isiBabules ???

Hi the Zulus

Please, watch me a primary source - Zulu, English, or South Africa - which proves that the Zulu regiment of the isiBabules to really exist ...



Pascal

Hi the Zulus

Well, I see that isiBabules, are not popular on this forum ...



Pascal

Today I think that regiment never existed, it was just one INTANGA of the uThulwana ...

John

The iNkonkoni and inDhondlo still exist in 1879 and they are listed separately of the uThulwana in the army lists, but these two regiments are incorporated into uThulwana ...

isiBabule no longer existed in 1879, it was definitely become a section of the uThulwana ...

It is mentioned only by Angus McBride in 1976 ...Not by any other modern writer, to my KNOWLEDGE...

Zamokwakhe Lincoln Mthokozisi Khumalo member of the Royal House, Poet Author, and very entertaining man.
Collection of short stories. 1998
contains the story of the isiBabules.

Pascal
They certainly existed but to the best of my knowledge were completely incorporated into the uThulwane by 1879 such that in that year they are not mentioned separately in connection with the war.

Yes Julian It's a bizarre case, it bothers me, they have become a full section of the uThulwana and lose their identity (as opposed to the iNkonkoni and inDhondlo) ...No ?

But why they lost their identity in this case ...

Something for you to research, Pascal...!

If you, you do not know, I'll never know, all I know, you know in advance ...

But perhaps the isibabules have chosen the wrong side in 1856, during the Civil War, unlike the other uThulwana ,all with Cetewayo and then they disappeared ?

Perhaps the answer lies in the James Stuart Archive? Something for when I retire perhaps?

Yes but my idea on the war of 1856 may be valable, no?

Only if you can find any evidence for it.

Perhaps the answer lies in the James Stuart Archive? Something for when I retire perhaps?. says
Julian..

Suspect you then know then, what an amazingly complicated work Stuart produced..
i have been trawling through it the last couple of days on kopie's behalf, and pascal
last night, found the reference for the thulwana but not what pascal requires.. you
will recognize Julian the quality and dedication of his research. xhosa

Les is this the same Kopie who treats old books and 'dinosaurs' with contempt? Surely not?  

 

If your really serious about wanting information then go to the worlds leading expert on Zulu history.
Chief Mangosutha Buthelezi.
He can be contacted on [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

xhosa
Absolutely - I've trawled through this work any number of times looking for refs to Isandhlwana, umHlanga, etc.
springbok
..with a little friendly bias perhaps....

Julian
Hell yes, hes a brilliant bloke. And he will help.

Cheers

The regiments who fought the faction of Cetewayo in 1856 were they ?

No isibabule with them?

I have written to Chief Buthelezi asking for his help. lets see what happens.

Merci  

springbok,pascal.Julian.   kopie, where are you?    

“The Dust Raisers”
"incorporated the 1855 isiBabule “sulphur” and 1856 iNkonkoni “Wilderbeast”.
This regiment had a famous history. Created by King Mpande in 1850, both Prince Cetshwayo and his brother Prince Mbuyazi served in the regiment during the 1852 conflict with the Swazi. uThulwana were part of uSuthu in 1856"

John ,The problem is that I never question of the isiBabule in 1879, unlike the uThulwana , iNkonkoni and iNdlondlo...

Yet the isiBabule were incorporated in uThulwana as well as the iNkonkoni and iNdlondlo...

So why they are never mentioned in 1879? unlike the iNkonkoni and iNdlondlo...

They should have the same status as the iNkonkoni and iNdlondlo...

They disappeared from circulation before the war ? Why ?

They didn't like the name they had?

You kidding or what, Zulu regiments do not have to like their names or not, it happened something in their history and must discover what happened to them!

L:DL  So still no isiBabules with a view?

Beings they may have lost between isandhwana and RD ? L:DL

Or they are engaged in the NNC in 1878 ?   

Anyway, I've looked everywhere at home, including in the cellar and the attic, and even under my bed and in and  behind the furniture and  in closets, I have not found one, so they are not there either ! L:D L

If you see one, ask him to send me a pm or e-mail, thank you ...

  when emoticons are too close of the letters, they do not appear !

Even in these books : "The zulu army and zulu headmen." and " Precis of Information concerning the Zulu Country ,with a map.Prepared in the intelligence Branch of the Quarter-Master-General's Department ,Horse Guards,War Office." ,the isiBabule are not mentioned ???!!!

What is this joke, only Angus McBride has heard of them ???!!!

My first question:

The iNkonkoni and inDhondlo still exist in 1879 and they are listed as incorporated into the uThulwana in the army lists ...


