Dear qsaark,
Thanks for the post on a most significant battle in Islamic History
If i may quote the reason for victory as quoted in the article
The reasons behind the victory
If we are to inspect what led to this great victory, we will find that these reasons did not -and will not- change since the first revelation, until the Day of Judgment.
The first condition is to have the right belief, and the legitimate and truthful scholars whom we refer to, who do not fear a ruler or a governor in defence of Allah's religion. This was represented by the "Sultan of Scholars" Al-Izz Bin Abdis-Salam, may Allah have mercy on him.
The second condition is to have a sincere leader who works to uplift the Word of Allah and to defend His religion solely for His Sake. This was represented by the "Victorious King" Qutuz, may Allah have mercy on him too.
The third and most important cause was the unity of Muslims under the one true banner of Tawheed, sharing the same concern and responsibility, disregarding the minor differences between them.
Now all the above things were important but were not decisive in the military sense, the analysis is another example of downplaying the military planning and readiness aspect of great Muslim armies and states of the past.
This is an error most Muslim historians commit though not all.
This mentality has culminated in a state that most Muslims think that faith and will to fight alone would make them victorious, they do not dwell into the depth of the factors which made Muslim armies such effective forces.
Will to fight was there in many armies which fought the Muslim armies so it was not a one sided affair.
The Muslim armies were very well trained and well equipped and were more than a match for their adversaries throughout their glorious history.
It was not faith alone which made them so effective, it was their military capability and discipline which made them superior.
Muslim cavalry was one of the best cavalries of its time and was highly trained and extremely effective in all terrains and weather unlike many of their adversaries.
An analogy in the modern world would be having one of the most modern and effective air forces in the world...something which Afghanistan did not have by far.
From the onset of Muslim military campaigns the significance of advanced tactics, strategic vision and decisive engagements and advantageous disengagements were evident.
The Arabs who formed the basis of the Army in the initial days were very skilled individual fighters and under the banner of Islam they excelled not just because of high morale due to Islam but high discipline instilled into them and the confidence in their fighting power as an army under the command of some of the finest strategists/tacticians in history most notable of all Khalid bin Waleed (RA) who was called the sword of Allah.
Khalid bin Waleed (RA) was always outmaneuvering his enemy, attacking from where least expected including harshest of the deserts (which were not even traversed by individuals leave alone armies) and using converging night attacks from separate directions as well.
In that era these tactics were unique and could not be practiced by other armies.
War was all about deception and Khalid new that well and taught the same to his officers.
Many times he engaged a superior army in maneuvers over vast distances in order to exhaust them and then took them on when they were vulnerable.
When the roman empire amassed a huge army from different sectors it was Khalid who opposed the point of view of many Muslims to make a bitter last stand in each Muslim garrison in front of vastly superior Roman numbers.
Khalid was the bravest of the brave but he was willing to retreat to Yarmuk which offered a strategic advantage to the proposed concentration of the Muslims armies despite the fact that it meant surrendering all captured territory to the enemy over many many months of campaigning.
Retreating in the face of the enemy to fight another day is not something the Muslim historians really appreciate but it was done by the best and the bravest of the brave.
Khalid always emphasized that no Muslim general should never be caught unaware and under prepared for if he makes such a mistake he is a fool and not fit to command the troops whose lives are most important.
In the course of his command many officers were severely reprimanded by Khalid upon not seeking reinforcements and engaging enemy at their strengths instead of luring the enemy into a position of weakness.
Please remember that
Islam makes a strong emphasis to save Muslim lives.
I recall another incident involving another Khalid (Khalid bin Saeed i think) who was given command of a few thousand Muslim soldiers by Abu Bakar(RA).
This Khalid was facing a strong Army (Persian i think) across a river and displaying stupid bravery crossed the river in front of a superior force and his force was devastated.
Abu Bakar (RA) who was a gentle soul was vexed by this action saying that woe to him who has lost so many Muslims lives in his foolish bravado; Abu bakar asked Khalid bn Saeed not to show his face again to the caliph.
It should be noted that
bravery without a proper plan is no good and
is not a quality.
Just dying without achieving any purpose was never admired in the Muslim armies and thankfully so because otherwise all Muslim armies would have met an ill fate.
Now lets come back to the Mamlukes of Egypt.
1) The Muslim armies were already exceptionally accomplished at horsemanship and swordsmanship in the initial days but later on developed an extensive arsenal of projectile weaponry and tactics to use them in conjunction with their hall mark devastating cavalry assaults.
2) The
most advanced/balanced army in the Muslim world were the Mamlukes having skilled light/heavy cavalry, mounted archers, skirmisher divisions which could engage in both ranged/melee combat and experienced light and heavy infantry.
3) They had been taking on the
Christian powers on more than equal terms in the crusades and therefore had many veteran officers and soldiers in their ranks.
4) The Mamluke army had many
advanced projectile weapon systems include ones using fire based weaponry (derived from Greek fire mixture) which made a thunderous noise and literally made the enemy see hell. The awe and shock as a result of these weapons was similar to daisy cutters.
The fire would not be put out by water and was really feared by the crusaders as well and in a few chronicles written by crusaders one can find the psychologically overwhelming effect of these weapons.
5) At the time even handguns were being developed by the Mamluke armies which shows how
advanced they were in terms of
military capability and technology.
6) The Mamlukes were slave soldiers and many were enlisted from the toughest regions including the
Central Asian Steppes which were similar to what the Mongols were bred in.
7) The Mamlukes had
studied the Mongol Army and its tactics therefore despite being highly mobile themselves the Mamlukes let go of any pride and decided not to let the Mongols engage them on a battlefield which offered high maneuverability.
Now as for the battle it was fought with great planning and a large part of the Mamluke army was hidden in the hills some distance away from the battlefield.
The Mamlukes made a
strategic retreat to this advantageous position after a pitched battle and then the hidden divisions launched many volleys into the heart of the Mongol army before ravaging them by heave cavalry assault on multiple fronts.
The Mongol general was outfoxed, outmaneuvered and surrounded but to his credit he stood his ground and was executed.
My point though has taken a lot of words (and bored many i assume) is actually very simple.
War is about discipline,skill, strategy and technology.
The will to fight is of course a basic requirement but just the presence of will does not mean anything if there is too much disparity between the combating armies.
In case of military disparity it is best to use diplomacy till the time one is ready to back their will with meaningful actions.
I am merely pointing out a tendency to downplay the brilliance and supremacy of Muslim armies and states with just faith alone.
That is a mistake and has made us many fools who think nothing else matters except faith.
I would quote a very popular
ex DG ISI (to say the least) who said that
"Taliban will smash America in Afghanistan within few months and that many green clad warriors (implying angels) are amongst them and the American bombs would destroy America instead."
To me this was a black day as i sat in
disbelief at these comments of a crackhead who was an ex general of one of the most professional armies of a Muslim country.
I am sure if Khalid bin Walid (RA) could hear it, he would have been in disbelief over what passes to be military analysis in the modern Muslim world.
