Thread by @authorAneesh

Panipat III , the Infantry Square and Military modernisation.

Was Sadashivrao thinking process too much ahead of its time ?

The late 1700s and early 1800s saw a drastic change in open field warfare.

Suddenly, small well equipped and well trained armies could win with odds of 5-1 are inflict major casualties.

The musket was being made in much greater numbers , but still notoriously slow loading and inaccurate. But at the same time, deadly.

Army officers quickly came up with the musket drill and discipline of firing volleys.

Soldiers would be arranged in tight knit squares or rectangles, with supplies and officer cadre types in the centre hollow.

Entire Cavalry charges could be brought down - Napolean did in his Egypt campaign, managing to slaughter 20000 Mamluk troops for a loss of 300 odd.

Heavy artillery and Cavalry were used in conjunction.

It was a firm departure from the past, where numbers mattered most. Now simply outnumbering the opponent no longer guaranteed success.

But there were certain pre requisites for this to succeed.

First was a strong central leadership, which alone decided how the square was to behave (Napolean for instance)

Everyone in the infantry Square had to be on same page.

Well trained musketeers and artillery chiefs.

Sadashivrao was chosen to lead the Marathas to Panipat

1. He promised a lower cost of waging war.

2. The Cavalry - Artillery combination had been tested at Udgir.

TS Shejwalkar's book on Panipat gives a good description of the square or rather rectangle employed by Sadashivrao.

At the front was Ibrahim Khan Gardi's heavy artillery - literally for blowing a hole into the opposition. Arranged in a triangle to their rear were musketeers.

This was the spearhead of the attack. The cannons would do the damage and musketeers get rid of opposition artillery and cavalry.

On the flanks was Cavalry, to harrass the opposing flanks and occupy territory "cleared" by Ibrahim Khan.

As obvious, it needed strong discipline and a thorough knowledge of the tactic to succeed. Infantry needed to be firm in the face of stiff opposition and the cavalry had to be prevented from going overboard.

Quite possible very few in the Maratha camp understood this fully

It was like sending a new opening combination on the eve of the world cup final.

The discipline to keep the cavalry in check was absent , with the result that on the first opening provided by Ibrahim Khan, Vinchurkar and Gaikwad rushed ahead.

The rectangular formation soon broke up to reassamble into a line type formation similar to the Afghan crescent formation.

Rest we know what happened.

The initial plan was to devastate the Afghan right, consisting mainly of Jezail armed Rohillas and some part of their Camel mounted artillery.

Then they would make for the Yamuna, the rectangle adjusting itself as required.

Ibrahim Khan Gardi was a Telugu Muslim trained under the French in today's Andhra Pradesh coastal regions (Northern Circars)

The Marathas never discussed the Panipat debacle thread bare. In fact, the closest contemporary record we have is of a fellow called Kashiraj who was in Shuja's camp.

The Artillery - Cavalry experiment died a premature death.

While in the 20th century Marathi historians have discussed Panipat threadbare to the point of inducing nausea, it was never deliberated upon by the people to whom it mattered most - 18th century Marathas.

Fast forward to Second Anglo Maratha War. (1803)

The Marathas have evolved, under Mahadji Scindia, into an Infantry - Artillery force , with Cavalry forming the harassment element ! European armies, such as Napoleon, start scoring huge victories.

But the leadership of these new 'Western style' armies was entirely French.

Ibrahim Khan Gardi was an Indian. He kept fighting on the side of Swarajya even when it became crystal clear that Panipat III was ending in a disaster.

There were two things the Europeans kept firmly in their grasp.

1. Manufacturing of weapons. Which meant that Indian armies could never procure sufficient number of arms.

2. Leadership cadre of infantry - artillery armies. A most crucial element.

Very clever.

On the eve of battles against the British, French officers of Maratha armies under Daulatrao Scindia simply deserted to the EIC. Payment was not an issue, most of these Europeans owned jagirs.

But the mercenary is clueless about Swarajya etc.

Going back to Panipat III

Here was an Indian trained in the French ways of handling artillery and cavalry combinations. Imperfect execution yes, but interesting to think what trajectory history might have taken had Marathas persisted in some way with the new experiment.

Salaried , disciplined, well trained soldiers - a modern army !

Certainly the debacles of Dudrenec and others quitting the field prior battle with General Gerard Lake would not have happened.

Much is made of the Maratha lack of "allies" -- meaning lack of numbers on the battlefield. Sadashivrao probably never believed Panipat to be a ' I got more sword weilding soldiers than you' kind of game. Lack of allies caused other things, but possibly not seen as a factor then

The great historian Rajwade says that "lack of scientific temperament" caused the Maratha downfall.

This thread a good example of what that means.