HOW EFFECTIVE WERE THE STRATEGIES USED BY LOBENGULA TO RESIST EUROPEAN PENETRATION
BETWEEN 1870 AND 1893?
1. The question requires a simple identification of the various strategies employed by Lobengula in
response to the encroachment of Europeans onto his territory
2. The candidate should then measure the effectiveness of those strategies in resisting the Europeans
3. The most reasonable conclusion should be that those strategies completely failed in the long term
because the European penetration continued to grow until colonisation was finally achieved in 1890
SOME OF LOBENGULA’S STRATEGIES INCLUDED THE FOLLOWING:
1. Granting mineral concessions to Europeans- Karl Mauch and Henry Hartley were granted a concession
to mine for gold at Tati in 1870 (the Tati Concession, 1870). Thomas Baines was also granted a mineral
concession in 1876. The most important of these was the Rudd Concession that was granted to Charles
Rudd, Rochfort Maguire and Francis Thompson in their capacity as agents of Cecil Rhodes (the Rudd
Concession, 1888)
2. Granting hunting concessions- European hunters like Frederick Selous and Henry Hartley were
granted permission to hunt animas including big game like elephants which were highly prized for their
ivory. They were even given permission to construct a road linking Mashonaland and Matabeleland in
order to facilitate the transportation and movement of the hunters and their goods
3. Granting trading concessions- European traders like George Westbeech, Leask, Tainton and Philips
were all granted trading concessions. Lobengula evidently hoped to control the influx of Europeans by
granting these concessions to these few Europeans but this strategy clearly backfired as these
Europeans went on to sell their concessions to the powerful Cecil Rhodes who consolidated them and
used them together with his own Rudd Concession as a basis for requesting a Royal Charter from the
British queen to enable him colonise Lobengula’s kingdom on behalf of Britain
4. Granting land concessions- various groups of Europeans were granted land. First it was the missionary
organisations such as the London Missionary Society who were granted land to open a second mission
station at Hope Fountain in 1870. Powerful individuals like Edward Lippert also received land grants (the
Lippert Concession, 1890). Lobengula’s plan in granting the land concession was to make it difficult or
impossible for Rhodes to operate his mineral concession without coming into conflict with Lippert. It
was clearly a desperate attempt to cancel out the Rudd Concession granted to Rhodes’s agents.
However it ultimately failed because Lippert conspired to sell his concession to Rhodes whose hand was
strengthened by the addition of a land concession to the mineral concession already in his possession.
5. Permitting and accommodating missionaries- Lobengula continued Mzilikazi’s policy of
accommodating and co-operating with missionaries like John Moffat and Charles Helm. He granted
Helm permission to open the second mission station in the country at Hope Fountain in 1870. Lobengula
also took the missionaries’ advice to deal exclusively with Rhodes’ agents. That proved disastrous as it
led to the granting of the Rudd Concession in 1888
6. Signing “protection” treaties- a good example of such a treaty was the Grobler Treaty with the
Transvaal government in 1887. Lobengula singed this treaty in the hope that this would act as a
deterrent to other European countries and prevent them from seeking concessions or to control
Lobengula’s kingdom. Instead of stemming the flow of Europeans Lobengula’s strategy only succeeded
in bringing in the British who sought to outdo the Transvaal. They eventually persuaded Lobengula to
repudiate the Grobler Treaty and sign the Moffat Treaty and Rudd Concession in 1888.
7. Diplomacy with the British government- having realized the disastrous implications of the Rudd
Concession, Lobengula decided on a diplomatic offensive that involved writing letters and sending
emissaries to the British queen. Apart from a sympathetic “a king gives a stranger an ox, not his whole
herd” response from queen Victoria, Lobengula’s diplomatic initiative failed to prevent the queen from
granting Cecil Rhodes the Royal Charter to colonise Lobengula’s kingdom in 1889. Even Lobengula’s
quiet diplomatic strategy of restraining his restless army from attacking the so-called Pioneer Column
only succeeded in postponing but not preventing the Anglo-Ndebele conflict which eventually erupted
in 1893.
8. Peaceful co-existence- having tried and failed in everything else, Lobengula decided to live in peace
side by side with the nascent British state in Mashonaland. It was however an uneasy peace and the
three years from the British occupation of Mashonaland in 1890 were filled with tension and deliberate
provocation of the Ndebele by the British settlers. It was only a matter of time and Lobengula’s strategy
was shattered by a quarrel over the Shona which led to the Anglo-Ndebele war of 1893-4.
9. Playing off the Europeans against each other- this strategy had tried by various African rulers with
mixed results. It ultimately proved a failure for Lobengula as the Europeans he tried to set against each
other often co-operated against him instead. Edward Lippert who had been granted a land concession in
the vain hope of getting him into a conflict with Rhodes decided to sell it to the latter. The traders and
prospectors also sold out to Rhodes and consequently strengthened rather than weakened him.
CRITICALLY EXAMINE THE CAUSES OF THE ANGLO-NDEBELE WAR OF 1893. WHICH GROUP WAS TO
BLAME FOR THE OUTBREAK OF THE WAR?
What had started as an Anglo-Ndebele quarrel in 1893 over the Ndebele’s punitive raids into the
Victoria district exploded into full scale war that same year. Although the occassional Anglo-Ndebele
disputes over boundaries and control of the Shona were all factors, the main issue was most probably
the incompatibility of a colonizing European force and an independent African state such as the
Ndebele. This essay seeks to explain these and other causes of the Anglo-Ndebele war and to show that
the British were largely the guilty party.
The immediate cause of the war was the Ndebele raid into the Bere area of Victoria district in violation
of the ‘boundary’ set up by the settler administration to delineate Matabeleland and Mashonaland.
Chief Bere is said to have stolen cattle from the Ndebele who reacted by organizing a punitive raid. The
Ndebele reaction did not go down well with the British South Africa Company (BSAC) administration
who regarded Victoria and the rest of Mashonaland as part of their jurisdiction and the Shona as their
subjects. Although the Ndebele acknowledged the European presence in Mashonaland they still
maintained their ‘right’ to deal as they saw fit with the Shona who they still regarded as their subjects.
The whole issue generated the tensions which culminated in the BSAC killing some of the retreating
Ndebele party. The BSAC followed this with the arrest and murder of Lobengula’s peace envoys and thus
set the stage for war.
The Bere incident already discussed above might have sparked it but there were various factors that had
been building up towards war and one such was the general attitude of both towards the Shona. The
BSAC and white settlers who had taken possession of Mashonaland regarded the Shona as their source
of cheap labour. Their growing mining and farming operations depended on the labour that could only
be guaranteed by the stability of the Shona. It was this stability that was shattered by the Ndebele raid
on Bere in 1893 and on Gomala shortly before. It was this stability that had also been shattered by the
earlier raids on Chivi and Nemakonde. As far as the Ndebele were concerned, the fact of European
settlement made no difference to their perception of Mashonaland and the Shona people as their
raiding ground and subjects respectively. Even long before the European colonisation of Mashonaland,
European missionaries had voiced their disapproval of the ‘blood thirsty’ Ndebele campaigns against the
Shona. The myth of Ndebele tyrants savaging ‘defenceless’ Shona was firmly embedded on the
European psyche and was reason enough for war on its own.
The attitude of the Shona themselves only served to aggravate the situation and did so much to start the
Ndebele and the settlers on the path to war. In 1891 and again in 1892 Shona chiefs such as Chivi and
Nemakonde respectively took advantage of the European colonial presence to renege on their annual
payments of tribute to the Ndebele. Even the likes of Gomala and Bere had the audacity to expropriate
Ndebele cattle. Their behavior was based on the thinking that Europeans were more powerful than the
Ndebele would protect them from the latter. The Europeans were prepared to do so albeit for their own
selfish reasons while the Ndebele could not let such provocations go unpunished.
The mere fact of the existence of an independent African state was inimical to colonial interests and in
long run that alone was sufficient to warrant a war. Disappointed missionaries like Charles Helm, Robert
and John Moffat who were disillusioned by their failure to make any converts consistently advocated
the destruction of the Ndebele state. Robert Moffat foresaw a “blessing to the whole world if Ndebele
power was broken up” and believed that this would facilitate the spread of Christianity which was
evidently being held up by such a ‘backward and uncivilized’ state.
The BSAC administration had more material reasons for wanting a war that would destroy the Ndebele
state. For one, the expectations of a ‘Second Rand’ in Mashonaland proved illusory and confidence in
the BSAC was declining. The company thus envisaged a short and successful war that would either
maintain or even boast BSAC share prices. Already disillusioned by the failure to find significant gold
deposits in Mashonaland, the settlers began to convince themselves that the gold might after all be in
Matebeleland. They were also casting envious glances at the cattle, land and human resources of
Matebeleland which could only be obtained through war.
The BSAC also regarded the existence of the Ndebele state as an obstacle to an effective
communications link between their headquarters in Salisbury and the Cape. Plans were afoot for a
railway linking Salisbury to Mafikeng and it was not likely that Lobengula would consent to the railway
passing through his territory.
For their part, the Ndebele had never reconciled themselves to the fact of the British colonisation of
Mashonaland and this remained a sore point. To begin with, colonisation had been achieved through
the duplicity of Rhodes’ agents who had misrepresented the clauses of the Rudd Concession to
Lobengula. The British monarchy granted a charter enabling colonisation despite Lobengula’s fervent
protests and attempts to revoke the concession. Lobengula’s troops were all for a war to drive out the
settlers and Lobengula only just managed to hold them back. War was only a matter of time, it was
bound to come and come it did in 1893.
The British should shoulder much of the blame as they were largely instrumental in bringing it about. In
the wake of the Bere saga, the British settlers deliberately attacked Ndebele regiments clearly retreating
from Victoria district in compliance with European demands. The resultant killing of some of the
Ndebele military including leaders like Mgandani was a provocative act on the part of the whites but
even then Lobengula still exercised restraint.
While Lobengula emphasized his commitment to peace, the BSAC stepped up its provocations by
arresting and murdering Lobengula’s peace envoys to the Cape. Lobengula decided to send three envoys
including his own brother Ingubungubu in the aftermath of the Bere saga only for these to be
intercepted at Tati by the BSAC.
Moreover, the secret Victoria agreement where the BSAC promised land and mineral grants to white
settlers in Matebeleland in return for participation in anti-Ndebele war also reveals the culpability of the
British. According to Needham and others, white settlers were each promised 2469 hectares of land, 20
gold claims and a share of Lobengula’s cattle. Consequently as many as 800 settlers enlisted for service
and it remained for the BSAC to provoke the war.
In the long term, the British always thought of the war as a necessity. Mention has already been made of
how the missionaries had advocated war as a means of breaking Ndebele power and making its people
more receptive to the Christian message. The duplicity employed in acquiring the Rudd Concession
strained the relations and the British undoubtedly appreciated it as a source of future conflict.
If the Ndebele should have any blame then it should be for their apparent failure to appreciate that the
changing times had diminished their power over the Shona. By 1893, the British were the masters of
Mashonaland and the Ndebele insistence on the BSAC’s surrender of the Shona refugees from Bere was
thus ill-advised. Such demands could only be issued from a position of superiority that had since passed
out of the hands of the Ndebele into those of the European settlers. Ndebele activities in Mashonaland
therefore, came to be regarded as an intrusion by the BSAC and therefore, the cause of war.
It can therefore be concluded that the Anglo-Ndebele was caused by so many factors, chief of which was
the struggle for control of Mashonaland and the British desire to destroy Ndebele independence and
bring their state under their rule. The British should shoulder much of the blame for starting this war as
has been shown above.
To what extent should Napoleon Bonaparte’s rule in France from 1799 to 1814 be described as
“ruthless and dictatorial”?
To be Ruthless means to be cruel, harsh and oppressive. To be Dictatorial means personal rule,
autocratic, intolerant and tyrannical.
Napoleon was both ruthless and dictatorial because he established his highly autocratic, intolerant and
tyrannical rule in France in complete disregard for revolutionary ideals of democratic participation and
representative democracy. Although he was supposedly a part of a three-man triumvirate, Napoleon
was the only one who mattered as the First Consul. All executive power was vested in him and he had
direct and indirect control of the legislative process. It was direct in so far as the deliberations of the
State Council could only yield laws for France if he gave his consent. It was indirect but powerful all the
same in the sense that he was the only one with the authority to nominate members to the State
Council.
His political and administrative reforms demonstrated that he was driven by a selfish desire to secure
and sustain his own power. Napoleon’s rule was dictatorial because central and local government were
directly under his control. The government officials in the Senate, Tribunate, Mayors and Prefects were
chosen directly and indirectly by him and were expected to implement his policies. Napoleon was
dictatorial through his control of the Legislative process as laws were initiated by a Council of State
chosen by him. The laws would then be discussed and voted by the Tribunate and legislative body. All
these bodies were chosen by the Napoleon-appointed senate. They were however chosen from a list of
candidates elected by the voters. The fact that those elections were often stage-managed to ensure the
choosing of candidates loyal to Napoleon enabled him to impose his dictatorship over France.
Even the possession of that executive power was not enough to satisfy his boundless ambitions for
personal power as he wasted no time in having himself proclaimed Emperor of the French. That
followed hot on the heels of his earlier decision to convert himself to First Consul for Life. This selfaggrandisement was followed by the soon-to-be-familiar plebiscite. The plebiscites were really
pageantries that merely confirmed accomplished facts giving them a veneer of democratic legitimacy.
Their outcome was probably pre-determined which is why they were held in the first place. Napoleon
thus became emperor which was a fact that flew in the face of revolutionary ideals of equality and
‘people’s power’. It was also a mockery of his oft-stated commitment to ‘careers open to talent’. France
was now compelled to put up with the dynastic succession of Bonapartes even if they were not
necessarily the best for the job.
The very fact of establishing an empire effectively denied other people the opportunity to rise to the
highest political position in the land. The revolution had destroyed the monarchical or dynastic political
system and by restoring it Napoleon had re-wound the clock back to the pre-revolutionary era. It also
ensured that the highest political position in the land could only be achieved by Napoleon and those in
his family line. The closest Napoleon came to sharing power ideal was by re-organising national
administration and appointing a Council of State prefects and sub-prefects for the departments he had
divided France into. However there was no real power-sharing as the administrators were his
appointees and therefore acted on his behalf and not that of the general population. It is therefore
impossible to talk of the equality of opportunities when Napoleon had restored a nepotistic and
hereditary system that benefited only his family line and not necessarily the man best qualified as
envisaged in the revolution’s ideal of equality of opportunity. Napoleon ultimately showed neither
respect for the people’s revolutionary right to choose their rulers nor his self-proclaimed concept of
‘careers open to talent’.
In true dictatorial fashion, Napoleon ruled by decree. He has been credited with the issuing of eighty
thousand letters and decrees over a fifteen year period. Though that figure might be somewhat
controversial, it does however serve to underline Napoleon’s excessive reliance on decrees to the extent
that they became an important source of the French law of that period. It also shows how much France
had come to be governed through the autocratic discretion of its emperor.
He was ruthless because he also employed repression as a tool of consolidating his personal grip on
power. To this end he re-introduced spies, the secret police, censorship and the dreaded lettres de
catchet. Thus imprisonment without trial which his predecessors had abolished became a reality once
more. With the restoration of censorship, newspapers, drama and other forms of entertainment were
carefully scrutinised for seditious content. The writer A. Guerard has claimed that Napoleon’s decree on
censorship led to sixty newspapers being outlawed out of the seventy-three that were in circulation.
According to Vincent Cronin, freedom of expression was severely suppressed to the extent that only
four out of thousands of newspapers, journals and articles were allowed to publish in 1811. Critics and
dissidents were silenced and kept under control by that censorship and by a strict police force headed
by Fouche’. C. Jones also states that only four newspapers remained in circulation in 1811. The picture
that images is that of an autocrat entrenching his authority by suppressing all dissenting voices.
Even his so-called progressive policies were achieved through dictatorship and a ruthless determination
to cement his power. For example Napoleon used his dictatorial powers to give France a codified and
uniform system of law (Code Napoleon) which confirmed the rights of private property and the land
settlement of the Revolution. This was complemented by the Concordat with the pope by which the
Church accepted the loss of its lands confiscated during the revolution from 1789. The Code Napoleon
and the Concordat were simply populist measures which revealed Napoleon’s ruthless determination to
entrench his personal power. The concordat won him the support of Catholic Christians after he
recognised Catholicism as the dominant religion in France. However it gave him power over the church
as he appointed the bishops. On the other hand the concordat also won him the support of the
bourgeoisie and peasants who were now re-assured of the permanency of their ownership of the
former lands of Church and nobility. In the words of David Thomson, “Bonaparte ensured, above all, that
there would be no counter-revolution - and this rallied middle classes and peasants alike behind the
Consulate."
“The greatest achievement of Napoleon was a reform of the French law.” Critically examine this view
with reference to the Code Napoleon.
The Code was a huge achievement because of its success in giving France a written and uniform system
of law which cleared out legal confusion. Before there can be any talk of equality before the law, the law
must first of all be clearly articulated, laid down and uniformly applied. Before then, there had only been
a confused and uncertain hotchpotch of royal edicts, feudal customs and church laws which were
uncertain, unevenly applied and unwritten. Civil Law was divided into three categories namely Personal
Status, Property and Acquisition of Property in accordance with the main ideals of the French Revolution
of advancing individual rights.
The Code was also a big achievement as it gave legal recognition to the expropriation and sale of the
nobles’ and churches’ lands that occurred during the revolution and re-assured the peasants and the
bourgeoisie of the permanency of their ownership. In the words of David Thomson, “Bonaparte
ensured, above all, that there would be no counter-revolution - and this rallied middle classes and
peasants alike behind the Consulate."
The Code was certainly the greatest achievement of Napoleon because it outlived his other
achievements and was even copied by many other European countries. While Napoleon was celebrated
as a conqueror, his great military victories were only temporary and they were even reversed by the
defeats he later suffered during his lifetime, even his empire was abolished but many aspects of the
Code have remained in use even to this day. France’s civil law still retains aspects of the code. It is still in
use in many European countries as well as former French colonies like Quebec and Louisiana.
It was also his biggest achievement because it was much more positive and progressive when compared
to some of his more repressive policies. Despite its shortcomings especially on gender inequality and
failure to afford workers protection from employers, the Code was still more positive especially in
comparison to repressive measures like his autocracy and press censorship. Napoleon cemented his
dictatorship by establishing his empire in 1804 and by 1811; he had closed down most newspapers to
silence any criticism of his rule.
Viewed from a socialist perspective the Code which was capitalist in outlook and emphasised the rights
of employers ahead of those of workers enterprise was not such a good development. The Code was
highly repressive as it banned labour unions and gave protection to employers who turned out to be
exploitative of their workers. Workers were left in a desperate position where they could not effectively
bargain for higher wages and better working conditions without representative bodies. Many books of
this period detail how workers suffered great exploitation and poor working conditions as government
turned a blind eye. The workers’ discontent that eventually led to the bloody civil war in 1848 was really
a legacy of the government’s failure to give them legal protection and the Code was partly to blame.
From a liberal and feminist point of view, the Code was a blow to gender equality and egalitarian
principles of the French revolution as it re-established male superiority over women. The Code was
retrogressive in as far it placed men at the head of the families and regarded women as inferior. It was
also retrogressive in as far it decided that property should be inherited by the eldest son. All of this
represented a reversal of the progress of the revolution which had established equality between the
sexes and in the division of property among surviving children. According to David Thomson, "the
authority of the father over his wife, his children, and the property of the family was strengthened, as
against the revolutionary tendency towards equality of persons and equal division of property."
In conclusion, while Napoleon was famous for many achievements including his military victories, the
Code stands out as the greatest due to its lasting impact in France and Europe. Despite its shortcomings
it compares favourably to the repressive measures that he also came up with during his 15-year reign.
How far did Napoleon Bonaparte achieve his aims in domestic policy? June 2004
Napoleon was highly successful in his quest to achieve personal power following as demonstrated by his
success in achieving his empire after starting of as part of a triumvirate in the Consulate. In 1804,
Napoleon fulfilled his quest for personal power when he created his empire after destroying the
Republican Consulate which he had helped create after overthrowing the Directory in 1799. He had
started as part of a 3-man triumvirate in the Consulate after his overthrow of the Directory in 1799.
Even as First Consul he wielded so much power through direct and indirect control of the legislative
process, appointments of key officials and highly centralized control of the country. The creation of the
empire cemented his dictatorship by ensuring that he would not have to give up power as is the norm in
a republic. He could only hand it down to his descendants.
He also achieved great success in establishing stability and order in France after the chaos and instability
of the revolutionary period. Besides maintaining a strong police state under Fouche, Napoleon used
populist measures to fulfil his quest for order and stability in France. A good example is the codified and
uniform system of law (Code Napoleon) which confirmed the rights of private property and the land
settlement of the Revolution. This was complemented by the Concordat with the pope by which the
Church accepted the loss of its lands confiscated during the revolution from 1789. The Code Napoleon
and the Concordat were simply populist measures which revealed Napoleon’s ruthless determination to
entrench his personal power. The concordat won him the support of Catholic Christians after he
recognised Catholicism as the dominant religion in France. However it gave him power over the church
as he appointed the bishops. On the other hand the concordat also won him the support of the
bourgeoisie and peasants who were now re-assured of the permanency of their ownership of the
former lands of Church and nobility. In the words of David Thomson, “Bonaparte ensured, above all, that
there would be no counter-revolution - and this rallied middle classes and peasants alike behind the
Consulate."
Napoleon also achieved great success in his quest to crush all dissent to his own rule. He employed
repression as a tool of consolidating his personal grip on power by re-introducing spies, secret police,
censorship and the dreaded lettres de catchet. Thus imprisonment without trial which his predecessors
had abolished became a reality once more. With the restoration of censorship, newspapers, drama and
other forms of entertainment were carefully scrutinised for seditious content. Historian A. Guerard
states that Napoleon banned 60 out of the 73 newspapers that were in circulation. According to Vincent
Cronin, freedom of expression was severely suppressed to the extent that only four out of thousands of
newspapers, journals and articles were allowed to publish in 1811. Critics and dissidents were silenced
and kept under control by that censorship and by a strict police force headed by Fouche’. C. Jones also
states that only four newspapers remained in circulation in 1811. The picture that images is that of an
autocrat entrenching his authority by suppressing all dissenting voices.
Napoleon was highly successful in his quest to bring the Church under the state’s control. He achieved
this through the Concordat with the Pope which was also important in reconciling the Church and the
state after the fall-out when revolutionaries first attempt to reduce religious influence before
attempting to destroy Christianity during the Reign of Terror (1793-4). The Concordat strengthened his
position as he won the support of the pre-dominantly Catholic Christians after recognising Catholicism
as the dominant religion in France. He also won the support of other Christians by recognising other
religions. The church not only accepted the loss of its property during the Revolution but more
importantly Napoleon got the power to appoint Bishops and pay their salaries too. Such developments
brought the church firmly under his control.
Napoleon achieved a large measure of success in promoting socio-economic development after the
uncertainties that had plagued the revolution. Napoleon also had a genuine desire to uplift the lives of
the French. Among various measures he adopted to achieve that was the promotion of education. Many
public schools were opened and he went as far as giving France a university. He also introduced his
celebrated ‘careers open to talent’ policymaking it possible for all people to employ their skills for the
betterment of the nation. He led the way by harnessing the expertise of different personalities from
different backgrounds and political persuasions including Bourbon loyalists, clericals and revolutionaries
in various projects. Examples include Talleyrand and Fouché who had all served previous
administrations. Lawyers from all kinds of backgrounds lent their expertise to the drafting of the famous
Code Napoleon. His crowning edifice was the Legion of Honour which was created to reward all those
who had served France with great distinction in their chosen field of endeavour. Such people were
bestowed titles and became the new aristocracy even though some of them came from the humblest
backgrounds.
In the final analysis napoleon was highly successful in achieving his aims in the domestic sphere whether
in gaining personal power or in promoting order and socio-economic development. Even if he ultimately
failed in his quest to ensure a lasting Bonapartist legacy in power, it was because of military defeat
outside France rather because of any domestic failures.
“Napoleon Bonaparte’s downfall was inevitable.” How far do you agree with this assertion? Nov 2009.
Napoleon’s downfall was made inevitable because in the final analysis his opponents had vastly superior
resources in the long run. Napoleon had waged wars which he supported by looting and demanding
reparations from those that he conquered but against the combined resources of the Austrian, British,
Prussian and Russian governments even that was not enough to save him from eventual defeat. His
arch-enemy Britain’s apparently bottomless reserves funded various European coalitions and assisted
the Portuguese and Spanish guerilla campaigns against Napoleon. He later spoke of the “Spanish ulcer”
which sapped the energies of his ‘Grand Army’. Napoleon’s frustrations at his failure to overcome the
British led to his ambitious but ill-conceived Continental System which aimed to strangle the British by
preventing them from trading with the European continent. It only hurt Europe and turned states
against him including his former ally Russia. In 1812, Russia responded with a successful scorched earth
policy which deprived Napoleon’s army of provisions and brought his defeat by Europe ever closer.
Recent European history had shown that those who maintained themselves in power through force
ultimately lost it when they were unable to command sufficient force to maintain it. In France itself the
likes of Robespierre who seemed invincible during the Reign of Terror were soon victims of the same
guillotine they had used to eliminate their opponents. The Directory which seemed to have mastered
the art of subverting popular will by annulling election results lost its battle to survive after being
overthrown by Napoleon who had sustained it through armed force. Napoleon had got to power
through the superior force he enjoyed through his control of the army and while domestic opposition
was weak, the superiority of his external European enemies eventually brought him down.
Napoleon was doomed to fail because his popularity rested on military victories abroad which could not
be permanently guaranteed or sustained. Napoleon very well knew that his fame rested on success in
the military campaigns which were also an important source of employment for the lower classes and
also for propping up the French economy through loot and reparations from conquered territories.
Consequently, he had little choice but to continue waging wars but his task got ever harder because with
time his opponents wizened to his tactics. Battles and wars became harder to win and inevitably the
question became when not if he could be defeated. The day of reckoning did eventually arrive in 1814
when he was soundly defeated by the coalition of European states.
Napoleon’s downfall was also made inevitable by the fact that with time local populations in states that
he fought would not support him forever once they realized his true motives. Like the revolutionary
armies before him, the French had achieved so much success against European armies on the back of
support they received from local populations that had welcomed them as liberators. Riding on the
revolutionary propaganda of “liberty, equality and fraternity”, the French had been received as
liberators from tyrannical Austrian rule in Italy and Belgium. However the tide began to turn with
populations resisting the French whose true colours emerged as they looted, demanded reparations and
conscripted people to fight in their armies. It has been said that half of Napoleon’s five hundred
thousand -strong army that invaded Russia in 1812 were foreigners who had been conscripted from
conquered territories and under such circumstances, the soldiers’ loyalty could not always be counted
upon.
Napoleon’s downfall was made inevitable by the fact that monarchical Europe would never reconcile
itself to a regime built upon the principles of the French Revolution which threatened their own
existence. European rulers could never reconcile themselves to Napoleon because he was the product of
the French Revolution which abolished a monarchical government akin to their own. French armies
engaged in a campaign to dismantle the foundations of monarchical rule in the territories they
conquered by replacing rulers, abolishing feudalism and introducing legal equality. In essence,
Napoleon’s war with Europe had become a struggle between the new socio-economic and political
system generated by the French revolution on one hand, and the old monarchical order. At that time,
Napoleon was doomed to fail because the forces of monarchical absolutism had not been as sufficiently
weakened in the rest of Europe as they had been in France after 1789. Furthermore he had undermined
his own cause among the lower classes who could have continued supporting him through looting and
conscription.
Napoleon’s position was ultimately the victim of the very forces of nationalism, liberty and equality that
his campaigns had helped unleash in the various European territories. TAs shown above, Napoleon and
the French armies helped spread in conquered territories the ideals of nationality, merit and equality
initiated by the revolution. This precipitated a contradiction especially as Napoleon overthrew rulers and
replaced them with foreigners as he did in Spain, Portugal and Holland. Even as he looted and
demanded reparations from conquered peoples, Napoleon created a paradoxical situation where he
came to be looked upon as the foreign tyrant despite his message of liberation. Even formerly unpopular
monarchical rulers were presented with a golden support to win support of their subjects for a war
against foreign rule. This was especially true in Spain, Portugal, Russia and Prussia. In Prussia there even
developed a strong national spirit which manifested itself in the dislike of all things French including
language, dress and culture.
Establishing an empire left him without any claims to legitimacy having destroyed the revolutionary
values of republicanism which had given him respectability. Even in France Napoleon weakened his own
position when he created an empire to replace the republic in his attempt to strengthen his position and
ensure a legacy for his descendants. Naturally this destroyed the republican values of the Revolution
that facilitated his rise and made it unlikely that he would maintain the support of revolutionaries.
Without moral foundations, Napoleon could only maintain his rule as long as he commanded sufficient
armed force. Having turned his back on the Revolutionary principles that had brought him to power,
Napoleon found himself in a unique position where he was could not count on the support of
revolutionaries or that of the old monarchical order. Not surprisingly there was little internal support for
his continued rule when he was defeated by the European forces outside Europe.
To conclude, it is therefore clear that Napoleon doomed himself after throwing the gauntlet at European
Rulers still strong enough and determined to crush the principles of the French revolution that had
brought him to power. At the same time he had made his own position untenable by alienating the
revolutionaries in France and local populations in Europe who would have supported him against the
monarchical rulers
“THE REVOLT OF 1789 WAS AGAINST A GOVERNMENT WHICH WAS TYRANNICAL, INEFFICIENT AND
INSENSITIVE TO THE NEEDS OF THE PEOPLE.” DO YOU AGREE?
The Third Estate revolted against a government they felt to be tyrannical because of its adherence to the
doctrine of the “Divine Right of Kings”. The Bourbon monarchy made use of the doctrine of the “Divine
Right of Kings.” This was a religious concept that stated that monarchical power was a God-given
privilege. It implied that people had no right to challenge or seek any explanations from the king over
the use of his power since he did not owe it to them. The people also did not have any right of seeking
his removal even if they were dissatisfied with him. Such a doctrine would have been suitable in a
theocratic or highly Christian state. The France of the late eighteenth century had become far more
secular and the ideas of philosophers like Rousseau captured the imagination of the bourgeoisie.
Rousseau was one of those who rejected the divine source of political power and argued that people in
any society were the true source of all political power. He further asserted that those who held political
power did so by agreement and permission of the nation which was the owner. That implied
accountability and also the need to govern in the interests of the nation. It also implied participation of
the nation in politics and that they could remove any ruler they no longer deemed to be exercising
power in their interests.
The Third Estate also regarded the government as tyrannical because of its persistence in excluding
them from politics. Much to their frustration, the bourgeoisie were excluded from politics along with the
rest of the Third Estate. This exclusion was maintained despite the bourgeoisie’s great wealth and
education. To them their continued exclusion had no justification. They regarded themselves as victims
of a tyranny which was founded on an alliance of the monarchy, nobles (Second Estate) and clergy (First
Estate). Their revolt in 1789 which led to the formation of the National Assembly was a revolt against a
tyrannical government which had failed to accept and accommodate them as equal and important
political players. To them it was tyranny for the government to decide on a procedure for the EstatesGeneral which was likely to safeguard the interests of the First and Second estates.
Political observers in the Third Estate found the king’s decision to fire reform-minded ministers as
tyrannical and something that had to be resisted. Ministers like Necker, Turgot and Calonne tried to
introduce financial and social reforms that would have improved the economy and ameliorated the
condition of the down-trodden peasants and workers in the Third Estate. They however faced stiff
resistance from the nobles and clergy who felt their privileged position to be under threat. The nobles
and clergy then conspired with the queen Marie Antoinette to pressure the spineless Louis XVI into
dismissing the ministers. Such arbitrary government decisions ended the Third Estate’s hopes of social
and economic change. The firing of Necker in 1789 inspired a revolt against the government and Louis
XVI was compelled to recall the popular minister of finance that same year.
The government’s injustices and continued repression of the Third Estate was another demonstration of
tyranny which roused them to finally revolt in 1789. The Third Estate suffered various social injustices
and repression under Bourbon rule in France. Among other things they were subject to forced labour,
arbitrary arrest and detention without trial. They were denied various civil liberties that included
freedoms of speech, assembly, religion and expression. They found this government-sponsored tyranny
particularly hard to accept when they compared their situation to that of the First and Second estates.
By contrast the nobles enjoyed so many social privileges. These included freedoms from forced labour,
arbitrary arrest and detention without trial. Their monopoly of political and economic power gave them
higher social status than the Third Estate. The clergy also enjoyed a privileged position. The government
allowed them control of education, births, deaths and marriages. The church also owned lots of land and
Catholicism was recognized as the official religion of France. The archbishops lived in luxury and the
immorality of some of them attracted the hatred of the Third Estate. All this gave the nobles and clergy
control over the lives of French society especially the peasants. It was a tyranny which was eventually
resisted with the violence of burning and looting in 1789. The government and the first two estates were
ultimately forced to give up their privileges in August 1789.
In 1789, the Third Estate revolted against a government whose inefficiency was manifested in its
extravagant policies. The king and his court were wasteful to the point of spending one-twelfth of all the
government revenue on luxuries for themselves. They also wasted a lot of money dragging France into
unnecessary foreign wars. One such was the intervention in the Anglo-American war of 1776. That
decision was costly as it aggravated the financial crisis in France and exposed French citizens to the
democratic and liberal ideas of the Americans. Soon enough Louis XVI’s government faced calls for the
extension of political and civil rights based on the American example. Spending so much on luxuries and
unnecessary foreign wars was reckless and highly insensitive given the poverty of the third estate which
was already burdened with high taxes.
The Third Estate were driven to revolt against a government whose inefficiency was also seen through
its taxation system which was not only inequitable but also prevented it from realising maximum
revenue generation from its people. There was an inequitable taxation system which allowed the church
and nobles exemptions from paying most of the taxes. This was despite their great wealth especially in
land ownership. On the other hand, the Third Estate was forced to shoulder most of the tax burden.
They were unhappy about paying so many different taxes including the taille (land tax), gabelle (salt tax).
The peasants also had to pay rents to noble landlords and tithes to the church. Allowing wealthy society
to escape paying taxes they could afford was highly irrational from an economic perspective and it was a
mark of inefficiency that deprived the government of revenue that it could have had and definitely
needed in the economically volatile period of the late 1700s. The Nobles refused to take up a greater
share of the tax burden and pressured the spineless king into firing ministers who suggested that they
pay more. A combination of inequitable taxation, extravagance on entertainment and foreign wars and
over borrowing all contributed to a financial crisis in France which had become unbearable by 1789.
Inequitable land distribution and feudal restrictions on economic activities of peasants were the other
aspects of government inefficiency which angered the Third Estate and finally drove them to revolt in
1789. Land was the main source of wealth in France as its economy was based on agricultural
production. Fifty per cent of it was owned by the church and Nobles. The Third Estate owned the other
half. The first two groups comprised only 3% of the population while the Third Estate (made up of the
bourgeoisie, working class and peasants) far out-numbered them and constituted 97% of the
population. Clearly the land distribution was grossly inequitable and impacted negatively on the Third
Estate especially the peasants. It was not surprising that they experienced shortages of land.
Consequently they were forced to live and farm on church and nobles’ land where they had to endure a
host of feudal restrictions which affected their ability to sustain themselves. Some of their feudal
obligations included paying rent, performing labour and giving up part of their produce to their
landlords. It has also been claimed that peasants who were tenants were not allowed to own grinding
mills, baking ovens and wine presses under the exacting system of feudalism. They were obliged to grind
their wheat into flour, bake their wheat to bread and press their grapes into wine in mills, ovens and
wine presses owned by their noble landlords. The government and its allies’ failure to address the Third
Estate’s demands for more land smacked of greed and insensitivity. Consequently it came as no surprise
when the peasants eventually revolted in 1789 and forced the National Assembly into seizing land from
the church and putting it up for re-sale.
