What do you think?
Rate this book
The Tribe that Washed Its Spears: The Zulus at War
The vast majority of books on the Zulus concentrate on their stunning victory at Isandlwana over the invading British Army and the tragedy of their subsequent defeat during the Anglo-Zulu Wars.By tracing the long and turbulent history of the Zulus from their arrival in South Africa, where they were not indigenous as were the Koi and San population, and the establishment of Zululand, The Tribe that Washed its Spears is an important and readable addition to this popular subject area. It describes the violent rise of King Shaka and his colorful successors under whose leadership the warrior nation built a fearsome fighting reputation without equal among the native tribes of South Africa. It also examines the tactics and weapons employed during the numerous inter-tribal battles over this period. They then became victims of their own success in that their defeat of the Boers in 1877 and 1878 in the Sekunini War prompted the well-documented British intervention.Initially the might of the British empire was humbled as never before by the shock Zulu victory at Isandlwana but the 1879 war ended with the brutal crushing of the Zulu Nation. But, as Dr Greaves reveals, this was by no means the end of the story. The little known consequences of the division of Zululand, the Boer War and the 1906 Zulu Rebellion are analyzed in fascinating detail.An added attraction for readers is that this long awaited history is written not just by a much published leading authority but, thanks to the co-author s contribution, from the Zulu perspective using much completely fresh material."
222 pages, Hardcover
First published June 17, 2013
142 people are currently reading
235 people want to read
About the author
Adrian Greaves
24 books9 followersAdrian Greaves is the founder of the Anglo-Zulu War Historical Society and the author of numerous books on the period and South African wars.
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 30 of 33 reviews
December 21, 2014
Adrian Greaves' writing style does not seem to value educating a reader. It is confusing and poorly written; concepts are defined after they are discussed, references are made to historical figures' deaths before their legacies are explained, etc. I had serious trouble following it. There's a serious problem with organization; the index leaves out important people/cultures, and apparently only has one mention of "Zulus" (on page 3). Entire paragraphs are repeated, verbatim, within the same chapter. I only finished this book because I had nothing else to read at work.
August 8, 2021
A good overview of the Zulus, which covers earlier history under King Shaka and subsequent kings, but is primarily focused on the 1879 Anglo-Zulu War under King Cetshwayo. The war was started by the British to pave the way for confederating South Africa. The book shows just how violent both the British and the Zulus were and how initial Zulu successes gave way to British victories and the weakening and division of Zululand by the British. Events since 1879 are unfortunately only covered in a very few pages. I would also have liked to have seen more details on the culture and myths of the Zulu and of surrounding cultures. Nevertheless, and in spite of some repetition, it's a good read and definitely recommended for anyone interested in Southern African history.
June 21, 2020
A great book, providing a detailed history of the Zulu Kingdom in the 19th century, concentrating on its military conflicts with the Boers and the British. The Zulu people are at the center of the book, not in the periphery or as some shadowy other side. To be sure, there are plenty of contemporary comments from the Europeans, but the Zulu people, of all ranks and regions, remain the focus throughout. The book goes to great depth in explaining how aspects of Zulu culture and politics affected the decisions made by the various Zulu leaders. It also explains how these unique elements shaped the Zulu’s interactions with the Europeans. A major point I learned from the book concerned the level of civil strife within the Zulu Nation throughout the period. This strife, fanned of course by the Europeans, was a major reason not just for their eventual defeat, but their inability to shape the future in a favorable manner. The more interesting sidebars in the book arise as the author explains how the stories and legends from the period studied are still present within the Zulu communities today. A great book for understanding the African perspective in one of the more famous national struggles of the colonial period. Highly recommended for those wanting to better understand the Zulu and the wars they fought.
December 21, 2024
Like most reviews of this book point out, readers should be aware that the bulk of this book centers around the Anglo-Zulu war, which Greaves brings to life as a passionate military historian. As a military historian, though, it is only natural that the great battles and skirmishes of the 19th century in particular occupy his focus, occasionally to the exclusion of other details. I, for one, hanker for more description of daily life, production, social and religious structures, etc, than this book has to offer, but that's a question of taste and interpretive lens, not the author's shortcomings.
I would like to shout out Greaves for his thoughtful historiography, as he both incorporates Zulu oral history very significantly and respectfully, and does not hesitate to critique the biased (predominantly British and, to a lesser degree, Boer) primary sources that have occupied most previous studies, and the skewed accounts that historians thus far have produced as a result.
Greaves makes a convincing case for British maneuvering essentially manufacturing the conflict with the Zulu nation as a pretext for consolidating British control of the contested Natal and Transvaal area and incorporating rebellious Boers and plentiful African labor into the British empire. He likewise does mention, though not in great detail, the economic logics behind this move, and the resultant emiseration of the Zulus through the disruption of their economic self-reliance, subsistence, and political and social organization. This served in turn to serve Zululand's natural resources and the labor power of its people to European and white settler capital on a silver platter, but that's a story for another book.
