The First Conflict Between the human is recorded in the History was of Habeel and Kabeel. The Clash of wills is known as war. War is interaction in which two or more opposing forces have a "struggle of wills".1 Wars is not only warfare. It's also a cultural entity, and its practice is not linked to any single type of political organization or society. It is the universal phenomenon whose form and scope is defined by the society that wages it.2. The fight of human race for the gain of their will and power led human beings into great number human loss. The War is getting more complex, developed and organized with the development of human civilization.
Maneuver warfare is a war fighting philosophy that seeks to shatter the enemy's cohesion through a variety of rapid, focused, and unexpected actions, which create a turbulent and rapidly deteriorating situation with which the enemy cannot cope.3 There are four basic styles of warfare for combat; guerrilla, mass and maneuver, attrition, and siege. Guerrillas attack and withdraw; wearing down a stronger opponent (Geronimo used this strategy as do the Iraqi insurgents today). Many generals have used the mass and maneuver style. (Where a large group of troops is used to move around the battlefield and destroy an enemy). Alexander the Great did it with his phalanx, while Caesar used legions.4It was necessary for the Armies to learn a complex set of maneuvers and drills in order to function as a unit on the battle field. As in all wars, some regiments were better at this than others.5
6Maneuver warfare seeks to shatter the enemy's cohesion through a variety of rapid, focused, and unexpected actions which create a turbulent and rapidly deteriorating situation with which the enemy cannot cope.
Systemic vs. systematic destruction
Speed, focus, surprise
Firepower is indispensable for localized attrition
Emphasize disciplined free action6
MANEOVRE WARFARE - A historical view:
Maneuver warfare concepts have historically been stressed by militaries which are smaller, more cohesive, better trained, or more technically able than attrition warfare counterparts. The term "Tactical Maneuver" is used by maneuver warfare theorists to refer to movement by forces to gain "advantageous position relative to the enemy".7
EURASIA IN 3000BC:
The first archaeological evidence of horses used in warfare dates from between 4000 and 3000 BC in the steppes of Eurasia, in what today is Ukraine, Hungary, and Romania. Not long after domestication of the horse, people in these locations began to live together in large fortified towns for protection from the threat of horseback-riding raiders.8
Sumerians Civilation:
The evidence for the use of the Sumerian war-cart, though striking, is rather sparse. We have three types of evidence: archaeological, artistic, and textual. The remains of war-carts were discovered from burials at Kish, Ur, and Susa (WV 16; RTU 21-5, 32-8); these were found in a highly decayed state, but enough was preserved both to confirm and to elucidate the war-cart depicted in artistic sources.9
HYKOSOS INVADED EGYPT:
Around 1700 BCE an outside nation, known as the Hyksos, invaded Egypt and slowly took control both militarily and politically. The Hyksos people introduced Egyptians the horses, chariot and modern Bronze Age weapons. The chariot developed around 2000 BCE, and the Indo-Iranians were the first to use a chariot similar to those of the Hyksos-"light, two wheeled and spoked."10 This shows that Hyksos used horses, Chariots and other more developed weapons against the Egyptians and gives them the outstanding resistance and defeated then in the war. These horses and chariots are not used by the army but also used by the kings and high officials in that time.
At the time of the Hyksos invasion the
Egyptians were still using the blade axe, which was far less powerful than the socket penetrating axe of their enemy. The discovery of bronze made the axe more powerful, but it was not until around 2500 BCE, when the Sumerians began to make the socket and the blade into one piece, that the full power of the penetrating axe was utilized. This method of axe production was also used by the Hyksos, while the Egyptians were still using the old style of axe production. The socket penetrating axe became, as Gabriel writes, one of the most devastating close combat weapons of the Bronze and Iron ages. From the Book: The Chariot; A Weapon that Revolutionized Egyptian Warfare by Richard Carney
Battle between Greek and Persians:
The Persians are also known to have been using the horses and chariots as the forms of maneuvers in their battles since 1000 B.C. and developed these with the passage of time. They were the first one to have used four horses in a single chariot. Due to terrain restrictions the Greeks could not effectively use the chariots thus they were compelled to innovate Phalanx and cavalry horsemen for maneuverings tactics. The classical example of maneuvering tactics can be found in the Battle of Arbela in which initially the Greek infantry battled the Persian troops at the centre, while Alexander began to move to the edge of the right flank accompanied by his Cavalry. This created a gap within the enemy line where a decisive blow was struck with a perfect timing and maneuvering by Alexander."11
Introduction of Elephants in warfare:
It is also seen in the history that Greek and Persians are familiar with the use of elephants in the war for mobility purpose. "The elephant was a weapon. There were several different uses of the elephant on the battlefield. They were useful in attacking infantry and cavalry, in acting as a defensive screen against enemy missiles and cavalry, in storming camps, and in siege warfare."12
Hannibal against the Romans at the Battle of Cannae in 216 BC:
Hannibal creates a lot of problems for the Roman in the Battle of Cannae in 216 B.C. by attacking the Romans, using superior Cavalry and mobility to encircle the center if the Roman defend and destroy most of the defenders.13Hannibal used the elephants, horses for the superior mobility then the Romans.