The government’s failure to implement economic, social and political reforms that would have improved
the material conditions of the Third Estate should be seen as insensitivity which contributed to the
revolt in 1789. It has already been shown elsewhere in this essay that the Third Estate laboured under
political, social and economic restrictions that included lack of political participation, heavy taxes and
land shortages as well as lack of individual rights. It has also been shown that the government granted
political, social and economic privileges to the first two states that included political participation,
abundant land, tax exemptions and various individual freedoms. The government was so insensitive to
the plight and needs of the Third Estate as to maintain these restrictions despite their persistent
demands for reforms. It was no wonder then that the Third Estate seized the opportunity presented by
the convening of the Estates-General to revolt in 1789.
The government was also insensitive when it appeared to side with nobles and clergy against Third
Estate over the procedure of the Estates-General in 1789. When the Estates-General was convened
there were two options regarding its procedure. One option was for separate sitting of the estates
where each estate would have only a single vote. This option was favourable to the first two estates as it
would give them an advantage of two votes to the one vote of the Third Estate. The second option
would see combined sitting and the delegates voting as individuals. This was favoured by the Third
Estate who had more delegates and could possibly out-vote the other two. The king decided on the first
option and this appeared to mean that his sympathies lay with the first two estates. They may have
been other motives but the Third Estate only saw a case of insensitivity to their needs in his decision.
They responded by revolting and forming the breakaway National Assembly in June 1789.
The government’s failure to provide food assistance after poor harvests in 1788 suggested to the Third
Estate that it was insensitive to their needs. Adverse weather conditions in Europe resulted in poor
harvests which led to the further impoverishment of France’s peasants and urban workers in 1789.
Desperate, lacking food and incapable of paying taxes the Third Estate looked to their government for
assistance. The government failed to address the situation and restless women took the issue into their
own hands and staged their famous march to Versailles to demand bread from the king. In the rural
areas the food insecurity sparked an orgy of burning and looting from the nobles by peasants. The
ensuring chaos contributed significantly to the ultimate collapse of monarchical rule in France.
While there may be so much truth to claims of government tyranny, insensitivity and inefficiency there
are also other ways of explaining the revolt against the government.
The revolt of 1789 was not so much against a government that was insensitive to the needs of its people
but rather against a government that was merely slow in attending to those needs. Clearly Louis XVI and
his ministers were sensitive enough to the needs of their people as demonstrated by the decision to
convene the Estates-General. That was a highly significant development given that the Estates-General
had not been convened for the past one hundred and seventy-five years. Even before the convening of
the Estates-General Louis XVI had already demonstrated just how considerate he was by appointing
reform-minded ministers like Necker, Turgot and Calonne. These sought to achieve financial stability by
making the nobles and clergy pay more taxes as well by removing some of the feudal restrictions that
hampered the economic activities of the Third Estate. Louis XVI even went as far as convening the
Assembly of the Notables in 1787. This was a gathering of the representatives of the nobles to discuss
political, social and economic issues that affected France. Louis XVI had every right as an absolute ruler
to make unilateral decisions but it was a mark of his sensitivity and consideration that he chose to have
representatives of all estates make recommendations to guide his policies. His problem was that he
moved slowly in making decisions regarding the procedure to be followed by the Estates-General. An
already restive Third Estate was finally driven to revolt when he decided on a procedure that appeared
to favour the first two estates.
The revolt of 1789 was not so much against a king that was tyrannical and insensitive but rather against
one who was either kindly, good-natured or perhaps too much of a coward to stamp his authority on his
people. When the representatives of the Third Estate broke away from the Estates-General to form the
National Assembly in 1789, they could have been crushed through the use of force. Louis XVI however
refrained from any military action and instead agreed to the suggestion that the other estates should
join the rebels. There have been various theories advanced to explain his failure to use the force
befitting the absolute ruler that he was supposed to be. Some historians have speculated that it was
because he was a sensitive and caring ruler who hated to spill the blood of his people. Others have
suggested that he was a coward and he was unsure of the loyalty of his army. Whatever the reason, the
fact is that the revolt of the Third estate only succeeded because the government refrained from using
force against it. In other words, the revolt only took place and succeeded because France lacked a
government that was tyrannical and insensitive enough to crush its opponents.
The government was the unfortunate victim of a revolt that was brought on by poor harvests in 1788
rather than by any tyranny, inefficiency and insensitivity on its part. It has already been pointed out that
adverse weather conditions resulted in poor harvests and consequent food shortages for the peasants
and the urban poor. Inflation increased and food prices also shot up in the cities. Hungry and desperate
the urban poor looked to their government for solutions. That the government failed them was not so
much a consequence of its insensitivity as it was of the situation being beyond their capabilities. In other
words the government failed to provide relief not due to insensitivity but because it just could not deal
with a crisis of that magnitude. What happened in 1789 was that the hungry and angry people of the
Third Estate revolted against a government that filed them due to its inadequacies when faced by
adverse circumstances.
The Third Estate revolted against social groups that were insensitive to their plight rather than against
the government in 1789. The nobles and clergy were the two groups against whom the Third Estate
directed its anger for their failure to agree to political, economic and social reforms. The Nobles
displayed a stubborn resistance to social and political reforms by refusing to give up monopoly of
political positions, tax exemptions, forced labour and feudal dues. They were very selfish in demanding
the dismissal of reform-minded ministers such as Necker, Turgot and Calonne. They also displayed poor
judgment in failing to come up with solutions to the financial crisis during the Assembly of Notables in
1787. They were also arrogant in refusing to sit and vote together with the Third Estate in the Estates
General. The hedonistic, ostentatious and even immoral lifestyle of wealthy upper clergy attracted
intense dislike from impoverished elements within Third Estate. Unfortunately for the government, the
pent-up anger of the Third Estate found an outlet at the Estates-General it had convened in 1789 in an
attempt to find solutions to the crisis.
HOW FAR WAS DISCONTENT AMONG THE PEASANTS RESPONSIBLE FOR THE OUTBREAK OF
REVOLUTION IN FRANCE?
The peasants’ discontent was not as significant a factor as the bourgeoisie’s anger over political
participation at the Estates-General. The revolution was started by bourgeoisie who were exasperated
by royal decisions regarding the procedure of the Estates-General. For a long time the bourgeoisie had
been crying out for the removal of restrictions that resulted in their exclusion from political office and
participation. The convening of the estates-General raised their hopes that their chance had finally
arrived and they would now be accorded the political opportunities they felt their wealth and education
entitled them to. Their expectations were quickly dashed when Louis XVI chose separate sitting and
voting by bloc as the procedure that should be adopted by the Estates-General. The alternative would
have been a scenario where the estates sat together and voted as individuals. The bourgeoisie preferred
this scenario for the obvious reason that their numerical advantage would enable them to out-vote the
other estates and ensure the fulfilment of their political, economic and social programme. They
expressed their anger at the king’s decision by breaking away from the Estates-General and forming the
National Assembly. With this action the bourgeoisie grabbed political power and participation for
themselves and so began the French Revolution.
The peasants were discontented by the land and food shortages but those grievances only fuelled the
intensity and character of the revolution rather than start it. As shown above, the revolution began as
the bourgeoisie rebelled against the king for continuing to marginalise them in politics. While it is true
that the peasants harboured serious grievances over land and food which led them to revolt, it must be
appreciated that they only did so when the revolution had already been started by the bourgeoisie. They
simply took advantage of an already revolutionary situation to press their claims for more land, lower
food prices and removal of feudal restriction. Their campaign of burning and looting from their noble
landlords only took off after the bourgeoisie had already challenged the king and formed the National
Assembly.
The French Revolution was started by urban-dwellers and as result the discontent of the peasants no
matter how important could not have been the major reason. By definition, the term peasant applies to
rural people but as already seen above the bourgeoisie are the class that started the revolution. These
were urban people who revolted out of dissatisfaction with the political system that discriminated
against them. It was the bourgeoisie and some nobles who sat at the Estates-General at Versailles as
representatives of the Third Estate who started the revolution by rejected the royal decision on
procedure as already discussed. From Versailles the revolution moved to Paris where other urban
dwellers like the women took their dissatisfaction with the government’s slow response to their
demands for food assistance to Versailles. That famous march was a significant event in the revolution
not just because normally domestic and docile women articulated public concerns. It was also significant
as an assertion of the Rousseau’s theory that governments and rulers are accountable to their people.
Women therefore rejected the centuries-old doctrine of the “divine right of kings” which held that kings
could be challenged by their subjects. The working class people of Paris then stormed the Bastille prison
in one of the most memorable events of the Revolution. They did not do so out of any sympathy for
discontented peasants but they were moved by their own desire to assert their own political and social
rights that had been suppressed for so long under successive Bourbon dynasties. Clearly Louis XVI was
powerless as evidenced by his failure to stop all these urban challenges to his authority. It was only then
that the peasants took advantage of the already revolutionary situation and began to press their own
claims for the abolition of privileges and more land.
The Revolution had leaders who pursued essentially bourgeois ideologies and consequently peasant
discontent was an insignificant issue. Some of the leading figures at the beginning of the revolution
included Lafayette, Mirabeau and Bailly. None of these were peasants; they were either bourgeoisie or
nobles who were guided by bourgeois ideas. Their main priorities included administrative
reorganisation, constitutionalism and economic liberalism. On the other hand, peasants were mainly
concerned with bread and butter issues. Thus the revolution in 1789 mainly centred on establishing
constitutional limitations to monarchical authority, achieving political participation for the bourgeoisie
and creating a system of civil rights for all. The peasants did not share such concerns. apart from desiring
more land, lowering of taxes and the removal of other feudal restrictions remained loyal to monarchy
and Catholic to the core. In any case, feudal inequalities and tax issues they were so concerned about
were also bourgeoisie concerns and would have been addressed as the bourgeoisie moved to
implement their liberal agenda of social equality.
In the end the character of king was more crucial to the outbreak of revolution than peasant discontent.
His apparent bias in favour of the clergy and nobility on the procedure of Estates – General angered the
bourgeoisie rather than peasants. His procrastination in dealing with financial crisis and calls for allinclusive politics also angered the bourgeoisie rather than the peasants. Some have viewed Louis XVI as
a kindly king who did not wish to spill the blood of his subjects and others thought he was simply a
coward. Either way, he refrained from using force to crush the revolt of the (bourgeois-led) Third Estate
which opened the floodgates of revolution.
The American war of independence and teachings of philosophers had greater impact on bourgeoisie
and urban poor rather than peasants. These two factors inspired the bourgeoisie to demand democracy
and civil rights. It is important to note that the revolution began as a protest over procedural issues at
the Estates-General. The king`s decision on procedure of Estates-General was in line with the exercise of
his authority as a divinely ordained ruler but that was no longer acceptable to the bourgeoisie`s
democratic sensibilities that had been stirred by American independence ideals and philosophers like
Rousseau and Montesquieu.
In the final analysis the peasant grievances for more land, greater food security and the removal of
punishing feudal restrictions were not as important for the outbreak of the revolution as those of the
Bourgeoisie and other urban-dwellers. In any event the character of Louis XVI proved the most decisive
factor. The revolution may have been avoided f France had had a different ruler capable of using force
to crush dissent.
WHY DID LOUIS XVI CONVENE THE ESTATES-GENERAL IN 1789 AND WHY DID IT NOT SOLVE HIS
PROBLEMS?
For all its real and supposed grandeur, the France of Louis XVI found itself inextricably tied up in the
socio-economic difficulties which were manifested in the financial bankruptcy that plagued the kingdom
in the late 1780s. This was without doubt a perilous situation otherwise Louis would not have taken the
path no other Bourbon had dared use for almost two centuries-he took the ill-fated decision of
summoning the Estates-General. That ancient body failed to present any clean set of proposals to the
king; such was its fractious nature that members tore at each other like mad dogs over procedural
issues. These dissensions only helped to further incite an already excitable populace with the result that
all political and social hell suppressed until then broke loose. Like a raging torrent it swept away
absolutism, aristocratic privileges and the system that was known as the ancien regime .Right up to the
guillotine Louis definitely rued his decision to summon the Estates-General that invariably opened the
revolutionary floodgates. Yet this need not have been so had the character of the king been different.
Various factors prevented the Estates-General from helping Louis XVI. Not least of all was his failure to
effectively stamp his authority over proceedings and resolve the controversial question of its mode of
operation.
Louis XVI convened the Estates-General in an attempt to find a solution to the crippling financial crisis.
Louis XVI convened the Estates-General in order to find a solution to the urgent problem of the
economic crisis. As highlighted above, the king was mired in serious financial difficulty which resulted in
bankruptcy. The causes of France’s insolvency were many, varied and deep-rooted. The government’s
expenditure far out-weighed the treasury’s income from all the country’s taxable sources. The king’s
court is said to have accounted for about one twelfth of the state’s total expenditure. The state engaged
in habitual extravagance like in supporting the American rebellion against British rule in the 1770s. The
situation was worsened by the fact that some classes were exempt from paying most of the taxes
because of the system of privileges. The result of the system of privileges was that the bourgeoisie and
peasants (all Third Estate) shouldered the tax burden while the clergy and nobility (First and Second
estates respectively) were largely exempt. There was an urgent need to raise more taxes and as such
Louis XVI convened the Estates-General with one eye on the vast but barely tapped economic resources
of the first two estates. Finding a solution to France’s economic woes was a huge task that required
more than piece-meal measures hence there was need for a body of the magnitude of the EstatesGeneral
Louis XVI convened the Estates-General out of a genuine desire to resolve France’s political, economic
and social problems. Although historians have generally been harsh and unkind in their judgement of
Louis XVI, there is a general consensus that he had good intentions for his country. He might have lacked
spine and he might have been incompetent but he sincerely desired to address and redress the
problems France faced. He undoubtedly understood the deep-rooted nature of France’s problems and
as such it would be naïve to think that he convened the Estates-General to solve just one problem of
bankruptcy. The convening should be seen in terms of his persistent desire to reform France. It was not
his first move as his earlier measures had included the appointment of reform oriented ministers like
Necker, Turgot and Calonne. These ministers had made definite moves in the direction of addressing
economic, political and social problems for example they initiated cuts in court spending, freed serfs on
royal lands and created provincial assemblies with the intention of giving greater power to local
government. Calonne had even summoned the Assembly of the Notables in 1787 in an abortive attempt
to coax them into giving up their privileges of tax exemption among other things. Convening the EstatesGeneral should be viewed in the context of the failure of Louis XVI’s earlier measures. It should be
construed as the ultimate act of desperation-a last resort
The overwhelmingly negative attitude of the privileged classes towards reform over the years left Louis
XVI with the little choice but to convene the Estates-General. Over the years Louis XVI had attempted
reform through his ministers but had always found the privileged estates to be a stumbling block. It was
frustration with that opposition eventually prompted him to summon the Estates-General and have the
estates fight it out amongst themselves. The privileged classes had opposed various government
measures like local government reform and attempts to make taxation more equitable. They even
demanded the sacking of ministers who dared initiate reforms no matter how superficial if they felt they
would affect their privileged status
Louis XVI was forced to convene the Estates-General as a result of the pressure from various sections of
the French population. There is little doubt that Louis XVI was under immense pressure to resolve the
crisis in France in 1789. The First Estate demanded a solution to the financial mess because they stood
to lose all the money they had loaned the state. The Assembly of Notables were similarly affected. The
industrial bourgeoisie wanted a solution to the predicament they had been placed in by the commercial
treaty signed with England in 1786. It crippled their businesses by facilitating cheaper English imports.
Ordinary people felt the pinch of the poor harvest of 1788, high unemployment and looked to the state
for relief. They registered their discontent through riots and other forms of disorder. It was therefore
against this background of things going wrong on so many fronts that the well-meaning Louis found
himself under pressure to find solutions
The Estates-General failed to solve his problems because of deep-seated divisions. There was no
cohesion or unity of purpose within the Estates-General: the polarisation pitted the First and Second
estates against the Third Estate which was numerically superior and stood on its own. Sectarian
interests took precedence leading to the impasse over procedure. As long as the conflict over procedure
was not resolved, the Estates-General could not even begin to help the king. There were two options.
The first option would have been sitting and voting as separate estates and the second was combining
all estates and voting as individuals. The First and Second estates favoured the first option which would
have given them a majority of two to one when it came to voting. The Third Estate preferred the second
because they had an advantage as they had more representatives. Valuable time was lost in this impasse
and it led to the revolt of the Third Estate thus dooming the Estates-General and ultimately the king
himself.
The Estates-General failed to help Louis XVI because it quickly broke up after the revolt of the Third
Estate. The revolt was provoked by the wrangling over procedure and dealt the death-blow to Louis
XVI’s attempts to resolve France’s problems. The Third Estate broke away, reconstituted itself as the
National Assembly and invited the other estates to join them. Thus the Estates-General came to an end
before it had achieved anything. The National Assembly now claimed to represent the will of the nation
and in this way all who joined it undermined or even destroyed the basis of the king’s authority
The king’s character also prevented him from receiving any help from the Third Estate. From the vantage
point of hindsight, it is easy to conclude that Louis XVI’s own character contributed to the EstatesGeneral’s failure although this might not have been apparent at the time. His first weakness was to
allow the impasse over procedure to drag on. Even when he finally put down his foot on the issue his
decision turned out to be the wrong one for by siding with the first two estates, he set the stage for the
revolt of the Third Estate. The Third Estate defied him and now claimed to be serving another master
even more important than the king himself. That new master was the nation and not Louis who had
summoned the Estates-General in the first place. Louis’ even bigger mistake was his failure or
unwillingness to use force and crush the revolt. The Third Estate now realised they could get away with
it and they were emboldened to take further acts of defiance. The final self-inflicted blow was Louis’
acceptance of the revolt and the subsequent resolutions of the ‘National Assembly’. That way he helped
to systematically destroy his own authority
In conclusion, Louis XVI convened the Estates-General in order to resolve the urgent financial crisis and
other deep-seated problems bedevilling France. Pressure from various quarters also forced his hand. a
combination of factors including the wrangling within the Estates-General, revolt of the third estate and
Louis XVI’s own character contributed to the Estates-General’s failure to help him solve his problems.
THE REVOLT OF 1789 WAS AGAINST A GOVERNMENT WHICH WAS TYRANNICAL, INEFFICIENT AND
INSENSITIVE TO THE NEEDS OF THE PEOPLE.” DO YOU AGREE?
The Third Estate revolted against a government they felt to be tyrannical because of its adherence to the
doctrine of the “Divine Right of Kings”. The Bourbon monarchy made use of the doctrine of the “Divine
Right of Kings.” This was a religious concept that stated that monarchical power was a God-given
privilege. It implied that people had no right to challenge or seek any explanations from the king over
the use of his power since he did not owe it to them. The people also did not have any right of seeking
his removal even if they were dissatisfied with him. Such a doctrine would have been suitable in a
theocratic or highly Christian state. The France of the late eighteenth century had become far more
secular and the ideas of philosophers like Rousseau captured the imagination of the bourgeoisie.
Rousseau was one of those who rejected the divine source of political power and argued that people in
any society were the true source of all political power. He further asserted that those who held political
power did so by agreement and permission of the nation which was the owner. That implied
accountability and also the need to govern in the interests of the nation. It also implied participation of
the nation in politics and that they could remove any ruler they no longer deemed to be exercising
power in their interests.
The Third Estate also regarded the government as tyrannical because of its persistence in excluding
them from politics. Much to their frustration, the bourgeoisie were excluded from politics along with the
rest of the Third Estate. This exclusion was maintained despite the bourgeoisie’s great wealth and
education. To them their continued exclusion had no justification. They regarded themselves as victims
of a tyranny which was founded on an alliance of the monarchy, nobles (Second Estate) and clergy (First
Estate). Their revolt in 1789 which led to the formation of the National Assembly was a revolt against a
tyrannical government which had failed to accept and accommodate them as equal and important
political players. To them it was tyranny for the government to decide on a procedure for the EstatesGeneral which was likely to safeguard the interests of the First and Second estates.
Political observers in the Third Estate found the king’s decision to fire reform-minded ministers as
tyrannical and something that had to be resisted. Ministers like Necker, Turgot and Calonne tried to
introduce financial and social reforms that would have improved the economy and ameliorated the
condition of the down-trodden peasants and workers in the Third Estate. They however faced stiff
resistance from the nobles and clergy who felt their privileged position to be under threat. The nobles
and clergy then conspired with the queen Marie Antoinette to pressure the spineless Louis XVI into
dismissing the ministers. Such arbitrary government decisions ended the Third Estate’s hopes of social
and economic change. The firing of Necker in 1789 inspired a revolt against the government and Louis
XVI was compelled to recall the popular minister of finance that same year.
The government’s injustices and continued repression of the Third Estate was another demonstration of
tyranny which roused them to finally revolt in 1789. The Third Estate suffered various social injustices
and repression under Bourbon rule in France. Among other things they were subject to forced labour,
arbitrary arrest and detention without trial. They were denied various civil liberties that included
freedoms of speech, assembly, religion and expression. They found this government-sponsored tyranny
particularly hard to accept when they compared their situation to that of the First and Second estates.
By contrast the nobles enjoyed so many social privileges. These included freedoms from forced labour,
arbitrary arrest and detention without trial. Their monopoly of political and economic power gave them
higher social status than the Third Estate. The clergy also enjoyed a privileged position. The government
allowed them control of education, births, deaths and marriages. The church also owned lots of land and
Catholicism was recognized as the official religion of France. The archbishops lived in luxury and the
immorality of some of them attracted the hatred of the Third Estate. All this gave the nobles and clergy
control over the lives of French society especially the peasants. It was a tyranny which was eventually
resisted with the violence of burning and looting in 1789. The government and the first two estates were
ultimately forced to give up their privileges in August 1789.
In 1789, the Third Estate revolted against a government whose inefficiency was manifested in its
extravagant policies. The king and his court were wasteful to the point of spending one-twelfth of all the
government revenue on luxuries for themselves. They also wasted a lot of money dragging France into
unnecessary foreign wars. One such was the intervention in the Anglo-American war of 1776. That
decision was costly as it aggravated the financial crisis in France and exposed French citizens to the
democratic and liberal ideas of the Americans. Soon enough Louis XVI’s government faced calls for the
extension of political and civil rights based on the American example. Spending so much on luxuries and
unnecessary foreign wars was reckless and highly insensitive given the poverty of the third estate which
was already burdened with high taxes.
The Third Estate were driven to revolt against a government whose inefficiency was also seen through
its taxation system which was not only inequitable but also prevented it from realising maximum
where each estate would have only a single vote. This option was favourable to the first two estates as it
would give them an advantage of two votes to the one vote of the Third Estate. The second option
would see combined sitting and the delegates voting as individuals. This was favoured by the Third
Estate who had more delegates and could possibly out-vote the other two. The king decided on the first
option and this appeared to mean that his sympathies lay with the first two estates. They may have
been other motives but the Third Estate only saw a case of insensitivity to their needs in his decision.
They responded by revolting and forming the breakaway National Assembly in June 1789.
The government’s failure to provide food assistance after poor harvests in 1788 suggested to the Third
Estate that it was insensitive to their needs. Adverse weather conditions in Europe resulted in poor
harvests which led to the further impoverishment of France’s peasants and urban workers in 1789.
Desperate, lacking food and incapable of paying taxes the Third Estate looked to their government for
assistance. The government failed to address the situation and restless women took the issue into their
own hands and staged their famous march to Versailles to demand bread from the king. In the rural
areas the food insecurity sparked an orgy of burning and looting from the nobles by peasants. The
ensuring chaos contributed significantly to the ultimate collapse of monarchical rule in France.
While there may be so much truth to claims of government tyranny, insensitivity and inefficiency there
are also other ways of explaining the revolt against the government.
The revolt of 1789 was not so much against a government that was insensitive to the needs of its people
but rather against a government that was merely slow in attending to those needs. Clearly Louis XVI and
his ministers were sensitive enough to the needs of their people as demonstrated by the decision to
convene the Estates-General. That was a highly significant development given that the Estates-General
had not been convened for the past one hundred and seventy-five years. Even before the convening of
the Estates-General Louis XVI had already demonstrated just how considerate he was by appointing
reform-minded ministers like Necker, Turgot and Calonne. These sought to achieve financial stability by
making the nobles and clergy pay more taxes as well by removing some of the feudal restrictions that
hampered the economic activities of the Third Estate. Louis XVI even went as far as convening the
Assembly of the Notables in 1787. This was a gathering of the representatives of the nobles to discuss
political, social and economic issues that affected France. Louis XVI had every right as an absolute ruler
to make unilateral decisions but it was a mark of his sensitivity and consideration that he chose to have
representatives of all estates make recommendations to guide his policies. His problem was that he
moved slowly in making decisions regarding the procedure to be followed by the Estates-General. An
already restive Third Estate was finally driven to revolt when he decided on a procedure that appeared
to favour the first two estates.
The revolt of 1789 was not so much against a king that was tyrannical and insensitive but rather against
one who was either kindly, good-natured or perhaps too much of a coward to stamp his authority on his
people. When the representatives of the Third Estate broke away from the Estates-General to form the
National Assembly in 1789, they could have been crushed through the use of force. Louis XVI however
refrained from any military action and instead agreed to the suggestion that the other estates should
join the rebels. There have been various theories advanced to explain his failure to use the force
befitting the absolute ruler that he was supposed to be. Some historians have speculated that it was
because he was a sensitive and caring ruler who hated to spill the blood of his people. Others have
suggested that he was a coward and he was unsure of the loyalty of his army. Whatever the reason, the
fact is that the revolt of the Third estate only succeeded because the government refrained from using
force against it. In other words, the revolt only took place and succeeded because France lacked a
government that was tyrannical and insensitive enough to crush its opponents.
The government was the unfortunate victim of a revolt that was brought on by poor harvests in 1788
rather than by any tyranny, inefficiency and insensitivity on its part. It has already been pointed out that
adverse weather conditions resulted in poor harvests and consequent food shortages for the peasants
and the urban poor. Inflation increased and food prices also shot up in the cities. Hungry and desperate
the urban poor looked to their government for solutions. That the government failed them was not so
much a consequence of its insensitivity as it was of the situation being beyond their capabilities. In other
words the government failed to provide relief not due to insensitivity but because it just could not deal
with a crisis of that magnitude. What happened in 1789 was that the hungry and angry people of the
Third Estate revolted against a government that filed them due to its inadequacies when faced by
adverse circumstances.
The Third Estate revolted against social groups that were insensitive to their plight rather than against
the government in 1789. The nobles and clergy were the two groups against whom the Third Estate
directed its anger for their failure to agree to political, economic and social reforms. The Nobles
displayed a stubborn resistance to social and political reforms by refusing to give up monopoly of
political positions, tax exemptions, forced labour and feudal dues. They were very selfish in demanding
the dismissal of reform-minded ministers such as Necker, Turgot and Calonne. They also displayed poor
judgment in failing to come up with solutions to the financial crisis during the Assembly of Notables in
1787. They were also arrogant in refusing to sit and vote together with the Third Estate in the Estates
General. The hedonistic, ostentatious and even immoral lifestyle of wealthy upper clergy attracted
intense dislike from impoverished elements within Third Estate. Unfortunately for the government, the
pent-up anger of the Third Estate found an outlet at the Estates-General it had convened in 1789 in an
attempt to find solutions to the crisis.
HOW FAR WAS DISCONTENT AMONG THE PEASANTS RESPONSIBLE FOR THE OUTBREAK OF
REVOLUTION IN FRANCE?
The peasants’ discontent was not as significant a factor as the bourgeoisie’s anger over political
participation at the Estates-General. The revolution was started by bourgeoisie who were exasperated
by royal decisions regarding the procedure of the Estates-General. For a long time the bourgeoisie had
been crying out for the removal of restrictions that resulted in their exclusion from political office and
participation. The convening of the estates-General raised their hopes that their chance had finally
arrived and they would now be accorded the political opportunities they felt their wealth and education
entitled them to. Their expectations were quickly dashed when Louis XVI chose separate sitting and
voting by bloc as the procedure that should be adopted by the Estates-General. The alternative would
have been a scenario where the estates sat together and voted as individuals. The bourgeoisie preferred
this scenario for the obvious reason that their numerical advantage would enable them to out-vote the
other estates and ensure the fulfilment of their political, economic and social programme. They
expressed their anger at the king’s decision by breaking away from the Estates-General and forming the
National Assembly. With this action the bourgeoisie grabbed political power and participation for
themselves and so began the French Revolution.
The peasants were discontented by the land and food shortages but those grievances only fuelled the
intensity and character of the revolution rather than start it. As shown above, the revolution began as
the bourgeoisie rebelled against the king for continuing to marginalise them in politics. While it is true
that the peasants harboured serious grievances over land and food which led them to revolt, it must be
appreciated that they only did so when the revolution had already been started by the bourgeoisie. They
simply took advantage of an already revolutionary situation to press their claims for more land, lower
food prices and removal of feudal restriction. Their campaign of burning and looting from their noble
landlords only took off after the bourgeoisie had already challenged the king and formed the National
Assembly.
The French Revolution was started by urban-dwellers and as result the discontent of the peasants no
matter how important could not have been the major reason. By definition, the term peasant applies to
rural people but as already seen above the bourgeoisie are the class that started the revolution. These
were urban people who revolted out of dissatisfaction with the political system that discriminated
against them. It was the bourgeoisie and some nobles who sat at the Estates-General at Versailles as
representatives of the Third Estate who started the revolution by rejected the royal decision on
procedure as already discussed. From Versailles the revolution moved to Paris where other urban
dwellers like the women took their dissatisfaction with the government’s slow response to their
demands for food assistance to Versailles. That famous march was a significant event in the revolution
not just because normally domestic and docile women articulated public concerns. It was also significant
as an assertion of the Rousseau’s theory that governments and rulers are accountable to their people.
Women therefore rejected the centuries-old doctrine of the “divine right of kings” which held that kings
could be challenged by their subjects. The working class people of Paris then stormed the Bastille prison
in one of the most memorable events of the Revolution. They did not do so out of any sympathy for
discontented peasants but they were moved by their own desire to assert their own political and social
rights that had been suppressed for so long under successive Bourbon dynasties. Clearly Louis XVI was
powerless as evidenced by his failure to stop all these urban challenges to his authority. It was only then
that the peasants took advantage of the already revolutionary situation and began to press their own
claims for the abolition of privileges and more land.
The Revolution had leaders who pursued essentially bourgeois ideologies and consequently peasant
discontent was an insignificant issue. Some of the leading figures at the beginning of the revolution
included Lafayette, Mirabeau and Bailly. None of these were peasants; they were either bourgeoisie or
nobles who were guided by bourgeois ideas. Their main priorities included administrative
reorganisation, constitutionalism and economic liberalism. On the other hand, peasants were mainly
concerned with bread and butter issues. Thus the revolution in 1789 mainly centred on establishing
constitutional limitations to monarchical authority, achieving political participation for the bourgeoisie
and creating a system of civil rights for all. The peasants did not share such concerns. apart from desiring
more land, lowering of taxes and the removal of other feudal restrictions remained loyal to monarchy
and Catholic to the core. In any case, feudal inequalities and tax issues they were so concerned about
were also bourgeoisie concerns and would have been addressed as the bourgeoisie moved to
implement their liberal agenda of social equality.
In the end the character of king was more crucial to the outbreak of revolution than peasant discontent.
His apparent bias in favour of the clergy and nobility on the procedure of Estates – General angered the
bourgeoisie rather than peasants. His procrastination in dealing with financial crisis and calls for allinclusive politics also angered the bourgeoisie rather than the peasants. Some have viewed Louis XVI as
a kindly king who did not wish to spill the blood of his subjects and others thought he was simply a
coward. Either way, he refrained from using force to crush the revolt of the (bourgeois-led) Third Estate
which opened the floodgates of revolution.
The American war of independence and teachings of philosophers had greater impact on bourgeoisie
and urban poor rather than peasants. These two factors inspired the bourgeoisie to demand democracy
and civil rights. It is important to note that the revolution began as a protest over procedural issues at
the Estates-General. The king`s decision on procedure of Estates-General was in line with the exercise of
his authority as a divinely ordained ruler but that was no longer acceptable to the bourgeoisie`s
democratic sensibilities that had been stirred by American independence ideals and philosophers like
Rousseau and Montesquieu.
In the final analysis the peasant grievances for more land, greater food security and the removal of
punishing feudal restrictions were not as important for the outbreak of the revolution as those of the
Bourgeoisie and other urban-dwellers. In any event the character of Louis XVI proved the most decisive
factor. The revolution may have been avoided f France had had a different ruler capable of using force
to crush dissent.
WHY DID LOUIS XVI CONVENE THE ESTATES-GENERAL IN 1789 AND WHY DID IT NOT SOLVE HIS
PROBLEMS?
For all its real and supposed grandeur, the France of Louis XVI found itself inextricably tied up in the
socio-economic difficulties which were manifested in the financial bankruptcy that plagued the kingdom
in the late 1780s. This was without doubt a perilous situation otherwise Louis would not have taken the
path no other Bourbon had dared use for almost two centuries-he took the ill-fated decision of
summoning the Estates-General. That ancient body failed to present any clean set of proposals to the
king; such was its fractious nature that members tore at each other like mad dogs over procedural
issues. These dissensions only helped to further incite an already excitable populace with the result that
all political and social hell suppressed until then broke loose. Like a raging torrent it swept away
absolutism, aristocratic privileges and the system that was known as the ancien regime .Right up to the
guillotine Louis definitely rued his decision to summon the Estates-General that invariably opened the
revolutionary floodgates. Yet this need not have been so had the character of the king been different.
Various factors prevented the Estates-General from helping Louis XVI. Not least of all was his failure to
effectively stamp his authority over proceedings and resolve the controversial question of its mode of
operation.
Louis XVI convened the Estates-General in an attempt to find a solution to the crippling financial crisis.
Louis XVI convened the Estates-General in order to find a solution to the urgent problem of the
economic crisis. As highlighted above, the king was mired in serious financial difficulty which resulted in
bankruptcy. The causes of France’s insolvency were many, varied and deep-rooted. The government’s
expenditure far out-weighed the treasury’s income from all the country’s taxable sources. The king’s
court is said to have accounted for about one twelfth of the state’s total expenditure. The state engaged
in habitual extravagance like in supporting the American rebellion against British rule in the 1770s. The
situation was worsened by the fact that some classes were exempt from paying most of the taxes
because of the system of privileges. The result of the system of privileges was that the bourgeoisie and
peasants (all Third Estate) shouldered the tax burden while the clergy and nobility (First and Second
estates respectively) were largely exempt. There was an urgent need to raise more taxes and as such
Louis XVI convened the Estates-General with one eye on the vast but barely tapped economic resources
of the first two estates. Finding a solution to France’s economic woes was a huge task that required
more than piece-meal measures hence there was need for a body of the magnitude of the EstatesGeneral
Louis XVI convened the Estates-General out of a genuine desire to resolve France’s political, economic
cohesion or unity of purpose within the Estates-General: the polarisation pitted the First and Second
estates against the Third Estate which was numerically superior and stood on its own. Sectarian
interests took precedence leading to the impasse over procedure. As long as the conflict over procedure
was not resolved, the Estates-General could not even begin to help the king. There were two options.
The first option would have been sitting and voting as separate estates and the second was combining
all estates and voting as individuals. The First and Second estates favoured the first option which would
have given them a majority of two to one when it came to voting. The Third Estate preferred the second
because they had an advantage as they had more representatives. Valuable time was lost in this impasse
and it led to the revolt of the Third Estate thus dooming the Estates-General and ultimately the king
himself.
