Pramāṇa · Search · About · API

Public Administration in Ancient India c18: Chapter XV: The Military Organisation

Public Administration in Ancient India c18

Language
English

Chapter XV: The Military Organisation

c18.2

As wars were rather frequent in ancient days, each State in India found it necessary to maintain a large military force.¹ At the battle of the Hydaspes, which was fought between Alexander and Poros, the latter had with him a cavalry 4,000 strong, 300 chariots, 200 elephants, and an efficient infantry force of 30,000 soldiers.² The King of Magadha had about this time a large and powerful army consisting of 600,000 foot-soldiers, 30,000 horses, and 8,000 elephants. The Gangaridae (perhaps the people of Bengal) possessed 1,000 horse, 700 elephants, and 60,000 foot-soldiers. Pliny further mentions, on the authority of Megasthenes, that the Āndhra Kingdom had 100,000 foot-soldiers, 2,000 cavalry, and 1,000 elephants, while Kalinga kept in arms 60,000 foot, 10,000 horse, and 700 elephants, and the King of the Saurāṣṭras maintained an army of 1,600 elephants, 150,000 foot, and 5,000 cavalry.¹ From Hiuen Tsiang we learn that when Harshavardhana ascended the throne of Kanauj, that Kingdom possessed an army of 5,000 elephants, 2,000 cavalry, and 50,000 foot-soldiers, and after Harshavardhana had succeeded in bringing the greater part of Northern India under his imperial sway, he found it necessary to increase his army to 60,000 war elephants and 100,000 cavalry.²

c18.3

¹ Megasthenes says: "In fact no one invested with kingly power ever keeps on foot a military force without a very great number of elephants and foot and cavalry." Fragment LVI. B.

c18.4

² Alexander's Invasion (McCrindle), p. 65.

c18.5

¹ Megasthenes, Fragments LVI. and LVI. B. Megasthenes also mentions that the Pāndyans had a cavalry 4,000 strong, and an army of 150,000 foot-soldiers and 500 elephants. LVI.

c18.6

² Buddhist Records, Bk. V.

c18.7

The military organisation seems to have been very efficient. The army was divided into four sections, namely, infantry, cavalry, chariots, and elephants. The relative usefulness of the different sections depended upon the seasons and the nature of the operations in which the army was engaged. Thus, according to the Mahābhārata, an army in which chariots and horsemen predominated was regarded as very effective in battle in fine weather, while one which had a large number of foot-soldiers was held as better in the rainy season.³

c18.8

³ Mahābhārata, Sānti Parva, Sec. 160, sls. 24, 25.

c18.9

Foot-soldiers were of various classes. Chānakya classified them as regulars (maula), hired soldiers (bhṛita), those supplied by fighting corporations (śreṇi), those recruited from the enemies' country, those recruited from the country of an ally, and lastly, those recruited from amongst wild tribes.¹ The best army, in the opinion of Chānakya, is that which has come down from father and grandfather, which is constant, obedient, contented, not averse from making long sojourns, everywhere invincible and possessed of the power of endurance, which has received a training in all kinds of warfare and has fought in many battles, which is ready to follow the fortunes of the monarch whether in weal or in woe, and which consists mainly of Kshatriyas.²

c18.10

¹ Arthaśāstra, Bk. IX. ch. 1. The Sukranīti divides soldiers into two classes, namely, maula (regulars) and sadyaska (recent recruits), and subdivides each of these into various sub-classes. Ch. IV. sec. 7.

c18.11

² Arthaśāstra, Bk. VI. ch. 1.

c18.12

The main body of the soldiers of the country was selected from the bravest of the people; and as sons followed the profession of their fathers, they soon became very proficient in the art of war. On the battle-field the hereditary soldiers were placed in front and in positions of importance, while the mercenary troops were usually stationed in the rear.³ The comparative values of mercenaries and thoroughbred soldiers are described in the Ājañña-Jātaka in these words:

c18.13

³ Hiuen Tsiang, Buddhist Records, Bk. II.

