Information

Battle of Volkondah, 19-20 July 1751


Battle of Volkondah, 19-20 July 1751

The Battle of Volkondah (19-20 July 1751) was a French victory that forced most of the British soldiers in southern India to take shelter in Trichinopoly, where they would be besieged for much of the next two years.

By the summer of 1751 the French were dominant in southern India. Their candidate was Nizam of Hyderabad (officially the Mughal viceroy in southern India). Joseph Dupleix was Nawab of the southern part of this province, while Chanda Sahib was Nawab of the Carnatic. The British still held Fort St. David and Madras, and with Britain and France officially at peace Dupleix couldn't attack either place. The British were also restricted, in that they could only act as auxiliaries to a local leader, and by the summer of 1751 the only significant local opponent to the French was Mohammad Ali, a rival claimant for the post of Nawab of the Carnatic. He held Trichinopoly, and in the early months of 1751 used that place as a bargining counter in negotiations with the French. Only when he was finally promised British support did Mohammad Ali make it clear that he intended to defend the town.

The British sent one detachment to reinforce Trichinopoly, and then in March created a second force to cooperate with Mohammad Ali's field army. This force consisted of 500 European troops, 100 Africans and 1,000 Sepoys, all under the command of Captain Gingens, a Swiss officer.

In mid-May Gingens was joined by 1,600 of Mohammad Ali's troops. This allowed him to pretend that he was only acting as an auxiliary, and the combined force moved from Fort St. David to the pagoda at Verdachelam, on the route between Fort St. David and Trichinopoly. At Verdachelam Gingens was joined by another 4,000 of Mohammad Ali's troops and 100 European soldiers from the first detachment.

March also saw the French enter the field. Chanda Sahib, with around 8,000 troops, decided to attack Trichinopoly, and he was joined by 400 French troops under d'Auteuil. By mid-May this combined force was approaching the town of Volkondah, to the north-east of Trichinopoly. This town was held for the Nawab of the Carnatic, but as the rival armies approached his town the governor decided to wait for the outcome of the impending battle before taking sides.

The two armies faced each other around Volkondah for two weeks, both attempting to win over the governor, before Gingens' patience ran out. On the evening of 19 July he attempted to occupy the town. His troops got past the town walls, but were repulsed at the fort. Inevitably the governor then sided with Chanda Sahib, and invited his troops into the fort. On the morning of 20 July the French artillery opened fire, and the British troops panicked and fled, leaving Mohammad Ali's men unsupported. Only the lack of a French pursuit saved the British from disaster. As it was most of Gingens' men were soon besieged in Trichinopoly, arriving outside the town walls on 28 July. The prolonged siege of Trichinopoly would dominate much of the remaining fighting in the war, and the French failure to capture the town would eventually undo their early successes. Gingens was amongst the troops besieged within Trichinopoly, but Clive escaped and would play a major part in the rest of the war.


Battle of Talas

The Battle of Talas or Battle of Artlakh (Chinese: 怛羅斯戰役 pinyin: dáluósī zhànyì Arabic: معركة نهر طلاس ‎, romanized: maerakat nahr talas, Nastaliq: معركة نهر طلاس ) was a military engagement between the Abbasid Caliphate along with its ally, the Tibetan Empire, against the Chinese Tang dynasty. In July 751 AD, Tang and Abbasid forces met in the valley of the Talas River to vie for control over the Syr Darya region of central Asia. After several days of stalemate, the Karluk Turks, originally allied to the Tang, defected to the Abbasids (Chinese sources) and tipped the balance of power, resulting in a Tang rout.

The defeat marked the end of the Tang westward expansion and resulted in Muslim control of Transoxiana for the next 400 years. Control of the region was economically beneficial for the Abbasids because it was on the Silk Road. Chinese prisoners captured in the aftermath of the battle are said to have brought paper-making technology to the Middle East, from where it eventually spread to Europe.


Contents

The Christian coalition had been promoted by Pope Pius V to rescue the Venetian colony of Famagusta on the island of Cyprus, which was being besieged by the Turks in early 1571 subsequent to the fall of Nicosia and other Venetian possessions in Cyprus in the course of 1570. On 1 August the Venetians had surrendered after being reassured that they could leave Cyprus freely. However, the Ottoman commander, Lala Kara Mustafa Pasha, who had lost some 50,000 men in the siege, [17] broke his word, imprisoning the Venetians. On 17 August Marco Antonio Bragadin was flayed alive and his corpse hung on Mustafa's galley together with the heads of the Venetian commanders, Astorre Baglioni, Alvise Martinengo, and Gianantonio Querini. [ citation needed ]

The members of the Holy League were the Republic of Venice, the Spanish Empire (including the Kingdom of Naples, the Habsburg Monarchy, the Kingdoms of Sicily and Sardinia as part of the Spanish possessions), the Papal States, the Republic of Genoa, the Duchies of Savoy, Urbino and Tuscany, the Knights Hospitaller, and others. [18]

The banner for the fleet, blessed by the Pope, reached the Kingdom of Naples (then ruled by the Philip II of Spain) on 14 August 1571. There, in the Basilica of Santa Chiara, it was solemnly consigned to John of Austria, who had been named the leader of the coalition after long discussions among the allies. The fleet moved to Sicily and, leaving Messina, reached (after several stops) the port of Viscardo in Cephalonia, where news arrived of the fall of Famagusta and of the torture inflicted by the Turks on the Venetian commander of the fortress, Marco Antonio Bragadin. [ citation needed ]

All members of the alliance viewed the Ottoman navy as a significant threat, both to the security of maritime trade in the Mediterranean Sea and to the security of continental Europe itself. Spain was the largest financial contributor, though the Spaniards preferred to preserve most of their galleys for Spain's own wars against the nearby sultanates of the Barbary Coast rather than expend its naval strength for the benefit of Venice. [19] [20] The combined Christian fleet was placed under the command of John of Austria (Don Juan de Austria) with Marcantonio Colonna as his principal deputy. The various Christian contingents met the main force, that of Venice (under Sebastiano Venier, later Doge of Venice), in July and August 1571 at Messina, Sicily. [21]

The Christian fleet consisted of 206 galleys and six galleasses (large new galleys with substantial artillery, developed by the Venetians) and was commanded by Spanish Admiral John of Austria, the illegitimate son of Emperor Charles V and half-brother of King Philip II of Spain, supported by the Spanish commanders Don Luis de Requesens y Zúñiga and Don Álvaro de Bazán, and Genoan commander Gianandrea Doria. [23] [24] The Republic of Venice contributed 109 galleys and six galleasses, 49 galleys came from the Spanish Empire (including 26 from the Kingdom of Naples, the Kingdom of Sicily, and other Italian territories), 27 galleys of the Genoese fleet, seven galleys from the Papal States, five galleys from the Order of Saint Stephen and the Grand Duchy of Tuscany, three galleys each from the Duchy of Savoy and the Knights of Malta, and some privately owned galleys in Spanish service. This fleet of the Christian alliance was manned by 40,000 sailors and oarsmen. In addition, it carried approximately 20,000 [25] [26] fighting troops: 7,000 Spanish Empire regular infantry of excellent quality, [27] (4,000 of the Spanish Empire's troops were drawn from the Kingdom of Naples, mostly Calabria), [28] 7,000 Germans, [29] 6,000 Italian mercenaries in Spanish pay, all good troops, [29] in addition to 5,000 professional Venetian soldiers. [30] Also, Venetian oarsmen were mainly free citizens and able to bear arms, adding to the fighting power of their ships, whereas convicts were used to row many of the galleys in other Holy League squadrons. [31] Free oarsmen were generally acknowledged to be superior but were gradually replaced in all galley fleets (including those of Venice from 1549) during the 16th century by cheaper slaves, convicts, and prisoners-of-war owing to rapidly rising costs. [32]

Ali Pasha, the Ottoman admiral (Kapudan-i Derya), supported by the corsairs Mehmed Sirocco (natively Mehmed Şuluk) of Alexandria and Uluç Ali, commanded an Ottoman force of 222 war galleys, 56 galliots, and some smaller vessels. The Turks had skilled and experienced crews of sailors but were significantly deficient in their elite corps of Janissaries. The number of oarsmen was about 37,000, virtually all of them slaves, [33] many of them Christians who had been captured in previous conquests and engagements. [31] The Ottoman galleys were manned by 13,000 experienced sailors—generally drawn from the maritime nations of the Ottoman Empire—mainly Berbers, Greeks, Syrians, and Egyptians—and 34,000 soldiers. [34]

An advantage for the Christians was the numerical superiority in guns and cannon aboard their ships, as well as the superior quality of the Spanish infantry. [24] It is estimated that the Christians had 1,815 guns, while the Turks had only 750 with insufficient ammunition. [5] The Christians embarked with their much improved arquebusier and musketeer forces, while the Ottomans trusted in their greatly feared composite bowmen. [35]

The Christian fleet started from Messina on 16 September, crossing the Adriatic and creeping along the coast, arriving at the group of rocky islets lying just north of the opening of the Gulf of Corinth on 6 October. Serious conflict had broken out between Venetian and Spanish soldiers, and Venier enraged Don Juan by hanging a Spanish soldier for impudence. [36] Despite bad weather, the Christian ships sailed south and, on 6 October, reached the port of Sami, Cephalonia (then also called Val d'Alessandria), where they remained for a while.

Early on 7 October, they sailed toward the Gulf of Patras, where they encountered the Ottoman fleet. While neither fleet had immediate strategic resources or objectives in the gulf, both chose to engage. The Ottoman fleet had an express order from the Sultan to fight, and John of Austria found it necessary to attack in order to maintain the integrity of the expedition in the face of personal and political disagreements within the Holy League. [37] On the morning of 7 October, after the decision to offer battle was made, the Christian fleet formed up in four divisions in a north-south line:

  • At the northern end, closest to the coast, was the Left Division of 53 galleys, mainly Venetian, led by Agostino Barbarigo, with Marco Querini and Antonio da Canale in support.
  • The Centre Division consisted of 62 galleys under John of Austria himself in his Real, along with Marcantonio Colonna commanding the papal flagship, Venier commanding the Venetian flagship, Paolo Giordano I Orsini and Pietro Giustiniani, prior of Messina, commanding the flagship of the Knights of Malta.
  • The Right Division to the south consisted of another 53 galleys under the Genoese Giovanni Andrea Doria, great-nephew of admiral Andrea Doria.
  • A Reserve Division was stationed behind (that is, to the west of) the main fleet, to lend support wherever it might be needed, commanded by Álvaro de Bazán.