The Estates-General failed to help Louis XVI because it quickly broke up after the revolt of the Third
Estate. The revolt was provoked by the wrangling over procedure and dealt the death-blow to Louis
XVI’s attempts to resolve France’s problems. The Third Estate broke away, reconstituted itself as the
National Assembly and invited the other estates to join them. Thus the Estates-General came to an end
before it had achieved anything. The National Assembly now claimed to represent the will of the nation
and in this way all who joined it undermined or even destroyed the basis of the king’s authority
The king’s character also prevented him from receiving any help from the Third Estate. From the vantage
point of hindsight, it is easy to conclude that Louis XVI’s own character contributed to the EstatesGeneral’s failure although this might not have been apparent at the time. His first weakness was to
allow the impasse over procedure to drag on. Even when he finally put down his foot on the issue his
decision turned out to be the wrong one for by siding with the first two estates, he set the stage for the
revolt of the Third Estate. The Third Estate defied him and now claimed to be serving another master
even more important than the king himself. That new master was the nation and not Louis who had
summoned the Estates-General in the first place. Louis’ even bigger mistake was his failure or
unwillingness to use force and crush the revolt. The Third Estate now realised they could get away with
it and they were emboldened to take further acts of defiance. The final self-inflicted blow was Louis’
acceptance of the revolt and the subsequent resolutions of the ‘National Assembly’. That way he helped
to systematically destroy his own authority
In conclusion, Louis XVI convened the Estates-General in order to resolve the urgent financial crisis and
other deep-seated problems bedevilling France. Pressure from various quarters also forced his hand. a
combination of factors including the wrangling within the Estates-General, revolt of the third estate and
Louis XVI’s own character contributed to the Estates-General’s failure to help him solve his problems.
“THE NDEBELE-SHONA RELATIONS WERE IN THE 19TH CENTURY FAR FROM CORDIAL.” DISCUSS
Shone and Ndebele oral traditions as well as history textbooks abound with details of conflict between
the Ndebele and Shona. Every decade from the time of the Ndebele advent right up to European
colonization is full of stories of wars and Ndebele raids all of which paint a picture of endemic strife and
therefore far from cordial inter-ethnic relationships. While all this was happening, the Ndebele still
found time to trade, to form military alliances and cross-cultural exchange with the Shona. All that could
not have been possible if the atmosphere had been completely poisoned by inter-ethnic strife as
explicitly stated in the essay topic. This essay will review Ndebele-Shona relations and attempt to
demonstrate that the relations were in fact much more complex and cannot be categorized in such
simplistic terms.
Evidence of constant wars between the Ndebele and the Shona on one hand suggests far from friendly
relations between the two in the nineteenth century. During the 1850s the Ndebele under Mzilikazi
fought and defeated the Rozvi under Mambo Chirisamhuru. Consequently the Ndebele usurped the
Rozvi’s role of overlords of the Kalanga and other Shona groups in the western and southern parts of
Zimbabwe.
During the 1860s the Ndebele carried their war policy to north-western Shona groups such as the Ngezi
in the Rimuka area leading to the flight of the Mashayamombe and Chivero rulers. Even Tohwechipi the
son of the slain Mambo Chirisamhuru had to seek refuge in the Eastern Highlands. There was no letting
up during the 1870s when the Ndebele raided across a 70 kilometre radius from the western Duma on
the Mutirikwi and Popoteke confluences right up to the upper Popoteke River. In the 1890s, Chivi, Gutu,
Mupfure and Chishawasha all incurred the wrath of Lobengula’s Ndebele. Tensions were also sufficiently
high during the early days of European settler occupation for Lobengula to send troops to punish
Gomala’s people in present day Masvingo. These Shona people had allegedly used Ndebele cattle to pay
a fine to the settler administration. Looked from a different perspective, those wars may be taken as
evidence of intermittent quarrels between two basically friendly ethnic groups. There is evidence of
trade conducted by the two groups and even military alliances. All of these could only thrive in basically
peaceful and friendly conditions. The Shona traded their grain and other agricultural produce for
Ndebele cattle. Relations were sufficiently friendly for both Mzilikazi and Lobengula to entrust some
Shona groups with their cattle. These Shona were accorded the right to milk the cattle and even
slaughter them for meat. This explains why Gomala’s Shona people in Masvingo had Ndebele cattle
which they subsequently expropriated to pay a fine after cutting European telegraph wires. Trade was
conducted with the Rozvi of the Mwanesi to the Munyati regions too.
The wars fought were never permanent and did not prevent reconciliation or co-operation. This explains
why Tohwechipi who had fled to the Eastern Highlands in the early 1850s could be persuaded to come
back and assume his position among his people with Ndebele assistance. Important Rozvi families such
as the Mutinhima, Svabasi and Lukuluba houses certainly co-operated with the Ndebele. The likes of
Chivi and Nemakonde were all important allies of the Ndebele and only turned against them in the
1890s after the imposition of European rule. Even when wars were fought, the Ndebele did not fight all
the Shona at once and they actually allied with some Shona groups while fighting others. The generic
term Shona is misleading as it is implies a single, united and homogenous political entity which certainly
did not exist in the nineteenth century. There were many scattered and independent Shona groups
which were as likely to fight each other as much as they could fight the Ndebele. This explains why the
Ndebele could fight against Chirisamhuru and Tohwechipi in the early 1850s and then became
Tohwechipi’s allies before the decade was up. Chizema was also assisted by the Ndebele in his attempts
to conquer southern Buhera. This also explains why Mzilikazi had the Chaminuka medium killed while
maintaining good relations with other Shona mediums such as Nyamuswa, Wanewawa and Chikono.
According to D.N. Beach, Mzilikazi even paid tribute to these mediums.
Furthermore, evidence of cultural exchange belies claims of frosty relations. The Ndebele assimilated or
incorporated Shona people into their society to the extent that the amaHole caste became the largest
within the Ndebele caste system. Although prejudice existed it was not a totally bleak scenario as this
caste could also provide chiefs and also enjoyed the same state protection accorded the Zansi and
Enhla. If assimilation was forced on amaHole, it certainly was not forced on the Mutevaidzi of
Mberengwa who voluntarily adopted the Ndebele language, forged alliances with the Ndebele and even
copied Nguni practices such as ear piercing. For their part, the Ndebele adopted some of the Shona
religious practices including the shrine at Matopos (Njelele). Historians such as Ranger have asserted
that the cult priests of Njelele had sufficient authority among the Ndebele to organize resistance to
European rule in 1896.
The final perhaps more accurate picture of the nineteenth century Ndebele-Shona relations is a complex
one where trade, alliances, cross-cultural exchanges all interchanged with wars. Given this scenario, it
would be a gross distortion to present Ndebele-Shona relations as frosty for that was only one facet to a
multi-dimensional story. Finally it ought to be remembered that the Shona consisted of many groups
that were independent of each other hence it frequently happened that one group enjoyed a cordial
relationship while another was at war with the Ndebele.
“THEY PAVED WAY FOR THE BRITISH COLONISATION OF ZIMBABWE.” HOW FAR DO YOU AGREE WITH
THIS COMMENT ON THE ROLES OF MISSIONARIES, HUNTERS AND TRADERS IN 19TH CENTURY
ZIMBABWE?
Commenting on colonialism, Tewodros II a nineteenth century Ethiopian emperor said that “I know their
game. First it’s traders and missionaries. Then it’s ambassadors. After that, they bring the guns.” His
sentiments would be echoed by Jomo Kenyatta who also pointed out the close connection between the
bible of the missionaries and the flag of imperialism. The colonisation of Zimbabwe was no exception
and this essay shall demonstrate that to a large extent it followed the classic pattern of missionary,
hunter and trader activity before the imperial power came in.
British-born missionaries were first onto the nineteenth century Zimbabwean scene and not surprisingly
British imperialism followed. Robert Moffat was permitted by Mzilikazi to set up the first mission station
at Inyathi in 1859. Little did Mzilikazi and Lobengula know that Moffat and his son John would be
sending out treacherous reports regarding the Ndebele as a “miserable people” and “it will be a blessing
to the world when they are broken up.”
John Moffat went beyond mere rhetoric and rendered practical assistance to the cause of colonialism by
entering the paid service of Cecil Rhodes and negotiating treaties which laid the basis of colonialism. To
this end, he fully exploited old ‘family ties’ with Ndebele royalty and got Lobengula to assent to the
Moffat Treaty and Rudd Concession both in 1888. The first circumscribed Lobengula’s power in foreign
policy issues while the second gave Rhodes’ agents complete mineral rights and full powers to procure
them in Lobengula’s territory. It was on the basis of the Rudd Concession that the British government
granted Rhodes a charter for the colonisation of Zimbabwe. Considering the fact that Lobengula virtually
surrendered his territory and independence for negligible returns, it is most likely that he was
misinformed with (Moffat’s connivance) as to the actual written terms of those treaties.
Lobengula followed Mzilikazi’s example and permitted the London Missionary Society (L.M.S) to open a
second mission under Charles Helm at Hope Fountain in 1870 and that too was a mistake which paved
the way for colonialism. Like the Moffats, Helm was firmly convinced that no substantial conversion of
the Ndebele to Christianity was possible without the undermining of Lobengula’s power and the
destruction of the Ndebele traditional structure. Just like John Moffat, Helm abused the trust Lobengula
had in him by potraying Rhodes as a trustworthy and reliable man. Helm persuaded Lobengula to sign
the Rudd Concession on which the colonisation of Zimbabwe was based.
The desire to colonise Zimbabwe was also touched off by the glowing and times exaggerated reports
that the country abounded with mineral wealth and natural resources and these can be attributed to
hunters and traders who visited the country. Thomas Baines was one such trader-prospector-cum artist
and he was given a concession by Lobengula to exploit gold reserves but failed owing to lack of capital.
His legacy mainly lies in the vivid but highly romantic paintings that potrayed a land awash with
elephants and other natural resources only waiting for Europeans to exploit.
Traders such as George Westbeech and Karl Mauch spread rumours about the abundance of gold
leading to suggestions that there could actually be a ‘second rand’ in Zimbabwe. Mauch was even
granted the Tati Concession in 1870 and this was bought from him by Cecil Rhodes in his relentless drive
towards colonizing Zimbabwe. Leask, Fairbairn, Philips and Tainton were some of the traders at
Lobengula’s court prior to the Rudd Concession and they aided colonialism by selling their own
concessions to Rhodes and persuaded Lobengula to sign with Rudd Lobengula’s tactics of playing off one
group of Europeans against the others therefore, came to nothing as Rhodes’ financial muscle not only
enabled him to buy concessions from his rivals, it also enabled him to get them to work for him in
persuading Lobengula to deal with him. This was true of the traders and the missionaries and it was
equally true of the hunters too.
Hunters like Henry Hartley and Frederick Selous also played their part in advertising Zimbabwe as a land
full of minerals and big game. Hartley spoke favourably of the mineral prospectus after discovering gold
70 miles south-west of present day Harare while Selous even cut a road between Mashonaland and
Matebeleland (Hunters’ Road) to facilitate the transportation of ivory. His biggest contribution to
colonialism was to be in the guiding of the ‘Pioneer Column’ in 1890 as it trekked in from South Africa to
assume control of Mashonaland on behalf Britain.
In the final analysis, it is evident that the colonisation of Zimbabwe owed to beliefs of abundant
economic resources and the various concessions obtained from the African rulers. It is also evident that
in all such beliefs and concessions obtained, there was the hand of missionaries, traders and hunters.
EXPLAIN THE MOTIVE BEHIND RHODES' COLONISATION OF ZIMBABWE AND EXAMINE THE ROLE
PLAYED BY HIS AGENTS IN FACILITATING THE COLONISATION OF THE COUNTRY.
The second half of the 19th century witnessed intense competition among the European states to
acquire colonies in Africa. Economics, strategic, prestige, supremacist and racism were some of the key
considerations that influenced the proponents of colonialism such as Cecil Rhodes. This essay aims at
discussing in detail these motives of Rhodes and also to show that his agents employed every possible
tactic including the unscrupulous to achieve their aims.
Economic considerations were a significant motive for Rhodes who was first and foremost a
businessman. The numerous reports and rumors of the possibility of an Eldorado or Second Rand in
Zimbabwe could not have failed to have an effect on a man who already had huge interests in the gold
and diamond mining industries in South Africa. Traders, hunters and prospectors such as George
Westbeech, Thomas Baines, Karl Mauch and Henry Hartley sent out reports which exaggerated
Zimbabwe's mineral wealth. Rhodes' imagination was fired up by the occassional gold finds such as that
of Tati in 1870 and by Hartley some 70 miles southwest of present day Harare. It is therefore not a
surprise that he formed the British South Africa Company (BSAC), a commercial company to facilitate
the colonisation of Zimbabwe.Neither is it a surprise that he bought all the mineral claims from his rivals.
It is also worth noting that the Rudd concession of 1888 which formed the basis for colonisation was a
mineral treaty.
Like many other capitalists of his era Rhodes also envisaged a colony like Zimbabwe fulfilling a vital
socio-economic function for the imperial country. The following quotation best illustrates this particular
aim of Rhodes:
"I was in London and attended a meeting of the unemployed. I listened to the wild speeches which were
just a cry for 'bread' My idea is a solution for the social problem i.e. in order to save 40million
inhabitants of the UK from a bloody civil war, we colonial statesman must acquire new lands to settle
surplus population, to provide new markets for goods produced by them. I have always maintained that
the British Empire is a matter of bread and butter. If you wish to avoid civil war then you must become
an imperialist."
Rhodes was therefore motivated by the need to redress Britain’s' socio-economic problems of poverty,
unemployment, over-production and overpopulation which he regarded as a sure recipe for social or
civil strife. To his way of thinking, the solution lay in the acquisition of colonies that would provide
markets thus boosting worker incomes and also providing living space for redundant excess population.
Rhodes was also a dreamy racist whose fervent belief in European and especially British racial
superiority convinced him that colonisation was a vehicle for spreading British culture, Christianity and
civilization. The air of the nineteenth century was highly charged with the racist theories of Social
Darwinism where Europeans made themselves out to be a superior race whose mission was to rule and
therefore advance the Africans who they consigned to the bottom rungs of human development.
Rhodes was especially inspired by John Ruskin who gave a British interpretation to those racistsupremacist ideas. Ruskin had found in him a devoted disciple who took literal view of his teachings
about racial superiority of the British over other races especially the Africans. He believed that British
culture was the epitome of civilization and that it would be a blessing for the world if more of it was
brought under British rule. This fervent belief was aptly captured in the following remark he made to his
close friend Starr Jameson:
“Have you ever thought how lucky we are to belong to the British race, the finest flower of civilization?”
In colonizing Zimbabwe Cecil Rhodes was evidently motivated by his fervent belief in the supremacy of
British culture and civilization and his desire to spread that same culture to the Africans.
Rhodes had agents like the former missionary John Moffat who played an important role in facilitating
the colonisation of Zimbabwe. Moffat was trusted by the Ndebele king Lobengula as a family friend and
he used his influence to secure for Rhodes the Moffat Treaty in March 1888. This was the treaty which
laid the basis for the British colonization of Zimbabwe. It was through this treaty that the British were
able to cancel out the Grobler Treaty that Lobengula had signed with the Boers of the Transvaal. Moffat
induced Lobengula to give up his freedom of action in foreign affairs by agreeing not to enter into any
treaty with any other ruler without the knowledge and consent of the British queen.
Another missionary-turned-agent who played a crucial role in advancing Rhodes’ plans for the
It can thus be concluded by re-stating that Rhodes’ motives for colonizing the country included the
desire to acquire its mineral wealth, spread British culture and civilization and also establish a British
Empire stretching from Cape to Cairo. His many agents all played a crucial role to assist the colonisation
project especially by obtaining from the African rulers the treaties on which colonisation was based.
“HAVE YOU EVER SEEN A CHAMELEON CATCH A FLY? IT STEADILY ADVANCES TOWARDS THE FLY AND
WITHIN REACH, IT DARTS OUT ITS TONGUE AND THE FLY DISAPPEARS. BRITAIN IS THE CHAMELEON
AND I AM THE FLY.” HOW ACCURATE IS THIS ASSESSMENT OF THE RELATIONS BETWEEN LOBENGULA
AND THE BRITISH BETWEEN 1880 AND 1890
THE FIRST STEP IS TO UNDERSTAND WHY LOBENGULA CHOSE THE CHAMELEON AND FLY ANALOGY OR
METAPHOR.
A chameleon is a sly creature which moves slowly as it stalks its prey. In the process it uses its
camouflage to disguise itself and its intentions.
Its slowness is very deceptive and is meant to allow it time to get into the right position.
When it has found the right moment and position, it strikes swiftly, suddenly and accurately to destroy
its unsuspecting prey.
A fly is the insect that is preyed upon. Its small stature makes it weak and vulnerable to many other
creatures.
Although it is swift and fast of movement, it often falls victim to its predators because it never sees them
coming until it is too late.
Lobengula therefore meant that Britain (the chameleon) was very sly, moved with slow calculated steps
and camouflaged its real intentions to destroy Lobengula and his kingdom.
They only revealed their true purpose when it was already too late for Lobengula to do anything to save
himself. Britain was therefore a deadly monster that preyed on smaller and weaker kingdoms like the
Ndebele.
If Britain was the deadly chameleon then Lobengula and the Ndebele was the weak, vulnerable and
doomed fly whose destruction was inevitable.
THE FOLLOWING QUESTIONS THEN ARISE FROM LOBENGULA’S OBSERVATIONS:
1. Was there ever a calculated British plan to destroy Lobengula’s power and turn his kingdom into their
colony?
2. If so, did the British ever hide their true intentions only to suddenly spring upon the unsuspecting
Lobengula and Ndebele?
3. Were the Ndebele and Lobengula naïve and unsuspecting victims of the British deception as implied
by the fly analogy?
4. If so or if not, were the British the only ones who took steps to destroy Lobengula’s power and
kingdom?
THE FOLLOWING ISSUES ARISE FOR CONSIDERATION:
1. By 1880 there was already an assortment of British people operating in the Ndebele kingdom
pursuing different interests like the missionaries, traders, hunters and concession seekers.
2. Missionaries like Charles Helm and John Moffat were abusing Lobengula’s trust, pretending to be
friends while they were actively and secretly encouraging the British government to destroy his kingdom
and bring it under British rule.
3. Men like Henry Hartley, Thomas Baines and Frederick Selous gave Lobengula the impression of being
innocent hunters, prospectors and concession seekers yet they took an active part in the colonisation
process. Selous even acted as the guide for Britain’s invading so-called “pioneer column” in 1890.
4. Missionaries like John Moffat and Charles Helm betrayed Lobengula by misrepresenting the actual
terms of the Moffat treaty and Rudd Concession they negotiated on behalf of Britain and Cecil Rhodes in
March and October 1888.
5. The British government played a double game with Lobengula- at first the British queen seemed to
side with Lobengula and advised him not to give “a stranger…a whole herd.” She was referring to his
negotiations with Cecil Rhodes and advising him not to give away to too much to the British mining
tycoon.
6. The queen subsequently made a u-turn by advising Lobengula to deal only with “one approved body”
and by this she meant Rhodes and his representatives.
7. The queen completed her betrayal of Lobengula by granting the charter (1889) that allowed Rhodes’
British South Africa Company (B.S.A.C) to colonise Mashonaland on behalf of Britain.
8. The British government allowed Rhodes to assemble a 200-strong “pioneer column” backed by a
military force for the colonisation of Mashonaland that was officially accomplished on September 12,
1890.
9. Even though there was no blueprint for the British colonisation, Britain certainly had a vague notion of
Lobengula’s kingdom and Zimbabwe as their sphere of influence. They certainly regarded it as their
gateway into the interior of Africa which had to be brought under their control someday.
10. Besides acquiring the mineral wealth, Rhodes had definite plans about colonizing Lobengula’s
kingdom as part of his grand scheme to paint the map of Africa red with British territories stretching
from Cape to Cairo.
11. Even if in the beginning, interest in Lobengula’s kingdom came from a British individual, Lobengula’s
assessment was probably accurate because Britain’s colonial interests ultimately followed on the work
its individuals just like any other colonial power. Thus there was no reason for Lobengula to distinguish
between the earlier initiative of individuals and the subsequent British role in destroying his kingdom.
12. Lobengula was certainly right about a British government which initially seemed to side with him
only to throw its full weight behind its agents led by Cecil Rhodes.
THE STUDENT’S RESPONSE TO THE QUESTION WILL ALSO BENEFIT FROM THE FOLLOWING
OBSERVATIONS:
1. There was never a concerted, clear-cut programme of action by the British to deceive Lobengula- the
changing behavior of the queen and the eventual colonisation were all due to the changing
circumstances in European relations rather than to any long-drawn out and carefully laid out plans by
the British.
2. The 1880s commenced without any specific British policy regarding Lobengula. There were only
individual initiatives that were often ignored by an uninterested British government that kept on
refusing to commit itself to any action to colonise Lobengula’s kingdom.
3. The British probably would have continued to do nothing had it not been for the Boers from the
Transvaal government of Paul Kruger who negotiated the Grobler treaty of 1887 which sought to turn
the Ndebele kingdom into a Boer dependency and colony.
4. The British seemed to be content with the situation so long as no European power tried to colonise
Lobengula’s kingdom.
5. Even when the Boers moved in to obtain the Grobler treaty, the British response came from one
individual Cecil Rhodes who did not even live in Britain. He pushed for the signing of the Moffat treaty,
Rudd concession and the eventual occupation of Mashonaland in 1890.
6. Finally it would be grossly inaccurate to view Lobengula and the Ndebele as naïve, ignorant and
unsuspecting victims of a British colonial onslaught. They were certainly well aware of the events
happening all around them where one African kingdom after the other was succumbing to European
rule. Lobengula was definitely aware of the British gaining control of the Ngwato, Lozi and even Zulu
kingdoms and he should have known that Europeans would try to gain control of his kingdom too.
“THE PRINCIPLE OF EFFECTIVE OCCUPATION ADOPTED BY THE EUROPEAN POWERS AT THE BERLIN
CONFERENCE (1884-5) AND NOT THE RUDD CONCESSION (1888) MADE THE OCCUPATION OF
ZIMBABWE INEVITABLE.” DO YOU AGREE?
1. Before choosing to agree or disagree, it is necessary to clearly articulate the major issues concerning
the Berlin Conference and define what is meant by the principle of Effective Occupation.
2. It is also important to clearly establish the link between Effective Occupation and the colonisation of
Zimbabwe.
3. It is also important to outline the major issues surrounding the Rudd Concession and then establish its
link with the colonisation of Zimbabwe.
4. There is also a need to define the meaning of “inevitable”.
SOME KEY ISSUES INCLUDE THE FOLLOWING:
1. The Berlin Conference was convened essentially to avoid a general European war by finding peaceful
solutions to the problematic issue of the European partition of Africa that had gained momentum from
c.1876 and threatened to cause conflict among European nations
2. The main decisions of the Berlin Conference included:
- the establishment of guidelines for the future annexation of African territory
- one guideline was the establishment of “Spheres of Influence” for the major European powers in Africa
- another was the doctrine of “Effective Occupation” which compelled a European country to prove that
it had effectively occupied an African territory before claiming it as its own
3. The doctrine of effective occupation’s main result was the acceleration of the partition of Africa as the
European countries tried to protect their spheres of influence by establishing effective occupation prior
to annexing new territory.
4. Within 20 years most African states had lost their independence and were under harsh European rule.
5. The colonisation process was carried out in an arbitrary manner and the boundaries of the new
colonies were drawn up without any input and consideration of the Africans. The boundaries reflected
the bargaining and agreements among the European powers whose main interest was to share Africa
among them without conflict.
6. The Rudd Concession was concluded in October 1888 between Lobengula and Charles Rudd in his
capacity as Cecil Rhodes’s chief agent. Charles Rudd was assisted by Rochfort Maguire, Charles Helm and
Francis Thompson.
7. The agreement was a mineral concession which purportedly gave Rudd the exclusive right to exploit
all the minerals in Lobengula’s kingdom (taken to mean all of present-day Zimbabwe) and the full power
to do anything necessary to obtain them.
8. The Rudd Concession was the basis of Rhodes’ successful application for a Royal Charter to colonise
Zimbabwe on behalf Britain.
CONCLUSIONS ABOUT THE BERLIN CONFERENCE SHOULD TAKE ACCOUNT OF THE FOLLOWING ISSUES:
1. The conference laid down guidelines on the establishment of spheres of influence and the doctrine of
effective occupation. These were two important concepts in the peaceful occupation of Africa and its
partition among European powers. (Peaceful among European powers. It is important to note that
Africans were sometimes violently brought under European rule)
2. The Conference made the occupation of Zimbabwe inevitable or unavoidable as it laid down rules for
the general partition of Africa as a whole. Once there were clear guidelines for the occupation of the
entire continent it was always going to be just a matter of time before Zimbabwe or any other part of it
would be occupied by a European power.
3. The Rudd Concession which led directly to the occupation of Zimbabwe was itself a product of the
Berlin Conference’s resolution that spheres of influence and effective occupation ought to be carried out
in order to demonstrate that an African colony was indeed the possession of a European power.
Therefore the Rudd Concession cannot be divorced from the Berlin Conference that had been held three
years earlier.
4. All that the Rudd Concession did was to simply establish the identity of the European power that
would colonise Zimbabwe but the matter of the occupation had already been established as a future
and inevitable fact by the Berlin Conference.
CONCLUSIONS IN FAVOUR OF THE RUDD CONCESSION MAY INCLUDE SOME OR ALL OF THE
FOLLOWING ISSUES:
1. The Rudd Concession clearly established the identity of the European power (i.e. Britain) that would
occupy Zimbabwe and it was the definite document that le directly to the granting of the Royal Charter
that facilitated the occupation of Zimbabwe in 1890
2. On the other hand the Berlin Conference simply established the possibility or probability of the
colonisation of Zimbabwe or any other African territory at some future date but it did not make that a
definite and inescapable fact.
3. The argument in favour of the Berlin Conference is further weakened by the fact that Ethiopia was
never colonised as would have been the case if the Conference had made it an unavoidable fact that all
of Africa would be occupied.
4. In any case the Berlin Conference did not even lead to a scramble to occupy Zimbabwe- for three
years after the Conference there was no significant interest until 1887 when Paul Kruger’s Transvaal
state showed its interest by negotiating the Grobler Treaty. This was a local state which was ruled by
whites from the African rather than the European continent. It was only then that individuals of British
origin (i.e. Cecil Rhodes) made definite steps to occupy Zimbabwe via the Rudd Concession.
“THE DESIRE TO ENCIRCLE THE TRANSVAAL PLAYED A PIVOTAL ROLE IN THE COLONISATION OF
ZIMBABWE.”DISCUSS
1. The question requires a knowledge of the factors that led to the colonisation of Zimbabwe and these
include the desire by Cecil Rhodes (and the British government ) to encircle the Transvaal government in
order to prevent it from extending its rule further north into the interior of the continent
2. The next step would be to situate the issue of the Transvaal and weigh it against other factors in order
to show whether it was the more or less important factor in the colonisation of Zimbabwe
3. The colonisation of Zimbabwe should be seen as the outcome of Rhodes and the British government’s
struggle with the Transvaal government. The British government colonised Zimbabwe to prevent the
Transvaal from colonizing it and spreading its power northwards. The Transvaal had to be contained
because the alternative would have been that the British Cape Colony in the south would be cut off from
British colonies further north in Africa
4. It was a race that pitted the British against the Transvaal to dominate the interior of Africa and
whoever would be first to colonise Zimbabwe would encircle the other.
5. The British were envious of the Transvaal’s vast mineral wealth(diamonds and gold) and they hoped
to gain control of it by encircling and isolating the Transvaal
6. The timing of the British colonisation in 1888 came after the Transvaal’s moves to colonise Zimbabwe
in 1887 as evidenced by the Grobler Treaty. This clearly suggested a British desire to encircle the
Transvaal.
OTHER IMPORTANT REASONS FOR COLONIZING ZIMBABWE APART FROM THE DESIRE TO ENCIRCLE THE
TRANSVAAL INCLUDE:
1. The mistaken belief that Zimbabwe was the home of vast gold deposits (a second rand) much greater
than those found in the Transvaal
2. Zimbabwe was also occupied because it was strategic to Cecil Rhodes’ grand vision of creating an
unbroken chain of British colonies stretching from Cape to Cairo
3. It was also occupied in response to the missionaries’ long standing calls to crush the Ndebele power
and facilitate the spread of Christianity which had failed to make headway despite the opening of the
Inyathi and Hope Fountain mission stations in 1859 and 1870
4. It was occupied in response to the prevailing European world outlook which was colonialist.
“THE REVOLT OF 1789 WAS AGAINST A GOVERNMENT WHICH WAS TYRANNICAL, INEFFICIENT AND
INSENSITIVE TO THE NEEDS OF THE PEOPLE.” DO YOU AGREE?
The Third Estate revolted against a government they felt to be tyrannical because of its adherence to the
doctrine of the “Divine Right of Kings”. The Bourbon monarchy made use of the doctrine of the “Divine
Right of Kings.” This was a religious concept that stated that monarchical power was a God-given
privilege. It implied that people had no right to challenge or seek any explanations from the king over
the use of his power since he did not owe it to them. The people also did not have any right of seeking
his removal even if they were dissatisfied with him. Such a doctrine would have been suitable in a
theocratic or highly Christian state. The France of the late eighteenth century had become far more
secular and the ideas of philosophers like Rousseau captured the imagination of the bourgeoisie.
Rousseau was one of those who rejected the divine source of political power and argued that people in
any society were the true source of all political power. He further asserted that those who held political
power did so by agreement and permission of the nation which was the owner. That implied
accountability and also the need to govern in the interests of the nation. It also implied participation of
the nation in politics and that they could remove any ruler they no longer deemed to be exercising
power in their interests.
The Third Estate also regarded the government as tyrannical because of its persistence in excluding
them from politics. Much to their frustration, the bourgeoisie were excluded from politics along with the
rest of the Third Estate. This exclusion was maintained despite the bourgeoisie’s great wealth and
education. To them their continued exclusion had no justification. They regarded themselves as victims
of a tyranny which was founded on an alliance of the monarchy, nobles (Second Estate) and clergy (First
Estate). Their revolt in 1789 which led to the formation of the National Assembly was a revolt against a
tyrannical government which had failed to accept and accommodate them as equal and important
political players. To them it was tyranny for the government to decide on a procedure for the EstatesGeneral which was likely to safeguard the interests of the First and Second estates.
Political observers in the Third Estate found the king’s decision to fire reform-minded ministers as
tyrannical and something that had to be resisted. Ministers like Necker, Turgot and Calonne tried to
introduce financial and social reforms that would have improved the economy and ameliorated the
condition of the down-trodden peasants and workers in the Third Estate. They however faced stiff
resistance from the nobles and clergy who felt their privileged position to be under threat. The nobles
and clergy then conspired with the queen Marie Antoinette to pressure the spineless Louis XVI into
dismissing the ministers. Such arbitrary government decisions ended the Third Estate’s hopes of social
and economic change. The firing of Necker in 1789 inspired a revolt against the government and Louis
XVI was compelled to recall the popular minister of finance that same year.
The government’s injustices and continued repression of the Third Estate was another demonstration of
tyranny which roused them to finally revolt in 1789. The Third Estate suffered various social injustices
and repression under Bourbon rule in France. Among other things they were subject to forced labour,
arbitrary arrest and detention without trial. They were denied various civil liberties that included
freedoms of speech, assembly, religion and expression. They found this government-sponsored tyranny
particularly hard to accept when they compared their situation to that of the First and Second estates.
By contrast the nobles enjoyed so many social privileges. These included freedoms from forced labour,
arbitrary arrest and detention without trial. Their monopoly of political and economic power gave them
higher social status than the Third Estate. The clergy also enjoyed a privileged position. The government
allowed them control of education, births, deaths and marriages. The church also owned lots of land and
Catholicism was recognized as the official religion of France. The archbishops lived in luxury and the
immorality of some of them attracted the hatred of the Third Estate. All this gave the nobles and clergy
control over the lives of French society especially the peasants. It was a tyranny which was eventually
resisted with the violence of burning and looting in 1789. The government and the first two estates were
ultimately forced to give up their privileges in August 1789.
In 1789, the Third Estate revolted against a government whose inefficiency was manifested in its
extravagant policies. The king and his court were wasteful to the point of spending one-twelfth of all the
government revenue on luxuries for themselves. They also wasted a lot of money dragging France into
unnecessary foreign wars. One such was the intervention in the Anglo-American war of 1776. That
decision was costly as it aggravated the financial crisis in France and exposed French citizens to the
democratic and liberal ideas of the Americans. Soon enough Louis XVI’s government faced calls for the
extension of political and civil rights based on the American example. Spending so much on luxuries and
unnecessary foreign wars was reckless and highly insensitive given the poverty of the third estate which
was already burdened with high taxes.
The Third Estate were driven to revolt against a government whose inefficiency was also seen through
its taxation system which was not only inequitable but also prevented it from realising maximum
revenue generation from its people. There was an inequitable taxation system which allowed the church
and nobles exemptions from paying most of the taxes. This was despite their great wealth especially in
land ownership. On the other hand, the Third Estate was forced to shoulder most of the tax burden.
They were unhappy about paying so many different taxes including the taille (land tax), gabelle (salt tax).
The peasants also had to pay rents to noble landlords and tithes to the church. Allowing wealthy society
to escape paying taxes they could afford was highly irrational from an economic perspective and it was a
mark of inefficiency that deprived the government of revenue that it could have had and definitely
needed in the economically volatile period of the late 1700s. The Nobles refused to take up a greater
share of the tax burden and pressured the spineless king into firing ministers who suggested that they
pay more. A combination of inequitable taxation, extravagance on entertainment and foreign wars and
over borrowing all contributed to a financial crisis in France which had become unbearable by 1789.
Inequitable land distribution and feudal restrictions on economic activities of peasants were the other
aspects of government inefficiency which angered the Third Estate and finally drove them to revolt in
1789. Land was the main source of wealth in France as its economy was based on agricultural
production. Fifty per cent of it was owned by the church and Nobles. The Third Estate owned the other
half. The first two groups comprised only 3% of the population while the Third Estate (made up of the
bourgeoisie, working class and peasants) far out-numbered them and constituted 97% of the
population. Clearly the land distribution was grossly inequitable and impacted negatively on the Third
Estate especially the peasants. It was not surprising that they experienced shortages of land.
Consequently they were forced to live and farm on church and nobles’ land where they had to endure a
host of feudal restrictions which affected their ability to sustain themselves. Some of their feudal
obligations included paying rent, performing labour and giving up part of their produce to their
landlords. It has also been claimed that peasants who were tenants were not allowed to own grinding
mills, baking ovens and wine presses under the exacting system of feudalism. They were obliged to grind
their wheat into flour, bake their wheat to bread and press their grapes into wine in mills, ovens and
wine presses owned by their noble landlords. The government and its allies’ failure to address the Third
Estate’s demands for more land smacked of greed and insensitivity. Consequently it came as no surprise
when the peasants eventually revolted in 1789 and forced the National Assembly into seizing land from
the church and putting it up for re-sale.
The government’s failure to implement economic, social and political reforms that would have improved
the material conditions of the Third Estate should be seen as insensitivity which contributed to the
revolt in 1789. It has already been shown elsewhere in this essay that the Third Estate laboured under
political, social and economic restrictions that included lack of political participation, heavy taxes and
land shortages as well as lack of individual rights. It has also been shown that the government granted
political, social and economic privileges to the first two states that included political participation,
abundant land, tax exemptions and various individual freedoms. The government was so insensitive to
the plight and needs of the Third Estate as to maintain these restrictions despite their persistent
demands for reforms. It was no wonder then that the Third Estate seized the opportunity presented by
the convening of the Estates-General to revolt in 1789.
The government was also insensitive when it appeared to side with nobles and clergy against Third
Estate over the procedure of the Estates-General in 1789. When the Estates-General was convened
there were two options regarding its procedure. One option was for separate sitting of the estates
where each estate would have only a single vote. This option was favourable to the first two estates as it
would give them an advantage of two votes to the one vote of the Third Estate. The second option
would see combined sitting and the delegates voting as individuals. This was favoured by the Third
Estate who had more delegates and could possibly out-vote the other two. The king decided on the first
option and this appeared to mean that his sympathies lay with the first two estates. They may have
been other motives but the Third Estate only saw a case of insensitivity to their needs in his decision.
