Has Anyone Here Written A Paper On Historical/Mythological War Tactics?

[Pay Per Ghost]

I don't mean to plagiarize, I just need some inspiration that this paper will be worth the undertaking. I have to submit a paper, that will be published in a magazine, and me being an anthropology/sociology student, I just wanted to do this one.

 

[Dirk]

This might come off as a little crazy, but Age of empires has a surprisingly insightful "history" section. I'm sure you'll be able to find some fansite with something...

 

[Барбоса]

The Hannibalic Triumvirate - the Battle of the River Trebia (218BCE), the Battle of Lake Trasimene (217BCE) and the Battle of Cannae (216BCE)

Almost everything you might like to know about ancient military tactics is in those three battles.

 

[Steamboat Ricky]

Lol, Barbosa got here before I could recommend him.


I've written a paper on Confederate military strategies at the Battle of Gettysburg.

 

[Shadowmancer]

You could read Herodotus

 

[Pay Per Ghost]

You could read Herodotus

Can I read it off wikipedia?

The Hannibalic Triumvirate - the Battle of the River Trebia (218BCE), the Battle of Lake Trasimene (217BCE) and the Battle of Cannae (216BCE)

Almost everything you might like to know about ancient military tactics is in those three battles.

This sounds exciting, also I have an inkling of including Chanakya's book on state-social governance and war tactics too. Anyone here familiar to that?

 

[Uncle Phatso]

Just send a pm to Barbs, he knows more about history than the forums combined. Save your time.

 

[Барбоса]

I've written a paper on Confederate military strategies at the Battle of Gettysburg.

Despite me being an ancient historian, Gettysburg has always fascinated me as a military engagement as it encapsulates so many aspects of military tactics and strategy, success and folly, heroism and stupidity.

Buford's selection of the battlefield and skilful defensive action to secure it; the almost inexplicable absence of JEB Stuart and his cavalry at the outset; the heroic bayonet charge of the 20th Maine down Little Round Top; the ridiculousness and futility of Pickett's Charge and Longstreet's opposing of it (real or not) and Meade's predicting of it.

It all makes for a great but horrifying story.

 

[Pay Per Ghost]

You are the unoffical gatekeeper of war stories here.


I will soon commemorate a thread, with you telling tales of yoke and glory in it, as we all sit around in a circle whispering 'I wish he was my granddaddy'.


I am actually looking into the 3 crusades as well. Yum Yum Islam.

 

[Барбоса]

I am actually looking into the 3 crusades as well. Yum Yum Islam.

Not much in the way of military tactics during the Crusades - it was mostly the sheer brutality of the heavily armed knights and western cavalry (along with their ridiculous levels of faith in themselves) that was responsible for their successes, while it was over-confidence and sheer Muslim weight of numbers that accounted for their defeats.

The First Crusade is truly an epic story though. It really does deserve a good modern telling - the Crusader victories at Antioch against Duqaq, Ridwan and then Kerbogha are about as close to a military 'miracle' as you are likely to get.

 

[Pay Per Ghost]

What draws me to the crusades is that that maybe the first time that the Moguls/Muslim empire was heavily defeated. The Moguls were all basically the descendants of Kublai Khan, Genghis Khan from the Mongolian plateaus, and were absolutely barbaric in the ways they conquered a land. Some of the death tolls are staggering, they are responsible for mass rapes and genocide that would be the envy of any African dictator.

Down from them came really the first Mogul emperor, Babar. The Moguls then ruled for some 400 years and then eventually just imploded. Yet this victory of the Knights over the Islamic reign in the holyland may show what their biggest flaw was: overconfidence. Mogul historians have completely distorted history through their own Shah-e-Zubaani (Word of the King). So it is hard to find a credible counter-point source.

For Fuck's sake, The Taj Mahal is a Hindu Temple that was present before Shah Jahan 'built' it. It is not Mumtaz Mahal's tomb, and that is not even her real name.

 

[Барбоса]

What draws me to the crusades is that that maybe the first time that the Moguls/Muslim empire was heavily defeated.

Whoa there. Moguls and the crusades? The Moguls might have been Muslim but they had nothing to do with the crusades as their empire did not come into existence until more than a century after the defeat of the 'last' crusade at Nicopolis in 1396.

The Moguls were all basically the descendants of Kublai Khan, Genghis Khan from the Mongolian plateaus, and were absolutely barbaric in the ways they conquered a land. Some of the death tolls are staggering, they are responsible for mass rapes and genocide that would be the envy of any African dictator.

Descendants of Genghis through his son, Chagatai certainly (and by extension the other great conqueror, Tamerlane - who if I am not mistaken made a right fucking mess of Delhi during his conquests). Not sure about the links to Kublai though.

For Fuck's sake, The Taj Mahal is a Hindu Temple that was present before Shah Jahan 'built' it. It is not Mumtaz Mahal's tomb, and that is not even her real name.

Genghis Khan was not his name either...

And the idea that the Taj Mahal was built by someone other than Shah Jahan is a conspiracy theory - the same person, P.N. Oak, claimed that Hindus built the Kaaba, Vatican and Stonehenge...

