The unshakeable Shaka the Black Napoleon

He is Shaka the unshakeable,
Thunderer-while-sitting, son of Menzi
He is the bird that preys on other birds,
The battle-axe that excels over other battle-axes in sharpness,
He is the long-strided pursuer, son of Ndaba,
Who pursued the sun and the moon.
He is the great hubbub like the rocks of Nkandla
Where elephants take shelter
When the heavens frown...





In our childhood days we read books and heard stories that told of great legends that lived. This week, Kasese-za-Yaliyomo explores the history behind one such legend. Probably the greatest legend Africa ever had Shaka King of the Zulu.

According to sources Shaka kaSenzangakhona lived between 1787 and 1828. There are however discrepancies concerning the exact date of his birth. Some sources state that he was conceived out of wedlock somewhere between 1781 and 1787.

Shaka was the first son of the chieftain Senzangakhona and Nandi, a daughter of Bhebhe, the past chief of the Langeni tribe, born near present-day Melmoth, KwaZulu-Natal Province.

Some accounts state that he was disowned by his father whose name was Tabile Raziya and chased into exile. Others maintain that his parents married normally. However young Shaka spent his childhood days with his mother. He is recorded as having been initiated there and inducted into an ibutho lempi (fighting unit).

His days as a warrior began early. Shaka served as a warrior under the sway of local chieftain Dingiswayo and the Mthethwa, to whom the Zulu were then paying tribute.Dingiswayo called up the emDlatsheni age-group, of which Shaka was part, and incorporated it in the Izichwe regiment. He served as a Mthethwa warrior for perhaps as long as ten years, and distinguished himself with his courage, though he did not, as legend has it, rise to great position.

after a failed attempt to oust his father, Dingiswayo, then in exile, along with a number of other groups in the region (including Mabhudu, Dlamini, Mkhize, Qwabe, and Ndwandwe, helped develop new ideas of military and social organisation, in particular the ibutho, sometimes translated as 'regiment' or 'troop'. it was rather an age-based labour gang which included some better-refined military activities. Most battles before this time were to settle disputes, and while the appearance of the ibutho lempi fighting unit dramatically changed warfare at times, it largely remained an instrument for seasonal raiding and political persuasion rather than outright slaughter. Of particular importance here is the relationship which Shaka and Dingiswayo had.
On the death of Senzangakona, Dingiswayo aided Shaka to defeat his brother and assume leadership in 1816. Shaka began to further refine the ibutho system used by Dingiswayo and others and, with Mthethwa's support over the next several years, forged alliances with his smaller neighbours, mostly to counter the growing threat from Ndwandwe raiding from the north. Ironically Dingiswayo was murdered by Zwide, a powerful chief of the Ndwandwe clan.
Revenge controls many a passion and Shaka was no different. He took it upon himself to avenge Dingiswayo's blood. One of the ways that Shaka avenged his friend was by murdering Zwide's mother Ntombazi. He chose a particularly gruesome revenge on her, locking her in a house and placing jackals or hyenas inside: they devoured her and, in the morning, Shaka burned the house to the ground.

This did not quench his thirst to get even as he was still eager to kill Zwide. It took several years before the two finally met for the last time in1825. Historian Donald Morris states that this face off known as the Battle of Gqokli Hill was fought on the Mfolozi River. Shaka's troops maintained a strong position on the crest of the hill. A frontal assault by their opponents failed to dislodge them and Shaka sealed the victory by sending elephants in a sweep around the hill to attack the enemy's rear.
With his victory came a great loss as he sustained heavy casualties and lost his head military commander, Umgobhozi Ovela Entabeni but the efficacy of the new Shakan innovations was proved.
Before Dingiswayo’s death Shaka operated under his aegis since he did not have the influence or reputation to compel any but the smallest of groups to join him. After carrying out his revenge, Shaka moved southwards across the Thukela River, establishing his capital Bulawayo in Qwabe territory; he never did move back into the traditional Zulu heartland. Stories say that it is here that he started using his power to influence major decisions. Records state that Shaka may have intervened in an existing succession dispute to help his own choice, Nqetho, into power; Nqetho then ruled as a proxy chieftain for Shaka.
With time Shaka gained the respect of his people. As his influence built up he was able to spread his ideas with greater ease. Because of his background as a soldier, he believed that the most effective way of gaining power was through conquering and controlling other tribes. This maxim he taught the Zulus. His teachings greatly influenced the social outlook of the Zulu tribe which soon developed a "warrior" mind frame, making it easier for Shaka to build up his armies.

