Top 10 greatest tactical and strategic masterpieces.

[sms]

@AUSTERLITZ good initiative. At least it will enlighten people like me. I'm not really found of history and know little about tactics used in battles ……..following are my favorite and I think these are good example

1. Top of my list - Hannibal, Cannae, 218 b.c. The first and most decisive "double envelopment" maneuver; subsequently attempted so many times, but never with the same results -- though Scipio came close against Hannibal himself at Zama.

2. Alexander, Gaugamela (Arbela), 331 b.c. , Alexander's ability to adjust and fine tune his battle plans to achieve maximum effect. Just about every battle Alexander fought was a display of brilliant leadership and tactics.

3. Napoleon, Austerlitz, 1805. A masterpiece of deployment, timing, .deception, and concentration of force.

4. Frederick, Leuthen, 1757. Ultimate use of terrain to mask his movement until the decisive onslaught

5. Lee/Jackson, Chancellorsville, 1863. One of history's most desperately daring and successful flanking operations

 

[Joe Shearer]

I think most people posting would like to stick to one-liners of the "You stupid Indians! We have nothing to do with you and never did. We have existed for (fill in the number of millennia of choice here) and don't need you telling us what is our culture. Everything in the Indus Valley is our culture, and it arose by itself, grew into the glorious religion that we brought along, and gave ourselves, so it's cool."



'500' pushed a thanx button and added onliner and here you go. Charge of light brigade.
Major contributors of this discussion your self and AUSTERLITZ did not pushed the thanked button and so similarly other Indian members, much more in numbers than Pakistanis.
Your 'assault on center' on Pakistanis in the context of thread is bit funny, or I have missed something.
These "20's of" threads don't have any thing except hydaspes relating to sub-continent.

I understand from these rambling comments that these threads did not please the Pakistani sections of the readership, and a possible reason may have been that they "don't have any thing except hydaspes relating to sub-continent. That is wrong, but apparently you have not been following the three threads very closely, so it is a pardonable error. Both Panipat I and Tarain have been suggested. None others seemed to qualify for the top 10 or even the top 20. Of course, this is a subjective opinion, and you are free, like everybody else was, to add your own list.

Nevertheless, great observations on Hydaspes Battle, but points raised may have much simpler explanations.
All the points made by you have been addressed in my earlier posts, so it is difficult to see why you are raising them once more.
Firstly Macedonian Battle Plan, in simple terms, holding and pushing/putting pressure on enemy formations by Phalanx

Did not happen at Hydaspes; the battle was at arms' length for most of its duration. In any case, the mind boggles to imagine the phalanx facing the elephants. The phalanx held back until the elephants had spent their energy and closed only after that, when the archers and the Companion cavalry had been launched in that sequence.

and breaking destroying the enemy flank (right or left) by cavalry charge,

For starters, this was invariably an oblique attack across the front in earlier battles, and not necessarily directed to a flank; as you will have noticed, out of the three major battles that Alexander fought, Granicus, Issus and Gaugamela, two were flank attacks, Granicus was an outright frontal attack; Issus meets your description, insofar as both the flanks, first the right flank, then the left flank, were attacked by Alexander at the head of the companion cavalry, and then the centre was attacked; at Gaugamela, the flanks were left alone in favour of an attack on the right centre.
I don't think the analysis of flank attacks fits very well.

thus gave enough room (part of tactical planning of Alexander the Great, in my opinion) to enemy to run away. then pursuits followed, end of the game.

Considering that he was always outnumbered by the enemy, and could not possibly have attempted an envelopment or a double envelopment, blocking the escape of enemy troops was never a realistic proposition; instead, relentless pursuit by his strong cavalry unit was, and that is what was done.

Persian battles shows the results.

If you look carefully, they follow a different pattern, and that was painstakingly explained.

At, Hydaspes, no exist was available after envelopment, one side was completely bared by river, King Porus was much more resilient and held his ground to the last(unlike Persian king), so the heavy losses to Alexander army are not hard to imagine.
Draw in this situation is highly unlikely and can be only achieved if Porus army held up till sunset and survived to fight another day, which I infer was not the case.

Not very convincing.

First, how do you reconcile your preliminary analysis (the section in red) with your conclusion that a draw was unlikely? If there were heavy losses to both sides, as reported by all, a draw is precisely what one might expect. This is borne out by the reports that troops on both sides were on the battlefield until well after hostilities stopped.

Porus' army did in fact hold out till sunset, and your inference is incorrect. They did attempt to retire after sunset, as has been pointed by many, in accordance to the rules of engagement followed traditionally, and there were heavy casualties during this phase. It seems, from inference, that the casualty rates during the earlier phases of the battle were overwhelmingly against the Greeks, who however got the upper hand tactically, and had taken the initiative, but the Indian casualties shot up at the end. It did in fact survive to fight another day, in the sense that it was not a destroyed army, only one that had fought a hard battle and suffered heavy casualties - like its opponent.

The detailed plan of battle was not like the other three battles that Alexander fought in his Persian campaign; it was completely different, and the use of archers was a first. The charge on the Indian rear by the Companion cavalry led by Koinos, and Alexander not being at the head of that, was another first.

For all these reasons, my evaluation was that this was a use of tactics quite different from what we have seen from him before, and that should be taken into account while considering why the Macedonians fought with less than their usual smooth proficiency.

Are you the person who wrote on the Sikh quoit versus the Sudarshan Chakra?

