What's new

5 Favourite battles/campaigns

1. Battle of Kiev and the encirclement of soviet forces it was the largest encirclement of any army in the history of warfare over 600k-800k soldiers were trapped and captured though some managed to escape but still it was a huge encirclement none the less.

2. Battle of Monte Casino
3. North Afrikan campaign (WW2)
4. Battle of Kursk because of obvious reasons
5. French Campaign 1940
 
Just a topic for some discussion.What are ur favourite 5 batles/ampaigns in history?Need not necessarily be greatest battles,just your personal favourite.Wuld be nice to see some views.

My favourites are ; (The order isn't important)

Of course ; The Napoleonic war/Les guerres Napoléoniennes. (At least,Napoléon did something Hitler dreamed of... !,Austerlitz,la Grande Armée !)

1812-2012_quelles_traces_reste_t-il_de_napoleon_a_moscou_.jpg


-
The Winter War/Talvisota. (The courage and the resistance of the Finns,even being outnumbered in soldiers and equipments,shouldn't be forgotten,a battle ? Suomussalmi ! Mannerheim/Häyhä shouldn't be forgotten also. )

cc025155d3fc1b9d30982d81b78ddfe1.jpg


-
The Continuation War/Jatkosota. (The Finns allied with the Germans to re-take the territories they lost during the Winter War,and even at the doors of Leningrad,they refused to make a direct attack on the city,they refused to participe in the siege of the city and cut the supply roads to the civilians,who were already badly affected !)

Continuation_War_1199981.jpg


-
The D-Day. (How could someone forget the courage,the sacrifice of those young men jumping at these beaches,assaulting the German positions under heavy machinegun fires ! When i walk in the beaches of Normandie,i always thank the sacrifice of these men,it takes a lot of guts to do what they did !)

D-Day.jpg


-
The battle of Verdun/La bataille de Verdun. (Men sitting in these tranchées seeing and waiting the death everyday,as a member of my family fought in this bloody battle,i couldn't forget the sacrifice of every soldiers in these tranchées. (From both sides.) (Do you know how the battle started ? The Germans fired in a single day,more than 1.000.000 shells at our positions,do you imagine ?)

tf1-lci-verdun-1917-2237664_1713.jpg


-
I want to show my respect for every soldiers fighting in every wars,. They served their country,only followed the orders,did it as best as they could !
-
@AUSTERLITZ Yours ? !

1. Battle of Kiev and the encirclement of soviet forces it was the largest encirclement of any army in the history of warfare over 600k-800k soldiers were trapped and captured though some managed to escape but still it was a huge encirclement none the less.

2. Battle of Monte Casino
3. North Afrikan campaign (WW2)
4. Battle of Kursk because of obvious reasons
5. French Campaign 1940

Wow,you really are an WW2 enthusiast/fan ! :D
 
Last edited:
1.Battle of Agincourt (Despite being heavily outnumbered English forces managed to defeat much larger French troops)
4c9d1dcc4e62a41bdc5c516838c9f55c.jpg


2.Battle of hattin
(The major battle which leads to fall of Jerusalam to muslims)
Saladin_and_Guy.jpg


3.Battle of Stalingrad
(Turning point of world war 2 which leads to German defeat)
The-battle-of-stalingrad-generals-at-war.jpg


4.Battle of Gallipoli
(Rise of Turkish war hero Mustafa Kamal Attaturk which leads to fall of Ottoman empire)
A-British-60-pounder-heav-001.jpg


5.Battle of Midway
(Total destruction of Japanese Pacific fleet and US dominance on pacific)
g701870.jpg
 
Last edited:
1. Battle of Firaz (634)
2. Battle of Yarmouk (636)
3. Battle of France (1940)
4. Battle of Stalingrad (1942-1943)
5. Battle of Ain Jalut (1260)
 
1) Battle of Tsushima , effectively ended the notion of european military superiority and rise of japan as military power.
 
1) Hannibal in Italy
2) Battle of Thermopylae
3) Battle of Stalingrad
4) Battle of Kursk
5) Battle of Borodino
 
Muhammad bin Qasim Al-Thaqafi Sindh Campaign
Intro:
Muhammad bin Qasim Al-Thaqafi (Arabic: محمد بن قاسم‎) (c. 31 December, 695- 18 July, 715) was an Umayyadgeneral who conquered the Sindh andPunjab regions along the Indus river(now a part of Pakistan) at the age of seventeen. He was born in the city ofTaif (in modern day Saudi Arabia). The conquest of Sindh and Punjab began the Islamic era in South Asia and continues to lend the Sindh province of Pakistan the nickname Bab-e-Islam (باب الاسلام The Gateway of Islam).

