Muslim Military Tradition....What happened?

[Muhammad-Bin-Qasim]

You are going nowhere (except perhaps further down) without paying attention to what I have been saying on this forum...

 

[Muhammad-Bin-Qasim]

The reason why Muslims lost their advantage in warfare and technology over the west is because Muslim rulers (and the elite of the Muslim empires) began to focus much less towards science and education and more towards building palaces, huge magnificent gardens, fountains, and other luxurious architecture. And not only that, but they also began to spend more time watching captured non-Muslim women belly dance or satisfy their lusts and less time on planning on and funding educational institutes, they would build huge Harems full of hundreds of women while neglecting the military and scientific fields.

The reason why the Europeans were able to advance in field of military technology and strategy is due to the fact that European kingdoms had been in state of war with each other for almost more than 1,000 years, and within this time frame they spent a lot of $ on R&D, exploration, expeditions, etc, while on the other hand Muslims became lazy and preoccupied with worldly gains.

I agree with the bit that some of our rulers ignored scientific advancement and technology when it was time that the western world was getting industrialized... but the reason given for it... i.e women is the typical BS that the west feeds in its propaganda against Muslims... they even have a word for it... its called Orientalism... You brothers need to read Edward Said's book on this issue... dont regurgitate everything that our enemies try to feed... this reason perhaps holds true for the rulers of the Subcontinent... but that is just part of the Muslim world... the decline in the Muslim world has been universal not just in the Subcontinent and has been ongoing for about two hundred years now... There are a many reasons for it... and foremost the reason is our lack of understanding of political issues...

 

[Desert Fox]

The thing your missing is why Europe's leaders wernt spending all their countries wealth on houries and palaces.
The English civil war, the French revolution and the Reformation, 500years ago Europe started the change from tyranical Monarchies to rule by the people. They broke the power of corrupt priests by establishing that christianity is the worship of God not the worship of the church.

Islam started the journey started that journey with Turkey and Pakistan now it has been reborn in Egypt and perhaps Lybia.

not Houries, i think you meant concubines... the rest i agree with you!

 

[Joe Shearer]

I agree with the bit that some of our rulers ignored scientific advancement and technology when it was time that the western world was getting industrialized... but the reason given for it... i.e women is the typical BS that the west feeds in its propaganda against Muslims... they even have a word for it... its called Orientalism... You brothers need to read Edward Said's book on this issue... dont regurgitate everything that our enemies try to feed... this reason perhaps holds true for the rulers of the Subcontinent... but that is just part of the Muslim world... the decline in the Muslim world has been universal not just in the Subcontinent and has been ongoing for about two hundred years now... There are a many reasons for it... and foremost the reason is our lack of understanding of political issues...

Your point has a lot of value, but if you want to go in that direction, then you need to go a little further back than two hundred years ago. You need to go back, in fact, to that time nearly seven hundred years ago, and to 'the closing of the doors of ijtehad'.

While this occurrence may have had a critical influence on Islamic civilisation taken as a whole, it may not directly connect to the question that you asked - which was about the Muslim military tradition. Developing the connections between the philosophical dead-end that occurred and the failure of imagination and development on the military field is a huge subject, and you may like to think through whether you really want to start that discussion. For one thing, both Islamophobes and the Islam-pasand will have volumes to say on the subject, and any sane attempt to discuss your interesting topic will be lost.

Instead, please refer to Austerlitz' brilliant little comment; I was sitting, thinking through what in military tactics, battle or military techniques gave Islamic armies a superiority for the duration of their superiority. It is precisely that theirs were cavalry armies, and with the exception of the Turkish infantry, and later the Mohammedan units in the British Indian Army, there were no prominently successful infantry units.

Awaiting your response with interest.

 

[Alternative]

Muslim Military Tradition....What happened?

Now there are many a Muslim people, and many a different Military Traditions and question of ...What happened? ... initially made me think that adoption, replacement, evolution etc etc of military practices (etc.) in different epochs and places and its progress to current times,
But,
It seems from posts till now that it mean "Why was Our (Muslim) "behinds" were kicked by others?

Now some thoughts to share on posts; I will start by following;

Technological backwardness and decadence

1st- Technological Backwardness- favorite reason of (then)newly western educated class of Desi, of old times, often repeated till now.
2nd- Decadence-- Favorite reason quoted by Mullahs, Ulemas etc., resulting in Divine Wrath on decadent Muslims.

