43.3.2.1 Anthony Durnford a cousin - Part 2 Background To the series of his life in our family story -The Righting some wrongs.

On 22nd January 1879, in the shadow of a mountain, at a place called Isandhlwana, in the lands of South Africa, an eclipse of the sun occurred,  Warriors faced each other, different uniforms, different colours, different numbers, by 3.30pm, the eclipse had passed, leaving behind not a dark sky, but a battlefield, littered with its colours of death, both red and black.  The colour blood, of red coats and black skins with a rare splash of others, mingled together amongst the hoofs of horses and oxen.

Nothing stirred, history rewritten, and there they lay, lost forever, left like no other. A watch stopped at 3.30 frozen in time, never to be wound or worn again, it belonged to Anthony Durnford.
This is his story.

Isandhlwana  - A Place like no other

Since 1879  Mounds of stone tell a remarkable  and sad story

.
written by Frances Colenso 1879 

"Turn for an instance to the story of the field of Isandhlwana, as now told in plain through interrupted and awful characters, by the remains found resting near the "neck"

Could it have been guessed, that while human recollection and human intelligence failed so utterly to convey to the world a history of the events of that too memorable day.

Nature herself would have taken the matter in hand, and told us such a story as no one who hears it will ever forget?


Four months - all but a day had elapsed since the defenders of the field stood facing the Zulu myriads

Four months - of rain and sun of the hovering of slow-sailing birds of prey and of the predatory                                   visits as it might well be deed of unregarding enemies

Four months - and during all that time while the world was ringing from one end to the other with the                          news of a terrible disaster,

Four months  -while reinforcements we crowded to our shoes and special correspondents were                                      flooding the telegraph wires with the last new thing , but all through those

Four months -  the dead slept quietly on, waiting almost consciously as one might think for the                                      revelation which was to establish their fame, and where necessary relived their                                     unjustly sullied reputation.

Four months - there was a sleep of honour slept upon that bitter field

Four months - yet sill the honoured dead slept in silence only the grasses that waved round them in                             the autumn breeze murmured to them of their coming resurrections

Four months - with only the star that looked down on them when the night wind had ceased and the                             hills looked black and silent in the morning hours, bade them be patient and wait.

Four months -  Until their bodies were removed.

Four months     May they rest in peace.                                22nd January 1879

The Battlefield recent times

Photo -Thanks to Jeff Aiunreve


***********************************************************************************

When I began this chronological account of our ancestors, I was very aware that dealing with Anthony's story would be challenging.  How does one present a balanced viewpoint of such an historical event, without changing history.  

After many weeks of deliberating, I decided that it would be best to present both sides of the story, and present the biography of both Anthony Durnford the accused, and Lord Chelmsford the accuser, and include some details of the various battles which became part of the Zulu Wars from wikipdia.

That way, the story followed his life in South Africa in a chronological order.

While researching, it became quite upsetting, and distressing to realise what opinions many people had about Anthony and his family and what had been written, all without the benefit of knowing anything about his background or his life.

Questioning his abilities as a soldier, why he didn't follow orders, there was so much written about him, but had his past experiences in fighting in South Africa been reviewed, or was the focus just on one battle on one day?  Was he just the name attached to a soldier, or was he a person?

***********************************

For 136 years  Anthony William Durnford has been accused of not following orders which resulted in an astounding loss by the English in the Zulu War and the Battle of Rorke's Drift in 1879 in Natal.

 The worst in Britain's history.  He was the scapegoat - hung out to dry

It was bad enough that his wife was ostracised in the way she was, without anyone at all considering that she was someones daughter and someones mother.  Presented as an irresponsible person who abandoned her child, and how was "never heard from again".  Was that really the case?

The facts don't lie but very often they do present a totally different perspective of how things "might" have happened,changing long held family beliefs, another of those "we don't talk about that"

The more I saw that had been written the more determined I became that my story, while based on fact, and an intimate knowledge of his background, and that of the whole of our family over the past 1000 years would hopefully change some public perceptions about him.

After all Anthony was long dead, his accuser was dead, everyone around him was dead.

He had no direct family, no grandchildren or great grandchildren to try to right some wrongs.

 I quickly realised also, that the information about him was stored in all sorts of on-line forums, books, newspapers, web-sites but nothing had ever been presented in a chronological way nor had any information about his life, nor that of his family ever been contained within the one central source.