They responded by revolting and forming the breakaway National Assembly in June 1789.
The government’s failure to provide food assistance after poor harvests in 1788 suggested to the Third
Estate that it was insensitive to their needs. Adverse weather conditions in Europe resulted in poor
harvests which led to the further impoverishment of France’s peasants and urban workers in 1789.
Desperate, lacking food and incapable of paying taxes the Third Estate looked to their government for
assistance. The government failed to address the situation and restless women took the issue into their
own hands and staged their famous march to Versailles to demand bread from the king. In the rural
areas the food insecurity sparked an orgy of burning and looting from the nobles by peasants. The
ensuring chaos contributed significantly to the ultimate collapse of monarchical rule in France.
While there may be so much truth to claims of government tyranny, insensitivity and inefficiency there
are also other ways of explaining the revolt against the government.
The revolt of 1789 was not so much against a government that was insensitive to the needs of its people
but rather against a government that was merely slow in attending to those needs. Clearly Louis XVI and
his ministers were sensitive enough to the needs of their people as demonstrated by the decision to
convene the Estates-General. That was a highly significant development given that the Estates-General
had not been convened for the past one hundred and seventy-five years. Even before the convening of
the Estates-General Louis XVI had already demonstrated just how considerate he was by appointing
reform-minded ministers like Necker, Turgot and Calonne. These sought to achieve financial stability by
making the nobles and clergy pay more taxes as well by removing some of the feudal restrictions that
hampered the economic activities of the Third Estate. Louis XVI even went as far as convening the
Assembly of the Notables in 1787. This was a gathering of the representatives of the nobles to discuss
political, social and economic issues that affected France. Louis XVI had every right as an absolute ruler
to make unilateral decisions but it was a mark of his sensitivity and consideration that he chose to have
representatives of all estates make recommendations to guide his policies. His problem was that he
moved slowly in making decisions regarding the procedure to be followed by the Estates-General. An
already restive Third Estate was finally driven to revolt when he decided on a procedure that appeared
to favour the first two estates.
The revolt of 1789 was not so much against a king that was tyrannical and insensitive but rather against
one who was either kindly, good-natured or perhaps too much of a coward to stamp his authority on his
people. When the representatives of the Third Estate broke away from the Estates-General to form the
National Assembly in 1789, they could have been crushed through the use of force. Louis XVI however
refrained from any military action and instead agreed to the suggestion that the other estates should
join the rebels. There have been various theories advanced to explain his failure to use the force
befitting the absolute ruler that he was supposed to be. Some historians have speculated that it was
because he was a sensitive and caring ruler who hated to spill the blood of his people. Others have
suggested that he was a coward and he was unsure of the loyalty of his army. Whatever the reason, the
fact is that the revolt of the Third estate only succeeded because the government refrained from using
force against it. In other words, the revolt only took place and succeeded because France lacked a
government that was tyrannical and insensitive enough to crush its opponents.
The government was the unfortunate victim of a revolt that was brought on by poor harvests in 1788
rather than by any tyranny, inefficiency and insensitivity on its part. It has already been pointed out that
adverse weather conditions resulted in poor harvests and consequent food shortages for the peasants
and the urban poor. Inflation increased and food prices also shot up in the cities. Hungry and desperate
the urban poor looked to their government for solutions. That the government failed them was not so
much a consequence of its insensitivity as it was of the situation being beyond their capabilities. In other
words the government failed to provide relief not due to insensitivity but because it just could not deal
with a crisis of that magnitude. What happened in 1789 was that the hungry and angry people of the
Third Estate revolted against a government that filed them due to its inadequacies when faced by
adverse circumstances.
The Third Estate revolted against social groups that were insensitive to their plight rather than against
the government in 1789. The nobles and clergy were the two groups against whom the Third Estate
directed its anger for their failure to agree to political, economic and social reforms. The Nobles
displayed a stubborn resistance to social and political reforms by refusing to give up monopoly of
political positions, tax exemptions, forced labour and feudal dues. They were very selfish in demanding
the dismissal of reform-minded ministers such as Necker, Turgot and Calonne. They also displayed poor
judgment in failing to come up with solutions to the financial crisis during the Assembly of Notables in
1787. They were also arrogant in refusing to sit and vote together with the Third Estate in the Estates
General. The hedonistic, ostentatious and even immoral lifestyle of wealthy upper clergy attracted
intense dislike from impoverished elements within Third Estate. Unfortunately for the government, the
pent-up anger of the Third Estate found an outlet at the Estates-General it had convened in 1789 in an
attempt to find solutions to the crisis.
HOW FAR WAS DISCONTENT AMONG THE PEASANTS RESPONSIBLE FOR THE OUTBREAK OF
REVOLUTION IN FRANCE?
The peasants’ discontent was not as significant a factor as the bourgeoisie’s anger over political
participation at the Estates-General. The revolution was started by bourgeoisie who were exasperated
by royal decisions regarding the procedure of the Estates-General. For a long time the bourgeoisie had
been crying out for the removal of restrictions that resulted in their exclusion from political office and
participation. The convening of the estates-General raised their hopes that their chance had finally
arrived and they would now be accorded the political opportunities they felt their wealth and education
entitled them to. Their expectations were quickly dashed when Louis XVI chose separate sitting and
voting by bloc as the procedure that should be adopted by the Estates-General. The alternative would
have been a scenario where the estates sat together and voted as individuals. The bourgeoisie preferred
this scenario for the obvious reason that their numerical advantage would enable them to out-vote the
other estates and ensure the fulfilment of their political, economic and social programme. They
expressed their anger at the king’s decision by breaking away from the Estates-General and forming the
National Assembly. With this action the bourgeoisie grabbed political power and participation for
themselves and so began the French Revolution.
The peasants were discontented by the land and food shortages but those grievances only fuelled the
intensity and character of the revolution rather than start it. As shown above, the revolution began as
the bourgeoisie rebelled against the king for continuing to marginalise them in politics. While it is true
that the peasants harboured serious grievances over land and food which led them to revolt, it must be
appreciated that they only did so when the revolution had already been started by the bourgeoisie. They
simply took advantage of an already revolutionary situation to press their claims for more land, lower
food prices and removal of feudal restriction. Their campaign of burning and looting from their noble
landlords only took off after the bourgeoisie had already challenged the king and formed the National
Assembly.
The French Revolution was started by urban-dwellers and as result the discontent of the peasants no
matter how important could not have been the major reason. By definition, the term peasant applies to
rural people but as already seen above the bourgeoisie are the class that started the revolution. These
were urban people who revolted out of dissatisfaction with the political system that discriminated
against them. It was the bourgeoisie and some nobles who sat at the Estates-General at Versailles as
representatives of the Third Estate who started the revolution by rejected the royal decision on
procedure as already discussed. From Versailles the revolution moved to Paris where other urban
dwellers like the women took their dissatisfaction with the government’s slow response to their
demands for food assistance to Versailles. That famous march was a significant event in the revolution
not just because normally domestic and docile women articulated public concerns. It was also significant
as an assertion of the Rousseau’s theory that governments and rulers are accountable to their people.
Women therefore rejected the centuries-old doctrine of the “divine right of kings” which held that kings
could be challenged by their subjects. The working class people of Paris then stormed the Bastille prison
in one of the most memorable events of the Revolution. They did not do so out of any sympathy for
discontented peasants but they were moved by their own desire to assert their own political and social
rights that had been suppressed for so long under successive Bourbon dynasties. Clearly Louis XVI was
powerless as evidenced by his failure to stop all these urban challenges to his authority. It was only then
that the peasants took advantage of the already revolutionary situation and began to press their own
claims for the abolition of privileges and more land.
The Revolution had leaders who pursued essentially bourgeois ideologies and consequently peasant
discontent was an insignificant issue. Some of the leading figures at the beginning of the revolution
included Lafayette, Mirabeau and Bailly. None of these were peasants; they were either bourgeoisie or
nobles who were guided by bourgeois ideas. Their main priorities included administrative
reorganisation, constitutionalism and economic liberalism. On the other hand, peasants were mainly
concerned with bread and butter issues. Thus the revolution in 1789 mainly centred on establishing
constitutional limitations to monarchical authority, achieving political participation for the bourgeoisie
and creating a system of civil rights for all. The peasants did not share such concerns. Apart from
desiring more land, lowering of taxes and the removal of other feudal restrictions remained loyal to
monarchy and Catholic to the core. In any case, feudal inequalities and tax issues they were so
concerned about were also bourgeoisie concerns and would have been addressed as the bourgeoisie
moved to implement their liberal agenda of social equality.
In the end ,the character of king was more crucial to the outbreak of revolution than peasant discontent.
His apparent bias in favour of the clergy and nobility on the procedure of Estates – General angered the
bourgeoisie rather than peasants. His procrastination in dealing with financial crisis and calls for allinclusive politics also angered the bourgeoisie rather than the peasants. Some have viewed Louis XVI as
a kindly king who did not wish to spill the blood of his subjects and others thought he was simply a
coward. Either way, he refrained from using force to crush the revolt of the (bourgeois-led) Third Estate
which opened the floodgates of revolution.
The American war of independence and teachings of philosophers had greater impact on bourgeoisie
and urban poor rather than peasants. These two factors inspired the bourgeoisie to demand democracy
and civil rights. It is important to note that the revolution began as a protest over procedural issues at
the Estates-General. The king`s decision on procedure of Estates-General was in line with the exercise of
his authority as a divinely ordained ruler but that was no longer acceptable to the bourgeoisie`s
democratic sensibilities that had been stirred by American independence ideals and philosophers like
Rousseau and Montesquieu.
In the final analysis the peasant grievances for more land, greater food security and the removal of
punishing feudal restrictions were not as important for the outbreak of the revolution as those of the
Bourgeoisie and other urban-dwellers. In any event the character of Louis XVI proved the most decisive
factor. The revolution may have been avoided f France had had a different ruler capable of using force
to crush dissent.
WHY DID LOUIS XVI CONVENE THE ESTATES-GENERAL IN 1789 AND WHY DID IT NOT SOLVE HIS
PROBLEMS?
For all its real and supposed grandeur, the France of Louis XVI found itself inextricably tied up in the
socio-economic difficulties which were manifested in the financial bankruptcy that plagued the kingdom
in the late 1780s. This was without doubt a perilous situation otherwise Louis would not have taken the
path no other Bourbon had dared use for almost two centuries-he took the ill-fated decision of
summoning the Estates-General. That ancient body failed to present any clean set of proposals to the
king; such was its fractious nature that members tore at each other like mad dogs over procedural
issues. These dissensions only helped to further incite an already excitable populace with the result that
all political and social hell suppressed until then broke loose. Like a raging torrent it swept away
absolutism, aristocratic privileges and the system that was known as the ancien regime .Right up to the
guillotine Louis definitely rued his decision to summon the Estates-General that invariably opened the
revolutionary floodgates. Yet this need not have been so had the character of the king been different.
Various factors prevented the Estates-General from helping Louis XVI. Not least of all was his failure to
effectively stamp his authority over proceedings and resolve the controversial question of its mode of
operation.
Louis XVI convened the Estates-General in an attempt to find a solution to the crippling financial crisis.
Louis XVI convened the Estates-General in order to find a solution to the urgent problem of the
economic crisis. As highlighted above, the king was mired in serious financial difficulty which resulted in
bankruptcy. The causes of France’s insolvency were many, varied and deep-rooted. The government’s
expenditure far out-weighed the treasury’s income from all the country’s taxable sources. The king’s
court is said to have accounted for about one twelfth of the state’s total expenditure. The state engaged
in habitual extravagance like in supporting the American rebellion against British rule in the 1770s. The
situation was worsened by the fact that some classes were exempt from paying most of the taxes
because of the system of privileges. The result of the system of privileges was that the bourgeoisie and
peasants (all Third Estate) shouldered the tax burden while the clergy and nobility (First and Second
estates respectively) were largely exempt. There was an urgent need to raise more taxes and as such
Louis XVI convened the Estates-General with one eye on the vast but barely tapped economic resources
of the first two estates. Finding a solution to France’s economic woes was a huge task that required
more than piece-meal measures hence there was need for a body of the magnitude of the EstatesGeneral
Louis XVI convened the Estates-General out of a genuine desire to resolve France’s political, economic
and social problems. Although historians have generally been harsh and unkind in their judgement of
Louis XVI, there is a general consensus that he had good intentions for his country. He might have lacked
spine and he might have been incompetent but he sincerely desired to address and redress the
problems France faced. He undoubtedly understood the deep-rooted nature of France’s problems and
as such it would be naïve to think that he convened the Estates-General to solve just one problem of
bankruptcy. The convening should be seen in terms of his persistent desire to reform France. It was not
his first move as his earlier measures had included the appointment of reform oriented ministers like
Necker, Turgot and Calonne. These ministers had made definite moves in the direction of addressing
economic, political and social problems for example they initiated cuts in court spending, freed serfs on
royal lands and created provincial assemblies with the intention of giving greater power to local
government. Calonne had even summoned the Assembly of the Notables in 1787 in an abortive attempt
to coax them into giving up their privileges of tax exemption among other things. Convening the EstatesGeneral should be viewed in the context of the failure of Louis XVI’s earlier measures. It should be
construed as the ultimate act of desperation-a last resort
The overwhelmingly negative attitude of the privileged classes towards reform over the years left Louis
XVI with the little choice but to convene the Estates-General. Over the years Louis XVI had attempted
reform through his ministers but had always found the privileged estates to be a stumbling block. It was
frustration with that opposition eventually prompted him to summon the Estates-General and have the
estates fight it out amongst themselves. The privileged classes had opposed various government
measures like local government reform and attempts to make taxation more equitable. They even
demanded the sacking of ministers who dared initiate reforms no matter how superficial if they felt they
would affect their privileged status
Louis XVI was forced to convene the Estates-General as a result of the pressure from various sections of
the French population. There is little doubt that Louis XVI was under immense pressure to resolve the
crisis in France in 1789. The First Estate demanded a solution to the financial mess because they stood
to lose all the money they had loaned the state. The Assembly of Notables were similarly affected. The
industrial bourgeoisie wanted a solution to the predicament they had been placed in by the commercial
treaty signed with England in 1786. It crippled their businesses by facilitating cheaper English imports.
Ordinary people felt the pinch of the poor harvest of 1788, high unemployment and looked to the state
for relief. They registered their discontent through riots and other forms of disorder. It was therefore
against this background of things going wrong on so many fronts that the well-meaning Louis found
himself under pressure to find solutions
The Estates-General failed to solve his problems because of deep-seated divisions. There was no
cohesion or unity of purpose within the Estates-General: the polarisation pitted the First and Second
estates against the Third Estate which was numerically superior and stood on its own. Sectarian
interests took precedence leading to the impasse over procedure. As long as the conflict over procedure
was not resolved, the Estates-General could not even begin to help the king. There were two options.
The first option would have been sitting and voting as separate estates and the second was combining
all estates and voting as individuals. The First and Second estates favoured the first option which would
have given them a majority of two to one when it came to voting. The Third Estate preferred the second
because they had an advantage as they had more representatives. Valuable time was lost in this impasse
and it led to the revolt of the Third Estate thus dooming the Estates-General and ultimately the king
himself.
The Estates-General failed to help Louis XVI because it quickly broke up after the revolt of the Third
Estate. The revolt was provoked by the wrangling over procedure and dealt the death-blow to Louis
XVI’s attempts to resolve France’s problems. The Third Estate broke away, reconstituted itself as the
National Assembly and invited the other estates to join them. Thus the Estates-General came to an end
before it had achieved anything. The National Assembly now claimed to represent the will of the nation
and in this way all who joined it undermined or even destroyed the basis of the king’s authority
The king’s character also prevented him from receiving any help from the Third Estate. From the vantage
point of hindsight, it is easy to conclude that Louis XVI’s own character contributed to the EstatesGeneral’s failure although this might not have been apparent at the time. His first weakness was to
allow the impasse over procedure to drag on. Even when he finally put down his foot on the issue his
decision turned out to be the wrong one for by siding with the first two estates, he set the stage for the
revolt of the Third Estate. The Third Estate defied him and now claimed to be serving another master
even more important than the king himself. That new master was the nation and not Louis who had
summoned the Estates-General in the first place. Louis’ even bigger mistake was his failure or
unwillingness to use force and crush the revolt. The Third Estate now realised they could get away with
it and they were emboldened to take further acts of defiance. The final self-inflicted blow was Louis’
acceptance of the revolt and the subsequent resolutions of the ‘National Assembly’. That way he helped
to systematically destroy his own authority
In conclusion, Louis XVI convened the Estates-General in order to resolve the urgent financial crisis and
other deep-seated problems bedevilling France. Pressure from various quarters also forced his hand. a
combination of factors including the wrangling within the Estates-General, revolt of the third estate and
Louis XVI’s own character contributed to the Estates-General’s failure to help him solve his problems.
By…………………….
Tatenda Mamutse
“THE NDEBELE-SHONA RELATIONS WERE IN THE 19TH CENTURY FAR FROM CORDIAL.” DISCUSS
Shone and Ndebele oral traditions as well as history textbooks abound with details of conflict between
the Ndebele and Shona. Every decade from the time of the Ndebele advent right up to European
colonization is full of stories of wars and Ndebele raids all of which paint a picture of endemic strife and
therefore far from cordial inter-ethnic relationships. While all this was happening, the Ndebele still
found time to trade, to form military alliances and cross-cultural exchange with the Shona. All that could
not have been possible if the atmosphere had been completely poisoned by inter-ethnic strife as
explicitly stated in the essay topic. This essay will review Ndebele-Shona relations and attempt to
demonstrate that the relations were in fact much more complex and cannot be categorized in such
simplistic terms.
Evidence of constant wars between the Ndebele and the Shona on one hand suggests far from friendly
relations between the two in the nineteenth century. During the 1850s the Ndebele under Mzilikazi
fought and defeated the Rozvi under Mambo Chirisamhuru. Consequently the Ndebele usurped the
Rozvi’s role of overlords of the Kalanga and other Shona groups in the western and southern parts of
Zimbabwe.
During the 1860s the Ndebele carried their war policy to north-western Shona groups such as the Ngezi
in the Rimuka area leading to the flight of the Mashayamombe and Chivero rulers. Even Tohwechipi the
son of the slain Mambo Chirisamhuru had to seek refuge in the Eastern Highlands. There was no letting
up during the 1870s when the Ndebele raided across a 70 kilometre radius from the western Duma on
the Mutirikwi and Popoteke confluences right up to the upper Popoteke River. In the 1890s, Chivi, Gutu,
Mupfure and Chishawasha all incurred the wrath of Lobengula’s Ndebele. Tensions were also sufficiently
high during the early days of European settler occupation for Lobengula to send troops to punish
Gomala’s people in present day Masvingo. These Shona people had allegedly used Ndebele cattle to pay
a fine to the settler administration. Looked from a different perspective, those wars may be taken as
evidence of intermittent quarrels between two basically friendly ethnic groups. There is evidence of
trade conducted by the two groups and even military alliances. All of these could only thrive in basically
peaceful and friendly conditions. The Shona traded their grain and other agricultural produce for
Ndebele cattle. Relations were sufficiently friendly for both Mzilikazi and Lobengula to entrust some
Shona groups with their cattle. These Shona were accorded the right to milk the cattle and even
slaughter them for meat. This explains why Gomala’s Shona people in Masvingo had Ndebele cattle
which they subsequently expropriated to pay a fine after cutting European telegraph wires. Trade was
conducted with the Rozvi of the Mwanesi to the Munyati regions too.
The wars fought were never permanent and did not prevent reconciliation or co-operation. This explains
why Tohwechipi who had fled to the Eastern Highlands in the early 1850s could be persuaded to come
back and assume his position among his people with Ndebele assistance. Important Rozvi families such
as the Mutinhima, Svabasi and Lukuluba houses certainly co-operated with the Ndebele. The likes of
Chivi and Nemakonde were all important allies of the Ndebele and only turned against them in the
1890s after the imposition of European rule. Even when wars were fought, the Ndebele did not fight all
the Shona at once and they actually allied with some Shona groups while fighting others. The generic
term Shona is misleading as it is implies a single, united and homogenous political entity which certainly
did not exist in the nineteenth century. There were many scattered and independent Shona groups
which were as likely to fight each other as much as they could fight the Ndebele. This explains why the
Ndebele could fight against Chirisamhuru and Tohwechipi in the early 1850s and then became
Tohwechipi’s allies before the decade was up. Chizema was also assisted by the Ndebele in his attempts
to conquer southern Buhera. This also explains why Mzilikazi had the Chaminuka medium killed while
maintaining good relations with other Shona mediums such as Nyamuswa, Wanewawa and Chikono.
According to D.N. Beach, Mzilikazi even paid tribute to these mediums.
Furthermore, evidence of cultural exchange belies claims of frosty relations. The Ndebele assimilated or
incorporated Shona people into their society to the extent that the amaHole caste became the largest
within the Ndebele caste system. Although prejudice existed it was not a totally bleak scenario as this
caste could also provide chiefs and also enjoyed the same state protection accorded the Zansi and
Enhla. If assimilation was forced on amaHole, it certainly was not forced on the Mutevaidzi of
Mberengwa who voluntarily adopted the Ndebele language, forged alliances with the Ndebele and even
copied Nguni practices such as ear piercing. For their part, the Ndebele adopted some of the Shona
religious practices including the shrine at Matopos (Njelele). Historians such as Ranger have asserted
that the cult priests of Njelele had sufficient authority among the Ndebele to organize resistance to
European rule in 1896.
The final perhaps more accurate picture of the nineteenth century Ndebele-Shona relations is a complex
one where trade, alliances, cross-cultural exchanges all interchanged with wars. Given this scenario, it
would be a gross distortion to present Ndebele-Shona relations as frosty for that was only one facet to a
multi-dimensional story. Finally it ought to be remembered that the Shona consisted of many groups
that were independent of each other hence it frequently happened that one group enjoyed a cordial
relationship while another was at war with the Ndebele.
“THEY PAVED WAY FOR THE BRITISH COLONISATION OF ZIMBABWE.” HOW FAR DO YOU AGREE WITH
THIS COMMENT ON THE ROLES OF MISSIONARIES, HUNTERS AND TRADERS IN 19TH CENTURY
ZIMBABWE?
Commenting on colonialism, Tewodros II a nineteenth century Ethiopian emperor said that “I know their
game. First it’s traders and missionaries. Then it’s ambassadors. After that, they bring the guns.” His
sentiments would be echoed by Jomo Kenyatta who also pointed out the close connection between the
bible of the missionaries and the flag of imperialism. The colonisation of Zimbabwe was no exception
and this essay shall demonstrate that to a large extent it followed the classic pattern of missionary,
hunter and trader activity before the imperial power came in.
British-born missionaries were first onto the nineteenth century Zimbabwean scene and not surprisingly
British imperialism followed. Robert Moffat was permitted by Mzilikazi to set up the first mission station
at Inyathi in 1859. Little did Mzilikazi and Lobengula know that Moffat and his son John would be
sending out treacherous reports regarding the Ndebele as a “miserable people” and “it will be a blessing
to the world when they are broken up.”
John Moffat went beyond mere rhetoric and rendered practical assistance to the cause of colonialism by
entering the paid service of Cecil Rhodes and negotiating treaties which laid the basis of colonialism. To
this end, he fully exploited old ‘family ties’ with Ndebele royalty and got Lobengula to assent to the
Moffat Treaty and Rudd Concession both in 1888. The first circumscribed Lobengula’s power in foreign
policy issues while the second gave Rhodes’ agents complete mineral rights and full powers to procure
them in Lobengula’s territory. It was on the basis of the Rudd Concession that the British government
granted Rhodes a charter for the colonisation of Zimbabwe. Considering the fact that Lobengula virtually
surrendered his territory and independence for negligible returns, it is most likely that he was
misinformed with (Moffat’s connivance) as to the actual written terms of those treaties.
Lobengula followed Mzilikazi’s example and permitted the London Missionary Society (L.M.S) to open a
second mission under Charles Helm at Hope Fountain in 1870 and that too was a mistake which paved
the way for colonialism. Like the Moffats, Helm was firmly convinced that no substantial conversion of
the Ndebele to Christianity was possible without the undermining of Lobengula’s power and the
destruction of the Ndebele traditional structure. Just like John Moffat, Helm abused the trust Lobengula
had in him by potraying Rhodes as a trustworthy and reliable man. Helm persuaded Lobengula to sign
the Rudd Concession on which the colonisation of Zimbabwe was based.
The desire to colonise Zimbabwe was also touched off by the glowing and times exaggerated reports
that the country abounded with mineral wealth and natural resources and these can be attributed to
hunters and traders who visited the country. Thomas Baines was one such trader-prospector-cum artist
and he was given a concession by Lobengula to exploit gold reserves but failed owing to lack of capital.
His legacy mainly lies in the vivid but highly romantic paintings that potrayed a land awash with
elephants and other natural resources only waiting for Europeans to exploit.
Traders such as George Westbeech and Karl Mauch spread rumours about the abundance of gold
leading to suggestions that there could actually be a ‘second rand’ in Zimbabwe. Mauch was even
granted the Tati Concession in 1870 and this was bought from him by Cecil Rhodes in his relentless drive
towards colonizing Zimbabwe. Leask, Fairbairn, Philips and Tainton were some of the traders at
Lobengula’s court prior to the Rudd Concession and they aided colonialism by selling their own
concessions to Rhodes and persuaded Lobengula to sign with Rudd Lobengula’s tactics of playing off one
group of Europeans against the others therefore, came to nothing as Rhodes’ financial muscle not only
enabled him to buy concessions from his rivals, it also enabled him to get them to work for him in
persuading Lobengula to deal with him. This was true of the traders and the missionaries and it was
equally true of the hunters too.
Hunters like Henry Hartley and Frederick Selous also played their part in advertising Zimbabwe as a land
full of minerals and big game. Hartley spoke favourably of the mineral prospectus after discovering gold
70 miles south-west of present day Harare while Selous even cut a road between Mashonaland and
Matebeleland (Hunters’ Road) to facilitate the transportation of ivory. His biggest contribution to
colonialism was to be in the guiding of the ‘Pioneer Column’ in 1890 as it trekked in from South Africa to
assume control of Mashonaland on behalf Britain.
In the final analysis, it is evident that the colonisation of Zimbabwe owed to beliefs of abundant
economic resources and the various concessions obtained from the African rulers. It is also evident that
in all such beliefs and concessions obtained, there was the hand of missionaries, traders and hunters.
EXPLAIN THE MOTIVE BEHIND RHODES' COLONISATION OF ZIMBABWE AND EXAMINE THE ROLE PLAYED
BY HIS AGENTS IN FACILITATING THE COLONISATION OF THE COUNTRY.
The second half of the 19th century witnessed intense competition among the European states to
acquire colonies in Africa. Economics, strategic, prestige, supremacist and racism were some of the key
considerations that influenced the proponents of colonialism such as Cecil Rhodes. This essay aims at
discussing in detail these motives of Rhodes and also to show that his agents employed every possible
tactic including the unscrupulous to achieve their aims.
Economic considerations were a significant motive for Rhodes who was first and foremost a
businessman. The numerous reports and rumors of the possibility of an Eldorado or Second Rand in
Zimbabwe could not have failed to have an effect on a man who already had huge interests in the gold
and diamond mining industries in South Africa. Traders, hunters and prospectors such as George
Westbeech, Thomas Baines, Karl Mauch and Henry Hartley sent out reports which exaggerated
Zimbabwe's mineral wealth. Rhodes' imagination was fired up by the occassional gold finds such as that
of Tati in 1870 and by Hartley some 70 miles southwest of present day Harare. It is therefore not a
surprise that he formed the British South Africa Company (BSAC), a commercial company to facilitate
the colonisation of Zimbabwe.Neither is it a surprise that he bought all the mineral claims from his rivals.
It is also worth noting that the Rudd concession of 1888 which formed the basis for colonisation was a
mineral treaty.
Like many other capitalists of his era Rhodes also envisaged a colony like Zimbabwe fulfilling a vital
socio-economic function for the imperial country. The following quotation best illustrates this particular
aim of Rhodes:
"I was in London and attended a meeting of the unemployed. I listened to the wild speeches which were
just a cry for 'bread' My idea is a solution for the social problem i.e. in order to save 40million
inhabitants of the UK from a bloody civil war, we colonial statesman must acquire new lands to settle
surplus population, to provide new markets for goods produced by them. I have always maintained that
the British Empire is a matter of bread and butter. If you wish to avoid civil war then you must become
an imperialist."
Rhodes was therefore motivated by the need to redress Britain’s' socio-economic problems of poverty,
unemployment, over-production and overpopulation which he regarded as a sure recipe for social or
civil strife. To his way of thinking, the solution lay in the acquisition of colonies that would provide
markets thus boosting worker incomes and also providing living space for redundant excess population.
Rhodes was also a dreamy racist whose fervent belief in European and especially British racial
superiority convinced him that colonisation was a vehicle for spreading British culture, Christianity and
civilization. The air of the nineteenth century was highly charged with the racist theories of Social
Darwinism where Europeans made themselves out to be a superior race whose mission was to rule and
therefore advance the Africans who they consigned to the bottom rungs of human development.
Rhodes was especially inspired by John Ruskin who gave a British interpretation to those racistsupremacist ideas. Ruskin had found in him a devoted disciple who took literal view of his teachings
about racial superiority of the British over other races especially the Africans. He believed that British
culture was the epitome of civilization and that it would be a blessing for the world if more of it was
brought under British rule. This fervent belief was aptly captured in the following remark he made to his
close friend Starr Jameson:
“Have you ever thought how lucky we are to belong to the British race, the finest flower of civilization?”
In colonizing Zimbabwe Cecil Rhodes was evidently motivated by his fervent belief in the supremacy of
British culture and civilization and his desire to spread that same culture to the Africans.
Rhodes had agents like the former missionary John Moffat who played an important role in facilitating
the colonisation of Zimbabwe. Moffat was trusted by the Ndebele king Lobengula as a family friend and
he used his influence to secure for Rhodes the Moffat Treaty in March 1888. This was the treaty which
laid the basis for the British colonization of Zimbabwe. It was through this treaty that the British were
able to cancel out the Grobler Treaty that Lobengula had signed with the Boers of the Transvaal. Moffat
induced Lobengula to give up his freedom of action in foreign affairs by agreeing not to enter into any
treaty with any other ruler without the knowledge and consent of the British queen.
Another missionary-turned-agent who played a crucial role in advancing Rhodes’ plans for the
colonisation of Zimbabwe was Charles Helm. After being allowed to open the second mission station at
Hope Fountain in 1870, Helm soon gained a reputation among the Ndebele for honesty and
trustworthiness which he used to influence Lobengula to sign both the Moffat Treaty and the Rudd
Concession. He abused Lobengula’s trust in him by falsely portraying Rhodes as an honourable and
reliable man. He gave his support to the Moffat Treaty and the Rudd Concession which became the basis
for the colonisation of Zimbabwe.
Rochfort Maguire’s legal skills proved highly significant in facilitating Rhodes’ colonisation project.
Trained as a lawyer at Oxford alongside Cecil Rhodes, Maguire was ultimately responsible for drafting
the legal documents (namely the Moffat Treaty and Rudd Concession) on which the British queen based
her decision to grant Cecil Rhodes the Charter for the colonisation of the country.
Also of great importance was the part played by Francis Thompson as a translator for Rhodes’
representatives during the negotiations for both the Moffat Treaty and Rudd Concession. Nicknamed
the “white Zulu” or “Matabele Thompson”, Francis Thompson had achieved a considerable degree of
fluency in the Zulu language which enabled him to enter Cecil Rhodes’ payroll as a translator. He took
full advantage of Lobengula’s illiteracy to mislead him about the actual contents of the Moffat Treaty
and Rudd Concession. He told Lobengula that the Moffat Treaty was a friendship treaty and the Rudd
Concession was only a mineral concession to not more than ten Europeans who would abide by Ndebele
rules as they carried out their mining operations. There was a clause in the Moffat Treaty where
Lobengula supposedly gave up his independence in foreign affairs by agreeing not to enter into any
treaty with any foreign rulers without the knowledge and consent of the British queen. Likewise, he
supposedly gave the British a blank cheque to do anything they felt necessary to procure gold and other
minerals in his kingdom. Such misinformation by Francis Thompson played a significant role in swaying
Lobengula to grant concessions that ultimately facilitated the colonisation of this country by Cecil
Rhodes.
Hunters such as Henry Hartley and Frederick Selous also played a highly significant role as paid agents of
Cecil Rhodes in facilitating the colonisation of the country. Henry Hartley played his part in stimulating
and sustaining British interest in Zimbabwe by sending out exaggerated reports about the country’s
mineral wealth. Frederick Selous began his career in Zimbabwe as a big game hunter who earned
Lobengula’s permission to cut a road linking Matabeleland and Mashonaland (Hunters’ Road) to
facilitate the transportation of ivory. Colonialists often turned to the hunters whose intimate knowledge
of the country due to their hunting operations made them ideal guides. Frederick Selous’ biggest
contribution to the colonisation of Zimbabwe was through his role as the guide for Cecil Rhodes’ socalled Pioneer Column which trekked into the country to colonise it in September 1890.
Traders like Leask, Fairbairn, Phillips and Tainton all played complimentary but very significant roles too.
These were just some of the many traders already at Lobengula’s court prior to the Rudd Concession
who were pressuring Lobengula for trading and land concessions. They facilitated Rhodes’ colonisation
project by selling him the concessions they had been granted by the Ndebele king.
It can thus be concluded by re-stating that Rhodes’ motives for colonizing the country included the
desire to acquire its mineral wealth, spread British culture and civilization and also establish a British
Empire stretching from Cape to Cairo. His many agents all played a crucial role to assist the colonisation
project especially by obtaining from the African rulers the treaties on which colonisation was based.
HOW FAR CAN IT BE ARGUED THAT THE NDEX RELIED ON RAIDING ALONE FOR THEIR LIVELIWOOD?
There is so much truth to the claim that the Ndebele economy relied heavily on raiding and the various
Shona communities especially those close to the Ndebele suffered as a consequence. In this essay it will
be shown that from the advent of the Ndebele in the present day Matebeleland up to the imposition of
colonial rule in the 1890's, there was never a decade without Ndebele raids into Shona territory. This
essay will also show that how ever much significant raiding was, the Ndebele also relied on other
activities including, tribute, agriculture and trade. It will be made clear that although highly significant,
raiding alone does not fully explain the Ndebele economic way of life.
Both Mzilikazi and Lobengula pursued a consistent policy of raiding against one or the other Shona
communities from the time of their arrival from present day South Africa. Apart from attacking the
declining Rozvi, D.N.Beach cites Ndebele raiding activities which greatly affected the Chirimuhanzu
dynasty in the 1850's. This would be repeated during the 1860's when the Kalanga and Tswana
communities to the west were raided during the 1860 - 1 drought. That same decade (1868) the northwestern Ngezi dynasty of Rimuka was also raided resulting in the flight of the Mashayamombe and
Chivero rulers further north-east. The pattern continued during the 1870's when the Ndebele raided the
Shona communities across a 70km radius from the western Duma on the confluence of the Mutirikwi
and the Popoteke rivers to the upper Popoteke. Finally the Ndebele raided from the Chivi to Gutu
in1892 and from Mupfure to Chishawasha in 1893. Thus the example cited above paints a picture of a
consistent policy of raiding and therefore suggesting its central significance to the Ndebele way of life.
Although important raiding was by no means the only factor in the Ndebele economy. Agriculture was
also significant. The Ndebele practised arable farming which yielded grains such as millet and
rapoko.Farming was a seasonal and labour intensive involving family on individual plots of land. Even
soldiers took time out to plant during the rainy season as the state had little to fear from external
enemies who were engaged in planting too. There were special fields belonging to the king in each
settlement. These were planted and harvested first and the produce given to the king. The importance
of the cops to the Ndebele was underlined by the (inxwala) first fruits ceremony presided over by the
king to mark the beginning of harvest.