Two galleasses, which had side-mounted cannon, were positioned in front of each main division for the purpose, according to Miguel de Cervantes (who served on the galley Marquesa during the battle), of preventing the Turks from sneaking in small boats and sapping, sabotaging, or boarding the Christian vessels. This reserve division consisted of 38 galleys—30 behind the Centre Division and four behind each wing. A scouting group was formed, from two Right Wing and six Reserve Division galleys. As the Christian fleet was slowly turning around Point Scropha, Doria's Right Division, at the offshore side, was delayed at the start of the battle and the Right's galleasses did not get into position. [ citation needed ]

The Ottoman fleet consisted of 57 galleys and two galliots on its right under Mehmed Siroco, 61 galleys and 32 galliots in the centre under Ali Pasha in the Sultana, and about 63 galleys and 30 galliots in the south offshore under Uluç Ali. A small reserve consisted of eight galleys, 22 galliots, and 64 fustas, behind the centre body. Ali Pasha is supposed to have told his Christian galley slaves, "If I win the battle, I promise you your liberty. If the day is yours, then God has given it to you." John of Austria, more laconically, warned his crew, "There is no paradise for cowards." [38]

The lookout on the Real sighted the Turkish van at dawn of 7 October. Don Juan called a council of war and decided to offer battle. He travelled through his fleet in a swift sailing vessel, exhorting his officers and men to do their utmost. The Sacrament was administered to all, the galley slaves were freed from their chains, and the standard of the Holy League was raised to the truck of the flagship. [36]

The wind was at first against the Christians, and it was feared that the Turks would be able to make contact before a line of battle could be formed. But around noon, shortly before contact, the wind shifted to favour the Christians, enabling most of the squadrons to reach their assigned position before contact. Four galeasses stationed in front of the Christian battle line opened fire at close quarters at the foremost Turkish galleys, confusing their battle array in the crucial moment of contact. Around noon, first contact was made between the squadrons of Barbarigo and Sirocco, close to the northern shore of the Gulf. Barbarigo had attempted to stay so close to the shore as to prevent Sirocco from surrounding him, but Sirocco, knowing the depth of the waters, managed to still insert galleys between Barbarigo's line and the coast. In the ensuing mêlée, the ships came so close to each other as to form an almost continuous platform of hand-to-hand fighting in which both leaders were killed. The Christian galley slaves freed from the Turkish ships were supplied with arms and joined in the fighting, turning the battle in favour of the Christian side. [40]

Meanwhile, the centres clashed with such force that Ali Pasha's galley drove into the Real as far as the fourth rowing bench, and hand-to-hand fighting commenced around the two flagships, between the Spanish Tercio infantry and the Turkish janissaries. When the Real was nearly taken, Colonna came alongside, with the bow of his galley, and mounted a counter-attack. With the help of Colonna, the Turks were pushed off the Real and the Turkish flagship was boarded and swept. The entire crew of Ali Pasha's flagship was killed, including Ali Pasha himself. The banner of the Holy League was hoisted on the captured ship, breaking the morale of the Turkish galleys nearby. After two hours of fighting, the Turks were beaten left and centre, although fighting continued for another two hours. [41] A flag taken at Lepanto by the Knights of Saint Stephen, said to be the standard of the Turkish commander, is still on display, in the Church of the seat of the Order in Pisa. [42]

On the Christian right, the situation was different, as Doria continued sailing towards the south instead of taking his assigned position. He would explain his conduct after the battle by saying that he was trying to prevent an enveloping manoeuvre by the Turkish left. But Doria's captains were enraged, interpreting their commander's signals as a sign of treachery. When Doria had opened a wide gap with the Christian centre, Uluç Ali swung around and fell on Colonna's southern flank, with Doria too far away to interfere. Ali attacked a group of some fifteen galleys around the flagship of the Knights of Malta, threatening to break into the Christian centre and still turn the tide of the battle. This was prevented by the arrival of the reserve squadron of Santa Cruz. Uluç Ali was forced to retreat, escaping the battle with the captured flag of the Knights of Malta. [43]

Isolated fighting continued until the evening. Even after the battle had clearly turned against the Turks, groups of janissaries kept fighting to the last. It is said that at some point the Janissaries ran out of weapons and started throwing oranges and lemons at their Christian adversaries, leading to awkward scenes of laughter among the general misery of battle. [5] At the end of the battle, the Christians had taken 117 galleys and 20 galliots, and sunk or destroyed some 50 other ships. Around ten thousand Turks were taken prisoner, and many thousands of Christian slaves were rescued. The Christian side suffered around 7,500 deaths, the Turkish side about 30,000. [8]

The engagement was a significant defeat for the Ottomans, who had not lost a major naval battle since the fifteenth century. [44] However, the Holy League failed to capitalize on the victory, and while the Ottoman defeat has often been cited as the historical turning-point initiating the eventual stagnation of Ottoman territorial expansion, this was by no means an immediate consequence even though the Christian victory at Lepanto confirmed the de facto division of the Mediterranean, with the eastern half under firm Ottoman control and the western under the Habsburgs and their Italian allies, halting the Ottoman encroachment on Italian territories, the Holy League did not regain any territories that had been lost to the Ottomans prior to Lepanto. [45] Historian Paul K. Davis synopsizes the importance of Lepanto this way: "This Turkish defeat stopped Ottomans' expansion into the Mediterranean, thus maintaining western dominance, and confidence grew in the west that Turks, previously unstoppable, could be beaten" [46]

The Ottomans were quick to rebuild their navy. [47] By 1572, about six months after the defeat, more than 150 galleys, 8 galleasses, and in total 250 ships had been built, including eight of the largest capital ships ever seen in the Mediterranean. [48] With this new fleet the Ottoman Empire was able to reassert its supremacy in the Eastern Mediterranean. [49] Sultan Selim II's Chief Minister, the Grand Vizier Mehmed Sokullu, even boasted to the Venetian emissary Marcantonio Barbaro that the Christian triumph at Lepanto caused no lasting harm to the Ottoman Empire, while the capture of Cyprus by the Ottomans in the same year was a significant blow, saying that:

You come to see how we bear our misfortune. But I would have you know the difference between your loss and ours. In wrestling Cyprus from you, we deprived you of an arm in defeating our fleet, you have only shaved our beard. An arm when cut off cannot grow again but a shorn beard will grow all the better for the razor. [50]

In 1572, the allied Christian fleet resumed operations and faced a renewed Ottoman navy of 200 vessels under Kılıç Ali Pasha, but the Ottoman commander actively avoided engaging the allied fleet and headed for the safety of the fortress of Modon. The arrival of the Spanish squadron of 55 ships evened the numbers on both sides and opened the opportunity for a decisive blow, but friction among the Christian leaders and the reluctance of Don Juan squandered the opportunity. [51]

Pius V died on 1 May 1572. The diverging interests of the League members began to show, and the alliance began to unravel. In 1573, the Holy League fleet failed to sail altogether instead, Don Juan attacked and took Tunis, only for it to be retaken by the Ottomans in 1574. Venice, fearing the loss of its Dalmatian possessions and a possible invasion of Friuli, and eager to cut its losses and resume the trade with the Ottoman Empire, initiated unilateral negotiations with the Porte. [52]

The Holy League was disbanded with the peace treaty of 7 March 1573, which concluded the War of Cyprus. Venice was forced to accept loser's terms in spite of the victory at Lepanto. Cyprus was formally ceded to the Ottoman Empire, and Venice agreed to pay an indemnity of 300,000 ducats. In addition, the border between the two powers in Dalmatia was modified by the Turkish occupation of small but important parts of the hinterland that included the most fertile agricultural areas near the cities, with adverse effects on the economy of the Venetian cities in Dalmatia. [53] Peace would hold between the two states until the Cretan War of 1645. [54]

In 1574, the Ottomans retook the strategic city of Tunis from the Spanish-supported Hafsid dynasty, which had been re-installed after John of Austria's forces reconquered the city from the Ottomans the year before. Thanks to the long-standing Franco-Ottoman alliance, the Ottomans were able to resume naval activity in the western Mediterranean. In 1576, the Ottomans assisted in Abdul Malik's capture of Fez – this reinforced the Ottoman indirect conquests in Morocco that had begun under Suleiman the Magnificent. The establishment of Ottoman suzerainty over the area placed the entire southern coast of the Mediterranean from the Straits of Gibraltar to Greece under Ottoman authority, with the exceptions of the Spanish-controlled trading city of Oran and strategic settlements such as Melilla and Ceuta. But after 1580, the Ottoman Empire could no longer compete with the advances in European naval technology, especially the development of the galleon and line of battle tactics used in the Spanish Navy. [55] Spanish success in the Mediterranean continued into the first half of the 17th century. Spanish ships attacked the Anatolian coast, defeating larger Ottoman fleets at the Battle of Cape Celidonia and the Battle of Cape Corvo. Larache and La Mamora, in the Moroccan Atlantic coast, and the island of Alhucemas, in the Mediterranean, were taken (although Larache and La Mamora were lost again later in the 17th century). Ottoman expansion in the 17th century shifted to land war with Austria on one hand, culminating in the Great Turkish War of 1683–1699, and to the war with Safavid Persia on the other. [ citation needed ]

Accounts Edit

Giovanni Pietro Contarini’s History of the Events, which occurred from the Beginning of the War Brought against the Venetians by Selim the Ottoman, to the Day of the Great and Victorious Battle against the Turks was published in 1572, a few months after Lepanto. It was the first comprehensive account of the war, and the only one to attempt a concise but complete overview of its course and the Holy League’s triumph. Contarini’s account went beyond effluent praise and mere factual reporting to examine the meaning and importance of these events. It is also the only full historical account by an immediate commentator, blending his straightforward narrative with keen and consistent reflections on the political philosophy of conflict in the context of the Ottoman-Catholic confrontation in the early modern Mediterranean. [56]

Commemoration Edit

The Holy League credited the victory to the Virgin Mary, whose intercession with God they had implored for victory through the use of the Rosary. Andrea Doria had kept a copy of the miraculous image of Our Lady of Guadalupe given to him by King Philip II of Spain in his ship's state room. [57] Pope Pius V instituted a new Catholic feast day of Our Lady of Victory to commemorate the battle, which is now celebrated by the Catholic Church as the feast of Our Lady of the Rosary. [58] Dominican friar Juan Lopez in his 1584 book on the rosary states that the feast of the rosary was offered

"in memory and in perpetual gratitude of the miraculous victory that the Lord gave to his Christian people that day against the Turkish armada". [59]

A piece of commemorative music composed after the victory is the motet Canticum Moysis (Song of Moses Exodus 15) Pro victoria navali contra Turcas by the Spanish composer based in Rome Fernando de las Infantas. [60] The other piece of music is Jacobus de Kerle's "Cantio octo vocum de sacro foedere contra Turcas" 1572 (Song in Eight Voices on the Holy League Against the Turks), in the opinion of Pettitt (2006) an "exuberantly militaristic" piece celebrating the victory. [61] There were celebrations and festivities with triumphs and pageants at Rome and Venice with Turkish slaves in chains. [62]

The fortress of Palmanova in Italy originally called Palma was built by the Republic of Venice on 7 October 1593 to commemorate the victory.