 

[Alternative]

Joe Shearer

I understand from these rambling comments that these threads did not please the Pakistani sections of the readership, and a possible reason may have been that they "don't have any thing except hydaspes relating to sub-continent. That is wrong, but apparently you have not been following the three threads very closely, so it is a pardonable error. Both Panipat I and Tarain have been suggested. None others seemed to qualify for the top 10 or even the top 20. Of course, this is a subjective opinion, and you are free, like everybody else was, to add your own list.

Ramblings started from the post of '500', then to your post and mine post and now you have again completely ignored Indian part very graciously, OK, Fine.
As what i have gathered that discussion forums are not for pleasing any readership, these are log records of interested persons and not necessarily comments by all reader are required or expected.
I don't post to 'please' anyone.
Now mine post regarding hydaspa was brutally shredded to pieces by you and then each piece was tried to fit into your own jizsaw puzzle, failing which, thrown out of window.

Lets me try again,
Your comments on hydaspa, raise doubts on the outcome of battle, i.e., decisive victory of Macedon was may be a stalemate, doubts were raised on 'stated battle tactics by historians', higher Macedonian losses(in comparison with previous engagements) were highlighted, political/spiritual advantages to Alexander the Great were taken into account etc.
And I dared to suggest an alternate solution, which rested on the most important point, (of-course in my view) reasons of higher Macedonian Losses. In my solution I ignored the, Stated Battle Tactics by Historian as you raised doubts,(but in your rebuttal you took it as a 'hard fact' and smashed it on my head).
Macedonian battle plan, that I wrote is my general understanding of Macedonian usage of two element of army, that is, Phalanx and Cavalry, and that I have not linked it to any particular battle as you seem to suggest.

Did not happen at Hydaspes; the battle was at arms' length for most of its duration. In any case, the mind boggles to imagine the phalanx facing the elephants. The phalanx held back until the elephants had spent their energy and closed only after that, when the archers and the Companion cavalry had been launched in that sequence.

Now some statistics, which I have taken from The Art of Battle: Animated Battle Maps (AUSTERLITZ suggested this excellent site), as different sources quote different figures but I will use the mentioned in the site (lazy me).
Battle was hardly at arm's length at most of the duration as you suggest, as at first skirmish right after crossing, 2000 cavalry out of 4000 and 120 out of 300 chariots headed by Porus's son was engaged and destroyed, son slain. Then at battlefield, Porus was left about with 1000 cavalry at each wing. No wonder Alexander started at Porus' cavalry.... with odds overwhelmingly in favour of Alexander, 5000 against 2000, at initial phases, What was Porus doing then,..? waiting for his remnant of cavalry to perish?.. No, he would charge with elephants on the very first opportunity .. and he did.
My mind don't boggle at war elephant charge at Macedonian Phalanx. 'Regular', well drilled and disciplined to the core, battle hardened, with 20 foot long sarissas, in Phalanx formation was more than a match to war elephants or other tools of trade at that time and for many centuries to follow (Roman legions with smaller pikes/lances applied the same concept). Enemy coming at Phalanx would only see, pointed heads after heads for a depth of 15 or 16 feet in formation then faces of Phalangites. This formation was never penetrated by any enemy. Infantry (Phalanx) was the core strength of Macedonian Army.

..... The phalanx held back until the elephants had spent their energy and closed only after that, when the archers and the Companion cavalry had been launched in that sequence.

OK, Phalanx under attack from elephant had a pressing job at hand to deal with them in shortest possible time, but what was the Raja Porus doing with huge infantry? Why would he not try to capitalize on dishevel or destruction brought on by the elephants and home in with his infantry? why give the time to enemy to recover?

For starters, this was invariably an oblique attack across the front in earlier battles, and not necessarily directed to a flank;........I don't think the analysis of flank attacks fits very well.

Now I am lost here by "this was" and "across the front in earlier battles", if you mean hydaspes, and suggest it as Oblique attack, I would disagree on following grounds.
Firstly, every battle in days gone by started with skirmishes, to judge the battle plan of enemy, weak points in enemy defenses, feints, to draw enemy in preplanned snares etc., closely observing the responses and movement of the enemy. Decisions were made with lightening speed. Only psychics would know what would be the enemy's battle Plan before hand and there was't any. So Alexander Started with cavalry skirmishes on remanents of enemy cavalry and chariots, carefully avoiding the front with elephants, and after initial success, sent his lieutenant in envelopment attack (anticipating very well that crux of battle will be fought at center), no major push was made by flank to flank.
Porus army, on other hand attempted to penetrate the center and Macedonian, after 'bearing the burnt', attacked from defensive position in the center.

Considering that he was always outnumbered by the enemy, and could not possibly have attempted an envelopment or a double envelopment, blocking the escape of enemy troops was never a realistic proposition; instead, relentless pursuit by his strong cavalry unit was, and that is what was done.

So you missed my observation "......gave enough room (part of tactical planning of Alexander the Great, in my opinion) to enemy...". and at Hydaspes Macedonian were not Out Numbered.

Not very convincing.

First, how do you reconcile your preliminary analysis (the section in red) with your conclusion that a draw was unlikely? If there were heavy losses to both sides, as reported by all, a draw is precisely what one might expect. This is borne out by the reports that troops on both sides were on the battlefield until well after hostilities stopped.

I, in previous post, ventured to suggest the high Macedonian losses, due to 2 main factors; one, cutting of exit route, secondly, valiant character of King Porus. But it is the extent of losses that matter in analysis, 4000 Macedonian lost (throwing aside 310 by Arian as ridiculous) against 21000 Puruvians.
Cavalry, chariots and elephants destroyed, surrounded by enemy no other than Macedonians, left little hope of any thing else. Why would Macedonians after reaching on top would relinquish the opportunity of complete victory?

