6
The missionaries who went to Tonga shared the attitudes of Methodists in England to the question of war; their abhorrence of warfare in general did not prevent them from loyally serving their king and country in time of war. John Wesley used his influence to avert the American War of Independence, but when it broke out he became one of the staunchest supporters of the British government (Edwards 1948:19). Their patriotism owed much to their belief in the Old Testament sense of kingship (Taylor 1935:25). They believed that a ruler was ordained by God and his authority was derived from Him.
Replying to Dillon’s charges against the Wesleyan missionaries in Tonga that they were entirely responsible for the wars in 1837 and 1840, David Cargill (1842:7-9) wrote:
Besides being loyal to king and country, the Methodists felt justified in going to war to combat the threat of the forces of anti-Christ. This was one of the reasons why they whole-heartedly supported the British government in its stand during the French Revolution and the Napoleonic wars. This view was reflected in the missionaries’ attitudes towards war in Tonga.
The missionaries also felt justified in supporting the wars in Tonga because they were convinced that the heathens would never become loyal subjects of the Tongan monarch unless they accepted the lotu (Rabone, Journal, 16 Feb. 1840). They feared that victory for the heathens would mean the end of monarchy, the rule of law and, above all, their work in Tonga. From the beginning of the mission the heathens were on the offensive. In Tongatapu they had the numbers and strength to become a serious danger to the Christian minority. Their aggressive behaviour was due in part to a deep-seated suspicion that the new religion would bring on disaster, by provoking the anger of the gods. Many of the chiefs and all the priests were also afraid that this lotu would undermine their prestige and deprive them of their privileges. As a result, Christian converts were persecuted and, when they showed no signs of surrendering their new faith, the chiefs felt compelled to drive these determined few from their localities. In doing so, they unwittingly helped to create a more closely knit and potentially powerful community of Christians, who were later able to overthrow their far from united oppressors. The gathering place of the exiled Christians on Tongatapu was the small hamlet of Nuku’alofa.
Under the leadership of King George, the Christians began to take the offensive, first in Ha’apai, where Tāufa’āhau systematically burned down the god-houses, destroyed effigies and turned the sacred places into gardens or homesites during 1829 and 1830. As James Watkin (Journal, 25 April 1831) wrote:
Later, in 1833, when the fortress in ’Uiha had been demolished, and the god-houses and effigies destroyed, he also recorded that a residence for a teacher was built in the enclosure which had previously been regarded as sacred (Journal, 12 April 1833).
In 1831 King George extended his campaign to Vava’u, where he was assisted by Fīnau ’Ulukālala Tuapasi. Sarah Farmer described how Fīnau put the gods to test and then burnt them:
Peter Turner relates how King George and some of his warriors went to the god-house at Makave, a village near Neiafu, the capital of Vava’u. When the priest saw them he thought they had come to consult the gods, and he entered the house of the god and proceeded to pray for inspiration. The sight of this so exasperated King George that:
Many were alarmed and took up arms to avenge this sacrilege but, when they saw that it was King George and his men, they became afraid and could not carry out their intentions. As a result, King George and his men systematically went on with this destruction throughout Vava’u.
The missionaries realised that traditionally King George and Fīnau ’Ulukālala were acting within the bounds of their authority, being rulers of Ha’apai and Vava’u. Religiously, they regarded it as a triumph of Jehovah over Baal. They were so excited about the success of this campaign that one of them declared, This tide of glorious intelligence that Vavau had become Christian spread northward and southward like a swelling tide’ (P. Turner, Missionary papers: 51).
The actions of ’Ulukālala and King George, however, sparked off the first armed conflict in Tonga since the establishment of the Wesleyan mission in 1826. Lualala, ’Ulukālala’s half-brother, led the rebellion against ’Ulukālala. The destruction of the places of worship was given as the pretext for this uprising. While there was genuine provocation in these acts, the rebellion cannot be viewed in isolation, for it was an extension of the general power struggle which had gone on for quite some time in Tonga. Lualala had his eyes on the rulership of Vava’u, for ’Ulukālala was ageing and his son, Matekitonga, was still very much a junior. The missionaries regarded the uprising as a rebellion against the legitimate authority in Vava’u and consequently they gave at least their moral support to ’Ulukālala and King George. However, through their influence, clemency was shown towards Lualala, and he and his followers were saved from being killed and banished from Vava’u.