Paintings Edit

There are many pictorial representations of the battle. Prints of the order of battle appeared in Venice and Rome in 1571, [63] and numerous paintings were commissioned, including one in the Doge's Palace, Venice, by Andrea Vicentino on the walls of the Sala dello Scrutinio, which replaced Tintoretto's Victory of Lepanto, destroyed by fire in 1577. Titian painted the battle in the background of an allegorical work showing Philip II of Spain holding his infant son, Don Fernando, his male heir born shortly after the victory, on 4 December 1571. An angel descends from heaven bearing a palm branch with a motto for Fernando, who is held up by Philip: "Majora tibi" (may you achieve greater deeds Fernando died as a child, in 1578). [64]

The Allegory of the Battle of Lepanto (c. 1572, oil on canvas, 169 x 137 cm, Gallerie dell'Accademia, Venice) is a painting by Paolo Veronese. The lower half of the painting shows the events of the battle, whilst at the top a female personification of Venice is presented to the Virgin Mary, with Saint Roch, Saint Peter, Saint Justina, Saint Mark and a group of angels in attendance. [ citation needed ]

A painting by Wenceslas Cobergher, dated to the end of the 16th century, now in San Domenico Maggiore, shows what is interpreted as a victory procession in Rome on the return of admiral Colonna. On the stairs of Saint Peter's Basilica, Pius V is visible in front of a kneeling figure, identified as Marcantonio Colonna returning the standard of the Holy League to the pope. On high is the Madonna and child with victory palms. [65]

Tommaso Dolabella painted his The Battle of Lepanto in c. 1625–1630 on the commission of Stanisław Lubomirski, commander of the Polish left wing in the Battle of Khotyn (1621). The monumental painting (3.05 m × 6.35 m) combines the Polish victory procession following this battle with the backdrop of the Battle of Lepanto. It was later owned by the Dominicans of Poznań and since 1927 has been on display in Wawel Castle, Cracow. [66]

The Battle of Lepanto by Juan Luna (1887) is displayed at the Spanish Senate in Madrid.

The Allegory of the Battle of Lepanto by Paolo Veronese (c. 1572, Gallerie dell'Accademia, Venice)

The Battle of Lepanto by Andrea Vicentino (c. 1600, Doge's Palace, Venice)

The Battle of Lepanto by Tommaso Dolabella (c. 1625–1630, Wawel Castle, Cracow)

The Battle of Lepanto by Andries van Eertvelt (1640)

The Battle of Lepanto by Juan Luna (1887, Spanish Senate, Madrid)

Sculpture Edit

The statue of John of Austria in Messina was erected by decision of the city's Senate in 1571, as John had returned to Messina after the battle. It was sculpted by Andrea Calamech and dedicated in 1572.

Poetry and fiction Edit

There was an immediate poetical response to the victory at Lepanto. In Italy alone 233 titles of sonnets, madrigals and poems were printed between 1571 and 1573, some of these including writing in dialect or Latin. [67] This was replicated by the Spanish response, with poems in Catalan and the Mallorcan dialect and full scale epics by Juan Latino (Austriados libri duo 1573), Jerónimo Corte-Real (Felicisma Victoria, 1578) and es:Juan Rufo (La Austriada, 1586). Though these longer works have, in the words of a later critic, "not unjustly been consigned to that oblivion which few epics have escaped", there was also a Spanish ballad which retained its popularity and was translated into English by Thomas Rodd in 1818. [68]

The most popular British poem on the subject was The Lepanto by King James VI of Scotland. Written in fourteeners about 1585, its thousand lines were ultimately collected in His Maiesties Poeticall Exercises at Vacant Houres (1591), [69] then published separately in 1603 after James had become king of England too. There were also translations in other languages, including into Dutch as Den Slach van Lepanten (1593) by Abraham van der Myl. [70] La Lepanthe, the French version by Du Bartas, accompanied James' 1591 edition a Latin version, the Naupactiados Metaphrasis by Thomas Murray (1564-1623), followed a year after James' 1603 publication. [71]

The royal connection ensured that the battle was featured in Stuart aquatic pageants representing sea battles between Christians and Turks well into the reign. [72] And in 1632 the story of the battle was retold in couplets in Abraham Holland's Naumachia. [73] Centuries later G. K. Chesterton revisited the conflict in his lively narrative poem Lepanto, first published in 1911 and republished many times since. It provided a series of poetic visions of the major characters in the battle, particularly the leader of the Christian forces, Don Juan of Austria, then closed with verses linking Miguel de Cervantes, who also fought in the battle, with the "lean and foolish knight" he would later immortalise in Don Quixote.

At the start of the 20th century too, Emilio Salgari devoted his historical novel, Il Leone di Damasco ("The Lion of Damascus", 1910), to the Battle of Lepanto, which was eventually to be adapted to film by Corrado D'Errico in 1942. [74] In 1942 as well, English author Elizabeth Goudge has a character in her war-time novel, The Castle on the Hill (1942), recall the leading role of John of Austria in the battle and the presence of Cervantes there. Much as combatants had appropriated Chesterton's poem to the circumstances of World War I, [75] Gould harnessed that ancient incident to British resistance to Nazi Germany during World War II. [76]