Now, extent, the post covered is enormous, covering almost 1400 years and from hindustan to Anatolia etc. and 'decadence' is found at almost every opportunity...whether it resulted in the "Muslim behinds" being kicked or not.

.....later u have conquerors like taimur,mehmet...nadir (Mehmet... which one?)but they just used islam as an excuse to go on killing sprees..rape pillage.That ended with minarets of skulls.They were basically savages who hid behind their devout image..while in the background their decadence was all too apparent.

Now three quoted example personalities, from three different times and places....,what they have to do with decline in the military tradition?
How exactly they used their devout Muslim image to hide their savagery?... by killing fellow muslims in large number? One of them built minarets of skulls, not sure about other two.

Qasim's so called holy man image doesn't justify his lust in raping the 2 17yr old daughters of dahir.
Now u don't see this type of behaviour in the earlier muslim leaders like saladin who was a chivalrious man..treated all men and women with respect and was tolerant to 'difference'.

Now, folktale of alleged rape by Qasim, it is amusing to note, that only half portion is being repeated in this forum by some posters in different threads.
But why only half 'story' is being repeated, Triya-Charitra part left out;
Poor Qasim;

This is the case of the later muslim leaders.The conquerors like nadir and taimur may have been morally barbarians but at least they knew how to keep the interests of their people on the battle field..but the later ones lost their spines through years of decadence.

I don't know what to make of ''interests of their people on the battle field" but by preceding line, I think it means, they were more successful in military endeavors,... so whatever... decadence had different effects on 'former ones' and 'later ones'?

Another was the lack of evolution with time .....the ottoman system died because it stagnated.
One great leader u have is suleiman the lawgiver known as magnificient....he was the one that truly tried a universal legal sytem over the empire...but again after him u have near barbarians like selim'the sot'.Religion became foreign policy and national policy.....that's where europe gradually improved...it finally rid itself from decisive influence of the church over the affairs of the state.

Hummmmm.........This is 'one of decadence' by Mullahs..

Another great problem was that the political hierarchy remained essentialy feudal and tribal in many islamic nations,u see that even today with gaddafi and his clan ..in bahrain.A few leaders held the destiny of their nations in hand and the people never rose up.....they never fought to establish their own rights to end feudalism and tribalism.

Gaddafi and his clan... in Libya... not in Bahrain.

I don't know what time frame is being referred here, up to very late times all was 'tribal and feudal' almost every where. This point need elaboration before further comments.

Another great problem was sceintific stagnation...during the era of harun al rashid the arabic scholars were world leaders...but this legacy was allowed to die out .education among the masses were restricted to religious teachings and sceince was neglected....even when europe was steaming ahead new technologies were not adopted as they were from 'kafirs'

Red Part.... Legacy was not allowed to died out, but butchered by...Mongols, almost all centers of learning including Baghdad, the Capital destroyed, So ended Arab Chapter from Islamic history, and reins of Ummah were handed over to Turks, so to speak.

education among the masses were restricted to religious teachings and sceince was neglected....even when europe was steaming ahead new technologies were not adopted as they were from 'kafirs'

Now above is some what true, but it happened when?... for example, in Hindustan..when Muslims were thoroughly humiliated/defeated...and sought to defend their, culture and norms, religion etc. from the influences of foreign conquers.
What was the reaction of Hindus in those trying times?

so while u see a little country like japan almost medieval[samurai society] in its isolation in 1857 when admiral perry's ships reignited its contact with the west just through adoption and effort transform itself into a world power capable of defeating russia just about 40 yrs later...while the millions here remained in the same lifestyle.

What was the status of Muslim states circa 1857, for example, in Hindustan, all (Muslims and Hindu etc) under British thumb, what could they do to go with the flow of time? That right was taken away for most of them (states)...As for Japanese.. they had their divine command (i.e., their more than holy king) and relative security of their location to experiment with new trends.
It can be argued that, lets say, what was the position on 1757..... I would say that would be a very good separate topic for debate, but we must then establish the geographical location, the people, (time frame already established) for any thing meaningful to come out with.