 

[Pay Per Ghost]

I was basically connecting the Muslim empire of the crusades and the Moguls on the basis of their sheer dominance. I don't think I can do that can I?


Was it Chagatai who ripped through Iran and his army killed like thousands? The Moguls had to alienate themselves from their Khan lineage in the later years just to draw any sort of support during the early stages of their empire.

Didn't know about his other claims and now you make me feel foolish. There is some proof there though. Shah Jahan's love tale for Mumtaz is just filled with pot holes. Undying love my ass, the architecture alone is refutable. As much as people like saying 'oh its dome shaped, has to be islamic' I have seen dome shaped Hindu temples as well as ancient monuments that would kick that diatribe to the curb.

 

[Барбоса]

I was basically connecting the Muslim empire of the crusades and the Moguls on the basis of their sheer dominance. I don't think I can do that can I?

Not a link I think you would want to be making as you could say the same about virtually any empire in history. There is also nothing tactical about any of it if that is the main idea of your paper.

Also the Muslim empire at the time of the Crusades was far less unified than they usually appear on a map - the Seljuk Sultanate/Empire was falling apart at the time, which is the reason why the defence of the Holy Land was conducted by regional commanders like Duqaq of Damascus, Ridwan of Aleppo, Kerbogha and even the Fatimids of Egypt and ultimately the real reason that the First Crusade was successful at all.

With a strong, centralised government, the Muslims would have crushed the crusaders against the walls of Antioch, or even before on the plains of Anatolia.

Was it Chagatai who ripped through Iran and his army killed like thousands?

Chagatai himself did not invade Iran, although the armies of the Turko-Mongol khanate he founded did under Tamerlane in the late 14th century. Another Mongol commander, Hulagu, conquered Iran and Iraq in the late 1250s and founded the Ilkhanate there.

The Moguls had to alienate themselves from their Khan lineage in the later years just to draw any sort of support during the early stages of their empire.

I know they were having trouble with the Marathas and eventually capitulated in the face of British expansion but that is as far as my knowledge of the Mughals goes.

Didn't know about his other claims and now you make me feel foolish. There is some proof there though. Shah Jahan's love tale for Mumtaz is just filled with pot holes. Undying love my ass, the architecture alone is refutable. As much as people like saying 'oh its dome shaped, has to be islamic' I have seen dome shaped Hindu temples as well as ancient monuments that would kick that diatribe to the curb.

There are always plot holes in such love stories - it is likely more a symbol of power rather than love - but when the only person to say that the Taj Mahal is not a Muslim mausoleum is a crackpot intent on making literally EVERYTHING Hindu-centric, I will believe the official narrative that it is a Muslim building built under the auspices of a Muslim emperor.

As to the architecture, the Taj Mahal is not considered to be strictly Islamic. It is considered Mughal, a style that incorporates many different styles, including Indian.

 

[Pay Per Ghost]

There is a certain connection I need to bring it to the place I live at the moment, Nepal and this paper. I study at a public college here, hardly attend lectures (due to work and sessions), do some last minute cramming and pass all the exams. But I have always wanted to submit a paper to a) write about something that has always intrigued and interested me, b) see how I would stand compared to others.They don't need me to submit a paper but I want to. The fact is, this paper might even be first of its kind here.

The standard here is poor, and I can't begin to explain the sheer lunacy in the text books. I was encouraged by my girlfriend to really pursue releasing some sort of guide book or a small paper on what it is that the books are trying to cover.

Coming back, I could write a small book on the Mughals after some research as their stories have been passed down from generation to generation here. And I voraciously ate up the whole East India/British Invasion and Medieval India when I was in school. I have read about the Mughals extensively out of sheer interest. There are some claims by the Mughals Takht that can be refuted EASILY. But the problem is, even a small counter-point is taken as Islamophobic. So I have to kinda watch what I write, however it would be much more trouble if I release the paper in India, Nepal not so much.



Coming back again, I want to show how exactly the Muslim emperors started, their war practices tactics, and how they evolved over the years. I am afraid I will have to do a LOT of research to achieve this feat. And maybe should stick to something specific. If I decide to break open the Taj Mahal story and explain how it is the 5th Shaktipeeth of Lord Shiva and originally called Tejo Mahalaya, well I'd have to head down to Agra, India myself. Problem is, the keepers of history are very biased, and religiously insane.

 

[Барбоса]

But the problem is, even a small counter-point is taken as Islamophobic. So I have to kinda watch what I write, however it would be much more trouble if I release the paper in India, Nepal not so much.

Talking about the Indian invasion of Tamerlane and his butchery at Delhi might not be the best thing to look at then...

Coming back again, I want to show how exactly the Muslim emperors started, their war practices tactics, and how they evolved over the years. I am afraid I will have to do a LOT of research to achieve this feat. And maybe should stick to something specific. If I decide to break open the Taj Mahal story and explain how it is the 5th Shaktipeeth of Lord Shiva and originally called Tejo Mahalaya, well I'd have to head down to Agra, India myself.

