When Vijaynagra empire admitted Muslims into its army

[Samandri]

The defeats at the hands of Bahmani Sultan led Deva Raya II (1425-1446) to investigate into their causes. He summoned a council of his nobles and principle Brahmins, observing to them that his country, in population and revenue, far exceeded that of the house of Bahman, and also his army was more numerous. He requested them to point out the cause of the success of the Muslims and of his being reduced to pay them tribute.

He was told by his Councillors that the superiority of Musalman rulers arose out of two circumstances :"First , that their horses were stronger , and able to endure more fatigue than the weak animals of Carnatic ; secondly , that a great body of excellent archers was always maintained in pay by the Kings of the house of Bahman, of whom Raya had but few in his army. " Accordingly he at once launched a drastic scheme of military reform ; he admitted the Musalmans into his army on a large scale , conferred jagirs upon them , erected a mosque for their use in the city and offered other facilities for the free exercise of their religion ; and at the same time he made all the Hindu soldiers also learn the discipline of bow. By these measures he managed to raise an army of two thousands Musalman , and sixty thousands Hindus , well skilled in archery , beside eighty thousands horse and two hundred thousands foot , armed in usual manner with pikes and lances.

(Reference : Briggs, History of the rise of the Mohammedan power in India, II, 230-232 )

 

[AUSTERLITZ]

Horse and archery were always the foundations of muslim power in the subcontinent ,no surprises there.When marathas managed mastery of light cavalry,this was finally challenged.

 

[Joe Shearer]

Horse and archery were always the foundations of muslim power in the subcontinent ,no surprises there.When marathas managed mastery of light cavalry,this was finally challenged.

There was a major difference between the use of the horse by the Marathas and by the various other horsemen - Rajputs, Turks, Afghans and Persians.

The Marathas were quintessential light cavalry, very lightly armoured, mounted on scrubby mounts native to the Deccan, and moving with little baggage over long distances, surviving through loot and pillage. They obviously did best when attacking the enemy and fighting in enemy land, although they started by fighting defensive wars where they were able to rely on local support and sympathy.

All the others can be divided into two groups - the Rajputs and the Turks, Afghans and Persians taken together. While mounted archers were a specialty of the Turks, these tactics were quickly adopted by the others, and an army with these three components typically had a strong mounted archer component. That was missing with Rajput cavalry, which was true heavy cavalry.

This led to disparate tactics.

The most effective horsemen were the Turks, Afghans and Persians; they were able to move in a formidable body, retreat at speed when outnumbered, except when the opposition were light cavalry, and attack with bows from a distance, cause damage and loss of morale to the enemy and move in for the kill when the opponent was weakened. Their horses were formidable, and they had access to the best.

The most effective heavy cavalry were the Rajputs. Their charges could not be withstood, but they could be made to tire themselves out against troops withdrawing in good order from their charges and allowing little or no resistance. They were also vulnerable to flank or rear attacks, as their command and control structures were not very robust, and shifted from battle to battle. They lost most of their battles, certainly against the Mughals and Afghans and Persians.

The most effective light cavalry, however one that was a liability in battle, were the Marathas. They would "float like a butterfly, sting like a bee", and were never to be found in the numbers that would justify a pitched battle. They were unpredictable. They were fast. They were able to concentrate at short notice, and disperse at equally short notice.

Three types of horsemen, three styles of making war, three different ways of operating.

 

[AUSTERLITZ]

There is one difference - The turks and mughals in early stage at least could combine both light archer cavalry with heavy shock cavalry.This combination of fire and shock is their best asset.Combination of steppe cavalry/ghulam -mughal heavy cavalry.

While Afghans and Rajputs focused more on pure shock cavalry.Head on massed assault.Powerful charge and melee combat capability,but little finesse unless under a good commander.