Life and career
Muhammad+bin+Qasim+2.bmp
A member of the Thaqeef tribe, which is still settled in and around the city of Taif, Muhammad bin Qasim's father was Qasim bin Yusuf قاسم بن یوسف)) who died when Muhammad bin Qasim (محمد بن قاسم) was young, leaving his mother in charge of his education. Umayyad governor Al-Hajjaj ibn Yusuf(حجاج بن یوسف) , Muhammad bin Qasim's paternal uncle, was instrumental in teaching Muhammad bin Qasim (محمد بن قاسم)about warfare and governance and was considered by many to be one of his uncle's greatest assets. Muhammad bin Qasim (محمد بن قاسم) married his cousin Zubaidah (ذبیدہ), Hajjaj's daughter, shortly before going to Sindh(سندھ) . Another paternal uncle of Muhammad bin Qasim (محمد بن قاسم) was Muhammad bin Yusuf(محمد بن یوسف) , governor of Yemen (یمن). Under Hajjaj's patronage, Muhammad bin Qasim(محمد بن قاسم) was made governor of Persia(فارس) , where he succeeded in putting down a rebellion. At the age of seventeen, he was sent by Caliph Al-Walid I (خلیفہ ولید الاول)to lead an army towards South Asia into what are today the Sindh and Punjab regions of Islamic Republic of Pakistan (اسلامی جمہوریہ پاکستان).

Reason for attack on Sindh

During those times, some Muslim traders living in Ceylon died and the ruler of Ceylon sent their widows and orphans back to Baghdad. They made their journey by sea with pilgrims. The King of Ceylon also sent many valuable presents for Walid and Hajjaj. As the eight-ship caravan passed by the seaport of Daibul, Hindu pirates looted it and took the women and children prisoner. When news of this attack reached Hajjaj, he demanded that Dahir return the Muslim captives and the looted items. He also demanded that the culprits be punished. Dahir replied that he had no control over the pirates and was, therefore, powerless to rebuke them. On this Hajjaj decided to invade Sindh. Two small expeditions sent by him failed to accomplish their goal. Thus, in order to free the prisoners and to punish the guilty party, Hajjaj decided to undertake a huge offensive against Dahir, who was patronizing the pirates.

When Muhammad bin Qasim (محمد بن قاسم) began the invasion of Debal, the ruler of Sindh (سندھ)Raja Dahir (راجا داہر) was staying in his capital Alor (Nawabshah نواب شاہ ) about 500 kms. away. Dabal was in the charge of a governor with a garrison of four to six thousand Rajput soldiers and a few thousand Brahmans, and therefore Raja Dahir did not march to its defence immediately. All this while, the young invader was keeping in close contact with Hajjaj, soliciting the latter’s advice even on the smallest matters.

The general populace was encouraged to carry on with their trades and taxes and tributes settled.

With Sindh secured Muhammad bin Qasim ((محمد بن قاسم sent expeditions to Surashtra, where his generals made peaceful treaty settlements with the Rashtrakuta. Sea trade from Central India passed to Byzantium via the ports here, and the Arabs wished to tax these as well, especially if commerce might be diverted here from the Sindhi ports. Muhammad bin Qasim ((محمد بن قاسم wrote out letters to "kings of Hind" to surrender and accept Islam, and subsequently 10,000 cavalry were sent to Kannauj asking them to submit and pay tribute before his recall ended the campaign.

Besides being a great general, Muhammad bin Qasim (محمد بن قاسم) was also an excellent administrator. He established peace and order as well as a good administrative structure in the areas he conquered. He was a kind hearted and religious person. He had great respect for other religions. Hindu and Buddhist spiritual leaders were given stipends during his rule. The poor people of the land were greatly impressed by his policies and a number of them embraced Islam. Those who stuck to their old religions erected statues in his honor and started worshiping him after his departure from their land.

Military and political strategy

The military strategy had been outlined by Hajjaj ibn Yousuf(حجاج بن یوسف) When Muhammad bin Qasim invaded Sindh, Hajjaj arranged for special messengers between Basra and Sindh, and told the general never to take any step without his advice. This order was followed to the letter during the campaign. “When you advance in the battle, see that you have the sun behind your backs,” Hajjaj wrote to his cousin just before the famous storming of Debal. “If the sun is at your back then its glare will not prevent you from having a full view of the enemy. Engage in fight immediately, and ask for the help of Allah. If anyone of the people of Sindh ask for mercy grant them aman ( امانsafety and protection), do but not to the combatants (ahl-i-harb اہل حرب), who must all be put to the sword or arrest and imprison them. Whoever does not fight against us, permit them to build the temples of those they worship. No one is prohibited from, or punished for, following his own religion, and let no one prohibit it, so that these people may live happily in their homes.” This edict of Hajjaj bin Yousuf (حجاج بن یوسف)had a lasting influence in the history of Muslim sub continent. By giving the Buddhists and Hindus the status of “zimmis,” and imposing “protection tax” ("جزبہ “jizya”) on them.settle their tribute( اموال amwal) as zimmah .‍ذمی/ذمہ). responsibility).”

The Arabs' first concern was to facilitate the conquest of Sindh with the fewest casualties while also trying to preserve the economic infrastructure. Towns were given two options: submit to Islamic authority peacefully or be attacked by force (anwattan), with the choice governing their treatment upon capture. The capture of towns was usually accomplished by means of a treaty with a party from among the enemy, who were then extended special privileges and material rewards. There were two types of such treaties, "Sulh" ) ‎صلح peace treaty) or "ahd-e-wasiq (عہد واسق capitulation)" and "aman (امان surrender/ peace)". Upon the capture of towns and fortresses, Muhammad bin Qasim ((محمد بن قاسم performed executions as part of his military strategy, but they were limited to the ahl-i-harb ( اہل حرب fighting men).