c18.14

“No matter when or where,
In weal or woe,
The thorough-bred fights on;
The hack gives in.” ⁴

c18.15

⁴ The Jātaka (Cowell), I. 24. So the Sukranīti says: “The King should go to battle with his main army. Such an army never desires to forsake their master even at the point of death.” IV. 7, 184.

c18.16

The cavalry formed a very important part of the army. Its great value lay in its quick movement, and it was regarded as specially useful for occupying advanced positions, for protecting the treasury and commissariat, for cutting off the enemy's supply, for delivering attacks against the enemy's forces, and for pursuing a retreating foe.¹ A large cavalry force was held essential in order to keep an extensive kingdom under control, and we know that Chandragupta's military strength depended very largely upon the superiority of his cavalry.

c18.17

¹ Arthasāstra, Bk. X. ch. 4.

c18.18

Chariots were of various kinds. They were of special use in protecting the army against the enemy's attacks, seizing the enemy's positions and breaking the compact array of the enemy's army.²

c18.19

² Ibid.

c18.20

Elephants were regarded as very useful in warfare. The destruction of the enemy's army was believed mainly to depend upon elephants.³ Megasthenes speaks of the Gangaridae as a nation which possessed a vast force of the largest sized elephants, and remarks: "Owing to this, their country has never been conquered by any foreign King; for all other nations dread the overwhelming number and strength of these animals."⁴ Even as late as the seventh century A.D., we are told by Hiuen Tsiang that the defeat of Harshavardhana at the hands of Pulakesi, King of Mahārāshtra, was due to the fact that the latter possessed a large number of savage elephants.¹ But they were sometimes more a hindrance than a help, as was found in the battle of the Hydaspes, where, maddened by the wounds received from the enemy’s missiles, they “attacked friend and foe indiscriminately, pushed them, trampled them down, and killed them in all manner of ways,” and, being at last spent with wounds, “spread havoc among their own ranks.”²

c18.21

³ Arthasāstra, Bk. VII. ch. 11.

c18.22

⁴ Fragment I.

c18.23

¹ Life of Hiuen Tsiang, Bk. IV. In this book we are further told: “When these (elephants) are drawn up in battle array, they give them intoxicating spirits to drink, till they are overpowered with it, and then at a given signal, when in this condition, they excite them to rush against the enemy. The foes are thus without fail put to flight.” Bk. IV.

c18.24

² Alexander’s Invasion (McCrindle), p. 106.

c18.25

Some of the more powerful rulers had, besides the four-fold armies, naval departments. Megasthenes mentions the naval department as one of the six military departments of the State, and Chānakya speaks of warships which were to be under the control of the Superintendent of Navigation. According to Hiuen Tsiang, the King of Assam possessed a fleet of 30,000 ships.

c18.26

Each section of the army was divided into various divisions, which were named Patti, Senāmukha, Gulma, Gaṇa, Vāhinī, Pratna, Chamū, Anīkinī, and Akshauhiṇī. These would correspond roughly with the modern divisions of the army, such as sections, platoons, brigades, companies, battalions, regiments, divisions, and army corps. It is said that in the Mahābhārata War eighteen Akshauhiṇīs, or army corps, were engaged in battle. This is an enormous number, making a total of 3,936,600 in the whole of the forces engaged, and is doubtless a great exaggeration.

c18.27

Besides the fighting forces, there were the transport and supply services. According to the Sukranīti, the smallest unit of the army (including the transport and supply services) was to consist of 300 foot-soldiers, 80 horses, 1 chariot, 2 cannons (bṛhannālika), 10 camels, 2 elephants, 2 carts, and 16 bulls.¹ The Sukranīti considers it desirable to have the infantry four times the cavalry; bulls, one-fifth of the horse, and camels, one-eighth; elephants, one-fourth of the camels; chariots, half of elephants; and cannons, twice the number of chariots. The various divisions of the army were commanded by officers (bala-mukhyāḥ) whose ranks depended upon the number of soldiers serving under them.²

c18.28

¹ IV. 7, 22-23.

c18.29

² IV. 7, 21.

