AHC/WI: Mbuyazi kaMpande, King of the Zulus

I recently decided to educate myself on the history of the Zulu kingdom, and one possible POD in its history has intrigued me. What if the events of the 2nd Zulu Civil War had been avoided, and King Mpande's son Mbuyazi became his successor instead of Cetshwayo?

I'm hoping that those more knowledgeable than me can help me to better understand the characters of Mpande, Mbuyazi, and Cetshwayo, in order to help me better understand how Zulu history may have been changed given this departure. The resources I've read so far have little to say on the character of Mbuyazi. So I have little to go on in regards to how he would differ as a ruler from Cetshwayo.

According to "Great Zulu Battles 1838-1906" by Ian Knight, it says that in their youth Cetshwayo "a big man with a broad chest and a handsome, open face" he "presented a friendly manner, despite occasional bouts of moodiness or temper. He talked freely to anyone, but was not above treating elders and cheifs with the respect their age and rank required". While Mbuyazi "was tall, with light complexion and hooded eyes" and "had a tendency to arrogance which offended the izikhulu and intimidated commoners." I am honestly not sure what 'hooded eyes' means. That he seemed to scowl a lot? I do wonder if Mbuyazi might have been treated differently by the Boers and English, if his complexion was lighter in tone, given the colorist/racist views they held.

According to "The Zulus at War: The History, Rise, and Fall of the Tribe That Washed Its Spears" byAdrian Greaves and‎ Xolani Mkhize, Cetshwayo " was a traditionalist and had undergone long periods of education in Zulu history and culture. It is unsurprising that he hankered after the regal days of Shaka, whereas Mbuyazi was more inclined to ntellectual matters, though equally devious and powerful."

So for the most part I've gathered that Cetshwayo is considered by most to have been the most intellectual of the Zulu kings, with a keen understanding of realpolitik as some may say. Mbuyazi showed perhaps even more potential than Cetshwayo in their youth, but he seems to have had fewer 'people skills' and so perhaps the self awarness he had of his own mental skills put other people off as pridefulness.

In my opinion, I think the conflict between the two brothers would have bettered the Zulu kingdom if it had avoided bloodshed. The 20,000 some people killed, including the 7,000 warriors, at the Battle of Ndondakusuka, likely would have benefited the kingdom better in the long run if they remained alive.

So can anyone tell me what resources I might look to in order to better understand how different of a ruler Mbuyazi might have been. I wonder if he might cut a path for himself more Mpanda's than Cetshwayo's was. Or like that of Shaka, since some think he was Mbuyazi's real biological father. Or if he might of tried governance and political maneuvers all his own in regards to his people, the Boers, the Portuguese the Zulus traded with, the British, and the other surrounding native peoples. I've also read that John Robert Dunn was supposedly on Mbuyazi's side in the conflict, but escaped with his life. Though he became a diplomatic adviser to Cetshwayo, Cetshwayo always held a mistrust for him. Likely because of his original siding with Mbuyazi. So perhaps Mbuyazi would be even more open to Dunn's advice than Cetshwayo was. How that may change things I'm not sure.

Also, would the means by which Mbuyazi becomes king matter in the long run? Does it make much difference if Mbuyazi's succession is assured simply by Mpanda declaring it so by making Mbuyazi's mother his 'great wife', instead of having to best Cetshwayo and his followers in battle? Or have Cetshwayo die by some disease, accident, or assassin before the Battle of Ndondakusuka?
 
I recently decided to educate myself on the history of the Zulu kingdom, and one possible POD in its history has intrigued me. What if the events of the 2nd Zulu Civil War had been avoided, and King Mpande's son Mbuyazi became his successor instead of Cetshwayo?

I'm hoping that those more knowledgeable than me can help me to better understand the characters of Mpande, Mbuyazi, and Cetshwayo, in order to help me better understand how Zulu history may have been changed given this departure. The resources I've read so far have little to say on the character of Mbuyazi. So I have little to go on in regards to how he would differ as a ruler from Cetshwayo.

According to "Great Zulu Battles 1838-1906" by Ian Knight, it says that in their youth Cetshwayo "a big man with a broad chest and a handsome, open face" he "presented a friendly manner, despite occasional bouts of moodiness or temper. He talked freely to anyone, but was not above treating elders and cheifs with the respect their age and rank required". While Mbuyazi "was tall, with light complexion and hooded eyes" and "had a tendency to arrogance which offended the izikhulu and intimidated commoners." I am honestly not sure what 'hooded eyes' means. That he seemed to scowl a lot? I do wonder if Mbuyazi might have been treated differently by the Boers and English, if his complexion was lighter in tone, given the colorist/racist views they held.

According to "The Zulus at War: The History, Rise, and Fall of the Tribe That Washed Its Spears" byAdrian Greaves and‎ Xolani Mkhize, Cetshwayo " was a traditionalist and had undergone long periods of education in Zulu history and culture. It is unsurprising that he hankered after the regal days of Shaka, whereas Mbuyazi was more inclined to ntellectual matters, though equally devious and powerful."

So for the most part I've gathered that Cetshwayo is considered by most to have been the most intellectual of the Zulu kings, with a keen understanding of realpolitik as some may say. Mbuyazi showed perhaps even more potential than Cetshwayo in their youth, but he seems to have had fewer 'people skills' and so perhaps the self awarness he had of his own mental skills put other people off as pridefulness.

In my opinion, I think the conflict between the two brothers would have bettered the Zulu kingdom if it had avoided bloodshed. The 20,000 some people killed, including the 7,000 warriors, at the Battle of Ndondakusuka, likely would have benefited the kingdom better in the long run if they remained alive.

So can anyone tell me what resources I might look to in order to better understand how different of a ruler Mbuyazi might have been. I wonder if he might cut a path for himself more Mpanda's than Cetshwayo's was. Or like that of Shaka, since some think he was Mbuyazi's real biological father. Or if he might of tried governance and political maneuvers all his own in regards to his people, the Boers, the Portuguese the Zulus traded with, the British, and the other surrounding native peoples. I've also read that John Robert Dunn was supposedly on Mbuyazi's side in the conflict, but escaped with his life. Though he became a diplomatic adviser to Cetshwayo, Cetshwayo always held a mistrust for him. Likely because of his original siding with Mbuyazi. So perhaps Mbuyazi would be even more open to Dunn's advice than Cetshwayo was. How that may change things I'm not sure.

Also, would the means by which Mbuyazi becomes king matter in the long run? Does it make much difference if Mbuyazi's succession is assured simply by Mpanda declaring it so by making Mbuyazi's mother his 'great wife', instead of having to best Cetshwayo and his followers in battle? Or have Cetshwayo die by some disease, accident, or assassin before the Battle of Ndondakusuka?

The hooded eyes means that "the brow bone is less defined". As to his lighter complexion getting him a different treatment from the Boers/English - not so sure - his "houding" (pride/arrogance/attitude) might put them off (him perhaps considering himself equal to them) as much as his skin-color may mean they prefer him to Cetshwayo. A cool idea would be the Boers backing the one side and the British the other, and having a sort of proxy war amongst the Zulus (but I'm guessing that that isn't your aim?)
 
Top