Where resistance was strong, prolonged and intensive, often resulting in considerable Arab casualties, Muhammad bin Qasim's response was dramatic, inflicting 6,000 deaths at Rawar, between 6,000 and 26,000 at Brahmanabad, 4,000 at Iskalandah and 6,000 at Multan. Conversely, in areas taken by sulh ) ‎صلح peace treaty), such as Armabil, Nirun, and Aror, resistance was light and few casualties occurred. Sulh ) ‎صلح peace treaty) appeared to be Muhammad bin Qasim's preferred mode of conquest, the method used for more than 60% of the towns and tribes recorded by Baladhuri or the Chachnama. At one point, he was actually berated by Hajjaj for being too lenient. Meanwhile, the common folk were often pardoned and encouraged to continue working; Hajajj ordered that this option not be granted to any inhabitant of Daybul, yet Qasim still bestowed it upon certain groups and individuals.

After each major phase of his conquest, Muhammad bin Qasim (محمد بن قاسم) attempted to establish law and order in the newly-conquered territory by showing religious tolerance and incorporating the ruling class - the Brahmins and Shramanas - into his administration.

End of Life

Muhammad bin Qasim (محمد بن قاسم) was known for his obedience to the ruler. Walid bin Abdul Malik (ولید بن عبدالمالک)died and was succeeded by his younger brother Suleman (سلیمان) as the Caliph. Suleman (سلیمان)was an enemy of Hajjaj and thus ordered Qasim (محمد بن قاسم) back to the kingdom. Muhammad bin Qasim (محمد بن قاسم) knew of the animosity between the two. He was aware that due to this enmity, he would not be well treated. He could have easily refused to obey the Caliph's orders and declare his independence in Sindh. Yet he was of the view that obeying ones ruler is the duty of a general and thus he decided to go back to the center. His followers wept bitterly, warning him that he was going back to a certain death. We don’t know what he said in reply, if he said anything. We do know, however, that shortly afterwards, he was put behind bars where he died at age of twenty in the prison of Wasit, just before he died he recited an Arabic couplet to the effect: “They wasted me at the prime of my youth, and what a youth they wasted: the one who was a defender of their borders.” He became a victim to party politics. Many historians believe that had he been given a few more years, he would have conquered the entire South Asian region.
 
5 Epic Battles That Changed History Forever

Defense.gov_News_Photo_041027-F-2034C-010.jpg


Battles can make or break states and change the destiny of nations forever. As such, they represent some of humanity’s most important events. While there have been dozens of important, interesting battles over the past five thousand years of recorded warfare, here are five that changed history forever, though by no means is this list exhaustive. Instead, I have selected a wide range of battles from across different regions and times and have specifically avoided focusing on more well-known modern battles, many of which will be covered by The National Interest soon to mark the end of the Napoleonic Wars and World War II.

Milvian Bridge (313)

This seemingly random skirmish should have been just another battle in a series of long-forgotten skirmishes in the civil wars that consumed the Roman Empire during much of the third century. However, the fact that Constantine the Great won the battle to become the Roman Emperor was a major event in world history.

Constantine, who was fighting to become emperor, arrived near Rome to fight an army twice the size of his. The night before the battle, he allegedly saw a cross or chi-rho sign in the sky with the words “by this sign, you shall conquer.” He ordered his soldiers to paint the cross onto their shields and won the subsequent battle, becoming emperor in the process. He then began to patronize Christianity, leading to its spread from a small persecuted sect to the official religion of the empire by 380. His actions led to the establishment of an organized sort of Christianity that would play an important role in the Western world’s subsequent development. It is also inconceivable that Islam would take root and become so widespread had Christianity not first changed the religious orientation of much of the world away from polytheism toward monotheism.

Manzikert (1071)

Though not as well known as the later fall of Constantinople in 1453, the Battle of Manzikert was the what led to the inevitable crash of the Byzantine Empire, the Crusades, and the rise of Turkish power in Anatolia (the peninsula that makes up most of Turkey today).

The base of Byzantine power was Anatolia, rather than Greece itself. Just compare the population of Greece today (around 11 million) to Turkey (around 75 million). Anatolia was the base of Byzantine power in asserting control over the Balkans and parts of Italy and the Middle East. The Caliphs of Baghdad had ceased to hold effective power by 900 and a number of independent Islamic states arose on the Byzantine frontier, while the Caliphs themselves became puppets of temporal rulers

In an attempt to correct this, the Caliphs invited Turkic warriors to restore them, but this did not work and led instead to the creation of a new power, the Great Seljuk Turk Empire, which stretched from Central Asia to Turkey. The Seljuks under Sultan Alp Arslan began entering Byzantine territory, which lead to a response under the Emperor Romanos IV Diogenes. The two armies met in eastern Anatolia in 1071. Half the Byzantine army didn’t even fight due to internal Byzantine politics leading to treachery. The Byzantine Emperor was captured and though released, the Empire fell into civil war.

