Pramāṇa · Search · About · API

The Mauryan Polity c9: Chapter V. The Military System

The Mauryan Polity c9

Language
English

Contents

Chapter V. The Military System

Sec. i. Introductory

c9.s1.1

With the commencement of the Mauryan epoch the military system of the ancient Hindus becomes more perfect and more practical. The theories of diplomacy which have been in vogue from the earliest times of the Vedic period are formulated into a diplomatic code for princes to copy and follow. The well-known diplomatic means were four:—*sāma* (conciliation), *dāna* (gifts), *bheda* (creating division among his ranks or subjects), and *daṇḍa* (open war). The first three means were pursued one after another, and the institution of war was only the last resort though the Hindu political philosophy recognised it as the chief political weapon to bring to subjection recalcitrant chiefs and troublesome neighbours. The Kauṭalīyan code of diplomacy is a great improvement upon the original standard. During the epoch of the *Ṛgveda Saṃhitā* there is evidence to show that deceit was practised upon the enemies to turn them back.¹ Though Kauṭalya seems to accept the basic traditional principles, still the methods recommended for employing the means of diplomacy are not unmoral. Kauṭalya no doubt mentions different kinds of warfare including treacherous wars or *kūṭayuddha*.¹ This does not mean that Kauṭalya is recommending such a course of action for all time. As a writer on the different aspects of the subject, Kauṭalya could not avoid mentioning them and explaining what he meant by them. This aspect has been misunderstood and there has been a tendency on the part of some scholars to equate the principles formulated by Kauṭalya with the immoral teachings of Kaṇika, the Brahman Minister of Dhṛtarāṣṭra in the *Mahābhārata*.²

c9.s1.2

¹ IV, 15-4; III, 18-1.

c9.s1.3

¹ Bk. III, ch. 6.

c9.s1.4

² *Ādi Parvan*, ch. iii.

c9.s1.5

It has been shown elsewhere that Kauṭalya’s political philosophy more agrees with that of the sage Nārada in the same epic.³ The fundamental ideas common to both are that conquest is not an end in itself. The victory is counter-balanced by responsibilities, and acquisitions by the necessity of having to provide for safeguarding them. The general principle of the *Kauṭalīya*, then, is the practice of the first two means of diplomacy, *sāma* and *dāna* towards the local chieftains, and the last two means *bheda* and *daṇḍa* towards foreigners. This prescription is in accordance with that of Manu the law-giver.⁴ In formulating this policy Kauṭalya, being a sound politician, discriminates between local people and foreigners, and shows his leniency towards the former. Kauṭalya is practical when he concludes this portion of the discourse by saying that internal risings must first be dealt with. He is of opinion that, without internal peace and security, foreign expeditions should not be launched upon. The following is the reflection of Kauṭalya on diplomacy. "An arrow shot by an archer may or may not kill a person, but the skilful diplomacy of a wise man kills even those unborn."¹

c9.s1.6

³ *Sabhā Parvan*, ch. v.

c9.s1.7

⁴ *Manu* VII, 106-ff.

c9.s1.8

¹ *Ar. Śās.*, Bk. X, ch. 6.

Sec. ii. Foreign Policy

c9.s2.1

Kautalya divides the foreign rulers under four classes—*ari* (the enemy), *mitra* (ally), *madhyama* (intermediary), and *udāsīna* (neutral).² The inter-state relations are determined by the respective situations which each state possesses in the circle of states. While the second, the fourth and the sixth states are inimical, the third and the fifth states are allies.³ Kautalya distinguishes three kinds of international relations: *vigraha* (war), *sandhi* (peace), and *āsana* (neutrality).⁴ According to Vātavyādhi there are only two divisions, war and peace. But this division is questioned rightly by the *Kauṭalīya*. According to this there is a six-fold policy of action.⁵ The remaining three attitudes are *samśraya* (policy of alliance), *yāna* (preparation of march), and *dvaidhībhāva*.

