Talk:Shaka

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Shaka article.
Article policies
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography. For more information, visit the project page.
Biography Portal
B This article has been rated as B-Class on the project's quality scale. [FAQ]
Core This article is listed on this project's core biographies page.
This article is supported by the Royalty and nobility work group.
MILHIST This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see lists of open tasks and regional and topical task forces. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.
Start This article has been rated as Start-Class on the quality scale.
Africa
Africa Portal
This article is within the scope of the WikiProject Africa, which collaborates on articles related to Africa in Wikipedia. To participate, you can edit this article or visit the project page for more details.
B This article has been rated as B-class on the quality scale.
??? This article has not yet received a rating on the importance scale.
This article is supported by WikiProject South Africa. See also The South Africa Portal.
Assessment comments
This article has been reviewed by the Version 1.0 Editorial Team.
Version 0.5
 This article has been selected for Version 0.5 and subsequent release versions of Wikipedia.

Contents

[edit] Opinionated

Most of the article was highly opinionated, and was removed due to wikipidia policies.

[edit] Assegai

Everywhere else it seems that the assegai is the short spear that is called Iklwa here. It would be nice to know where the name Ilkwa came from, and whether the assegai was the short or the long one. Hornblower 02:54, 11 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I seem to remember "assegai" from reading abridged biographies as a kid. But I was in West Africa, and the story was from accross the continent.—iFaqeer (Talk to me!) 07:04, Feb 11, 2005 (UTC)
I never heard of a word like "Iklwa", can't even pronounce it. I will ask around maybe for you. As far as I know "assegai" is "umkhonto" or spear.--Jcw69 08:38, 11 Feb 2005 (UTC)

"Iklwa" was the sound the assegai made as it was withdrawn from the enemy's body. --218.215.11.225 23:47, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

Has it ever struck anybody else as ironical that the (purported?) picture that we have of Shaka as illustration shows him with an abnormally long spear, almost a lance? Not that there is a better picture (as far as I know), but still ... Elf-friend 07:03, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

I don't know if "Iklwa" is how you spell it, but the short stabbing spear was definitely named for the sound it makes when you pull it out of the body. Look this up.

This picture, albeit a famous one, has been identified by Zulus themselves as being wrong for 3 reasons. One, already mentioned, is the size of the assegai (too long). Another is the size of the shield which is also bigger than those used by the Zulu. Lastly, the dress is not correct - Zulus did not (and still don't) wear long-ish grass skirts and go bare-chested. The long feather in the headdress is also not something that Zulus wear.

Just to add to the confusion, I've also seen iklwa spelled with an x instead of a k--unfortunately, Zulu words don't easily fit into the Latin alphabet. I couldn't tell you what the generally agreed on spelling is, but the different spellings could be part of the problem. (Darn it, Shaka should have learned the Latin alphabet specifically for my convenience in this matter! Or is that just me?)

The Zulu warriors main weapon was the assegai. There were however 2 forms: 1st the light throwing assegai (around 6 feet in length) and the short stabbing assegai which was heavier and with a broader blade. It is the latter which was introduced by Shaka for close quarter fighting. It was this spear which was also known as the iKlwa. This was the sucking sound it made as it was withdrawn from the victims body. The warrior was also known to shout "Ngadia!" (I have eaten) when the blade was withdrawn. The Washing of the Spears, Donald R Morris. 4th September 2007 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Wallsey 30 (talk • contribs) 13:43, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] A bit of duplication

One section talks about buffalo formations, and another about a charging bull tactic. Is this one and the same? Even if it isn't, shouldn't both be in the section about military reforms rather than in the historic overview? --Joy [shallot] 10:24, 24 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Yes they are the same. The Zulus refer to it as a Bull formation. I will take a shot at tidying it up. Wizzy 11:53, 26 Sep 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Sources?