When King George became ruler of both Ha’apai and Vava’u in 1833 the whole of Ha’apai, except ’Uiha, had accepted Christianity, chiefly because King George wished them to do so. There were a few objectors, such as Malupō of ’Uiha and his sons, whose refusal was due largely to their attachment to the old religion, but they remained politically loyal to King George. Some of the other chiefs of Ha’apai were also still attached to their old gods, but they dared not disobey the wishes of King George and so became Christians, at least nominally. Malupō and his sons were able to resist, on account of close kinship and political affiliation with King George. It will be recalled that the King’s paternal grandmother was a Malupō, and both he and his father, Tupouto’a, were brought up at ’Uiha by Malupō and the ’Uiha people. Furthermore, Malupō and his sons had supported King George in his previous struggle against Laufilitonga at the war of Velata.
King George for his part was not seriously disturbed by ’Uiha’s resistance. He sought no armed reprisal, but treated the whole matter in a rather humorous way. At the time that he became ruler of Vava’u, it was well known that there was some dissatisfaction among a few of the chiefs in Vava’u, particularly the former supporters of Lualala, concerning the issues of religion and the rulership of Vava’u. King George used this situation as a means of tricking Malupō.
Before leaving on one of his visits to Vava’u he sent a message to Malupō, saying that he had heard it rumoured that there was a plot to assassinate him in Vava’u and he pleaded with Malupō to send the warriors of ’Uiha to Vava’u for his protection. After he reached Vava’u, he secretly arranged for the people of a village called Masilamea, well known for their gentleness and lack of fighting prowess, to lie in wait for the ’Uiha warriors near the spot where his large white pig was kept in an enclosure. When the ’Uiha canoe full of warriors arrived, King George informed them that the rumoured plot against his life was false. He then suggested that they should fetch his pig to kill it as provision for their return voyage. Two or three warriors remained in the canoe, while the rest set forth, unarmed, to fetch the pig. As soon as they had departed the canoe was seized. The others approached the pig enclosure, only to encounter the gentle Masilamea people who ambushed and of course outnumbered them, bound their hands behind their backs and led them to Neiafu, the capital. When King George saw his famous warrior cousins as captives of the most un-warlike Masilameans, he burst into laughter, saying, ‘Toki taha a Masilamea’ (‘Masilamea’s first’)—a great humiliation for the ’Uiha warriors. He then spoke to them very strongly on the falsehood of heathenism and exhorted them to become Christians. The warriors were kept in Vava’u until he and his men sailed to ’Uiha, levelled its fortress and burnt down the god-houses and all the effigies. The warriors became converts in Vava’u, and when they returned to ’Uiha they proceeded to build the largest and most beautiful chapel in all Ha’apai (Lātūkefu 1968:142). Thus the last resistance in Ha’apai was settled without war or bloodshed.
Meanwhile the heathen chiefs on Tongatapu were enraged by the news of the desecration and destruction of the sacred places of Ha’apai and Vava’u, for it was clear that they feared the political implications of King George’s success in this campaign. It increased their determination to resist, at all cost, any similar onslaught which he might be planning to make on Tongatapu. When he visited his great-uncle, Aleamotu’a. in Tongatapu later the same year, he learned that the heathen chiefs of Tongatapu were plotting to attack his canoes. He took his great-uncle’s advice to return to Ha’apai, realising the gravity of the situation which could easily erupt into open conflict (P. Turner 1831-8:52). However, this move did not appease the heathens, who continued to prepare for an offensive. ‘All Tonga’, wrote Watkin (Journal, 11 April 1835), ‘with the exception of this place [Nuku’alofa] are building strongholds, sharpening their spears, and fabricating clubs with which to take away each others lives.’
After the rebellion in Vava’u was quashed in 1831, Lualala had gone to Tongatapu and allied himself with the Ha’a Havea chiefs, the traditional enemies of King George’s father. This was a politically significant move. Assisted by the chiefs of Pea, Lualala built the fortress of Ngele’ia1 (Blanc 1935:37), which became a formidable threat to the Christians at Nuku’alofa.
The Ha’a Havea chiefs were extremely upset when one among them, William Tu’ivakanō, became converted to Christianity. They applied so much pressure on him to give up the lotu that he eventually agreed to renounce his newly found faith in April 1835. The missionaries, however, persisted in their efforts to regain him, and, in September, Watkin was able to write: ‘Tu’ivakano who apostatized some time ago resumed his profession of Christianity which he certainly did not renounce heartily but allowed political consideration to influence him to take that step’ (Watkin, Journal, 19 Sept. 1835).
