Social and Political Life in the Vijayanagara Empire (A.D. 1346 – A.D. 1646) v1.c15.s2.t6: VI Artillery

Social and Political Life in the Vijayanagara Empire (A.D. 1346 – A.D. 1646) v1.c15.s2.t6

Language: English

VI Artillery

v1.c15.s2.t6.1

Unlike the two foregoing parts of the Vijayanagara army, the last division which was made up of artillery has figured in the writings of foreign travellers as well as in indigenous records. Firishtah, while describing the campaign of A.D. 1368 and the complete failure of the Hindus against the Muhammadans, writes thus: "According to the Tohfut oos-Sulateen, two thousand elephants, three hundred gun-carriages, and battering rams, seven hundred Arabian horses and a sing'hasun set with jewels, were included in the booty of the King—all other articles were left to the officers and soldiers".³

v1.c15.s2.t6.2

³ Firishtah, Briggs, The Rise, II, p. 312.

v1.c15.s2.t6.3

Briggs, who accepts the veracity of the above narrative,⁴ comments thus on the passage: "If any reliance is to be placed on Molla Dawood Bidury, the author of Tohfut-oos-Sulateen, guns were used at this time by the Hindoos; and in a subsequent passage, it is remarked that the Mahomedans used them for the first time during the next campaign. But I am disposed to doubt the validity of both these statements. From the latter passage it seems possible, indeed, that the Mahomedans might have procured guns from the West in 1368, because they are said to have been used eighteen years previously by Edward III at the battle of Cressy, though it is very improbable; and Ferishta, in stating it to be the first time the Mahomedans employed them, also observes, that Toorks and Europeans, skilled in gunnery, worked the artillery. That guns were in common use before the arrival of the Portuguese in India, in 1498, seems certain from the mentioned made of them by Faria-y-Sousa, who represents the Moorish vessels in India, in 1502, bearing down upon the vessel of Peter de Ataide, called the 'St. Peter, into whom she passed her shot, and then made away, and was pursued and taken off the bay of Cananor.' . . .¹ Faria-y-Sousa, who accompanied the early Portuguese in India, writes in chap. ix., p. 99. ibid.: 'The Moors of Sumatra, Malacca, and the Moluccoes (by which last appellation he means those princes bearing the title of Moolk, that is, the several princes of the Deccan) were well disciplined, and much better stored with artillery than we that attacked them, A.D. 1506'. All these circumstances, however, do not lead to the conclusion that the Hindoos had guns before they were introduced from the West by the Mahomedans, who adopted their use from Europe".²

v1.c15.s2.t6.4

⁴ Sewell also relies on Firishtah. For. Emp., pp. 34-5, 35, n. (2).

v1.c15.s2.t6.5

¹ Faria y Sousa, *Asia Port.*, I, p. 58.

v1.c15.s2.t6.6

² Briggs, *The Rise*, II, p. 312, n.

v1.c15.s2.t6.7

There are reasons to doubt the soundness of the conclusion arrived at by Briggs. According to Firishtah, who continues the description of the campaign of A.D. 1368, "Mahomed Shah, by the advice of Khan Mahomed, did not lay siege to Adony, but collecting a train of artillery which had never till then been employed by the faithful in the Deccan, he gave the command to Mookurrib Khan, son of Sufdur Khan Seestany, attaching to him a number of Toorks and Europeans acquainted with the art of gunnery".³ The Muhammadans, therefore, made use of artillery in A.D. 1368. The statement of Faria y Sousa refers to the year A.D. 1502. One may question whether the assertion of the Portuguese historian can be made to disprove the statement of Firishtah. Without entering minutely into the question, we may note in passing that mention is made in the *Sukraniti* of gunpowder and gunners.⁴

v1.c15.s2.t6.8

³ Firishtah, Briggs, ibid., II, p. 312, n.

