At its height in the 17th century, the stone towns of the ‘zimbabwe culture’ encompassed an area the size of France. The hundreds of ruins spread across three countries in south-eastern Africa are among the continent’s best-preserved historical monuments and have been the subject of great scholarly and public interest.
Excellent, should we be thinking instead of a kingdom we should think in terms of an empire and a very large one at that? because of the following
[ between the country of Monomotapa and Sofala, all the kings obey Monomotapa, but further to the interior was another king, who had rebelled and with whom he was at war, the king of Butua. The latter was as powerful as the Monomotapa, and his country contained much gold.]
i think most scholars hesitate to categorise Mutapa as an empire (keep in mind that Mutapa was very well documented so that quote is only a small part of the voluminous literature on the kingdom)
because, while it was a fairly large kingdom with a powerful ruler, its capacity to project power outside its core regions was far from uncontested, so was its ability to maintain hegemony for a considerable period. Its kings did not monopolise important activities like trade, dealing with foreigners, raising armies, taxes, etc in the regions outside the core like in Manyika (which was actually quite closeby), so it would be difficult to compare it with, say, Songhai and Ethiopia, which did all that, or with the Ndebele under Lobelunga, which attempted some of it.
However, i think its clear that Mutapa represented a more centralised form of control than its predecessors at Great Zimbabwe and Khami, and considering the power of the Rozvi rulers who came after them, it can be argued that the trajectory of political consolidation in the Kalanga kingdoms was likely heading in the imperial direction.
Enlightening read! Thank you!
Incredible work. Do keep it up. This armchair historian will keep reading
Thank you!
Excellent, should we be thinking instead of a kingdom we should think in terms of an empire and a very large one at that? because of the following
[ between the country of Monomotapa and Sofala, all the kings obey Monomotapa, but further to the interior was another king, who had rebelled and with whom he was at war, the king of Butua. The latter was as powerful as the Monomotapa, and his country contained much gold.]
thats an interesting question,
i think most scholars hesitate to categorise Mutapa as an empire (keep in mind that Mutapa was very well documented so that quote is only a small part of the voluminous literature on the kingdom)
because, while it was a fairly large kingdom with a powerful ruler, its capacity to project power outside its core regions was far from uncontested, so was its ability to maintain hegemony for a considerable period. Its kings did not monopolise important activities like trade, dealing with foreigners, raising armies, taxes, etc in the regions outside the core like in Manyika (which was actually quite closeby), so it would be difficult to compare it with, say, Songhai and Ethiopia, which did all that, or with the Ndebele under Lobelunga, which attempted some of it.
However, i think its clear that Mutapa represented a more centralised form of control than its predecessors at Great Zimbabwe and Khami, and considering the power of the Rozvi rulers who came after them, it can be argued that the trajectory of political consolidation in the Kalanga kingdoms was likely heading in the imperial direction.