Generally, a battle is a conceptual component in the hierarchy of combat in warfare between two or more armed forces, or combatants. In a battle, each combatant will seek to defeat the others, with defeat determined by the conditions of a military campaign. Battles generally are well defined in duration, area and force commitment.^[1]

Wars and military campaigns are guided by strategy, whereas battles take place on a level of planning and execution known as operational mobility.^[2] German strategist Carl von Clausewitz stated that "the employment of battles ... to achieve the object of war"^[3] was the essence of strategy.

The Battle of Waterloo by William Sadler II

Etymology[link]

The definition of a battle cannot be arrived at solely through the names of historical battles, many of which are misnomers. The word battle is a loanword in English from the Old French bataille, first attested in 1297, from Late Latin battualia, meaning "exercise of soldiers and gladiators in fighting and fencing", from Late Latin (taken from Germanic) battuere "beat", from which the English word battery is also derived via Middle English batri,^[4] and comes from the staged battles in the Colosseum in Rome that may have numbered 10,000 individuals.

Characteristics of battle[link]

The defining characteristic of the battle as a concept in the Theory of combat^[5] has been a dynamic one through the course of military history, changing with the changes in the organisation, employment and technology of military forces.

While the British military historian Sir John Keegan suggested an ideal definition of battle as "something which happens between two armies leading to the moral then physical disintegration of one or the other of them",^[6] the origins and outcomes of battles can rarely be summarized so neatly.

In general a battle during the 20th century was, and continues to be, defined by the combat between opposing forces representing major components of total forces committed to a military campaign, used to achieve specific military objectives, within a time-frame of less than a month.^[7] Where the duration of the battle is longer than a week, it is often for reasons of staff operational planning called an operation. Battles can be planned, encountered, or forced by one force on the other when the latter is unable to withdraw from combat.

A battle always has as its purpose the reaching of a mission goal by use of military force.^[8] A victory in the battle is achieved when one of the opposing sides forces the other to abandon its mission, or to surrender its forces, or routs the other, i.e., forces it to retreat or renders it militarily ineffective for further combat operations. However, a battle may end in a Pyrrhic victory, which ultimately favors the defeated party. If no resolution is reached in a battle, it can result in a stalemate. A conflict in which one side is unwilling to reach a decision by a direct battle using conventional military forces often becomes an insurgency.

Until the 19th century the majority of battles were of short duration, many lasting a part of a day. (The Battle of Nations (1813) and the Battle of Gettysburg (1863) were exceptional in lasting three days.) This was mainly due to the difficulty of supplying armies in the field, or conducting night operations. The means of prolonging a battle was typically by employment of siege warfare. Improvements in transportation and the sudden evolving of trench warfare, with its siege-like nature during World War I in the 20th century, lengthened the duration of battles to days and weeks.^[8] This created the requirement for unit rotation to prevent combat fatigue,^[9] with troops preferably not remaining in a combat area of operations for more than a month. Trench warfare had become largely obsolete in conflicts between advanced armies by the start of the Second World War.

The use of the term "battle" in military history has led to its misuse when referring to almost any scale of combat, notably by strategic forces involving hundreds of thousands of troops that may be engaged in either a single battle at one time (Battle of Leipzig) or multiple operations (Battle of Kursk). The space a battle occupies depends on the range of the weapons of the combatants. A "battle" in this broader sense may occupy a large piece of spacetime, as in the case of the Battle of Britain or the Battle of the Atlantic. Until the advent of artillery and aircraft, battles were fought with the two sides within sight, if not reach, of each other. The depth of the battlefield has also increased in modern warfare with inclusion of the supporting units in the rear areas; supply, artillery, medical personnel etc. often outnumber the front-line combat troops.

Battles are, on the whole, made up of a multitude of individual combats, skirmishes and small engagements within the context of which the combatants will usually only experience a small part of the events of the battle's entirety. To the infantryman, there may be little to distinguish between combat as part of a minor raid or as a major offensive, nor is it likely that he anticipates the future course of the battle; few of the British infantry who went over the top on the first day on the Somme, July 1, 1916, would have anticipated that they would be fighting the same battle in five months' time. Conversely, some of the Allied infantry who had just dealt a crushing defeat to the French at the Battle of Waterloo fully expected to have to fight again the next day.