This is some of the best information I have found on Shaka. I especially value the critical evaluation of the historical accounts and evidence. Unfortunately the article does not name any of the books etc. from which this information was taken. It would be helpful to know where to look for further information of this type on the topic. Can anybody help me out? Kiwiki 08:43, August 7, 2005 (UTC)

Based on this article, I picked up Morris' work and am thoroughly entertained. The Shaka's innovations section seems to come from The Washing of the Spears, but I'm not sure how to Wikicite it. Vdrj2 16:55, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Senzangakona vs. Senzangakhona

It's me again. I just noticed that both of the above mentioned spellings of Shaka's father's name feature in the text and I would suggest in terms of consistency to decide for one of the versions. From what I know about Zulu orthography I would go for the one with the 'h', even though the main article on Senzangak(h)ona uses the version without. At least a redirect should be added so both spellings produce a link to the main article. Anybody have an opinion on this? Kiwiki 12:11, August 11, 2005 (UTC)

Being a black Xhosa man, who grew up speaking isiXhosa which is very similar to isiZulu, i know the correct spelling is undoubtedly the version with the h. The other version of the spelling is also acceptable, but they sound differently. loyiso 1:55, February 01, (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 41.192.255.123 (talk)

[edit] An effort to discredit Shaka Zulu?

Is it just me, or does this whole article read as if it were written solely to discredit Shaka Zulu? I realize the man may be an overblown hero, but isn't it a bit over the top in point of view? Can we factor out the discussion of "Shaka in history" vs "Shaka in popular myth"? --63.246.177.233

EG:

Some revisionists have doubted the military and social innovations customarily attributed to Shaka, denying them outright, or attributing them variously to European influences. But both explanations fall short. In fact the Zulu culture which included other tribes and clans contained a number of practices that Shaka could have drawn on to fulfill his objectives- whether in raiding, conquest or hegemony. Some of these practices are shown below.

So if the "revisionists" are wrong then perhapses he was "smarter than than the average bear". The whole tone of this article implies that as he was not European, he must have copied ideas from other sources because he could never have had an original thought. The genius of the man is not that he took ideas from other places, but that he combined ideas with novel innovations, in such a way that he created a successful method of warfare which has left a legacy of a large nation. One of the things which impressed me about the depth of the chage which Shaka iniciated was reading about abolition of circumcision rituals among the Zulu, because it took boys away from military training. That was a profound revolution for which there are few comparisons recorded anywhere else in history. --Philip Baird Shearer 04:58, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] New additions

I've pulled some substantial new additions from the article as being tenditious and lacking citations, though I have to say that this article has big citation problems in general. An eight section article and not one reference????

Unfortunately this region isn't my strong point, even for a figure as famous as Shaka; I'd suggest somebody get in here with a few texts at hand and start weeding through these claims.

Here's the diff for the new stuff I pulled: [1]

What do y'all think? --Dvyost 08:10, 26 December 2005 (UTC)

Actually, I liked most of it. I will go with the sandal edits, and the rest, while a bit wordy, seems plausible. The Sources section I think is very valuable, and I think these additions should probably be edited into the Sources section. I am not a historian. Wizzy…☎ 08:21, 26 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Lack of sources and uncertain assertions

I have made some small changes to the original Shaka article. The main difficulty is that the original article fails to list any sources, contains several factual errors and advances an assertion denying Shaka any of the innovations tradtionally credited to him. The article bases this denial on new scholarship by Wright, Wylie, et al. yet fails to clearly document those assertions or their basis. In addition, the original article also asserts "Zulu sources" as showing no record of various Shakan innovations, yet again, fails to provide any detail on exactly what these Zulu sources are. Examples are shown below:

1) The article casts doubt on such stories as elimination of sandals in the Zulu regiments, but several military accounts on Zulu warfare note the bare feet of many Zulu. See Donald Morris (The Washing of The Spears) and Ian Knight (Anatomy of the Zulu Army).

2) On the matter of logistic support for the Zulu formations by herdboys carrying cattle, and other supplies, the original article asserts that such support was only used with "light" forces. But no evidence is provided to support this claim, and the concept of "light" forces seems to be misleading in the Zulu context. The entire Zulu war machine was light infantry, and it is clear that the herdboy logistic support marched with both big and small impi formations. Again, see Morris and Knight.