The Ndebele were also pastoralists and cattle were important for political, social and economic
purposes. The national herd was owned or controlled by the king and he distributed them in a manner
that enhanced his position as head of state. Some he distributed to his indunas as an acknowledgement
of their loyalty or as a reward for services rendered. Some he gave out to regiments for food, some to
his wives for their personal use and as an inheritance for his sons. Cattle were also exchanged for
European goods such as guns and ammunition and for Shona produce and young people who were
incorporated into Ndebele society.
Tribute collected from subject Shona/Kalanga societies also contributed to the Ndebele economy.
Tribute was usually in the form of grain, animal skins, cattle and even young me and women who were
incorporated into the Ndebele state. As overlord of the Rozvi clans such as Svabasi, Lukuluba and
Rozani, Mzilikazi exacted tribute. During Lobengula's tenure, Nemakonde and Chivi were some of the
Shona chiefs paying tribute to the Ndebele. Those who paid tribute were not subjected to raids. Raids
were more of punitive measures rather than the norm as evidenced by the 1893 raiding expeditions
sent to punish Gomala in Masvingo for using Ndebele cattle to pay a fine imposed by the European
settler administration.
Trade was carried out with the Shona and Europeans and it was also a significant contributor to the
Ndebele economy. The Ndebele traded their cattle for the Europeans guns and ammunitions and for the
grain and other agricultural produce of the Shona.
Further income was generated through hunting activities carried out by the Ndebele themselves or by
the Europeans who had been granted concessions. Top of the list of the hunted animals were elephants
that were highly prized for the tusks, and meat. European hunters such as Frederick Selous and Henry
Hartley hunted extensively under license from Lobengula. The fact that Lobengula felt compelled to
allow them to hunt in Mashonaland when the herds of Matebeleland had become depleted is a
testimony to the significant contribution of hunting to the Ndebele economy.
Having examined all these aspects of the Ndebele society, it becomes evident that although important,
raiding was by no means the exclusive economic activity. Trade, hunting, tribute and agriculture were
also highly significant. Finally it was worth restating that raiding was not normally practised in the first
instance but usually as a punitive measure to settle political and other quarrels rather than as a means
of livelihood
CRITICALLY EXAMINE THE POLITICAL AND ECONOMIC EFFECTS OF THE LATE IRON AGE ON
ZIMBABWEAN SOCIETIES.
An important political consequence of the Late Iron Age was the emergence of more permanent and
settled communities. Agriculture in particular required that people remain in one place at least long
enough to cultivate and wait for the crops to mature so that they could be harvested. In any case the
harvests would have to be stored thus reducing the mobility of the communities. Other economic
activities like trade, manufacturing also created a situation where the Iron Age societies accumulated
much greater stores of property and wealth which would have been difficult to consistently move
around. That alone was a huge incentive for a more permanent and settled way of life. Thus the axes
and hoes which were products of the Iron Age were brought into action cutting down trees and clearing
the ground to facilitate the construction of permanent dwellings. The round, thatched huts made out of
tree poles and hard clay (daga) made their appearance replacing the cave dwellings that were popular
with the nomadic Stone Age communities
The use of iron not only promoted economic and social stability but it also facilitated the emergence of
large states like Great Zimbabwe which became an important commercial and political centre. In
addition to being in the heart of an extensive commercial and trading network, the site was the center
of a powerful political kingdom, which was under a central ruler for about 350 years (1100–1450 AD).
The site is estimated to have contained perhaps 18,000 inhabitants, making it one of the largest cities of
its day. Great Zimbabwe covered over 1779 acres. The stone wall enclosures of the state are still
standing to this day and hut remains have been dug up by archaeologists. The two main geographical
areas of stone wall enclosures are the Hill Complex on the long, steep-sided granite hill that rises 262
feet above the surrounding ground and the land below this hill where the Valley Enclosures and the
Great Enclosure are situated. The stone walls, up to 19.7 feet thick and 36 feet high, are built of granite
blocks without the use of mortar.
The Late Iron Age also facilitated the rise of autocratic and personality-driven forms of political
organisation. It has already been noted elsewhere that the use of iron led to greater accumulation of
wealth by some individuals enabling them to acquire influence and political authority that enabled them
to dominate the less wealthy. Those fortunate enough to control iron production, trade and the land
were able to bring others under their authority in the states they created. They made them their
servants and made them fight their wars in exchange for economic rewards that included the use of the
land for agriculture. The less wealthy were also made to herd livestock in return for limited rights to milk
and meat. Economic control enabled some to achieve great personal power as emperors, kings or chiefs.
The Munhumutapa and Changamire who exercised autocratic power as emperors in the Mutapa and
Rozvi empires of the Late Iron Age are good examples. So great was the power and the personality of
the Munhumutapa that his vassal rulers had to light a fire from the one that burned at his headquarters.
It had to be kept burning as long as he was alive and ruled as a show of respect and submissiveness.
Another significant but negative political effect of the Late Iron Age was the rise in the incidence of wars
within and among the communities and states. The use of iron was in itself a catalyst for the outbreak of
even deadlier wars as the metal was used to manufacture weapons that were more effective in combat.
During this period wars were fought with the newly made iron spears and arrows. Communities and
states therefore engaged each other in battles with all the confidence that their stronger and more
effective weapons would enable them to kill their adversaries in greater numbers than was possible with
pre-Iron Age weapons. Wars also resulted from the succession disputes and the struggle for political
power that were a natural consequence of the formation of larger states that was a feature of the Late
Iron Age. Shona oral traditions abound with stories of the wars that accompanied the rise, expansion
and decline of large states such as Great Zimbabwe, Mutapa and the Rozvi empires. The issue is simple
enough: the use of iron stimulated more permanent and larger settled communities. These in turn led to
the creation of laws to regulate the relationships among people in them. This gave rise to greater
political authority which was entrusted to the wealthier, influential and respected members of society.
The need to have and control political power generated disputes that sometimes turned violent and
these were made even deadlier by the new weapons that were now being made of iron.
One of the major economic effects of the use of iron was in facilitating the growth of agriculture in place
of the reliance on hunting and gathering. Iron mining and smelting was followed by the manufacture of
iron tools such as hoes and axes. These were far stronger than any of the tools that had been made
during the Stone Age and they enabled people to clear forests and cultivate the land much more easily.
Archaeologists have dug up carbonized seeds that clearly indicate the growing of grains such as
sorghum, millet, various beans and cowpeas. Agriculture ensured much greater food security than could
be achieved through a reliance on the environment to provide wild vegetables and fruits.
The use of iron facilitated the hunting of big game such as elephants, kudu and buffalo among others.
Iron-smiths manufactured much more powerful iron tools like axes spear and arrow points, knives that
enabled them to kill the larger animals they had been previously unable to hunt with the less powerful
therefore less effective stone tools. The big game augmented meat supplies and also provided hides. Of
these the elephants were probably the most important because their tusks stimulated the growth of
ivory trade. In later Iron Age states like Great Zimbabwe, Mutapa, Rozvi and the Torwa the ivory trade
was an important source of wealth so much that men often risked the danger to hunt down elephants
to trade with the Swahili-Arab merchants and later the Portuguese who came into central and southern
Africa via the East African coast.
Apart from the pastoralism and agriculture discussed above, the use of iron helped to broaden the range
of economic occupations through stimulating the growth of manufacturing and trade. The need for iron
was in itself an incentive for the growth of mining which in turn stimulated the smelting and
manufacturing industries. Iron tools would have been traded for agricultural and other products by the
smelters and iron smiths who had become specialists in their field. Iron tools would have also facilitated
the digging up of gold which was in large demand on the East African coast and in Asia. The local
communities traded their gold with the Swahili-Arab merchants who brought them luxuries that
included Chinese and Persian porcelain, cloth, glass and beads. The discovery of many pre-colonial gold
mines is evidence of huge amount of gold extracted from the region for trade. ‘Conservative’ estimates
suggest that 7 to 9 million ounces of gold were extracted before 1890 and most of this probably dates to
the time of Great Zimbabwe. At current prices the gold trade would have been worth amounts in the
region of 2.6 to 3.4 billion American dollars. There were also parallel trades in ivory, textiles and other
goods.
The use of iron also stimulated the rise of trade in manufactured wares. Firstly the need for iron tools
acted as a catalyst for the emergence of a new class of entrepreneurs specializing in the manufacture of
iron tools. They would trade their manufactured wares for other goods they did not produce themselves
and these would have included food crops and livestock. Iron tools were also used in the payment of
tribute to the rulers and also as bride-price in the acquisition of wives. Iron tools such as spears and
arrows could also be used in fighting wars and they inevitably made the conflicts even deadlier than
they had been before.
The discovery and use of iron was also an important catalyst in the growth and further development of
copper and gold mining. This was achieved through the use of the much stronger and more reliable iron
tools. Iron tools like hoes and picks could be used to dig up the earth that could be very hard in some
places. It is perfectly clear that none of the stone tools would have accomplished these arduous tasks
because they were not as durable. The production of gold and copper became in turn a catalyst for the
thriving trade where Zimbabwean communities exchanged these items for ceramics, glass and brass
imports.
Another important economic consequence was the generation of increased wealth from greater
agricultural yields and trade in iron tools. It has already been discussed that the use of iron tools enabled
larger tracts of land to be cleared and cultivated. That in turn would have enabled greater yields to be
achieved creating surpluses that could then be traded within and with other societies. Through this
trade in agricultural and other products including the iron tools themselves, the societies were able to
build up greater reserves of wealth for themselves. This increased wealth was also reflected in the
greater importation of luxury items by states like Great Zimbabwe. The items included glass beads, glass
vessels, Persian and Chinese ceramics, coins from Kilwa, copper ingots and cowrie shells from the coast.
It can thus be concluded that the Late Iron Age had significant and far-reaching political and economic
effects on the Zimbabwean societies. These included the accumulation of greater wealth, diversification
of economic activities, the rise of larger and more permanently settled societies as well as the evolution
of more complex political systems.
TO WHAT EXTENT CAN THE DECLINE OF THE GREAT ZIMBABWE CIVILISATION BE ATTRIBUTED TO
ECOLOGICAL FACTORS IN THE AREA?
Although the Great Zimbabwe area had rainfall patterns generally good enough to support the
cultivation of crops like sorghum, millet, beans, and squash and promote good pasturage for cattle and
sheep, droughts occurred from time to time. A drought occurring at a time the population had reached a
critical point in relation to its natural resources would have destroyed Great Zimbabwe’s ability to feed
itself. This problem would have been worsened by the fact that there was no technology by which the
state could transport sufficient food and other supplies over long distances and the only alternatives
would have involved dispersing the people or moving the state structure to another site. Either way the
result would have been the collapse of the state.
The progressive deterioration of the pastures for the livestock seriously undermined Great Zimbabwe’s
pastoral economy and contributed to its ultimate decline. Although the state was situated in a generally
grassy savanna region with reasonably good rainfall, the keeping of large herds of cattle in a densely
populated but fairly compact area would have destroyed the pasturage over time. Even if the rainfall
was reached after studies of later Shona states like the Mutapa and Rozvi whose social, political and
economic organisation was broadly similar to that of Great Zimbabwe. It seems reasonable to suppose
therefore that the civil wars and succession disputes that affected the latter two states would have
affected Great Zimbabwe as well. The well known tradition about Mutota’s emigration from Great
Zimbabwe in search of salt may also have been the result of succession disputes and the civil war that it
resulted in.
Historians have generally speculated that Great Zimbabwe could have fallen victim to the rivalry and
imperial ambitions of various members of the ruling elite. This is a view which is not easy to substantiate
given the fact that hardly any names of the ruling class and any dates have ever been advanced. Oral
tradition supplies the name of Nyatsimba Mutota as the aristocrat who emigrated from the state in
order to find salt which had become scarce at Great Zimbabwe. It is possible that this emigration may
also have been the result of his failure to achieve political power within the Great Zimbabwe state as
result of competition and his ambitions would have motivated him to move with his supporters
The decline of tradable items, the emergence and growth of the rival states and the progressive decline
of trade on the East African coast all conspired to undermine the trade of Great Zimbabwe with
disastrous consequences for the state’s continued existence. According to D.N. Beach, the Great
Zimbabwe area was never a major gold producing area itself although there were initially considerably
gold deposits especially of the alluvial variety. Those were probably sufficient to support the foundation
of the state but not enough to sustain it in the long term. Evidence shows that the ancient prospectors
were highly skilled in discovering and exploiting the gold deposits so much that, “little was left unexploited.”(A.J. Wills. p.25) Given this scenario the continued existence of Great Zimbabwe would have
probably depended on the ability of its rulers to control the trade in gold and other items produced
elsewhere. With time the Torwa and Mutapa states emerged to the south-west and North-west of Great
Zimbabwe and these undermined the former’s capacity to trade. They were able to achieve this by
taking over Great Zimbabwe’s trade routes and by attracting the Swahili-Arab merchants who had been
the Great Zimbabwe’s trading partners. What emerged was a scenario where Great Zimbabwe for whom
trade was the life-blood progressively lost that ability to trade
According to Shona oral traditions, Nyatsimba Mutota (c.1450-1480) led an expedition northwards from
Great Zimbabwe in the direction of the Mazoe River tributaries ostensibly to search for salt. Objective
might not have been salt per se but a general quest for natural resources that might have begun to
decline on the plateau owing to a combination of population pressure, over-hunting and even the
efficient exploitation of the alluvial gold reserves. Population growth may have produced a competition
for the available resources between or among different branches of the ruling family and their
supporters and that might have created quarrels over grazing, hunting ranges and crop lands even
before they became exhausted. In the event, civil wars might have resulted and ultimately made it
impossible for the state to continue.
The emergence of states such as the Torwa and Mutapa to the south and north of Great Zimbabwe
probably contributed a great deal to the collapse of the latter. Great Zimbabwe was fully occupied for
only about 300 years and the rise of the neighboring states of Torwa and Mutapa coincides with the
decline of Great Zimbabwe. These were also Shona states with similar political structures, customs,
religious beliefs and economic activities. Great Zimbabwe found itself having to compete with these
emerging states for control of international trade, economic resources and political domination and it
came off worse.
All in all, the decline of Great Zimbabwe was ultimately the outcome of so many factors. Although
ecological issues played a greater role, there were also other factors that included succession disputes,
decline in trade and the emergence of similar and rival states.
“THE FEAR THAT FRANCE WANTED TO EXPORT ITS REVOLUTION WAS UNJUSTIFIED.” HOW FAR IS THIS
TRUE OF FRANCE’S FOREIGN POLICY IN THE YEARS FROM THE DECLARATION OF RIGHTS OF MAN
(1789) TO THE FALL OF THE DIRECTORY (1799)?
The 1789 Declaration of the Rights spoke of rights as universal to all people implying French support for
revolutions elsewhere and that justified European fears about French intentions. The National Assembly
voted to grant civil rights to all its citizens. More significantly and ominously for other European
countries was the fact that it spoke of these rights as natural, inalienable and universal to all human
beings. There was an implicit promise of support for revolutions carried out elsewhere in order to
achieve those rights. Consequently there was great excitement all over Europe over the outbreak of the
French Revolution. In Britain, celebrated poets like William Blake welcomed the revolution and spoke of
it as the “dawn of a blissful era”. Given such excitement and implications of the declaration of rights, the
monarchical governments of Europe had every reason to fear that France would want to export its
revolution.
The 1791 Edict of Fraternity was explicit in its promise of support for people wishing to overthrow their
monarchical governments and therefore the fears over French intentions were highly justified. The edict
was issued in 1791 by an overzealous French government and it contained pledges of assistance to
people all over Europe in their endeavours to overthrow monarchical rule and achieve civil rights for all.
The French government followed up the edict with the proclamation of its doctrine of the “Sovereignty
of the People”. They stated that all political power belonged to the people and rulers had to act in the
best interests of their people. They were to be accountable to their people and could be removed by
them. At that point the French Revolution ceased to be a purely French phenomenon, its focus had
become European. According to C.A. Leeds “The French Revolution thus became of European concern.”
Europeans were completely justified in their fears about French intentions which were no longer secret.
1790 Civil Constitution of the Clergy was also cause for general European concern because it threatened
long-held international Christian values of Catholicism. The civil constitution was passed to limit the
power of the church and bring it under state control. It also undermined the pope’s authority by taking
away his power to appoint archbishops and giving it to French voters. The civil constitution was
overwhelmingly rejected by the pope and the French clergy not just because of the restrictions on
Catholic independence and authority but also because it suggested that religion could be subordinated
to human control. Church independence and influence had been based on the notion that it was free
from human or government interference and answerable only to God. Although the civil constitution
was a domestic issue, it had the potential of escalating if other Catholic countries imitated the example
of the revolutionaries of France. The pope and the Catholic Church had every reason to fear that France
could seek to spread its revolutionary ideas about the role of the church.
The 1792 French declaration of war on other European states justified fears about French intentions as
that marked the start of the revolutionary wars that helped to carry the revolutionary message to other
countries. The declaration was sparked in part by the selfish desire for conquest, partly by the desire for
greatness and international prestige and partly by the natural instinct for self-preservation against its
enemies French aggression inevitably brought it into conflict with countries like Austria, Prussia,
Holland, Spain and Britain among others. Whatever the cause, European countries were justified that
the one outcome of the wars would be the spread of the French revolutionary ideas. They were certainly
spread by French soldiers who posed as liberators from monarchical tyrants in the countries they
conquered.
In 1793 the French government began to use the “Doctrine of Natural Frontiers” to justify its aggression
against fellow European countries giving rise to fears that French territorial expansion would be
accompanied by the spread of its revolutionary programme all over Europe. This doctrine was used to
justify France’s “right” to extend its territory to the Rhine, Pyrenees and the Alps which it claimed to be
its natural boundaries. Since it could only acquire these territories at the expense of Prussia, Holland,
Spain and Austria, the natural consequence was conflict with these countries. It was a war that would
drag on for over twenty years and quite often France used revolutionary propaganda to win this war.
Revolutionary propaganda was used to great effect when the French launched their campaign to wrest
control of Italy from the Austrians. The Italians are said to have welcomed Napoleon’s army as liberators
from harsh Austrian rule.
The 1793 violations of the Scheldt treaties demonstrated France’s revolutionary approach to
international relations which was reason enough for Europe to fear French intentions. The Scheldt
Treaty provided for Dutch neutrality in wars and closed the area to warships. The Dutch controlled city
of Antwerp had also been closed to international trade. These were the internationally agreed
provisions France violated by opening up the Scheldt to warships and Antwerp to international trade.
Those actions raised European fears about French aims and led to war with Holland and Britain.
French conquerors spread revolutionary propaganda and also implemented administrative changes to
give effect to revolutionary principles. European fears about France’s desire to revolutionise Europe
were therefore justified by such activities. The slogans of French soldiers included catch-phrases like
“liberty, equality and fraternity”. They also spoke of “Peace to the peoples and war against tyrants”. The
French government lost no time in implementing the revolutionary programme by issuing instructions to
French generals to suppress feudalism and confiscate aristocratic and church property in all conquered
territories.
The aggressive policies of the Directory (1795-99) also justified European fears that France was refashioning Europe in its own revolutionary image. The Directory pursued aggressive policies of making
direct conquests and creating client states dependant on France. There were direct annexations of
Belgium and the creation of affiliated states like the Batavian Republic. France proceeded to make
administrative changes in these conquered states. Feudalism was also abolished in line with the
revolutionary principles of granting civil rights and legal equality.
On the other hand, French policies could be seen as the outcome of other factors not connected with
any desire to export its revolution. Their policies were also dictated by factors like the natural desire for
self-preservation and international prestige from territorial conquests and expansion.
French aggression could have been more about the natural hunger for glory and national prestige than
out of the desire to spread the revolution and in that case, European fears were misplaced. Wars of
conquest had always been an important feature of European politics. Prior to the French Revolution,
France had fought with Britain and lost the battle for supremacy in Canada. They went on to avenge the
loss and gain some measure of prestige by assisting American rebels in their fight for independence
from Britain from 1776 to 1783. During the revolution, the French government also declared war on
other European countries and that policy may be viewed as the continuation of the expansionist agenda
that had always characterised European relations. There were other simultaneous wars of conquest like
the partitions of Poland by Prussia, Russia and Austria. Russia and Turkey had also clashed as Russia
sought to gain territory at Turkey’s expense. The French aggression against other states was probably
conceived in the same vein of acquiring territory and the resultant prestige. The European countries had
every reason to fear French aggression not so much because it would lead to the spread of the
revolution but simply because it meant loss of valuable territory and prestige.
French war designs were dictated by survival instinct rather than revolutionary zeal. From 1792 France
pursued an aggressive expansionist policy. That led to the conquest of Belgium and the violation of
international treaties like the one concerning the Scheldt. While Europe had every reason to fear France,
they need not have feared that exporting the revolution was a top priority. France acted aggressively
more out of the need for self-preservation as it felt it was surrounded by hostile monarchical
governments opposed to the abolition of monarchical absolutism. Austria and Prussia had already
demonstrated their opposition to the political developments in France by offering refuge to rebellious
nobles and clerics as well as issuing the Brunswick Manifesto and Declaration of Pilnitz which threatened
war on France if the king was harmed in any way. Thus for France it simply became a question of striking
first in a struggle to preserve themselves from inevitable attacks to destroy them. It was therefore not
so much about exporting any revolution as it was about self-preservation.
It is also possible that all talk about revolution was in the main just propaganda to win what were
essentially wars of territorial aggrandisement. It is a fact that those aspiring for domination the world
over have always used propaganda to hide their true aims. They even promise their target audience
reforms of various kinds. Very likely the French revolutionaries were no different in this respect. When
the French revolutionaries attacked the Austrians, they promised liberty, equality and fraternity to win
over their Italian subjects. They were indeed welcomed by the Italians as liberators from harsh Austrian
rule. However, Napoleon never truly implemented the much promised liberty. In any case it had never
been truly implemented in France itself. Instead, Napoleon proceeded to levy taxes, conscript soldiers
and loot Italian art treasures and sent them to France. Given this scenario, Europeans were only justified
in fearing that French aggression would lead to French territorial gains rather than to the spread of its
revolution.
In conclusion, it can be seen that France pursued an aggressive foreign policy characterised by
diplomatic and military confrontation with other European states. Although French aggression was
characterised by high levels of propaganda about spreading the revolution, European countries need not
have feared. French foreign policy was guided more by the natural desires for territorial aggrandisement
and world domination. These were desires every European country possessed and in any case
revolutionary ideas of liberty, equality and fraternity were incompatible with French desires for “natural
frontiers” and international prestige.
"The Restored Bourbon monarchy in france had learnt nothing and forgotten nothing" Discuss the
validity of this statement with Charles X. In summary, the issue here is that Charles X was ultimately
overthrown because he had learnt nothing from the french people's oppostion to monarchical
absolutism in 1789 which led to revolution. In 1789, French people rejected the notion of the divine
right of kings where kings had absolute power derived from God and decided on a political system of
constitutionalism. This is what Charles X rejected when he (in)famously declared that he "would rather
chop wood than reign after the fashion of the king of England" who was a constitutional ruler. So when
Charles X came to power in 1824, he learnt nothing about the rejection of monarchical absolutism and
tried to bring it back. In 1830 he even issued ordinances at St Cloud to remove pipo from the voters roll
and dissolved the Chamber of deputies to get rid of those deputies who threatened his absolutist
tendencies. That is why he was overthrown in 1830 because he had learnt nothing about the third
estate's demand for a share of political power. he had forgot nothing about the divine right of kings, the
close alliance between the monarchy and the clergy as well the nobles. he therefore tried to restore that
system of the ancien regime leading to his overthrow
ACCOUNT FOR THE DECLINE OF GREAT ZIMBABWE.
Although the Great Zimbabwe area had rainfall patterns generally good enough to support the
cultivation of crops like sorghum, millet, beans, and squash and promote good pasturage for cattle and
sheep, droughts occurred from time to time and they contributed to the decline of the state. A drought
occurring at a time the population had reached a critical point in relation to its natural resources would
have destroyed Great Zimbabwe’s ability to feed itself. This problem would have been worsened by the
fact that there was no technology by which the state could transport sufficient food and other supplies
over long distances and the only alternatives would have involved dispersing the people or moving the
state structure to another site. Either way the result would have been the collapse of the state.
The progressive deterioration of the pastures for the livestock seriously undermined Great Zimbabwe’s
pastoral economy and contributed to its ultimate decline. Although the state was situated in a generally
grassy savanna region with reasonably good rainfall, the keeping of large herds of cattle in a densely
populated but fairly compact area would have destroyed the pasturage over time. Even if the rainfall
was generally good, the ability of the pastures to regenerate was also compromised by the droughts
which tended to occur at least once every five years. Since much of the area surrounding the state was
either too mountainous or too rocky, the people were probably forced to move much further away from
the state and ultimately abandoned in search of the proverbial greener pastures.
Over-population was another factor that contributed to the decline of the Great Zimbabwe state. The
population of the state has been estimated to have been in the region of eleven thousand but D.N.
Beach believed that further research would probably reflect a greater number. Whatever the figure it
appears that Great Zimbabwe probably grew too big to be supported by its environment and the
presence of so many people at “one spot would have seriously affected the ability of its site territory to
supply crops, crops, firewood, game, grazing and all other necessities of life.” (Beach: 1980. P.50).
Having so many people clustered would have also generated the unwelcome problems of disease, noise
and soil exhaustion. Consequently the women and men would have had to walk longer distances to their
fields as soil exhaustion took its toll and also because much of the area surrounding the state was either
too mountainous or too rocky to support cultivation. All this would have created competition for the
available resources between or among different branches of the ruling family and their supporters and
that might have created quarrels over grazing, hunting ranges and crop lands even before they became
exhausted. In the event, civil wars might have resulted and ultimately made it impossible for the state to
continue.
Although some historians believe that civil wars and succession disputes may have bedeviled the Great
Zimbabwe state resulting ultimately in its collapse, there is not much evidence to support this view. In
the absence of any records or much information from oral tradition, it seems likely that this conclusion
was reached after studies of later Shona states like the Mutapa and Rozvi whose social, political and
economic organisation was broadly similar to that of Great Zimbabwe. It seems reasonable to suppose
therefore that the civil wars and succession disputes that affected the latter two states would have
affected Great Zimbabwe as well. The well known tradition about Mutota’s emigration from Great
Zimbabwe in search of salt may also have been the result of succession disputes and the civil war that it
resulted in.
Historians have generally speculated that Great Zimbabwe could have fallen victim to the rivalry and
imperial ambitions of various members of the ruling elite. This is a view which is not easy to substantiate
given the fact that hardly any names of the ruling class and any dates have ever been advanced. Oral
tradition supplies the name of Nyatsimba Mutota as the aristocrat who emigrated from the state in
order to find salt which had become scarce at Great Zimbabwe. It is possible that this emigration may
also have been the result of his failure to achieve political power within the Great Zimbabwe state as
result of competition and his ambitions would have motivated him to move with his supporters
The decline of tradable items, the emergence and growth of the rival states and the progressive decline
of trade on the East African coast all conspired to undermine the trade of Great Zimbabwe with
disastrous consequences for the state’s continued existence. According to D.N. Beach, the Great
Zimbabwe area was never a major gold producing area itself although there were initially considerably
gold deposits especially of the alluvial variety. Those were probably sufficient to support the foundation
of the state but not enough to sustain it in the long term. Evidence shows that the ancient prospectors
were highly skilled in discovering and exploiting the gold deposits so much that, “little was left unexploited.”(A.J. Wills. p.25) Given this scenario the continued existence of Great Zimbabwe would have
probably depended on the ability of its rulers to control the trade in gold and other items produced
elsewhere. With time the Torwa and Mutapa states emerged to the south-west and North-west of Great
Zimbabwe and these undermined the former’s capacity to trade. They were able to achieve this by
taking over Great Zimbabwe’s trade routes and by attracting the Swahili-Arab merchants who had been
the Great Zimbabwe’s trading partners. What emerged was a scenario where Great Zimbabwe for whom
trade was the life-blood progressively lost that ability to trade
According to Shona oral traditions, Nyatsimba Mutota (c.1450-1480) led an expedition northwards from
Great Zimbabwe in the direction of the Mazoe River tributaries ostensibly to search for salt. Objective
might not have been salt per se but a general quest for natural resources that might have begun to
decline on the plateau owing to a combination of population pressure, over-hunting and even the
efficient exploitation of the alluvial gold reserves. Population growth may have produced a competition
for the available resources between or among different branches of the ruling family and their
supporters and that might have created quarrels over grazing, hunting ranges and crop lands even
before they became exhausted. In the event, civil wars might have resulted and ultimately made it
impossible for the state to continue.
The emergence of states such as the Torwa and Mutapa to the south and north of Great Zimbabwe
probably contributed a great deal to the collapse of the latter. Great Zimbabwe was fully occupied for
only about 300 years and the rise of the neighboring states of Torwa and Mutapa coincides with the
decline of Great Zimbabwe. These were also Shona states with similar political structures, customs,
religious beliefs and economic activities. Great Zimbabwe found itself having to compete with these
emerging states for control of international trade, economic resources and political domination and it
came off worse.
The decline of Great Zimbabwe can therefore be attributed to the interplay of various factors chief of
which were the succession disputes, shortage of resources, decline in trade, droughts and the
emergence of rival states such as Mutapa and the Torwa.
WHY WERE THE SUCCESSIVE GOVERNMENTS IN FRANCE BETWEEN 1789- 1799 SO SHORTLIVED?
Some were short-lived because they had been intended to be temporary and accomplish a specific
mission. The National Assembly and the Committee of Public Safety are both good examples. The
National Assembly was established to oversee the drafting of a constitution for France. Once it
completed its task in 1791, it no longer had reason to exist and elections had to be held to create a new
government that is the Legislative Assembly. The Committee of Public Safety was created in 1793 with
the specific tasks of saving the Revolution(ary) government from internal and external threats, resolving
the financial crisis and food shortages. It accomplished its task in 1794 and therefore had to be
dissolved.
Some collapsed due to internal rivalries among revolutionaries. The Legislative Assembly, Committee of
Public Safety, National Convention and even the Directory were all victims to the ever-intensifying
struggles for power between moderate and radical revolutionaries. The radicals felt that the Legislative
Assembly was too moderate and did not push the revolution far enough. Consequently it had to be
dissolved after just a year to give way to the National Convention that would be more radical. The
Committee of Public Safety was short-lived (lasting from 1793 to 1794) because it had accomplished its
mission of saving the revolutionary government from internal and external threats posed by rebellious
peasants, clergy, nobles and foreign armies. The National Convention was a victim of the rivalries among
revolutionaries. Some felt it was cumbersome in its operations and lacked clearly defined structures of
executive power and had to be dissolved to pave the way for a Directory. The Directory did not last long
as it was destroyed by the treachery of some of the Directors who connived with Napoleon to ensure
that he gained political power.
Some of the governments ended prematurely as a result of corruption within. The case of the Directory
has been cited above. It was brought down by corrupt directors namely Sieyes, Ducos and Barras who
connived with Napoleon to bring him to power in 1799.
The lack of armed force with which to back their decisions was also a crucial factor in the quick downfall
of some of the governments. The Directory which had risen to power on the strength of soldiers
commanded by Napoleon quickly found itself on the receiving end of a coup he orchestrated with the
backing of the army. His troops stormed the Council of Five Hundred and arrested those who opposed
the dissolution of the Directory. Those who remained were forced into voting the dissolution of the
Directory.
Personal ambition was also a factor in the quick demise of some of the governments. Robespierre’s
unbridled quest for personal power ultimately destroyed the Committee of Public Safety. He turned that
government into an instrument of terror and repression as he sought to impose his authority till his
opponents decided to destroy him. They also decided to dismantle the Committee and establish a new
less repressive government. The Directory was also an unfortunate victim of Napoleon’s desire for
personal power. Helped by corrupt directors, he orchestrated its destruction in order to achieve power
in 1799.
Unpopularity also contributed to the quick collapse of governments such as the Directory. From the
beginning radical Parisians had opposed it. Royalists and Jacobins also opposed it. There was an
attempted uprising by a group led by Simon Babeuf in 1796. There was another attempt in Paris. The
directory was saved by troops commanded by Napoleon. All that demonstrated just how unpopular it
was and as a result there was no body to defend it from Napoleon in 1799.
All in all successive governments were generally short-lived due to various factors. Chief of these were
the conflicts among revolutionaries, personal ambitions as well as the fact that some had specific
mandates to accomplish.
HOW SUCCESFUL WERE THE MISSIONARIES IN REALISING THEIR OBJECTIVES IN THE SECOND HALF OF
THE 19TH CENTURY
If it’s Zimbabwean then you have to include missionaries aims like MOFFAT, HELM, HARDTLY ETC
(1) Spreading Christianity which was generally a failure in the 19th century because African religions
remained strong and vibrant ( within the Ndebele not even a single member of the Zansi or Enhla was
known to have been converted. Even though Mzilikazi and Lobengula all tolerated missionaries like
Robert Moffat and Charles Helm they only did so for diplomatic reasons out of the knowledge that they
were connected to British imperialism. They also accepted them because they could treat diseases such
as gout which Mzilikazi and Lobengula suffered from)
(2) Missionaries sought to spread literacy and in the 19th century that too was largely a failure coz they
were hardly any Afircans who achieved literacy in meaningful numbers like what happened in places
such as South Africa, West Africa and even Malawi (Lobengula and his advisers remained illiterate
despite the 1st mission station at Inyathi being set up in 1857. Remember these guys needed
interpreters and only put clummsy x as a signature on documents such as the Moffat and Rudd
Concession treaties)
(3) Missionaries also attempted to spread western culture which they regarded as civilisation and
equated to Christianity but in that too, they largely failed because African societies continued to be very
much Afro-centric being led by their own culutral leaders such as the Mwari and Umlimu priests as well
as mediums like Kaguvi, Nehanda, Mkwati etc. Missionaries like Robert Moffat were so frustrated that
they ended up being agents of colonialists like Cecil Rhodes. However they also achieved some
successes like
(1) Opening up mission stations-Inyathi was opened in 1857, followed in 1870 by Hope Fountain, others
were also opened in Manicaland (Penhalonga), Emapndeni in Mangwe etc
(2) Destroying African Independence-missionaries assisted colonialists like Cecil Rhodes to secure
treaties that led to the colonisation of the Ndebele and Shona. All in all, I think the missionaries were a
failure because their most important objective of spreading Christianity was not achieved. A frustrated
John Moffat said of the Ndebele, “they are a miserable people and it will be a blessing to the world
when their power is broken up”(THERE ARE SOME REPETITIONS HERE …TAKE NOTE. HOW IMPORTANT
WAS THE PART PLAYED BY THE THIRD ESTATE IN THE FRENCH REVOLUTION UP TO 1793?
Definition-Third Estate consisted of the industrial, professional, commercial and intellectual classes
generally known as the Bourgeoisie. Workers, peasants and everybody else who was not a noble or
clergy also belonged to the Third estate. They made up 97% of the population.
Part played-they revolted against Louis xvi in 1789 by breaking away from the Estates-General to form
the National/Constituent Assembly. They vowed not to dissolve until after they had written a
constitution for France. The Revolt and formation of the National assembly was one of highly significant
actions by which the previously excluded and oppressed Third Estate grabbed a share of the political
power and participation. It was one of the actions by which Louis xvi was practically reduced from an
absolute to a constitutional monarch.
The march of women on Versailles and the forced relocation of Louis xvi and National Assembly to Paris
to Versailles were also highly significant actions by the Third Estate which served to emphasize the Third
Estate’s emergence as the dominant political force in France. Correspondingly Louis xvi was reduced in
stature and he increasingly fell under the dominance and direction of the Third Estate.