I would like to shout out Greaves for his thoughtful historiography, as he both incorporates Zulu oral history very significantly and respectfully, and does not hesitate to critique the biased (predominantly British and, to a lesser degree, Boer) primary sources that have occupied most previous studies, and the skewed accounts that historians thus far have produced as a result.
Greaves makes a convincing case for British maneuvering essentially manufacturing the conflict with the Zulu nation as a pretext for consolidating British control of the contested Natal and Transvaal area and incorporating rebellious Boers and plentiful African labor into the British empire. He likewise does mention, though not in great detail, the economic logics behind this move, and the resultant emiseration of the Zulus through the disruption of their economic self-reliance, subsistence, and political and social organization. This served in turn to serve Zululand's natural resources and the labor power of its people to European and white settler capital on a silver platter, but that's a story for another book.
December 19, 2025
The Zulus at War is a book I enjoyed overall, even if I occasionally found it challenging to follow. One of the main difficulties was keeping track of names and places, particularly early on, due to the linguistic structure of some African languages. Names such as Cetshwayo, Mpande, Shaka, Dingane, Mbuyazi, and Ndlela kaSompisi, along with locations like Ulundi and Isandlwana, often required a conscious effort to re-orient myself, especially when multiple figures or settlements appeared in quick succession.
Once the Boers and the British entered the narrative, the story became easier to follow. The familiar frameworks of imperial expansion, colonial administration, and European military organization helped ground the timeline. Even then, there were moments where overlapping campaigns, shifting alliances, and recurring Zulu leaders made the narrative dense, requiring careful reading to keep everything straight.
What I found most compelling was the book’s broader contribution to understanding British expansion and colonialism in southern Africa. Rather than framing the conflict purely through European decision-making, the author takes a distinctly Zulu-centred approach. Zulu political structures, cultural obligations, concepts of authority, and attitudes toward warfare are presented as rational systems in their own right, not simply reactions to colonial pressure. The book does a strong job of explaining why Zulu leaders such as Shaka, Dingane, Mpande, and Cetshwayo made certain choices in governance and conflict, grounding those decisions in tradition, social cohesion, and survival rather than portraying them as impulsive or backward.
Overall, The Zulus at War offers a thoughtful and often refreshing perspective on a period that is frequently told from the imperial side. While it demands patience due to its density and unfamiliar terminology, it rewards the reader with a deeper appreciation of the Zulu worldview and the complex dynamics that shaped one of the most famous conflicts of the colonial era.
Once the Boers and the British entered the narrative, the story became easier to follow. The familiar frameworks of imperial expansion, colonial administration, and European military organization helped ground the timeline. Even then, there were moments where overlapping campaigns, shifting alliances, and recurring Zulu leaders made the narrative dense, requiring careful reading to keep everything straight.
What I found most compelling was the book’s broader contribution to understanding British expansion and colonialism in southern Africa. Rather than framing the conflict purely through European decision-making, the author takes a distinctly Zulu-centred approach. Zulu political structures, cultural obligations, concepts of authority, and attitudes toward warfare are presented as rational systems in their own right, not simply reactions to colonial pressure. The book does a strong job of explaining why Zulu leaders such as Shaka, Dingane, Mpande, and Cetshwayo made certain choices in governance and conflict, grounding those decisions in tradition, social cohesion, and survival rather than portraying them as impulsive or backward.
Overall, The Zulus at War offers a thoughtful and often refreshing perspective on a period that is frequently told from the imperial side. While it demands patience due to its density and unfamiliar terminology, it rewards the reader with a deeper appreciation of the Zulu worldview and the complex dynamics that shaped one of the most famous conflicts of the colonial era.
February 2, 2022
South African Spartans. A solid, compact history of a warrior culture.
Greaves' 2013 "The Zulus at War" is a brief, well written history of the Zulu people from their rise as one of S. Africa's larger tribes to the Zulu "nation" gained through their martial prowess and attempts to challenge Boer and later British colonial authority in the early 19th century to their eventual dismantling and division by the victorious British. Greaves walks the reader through the rise of Shaka and the rapid expansion of the Zulu state to the point where his people could challenge the British and even gain a short-lived victory at Isandlwana.
It's hard to read about the Zulu devotion to martial power and not think of the Spartans. Martial cultures tend to have certain common elements -- like weeding out the sick or infirm, harsh (sometimes arbitrarily brutal) discipline, and an all-consuming focus on warfighting at the expense of nearly every other aspect of social or cultural development. While the Spartans were not nearly so expansionist, the Zulus' success against neighboring tribes, when compared to their later difficulties with the British brings to mind the Spartans initial success against the Persian empire but whose cultural mores ultimately proved unsustainable against enemies foreign and domestic.
While short-lived, the Zulu nation burned brightly and remains an intensely interesting field of study. Greaves' well-researched work ably assists in that endeavor.