Marathas are different type of light cavalry - largely lancers and mostly unarmoured(except silahdar category horsemen ) ,but very fast and so will catch up to mounted archers and destroy them in close combat.Against heavy cavalry they will tire out the horses by feigned retreats and hit and run, and launch flank atttacks and also use the reach of their lance.Against large combined arms force equipped with artillery they will harass supply lines and employ guerilla raiding warfare to demoralize and starve them.Deccan horses don't have the bulk of central asian breeds but great stamina.

 

[Samandri]

Deccan horses don't have the bulk of central asian breeds but great stamina.

Thats not true, Turki horses have greater stamina than Deccan horses.

About effectiveness of Maratha cavalry, they were totally outmatched by the Afghan cavalry (who were using Turki horses) in 18th century, who were able to shock the Maratha contingents (before the panipat battle) with speed of their lengthy marches. Sikhs also suffered great losses when Abdali was able to catch up to them due to stamina of their horses.

Such was the demand of these horses, that Afghan envoy to Beijing gifted four horses to the Qing Emperor , Qianlong, who ordered Milanese Jesuit missionary artist Giuseppe Castiglione to paintthe horses for him . The original paintings of the Afghan steeds are kept at the National Palace Museum in Taiwan.

 

[Joe Shearer]

There is one difference - The turks and mughals in early stage at least could combine both light archer cavalry with heavy shock cavalry.This combination of fire and shock is their best asset.Combination of steppe cavalry/ghulam -mughal heavy cavalry.

While Afghans and Rajputs focused more on pure shock cavalry.Head on massed assault.Powerful charge and melee combat capability,but little finesse unless under a good commander.

Marathas are different type of light cavalry - largely lancers and mostly unarmoured(except silahdar category horsemen ) ,but very fast and so will catch up to mounted archers and destroy them in close combat.Against heavy cavalry they will tire out the horses by feigned retreats and hit and run, and launch flank atttacks and also use the reach of their lance.Against large combined arms force equipped with artillery they will harass supply lines and employ guerilla raiding warfare to demoralize and starve them.Deccan horses don't have the bulk of central asian breeds but great stamina.

I think your appreciation of Maratha light cavalry is over-optimistic. Time and again, the heavier, hardier horses of the Afghans proved to be better. These chargers were both weight-carriers and agile war horses, not the lumbering cold-bloods of the European knight. Many were from present-day Tajikistan, from the valley of Ferghana, known from around 200 BC for its 'blood horses'. These horses were the reason why Chinese emperors at various times maintained relations with the region, whoever the ruler was, and from time to time, got tribute of horses.

It is difficult, if not impossible, to visualise a lancer catching up with a mounted archer and killing him. The lancer would be dead long before, especially a lightly-armoured lancer.

 

[AUSTERLITZ]

Thats not true, Turki horses have greater stamina than Deccan horses.

About effectiveness of Maratha cavalry, they were totally outmatched by the Afghan cavalry (who were using Turki horses) in 18th century, who were able to shock the Maratha contingents (before the panipat battle) with speed of their lengthy marches. Sikhs also suffered great losses when Abdali was able to catch up to them due to stamina of their horses.

Such was the demand of these horses, that Afghan envoy to Beijing gifted four horses to the Qing Emperor , Qianlong, who ordered Milanese Jesuit missionary artist Giuseppe Castiglione to paintthe horses for him . The original paintings of the Afghan steeds are kept at the National Palace Museum in Taiwan.

I didn't say deccan horses have 'greater' stamina but great stamina by themselves,even though they are not good battlehorses.Turkish and central asian horse breeds are on a whole much superior.It must be remembered that during the panipat campaign marathas abandoned their guerilla style warfare(which anyway was not as effective in the open north indian plains) and also burdened themselves with huge camp-followers and baggage train which they didn't do in their heydey under shivaji and bajirao.

