PRAXIS.

The Zulu Kingdom’s founder and ruler, Shaka ka Senzangakhona, appears as an extremely controversial figure, with even the legitimacy of his birth being disputed (Hamilton, 59–60). He was the son of the Zulu chief, Senzangakhona, but was a refugee from the Zulu chiefdom until he succeeded in becoming the chief with the backing of another power, the Mthethwa (Hamilton, “Restructuring” 88). From here, he transformed the chiefdom into a kingdom, centralizing his power and taking over neighboring chiefdoms (Hamilton, “Restructuring” 89; Hamilton, xi). is a major source of evidence regarding the history of the Zulu and neighboring peoples (Wright 333–35). It holds narratives of nearly 200 informants collected by colonial civil servant James Stuart (Wright 333–35). In examining these narratives, it is clear that Shaka was devoted to the preservation of his power. His method was to violently eliminate any potential threats against him and his power. This violence was strategic, serving various functions within his broader method. He was exceptionally calculated, and to perceive Shaka as mindlessly cruel in his strategy overlooks the specificity of his violence.

To begin, Shaka’s first use of violence in his preservation of power was against those he perceived as political threats. Dinya ka Zokozwayo is a informant who is of the Qwabe people (Stuart, vol. 1 95). He tells of two men, Mande and Magaye, involved in a civil war over who would become chief, which Shaka violently intervened in (Stuart, vol. 1 115–16). As he assessed the case, Shaka stated that a chief is not made, a chief makes himself, and that Mande is a chief indeed (Stuart, vol. 1 116). In addition, he stated that as he looked at Mande, his eyes dropped to the ground and gave way before him (Stuart, vol. 1 116). Despite this, Dinya claims that Mande was the one put to death, and Magaye became the chief (Stuart, vol. 1 116). Though Mande was more able, the narrative indicates that Shaka was not concerned with choosing the best chief. Instead, he was focused on his own goal in preserving his power. This suggests that Shaka deliberately eliminated Mande precisely because he saw him as more able, as that appeared more threatening.

Before further analysis, Dinya’s background is essential to understanding this case. As stated, he is of the Qwabe people (Stuart, vol. 1 95). The Qwabe are known to have been treated poorly by Shaka. Anthropologist and historian Carolyn Hamilton states that at the time of Shaka’s accession, they were the most powerful polity next to the Ndwandwe (Hamilton, “Ideology” 172). However, the Zulu were able to defeat the Qwabe in a single rapid attack (Hamilton, “Ideology” 174). After the attack, the Qwabe were leaderless (Hamilton, “Ideology” 174). Accordingly, Shaka deliberately placed loyal Qwabe in positions of power to decrease the potential of them successfully rising against him (Hamilton, “Ideology” 174). Moreover, he had them incorporated into his kingdom, and they were drawn into Zulu institutions such as the military (Hamilton, “Ideology” 174). Once incorporated, the Qwabe people were frequently in rebellion during Shaka’s reign (Hamilton, 54). Due to this, they were often exposed to brutal and repressive measures (Hamilton, 54). Finally, these rebellions reached new heights with a failed assassination attempt on Shaka by the Qwabe dissidents (Hamilton, “Ideology” 185). Consequently, Shaka ordered the massacre of all Qwabe known to be hostile at his capital and across the country (Hamilton, “Ideology” 185). Many Qwabe leave Zululand due to this, representing a dislocation of them from their own land (Hamilton, “Ideology” 185). Accordingly, the narratives of the Qwabe people are influenced by the horrible experiences that occurred. They usually negatively present him in their narratives, often vilifying him as a result (Hamilton, 50, 54). In line with this, Dinya claims that “we do not care for the [Shaka] regime” (Stuart, vol. 1 103).

However, it is also important to note that Dinya has experienced colonial rule (Stuart, vol. 1 103). He claims that the Europeans treat them as slaves (Stuart, vol. 1 103). Though he plainly states he does not care for Shaka, he does appear to have a slight preference towards him due to the more negative experience with the Europeans. At one point, when speaking on Shaka’s death, he claims that Shaka was a prophet (Stuart, vol. 1 103). In this way, despite his negative background with Shaka, it can be seen that he does perceive Shaka as a powerful ruler. To him, Shaka was both the brutal conqueror of the Qwabe, and the great leader before the Europeans came in. Furthermore, Shaka’s brutality against the Qwabe does not necessarily disregard his capability. In either case, he was an extremely powerful and able king.