Greaves' 2013 "The Zulus at War" is a brief, well written history of the Zulu people from their rise as one of S. Africa's larger tribes to the Zulu "nation" gained through their martial prowess and attempts to challenge Boer and later British colonial authority in the early 19th century to their eventual dismantling and division by the victorious British. Greaves walks the reader through the rise of Shaka and the rapid expansion of the Zulu state to the point where his people could challenge the British and even gain a short-lived victory at Isandlwana.
It's hard to read about the Zulu devotion to martial power and not think of the Spartans. Martial cultures tend to have certain common elements -- like weeding out the sick or infirm, harsh (sometimes arbitrarily brutal) discipline, and an all-consuming focus on warfighting at the expense of nearly every other aspect of social or cultural development. While the Spartans were not nearly so expansionist, the Zulus' success against neighboring tribes, when compared to their later difficulties with the British brings to mind the Spartans initial success against the Persian empire but whose cultural mores ultimately proved unsustainable against enemies foreign and domestic.
While short-lived, the Zulu nation burned brightly and remains an intensely interesting field of study. Greaves' well-researched work ably assists in that endeavor.
December 14, 2021
"Did I learn something new?" is my litmus test for scholarship on Zulu history. There are countless books covering Zulu people, particularly the 1879 War, and with that comes an inevitable regurgitation and repetition of "facts" that are often more interpretative or debatable than presented. The majority of these works are written by non-Zulu people, which is not an inherent dilemma but can and often present biases (just as it might if the majority of scholarship were written by Zulus). Similar to those works, this details Zulu culture and history primarily through a Western, colonial prism. Adrian Greaves and Xolani Mkhize put together a work that does offer some interesting tidbits and perspectives that I haven't seen elsewhere—part of this may be attributable to melding an inside perspective with an outside one. However, on the whole, this book doesn't offer much that someone with an intermediate level of familiarity with Zulu history wouldn't have already gathered elsewhere.
Throughout culture and scholarship, we often witness the sanitizing of colonialism which often includes emphasis on the moral complexity of its agents (which doesn't seem to similarly be extended to colonialism's subjects). There are flashes of that in this volume (e.g. dialogue on the Voortrekkers is almost laudatory in a couple of areas), although on the whole the book does a good job of distilling colonialism's nature as brutal, bloody business. Despite the undying myths, Europeans did not arrive in Africa to "civilize"—settlers were fleeing their own conflicts (often violent, like the Huguenots' persecution) and of course European corporate interests (e.g. the Dutch East India Company). As an example, the church's ignoble role in "improving" the condition of Africans is profiled in context of the Anglo-Zulu War. Cetshwayo repudiated missionaries, going so far as to expel them from Zululand. In retaliation, these missionaries threw their weight behind the machinations British colonial administrators were indulging as pretext for invasion and conquest of the Zulu Kingdom. For them, it was a crusade. If you look at the religiosity of black South Africans today, you can argue they succeeded.
The authors detail the intrigues of British administrators and the extent to which they went to destroy and disrupt the Zulu social order. Although the casus belli of British administrators was that Cetshwayo was a bloodthirsty despot whose army of 40,000 "savages" were chomping at the bit to invade Natal and cut the colonists to pieces, the authors illustrate that the British sought African land and labor and needed to level the Zulu Kingdom in order to effectuate this. In every interaction and dealing with Britain the Zulu government sought compromise and peace. Yes, the Zulu culture was militaristic and, yes, the government was often heavy-handed. Yet not one British subject was ever harmed or killed during decades of diplomatic relations. (And as far as draconian judicial systems go, it was 19th century Britain where petty larceny carried a death sentence).
Britain's sordid intentionality is emphasized, not just with regard to the pre-war political maneuvering (including the infamous 1879 ultimatum). The post-war divide-and-conquer strategy is examined in a detail I haven't seen elsewhere. British administrators created thirteen districts and deliberately put Cetshwayo's adversaries, leaders of different clans, and men without rank into these positions to purposefully foment discord and conflict. Even though Cetshwayo was eventually restored to the throne, damage had been irrevocably wrought. British administrators, unsurprisingly, did nothing to allay the civil war and completely ignored Cetshwayo's pleas for assistance and protection from the enemies they installed. The "civilizing mission" is quite adequately and realistically exposed as farcical.
Less encouraging is the book's recycling of narratives that have lately been challenged and considered improbable or patently false. The authors cite the claim that the military tactics institutionalized under Shaka were inspired by stories that he or his mentor Dingiswayo were told about Napoleon by Europeans. Various recent works have reflected that the more probable phenomenon is that the weapons and tactics of Zulus and other Southern Africans were indigenous. If nothing else, the authors should have more carefully qualified this statement. There are also strains of the common tendency for scholars to over-attribute the Mfecane to Shaka (as though it's to be analogized the Holocaust and Hitler or the Great Leap Forward and Mao) and to assume that European settlement and pressures (including slave raiding) bore an outsize impact on African migratory patterns, grazing and land usage stressors, and military conflicts. The minimization of African agency is a persistent modality in scholarship of this sort; the authors perpetuate it here.