The Ha’a Havea chiefs reacted violently to Tu’ivakanō’s reconversion. They deposed him and drove him and his followers out of his fortress of Hule and they appointed another member of the family to the title. William and his people fled to Nuku’alofa, where other Christian refugees had gathered under Aleamotu’a, the then Tu’i Kanokupolu.
The renewed intensity of opposition forced the Christians to fortify Nuku’alofa. They surrounded the hill where their chapel stood with a stockade and ditch, so that the place might be used as a citadel in case of war. Watkin (Journal, 25 Sept. 1835) wrote, ‘I hope the mere erection of the fortress will deter the heathens from farther hostilities and serve to check the disloyal spirit which has animated them.’ Watkin’s statement reveals the missionary view of the conflict, indicating that they regarded the Tu’i Kanokupolu as the supreme and legitimate ruler of Tonga; that hostilities against him and his followers were therefore rebellious; and that they were hoping that the erection of the fortress at Nuku’alofa might terminate these hostilities and thereby save the country from going to war. Subsequent events, however, proved these hopes to be futile.
At Hihifo, one of the late Ata’s sons, Setaleki Ve’ehala, and his friends, who had been converted, were driven from their homes at Kolovai early in 1836. They established a little settlement on Setaleki’s land at Masilamea, two miles from Kolovai. Many other Christians had to leave Tongatapu for Ha’apai and Vava’u in order to practise their religion unmolested. The missionaries were disturbed by the way things had developed in Tongatapu. One of them wrote:
Aleamotu’a and King George valued the advice and the moral support of the missionaries, which they were constantly seeking, especially in times of crises. The Reverend Stephen Rabone (Journal, Aug. 1836) wrote:
This District Meeting was held at Lifuka, Ha’apai, in October and was attended by both Aleamotu’a and King George. There can be little doubt that the question of the offensive of the heathen chiefs at Tongatapu was one of the main issues discussed. This meeting of the hau, Aleamotu’a, and his deputy, King George, only added to the antagonism of their opponents, who openly showed their resentment when King George accompanied Aleamotu’a back to Tongatapu in November, as reported by Rabone. ‘The reception’, he wrote, ‘was not attended with any particular marks of kindness the Heathen had prepared for war foolishly supposing King George was bringing his people to fight...’ (Rabone, Journal, 12 Nov. 1836).
King George returned to Ha’apai, but the situation in Tongatapu grew worse. Rumours were spreading that the heathen chiefs, members of the ‘electoral college’ in particular, were planning to depose Aleamotu’a and replace him with someone more loyal to their cause. Aleamotu’a wrote to King George, informing him of the seriousness of the situation in Tongatapu. The latter immediately departed for Vava’u to discuss the matter with the chiefs there. He then left for Tongatapu, accompanied by his uncle Ulakai and others in several canoes. They arrived on 1 January 1837 and on the sixth Rabone received news that the island was considered to be in a state of war and King George had ordered:
The determination of the heathen chiefs to put an end to the spread of Christianity was fostered by both religious and political considerations. The scepticism regarding the traditional gods which the Tu’i Kanokupolu family had developed, partly on account of the failure of the gods to ensure their success in their endeavour to make the Tu’i Kanokupolu the supreme ruler of the whole of Tonga, was not shared by the other chiefs. The others had no reasons for doubting the power of their gods, for they had been quite successful, so far, in maintaining their independence. The Ha’a Havea, in particular, had won their wars against the Tu’i Kanokupolu family, and at this time were the most powerful and influential chiefs in Tongatapu.
The political considerations which influenced the heathen chiefs in their rejection of Christianity were bound up with their realisation that a victory for the Tu’i Kanokupolu and King George and their new religion would mean an end to their arbitrary powers over their subjects and deprive them of their privileges. They were probably confident of their own strength, remembering how both Fīnau ’Ulukālala and Tupouto’a, with their warriors from the northern groups, had failed to defeat them at the beginning of the century. The heathen chiefs were thus firmly resolved to halt the spread of Christianity, and, if need be, to fight, in order to protect both their religion and their political independence.