ASSYRIANS FORCES:
The Assyrians very effectively used the chariots and cavalrymen for maneuver warfare in their battles. The core of the Assyrian army comprised of their chariots, but by 700 B.C. the chariots were restricted to reconnaissance, delivering messages from war front to rear and vice versa. However, under the reign of Ashurnasirpal II between 883-859 B.C. the role of chariots was reinvented to smash into enemy formations and disperse the infantry through maneuvering tactics and horsemen cavalry was used in pairs with one rider Using bow and lances while other holding the reins to control the horse.14 This also shows the heavy cavalry is also been used by the Assyrians time and made the progress in the warfare.
Battle of Walaja:
The Battle of Walaja was a battle fought in Mesopotamia in 633 between the Rashidun Caliphate army under Khalid ibn al-Walid and the Persian Empire and its Arab allies. In this battle the Persian army is said to have been at least three times the size of the Muslim army.15 Khalid decisively defeated the numerically superior Persian forces using a variation of the double envelopment tactical maneuver, similar to the maneuver Hannibal used to defeat the Roman forces at the Battle of Cannae; however, Khalid is said to have developed his version independently.16
Roman Forces:
Roman were forces were known in history due to its well trained and organized army. They were the professionals and were excellently equipped with the weapons. From history we can see that Roman army was Contemporary artistic depictions of Roman soldiers fighting, including Trojan's Column in Rome, depict them as standing with their left foot and shield forward with their right foot back and turned outwards ninety degrees. Some believe this indicates a boxing-like style of fighting where the shield in the left is used to jab and harass the enemy while the sword in the right is used to deliver the final blow. In all likelihood however it is probably designed to allow for attacking on the pass similar to later medieval European arts which use a similar stance for armored combat. Other training exercises taught the legionary to obey commands and assume battle formations.17
Induction of Naval forces:
Induction of the naval forces along the regular army was one of the important developments in the warfare. "The use of river vessels and ships in Egyptian warfare is as old as conflict in Egypt itself, though probably at first there was little capability for sea travel. The Nile was always the principal means of transport in Egypt, and the sailing and construction of boats can be traced back to the papyrus rafts of the Predynastic Period."18
Punic War:
During the Punic Wars, Rome was forced to conduct naval warfare for the first time. Ancient Rome didn't have a proper naval fleet, so the soldiers replicated a ship that the Carthaginians had abandoned. The Romans went on to defeat Carthage using their own interpretation of naval warfare storming the enemy's ships by way of a plank and then engaging in hand-to-hand combat.19
Mongols Forces and tactics and maneuver:
The Mongol army was one of the best organized, trained, and disciplined armies ever created, and its ruthless efficiency built the largest contiguous empire in history. They were the Nomadic peoples from the steppes of eastern central Asia United under the leadership of Temujin a.k.a Chinggis Khan.20 The war in China is actually a very good way in which to see how Mongol maneuver warfare fared against more static, fortress warfare.21 Wars were frequent in China during the pre-Qin period, and chariot combat was foremost among many martial activities in the Central Plains area. This area fragmented into several competing states after 770 BC, when the Zhou were forced out of their capital at Zongzhou, near modern Xi'an, by invading tribes, and warfare became endemic (Lewis 1990). A good recorded instance of chariot use in war is the battle between the states of Chu and Jin in 632 BC, when the Jin commanders deployed 700 chariots.22
Conclusion:
Undoubtedly the concept of maneuver warfare is as old as the war itself. With the passage of time it has witnessed many changes and now available in a transformed / mature form. Each passing day leaves an influence on the development of technology resulting into reframing of tactics. In this backdrop we can predict that this form of warfare is likely to encounter more changers in the future as well.
