Muhammad Proved a Better General than Khalid at Uhud

 

Historymache took a very simplistic analysis of the battle of Uhud which does not make sense. The Meccans simply gave up in finding that Prophet Muhammad was dead. They did not proceed to march to Medina. Remember the Meccans consisted of 3000 infantry, 200 cavalry. While the Muslims consist of only 700 infantry, with only 100 wearing chain armour. 300 went back to Medina.

The Muslim accounts showed that the Meccans finally knew that Prophet Muhammad survived, but they still retreated because Prophet Muhammad was able to retreat on the hill slopes. The retreating Muslims also gathered to the hills, which made sense because if they stayed at the plains, they would be slaughtered by Khalid's cavalry.

Also, based on interviews with the Meccans who later converted to Islam, they revealed that they were all wounded and tired, so thought that they cannot beat the remnants of the Muslim army which was placed at the hills at that moment. They also feared that there would be reinforcement s coming from Medina.They also felt that they cannot proceed to Medina. This does not make sense. Most probably the Meccans feared the Jews that had not participated at the battle.

So the Jews were the ones that actually saved Prophet Muhammad, his army and Medina. Muslims do not like this conclusion because they viewed the Jews as traitors. The Jews may have abandoned the battle at Uhud. The reason was that they thought the Muslims had no chance fighting in the open. The Jews preferred to fight at Medina. With the exhausted Meccan army, marching to Medina with severe wounds would be a disaster, especially when Muhammad's army was still intact.

As to whether Khalid was better than Prophet Muhammad because he contributed to the collapse of the formation of the Muslim army, but Khalid failed to penetrate the 50 archers initially. Only when the archers left their posts, disobeying Prophet Muhammad that Khalid managed to succeed.

Despite advantages of the cavalry, Khalid still had not managed to beat the much less numerically Muslim army. Despite the destruction of the main Muslim army formation, Prophet Muhammad managed to survive the Meccan attacks and managed to retreat up the hills.

Prophet Muhammad's choice of battle proved that he was an excellent general, able to beat the Meccan army. It was the lack of cavalry that denied the Muslim the ultimate victory. The disobedience of the archers allowed Khalid to break through finally. There were 20 archers left on top of a hill. Cavalry cannot beat the archers at such a location. Only passed through them. So naturally, they were able to join the main army at the other hill or helping the army to slow down Khalid 's chargers. The archers don't just be all killed.

Prophet Muhammad fought as an archer but in the battle, he wore armour and helmets. Conveniently ignored by Muslims. He had an archer beside him where he fed arrows to him. If you look at the location of the base camp of Prophet Muhammad, it was near a hill. The Meccans cannot attack him from the back. Despite this, Prophet Muhammad was struck at the head but survived because of his helmets.

As to comments by Muslim sources that soldiers put their bodies in front of Prophet Muhammad could explain why he was still injured and even hit with a sword. Tactics and locations certainly played a role. This proved that, Prophet Muhammad was also better at defence, even in chaotic conditions. Was it still a stalemate when the Muslims have archers on hills? The entire Meccan army left, meaning retreated. They do not bother even to erect a siege. When you retreat, you lost.