Editing Shaka (section)

===The Mfecane===
{{Main article|Mfecane}}

====History and legacy====
The increased military efficiency led to more and more clans being incorporated into Shaka's Zulu empire, while other tribes moved away to be out of range of Shaka's ''[[impi]]s''. The ripple effect caused by these mass migrations would become known (though only in the twentieth century) as the ''[[Mfecane|Mfecane/Difaqane]]'' (annihilation).

Shaka's army set out on a massive programme of expansion & killing those who resisted in the territories he conquered. His ''[[impis]]'' (armies) were rigorously disciplined: failure in battle meant death.{{sfn|Rubinstein|2014|p=}}

At the time of his death, Shaka ruled over 250,000 people and could muster more than 50,000 warriors. His 12-year-long kingship resulted in a massive number of deaths, mostly due to the disruptions the Zulu caused in neighbouring tribes, although the exact death toll is a matter of scholarly dispute.{{sfn|Omer-Cooper|1966|pp=12–86 }}{{sfn|Cobbing|1988|pp=487-519}} Further unquantifiable deaths occurred during mass tribal migrations to escape his armies.

The Mfecane produced [[Mzilikazi]] of the Khumalo, a general of Shaka's. He fled Shaka's employ, and in turn conquered an empire in [[Zimbabwe]], after clashing with European groups like the Boers. The settling of Mzilikazi's people, the Ama Ndebele or Matabele, in the south of Zimbabwe with the concomitant driving of the Mashona into the north caused a tribal conflict that still resonates today. Other notable figures to arise from the Mfecane/Difaqane include [[Soshangane]], who expanded from the Zulu area into what is now [[Mozambique]],<ref name="Newitt">Newitt, Malyn D.D. The Gaza Empire. Microsoft Encarta Reference Library, 2005. DVD</ref> and [[Zwangendaba]].

====Disruptions of the Mfecane/Difaqane====
The theory of the [[Mfecane]] holds that the aggressive expansion of Shaka's armies caused a brutal chain reaction across the southern areas of the continent, as dispossessed tribe after tribe turned on their neighbours in a deadly cycle of fight and conquest. Some scholars contend that this theory must be treated with caution as it generally neglects several other factors such as the impact of European encroachment, slave trading and expansion in that area of Southern Africa around the same time.{{sfn|Cobbing|1988|pp=487-519}} Normal estimates for the death toll range from 1 million to 2 million. These numbers are, however, controversial.{{sfn|Walter|1969|p=}}{{sfn|Charters|1839|p=19}}{{sfn| Hanson|2007|p=313}}

According to [[Julian Cobbing]], the development of the view that Shaka was the monster responsible for the devastation is based on the need of apartheid era historians to justify the apartheid regime's racist policies.{{sfn|Cobbing|1988}} Other scholars acknowledge distortion of the historical record by apartheid supporters and shady European traders seeking to cover their tracks, but dispute the revisionist approach, noting that stories of cannibalism, raiding, burning of villages, or mass slaughter were not developed out of thin air but based on the clearly documented accounts of hundreds of black victims and refugees. Confirmation of such accounts can also be seen in modern archaeology of the village of Lepalong, an entire settlement built underground to shelter remnants of the Kwena people from 1827 to 1836 against the tide of disruption that engulfed the region during Shakan times.{{sfn|Hamilton|1998|pp=36–130}}

[[William Rubinstein]] wrote that "Western guilt over colonialism, have also accounted for much of this distortion of what pre-literate societies actually were like, as does the wish to avoid anything which smacks of racism, even when this means distorting the actual and often appalling facts of life in many pre-literate societies".{{sfn|Rubinstein|2004|p=21–23}} Rubinstein also notes:

{{blockquote|One element in Shaka's destruction was to create a vast artificial desert around his domain... 'to make the destruction complete, organized bands of Zulu murderers regularly patrolled the waste, hunting for any stray men and running them down like wild pig'... An area {{convert|200|mi|km|disp=sqbr}} to the north of the center of the state, {{convert|300|mi|km|disp=sqbr}} to the west, and {{convert|500|mi|km|disp=sqbr}} to the south was ravaged and depopulated...{{sfn|Rubinstein|2004|p=21–23}} }}

South African historian Dan Wylie has expressed skepticism of the portrayal of Shaka as a pathological monster destroying everything within reach. He argues that attempts to distort his life and image have been systematic— beginning with the first European visitors to his kingdom. One visitor, Nathaniel Isaacs, wrote to Henry Fynn, a white adventurer, trader and quasi-local chieftain:
:Here you are about to publish. Do make Shaka out to be as bloodthirsty as you can; it helps swell out the work and make it interesting.{{sfn|Wylie|2006|pp=14–46}}

Fynn, according to Wylie, complied with the request, and Wylie notes that he had an additional motive to distort Shaka's image— he applied for a huge grant of land— an area allegedly depopulated by Shaka's savagery.
:[Fynn] stated that Shaka had killed 'a million people.' You will still find this figure, and higher, repeated in today's literature. However, Fynn had no way of knowing any such thing: it was a thumb-suck based in a particular view of Shaka—Shaka as a kind of genocidal maniac, an unresting killing-machine. But why the inventive lie? ... Fynn was bidding for a stretch of land, which allegedly had been depopulated by Shaka.. [he insinuated], Shaka didn't deserve that land anyway because he was such a brute, while he—Fynn— was a lonely, morally upright pioneer of civilization.{{sfn|Wylie|2006|pp=14–15}}

Michal Lesniewski has criticised Wylie for some{{which|date=January 2019}} of his attempts to revise Western thinking about Shaka.{{sfn|Leśniewski|2011}}