But perhaps the strange part about all this, the more I read and learnt about his personality the more I realised that I shared lot of his personal attributes, and on checking discovered that his other Australian cousins related also.

We also had lived and worked away from home, not in South Africa but in Bougainville, in 1980, and I know how hurtful and upsetting it felt to me, to watch and read of their sufferings under civil war.
 I could empathise with him his feelings for the South African people.

He was one who was mindful of who he became acquainted with, he was a stickler for ensuring the truth was the only thing that mattered, at all costs, he loved animals, he had an affinity for and understood the people of South Africa, he wasn't afraid to question long held English beliefs about their attitudes to the people who found themselves under British rule.

He was brave, he put himself in harm's way to protect those around him regardless of the colour of their skin, he was loyal, and trustworthy, that certainly was displayed by the respect given by his fellow soldiers.

And yet those same brave soldiers were left on the battlefield among the stench and bones, uncovered, where they fell, for 4 long months. 

How would his parents, his brothers and sisters, his uncles and aunts, his cousins his wife and his daughter and his friends, have felt reading the newspaper articles on the battle, the enormous amount of blame which was placed on hm? 

The stories that he killed himself, that he caused so many to die, that he was someone who acted irresponsibility, he didn't follow orders, he should have done it this way, why did he do it that way, then to eventually read that his body lay on the battle field for  4 months.

After reading that article, my Durnford determination set in.  In my eyes this was all so wrong, how could so many be left for so long, on a battlefield, as they fell.  Why?

A battlefield possibly littered with many other corpses, perhaps also to have been mauled by the wild animals, anyone reading those reports would mentally form a picture in their mind of what remained, given the deterioration of the body, having laid in the elements for so long.

One night, while reading all these numerous newspaper articles, I read a report of a series of questions that Edward Durnford, had asked of Lord Chelmsford.      More  Whys?

It took less than 30 seconds for me to realise that was something not right.

Two players were involved, one was dead, one seemed to have problems keeping his story correct and insisted the blame lay else where. But it was his continual insistence that made me ask.  Why?

Like most others, I am not a soldier, or a military historian, they are experts in their field, and even their findings get criticised.  Not one person is alive to be able to present an eye witness account of what happened, some survivors afterwards wrote accounts of the day, others wrote on their behalf.

Where these accounts correct? or had the horrific events that they witnessed, clouded some aspects of their recall.  They stared adversity in the face, They were lucky to be alive.

Maps were located, two sets, again with controversy why were they different?   Who changed them?

Different maps, different results not one story ever seems to agree with another.

But when statements are written, giving an account of what happens from memory, "because the notebook is missing", and attaches blame from that statement to one single person, and then when the "notebook" is found a retraction is made - "he did follow orders" it is not difficult to start to ask more "whys".            

Soon my "why" list was getting longer, and from that point, my perception of the facts changed and I began to research in a very different manner, and down a very different path.

The end result overwhelmed me.  

His brother Edward and his friend Frances Colenso set out to prove that he was wrongfully accused.

Shortly after the loss, Frances, using her father's extensive notes, published a book providing the details leading up to why the Zulu War began.

In fact she published two books in her name, another based on events in 1873.

Then  again using her father's writings, giving a background to the events prior to and after the war and calling on Col Edward Durnsford's military knowledge as to the aspects of the battle, published another.      That began a very steep learning curve, and both books were read, the third is on its way.

While they began the task, they did not succeed. They would be mindful of Anthony's words

"If it is not the truth, why write it"

They had no idea that years later proof would be found, and presented to clear those accusations.


*********************************************************************************

Compiled McKinnon and Shadbolt from family information  c 1890 -1900

           

www.soldiersofthequeen.com




********************************************************************************


After the severe losses in the Zulu War, someone had to be blamed.  That someone was Anthony Durnford.  Who better to blame?  He was dead, while his accuser continued at every opportunity to attach blame. 


In fact, by reading the newspaper reports relating to Anthony and the War, it soon became quite clear that the continual blame might be a bit overdone, or done expressly for the purpose hiding the truth.

Just as a mother recognises when refereeing squabbling children, who each have a different version of events often the guilty speaks the loudest.