It has been alleged that the war between the heathens and Christians, which broke out in 1837, was a purely religious conflict. Basil Thomson (1894:350-1), who took this view, stated:
This over-simplified view of a complex situation completely fails to take into account the underlying power struggle, which was much older and more basic than the religious issues which appeared on the surface to have precipitated this war.
The war began on 8 January 1837. The heathens chose the Sabbath day on which to attack, thinking the Christians would not defend themselves, but they were proved mistaken. According to Watkin, who was an eye witness, the Christian fortress was well guarded, and the attackers were easily driven off, although two of the Christians were wounded. Watkin (Journal, 11 Jan. 1837) wrote, ‘They [the heathens] have therefore actually commenced the war, and God will I trust vindicate his own cause’. King George waited till the following day, then led his men to attack the nearest heathen fortress of Ngele’ia which had been built by Lualala with the assistance of the chiefs of Pea. When they came in sight of the fortress, he called his men around him to give them their orders, and before they launched their attack, they prayed together ‘and felt (according to their own expression) just as when the revival of religion broke out’ (Rabone, Journal, 17 Jan. 1837). In the surprise attack that followed all twenty-six warriors in the fortress were killed, ‘among whom were some of the greatest persecutors in Tonga, and many of the relatives of Lavaka [one of the leading chiefs of the Ha’a Havea] who is chief promoter of the present war’ (Watkin, Journal, 11 Jan. 1837).
News of this victory reached the mission headquarters in Vava’u, but it was also learned that in spite of this set-back the heathens were determined to continue their resistance and gave no signs of easy surrender. Thomas, who received news of the encounter, wrote in February 1837:
The missionaries were anxiously awaiting news of a settlement of the war, for they wanted an early peace, though not a peace at any price. Rabone (Journal, 21 Jan. 1837) wrote, ‘we begin to feel anxious to hear again from Tonga ... they are at war if so some will fall on both sides. O may the Lord speedily interpose and give the victory in favour of our Israel.’
On Sunday, 15 January, a week later, the heathens decided to destroy the Christians’ plantations thinking that they would not guard their gardens on the Sabbath. Again they were proved wrong for, while they were busily engaged in this destruction, the Christian warriors rushed upon them and pursued them right to the gates of Pea itself, killing nine and wounding many others. The Christians suffered the loss of one man and another was seriously wounded and died later. The next day, the Christians burned a sacred canoe and took the small fortress of Te’ekiu (Watkin, Journal, 12 Feb. 1837).
King George’s next attack was centred upon the fortress of Hule which was Tu’ivakanō’s fortress, from which he had been forced to flee. Tu’ivakanō had appealed to King George to destroy the fortress and wipe out his opponents. The King offered the leaders of Hule terms of surrender, but they refused and the fortress was stormed on 25 January. About three hundred men, women and children were killed, Tu’ivakanō himself and his followers playing a leading part in this massacre.
It is interesting to note the more ruthless and aggressive stand taken by King George during this war. In these two encounters the power struggle was approaching its peak. Lualala had left Vava’u and allied himself with the Ha’a Havea chiefs. The apparent intentions of this dangerous alliance must have awakened in him the old savagery and fighting spirit which had lain dormant for several years to such an extent that they momentarily overshadowed the Christian influence on his actions and life. Later in the 1840 war when he and his warriors besieged Kolovai, King George told his men:
However, the serious threat which the heathen opposition posed not only to his own future, but to the future of monarchical authority and the rule of law, and also to his newly adopted religion, must all have spurred him on to crush the rebellion with ruthless vigour.
The missionaries did not condemn the indiscriminate slaughter of the inhabitants of Hule. They regarded it as a divine judgment—an inevitable consequence of the sinfulness of the heathens. When the news of the massacre reached Vava’u, Rabone (Journal, 14 Feb. 1837) wrote, ‘It does indeed appear that the Tonga heathen are given up to a reprobate mind and are bent upon their own destruction, for they have positively refused to “Lotu”, and madly prefer dying in their sins’. While the missionaries boasted about the willingness of their converts to die for their faith they saw no merits whatsoever in the determination of the heathens to die for theirs.