c18.30

The different regiments were designated by distinguishing flags and badges. They had also different kinds of trumpets, kettle-drums, and conch-shells.³ Signalling was a very important part of the army organisation, and communications were made by means of homing pigeons and various other devices. The different divisions of the army were given a regular training in the art of war. In times of peace they had their daily exercises, at which the King sometimes used to be present.

c18.31

³ “Tūrya-dhvaja-patākābhir vyūha-samjñāḥ prakalpayet.” Arthaśāstra, Bk. II. ch. 33.

c18.32

The Commander-in-Chief (Pradhāna Senāpati) was the head of the military department of the State. Usually he was a man well trained in all the arts of warfare, and familiar with use of all kinds of weapons. It was his duty to attend to the training and efficient organisation of the army and the enforcement of proper discipline among the soldiers. The Harsha-charita gives a poetic description of the appearance and character of the Commander-in-Chief of the Kingdom of Sthānvesvara from which we make the following extract: “. . . a man foremost in every fight, in person yellow as the hill of orpiment, stately as a great full-grown Sāl tree’s stem, and tall as if ripened by valour’s exceeding heat . . . So stubborn was his frame that even old age laid but a trembling hand, timidly as it were, upon his stiff hair. He seemed while still alive to have been born anew into a lion’s nature . . . In spite of age his broad chest was rough with great gashes of wounds . . . and all across it ran in lines the writings of many great scars graven by the axe-edge of sharp swords, as though he were making a calculation of the hour of victory in every battle.”¹

c18.33

¹ Harshacharita, Ch. VI. (Cowell and Thomas).

c18.34

Under the Commander-in-Chief were the Chief Commandants (adhyakṣāḥ) of the four great divisions, namely, the infantry, the cavalry, the elephant force, and the chariots. Subordinate to the Chief Commandants were other officers of various grades. According to Chānakya, for every ten units of each of the constituents of the army, there was to be an officer called Padika, ten Padikas were to be under a Senāpati (commander), and ten Senāpatis under a Nāyaka (general).¹ The Sukranīti also mentions such officers as Śatānikas (officers commanding one hundred soldiers) and Sāhasrikas (officers commanding one thousand soldiers).

c18.35

¹ Arthasāstra, Bk. X. ch. 6.

c18.36

The direction of military affairs was, at the time of Megasthenes’s visit, in the hands of a governing body of thirty members. This body was grouped into six committees of five members each, they being in charge of the four divisions of the army, and the commissariat and the naval department. “One division is appointed,” says Strabo, “to co-operate with the admiral of the fleet, another with the superintendent of the bullock-trains which are used in transporting engines of war, food for the soldiers, provender for the cattle, and other military requisites. They supply servants who beat the drum, and others who carry gongs; grooms also for the horses, and mechanists and their assistants. To the sound of the gong they send out foragers to bring in grass, and by a system of rewards and punishments ensure the work being done with despatch and safety. The third division has charge of the foot-soldiers, the fourth of the horses, the fifth of the war chariots, and the sixth of the elephants. There are royal stables for the horses and elephants, and also a royal magazine for the arms, because the soldier has to return his arms to the magazine, and his horse and elephant to the stables . . . In addition to the charioteer there are two fighting men who sit up in the chariot beside him. The war-elephant carries four men—three who shoot arrows, and the driver.”¹

c18.37

¹ Megasthenes, Fragment XXIV.

c18.38

Various kinds of weapons were used in the ancient times for offensive and defensive purposes. In the Rig-Veda we read of bows, arrows, armours, and coats-of-mail.² Chānakya classifies weapons as immovable machines (sthita-yantra), movable machines (chala-yantra), bows, arrows, swords, weapons with pointed edges like ploughshares, and miscellaneous weapons.³ Each of these classes is again subdivided into many kinds. In the Mahābhārata we find mention of many kinds of weapons, of which those most often used were the mace, the battle-axe, the discus, the bow, the arrow, and the vajra (thunderbolt). The Agni Purāṇa¹ arranges weapons in five classes, namely, (i) those thrown by machines (yantra-mukta), (ii) those thrown by the hand (pāṇi-mukta), (iii) those thrown and drawn back (mukta-sandhṛita), (iv) those not thrown (amukta), and (v) weapons used in hand-to-hand fights (bāhu-yuddha). The Sukranīti mentions the following chief weapons : iśu (arrow), gadā (mace), paṭṭiśa, ekadhāra, kshura-prānta, khaḍga, chakra, supāśaka, and karaja.² From the Nītiprakāsikā,³ we get a full list of the instruments used in warfare.