c9.s2.2

² *Ibid.*, Bk. II, ch. 2.

c9.s2.3

³ *Ibid.*

c9.s2.4

⁴ *Ibid.*, Bk. VII, ch. 1.

c9.s2.5

⁵ *Ibid.*

c9.s2.6

These three are minor divisions which are, properly speaking, absorbed in the three major divisions of war, peace and neutrality. The last aspect of international law discussed in the *Kauṭalīya* is a prominent feature of the *Kauṭalīyan* policy in relation to the other states or nations. The relation of the *Kauṭalīyan* states was that each state acknowledged the sovereignty of the central power. The *Arthaśāstra* recommends territorial expansion by the policy of conquest.¹

c9.s2.7

¹ Bk. X, ch. 5 and 6.

Diplomatic Agents

c9.s2.t1.1

These new acquisitions were treated as protectorates or vassals, in modern political parlance. The border-peoples to which repeated reference is made in the Edicts of Aśoka² come under the category of these protectorates. The principle underlying the foreign policy was the maintenance of the balance of power.³ This was effected by the diplomatic agents of the Empire. Kauṭalya makes mention of different classes of such agents.⁴ Some of them correspond to our ambassadors. The *cāras* are those employed in secret service. There is the *ubhayavedana* who was perhaps the permanent ambassador in a foreign court. It is difficult to interpret the term as it comes under the common title of Gūḍhapuruṣas. These latter were the secret informants in war in addition to their office in the rank and file of the Mauryan bureaucracy.⁵ They gathered news about the strength or otherwise of the enemy-state, and reported the same to the head-quarters. In accomplishing their ends they assumed different guises—, of a trader, an ascetic, a physician, an agriculturist, lest they should be unable to get at the required information, and lest they should be detected, and the real state of affairs be kept from them. These perhaps are meant by Megasthenes’ ‘supervisors’.

c9.s2.t1.2

² R.E. II and XIII.

c9.s2.t1.3

³ *Ar. Śās.*, Bk. VI, ch. 2.

c9.s2.t1.4

⁴ Bk. I, ch. 11, 12 and 14.

c9.s2.t1.5

⁵ Ibid.

c9.s2.t1.6

The inscriptions of Aśoka furnish us with a specialised kind of reporters designated *prativedaka* who were engaged in a similar work of furnishing to the capital, information collected about the enemy’s country.¹ As these officers were entrusted with responsible duties Kauṭalya recommends the appointment of only tried men to these posts. The state was to render all possible help to them when they were in service. It is said that the king gave audience to them only at nights. This was perhaps to avoid the common people and interested men, lest the secrecy should be divulged. Whenever they put down some information in writing, they did it in a special form of writing *gūḍhalekhya* translated as ‘cipher writing.’ The idea was that even if it were miscarried the ordinary citizen could not make out its contents. Though the state had implicit confidence in its employees, still it did not hastily resort to action on a single report. Unless the report was confirmed by two sources, other than the one received, no action was taken.²

c9.s2.t1.7

¹ R.E. VI, *Corpus*, p. 58.

c9.s2.t1.8

² *trayānām ekavākye sampratyayaḥ* *Ar. Śās.*, p. 21; cp. *Rāma*: Ayod., ch. 100; p. 36.