Within a decade, the empire lost most of its heartland and had to call for help from the Pope, which lead to the Crusades. In the meantime, the Seljuks also captured Jerusalem from the Shia Fatimid Egyptian dynasty in 1073, making conditions worse for everyone there.

Second Battle of Tarain (1192)

The relatively obscure Second Battle of Tarain was ultimately the most important battle in the Indian subcontinent’s history because it made it what it is today. In geopolitical terms, the battle led to South Asia becoming politically a part of the greater Islamic world to its west.

Until the 12th century, most of India, one of the world’s wealthiest regions, was ruled by native Hindu and Buddhist kingdoms, though Islamic states had made some inroads into northwest India (parts of today’s Pakistan). However, in the late 12th century, one Muhammad of Ghor, a local ruler in today’s Afghanistan decided to do more than just raid India for loot—he wanted to establish a permanent Islamic empire in the subcontinent.

After conquering much of what is today Pakistan, he came face to face with a large Rajput (a Hindu warrior caste) coalition led by commander Prithviraj Chauhan at Tarain (near Delhi) in 1191, where he was defeated. The next year, he returned with 120,000 men against the Rajputs’ 300,000 (likely exaggerations). At the Second Battle of Tarain, he used his swift cavalry to break the Hindu forces by charging their center and scaring their elephants, winning decisively and killing their Chauhan.

After removing the main coalition against his rule in the fertile northern Indian heartland, Muhammad of Ghor’s armies swept over all of north India, reaching Bengal by 1200, and pretty much destroying Indian Buddhism en route. Most of India eventually came under Islamic rule, with the subsequent establishment of the Delhi Sultanate (1206) and the Mughal Empire (1526). This laid the groundwork for the future states of Pakistan and Bangladesh and strong empires like the Mughals that were able to unite most of South Asia. The largest concentration of Muslims in the world today is in South Asia.

Meanwhile, Hindus, who form the majority in the region reacted toward Muslim ruler in a variety of ways—resistance, collaboration, enmity, alliance. None of this was inevitable or even likely had the Muslims not won at Tarain.

Battle of Ain Jalut (1260)

This was the battle that stopped the previously unstoppable Mongol juggernaut and preventing them from advancing further in the Middle East, Africa, and Europe. Mongol armies clashed against a Mamluk force in modern day Israel in 1260, after destroying Baghdad in 1258. The Mamluks were a military caste of Muslim soldiers descended from slaves who had their base in Egypt. The Mongols were led by a secondary commander as their leader Hulagu Khan, grandson of Genghis Khan, had returned home due to a succession dispute. He was aiming to conquer the Levant and Egypt.

Both forces had over 20,000 men. However, the Mamluks defeated the Mongols using an old Mongol tactic, drawing them into an ambush. The Mamluk leader Qutuz, who had actually been captured by the Mongols and sold as a slave, hid most of his cavalry in the hills around the plain and ordered a small force forward in order to provoke a Mongol attack. This caused the Mongols to charge into the Mamluk trap. The battle marked the first time the Mongols were defeated in open battle.

The legacy of Ain Jalut was the fact that it preserved much of the Islamic World and Europe against further Mongol onslaught by preventing them from moving further west and proved that the Mongols could be beaten. Shortly after, the united Mongol front for world conquest fell apart and Mongols began fighting one another.

Battle of Cajamarca (1532)

The Battle of Cajamarca was fought in the Andes Mountains of modern day northern Peru between the Spanish under Francisco Pizarro and the Incas led by the Emperor Atahualpa. It was one of the weirdest battles in history because of the disproportionate numbers the two sides had.

Pizarro ventured deep into the heart of the Inca Empire with only 168 men in 1532, a number so small as to defy belief, especially since it seems like Pizarro’s plan was conquest from the beginning. Pizarro had studied the previous conquests of Hernan Cortes in Mexico, where that Spanish conquistador had defeated the much more numerous Aztec Empire with only a thousand men.

In order to defeat the Incas, he resorted to deceit and leveraging his advantages. Feigning benign intentions, he arranged to meet with Atahualpa, who brought 80,000 warriors to the meeting in the town square of Cajamarca (most were encamped outside the town). In a bold move, Pizarro captured the Atahualpa and killed most of his major commanders with no loss to his men using his horses, guns, and steel to shock the Incas, who were not expecting a battle and who lost over two thousand men. The main Inca army was thrown into a rout and scattered.

Pizarro’s control over the Inca emperor led to his control of his empire, first through puppets and later directly. The destiny of most of a continent was sealed as a Spanish colony for the next three hundred years. The silver mined in Peru flooded the world market and led to the increased monetization of the world economy, in places as far away as Europe and China.

The Battle Of Tours, 732

tours-e1374008849567.png


In the sixth century, the Muslim armies were on a roll, toppling local superpowers and claiming huge swaths of land. In the early sixth century, Berbers from Libya sailed up into Spain and started claiming land for the Ummayad Dynasty. The armies didn’t stop, taking most of southern Spain and then moving further and further up into France. This was the most serious attempt by the Muslims to take Western Europe, and considering Western Europe was in a thing we like to call the Dark Ages, they would have succeeded.