  1. ^ The 16th century saw only three such large battle: Preveza in 1538, Djerba in 1560 and Lepanto in 1571. These battles were spectacular[. ]. Nevertheless, they were not really decisive a galley fleet can be built in a few months and the logistical limitations of galleys prohibit the strategic exploitation of victory. [2]
  1. ^National Maritime MuseumBHC0261, based on a 1572 print by Martino Rota.
  2. ^Hattendorf 2013, p. 32.
  3. ^Konstam, Angus (2003). Lepanto 1571: The Greatest Naval Battle of the Renaissance. United Kingdom: Osprey Publishing. pp. 20–23. ISBN1-84176-409-4 . Retrieved August 29, 2012 .
  4. ^
  5. Fernandez de la Puente y Acevedo, José (1853). Memoria histórico-crítica del célebre combate naval y victoria de Lepanto. Madrid, Spain: Real Academia de la Historia. p. 35.
  6. ^ abcd Geoffrey Parker, The Military Revolution, pp. 87 – 88
  7. ^
  8. Nolan, Cathal (2006). The Age of Wars of Religion, 1000–1650: Encyclopedia of Global Warfare and Civilization, Volume 2. Greenwood Publishing Group. p. 529.
  9. ^Confrontation at Lepanto by T. C. F. Hopkins, intro
  10. ^ ab William Oliver Stevens and Allan F. Westcott, A History of Sea Power, 1920, p. 107.
  11. ^
  12. "Battle of Lepanto".
  13. ^Davis 1999, p. 195.
  14. ^Hanson 2010, p. 96.
  15. ^ William Stevens, History of Sea Power (1920), p. 83.
  16. ^ See e.g. William Stevens, History of Sea Power (1920), p. 83 Frederick A. de Armas, Cervantes, Raphael and the Classics (1998), p. 87.
  17. ^ His efforts to finance the Holy League against the Ottomans earned Philip II, the "Most Catholic King", his place as "champion of Catholicism throughout Europe, a role that led him to spectacular victories and equally spectacular defeats. Spain's leadership of a 'holy league' against Turkish enroachments in the Mediterranean resulted in a stunning victory over the Turkish fleet in the Battle of Lepanto in 1571. Philip's greatest misfortunes came from his attempts to crush the revolt in the Netherlands and his tortured relations with Queen Elizabeth of England."
  18. Jackson J. Spielvogel (2012). Western Civilization: A Brief History, Volume II: Since 1500 (8th ed.). Cengage Learning. p. 253. ISBN9781133607939 .
  19. ^Davis 1999, p. 199.
  20. ^ The image shown is a reproduction of an 1888 watercolour drawn from a copy of the banner in the Museo Naval in Madrid. The original is kept in the Museo de Santa Cruz in Toledo. The banner was given to Toledo Cathedral in 1616. It was moved to the Museo de Santa Cruz in 1961. F. Javier Campos y Fernández de Sevilla, "CERVANTES, LEPANTO Y EL ESCORIAL"
  21. ^ Goffman (2002), p. 158
  22. ^Hopkins 2006, pp. 59–60.
  23. ^Stevens (1942), p. 61
  24. ^Setton (1984), p. 1047. Meyer Setton, Kenneth: The Papacy and the Levant, 1204–1571, Vol. IV. Philadelphia: American Philosophical Society, 1984. 978-0-87169-162-0, p. 1047.
  25. ^Archer et al. 2002, p. 258.
  26. ^ Rick Scorza, "Vasari's Lepanto Frescoes: Apparati, Medals, Prints and the Celebration of Victory", Journal of the Warburg and Courtauld Institutes 75 (2012), 141–200
  27. ^
  28. Konstam, Angus (2003). Lepanto 1571: The Greatest Naval Battle Of The Renaissance. United Kingdom: Osprey Publishing. p. 23. ISBN1-84176-409-4 . Retrieved August 29, 2012 .
  29. ^ abStevens (1942), pp. 66–69
  30. ^1861899467, p. 70
  31. ^0-306-81544-3, p. 225
  32. ^Stevens (1942), p. 67
  33. ^ Gregory Hanlon. "The Twilight Of A Military Tradition: Italian Aristocrats And European Conflicts, 1560-1800." Routledge: 1997. Page 22.
  34. ^ abSetton (1984), p. 1026
  35. ^ Konstam (2003), p. 20
  36. ^ ab John F. Guilmartin (1974), pp. 222–25
  37. ^ The first regularly sanctioned use of convicts as oarsmen on Venetian galleys did not occur until 1549. re Tenenti, Cristoforo da Canal, pp. 83, 85. See Tenenti, Piracy and the Decline of Venice (Berkeley, 1967), pp. 124–25, for Cristoforo da Canal's comments on the tactical effectiveness of free oarsmen c. 1587 though he was mainly concerned with their higher cost. Ismail Uzuncarsili, Osmanli Devletenin Merkez ve Bahriye Teskilati (Ankara, 1948), p. 482, cites a squadron of 41 Ottoman galleys in 1556 of which the flagship and two others were rowed by Azabs, salaried volunteer light infantrymen, three were rowed by slaves and the remaining 36 were rowed by salaried mercenary Greek oarsmen.
  38. ^ Konstam (2003), pp. 20–21
  39. ^Stevens (1942), p. 63
  40. ^ John Keegan, A History of Warfare (1993), p. 337.
  41. ^ ab William Oliver Stevens and Allan F. Westcott, A History of Sea Power, 1920, p. 103.
  42. ^ Glete, Jan: Warfare at Sea, 1500–1650: Maritime Conflicts and the Transformation of Europe. Routledge. 2000. p. 105. Retrieved from Ebrary.
  43. ^Stevens (1942), p. 64
  44. ^ after a figure from William Oliver Stevens and Allan F. Westcott, A History of Sea Power, 1920, p. 106.
  45. ^ William Oliver Stevens and Allan F. Westcott, A History of Sea Power, 1920, p. 104.
  46. ^ William Oliver Stevens and Allan F. Westcott, A History of Sea Power, 1920, pp. 105–06.
  47. ^[1],
  48. "Archived copy". Archived from the original on 2009-01-07 . Retrieved 2009-03-19 . CS1 maint: archived copy as title (link)
  49. ^Davis 2009, p. 94.
  50. ^Wheatcroft 2004, pp. 33–34
  51. ^Abulafia 2012, p. 451.
  52. ^Davis 1999, p. 194.
  53. ^ Keegan, A History of Warfare (1993), p. 337.
  54. ^ J. Norwich, A History of Venice, 490
  55. ^ L. Kinross, The Ottoman Centuries: The Rise and Fall of the Turkish Empire, 272
  56. ^Wheatcroft 2004, p. 34
  57. ^ *
  58. Guilmartin, John F. (2003). Galleons and Galleys: Gunpowder and the Changing Face of Warfare at Sea, 1300–1650. Cassell. pp. 149–50.
  59. ^
  60. Finkel, Caroline (2006). Osman's Dream: The Story of the Ottoman Empire 1300–1923. London: John Murray. p. 161.
  61. Setton, Kenneth M. (1984). The Papacy and the Levant (1204–1571), Vol. IV: The Sixteenth Century. Memoirs of the American Philosophical Society. pp. 1093–95.
  62. ^
  63. Raukar, Tomislav (November 1977). "Venecija i ekonomski razvoj Dalmacije u XV i XVI stoljeću". Journal – Institute of Croatian History (in Croatian). Zagreb, Croatia: Faculty of Philosophy, Zagreb. 10 (1): 221. ISSN0353-295X . Retrieved 2012-07-08 .
  64. ^ Finkel (2006), p. 222
  65. ^ "After 1580, there was a growing distaste for maritime ventures the Ottoman fleet lay rotting in the still waters of the Horn." Roger Crowley, "Empires of the Sea: The siege of Malta, the battle of Lepanto and the contest for the center of the world", publisher Random House, 2008, p. 287.
  66. ^ Contarini, Giovanni, and Kiril Petkov.From Cyprus to Lepanto: History of the Events, Which Occurred from the Beginning of the War Brought against the Venetians by Selim the Ottoman, to the Day of the Great and Victorious Battle against the Turks. 2019.
  67. ^
  68. Badde, Paul (2005). Maria von Guadalupe. Wie das Erscheinen der Jungfrau Weltgeschichte schrieb. ISBN3-548-60561-3 .
  69. ^ Alban Butler, Butler's Lives Of The Saints (1999), p. 222. See also EWTN on Battle of Lepanto (1571)[2].
  70. ^Libro en que se tratea de la importancia y exercicio del santo rosario, Zaragoza: Domingo Portonariis y Ursino (1584), cited after Lorenzo F. Candelaria, The Rosary Cantoral: Ritual and Social Design in a Chantbook from Early Renaissance Toledo, University Rochester Press (2008), p. 109.
  71. ^ Stevenson, R. Chapter 'Other church masters' section 14. 'Infantas' in Spanish Cathedral Music in the Golden Age pp. 316–18.
  72. ^ Stephen Pettitt, 'Classical: New Releases: Jacobus De Kerle: Da Pacem Domine', Sunday Times, Jan 2006.
  73. ^ See Rick Scorza's article in The Slave in European Art: From Renaissance Trophy to Abolitionist Emblem, ed Elizabeth McGrath and Jean Michel Massing, London (The Warburg Institute) and Turin 2012.
  74. ^ anonymous chalcography, 1571, Museo Civico Correr, Museo di Storia Navale, Venice Vero retratto del armata Christiana et Turchesca in ordinanza [. ] dove li nostri ebero la gloriosa vitoria tra Lepanto [. ], 1571 Il vero ordine et modo tenuto dalle Chistiana et turchescha nella bataglia, che fu all. 7. Ottobrio [. ], Venice 1571, Museo di Storia Navale, Venice Agostino Barberigo, L' ultimo Et vero Ritrato Di la vitoria de L'armata Cristiana de la santissima liga Contre a L'armata Turcheschà [. ], 1571. Antonio Lafreri, L’ordine tenuto dall’armata della santa Lega Christiana contro il Turcho [. ], n'e seguita la felicissima Vittoria li sette d'Ottobre MDLXXI [. ], Rome, 1571 (bnf.fr). Bernhard Jobin, Mercklicher Schiffstreit /und Schlachtordnung beyder Christlichjen / und Türckischen Armada / wie sich die jüngst den 7. Oktob. 71. Jar verloffen / eigentlich fürgerissen / und warhafftig beschrieben, Strasbourg, 1572 cited after Rudolph (2012).
  75. ^ Robert Enggass and Jonathan Brown, Italian and Spanish Art, 1600–1750: Sources and Documents (1992), p. 213.
  76. ^Flemish Masters and Other Artists: Foreign Artists from the Heritage of the Fondo Edifici Di Culto Del Ministero Dell'interno (2008), p. 83.
  77. ^ Anna Misiag-Bochenska, Historia obrazu Tomasza Dolabelli " Bitwa pod Lepanto " ", Nautologia 3.1/2 (1968/9), 64–65. Krystyna Fabijańska-Przybytko, Morze w malarstwie polskim (1990), p. 104. Gino Benzoni, Il Mediterraneo Nella Seconda Metà Del '500 Alla Luce Di Lepanto (1974), p. 31.
  78. ^ Emma Grootveld, Trumpets of Lepanto. Italian narrative poetry (1571-1650) on the war of Cyprus, KU Leuven & University of Ghent 2017, p.7 ff
  79. ^ William Stirling Maxwell, Don John of Austria: Or Passages from the History of the Sixteenth Century, Longmans 1883, Vol. 1, pp.454-6
  80. ^Google Books
  81. ^ Astrid Stilma, The Writings of King James VI & I and their Interpretation in the Low Countries, Routledge 2016,
  82. ^ Dana F. Sutton, University of California hypertext edition
  83. ^ David M. Bergeron, "Are we turned Turks?": English Pageants and the Stuart Court, Comparative Drama: Vol. 44.3 (2010)
  84. ^text online
  85. ^
  86. D'Errico, Corrado. "Il Leone Di Damasco". www.imdb.com. Internet Movie Database . Retrieved 8 October 2014 .
  87. ^ Luke J. Foster, "Tilting After the Trenches: The Quixotic Return of Heroism in G.K. Chesterton's Modernism", Columbia University Department of English & Comparative Literature 2015, p.2
  88. ^The Castle on the Hill, Chapter V, pp 83-84
  • Abulafia, David (2012). The Great Sea: A Human History of the Mediterranean. New York: Penguin Books. ISBN978-0-19931-599-4 .
  • Anderson, R. C. Naval Wars in the Levant 1559–1853, (2006), 1-57898-538-2
  • Archer, Christon Ferris, John R. Herwig, Holger H. Travers, Timothy H.E. (2002). World History of Warfare . Lincoln: University of Nebraska Press. ISBN978-0-80321-941-0 .
  • Beeching, Jack. The Galleys at Lepanto, Hutchinson, London, 1982 0-09-147920-7
  • Bicheno, Hugh. Crescent and Cross: The Battle of Lepanto 1571, pbk., Phoenix, London, 2004, 1-84212-753-5
  • Capponi, Niccolò (2006). Victory of the West:The Great Christian-Muslim Clash at the Battle of Lepanto. New York: Da Capo Press. ISBN0-306-81544-3 . . The Mediterranean in the Age of Philip II. (vol 2 1972), the classic history by the leader of the French Annales School excerpt and text search vol 2 pp 1088–1142
  • Chesterton, G. K. Lepanto with Explanatory Notes and Commentary, Dale Ahlquist, ed. (San Francisco: Ignatius Press, 2003). 1-58617-030-9
  • Clissold, Stephen (1966). A short history of Yugoslavia. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. ISBN0-521-04676-9 .
  • Cakir, İbrahim Etem, "Lepanto War and Some Informatıon on the Reconstructıon of The Ottoman Fleet", Turkish Studies – International Periodical For The Language Literature and History of Turkish or Turkic, Volume 4/3 Spring 2009, pp. 512–31
  • Contarini, Giovanni Pietro. Kiril Petkov, ed and trans. From Cyprus to Lepanto: History of the Events, Which Occurred from the Beginning of the War Brought against the Venetians by Selim the Ottoman, to the Day of the Great and Victorious Battle against the Turks. Italica Press, 2019. 978-1-59910-381-5978-1-59910-382-2
  • Cook, M.A. (ed.), "A History of the Ottoman Empire to 1730", Cambridge University Press, 1976 0-521-20891-2
  • Crowley, Roger Empires of the Sea: The siege of Malta, the battle of Lepanto and the contest for the center of the world, Random House, 2008. 978-1-4000-6624-7
  • Currey, E. Hamilton, "Sea-Wolves of the Mediterranean", John Murrey, 1910
  • Davis, Paul K. (1999). 100 Decisive Battles: From Ancient Times to the Present. New York: Oxford University Press. ISBN978-0-19514-366-9 .
  • Davis, Robert C. (2009). Holy War and Human Bondage. Santa Barbara: ABC-CLIO. ISBN978-0-27598-950-7 .
  • Guilmartin, John F. (1974) Gunpowder & Galleys: Changing Technology & Mediterranean Warfare at Sea in the 16th Century. Cambridge University Press, London. 0-521-20272-8.
  • Guilmartin, John F. (2003). Galleons and Galleys: Gunpowder and the Changing Face of Warfare at Sea, 1300–1650. Cassell. ISBN0-304-35263-2 . Carnage and Culture: Landmark Battles in the Rise of Western Power, Anchor Books, 2001. Published in the UK as Why the West has Won, Faber and Faber, 2001. 0-571-21640-4. Includes a chapter about the battle of Lepanto
  • Hanson, Victor Davis (2010). The Father of Us All: War and History, Ancient and Modern . New York: Bloomsbury Press. ISBN978-1-60819-410-0 .
  • Hattendorf, John B., ed. (2013). Naval Policy and Strategy in the Mediterranean: Past, Present and Future. Frank Cass.
  • Hess, Andrew C. "The Battle of Lepanto and Its Place in Mediterranean History", Past and Present, No. 57. (Nov., 1972), pp. 53–73
  • Hopkins, T.C.F. (2006). Confrontation at Lepanto: Christendom vs. Islam. New York: Forge Books. ISBN978-0-76530-539-8 .
  • Konstam, Angus, Lepanto 1571: The Greatest Naval Battle of the Renaissance. Osprey Publishing, Oxford. 2003. 1-84176-409-4
  • Stevens, William Oliver and Allan Westcott (1942). A History of Sea Power. Doubleday.
  • Harbottle's Dictionary of Battles, third revision by George Bruce, 1979
  • Parker, Geoffrey (1996) The Military Revolution: Military Innovation and the Rise of the West, 1500–1800. (second edition) Cambridge University Press, Cambridge. 0-521-47426-4
  • Stouraiti, Anastasia, 'Costruendo un luogo della memoria: Lepanto', Storia di Venezia – Rivista 1 (2003), 65–88.
  • Warner, Oliver Great Sea Battles (1968) has "Lepanto 1571" as its opening chapter. 0-89673-100-6
  • The New Cambridge Modern History, Volume I – The Renaissance 1493–1520, edited by G. R. Potter, Cambridge University Press 1964
  • Wheatcroft, Andrew (2004). Infidels: A History of the Conflict between Christendom and Islam. Penguin Books. , La Guerre de Chypre et la Bataille de Lépante (1888). , The Story of Don John of Austria, trans. Lady Moreton, New York: John Lane Company, 1912 (online transcription of pp. 265–71Archived 2012-06-18 at the Wayback Machine).
  • Christopher Check, The Battle that Saved the Christian West, This Rock 18.3 (March 2007).