Therefore, Dinya saw Shaka as a capable leader, and he is presented as such. Specifically in the case of Mande and Magaye, it is not as though Dinya’s Shaka senselessly eliminated any able individual. Accordingly, Dinya provides additional information. He claims that Shaka may have said that a chief makes himself because he had made himself a king (Stuart, vol. 1 117). Dinya is suggesting that Shaka saw a similarity between himself and Mande. Due to this, he claims Shaka feared that Mande might become as powerful as he had, and seek his position (Stuart, vol. 1 117). In this way, not only was he able, but also potentially powerful. Moreover, beyond Dinya’s own analysis, he claims Shaka admitted his eyes fell before Mande, despite being Shaka (Stuart, vol. 1 116). This was an expression of subservience to Mande; it indicates that he was so great that a strong leader such as Shaka felt less than him. Consequently, not only might Mande seek his position, but if he did, he might actually succeed in doing so. This suggests that Shaka saw Mande as such a great threat to his authority; he saw him as dangerous. Accordingly, Dinya claims that he eliminated Mande. This indicates that Shaka’s violence was strategic, as it served the function of dealing with this potential hazard. Therefore, Shaka deliberately chose Magaye as the less able, but also less dangerous, chief with the specific goal of preserving his position, and thus his power.

Beyond political hazards, this same notion of preventive elimination applied to his own flesh and blood. Jantshi ka Nongila’s testimony from provides details on this. His father was Nongila, who was a spy for Shaka (Stuart, vol. 1 174). It is plausible that Nongila knew details regarding Shaka’s nature, which he passed down to Jantshi. With this in mind, Jantshi claims that Shaka was afraid of a child driving him from his home, and accordingly, his throne (Stuart, vol. 1 198). He asserts that Shaka did not wish to have any children (Stuart, vol. 1 198).

Moreover, anthropologist Max Gluckman, in his piece on the rise of Shaka, points out that Shaka would execute women who became pregnant by him, and if the child was born, they were killed too (Gluckman 133). Furthermore, historian Paul Bjerk, in his piece on Zulu political philosophy, claims that of those children, female children were also killed (Bjerk 12). Though they were not heirs, they could bring power into other homesteads, away from Shaka (Bjerk 12). According to these scholars, he would go as far as to kill women and children of any gender, because what was important to him was that no threat to his power existed. On top of this, as Jantshi points out, he did not know these children would threaten his authority, but he was aware of their potential (Stuart, vol. 1 198). Consistent with his decision in the Mande case, he made sure that threats could not develop, even if this meant killing babies. Though seemingly cruel, it was what he saw as necessary in his strategy. Accordingly, he was extremely dedicated, as it appears he would use violence against anyone to make sure his power was preserved.

Additionally, Shaka utilized violence to discourage threats against him. For that reason, he would go after those who had simply insulted him. As noted, Shaka took over the Qwabe people (Hamilton, “Ideology” 174). However, though they do face brutal treatment at the hands of Shaka, their conquest was not the result of an arbitrary decision. To examine the specifics, there are two key stories in . First, Jantshi ka Nongila provides another important testimony. He claims that Shaka had sent a message to the king of the Qwabe asking for grain (Stuart, vol. 1 182). Upon this, the king, Pakatwayo, attacked Shaka by insulting the size of his penis and the size of his forces, as well as not giving him the grain (Stuart, vol. 1 182–83). Consequently, Shaka became enraged, and assembled arms, attacking Pakatwayo (Stuart, vol. 1 183). After being taken as a prisoner, King Pakatwayo was found dead, apparently killed by fear alone (Stuart, vol. 1 183).

