Letter of Raja Keshav Rao to Peshwa Balaji Rao about Afghans and Rohillas

[Samandri]

Source :Ahmad Shah Abdali by Ganda Singh page 236

1- It seems Maratha's morale was quite down from the earlier victories of Afghans in Northern India before battle of Panipat.
2- Some modern Indian nationalists portray Afghans as cowards, who won by luck due to blunders of Marathas, this letter indicate that Afghans and their Rohilla counterparats of Doab were actually considered very dreaded warriors noted for their ferocity in attacks and warring.
2- Mughals at that time had completely decayed, no traces of Timurid spirit.

 

[Jaggu]

Marathas of that time period were good fighters. But some say it was overconfidence of the Marathas that resulted in their loss. Surajmal the Jat wanted the Marathas to do guerrilla fighting with the Afghans instead having a conventional battle with the much experienced Abdali but they would not listen to Surajmal. Up until that point, all of India was of the opinion that the Marathas were invincible due to their long line of victories and indeed at the time they were. After this battle, it is said every family in Maharashtra lost at least one young man. Eventually after some years the Marathas did recover from the loss of this battle but by then the British had gotten a firm foothold in India and began slowly expanding.

 

[Samandri]

Marathas of that time period were good fighters. But some say it was overconfidence of the Marathas that resulted in their loss. Surajmal the Jat wanted the Marathas to do guerrilla fighting with the Afghans instead having a conventional battle with the much experienced Abdali but they would not listen to Surajmal. Up until that point, all of India was of the opinion that the Marathas were invincible due to their long line of victories and indeed at the time they were. After this battle, it is said every family in Maharashtra lost at least one young man. Eventually after some years the Marathas did recover from the loss of this battle but by then the British had gotten a firm foothold in India and began slowly expanding.

I have always wondered that, why indian armies didnt use guerrella attacks , that could have been very devestating for the invading who were not familiar with country.
1- Timur particulary deserved to be annihilated in india
2- Babur army was only 12 thousands strong, his army could have been easily annihilated if harassed all the way from indus to delhi.
3- Nadir shah afshar had to fight numerous battles within afghanistan upto khyber pass, once he entered hindostan , the job became easy and all he had to do was to defeat a 3 lakh strong mughal army in a single battle.
4- Abdali's battle with marathas was different in sense that it was not his first invasion and he actually had local allies, and the battle was fought near the turf of his allies. Even the muslim jagirdars of panipat, who were of afghan origin, were his supporters.

 

[Jaggu]

I have always wondered that, why indian armies didnt use guerrella attacks , that could have been very devestating for the invading who were not familiar with country.
1- Timur particulary deserved to be annihilated in india
2- Babur army was only 12 thousands strong, his army could have been easily annihilated if harassed all the way from indus to delhi.
3- Nadir shah afshar had to fight numerous battles within afghanistan upto khyber pass, once he entered hindostan , the job became easy and all he had to do was to defeat a 3 lakh strong mughal army in a single battle.
4- Abdali's battle with marathas was different in sense that it was not his first invasion and he actually had local allies, and the battle was fought near the turf of his allies. Even the muslim jagirdars of panipat, who were of afghan origin, were his supporters.

Good point. Guerilla warfare would have been much more effective method for fighting. This is especially true for when Timur and Babur invaded. During Babur's invasion, he had cannons and his small army was extremely disciplined. The Afghans and later the Rajput coalition would have been much more effective fighting a guerrilla war. Beat your enemy with a thousand cuts in hit and run tactics. Just look at Rana Pratap. He had a smaller army compared to the Mughal army and his resources were extremely limited but he managed to carry out his war with the Mughals for years. He eventually recaptured most of his forts before dying.

 

[Kabira]

I have always wondered that, why indian armies didnt use guerrella attacks , that could have been very devestating for the invading who were not familiar with country.
1- Timur particulary deserved to be annihilated in india
2- Babur army was only 12 thousands strong, his army could have been easily annihilated if harassed all the way from indus to delhi.
3- Nadir shah afshar had to fight numerous battles within afghanistan upto khyber pass, once he entered hindostan , the job became easy and all he had to do was to defeat a 3 lakh strong mughal army in a single battle.
4- Abdali's battle with marathas was different in sense that it was not his first invasion and he actually had local allies, and the battle was fought near the turf of his allies. Even the muslim jagirdars of panipat, who were of afghan origin, were his supporters.

Hindsight is 20/20 but seriously did Babur defeat 3 lakh army with just 12 thousand of his own?

 

[Samandri]

Hindsight is 20/20 but seriously did Babur defeat 3 lakh army with just 12 thousand of his own?

