Why Tanaji Malusare Chose to Attack Kondana Fort Directly Instead of Laying Siege

In the context of historical warfare, the strategies employed by commanders often hinge on a multitude of factors, including available resources, enemy defenses, and the overall strategic landscape. One of the most striking examples of this is the battle of Kondana in 1670, where Tanaji Malusare, a key advisor to Chhatrapati Shivaji Maharaj, chose a direct attack over laying siege to the fort. This decision is a fascinating case study in the limitations and advantages of different military strategies in the 17th century.

Conditions for Laying a Siege

To evaluate why Tanaji Malusare did not lay a siege on Kondana Fort, it's essential to understand the three primary conditions necessary for a successful siege:

Huge Army for Surrounding the Fort

Laying a siege requires a substantial military force that can effectively encircle the fort, preventing any incoming supplies, such as food and ammunition. This encirclement aims to create a no-option situation for the enemy, leading to surrender or facing a prolonged stalemate. However, the Maratha forces of Chhatrapati Shivaji Maharaj did not possess the large armies that the Mughals commanded. In the case of Aurangzeb, his considerable forces demonstrated the importance of sheer numerical superiority. For instance, Aurangzeb's 40,000-strong army was unable to conquer the much smaller Fort of Ramsej, despite a six-year siege initiated in 1681.

Siege Equipment

Successfully laying a siege requires specific military equipment, such as cannons and other artillery to breach the fortress walls. The Mughals, being among the world's three "Gunpowder Empires" (alongside the Ottoman Empire and the Safavid Empire), possessed the advantage of advanced siege technology. This gave them a significant edge in besieging and capturing forts.

Time and Strategic Considerations

The third condition involves the time required to complete a siege. Forts often have stockpiled supplies, making it difficult to force an immediate surrender. A prolonged siege can be advantageous for the enemy, especially in mountainous regions, where forts remain secure even with limited resources.

Specific Reasons for a Direct Attack

Due to the lack of the three conditions necessary for a successful siege, Tanaji Malusare decided to attack directly. Here are the specific reasons for this decision:

Geographic and Strategic Considerations

The geographic and strategic importance of Kondana Fort was paramount. As one of the most crucial fortresses in the Deccan region, and located at high altitude, it was impregnable even to weak defenses. Additionally, the enemy within the fort, Udaybhan, was not only well-equipped but also had the support of Maharaja Jaswant Singh. Any prolonged siege would have made the Maratha forces vulnerable to counterattacks, thus making the decision to attack directly both necessary and strategic.

Minimizing Maratha Casualties

The battle of Kondana was a critical moment for the Maratha forces. Udaybhan's forces, bolstered by 500 Rajputs and reinforced by Maharaja Jaswant Singh, would have greatly outmatched the Marathas in a siege scenario. Additionally, laying siege would have resulted in high Maratha casualties, as the enemy inside the fort would have had time to prepare for a prolonged defense. The quick, night raid under Tanaji Malusare's command was a bold and risky move that minimized the risk to his men.

Expertise and Tactical Skill

Tanaji Malusare, a skilled warrior and tactician, was well-versed in surprise attacks and night raids. His expertise meant that he could execute a plan that maximized the Maratha forces' chances of success. The element of surprise was crucial, as the enemy's defenses would be down, and their guard would be low, making the raid more likely to succeed.

Conclusion

The failure of Aurangzeb to conquer even a small fort with a large army and the strategic advantages of the defenses at Kondana, along with the need to minimize Maratha casualties, all contributed to Tanaji Malusare's decision to attack directly. This bold tactic reflects the Maratha's strategic approach, which emphasized minimizing losses and using every opportunity to their advantage.

Recommended Readings

For those interested in delving deeper into this topic, the following resources offer valuable insights:

Gopalkrishna Gaekwad, The King and the_listener_. Richard B. Horsfield, The Maratha Empire and Its Decline, 1815–1845. Jaydeep Sant, The Battle: The Battle of Panipat (This can provide context for the broader strategic landscape).