Onto the strictly military scenario the great bane of muslim military tradition was the demise of the cavalry......all the great conquerors of islam were essentially cavalry commanders from khalid to tamerlane .Only the ottoman jannisaries were islamic infantry of any repute.Though the cavalry of sipahis were the other key feature of the ottoman armies.
First with the coming of gunpowder then artillery and their ability to cut down cavalry hordes en masse rendered steppe tactics completely irrelevant.Another crucial development was the infantry square as found out by the mamelukes vs the french in 1798.

This is a part of "Tactics", how it can be attributed technological backwardness is not clear. May be a little elaboration will help.

 

[AUSTERLITZ]

Now there are many a Muslim people, and many a different Military Traditions and question of ...What happened? ... initially made me think that adoption, replacement, evolution etc etc of military practices (etc.) in different epochs and places and its progress to current times,
But,
It seems from posts till now that it mean "Why was Our (Muslim) "behinds" were kicked by others?

Now some thoughts to share on posts; I will start by following;



1st- Technological Backwardness- favorite reason of (then)newly western educated class of Desi, of old times, often repeated till now.
2nd- Decadence-- Favorite reason quoted by Mullahs, Ulemas etc., resulting in Divine Wrath on decadent Muslims.

Now, extent, the post covered is enormous, covering almost 1400 years and from hindustan to Anatolia etc. and 'decadence' is found at almost every opportunity...whether it resulted in the "Muslim behinds" being kicked or not.

Now three quoted example personalities, from three different times and places....,what they have to do with decline in the military tradition?
How exactly they used their devout Muslim image to hide their savagery?... by killing fellow muslims in large number? One of them built minarets of skulls, not sure about other two.

By technological backwardness i mean inability to adapt to new technical innovations like gunpowder armies...the tactics still remained the cavalry charge..there was no attempt and building modern infantry forces with organized command structure except for in the early ottoman empire...even there they remained matchlock musketeers far after it had become a flintlock musket era.And field artillery were dismal ,heavy nd not mass produced.Officer korps in infantry and artillery were negligible all the important people rode with outdated cavalry.Second there was no industrialization ..it became near impossible to compete with industrialized nations in pitched battles.Whether it was favourite subject or not it remains a true fact not just for muslims but all of the eastern world save japan.
Onto the 3 mentioned nadir and tamerlane relished in doing those.Mehemet the conqueror certainly butchered many a population with constatinopole at the very top[not that i'm saying other so called great conquerors like caesar and alexander sometimes didn't do so...but they did it out of strategic necessity or to cower the nearby regions into submission by making an example]nadir and tamerlane took joy in slaughter, every city taken had to be slaughtered..like a compulsion for destruction personified by minarets.
This i'm saying as examples of needless atrocity and the first signs of decadence...meaning these guys were worshipped as heroes while these acts were condoned by later sultans and even sometimes admired.U see the numerous wars in europe all the cities that changed hands u will rarely see this sort of barbarism.....the last age were these happened regulary was the fall of the roman empire during the goth vandal era.

Now, folktale of alleged rape by Qasim, it is amusing to note, that only half portion is being repeated in this forum by some posters in different threads.
But why only half 'story' is being repeated, Triya-Charitra part left out;
Poor Qasim;

I'm taking qasim as an example of decadence mostly...u see a lot of hero worship with qasima and tamerlane...but u rarely see people mentioning harun al rashid,umar,suleiman the lawgiver,akbar.These were the people that formed the real bases of empires.These are ur muslim caesar augustus's.They built the legal foundations and organized systems that assured longevity of the empires.What conquerors conquer is useless without administrators to keep and improve them.
I don't know what to make of ''interests of their people on the battle field" but by preceding line, I think it means, they were more successful in military endeavors,... so whatever... decadence had different effects on 'former ones' and 'later ones'?
I meant there were signs of decadence in the earlier ones but they didn't allow this to interfere with their national policy of advancement...the laters simply didn't bother with the state of affairs of their nations and drowned in debauchery.Not including jinnah and ataturk...the last of the great leaders..ataturk is wholly responsible for turkey's rise,and Nasser tried but was more emotion and dreams than organized grand planning.


Hummmmm.........This is 'one of decadence' by Mullahs..