Porus' army did in fact hold out till sunset, and your inference is incorrect. They did attempt to retire after sunset, as has been pointed by many, in accordance to the rules of engagement followed traditionally, and there were heavy casualties during this phase. It seems, from inference, that the casualty rates during the earlier phases of the battle were overwhelmingly against the Greeks, who however got the upper hand tactically, and had taken the initiative, but the Indian casualties shot up at the end. It did in fact survive to fight another day, in the sense that it was not a destroyed army, only one that had fought a hard battle and suffered heavy casualties - like its opponent.

I would request some source of post marked red in your above post. In initial phases almost all of Porus's Cavalry was destroyed, then came elephant charges, did some serious damage but Porus was unable to capitalize on it. That left the infantry, sandwiched.

The detailed plan of battle was not like the other three battles that Alexander fought in his Persian campaign; it was completely different, and the use of archers was a first. The charge on the Indian rear by the Companion cavalry led by Koinos, and Alexander not being at the head of that, was another first.

Reason of this I gave above.

For all these reasons, my evaluation was that this was a use of tactics quite different from what we have seen from him before, and that should be taken into account while considering why the Macedonians fought with less than their usual smooth proficiency

Rrrrrrr... What?, 'less than usual smooth proficiency???? After all this.....

Are you the person who wrote on the Sikh quoit versus the Sudarshan Chakra?

A good question indeed, and a better question for anyone to ask would be; Am I the same person?

There were many mythological weapons left for discussion, I could only hope for more participation from other posters. That thread helped me to further my understanding on "Why/How seemingly continuously evolving civilizations seem to lose some traditions(whether arts or sciences or social customs etc).

 

[Joe Shearer]

Joe Shearer

Ramblings started from the post of '500', then to your post and mine post and now you have again completely ignored Indian part very graciously, OK, Fine.

Apparently you and I have different meanings of the word rambling. I mean long, confused or inconsequential; you mean something else, and I am not sure what. Please see below, and try to answer the question.

Re: Top 10 greatest tactical and strategic masterpieces.

Well about the tactics and strategy thing joe has alreday more or less answered it,but to clarify.

Original Post By AUSTERLITZ

Onto battles,this is a real problem for me as there are so many.

However i did make a list.

Original Post By AUSTERLITZ

Brilliant posts! Thanks. Why no one thanked it yet?

Original Post by 500

This is 500's entire post reproduced as it was.

You do realise that rambling means
1. (of writing or speech) Lengthy and confused or inconsequential.

500's post cited two earlier posts, of Austerlitz, and one line of comment.
Did you find it lengthy, or confused, or inconsequential?

 

[Joe Shearer]

Just to clear the thicket of preliminary, and sadly, obfuscatory, remarks.

Joe Shearer

I understand from these rambling comments that these threads did not please the Pakistani sections of the readership, and a possible reason may have been that they "don't have any thing except hydaspes relating to sub-continent. That is wrong, but apparently you have not been following the three threads very closely, so it is a pardonable error. Both Panipat I and Tarain have been suggested. None others seemed to qualify for the top 10 or even the top 20. Of course, this is a subjective opinion, and you are free, like everybody else was, to add your own list.

Ramblings started from the post of '500', then to your post and mine post and now you have again completely ignored Indian part very graciously, OK, Fine.

Which sentence of this passage did you fail to understand as referring to India?

That is wrong, but apparently you have not been following the three threads very closely, so it is a pardonable error. Both Panipat I and Tarain have been suggested. None others seemed to qualify for the top 10 or even the top 20.

On another thread, 20 most decisive battles of the world, this is what I explained at length to another emotional person. Please read it carefully, it may calm down your lacerated nerves:

There have been decisive battles, many of them, provided that we understand that these were decisive for the sub-continent. Similarly, there have been battles in China, Korea, south-east Asia and Japan, which too were decisive within those strategic areas. However, it is not right to talk about battles which cannot be described in reasonable detail, which are known only in terms of the antagonists, and sometimes, not even that in much clarity. That is why it isn't useful to talk about these battles.

A second reason is that events in these areas did not directly affect the events of the area connected to the western world, which is what serves as the touchstone of acceptability for most historical considerations. What is commonly accepted - and this is wrong - is events, and battles which affected Europe, the north African shoreland opposite the Mediterranean, the Russian hinterland, all the way up until the Aral Sea, the middle East, including Anatolia, Armenia and the Caucasus, Arabia, Persia and Afghanistan.

There is no point in wishing that things were different. This is how things are in reality.

So decisive battles in the sub-continent, great battles on the sub-continent, and strategic campaigns on the sub-continent are none of them likely to be reported along with others of their kind. Not because they have not occurred, but because of these reasons above.

Going on to other things.............

Did you happen to notice the next suggestion, or was it somehow overlooked in your rush to get to print? What about it do you find not implementable, as your own original contribution to the discussion, which you felt to be wanting in these respects, other than offering critiques, however valuable?

Of course, this is a subjective opinion, and you are free, like everybody else was, to add your own list.

We come to the question of 'pleasing', which seems to leave you in some perplexity, which definitely leaves me in considerable perplexity.

As what i have gathered that discussion forums are not for pleasing any readership, these are log records of interested persons and not necessarily comments by all reader are required or expected.

True, very true. A Daniel come to judgement. And more!

I don't post to 'please' anyone.

Now, suppose we were to apply your sentiments, expressed so clearly above, to others, for instance, to the passage below:

I understand from these rambling comments that these threads did not please the Pakistani sections of the readership, and a possible reason may have been that they "don't have any thing except hydaspes relating to sub-continent.