Shaka's supremacy was primarily based on military might, smashing rivals and incorporating scattered remnants into his own army. However he also used diplomacy to supplement his methods. With a mixture of diplomacy and patronage, he managed to incorporate friendly chieftains, including Zihlandlo of the Mkhize, Jobe of the Sithole, and Mathubane of the Thuli all without war. Shaka won them over by subtler tactics of patronage and reward.

Shaka was able to form an alliance with the leaderless Mthethwa clan and was able to establish himself amongst the Qwabe, after Phakathwayo was overthrown with relative ease. With Qwabe, Hlubi and Mkhize support, Shaka was finally able to summon a force capable of resisting the Ndwandwe.

One the many battles that Shaka fought took place on the Mhlatuze River, at the confluence with the Mvuzane stream. In a two-day running battle, the Zulu inflicted a resounding defeat on their opponents. Shaka then led a fresh reserve some seventy miles to the royal kraal of Zwide the new ruler of the Ndwandwe, and destroyed it. Zwide himself escaped with a handful of followers before falling foul of a chieftainess named Mjanji, ruler of the baPedi clan. He died in mysterious circumstances soon afterward. Shaka's general Soshangane moved north towards what is now Mozambique to inflict further damage on less resistant foes and take advantage of slaving opportunities, obliging Portuguese traders to give tribute. Shaka later had to contend again with Zwide's son Sikhunyane in 1826.

Many a great people have met their deaths in unfortunate ways and Shaka Zulu was one of them. His death was arranged and committed by his half brothers, Dingane and Mhlangana. The two made at least two attempts to assassinate Shaka before they succeeded, with support from Mpondo elements, and some disaffected iziYendane people.

Some schools of thought argue that the British traders wished his death. These allegations have not been proven because even though the colonialists considered his regime to be a future threat, Shaka had granted concessions to whites prior to his death, including the right to settle at Port Natal now Durban.

The argument further states that Shaka had made enough enemies among his own people to hasten his demise which came relatively quickly after the devastation caused by his erratic behaviour after the death of his mother Nandi. According to Morris, during his mother’s death mourning period Shaka ordered that no crops should be planted during the following year, no milk which was the basis of the Zulu diet at the time was to be used, and any woman who became pregnant was to be killed along with her husband. At least 7,000 people who were deemed to be insufficiently grief-stricken were executed, though it wasn't restricted to humans, cows were slaughtered so that their calves would know what losing a mother felt like.

The Zulu monarch was killed by three assassins sometime in 1828; September is the most often cited date, when almost all available Zulu manpower had been sent on yet another mass sweep to the north. This left the royal kraal critically short of security. It was all the conspirators needed an iNduna called Mbopa created a diversion and Dingane and Mhlangana struck the fatal blows. Shaka's corpse was dumped into an empty grain pit by his assassins and filled with stones and mud but the exact site is unknown, though a monument was built at one alleged site. Historian Morris holds that it is somewhere on Couper Street in the village of Stanger, South Africa.

Shaka's half-brother Dingane assumed power and embarked on an extensive purge of pro-Shaka elements and chieftains, running over several years, in order to secure his position. A virtual civil war broke out. Dingane ruled for some twelve years, during which time he fought, disastrously, against the Voortrekkers, and against another half-brother Mpande, who with Boer and British support, took over the Zulu leadership in 1840, and ruled for some 30 years. Later in the 19th century the Zulus would be one of the few African peoples who managed to defeat the British Army; at the Battle of Isandlwana.

Shaka is credited with introducing great military innovations such as the iklwa which came into being following Shaka’s dissatisfaction with the long throwing assegai. The iklwa is a short stabbing spear, with a long, sword-like spearhead. It is said to have been named after the sounds made by its penetration into and withdrawal from the body. Shaka is also supposed to have introduced a larger, heavier shield made of cowhide and to have taught each warrior how to use the shield's left side to hook the enemy's shield to the right, exposing his ribs for a fatal spear stab. The throwing spear was not discarded but used as an initial missile weapon before close contact with the enemy; when the shorter stabbing spear was used in hand to hand combat.

Shaka also introduced the age-grade regimental system and encirclement tactics. He drilled his troops frequently, forced marches sometimes covering more than fifty miles a day in a fast trot over hot, rocky terrain. His training and leadership tactics helped make the Zulu one of the most powerful nations in southern and south-eastern Africa.

The figure of Shaka thus remains an ambiguous one in African oral tradition, defying simplistic depictions of the Zulu king as a heroic, protean nation builder on one hand, or a depraved monster on the other. This ambiguity continues to lend the image of Shaka its continued power and influence, almost two centuries after his death.

Much controversy still surrounds the character, methods and activities of the Zulu king. From a military standpoint historian John Keegan notes exaggerations and myths that surround Shaka, but nevertheless observes:

“Fanciful commentators called him Shaka, the Black Napoleon, and allowing for different societies and customs, the comparison is apt. Shaka is without doubt the greatest commander to come out of Africa.”