3) The famous "buffalo horns" formation composed of fast moving flanking units (the horns), a central main force (the chest) and a reserve group (the loins) seem to be dismissed out of hand as not originating with Shaka. This is fine if such dismissal can be supported by solid evidence. However, none is offered. The revision shows that use of separate maneuver elements was well known among tribal peoples worldwide, and indeed, some Xhosa groups of Southern Africa used separate elements including an advance guard. See Noel Mostert's history of Southern Africa "Frontiers". The positioning of reserve forces with their backs to the battle is another indication of linkages to ritualized tribal warfare, whatever its actual efficacy or application as a fast moving raid was in progress. In short, the buffalo horn formation was well within the cultural tooklit and precedent available to Shaka. He only had to systematize and extend those cultural elements already in place.

4) The original article makes doubtful assertions for example: "There is only one instance in the evidence that the so-called 'horns and chest', or 'bull's head' formation was used (in 1826 against the Ndwandwe), in which event the two 'horns' accidentally ended up stabbing each other!." But this claim from the original article is not supported by the published work of historian Donald Morris in his "Washing of the Spears". To the contrary, Shaka won the battle when he unleashed the flanking regiments around a hill to surround and smash the Ndwandwe into retreat. (Morris, page 62.)

5) The original article asserts that: "At this point Shaka was so under-resourced that he was forced to flee southwards across the Thukela River, establishing his capital Bulawayo in Qwabe territory, with Qwabe help." But the published work of historian Morris flatly contradicts this, showing that Shaka and the Qwabe were at enmity when the new capital of KwaBulawayo was established. See Morris, page 61.

6) As another example of dubious accuracy the original article asserts: "In Qwabe, Shaka was able to intervene in an existing succession dispute, and help his own choice, Nqetho, into power; Nqetho then ruled as a proxy chieftain for Shaka. This was the pattern, so that the bulk of the so-called Zulu kingdom at this time was ruled by almost entirely independent but friendly chieftains." But this claim too is again contradicted by historian Morris who shows that the bulkof Shaka's reign was established heavily by military action, smashing rivals and incorporating the remnants into his own army. The claim as to Nquetho is also questionable. Morris shows him as a chief of the Qwabe, but says nothing to support the claim that Shaka installed him.


In short, the original article is riddled with both factual errors and faulty claims, and provides no detailed citations to establish is reliability. I stand to be corrected on any corrections made above, but in addition to questionable accuracy, the original article provided little credible evidence to merely dismiss the general consensus of historians on the innovations credited to Shaka.

I have provided supporting documentation for my changes in the form of Donald Morris ("The Washing of The Spears") and Ian Knight ("Anatomy of the Zulu Army"), Robert Edgerton ("Like Lions They Fought") and Noel Mostert ("Frontiers") and am listing these citations at the bottom of the article in the interests of accuracy. Enriquecardova 04:53, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

I would like to see the Sources section put back, and Ritter's fanciful ideas listed as such. Wizzy…☎ 18:11, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
As the article says Morris generally credits Shaka with a large number of military and social innovations, and this is the general consensus in the field. (Morris 617-620). and this should be the tone of this article should take with examples given of any revisionist theories. At the moment I think this article reads as if the Revisionist POV is the correct one and that Morris's view is now near to discredited. As an example
One Encyclopaedia Brittanica article (Macropaedia Article "Shaka" 1974 ed) asserts that he was something of a military genius for his reforms and innovations. Other writers take a more limited view.
This statement implies that only one article has ever implied that Shaka was a military genius and that all other writers have taken a more limited view. While I think that if Morris work is taken as a whole, that Shaka in his own setting, compares with that near contemporary military innovator in Europe, Napoleon, who is often called a military genius. Now that is clearly a POV and does not need to be included, but the current phrasing of much of the article is in my opinion pushing a revisionist (belittling) POV which the edits made by Enriquecardova and others have partially fixed but not fundamentally altered. I think the way to improve the article is to put in citations for all the arguments given and remove those which do not have a citation. This is Wikipedia:Verifiability policy:
Information on Wikipedia must be reliable. Facts, viewpoints, theories, and arguments may only be included in articles if they have already been published by reliable and reputable sources. Articles should cite these sources whenever possible. Any unsourced material may be challenged and removed.
If this policy is followed, then the statement "[all] other writers take a more limited view." will have to go, (or be reworded to something like "XYZ disagrees and has stated that Shaka's military victories were nothing but minor incremental changes to the local military methods employed at that time.ref XYZ page 123") because it is very difficult to find a reliable citationfor such a generalised statement as "other writers" and replacing it as specific cited argument that takes a contary view is more balanced and within the Wikipedia WP:NPOV policy--Philip Baird Shearer 11:21, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Confusing