Also problematic is the editing of this book. In the first few chapters as well the last sections of the book, there are handfuls of sentences that are repeated verbatim, oftentimes just a couple of pages later. I think we would expect someone as prolific as Greaves to take greater care with editing and coherence in his writing. Regardless of experience, it's a mark against this book.
On balance, I'm ambivalent about this book. I cannot say I regret investing time in it, for I appreciate unveiling some facts heretofore unknown to me and I value the appropriate points of emphasis. But I probably would not have missed out on much by skipping it. Frankly, despite their contributions, for authors like Greaves, Ian Knight, and John Laband writing books on Zulus feels like a market and a career (they each have written countless titles). Therefore, for any new title it's hard to judge if it's refreshing and additive or if its merely just part of business.
Throughout culture and scholarship, we often witness the sanitizing of colonialism which often includes emphasis on the moral complexity of its agents (which doesn't seem to similarly be extended to colonialism's subjects). There are flashes of that in this volume (e.g. dialogue on the Voortrekkers is almost laudatory in a couple of areas), although on the whole the book does a good job of distilling colonialism's nature as brutal, bloody business. Despite the undying myths, Europeans did not arrive in Africa to "civilize"—settlers were fleeing their own conflicts (often violent, like the Huguenots' persecution) and of course European corporate interests (e.g. the Dutch East India Company). As an example, the church's ignoble role in "improving" the condition of Africans is profiled in context of the Anglo-Zulu War. Cetshwayo repudiated missionaries, going so far as to expel them from Zululand. In retaliation, these missionaries threw their weight behind the machinations British colonial administrators were indulging as pretext for invasion and conquest of the Zulu Kingdom. For them, it was a crusade. If you look at the religiosity of black South Africans today, you can argue they succeeded.
The authors detail the intrigues of British administrators and the extent to which they went to destroy and disrupt the Zulu social order. Although the casus belli of British administrators was that Cetshwayo was a bloodthirsty despot whose army of 40,000 "savages" were chomping at the bit to invade Natal and cut the colonists to pieces, the authors illustrate that the British sought African land and labor and needed to level the Zulu Kingdom in order to effectuate this. In every interaction and dealing with Britain the Zulu government sought compromise and peace. Yes, the Zulu culture was militaristic and, yes, the government was often heavy-handed. Yet not one British subject was ever harmed or killed during decades of diplomatic relations. (And as far as draconian judicial systems go, it was 19th century Britain where petty larceny carried a death sentence).
Britain's sordid intentionality is emphasized, not just with regard to the pre-war political maneuvering (including the infamous 1879 ultimatum). The post-war divide-and-conquer strategy is examined in a detail I haven't seen elsewhere. British administrators created thirteen districts and deliberately put Cetshwayo's adversaries, leaders of different clans, and men without rank into these positions to purposefully foment discord and conflict. Even though Cetshwayo was eventually restored to the throne, damage had been irrevocably wrought. British administrators, unsurprisingly, did nothing to allay the civil war and completely ignored Cetshwayo's pleas for assistance and protection from the enemies they installed. The "civilizing mission" is quite adequately and realistically exposed as farcical.
Less encouraging is the book's recycling of narratives that have lately been challenged and considered improbable or patently false. The authors cite the claim that the military tactics institutionalized under Shaka were inspired by stories that he or his mentor Dingiswayo were told about Napoleon by Europeans. Various recent works have reflected that the more probable phenomenon is that the weapons and tactics of Zulus and other Southern Africans were indigenous. If nothing else, the authors should have more carefully qualified this statement. There are also strains of the common tendency for scholars to over-attribute the Mfecane to Shaka (as though it's to be analogized the Holocaust and Hitler or the Great Leap Forward and Mao) and to assume that European settlement and pressures (including slave raiding) bore an outsize impact on African migratory patterns, grazing and land usage stressors, and military conflicts. The minimization of African agency is a persistent modality in scholarship of this sort; the authors perpetuate it here.
Also problematic is the editing of this book. In the first few chapters as well the last sections of the book, there are handfuls of sentences that are repeated verbatim, oftentimes just a couple of pages later. I think we would expect someone as prolific as Greaves to take greater care with editing and coherence in his writing. Regardless of experience, it's a mark against this book.
On balance, I'm ambivalent about this book. I cannot say I regret investing time in it, for I appreciate unveiling some facts heretofore unknown to me and I value the appropriate points of emphasis. But I probably would not have missed out on much by skipping it. Frankly, despite their contributions, for authors like Greaves, Ian Knight, and John Laband writing books on Zulus feels like a market and a career (they each have written countless titles). Therefore, for any new title it's hard to judge if it's refreshing and additive or if its merely just part of business.
September 15, 2020
Worth reading for the info it contained. Could have been so much better if it was clearly written and better edited. Book was both repetitive at points and some how didn't have enough detail in crucial parts. Author has a habit of making conclusory statements that might have been interesting if explored but lacked support.