c18.39

² “Little is known of Vedic warfare, but it seems to have been simple. A body of foot-soldiers with charioteers composed every army, the two going together, and the foot-soldiers being often overthrown by the charioteers, who were doubtless the Kshatriyas and their foremost retainers. Probably the foot-soldiers bore little armour, and used only the bow for offence . . . The nobles, on the other hand, may have had cuirass (varman), helmet (sipra), and hand-guard (hastaghna). On the car was the charioteer, and on his left the warrior . . . The offensive weapon was practically the bow; spear and sword and axe were seldom used.” Vedic Index, II. p. 417.

c18.40

³ Arthaśāstra, Bk. II. ch. 28.

c18.41

¹ Agni Purāṇa, Ch. 148, 2.

c18.42

² Ch. IV. sec. 7.

c18.43

³ Although the Nītiprakāsikā is a comparatively modern book, it is based on older works, and most of the instruments mentioned in it were probably in use from early times.

c18.44

I. Mukta (which are thrown) : dhanu (bow), iśu (arrow), bhiṇḍipala, śakti (spear), drughaṇa (hatchet), tomara (tomahawk), nālika (musket), laguḍa (light club), pāśa (lasso), chakra (discus), danta-kaṇṭaka (tooth-thorn), masuṇḍi (octagon-headed club).

c18.45

II. Amukta (which are not thrown) : vajra (thunderbolt), īlī (hand-sword), paraśu (axe), gośira (cow-horn spear), asidhenu (stiletto), lavitra (scythe), āstara (scatterer), kunta (lance), sthūṇā (anvil), prāsa (spear), pināka or triśūla (trident), gadā (heavy club), mudgara (hammer), śirā (ploughshare), musala (pestle), paṭṭiśa (battle-axe), mauṣṭika (dagger), mayūkhī (pole), śataghnī (hundred-killer), and 44 other varieties.

c18.46

III. Mantra-mukta (thrown by mantras or spells). These were mythical weapons, and were supposed to be so powerful that nothing could frustrate them. These were: Viṣṇu-chakra (discus of Viṣṇu), vajrāstra (thunderbolt), Brahmāstra (missile of Brahmā), Kāla-prāsaka (noose of death), Nārāyaṇāstra (missile of Nārāyaṇa), and Pāśupatāstra (missile of Śiva).¹

c18.47

¹ Ch. II.

c18.48

The chief defensive weapons consisted of shields and bucklers. Warriors were also clad in armour made of iron or skin.² The Greek writers tell us that Poros's person was rendered shot-proof by his coat-of-mail which was " remarkable for its strength and the closeness with which it fitted his person."³ All instruments of war were kept in the armoury, stamped with the royal seal, and could not be moved except under sealed orders.⁴

c18.49

² Arthaśāstra, Bk. II. ch. 18.

c18.50

³ Alexander's Invasion (McCrindle), p. 108.

c18.51

⁴ Arthaśāstra, Bk. V. ch. 2.

c18.52

The question whether the use of fire-arms was known in India in ancient times has not yet been settled. There are a few terms to be found in the Rāmāyaṇa and the Mahābhārata, such as ‘vajra,’ ‘nālika,’ and ‘āgneyāstra,’ which may be interpreted as pointing to the use of fire-arms. Chānakya gives recipes for the preparation of inflammable powders (agni-dhāraṇa and agni-yoga) which were to be hurled against the enemy.⁵ The Sukranīti treats of the preparation of gun-powder, and also of the use of cannons and muskets, but these passages are evidently a later addition. The Nītiprakāsikā, which is doubtless a recent work, mentions burning and explosive oil, and injurious and irritating compounds which were thrown at the enemy. From these and other similar passages Mr. Gustav Oppert concludes that gunpowder was first invented in India, and that fire-arms were used by Indians long before they were known in any other country. We do not find, however, any mention of fire-arms in the writings of foreign travellers, and in the absence of fuller proof the question must be regarded as unsettled.

