rorkesdriftvc.com :: View topic

Posted: Fri Nov 17, 2006 10:44 pm

Rich

Wylie is quite correct to describe them thus. The primary function of Zulu regiments was not to form 'impis' to fight, although they certainly did that. Their job was to act as a free labour force for the king, keeping his gardens and amakhanda in good shape. This was certainly not a full-time job, so most of their time was spent at home, only appearing for duty when required.

You should also note that the formation of age-groups for these purposes was not unique to the Zulu but was common to all Nguni people. In Natal, this was modified slightly to make it useful to the government. The Lieutenant-Governor was styled 'Supreme Chief' so that all the chiefs of Natal owed him a duty to provide labour for government tasks such as road-making, docks and harbours etc. They were paid for this work at a set rate and it came to be known as "isibhalo".

KIS

Posted: Mon Nov 20, 2006 5:39 pm

interesting Keith..just wondering then how were commands given to the impis so that they would understand how to execute strategy? I'd imagine that they did have to have some sort of good organizational skills to translate strategy into tactical movements...."gang" to me implies a form of organization but having perhaps a less cohesive ring to it...

Posted: Mon Jan 15, 2007 11:20 am

Like many others I asked for, and received two books for Christmas---Myth of Iron, written by Dan Wylie and Zulus at Bay written by Denis Barker.
Staring with Myth of Iron I found it an absolutely fascinating read and had difficulty doing other things around the house---much to my wife's annoyance!!!
Dan Wylie totally rejects Nathaniel Isaacs Travels and Adventures in Natal as exaggerated nonsense and even goes so far as to say that the Diary of Henry Francis Fynn is "one of the major disasters of South African literature"
Mr Wylie claims that both portayed King Shaka as a totally ruthless tyrant who had no regard for human life---using many different sources he gives a very convincing alternative view of the character of King Shaka than previously accepted.
While admitting that while he ruled his people with a rod of iron, King Shaka was not responsible for the thousands of deaths accredited to his reign.
Although I have only just started reading Denis Barker's Zulus at Bay he makes no secret of the fact that he regards King Shaka as one of the most ruthless and bloodthirsty tyrants ever to come out of Africa.
Reading Dan Wylie's book has just about convinced me that he is correct but it would be very interesting to hear what the experts feel about this difference after reading both books!
Peter E---you mentioned earlier on that you were going to read this book--I wonder if you have and, if so, what is your opinion?
Best regards,
Robert

Posted: Tue Jan 16, 2007 9:55 am

Robert

I still haven't got hold of this title - it keeps getting pushed down the queue as I have around 30 books on my "hit list" at present but it's slow going at present acquiring them.

I'm aware that Dan Wylie has hammered away at the need for a re-assessment of Shaka's position in history for quite a few years now, having dismissed Isaacs' and Fynn's works (or, at least, the published and edited versions of them) in his papers published in the 1990s. You'd also enjoy, perhaps, Louis du Buisson's The White Man Cometh, who (perhaps following Wylie?) also dismisses Fynn's and Isaacs' claims as fanciful and exaggerated. It is not an academic work but is certainly convincing in places.

Both Wylie and Du Boisson were aware that Ritter's Shaka Zulu (1955) had influenced so much modern thought on Shaka and the mfecane and were both keen to put the record straight. I suppose Ritter's work is nowadays consigned to the category of fiction anyway, along with the TV series of the same name, which I received as a DVD Christmas present a couple of years ago and found quite fun - mostly for the scenery! - but astonished that it departed so much from what was considered historically factual even at that time (both on the Zulu side and the settlers' side). Not something I'd watch a second time once you know the "plot," as opposed to something which - even remotely - purported to be historically accurate.

For the detailed developments of the mfecane, I tend to rely on Omer-Cooper's The Zulu Aftermath and good old Magema Fuze's The Black People and Whence they Came which is perhaps as near to the horse's mouth as one can probably get, even though some of his statements may be suspect. I'm looking forward to reading Dan Wylie's book. I certainly tire of seeing repeated statements claiming for Shaka the accolade of "greatest African leader of the 19th century", which is patently nonsense given that his pre-eminence largely predated the arrival of the European, whereas many other great or accomplished black leaders had to cope with the inexorable Boer and British encroachment for the whole of their tenure, such as Hintsa, Maqoma, Faku, Moshoeshoe, Sekhukuni, Langalibaleli, etc., with Moshoeshoe, Shaka's neighbour and contemporary, surely laying claim to be the most able and successful of the lot?

Denis Barker's book, which I do have, is useful for revealing what oral testimony has come down through the colonial families of those who were involved at Isandlwana, rather than for any original material on Natal/Zululand history or the AZW itself, in my humble opinion.

Thanks for your views on Myth of Iron, Robert.

Peter

Posted: Sun Jan 21, 2007 9:40 am

Peter,

Many thanks for your reply---I,m sorry it,s taken so long for me to answer but I,ve been away on holiday [ alas, no, not to South Africa !]
I totally agree that King Shaka cannot be considered the greatest South African monarch of that period---there were so many other claiments for that title.

I will certainly read The White Man Cometh and also Dan Wylies first book Savage Delight--White Myths Of Shaka.

I must admit I don't know much about Dan Wylie other than what it says on the inside of the books cover but he does write well and is very concincing.
I hope you get to read his book soon---you,ll enjoy it.

Robert

Posted: Mon Jan 22, 2007 3:00 pm

On the subject of 19th century African rulers, does anyone know of any recent work on Dingiswayo (Godongwana / Ngodongwana kaJobe)?

Posted: Mon Jan 22, 2007 7:29 pm

Paul

Nothing in book form that I know of since Vilakazi's effort nearly 70 years ago. You're already familiar with the author so may have it - but is it not a novel?

I should imagine that almost everything written about Dingiswayo is in a book or article on Shaka or the mfecane. It seems highly likely there will be some academic material on him in the Journal of African History which, if you don't have ready access to it, can be tapped into via JSTOR, as I'm sure you know.

One thing I will say is that Huw Jones' new work, The Boiling Cauldron, has already opened my eyes on alternative causes of the mfecane and will no doubt do so for many others. In his chapter on this, Disruption & Conflict, the author supports those who have suggested "the Ndwandwe as the catalyst." Indeed, it occurs to me that perhaps this has prompted you to ask the above? (Knowing how your mind works and how quick off the mark you usually are?) Smile

Peter