Battlespace[link]

Battlespace is a unified strategy to integrate and combine armed forces for the military theatre of operations, including air, information, land, sea and space. It includes the environment, factors and conditions that must be understood to successfully apply combat power, protect the force, or complete the mission. This includes enemy and friendly armed forces; facilities; weather; terrain; and the electromagnetic spectrum within the operational areas and areas of interest.

Factors within battles[link]

Battles are decided by various factors. The number and quality of combatants and equipment, the skill of the commanders of each army, and the terrain advantages are among the most prominent factors. A unit may charge with high morale but less discipline and still emerge victorious. This tactic was effectively used by the early French Revolutionary Armies.

Weapons and armour can be a decisive factor. On many occasions armies have achieved victories largely owing to the employment of more advanced weapons than those of their opponents. An extreme example was in the Battle of Omdurman, in which a large army of Sudanese Mahdists armed in a traditional manner were destroyed by an Anglo-Egyptian force equipped with Maxim guns.

On some occasions, simple weapons employed in an unorthodox fashion have proven advantageous, as with the Swiss pikemen who gained many victories through their ability to transform a traditionally defensive weapon into an offensive one. Likewise, the Zulus in the early 19th century were victorious in battles against their rivals in part because they adopted a new kind of spear, the iklwa. Even so, forces with inferior weapons have still emerged victorious at times, for example in the Wars of Scottish Independence and in the First Italo–Ethiopian War. Discipline within the troops is often of greater importance; at the Battle of Alesia, the Romans were greatly outnumbered but won because of superior training.

Battles can also be determined by terrain. Capturing high ground, for example, has been the central strategy in innumerable battles. An army that holds the high ground forces the enemy to climb, and thus wear themselves down. Areas of dense vegetation, such as jungles and forest, act as force-multipliers, of benefit to inferior armies. Arguably, terrain is of less importance in modern warfare, due to the advent of aircraft, though terrain is still vital for camouflage, especially for guerrilla warfare.

Generals and commanders also play a decisive role during combat. Hannibal, Julius Caesar and Napoleon Bonaparte were all skilled generals and, consequently, their armies were extremely successful. An army that can trust the commands of their leaders with conviction in its success invariably has a higher morale than an army that doubts its every move. The British in the naval Battle of Trafalgar, for example, owed its success to the reputation of celebrated admiral Lord Nelson.

Types of battle[link]

The Battle of Poltava between Russia and Sweden, by Denis Martens the Younger

Battles can be fought on land, sea and in the modern age, in the air. Naval battles have occurred since before the 5th century BC. Air battles have been far less common, due to their late conception, the most prominent being the Battle of Britain in 1940. However since the Second World War land or sea battles have come to rely on air support. Indeed, during the Battle of Midway, five aircraft carriers were sunk without either fleet coming into direct contact.

Battle Scene-Detail from Deccan miniature painting. c. 19th century.

There are numerous types of battles:

• A battle of encounter (or encounter battle) is a meeting engagement where the opposing sides collide in the field without either having prepared their attack or defence.

• A battle of attrition aims to inflict losses on an enemy that are less sustainable compared to one's own losses. These need not be greater numerical losses - if one side is much more numerous than the other than pursuing a strategy based on attrition can work even if casualties on both sides are about equal. Many battles of the Western Front in the First World War were intentionally (Verdun) or unintentionally (Somme) attrition battles.

• A battle of breakthrough aims to pierce the enemy's defences, thereby exposing the vulnerable flanks which can be turned.

• A battle of encirclement—the Kesselschlacht of the German Blitzkrieg—surrounds the enemy in a pocket.

• A battle of envelopment involves an attack on one or both flanks; the classic example being the double-envelopment of the Battle of Cannae.

• A battle of annihilation is one in which the defeated party is destroyed in the field, such as the French fleet at the Battle of the Nile.

Battles frequently do not fit one particular type perfectly, and are usually hybrids of different types listed above.

A decisive battle is one of particular importance; often by bringing hostilities to an end, such as the Battle of Hastings or the Battle of Hattin, or as a turning point in the fortunes of the belligerents, such as the Battle of Stalingrad. A decisive battle can have political as well as military impact, changing the balance of power or boundaries between countries. The concept of the decisive battle became popular with the publication in 1851 of Edward Creasy's The Fifteen Decisive Battles of the World. British military historians J.F.C. Fuller (The Decisive Battles of the Western World) and B.H. Liddell Hart (Decisive Wars of History), among many others, have written books in the style of Creasy's work.

