The Military History Thread

[haroldeye]

Petain, best remembered in the UK as the head of Vichy France.

[Ennath]

May 4, 1529
Battle of the GograRiver

Towards the end of 1528 Babur had dispatched part of his army, under his son Askari, to the east in an attempt to deal with some of the last Lodi opponents of his rule, most notably Biban and Shaikh Baiazid. At first it seemed that Askari would be able to deal with any opposition, but this changed dramatically on January 13, 1529, when Babur received the news that Mahmud Lodi, a half brother of Ibrahim Lodi, the Sultan of Delhi defeated by Babur at Panipat (see posting), had seized Bihar. Biban and Shaikh Baiazid had joined him, and it was clear that a major campaign would be needed. Babur had already mobilized his army, and so he was quickly able to move east.

Babur reached the Ganges on February 26, and 2 days later was joined by Askari, with his army. The 2 Mogul armies then advanced east, on opposite banks of the Ganges, heading towards Mahmud's force of 10,000 Afghans (including Sher Khan Sur, the man who would later depose Babur's son Humayun).

At first it looked as if the rebels would pose a major threat. They advanced west and besieged Chunar, but when news reached them of Babur's approach the rebel army broke up. Some of its leaders fled east while others, including Sher Khan, submitted. The problem now was that as Babur moved east he needed to enter territory claimed by Bengal. In mid April the army of Kharid, acting for Bengal, took up a position on the eastern bank of the Gogra, near the point where it flows into the Ganges, while the main army of Bengal, under Sultan Nasrat Ali, was posted a little further east on the Gandak River. At this date the Ganges probably flowed further north than its current course, and the territory of Kharid may have reached down to the river, although Babur didn’t accept that claim.

The exact reason for the hostility between Babur and Nasrat Khan is unclear. Babur sent ambassadors who made 3 demands, but these are missing from Babur's memoirs. The Bengali answer to Babur's demands was clearly not adequate, and Babur began to plan his attack on the Gogra position, which now also contained Bengali troops.

The plan was arranged on April 28. Babur's gunners were to be used to pin the Kharid and Bengali forces in place. Ustad 'Ali-quli was to advance to the point between the confluence of the Gogra and the Ganges, while Mustafa was to advance along the southern bank of the Ganges to a point just to the east of the confluence. They were then to bombard the enemy across the river to keep their attention while a large part of Babur's army, under Prince Askari, crossed to the north bank of the Ganges then advanced up the Gogra to the Haldi passage, cross over and attack the Bengalis from the northwest. A second party was sent another 16 miles upriver to investigate a second crossing point that could be used if the Bengalis fortified the Haldi crossing.

The battle itself is normally stated has having been fought on May 4-6, although Babur's own memoirs place it a day early. On the morning of May 2, Babur's army crossed to the north bank of the Ganges, and Prince Askari's force began its march northwest up the Gogra. Two days later, on May 4, the Mogul army advanced 2 miles downstream to the confluence, where the guns were set up and a harassing fire opened across the river.

On May 5, Babur dispatched a force up the Gogra to find another possible crossing point. This movement was spotted from the far bank, and a force of Bengali foot soldiers crossed the river in 20-30 boats from a camp opposite Askari's camp. The Moguls charged the Bengalis, defeating them and capturing 7 or 8 boats. At about the same time the Bengalis crossed the Ganges to attack Babur's men on the south bank, but suffered another defeat.

The day also saw Prince Askari successfully cross the river, apparently somewhere to the north of the Bengali lines. Babur had decided to use the captured boats to send another force across the river in a different place, but when this news reached him this force was ordered to join Askari. On the morning of May 5, Askari advanced down the eastern bank of the Gogra, while the Bengali cavalry moved north to face him. Babur responded by ordering his men to cross the river, at first in captured boats. This small party was attacked by the Bengalis, but held them off. This success encouraged the rest of Babur's men to try and cross - some in boats, some swimming and some using bundles of reeds, either as floats or as rafts. At this point Babur's men were quite vulnerable, but he was able to organize them before the Bengalis could take advantage. Babur's men then attacked the southern flank of the Bengali force, just as the first of Prince Askari's men arrived from the north. The Bengalis were now being attacked from 2 sides, and this was enough to convince them to retreat east down the Ganges.