Is it difficult to conclude that your remarks fit my comments very well?

Now mine post regarding hydaspa was brutally shredded to pieces by you and then each piece was tried to fit into your own jizsaw puzzle, failing which, thrown out of window.

I am not sure where you detected brutality in the response I made, and assure you that it was entirely of human origin. Note the reference to windows. Very few brutes take up residence in windowed abodes, unless wherever it is that you are is considerably more advanced than where the rest of us are.

It would be nice if you could stop personalising these exchanges and see them as they are, clinical and dispassionate examinations of events.

With this, let us look at your comments on aspects of the battle.

 

[Joe Shearer]

A very brief post. The rest will be posted tomorrow.

Firstly Macedonian Battle Plan, in simple terms, holding and pushing/putting pressure on enemy formations by Phalanx

Did not happen at Hydaspes; the battle was at arms' length for most of its duration. In any case, the mind boggles to imagine the phalanx facing the elephants. The phalanx held back until the elephants had spent their energy and closed only after that, when the archers and the Companion cavalry had been launched in that sequence.

and breaking destroying the enemy flank (right or left) by cavalry charge,

For starters, this was invariably an oblique attack across the front in earlier battles, and not necessarily directed to a flank; as you will have noticed, out of the three major battles that Alexander fought, Granicus, Issus and Gaugamela, two were flank attacks, Granicus was an outright frontal attack; Issus meets your description, insofar as both the flanks, first the right flank, then the left flank, were attacked by Alexander at the head of the companion cavalry, and then the centre was attacked; at Gaugamela, the flanks were left alone in favour of an attack on the right centre.
I don't think the analysis of flank attacks fits very well.

thus gave enough room (part of tactical planning of Alexander the Great, in my opinion) to enemy to run away. then pursuits followed, end of the game.

Considering that he was always outnumbered by the enemy, and could not possibly have attempted an envelopment or a double envelopment, blocking the escape of enemy troops was never a realistic proposition; instead, relentless pursuit by his strong cavalry unit was, and that is what was done.

Persian battles shows the results.

If you look carefully, they follow a different pattern, and that was painstakingly explained.

At, Hydaspes, no exist was available after envelopment, one side was completely bared by river, King Porus was much more resilient and held his ground to the last(unlike Persian king), so the heavy losses to Alexander army are not hard to imagine.
Draw in this situation is highly unlikely and can be only achieved if Porus army held up till sunset and survived to fight another day, which I infer was not the case.

Not very convincing.

First, how do you reconcile your preliminary analysis (the section in red) with your conclusion that a draw was unlikely? If there were heavy losses to both sides, as reported by all, a draw is precisely what one might expect. This is borne out by the reports that troops on both sides were on the battlefield until well after hostilities stopped.

Porus' army did in fact hold out till sunset, and your inference is incorrect. They did attempt to retire after sunset, as has been pointed by many, in accordance to the rules of engagement followed traditionally, and there were heavy casualties during this phase. It seems, from inference, that the casualty rates during the earlier phases of the battle were overwhelmingly against the Greeks, who however got the upper hand tactically, and had taken the initiative, but the Indian casualties shot up at the end. It did in fact survive to fight another day, in the sense that it was not a destroyed army, only one that had fought a hard battle and suffered heavy casualties - like its opponent.

The detailed plan of battle was not like the other three battles that Alexander fought in his Persian campaign; it was completely different, and the use of archers was a first. The charge on the Indian rear by the Companion cavalry led by Koinos, and Alexander not being at the head of that, was another first.

For all these reasons, my evaluation was that this was a use of tactics quite different from what we have seen from him before, and that should be taken into account while considering why the Macedonians fought with less than their usual smooth proficiency.

Lets me try again,
Your comments on hydaspa, raise doubts on the outcome of battle, i.e.,

1. decisive victory of Macedon was may be a stalemate,
2. doubts were raised on 'stated battle tactics by historians',
3. higher Macedonian losses(in comparison with previous engagements) were highlighted,
4. political/spiritual advantages to Alexander the Great were taken into account etc.

And I dared to suggest an alternate solution, which rested on the most important point, (of-course in my view) reasons of higher Macedonian Losses.

a. In my solution I ignored the, Stated Battle Tactics by Historian as you raised doubts,(but in your rebuttal you took it as a 'hard fact' and smashed it on my head).
b. Macedonian battle plan, that I wrote is my general understanding of Macedonian usage of two element of army, that is, Phalanx and Cavalry, and that I have not linked it to any particular battle as you seem to suggest.
Macedonian battle plan, that I wrote is my general understanding of Macedonian usage of two element of army, that is, Phalanx and Cavalry, and that I have not linked it to any particular battle as you seem to suggest.

You have completely missed the point. It was not you linking it to any particular battle, and that is NOT what I suggested.

It was I linking this use of Phalanx and Cavalry to the traditional Greco-centric method of fighting battles, which was on display, I stated, in the first three battles for Persia fought by Alexander: Granicus, Issus and Gaugamela.

You are not being accused of linking a general account to a particular battle; I am pointing out to you that this general template applied to three but not to a fourth battle, leading to a specific conclusion about the effectiveness of the Greeks and Macedonians in this particular battle as compared to their effectiveness in other battles.

In my solution I ignored the, Stated Battle Tactics by Historian as you raised doubts,(but in your rebuttal you took it as a 'hard fact' and smashed it on my head).

One of the problems in discussing this is your repeated and unwarranted, also unnecessary personalisation of the whole thing. This is just a clinical examination of a battle that happened 2,300 years and a little more ago, not a clinical examination of your psychological profile. Try not to get lost in a burst of self-pity; nobody’s picking on you. Nobody smashed anything on your head. Not so far, anyway, but I’m tired of holding my breath.