Some of these things are confusing, could someone clarify them?

What's a royal kraal?

"but some years later Dingiswayo was ambushed by Zwide's amaNdwandwe and killed" what's amaNdwandwe? another name for the Ndwandwe tribe, or a person, or what?

"Shaka's general Soshangane (of the Shangaan) moved off north towards what is now Mozambique, to inflict further damage on less resistant foes and avail himself of slaving opportunities, putting Portuguese traders to tribute." "avail himself" should be clarified, and what does the last part mean? giving tribute to Portuguese, or getting tribute?

"It came relatively quickly after the devastation caused by the Nandi mourning." - what's the Nandi mourning?

The "Shaka's social and military revolution" and "Shakan methods versus European technology" sections sound like original research and aren't very encyclopedic in tone.


--Awiseman 17:26, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

A royal kraal is basically a traditional Zulu royal compound. Shaka's mother was called Nandi, and when she died, his behaviour became extremely erratic. As part of mourning, he ordered that no crops should be planted during the following year, no milk (the basis of the Zulu diet at the time) was to be used, any woman who became pregnant would be killed along with her husband. Massacres were carried out of those deemed insufficiently grief stricken (though it wasn't restricted to them) and cows were slaughtered so that their calves would know what losing a mother felt like. Zwide was ruler of the Ndwandwe and a rival of Shakas until he was defeated in 1819. Soshangane fled Shaka and carved out his own kingdom in Mozambique, he extracted tribute from the Portuguese after destroying a number of their settlements.I should say all this info came out of my old copy of The Washing Of The Spears.

Doc Meroe 02:02, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
Ok, well can you clarify that stuff then in the article? --Awiseman 18:08, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Citecheck template removed

Per the above posts on this talk page, it appears that the wrong template was added to this article. Citecheck is not intended for articles that lack citations, but for articles that misrepresent citations. Please check Wikipedia:Cleanup resources if some other template is needed. Durova 02:02, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Cultural depictions of Shaka

I've started an approach that may apply to Wikipedia's Core Biography articles: creating a branching list page based on in popular culture information. I started that last year while I raised Joan of Arc to featured article when I created Cultural depictions of Joan of Arc, which has become a featured list. Recently I also created Cultural depictions of Alexander the Great out of material that had been deleted from the biography article. Since cultural references sometimes get deleted without discussion, I'd like to suggest this approach as a model for the editors here. Regards, Durova 17:10, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

Strange... The link is a red one right now, and there is an empty deletion log... where did it go? FWIW, don't forget to add Shaka, the king of the Zulu in the Civilization (computer game). --BACbKA 17:41, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Shaka in Western Culture

I think we should add this to the article, there are movies and shows. And he has been featured in Sid Meirs Civ III. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Chn3141 (talk • contribs) 00:24, 22 January 2007 (UTC).