c18.53

⁵ " Small balls prepared from the mixture of sarala (pinus longifolia), devadāru (deodar), pūtitṛiṇa (stinking grass), guggula (bdellium), śrīveshṭaka

c18.54

Of the equipment of the soldiers at the time of Alexander’s invasion Arrian says : “ The foot-soldiers carry a bow made of equal length with the man who bears it. This they rest upon the ground, and pressing against it with their left foot, thus discharge the arrow, having drawn the string far backwards ; for the shaft they use is little short of being three yards long, and there is nothing which can resist an Indian

c18.55

(turpentine), the juice of saraja (vatica robusta), and lākshā (lac) combined with dungs of an ass, camel, sheep and goat are inflammable (agnidhāraṇa, i.e. such as keep fire). The mixture of the powder of priyāla (chironjia sapida), the charcoal of valguja (canyza, serratula, anthelmintea), madhū-chchhishta (wax), and the dung of a horse, ass, camel, and cow is an inflammable powder to be hurled against the enemy. The powder of all the metals as red as fire, or the mixture of the powder of kumbh (gemelia arborea), sīsa (lead), trapu (zinc), mixed with the charcoal powder of the flowers of pāribhadraka (deodar), palāśa (butea frondosa), and hair and with oil, wax, and turpentine, is also an inflammable powder.” Arthasāstra, Bk. XIII. ch. 4 (Shama Shastri’s trans.).

c18.56

archer’s shot, neither shield nor breast-plate, nor any stronger defence, if such there be. In their left hand they carry bucklers made of undressed ox-hide, which are not so broad as those who carry them, but are about as long. Some are equipped with javelins instead of bows, but wear a sword which is broad in the blade, but not longer than three cubits; and this when they engage in close fight (which they do with reluctance), they wield with both hands to fetch down a lustier blow. The horsemen are equipped with two lances like the lances called saunia, and with a shorter buckler than that carried by foot-soldiers.”¹

c18.57

¹ Arrian (McCrindle), XVI.

c18.58

Hiuen Tsiang, writing in the seventh century, describes in the following words the weapons used and the method of fighting adopted by each of the four divisions of the army. “The elephants are covered with strong armour, and their tusks are provided with sharp spurs. A leader in a car gives the command, whilst two attendants on the right and left drive his chariot, which is drawn by four horses abreast. The general of the soldiers remains in his chariot, he is surrounded by a file of guards, who keep close to his chariot wheels.

c18.59

“The cavalry spread themselves in front to resist an attack, and in case of defeat they carry orders hither and thither. The infantry by their quick movements contribute to the defence. These men are chosen for their courage and strength. They carry a long spear and a great shield; sometimes they hold a sword or sabre, advance to the front with impetuosity. All their weapons are sharp and pointed. Some of them are these—spears, shields, bows, arrows, swords, sabres, battle-axes, lances, halberds, long javelins, and various kinds of slings. All these they have used for ages."¹

c18.60

¹ Buddhist Records (Beal), Bk. II.

c18.61

Before the commencement of a battle it was thought necessary to select a proper site for pitching camps. According to the Mahābhārata, a region lying near the woods was to be regarded as suited for encampment. "In choosing the field of battle," says the Mahābhārata, "men conversant with war approve of a region that is not miry, not watery, not uneven, not abounding with bricks and stones, as well suited to the operations of cavalry; a field that is free from mire and holes is fit for car-warriors; a region that is overgrown with bushes and trees and is under water is fitted for elephant warriors; and a ground that contains many inaccessible spots, and has large trees and topes of cane bushes, as also a mountainous or woody tract, is well fitted for the operations of infantry."² Chānakya also enters into a similar discussion of the suitability of a field, but gives the general advice: "The conqueror should choose such a place as may be suitable for the manœuvre of his army and (at the same time) inconvenient for that of his enemy.”¹

c18.62

² Mahābhārata, Sānti Parva, Sec. 100, sls. 21-23.