Several months later, when Rabone himself passed through Hule on a trip from Hihifo to Nuku’alofa, he wrote:
Further skirmishes occurred and on 8 February Pea was again attacked, with the loss of thirteen heathens and three Christians. Meanwhile King George sent for reinforcements from Vava’u. Referring to this new call up, Rabone (Journal, 16 Feb. 1837) wrote that if he understood it correctly, the intention was to make ‘a desperate attack upon the Heathen who positively refuse to “lotu” or to turn to God without they do this there is no ground of hope for their being better subjects or in any respect’. At any rate, 200 or more men left Vava’u in four canoes in February with Rabone’s prayer, ‘O Lord do thou undertake for thy people and speedily bring the war to an end’ (Rabone, Journal, 18 Feb. 1837).
Indeed, the war was speedily brought to an end, for with the 200 or more men as reinforcements, the heathens lost heart and ceased their offensive. King George was then able to extract from them a promise to desist from further persecution of Christians as a condition for peace. Although Aleamotu’a and King George were in a winning position, they did not wish to continue the war, thus supporting the missionaries’ contention that the war was largely fostered by the heathen chiefs.
In April the warriors from the north returned to their respective places. Rabone (Journal, 12 April 1837) gave an account of the welcome back to Vava’u:
The fears of the heathen chiefs of Tongatapu that King George might extend his campaign of destruction of the sacred places and effigies proved justified. Everywhere King George and his warriors went during the war they burnt down and destroyed god-houses, objects of worship, and sacred places. The vao tapu (sacred wood) of the famous sanctuary of Ma’ofanga, which had been so sacrosanct that no one could approach it, on pain of death, was cut down and sold to the sailors for firewood. Many of the warriors from the north took back with them, as souvenirs, pieces of wood made into staffs from this sacred place. Later in June, when peace had been restored, Rabone (Journal, 23 June 1837) wrote:
It was soon clear that, in spite of the return to peace, the heathens had not abandoned their resolve to stop the spread of Christianity. Unfortunately, the Christians themselves furnished some provocation which gave the heathens a pretext for further hostilities.
The first incident occurred on 25 July 1837. Describing what happened, Rabone (Journal, 25 July 1837) wrote, ‘I fired a loaded gun as a chief who was near the premises at the time rushed in and seized me attempting dragging me about vociferating in the most devilish manner....’ Rabone did not say what he was firing at, but Commodore Wilkes (1845:181) said that it was a sacred pigeon which was revered by the people. It is very likely that Rabone acted in ignorance. At Kolovai where he was stationed it was flying foxes and not pigeons which were regarded as sacred. In fact one of the most popular sports among the chiefs was catching pigeons. However, there was a fa’ahinga (clan) at Kolovai known as Matapā whose land was adjacent to the mission house. These people had originally belonged to Ve’ehala of Fāhefa, but had been invited by Ata to settle at Kolovai. It so happened that Ve’ehala’s god was a pigeon. What appears to have caused the upset was that Rabone was seen shooting a pigeon by the head of the Matapā clan, and he of course would still revere the bird.
However, the rough treatment which the heathen chief gave Rabone over the shooting incident grieved the Christians very much. Referring to this, Rabone (Journal, 25 July 1837) recorded:
Another source of annoyance to the heathen chiefs was the policy of persuading, and in some cases forcing, influential chiefs from Tongatapu to go to Vava’u and Ha’apai, so that they would become converted there. ’Ahome’e, a great chief from Hihifo, went to Vava’u in 1837, and when he returned he told Ata that he had become a Christian, much to the discomfort of the heathens. King George visited Tongatapu in December 1837 and tried to influence Ata to accept Christianity, but was refused. When King George returned to Ha’apai in February of the following year, Rabone (Journal, 24 Feb. 1838) wrote:
It was when Ulakai decided to seize five apostates from the fortress of Kolovai, in May 1838, and send them to Ha’apai that the already strained relations between the two factions deteriorated to a dangerous degree. The heathens closed their fortress ‘for the preacher’ and made preparations for war.