v1.c15.s2.t6.9

⁴ *Sukraniti*, II, ll. 393-6, p. 83; IV, ii. ll. 60-3, p. 140. VII, ll. 386-418, pp. 235-237, 237, n. (1).

v1.c15.s2.t6.10

But this does not certainly prove that the Vijayanagara monarchs used guns in or about A.D. 1368. It is the inscriptions which enlighten us on this point. That the author of the *Tohful-us-Sulatin* was not far wrong in stating that in or about A.D. 1368 the Hindus had guns can be gathered from a record dated A.D. 1388 which contains the earliest reference to firearms in Vijayanagara history. The inscription narrates that on the death of the match-lock man (*kōvikāra*) Dēvayya Nāyaka, son of Chikkagoṇḍa of Muṭṭuguppe, by snake-bite, his wife Muddana kēṭi performed *sahagamana*.¹ There is another inscription, probably of the times of Dēva Rāya II which mentions gunpowder in unmistakable terms. It relates that on "Eṇiva-Maḷaga driving along an elephant for the city elephant of the Male-rāyya—the *Mahā-prabhu* Bayicha Gauḍa, who was supplying gunpowder to the Naḍaṅgiri-nāḍ Rāja (*naḍaṅgiriṇāḍ rājaaa [rājana] maddin sēvayım*), . . . slew some powerful enemies and went to *svarga*".² It is quite likely, therefore, that somewhere between the years A.D. 1360 and 1420, the Hindus might have borrowed the idea of using guns from the Muhammadans, whose acquaintance with cannon in about A.D. 1420 is confirmed by Nicolo dei Conti. This traveller says: "The natives of central India make use of balistae, and those machines which we call bombardas, also other warlike implements adapted for besieging cities".³ There is nothing improbable in the Hindus of southern India having imitated the Muhammadans in this respect prior to A.D. 1420, especially when we remember that these people were brought together more often on the battlefield than on platforms of peace and mutual goodwill.

v1.c15.s2.t6.11

¹ E.C., VIII, Sb. 433, p. 81; P. II, p. 218. The date of the record is Saka 1310, Vibhava Samvatsara = A.D. 1388. Swamikannu, *Ind. Eph.*, IV, p. 378. There is no other means of verifying the date.

v1.c15.s2.t6.12

² E.C., VIII, Sa. 68, p. 104. P. II, p. 282. The date is given as *śaka-varushada sāvirada munnūṛ elpatta mūṛ samvat vistārada-abda-Durmatiyō Ashāḍa-māsa Sudha Pādya*. In the Romanized version we have *Samvatsarad abdada*, p. 197. This epigraph contains some chronological difficulties. The name of the king is given as Immaḍi Dēva Rāya Mahārāya (A.D. 1446-67), the son of Dēva Rāya II. The record may have been assigned to the times of Immaḍi Dēva Rāya II, but the cyclic year Durmati agrees with Saka 1363 and not with Saka 1373, the cyclic year of which was Prajotpatti. Saka 1363 Durmati, Ashāḍa-māsa Su. Pādya = A.D. 1441, June, Monday the 19th (?). Swamikannu, ibid., V., p. 84. In the absence of more reliable data, the suggestion of Rice is followed here. B.A.S.

v1.c15.s2.t6.13

³ Major, *India*, p. 31; Sewell, *For. Emp.*, p. 86. These machines mentioned by Conti were evidently the *sutarnals* and the *hattarnals* mentioned in the *Rama Rāja Charitre*.

v1.c15.s2.t6.14

We have already mentioned the number of cannon used in the great battle of Rākshasa-Taṅgaḍi. The total, according to the *Bakhair*, was 2,667. Nuniz merely says that "Several cannon were also taken" during the Raichur campaign.⁴ The chariots mentioned in the *Bakhair* were evidently carriages on which the cannon were transported. If they had used chariots as an independent unit of the army, foreign travellers could not have failed to notice them.

Cites (2)

Epigraphia Carnatica
Śukranīti (Śukrācārya) — Śukrācārya, Sanskrit