Abdali's main trump card at panipat was his light artillery or zamburaks - swivel guns on camels to which marathas had no answer.However we can see how much obsolescent pure cavalry warfare was getting compared to european style drilled infantry. 8000 Gardi musketeers(trained french style in the carnatic) at panipat destroyed whole afghan right wing while maratha cavalry support was unable to do much effectively.
At Buxar 3 years later the combined forces of mughal emperor,nawab of awadh and bengal routed by much smaller numbers of British infantry and trained sepoys.After panipat ,mahadaji scindia who emerged as the premeir maratha warlord -making and unmaking the puppet emperors at delhi -his main power was in his european style infantry ,not cavalry.In the anglo-maratha wars maratha cavalry was described as 'rabble' ,its infantry and artillery put up much better performance at assaye for example.
I would compare the maratha cavalry to be similar to the cossacks.

 

[Joe Shearer]

I didn't say deccan horses have 'greater' stamina but great stamina by themselves,even though they are not good battlehorses.Turkish and central asian horse breeds are on a whole much superior.It must be remembered that during the panipat campaign marathas abandoned their guerilla style warfare(which anyway was not as effective in the open north indian plains) and also burdened themselves with huge camp-followers and baggage train which they didn't do in their heydey under shivaji and bajirao.

Abdali's main trump card at panipat was his light artillery or zamburaks - swivel guns on camels to which marathas had no answer.However we can see how much obsolescent pure cavalry warfare was getting compared to european style drilled infantry. 8000 Gardi musketeers(trained french style in the carnatic) at panipat destroyed whole afghan right wing while maratha cavalry support was unable to do much effectively.
At Buxar 3 years later the combined forces of mughal emperor,nawab of awadh and bengal routed by much smaller numbers of British infantry and trained sepoys.After panipat ,mahadaji scindia who emerged as the premeir maratha warlord -making and unmaking the puppet emperors at delhi -his main power was in his european style infantry ,not cavalry.In the anglo-maratha wars maratha cavalry was described as 'rabble' ,its infantry and artillery put up much better performance at assaye for example.
I would compare the maratha cavalry to be similar to the cossacks.

Thank you. An excellent summary.

I thought the Gardi were gunners, not musketeers.

 

[AUSTERLITZ]

I think your appreciation of Maratha light cavalry is over-optimistic. Time and again, the heavier, hardier horses of the Afghans proved to be better. These chargers were both weight-carriers and agile war horses, not the lumbering cold-bloods of the European knight. Many were from present-day Tajikistan, from the valley of Ferghana, known from around 200 BC for its 'blood horses'. These horses were the reason why Chinese emperors at various times maintained relations with the region, whoever the ruler was, and from time to time, got tribute of horses.

It is difficult, if not impossible, to visualise a lancer catching up with a mounted archer and killing him. The lancer would be dead long before, especially a lightly-armoured lancer.

I am not being overoptimistic,otherwise marathas could not have tormented aurangzeb for 27 years and bajirao wouldn't have won so many battles over 2 decades.Maharashtra is an agricultural deficit area,with poor revenues.The mughals had the whole resources of the subcontinent and the immense revenues of subah bengal and the gangetic doab ,firearms and large amounts of artillery.This same mughal army much depleted after nadir shah's invasion in 1739 and defeats to bajirao at bhopal in 1737 ,defeated abdali in 1748.

The lancer also had a shield to protect upper body and 2 the archer might kill the first rank,but -1 he needs open flat spaces to manuever away(usually marathas won't accept battle on such ground) if he can't second rank is on him and then he can't get away.

 

[Joe Shearer]

I am not being overoptimistic,otherwise marathas could not have tormented aurangzeb for 27 years and bajirao wouldn't have won so many battles over 2 decades.Maharashtra is an agricultural deficit area,with poor revenues.The mughals had the whole resources of the subcontinent and the immense revenues of subah bengal and the gangetic doab ,firearms and large amounts of artillery.This same mughal army defeated abdali in 1748.

The lancer also had a shield to protect upper body and 2 the archer might kill the first rank,but -1 he needs open flat spaces to manuever away(usually marathas won't accept battle on such ground) if he can't second rank is on him and then he can't get away.

