Age of the Nandas and Mauryas c11.s18.1

c11.s18.1

The Mauryan empire maintained a large standing army adequate to all its needs, internal and external. Pliny, doubtless basing his statement on Megasthenes, put the strength of Chandragupta's forces at 600,000 infantry, 30,000 cavalry and 9,000 elephants. He says nothing of chariots, but their number was placed at 2,000 by Diodorus and Curtius, and at 8,000 by Plutarch—all of them recording reports that reached Alexander about the number of chariots in the army of the King of the Prasii, that is, the Nanda predecessor of Chandragupta. The *Arthaśāstra* mentions different types of chariots—war chariots and chariots used for assaulting fortresses among them¹. References to Mauryan war chariots seem to occur in some Tamil poems of a somewhat later date². There were superintendents (*adhyakṣas*) set over each of the four sections and they were charged with the duty of procuring the necessary supplies and keeping the men, animals and machines in proper trim. Stress is laid on the importance of the elephant corps and great attention devoted to the proper maintenance of elephant forests (*nāgavana*). Among the infantry Kauṭilya distinguishes different types—hereditary troops, doubtless the same as the fighting class (Kshatriyas) whom Megasthenes placed next to the cultivating classes in numbers and importance; hired troops; troops maintained by guilds and available to the state at need; and forest tribes who furnished troops to the king in times of war. The organization of the army in the field was an elaborate affair, and there are discussions of the value of different formations based on clear distinctions between vanguard, centre, rear, wings, reserves and so on, and between the requirements of march, attack and defence. The value and use of different types of weapons was also much canvassed, and among such weapons were a variety of stationary and mobile engines—one of them being known as the hundred-slayer. "The art of fortification was well understood and Indian forts of the time were strong and systematically designed with ditches, ramparts, battlements, covered ways, portcullises, and water-gates; and in the assault the arts of mining, countermining, flooding mines were employed no less than the devices of diplomacy" (F. W. Thomas). Further details on the equipment of Indian troops and their mode of fighting preserved by Greek observers have been noticed elsewhere. The superintendents of the forces functioning either alone or with the assistance of boards must have been subject to the general control of the commander-in-chief (Senāpati) who was among the most important officers of the state. There were periodical inspections of all the troops by the commander-in-chief and the emperor; according to Bāṇa, it was at one such military review that Pushyamitra contrived to do away with the last Mauryan ruler, the weak and shiftless Brihadratha. Kauṭilya mentions a nāvadhyaksha, superintendent of ships,—which might have included fighting units besides merchantmen.