My point is that the tactics reported by historians is not authentic. In criticising their reports, you are not under criticism. My second point was your account of events, and your reason for believing that there were higher Indian losses. I do not think that to criticise is to denigrate personally. Nobody, I repeat, smashed anything on anyone’s head.

Unless my cook has rebelled against the boredom of his daily routine, and become creative and innovative as he wakes up to the tenth running year of making omelettes.

 

[Alternative]

Apparently you and I have different meanings of the word rambling. I mean long, confused or inconsequential; you mean something else, and I am not sure what. Please see below, and try to answer the question.

Original Post By AUSTERLITZ


Original Post By AUSTERLITZ



Original Post by 500

This is 500's entire post reproduced as it was.

You do realise that rambling means
1. (of writing or speech) Lengthy and confused or inconsequential.

500's post cited two earlier posts, of Austerlitz, and one line of comment.
Did you find it lengthy, or confused, or inconsequential?

1. Original piece from '500' reproduced below.
------------------------------------------------------

Well about the tactics and strategy thing joe has alreday more or less answered it,but to clarify.
Original Post By AUSTERLITZ

Onto battles,this is a real problem for me as there are so many.
However i did make a list.
Original Post By AUSTERLITZ

'500'4
Brilliant posts! Thanks. Why no one thanked it yet?

2. And, against an innocent one liner of '500', properly quoted by you. your entire post quoted below, coloured in red; the ******** directed towards "most person" (we can safely assume, Pakistanis Posters)saying 'you stupid indians'...etc etc.
Then the next para coloured in orange, with 'rabid fanboy' is a sorry reading.
------------------------------------------------------------
Brilliant posts! Thanks. Why no one thanked it yet?
Original Post By 500

Joe Shearer

I think most people posting would like to stick to one-liners of the "You stupid Indians! We have nothing to do with you and never did. We have existed for (fill in the number of millennia of choice here) and don't need you telling us what is our culture. Everything in the Indus Valley is our culture, and it arose by itself, grew into the glorious religion that we brought along, and gave ourselves, so it's cool."

Doesn't leave much time for analysis or for military history. But then, that kind of rabid fanboy never cared for this dull stuff anyway.

I have a brilliant article by Major Amin on the martial races of India. Think I'd get a reaction if I got the Major's permission and posted it? No way, Jose; it'd be the loser of the century, because it doesn't say what the fanboy wants it to say.

3. Mine Post, reproduced below; elaborating (with some merriment) your
targeting of Pakistani posters and ignoring non responsiveness of Indian posters , in this case, is not fair and forwarded a rather lame excuse.
But you can see a pattern that technical, knowledge base threads attract much less attention and response than, lets say, marriage of Shoaib Malik and Sania Mirza, hundreds of posts in a matter of minutes.
-----------------------------------------------------------
Alternative

'500' pushed a thanx button and added onliner and here you go. Charge of light brigade.
Major contributors of this discussion your self and AUSTERLITZ did not pushed the thanked button and so similarly other Indian members, much more in numbers than Pakistanis. Your 'assault on center' on Pakistanis in the context of thread is bit funny, or I have missed something. These "20's of" threads don't have any thing except hydaspes relating to sub-continent.

4. Your next inline post, where you introduced the "rambling" terminology in response to my post, which is crystal clear for anyone and you very conveniently ignored to convey any reason of your 'outburst' in previous post.
--------------------------------------
Joe Shearer

I understand from these rambling comments that these threads did not please the Pakistani sections of the readership, and a possible reason may have been that they "don't have any thing except hydaspes relating to sub-continent. That is wrong, but apparently you have not been following the three threads very closely, so it is a pardonable error. Both Panipat I and Tarain have been suggested. None others seemed to qualify for the top 10 or even the top 20. Of course, this is a subjective opinion, and you are free, like everybody else was, to add your own list.

5. Now my post after you accused me of rambling, that is, long, confused or inconsequential. and i am still lamenting that you even have not said a single word explaining your outburst.
-------------------------------------------
Alternative

Ramblings started from the post of '500', then to your post and mine post and now you have again completely ignored Indian part very graciously, OK, Fine.
As what i have gathered that discussion forums are not for pleasing any readership, these are log records of interested persons and not necessarily comments by all reader are required or expected.
I don't post to 'please' anyone.

-------------------------------------

 

[Joe Shearer]

The penny drops, finally.

This is not about military history, is it? Never was. Silly me, banging on about strategy and tactics.....

It was about the Defence of the Realm: it was all about that paragraph, which, naturally, is a mystery; no accounting for comprehension levels. So what do we have here?

Well about the tactics and strategy thing joe has alreday more or less answered it,but to clarify.
Original Post By AUSTERLITZ

Onto battles,this is a real problem for me as there are so many.
However i did make a list.
Original Post By AUSTERLITZ

'500'4
Brilliant posts! Thanks. Why no one thanked it yet?

2. And, against an innocent one liner of '500', properly quoted by you. your entire post quoted below, coloured in red; the ******** directed towards "most person" (we can safely assume, Pakistanis Posters) saying 'you stupid indians'...etc etc.
Then the next para coloured in orange, with 'rabid fanboy' is a sorry reading.

No, you cannot safely assume Pakistani posters. Pakistani posters do not all of them make remarks under the influence of what you have termed a 'religious furor'.