That is, if it wasn’t for Charles Martel. Martel led his armies to meet the Muslims a few times and didn’t get off to a very good start, suffering several defeats. However, the Muslims got lazy, abandoned their posts, and started looting and pillaging local villages. Martel staged a last attempt at Tours and turned the Muslims back into southern Spain. Had he been defeated, there was no other army to check the Ummayads as they entered into Western Europe.

The Battle Of Emmaus, 166 B.C.

jerusalem-e1374008908471.jpg


The Battle of Emmaus occurred when Jewish forces were battling for control of Jerusalem. This time, it was the Greeks trying to invade Jerusalem. The Jewish forces tricked the invaders into thinking they had fled to the mountains. In reality, the Jewish forces were lying in wait for the Greeks to leave their camp, and when they did, the Judean soldiers ransacked their base camp. When the Greeks returned, all of their supplies and weapons were taken. This victory by the Jews ensured peace for Jerusalem and kept foreign invaders off their soil.

The Battle Of Pultowa, 1709

pultowa-e1374008854753.jpg


In the 16th century, Sweden and Russia were fighting over who would become the next great regional power player. At the time, it was Sweden, which controlled most of northern Europe and was seeking to expand into Russia. Unfortunately, these people didn’t have the benefit of hindsight and had no idea that you never invade Russia in the winter.

The Swedes swept mightily into Russia but it didn’t take long for the Russians to get serious and bring their A-game to Poltova (also called “Pultowa”). The battle was quite bloody as both sides suffered massive losses. However, after the dust settled, the Russians were the clear victors and the Swedes were on the retreat. The loss actually led to the Swedes losing their seat of power and Russia taking it over.

The Battle Of Valmy, 1782

valmy-e1374008914955.jpg


After the French Revolution, there were a number of revolutionary battles over French territory. Prussia brazenly attempted to conquer a weakened France, but they were met by the ragtag French forces at Valmy. Despite just coming out of a revolution with an unstable government structure and being outnumbered and outgunned, they defeated their opponents and forced the Prussians into a retreat. Because the country had just bounced back from a revolution, the army was made up of volunteers. Many see it as the first victory by an army inspired by liberty. The victory made the world take this new France seriously.

The Battle Of Yarmuk, 636

hagia-e1374008919317.jpg


Remember how we said that the Muslim armies were steamrolling the Middle East, taking land and overturning superpowers? Well, none of that would have been possible had they lost at Yarmuk. Yarmuk is a small town outside the Sea of Galilee between Syria and Palestine. At the time, the Arabs controlled the East, while the Byzantine Emperor had control over the Levant including Palestine, Syria, Lebanon, and Jordan.

Outnumbered 10:1, but with the tactical genius of the Muslim leader Khalid bin Waleed, they retreated to the fields outside the city and waited for the Byzantines to approach them. Although they were calling the massive Byzantine army out into the open, Waleed was able to outsmart the Byzantines and destroy his opponents. The attack left the entire area, including the emperor’s stronghold in Antioch, open to Arab attack. In the ensuing months, the Arabs took all of the Middle East and crippled the Byzantine Empire.
 
1) Battle of Plataea (479 BC) –
Battle_of_Plataea_greatest_battle_ancient.jpg


Fought between the ancient Greek city-states and the Persian Achaemenid Empire near the small town of Plataea (in Boeotia, central Greece), the numbers involved in the Battle of Plataea primarily come from Herodotus. According to him, the gargantuan scale of the conflict pitted around 300,000 Persian troops (also included Greek battalions) against 108,200 Greek soldiers. However, according to most modern estimates, such figures might have been exaggerated to show the Greek in more favorable light. Anyhow, the overall battle may have still involved around 200,000 men – which is an incredible scope considering the logistics required for such a high number and generally fractious nature of the Greek city-states.

In any case, the battle started out when the Persians had retreated and then fortified themselves beside the town of Plataea, as a counter to the amassing of Greek forces that marched out of Peloponnese. Oddly enough, the confrontation remained in stalemate for almost 11 days, since the Greek hoplites were wary of the mobile cavalry forces of Persia making use of the terrain. It also has been suggested that both the forces were equally matched, and so neither of them were willing to give up their advantageous position. In any case, the Persians did manage to cut around the Greek right flank and burn their supplies; and then followed it up with frontal cavalry assault on the main Greek body.

This ploy seemed to have worked at first, as the Greeks began to fragment with their flanks getting isolated. The Persian left-flank even crossed a river to pursue the Greeks, and that proved to be the crucial mistake on their part. Almost in a surprising manner, the Greek right-flank (consisting mostly of Spartans and Tegeans) counterattacked, and the bolstered by their left-flank pinned the Persians down on all sides. This finally resulted in a massive Persian rout, since the heavily armed and bronze-armored hoplites could easily resist the projectile blows from their lightly-equipped foes.

