Maharajah Ranjeet Singh

[Faris_Udeen]

Re: Maharajah Ranjeet Singh

@khoji

Hello Faris, I hope you realize that most of what you said made them “formidable” is just your own opinion.

Indeed your quite right there. However that opinion is formed on sound reasoning and thorough understanding of the dynamics of warfare.

@khoji

Individual martial arts skills may be good in hand to hand combat but are of no use in a battle.

My friend do you even realise what you are writing? Individual skills in martial arts make all the difference in combat be that a single combat scenario or a multitude the principle is the same. Tests have proven that you can equip a man with the most up to date weaponry available but if he is not fit or sufficiently proficient at combat then most weapons advantages are null. Individual combat and unit combat are both part of martial arts, but they need not be limited to melee weapons even snipers and fighter pilots are required to be proficient in close combat.

@khoji

. As far as weaponry, while you are eulogizing many of them but where were they when Sikhs started losing battles later on?

Again it’s quite clear you have no idea about the history behind the Sikh Wars. When the Sikh empire finally fought the British it lost not becuase the Khalsa was inferior to the East India company at fighting battles but becuase it was poorly led in fact battles like Mudki, Ferozshar and Chilianwalla were Sikh victories and at FerozShar the Sikhs were outnumbered but still won the battle only the reluctance of thier leaders (evidence suggests that commanders like Tej Singh and Lal Singh were actually agents of the British) who let down the Sikh army.

@khoji

The reason they were winning was neither weaponry nor martial arts. And they certainly not “formidable”.

Again I must challenge you my friend weaponry and martial prowess make all the difference in battle, these days Politics tends to seep into the battlefield a lot more so but essentially on a tactical perspective battles are still won and lost by armies abilities anyone who thinks martial prowess and weapons know-how does not make an impact on the battlefield has no idea what warfare is really about. If you look into it closely you will see that in fact ability to fight with superior skills is the priciple reason on which armies survive… you have to be tough and tougher you are the longer you will last.

@khoji

Their winning had much to do with religious zeal. The same reason Muslims used to win battles in the early days of Islam. Another reason of their winning was the weak rulers in Kabul.

I am not going to take away anything from religous zealots here I used to be one as well, but strictly from experience while ideological commitment certainly gives you an edge it’s not tactically a very good platform for a fighting force… simply having more belief does not win battles. Belief can give a side more “staying power” over a war, gradually through attrition the side with the stronger will to fight on will win, but on the battlefield if you think simply a desire to win is better than actually skill then your very wrong.

Mercenaries and Privateers as well as elite units such as Special forces will always be more likely to win battles becuase of superior training, experience and better tactical knowledge as well as fighting skills. Conscripts and Volunteer armies might be full of zeal and a will to win but lack of experience makes them poor performers in actual combat and especially in close engagements. If you do some research you will come to find that ideological commitment was not the only reason why the 8th Century armies of Islam won thier battles, they had superior tactics and better fighting skills particulalry individual combat made all the difference. The Koran and Hadith make it clear that early Muslim armies suceeded in many battles often through superior hand to hand combat and duels. Duels were the turning point in many battles actually and History proves this.

The early armies of Islam and the armies of the Sikh empire were very different. The Islamic armies to some extent were probably more religous but you do know that the Sikh artillery was commanded by Muslims dont you? Mian Goussa was Ranjit Singhs chief artillery officer. Also the Amry that held out at Chillianwalla was supported by Dost Mohammands Afghans and the Siege of Multan was backed by many Pathans and Balochis too. The early armies of Islam did not have this sort of secular support.

You are however right about Kabul being ruled by weaker Monarchs and this was a factor to the Sikh expansion but no lets not downplay the Sikhs here they really were one of the three greatest Indian forces of that era. At one point they came to almost destroy the East India company as a force becuase the Night battle of Ferozshar was one of the closest fights the british ever fought in India.