The Battle of Pavan Khind was a heroic last stand by a small group of Maratha warriors against a much larger army of the Bijapur Sultanate in 1660. The battle took place at a narrow mountain pass near the fort of Vishalgad, where the Maratha leader Shivaji had taken refuge after escaping from the siege of Panhala by Siddi Masud, an Abyssinian general of Bijapur. The Marathas were outnumbered by more than 30 to 1, but they fought valiantly to delay the enemy and allow Shivaji to reach Vishalgad safely. The battle is remembered for the sacrifice of Baji Prabhu Deshpande, one of Shivaji's most loyal and brave commanders, who led the rear guard action and died on the battlefield after hearing the signal of Shivaji's arrival at Vishalgad.


The Battle of Pavan Khind is an example of a rearguard last stand, a military tactic in which a small force stays behind to confront a pursuing enemy while the main body retreats to a secure position. Such battles are often seen as heroic and inspiring, as they demonstrate courage, loyalty and devotion to a cause. Some other famous examples of rearguard last stands are:


- The Battle of Thermopylae (480 BC), where 300 Spartans and their allies held off a massive Persian army for three days at a narrow pass in Greece.

- The Battle of Saragarhi (1897), where 21 Sikh soldiers defended a small outpost against 10,000 Afghan tribesmen in the North-West Frontier Province of British India.

- The Battle of Tirad Pass (1899), where 60 Filipino revolutionaries led by Gregorio del Pilar fought against 500 American soldiers during the Philippine-American War.

- The Battle of Rorke's Drift (1879), where 150 British soldiers repelled 4,000 Zulu warriors during the Anglo-Zulu War in South Africa.


These battles show that even when facing overwhelming odds, a determined and disciplined force can inflict heavy casualties on the enemy and achieve a moral victory. They also illustrate the importance of terrain, leadership and morale in warfare.


References:


-  Battle of Pavan Khind - Wikipedia

-  Baji Prabhu Deshpande - Wikipedia

-  The Last Stand of Pavan Khind. The 300 Battle of India

-  Rearguard - Wikipedia


Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

 A showdown battle is a term that can have different meanings depending on the context. In poker, a showdown battle is the placing of poker hands faceup on the table to determine the winner of a pot. In other situations, a showdown battle can refer to a decisive confrontation or contest between two or more parties that will finally settle a disagreement or a challenge  . For example, a showdown battle can be an important game or competition in sports, a political clash between opposing factions, or a military engagement between rival forces. Showdown battles are often tense, dramatic, and unpredictable, as they can result in victory or defeat for the participants.
Read more
 The Samnites were a confederation of tribes who lived in the mountainous region of central and southern Italy, known as Samnium. They spoke an Oscan language and were closely related to the Campanians, who had migrated from Samnium to the fertile plains of Campania. The Samnites were fierce warriors who often clashed with their neighbours, especially the Romans, who sought to expand their territory and influence in Italy. The Samnites and the Romans fought three wars between 343 and 290 BC, which are known as the Samnite Wars. The first war started when the Campanians asked Rome for protection against a Samnite attack. The Romans agreed and sent an embassy to the Samnites, demanding that they leave Campania alone. The Samnites refused and the war began. The war ended in 341 BC with a peace treaty that restored the status quo, but gave Rome control of Campania. The second war, also called the Great Samnite War, broke out in 326 BC when Rome tried to colonize Fregellae, a town on th...
Read more
 One of the key factors that influenced the outcome of the American Revolutionary War was the British strategy of dividing and conquering the colonies. The main architects of this strategy were General John Burgoyne and General Henry Clinton, who had different views on how to achieve this goal. Burgoyne favored a direct and aggressive approach, while Clinton preferred a more cautious and flexible one. In this essay, I will examine how the war might have turned out differently if either Burgoyne or Clinton had had control of British strategy during the conflict. Burgoyne's plan was to lead an army from Canada southward along the Hudson River, cutting off New England from the rest of the colonies. He hoped to meet up with another army under Clinton, who was supposed to advance northward from New York City. However, Clinton was reluctant to abandon his base and expose himself to a possible attack from Washington's army. He also had orders from London to send troops to the south, w...
Read more