Before looking at the implications of Jantshi’s narrative, it is essential to look at the second version, Mandhlakazi ka Ngini’s version. Mandhlakazi is the grandson of Zulu ka Nogandaya, a great warrior of Shaka’s (Stuart, vol. 2 174, 180). He showcases trade occurring between the Qwabe and Zulu, with the Qwabe asking the Zulu for cattle and beads (Stuart, vol. 2 177). After Shaka gave the Qwabe cattle, the Qwabe stated that the cattle had incisions on their tails where medical powder had been rubbed in (Stuart, vol. 2 177). Then, Mandhlakazi claims that the Qwabe insulted the size of the Zulu force by saying they were like a necklace that could not even go around the neck (Stuart, vol. 2 177). Due to this insult, Shaka and his regiments went to attack the Qwabe (Stuart, vol. 2 177). After finding King Pakatwayo, Mandhlakazi says that he was stricken with fear, and eventually fell sick and died (Stuart, vol. 2 178).

Jantshi and Mandhlakazi’s narratives are very similar, as they display Shaka’s reaction to an insult from the Qwabe being to attack them. This suggests he saw these insults as direct challenges to his authority, rather than a slight offense. Accordingly, his use of violence was a strategic response to eliminate the threat. With that said, it is important to notice that both stories were influenced by those who had inside views. As noted, Jantshi is the son of Nongila, a spy employed by Shaka (Stuart, vol. 1 174). Similarly, Mandhlakazi's background lies in his grandfather being Zulu ka Nogandaya (Stuart, vol. 2 174). He was a warrior of Shaka’s, and he was such an incredible one that Shaka said he surpassed all men (Stuart, vol. 2 181). He was also an inceku for Shaka, which is an individual assigned to collect milk from the king’s cattle (Bjerk 4; Stuart, vol. 2 180). This is a very significant role, which Bjerk refers to as an honor (Bjerk 4). These were individuals who interacted directly with the king, pouring the milk into his mouth and acting as confidants (Bjerk 4–5). Zulu was someone whom Shaka greatly valued and trusted. Essentially, both of their relatives were employed by Shaka, and knew him directly. Due to this, it is possible that their inside views positively impact their portrayal of Shaka. As noted by Carolyn Hamilton, an informant's complex backstory may encourage them to claim events occurred a particular way, or to make careful arguments based on their perspectives (Hamilton, “Backstory” 324–26). With this in mind, Jantshi and Mandhlakazi’s relatives’ alignment with Shaka may encourage them to portray him in a positive light. This can be seen in the way that they both make it a point that he did not directly kill Pakatwayo (Stuart, vol. 1 183; Stuart, vol. 2 178). Moreover, for Jantshi specifically, Hamilton notes that his father was an adamant Shakan supporter (Hamilton, “Backstory” 324). However, at the same time, their inside views also reveal they likely have profound understandings of Shaka’s nature. This was previously established regarding Jantshi, but it is even further evident for Mandhlakazi, as his grandfather was deeply valued and trusted by Shaka. This indicates that their narratives are still significant in revealing Shaka’s overall nature, even if their preference towards him affects their narratives.

Accordingly, they reveal that Shaka was someone who would attack those, such as Pakatwayo, who undermined his authority. He did this because if he allowed for undermining such as this to stand without a reaction, it would imply that he was weak. Consequently, this weakness could allow potential threats to develop. Therefore, Jantshi and Mandhlakazi demonstrate that he would not simply go after those who undermined him for revenge, but he would use violence strategically. He would make harsh examples out of detractors such as Pakatwayo, showcasing what would occur to others who dared to act in a similar way. This created an image of Shaka as a powerful and strict ruler, discouraging potential threats from forming.

Moreover, this logic can be applied to a previous notion regarding the Qwabe. As stated, Shaka called for the killing of those of the Qwabe people known to be hostile, after an assassination attempt against him (Hamilton, “Ideology” 185). Though a harsh case, he could not let a threat against both his power and his life stand without punishment. He made an example out of the Qwabe in their conquest and their subsequent massacre to showcase what occurred to those who undermined or defied him. This suggests that his violence was a deliberate tool, rather than a sadistic outburst against these people. Through these two instances of punishment, Shaka produced an image of himself as incredibly powerful. This deliberately discouraged threats, with the overall desire to make sure his power was further maintained.