Some do; they are often the ones to go into fanciful accounts about past history, to re-define India, sometimes as a term meaning a small part of the continent, sometimes as a latter-day concept initially proposed by the British and avidly taken up by a section of Indians during the freedom struggle; there are several other characteristics, besides, which all boil down to a hard-core set of 'spoilers' among the readers.

You can safely assume posters of any and all nationalities whose judgement is clouded by other than analysis of military matters, who believe that the religion of a battle-field commander, war leader or political authority determines his merit.

Brilliant posts! Thanks. Why no one thanked it yet?
Original Post By 500

I think most people posting would like to stick to one-liners of the "You stupid Indians! We have nothing to do with you and never did. We have existed for (fill in the number of millennia of choice here) and don't need you telling us what is our culture. Everything in the Indus Valley is our culture, and it arose by itself, grew into the glorious religion that we brought along, and gave ourselves, so it's cool."

Doesn't leave much time for analysis or for military history. But then, that kind of rabid fanboy never cared for this dull stuff anyway.

I have a brilliant article by Major Amin on the martial races of India. Think I'd get a reaction if I got the Major's permission and posted it? No way, Jose; it'd be the loser of the century, because it doesn't say what the fanboy wants it to say.

3. Mine Post, reproduced below; elaborating (with some merriment)

Laughing up your sleeves, were you?

.....your targeting of Pakistani posters and ignoring non responsiveness of Indian posters , in this case, is not fair and forwarded a rather lame excuse.

But you can see a pattern that technical, knowledge base threads attract much less attention and response than, lets say, marriage of Shoaib Malik and Sania Mirza, hundreds of posts in a matter of minutes.

Yes, certainly I see that pattern, that a technical subject attracts much less attention and response than a sensational one. And if you are saying that there are many more Indian readers than Pakistani, so the burden is on the Indians to express appreciation as much as the Pakistanis, I am left more than surprised: the problem is with enthusiasm born of that fatal phrase, 'religious furor', and that is what I remarked upon. There is no reason why both should not exist - a scant respect for difficult subjects as well as a distortion of thinking due to religious furor (personally I favour the word 'fervour'). I chose to highlight one, you chose to highlight the other. Now what? What have you proved?

'500' pushed a thanx button and added onliner and here you go. Charge of light brigade.

Major contributors of this discussion your self and AUSTERLITZ did not pushed the thanked button and so similarly other Indian members, much more in numbers than Pakistanis. Your 'assault on center' on Pakistanis in the context of thread is bit funny, or I have missed something. These "20's of" threads don't have any thing except hydaspes relating to sub-continent.

There are two points here which need addressing.

First, it is absurd for contributors to thank themselves, as you have suggested:
Major contributors of this discussion your self and AUSTERLITZ did not pushed the thanked button
I don't even know if that is possible, even if laughable.

Second, about none of these relating to the sub-continent other than Hydaspes: that is defined within the definition itself. none of these threads were started by me; the thread originators have defined the discussion space. Why should I particularly break my neck to change their thinking? It's their thread; go address them.

As it happens, in a global context, I have already been at great pains to explain - an explanation that apparently you have read - why battles on the sub-continent do not register on the global record. But that of course does not stand in the way of a juicy allegation.

4. Your next inline post, where you introduced the "rambling" terminology in response to my post, which is crystal clear for anyone

Not to me.

......and you very conveniently ignored to convey any reason of your 'outburst' in previous post.

But you should have told me clearly that I was being court-martialed, and that my formal responses, or a lack of them, would be considered at the time of judgement.

Joe Shearer
I understand from these rambling comments that these threads did not please the Pakistani sections of the readership, and a possible reason may have been that they "don't have any thing except hydaspes relating to sub-continent. That is wrong, but apparently you have not been following the three threads very closely, so it is a pardonable error. Both Panipat I and Tarain have been suggested. None others seemed to qualify for the top 10 or even the top 20. Of course, this is a subjective opinion, and you are free, like everybody else was, to add your own list.

5. Now my post after you accused me of rambling, that is, long, confused or inconsequential. and i am still lamenting that you even have not said a single word explaining your outburst.

Might I point out, once again, that it was not made clear to me that there was a court martial going on, and that you were the offical prosecutor? That an answer to a question not asked was required?

Ramblings started from the post of '500', then to your post and mine post and now you have again completely ignored Indian part very graciously, OK, Fine.
As what i have gathered that discussion forums are not for pleasing any readership, these are log records of interested persons and not necessarily comments by all reader are required or expected.
I don't post to 'please' anyone.

This passage does not require an answer, since it has been largely answered before. Or so it seems to me.

However please see my next post, where you will find ample reason for my wishing some of the readers a long, long holiday abroad, and where the question you have never quite asked gets answered.

 

[Joe Shearer]

@Alternative

Your repeated calls - demands? - for an answer from me, explaining what you have termed an outburst from my sides, have apparently been in your thoughts, but have not been clearly uttered. Now that it is clear that this is what you seek, more than details about battles fought centuries ago, I will try to comply with your 'demands' as fully as possible.

Re: Top 10 greatest tactical and strategic masterpieces.
Muhammad Bin qasim

He at the age of 17 started conquering south asia..

he's also responsible for the spread of islam in SOuth asia.

at the age of 17 and conquering any country at that time was nt an easy work

he was really a brave and tactical person.

Re: Top 10 greatest tactical and strategic masterpieces.
I took European history way back and look at the paranoia of those people---

There was this war i.e. Battle of the Trench (Ghazwa Khandaq)-- I do not want to go into further details as it will create flame war...

Anyways, according to that book, Europeans were the first to use that tactic...

I think that the trench which people dug in Prophet Muhammad's era is one of the several master pieces.