In 1789 the rise of the Third Estate and the corresponding decline of the monarchy, first and second
estates was further confirmed by further actions of the Third Estate that included the storming of the
Bastille, the abolition of the privileges of the clergy and nobles and seizure of the nobles and church
lands. Other highly significant actions confirming the new political, social and economic order included
the Declaration of Rights and violence against nobles and their property which led to the emigration of
the nobles and clergy from France into exile in countries such as Austria, Prussia and England. The
declaration of rights following the abolition of the political, social and economic privileges of the nobles
was also a highly significant and positive development in that for the first time political, social and
economic rights were given to all French people regardless of class, gender and religion. The Third Estate
had thus inaugurated a new era of social equality, human dignity and hope for all in place of the political
and social inequalities that had characterized the absolute monarchy of the ancient regime.
These positive measures were later given formal and complete recognition in the 1791 constitution
drawn up by the National/Constituent Assembly. France thus became a constitutional monarchy in
theory as well as in practice. The Third Estate had thus fulfilled Rousseau and Montesqieu’s dreams for
general political participation and separation of powers. This was achieved by creating a Legislative
Assembly to assume Louis xvi’s law-making powers and leaving him only executive functions.
But the Third Estate also displayed a violent, highly oppressive and divisive aspect through some of their
actions during the entire period. The vindictive peasants killed, destroyed and looted from the nobles
exhibited. Through the 1790 civil constitution the Third Estate oppressed and undermined the church by
forcing the clergy to take an oath of loyalty to the state which humiliated and brought them under state
subjection. The Third Estate which controlled the National Assembly, then the Legislative Assembly and
National Convention divided France instead of uniting the nation. The church itself was divided between
those willing to take the oath (constitutional/juring priests) and those who refused (refractory/nonjuring)
The Third Estate itself split into radical, anti-clerical elements and passionately catholic peasants who
rejected the civil constitution as an attempt to undermine to destroy Catholicism and Christianity.
France also found itself in conflict with the pope and other countries of Europe. In the end such
oppressive and divisive acts of the Third Estate bred the internal rebellion and civil wars in places such
as Vendee, Lyons, Toulon and Bordeaux.
They also bred the international war between France and a coalition of European countries including
Austria, Prussia, England, Holland and Spain beginning in 1792.
This atmosphere of civil and international war created a situation in France where the Revolutionary
Government found itself in a difficult position and it was forced to resort to far more violent and
repressive measures to save itself and the revolution.
Some of these violent and repressive measures included the abolition of the monarchy, the arrest and
death sentence of Louis xvi in 1792. This was prompted by fears that the king was conniving with the
Revolutionary government’s internal and external enemies to destroy the Revolution and restore the
political, social and economic conditions of the Ancien Regime.
The Third Estate introduced even more violence and repression in 1793 first through violent attempts to
destroy Christianity by closing churches, murdering priests and introducing a new calendar which was
supposed to be free of all the traces of Christianity associated with the old one.
That same year there were mass slaughters of real and imagined enemies of the Revolutionary
Government and that infamous period of domestic violence is referred to as the September Massacres.
Even worse violence and suppression of civil rights followed in 1793 when the Third Estate through the
National Convention introduced various laws including the Laws of Suspects and Maximum. The first
destroyed freedoms of opinion and expression and the right to a fair trial by criminalizing any show of
support for the monarchy and failure to show enough enthusiasm for the Revolution. Suspects were
hauled before the newly created Revolutionary Tribunal where they were denied legal representation
.The Law of Maximum hindered free trade by fixing maximum prices for essential goods and prescribing
death and imprisonment for offenders.
Other measures included military conscription and requisitioning to beef up the army and feed it so it
could deal with internal rebels and foreign armies.
As many as 60000 people lost their life during this period; about 500000 were imprisoned only to suffer
hunger, disease and even death in jails. This violent and oppressive phase of the Revolution was called
the Reign of Terror.
The Third Estate therefore played a highly significant role in the Revolution to 1793. Positive aspects
included achieving political power sharing and participation of all through the National then Legislative
Assembly and National Convention. They also the granted civil rights and economic empowerment of
the majority Third estate through the sale of land seized from the church and Nobles. Negative aspects
included violence, suppression of civil rights, grabbing total political power by abolishing the monarchy
and dragging France into a war with other European countries that lasted until 1815.
HOW IMPORTANT WAS THE PART PLAYED BY THE THIRD ESTATE IN THE FRENCH REVOLUTION UP TO
1793?
Definition-Third Estate consisted of the industrial, professional, commercial and intellectual classes
generally known as the Bourgeoisie. Workers, peasants and everybody else who was not a noble or
clergy also belonged to the Third estate. They made up 97% of the population.
Part played-they revolted against Louis xvi in 1789 by breaking away from the Estates-General to form
the National/Constituent Assembly. They vowed not to dissolve until after they had written a
constitution for France. The Revolt and formation of the National assembly was one of highly significant
actions by which the previously excluded and oppressed Third Estate grabbed a share of the political
power and participation. It was one of the actions by which Louis xvi was practically reduced from an
absolute to a constitutional monarch.
The march of women on Versailles and the forced relocation of Louis xvi and National Assembly to Paris
to Versailles were also highly significant actions by the Third Estate which served to emphasize the Third
Estate’s emergence as the dominant political force in France. Correspondingly Louis xvi was reduced in
stature and he increasingly fell under the dominance and direction of the Third Estate.
In 1789 the rise of the Third Estate and the corresponding decline of the monarchy, first and second
estates was further confirmed by further actions of the Third Estate that included the storming of the
Bastille, the abolition of the privileges of the clergy and nobles and seizure of the nobles and church
lands. Other highly significant actions confirming the new political, social and economic order included
the Declaration of Rights and violence against nobles and their property which led to the emigration of
the nobles and clergy from France into exile in countries such as Austria, Prussia and England. The
declaration of rights following the abolition of the political, social and economic privileges of the nobles
was also a highly significant and positive development in that for the first time political, social and
economic rights were given to all French people regardless of class, gender and religion. The Third Estate
had thus inaugurated a new era of social equality, human dignity and hope for all in place of the political
and social inequalities that had characterized the absolute monarchy of the ancient regime.
These positive measures were later given formal and complete recognition in the 1791 constitution
drawn up by the National/Constituent Assembly. France thus became a constitutional monarchy in
theory as well as in practice. The Third Estate had thus fulfilled Rousseau and Montesqieu’s dreams for
general political participation and separation of powers. This was achieved by creating a Legislative
Assembly to assume Louis xvi’s law-making powers and leaving him only executive functions.
But the Third Estate also displayed a violent, highly oppressive and divisive aspect through some of their
actions during the entire period. The vindictive peasants killed, destroyed and looted from the nobles
exhibited. Through the 1790 civil constitution the Third Estate oppressed and undermined the church by
forcing the clergy to take an oath of loyalty to the state which humiliated and brought them under state
subjection. The Third Estate which controlled the National Assembly, then the Legislative Assembly and
National Convention divided France instead of uniting the nation. The church itself was divided between
those willing to take the oath (constitutional/juring priests) and those who refused (refractory/nonjuring)
The Third Estate itself split into radical, anti-clerical elements and passionately catholic peasants who
rejected the civil constitution as an attempt to undermine to destroy Catholicism and Christianity.
France also found itself in conflict with the pope and other countries of Europe. In the end such
oppressive and divisive acts of the Third Estate bred the internal rebellion and civil wars in places such
as Vendee, Lyons, Toulon and Bordeaux.
They also bred the international war between France and a coalition of European countries including
Austria, Prussia, England, Holland and Spain beginning in 1792.
This atmosphere of civil and international war created a situation in France where the Revolutionary
Government found itself in a difficult position and it was forced to resort to far more violent and
repressive measures to save itself and the revolution.
Some of these violent and repressive measures included the abolition of the monarchy, the arrest and
death sentence of Louis xvi in 1792. This was prompted by fears that the king was conniving with the
Revolutionary government’s internal and external enemies to destroy the Revolution and restore the
political, social and economic conditions of the Ancien Regime.
The Third Estate introduced even more violence and repression in 1793 first through violent attempts to
destroy Christianity by closing churches, murdering priests and introducing a new calendar which was
supposed to be free of all the traces of Christianity associated with the old one.
That same year there were mass slaughters of real and imagined enemies of the Revolutionary
Government and that infamous period of domestic violence is referred to as the September Massacres.
Even worse violence and suppression of civil rights followed in 1793 when the Third Estate through the
National Convention introduced various laws including the Laws of Suspects and Maximum. The first
destroyed freedoms of opinion and expression and the right to a fair trial by criminalizing any show of
support for the monarchy and failure to show enough enthusiasm for the Revolution. Suspects were
hauled before the newly created Revolutionary Tribunal where they were denied legal representation
.The Law of Maximum hindered free trade by fixing maximum prices for essential goods and prescribing
death and imprisonment for offenders.
Other measures included military conscription and requisitioning to beef up the army and feed it so it
could deal with internal rebels and foreign armies.
As many as 60000 people lost their life during this period; about 500000 were imprisoned only to suffer
hunger, disease and even death in jails. This violent and oppressive phase of the Revolution was called
the Reign of Terror.
The Third Estate therefore played a highly significant role in the Revolution to 1793. Positive aspects
included achieving political power sharing and participation of all through the National then Legislative
Assembly and National Convention. They also the granted civil rights and economic empowerment of
the majority Third estate through the sale of land seized from the church and Nobles. Negative aspects
included violence, suppression of civil rights, grabbing total political power by abolishing the monarchy
and dragging France into a war with other European countries that lasted until 1815.
DISCUSS THE NATURE AND EFFECTS OF THE RELATIONS OF THE BETWEEN THE PORTUGUESE AND THE
MUTAPA STATE DURING 16TH AND 17TH CENTURIES. (NOV 2009)
Mutapa-Portuguese relations were also characterized by intrigue and conspiracies that ultimately led to
conflict within the Mutapa and with outsiders. Portuguese attempts to Christianise the locals in the
1560s sparked conflict within the state as they opposed by traditional religious authorities who feared
the loss of their own influence over the rulers and subjects in general. They also bred a rivalry with
Swahili traders based at the court. The latter feared that this would result in the loss of their privileged
trading position in the state. The Swahili then conspired with the traditional religious authorities to have
the Portuguese priest Father Goncalo da Silveira assassinated in 1561. The murder only aggravated
tensions in the Mutapa state. It fuelled Portuguese demands for the expulsion of all the Swahili traders
from the state and the surrender of Mutapa gold mines to the king of Portugal. The Portuguese had
clearly found a pretext to conquer the state. Between 1569 and 1575 they organised three abortive
expeditions to conquer the Mutapa State and to control the gold.
In 1561 Gonçalo da Silveira, a Portuguese Jesuit missionary, visited Mutapa, where he quickly made
converts, including the Mutapa Negomo Mupuzangutu murdered. The presence of the Portuguese had a
serious impact that left the empire so weakened that it entered the 17th century in serious decline. By
the mid-17th century the Portuguese controlled Munhumutapa Empire.
Another significant aspect of the Mutapa-Portuguese relations was the persistence of violence. Even the
Portuguese documents mention a terrible wave of violence generated by the Portuguese prazo holders
and their Chikunda armies from the Zambezi against the various Mutapas who were politically and
militarily weak. There are references to attacks made on the people of Mukaranga, some of whom were
enslaved and forced to work in the gold mines by the Portuguese. They fled leaving the core of the state
largely depopulated. Some prazo holders seized areas of the land that belonged to the Mutapa and tried
to convert them into prazos. Some local rulers joined them, for example, the Nyachuru dynasty of the
upper Mazowe. Clearly the Mutapa State lost control of the plateau area around this time.
In 1561 Gonçalo da Silveira, a Portuguese Jesuit missionary, visited Mutapa, where he quickly made
converts, including King Negomo Mupuzangutu. However, the Swahili traders who lived there, fearing
for their commercial position, persuaded Negomo to have Silveira murdered. The presence of the
Portuguese had a serious impact that affected some of its trade and there had been a series of wars
which left the empire so weakened that it entered the 17th century in serious decline. By the mid-17th
century the Portuguese controlled Munhumutapa Empire.
Another aspect of Mutapa-Portuguese relations was the military co-operation between the two. In
c.1599, the Mutapa sought and received Portuguese assistance to fight Chikunda who led rebels in
attacking villages under Mutapa control. In 1607, Gatsi Rusere also sought Portuguese help to deal with
threats to his rule. That war dragged on for some years despite Portuguese assistance. Mutapa Gatsi
Rusere was eventually deposed from his throne and his capital taken over. In a desperate situation, he
surrendered all his mines to the Portuguese Crown so as to receive some assistance. Bocarro dates this
event to August 1607. A joint Mutapa Portuguese army then engaged the rebel Anconhe forcing him to
flee to Chizinga where he joined another rebel called Gurapaza. Bocarro reports that some of the
villages in Chizinga were attacked and razed but the Mutapa and the Portuguese forces were eventually
forced to retreat to the Mazowe River.
Portuguese military assistance was however obtained at the heavy cost of Mutapa submission and this
turned them into vassals or puppets of the Portuguese. Mutapa rebels like Mavura were forced to sign
treaties of vassalage to the Portuguese thus tying the Mutapa state to the Portuguese crown. The
Portuguese took this opportunity to advance their imperial interests by using slave labour to work on
the land they acquired under these treaties. This resulted in many armed conflicts in the area, causing
many Shona to flee to the south where Rozvi rule was being established. The Portuguese at Massapa
entered into a secret agreement with the Mutapa rebels of Chizinga. That led to a combined attack on
the Mutapa’s garrison at Massapa. The Portuguese were after the mines, particularly those of silver
reportedly located somewhere in Chikova in the Zambezi Valley. They had realised the weakness of
Mutapa Gatsi Rusere and even prepared a conquest of the whole state. The building of the forts such as
St. Estevaõ (by Dom Estevaõ) and St. Miguel (by Madeira) on the Zambezi between 1612 and 1614 must
be understood in this context. They even rejected some of the gestures of peace made by Mutapa Gatsi
Rusere.
Their relations were also characterized by trade. The Mutapa state was also rich in gold and ivory which
attracted first the Swahili, and then the Portuguese, from the Indian Ocean coastal ports. The
Portuguese, who came to know about the lucrative gold trade from the Swahili, started to collect
information relating to the location of gold mines, the quantity of gold produced, the nature of
exchange, the African rulers in charge of the gold mines as well as the nature and extent of their political
systems (Smith, 1983; Beach, 1980). The Portuguese built up Sofala as part of the grand strategy to tap
all the gold and ivory coming from the Mutapa state. Following their failure to establish a monopoly, the
Portuguese decided to penetrate the Zimbabwe Plateau interior.
There was also a cultural exchange that involved Portuguese attempts to Christianise the Mutapa. The
Portuguese had quickly realised that there was the close link between politics and religion of the
Mutapa state, they sought to penetrate it through religion. When father Gonzalo da Silveira arrived in
December 1560, he worked on converting the royal family to Christianity. He was largely successful in
this because the vast empire had become heavily riddled with conspiracies, coup plots, succession
disputes and civil wars to the extent that the reigning Mutapa probably wanted Portuguese help to hold
on to power. Apart from religion, there was intermarriage or at least sexual relations between the two.
Shona oral traditions and Portuguese documents have all testified to Portuguese men obtaining Shona
women as wives and concubines.
The nature of their interaction also resulted in the introduction of new crops among the Mutapa. Wills
(1985) argues that the maize crop was introduced by the Portuguese among the Shona from about the
16th century. It spread rapidly into areas formally dominated by traditional food crops such as finger
millet (rapoko or rukweza), bulrush millet (mhunga), and sorghum (mapfunde). To this day, maize
Trade was carried out with other Shona groups and Europeans and it also contributed significantly to the
rise of the Rozvi. They traded their cattle for the Europeans guns and ammunitions. There was an
internal trade where they traded among themselves exchanging iron implements, animal skins and
pottery for the grain and other agricultural produce. Hunting activities also contributed to the external
trade conducted with the Swahili Arabs and Portuguese. Top of the list of the hunted animals were
elephants that were highly prized for the tusks, and meat. Other trade items included gold, beads,
mirrors and ceramics. Trade goods obtained from far away places were also used in further developing
and building up a strong political power base. That was achieved by redistributing them among people
who may not have participated in long distance trade on a large scale. This fits in well with the
contention that 'luxury goods from a distant source are often distributed to reproduce a system of rank
status or offices within a polity' (Kipp and Schortman, 1989).
The Rozvi were also pastoralists and cattle were important for political, social and economic purposes.
As with the Mutapa, there is a general consensus among historians that cattle ownership also played a
significant role in the rise of the Rozvi State. They took advantage of the dry grasslands, low trees and
excellent pastureland of Guruuswa to raise large heads of cattle, goats and sheep. The national herd was
owned or controlled by the king and he distributed them in a manner that enhanced his position as head
of state. Some he distributed to chiefs as an acknowledgement of their loyalty or as a reward for
services rendered. Cattle were also important for the payment of the bride-price and for trade. They
were exchanged for European goods such as guns and ammunition and as well as agricultural produce,
iron wares and pottery
Like other Iron Age states, agricultural activities were significant to the rise and expansion of the Rozvi
State. Iron mining and smelting was followed by the manufacture of iron tools such as hoes and axes.
These were far stronger than any of the tools that had been made during the Stone Age and they
enabled people to clear forests and cultivate the land much more easily. Archaeologists have dug up
carbonized seeds that clearly indicate the growing of grains such as sorghum, millet, various beans and
cowpeas. Farming was a seasonal and labour intensive involving family on individual plots of land.
Agriculture ensured much greater food security than could be achieved through a reliance on the
environment to provide wild vegetables and fruits.
The hunting of big game such as elephants, kudu and buffalo also contributed a great deal to the
economy of the Rozvi State. Iron-smiths manufactured much more powerful iron tools like axes, spear
and arrow points and knives that enabled them to kill the larger animals. The big game augmented meat
supplies and also provided hides. Of these the elephants were probably the most important because
their tusks stimulated the growth of ivory trade. For the Rozvi just like the other Iron Age states like
Great Zimbabwe, Mutapa, and the Torwa, the ivory trade was an important source of wealth so much
that men often risked the danger to hunt down elephants to trade with the Swahili-Arab merchants and
later the Portuguese who came into central and southern Africa via the East African coast.
Tribute collected from subject Shona/Kalanga societies also contributed to the Rozvi economy. Tribute
was usually in the form of grain, animal skins and cattle. Tribute was highly significant on two fronts. On
one hand it demonstrated the loyalty of the Rozvi subjects and helped to cement the Changamire’s
political authority. Secondly it gave the Changamire rulers the economic resources like gold and ivory
they needed for external trade.
Pottery, blacksmithing, weaving and basketry were also important economic activities while the
specialized iron industry produced tools and weapons. Surplus products were for trading. Gold mining
and game hunting were however low key activities.
ASSESS THE IMPACT OF THE NGUNI INCURSIONS ON THE ROZVI STATE. (NOV 2007)
The Nguni incursions definitely increased violence within the Rozvi state. There is much truth to the
claim that the Ndebele economy relied heavily on raiding and the various Rozvi communities especially
those close to the Ndebele suffered as a consequence. From the arrival of the Ndebele in present day
Matabeleland up to the imposition of colonial rule in the 1890's, there was never a decade without
Ndebele raids into Rozvi territory. Mzilikazi and Lobengula pursued a consistent policy of raiding against
one or the other Shona communities. Apart from attacking the declining Rozvi, D. N. Beach cites
Ndebele raiding activities which greatly affected the Chirimuhanzu dynasty in the 1850's. These were
repeated during the 1860's when they raided the Kalanga during the 1860 - 1 drought. These were Rozvi
tributaries in the west. That same decade (1868) the north-western Ngezi dynasty of Rimuka was also
raided resulting in the flight of the Mashayamombe and Chivero rulers further north-east. In the 1870
the Ndebele raided across a 70km radius from the western Duma on the confluence of the Mutirikwi
and the Popoteke rivers to the upper Popoteke. Finally the Ndebele raided from the Chivi to Gutu
in1892 and from Mupfure to Chishawasha in 1893. These examples paint a picture of a consistent policy
of raiding and therefore suggesting its central significance to the Ndebele way of life.
Among other things, the Nguni incursions definitely weakened the state. According to D. N. Beach (1986.
p.51), the southern Shona became regular tributaries of the Ndebele. These included the Chirimuhanzu
on the Shashe River as well as the other Rozvi groups in the modern Shurugwi and Zvishavane districts.
Nguni groups like the Ndebele began to collect tribute from the Rozvi and that was evidence of the
weakening of the latter. Tribute was usually in the form of grain, animal skins, cattle and even young me
and women who were incorporated into the Ndebele state. As overlord of the Rozvi clans such as
Svabasvi, Lukiluba and Rozani, Mzilikazi exacted tribute. During Lobengula's tenure, Nemakonde and
Chivi were some of the Rozvi chiefs paying tribute to the Ndebele. Those who paid tribute were not
subjected to raids. Raids were more of punitive measures rather than the norm as evidenced by the
1893 raiding expeditions sent to punish Gomala in Masvingo for using Ndebele cattle to pay a fine
imposed by the European settler administration.
Another significant albeit negative aspect of the Nguni incursions was that they fomented and worsened
the rivalries among the Rozvi groups. The Ndebele did not fight all the Shona at once and they actually
allied with some Shona groups while fighting others. The generic term Shona is misleading as it is implies
a single, united and homogenous political entity which certainly did not exist in the nineteenth century.
There were many scattered and independent Shona groups which were as likely to fight each other as
much as they could fight the Ndebele. This explains why the Ndebele could fight against Chirisamhuru
and Tohwechipi in the early 1850s and then became Tohwechipi’s allies before the decade was up.
Chizema was also assisted by the Ndebele in his attempts to conquer southern Buhera. This also explains
why Mzilikazi had the Chaminuka medium killed while maintaining good relations with other Shona
mediums such as Nyamuswa, Wanewawa and Chikono. According to D.N. Beach, Mzilikazi even paid
tribute to these mediums.
The Nguni incursions broke the Rozvi state into much smaller and fragmented polities. Like the Mutapa
state before it, the Rozvi state collapsed under the weight of its vastness which could not be sustained
by its ‘feudal’ structures in the face of growing pressures from the Mfecane groups advancing from the
south. From about 1826, Rozvi were subjected to severe pressure from migrants fleeing from the
Mfecane disturbances south of the Limpopo. By 1838, as many as five Nguni groups had passed through
or settled in the region, each bombarding the Rozvi state and transforming the way of life of the local
people. Two of these groups, the Ndebele and the Gaza, however eventually settled permanently in
Zimbabwe and subjected several Shona groups to their rule. The new settlers introduced a system of
tributary control premised on the threat of military use. These newcomers not only dismantled the core
of the Rozvi ruling elite, but also scattered its varying factions in all directions. Mzilikazi’s Ndebele state
thus subjugated and or incorporated into Ndebele society some Rozvi houses. By the 1850s, Ndebele
rule stretched over the Zambezi, the Mafungavutsi plateau and Gokwe, with the Shona chiefs there
paying tribute to the Ndebele.
The Nguni incursions resulted in fundamental changes to Rozvi settlement patterns during the
nineteenth century. Many of the Rozvi communities abandoned the more open lowlands in favour of
hilltops that could be better defended from Nguni attacks. Archaeologists came to use "Refuge Period"
to refer to archaeological sites and artifacts loosely conceived as representing a widespread movement
of population to walled hilltop sites and hidden refuges as a result of the Mfecane and other
disturbances in the 19th century (e.g. Huffman 1971, 1974; Izzett 1980; Pikirayi 1993). Thus Huffman
(1971) referred to the Refuge Period as a wider phenomenon in northern Mashonaland with
characteristic pottery, while Izzett (1980) also refers to Refuge Period and "Refuge type pottery". Pikirayi
(2001) used "Refuge Tradition", "Refuge Culture" and "Refuge period" interchangeably
The Nguni incursions also resulted in the cultural and linguistic assimilation of the Rozvi by the Gaza.
Different Nguni groups raided the southern Rozvi groups in the 1820s and 1830s. These included the
Nguni led by Ngwana Masesenyane and Mpanga. They raided the Great Zimbabwe region and
incorporated some Rozvi groups before continuing with their northward advance (D. Beach p.50). In the
early 1860s, another Gaza Nguni group established its authority east of the Save River and exacted
tribute from the Rozvi in the area including the Duma. Their power also extended down to the Mwenezi
and Bubi areas. This enabled them to become masters of the Hlengwe and Tsonga who had been Rozvi
subjects in the past and led to their incorporation into the Gaza state as Shangaans.
The Nguni incursions also resulted in the cultural and linguistic assimilation of the Rozvi by the Ndebele.
The Ndebele assimilated or incorporated Rozvi people into their society to the extent that the amaHole
caste became the largest within the Ndebele caste system. Although prejudice existed it was not a
totally bleak scenario as this caste could also provide chiefs and also enjoyed the same state protection
accorded the Zansi and Enhla. If assimilation was forced on amaHole, it certainly was not forced on the
Mutevaidzi of Mberengwa who voluntarily adopted the Ndebele language, forged alliances with the
Ndebele and even copied Nguni practices such as ear piercing. For their part, the Ndebele adopted some
of the Shona religious practices including the shrine at Matopos (Njelele). Historians such as Ranger have
asserted that the cult priests of Njelele had sufficient authority among the Ndebele to organize
resistance to European rule in 1896.
The Nguni incursions also fostered innovation among the Rozvi especially in the area of weapons
manufacture. The Njanja have been cited as an example of how some of the Rozvi -Shona responded to
the Nguni menace through perfecting their skills in gun manufacture and repair. They also perfected
their technology of forging bullets and manufacturing gunpowder from the droppings of rock rabbits
(Mackenzie 1975: 218). The Madzivire branch of the Rozvi also improved the weapons-making skills.
According to Burke it took them only a night to forge bullets at short notice of the news of the approach
of the Matabele (Burke 1969: 170). These and other weapons obtained from the Venda and Portuguese
were useful in sustaining the long sieges of the Ndebele. The defeat of the Matabele at Nyaningwe in
1879 according to Beach had much to do with the rapid accumulation in the Mhari armoury of such
locally manufactured and Venda guns (Beach 1994: 164). The Mhari themselves had come to forge
different types of guns, common among them being kororo, and hlabakude (G. Marufu, M Matumbure
pers.comm.). Ellert (1984:57) elaborates the development of this gun industry arguing that the 19th
century Shona made copies of most of the imported guns which became known by their onomatopoeic
names as zvigidi and most of them were extensively and effectively used in the 1896-7 Chimurenga.
There is little doubt that the nineteenth century was a turbulent period on the Zimbabwean plateau
region owing to the various developments that took place. This situation was the end-product of the
Nguni incursions on Rozvi territory. CRITICALLY EXAMINE THE POLITICAL AND ECONOMIC EFFECTS OF
THE LATE IRON AGE ON ZIMBABWEAN SOCIETIES.
An important political consequence of the Late Iron Age was the emergence of more permanent and
settled communities. Agriculture in particular required that people remain in one place at least long
enough to cultivate and wait for the crops to mature so that they could be harvested. In any case the
harvests would have to be stored thus reducing the mobility of the communities. Other economic
activities like trade, manufacturing also created a situation where the Iron Age societies accumulated
much greater stores of property and wealth which would have been difficult to consistently move
around. That alone was a huge incentive for a more permanent and settled way of life. Thus the axes
and hoes which were products of the Iron Age were brought into action cutting down trees and clearing
the ground to facilitate the construction of permanent dwellings. The round, thatched huts made out of
tree poles and hard clay (daga) made their appearance replacing the cave dwellings that were popular
with the nomadic Stone Age communities
The use of iron not only promoted economic and social stability but it also facilitated the emergence of
large states like Great Zimbabwe which became an important commercial and political centre. In
addition to being in the heart of an extensive commercial and trading network, the site was the center
of a powerful political kingdom, which was under a central ruler for about 350 years (1100–1450 AD).
The site is estimated to have contained perhaps 18,000 inhabitants, making it one of the largest cities of
its day. Great Zimbabwe covered over 1779 acres. The stone wall enclosures of the state are still
standing to this day and hut remains have been dug up by archaeologists. The two main geographical
areas of stone wall enclosures are the Hill Complex on the long, steep-sided granite hill that rises 262
feet above the surrounding ground and the land below this hill where the Valley Enclosures and the
Great Enclosure are situated. The stone walls, up to 19.7 feet thick and 36 feet high, are built of granite
blocks without the use of mortar.
The Late Iron Age also facilitated the rise of autocratic and personality-driven forms of political
organisation. It has already been noted elsewhere that the use of iron led to greater accumulation of
wealth by some individuals enabling them to acquire influence and political authority that enabled them
to dominate the less wealthy. Those fortunate enough to control iron production, trade and the land
were able to bring others under their authority in the states they created. They made them their
servants and made them fight their wars in exchange for economic rewards that included the use of the
land for agriculture. The less wealthy were also made to herd livestock in return for limited rights to milk
and meat. Economic control enabled some to achieve great personal power as emperors, kings or chiefs.
The Munhumutapa and Changamire who exercised autocratic power as emperors in the Mutapa and
Rozvi empires of the Late Iron Age are good examples. So great was the power and the personality of
the Munhumutapa that his vassal rulers had to light a fire from the one that burned at his headquarters.
It had to be kept burning as long as he was alive and ruled as a show of respect and submissiveness.
Another significant but negative political effect of the Late Iron Age was the rise in the incidence of wars
within and among the communities and states. The use of iron was in itself a catalyst for the outbreak of
even deadlier wars as the metal was used to manufacture weapons that were more effective in combat.
During this period wars were fought with the newly made iron spears and arrows. Communities and
states therefore engaged each other in battles with all the confidence that their stronger and more
effective weapons would enable them to kill their adversaries in greater numbers than was possible with
pre-Iron Age weapons. Wars also resulted from the succession disputes and the struggle for political
power that were a natural consequence of the formation of larger states that was a feature of the Late
Iron Age. Shona oral traditions abound with stories of the wars that accompanied the rise, expansion
and decline of large states such as Great Zimbabwe, Mutapa and the Rozvi empires. The issue is simple
enough: the use of iron stimulated more permanent and larger settled communities. These in turn led to
the creation of laws to regulate the relationships among people in them. This gave rise to greater
The discovery and use of iron was also an important catalyst in the growth and further development of
copper and gold mining. This was achieved through the use of the much stronger and more reliable iron
tools. Iron tools like hoes and picks could be used to dig up the earth that could be very hard in some
places. It is perfectly clear that none of the stone tools would have accomplished these arduous tasks
because they were not as durable. The production of gold and copper became in turn a catalyst for the
thriving trade where Zimbabwean communities exchanged these items for ceramics, glass and brass
imports.
Another important economic consequence was the generation of increased wealth from greater
agricultural yields and trade in iron tools. It has already been discussed that the use of iron tools enabled
larger tracts of land to be cleared and cultivated. That in turn would have enabled greater yields to be
achieved creating surpluses that could then be traded within and with other societies. Through this
trade in agricultural and other products including the iron tools themselves, the societies were able to
build up greater reserves of wealth for themselves. This increased wealth was also reflected in the
greater importation of luxury items by states like Great Zimbabwe. The items included glass beads, glass
vessels, Persian and Chinese ceramics, coins from Kilwa, copper ingots and cowrie shells from the coast.
It can thus be concluded that the Late Iron Age had significant and far-reaching political and economic
effects on the Zimbabwean societies. These included the accumulation of greater wealth, diversification
of economic activities, the rise of larger and more permanently settled societies as well as the evolution
of more complex political systems.
TO WHAT EXTENT CAN THE DECLINE OF THE GREAT ZIMBABWE CIVILISATION BE ATTRIBUTED TO
ECOLOGICAL FACTORS IN THE AREA?
Although the Great Zimbabwe area had rainfall patterns generally good enough to support the
cultivation of crops like sorghum, millet, beans, and squash and promote good pasturage for cattle and
sheep, droughts occurred from time to time. A drought occurring at a time the population had reached a
critical point in relation to its natural resources would have destroyed Great Zimbabwe’s ability to feed
itself. This problem would have been worsened by the fact that there was no technology by which the
state could transport sufficient food and other supplies over long distances and the only alternatives
would have involved dispersing the people or moving the state structure to another site. Either way the
result would have been the collapse of the state.
The progressive deterioration of the pastures for the livestock seriously undermined Great Zimbabwe’s
pastoral economy and contributed to its ultimate decline. Although the state was situated in a generally
grassy savanna region with reasonably good rainfall, the keeping of large herds of cattle in a densely
populated but fairly compact area would have destroyed the pasturage over time. Even if the rainfall
was generally good, the ability of the pastures to regenerate was also compromised by the droughts
which tended to occur at least once every five years. Since much of the area surrounding the state was
either too mountainous or too rocky, the people were probably forced to move much further away from
the state and ultimately abandoned in search of the proverbial greener pastures.
The population of the state has been estimated to have been in the region of eleven thousand but D.N.
Beach believed that further research would probably reflect a greater number. Whatever the figure it
appears that Great Zimbabwe probably grew too big to be supported by its environment and the
presence of so many people at “one spot would have seriously affected the ability of its site territory to
supply crops, crops, firewood, game, grazing and all other necessities of life.” (Beach: 1980. P.50).
Having so many people clustered would have also generated the unwelcome problems of disease, noise
and soil exhaustion. Consequently the women and men would have had to walk longer distances to their
fields as soil exhaustion took its toll and also because much of the area surrounding the state was either
too mountainous or too rocky to support cultivation. All this would have created competition for the
available resources between or among different branches of the ruling family and their supporters and
that might have created quarrels over grazing, hunting ranges and crop lands even before they became
exhausted. In the event, civil wars might have resulted and ultimately made it impossible for the state to
continue.
Although some historians believe that civil wars and succession disputes may have bedeviled the Great
Zimbabwe state resulting ultimately in its collapse, there is not much evidence to support this view. In
the absence of any records or much information from oral tradition, it seems likely that this conclusion
was reached after studies of later Shona states like the Mutapa and Rozvi whose social, political and
economic organisation was broadly similar to that of Great Zimbabwe. It seems reasonable to suppose
therefore that the civil wars and succession disputes that affected the latter two states would have
affected Great Zimbabwe as well. The well known tradition about Mutota’s emigration from Great
Zimbabwe in search of salt may also have been the result of succession disputes and the civil war that it
resulted in.
Historians have generally speculated that Great Zimbabwe could have fallen victim to the rivalry and
imperial ambitions of various members of the ruling elite. This is a view which is not easy to substantiate
given the fact that hardly any names of the ruling class and any dates have ever been advanced. Oral
tradition supplies the name of Nyatsimba Mutota as the aristocrat who emigrated from the state in
order to find salt which had become scarce at Great Zimbabwe. It is possible that this emigration may
also have been the result of his failure to achieve political power within the Great Zimbabwe state as
result of competition and his ambitions would have motivated him to move with his supporters
The decline of tradable items, the emergence and growth of the rival states and the progressive decline
of trade on the East African coast all conspired to undermine the trade of Great Zimbabwe with
disastrous consequences for the state’s continued existence. According to D.N. Beach, the Great
Zimbabwe area was never a major gold producing area itself although there were initially considerably
gold deposits especially of the alluvial variety. Those were probably sufficient to support the foundation
of the state but not enough to sustain it in the long term. Evidence shows that the ancient prospectors
were highly skilled in discovering and exploiting the gold deposits so much that, “little was left unexploited.”(A.J. Wills. p.25) Given this scenario the continued existence of Great Zimbabwe would have
probably depended on the ability of its rulers to control the trade in gold and other items produced
elsewhere. With time the Torwa and Mutapa states emerged to the south-west and North-west of Great
Zimbabwe and these undermined the former’s capacity to trade. They were able to achieve this by
taking over Great Zimbabwe’s trade routes and by attracting the Swahili-Arab merchants who had been
the Great Zimbabwe’s trading partners. What emerged was a scenario where Great Zimbabwe for whom
trade was the life-blood progressively lost that ability to trade
According to Shona oral traditions, Nyatsimba Mutota (c.1450-1480) led an expedition northwards from
Great Zimbabwe in the direction of the Mazoe River tributaries ostensibly to search for salt. Objective
might not have been salt per se but a general quest for natural resources that might have begun to
decline on the plateau owing to a combination of population pressure, over-hunting and even the
efficient exploitation of the alluvial gold reserves. Population growth may have produced a competition
for the available resources between or among different branches of the ruling family and their
supporters and that might have created quarrels over grazing, hunting ranges and crop lands even
before they became exhausted. In the event, civil wars might have resulted and ultimately made it
impossible for the state to continue.
