Pramāṇa · Search · About · API

The Mauryan Polity c13.s6: 6. Fortress at Pāṭaliputra

The Mauryan Polity c13.s6

Language
English

6. Fortress at Pāṭaliputra

c13.s6.1

On the fortification of Pāṭaliputra says Otto Stein:—"The fragments of Megasthenes refer to Pāṭaliputra and its fortification. In the *Arthaśāstra* however there is no mention of Pāṭaliputra."¹ Megasthenes also speaks of several cities situated on the banks of rivers or on the sea-coast built of wood instead of brick and of cities on other commanding situations built of brick and mud.² Strabo on the other hand mentions wooden buildings all round, which is not a fact. Rhys Davids³ speaks of fortifications in India built of stone walls in the 6th century B.C. Kauṭalya refers unmistakably to walls of stone. Therefore Strabo could not be credited with full knowledge of facts about India. There were certainly wooden portions in the buildings. This is true even of houses built to-day. N. N. Law has shown that houses of wood were indeed common in the fourth century B.C. side by side with stone.

c13.s6.2

¹ P. 28.

c13.s6.3

² Fg. 26.

c13.s6.4

³ Buddhist India, p. 96.

c13.s6.5

An attempt has been made by Stein to compare the description of Pāṭaliputra with that found in the *Kauṭalīya*.⁴ It may be that Kauṭalya describes the fortress, its construction and plan from actual conditions, and not as mere theory. On that account it does not stand to reason that Kauṭalya has purely drawn his materials for the construction of a fortress from Pāṭaliputra. It may be that Pāṭaliputra served him as the basis for constructing his theory of a fortress. But we cannot expect Kauṭalya who writes a general treatise on statecraft to follow the details and measurements of Pāṭaliputra. Though the *Arthaśāstra* was for the time being intended for Candragupta, it was a textbook on Polity for all time, and for all kings, and for all places. Therefore Kauṭalya could not have prescribed only one standard,—the model of the fortress at Pāṭaliputra. On the other hand he mentions different kinds of fortresses such as *nadīdurga*, *vanadurga* with respective measurements in details. Some may have four gates and some twelve gates. Some may have one trench around and others three trenches. It all depends on the environs and eminence where such fortress is erected. For the construction of a fortress is purely dependent on topographical and geographical circumstances. By sheer accident, some measurements or details of Megasthenes may coincide with the *Kauṭalīyan* description, as for example, Pāṭaliputra in the form of a square, the wall of Arrian to the *prākāra* of the *Kauṭalīya*, etc. On this account we cannot proceed to compare the two because Kauṭalya is certainly not describing the fort at Pāṭaliputra but is describing how and in what manner a fort could be erected at such and such a place.

c13.s6.6

⁴ Meg. und Kauṭ., p. 30 ff.

c13.s6.7

Connected with this is the theory that as Kauṭalya does not mention Pāṭaliputra he could not have been the Minister of Candragupta. It is very probable that there was no occasion for Kauṭalya to mention his Capital city by this name. It may be repeated again that Kauṭalya’s mission was not to sketch Candragupta’s administration, though Candragupta seems to have based his administration on the model suggested. His purpose was to write a scientific treatise on administration which his King Candragupta and his successors as well might use with profit and advantage to themselves. In such a treatise there would certainly be no occasion for mentioning the city of Pāṭali, and the mere omission of this fact cannot be seriously advanced as an argument for or against establishing the authenticity of the work.

Linked texts (2)