The differences among land battles throughout history[link]

There is an obvious difference in the way battles have been fought throughout time. Early battles were probably fought between rival hunting bands as disorganized mobs. However, during the Battle of Megiddo, the first reliably documented battle in the fifteenth century BC, actual discipline was instilled in both armies. However, during the many wars of the Roman Empire, barbarians continued using mob tactics.

As the Age of Enlightenment dawned, armies began to fight in highly disciplined lines. Each would follow the orders from their officers and fight as a single unit instead of individuals. Each army was successively divided into regiments, battalions, companies, and platoons. These armies would march, line up, and fire in divisions.

Native Americans, on the other hand, did not fight in lines, utilizing instead guerrilla tactics. American colonists and European forces continued using disciplined lines, continuing into the American Civil War.

A new style, during World War I, known as trench warfare, developed nearly half a century later. This also led to radio for communication between battalions. Chemical warfare also emerged with the use of poisonous gas during World War I.

By World War II, the use of the smaller divisions, platoons and companies, became much more important as precise operations became vital. Instead of the locked trench warfare of World War I, during World War II, a dynamic network of battles developed where small groups encountered other platoons. As a result, elite squads became much more recognized and distinguishable.

Maneuver warfare also developed with an astonishing pace with the advent of the tank, replacing the archaic cannons of the Enlightenment Age. Artillery has since gradually replaced the use of frontal troops. Modern battles now continue to resemble that of World War II, though prominent innovations have been added. Indirect combat through the use of aircraft and missiles now comprise of a large portion of wars in place of battles, where battles are now mostly reserved for capturing cities^{[citation needed]}.

The evolution of naval warfare[link]

The Battle of Scheveningen of 1653: episode from the First Anglo-Dutch War.

One significant difference of modern naval battles as opposed to earlier forms of combat is the use of marines, which introduced amphibious warfare. Today, a marine is actually an infantry regiment that sometimes fights solely on land and is no longer tied to the navy. A good example of an old naval battle is the Battle of Salamis.

Most ancient naval battles were fought by fast ships using the battering ram to sink opposing fleets or steer close enough for boarding in hand-to-hand combat. Troops were often actually used to storm enemy ships as used by Romans and pirates. This tactic was usually used by civilizations that could not beat the enemy with ranged weaponry.

Another invention in the late Middle Ages was the use of Greek fire by the Byzantines, which was used to set enemy fleets on fire. Empty demolition ships utilized the tactic to crash into opposing ships and set it afire with an explosion. After the invention of cannons, naval warfare became useful as support units for land warfare.

During the 19th century, the development of mines led to a new type of naval warfare. The ironclad, first used in the American Civil War, resistant to cannons, soon made the wooden ship obsolete. The invention of military submarines, during World War I, brought naval warfare to both above and below the surface. With the development of military aircraft during World War II, battles were fought in the sky as well as below the ocean. Aircraft carriers have since become the central unit in naval warfare, acting as a mobile base for lethal aircraft.

Aerial battles throughout history[link]

Although the use of aircraft has for the most part always been used as a supplement to land or naval engagements, since their first major military use in World War I aircraft have increasingly taken on larger roles in warfare. During World War I, the primary use was for reconnaissance, and small-scale bombardment.

Aircraft began becoming much more prominent in the Spanish Civil War and especially World War II. Aircraft design began specializing, primarily into two types: bombers, which carried explosive payloads to bomb land targets or ships; and fighter-interceptors, which were used to either intercept incoming aircraft or to escort and protect bombers (engagements between fighter aircraft were known as dog fights). Some of the more notable aerial battles in this period include the Battle of Britain and the Battle of Midway.

Another important use of aircraft came with the development of the helicopter, which first became heavily used during the Vietnam War, and still continues to be widely used today to transport and augment ground forces.