c18.63

¹ Mahābhārata, Bk. IX. ch. 1. Vide also Sukranīti, Ch. IV. sec. 7.

c18.64

Sometimes it was necessary to occupy particular positions for a considerable length of time. On such occasions, a more permanent sort of camp was constructed. With regard to such a camp, Chānakya says: “On a site well-suited for the construction of buildings, the general, the carpenters, and the astrologers should measure a circular, rectangular, or square plot of land (according to the shape of the available land) for the camp which should contain four gates, six roads, and nine divisions, and should be provided with ditches, parapets, walls, means of exit, watch towers, temporary residence of the King, etc.”²

c18.65

² Arthasāstra, Bk. V. ch. 2.

c18.66

Much care, evidently, was bestowed on the arrangement of troops in battle. Veterans and soldiers noted for their strength and courage were stationed in the van and in positions of danger, while the weaker combatants formed the rear of the army.³ Various kinds of array are described in the Mahābhārata. In the Great War, the Pāndavas drew up their armies in different kinds of array on different days. The most important form adopted by the Kauravas was a Maze (chakra-vyūha), the object of which was especially to protect the great heroes in the centre.¹ Chāṇakya mentions the daṇḍa, bhoga, maṇḍala, and asaṃhata as the four principal kinds of array. Each of these, again, has several varieties, which he describes thus: “The arrangement of the army in transverse sections is called a daṇḍa (staff) array. An array in which the lines (of troops) follow one another is called a bhoga (snake). Stationing the army so as to face all directions is called a maṇḍala (circle) array. An arrangement of the army in separate and detached portions is called an asaṃhata (detached) array. A daṇḍa array is of equal strength on its wings, flanks, and front. This array is called pradara (breaking the enemy’s array) when its flanks are made to project in front. It is known as dṛḍhaka (firm) when its wings and flanks are stretched back. It is called asahya (irresistible) when its wings are lengthened. When, after the formation of the wings, the front is made to bulge out, it is called a śyena (eagle) array. These four varieties are called chāpa (a bow), chāpa-kukshi (the centre of a bow), pratishṭha (a hold), and supratishṭha (stronghold) respectively when they are arranged in the reverse orders.

c18.67

³ Sukranīti, Ch. IV. sec. 7. The Nītiprakāsikā says: “The strength of the army should be concentrated at the point where there is any danger from the enemy.” VII. 53.

c18.68

¹ In the Journal of India Art and Industry (ed. by Col. T. H. Hendley), Vol. VII., a picture of the Maze has been reproduced from the Razmnāmah (temp. Akbar).

c18.69

“That array in which the wings are arranged like a bow is called a sañjaya (victory). The same with a projected front is called vijaya (victory). The array which has its flanks and wings thick is called sthūlakarṇa (big ear); the array with its front made twice as strong as the vijaya is called viśāla-vijaya (great victory); that which has its wings stretched forward is called chamū-mukha (face of an army); and the same is called jhashāsya (face of a fish) when it is arrayed in the reverse form. That variety of daṇḍa array in which one (constituent of the army) is made to stand higher than the others is called sūchī (needle). When this array consists of two such lines, it is called valaya (aggregate), and when of four lines, durjaya (invincible). These are the varieties of the daṇḍa array.

c18.70

“That variety of the bhoga array in which the wings, flanks, and front are of unequal depth is called sarpasāri (which has a serpentine movement), or gomūtrika. When it consists of two lines in front and has its wings arranged in a daṇḍa array, it is called a śakaṭa (cart); the reverse of this is called makara (crocodile); the śakaṭa array which consists of elephants, horses, and chariots is called vāripatantaka (water-fall). These are the varieties of the bhoga array.