But questions were being raised:

With Chelmsford at Rorke's Drift was Clery, who had been culpable in the decision making process that led to the defeat, and he realised if there was a dramatic report about Rorke's Drift that would deflect criticism that would be unleashed upon Chelmsford and his staff once the news reached Britain.

Chelmsford's staff under his instructions were writing reports concerning the defeat.  In particular that the order's to Colonel Pulleine and Colonel Durnford, having been conveniently lost, were able to be rewritten to imply that both officers had disobeyed orders.  As both were killed, they were then publicly and officially blamed for the disaster.

Another caught in the process was Commander Glyn.  He was extremely upset by the loss of his regiment, and Chelmsford had deliberately isolated him at Rork's Drift where he was unable to defend his reputation.  It was not until 21st February that Glyn was able to write high highly emotive report.  

The great work of Colenso and Durnford which is exceptional among contemporary histories in that it attempted to view the conflict from both sides. Frances Colenso was the daughter of Bishop Colenso, whose Bishopric included Zululand at the time of the war. She understood the Zulu nation was a sympathetic observer. This excellent study written by an author who was close to the events, was originally published very shortly after the war.

Frances Colenso had a close friendship with Colonel Anthony Durnford, who was killed at Isandlwhana and who posthumously became one of the scapegoats for the disaster. Frances was therefore able to call upon the assistance of Durnford’s brother, Edward who was also a soldier and who was therefore in a position to provide this excellent work with the vital military knowledge, authority and precision. This great work which resulted from their collaboration was the first, and remains the most significant survey of the Zulu War and the events that led up to it. It endures today and forms as an essential addition to any library encompassing the history of the Zulu Wars.

Note: Frances used her father's extensive notes to include the historical aspects!

*************************************************************************                   Col Edward Durnford, wrote numerous letters questioning the operation  many are included in this collation of events and may be read in the newspaper archives.


January 1880
Sir
My attention has just been called to an article in your issue of yesterday-the anniversary of “Isandhlwana”.

I beg leave to point out some important inaccuracies in your short-description of the battle. The Native Horse were not supported by a company of regulars nor was such a detached company “surrounded, outnumbered, & cut-to-pieces”.

The The Native Horse moved out-2 troops to reconnoitre the hills to the left front of the camp, & 2 troops direct to the front. Colonel Durnford accompanying the latter.

A company of the 24th was posted on the hills to the left of & about 1200 yards from the camp, & on the Zulu army moving unexpectedly to the attack, this company was reinforced by another, but in a few minutes the whole were ordered to retire, & did retire eventually to the spot chosen for the defensive line which was about 300 yards in advance of the left, & extended (at a slight angle) across the (page 2) front of the camp, which was about half a mile in extent.

This spot afforded the only cover that was to be obtained; the camp as it stood being absolutely indefensible.  Captain Essex’ account of the movements of the 24th is very clear & detailed, & the report made by Colonel Black (who buried the dead of the 24th) completely disproves every accusation that a detached company was cut to pieces. The troops to appear to have been in line when drawn up for the final stand.

The concentration contemplated was not “within the camp”, where there was no possible “vantage ground’, but on rising ground to the right, where those who made the last gallant stand, covering the only line of possible retreat, fell.

The causes of the disaster were plainly (page 3) the fatal situation selected for the camp, enclosed as it was on three sides by hills in the absence of all defensive precautions, the absence of proper scouting, whereby 20,000 Zulus were enabled to approach on the 21st (their mounted scouts being actually seen on the Ngquatu sic hills by the General & Staff on that day, when it was intended on the next to make a reconnaissance in that direction),-the absence of proper communications with the camp, & neglect of warnings; & finally the recall of a force actually on the march to the relief of the attacked camp.

Over these causes of disaster the officers who fell at Isandhlwana had not control; nor can it with any justice be said that they were tempted by “contempt (page 4) for a native African soldiery” to throw away any “advantages” they possessed.

They fought under circumstances almost without parallel--did their duty- & knew how to die like British soldiers".

I am Sir your obedient servant,

Edward Durnford
Lieut Colonel

(Note: It was only when the burial party arrived there was an understanding of how the battlefield was laid out, from the placement of the bodies)

******************************************************************************

Edward Durnford was to write an update in 1886, and he failed to do so.  However, in September 2019, a new book will follow on from what Edward began.