Not decadence...i meant the power vaccum filled with religious fanaticism.For examples,Obviously......... see mullah umar in afganishtan and ayatollah in iran.
Gaddafi and his clan... in Libya... not in Bahrain.
I know.. i meant gaddafi and his clans and as a second example the state of affairs in bahrain another clan based government.
I don't know what time frame is being referred here, up to very late times all was 'tribal and feudal' almost every where. This point need elaboration before further comments.
Yes ...thats the great problem isn't it...nationalism rose very late in south east asia and the middle east......they remained tribes and feudal warlords...whereas the world was building nations.Even now[mostly during the war in swat] i see some pakistani members criticizing tribalism and feudalism by pakistani leaders in the frontier areas..afganisthan is totally tribal in nature with warlords with their private armies and ruling by fear.Only persia ever stood out as a seperate national and political identity[heritage of the achaenemid and sassanids]...and deny as many will india[hindustan],ataturk later brought turkish nationalism instead of the loose'ottoman concept' and was salvation for his fatherland.

Red Part.... Legacy was not allowed to died out, but butchered by...Mongols, almost all centers of learning including Baghdad, the Capital destroyed, So ended Arab Chapter from Islamic history, and reins of Ummah were handed over to Turks, so to speak.

Thank you ..i erred.Yes this is a turning point..the turks started well adopting gunpowder quickly but never pushed their advantage.


Now above is some what true, but it happened when?... for example, in Hindustan..when Muslims were thoroughly humiliated/defeated...and sought to defend their, culture and norms, religion etc. from the influences of foreign conquers.
What was the reaction of Hindus in those trying times?

Ah by that time its too late...i'm talking about time from shah jahan onwards when contact with europe was beginning at large...few technologies were adopted no sea expedition was mounted by mughals or turks to europe and absorb the lessons.......see for russia peter the great built a nation from rubble.Mughals could easily have adapted ,neither did the maratha when they replaced the mughals as the supreme power...once ur conquered its too late.Japan took action early...thus it didn't share india's fate.China would have followed with all the wolves slavering after its riches during the boxer war but japan's rise counteracted european power in the area as a result of its alliance with britain and pact to prevent further incursion into china..even though japan finally went after the same in greed for resources.

What was the status of Muslim states circa 1857, for example, in Hindustan, all (Muslims and Hindu etc) under British thumb, what could they do to go with the flow of time? That right was taken away for most of them (states)...As for Japanese.. they had their divine command (i.e., their more than holy king) and relative security of their location to experiment with new trends.
It can be argued that, lets say, what was the position on 1757..... I would say that would be a very good separate topic for debate, but we must then establish the geographical location, the people, (time frame already established) for any thing meaningful to come out with.

1857 as i said is far too late.
This is a part of "Tactics", how it can be attributed technological backwardness is not clear. May be a little elaboration will help.

As i said they never could give up cavalry as the supreme arm even though it was clear technology had made it obsolete.....in that sense.

I hope that clears things up a bit,regards.

 

[AZADPAKISTAN2009]

When Islamic Civilization , was broken down i.e fall of Ottoman Muslim Civilization - it was due to

a) Economic woes
b) Lack of taxation funds for government affairs

After that , the technological gap widened as none of the Muslim government had funds to invest in Research and Development , and they bought items
from others.

At present there is a gap of 30 years between Most modern Muslim Nation , and the world elite

There is no research and development being done in Any muslim nation - so they will always lose regardless of education

Only Turkey / Iran / Pakistan can be considered some what free states after fall of Libya

And even we know how currupt politicians are in Pakistan

Most of Muslim's best achivements came in time when war was fought with conventional like wise weapons

Now the technological difference is 40 years of research and development and that is too much

Pakistan by my calculation fell once in 1950's when Liaqat ali khan was assasinated - which was death of local democracy

 

[Alternative]

I don't subscribe to the almost universally held theories of 'technological backwardness' and 'moral decadence' as being the reasons for fall of Muslims (and Marathas) in subcontinent and else where.
These assertions ignore the socio-political-anthropological factors in addition to confusing "tactics" with "technology";

By technological backwardness i mean inability to adapt to new technical innovations like gunpowder armies...the tactics still remained the cavalry charge..there was no attempt and building modern infantry forces with organized command structure except for in the early ottoman empire...even there they remained matchlock musketeers far after it had become a flintlock musket era.....