Response of a connoisseur:

Firstly what needs to be understood that the Eurocentric perception that these social groupings are “Military Regiments” is fundamentally flawed. These social groupings are primarily about creation of ties of duty to the King and military service is an exception not the exclusive purpose. In addition it is possible that most males were not part of a designated age cohort. In time of war they may have joined any one of a number of such groupings or fought in a group not associated with any “Regiment”.

In addition the leadership figure of these age groups has primarily a political not a military function. Bearing in mind they would be a chief of some standing in their own right. Where multiple age cohorts are combined there may be a perception of subordination because of political authority. So the perception of some age cohorts being incorporated into others is often a misnomer. The practical basis is the king would summon from his followers a number to perform duties on his behalf. These may be manual labour or occasionally military duties. He would designate a commander and which men he would have. So in some cases members of one age cohort may end up “serving” with or within another group. In addition the names of these groups change and some may be known by multiple names – so the absence of a name does not imply the absence of that age group, nor does the mention of a word automatically suggest the presence of that age cohort.

What must also be noted that in some of the “army lists” the term “incorporated” does not mean merged or permanently joined. Rather than the “senior” group’s name is use to identify not only that age cohort, but also the subordinated age cohorts. So in effect the opening line the uThulwana is the collective term to all three groups in the 1879 campaign and that of one specific group. The iNkonkoni and inDhondlo retaining their own identity afterwards.

Cheers

Pascal

My first question:

The isiBabule also are mentioned in the army lists but only by Angus McBride in his book of 1976 on the zulu war ...Not by any other modern writer, to my KNOWLEDGE...The isiBabule no longer existed in 1879 ?

Response of a connoisseur:

The problem is exactly which age cohort are we talking about and whether McBride’s group is not mentioned by others under another name.

Cheers

Pascal

My third question:

After the book of Angus McBride , they are never mentioned in no battles and no army list, why? They no longer exist in 1879?

Response of a connoisseur:

The absence of them being mentioned as an independent group is not assurance they were not present. They may simply have been under the authority of a more senior commander and integrated into a single force. Note they are also mentioned by Ian Knight and others. However by 1879 these men would probably be in their 70’s. With life expectance around 45 I doubt many were in a fit state to go to war. So it is quite likely the noise and ceremony the may have been attached to the army and sent off, but after a few miles the old guys fall out and go home.

Cheers

Pascal

My fifth question:

Why the iNkonkoni and inDhondlo are mentioned and not the Isibabule ?

Response of a connoisseur:

Probably because the very few members of isiBabule were insignificant – assuming they were in any fit condition to actually accompany the army to war.

Cheers

Pascal

Rascal wrote:

My fifth question:

Why the iNkonkoni and inDhondlo are mentioned and not the Isibabule ?

Response of a connoisseur:

Probably because the very few members of isiBabule were insignificant – assuming they were in any fit condition to actually accompany the army to war.

Cheers

Pascal

Why would they have not be in a fit condition. What had they done or where had they been to be in an unfit condition?

Dave scroll up the page and see Pascal's third question , then read the answer to it ! . They were well into their 70's according to Pascal's informant .
90th

In my opinion they did not 70 years since the regiment was formed in 1855 after Angus McBride, to me they must have 44 years on average, I say this to my correspondent, I will see what will answer me ... If he answers me...

"USIXEPI CORPS : Incorporating the married regiment USIXEPI composed of a handful of very older warriors of 80 years and the unmarried regiment NOKENKE composed of 2,000 young warriors of 30 years in 40 companies.

MBELEBELE CORPS : Incorporating the married regiment MBELEBELE composed of a handful of very older warriors of 78 years and the unmarried regiment UMHLANGA composed of 1,000 young warriors of 28 years in20 companies.

UMLAMBONGWENYA CORPS : Incorporating the married regiment UMLAMBONGWENYA composed of a handful of very older warriors of 75 years and the unmarried regiment UMXAPO composed of 2,000 young warriors of 35 years in 40 companies.

UDUKUZA CORPS : Incorporating the married regiment UDUKUZA composed of a handful of very older warriors of 73 years and the unmarried regiment IQWA composed of 500 young warriors of 35 years in10 companies .

BULAWAYO CORPS : Incorporating the married regiment BULAWAYO composed of a handful of very older warriors of 70 years and the unmarried regiment NSUGAMGENI composed of 1,000 young warriors of 35 years in 20 companies"

Littlehand at my request, the connoisseur seeking his sources for the age he gives to the isibabules and other of his answers ...