Today, direct engagements between aircraft are rare - the most modern fighter-interceptors carry much more extensive bombing payloads, and are used to bomb precision land targets, rather than to fight other aircraft. Anti-aircraft batteries are used much more extensively to defend against incoming aircraft than interceptors. Despite this, aircraft today are much more extensively used as the primary tools for both army and navy, as evidenced by the prominent use of helicopters to transport and support troops, the use of aerial bombardment as the "first strike" in many engagements, and the replacement of the battleship with the aircraft carrier as the center of most modern navies.

Battle naming[link]

Battle of Gibraltar of 1607 by Hendrick Cornelisz Vroom.

Battles are usually named after some feature of the battlefield geography, such as the name of a town, forest or river, commonly prefixed "Battle of...". Occasionally battles are named after the date on which they took place, such as The Glorious First of June.

In the Middle Ages it was considered important to settle on a suitable name for a battle which could be used by the chroniclers. For example, after Henry V of England defeated a French army on October 25, 1415, he met with the senior French herald and they agreed to name the battle after the nearby castle and so it was called the Battle of Agincourt.

In other cases, the sides adopted different names for the same battle, such as the Battle of Gallipoli which is known in Turkey as the Battle of Çanakkale. During the American Civil War, the Union tended to name the battles after the nearest watercourse, such as the Battle of Wilsons Creek and the Battle of Stones River, whereas the Confederates favoured the nearby towns, as in the Battles of Chancellorsville and Murfreesboro. Occasionally both names for the same battle entered the popular culture, such as the battle of Antietam, which is also referred to as the battle of Sharpsburg.

Sometimes in desert warfare, there is no nearby town name to use; map coordinates gave the name to the Battle of 73 Easting in the First Gulf War.

Some place names have become synonymous with the battles that took place there, such as the Passchendaele, Pearl Harbor, the Alamo, Thermopylae, or Waterloo. Military operations, many of which result in battle, are given codenames, which are not necessarily meaningful or indicative of the type or the location of the battle. Operation Market Garden and Operation Rolling Thunder are examples of battles known by their military codenames.

When a battleground is the site of more than one battle in the same conflict, the instances are distinguished by ordinal number, such as the First and Second Battles of Bull Run. An extreme case are the twelve Battles of the Isonzo—First to Twelfth—between Italy and Austria-Hungary during the First World War.

Some battles are named for the convenience of military historians so that periods of combat can be neatly distinguished from one another. Following the First World War, the British Battles Nomenclature Committee was formed to decide on standard names for all battles and subsidiary actions. To the soldiers who did the fighting, the distinction was usually academic; a soldier fighting at Beaumont Hamel on November 13, 1916 was probably unaware he was taking part in what the committee would call the "Battle of the Ancre".

Many combats are too small to merit a name. Terms such as "action", "skirmish", "firefight", "raid" or "offensive patrol" are used to describe small-scale battle-like encounters. These combats often take place within the time and space of a battle and while they may have an objective, they are not necessarily "decisive". Sometimes the soldiers are unable to immediately gauge the significance of the combat; in the aftermath of the Battle of Waterloo, some British officers were in doubt as to whether the day's events merited the title of "battle" or would be passed off as merely an "action".^{[citation needed]}

The effects of a battle[link]

Battles affect the individuals who take part, as well as the political actors. Personal effects of battle range from mild psychological issues to permanent and crippling injuries. Some battle-survivors have nightmares about the conditions they encountered, or abnormal reactions to certain sights or sounds. Some suffer flashbacks. Physical effects of battle can include scars, amputations, lesions, loss of bodily functions, blindness, paralysis — and death.

Battles also affect politics. A decisive battle can cause the losing side to surrender, while a Pyrrhic Victory such as the Battle of Asculum can cause the winning side to reconsider its long-term goals. Battles in civil wars have often decided the fate of monarchs or political factions. Famous examples include the War of the Roses, as well as the Jacobite Uprisings. Battles also affect the commitment of one side or the other to the continuance of a war, for example the Battle of Incheon and the Battle of Hue during the Tet Offensive.