Battle_of_Plataea_greatest_battle_ancient_1.jpg


Impact: While not as well known as the Battle of Marathon and the Battle of Thermopylae (involving ‘300’ Spartans), the resounding victory Battle of Plataea resulted in over 20,000 Persian casualties. This allowed the (usually defensive) Greeks to go on an offensive strategy for the coming years (and culminated in Alexander’s Persian conquests), thus entirely changing the course of Greco-Persian wars.

2) Battle of Kalinga (261 BC) –
Battle_of_Kalinga_greatest_battle_ancient.jpg


Epitomizing the crescendo of conquests undertaken by the burgeoning Maurya Empire (that consisted of present-day India, Pakistan, Afghanistan and even parts of Iran), the Battle of Kalinga was fought between the vastly numbered Mauryan forces of Emperor Ashoka and the still-unconquered feudal republic of Kalinga (which was based in the modern state of Odisha, in eastern India). In many ways, the conflict alluded to the clash of the infringing empire and the freedom-loving folk – with Ashoka already making a ruthless name for himself in the preceding years of far-flung conquests.

As for the numbers game, most sources concur that the battle was a significant event in the annals of Indian history, with Greek traveler Megasthenes pointing out how the Kalinga forces fielded more than 60,000 soldiers and 700 elephants (along with a very high number of armed civilians), while the Mauryan army probably consisted of over 100,000 soldiers. Now oddly enough, in spite of such high numbers involved in the battle, there is no clear-cut recording of the actual strategies used in the ensuing clash. However, what is certain is the baleful scope of fatalities brought on by the battle – with Ashoka’s edicts describing how over 100,000 Kalingans were killed, while Mauryans achieved a hard-won victory.

Battle_of_Kalinga_greatest_battle_ancient_1.jpg


Impact: Now interestingly, in terms of literary evidence (as per the rock-inscriptions on Ashoka edicts), it was this severe effect of wanton death and destruction that supposedly changed the heart of the triumphant Ashoka when he paraded through the battlefield. To that end, this great battle and its aftermath might have been among those very few instances that prompted an emperor to entirely change his religion, with Ashoka converting to Buddhism. In fact, a part of a passage inscribed onEdict 13 (found in Kalinga itself) reads like this –

Afterwards, now that Kalinga was annexed, the Beloved of the Gods very earnestly practiced Dhamma, desired Dhamma, and taught Dhamma, On conquering Kalinga the Beloved of the Gods felt remorse, for, when an independent country is conquered the slaughter, death, and deportation of the people is extremely grievous to the Belovedof the Gods, and weighs heavily on his mind.

Furthermore in modern context, this is what Ramesh Prasad Mohapatra, an archaeologist and scholar on Odishan Studies, had to say about the conflict of epic proportions –

No war in the history of India as important either for its intensity or for its results as the Kalinga war of Ashoka. No wars in the annals of the human history has changed the heart of the victor from one of wanton cruelty to that of an exemplary piety as this one. From its fathomless womb the history of the world may find out only a few wars to its credit which may be equal to this war and not a single one that would be greater than this. The political history of mankind is really a history of wars and no war has ended with so successful a mission of the peace for the entire war-torn humanity as the war of Kalinga.


3) Battle of Cannae (216 BC) –
Battle_of_Cannae_greatest_battle_ancient.jpg


One of the most famous battles of the Punic Wars, the Battle of Cannae established the importance of generalship over sheer numbers. Fought between the Roman Republic and the allied soldiers of Carthage (comprising African, Spanish, and Gallic contingents), the course of the conflict was dictated by the tactical acumen of the great Carthaginian general Hannibal. In fact, the battle in itself is still regarded as one of the complete ‘tactical victories’ achieved by one side, while also accounting as one of the worst defeats faced by the Romans in their usually unblemished history.

As for the numbers, there are varying sources that pertain to different figures present on the battlefield. For example, according to Polybius, the Roman fielded over 80,000 men, while the Carthaginian forces were significantly outnumbered at around 50,000. However, more modern estimates put the Roman numbers over 50,000 and the Carthaginian numbers at less than 40,000 (thus still maintaining the credible hypothesis that Hannibal was substantially outnumbered).

In any case, the high number of Romans didn’t matter, with Hannibal opting for a seemingly strange tactic that involved the placement of his light Gaulish infantry in the center (who masked the heavier African infantry). So when the disciplined ranks of the heavy Roman infantry pushed forward, the light infantrymen gave way to gradually disperse at the flanks. This pseudo-retreating ploy actually worked with the Romans being confident of their ‘push’ and overwhelming numbers. However, their deep incursion into the Carthaginian lines allowed Hannibal to come up with a crescent formation that gradually enveloped the Roman forces on both flanks. Thus the Romans were finally trapped, and the situation was further exacerbated when the mobile Carthaginian cavalry came up from behind to completely block their ‘escape route’.