Lepanto – Rudolph, Harriet, "Die Ordnung der Schlacht und die Ordnung der Erinnerung" in: Militärische Erinnerungskulturen vom 14. bis zum 19. Jahrhundert (2012), 101–28.


Battle of Kaveripauk

Place of the Battle of Kaveripauk: In Tamil Nadu in South East India.

Nabob of Arcot: Battle of Kaveripauk on 23rd February 1752 in the Anglo-French Wars in India (Second Carnatic War)

Combatants at the Battle of Kaveripauk: The Nabob of Arcot, Chunda Sahib, assisted by the French against Mohammed Ali, the son of the previous Nabob of Carnatica, assisted by the British.

Generals at the Battle of Kaveripauk: Raju Sahib, son of Chunda Sahib, against Captain Robert Clive.

Size of the armies at the Battle of Kaveripauk:
Clive commanded 300 European troops and 1,300 sepoys (many of them captured from the French service at the Battle of Arni), making 1,600 in all, and 6 guns.

Raju Sahib commanded 2,500 horsemen, 400 European Troops and 2,000 sepoys, making 4,900 in all, and 9 guns and 3 mortars.

Winner of the Battle of Kaveripauk: Captain Robert Clive and his British and sepoy force.

Uniforms, arms and equipment at the the Battle of Kaveripauk:
The native Indian soldiers were armed with bows, swords and spears. There were some firearms.

The Indian princes possessed field guns but they were not well handled by the Indian gunners.

The significant component of warfare in India in the 1750s became the disciplined French and British infantry and artillery. There were few of these troops, and, while effective in the field against the native levies, they were susceptible to disease and quickly became casualties.

The answer for the French and the British to the small number of European troops and their vulnerability to tropical disease was to recruit native sepoys, arm them with muskets and train them in European battle drill. This both European nations began to do.

The European troops and sepoys raised by the East India Companies of Britain and France were equipped and armed in the same way as their national infantry. The weapons carried were a musket and bayonet and small sword, known in the British army as a ‘hanger’. On campaign, each soldier carried around 25 musket rounds made up in paper cartridges in a leather pouch hung from a shoulder belt. The uniform was a coat, red for the British and blue for the French, waistcoat and tricorne hat worn according to the demands of the weather. In some instances white was worn instead of blue or red. Sepoys wore shorter coats of their employing nation’s colour. The headgear for sepoys was a local variant of the tricorne.

European troops wore stockings, gaiters and heavy shoes. Sepoys wore native clothing on their lower body with sandals or bare feet.

Contemporary accounts of the wars refer to ‘European’ troops, rather than British or French. Both British and French East India Companies recruited whatever European soldiers were prepared to join their armies regardless of nationality. If captured, a European soldier was very likely to enlist with his captor rather than remain in prison, so that the British forces contained Frenchmen along with soldiers of many other European nationalities with a predominance of British. Equally so with the French.

The presence of the various European nationalities in India was initially to trade and there was a reluctance to become involved in the raising, training and paying large bodies of troops, until it became clear that this was unavoidable if a presence was to be maintained in India. The French and British quickly became a major force in Indian warfare, particularly in the South, due to their advanced technology and discipline.

Malleson states that the rate of fire for Indian gunners in the 1750s was around 1 shot every 15 minutes. The European rate of gunfire, 2 or 3 rounds a minute, came as a shock to their opponents. Malleson states that the battle tactics of Indian commanders were based on the erroneous assumption that once European guns were discharged there was a period of 15 minutes during which an attack could be launched while the guns were reloaded. Other features of French and British tactics that came as a surprise were disciplined volley firing and the aggression of European infantry assaults. (In these early days there were no European cavalry or sepoy cavalry in India and the French and British relied on native horsemen such as the Mahrattas)

The combination of these tactical characteristics with the adept and ruthless leadership shown by Robert Clive and other British officers and by some of the French officers such as M. Paradis explains how battles were won by small numbers of European troops and sepoys fighting large native armies.

French Sepoy: Battle of Kaveripauk on 23rd February 1752 in the Anglo-French Wars in India (Second Carnatic War)

As the French and British sepoy armies became stronger the two nations ceased to fight as proxies for local rulers and the fighting between them became direct, although the wars with the native rulers continued to be the most important component in the politics of southern India, particularly as the French lost ground to the British.

A constant threat from North-West India were the Mahrattas, better disciplined mounted warriors, who in the wars of the 1750s acted as allies to the British. Later, war was conducted by the British against the Mahrattas.

The Mahratta horsemen were armed with sabres and were accompanied by an equivalent number of foot soldiers armed with swords, clubs or spears. If a horse was disabled the rider continued fighting on foot. If a rider was disabled one of the foot soldiers would take over the horse.

Background to the Battle of Kaveripauk:

The predominant power on the Indian sub-continent in the mid-18th Century was the Muslim Mogul Emperor in Delhi. The Emperor maintained a loose rule over a system of sub-rulers of varying power and loyalty. These rulers struggled over the suzerainty of a number of states of differing sizes, the contests being particularly savage when a ruler died, leaving family and retainers to fight over the succession.

The British presence in India was by way of the trading organisation, the East India Company, with no direct British Crown involvement, although Royal Troops and ships assisted in the wars. The French equivalent was also an East India Company, although there was closer involvement by the French Crown.

In the south of India the native rulers in the Deccan, Mysore, Carnatica, Tanjore and other states turned to the two competing European powers, Britain and France, for assistance. The Carnatic Wars were a protracted struggle between rival Indian claimants to the Carnatic throne, supported by the French and the British.

Between 1748 and 1751, the French Governor Dupleix worked to build up French influence in the area. The departure of Boscawen’s British fleet for England in the autumn of 1749 with the arrival of the monsoon lifted a major restraint on French ambition and the French quickly established control of the Deccan, much of the Carnatic and other states in Southern India.

In July 1751 Chunda Sahib, the Nawab of Arcot, with a force of 8,000 native and 400 French troops, advanced to lay siege to Trichinopoly, held by Mohammed Ali, the Nawab of Tanjore, an ally of the British East India Company.

The British hurried such forces as they had to assist Mohammed Ali in holding Trichinopoly. If Trichinopoly was to fall, British prestige would suffer a heavy blow and most of its troops and officers would be lost. Ensuring that Trichinopoly held out and was relieved became an essential aim for the British.

Robert Clive, a junior officer in the service of the East India Company, and one of the few officers not immured in Trichinopoly, devised a plan to divert Chunda Sahib by attacking his capital, Arcot. Robert Saunders, the East India Company governor at Madras, adopted Clive’s plan and dispatched him with a small force of British troops and sepoys for the attack on Arcot.