Babur doesn't mention any determined pursuit of the Bengali army, who after all were not the main target of his expedition. Over the next few days messengers arrived from Nasrat Ali, and peace was arranged. Mahmud Lodi disappears from the picture at this point, but Biban and Baiazid were soon on the move, heading west. Babur set off in pursuit, but he was never able to catch them, and they were both still undefeated at the time of his death in 1530.

[rupertramjet]

Originally Posted by haroldeye

Petain, best remembered in the UK as the head of Vichy France.

Petain was the Hero of Verdun, and a French Icon, which is how he got into the position of power which he did in 1940, but it was another example of the geriatric command of the 1940 French Army, their average senior commanders age was late seventies, Petain himself was born in 1856, so was 84! He died of dementia in 1951.

[Ernesto75]

Originally Posted by rupertramjet

Petain was the Hero of Verdun, and a French Icon, which is how he got into the position of power which he did in 1940, but it was another example of the geriatric command of the 1940 French Army, their average senior commanders age was late seventies, Petain himself was born in 1856, so was 84! He died of dementia in 1951.

Yes, you are absolutely right, although I did not know he died of dementia.
I thought he died of pulmonary infection, but, considering his age that is no surprise.

Petain is considered the Hero of Verdun by many French but calling him the Hero of Verdun might be a bit of an overstatement.
He helped giving better living conditions and that is important.
The 'Voie Sacrée' was his and it helped a lot.

But what matters even more was the willingness of not letting down and that was a characteristics of the French soldiers who fought at Verdun.

This characteristics was lost in 1940.

But most of all is his horrible role during WW II.

Although he was not anti-jew at first, he let, or even helped, the Germans
to put in place their policy which leads to the Shoah.

He fought the French Resistance and their allies.

He sealed his fate by going to Montoire and shaking hands with Hitler.
This act simply could not be forgiven.

You are quite right about the geriatic command of the 1940 French Army.
This had catastrophic results.
That and the phobia about the Maginot line.

[rupertramjet]

I think Petain's role in the improvement of the conditions of French Troops, and his behaviour towards them was well documented in Ennaths excellent post on the mutiny.

Voie Sacrée is perhaps unknown to many here, it was a route at Verdun which supplied the French Armies twenty four hours a day, along with the Chemin de Fer Meusien, a narrow gauge railway which ran alongside it, it kept men, horses and ammunition supplies and evecuated casualties.

The road was renamed in 2006 RD1916, to commemorate its special place in French history.

[Ernesto75]

Philippe Pétain has become a delicate subject.
It is true he was an important actor of the twentieth century France.
But this is essentially due to his nefarious role during WW II.

An uncle of mine was a veteran of Verdun and I don't remember him saying good things about Pétain.

Neither did the other members of my family.

Nowadays most historians agree on the nefarious role of Philippe Pétain.
He did not serve his country rather the contrary.

Only an old politician defends him but himself is very old and not very frequentable.

[haroldeye]

I was lucky enough to go on a battlefield tour of Verdun. Much of it is either well preserved or has been left as it was in 1918. Our guide was a Gunner Major who really brought the whole thing to life. The Ossary there is remarkable and from the top of the tower you look down on a cemetary that is just vast. It was easy to see why it was caled the mincing machine.

[scoundrel]

Petain has been condemned by history mainly for his odious conduct in 1940 and afterwards during the Vichy administration; he is remembered outside France as a figure of absolute contempt. He had wanted and tried to align the people of France against freedom, democracy and civilised values. He was a Quisling and in a just and fair world he would have been guillotined and his remains disposed of with the trash.