Now, above is Tactics, not Technology, and most important part missed in this analysis is;
Who were the soldiers/combatants on each side?
In case of Mughals, Nawabs, Maratha, etc. forces mainly constituted by "irregulars". The system propagated by Mughal was knows as 'Mansabdari'. Against the land grants/Jagirs, the recipient, has to commit a certain number of infantry and cavalry units (proportionate to endowment) when ordered by the King. so army thus constituted was different from one campaign to other, so had different standards of training, and cohesiveness of fighting units at detail level was questionable. After a campaign was over, irregular usually go on to tend their business mainly agriculture. Modus operandi of other sub-continental powers was on the same lines and effect.
In comparison, British contingent comprised to 'regular', excellently drilled and throughly trained, disciplined, may lack in personal valor in some accounts but as cohesive unit very well capable to sustain heat of battle in any given situation.
As of weaponry, their was no huge difference, difference if any was only marginal one.
Cavalry charges were really not rendered ineffective, as you seem to think. Cavalry charges were used with good effect (sometimes) till in World War I.
Regular, well drilled infantry armed with muskets, volley firings, was a great tactic to counter cavalry charge, and against this sub-continental powers failed to evolve tactics to counter such infantry.

In short, Failure of sub-continental powers to raise a regular, professional armies was one of significant sub-factors resulting their behind kicked and handed over nicely packed for some centuries.

Onto the 3 mentioned nadir and tamerlane relished in doing those.Mehemet the conqueror certainly butchered many a population with constatinopole at the very top[not that i'm saying other so called great conquerors like caesar and alexander sometimes didn't do so...but they did it out of strategic necessity or to cower the nearby regions into submission by making an example]nadir and tamerlane took joy in slaughter, every city taken had to be slaughtered..like a compulsion for destruction personified by minarets.

I find above comment quite amusing.... On a side note, if you happen to watch a video clip on YouTube or else where, of Americans firing a favorite toy hitting a its target, a man,the forthcoming jubilations and fun, like a four year old having a day of his life, that is evident from comments and reactions.............is fun with "sheer strategic necessity".
It would be an interesting reading where you can differentiate, with historical evidence, among, that some conquerers engaged in killing for sheer fun and others for strategic necessity and still others for strategic necessity with some fun, I would request to share it.

This i'm saying as examples of needless atrocity and the first signs of decadence...

Atrocity... first sign of decadence (?)... has nothing to do with subject matter of thread; for example, if you visualize the atrocities meted out by the Mongols to who ever stood their way, for more than a century,... what that had decadent effect on their fighting capability?

.....these guys were worshipped as heroes while these acts were condoned by later sultans and even sometimes admired

If you mean these were admired for their 'butchery', especially killing largely Muslims, then you are wrong, as of, ''condoned'' or ''admired'' specific examples would help to understand your view point.

U see the numerous wars in europe all the cities that changed hands u will rarely see this sort of barbarism.....the last age were these happened regulary was the fall of the roman empire during the goth vandal era.

Then you are seeing at wrong places; By your above argument in this place and as contra example to Muslims, I feel that you are implying that rise of European powers was due to their "non-decadence behavior"....you must be joking

I'm taking qasim as an example of decadence mostly.

Qasim's example as I repeated earlier, is a wrong one, a fairytale, a folktale.... if you thing otherwise....cite a historical source please.

Now here in this thread, Decadent Muslims are not being discussed........But only that Decadent Muslims or Decadency is relevent that resulted in ''Muslim Behind'' being thrashed.

Not decadence...i meant the power vaccum filled with religious fanaticism.For examples,Obviously......... see mullah umar in afganishtan and ayatollah in iran.

I know.. i meant gaddafi and his clans and as a second example the state of affairs in bahrain another clan based government.

All over places, you have gone with above comment, please comeback.

Yes ...thats the great problem isn't it...nationalism rose very late in south east asia and the middle east......they remained tribes and feudal warlords...whereas the world was building nations.Even now[mostly during the war in swat] i see some pakistani members criticizing tribalism and feudalism by pakistani leaders in the areas..afganisthan is totally tribal in nature with warlords with their private armies and ruling by fear.Only persia ever stood out as a seperate national and political identity[heritage of the achaenemid and sassanids]...and deny as many will india[hindustan],ataturk later brought turkish nationalism instead of the loose'ottoman concept' and was salvation for his fatherland.