In the ensuing bloodbath, Polybius estimated that around 70,000 Romans met their gruesome deaths (Livy puts the figure at around 55,000; modern estimates put the figure at around 40,000), and 10,000 were captured – all in a single day; while Hannibal lost only around 6,000 of his men (mostly the Gauls who bore the brunt of the Roman infantry charge). Now to put things into perspective, the worst day in the history of the British Army usually pertains to the first day of the Battle of the Somme in 1916, where they lost around 20,000 men. But the male population of Rome in 216 BC is estimated to be around 400,000 (thus the Battle of Cannae possibly took away around 1/10th of Roman male population), while Britain had a population of around 41,608,791 (41 million) at the beginning of 1901.


Battle_of_Cannae_greatest_battle_ancient_1.png


Impact: Quite exceptionally, the Romans grew to be even more formidable after some years of this disastrous defeat. Part of this recovery had to do with the brilliant generalship of Publius Cornelius Scipio – who actually survived the Battle of Cannae, and had keenly studied the methods of Hannibal. The same strategies were in turn used against the Carthaginian general, to result in a resounding Roman victory at the Battle of Zama in 202 BC. This perhaps underlines Rome’s greatest strength – that didn’t lie in its arms, but in its unflinching capacity to recover from calamitous circumstances.

Battle of Watling Street (61 AD) –
Battle_of_Watling_street_greatest_battle_ancient.jpg


While our previous entry dealt with a major Roman defeat, the Battle of Watling Streetdemonstrated how Romans reserved the capacity to emerge victorious in spite of being woefully outnumbered. To that end, this battle was fought between the Roman forces under Suetonius (which combined Legio XIV Gemina with parts of the XX Valeria Victrix) and the Iceni rebels under Queen Boudicca. Now oddly enough, the very location of Watling Street varies according to different sources, with its approximation ranging from – an area between Londinium and Viroconium, Manduessedum (Mancetter) near Atherstone in Warwickshire, to a small site near Lactodorum (Towcester) in Northamptonshire.

As for the figures involved in this conflict, once again there is much confusion, with two primary sources on Boudicca’s revolt – Tacitus and Cassius Dio, giving variant numbers. According to Tacitus, the Romans fielded around 10,000 men while the Iceni forces brought forth 100,000 people to the battlefield (Cassius Dio gives this number as 230,000). Now in terms of logistics, such high numbers were surely impractical, especially when it came to the Iceni. So, modern historians consider the numbers to be inflated by the non-combatant tribal members of the Iceni (including women, children and elderly) as opposed to just warriors – who perhaps comprised less than half of the total Iceni people on the field. In any case, one thing is for certain – the Romans were still vastly outnumbered, while the battle in itself was one the largest ever fought on ancient Britain’s soil.

Finally, as for the tactics, this is where Tacitus provides a credible viewpoint. According to him – Suetonius “chose a position in a defile with a wood behind him. There could be no enemy, he knew, except at his front, where there was open country without cover for ambushes.” This ‘open country’ was even cordoned off by the overconfident Iceni forces, by placing carts at the rear-edge of the field – from where their womenfolk could see the men crushing their Roman foes. However, the narrow space in front of the Roman ranks actually worked against the high numbers of the Iceni forces, as the Roman soldiers discharged their potent javelins into the masses. Then they opted for an advanced wedge formation that cut through the puzzled Iceni ranks, while being aided at the flanks by the reserve Roman cavalry and auxiliary forces.

This aggressive Roman formation totally routed the perplexed Iceni, who were in turn trapped by their own carts at the edge of the field. As Tacitus wrote –

…the remaining Britons fled with difficulty since their ring of wagons blocked the outlets. The Romans did not spare even the women. Baggage animals too, transfixed with weapons, added to the heaps of dead.

Battle_of_Watling_street_greatest_battle_ancient_1.jpg


Impact: Tacitus made it clear that Boudicca poisoned herself as a result of this terrible defeat. As for the more long term effect, the Romans would continue to strategically hold on to Britain till 410 AD without incurring any significant revolts from the native population. Their foothold on the island further led to the emergence of a specific Romano-British culture, of which King Arthur might have been a literary ‘by-product’.

 
5) Battle of Adrianople (378 AD) –
Battle_of_Adrianople_greatest_battle_ancient.jpg


Often regarded as the worst Roman defeat since the Battle of Cannae, the Battle of Adrianople pretty much epitomized the 4th century nadir of the declining Roman Empire. Fought between the Romans led by Emperor Valens and the Gothic rebels (also consisted of Alans and local populace) led by Fritigern, the battlefield was situated around 8 miles north of the settlement of Adrianople (which is now Edirne in European part of Turkey).

The numbers involved in the battle once again traverse the confounding territory, with some sources putting the Roman forces at around 30,000 to 40,000 men (including many cavalry units). The Goths on the other hand fielded more men with estimations varying from 50,000 to 80,000 (and they also included cavalry forces). However, more recent evaluation of the conflict has pertained to significantly reduced numbers for both sides, with Romans perhaps fielding around 21,000 men and the Goths also bringing forth a similar (or slightly greater) number.