Are mothers better parents than fathers?

We are leaving in the reality of a cliché that ‘fathers are a biological necessity, but a social accident.’ Pushing me to ask whether women are better parents than men? Many people believe that women make better parents than men and that this is why they have the greater role in raising children in most societies. Others claim that men are just as good as women at parenting. Indeed this is a hot debate but women are better parents in emotional and social development of the child while fathers chip in material providence. It dawned on me that men are ‘dropping’ children everywhere without bothering of their upkeep when by step-sister conceived. Her presumed husband took off after realizing she was pregnant with his baby and we as the family wished to hold him responsible for the upkeep of the child. Indeed single mothers are victims of men out to satisfy their emotional wants without worrying about the consequence of such acts. From both maternal and paternal points of view this indeed is a controversial issue but facts don’t lie. Statistics show that most of the custodial parents are mothers. Further, many of the noncustodial fathers have only been forced by court orders or voluntarily agreed to pay for child support but many default on their commitment and become “deadbeat dads." I’m a man but have no grudges against men but only out to place facts that mothers are better parents than fathers! Men have actually abdicated their duty to become partners in bringing up children. Ironically it is the care of the mother that pushes men to behave in a manner likely to be seen as abdication.


There is physiological connection between the mother and the child which the father has no part to play. Even though without the father, a mother can comfortably raise a child; conversely without the mother it would be potentially difficult to bring up the child. Foetuses gestate for nine months within the female body, and infants are, at least in the past, nursed by the mother for several years after birth. It is on this premise that courts usually award mother the custodial duties to care for the children than fathers. But fathers have perfected this scenario through neglect. Though it is biologically necessary for mothers and fathers to come together for procreation, to mothers each child is far more important than it is to the father. For any emotional and social problems suffered by children the mother comes in as the first confidant. It results from the lack of an "attachment bond between the child and the father”, the process by which the infant comes to prefer specific adults-specifically his mother-over fathers. This attachment is based on instinctive responses like crying, smiling and sucking important for the protection and survival of the child. It is this time spent with the infant that the mother develops the bond that now comes to favour her as the ‘better parent’ and elicit necessary maternal care and protection for the infant. Indeed as the child grows up and he/she becomes conscious of the environment, the first person that the infant becomes familiar with is the mother. This in fact relegates fathers to the role of mother's little helper.
However in the absence of the mother a responsible father could have easily provided the same kind of warmth and comfort, even if couldn't nurse the offspring.



Men have perfected the art of neglect. Socialized into being the family breadwinner, "traditional" fathers provided a strong moral and material support for their families, meted out discipline for their children, but did little else. The burden of carrying the pregnancy and taking care of children in the early days of their lives has naturally been on the shoulders of the mother. Fathers have no moral right to sire kids they have intent of fending for. Knowing the mother’s greater commitment to her children, the father can abandon them, secure in the knowledge that the mother would never do likewise, because if she did, the children would be virtually certain to die. Men have taken this to mean that they can do everything without iota of fear that the children they have helped to bring to the world will require their attention. However, there are mother whose instincts have failed them the test. This is the group that aborts kids or goes all the way carrying the pregnancy for nine months but end up dumping them in dustbins and garbage sites.
Mothers spend more time with children than fathers. When a lady is pregnant, she is relieved of duties from her a work place by law: she is entitled to maternity leave. Though paternity leaves have been introduced in some countries the maternity leave is still the longest in comparison. Men are better actors than performers when it comes to child-rearing. The father may have paced the waiting room during childbirth, if ever, but never changed a diaper or warmed a bottle, and generally steered clear of the nursery, leaving the responsibility for child rearing almost entirely to their wives. When fathers

abdicate their duties mothers have left with no option but to care for the young ones by any means.
It is apparent that either by design or fate mothers are better parents than fathers and kids feels emotionally attached to their mothers more than their fathers.
Most fathers would probably prefer to invest in their children and raise them by themselves rather than see them die, but they normally do not have to make this difficult decision, because they know that the mother would never abandon them. The mother’s greater commitment to her children ironically allows the father to have his cake and eat it too, by moving on to the next marriage and family in which to invest.

kimenyi007@yahoo.com

It all about Kenya

The country made in heaven;
But roasting in an oven;
It is a haven;
for the forgiven;
and the forbidden.

This land Kenya of beauty;
but lacking in laity;
It is the work of the diety;
Putting the citizens in pity.

With glamour and hope;
Kenyans will obviously cope;
And tape around fate;
Give it its take to survive to-date.