The Escape Plan: Rectangular Formation & Artillery-Driven Strategy

Marathi History Book Reading Session Summary

Why Bhau Didn't Want This Battle

The Strategic Reality:

• Both armies equally matched (as Chanakya would say: uncertain outcome)
• Maratha army demoralized, down, starving, losing animals
• Afghan army comfortable, supplied, not in urgent need
• 50-50 odds of victory—too much risk
• Bhau's preference: avoid pitched battle entirely

The Support Plan Issue:

• Plan required defending non-fighting staff ONLY AFTER Afghans attacked
• Until then: focused on moving, forming up, establishing artillery positions
• Non-combatants wouldn't be defended proactively—only defensively when needed
• This included: logistics staff, cooks, merchants, women, holy pilgrims

Why This Structure:

• Can't spare forces for preemptive defense
• Need all available soldiers for the formation and movement
• Defense of non-combatants only becomes active when battle unavoidable

Ibrahim Khan Gardi's Artillery Plan

The Core Concept:

• Arrange forces in rectangular formation
• Non-combatants protected in center
• Artillery positioned at front and flanks
• Rectangle slowly inches toward Yamuna (to the east)

The Movement Sequence:

1. Start moving southeast from current position
2. Travel ~8-10 miles to reach Yamuna bank
3. Once at Yamuna: place river at back (physical barrier)
4. Continue moving south along riverbank
5. Keep Afghans at bay with artillery fire
6. Eventually reach Delhi (~10-15 miles further south)

The River Advantage:

• Yamuna at "low raft" or low tide season (can cross if needed)
• Provides natural barrier to back of formation
• Prevents Afghans from surrounding them
• Gives defenders advantage of position

The Key Disagreement: Holkar's Objection

Holkar's Position:

• Can't retreat and fight at same time
• Either you fight (committed) or retreat (committed)
• Doing both means doing neither well
• This is militarily impossible

The Fundamental Tension:

• Formation requires discipline and holding position
• But if holding position against Afghans, that IS a battle
• If moving/retreating, can't pause for combat
• These are contradictory objectives

Bhau's Counter:

• Understood the difficulty
• Plan is sophisticated but necessary
• Emphasized: if executed properly, mostly artillery battle (not hand-to-hand)
• Don't need to break formation to fight—artillery does the fighting

The Rectangular Formation Strategy

The Shape & Purpose:

• Rectangle = defensive formation (not aggressive)
• All sides protected by soldiers/artillery
• Center = vulnerable non-combatants
• Front = strongest (artillery + elite warriors)
• Sides = adequate defense
• Back (eventually) = Yamuna River

The Movement:

• Entire rectangle moves as unit
• No breaking ranks
• Stay disciplined
• Move southeast first, then south along river

The Critical Requirement:

"To make this plan work in a fruitful manner, the most important thing was extremely strict discipline. Because nobody can break the ranks. If they do, it falls into normal combat."

This was THE critical weakness: Marathas weren't disciplined formations. They were cavalry/individual warrior cultures.

Holkar's Specific Tactical Question

The Problem:

• Afghan camp is to the south
• Maratha rectangle moving southeast toward Yamuna
• When rectangle reaches Yamuna and turns south, they'll be on RIGHT SIDE of Afghan position
• "How are you going to go past the right hand side of Afghan army? They are not going to let you just pass by."

The Challenge:

• Movement path brings Marathas into close contact with Afghan right flank
• Afghans will naturally oppose/attack this flank
• If formation breaks, it's full battle (not what Bhau wants)

Ibrahim Gardi's Answer: Chaos Through Artillery

The Solution:

• Artillery concentrates on Afghan RIGHT FLANK
• Creates "chaos"—destruction, deaths, soldiers running
• Destroys the Afghan right flank before it can organize resistance
• Vacuum created = space for rectangle to pass through

The Execution:

1. Artillery softens right flank
2. Whatever resistance remains: handled by strong right flank of rectangle
3. As rectangle moves, Holkar positions at back (rear guard)
4. Holkar faces ire of Afghan army while rectangle escapes
5. Gardi follows with artillery, maintaining pressure

Why This Upset Holkar:

• He'd be fighting rearguard action while trying to move
• High casualty position
• Exactly what he warned about: fighting while retreating
• Not glamorous or strategic, just brutal holding action

The Discipline Problem

Why Discipline Matters:

• If soldiers break formation to pursue Afghans: loses strength of rectangle
• If soldiers break to retreat: loses cohesion, becomes chaotic
• If soldiers get distracted by anything: entire plan collapses
• Rectangle's strength is ONLY in maintained formation

Why Marathas Struggled With This:

• Maratha military culture: cavalry charges, individual prowess, heroic feats
• NOT formation discipline like European armies
• NOT standing ground while maintaining lines
• This plan required behavior opposite to their tradition

Example of What Could Go Wrong:

• Artillery creates chaos on Afghan right flank
• Some Maratha warriors see disorganized Afghans
• Decide to pursue/kill them (traditional warrior thinking)
• Break ranks to charge
• Rectangle loses cohesion
• Becomes regular battle (exactly what Bhau wanted to avoid)

The Path to Delhi

The Geographic Logic:

• Yamuna ultimately reaches Delhi
• By moving along Yamuna bank, path naturally leads to Delhi
• Delhi has Maratha garrison (supplies, reinforcements)
• Reach Delhi = reach safety
• Distance: ~10-15 miles south from Yamuna

The River Route:

• Yamuna on left/back side
• Rectangle facing right (toward Afghans)
• Front facing mostly south/toward Afghan lines
• Continuous movement preventing encirclement

Why This Path Worked:

• Afghans can't encircle (river blocks)
• Afghans can only attack right flank
• Rectangle moving away (toward Delhi) = not standing to fight
• Minimal losses if discipline maintained

Maratha Confidence in Afghan Passivity

The Assumption:

"Afghan Marathas were sure that the Afghan army will not obstruct the Maratha movement going towards the south along the Yamuna bank."

The Logic:

• If Marathas don't engage in all-out war, Afghans won't either
• Both sides would suffer enormous casualties
• Afghans have no reason to force total destruction battle
• Both armies have already lost heavily
• Symbolic resistance expected, but not all-out attack

The Problem With This Assumption:

• Assumes Afghans want to avoid catastrophic battle
• Assumes both sides will follow unwritten "rules"
• Doesn't account for Abdali's "total victory or total destruction" mindset
• Najib Khan was committed to fighting to finish

The Risk Calculation

If Plan Succeeds:

• Reach Delhi with army intact
• Get supplies, rejuvenate
• Position of strength with garrison support
• Can continue fighting from favorable position

If Plan Fails (Afghans Attack All-Out):

• Rectangle breaks apart in chaotic battle
• Non-combatants caught in open
• Worst possible outcome
• Entire army destroyed along with thousands of dependents

Why Bhau Took This Risk:

• Staying in camp = certain slow death (starvation)
• Moving = chance (50-50) at reaching Delhi safely
• Commanders demanded action
• Staying meant losing army to demoralization/starvation
• Moving means at least trying to escape

Timeline

Key Insights

The Discipline Paradox: Marathas are warrior culture (individual heroics) trying to execute European-style formation warfare. This was their fundamental weakness. The plan required something they never trained for.

The Afghan Right Flank: This was chosen as breakthrough point because it was most vulnerable to artillery and most easily disrupted. Strategic insight: focus maximum firepower on one flank, break through there, run.

Holkar's Reluctant Agreement: He never loved the plan. But he accepted because: (1) commanded to, (2) consensus decision, (3) alternative (staying/fighting all-out) was worse. His misgivings would prove prescient.

The Psychological vs. Military Distinction: Bhau wanted psychological escape ("we're not fighting, we're leaving"). But military reality was: moving formation under fire = fighting. His attempt to reframe battle as "escape" was denial of military reality.

Yamuna as Key Resource: River provided the one defensive advantage Marathas could use effectively: natural barrier. Bhau understood this was crucial to plan's viability.

Where We Left Off: Plan fully articulated. Rectangle to be formed. March southeast toward Yamuna beginning January 14. All commanders briefed. Discipline emphasized as critical requirement. Forces ready to move. But whether Marathas can maintain formation discipline under fire while moving is untested. The next reading will likely describe what actually happens when the movement begins.

Bhau's plan was clever but fragile. It required three things simultaneously: maintaining perfect formation, fighting artillery duel with Afghans, protecting 40,000+ non-combatants, and moving 10+ miles to safety. It also required Afghans to cooperate by not pressing all-out attack. On paper, it might work. In practice, against an enemy committed to total destruction and a force unaccustomed to formation discipline, it was a gamble. The next few hours would tell if it was a brilliant escape plan or just postponed catastrophe.