The commencement of the battle was fueled by the direct march of Valens’ army from Constantinople (now Istanbul) to the battlefield, without even waiting for the aid of Gratian, the Western Roman Emperor. Confident of their ability and numbers, the disciplined (albeit tired) Romans even made some headway against the Gothic infantry by taking advantage of an opportune time (when the Gothic cavalry was away on a raid). However, the battle line in itself became muddled with the large masses of soldiers clashing in a confused manner, as made clear by Ammianus Marcellinus

Our left wing had advanced actually up to the wagons, with the intent to push on still further if they were properly supported; but they were deserted by the rest of the cavalry, and so pressed upon by the superior numbers of the enemy, that they were overwhelmed and beaten down…. And by this time such clouds of dust arose that it was scarcely possible to see the sky, which resounded with horrible cries; and in consequence, the darts, which were bearing death on every side, reached their mark, and fell with deadly effect, because no one could see them beforehand so as to guard against them.

Amid this massive scope of commotion and turmoil, the Gothic cavalry made a surprising return to the battlefield, and struck the Romans along their right flank (while the remaining Gothic horsemen drove the already tired Roman cavalry forces from the left angle). In the ensuing chaotic retreat, the Romans are said to have lost at least two-thirds of their men, which probably also included Emperor Valens himself.

Battle_of_Adrianople_greatest_battle_ancient_1.jpg


Impact: Ammianus surmised the battle as “the beginning of evils for the Roman empire then and thereafter.” As for the direct implication of the Gothic victory, the Goths were allowed to finally settle inside Roman frontiers as a recognized entity; who later fought and allied with the Romans over the next century. The loss of Roman soldiers also forced the Roman Empire to rely more on foederati levies (non-Roman mercenaries, including Goths), thus endowing them with crucial political influence in the coming years.
 
Favorite battles:-

The Battle of Cannae (216 BC)

Details:-

Link 1: The Battle of Cannae


Comments:-

Carthaginian army about 50,000 strong (led by Hannibal), fought and destroyed a powerful Roman army about 86,400 strong (led by Varro) in a region known as Apulia (in present day Italy) by virtue of superior tactics, during an era when the Roman Empire was arguably at the summit of its power, military capability and confidence.

Noteworthy:-

Hannibal is recognized by historians as one of the greatest tacticians in history.

------

The Battle of Issus (333 BC)

Details:-

Link 1: Battle of Issus - Ancient History Encyclopedia
Link 2: Wars of Alexander the Great: Battle of Issus | History Net: Where History Comes Alive – World & US History Online | From the World's Largest History Magazine Publisher


Comments:-

Macedonian army about 40,850 strong (led by Alexander the Great), fought and routed a powerful Persian army about 100,000 strong (led by Darius III) in a region known as Issus (in present day Turkey) by virtue of superior tactics, during an era when the Persian Empire was among the strongest in the known world. This battle led to the downfall of the once mighty Persian Empire that challenged the supremacy of other civilizations.

Noteworthy:-

Alexander the Great is recognized by historians as one of the greatest tacticians in history.

------

The Battle of Badr (624 AD)

Details:-

Link 1: The Battle of Badr, 624 CE - Islam's First Battle


Comments:-

The most important battle in the history of Islam because its outcome would ensure the very survival of Islam and change the course of history. A small Muslim army about 313 strong (led by Holy Prophet Muhammad (PBUH)), managed to defeat a relatively larger army about 1000 strong (led by Abu Jahl). In the context of maneuvering, the Muslim army dictated the terms of engagement for this battle by swiftly moving to a region known as the oasis of Badr where water was present to gain tactical advantage. The outcome of this battle inspires confidence in Muslims to this day.

Noteworthy:-

Muslims experienced divine intervention in their favor during this battle. Holy Quran contains details in this regard.

------

The Battle of Normandy (1944 AD)

Details:-

Link 1: Home
Link 2: D-Day - World War II - HISTORY.com


Comments:-

Also known as D-Day, this battle heralded the end of German occupation of France during WW2. The Allied forces about 156,000 strong (led by Eisenhower), invaded a French territory known as Normandy to gain foothold in France and routed the German forces from this region. Memorable aspect of this battle is the courage shown by troops (representing the Allied forces) during crossing the beach and charging towards enemy positions in spite of being subjected to heavy fire by the opposing forces. This battle inspires confidence in all.

Noteworthy:-

This battle represents largest maritime invasion effort in history.

------

The Battle of 73 Easting (1991 AD)


Details:-

Link 1: Armour Tactics at the Battle of 73 Easting, 26 February 1991 | Airspace Historian
Link 2: Gulf War 20th: The Battle of 73 Easting and the Road to the Synthetic Battlefield | Defense Media Network


Comments:-

A US army contingent from the 7th Corps (led by McNaster), fought and destroyed the formidable Iraqi Tawakalna Republican Guard Division (led by Mahmoud) in a region identified as Easting (in present day Iraq) during the Persian Gulf War. The US army contingent was heavily outnumbered but prevailed by virtue of superior tactics and technology. This battle is counted among the greatest examples of armored warfare in modern times and the largest of its kind since WW2 (involving Allied forces).

Noteworthy:-

This was the first time that an Iraqi Republican Guard Division experienced defeat in a battle.
 
Last edited:
Back
Top Bottom