This is the crux matter, main reason, main factor for fall of Sub-continental states, to European Powers.
There was no concept of Indian/Hindustani nation or loyality to Indian/Hindustani state or nation or cause.
Muslims, Hindus,etc conspiring against other Muslims, Hindus etc. in collusion with British or against British.... You can name any combination and all was happening.
Sub-continent is always home to to many different races, tribes, cultures, languages, beliefs etc. and was never a nation or something same. Few (may be many on this forum) equate subjugation of an area to nation building.

Ah by that time its too late...i'm talking about time from shah jahan onwards when contact with europe was beginning at large...few technologies were adopted no sea expedition was mounted by mughals or turks to europe and absorb the lessons.

the period of 1857 was indicated in response to your previous post.

The rise in naval power of Europeans can be directly attributed to the Power of Ottomans, blocking all traditional trade routes with east.
At their heyday, Mughal had nothing to fear from Europeans, Internal conflicts were more pron to get out of hand. What reason the Ottomans and Mughals to go to Europe 'then', sight seeing?

China would have followed with all the wolves slavering after its riches during the boxer war but japan's rise counteracted european power in the area as a result of its alliance with britain and pact to prevent further incursion into china..even though japan finally went after the same in greed for resources.

As of red, I think it was United States, till 2nd Sino-Japanese war, were American wanted Japanese out of China. and as of green part, Americans putted a choke hold on Japan, depriving her of essential oil and iron/steel supplies to meet its industry needs, then followed Pearl Harbor attack.

As i said they never could give up cavalry as the supreme arm even though it was clear technology had made it obsolete.....in that sense.

Cavalry was not obsolete arm of army, till well in First World War, for example, one of the last cavalry charges, by British, at Battle of Mons 1917.
In sub-continent, tactics to engage regular, musket armed, infantry were not developed in time to have any impact.

 

[Joe Shearer]

The British humour magazine published a cartoon of a humble, abject country curate on his best behaviour at breakfast with the family of the local squire. The squire said rather sadly,"You seem to have got a bad egg." The curate was quick to brush aside any hint, even from his host, of even marginal failure of the hospitality on offer,"It is quite good in parts, my Lord!" came his prompt demurrer.

I don't subscribe to the almost universally held theories of 'technological backwardness' and 'moral decadence' as being the reasons for fall of Muslims (and Marathas) in subcontinent and else where.
These assertions ignore the socio-political-anthropological factors in addition to confusing "tactics" with "technology";


Now, above is Tactics, not Technology, and most important part missed in this analysis is;
Who were the soldiers/combatants on each side?
In case of Mughals, Nawabs, Maratha, etc. forces mainly constituted by "irregulars". The system propagated by Mughal was knows as 'Mansabdari'. Against the land grants/Jagirs, the recipient, has to commit a certain number of infantry and cavalry units (proportionate to endowment) when ordered by the King. so army thus constituted was different from one campaign to other, so had different standards of training, and cohesiveness of fighting units at detail level was questionable. After a campaign was over, irregular usually go on to tend their business mainly agriculture. Modus operandi of other sub-continental powers was on the same lines and effect.

This is a rather outdated view of the state of affairs. I wonder whether you would take it on trust that by the time of the later Mughals, from after Aurangzeb, the mansabdari system had failed progressively, and was not considered in the second half of the eighteenth century or the nineteenth century a reliable method of raising troops. All Indian factions had gradually shifted over to the jamadari system, whereby the provision of a stipulated number of horsemen with their own horses and equipment was contracted to a jamadar, who was paid a lump sum for the purpose. The British destroyed this system by insisting that those fighting within their ranks must be exclusively theirs, and were not free to shift loyalties for the next campaigning season (the winter). There has been the speculation that one of the reasons of the Indian Mutiny was the frustration and anger of the jamadars at not being allowed the freedom that the military labour market in India had always provided.

In comparison, British contingent comprised to 'regular', excellently drilled and throughly trained, disciplined, may lack in personal valor in some accounts but as cohesive unit very well capable to sustain heat of battle in any given situation.

Please see my comment above, which touches on this point.

As of weaponry, their was no huge difference, difference if any was only marginal one.

Isn't this rather sweeping? Other than Ranjit Singh's orphaned army, who else had the mobility of artillery and the discipline and steadfastness of European artillery trains?

