History of Mediaeval Hindu India (being a History of India from 600 to 1200 A.D.) v3.c40.9

v3.c40.9

4. The maintenance of a strong and sufficient army is the first duty of every state. The Hindu states had probably neglected this duty at this time. The great reputation of India in this respect noted before had been lost by it at this time. The probability is that Hindu states did not at this time maintain standing armies as in the days of Harsha or Bhoja. The army consisted chiefly of the quotas furnished by the Sāmantas. Though not exactly alike, these Sāmantas were like barons in England, who maintained for the use of the state certain quotas of fighters, the expenses of the same being borne by the barons or Sāmantas from their fiefs. This is the same system as existed under the Moguls viz., of Hazaris and Panch Hazaris. Prithvirāj had probably no standing army of the state. He had probably only a small Huzur force. We know that the Peishwas, after the battle of Panipat, neglected to maintain a strong Huzur army, and the sagacious Ahalyābāi expostulated often with Nana Fadnis for neglecting the Huzur pathak. The quota supplied by Sāmantas cannot always be relied upon, either in respect of number or of efficiency. The standing army of Mahmud or Shihabuddin Ghori must have been a more reliable force than the armies composed of the forces of Sāmantas called together hastily by the Hindu kings. Sāmantas or military sardars are again not disposed to fight stubbornly as there is a temptation to save themselves and their fiefs. We believe that the absence of sufficient standing armies in the Hindu states at this time strongly contributed to their eventual fall.