The emergence of states such as the Torwa and Mutapa to the south and north of Great Zimbabwe
probably contributed a great deal to the collapse of the latter. Great Zimbabwe was fully occupied for
only about 300 years and the rise of the neighboring states of Torwa and Mutapa coincides with the
decline of Great Zimbabwe. These were also Shona states with similar political structures, customs,
religious beliefs and economic activities. Great Zimbabwe found itself having to compete with these
emerging states for control of international trade, economic resources and political domination and it
came off worse.
All in all, the decline of Great Zimbabwe was ultimately the outcome of so many factors. Although
ecological issues played a greater role, there were also other factors that included succession disputes,
decline in trade and the emergence of similar and rival states.
Explain why the Civil Constitution of the Clergy provoked opposition within
France in the years 1790 to 1791. (12 marks)
The civil constitution of the clergy was passed to remove exterior influences from the governance of
France. It stated that all land owned by the church would become state controlled, and French priests
would be paid by the state and all church law (probate, moral, divorce) would be controlled by the
government. It left Rome controlling only the Doctrine of the Church which clearly angered the Pope
and prompted him to issue un-cooperatory orders to all French priests.
One of the key reasons that this constitution created and provoked opposition was that it challenged a
long standing tradition and caused moral dilemma for numerous citizens. They could support the
constitution and become good citizens of France or they could oppose it and remain loyal to Rome.
Examples of this can be found by looking simply at the King, Louis XIII. The religious settlement had gone
against everything he believed and so took sacrament from non-juror priests.
Another cause of tension was the apparent attack on regional identities that had been closely tied to
religion. Areas such as the Vendée grew increasingly anti-revolutionary so they saw it as a tool by which
Paris had removed their beliefs.
Thirdly, the Civil constitution created the start of the counterrevolution movement.
Priests unwilling to sign to the constitution, (non-jurors) preached messages of hate about the
revolution, warning people not to jeopardise their mortal souls by supporting it.
In conclusion the Civil Constitution of the Clergy provoked immense tension by giving French citizens a
reason to deny the revolution. It also surfaced the clear schisms that were being created between Paris
and the other regions, who were becoming disillusioned by a revolution they had initially supported.
Principal Examiner’s Comments
This answer gives three, clearly set out reasons as to why the Civil Constitution of the Clergy provoked
opposition and each is well explained:
It challenged tradition and provoked a moral dilemma
It imposed a centralisation that was resented
It threatened religious beliefs and led some priests to encourage anti-revolutionary sentiment
There is a concluding paragraph which provides an ‘overall’ (summative) reason – ‘a reason to deny the
revolution’ showing some depth of understanding in the linkage of the factors. The depth of
understanding shown and the drawing together of factors in a conclusion has led to an award at Level 4
-12 marks
Examine Britain’s role in the collapse of the Congress System
From the onset, Britain stood apart from the other European powers and opposed the Russiansponsored scheme to thwart the spread of liberalism in Europe. With the exception of Britain, the
architects of the Vienna Settlement were conservative absolute rulers who felt threatened by (French)
revolutionary ideas such as nationalism and liberalism. Moreover Russia and Austria were multi-national
empires whose very existence was threatened by nationalism such that any concession to that principle
would be an act of suicide. The Russians, Austrians and Prussians had conservative rulers still firmly
convinced of their ‘divine right to rule’ and they had not fought the French for so long only to concede
their right to rule and that of their empires to exist at the congress table. Thus the Russians clung onto
the Poles and the Finns among other nationalities while the Austrians did likewise to the Slavs, Serbs,
Magyars and Italians in their multi-national empire. The Russian king Alexander even proposed a ‘Holy
Alliance’ of Christian monarchs devoted to the suppression of nationalist and liberal forces wherever
they reared their heads. Although he privately declared it a “loud sounding nothing” Metternich wholeheartedly endorsed on behalf of the Austrian emperor. It occurred to him that it could be useful for
suppressing opposition to monarchical rule. Only Britain refused to join what its representative
Castlereagh described as a “piece of sublime mysticism and non-sense”.
While there appeared to be a general desire to address issues of common rather than self-interest at the
Congress of Aix la Chapelle in 1818, Britain once again stood isolated from the other powers on various
issues. Having agreed with other powers on re-admitting France to the ranks of the great powers as an
equal partner, Britain differed with them on the issue of the Atlantic Slave Trade and the Barbary pirates
who threatened European shipping and trade on the seas. The congress also discussed the revolt of
Spain’s American colonies with Russia urging European intervention to support Spain. Disagreements
pitting Britain against the others arose over these issues. Tackling the slave trade and the pirates would
have required stationing naval squadrons with stop and search powers over all ships. Only Britain had
the naval capacity and other powers were wary of giving Britain that kind of authority fearing it would
only entrench its dominance. Conversely Britain was also wary of placing its navy under international
authority and so the slave trade and piracy continued unabated. Russia’s interventionist schemes in
America were opposed by Britain and Austria. Britain evidently hoped the revolts would lead to the
collapse of the Spanish empire therefore allowing it access to trade markets it was excluded from.
Even at the congresses of Troppau and Laibach in 1820 and 1821, Britain opposed Austria and Russia
over revolts in various European states. The two congresses were called to discuss the revolts that had
broken out in Spain, Portugal and Naples. Britain ganged up with France to oppose Austrian and Russian
interventionist schemes on behalf of the governments of those states after they had requested
intervention in the affairs of other states rendered the whole concept of the congress system
ineffective. As the British representative Canning put it when the congress broke down due to
disagreements, “things are getting back to a wholesome state again-every nation for itself and God for
us all.” Such statements demonstrated how much Britain opposed the collective efforts of the congress
system.
Having observed all this, it would however be unfair to attribute all the blame for the congress system’s
collapse on Britain.
Conservative countries like Russia and Austria should shoulder some of the blame as they sought to turn
the congress into an instrument for protecting their own political philosophies. As already discussed
above, these powers sought to turn the congress system into a “holy alliance” to protect themselves
against liberal ideas. Britain was justified in resisting their scheme because it was a constitutional
monarchy in line with some of the liberal principles the other absolutist states wanted to supress. The
congress system was bound to collapse someday because it had been created by European states whose
political ideologies and interests were not only fundamentally different but also in conflict as well. As
such, heaping the blame on Britain alone is to miss the full picture of a congress whose collapse was a
collective responsibility.
Russia’s Tsar Alexander and Austria’s Metternich should shoulder a big chunk of the responsibility of
making Britain hostile to the congress system due to their huge appetite for interfering in other states’
affairs. It was clear that the two states had found in the congress system, a useful instrument for
intervening in other states to save monarchical rulers against their own subjects. It was intervention at
all costs even if the subjects had justifiable grounds for opposing their rulers as was the case in Naples
and Spain where there were demands to grant or respect the charters which the rulers were clearly
violating. Britain therefore worked for the collapse of the congress system only because it had been
provoked by the selfishness of the Austrians and Russians.
In conclusion, while it can be observed that Britain played a prominent role in bringing down the
congress system, that was only after the realisation that it was now being used by the other powers to
pursue their agendas which were diametrically opposed to theirs.
The Civil Constitution of the Clergy (1790)
The Civil Constitution of the Clergy. The reorganization of the Church which followed upon the
confiscation of its vast possessions is an excellent illustration of the spirit of the National Assembly The
demand for complete uniformity and simplification is especially pronounced in the reform of this most
venerable institution of France, the anomalies of which were hallowed not only by age but by religious
reverence. The chief articles are given below, and indicate how completely the Assembly desired to
bring the Church under rules similar to those which they were drawing up for the state. The National
Assembly, after having heard the report of the ecclesiastical committee, has decreed and do decree the
following as constitutional articles:
Title I.
Article I. Each department shall form a single diocese, and each diocese shall have the same extent and
the same limits as the department…
Article IV. No church or parish of France nor any French citizen may acknowledge upon any occasion, or
upon any pretext whatsoever, the authority of an ordinary bishop or of an archbishop whose see shall
be under the supremacy of a foreign power, nor that of his representatives residing in France or
elsewhere; without prejudice, however, to the unity of the faith and the intercourse which shall be
maintained with the visible head of the universal Church, as hereafter provided.
Article XX. All titles and offices other than those mentioned in the present constitution … are from the
day of this decree extinguished and abolished and shall never be reestablished in any form.
Title II
Article I. Beginning with the day of publication of the present decree, there shall be but one mode of
choosing bishops and parish priests, namely that of election.
Article II. All elections shall be by ballot and shall be decided by the absolute majority of the votes.
Article III. The election of bishops shall take place according to the forms and by the electoral body
designated in the decree of December 22, 1789, for the election of members of the departmental
assembly…
Article VI. The election of a bishop can only take place or be undertaken upon Sunday, in the principal
church of the chief town of the department, at the close of the parish mass, at which all the electors are
required to be present.
Article VII. In order to be eligible to a bishopric, one must have fulfilled for fifteen years at least the
duties of the church ministry in the diocese, as a parish priest, officiating minister, or curate, or as
superior, or as directing vicar of the seminary.
Article XIX. The new bishop may not apply to the pope for any form of confirmation, but shall write to
him, as to the visible head of the universal Church, as a testimony to the unity of faith and communion
maintained with him…
Article XXI. Before the ceremony of consecration begins, the bishop elect shall take a solemn oath, in the
presence of the municipal officers, of the people, and of the clergy, to guard with care the faithful of his
diocese who are confided to him, to be loyal to the nation, the law, and the king, and to support with all
his power the constitution decreed by
the National Assembly and accepted by the king…
Article XXV. The election of the parish priests shall take place according to the forms and by the electors
designated in the decree of December 22, 1789, for the election of members of the administrative
assembly of the district.I. Bishoprics and cures shall be looked upon as vacant until those elected to fill
them shall baven ken the oath abovenme to fill
equivalent instead of his dwelling. The departments shall, moreover, have cognizance of suits arising in
this connection, brought by the parishes and by the priests. Salaries shall be assigned to each, as
indicated below.
Article III. The bishop of Paris shall receive fifty thousand livres; the bishops of the cities having a
population of fifty thousand or more, twenty thousand livres ; other bishops, twelve thousand livres…
Article V. The salaries of the parish priests shall be as follows : in Paris, six thousand livres; in cities
having a population of fifty thousand or over, four thousand livres; in those having a population of less
than fifty thousand and more than ten thousand, three thousand livres; in cities and towns of which the
population is below ten thousand and more than three thousand, twenty-four hundred livres. In all
other cities, towns, and villages where the parish shall have a population between three thousand and
twentyfive hundred, two thousand livres; in those between twenty-five hundred and two thousand,
eighteen hundred livres; in those having a population of less than two thousand, and more than one
thousand, the salary shall be fifteen hundred livres; in those having one thousand inhabitants and
under, twelve hundred livres…
Article VII. The salaries in money of the ministers of religion shall be paid every three months, in
advance, by the treasurer of the district…
XII. In view of the salary which is assured to them by the present constitution, the bishops, parish
priests, and curates shall perform the episcopal and priestly functions gratis.
Title IV
Article I. The law requiring the residence of ecclesiastics in the districts under their charge shall be
strictly observed. All vested with an ecclesiastical office or function shall be subject to this, without
distinction or exception.
II. No bishop shall absent himself from his diocese more than two weeks consecutively during the year,
except in case of real necessity and with the consent of the directory of the department in which his see
is situated.
III. In the same manner, the parish priests and the curates may not absent themselves from the place of
their duties beyond the term fixed above, except for weighty reasons, and even in such cases the priests
must obtain the permission both of their bishop and of the directory of their district, and the curates
that of the parish priest…
VI. Bishops, parish priests, and curates may, as active citizens, be present at the primary and electoral
assemblies; they may be chosen electors, or as deputies to the legislative body, or as members of the
general council of the communes or of the administrative councils of their districts or departments.
Tatenda Mamutse
PRESENTING YOUR ESSAY:
Let us remember the basic rules of writing essays and follow these for example:
(1) A short introduction highlighting key issues to be discussed and make your position on the question
clear e.g. The American War of Independence contributed to a great extent to the outbreak of the
French Revolution, or Peasant Grievances were only a minor issue in the factors leading to the French
Revolution.
(2) Topic sentences in other words the first sentence of each paragraph should contain your argument
or main idea e.g. The American War of Independence was a highly important economic cause of the
French Revolution by draining the treasury and increasing government borrowing.
(3) As a general rule, the rest of the paragraph should provide evidence for the argument raised in the
topic sentence. There should not be any different arguments or new ideas. Reserve those for other
paragraph. So it should be One paragraph, One Idea.
(4) Length of the essay is not important. You may have been told 4 pages or even 6 will do but the truth
is that length is not the most important issue for your success. What is far more significant is how much
information you present, how many valid arguments you make. So a candidate who offers ten valid
arguments in 2 pages will score more than the one who offers 5 such arguments in 5 pages. Therefore
keep your sentences as short and clear as possible, avoid big words that would have the examiner
reaching out for a dictionary.
(5) Familiarise yourself with key words/phrases used in the topic. In the French revolution, such
words/phrases include Absolute Monarchy, Constitutional Monarchy, Moderate, Radical, Bourgeoisie,
Peasant, Third Estate, Sans Culottes etc.
(6) Answer the question that has been asked by the examiner and avoid the tendency to re-fashion the
question into the one you were hoping to be asked.
For example the question may read “HOW FAR DID THE AMERICAN WAR OF INDEPENDENCE
CONTRIBUTE TO THE OUTBREAK OF THE FRENCH REVOLUTION?” instead of the one you had crammed
which reads “TO WHAT EXTENT CAN IT BE ARGUED THAT THE CHARACTER OF LOUIS XVI WAS THE
MAJOR CAUSE OF THE CRISIS OF 1789 IN FRANCE?”
Some cunning students will immediately write: “The American War of Independence was not as
important a factor when compared to the character of Louis XVI.” Thereafter the student will just
discuss the character of Louis XVI instead of the American War which happens to be the focus of the
question.
Let us examine both questions:
HOW FAR DID THE AMERICAN WAR OF INDEPENDENCE CONTRIBUTE TO THE OUTBREAK OF THE
FRENCH REVOLUTION?
When answering this question you may find that you know so much more about how other factors
contributed to the outbreak of the French revolution that you want to write about those instead of the
AMERICAN WAR OF INDEPENDENCE that has been asked. Avoid that temptation and focus on what you
have been asked to do. Only after you have exhausted the issue can you then go on to discuss your
favourite other factors like:
(1) Character of Louis XVI. (2) Character of Nobles and clergy. (3) Poor harvest of 1788. (4) Political
grievances of Third Estate. (5) Influence of the philosophers, (6) Economic grievances of the Third Estate
(7) Financial bankruptcy. (8) Social grievances of The Third Estate.
Even if you find this challenging there are at least three ways (which means at least three paragraphs) in
which you can look at the American War as a cause and this is because you were able to define the
French Revolution.
According to your definition of the French Revolution you highlighted three main aspects that are
Political Change, Economic Change and Social Change. Political changes must have political causes, social
changes, social causes and economic changes, economic causes. This approach will enable you to discuss
the American war as a political cause, economic cause and social cause. So there is indeed a lot to write
even though that is not the question you were hoping for.
Introduction: Revolution broke out in France in 1789 and various reasons were cited including the
influence of the American War of Independence to which France had contributed soldiers and money to
help defeat Britain in 1783. As this essay shall show, the American war was a highly important cause
because it had political, economic and social implications for the Revolution which was a political,
economic and social phenomenon. This essay shall also discuss other factors to demonstrate that the
Revolution was not the end-product of just the American War of Independence and a single issue no
matter how important, can not be more important than all the factors combined.
The American War of Independence was a highly significant social cause of the French revolution
because it helped to sharpen the social grievances of the Third Estate. French soldiers who participated
in that war were exposed to new American ideas about social justice and equality of all before the law. It
became a paradox that they were fighting to help the Americans achieve social rights they did not enjoy
back home. The France they lived in was one which was characterized by social injustices and
inequalities. While the upper classes enjoyed social privileges like freedom from forced labour, from
arbitrary imprisonment without trial, the Third Estate were angered by forced labour, arbitrary arrests, a
heavy tax burden, poverty, church control of education, births and deaths registration, subjection of
peasants to nobles through rents and feudal dues. After that war, demands for social equality became
louder in France.
The American War of Independence was a highly significant political cause of the French revolution
because it helped to sharpen the political grievances of the Third Estate. French soldiers who had
participated in the American war of Independence in 1783 were influenced by American political ideas
of democracy, accountability of leaders and participation for all citizens. It was an irony that they were
in America helping the Americans’ fight to achieve a political dispensation that did not exist in France.
What France had was an absolute monarchical system in which the absolute king chose to share his
power with a small class of nobles while the rest of the people including the educated bourgeoisie
suffered from political exclusion. The American war of Independence helped produce political
grievances of the Third Estate which included demands for an end to their exclusion from political
participation, from government, judicial and military appointments. There was anger over ‘Divine Right
of Kings, the absolute power and lack of accountability to the nation. They were also angered by the
church and nobles’ privileges and monopoly of political power.
The American War of Independence was also a highly significant economic cause of the French
revolution because it helped to precipitate the financial bankruptcy that led to Revolution in 1789. It is
widely acknowledged that the revolution owed so much to the economic crisis that was partly inspired
by the extravagance of Louis XVI. Louis XVI wasted money by involving France in costly foreign wars like
the American War of Independence and all this extravagance contributed immensely to a financial crisis
which he tried to solve in 1789 by summoning the Estates-General. Disagreements over the procedure
or mode of operation of that Estates-General led to the Third Estate’s revolt against Louis XVI sparking a
further political and social crisis that is now referred to as the French Revolution. The American War was
therefore very significant because the financial crisis it helped to produce led Louis XVI into convening
the ill-fated Estates-General whose disagreements led directly to the Revolution. So serious had the
financial crisis become that Louis XVI did what no French king had done in 175 years when he convened
the Estates-General.
At this point you have the chance to discuss your other factors including the one you crammed about
Louis XVI’s character or the influence of the philosophes.
Also note that you should try and compare these other factors with the American war to decide which
was more significant. Here is an example.
The Revolution owed so much to the contribution of philosophes such that even without the American
war, French people had already been exposed to these new political and social ideas as taught by
Rousseau and Montesquieu. Rousseau was one of those who rejected the monarchy’s claims about the
divine source of political power and argued that people in any society were the true source of all
political power. He further asserted that those who held political power did so by agreement and
permission of the nation which was the owner. That implied accountability and also the need to govern
in the interests of the nation. It also implied participation of all people in politics and that they could
remove any ruler they no longer deemed to be exercising power in their interests. Montesquieu also
made his contribution by teaching about the separation of powers, thus implying that there must be a
constitutional rather than an absolute monarchy. So in 1789, the Third Estate revolted against Louis XVI
and began the French Revolution. Even if the American war contributed it is worth noting that such
political and social ideas had already become known in France through the philosophes.
The poor harvests of 1788 also played their part in contributing to revolution. The Third estate
particularly the peasants and workers who already suffered under heavy tax burdens, arbitrary arrests,
forced labour and a host of other socio-economic ills could not bear the strain of high food prices and
hunger brought on by the bad harvests. Not only did they engage in wholesale acts of violence especially
against the noble land-owners but they organized a march from Paris to Versailles comprising mostly of
women, in one of the famous efforts of the revolution in 1789. This was an act which was governed less
by political and social ideologies as it was an instinctive reaction fuelled by the desire to survive.
Even the financial crisis was not the singular product of France’s costly involvement in the American War
of Independence as it was the outcome of various shortcomings including extravagance elsewhere and
the refusal to adopt more prudent economic reforms. While it is true that France was bankrupt in 1789,
this was not just because of French involvement in the American War as there were other structural
economic weaknesses; the most important being an inequitable taxation system where the wealthy first
and second estates were exempted from paying most of the taxes while the Third estate including poor
peasants had to pay. Louis XVI and his reform minded ministers including Calonne had realised this and
attempted to get the nobles and clergy to pay more only to meet fierce resistance. The structural
economic deficiencies were worsened by the extravagance of the Monarchy amid reports that Louis XVI
spent 1/12 of all government revenue on luxuries that included entertainment for the court nobles and
over a thousand pairs of shoes for Queen Marie Antoinette’s wardrobe.
In conclusion the American War of independence has been shown to be hugely important as it was a
political, economic and social cause of the French Revolution. However, it has been shown that a single
issue no matter how significant was not more important than the sum total of factors that included the
poor harvests, contribution of the philosophes and the structural weaknesses of the French economic
system. All in all, the American war was less important as a cause than the combination of the different
political and socio-economic factors.
TO WHAT EXTENT CAN IT BE ARGUED THAT THE CHARACTER OF LOUIS XVI WAS THE MAJOR CAUSE OF
THE CRISIS OF 1789 IN FRANCE?
Introduction: In 1789, France’s Third Estate (bourgeoisie, working class and peasants) refused to
continue being part of the Estates-General and chose to defy Louis XVI by re-constituting themselves as
the National Assembly. They gave themselves the political right to act and speak on behalf of the nation
and thereafter set in motion a chain of events in 1789 which saw the undermining and destruction of
the long existing political, economic and social order dominated by an absolute King, the Church and the
nobles. That crisis of 1789 also known as the French Revolution was largely the result of Louis XVI’s
character including his incompetence, indecision, extravagance and spinelessness when confronted by
difficult situations. This essay will discuss these aspects of Louis XVI in detail as well as other factors in
order to show that although his character played the major part, there were other important factors to
the crisis of 1789.
Indecision, procrastination and prevarication were major faults in Louis XVI’s character which
contributed in a big way to the crisis of 1789. Louis xvi took his time in making a decision over the
procedure to be followed by the Estates –General .When he eventually decided that they should sit
separately and vote in blocs, this angered the Third Estate into open rebellion. Louis xvi apparently
lacked the capacity to make a decision and stick to it, for example, he ordered the Estates to deliberate
separately only to backtrack and order the first and second estates join the third estate in their National
Assembly after the Third Estate had defied him.
The crisis of 1789 owed so much to the extravagance of Louis XVI. Louis XVI spent 1/12 of the total
government revenue on luxuries and entertainment for the nobles at the expensively built palace of
Versailles. Some historians have claimed that Louis XVI’s queen Marie Antoinette had more than one a
thousand pairs of shoes meaning that she had the luxury of changing shoes everyday for more than a
decade. Louis XVI also wasted money by involving France in costly foreign wars like the American War of
Independence and all this extravagance contributed immensely to a financial crisis which he tried to
solve in 1789 by summoning the Estates-General. Disagreements over the procedure or mode of
operation of that Estates-General led to the Third Estate’s revolt against Louis XVI sparking a political
and social crisis that is now referred to as the French Revolution.
Louis XVI’s spinelessness or cowardly nature also contributed immensely to the crisis of 1789. Historians
generally agree that Louis xvi was a well-meaning King who saw the need for political, economic and
social reforms to improve the well-being of the French as a whole. Even though he saw the need for the
abolition of some of the social and economic privileges of the church and nobles, he lacked the courage
and decisiveness to force the two estates to give them up. He appointed reform-minded ministers such
as Necker Turgot and Calonne who all demanded that the nobility and clergy assume a greater share of
the tax burden to improve France’s financial situation. But he was too much of a coward to resist the
two estates that simply refused to give up their privileges, pay more taxes and simply demanded that
Louis XVI fire the ministers.
Louis XVI was also guilty of short-sight and poor Judgment which all contributed in a big way to the crisis
of 1789. He was so determined on humiliating the old enemy Britain to the point that he sent troops to
assist their rebellious American subjects in their fight for independence. Not only did the French
involvement in the American war of independence cost France and worsen its financial crisis, it also
produced a political consciousness among its soldiers of democratic ideas and civil rights which led to
the demands for the same being made upon his government. Participating in America was therefore a
political, economic and social mistake. Louis XVI made other errors of judgment when he decided on a
separate sitting and the bloc voting procedure for the Estate-General which gave the Nobles and Clergy
a two to one voting advantage over the Third Estate. This was a mistake that sparked the revolt of the
Third Estate and ultimately the French Revolution.
Having noted all this, it would however be inaccurate to ascribe the crisis of 1789 solely to the character
of Louis XVI as there were other important contributing factors.
The philosophes and the American war of Independence were both highly important in generating new
ideas about political and social equality which threatened the very basis of Louis XVI’s power along with
that of the First and Second estates who had always been allies of the monarchy. Philosophers like
Rousseau and Montesquieu advocated for political participation by all sections of society, accountability
of the monarchy and an end to absolution through the separation of executive, judicial and legislative
functions of government. French soldiers who had participated in the American war of Independence in
1783 were influenced by American political ideas of democracy, accountability of leaders and political
participation for all citizens. The sum total of the philosophes and American war of Independence was
that they produced political grievances of the Third Estate which Louis XVI could not satisfy without
destroying the foundations of his own power. The Third Estate now demanded an end to their exclusion
from political participation, from government, judicial and military appointments. There was anger over
‘Divine Right of Kings’, the absolute power of Kings and lack of accountability to the nation as a whole.
They were also angered by the church and nobles’ privileges and monopoly of political power. The crisis
of 1789 therefore stemmed from the Third Estate’s demands for political and social rights which Louis
XVI could not grant without destroying his own power.
The crisis of 1789 was also the product of the social grievances of the Third Estate which had nothing to
do with Louis XVIs character faults and could not be addressed without undermining Louis XVI’s own
position and that of the nobles and clergy that had always been allies of the monarchy. The Third Estate
were angered by so many issues including forced labour, arbitrary arrests and detention without trial, a
heavy tax burden, poverty, church control of education, births and deaths, marriages registration,
subjection of peasants to nobles through rents, feudal dues. So much has been said of nobles and
clergy’s stubborn resistance to social and political reforms by refusing to give up monopoly over political
power, exemption to taxation, forced labour and feudal dues. It has also been said that they were very
selfish in demanding the dismissal of reform-minded ministers such as Necker, Turgot and Calonne.
While it is also true that they also displayed poor judgment in failing to come up with solutions to the
financial crisis during the Assembly of Notables in 1787 and arrogance in refusing to sit and vote
together with the Third Estate in the Estates General, this was all because they sought to protect their
own interests. It was this desire to protect their own interests against the determination of the Third
Estate to gain social and political rights which produced the crisis of 1789.
It must also be noted that the crisis of 1789 was the result of poor harvest of 1788 and a financial crisis
which had its roots in monarchical spending before Louis XVI’s ascension to the French throne. The poor
harvests in 1788 were a general European phenomenon that caused hardships through food shortages
and high prices for many Europeans not just France. The financial crisis can also be traced back to the
extravagance of previous Bourbon kings in France including Louis XIV who had constructed the
magnificent but costly palace of Versailles and involved France in costly wars against fellow European
countries. It was unfortunate for Louis XVI that he had had to deal with the impact of such factors
leading to the resultant crisis of 1789.
In conclusion, Louis XVI contributed immensely to the crisis of 1789 but there were other ancillary
factors as demonstrated above. While it the political, economic and social issues had been building in
France over time, they only produced a crisis in 1789 because of Louis XVI’s short-sightedness,
ineptitude as well as cowardice when confronted by tough choices such as dealing with nobles and
clergy’s refusal to make concessions.
ASSESS THE CONTRIBUTIONS OF ORAL TRADITION, ARCHAEOLOGY AND WRITTEN DOCUMENTS
TOWARDS THE RECOVERY OF ZIMBAWE’S PRE-COLONIAL HISTORY.
Oral traditions are verbal recollections of past events that supposedly occurred before the existence of
the informants. These are historical accounts that are transmitted from one generation to the next
through word of mouth. They can be in the form of praise poems and songs telling of the heroic deeds
of an ancestor, a clan or a whole community of people. Oral traditions have been especially valuable in
the reconstruction of much Zimbabwe’s pre-colonial history particularly because the pre-literate
societies did not leave behind any written records that could be used as sources of history. In the case of
the much earlier Iron Age societies even the biased European accounts are non-existent because the
Europeans had not yet arrived on the African scene to observe and write about some events.
Oral traditions have been extremely useful in providing information about the foundation of the Great
Zimbabwe state. Shona traditions speak of the ancestors of the Shona as the builders of the impressive
stone structures at Great Zimbabwe and so many other sites around and outside present-day
Zimbabwe. The settler Europeans, colonialist historians and settler politicians of the nineteenth and
twentieth centuries all disputed the claims of the Shona origin of Great Zimbabwe and chose to
attribute its construction to some mysterious, forgotten white tribe or the Arabs, Egyptians or
Phoenicians. The Shona claims made through oral traditions were subsequently verified by
archaeological findings.
Oral traditions have also been very valuable in providing historical information about the foundation of
the Mutapa State. It was founded by Nyatsimba Mutota who had migrated from Great Zimbabwe with
his followers to the Dande region. It is known from oral traditions that the Mutapa state was an offshoot of the Great Zimbabwe state which collapsed due to the shortage of salt and other resources. The
names of some of the Mutapa rulers are known to present generations through oral traditions for
example Mutota and his successor Matope. The origins of the Rozvi Empire have also been preserved in
the oral traditions. The names of the early emperors like Changamire Dombo are well known through
orature.
Even the nineteenth century histories of the Ndebele and Shona have been transmitted through oral
traditions and these have been useful in providing an African perspective and countering some of the
distortions of the nineteenth century European writers. Good examples of such distortions include
European claims that Ndebele-Shona relations were characterized by hostility. It has been claimed that
the Shona were helpless victims of perennial raids from the vicious and ruthless Ndebele. It was further
stated that the Ndebele economy was based almost exclusively on raiding. Oral traditions from both
groups have however counteracted such claims and asserted that the relations were for the most part
based on peaceful co-existence, trade and cultural exchange. Wars and raids did occur but even then
there were not as endemic and destructive as the European writers have suggested. Neither were the
Shona the helpless and passive victims they have been made out to have been. D.N. Beach has written
about Ndebele oral traditions about Shona raiding activities deep into Ndebele territory and the
atrocities that were allegedly perpetrated on Ndebele women. He has also profited from the use of
Shona traditions about a nineteenth century Rozvi ruler who was given the nickname Chibamubamu for
his skilful use of guns in resisting the Ndebele incursions into his territory.
Oral traditions have however proved incapable of providing adequate information about pre-colonial
states such as Great Zimbabwe. There is no accurate information about the names of the rulers of Great
Zimbabwe who have simply been referred to as mambo in many accounts. That is a dynastic title which
unfortunately does not shed any light on the individual identities of the rulers. One name that is well
known in the history of this state is that of Nyatsimba Mutota who supposedly deserted it with his
followers in order to find salt in the Dande region. This helped to bring about the demise of the state
and the rise of the Mutapa state.
Oral traditions have had their weaknesses either due to memory loss or deliberate bias on the part of
the informants and this has compromised the accuracy of the pre-colonial history recovered through
this source. Shona oral traditions speak of the violent and destructive activities of the Madzviti who
invaded from across the Limpopo River in the nineteenth century but the use of the term Madzviti does
not clearly establish the true identity of the Nguni invaders. It is known from Nguni traditions that
various Nguni groups including the Ngoni of Zwangendaba and Nyamazana, the Gaza led by Soshangane
and the Ndebele led by Mzilikazi all fled from Shaka and at various times attacked the Shona. The main
problem with Shona traditions is that all these have been indiscriminately lumped together as the
Madzviti. Coincidentally Madzviti is the Shona’s derogatory term for the Ndebele and this helped to
create an erroneous and distorted picture of the Ndebele as a perennially bloodthirsty and warlike
group who persistently wrecked havoc on the weak and defenceless Shona. Such distortions were seized
upon by colonial historians and white settlers to justify the destruction of the Ndebele kingdom and
foster ethnic tensions between the Ndebele and Shona.
Written records have also been used with great success in recovering some of Zimbabwe’s pre-colonial
history especially from the late fifteenth century onwards. Portuguese accounts have been a major
source of Mutapa history furnishing names of Mutapas, details about economic and social activities as
well as information about trade with Swahili-Arabs and the Portuguese themselves. Names such as
Mamvura, Matope, Gatsi Rusere and Nyahuma are all known from the Portuguese accounts. Twentieth
century historians such as D.N. Beach and S. Mudenge have all relied on Portuguese documents for
languages spoken by the societies then for instance there are no names for any of the Stone Age
communities, the Great Zimbabwe people and language that have been recovered through
archaeological research.
In conclusion, the three sources have been very significant in the recovery of Zimbabwe’s pre-colonial
history. Although they have their limitations these have been reduced by using them in conjunction
rather exclusively relying on one source.
CRITICALLY EXAMINE THE CAUSES OF THE ANGLO-NDEBELE WAR OF 1893. WHICH GROUP WAS TO
BLAME FOR THE OUTBREAK OF THE WAR?
What had started as an Anglo-Ndebele quarrel in 1893 over the Ndebele’s punitive raids into the
Victoria district exploded into full scale war that same year. Although the occassional Anglo-Ndebele
disputes over boundaries and control of the Shona were all factors, the main issue was most probably
the incompatibility of a colonizing European force and an independent African state such as the
Ndebele. This essay seeks to explain these and other causes of the Anglo-Ndebele war and to show that
the British were largely the guilty party.
The immediate cause of the war was the Ndebele raid into the Bere area of Victoria district in violation
of the ‘boundary’ set up by the settler administration to delineate Matabeleland and Mashonaland.
Chief Bere is said to have stolen cattle from the Ndebele who reacted by organizing a punitive raid. The
Ndebele reaction did not go down well with the British South Africa Company (BSAC) administration
who regarded Victoria and the rest of Mashonaland as part of their jurisdiction and the Shona as their
subjects. Although the Ndebele acknowledged the European presence in Mashonaland they still
maintained their ‘right’ to deal as they saw fit with the Shona who they still regarded as their subjects.
The whole issue generated the tensions which culminated in the BSAC killing some of the retreating
Ndebele party. The BSAC followed this with the arrest and murder of Lobengula’s peace envoys and thus
set the stage for war.
The Bere incident already discussed above might have sparked it but there were various factors that had
been building up towards war and one such was the general attitude of both towards the Shona. The
BSAC and white settlers who had taken possession of Mashonaland regarded the Shona as their source
of cheap labour. Their growing mining and farming operations depended on the labour that could only
be guaranteed by the stability of the Shona. It was this stability that was shattered by the Ndebele raid
on Bere in 1893 and on Gomala shortly before. It was this stability that had also been shattered by the
earlier raids on Chivi and Nemakonde. As far as the Ndebele were concerned, the fact of European
settlement made no difference to their perception of Mashonaland and the Shona people as their
raiding ground and subjects respectively. Even long before the European colonisation of Mashonaland,
European missionaries had voiced their disapproval of the ‘blood thirsty’ Ndebele campaigns against the
Shona. The myth of Ndebele tyrants savaging ‘defenceless’ Shona was firmly embedded on the
European psyche and was reason enough for war on its own.
The attitude of the Shona themselves only served to aggravate the situation and did so much to start the
Ndebele and the settlers on the path to war. In 1891 and again in 1892 Shona chiefs such as Chivi and
Nemakonde respectively took advantage of the European colonial presence to renege on their annual
payments of tribute to the Ndebele. Even the likes of Gomala and Bere had the audacity to expropriate
Ndebele cattle. Their behavior was based on the thinking that Europeans were more powerful than the
Ndebele would protect them from the latter. The Europeans were prepared to do so albeit for their own
selfish reasons while the Ndebele could not let such provocations go unpunished.