When the situation at Hihifo became too precarious, Rabone decided it was advisable to abandon the mission after he had been there for one year. His relationship with the heathens grew worse and in December 1839, just before war broke out, Peter Turner (Journal, 11 Dec. 1839) mentioned in his journal that he had been ‘informed that as Bro’ R. was going to preach a heathen called him to return & eat his [own] dirt’. This was of course regarded as a serious insult by the Christians. Unfortunately, the missionaries were not in a position to bring about any reconciliation between the disputing factions, because they had already committed themselves wholeheartedly to supporting King George and the Tu’i Kanokupolu even though they were acting contrary to the expressed policy of the Society. In August 1837 Ata and his followers removed by force an old man from his own people on the little island of ’Atatā, and sent him to the Christian settlement of Fo’ui, after he had decided to accept Christianity. This was an infringement of the agreement between the two parties. However, the Christians were infuriated by Ata’s action, and Aleamotu’a conducted a fono at Kolovai on 17 August, at which he said to Ata and his people:
Rabone, who reported the fono, added, ‘I pray God this event may be sanctified to the good of all’.
Soon after this, the chiefs of Pea applied pressure on one of their number, Moeaki, to give up Christianity. After hearing this, Aleamotu’a and Ulakai went to Pea and warned the Pea people ‘that they might do as they would—but that the day they began to persecute the Xians the term of peace would be broken and they would again fight’ (Rabone, Journal, 24 Aug. 1837).
The cause of the heathens was favoured by the fact that King George and his warriors from the north were no longer stationed in Tongatapu. It was further encouraged, in 1839, by the death of two very able Christian leaders; one was Uiliami Ulakai, son of Tuku’aho and brother of King George’s father Tupouto’a; the other was Setaleki Ve’ehala, son of the late Ata and a nephew of the existing Ata. Because of their rank, traditional mana and personal prowess as warriors they were revered by both Christians and heathens. They had, on several previous occasions, managed to exert their influence to avert armed clashes between the two factions of the Hihifo community.
War broke out in January 1840. The incident which triggered it was the removal of some sticks from one of the heathen god-houses by the Christians. Why they did so is not known, but the heathens were greatly angered, and were probably awaiting an opportunity such as this to make trouble. They attacked and killed four Christians, and war began. Aleamotu’a went to Hihifo, to try to make peace, but failed. Several other attempts at a settlement were made, but they also failed. Eventually Aleamotu’a sent for King George who arrived shortly after with his warriors from the north. Kolovai was besieged and surrendered after a short time, but Pea, Houma and Vainī continued to resist.
Commodore Wilkes arrived in Tonga on 24 April and offered to act as conciliator.2 He was unsuccessful in his attempt and he blamed the missionaries for his failure. However, one of the missionaries wrote:
It seems very likely too that the missionaries and their followers were hopeful that after the fall of Kolovai, the others would also surrender, but they were mistaken. They found that the resistance was much stronger and more determined than had been expected. As a result, they appealed to Captain Croker, who arrived on 21 June on the British sloop Favourite, to make peace (Thomson 1894:353-5). They regarded Croker’s arrival as an act of providence; of it Rabone wrote (Journal, 21 June 1840), ‘we view it as an interposition of our Heavenly Father and so hope his visit will be made a blessing’. Two days later he again wrote, ‘we hope the coming of this vessel of the Lord—and that the interference of Capt. Croker may be owned of God and sanctioned by his Government tomorrow is the time fixed for the expedition’ (Rabone, Journal, 23 June 1840). However, the expedition brought no immediate relief, for Croker was shot dead at Pea. When news of his death reached the missionaries they were confounded. Rabone (Journal, 24 June 1840) wrote:
Although the death of Croker appeared to be a triumph for the heathens, it actually caused them great alarm, for they feared that more ships would be sent from Britain to revenge the Captain’s death. They also grew tired of living within the confines of their fortress. For these reasons they were easily persuaded to accept peace. Fighting ceased after 26 June, an armed peace was restored, and Tonga enjoyed this condition for more than a decade. It looked as though Captain Croker’s blood had not been shed in vain after all, and that the missionaries’ belief that he had come by Divine Providence was somewhat vindicated, although the peace which they desired had been accomplished in a more tragic way than had been expected. Thomas, who was stationed in Vava’u at this time, went to Tongatapu in August and discussed peace terms with the heathen chiefs. King George stayed on in Tongatapu with some of his men till the latter half of the following year when they finally returned to their homes in the northern groups.
Although these wars were triggered off by religious disputes, they were endemic to the power struggle which had been going on in Tonga for many years, since the quarrel between Tuku’aho and Tupoumoheofo in the 1790s. Religion and politics were so intricately interwoven in the causes of the wars and in the determination of both sides to be victorious, that they may be more accurately termed religion-political wars than merely missionary wars or crusades, as Basil Thomson arbitrarily claimed them to be.