The Taj Mahal origin story might get some reads, although you would have to approach it in a far more scientific and open-minded way and with less reliance on circumstantial evidence than the likes of PN Oak did.

Also arguing against the weight of knowledge and evidence is very difficult to get taken seriously.

Problem is, the keepers of history are very biased, and religiously insane.

Tradition, religious or otherwise, is the real enemy of historical investigation.

 

[Pay Per Ghost]

To a huge degree religion excites me. In particular mythological tales based on some architectural or physical evidence that is around; that piques my interest. But at the same time no religion will put its guard down and ever be open to scientific scrutiny, with the exception of Buddhism maybe.

I really do believe there is no REAL physical evidence left to support The Tejo Mahalaya story, unless I dig up some ancient text about the Maharaja Gharana of Agra. This is impossible because the Moguls destroyed all temples, scriptures that they could get their hands on. And I really am not exaggerating this part. There is hardly anything left, unless I show how they over exaggerate the Shah-E-Nama, and how it is for most parts, just a fictitious tale of how a king wants to be portrayed in history. As it is everybody now with a counter-argument is branded a conspiracy nut.

 

[Барбоса]

That suggests to me that the origin of the Hindu temple at Agra could have some foundation in fact but only in the way that there may have been a temple there before the Mughal conquest only for it to be destroyed and the site later used by the conquerors to build the Taj Mahal.

But to me, the whole 'Hindus built it but Muslims took the credit for it decades later' is not much less out there than saying aliens built the Pyramids. If there was proof beyond the suggestion that a Shah embellished the reason for his building of an ornate monument to his power/wealth/love, archaeologists and historians with no interest in maintaining the Muslim status quo or promoting Hinduism at all costs would have found it by now.

 

[Pay Per Ghost]

The one piece of evidence that should be looked upon is the the fact that all the tombs used by the Mughals were built by previous rulers. The Red Fort and Old Fort at Delhi, these got Urdu names and then became synonymous with the Mughal conquest, however, their original builders were Sher Shah Suri, Raziya Sultana before that. There is a case of tampering with history, and it not so for promoting Hinduism. Rather, the Mughals plundered, and then added inscriptions and Minars to make it look like their own and promote the glory of Islam.

Another big observation to be made in the Taj Mahal story is the fact that Mosques, Takhts or tombs never incorporate the use of gardens. Yet, there is a huge garden in the Taj Mahal compound, that defies logic. Even when the Babri Masjid was demolished in 92 sparking religious violence, the walls within the debris showed Hindu inscriptions. Every dynasty, ruler basically does this to promote himself and his religion and that is understandable. But with the Mughals, the history of an item/building/place before their arrival is all but wiped out. The Kohinoor diamond for example was the property of the Rajputs and was in India way before the Mughals came, yet we only know it by its Urdu name.


Anyway, coming back to war tactics, weapons would be a great area to touch upon. Now some numbers suggested during Babar's campaign onto Delhi are quite unbelievable. Like 25,000 of his forces armed with the newly acquired matchlock muskets against 100,000 of Ibrahim Lodi's forces. There are a lot of stories of Mughal forces being outnumbered by a ridiculous number and still winning.

 

[Барбоса]

When it comes to any numbers to do with armies from pre-industrial times, I find thata Rule of 10 is called for - so if a source that is find to be somewhat unreliable claims 25,000, the real number is probably closer to 2,500; although I would be more wary of using such an ad hoc device in India as I do not have enough knowledge of army sizes there.

Plus small armies with superior weaponry have been known to defeat overwhelming numbers - look at the British conquests in India, Africa and elsewhere

 

[Shadowmancer]

I always thought there was a different mechanic than the rule of ten. I worked on the basis that the numbers were inflated, but the "enemy" was inflated to be larger to show how heroic the other army was. Case in point Marathon and Plataea. Even some of the later Roman battles.

 

[Барбоса]

Of course, the Rule of Ten is not to be applied in sweeping generalisation but I find that it gives me a more likely idea of the size of the forces involved.

You are right though about it being mostly applied to the 'enemy' depending on who is writing the sources, although having said that, the Persian armies that invaded Greece were still mammoth in size, even when the Rule of Ten is applied - millions becoming just hundreds of thousands.

 

[Pay Per Ghost]

I think if we just concede to all historical accounts of rulers, there is a serious doubt in believing our history. It is true, details about every ruler is blown, so people always speak of his power and prowess with pride, but I do believe there are some credible dynasties who have gone fictitious with their tales. Mughals are one of them.


They would destroy literature, blow up statues (the Jain Statue in Rajasthan) destroy temples, all to promote their own religion. Which is what every religion has done at some point. Historical recounts are by these Mughals themselves and more than often seem severely exaggerated.

 

[Барбоса]

How about the Battle of Hydapses if you are looking for an instance of good battlefield tactics that also includes Indians (admittedly on the losing side)?

 

[Pay Per Ghost]

I do not know of this or can't recall at the moment. What happened?