The mere fact of the existence of an independent African state was inimical to colonial interests and in
long run that alone was sufficient to warrant a war. Disappointed missionaries like Charles Helm, Robert
and John Moffat who were disillusioned by their failure to make any converts consistently advocated
the destruction of the Ndebele state. Robert Moffat foresaw a “blessing to the whole world if Ndebele
power was broken up” and believed that this would facilitate the spread of Christianity which was
evidently being held up by such a ‘backward and uncivilized’ state.
The BSAC administration had more material reasons for wanting a war that would destroy the Ndebele
state. For one, the expectations of a ‘Second Rand’ in Mashonaland proved illusory and confidence in
the BSAC was declining. The company thus envisaged a short and successful war that would either
maintain or even boast BSAC share prices. Already disillusioned by the failure to find significant gold
deposits in Mashonaland, the settlers began to convince themselves that the gold might after all be in
Matebeleland. They were also casting envious glances at the cattle, land and human resources of
Matebeleland which could only be obtained through war.
The BSAC also regarded the existence of the Ndebele state as an obstacle to an effective
communications link between their headquarters in Salisbury and the Cape. Plans were afoot for a
railway linking Salisbury to Mafikeng and it was not likely that Lobengula would consent to the railway
passing through his territory.
For their part, the Ndebele had never reconciled themselves to the fact of the British colonisation of
Mashonaland and this remained a sore point. To begin with, colonisation had been achieved through
the duplicity of Rhodes’ agents who had misrepresented the clauses of the Rudd Concession to
Lobengula. The British monarchy granted a charter enabling colonisation despite Lobengula’s fervent
protests and attempts to revoke the concession. Lobengula’s troops were all for a war to drive out the
settlers and Lobengula only just managed to hold them back. War was only a matter of time, it was
bound to come and come it did in 1893.
The British should shoulder much of the blame as they were largely instrumental in bringing it about. In
the wake of the Bere saga, the British settlers deliberately attacked Ndebele regiments clearly retreating
from Victoria district in compliance with European demands. The resultant killing of some of the
Ndebele military including leaders like Mgandani was a provocative act on the part of the whites but
even then Lobengula still exercised restraint.
While Lobengula emphasized his commitment to peace, the BSAC stepped up its provocations by
arresting and murdering Lobengula’s peace envoys to the Cape. Lobengula decided to send three envoys
including his own brother Ingubungubu in the aftermath of the Bere saga only for these to be
intercepted at Tati by the BSAC.
Moreover, the secret Victoria agreement where the BSAC promised land and mineral grants to white
settlers in Matebeleland in return for participation in anti-Ndebele war also reveals the culpability of the
British. According to Needham and others, white settlers were each promised 2469 hectares of land, 20
gold claims and a share of Lobengula’s cattle. Consequently as many as 800 settlers enlisted for service
and it remained for the BSAC to provoke the war.
In the long term, the British always thought of the war as a necessity. Mention has already been made of
how the missionaries had advocated war as a means of breaking Ndebele power and making its people
more receptive to the Christian message. The duplicity employed in acquiring the Rudd Concession
strained the relations and the British undoubtedly appreciated it as a source of future conflict.
If the Ndebele should have any blame then it should be for their apparent failure to appreciate that the
changing times had diminished their power over the Shona. By 1893, the British were the masters of
Mashonaland and the Ndebele insistence on the BSAC’s surrender of the Shona refugees from Bere was
thus ill-advised. Such demands could only be issued from a position of superiority that had since passed
out of the hands of the Ndebele into those of the European settlers. Ndebele activities in Mashonaland
therefore, came to be regarded as an intrusion by the BSAC and therefore, the cause of war.
It can therefore be concluded that the Anglo-Ndebele was caused by so many factors, chief of which was
the struggle for control of Mashonaland and the British desire to destroy Ndebele independence and
bring their state under their rule. The British should shoulder much of the blame for starting this war as
has been shown above.
THE DESIRE TO ENCIRCLE THE TRANSVAAL PLAYED A PIVOTAL ROLE IN THE COLONISATION OF
ZIMBABWE.”DISCUSS
1. The question requires a knowledge of the factors that led to the colonisation of Zimbabwe and these
include the desire by Cecil Rhodes (and the British government ) to encircle the Transvaal government in
order to prevent it from extending its rule further north into the interior of the continent
2. The next step would be to situate the issue of the Transvaal and weigh it against other factors in order
to show whether it was the more or less important factor in the colonisation of Zimbabwe
3. The colonisation of Zimbabwe should be seen as the outcome of Rhodes and the British governm
5. The British were envious of the Transvaal’s vast mineral wealth(diamonds and gold) and they hoped
to gain control of it by encircling and isolating the Transvaal
6. The timing of the British colonisation in 1888 came after the Transvaal’s moves to colonise Zimbabwe
in 1887 as evidenced by the Grobler Treaty. This clearly suggested a British desire to encircle the
Transvaal.
OTHER IMPORTANT REASONS FOR COLONIZING ZIMBABWE APART FROM THE DESIRE TO ENCIRCLE
THE TRANSVAAL INCLUDE:
1. The mistaken belief that Zimbabwe was the home of vast gold deposits (a second rand) much greater
than those found in the Transvaal
2. Zimbabwe was also occupied because it was strategic to Cecil Rhodes’ grand vision of creating an
unbroken chain of British colonies stretching from Cape to Cairo
3. It was also occupied in response to the missionaries’ long standing calls to crush the Ndebele power
and facilitate the spread of Christianity which had failed to make headway despite the opening of the
Inyathi and Hope Fountain mission stations in 1859 and 1870
4. It was occupied in response to the prevailing European world outlook which was colonialist. Territorial
expansion added to the power and prestige of the European countries
HOW SUCCESSFULLY DID LOUIS NAPOLEON III ATTEMPT TO SECURE SUPPORT WITHIN FRANCE FOR HIS
RULE BETWEEN 1848 AND 1870?
The success of the February 1848 revolution against Louis Philippe’s Orleans monarchy served to split
the revolutionaries into two rival camps that embarked on a short but vicious struggle for power in June
that year. The defeat of the socialist faction facilitated the holding of presidential elections that sought
to give permanence to the newly established Second Republic. The anxieties and tensions generated by
the ‘June Days’ only caused France to entrust its destiny to Louis Napoleon in the belief that he was the
man to guarantee order, security, restore material prosperity and as well as revive national prestige. But
he was a schemer who swore loyalty to the Republic and its constitution while conspiring and awaiting
the opportune moment to strike and establish his imperial rule. From 1848 right up to 1870 he
employed various methods to secure support for his rule and these included propaganda, armed force,
repression as well as political, social and economic reforms. Perhaps one measure of the success of
these and other methods is that his empire survived throughout this period without much hint that it
was under any mortal threat within France although there was increasing republican opposition from
the 1860s onwards. The aim of this essay is to argue that Napoleon was on the whole successful in
securing support for his rule and that especially with ordinary people than with politicians and other
interest groups.
Napoleon III was on the whole successful in obtaining the support of the middle and propertied classes
through the adoption of measures that not only guaranteed property rights but also promoted big
business. As already shown, he had successfully projected himself as the man who could maintain order
and stability as well as guarantee property rights in France. This was especially important for the middle
and all propertied classes including the industrial and commercial interests who had fears of a socialist
revolution such as the one that had been attempted in June 1848. After his 1848 victory in the
presidential elections he wasted no time in initiating various measures designed to promote business
interests and therefore maintain their support for his rule. Large loan banks were set up to provide
capital for industrial and other developments. Thus large scale projects such as the Suez Canal in Egypt
were undertaken with French capital and expertise. There was also spectacular growth in the railways
where there had only been 1800 kilometres of railway in 1848. That had risen to 17 500 kilometres by
1870. Napoleon also negotiated favourable trade agreements for French companies with Britain,
Belgium, Holland, Sweden and the Zollverein of the German states. Finance was also provided for the
clearance of slums and development of urban real estate. The city of Paris probably benefited the most
as it was beautified with new buildings and the construction of wide and spacious avenues. So much had
been achieved by the mid-1850s that Napoleon found it fitting to stage an international exhibition in
1855. The event which showcased the technological achievements and beauty of the remodelled French
cities attracted so many visitors. There were of course complaints from some commercial interests and
industrialists over the free trade that exposed them to foreign competition but that did not detract from
the overall success of Napoleon’s programme nor his popularity among these classes. The success of
Napoleon’s measures in guaranteeing him the support of these classes has even been acknowledged by
his opponents and critics including the Duke of Broglie and Karl Marx. Writing in his memoirs, the duke
conceded that their hopes of removing Napoleon after the expiry of his presidential mandate were
destroyed because:
“…there were now added to the blind votes of the crowd the support of all the commercial and
industrial interests…” Karl Marx corroborated this view and added that the bourgeoisie supported the
establishment of Napoleon’s Second Empire as a better alternative to the re-establishment of either
Bourbon or Orleans monarchies.
Napoleon also successfully consolidated the support of the working and ordinary classes of French
people. He had first won liberal support in 1848 by cleverly exploiting the appeal of the Napoleonic
Legend through the publication of romanticised accounts of the career and aims of his uncle Napoleon
Bonaparte. He claimed that his uncle would have given France and indeed Europe liberal institutions had
he not been thwarted by Britain. Napoleon III then proceeded to project himself as the heir to his
uncle’s legacy who would in time give to France and Europe those liberal institutions. The general
amnesty that allowed the return of all who had been exiled since 1851 for their opposition to his coup of
that year was announced in 1859 as a prelude to the ‘liberal empire’ of the 1860s. It will be remembered
that at its inception, the Second Empire was extremely centralised and above all authoritarian. The
imperial constitution gave Napoleon III complete control of the armed forces and appointment of
ministers who were responsible only to him. Parliament, the judiciary and other government officials
had to swear to an oath of allegiance to him. He alone could declare war or make peace in addition to
initiating legislation. Napoleon III changed all that in the 1860s when he conceded parliament’s right to
respond and debate his imperial speech and to the appointment of ministers from the party with the
majority in the Legislative Assembly. He also agreed that membership to the senate should be elective
rather than by his nomination. Ministers were also allowed to sit in the assembly and be accountable to
it. Freedoms of expression among others were restored following the relaxation of censorship. Thus
Napoleon III had fulfilled his promise to liberalise his empire hence the new dispensation was known to
many as ‘the liberal empire’.
His somewhat aggressive foreign policy also seemed to be a fulfilment of his promise to spread
liberalism to Europe. He won support for the Crimean War against Russia in 1854 as Russia was the
staunch defender of the 1815 Vienna Settlement that had subjected France to over thirty years of
humiliating peace and disgrace in Europe. His next step was support for Piedmont against Austria in
1859 which he followed up with mediation in the Austro-Prussian war in 1866. All these activities were
well received by liberals and advocates of national glory who not only saw the advancement of
liberalism (in Italy) but also the humiliation of the defenders of the hated Vienna Settlement and the
consequent revival of French prestige.
Workers and other ordinary people continued to give support to the man whose useful reforms went a
long way in ameliorating their lives over the years. He railed against the Legislative Assembly’s decision
to disenfranchise three million ordinary people and forcibly re-enfranchised them in 1851. The workers
were quite satisfied with their emperor who started public works to provide employment. Railways,
roads, canals, harbours were constructed as a result. Relief measures were implemented when poor
harvests and floods caused suffering and Napoleon III often visited disaster areas. Savings banks and
mutual aid societies were also promoted to assist workers. They were also given the right to form trade
unions and to strike in 1868. They seemed happy to approve every measure he undertook by giving their
overwhelming support in all the plebiscites he held. The first was to seek approval for the coup in 1851,
then for the establishment of the empire in 1852 and then for the ‘liberal empire’ in 1870. Napoleon III
was certainly grateful for their support and accordingly spoke of them as “the only sovereign whom I
recognise in France.”
Even the Catholic Church appeared to support his rule especially as he conciliated it with favourable
domestic and foreign policies. Although there would be some sore points such as Napoleon’s support for
Piedmont in 1859 and the ill-fated Mexican campaign of the 1860s he retained clerical support
throughout. On the domestic scene, Napoleon III gave back the clergy control over education through
the Falloux Law in 1850. The previous year he had satisfied clerical demands for the defence and
protection of the pope from Italian patriots bent on uniting the country by seizing papal territories. He
dispatched troops to Rome who remained there until the Franco-Prussian war in 1870.
That Napoleon did face opposition does not detract from the fact that he was on the whole successful in
his quest for support. It is true that he had to use force to push through his agenda for the extension of
his rule to ten years from the mandatory four year term. It is also true that he employed repressive
measures such as press censorship, disbanding the National Guard and giving himself control over
parliament, government officials and the armed forces. Such measures suggest that he did not succeed
in winning over political bodies and interest groups such as the republicans who opposed him
throughout his reign. It is also true that no one is capable of pleasing everybody and therefore securing
total support. In other words he had his detractors but more importantly he still succeeded in capturing
majority support especially from the ordinary people whom his royalist opponents called the ‘blind
voters’. He however regarded them as the ‘only sovereign whom I recognise in France.’
All told, Louis Napoleon was successful in securing support for his rule between 1848 and 1870 despite
the opposition of vested interests such as the republicans and monarchists. The overwhelming support
received in the plebiscites and the mere fact that the empire survived without any significant internal
threat until military defeat by Prussia all points to support for Napoleon.
Which of the following best describes the Vienna settlement of 1815, fear, compromise or greed?
Fear
(1) Of French aggression hence stripping France of its conquests and returning it to its 1792 and then
1790 boundaries
(2) Of French aggression hence the creation of buffer states around France’s borders
(3) Of French aggression hence the banishment of Napoleon and the Bonapartist dynasty from the
French throne
(4) Imposing a crippling indemnity and army of occupation on France
(3) Britain took most of France’s overseas territories
(4) Russia rewarding itself with Poland and Bessarabia
(5) Prussian demands for all of Saxony which were subsequently denied by the other powers
Conclusion
The Vienna Settlement was to a large extent a compromise because there was a serious attempt to
balance conflicting interests including the need to punish France for its aggression while at the same
time ensuring it did not become to weak as to fail to defend itself should it be attacked.
There was also an attempt to balance between the need for victorious countries to reward themselves
with territories taken from the vanquished while at the same time avoiding a situation where any one of
them became too powerful that they could easily attack the others in future
There was also an attempt to balance between treating France leniently so as to prevent it from
becoming a permanent enemy of Europe while at the same time punishing it for the aggression which
had resulted in more than 20 years of continued warfare
There was also an attempt to balance between restoring the values of monarchical absolutism and
accommodating some of the principles of liberalism
·
HOW FAR AND WHY DID THE AIMS OF THE REVOLUTIONARIES IN FRANCE CHANGE FROM THE
MEETING OF THE ESTATES- GENERAL IN 1789 TO THE EXECUTION OF LOUIS XVI IN 1793.
The initial moderate aim to establish a constitutional monarchy changed in 1792 to the more radical aim
of the republicanism. The revolutionaries began by breaking away from the Estates-General and forming
the National Assembly. They now claimed to speak and act on behalf of the entire nation of France in
political, economic and social issues. They switched their attention to the drafting of a constitution that
would provide for limitations on monarchical authority and power-sharing. The subsequent creation first
of a Legislative Assembly and then of the National Convention all demonstrated their aims of
establishing a constitutional monarchy. The moderate course was brief and by 1791France was well on
the way to far more radical policies. In 1792 the anti-monarchy sentiment was strong enough to lead to
the proclamation of a Republic. The king was arrested, tried and condemned to die in December that
year.
Various factors explain the radical shift in the revolutionaries’ aims. One significant issue was the growth
of influence of radical Jacobin revolutionary elements that drew their support from the powerful mobs
of Paris. They consolidated their strength by making use of the brute force of the mobs to disrupt
sessions of the Legislative Assembly as well as the National Convention. They even incited the mobs to
effect the arrest of 73 Girondists who were members of the National Convention. This and other failings
of their opponents enabled them to take charge of the revolution and create the Republic they fervently
desired. They were also aided by the failings of Louis XVI and the nobles and clergy. On numerous
occasions, Louis XVI used his veto against legislation that seemed to threaten the interests of the nobles
and clergy. The radicals were thus able to portray him as a biased ruler who only wanted to protect his
allies’ interests at the expense of the majority of the nation. Things got worse for him following the
alleged discovery of documents linking him to Revolutionary France’s enemies. His attempt to flee
France in 1791 as well as the Austrian and Prussian declarations of support all seemed to confirm his
treachery. All these were enough to lead to his dethronement, abolition of the monarchy and creation
of the Republic.
The revolutionaries’ initial moderate aim of political participation and power-sharing gave way in 1792
to the drastic desire for complete and exclusive power. In the beginning the revolutionaries’ aim of
obtaining a share of political power was evidenced by formation first of the National Assembly, then the
Legislative and finally the National Convention. These were created to exercise legislative functions
while the monarchy was allowed to continue exercising executive power. Through them Third Estate
came to participate in politics alongside the nobles and clergy. By 1791there was persecution of
monarchy, nobles and clergy as well as repressive laws. All this culminated in the abolition of the
monarchy and the creation of republic which demonstrated that the revolutionaries now wanted
complete and exclusive power to themselves. The Jacobin Regime of 1793 to 1794 passed the Law of
Suspects which criminalised expressions of support for the monarchy, nobles and clergy. A person could
be sentenced to die for speaking out in support for the monarchy and this kind of intolerance was
testimony to the radical shift in the aims of the revolutionaries.
Initial aims of limiting the power and influence of the church in politics and government soon gave way
in 1792-3 to the uncompromising aim of completely destroying the church and Christianity. In the
beginning, the revolutionaries tolerated the church and passed the Civil Constitution of the clergy. This
law was designed to limit power of church by subjecting to the revolutionary government’s control. This
was to be achieved by having their salaries paid by the government which also expected them to take an
oath of loyalty to it. The revolutionaries soon abandoned this moderate course embarked on a mission
to close all churches and persecute priests. The radical attempts to completely destroy the church and
Christianity culminated in the introduction of Revolutionary Calendar and other religions. This change
was the end-product of several factors that included the clergy and the pope’s stubborn refusal to
accept the civil constitution. The growth of a radical atheist and anti-Christian movement led by Herbet
during this period also contributed.
The 1789 aims of achieving individual liberty and social rights gave way to high levels of repression and
intolerance. It was evident that achieving civil rights was a top priority for the revolutionaries in 1789.
This was even expressed in the popularising of the slogans of liberty, equality and fraternity. The
revolutionaries moved to put to effect by abolishing the privileges of the nobles and clergy in August
1789. They followed that up with a Declaration of Rights of Man and Citizen. This gave legal, economic
and social rights to all French citizens. In 1791 the civil liberties were formalised in the new Constitution.
That desire for universal liberty soon gave way to an intolerance and repression characterised by laws
against émigrés and the arrest of Girondists in 1792. The September (1792) Massacres of perceived
counter-revolutionaries and the harsh laws of the Reign of Terror all demonstrated a complete
abandonment of the initial aims of universal civil liberties. The shift stemmed from among other things
the revolutionaries’ growing fear of internal and external enemies. As indicated above, they had come
to the conclusion that the monarchy, nobles and clergy could not be trusted. They had to be suppressed
or destroyed and that could only be achieved through extreme repression and the suspension of civil
rights. There were also external enemies that included the Austrians, Prussians and British who had
invaded France early in 1793. The revolutionary government felt it necessary to introduce repressive
laws to scare their local supporters as well as raise armies and resources to drive them out. The
government introduced mass conscription and requisitioning which took away individuals’ rights to
refuse to serve in the army and also forced them to give their food and other material resources to the
government.
By 1792 initial aims of achieving democracy had been superseded by increasing autocracy and
dictatorship. The creation of National Assembly and Legislative Assembly as representative bodies to
share power with the monarchy all testified to the desire to achieve democracy in France. Further
measures included the declaration of rights and introduction of the vote. The crowning moment was the
passing of the 1793 Constitution which provided for universal suffrage. However that constitution was
not implemented and repression and intolerance began to set in. Initial targets of state repression were
the monarchy, nobles and clergy. Late in 1792, repression had become universal and even those in the
Third Estate were not spared. The September 1792 Massacres claimed more victims among them than it
did among the first and second estates. The change owed to the government’s heightened fears of
counter-revolution after peasants had combined with the clergy to stage revolts around the country but
especially in Vendee. Another factor was the Girondist-Jacobin struggle for power. This led to desperate
measures as each group sought to destroy the other in order to achieve total and uncontested power.
The invasion of France by European countries that included Prussia, Austria and Britain also led to the
adoption of repressive measures to starve the invaders of any local support from malcontents. A law of
suspects was introduced to deal with those who offered state enemies any kind of assistance. A special
court called the Revolutionary Tribunal was introduced in 1793 to try suspected cases of counterrevolution. Suspects were denied legal representation and its decisions were often arbitrary such that so
many innocent people lost their lives.
In conclusion it can be restated that the revolutionaries initially had moderate aims that included
power-sharing, democracy and civil rights. By 1791, these aims had started to change as evidenced by
increased repression. There was even a desire for complete and exclusive political power. There were
many factors that caused the change. Some of them had to do with anger over the character of the king,
nobles and clergy who appeared stubborn, unrepentant and treacherous to the cause of the revolution.
IN WHAT WAYS, AND TO WHAT EXTENT, DID SOUTHERN RHODESIA BENEFIT FROM THE
ESTABLISHMENT OF THE FEDERATION OF RHODESIA AND NYASALAND?
Southern Rhodesia benefitted from the construction of transport and communications infrastructure.
One of the major developments in this regard was the construction of a system of trunk roads to link
Southern Rhodesia to other important centres of the Federation. The transport system within Southern
Rhodesia was greatly improved by the construction of wide tarred roads. These replaced the
cumbersome and less spectacular strip-roads that had been a feature of the road network in the preFederation era. There were also developments in the railway sector with the opening of a new railway
line in 1955 to link Salisbury with Lourenco Marques in Portuguese East Africa (Mozambique). Perhaps
the proverbial cherry on the cake was the construction of the Federal airport in Salisbury. The first
civilian airplane flights became a reality in 1956 from the airport which at the time boasted the longest
runway in the world.
Southern Rhodesia also benefitted a great deal from the financing and construction of large-scale
projects One such large-scale project was the hydro-electricity scheme at Kariba whose annual
production of 2011 million kilowatt hours of electricity went a long way in meeting Southern Rhodesia’s
industrial, mining, agricultural and domestic energy requirements. The hydro-electricity project which
was officially opened in May 1960 represented a huge achievement for the Federal government as it
called for the mobilization of resources far beyond the capabilities of the territorial government of
Southern Rhodesia. The benefits of the construction of Lake Kariba went far beyond the mere
generation of electricity to meet the Federation’s energy requirements as there were other significant
by-products. Tourism in Southern Rhodesia was significantly boosted as people came from different
parts of the world to view what was then the largest man-made lake in the world. An important fishing
industry soon developed with kapenta, bream and tiger fish being the most popular catches. This
provided employment in addition to catering for the protein requirements of the colony’s people. The
project had initially been earmarked for the Kafue River on the Northern Rhodesian side of the Zambezi.
Moving it to Kariba therefore represented a huge victory for Southern Rhodesia and a defeat for
Northern Rhodesia. Other large scale projects included the university college of Rhodesia and Nyasaland
which was constructed in Salisbury and opened in 1957
Southern Rhodesia was the biggest beneficiary of the Federal government’s programme to improve the
education sector. The colony’s tertiary education was greatly enhanced with the construction of
polytechnic colleges in the main urban centres. The crowning moment was the opening of the University
College of Rhodesia and Nyasaland in Salisbury in 1957. University education therefore became locally
accessible and this significantly reduced Southern Rhodesia and its Federal partners’ dependence on
South Africa and other countries to provide this service.
Southern Rhodesia reaped the largest benefits of economic integration Greater economic integration
was achieved partly by removing tariffs and other barriers to facilitate the freer movement of goods,
services and labour. This movement most certainly benefitted Southern Rhodesia which had a far more
diversified agricultural, manufacturing and mining economy. Although Northern Rhodesia’s copper
industry experienced a boom partly because of the power supply from Kariba and Nyasaland benefitted
from the cash remittances of its people working in Northern and Southern Rhodesia, the latter reaped
the larger share of the economic benefits. This was achieved by exploiting the cheap labour from
Nyasaland and raw materials from Northern Rhodesia’s copper mining industry to drive Southern
Rhodesia’s diverse mining, agriculture and manufacturing industry. These territories also provided a
market for Southern Rhodesia’s finished goods.
Its industries were revitalized and boosted by the cheap labour from Northern Rhodesia and Nyasaland.
Providing adequate and cheap labour had always been a huge headache for the successive
administrations of Southern Rhodesia from the advent of colonial rule in the late nineteenth century.
The integration of the three territories facilitated the easier movement of people from Northern
Rhodesia and especially Nyasaland which had a large mass of unemployed people to find work in the
diversified mining, farming and manufacturing industries of Southern Rhodesia.
It also received the biggest share of the Federal budget. The settler politicians of Southern Rhodesia
made the most of their numerical advantage in the Federal government to ensure that Southern
Rhodesia got by far the largest chunk of the Federation’s income tax revenue. Southern Rhodesia was
entitled to sixty per cent compared to the seventeen per cent each that was allocated to Northern
Rhodesia and Nyasaland. It is no wonder that southern Rhodesia developed at a faster rate than its
counterparts and attracted angry protests and the nickname “bambazonke” meaning grab all.
The Federal Constitution ensured that Southern Rhodesia achieved political domination. Right from the
onset Southern Rhodesia had a numerical advantage over the other two members of the Federation
which assured its domination of the Federal politics. It had eighteen members of parliament compared
to eleven for Northern Rhodesia and seven for Nyasaland. The first Federal Prime Minister Mr. Godfrey
Huggins was from Southern Rhodesia and Salisbury was chosen ahead of Livingstone and Lusaka in
Northern Rhodesia as the Federal capital. All these developments gave Southern Rhodesia a political
advantage over its partners which was used to channel most of the infrastructural developments to
Southern Rhodesia.
Southern Rhodesia received the biggest share of the Federal assets when the Federation was dissolved
in 1963. The Federal assets were shared out in the ratio of fifty-two per cent for Southern Rhodesia,
thirty seven per cent for Northern Rhodesia and eleven per cent for Nyasaland at its dissolution. Already
the recipient of a whooping sixty per cent of the Federal government’s income tax revenue, Southern
Rhodesia also claimed the lion’s share of the Federal government’s equipment when it collapsed in
1963. This included war planes and other military equipment for the squadrons and parachute
commandos. This was certainly a big boost for the Rhodesian Front government which quickly found
itself in a military conflict with the African nationalist parties which lasted from 1966 to 1979 when a
ceasefire was finally signed. Apart from this Southern Rhodesia retained all the infrastructural
developments on its soil including the University, roads, railway and airport.
On the other hand it was not all rosy for Southern Rhodesia as the territory also inherited the greatest
chunk of the Federal debt. Also the huge mining companies abandoned Salisbury and relocated to
Lusaka in Zambia. In the words of the prominent historian Terence Ranger, “Sheer survival was the first
consideration for Southern Rhodesia in 1963.”
The benefits for Southern Rhodesia’s Africans were rather limited as they remained marginalized in the
political set-up. Although Southern Rhodesia had a monopoly of political power through its numerical
advantage in the Federal parliament these benefits were an exclusive preserve of its white minority. The
Africans remained marginalized in the political setup as they could only contribute only two out of
Southern Rhodesia’s share of eighteen parliamentarians. They were further hindered from political
participation by a very narrow voting franchise whose property, wealth and literacy requirements
prevented a great number of them from registering as voters. The Federation therefore perpetuated the
whites’ stranglehold on political power.
Southern Rhodesia’s majority African population still had to live under harsh, repressive laws and other
forms of social discrimination despite Federal promises of racial integration and partnership. Despite
promises of greater racial integration and co-operation, the Federation failed to bring about any
significant improvements to the social status of Africans as some of the harshest and most
discriminatory laws remained in place. Hated pieces of legislation such as the Land Apportionment Act
(1930) and the Native Land Husbandry Act (1951) remained in full force depriving Africans of farming
land in the best farming regions of the country and ensuring that they remained poverty stricken and
dependent on the whites. Pass laws also remained in place and restricted the Africans’ freedom of
movement. All told the Africans remained in that same position of social inferiority as ever before.
The larger share of the economic benefits were enjoyed by Southern Rhodesia’s whites and blacks
continued to be disadvantaged. Despite receiving the greater share of the infrastructural investments
and economic developments, Africans remained disadvantaged and the Federation was completely
successful in its racist objective of maintaining the economic benefits in white hands. In fact the
Federation was described by its Prime Minister Godfrey Huggins as a partnership where Europeans
would be the riders and Africans the horses. Various measures were adopted to perpetuate the
marginalisaton and exploitation of Africans. One such measure was the differential wage structure
whose main consequence in 1956 was an average African wage of £70 a year compared to the European
average of £800. Even in the high paying Copper belt region of Northern Rhodesia, the highest paid
African earned £540 annually while the lowest paid European got £1858. Ownership of the economic
enterprises and key positions in companies was almost exclusively European; Africans were brought into
the system in their capacity as lowly paid labourers.
In conclusion Southern Rhodesia benefitted a great deal in political and economic terms from the
establishment of the Federation of Rhodesia and Nyasaland. However these benefits were largely
restricted to the minority white population and the black majority continued to suffer political,
economic and social injustices.
HOW FAR AND WHY DID THE AIMS OF THE REVOLUTIONARIES IN FRANCE CHANGE FROM THE
MEETING OF THE ESTATES- GENERAL IN 1789 TO THE EXECUTION OF LOUIS XVI IN 1793.
The initial moderate aim to establish a constitutional monarchy changed in 1792 to the more radical aim
of the republicanism. The revolutionaries began by breaking away from the Estates-General and forming
the National Assembly. They now claimed to speak and act on behalf of the entire nation of France in
political, economic and social issues. They switched their attention to the drafting of a constitution that
would provide for limitations on monarchical authority and power-sharing. The subsequent creation first
of a Legislative Assembly and then of the National Convention all demonstrated their aims of
establishing a constitutional monarchy. The moderate course was brief and by 1791France was well on
the way to far more radical policies. In 1792 the anti-monarchy sentiment was strong enough to lead to
the proclamation of a Republic. The king was arrested, tried and condemned to die in December that
year.
Various factors explain the radical shift in the revolutionaries’ aims. One significant issue was the growth
of influence of radical Jacobin revolutionary elements that drew their support from the powerful mobs
of Paris. They consolidated their strength by making use of the brute force of the mobs to disrupt
sessions of the Legislative Assembly as well as the National Convention. They even incited the mobs to
effect the arrest of 73 Girondists who were members of the National Convention. This and other failings
of their opponents enabled them to take charge of the revolution and create the Republic they fervently
desired. They were also aided by the failings of Louis XVI and the nobles and clergy. On numerous
occasions, Louis XVI used his veto against legislation that seemed to threaten the interests of the nobles
and clergy. The radicals were thus able to portray him as a biased ruler who only wanted to protect his
allies’ interests at the expense of the majority of the nation. Things got worse for him following the
alleged discovery of documents linking him to Revolutionary France’s enemies. His attempt to flee
France in 1791 as well as the Austrian and Prussian declarations of support all seemed to confirm his
treachery. All these were enough to lead to his dethronement, abolition of the monarchy and creation
of the Republic.
The revolutionaries’ initial moderate aim of political participation and power-sharing gave way in 1792
to the drastic desire for complete and exclusive power. In the beginning the revolutionaries’ aim of
obtaining a share of political power was evidenced by formation first of the National Assembly, then the
Legislative and finally the National Convention. These were created to exercise legislative functions
while the monarchy was allowed to continue exercising executive power. Through them Third Estate
came to participate in politics alongside the nobles and clergy. By 1791, there was persecution of the
monarchy, nobles and clergy as well as repressive laws. All this culminated in the abolition of the
monarchy and the creation of republic which demonstrated that the revolutionaries now wanted
complete and exclusive power to themselves. The Jacobin Regime of 1793 to 1794 passed the Law of
Suspects which criminalised expressions of support for the monarchy, nobles and clergy. A person could
be sentenced to die for speaking out in support for the monarchy and this kind of intolerance was
testimony to the radical shift in the aims of the revolutionaries.
Initial aims of limiting the power and influence of the church in politics and government soon gave way
in 1792-3 to the uncompromising aim of completely destroying the church and Christianity. In the
beginning, the revolutionaries tolerated the church and passed the Civil Constitution of the clergy. This
law was designed to limit power of church by subjecting to the revolutionary government’s control. This
was to be achieved by having their salaries paid by the government which also expected them to take an
oath of loyalty to it. The revolutionaries soon abandoned this moderate course embarked on a mission
to close all churches and persecute priests. The radical attempts to completely destroy the church and
Christianity culminated in the introduction of Revolutionary Calendar and other religions. This change
was the end-product of several factors that included the clergy and the pope’s stubborn refusal to
accept the civil constitution. The growth of a radical atheist and anti-Christian movement led by Herbet
during this period also contributed.
The 1789 aims of achieving individual liberty and social rights gave way to high levels of repression and
intolerance. It was evident that achieving civil rights was a top priority for the revolutionaries in 1789.
This was even expressed in the popularising of the slogans of liberty, equality and fraternity. The
revolutionaries moved to put to effect by abolishing the privileges of the nobles and clergy in August
1789. They followed that up with a Declaration of Rights of Man and Citizen. This gave legal, economic
and social rights to all French citizens. In 1791 the civil liberties were formalised in the new Constitution.
That desire for universal liberty soon gave way to an intolerance and repression characterised by laws
against émigrés and the arrest of Girondists in 1792. The September (1792) Massacres of perceived
counter-revolutionaries and the harsh laws of the Reign of Terror all demonstrated a complete
abandonment of the initial aims of universal civil liberties. The shift stemmed from among other things
the revolutionaries’ growing fear of internal and external enemies. As indicated above, they had come
to the conclusion that the monarchy, nobles and clergy could not be trusted. They had to be suppressed
or destroyed and that could only be achieved through extreme repression and the suspension of civil
rights. There were also external enemies that included the Austrians, Prussians and British who had
invaded France early in 1793. The revolutionary government felt it necessary to introduce repressive
laws to scare their local supporters as well as raise armies and resources to drive them out. The
government introduced mass conscription and requisitioning which took away individuals’ rights to
refuse to serve in the army and also forced them to give their food and other material resources to the
government.
By 1792 initial aims of achieving democracy had been superseded by increasing autocracy and
dictatorship. The creation of National Assembly and Legislative Assembly as representative bodies to
share power with the monarchy all testified to the desire to achieve democracy in France. Further
measures included the declaration of rights and introduction of the vote. The crowning moment was the
passing of the 1793 Constitution which provided for universal suffrage. However that constitution was
not implemented and repression and intolerance began to set in. Initial targets of state repression were
the monarchy, nobles and clergy. Late in 1792, repression had become universal and even those in the
Third Estate were not spared. The September 1792 Massacres claimed more victims among them than it
did among the first and second estates. The change owed to the government’s heightened fears of
counter-revolution after peasants had combined with the clergy to stage revolts around the country but
especially in Vendee. Another factor was the Girondist-Jacobin struggle for power. This led to desperate
measures as each group sought to destroy the other in order to achieve total and uncontested power.
The invasion of France by European countries that included Prussia, Austria and Britain also led to the
adoption of repressive measures to starve the invaders of any local support from malcontents. A law of
suspects was introduced to deal with those who offered state enemies any kind of assistance. A special
court called the Revolutionary Tribunal was introduced in 1793 to try suspected cases of counterrevolution. Suspects were denied legal representation and its decisions were often arbitrary such that so
many innocent people lost their lives.
In conclusion it can be restated that the revolutionaries initially had moderate aims that included
power-sharing, democracy and civil rights. By 1791, these aims had started to change as evidenced by
increased repression. There was even a desire for complete and exclusive political power. There were
many factors that caused the change. Some of them had to do with anger over the character of the king,
nobles and clergy who appeared stubborn, unrepentant and treacherous to the cause of the revolution.