I note the point about him having died of dementia and indeed it was widely doubted in 1945 whether the man was fit to plead. If that was a factor in the decision of De Gaulle to commute the death penalty, I can relate to it, because no good purpose is served by punishing people who don't even know what is going on. He was still compos mentis when he collaborated with the Nazis and created a France governed under fascism; work, family, country and all that. I detest him as I detest all traitors, and I regret that he was not executed for treason; but if he really was simply not fit to plead, I too would have spared his life and on some levels I would have pity, even for such as him, to see him so reduced. Maybe his fate was even worse than if he had been decently put to death.

Apparently the French authorities had drafted his death certificate to say "Philippe Petain - without profession"; but relented to spare the feelings of his family and allowed it to say "Philippe Petain - Marshal of France". In spite of my own contempt for the man, I reckon its best to tell it like it was, so they were right to change their minds and annotate his death certificate to give the man his right title. Even when you hate someone, fair is still fair.

[Ernesto75]

Pétain was a pessimist all his life.
The military chiefs were wary of him.
That's the reason why he was still a colonel in july 1914.

But due to the war he got a chance which he grabbed successfully.
He was not a good chief of war but a master of communication.

Clemenceau and Joffre were wary of him.

Clemenceau reported to Président Pointcarré what Pétain had just told him:
'The Germans will defeat the British and after that they will defeat France.'

At the moment of the battle of Verdun, Pétain advised Clémenceau to leave Paris with the government; we were lucky Pointcarré was against this.

Clémenceau let him become Maréchal because of his immense popularity, but refused him to become General-in-chief.

If there must be a victor of Verdun there should rather be Clémenceau.

In his Memories Guillaume II writes 'it is Clémenceau who won; if we had a man like him the Germans would not have lost the war'.

Clémenceau's surname is 'Père la Victoire' (Father Victory).

[Ernesto75]

Originally Posted by scoundrel

Petain has been condemned by history mainly for his odious conduct in 1940 and afterwards during the Vichy administration; he is remembered outside France as a figure of absolute contempt. He had wanted and tried to align the people of France against freedom, democracy and civilised values. He was a Quisling and in a just and fair world he would have been guillotined and his remains disposed of with the trash.

I note the point about him having died of dementia and indeed it was widely doubted in 1945 whether the man was fit to plead. If that was a factor in the decision of De Gaulle to commute the death penalty, I can relate to it, because no good purpose is served by punishing people who don't even know what is going on. He was still compos mentis when he collaborated with the Nazis and created a France governed under fascism; work, family, country and all that. I detest him as I detest all traitors, and I regret that he was not executed for treason; but if he really was simply not fit to plead, I too would have spared his life and on some levels I would have pity, even for such as him, to see him so reduced. Maybe his fate was even worse than if he had been decently put to death.

Apparently the French authorities had drafted his death certificate to say "Philippe Petain - without profession"; but relented to spare the feelings of his family and allowed it to say "Philippe Petain - Marshal of France". In spite of my own contempt for the man, I reckon its best to tell it like it was, so they were right to change their minds and annotate his death certificate to give the man his right title. Even when you hate someone, fair is still fair.

Scoundrel, I agree with your points.
But I have doubts about his dementia.

When he came back from Switzerland to be judged that was a poker strike:
he relied on his popularity.

At that moment he was fully conscious of what was at stake: his life.
But that was a mistake.
De Gaulle is said to have had this commentary : 'Le con' (the fool).

For the first day of the prosecution, he seemed alert.
But I admit he had courage and dignity.

Yet he is said to have had bouts of unconciousness.

I think the decision of De Gaulle to commute the death penalty was motivated by several facts:
- Pétain was godfather to his daughter;
- there were probably personal memories (Pétain is said to have been his mentor);
- although Pétain was a disgusting person, he was also an old man and De Gaulle was not immune to personal feelings of pity.