome of any historical battle.
The Battle of Adwa (1896), oil on canvas painting by an Ethiopian artist, ca. 1940-1949. British Museum.
However, the history of firearms in African military history is a lot more complex than this superficial but popular view of pre-colonial war. As indicated by the above quote about the Zulu victory over the British at Insandlwana in 1879, firearms were added to the pre-existing arsenal of weapons and fighting formations whose evolution in the military history of the Zulu kingdom was determined by multiple cultural and political factors.
At Maputo Bay about 300km north of Isandlwana in 15541, another African army had defeated a band of shipwrecked Portuguese sailors in the open by “throwing so many spears that the air was darkened by a cloud of them." A similar fighting formation was utilized further north by the Rozvi army of Changamire Dombo at the pitched battle of Mahungwe in 1684, where the Rozvi bowmen defeated the Portuguese by showering arrows at them.2
By the 19th century, it wasn't a hail of arrows nor a set-piece battle that the British would encounter, but a large Zulu force armed with tens of thousands of guns and spears, taking advantage of the bush cover to creep up the hill at Isandlwana before a final charge.
Flintlock smooth bore long-barrelled gun captured in South Africa in 1878. British Museum.
Man on horseback with a gun, Lesotho, ca. 1936. British Museum.
While firearms could sometimes decide the fate of battles, they were insufficient to win a campaign by themselves, nor were they solely decisive in influencing the evolution of African military systems.
The 16th-century account of the chronicler Ibn Furtu for example, includes descriptions of several campaigns by armies of the Bornu sultan Idris Alooma against the walled towns of the Lake Chad region in which firearms played an important role.
For example, during Bornu's siege of the town of Amsaka, the latter's forces "fired arrows and darts like heavy rain" and poured "pots of boiling ordure" on Bornu’s army until the latter constructed a siege platform on the town’s walls and its gunmen shot Amsaka's archers such that the latter ran out of arrows just as Bornu's forces were breaking through their walls. However, only four out of the dozens of battles in Ibn Furtu's account were decided by firearms, leading one historian to conclude that Bornu’s military success “owed more to other devices than to guns."3
This observation is corroborated in a much later account from the mid-19th century by the explorer Heinrich Barth, about Bornu soldiers opening fire against a group of island-dwelling Musgo warriors with almost no success. "It was astonishing to see that none of this small band of heroes was wounded, notwithstanding the repeated firing of a number of Kanuri people. Either the balls missed their aim entirely, or else, striking upon the shields of these poor pagans, which consisted of nothing but wicker-work, were unable to pierce this slight defence."4
Walled town in the Lake Chad region, ca. 1936, Quai Branly.
Rifle from Bornu, Nigeria, collected in 1905. American Museum of Natural History.
A brief overview of pre-colonial African warfare provides several other examples of 16th-century African armies with no firearms defeating gun-wielding Portuguese armies —from large kingdoms like Mutapa to smaller societies like the Khoe-san warriors. At the same time, the musketeers of Bornu, Morocco, and the Portuguese were conducting successful campaigns in other parts of the continent.
Even after firearms were more widely adopted by the 19th century, with kingdoms such as Zinder making their own cannons, and Samory's empire which manufactured modern rifles, successful campaigns were determined by multiple factors of which gun technology was only one among many, for example in the century-long Anglo-Asante wars.
The 1874 Battle of Amoaful between the British and the Asante kingdom, British Library.
Statuette of a man aiming a musket, ca. 1909, Dahomey, Benin. Smithsonian. Flintlock pistol covered with local copper alloy plates. ca. 1892 .Dahomey, Benin, Quai Branly.
The incorporation of firearms into African military systems was therefore a protracted process whose impact on the evolution of African military technologies, fighting formations, and warfare varied greatly between different societies in different time periods. Additionally, the function of firearms was at times ceremonial, they were considered a symbol of power and were displayed during important festivals, included in diplomatic exchanges, and depicted in royal iconography.
This dual function of firearms in the military and cultural spheres is best demonstrated in the West African kingdom of Benin whose armies were among the first on the continent to adopt firearms. From the manufacture of bronze cannons to the creation of artworks depicting armed soldiers to the trade in rifles, the Benin kingdom provides one of the best case studies for the evolution of firearms in pre-colonial Africa.
The history of firearms in the Benin kingdom is the subject of my latest Patreon article, please subscribe to read about it here:
Smocking pipe in the form of a rifle covered with brass studs with a leather strap, late 19th century, Chokwe artist, Angola/D.R.Congo, Met Museum.
post-publication correction, this encounter actually took place 65 miles northeast of the Mthatha River, which is 450 miles south of Maputo Bay.
Portuguese Musketeers on the Zambezi by Richard Gray pg 533.
History of the First Twelve Years of the Reign of Mai Idris Alooma of Bornu by Ahmed Ibn Fartua and H. R. Palmer, Warfare and Diplomacy in Pre-Colonial West Africa By Robert S. Smith pg 82
Travels and Discoveries in North and Central Africa: Being a Journal of an Expedition, Undertaken under the Auspices of H. B. M'.s Government, in the Years 1849 - 1855. By Henry Barth. Volume 2.
Wonderful article, the early Portuguese confrontation with some Africans in Southern Africa, was this the Khoi Khoi engagement.
I just finished reading an account of "King Philip's War" in New England circa 1675-76 in which the Native American tribes held an initial advantage in weaponry. They were allowed to buy firearms in part to support the trade with the colonists in furs, hides, and meat. They were offered both matchlocks and flintlocks and quickly adopted the latter because when hunting deer and other game, the lit match required to use the matchlock muskets was a nuisance - hard to keep lit and a giveway to the wildlife. The flintlock, on the other hand, was far more reliable and easier to use while hunting. By contrast, the Colonial militia were armed generally with the matchlocks because they still thought they would fight as Cromwell's army did - in lines of muskets supported by pikemen facing similarly armed opponents. They quickly realized that this wasn't how they would be fighting Native Americans.