Cavalry charges were really not rendered ineffective, as you seem to think. Cavalry charges were used with good effect (sometimes) till in World War I.
Regular, well drilled infantry armed with muskets, volley firings, was a great tactic to counter cavalry charge, and against this sub-continental powers failed to evolve tactics to counter such infantry.

In short, Failure of sub-continental powers to raise a regular, professional armies was one of significant sub-factors resulting their behind kicked and handed over nicely packed for some centuries.

Again, I am forced to draw attention of both of you to the fact that the dominant force in battle was not quite the cavalry per se, but the mounted archers. As long as these were an effective part of the Mughal armies, the Mughal did remarkably well in battle even against horsemen every bit as dashing and as good a light cavalry as they themselves; some would say that the Rajputs were better light cavalry. Where they lost and the Mughals were streets ahead, was in the deployment and use of mounted archers. If, again, you are interested in detail, I can provide some of it.

I find above comment quite amusing.... On a side note, if you happen to watch a video clip on YouTube or else where, of Americans firing a favorite toy hitting a its target, a man,the forthcoming jubilations and fun, like a four year old having a day of his life, that is evident from comments and reactions.............is fun with "sheer strategic necessity".
It would be an interesting reading where you can differentiate, with historical evidence, among, that some conquerers engaged in killing for sheer fun and others for strategic necessity and still others for strategic necessity with some fun, I would request to share it.


Atrocity... first sign of decadence (?)... has nothing to do with subject matter of thread; for example, if you visualize the atrocities meted out by the Mongols to who ever stood their way, for more than a century,... what that had decadent effect on their fighting capability?


If you mean these were admired for their 'butchery', especially killing largely Muslims, then you are wrong, as of, ''condoned'' or ''admired'' specific examples would help to understand your view point.


Then you are seeing at wrong places; By your above argument in this place and as contra example to Muslims, I feel that you are implying that rise of European powers was due to their "non-decadence behavior"....you must be joking


Qasim's example as I repeated earlier, is a wrong one, a fairytale, a folktale.... if you thing otherwise....cite a historical source please.

Now here in this thread, Decadent Muslims are not being discussed........But only that Decadent Muslims or Decadency is relevent that resulted in ''Muslim Behind'' being thrashed.


All over places, you have gone with above comment, please comeback.


This is the crux matter, main reason, main factor for fall of Sub-continental states, to European Powers.
There was no concept of Indian/Hindustani nation or loyality to Indian/Hindustani state or nation or cause.
Muslims, Hindus,etc conspiring against other Muslims, Hindus etc. in collusion with British or against British.... You can name any combination and all was happening.
Sub-continent is always home to to many different races, tribes, cultures, languages, beliefs etc. and was never a nation or something same. Few (may be many on this forum) equate subjugation of an area to nation building.


the period of 1857 was indicated in response to your previous post.

The rise in naval power of Europeans can be directly attributed to the Power of Ottomans, blocking all traditional trade routes with east.
At their heyday, Mughal had nothing to fear from Europeans, Internal conflicts were more pron to get out of hand. What reason the Ottomans and Mughals to go to Europe 'then', sight seeing?

I am not sure what the point is on this issue, and what either side is seeking to convey. For what it is worth, the Ottomans did absorb some technology from Europe, though, alas, not enough to keep their armies up to date. Neither in military tactics nor in terms of military technology. Since tactics has been disparaged as a topic of discussion, let us confined ourselves to technology alone.

First, the improvement in musketry and in artillery, already in evidence by the late-eighteenth century in European warfare (the War of Austrian succession, the Seven Years' War, others of the sort, and then the French Revolutionary Wars.) did not show up either in imperial Turkey or in imperial India.

Second, neither did the impact of the American Civil War trickle down. In some ways, Turkish and Indian troops remained in blissful ignorance of the two facts that
(i) a massed infantry charge in the face of modern machine guns was suicide, and also that
(ii) a reversion to tradition and a renewed recognition of their War of Independence tactics of aimed rifle fire was also fatal to massed infantry.

Third, the very late lessons of German superiority in troop mobilisation using the railways and their superiority in infantry rifles was again lost. By then, India had dropped out of the picture; after 1857, only what the British did mattered.

I would like to continue this at a more relaxed hour.


