The First Battle of Panipat: Babur's Artillery Innovation (May 12, 1526)

Marathi History Book Reading Session Summary

The Historical Context: Looking Back to 1526

Why Compare?

The Pattern:

• First Battle of Panipat: 1526 (Babur vs. Ibrahim Lodi)
• Third Battle of Panipat: 1761 (Marathas vs. Abdali)
• 235 years apart
• Same location
• Both decisive battles
• Both changed Indian history

The Parallel:

• Both about who controls northern India
• Both involve invaders vs. local powers
• Both about military innovation
• Both involve massive armies
• Bhau studying first battle to understand current one

Babur: The Outsider with a Dream

The Background

Who He Was:

• Royal blood from Samarkand (Uzbekistan)
• Dethroned in his own country
• Young prince with no future at home
• Unemployed royalty seeking opportunity
• Decided: "Let's go to India"

His Desperation:

• Nothing left for him in Uzbekistan
• Couldn't reclaim his lost throne
• Too weak to fight his way back
• Successors had no interest in returning
• Better prospects existed elsewhere

The Indian Option:

• Heard about India's wealth and resources
• Much richer than Uzbekistan
• Room for ambitious newcomers
• Opportunity for empire-building
• Perfect place for displaced royal

His Reluctant Choice

His True Feelings:

• Never actually liked India
• Always wanted to return to Uzbekistan
• Homesick for his mountain homeland
• But couldn't because: nothing left there
• Resigned himself to Indian empire-building

His Successors' Different View:

• They embraced India immediately
• Found it far better than home
• Resources abundant
• Room to grow exponentially
• Never looked back or dreamed of returning

The Comparison:

• Babur: "I'm stuck here but I miss home"
• His descendants: "Why would we ever leave?"
• India was indeed "golden goose"
• 100 times richer than Uzbekistan
• They never questioned this choice

Babur Arrives at Panipat: May 12, 1526

The Opposition

Ibrahim Khan Lodi:

• King of Delhi (but not large empire)
• Controlled territory mainly around Delhi
• Smaller kingdom compared to Babur's ambitions
• Defending his throne against invasion
• Fighting for survival

The Comparison:

• Babur: Military innovator, experienced
• Lodi: Traditional defender, conventional
• Babur: Had fought Uzbeks (tested against quality opponents)
• Lodi: Defending territory he inherited
• Skill differential unclear but real

Babur's Strategy: Artillery + Cart Defenses

The Innovative Setup

Babur's Description (from his writings):

• "On our right hand side was the town of Panipat and neighboring villages"
• "With us were our carts and whatever defensive mechanisms we had"
• "On the left hand side was a trench and many plants and trees"
• "Within arrow's reach (about 75-100 meters) were 100-200 cavalry forces"

The Defensive System:

• Carts placed in front as physical barrier
• Trench dug on left flank
• Cavalry positioned strategically
• Artillery units integrated with formation
• Gaps left for cavalry to advance through

The Revolutionary Concept

The Innovation:

• Artillery pieces positioned FIRST
• Foot soldiers positioned BETWEEN artillery units
• Cavalry positioned to advance THROUGH the gaps
• Artillery leading attack (unusual for time)
• Coordinated multi-unit assault

Why This Mattered:

• Usually cavalry leads, infantry supports
• Babur reversed it: artillery leads, then cavalry
• "Guns blazing" approach (literally)
• Enemy unprepared for this tactic
• Novel military strategy

The Psychological Warfare: Baiting Lodi

Babur's Calculation

His Assumption:

• Lodi less mature as military commander than Uzbek foes
• If Uzbeks wouldn't attack his prepared position, Lodi couldn't either
• Referenced 1514 battle in Uzbekistan where Uzbeks retreated
• Thought: "Lodi is clearly inferior to Uzbeks"
• Conclusion: "He will foolishly attack"

The Taunt:

• 7-8 days of positioning in front of Lodi's army
• Shooting arrows at Lodi's camp
• Beheading Lodi's soldiers as spectacle
• Clearly provoking him
• Deliberately baiting him into attack

The Bait Works:

• Lodi takes the bait (as predicted)
• Attacks Babur's fortified position
• Exactly what Babur wanted
• 8th day of battle: Lodi finally charges
• Babur prepared for exact moment

The Battle: May 12, 1527 (possibly date confusion in sources)

Lodi's Mistake

The Attack:

• Charged at Babur's prepared fortifications
• Ran into artillery + cart defenses
• Attacked at disadvantage
• No time to adapt strategy
• Momentum wasted on defenses

The Casualties:

• 1,000+ Lodi's forces killed
• Artillery devastating infantry charge
• Cart defenses slowing advance
• Cavalry counter-attacks from gaps
• Coordinated assault too much to handle

The Decisive Moment

The Outcome:

• By noon (12 o'clock), battle decided
• Lodi killed in fighting
• His army routed
• Total defeat in single day
• Complete victory for Babur

The Significance:

• First invader successfully took Delhi
• New dynasty established (Mughal)
• Changed Indian power structure
• Artillery proved decisive
• Military innovation won the day

The Lesson for 1761

Babur's Success Factors

What Worked:

1. Defensive position: Fortified, prepared, controlled
2. Artillery innovation: Guns blazing first, then cavalry
3. Psychological understanding: Knowing enemy psychology
4. Preparation advantage: Choosing time/place of battle
5. Courage of conviction: Confidence in strategy

What Lodi Lacked:

1. No artillery: Relied on traditional cavalry
2. Inferior strategy: Frontal cavalry charge against prepared position
3. Inexperience: Hadn't faced artillery before
4. Desperation: Feeling baited, lost judgment
5. No innovation: Fighting with conventional tactics

The 1761 Connection

For Bhau Studying This:

• Babur won with artillery + fortifications
• Lodi lost with cavalry-only approach
• Parallel: Bhau has artillery, Abdali doesn't
• Parallel: Marathas should fortify, Afghans attack
• Should work same way?

The Problem:

• Babur was master strategist
• Bhau is innovator but less experienced
• Babur faced cavalry-only opponent
• Abdali has proven battlefield experience
• Confidence doesn't guarantee success

The Weapons Analysis

Babur's Artillery

What He Had:

• Cannons (described as "guns")
• Artillery regiment
• Integration with other forces
• Effective range and impact
• Devastating against cavalry charge

Why It Was Decisive:

• Lodi had no counter
• Couldn't defend against cannon fire
• Traditional cavalry tactics useless
• Training of troops didn't matter
• Technology overwhelmed tactics

Lodi's Elephant-Based Forces

The Traditional Approach:

• Elephants as centerpiece
• Cavalry support
• Foot soldiers
• No artillery equivalent
• 40 years of tradition

The Obsolescence:

• Elephants vulnerable to cannon fire
• Cavalry doesn't counter artillery
• Tactics irrelevant against new tech
• Experience means nothing
• Old way obsolete

The Geography Lesson

Panipat's Strategic Value

Then (1526):

• Key position on route Delhi-Lahore
• Controls access to Delhi
• Town provides resources
• Natural assembly point for armies
• Gateway location

Now (1761):

• Same strategic importance
• Same Grand Trunk Road
• Same geographical logic
• Same armies being drawn there
• History repeating

The Consistency:

• 235 years later
• Same location chosen
• Same strategic reasoning
• Same outcome (decisive battle)
• Geography shapes history

The Key Differences to Consider

Babur vs. Bhau Situations

The Sambhaji Connection

The Movie Context

Why This Matters:

• Just watched Sambhaji movie (Bollywood film)
• About Maratha resistance to Aurangzeb
• Sambhaji son of Shivaji
• 1680-1689 (9 years of rule)
• Tortured and killed by Aurangzeb

The Timeline Connection:

• Shivaji founded empire (1674)
• Sambhaji continued resistance (1680-1689)
• Aurangzeb attacked relentlessly
• Marathas survived under different rule
• 72 years later: Third Panipat battle

The Historical Arc:

• Shivaji: Created resistance
• Sambhaji: Continued resistance
• Aurangzeb era: Constant fighting
• Post-Aurangzeb: Maratha revival
• 1761: Ultimate test of empire

The Broader Pattern

Why Panipat Repeatedly?

The Geographic Logic:

• Only major battle site that made sense
• Controls all northern movement
• Grand Trunk Road passes through
• Gateway to Delhi repeatedly
• Armies naturally drawn here

The Stakes:

• Control Delhi = control north India
• Control north India = dominance
• Therefore: Battles must happen here
• History repeated because geography remained constant
• Same logic applies 235 years later

Where This Leads: By studying Babur's victory, Bhau might think artillery equals guaranteed success. He might believe Lodi's fate proves his strategy. But Babur faced a conventional opponent with no counter-technology. Abdali is far more adaptable. Bhau's confidence in artillery parallels Babur's confidence in innovation—justified but not sufficient. The location is the same. The strategic logic is the same. But the opponent is far more formidable than a traditional king defending his throne.

Two invaders. Two battles. Two hundred thirty-five years apart. Babur came from Uzbekistan with guns nobody in India had seen. He set up his fortifications, invited the enemy to attack, and when they did—his artillery turned them into dust. He won decisively with innovation. Bhau studied that battle. He thought: "That's my blueprint. I have artillery. I'll fortify like Babur. I'll win like Babur." But he forgot something crucial. Babur faced a conventional opponent. Abdali is no conventional opponent. And wanting to win like Babur doesn't mean you will.