I feel that the Bajirao knew that the best way to defend Pune was to take the battle to the Nizam. An attacker always has the initiative. Clubbed with surprise and timing he holds the key to making holes in the defender’s plan. Of course, the Nizam did not expect such a bold action and was not having any defensive posture.

The Marathas always used their asymmetry of tactics and force levels to their advantage. The Chatrapati too knew that his army was not trained nor could fight classical battles/wars. The first and the last was at Panipat and we all know how that defeat changed the course of India’s history. To borrow from a friend’s point of view, “Another point was that Marathas as raiders did not ‘make a stand’ anywhere .. even Pune was never defended to the death at any point, but was abandoned whenever threatened.”

The last point which Atul makes above too is very pertinent. Look at the US strategy since WW II. It fights all its battles/wars away from home. Of course, the technology and equipment is not comparable, but the strategy is.

I believe strategy doesn’t always necessarily require that the “seat” is guarded; what is important (in a personal opinion) i sto keep the window of opportunity open to regain it.

Thank you for your comment. Much appreciated.