Clive marched to Arcot, seized the fort in the city and held it against a force sent by Chunda Sahib and commanded by his son, Raju Sahib. See the Siege of Arcot.

After Clive’s successful defence of Arcot Raju Sahib retreated precipitately to Vellore and then south to the River Poondi, where he was resoundingly beaten again by Clive at the Battle of Arni.

Following the Battle of Arni Clive captured the fortified pagoda at Conjeveram, destroyed it and marched to Fort St David on the coast to the south of Pondicherry to prepare for the relief of Trichinopoly.

The fate of Trichinopoly was now essential for each side. Chunda Sahib, the Nawab of Arcot, and the French who besieged the city needed to take Trichinopoly to secure their hold on Tanjore and the city state of Arcot.

Mohammed Ali, the Nawab of Tanjore, needed to retain his capital if he was to stay in power and the British needed to ensure the safety of the city to maintain their newly established credibility as a power in Southern India.

Emperor Aurangzeb accompanied by Indian troops: Battle of Kaveripauk on 23rd February 1752 in the Anglo-French Wars in India (Second Carnatic War)

Once Clive was out of the field at Fort St David the French Governor Dupleix and Chunda Sahib took steps to divert him from relieving Trichinopoly. Chunda Sahib’s son, Raju Sahib, the loser at Arcot and Arni, assembled his scattered troops and marched to the town of Conjeveram. The pagoda at Conjeveram was repaired and garrisoned and Raju Sahib moved on to Vendalur, perilously close to the British base at Madras. During February 1752, Raju Sahib’s troops ravaged the area, burning the country houses of several of the British East India Company’s senior administrators.

The result was exactly as Dupleix and Chunda Sahib planned. Clive was abruptly ordered to abandon the preparations to relieve Trichinopoly, to return to Madras and defend the city.

Clive assembled a force of European troops and sepoys from the small garrison left at Madras, with troops from Bengal and part of the Arcot garrison, that he summoned to Madras.

On 22nd February 1752 Clive marched out of Madras with 300 European troops, 1,300 sepoys (many of them originally French sepoys, captured at Arni) and 6 guns, making for Vendalur where Raju Sahib and his army were last known to be.

Raju Sahib’s intelligence system kept him fully informed of proceedings at Madras. Clive’s intelligence seems to have been good, but not as good as Raju Sahib’s.

Clive reached Vendalur at 3pm on 22nd February 1752, to find that Raju Sahib’s army was gone, marching in dispersed groups and making for Kanchipuram, further west.

Clive reached Kanchipuram at 4am on 23rd February. Raju Sahib’s army again was gone. Clive was informed that Raju Sahib was heading for Arcot, with the intention of storming the fort.

Clive’s troops were now too exhausted to march further for the time being and a halt was called at Kanchipuram. The opportunity was taken to force the surrender of the fortified pagoda in the town.

Raju Sahib had marched for Arcot and intended to take the fort by means of treachery, two of the fort’s sepoy officers being in his pay and suborned to open the gate on a signal. When the arranged signal was made there was no response and it was clear that the plot to give up the fort had been foiled.

Raju Sahib immediately turned back to attack Clive’s force and marched to Kaveripauk, a town through which Clive’s troops would soon pass on their route west to Arcot.

In the course of these journeys, Raju Sahib’s men marched 58 miles in 30 hours.

Map of the Battle of Kaveripauk on 23rd February 1752 in the Anglo-French Wars in India (Second Carnatic War): map by John Fawkes

Account of the Battle of Kaveripauk:
At sunset on 23rd February 1752 Clive’s troops approached the town of Kaveripauk, visible in the distance. As they marched in open formation down the road 9 French guns opened fire on them. Clive had marched into an ambush.

These French guns were positioned behind a ditch and a bank 250 yards to the right of the road on the edge of a dense mango tree plantation.

On the left side of the road, running parallel to it was a dry watercourse.

Raju Sahib’s force was positioned with some of his European troops and his guns in the mango tree plantation. The rest of his infantry were further up the road towards Kaveripauk with his mounted troops on the far side of the watercourse behind the infantry.

Clive quickly gave his directions. The baggage was sent to the rear with one of the guns and a platoon of infantry for protection. 2 more guns with a platoon of Europeans and 200 sepoys were positioned beyond the dry watercourse to keep Raju Sahib’s horsemen at bay. The remaining 3 guns stayed on the road to fight it out with the French guns in the mango grove, supported by 2 platoons of European infantry. The rest of the force took cover in the dry watercourse.

Raju Sahib’s French infantry entered the watercourse and advanced down it in files of 6, exchanging fire with Clive’s infantry further along.

The firing across the battlefield continued for two hours into the night, lit by the moonlight.

During this time Raju Sahib’s cavalry attempted to attack the 2 guns and infantry opposed to them and to take the baggage, but were repulsed.

The French guns, firing from the mango grove, were getting the better of the 3 British guns that were exposed on the road. Many of the gunners and supporting infantry became casualties.

By 10pm it was clear that Clive would have to retreat unless the French guns could be subdued. Ever aggressive, Clive resolved to attack the guns.

Clive sent a sepoy sergeant called Shawlum, who was a local man, to reconnoitre the far side of the mango grove with a small party of sepoys. Shawlum returned from his reconnaissance to say that there appeared to be no troops guarding the rear of the mango grove. This proved to be incorrect.

Yogini Goddess from Kaveripauk: Battle of Kaveripauk on 23rd February 1752 in the Anglo-French Wars in India (Second Carnatic War)

Clive assembled a force of 200 Europeans and 400 sepoy, from the troops in the watercourse and was guided by Shawlum to the rear of the mango grove. Clive’s force was half way to its destination when word came that with his departure the troops remaining in the watercourse had ceased firing and were on the verge of flight.

Clive left Lieutenant Keene to command the party heading for the back of the mango grove and returned to the watercourse where, with some difficulty, he restored the position and firing resumed.

Keene halted the assaulting party 300 yards from the mango grove and sent Ensign Symmonds on to carry out a final reconnaissance.

In the dark, Symmonds stumbled on a trench occupied by a force of French sepoys. Symmonds was challenged but answered in French and persuaded the sepoys that he was a French officer. Symmonds carried on and found himself behind the French gun line, supported by 100 French troops but with no sentries or observation to the rear.

Symmonds returned to the main party, taking care to avoid the area of trench occupied by the French sepoys and led Keene’s party up to the French gun positions.

Clive at the Battle of Kaveripauk on 23rd February 1752 in the Anglo-French Wars in India (Second Carnatic War)

The British troops fired a volley into the French gunners and infantry at 30 yards, causing the French immediately to flee without returning a shot.

Many of the French took refuge in a ‘choultry’ or lodging house in the grove. The British troops surrounded the choultry and summoned the French to surrender, which they did, the French soldiers coming out one by one and surrendering their weapons.

Indian Sepoy: Battle of Kaveripauk on 23rd February 1752 in the Anglo-French Wars in India (Second Carnatic War)

The sudden silence from the French battery showed Clive and his troops in the watercourse that the attack had succeeded. The French further up the watercourse found out what had happened when fugitives arrived from the battery. They promptly fled and their cavalry dispersed.

Clive’s force spent the rest of the night on the battlefield, gathering in and caring for the wounded. In the morning they found they had captured 9 guns, 3 coehorn mortars and 60 European troops.

Casualties at the Battle of Kaveripauk:

Raju Sahib’s force suffered 50 Europeans and 300 sepoys killed, with many more wounded. The British suffered 40 Europeans and 30 sepoys killed, with, many more wounded.

Battle Honour and Campaign Medal:
There is no Battle Honour or Campaign Medal for the Battle of Kaveripauk.

Follow-up to the Battle of Kaveripauk:
Casualties were heavy in the battle due to the prolonged period of artillery bombardment and the lack of cover for the party on the road. Making arrangements for the wounded of each army delayed a pursuit. During the morning following the battle Clive sent a message to the governor of the fort at Kavrepauk requiring him to surrender. The governor replied that he was not in a position to comply as there was a large number of fugitives from Raju Sahib’s army taking refuge in the fort outnumbering his own troops.

Clive sent a detachment to attack the fort but before they arrived the fugitives troops left and the governor surrendered.

Clive marched on to Arcot from where he proposed to advance on Vellore to capture the elephants used in the attack on Arcot with the baggage and weapons that Raju Sahib had deposited there.

Before he could undertake this march Clive received instructions to take his troops to Fort St David and press on with the operation to relieve Trichinopoly.

Regimental anecdotes and traditions from the Battle of Kaveripauk:

  • Malleson includes Kavrepauk in his book ‘The Decisive Battles of India 1746-1859’ on the basis that it was this victory by Clive that convinced the native potentates that the British were a serious military power. For Malleson, following Kavrepauk, the British did not look back and British rule became the destiny for India. Malleson wrote his book in 1885. It is clear that for him any idea that India might cease to be ruled by Britain was unthinkable.

References for the Battle of Kaveripauk:

  • Military Transactions by Orme
  • The East India Military Calendar Volume II
  • The Decisive Battles in India by Malleson
  • History of the British Army by Fortescue Volume II

The previous battle in the Anglo-French Wars in India is the Battle of Arni

The next battle in the Anglo-French Wars in India is the Battle of Plassey


Contents

Despite the British Conquest of Acadia in 1710, Nova Scotia remained primarily occupied by Catholic Acadians and Mi'kmaq. By the time Cornwallis had arrived in Halifax, there was a long history of the Wabanaki Confederacy (which included the Mi'kmaq) protecting their land by killing British civilians along the New England/ Acadia border in Maine (See the Northeast Coast Campaigns 1688, 1703, 1723, 1724, 1745, 1746, 1747). [11] [12] [13]

To prevent the establishment of Protestant settlements in the region, Mi'kmaq raided the early British settlements of present-day Shelburne (1715) and Canso (1720). A generation later, Father Le Loutre's War began when Edward Cornwallis arrived to establish Halifax with 13 transports on June 21, 1749. [14]

Within 18 months of establishing Halifax, the British also took firm control of peninsula Nova Scotia by building fortifications in all the major Acadian communities: present-day Windsor (Fort Edward) Grand Pre (Fort Vieux Logis) and Chignecto (Fort Lawrence). (A British fort already existed at the other major Acadian centre of Annapolis Royal, Nova Scotia. Cobequid remained without a fort.)