Dūtas or Ambassadors

c9.s2.t2.1

The other class of diplomatic agents who were entrusted with still more responsible work to discharge were the *dūtas*. The term can be translated as ambassadors or envoys. The *dūta* is an open spy. While the *cāra* collected secret information, the *dūta* delivered the message in person without fear or favour sometimes at the risk of his own person. The qualifications for this office were by no means simple. A *dūta* must be one who belonged to a well-known high-class family versed in the science of land, of a towering personality, humorous, eloquent, bold, faithful, and capable of meeting trying situations. Tactfulness and a resolute mind were his other characteristics.¹ The envoy went to the foreign court only with previous instruction. There were letters of credence, *śāsana*, containing the message of his king. There is a significant statement in the *Kauṭalīya* which says that letters of credence are important to the kings. On these depend cessation and outbreak of hostilities.² The *dūta* was the king's representative and hence his person was sacred.³ However unpleasant the mission he was engaged in and the message he delivered, he was not to be slain. When once the message had been delivered the *dūta* could leave the station with or without the sanction of the king of the country.⁴ In addition to these ambassadors, there were consular officers as is evident from the records of Megasthenes. Referring to the second Municipal Board mentioned by the Greek writer, V. A. Smith remarks that this Board performed duties which in modern Europe are entrusted to the consuls representing foreign powers.⁵ The term *dūta* also occurs in the inscription of Aśoka. The mission entrusted to them seems to be the spreading of peace and goodwill between the respective states and the empire.

c9.s2.t2.2

¹ *Ar. Śās.*, Bk. I, ch. 16. ² *śāsanapradhāna hi rājānaḥ*; tanmūlatvāt sandhivigrahayoḥ—*Ar. Śās.*, Bk. II, ch. 10. ³ *dūtamukhāvai rājānaḥ*.—*Ibid.* ⁴ *Ibid.* ⁵ *Ind. Ant.*, 1905, p. 200.

Foreign Embassies

c9.s2.t3.1

The Mauryan Empire grew in extent under Candragupta and got further expanded under Bindusāra and Aśoka. Candragupta succeeded to the throne immediately after Alexander's invasion and the latter incident involved him in international relations. After having consolidated his empire Candragupta turned his attention to the countries which were under the Macedonian rule. Seleucus Nikator who was in charge of the Greek kingdoms in the Indian frontier relinquished his rights to that portion of the country belonging to the Indian Empire, the satrapies of the Paropanisadai, Aria, Arachosia, and Gedrosia, and he was presented in return with 500 elephants. Seleucus felt the strength of the arms of Candragupta and arranged for peace through negotiations. This peace was effected with success by Megasthenes, the Greek ambassador of Seleucus in 303 B.C.¹

c9.s2.t3.2

¹ Smith, *Early History of India*, pp. 125-26.

c9.s2.t3.3

The friendly relations between India and the Hellenistic kingdoms begun by Candragupta continued during the reigns of his successors. Dionysius came to Bindusāra as the envoy of Ptolemy Philadelphus of Egypt, and Daimachus as the envoy of Antiochus I Soter of Syria. It is not yet settled whether Dionysius delivered his letters of credence to Bindusāra or his son Aśoka, for the rule of Ptolemy Philadelphus extended from 285 to 246 B.C.² It is evident that both these envoys followed the example of Megasthenes and left records of their observations with regard to the country. Very few of the notes of Daimachus are preserved while those of Dionysus are lost. About the latter Pliny mentions in his *Natural History*, VI, 17 and 58.¹

c9.s2.t3.4

² *Ibid.*, pp. 155-156; *C.H.I.*, p. 433.

c9.s2.t3.5

¹ *Ibid.*

c9.s2.t3.6

It seems that Aśoka had unbroken friendly relations not only with the states within the country but also without. The Hellenistic kingdoms to which Aśoka sent his envoys were Syria under Antiochus Theos, Egypt under Ptolemy Philadelphus, Cyrene under Magas, Macedonia under Antigonus Gonatus, and Epirus under Alexander.² We do not hear of any foreign embassy in India during the reign of Aśoka, nor return embassies from India to foreign courts during the reigns of Candragupta and Bindusāra. It is however reasonable to assume that mutual and unbroken intercourse went on continuously under the first three Mauryan monarchs, if not later.

c9.s2.t3.7

² R.E. XIII, *Corpus*, pp. 46-48; *C.H.I.*, I, p. 502.

