Introduction
Military history is an interesting
subject and not just for soldiers. By studying it we can guard against similar
problems in the years to come. The defeat of the Hindus at the hands of the
Muslims and the Turks is worth study. It shows us why the Hindu armies lost,
despite displaying tremendous courage and bravery and a fatalistic contempt of
death. This is part of the module on mobility, which we studied when I was
undergoing the 41st Staff course at Wellington.
Principles
of War
One thing should be clear
that bravery alone is not a substitute for victory. The important thing is to
understand the concept of war and the principles involved. In the 19th century
Clausewitz propounded the Principles of War and
earlier Sun Tzu outlined his ideas in the Art of War. One
wishes that the Hindus had studied the art of war.
Bravery
and Hindus
The Hindus liked war and
were very brave. They had a warrior class called the Kshatriyas , yet in most encounters
with Turki and Muslim armies they were decisively defeated. An excellent
analysis of the causes of the Hindu defeat is written by Field Marshal Viscount
Barnard Montgomery of Al Alamein in his "History of Warfare." Field
Marshal Montgomery also referred to as "Monty
“was the most successful British general during World War II.
Lack
of strategic Concept
Monty states that one of
the reasons for the defeat of the Hindus was a lack of strategic concept as the
passes of the North West like the Khyber Pass were never defended. He also states
that the Hindu armies were sluggish and slow moving affairs and lacked
mobility.
Mobility
and Muslim tactics
Mobility is one of the most
important principles of war. This concept was imbibed by the Muslim armies.
This concept consisted of reliance on the horse cavalry with mounted archers.
Muslim armies consisted of hordes of mounted archers who would encircle an
enemy and mount offensive as and when required. They would also retreat
and counterattack in a short time. The Hindu armies used to a static concept of
war with elephants were thus found wanting in their battles with the Muslims.
This weakness was evident from the time of 7th century when Muhammad Qasim
defeated the Hindu king Dahir of Sind. yet the Hindus learn't nothing from this
defeat and the reliance on the elephant continued. The elephants were slow
moving and countering thousands of archers on horseback was a difficult
proposition. The Muslim army had mobility and along with it came a better
tactical sense. It also allowed a commander to change tactics and reposition
his force during a battle.
The
Mounted Archer: a Muslim Concept
This concept of the mounted
archer was something new. It was known to others, but the development to its
full potential goes to the credit of the
Muslims. The entire campaign by which the massive Ottoman Empire and subsequent
conquests in India were carried out was by legions of mounted archers.
Last
Word
The Hindus by neglecting the art of war and
not copying the Muslim tactics of mobility and strategic retreat and
counterattack sealed their fate and lost, leaving the Muslims to rule India for
close to 900 years
No comments:
Post a Comment