April 9, 2018
The Zulu-Anglo War is discussed from the Zulu perspective. The history of the Zulu nation from its founding through the wars with the Boers and English as well as the aftermath into modern times is well related. This a different edition of a book previously reviewed.
May 17, 2022
Well detailed work on a bit of history too little told, and then almost always from the British perspective.
July 14, 2021
A fine history text about the african empire of shaka zulu.
We find our selves 1800.
The english had landed in africa.
To find the bunta people.
They had a fine tribal life style.
Then with cover wagons and rifles.
There was war against there land.
Reasons vague.
Labor,migration,quest for land.
Perhaps previous skirmish in 1400.
Portuguese investments.
The war went back and forth.
The queen victoria sympathized with the zulu.
Seems many soldiers were fodder to the war.
Still zulus seem pushed into reservation status.
Or partnership reached.
Such rich zulu culture on display.
The zulu war only gave way to Boer wars.
More comprehensive book could detail previous campaigns or rise of nelson mandela.
Interested in parallel there.
Keeps yelling read to your self and your an asp.
Want to do fun reports on you tube.
But copy write laws and censor can make video work difficult. Butt sex.
We find our selves 1800.
The english had landed in africa.
To find the bunta people.
They had a fine tribal life style.
Then with cover wagons and rifles.
There was war against there land.
Reasons vague.
Labor,migration,quest for land.
Perhaps previous skirmish in 1400.
Portuguese investments.
The war went back and forth.
The queen victoria sympathized with the zulu.
Seems many soldiers were fodder to the war.
Still zulus seem pushed into reservation status.
Or partnership reached.
Such rich zulu culture on display.
The zulu war only gave way to Boer wars.
More comprehensive book could detail previous campaigns or rise of nelson mandela.
Interested in parallel there.
Keeps yelling read to your self and your an asp.
Want to do fun reports on you tube.
But copy write laws and censor can make video work difficult. Butt sex.
March 30, 2022
The Zulus at War: The History, Rise, and Fall of the Tribe That Washed Its Spears is account of Zulu history written in conjunction with a Zulu author for the goal of centering the oral knowledge of their own history and conflict with others as it was experienced, told, and passed down by the Zulus themselves. While The Zulus at War does follow the birth and rise of King Shaka - founder of what would become the Zulu kingdom and originator of most social, cultural, and military customs - most of the text focuses on the Anglo-Zulu War due to the the sheer influence that event has on Zulu history and its longstanding effects on the Zulu peoples' place in the modern world.
As I'm sure will surprise no one, the Anglo-Zulu War was an unjust colonial military adventure undertaken for a variety of reasons that make me, even from the safe temporal distance of the twenty-first century, want to tear my hair out. (It never gets less disheartening to learn about abuse or injustice.) It was a war precipitated by British invasion of Zululand with the specific intent to do/allow the following:
Because all of the above could only be accomplished with violence, all attempts to avoid war made by King Cetshwayo kaMpande were ignored and British officials in charge made the deliberate decision to ignore the findings of their own investigations (having previously meant to find 'justification' for war in redrawing territorial borders, which the commission doing the investigation did not appease them with), making impossible demands (as in, 'do all these things and we won't make war on you,' knowing that compliance within the demanded time frame would be impossible), and eventually marching an army across the border into Zululand anyway. Though the Zulus fought to defend their home and people and did impressively win some early battles, a few factors played outsize roles in allowing the British eventual victory. First among those factors were the mismatch in expectations and equipment of the Zulus and British: in general the British had better weaponry (mostly rifles) that allowed them to pick off many Zulu warriors at relatively long range and, though the British were using old tactics that did contribute to early losses, they used enough maneuvers with which the Zulus were completely unfamiliar that they were able to inflict catastrophic losses, especially in later battles. Combined with the tendency of young Zulu warriors to jump the gun and persistent communication issues in the preferred offensive formation (impi, or horns), these proved to be fatal to the Zulu cause of defending themselves and their homeland, outstripping the effects of certain disadvantages the British mostly inflicted on themselves (foremost among them being the recruiting, but refusal to listen to, local scouts and spies, especially when their information or warnings ran counter to rather the inflated sense of British confidence or racist imaginings of what Africans would be able to accomplish).
