5 Comments

Enlightening read! Thank you!

Expand full comment

Incredible work. Do keep it up. This armchair historian will keep reading

Expand full comment

Thank you!

Expand full comment

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.]

Expand full comment

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.

Expand full comment