Lastly, Shaka utilized violence to promote strength and enforce control within his military, with the goal once more being to preserve his power. For this, it is important to examine the amabutho system. Though predominantly associated with Shaka, the amabutho system was not his sole invention (Timbs 39). Originally, these were age-based groups, which were associated with alteration. First, he abolished circumcision (Timbs 48). It does not appear clear as to why he did this, but one common argument claims that he did not want young men secluded when they could be fighting (Timbs 50). This idea reflects Shaka’s prioritization of power, something he deemed far more important than tradition (Timbs 50–51). Due to this, these age-based groups instead became associated with the Zulu military system (Timbs 52). Boys would be placed in these groups at around thirteen to sixteen years old, with the end goal being their incorporation into the military (Timbs 58). Furthermore, this military would grow to be enormous, as he based it on the concept of universal conscription (Timbs 60). The only ways to get out of this would be to cross into Natal, or to state that one is called to divine healing (Timbs 60). This concept of having nearly every man involved in the military was essential to Shaka, as having more warriors would produce further power. Additionally, it initiates a sense of control over these men. He decided what they did with their lives, beginning as young as thirteen. From here, he intensified military training. He valued discipline a great deal, and would have his military walk barefoot (Chanaiwa 13; Timbs 65). He would have them walking like this despite the fact that there were thorns and stones on the ground, as he thought they would be more active and ready (Timbs 65). This notion of pain being something to harden his men, making them better warriors, fits into the notion of violence as strategic to power preservation. Though it was not Shaka directly inflicting violence, he was the one commanding this harm to occur. In doing this, he would produce men who were strong. Moreover, it suggests that these warriors were extremely disciplined. This enforced pain added to the sense of control Shaka had over these men, which rooted a sense of loyalty to him. Along with training them to be so resilient, he would make sure warriors remained courageous. informant Baleni ka Silwana’s grandfather was in Shaka’s military, and secured a victory for him against the Cunu (Stuart, vol. 1 19). Due to his relative being in Shaka’s military, it is likely that information regarding it was passed down, in the same way it likely was for Jantshi and Mandhlakazi. He claims that when warriors used their assegais, their spear-like weapons, from long distances rather than in close quarters, Shaka viewed them as cowardly. Seeing this as a sign of weakness, Shaka made it a point to have them picked out of his military (Stuart, vol. 1 17; Stuart, vol. 2 177). Accordingly, they were separated, and then they were stabbed (Stuart, vol. 1 17). Baleni’s narrative suggests that these warriors were eliminated because they were a threat to the strength of his military. In addition, it indicates that this violence further promoted bravery within his military, as the living warriors would continue to act courageously to avoid being killed. Finally, this extended his control over them, as it was made clear that he held the power to decide whether they lived or died.

With all of this in mind, having such a large number of courageous, resilient, and loyal men was essential for Shaka’s preservation of power. When Shaka’s actual assassination occurred, Dinya claims that Shaka was "helpless without his forces” present (Stuart, vol. 1 95). As noted, Dinya provides a very complex, but powerful, presentation of Shaka. This assertion of him as helpless appears very different from his previous regard for him as powerful. However, it reveals that part of what made Shaka so powerful was his forces. When these forces were not present, he lost his life, and thus his power. This indicates that the military was an essential part of this strategic violence and power preservation. It suggests that he used this violence against them specifically to have them become disciplined, brave, and under his control. He did this so that they could protect him and his power. Moreover, when the Qwabe failed in their assassination attempt, it was Shaka’s military who went after them (Hamilton, “Ideology” 185–86). Thus, beyond protecting him, they were also an essential tool for discouraging other threats. This military was entirely under his control, and extremely powerful. They were a massive force due to his universal conscription, and they would go out and kill whoever he saw necessary. This certainly dissuaded threats, as it significantly contributed to Shaka’s incredibly powerful image. Therefore, he strategically used violence against his military to promote strength within it, as well as instill his control. In creating such a powerful military, they were better able to both protect him and his authority, as well as aid him in discouraging threats. In these ways, he further preserved his power.

