Lieutenant-Colonel Anthony Durnford: Isandlwana, No. 2 Column & the Debate Over Command
Lieutenant-Colonel Anthony William Durnford of the Royal Engineers commanded No. 2 Column during the opening phase of the Anglo-Zulu War and was killed at Isandlwana on 22 January 1879. His role has been argued over ever since because he arrived at the camp shortly before the battle, was senior to Lieutenant-Colonel Henry Pulleine and then took mounted troops out to investigate the developing Zulu threat.
Engineer officer in southern Africa
Durnford was a Royal Engineers officer with long service before 1879. He had worked in Britain and overseas and became closely involved in military and administrative operations in southern Africa during the 1870s.
His career there was already controversial before the Zulu War. During the Langalibalele crisis he was wounded at Bushman’s River Pass and later became the focus of criticism in an inquiry whose fairness has itself been heavily debated.
No. 2 Column
For the invasion of Zululand Durnford commanded No. 2 Column, which included African and colonial mounted troops. His force was initially positioned to support the central invasion while also covering a wide area of the frontier.
On 22 January he was ordered toward Isandlwana and reached the camp during the morning with mounted men and a rocket battery.
The command question
Durnford’s arrival created an awkward command situation. He held senior rank to Pulleine, who had been left in charge of the camp by Lord Chelmsford. Historians have debated whether Durnford formally assumed command of the camp or treated his orders as requiring him to operate independently.
What is clearer is what he did next: he sent mounted troops to investigate Zulu movement and personally moved onto the right of the British position as the scale of the threat became apparent.
The fight on the British right
Durnford’s mounted men occupied a donga on the right and used rifle fire to slow the Zulu left horn. As ammunition became a concern and pressure increased, they withdrew toward the camp.
That withdrawal did not by itself cause the collapse of the British position, but it removed an important element from the right flank at a moment when the Zulu attack was enveloping the camp from several directions.
Durnford was killed during the final stages of the battle. His body was later identified on the field and eventually reburied at Fort Napier in Pietermaritzburg.
Blame after Isandlwana
Because Durnford died, he could not answer the criticism that followed the defeat. Contemporary and later accounts sometimes portrayed his movement away from the camp as reckless or treated him as responsible for weakening the defence.
South African Military History Society research has emphasised how convenient that explanation became while Lord Chelmsford’s earlier decisions—splitting the column, misreading the location of the main Zulu army and leaving an unfortified temporary camp—were also under scrutiny.
Why Durnford matters
Durnford’s story is useful because Isandlwana was not a battle with one clean chain of command and one obvious decision point. It was a headquarters problem involving separate orders, seniority, incomplete information and forces arriving and moving while the enemy picture was changing rapidly.
He should not be treated either as the man who caused the disaster or as a commander beyond criticism. His decisions belong inside the larger command system that failed to produce a coherent response before the Zulu army closed on the camp.
Related: Battle of Isandlwana field guide · Lord Chelmsford biography · Anglo-Zulu War campaign guide