c18.71

“That variety of maṇḍala array in which the distinction of wings, flanks, and front is lost is called sarvatomukha (facing all directions) or sarvatobhadra (all auspicious), aṣṭānīka (consisting of eight divisions), or durjaya (invincible). These are the varieties of the maṇḍala array.

c18.72

“ The arrangement in which the wings, flanks, and front are stationed separate from one another is called an asaṃhata (detached) array. When five divisions of the array are arranged in detached order, it is called vajra (diamond) or godhā (alligator); when four divisions, it is called udyānaka (park) or kākapadī (crow’s foot); when three divisions, it is called ardhachandrikā (half-moon) or karkaṭaka-śṛṅgī (the horn of a crab). These are the varieties of the asaṃhata array.

c18.73

“ The array in which chariots form the front, elephants the wings, and horses the rear is called ariṣṭa (desirable); that in which infantry, cavalry, chariots, and elephants stand one behind the other is called acala (immovable); that in which elephants, horses, chariots, and infantry stand in order, one behind the other, is known as apratihata (irresistible).” ¹

c18.74

¹ Arthaśāstra, Bk. X. ch. 6.

c18.75

The method of attacking the enemy, when both the armies have been arranged in battle order is, according to Chāṇakya, this: “ He (i.e. Commander-in-Chief) should assail the pradara by means of the dṛḍhaka; the dṛḍhaka by means of the asahya; the śyena by means of the chāpa; a pratiṣṭha by means of a supratiṣṭha; sañjaya by means of a vijaya; sthūlakarṇa by means of a viśālavijaya, vāripatantaka by means of sarvatobhadra. He may assail all kinds of arrays by means of the durjaya.

c18.76

Of the infantry, cavalry, chariots, and the elephants, the Commander-in-Chief should strike the one previously mentioned by means of that which follows it. He should attack a small contingent with a large one.” ¹

c18.77

¹ Arthaśāstra, Bk. X. ch. 6.

c18.78

Poros’s distribution of the army at the battle of the Hydaspes, as described by Greek writers, is very interesting in this connection. Poros distributed his cavalry on the wings, and placed his elephants in his front line at equi-distances, so arranged as to strike the enemy with terror. In the intervals between the animals he stationed the rest of his soldiers, instructing them to succour the elephants and protect them from being assailed in flank by the enemy’s missiles. The whole disposition of the army gave it very much the appearance of a city—the elephants as they stood resembling its towers, and the men-at-arms placed between them resembling the lines of wall intervening between tower and tower.²

c18.79

² Vide Alexander’s Invasion (McCrindle) and V. A. Smith’s Early History of India.

c18.80

Trench (khātaka) warfare and mining (khanaka) were known in ancient times. Chānakya praises these kinds of fighting, because under these systems the soldiers are in a very favourable position. Another method was that of fighting from heights (ākāśayuddha).³ The system of siege-warfare was also practised in Ancient India. Chānakya describes in detail the suitable time for commencing a siege, and for storming a besieged place.

c18.81

³ Arthaśāstra, Bk. VII. ch. 10.

c18.82

³ Vishnu Smriti (Jolly’s Sanskrit text), Ch. 3.

c18.83

Forts began to be constructed in India from very early times. Even the pre-Āryan races of India had forts. In Hymn 20, Bk. II. of the Rig-Veda we read the following:

c18.84

“When in his arms they laid the bolt,
He slaughtered the Dasyus and cast down their forts of iron.” 1

c18.85

And again in Hymn 12, Bk. III. :

c18.86

“Indra and Agni have cast down the ninety forts which Dasas held,
Together with one mighty deed.” 2