After the raid in Dartmouth in 1749, on October 2, 1749, Cornwallis created an extirpation proclamation to stop the raids. The Siege of Grand Pre was the first recorded conflict in the region after the raid on Dartmouth.

On 23 April, Lawrence was unsuccessful in getting a base at Chignecto because Le Loutre led 70 Mi'kmaq and 30 Acadians in burning the village of Beaubassin, preventing Lawrence from using its supplies to establish a fort. [15] [16] (According to the historian Frank Patterson, the Acadians at Cobequid also burned their homes as they retreated from the British to Tatamagouche, Nova Scotia in 1754. [17] ) Lawrence retreated, but he returned in September 1750.

On September 3, 1750 Captain John Rous, Lawrence and Gorham led over 700 men (including the 40th, 45th and 47th Regiments) to Chignecto, where Mi'kmaq and Acadians opposed their landing. [18] They had thrown up a breastwork from behind which they opposed the landing. They killed twenty British, who in turn killed several Mi'kmaq. The Mi'kmaq and Acadians killed Captain Francis Bartelo in the Battle at Chignecto. [19] [20] Le Loutre's militia eventually withdrew to Beausejour, burning the rest of the Acadians' crops and houses as they went. [21]


On April 19, 1775, the militia of Massachusetts – later joined by the militias of other New England colonies – began a siege at Boston to prevent thousands of newly-arrived British troops from moving inland.

On June 14, 1775, the Second Continental Congress created a Continental Army, to be formed out of the individual militias of the Thirteen Colonies. The next day, Congress created the position of Commander-in-Chief of the Continental Army, and unanimously elected Washington to that position. Congress formally presented him with his commission on June 19, and he departed Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, on June 23, headed for Massachusetts. He arrived at Cambridge, Massachusetts, on July 2, and took command of the siege. It lasted until March 17, 1776, when the British withdrew by ship.

Washington's headquarters staff consisted of a military secretary – initially, Colonel Joseph Reed and four aides-de-camp – initially, William Palfrey, Stephen Moylan, Richard Cary, and Robert Hanson Harrison. They managed Washington's correspondence, made copies of each day's General Orders (to be distributed to the commanding officer at each military post), and made copies of individual orders from the commander-in-chief.

Traveling with the headquarters staff (his "family") and a troop of life-guards (bodyguards), Washington tended to stay at military camps, taverns, houses belonging to Continental Army officers or sympathetic civilians, and vacant houses seized from Loyalists. Topography and geographical features were exploited to protect a headquarters—before and after the Battle of Germantown, Washington stayed at the Henry Keely House, [1] atop a plateau on the west side of the Perkiomen Creek, while the Continental Army camped on the east side of the creek at Pennypacker Mills between Washington and the British Army.

Washington's correspondence and expense accounts are useful sources for determining his location on a specific date. For instance: an expense account entry that lists meals – but not "use of house" – likely indicates that Washington and his staff pitched their tents on the owner's property.


Benjamin Williams (1751-1814)

Benjamin Williams was born on January 1 st , 1751 to John and Ferebee Williams in Johnston County, North Carolina. Williams married Elizabeth Jones in 1781, and their only son received Williams&rsquos namesake.

Williams&rsquos political career began in 1774 when he was selected to serve on the First Provincial Congress. With the American Revolution seeming imminent, Williams represented Johnston County as he became more involved in the movement for colonial independence. In 1775, Williams served under George Washington as an officer in the North Carolina Regiment. Later, Williams&rsquos resignation from military duties to serve in North Carolina&rsquos House of Commons would be short-lived Williams soon went back to fight the British. In fact, on March 15, 1871, Williams received an award for his bravery exemplified at the Battle of Guilford Court House.

After the war, Williams again returned to politics. He served in the North Carolina General Assembly and was later elected to the Third Congress of the United States (1794-1795). Almost immediately after his return to North Carolina, Williams was elected Governor of North Carolina and served the maximum of three one-year terms from 1799 to 1802. In between his first three terms and his last stint as Governor from 1807 to 1808, Williams served as a Moore County Senator in the General Assembly and enjoyed broad support during his tenure in that office.

Many historians label Williams an Anti-Federalist or Republican, but his views were more consistent with the Federalists. As a politician, Williams was able to successfully draw upon both Federalist and Republican support by using a middle-of-the-road strategy. Using marginal politics to his advantage while in the governor&rsquos office, Williams pushed for internal improvements and public education. However, post-war North Carolina debt kept these goals out of reach. Regardless, Williams is well-known as a staunch supporter of the formation of the University of North Carolina. Williams served on the very first Board of Trustees at the university and was instrumental in selecting the university&rsquos original site in Chapel Hill.

Leaving the governor&rsquos office in 1808, Williams retired to his plantation in Moore County. After retirement, Williams led a simplistic life farming, planting cotton, and racing horses on his 2,500 acre plantation. Williams died on July 20, 1814.

Today, Williams&rsquo plantation, nicknamed &ldquoThe House in the Horseshoe&rdquo is a State Historic Site and a tourist attraction because of the plantation&rsquos historical and cultural significance to North Carolina.

Sources

Michael Hill, ed., The Governors of North Carolina (Raleigh, 2007).


The terrorist known as Carlos the Jackal is captured

Terrorist Illich Ramirez Sanchez, long known as Carlos the Jackal, is captured in Khartoum, Sudan, by French intelligence agents. Since there was no extradition treaty with Sudan, the French agents sedated and kidnapped Carlos. The Sudanese government, claiming that it had assisted in the arrest, requested that the United States remove their country from its list of nations that sponsor terrorism.

Sanchez, who was affiliated with the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine, the Organization for Armed Arab Struggle, and the Japanese Red Army, was widely believed to be responsible for numerous terrorist attacks between 1973 and 1992. In 1974, he took the French ambassador and 10 others hostage at the Hague, demanding that French authorities release Yutaka Furuya of the Japanese Red Army.

On June 27, 1975, French police officers tried to arrest Sanchez in a Paris apartment, but he killed two officers in an ensuing gun battle and escaped. In June 1992, Sanchez was tried in absentia for these murders and convicted.

On December 21, 1975, Sanchez and a group of his men took 70 OPEC officials hostage at a Vienna conference. They made it to safety with somewhere between $25 million and $50 million in ransom money, but not before killing three hostages.Sanchez claimed responsibility for these crimes in an interview with the Arab magazine, Al Watan al Arabi.

In the subsequent trial that resulted in his imprisonment, Sanchez was represented by Jacque Verges, who had reportedly helped to organize a failed rocket attack on a French nuclear power plant in 1982. Verges was also accused of sending a threatening letter fromSanchez to the French authorities so thatSanchez’s girlfriend (possibly his wife), German terrorist Magdalena Kopp, could be released. He bitterly denied the charges.


Background to the Battle

For some time, the powerful Tang Empire (618-906) and its predecessors had been expanding Chinese influence in Central Asia.

China used "soft power" for the most part, relying upon a series of trade agreements and nominal protectorates rather than military conquest to control Central Asia. The most troublesome foe faced by the Tang from 640 forward was the powerful Tibetan Empire, established by Songtsan Gampo.

Control of what is now Xinjiang, Western China, and neighboring provinces went back and forth between China and Tibet throughout the seventh and eighth centuries. China also faced challenges from the Turkic Uighurs in the northwest, the Indo-European Turfans, and the Lao/Thai tribes on China's southern borders.


Battle of Volkondah, 19-20 July 1751 - History


Civil War Years, 1863, T-Shirts and Souvenirs from the official merchandise of America's Best History.

ABH Travel Tip


National Park Service sites are made available for your enjoyment of the history and recreation opportunities there. Please take time to keep your parks clean and respect the historic treasures there.

Photo above: Statue of John Burns on McPherson Ridge, Gettysburg, the only citizen to fight in the battle. John Burns would personally meet Abraham Lincoln on November 19, 1863.

Civil War Timeline - Major Battles

For four years from 1861-1865, battles were waged around the landscape of the United States, pitting brother against brother in a Civil War that would change the history of the USA forever. Over 720,000 of our citizens would perish in the battle for state's rights and slavery. Major battles were fought from Pennsylvania to Florida, from Virginia to New Mexico, and in the end, there would be one nation, under God, and indivisible, that last trait in jeopardy through the first half of the 1860's. The battles listed below are considered Class A/B (Decisive/Major) battles by the American Battle Protection Program of the NPS.

Sponsor this page for $150 per year. Your banner or text ad can fill the space above.
Click here to Sponsor the page and how to reserve your ad.

January 1, 1863 - Second Battle of Galveston - Class B. Strength: Union 6 gunboats, unknown infantry Confederates 2 gunboats, unknown infantry. Casualties: Union 400 captured Confederates 143 killed/wounded. Union commander William B. Renshaw blows up a stranded ship USS Westfield Union soldiers on shore thought fleet had surrendered and laid down their arms. Galveston remained the only major port in Confederate hands at the end of the war.

April 30 - May 6, 1863 - Battle of Chancellorsville - Class A.
Strength: Union 134,000, Confederates 60,000.
Casualties (Killed/Wounded/Missing/Captured): Union 17,287, Confederates 13,303.
Perfect battle plan by General Robert E. Lee with risky split force move triumphs over General Joe Hooker's Union troops, but victory comes at high cost, with loss of General Stonewall Jackson to friendly fire.

May 1, 1863 - Battle of Port Gibson - Class B.
Strength: Union 2 corps Confederates 4 brigades.
Casualties: Union 861 Confederates 787.
Union victory at Port Gibson south of Vicksburg turned the flanks of the Confederate force, causing their retreat into Bayou Pierre, leaving several hundred prisoners behind.

May 3, 1863 - Second Battle of Fredericksburg - Class B.
Strength: Union 27,100 Confederates 12,000.
Casualties: Union 1,100 Confederates 700.
Union Generals Sedgwick and Gibbon attack the center of Marye's Heights, but are repulsed by Barksdale's brigade. Second attack against the flank and center pushes the Confederate force off the hill and back to Lee's Hill.