Gallery[link]

• 

  Illuminated single leaf, Battle Scene from the Baburnamah

See also[link]

• Military tactics
• Military strategy
• Naval battle
• Pitched battle
• Skirmisher
• War
• List of battles

References[link]

Wikimedia Commons has media related to: Battles

Sources[link]

• Glantz, David M.; Vuono, Carl E. (1991). Soviet military operational art: In pursuit of deep battle. Taylor & Francis. ISBN 0-7146-4077-8. 
• Keegan, John (1976). The Face of Battle. Pimlico. ISBN 1-84413-748-1. 
• Dupuy, Trevor Nevitt (1992). Understanding war: History and Theory of combat. London: Leo Cooper. ISBN 0-85052-293-5. 
• von Clausewitz, Carl, Bemerkungen über die reine und angewandte Strategie des Herrn von Bülow oder Kritik der darin enthaltenen Ansichten, Verstreute kleine Schriften, Ed. Werner Hahlweg, (Osnabrück: Biblio Verlag, 1979), 77.
• Tucker, T.G. (1976). Etymological dictionary of Latin. Chicago: Ares Publishers. ISBN 0-89005-172-0. 
• Richardson, F.M.; Hunt, Sir Peter (Forward) (1978). Fighting spirit: A study of psychological factors in war. London: Leo Cooper. ISBN 0-85052-236-6. 
• Great Britain Battles Nomenclature Committee (1919-1921) (1922, reprinted 1993). Official Names of the Battles and Other Engagements Fought by the Military Forces of the British Empire During the Great War, 1914-1919, and the Third Afghan War, 1919. The Naval & Military Press. ISBN 1-897632-06-1. 

Moh (Sanskrit muh: “to become stupefied, to be bewildered or perplexed, to err, to be mistaken”) stands in ancient texts for perplexity or confusion as also for the cause of confusion, that is, avidya or ajnana (ignorance or illusion).

In another context, it stands for “the snare of worldly illusion, infatuation.” Its function is twofold: it bedims the discernment of truth, prevents the discernment of reality, and it creates an error of judgement or leads to wrong knowledge (mithya jnana). Men believe in an eternal reality of their own existence or ego; they see truth in what is false and seek happiness in what begets suffering.

In Punjabi Moh generally means love of and attachment to worldly things and relations. In Sikh Scripture, the term frequently occurs coupled with maya (maia) as maya-moh interpreted both as infatuation for or clinging to the illusory world of the senses and as illusion of worldly love and attachment. Sikh interpretation of maya, however, differs from that of classical, advaita philosophy, which considers the phenomenal world unreal and therefore an illusion caused by human ignorance.

In Sikhism, the visible world is a manifestation of God Himself and is therefore real; yet it is not satya or true in the sense of being immutable and eternal. This world of mass, form and movement woven into the warp and woof of time and space is God’s play created at His pleasure and is as such real and sacred; but it represents only one transient aspect and not the Ultimate Reality. Maya is not an illusion in the sense of a mirage, a factual nullity; it is a delusion which represents transient as permanent and a part as the whole.

Moh for maya, i.e. for this transient world of the senses, hinders the soul’s search for its ultimate goal and is, therefore, one of the Five Evils. It is related, on the one hand, to kam (desire, love) and lobh (possessiveness, covetousness) and, on the other, to ahankar (sense of I, my and mine). That is how moh has been referred to as a net, maiajal (GG, 266). Guru Nanak advises shedding of moh as it is the source of all evil and a cause for repeated births and deaths. (GG, 356).

The antidote to moh is non-attachment. This is not easy, for the Gurus preach active participation in life rather than renunciation and escapism. Ultimately, of course, all depends on nadar or God’s grace. Says Guru Nanak “nadari kare ta ehu mohu jai—by (His) grace alone will this moh be cancelled” (GG, 356). The right remedy is the understanding (gian) that the mundane world, its relations and affairs, demanding one’s participation and involvement are transient. Non-attachment thus is not non-action, but an attitude to action characterized by Guru Nanak as that of a bajigar, participant in a sport. The world, says Guru Nanak in a hymn in Maru measure, “is like a seasonal pastureland where one passeth but a few days. . . Like the bajigar one plays one’s part here and departs” (GG, 1023). An image in gurbani describing the ideal life is that of the lotus which, although living in water, keeps its head above it without allowing itself to be submerged.

Bibliography[link]

1. Sabadarth Sri Guru Granth Sahib. Amritsar, 1969
2. Avtar Singh, Ethics of the Sikhs. Patiala, 1970
3. Sher Singh, The Philosophy of Sikhism. Lahore, 1944

Above adapted from article By L. M. Joshi

• Concepts In Sikhism - Edited by Dr. Surinder Singh Sodhi