Re: 20 most decisive battles of the world.
• Battle at Constantinople, Ottoman Turks vs Byzantine Empire, 1453. Result: Ottomans capture Constantinople, end of the Byzantine (Roman-Greek) Empire, Ottoman Turkish supremacy and reign over Eastern Europe for hundreds of years. Istanbul remains in Turkish hands. Fulfillment of Muhammad SAW prophecy.
• Battle of Afghanistan, Soviet Union vs Afghans, Mujahideen, Pakistan/ISI, and others, 1979-1989. Result: Collapse of the Soviet Union, Liberation of Eastern European countries, German reunification, birth of CARs Turkic Republics, destabilization in Afghanistan, Taliban movement....
• Siege of Baghdad, Abbasid Caliphate vs Mongols, 1258. Result: Major defeat to Abbasid caliphate, Baghdad center of science and knowledge destroyed, crucial setback to Muslim science and Arab world. Some Mongols began to convert to Islam. After clashing with Muslim armies Mongols faced defeat and Mongol empire waning...


These are some that come to mind.

Re: 20 most decisive battles of the world.
Battle of Yarmouk

I have no doubt in saying that it was the most decisive battle in the history of mankind, it was almost a impossible victory for the Muslim Army.

May ALLAH be pleased with Syedna Khalib Bin Waleed, What a great warrior he was.

Re: 20 most decisive battles of the world.
No Offence!! But a Decisive Battle in the subcontinent is yet to come!!

Re: 20 most decisive battles of the world.
No Offence!! But a Decisive Battle in the subcontinent is yet to come!!

Re: 20 most decisive battles of the world.
Tameem
No Offence!! But a Decisive Battle in the subcontinent is yet to come!!
That isn't true.

There have been decisive battles, many of them, provided that we understand that these were decisive for the sub-continent. Similarly, there have been battles in China, Korea, south-east Asia and Japan, which too were decisive within those strategic areas. However, it is not right to talk about battles which cannot be described in reasonable detail, which are known only in terms of the antagonists, and sometimes, not even that in much clarity. That is why it isn't useful to talk about these battles.

A second reason is that events in these areas did not directly affect the events of the area connected to the western world, which is what serves as the touchstone of acceptability for most historical considerations. What is commonly accepted - and this is wrong - is events, and battles which affected Europe, the north African shoreland opposite the Mediterranean, the Russian hinterland, all the way up until the Aral Sea, the middle East, including Anatolia, Armenia and the Caucasus, Arabia, Persia and Afghanistan.

There is no point in wishing that things were different. This is how things are in reality.

So decisive battles in the sub-continent, great battles on the sub-continent, and strategic campaigns on the sub-continent are none of them likely to be reported along with others of their kind. Not because they have not occurred, but because of these reasons above.

I hope that this will illustrate the practical difficulties of thinking with your heart rather than with your brains. Try a change; the first couple of times, it may be painful, but after getting used to it, a wonderful world of the intellect will emerge. You will not regret it.
Original Post By Joe Shearer
You completely miss read the post of Tameem, written under the religious furor (nothing else), alluding to prediction of great war, Ghazwa-tul-Hind, the biggest and most destructive, yet to come.
I had already read your this post (Joe Shearer) before your post no.35 in Top 10 greatest tactical and strategic masterpieces thread.

Re: Top 10 Most Successful Military Commanders
what about khaild bin waleed victor of 100 battles no defeat sword of allah.

what about tariq bin ziyad conquer of spain.

what about Fatih Sultan Mehmet who conquered Constantinople.

what about muhammed ghori conquer of hind.

what about muhammed bin qasim.

what about saad bin waqqas.

and plenty of more great muslims commanders

Re: Top 10 Most Successful Military Commanders
The list you have mentioned is of this era, but lets have a look at all of the history.

The muslim army, who was 313 with 70 camels and 2 horses won a war with a army of 1000 men, 700 in chain mail and with around 300 in cavalry. Only 14 were martyred.

This was the first ever war by muslims, and greatest in history of the whole world, and the planning done by the Commander (Prophet) was much like modern battlefield. As we all know he was orphan and wasnt educated, he still proved to be an excellent commander. His formation was un beatable (well, in second war of Islam, Uhad, the men disobeyed him).

Then like others are saying about Tariq bin Waleed aka Sword of Allah and other brave men, they must be included, as they are much more greater, successful and fierce than the ones enlisted.

Regards.

Re: Top 10 Most Successful Military Commanders
People are getting their list wrong!
You are missing those who have defeated and fought you which isint fair!

Please be neutral.

Re: Top 10 Most Successful Military Commanders
Hamza Bin Abdul Mutlib
Khalid Bin Waleed
Saad Bin Waqas
Muhammad Bin Qasim
Musa Bin Nadeer
Tariq Bin Ziyad
Sultan Muhammad Fateh
Salahuddin Ayubi
Sultan Mahmood Qutuz
Sultan Beybars

May Allah bless their souls Ameen

Re: Top 10 Most Successful Military Commanders

Saad ibn bin waqas-

When did he lead an army .....when was he a great commander....what is he doing here?
Original Post By AUSTERLITZ
Hazrat Sa'ad bin Abi Waqqas( Radhiyallahu anhu ) was the Hero of Qadisiyyah and the Conqueror of Ctesiphon (the Sassanid capital).

Re: Top 10 Most Successful Military Commanders
PLease just because they were devout muslims don't drag everybody here.
Hamza abdul muttalib..paternal uncle and great supporter of muhammad,was a great fighter himself and a good hunter.Protected muhammad during his darkest days,was renowned for his bravery was killed by a javelin in the battle of uhud.
He may be a islamic folk hero but he never evn led an army let alone delve into tactics and strategy.Plz get ur facts straight before posting stuff like this.