Though the text was a bit dry, it was very informative. The authors take pains to explain the role of Zulu culture in decision-making and social structure, which was very helpful in understanding why and how events played out, as well as how certain British policies targeted the Zulu people and the reasons why those policies were injurious. The authors also point out where certain British accounts are incorrect. And by 'incorrect,' they mean that those accounts do not accord with other known evidence including, but not limited to, Zulu oral tradition. Lastly, the authors are also sure not to sanitize the war, resulting in accounts of total war and what we would now consider to be war crimes committed by both sides. They do not shy away from admitting this history, as some might - fearing that it makes the texts' subject, the Zulus, less worthy of respect, emotional investment, or support: Who's supposed to be the bad guy? - but instead explain it within the context of the Zulu custom and the time period. They admit that the violence is horrifying and was largely unnecessary, but also acknowledge that it could have been avoided, was engaged as a tactic used by both sides, and does not by itself make the Zulu people less 'worthy' in any way. I thought it was handled really well: no excuses were made because explaining (this is what happened and why, and yes it was terrible) and excusing (that's just what it was like, it was a different era, and to say anything more would be rewriting history with modern sensibilities) are different things. The authors make a clearly conscious effort to engage in the former rather than the latter, and it shows. I thought the nuanced portrayal and engagement with the topic was very well done.
Overall, I learned a lot from this book and it was a very worthwhile read. It is a book that I would highly recommend.
As I'm sure will surprise no one, the Anglo-Zulu War was an unjust colonial military adventure undertaken for a variety of reasons that make me, even from the safe temporal distance of the twenty-first century, want to tear my hair out. (It never gets less disheartening to learn about abuse or injustice.) It was a war precipitated by British invasion of Zululand with the specific intent to do/allow the following:
(a) pave the way for British consolidation of power in southern Africa (the region, because South Africa as a nation did not yet exist and wouldn't until 1910),
(b) be a show of force to other Africans that might try to resist the British,
(c) allow certain British officials - such as Commissioner Frere and and Baron Chelmsford - military victories to brag about and make reputations with,
(d) to protect the Boer population (white people of Dutch descent) that had previously invaded and started homesteading on Zulu land, and
(e) to force the Zulu population via dispossession and violence from their traditional ways and into the situation of having to work for British companies, especially those involved in diamond mining.
Because all of the above could only be accomplished with violence, all attempts to avoid war made by King Cetshwayo kaMpande were ignored and British officials in charge made the deliberate decision to ignore the findings of their own investigations (having previously meant to find 'justification' for war in redrawing territorial borders, which the commission doing the investigation did not appease them with), making impossible demands (as in, 'do all these things and we won't make war on you,' knowing that compliance within the demanded time frame would be impossible), and eventually marching an army across the border into Zululand anyway. Though the Zulus fought to defend their home and people and did impressively win some early battles, a few factors played outsize roles in allowing the British eventual victory. First among those factors were the mismatch in expectations and equipment of the Zulus and British: in general the British had better weaponry (mostly rifles) that allowed them to pick off many Zulu warriors at relatively long range and, though the British were using old tactics that did contribute to early losses, they used enough maneuvers with which the Zulus were completely unfamiliar that they were able to inflict catastrophic losses, especially in later battles. Combined with the tendency of young Zulu warriors to jump the gun and persistent communication issues in the preferred offensive formation (impi, or horns), these proved to be fatal to the Zulu cause of defending themselves and their homeland, outstripping the effects of certain disadvantages the British mostly inflicted on themselves (foremost among them being the recruiting, but refusal to listen to, local scouts and spies, especially when their information or warnings ran counter to rather the inflated sense of British confidence or racist imaginings of what Africans would be able to accomplish).
Though the text was a bit dry, it was very informative. The authors take pains to explain the role of Zulu culture in decision-making and social structure, which was very helpful in understanding why and how events played out, as well as how certain British policies targeted the Zulu people and the reasons why those policies were injurious. The authors also point out where certain British accounts are incorrect. And by 'incorrect,' they mean that those accounts do not accord with other known evidence including, but not limited to, Zulu oral tradition. Lastly, the authors are also sure not to sanitize the war, resulting in accounts of total war and what we would now consider to be war crimes committed by both sides. They do not shy away from admitting this history, as some might - fearing that it makes the texts' subject, the Zulus, less worthy of respect, emotional investment, or support: Who's supposed to be the bad guy? - but instead explain it within the context of the Zulu custom and the time period. They admit that the violence is horrifying and was largely unnecessary, but also acknowledge that it could have been avoided, was engaged as a tactic used by both sides, and does not by itself make the Zulu people less 'worthy' in any way. I thought it was handled really well: no excuses were made because explaining (this is what happened and why, and yes it was terrible) and excusing (that's just what it was like, it was a different era, and to say anything more would be rewriting history with modern sensibilities) are different things. The authors make a clearly conscious effort to engage in the former rather than the latter, and it shows. I thought the nuanced portrayal and engagement with the topic was very well done.
Overall, I learned a lot from this book and it was a very worthwhile read. It is a book that I would highly recommend.
November 8, 2025
This book is exactly what it says it is. It is a history of the Zulu tribe. It is a tribe with a history that is not particularly long or complex and thus, a six month war with the British takes up a vast majority of the book. Still, it is informative and succinct. The writing style is simple and again, informative with very little attempt to paint a picture of what the scene looked like outside of the detail necessary for the event being mentioned.