Not 3 lakh but one lakh. Its in Baburnama that babur claims that enemy was 1 lakh strong, some historians consider it his exaggeration and thinks that Lodhi army also included large number of camp followers. The following book estimates that the actual lodi army might not be more than 30-40 thousands excluding camp followers,
100 Decisive Battles: From Ancient Times to the Present - Paul K. Davis - Google Books

One Lakh Afghan army do seem like an exaggeration, at that time Eastern Afghan Lohani feudal lords of Bihar had won their independence from Delhi and many more Afghan chieftains were at war with Ibrahim Lodhi. Afghan chiefs of Punjab sided with Babur so i am surprised how the hell Ibrahim Lodhi was able to muster such a large army, considering the fact that their armies used be comprised of Afghans only. If he really had such large army, it was an impressive display of strength though he lost the battle and died in a reckless manner.

 

[niaz]

People overlook the way how most feudal armies were made up. For example when the King is gathering an army, he asks his Sardars/Nawabs/subject rulers to provide him with a certain number of troops.

It is quite expensive to have fully armed & trained army on a permanent basis and a local war lord may only have a few hundred professional soldiers. At the time of gathering a ‘Lashkar’ for the king, many untrained, poorly armed young peasants are rounded up and forced to join. What this means is that in an army of 100,000; number of professional soldiers may be only as low as 10 to 20 thousand. On the other hand invasion force is normally composed of hardened fighters. Therefore the numerical superiority does not translate into superior fighting capability. Besides, most of draftees are not battle hardened and would run away when the going gets really tough.

Skill of the commander is another factor, Babur was a veteran of hundreds of battles, most of which he lost but he gained experience. Ahmed Shah learnt his leadership skill under Nader Shah Afshar, known as Napolean of the Middle East. Ahmad Shah had also tasted his share of losses. For example he was defeated by the Moghul Army at Manupur (Sirhind) in March 1748 mainly because he lacked artillery.

Marathas had good commanders in 1761, but Ahmad Shah was better and he made better use of his mobile artillery. The battle actually lasted several days and the pitched battle only started after Ahmad Shah’s forces had weakened Maratha flanks.

 

[third eye]

People overlook the way how most feudal armies were made up. For example when the King is gathering an army, he asks his Sardars/Nawabs/subject rulers to provide him with a certain number of troops.

It is quite expensive to have fully armed & trained army on a permanent basis and a local war lord may only have a few hundred professional soldiers. At the time of gathering a ‘Lashkar’ for the king, many untrained, poorly armed young peasants are rounded up and forced to join. What this means is that in an army of 100,000; number of professional soldiers may be only as low as 10 to 20 thousand. On the other hand invasion force is normally composed of hardened fighters. Therefore the numerical superiority does not translate into superior fighting capability. Besides, most of draftees are not battle hardened and would run away when the going gets really tough.

Skill of the commander is another factor, Babur was a veteran of hundreds of battles, most of which he lost but he gained experience. Ahmed Shah learnt his leadership skill under Nader Shah Afshar, known as Napolean of the Middle East. Ahmad Shah had also tasted his share of losses. For example he was defeated by the Moghul Army at Manupur (Sirhind) in March 1748 mainly because he lacked artillery.

Marathas had good commanders in 1761, but Ahmad Shah was better and he made better use of his mobile artillery. The battle actually lasted several days and the pitched battle only started after Ahmad Shah’s forces had weakened Maratha flanks.

The Manasbdari system was based on the fact that Kings kept very small standing armies.

When the need arose armies were mustered up with a soldier bringing his own weapon and horse.

As regards Guerrilla warfare , two things are relevant - the terrain in N India does not favour such warfare - it did in Deccan and Shivaji kept Aurangzeb there for the the last two decades of his life tied up in asymmetrical warfare.

Next, this concept was alien then - battles meant set piece face to face confrontations with emphasis on local commanders.

 

[Sam_Bajwa]

The Manasbdari system was based on the fact that Kings kept very small standing armies.

When the need arose armies were mustered up with a soldier bringing his own weapon and horse.

As regards Guerrilla warfare , two things are relevant - the terrain in N India does not favour such warfare - it did in Deccan and Shivaji kept Aurangzeb there for the the last two decades of his life tied up in asymmetrical warfare.

Next, this concept was alien then - battles meant set piece face to face confrontations with emphasis on local commanders.

Brother something you must know about the sikhs is their adaptability after the execution of sardar Banda singh sikhs knew that due to numerical superiority of the Mughals and the afghans they won't be able to fight a direct and decisive battle so they took to guerrilla warfare as far as the terrain is concerned the punjab hills /himachal in the north and desert of the south eastern punjab/ southern haryana and northern Rajasthan provided excellent opportunities for such kind of raids and to add to this sikhs would let the afghans go during the invasions and would attack when they were returning and home sick