These narratives portray that Shaka was intensely dedicated to using violence to ensure no threat was present or even beginning to develop. Yet, it is hard to miss that these narratives typically involve death or harsh violence. Consequently, despite assertions that it was strategic, it is still easy to see him as someone who was mindlessly cruel. As Mathieu Deflem claims, “anyone arbitrarily chosen by Shaka could be seized and killed” (Deflem 377). However, Deflem’s claim and the idea of Shaka as mindlessly cruel overlook how intentional he was in who he used this violence against.

To comprehend the specificity of this violence, it is essential to examine cases where individuals were not perceived as threats, or tools to use against threats. To begin, Mandhlakazi ka Ngini’s narrative tells of a man who was facing execution (Stuart, vol. 2 189). Shaka asked the man what things he was leaving behind that he considered most delightful (Stuart, vol. 2 189). In response, the man said that the best of all things was the king (Stuart, vol. 2 189). Due to this, Shaka claimed the man did not deserve to die (Stuart, vol. 2 189). He specifically stopped this man from being executed, as the man had presented a sense of loyalty to his king through complimenting him. This is not to suggest Shaka was kind, because the man was being executed to begin with. He was a violent ruler. However, the narrative does not reflect the notion of arbitrary killing that Deflem suggests, as he did not kill the man simply because he could. Shaka was intentional in who he was violent towards; he was not mindlessly cruel to those who were loyal to him.

Additionally, Jantshi displays how Shaka treated those he went against, who weren’t necessarily a risk to his authority. He states that he did not put to death kings if, when he proceeded against them, they ran away or did not fight (Stuart, vol. 1 187). Shaka knew they were not strong due to this action, and saw these kings as cowards. Accordingly, he specifically did not kill them because he perceived that they were weak, and, therefore, not a hazard. Moreover, this showcases that it did not matter to Shaka if people were opponents, as these were the kings of groups that he was invading. To him, it simply mattered if they were threats. This further contradicts Deflem’s notion of Shaka being arbitrary in his violence. Essentially, it appears that Shaka was uninterested in being violent towards people who did not benefit his preservation of power.

Having said that, Deflem is not necessarily wrong. Other informants from may agree with Deflem’s point that Shaka would kill people arbitrarily. For example, Baleka ka Mpitikazi claims he cut open a pregnant woman simply because he wanted to see the fetus (Stuart, vol. 1 10). This appears to be a blatantly cruel and random act of violence by Shaka, which would support Deflem’s claim. However, Baleka’s background heavily impacts her narrative. She is of the Qwabe people, which, as noted, in itself leads to a lasting disdain towards Shaka (Hamilton, 50, 54; Stuart, vol. 1 4). On top of this, Baleka notes that her primary informant, her father, Mpitikazi, was hunted down directly by Shaka because he had warned the Langeni that Shaka was coming to kill them (Stuart, vol. 1 7). Due to this, Baleka has a bitterness towards Shaka that affects how she speaks of him (Hamilton, 54).

Yet, even in a narrative based in a hostile perspective, Baleka actually portrays Shaka specifically reacting to threats. Mpitikazi was a threat to Shaka’s power because he sabotaged him. If Shaka allowed such action to occur, he would encourage potential defectors and traitors. Though he did not kill Mpitikazi because Nandi, Shaka’s mother, argued that he should not, Shaka still set an example by hunting him (Stuart, vol. 1 7). Therefore, Baleka’s father adds to the notion that Shaka was dedicated to utilizing violence against threats to his power. Moreover, it further reveals his dedication to discouraging other threats from forming. He once again showcased what occurred to those who went against him, furthering this image of him as immensely powerful. In these ways, Mpitikazi displays the specificity of Shaka’s brutality, and thus, his intention to preserve his power. Regardless, Shaka did still hunt down Baleka's father, and she is of the Qwabe people (Stuart, vol. 1 4, 7). Due to this, his violence may appear arbitrary because of the drastic impact it had on her family and people. Her portrayal of his character is informed by this pre-established and hostile sentiment towards him.