The most important part of this book is that this style is devoid of an agenda which I think is absolutely essential to a good work of History which I would consider this to be. Great works of History, like Chernow’s Washington for instance, want you to both know and to appreciate the subject they are writing about. This is a very hard thing to do because, as we know, no one is perfect and the world is rarely, if ever, split up into good vs. evil. That is why these books are so rare and so worth the time to read them. GOOD work of history seek simply to inform you of something or someone. They want you to know the subject and leave to the reader the opinion they so choose to come away with. These works are usually not particularly artistic in their writing or fluid in their pace. They are usually devoid of smaller details that bring a human touch to a subject and make it something personal. This informative only style is not very good and I find myself giving them bad reviews when they are used to write about an individual person. However, they are very very good when used in situations like this. A colonizing power fighting a war that does not seem very justified with a technologically backward tribe. These informative accounts paint the true picture of both sides. The savageness of the Zulu and lack of real culture, and the “knife behind the back” politics of the British and Boers.
If events like these are written by an author with an agenda, like many these days are, then key details tend to be left out of minimized and the reader not only has a half baked opinion shoved down their throat for 300 pages, but they didn’t even get to witness a beautiful style of writing to do it.
This book was honest and informative and is every bit of a 3 star work of History. It is not artistically written, informative and human like Chernow or Fehrenbach are, two authors who tend to earn 5 stars from me. It is not beautiful but held back slightly by too much opinion or bias one way or the other like books that I usually give 4 stars to. This book does its job and does it well and anyone looking to grow more informed on the subject of the Zulu tribe would do well to start here.
The most important part of this book is that this style is devoid of an agenda which I think is absolutely essential to a good work of History which I would consider this to be. Great works of History, like Chernow’s Washington for instance, want you to both know and to appreciate the subject they are writing about. This is a very hard thing to do because, as we know, no one is perfect and the world is rarely, if ever, split up into good vs. evil. That is why these books are so rare and so worth the time to read them. GOOD work of history seek simply to inform you of something or someone. They want you to know the subject and leave to the reader the opinion they so choose to come away with. These works are usually not particularly artistic in their writing or fluid in their pace. They are usually devoid of smaller details that bring a human touch to a subject and make it something personal. This informative only style is not very good and I find myself giving them bad reviews when they are used to write about an individual person. However, they are very very good when used in situations like this. A colonizing power fighting a war that does not seem very justified with a technologically backward tribe. These informative accounts paint the true picture of both sides. The savageness of the Zulu and lack of real culture, and the “knife behind the back” politics of the British and Boers.
If events like these are written by an author with an agenda, like many these days are, then key details tend to be left out of minimized and the reader not only has a half baked opinion shoved down their throat for 300 pages, but they didn’t even get to witness a beautiful style of writing to do it.
This book was honest and informative and is every bit of a 3 star work of History. It is not artistically written, informative and human like Chernow or Fehrenbach are, two authors who tend to earn 5 stars from me. It is not beautiful but held back slightly by too much opinion or bias one way or the other like books that I usually give 4 stars to. This book does its job and does it well and anyone looking to grow more informed on the subject of the Zulu tribe would do well to start here.
July 22, 2019
I read the book with interest and could not believe the inhumanity of those on both sides of the Zulu conflict. Take no prisoners, relieve people of their internal organs and their head. Our history is filled with violence and cruelty my own Grandfather became a member of the "Black and Tans" in Ireland after serving out the war in Africa. The experience caused to spend the rest of his life in a home for the mentally insane. The real reason I read the book was because when I was very young my parents took me to a movie about the Mau Mau revolution, I had nightmares about it for years. I started reading the book and realized the Mau Mau revolution took place in Kenya but I imagine the two were similar in nation. I enjoyed the book even trying to follow the Zulu names and places did not cause me a lot of angst but the practices of war as described did. I spent fifteen years in the Armed Forces and am not pacifist.
January 31, 2023
A Great Book!
With this book I learned my first lessons of white colonialism and black inter clan relations in an African country. I am richer for my reading of it.
My only complaint is the deficit of readable maps. BI spent a lot of time with Google maps, wishing there were more maps included with the text. Ideally, for me, maps should appear with the relevant text.
Initially there are descriptions of Zulu savagery that stalled the fostering of empathy with the Zulus; toward the end of the story, there were tears on my cheeks because the described injustice imposed by the colonizers on the Zulu clans was relentless, technologically unbalanced, and morally indecent. I am very glad I read this book and continued to read it to the last page. Thank you to the authors.
With this book I learned my first lessons of white colonialism and black inter clan relations in an African country. I am richer for my reading of it.
My only complaint is the deficit of readable maps. BI spent a lot of time with Google maps, wishing there were more maps included with the text. Ideally, for me, maps should appear with the relevant text.
Initially there are descriptions of Zulu savagery that stalled the fostering of empathy with the Zulus; toward the end of the story, there were tears on my cheeks because the described injustice imposed by the colonizers on the Zulu clans was relentless, technologically unbalanced, and morally indecent. I am very glad I read this book and continued to read it to the last page. Thank you to the authors.