[edit] Racist article indeed

This article is written in a cleverly concealed racist tone. It's quite unfortunate that the webmasters are unable to detect concealed racism in their articles. Phrases such as 'the Zulu's failed to learn their lesson' are unacceptable and violate Wikipedia's neutral stance. The 'Zulu vs European' subtopic itself is instigation. It appears that there is a tendency for white spammers to demote any man/woman of African descent that has made a permanent mark in history to the level of 'controversial figure'. We'll see how long it takes for the conservative-aligned 'administrators' to tag this page. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 68.20.218.235 (talk) 03:45, 16 February 2007 (UTC).

I have deleted the passage "Nevertheless, the Zulu failed to learn from their earlier defeats and persisted in "human wave" attacks against well defended, static European positions where massed firepower decimated their ranks. It is questionable whether Shaka might have done things differently. Certainly his operations during his rise to power showed both imagination and flexibility. His successors could argue that they had faithfully followed his classical template which had advanced the Zulu from a small, obscure tribe to a strong regional power, but it is also clear that those following Shaka lacked his tactical vision and acumen" because even in the context of this weakly-documented article, this passage is more editorial than informative. The author HAS to show his or her sources of this opinion. Overall, the article lacks sufficient citation of sources; a list of references at the end is not enough----for evey point that is not common knowledge, the author is obliged to cite his or her sources, which is barely done in this article. Kemet 02:15, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
The problem with this deletion is that it IS in fact common knowlege that "Zulu failed to learn from their earlier defeats and persisted in "human wave" attacks against well defended, static European positions where massed firepower decimated their ranks". That is exactly how the Zulu were eventually defeated as a major political entity. The prime example of this is the Battle of Blood River. Just because the objective facts (small group of whites wiped out thousands of zulu warriors in a single action) are not to your liking (politically correct) does not give you the right to delete the statement of those facts. This is simple revisionism. Roger 21:25, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Power and Hegemony

I think the author should rethink how he or she uses "power" (the ability to influence or force the behavior of others regarless of the others' wishes) and "hegemony" (the monopoly of group or individual worldviews over others in a social formation)---these are not the same thing. The deadly use of spears and shields (or muskets and cannons for that matter) does not necessarily result in power or hegemony. Kemet 02:25, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

Quit censoring wikipedia by sacrificing it to the altar of political correctness any time a non white historical figure has any negative comments made about them. I'm sick of that crap. If Shaka Zulu was such a great warrior why was he defeated by Europeans? Again, quit sniffing the butts of all non whites and try to think objectively. You're blinded by political correctness hysteria. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 72.194.87.248 (talk) 05:44, August 20, 2007 (UTC)

Shaka was not "defeated by Europeans", he was assasinated by Dingane. Dingane in turn WAS defeated by a group of Voortrekkers at the Battle of Blood River. Shaka's contact with "europeans" was quite minimal - no major battles between white groups and the Zulu occured during Shaka's reign. Get your own facts straight before you start complaining about others. Roger 21:12, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] 2 million deaths??

I know this might fall under OR but does anyone know where the primary source data (not the history net article) is for the 2 million killed is? That seems like a lot for an army of 50,000 in the early 19th century. 67.81.39.219 (talk) 06:01, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

An empire with a population one eighth the number killed does seem rather outlandish. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.181.236.53 (talk) 07:59, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Muzzle Loading Weapons

The article claims:

The expanding Zulu power inevitably clashed with European hegemony in the decades after Shaka's death. Indeed, European travelers to Shaka's kingdom demonstrated advanced technology such as firearms and writing, but the Zulu monarch was less than convinced. There was no need to record messages he held, since his messengers stood under penalty of death should they bear inaccurate tidings. As for firearms, Shaka was impressed, but after seeing muzzleloaders demonstrated, he argued that in the time the gunmen took to reload, the gunmen would be swamped by charging spear-wielding warriors. Ironically, this latter boast was to be put to the test against European opponents when the Zulu were defeated.

The Irony is that the later Zulu were defeated by Martini-Henri rifles which were breach loading cartridge rifles, and not Muzzleloaders - so to me there is no truth to the claim that the boast was put to the test, becase the Zulu were facing something else entirely.

59.167.216.8 (talk) 06:48, 13 February 2008 (UTC)