This is why the previous testimonies of Mandhlakazi and Jantshi are so important: they are removed from victimization. Due to Mandhlakazi’s grandfather’s close alignment with Shaka, as his great warrior and former inceku, it is apparent that he was not personally victimized by him (Stuart, vol. 2 181). Additionally, Mandhlakazi was born in 1869 (Stuart, vol. 2 174). This is younger than informants such as Baleka, who was born in 1856 (Stuart, vol. 1 4). Mandhlakazi is further removed from situations regarding Shaka because of his age. As for Jantshi, he can be upheld by a similar notion as Mandhlakazi. His father’s close alignment with Shaka, as his spy, also reflects a lack of victimization (Stuart, vol. 1 174). Furthermore, as established, these are two individuals who, presumably, understand the nature of Shaka. Therefore, these two can look at Shaka’s actions without being overtaken by such an intense predisposition to vilify him. They are detached from him while also able to understand him, and so they are better able to perceive the calculated nature of his violence.

With that said, in looking at Jantshi and Mandhlakazi’s testimonies, it is not observable that, as Deflem claims, Shaka used violence arbitrarily. He would not use violence against them simply because he could. Even in examining the perspective of Baleka’s father, who was victimized by Shaka, the narrative indicates that Shaka used violence because Mpitikazi sabotaged him. Altogether, it is apparent that Shaka’s tactics were specifically focused on those who were a threat to his power. His violence was strategic, and he was exceptionally calculated in his actions.

Although there are varying portrayals of Shaka, it is clear that he was dedicated to maintaining his authority. He did use violence, but it followed a specific pattern. He directly eliminated political hazards, destroyed the potential of his children driving him from his throne, discouraged other threats from forming through punishment, and ensured his military could protect as well as aid him. These were crucial moves because these threats to his power were not of his imagination. For instance, he faced assassination attempts, one of which he ultimately lost his life to (Stuart, vol. 1 95). This reveals that he was a calculated ruler who was exceptionally intentional in his actions. Rather than mindless cruelty, this violence was a key tool for his state-formation; it was used to ensure no threats could develop against him, and produced an image of himself as immensely powerful. Accordingly, this strategy solidified his authority. Overall, Shaka ka Senzangakhona preserved his power through strategic violence, as the founder and first king of the Zulu Kingdom.

Sources:

Bjerk, Paul K. “They Poured Themselves into the Milk: Zulu Political Philosophy Under Shaka.” , vol. 47, 2006, pp. 1–19. JSTOR, .

Chanaiwa, David Shingirai. “The Zulu Revolution: State Formation in a Pastoralist Society.” , vol. 23, no. 3, 1980, pp. 1–20. JSTOR, .

Deflem, Mathieu. “Warfare, Political Leadership, and State Formation: The Case of the Zulu Kingdom, 1808–1879.” , vol. 38, no. 4, 1999, pp. 371–91. JSTOR, .

Gluckman, Max. “The Individual in a Social Framework: The Rise of King Shaka of Zululand.” , vol. 1, no. 2, 1974, pp. 113–44. ProQuest.

Hamilton, Carolyn. “Backstory, Biography, and the Life of The James Stuart Archive.” , vol. 38, 2011, pp. 319–41. JSTOR, .

Hamilton, Carolyn. “Ideology, Oral Traditions and the Struggle for Power in the Early Zulu Kingdom.” MA thesis, University of the Witwatersrand, 1985.

Hamilton, Carolyn. “Restructuring within the Zulu Royal House: Clan Splitting and the Consolidation of Royal Power and Resources Under Shaka.” , vol. 56, no. 2, 1997, pp. 85–113. Taylor & Francis, .

Hamilton, Carolyn. . Harvard University Press, 1998.

Stuart, James. . Vol. 1, edited and translated by C. de B. Webb and J. B. Wright, University of Natal Press; Killie Campbell Africana Library, 1976.

Stuart, James. . Vol. 2, edited and translated by C. de B. Webb and J. B. Wright, University of Natal Press; Killie Campbell Africana Library, 1979.

Timbs, Elizabeth H. “The Regiments: Cultural Histories of Zulu Masculinities and Gender Formation in South Africa, 1816–2018.” PhD dissertation, Michigan State University, 2019.

Wright, John. “Making the James Stuart Archive.” , vol. 23, 1996, pp. 333–50. JSTOR, .