c18.87

The Vishnu Smriti 3 mentions forts of many kinds. Manu points out the necessity for possessing forts in the following passage: “One bowman placed on a rampart is a match in battle for one hundred (foes), one hundred for ten thousand; hence it is prescribed (in the Sāstras that a King shall possess) a fortress.” 4 He mentions desert-forts, forts built of stone and earth, forts protected by water or trees, forts protected by armed men, and hill-forts, of which hillforts are the best. The Mahābhārata also mentions various kinds of forts, and offers the King the following advice in regard to the arrangements of the fortress: “ When the King takes refuge in a fortress against a powerful invader, he should raise outer ramparts round his forts, fill the trenches with water, driving pointed stakes at the bottom and filling them with crocodiles and sharks. Over all the gates he should place destructive engines. He should store food, fuel, and all other requisites, and ensure the supply of water by constructing wells. He should construct depots, arsenals, camps, and quarters for soldiers, stabling for horses and elephants, supply himself with wealth, and collect stores of all sorts, such as food, oil, fat, honey, clarified butter, medicines, grass, arrows, fuel, swords, lances, fruits, etc.” 1

c18.88

¹ Rig-Veda (Griffith’s trans.).

c18.89

² Rig-Veda (Griffith’s trans.).

c18.90

⁴ Manu, VII. 74. “Dhanva-nṛ-mahī-vṛkṣa-giri-durgāṇi.” The Agni Purāṇa and the Sukranīti also mention these kinds of forts. The Mānasāra mentions ‘śivira,’ ‘vāhinīmukha,’ ‘sthānīya,’ ‘droṇaka,’ ‘saṃsiddhi,’ ‘kolaka,’ ‘nigama,’ ‘skandhāvāra,’ as the eight varieties of forts. Ch. XI.

c18.91

According to Chānakya, forts were to be constructed in all the four quarters of the territory of the State. There were to be island forts, forts in the plains, forts in low-lying places, forts protected by water, forts built of stone, cave-forts, hill-forts, desert forts, and forts constructed in forests. A Sthānīya fort was to be built in the centre of eight hundred villages, a Droṇamukha, of four hundred, a Khārvaṭika, of two hundred, and a Saṅgrahaṇa, of ten.² In the opinion of Sukrāchārya, forts were to be constructed in accordance with a definite system so that each might be helpful to the others in case of need.

c18.92

¹ Mahābhārata, Sānti Parva, Sec. 69, sls. 33-41.

c18.93

² Arthaśāstra, Bk. II. ch. 1.

c18.94

Some of these forts were very strong. Alexander the Great found the greatest difficulty in capturing some of the forts of the Punjab and Sindh.¹ Of the fortifications of Mazaga, the chief fort of the Kshudrakas, Curtius says: "An army of 38,000 infantry defended the city, which was strongly fortified both by nature and art. For on the east an impetuous mountain stream with steep banks on both sides barred approach to the city, while to the south and west, nature, as if designing to form a rampart, had piled up gigantic rocks, at the base of which lay sloughs and yawning chasms hollowed in the course of ages to vast depths, while a ditch of mighty labour drawn from their extremity continued the line of defence. The city was, besides, surrounded by a wall 35 stadia in circumference, which had a basis of stonework supporting a superstructure of unburnt, sun-dried bricks. The brickwork was bound into a solid fabric by means of stones."²

c18.95

¹ The chief stronghold of the Malloi (Mālavas) was captured by Alexander only by showing a desperate personal courage and after he had been dangerously wounded.

c18.96

² Alexander's Invasion (McCrindle), p. 195.

c18.97

Recent excavations in Mandor have brought to light the remains of the old hill-fort, Mandavya-durga, built about the sixth century A.D. These remains give us some idea of the structure of a hill-fort of ancient times. The walls rise to a considerable height. They were constructed of massive blocks of stone, their width averaging some 24 or 25 feet, and originally they were further strengthened and protected by bastions on the outside, of which several are still preserved on the north and west sides. Along the curtain of the walls these bastions are either square or rectangular in plan; but the one at the north-west angle is circular, and it is possible that those at the other three corners were of the same form. The gateways are hidden under the fallen debris, but can be recognised. The main approach to the castle as well as to the city is a broad paved causeway, which ascends the plateau from the plains and runs alongside the moat.¹

c18.98

¹ Vide Archaeological Survey of India, 1909-10.

Linked texts (13)