Khalid ibn al waleed- we have already mentioned him as among the top 10.

Saad ibn bin waqas-
one of the companions of prophet muhammad.Fought at badr and as an archer at uhud.Later was a governer under caliph umar and credited with bringing islam to china.When did he lead an army .....when was he a great commander....what is he doing here?

Muhammad bin qasim-
Ok this guy is actually a military leader,responsible for conquest of sindh and the first great muslim invader of india.
Defeated dahir and annexed sindh.But that is mostly all among his remarkable military achievements.He also had the mongol bow and siege engines as a superior military equipment advantage over dahir.
A good commander and moderately succesful but top 10..wtf?top 100 maybe.Just look at the other names in the top 10 and the number of battlefield victories...he has one big victory over dahir...most of the towns he conquered by making deals with the mercantile class.

Musa bin nasyr.....yes this guy is a good choice.Conquered morocco sardinia balearic islands and andlucia.Very good cavalry general.Definitely a top 50 guy.The reason he isn't higher is lack of any significant great victory or battlefield masterpiece.

Tariq bin ziyad..another conqueror of spain.One big victory at guadalete but with help of defections on the visigoth side.Good conqueror but lack of enough battlefield victories.

Ah yes mehmet the conqueror....ok this guy is definitely much better.Innovative siege victory at constantinople and many victories throughout his career over the hungarians and in anatolia.Yes definitely quite high top 25 maybe methinks.

Saladin has been discussed earlier.

sayfudeen qutuz saved islam and egypt from the mongols at ain jalut but that's it.I see most people saying that he defeated mongols who no one else deafeted but the fact is due to internecine problems most of the mongol armies had retreated leaving 2 tumens or 20000 men so he wasn't overwhelmed by the mongol hordes having 20000 men himself.Most of the credit goes to his commander beybars who is the next entry.

Yes beybars is surely among the best medieval commanders defeated and ended the crusades as well as led the vangurad vs the mongols.A good choice.

Among others u left out the obvious tamerlane....and also ahmad shah abdali,akbar the great,nadir shah,sher shah and babur.

I'm a little exhausted after these 2 big posts i'll answer shearer and sharpy a little later.
Original Post By AUSTERLITZ
but it is reality that they were best in war field, just read history and you will yourself confess that.
but be unbiased in reading

 

[LaBong]

Can we get back to topic which was far more entertaining than trying to decipher the intent behind 500 thanking AUSTERLITZ's two awesome posts? :p

 

[Joe Shearer]

Can we get back to topic which was far more entertaining than trying to decipher the intent behind 500 thanking AUSTERLITZ's two awesome posts? :p

I propose that we open a separate thread for the Battle of the Hydaspes (it's been discussed threadbare before on just such a dedicated thread, but there is additional evidence and information to be presented).

If this is done, as a first step, I would like to put up the original sources on the battle, before anyone starts commenting or opining on events.

Any agreement on this?

 

[indushek]

I propose that we open a separate thread for the Battle of the Hydaspes (it's been discussed threadbare before on just such a dedicated thread, but there is additional evidence and information to be presented).

If this is done, as a first step, I would like to put up the original sources on the battle, before anyone starts commenting or opining on events.

Any agreement on this?

Better to do that than to bang the head for a simple thanks!!!!!!!

Phew... The thread moved from elucidation of war to investigation of motives in no time.

 

[LaBong]

Yes Joe looking forward to read yours and AUSTERLITZ's illustration of Battle of the Hydaspes, I think Alternative and Gunner also can join in.

 

[Joe Shearer]

Yes Joe looking forward to read yours and AUSTERLITZ's illustration of Battle of the Hydaspes, I think Alternative and Gunner also can join in.

That would be a perfect panel, in my personal opinion, with the addition of CardSharp, and Capt.Popeye

 

[Alternative]

Just to clear the thicket of preliminary, and sadly, obfuscatory, remarks.

Which sentence of this passage did you fail to understand as referring to India?

Post 37, may be helpful in understanding.

On another thread, 20 most decisive battles of the world, this is what I explained at length to another emotional person. Please read it carefully, it may calm down your lacerated nerves:

Good post, but off the mark for Tameem. and your are excessively worried about me, I am fine, thank you for your concern.

Did you happen to notice the next suggestion, or was it somehow overlooked in your rush to get to print? What about it do you find not implementable, as your own original contribution to the discussion, which you felt to be wanting in these respects, other than offering critiques, however valuable?

I am considering 'next suggestion' but I was then alluding to your 'previous suggestion' (The Outburst).
Considering how the things are going, mere definitions of tactical and/or strategic and/or masterpieces in context of warfare will be a masterpiece itself.

I am not sure where you detected brutality in the response I made, and assure you that it was entirely of human origin. Note the reference to windows. Very few brutes take up residence in windowed abodes, unless wherever it is that you are is considerably more advanced than where the rest of us are.

I would have not even dreamed that anyone would have to tell you that what is a 'figure of speech'. In my humble opinion you are the best with command of language and expression on this forum without a second.
Now continuing;
We (you and I) having a nice chit chat, and who are the 'rest of us'

It would be nice if you could stop personalising these exchanges and see them as they are, clinical and dispassionate examinations of events.

..... Are you the person................
.......another emotional person..... lacerated nerves....
It would be much nicer if 'we' and 'rest of us' could stop personalising these (.....).


(This Post is Late by Few Hours.....)