August 9, 2019
I have a hard time following multiple eras, kings, and regions, but I got the overall idea just fine. It is a profane and sometimes gory book that gives a glimpse into the baseness of men, especially those who are given a little bit of power. The terrible wars and slaughters were horrifying, at times, but a part of me felt like I need to know about some of this kind of history. It gave a new insight into the human psyche that I do not particularly like, and I found myself wondering what I would do in their situation.
I don't necessarily recommend this to my friends, but it was well-written and well-researched.
I don't necessarily recommend this to my friends, but it was well-written and well-researched.
August 13, 2025
This was a completely unfamiliar piece of history for me. I actually listened to the first half twice because I was getting so lost with the unfamiliar names and places. I found myself studying a map more than once!
Overall, this was an interesting read. For someone who has studied American Colonialism, I was surprised, (but maybe shouldn't have been) that the story of South Africa, the natives and the Europeans, was not terribly different from the story in America. Once again, in VERY simplified terms, if the indigenous population had been able to unite, they likely could have fought off the Europeans, even without the superior fire power. Their gorilla warfare was genius
Overall, this was an interesting read. For someone who has studied American Colonialism, I was surprised, (but maybe shouldn't have been) that the story of South Africa, the natives and the Europeans, was not terribly different from the story in America. Once again, in VERY simplified terms, if the indigenous population had been able to unite, they likely could have fought off the Europeans, even without the superior fire power. Their gorilla warfare was genius
April 24, 2024
This is a fascinating history of South Africa from both sides. I wondered how the British and Boers could subjugate the great Zulu nation. This book showed how: wear them down in battle, capture their king, kill and scatter their people, decimate the land so that it cannot sustain them, then tax them so heavily that in order to pay the taxes they must submit to their conquerors as practically slaves doing menial labor.
I was sad to learn that the celebrated warrior, Shaka Zulu, was just a merciless bloody, bully--brilliant warrior maybe, but a bully.
I was sad to learn that the celebrated warrior, Shaka Zulu, was just a merciless bloody, bully--brilliant warrior maybe, but a bully.
January 7, 2020
I found this book informative but a little hard to follow. The writing was uninspired. I think if I had some previous knowledge on the subject, I would have enjoyed the book more. I began reading the book with very little background on the history of South Africa other than having read a history of the Boer Wars 20 years ago. The key players and the issues were unfamiliar to me. I rate the book informative and good, but not great. It seems to be fair minded toward all players painting neither Brit, Boer, nor Zulu either as the hero or the villain. I would not recommend it for a first time reader unfamiliar with the history of the region.
January 23, 2019
A little repetitive at first, with a ton of information thrown at you as things get set up, but a great book after that. It does it's best to thread between the three biased narratives (the British, Boer and Zulu verbal history) to form as clear of a picture of what happened as can be achieved. The story is incredibly interesting and well told.
March 22, 2024
Probably the first in-depth book I've read about the Zulus thus I learned a lot. Believe most of my previous readings about this part of the war revolved around the Boer Wars so this text probably a bit more context of the region. I was amazed by some of the organizational skills of those Zulu leaders, but also perplexed by the savagery engaged in by all sides in the conflicts of these ages.
September 1, 2019
The writing was a little dry and disjointed. I appreciated a better understanding of the history of the Zulus, as a complex culture with rituals and rites that may seem uncivilized but also bravery and a code of behavior that was manipulated by the politics and barbarism of the British Empire.
September 11, 2023
Great book, well written and easy to understand. It covers a turning point in Zulu history with enough background to truly understand the event that led up to collisions of two cultures. This book did not shy away from the brutal reality, make excuses, or white wash any aspect of the history.
February 17, 2024
"This examination of events will be... from the Zulu perspective."
Ah, so mere propaganda then.
Imagine if you told the events leading up to a divorce from only the man's or only the woman's perspective, though you had access to both. You'd be a charlatan.
Ah, so mere propaganda then.
Imagine if you told the events leading up to a divorce from only the man's or only the woman's perspective, though you had access to both. You'd be a charlatan.
May 15, 2017
Not very well written especially in the beginning. Quite a bit of repetition and unnecessary details as well. Gave a decent account of the Zulu perspective of the war though.
March 4, 2020
I thought the history was excellently researched. Writing style wasn’t terrible but it wasn’t great.Not like I could do better, but I did see some repetition and some of the vernacular.
January 22, 2023
The information in the narrative was excellent and informative. The reason I gave it only four stars was that it would have been much better with battlefield maps.
January 29, 2024
A succinct history of the Zulu people, with particular focus on their wars with the British and the Boers. A great introduction for those who know little of African tribal history in South Africa.
February 22, 2025
Good overview of the history of the Zulus, but deeply dry.
April 15, 2021
A good look at the Zulus that makes a strong attempt to center their perspective as opposed to that of the British or Boers.
Displaying 1 - 30 of 33 reviews