May 3, 1863 - Battle of Salem Church - Class B.
Strength: Union 23,000 Confederates 10,000.
Casualties: Union 4,611 Confederates 4,935.
Sedgwick, leaving Gibbon behind in Fredericksburg, moves out to join Hooker in Chancellorsville. General Robert E. Lee sends troops to engage, eventually driving the Union back to Fredericksburg, off Marye's Heights, and across the Rappahannock River.

May 12, 1863 - Battle of Raymond - Class B.
Strength: Union 12,000 Confederates 4,400.
Casualties: Union 446 Confederates 820.
Surprised by reinforcements of the Union, the Confederate defeat led to Federal troops reaching the Southern Railroad and preventing supplies from reaching Vicksburg, tightening the siege.

May 14, 1863 - Battle of Jackson, Mississippi - Class B.
Strength: Union 2 corps Confederates 6,000.
Casualties: Union 286 Confederates 850.
Battle meant to defend the troops of Confederate General Johnston as they retreated from Jackson, allowing Union control and ability to cut supply and railroad lines to Vicksburg.

May 16, 1863 - Battle of Champion Hill - Class A.
Strength: Union 32,000 Confederates 22,000 soldiers.
Casualties: Union 2,457 Confederates 3,840.
Three divisions of General Pemberton's Confederate force engage the Union twenty miles from Vicksburg, resulting in a decisive Union victory leading into the Vicksburg siege.

May 17, 1863 - Battle of Big Black River Bridge - Class B.
Strength: Union 3 divisions Confederates 5,000.
Casualties: Union 276 Confederates 1,751, including 1,700 captured.
Retreating from their defeat at Champion Hill, Pemberton defends the east bank of the river, but can not withstand a charge. After crossing the river, Pemberton orders the bridge burned and the Confederate force escapes to Vicksburg.

May 18 - July 4, 1863 - Siege of Vicksburg - Class A.
Strength: Union 77,000 Confederates 33,000.
Casualties: Union 4,835 Confederates 3,202 (killed, wounded, missing), 29,495 (captured).
After driving Pemberton's force from Champion Hill back into Vicksburg, U.S. Grant attempted two major assaults on May 19 and 22, which were repulsed with heavy casualties. A siege ensued for forty days with no reinforcements or supplies, the Confederates surrendered on July 4, one day after the Battle of Gettysburg. The Mississippi River would now be in control of the Union Army for the remainder of the war.

June 9, 1863 - Battle of Brandy Station - Class B.
Strength: Union 11,000 Confederates 9,500.
Casualties: Union 907 Confederates 523.
In the largest predominantly cavalry battle of the war, Union cavalry under Pleasonton attack J.E.B. Stuart's cavalry in inconclusive battle and fail to discover Lee's infantry near Culpeper. Despite that failure, draw in battle proved the effectiveness of the Union cavalry for the first time.

June 13-15, 1863 - Second Battle of Winchester - Class B.
Strength: Union 7,000 Confederates 12,500.
Casualties: Union 4,443, including 4,000 missing or captured Confederates 269.
After the Battle of Brandy Station, Robert E. Lee ordered General Ewell to clear the Shenandoah Valley to precipitate his invasion of Pennsylvania. Ewell attacked the various forts surrounding Winchester, defeating the Union garrison and capturing the city.

July 1-3, 1863 - Gettysburg - Class A.
Strength: Union 104,256 Confederates 71-75,000.
Casualties: Union 23,049 Confederates 23-28,000.
General Robert E. Lee's push into northern territory ends in the largest battle of the war with over fifty thousand casulaties. The ill-fated decision on the Third Day to attack the center of the Union line with Pickett's Charge ends in Confederate defeat and their High Water of the Confederacy would not again venture as deep into northern territory.

May 21 to July 9, 1863 - Siege of Port Hudson - Class A.
Strength: Union 30-40,000 Confederates 7,500.
Casualties: Union 5-10,000 Confederates 1,000 with 6,500 captured.
South of Vicksburg in Louisiana, Union General Banks was ordered to attack Port Hudson and then aid Grant in Vicksburg. His initial assaults failed, resulting in a forty-eight day siege. Both Union and Confederate soldiers suffered heavily from the fighting and disease. With the fall of Vicksburg and a lack of food and supplies, the Confederates surrendered, giving complete control of the Mississippi to the Union.

July 4, 1863 - Battle of Helena - Class B. Strength: Union 4,129 Confederates 7,646. Casualties: Union 239 Confederates 1,649. In an attempt to relieve pressure on Vicksburg, Confederate forces under General Holmes attack the fortifications of the Arkansas town along the Mississippi River. Miscommunication and confusing orders wasted some initial success, and the Confederates would issue a general retreat, securing eastern Arkansas for the Union.

July 17, 1863 - Battle of Honey Springs - Class B.
Strength: Union 3,000 Confederates 6,000.
Casualties: Union 79-200 Confederates 180-500.
In the largest battle in the Indian territory of Oklahoma, the Union victory of General Blunt led to the capture of Fort Smith and the Arkansas River Valley to the Mississippi. Engagement unique in that more Native and African-American soldiers took part than white soldiers.

July 18, 1863 - Second Battle of Fort Wagner - Class B.
Strength: Union 5,000, 6 ironclads Confederates 1,800.
Casualties: Union 1,515 Confederates 174.
Second attempt by the Union, including the 54th Massachusetts black regiment, to take South Carolina Fort Wagner fails when charges on the sixty yard wide approach in the dusk to night battle are reproached by the Confederate defenses.

August 17 - September 9, 1863 - Second Battle of Fort Sumter - Class B.
Strength: Union 413 Confederates 320.
Casualties: Union 117 Confederates 9.
Union General Gilmore bombard the fort and deploy a naval landing party, but are repulsed by P.G.T. Beauregard's men. Confederates remain in control of the fort. During this same period of time, the Union continued to attack Fort Wagner, which succumbed to the attacks.

September 8, 1863 - Second Battle of Sabine Pass - Class B.
Strength: Union 5,000, 4 gunboats, 18 transports Confederates 36 infantry.
Casualties: Union 200 killed/wounded/captured Confederates 0.
Ambitious amphibious assault, largest in U.S. history, planned against well-fortified Confederate location, Fort Sabine/Griffin, with little knowledge of river, ends in overwhelming defeat due to accurate gun barrage from the Confederate fort against the ships.

September 10, 1863 - Battle of Bayou Fourche - Class B.
Strength: Union 12,000 Confederates 7,700.
Casualties: Union 72 Confederates 64.
General Steele captures Little Rock after cavalry battle at the bayou forces Confederate troops back toward the town, which fell that afternoon.

September 19-20, 1863 - Chickamauga - Class A.
Strength: Union 60,000 Confederates 65,000.
Casualties: Union 16,170 Confederates 18,454.
Union troops headed into Georgia after forcing the Confederates out of Chattanooga Confederate troops under General Bragg wanted to force the Union out of Georgia and recapture Chattanooga. After several days of fighting, the Union returned to Chattanooga, defeated, with Bragg's Army now commanding the heights surrounding the city. This was the second most costly battle in the war per casualties after Gettysburg.

October 14, 1863 - Battle of Bristoe Station - Class B.
Strength: Union 8,383 Confederates 17,218.
Casualties: Union 540 Confederates 1,380.
Confederate attack by A.P. Hill's Third Corps is repelled by General Warren's Second Corps. Although a Union victory, Warren would retreat to Centreville and Confederate troops would destroy the Orange and Alexandria Railroad.

October 28-29, 1863 - Battle of Wauhatchie - Class B.
Strength: Union 2 corps Confederates 36 infantry.
Casualties: Union 420 Confederates 408.
Night battle against Brown's Ferry, which provided a supply line for the Union to Chattanooga, is defeated by two corps of Union troops under Generals Hooker and Geary. The supply line, known as the Cracker Line, would hold, leading the way to the Battle of Chattanooga one month later.

November 7, 1863 - Second Battle of Rappahannock Station - Class B.
Strength: Union 2,000 Confederates 2,000.
Casualties: Union 419 Confederates 1,670, including 1,600 captured.
General Early's troops secured the bridgehead defenses through the day, withstanding constant shelling from Sedgewick's artillery. General Lee, thinking the artillery shelling was a feint, was surprised at dusk when a sudden infantry assault secured the bridge, capturing one thousand six hundred men.

November 23-25, 1863 - Chattanooga - Class A. Strength: Union 72,500 Confederates 49,000. Casualties: Union 5,824 Confederates 8,684. Besieged by Confederate troops since the Battle of Chickamauga, U.S. Grant relieved pressure on the siege by opening the Cracker Line for supplies and reinforcements. With a series of attacks on points at Missionary Ridge and Lookout Mountain, the Union prevailed, eliminating Confederate control in Tennessee and setting the stage for Sherman's March to Atlanta in 1864.

November 27 - December 2, 1863 - Battle of Mine Run - Class B.
Strength: Union 81,000 Confederates 48,000.
Casualties: Union 1,272 Confederates 680.
Meade's attempt at a quick strike battle was thwarted by traffic jams, allowing Lee's Second Corps to interdict the Union at Payne's Farm. During the night, Lee built fortifications along the river while Meade planned an artillery assault, then attack the next day. After the artillery barrage, Meade changed his mind, thinking the defenses too strong, and retired to winter quarters at Brandy Station.

November 27, 1863 - Battle of Ringgold Gap - Class B.
Strength: Union 16,000 Confederates 4,200.
Casualties: Union 509 Confederates 221.
The Confederate Army of the Tennessee retreats after defeat at the Battle of Chattanooga with General Cleburne's troops defending the gap with great success against the Union pursuit. Battle allowed safe passage for the majority of the Confederate force Grant decides to call off the pursuit and return to Chattanooga.

November 29, 1863 - Battle of Fort Sanders - Class B.
Strength: Union 440 Confederates 3,000.
Casualties: Union 13 Confederates 813, including 226 captured.
Dawn assault by James Longstreet against tough defenses is repulsed due to poor planning and execution. On December 4, Longstreet would leave Knoxville, ending the campaign to take the city.

Note: Image above: The Battle of Chickamauga painting by Kurz and Allison, 1890. Courtesy Library of Congress. Casualty and troop strength numbers from Wikipedia Commons.


Watch the video: 100 MODERN SOLDIERS vs SPARTANS. Ultimate Epic Battle Simulator (January 2022).