As of red, I think it was United States, till 2nd Sino-Japanese war, were American wanted Japanese out of China. and as of green part, Americans putted a choke hold on Japan, depriving her of essential oil and iron/steel supplies to meet its industry needs, then followed Pearl Harbor attack.


Cavalry was not obsolete arm of army, till well in First World War, for example, one of the last cavalry charges, by British, at Battle of Mons 1917.
In sub-continent, tactics to engage regular, musket armed, infantry were not developed in time to have any impact.

 

[Alternative]

This is a rather outdated view of the state of affairs. I wonder whether you would take it on trust that by the time of the later Mughals, from after Aurangzeb, the mansabdari system had failed progressively, and was not considered in the second half of the eighteenth century or the nineteenth century a reliable method of raising troops. All Indian factions had gradually shifted over to the jamadari system, whereby the provision of a stipulated number of horsemen with their own horses and equipment was contracted to a jamadar, who was paid a lump sum for the purpose. The British destroyed this system by insisting that those fighting within their ranks must be exclusively theirs, and were not free to shift loyalties for the next campaigning season (the winter). There has been the speculation that one of the reasons of the Indian Mutiny was the frustration and anger of the jamadars at not being allowed the freedom that the military labour market in India had always provided

Mansabdari system, for lower ranks, also included the cash payment for the provisioning of cavalry and foot soldiers, for even a very small number of soldiers, as of Jamadari (word in point) in Military affairs of that time, I hadn't read anywhere.

I always thought, British always employed local militia directly, without any mansabar or jamadar going in between.

Isn't this rather sweeping? Other than Ranjit Singh's orphaned army, who else had the mobility of artillery and the discipline and steadfastness of European artillery trains?

Sikh army was more of 'patricidal' army than orphaned army
Discipline and steadfastness is out of the equation of weapons in hand.
I maintain that British didn't had overwhelming advantage in weaponry against, Muslims, Marathas, Sikhs etc.

Again, I am forced to draw attention of both of you to the fact that the dominant force in battle was not quite the cavalry per se, but the mounted archers. As long as these were an effective part of the Mughal armies, the Mughal did remarkably well in battle even against horsemen every bit as dashing and as good a light cavalry as they themselves; some would say that the Rajputs were better light cavalry. Where they lost and the Mughals were streets ahead, was in the deployment and use of mounted archers. If, again, you are interested in detail, I can provide some of it.

You are forcing your way out of the discussion point.
Starting point of discussion was; Cavalry(it all variation) and its effectiveness against Cannons/artillery .........Not the various employments of cavalry.

I am not sure what the point is on this issue, and what either side is seeking to convey. For what it is worth, the Ottomans did absorb some technology from Europe, though, alas, not enough to keep their armies up to date. Neither in military tactics nor in terms of military technology. Since tactics has been disparaged as a topic of discussion, let us confined ourselves to technology alone.

Point was, if you go back to previous posts, not benefiting from the advances in new arms technology made in Europe. why not a reverse journey was not under taken by Mughuls of discover Europe?(Austerlitz's Points)... my empathic reply was;

At their heyday, Mughal had nothing to fear from Europeans, Internal conflicts were more pron to get out of hand. What reason the Ottomans and Mughals to go to Europe 'then', sight seeing?

Now as I understand that with passage of time, an innovation that was made in one land/culture usually traveled to other connected parts of world. For example, sub-continental powers benefited through Portuguese and French regarding advancements in weaponry made in Europe, till they were subjugated.

First, the improvement in musketry and in artillery, already in evidence by the late-eighteenth century in European warfare (the War of Austrian succession, the Seven Years' War, others of the sort, and then the French Revolutionary Wars.) did not show up either in imperial Turkey or in imperial India.

Second, neither did the impact of the American Civil War trickle down. In some ways, Turkish and Indian troops remained in blissful ignorance of the two facts that
(i) a massed infantry charge in the face of modern machine guns was suicide, and also that
(ii) a reversion to tradition and a renewed recognition of their War of Independence tactics of aimed rifle fire was also fatal to massed infantry.

Third, the very late lessons of German superiority in troop mobilisation using the railways and their superiority in infantry rifles was again lost. By then, India had dropped out of the picture; after 1857, only what the British did mattered.

I would like to continue this at a more relaxed hour.

As usual very informative, but, aalaassss...., out of context of thread and on going discussion.
As of red part, a separate thread would be suitable.