I think I will try and get hold of additional data on this. Interesting that lancers evolved in Europe long after mounted archers disappeared, starting with the Polish winged hussars. The whole Sarmatian theme fascinates me.

I am not being overoptimistic,otherwise marathas could not have tormented aurangzeb for 27 years and bajirao wouldn't have won so many battles over 2 decades.Maharashtra is an agricultural deficit area,with poor revenues.The mughals had the whole resources of the subcontinent and the immense revenues of subah bengal and the gangetic doab ,firearms and large amounts of artillery.This same mughal army much depleted after nadir shah's invasion in 1739 and defeats to bajirao at bhopal in 1737 ,defeated abdali in 1748.

The lancer also had a shield to protect upper body and 2 the archer might kill the first rank,but -1 he needs open flat spaces to manuever away(usually marathas won't accept battle on such ground) if he can't second rank is on him and then he can't get away.

Strange that European lancers fought without shields. As did European hussars, dragoons and cuirassiers.

 

[AUSTERLITZ]

I think I will try and get hold of additional data on this. Interesting that lancers evolved in Europe long after mounted archers disappeared, starting with the Polish winged hussars. The whole Sarmatian theme fascinates me.

The sarmatians are credited with creating the original cataphracts.
It is thought that the scythian scale armour(also adopted by later achaemenid persian cavalry) was mated to the macedonian xyston(popularized by alexander's army) to produce the armoured lancer.The armour evolved -but lance more or less remained same.
Lancers in western europe evolve from the late carolingian era -after charlemagne.First true lancers employing the couched lance charge being the norman knights.

I think I will try and get hold of additional data on this. Interesting that lancers evolved in Europe long after mounted archers disappeared, starting with the Polish winged hussars. The whole Sarmatian theme fascinates me.



Strange that European lancers fought without shields. As did European hussars, dragoons and cuirassiers.

Original knights fought with kite shields ,you are talking about 17th century and napoleonic era cavalry,where shield was deemed useless because - they can't stop bullets and plate armour is much superior to wooden shield.

 

[Joe Shearer]

The sarmatians are credited with creating the original cataphracts.
It is thought that the scythian scale armour(also adopted by later achaemenid persian cavalry) was mated to the macedonian xyston(popularized by alexander's army) to produce the armoured lancer.The armour evolved -but lance more or less remained same.
Lancers in western europe evolve from the late carolingian era -after charlemagne.First true lancers employing the couched lance charge being the norman knights.



Original knights fought with kite shields ,you are talking about 17th century and napoleonic era cavalry,where shield was deemed useless because - they can't stop bullets and plate armour is much superior to wooden shield.

Thank you for the inputs on the evolution of armour. I had read up on it at some time - never in such precise detail as you have used in your post - and have successfully forgotten all about it.

The mention you make of Norman knights, and their association with kite shields, doesn't sound right. Kite shields and swords, yes, by the time lances evolved for mediaeval chivalry, the shield was of classical shape. Perhaps it was an evolution?

 

[AUSTERLITZ]

Thank you for the inputs on the evolution of armour. I had read up on it at some time - never in such precise detail as you have used in your post - and have successfully forgotten all about it.

The mention you make of Norman knights, and their association with kite shields, doesn't sound right. Kite shields and swords, yes, by the time lances evolved for mediaeval chivalry, the shield was of classical shape. Perhaps it was an evolution?

This is what i'm talking about.See the kite shield and couched lance.These are the first true medieval knights -heyday is around 1000 AD-1200 AD.Spearheaded the norman conquest of england,sicily,parts of byzantine empire and the early crusades.

 

[Joe Shearer]

This is what i'm talking about.See the kite shield and couched lance.These are the first true medieval knights -heyday is around 1000 AD-1200 AD.Spearheaded the norman conquest of england,sicily,parts of byzantine empire and the early crusades.

Brilliant.

 

[AUSTERLITZ]

Brilliant.

I always found military history without pictures and maps quite confusing monotonous narrative.But once u add those 2 ,its a great topic.