Alliances and Treaties

c9.s2.t4.1

Mention has already been made that the ambassadors played a prominent part in effecting political combinations and peace negotiations. Let us now examine the nature and kinds of alliances contracted between the different states. The alliances were both offensive and defensive in character. The motive and time for such alliances are examined in *extenso* in the *Kauṭalīya*. These alliances were sometimes voluntary (*pratibhūḥ*) and sometimes effected by purchase (*pratigraha*). The former contained elements of permanence (*sthira*) and the latter elements of impermanence (*cala*).³

c9.s2.t4.2

³ *Ar. Śās.*, Bk. VII, ch. 17.

c9.s2.t4.3

Alliances are again definite (*paripaṇita*) and indefinite (*aparipaṇita*).⁴ The former are to be effected according to the place (*deśa*), time (*kāla*), and purpose in view (*artha*). Five kinds of agreements are mentioned. These are to win an ally (*mitra-sandhi*),¹ to acquire wealth (*hiraṇya-sandhi*),² to acquire territory (*bhūmi-sandhi*),³ to achieve some specific purpose (*karma-sandhi*),⁴ and lastly the agreement contracted with no determined aim (*anavasita-sandhi*).⁵ Kauṭalya next explains under what conditions these alliances are to be effected. First, when the king feels his inability to march against the enemy, he must ally himself with equals, inferiors, or superiors.⁶ Secondly, alliance is generally made with one who is more powerful than the enemy.⁷ Thirdly, if a powerful ally is not available the king should try to win the goodwill of his neighbours.⁸ Fourthly, a king between two strong powers must ally himself with the stronger of the two, or with both, or with a neutral.⁹

c9.s2.t4.4

⁴ *Ibid.*, ch. 6.

c9.s2.t4.5

¹ *Ibid.*, ch. 9.

c9.s2.t4.6

² *Ibid.*, ch. 10.

c9.s2.t4.7

³ *Ibid.*, ch. 12.

c9.s2.t4.8

⁴ *Ibid.*, ch. 11.

c9.s2.t4.9

⁵ *samahīnajyāyobhissāmavāyikaiḥ sambhūya yāyāt*—*Ar. Śās.* Bk. VII, ch. 4.

c9.s2.t4.10

⁶ *yatbalaḥ sāmantaḥ tadviśiṣṭabalamāśrayeta*—*Ibid.*, ch. 2.

c9.s2.t4.11

⁷ *tādviśiṣṭabalābhāve tamevāśritaḥ*—*Ibid.*

c9.s2.t4.12

⁸ *balīyasorvā antardhisyāt; ubhau vā kapālasamśrayastiṣṭet*—*Ibid.*

c9.s2.t4.13

⁹ *saktihīnasamśrayeta* *Ibid.*, ch. 1.

c9.s2.t4.14

Lastly, coalition is recommended for the king devoid of strength.¹⁰ Coming to practical politics, according to Justin, Candragupta defeated the Nandas with the help of a lion and an elephant identified with the King of Simhāpura in Rājputana, and the Gajapati King of Kaliṅga.¹¹

c9.s2.t4.15

¹⁰ *McCrindle, Invasion of Alexander the Great*, pp. 327-28. See S. V. Visvanātha, *International Law in Ancient India*, p. 95 and S. V. Veṅkateśvara in *Ind. Ant.*, 1916, p. 30.

c9.s2.t4.16

Three kinds of treaties are mentioned *sama* or equal, *viṣama* or unequal, and *hīna*, inferior.¹ Other forms of peace were not unknown. The following three *ātmāmiṣa*, *puruṣāntara* and *adṛṣṭapuruṣa* entailed supply of army and the giving of a woman of high rank as a hostage. Peace on payment of money was of four kinds: *parikraya*, *upagraha*, *suvarṇasandhi* and *kapāla*. Other treaties were concluded on payment of raw materials and by ceding territory.²

c9.s2.t4.17

¹ Bk. VII, ch. 3.

c9.s2.t4.18

² Ibid.

Sec. iii. Ethics of War

c9.s3.1

Though wars were fought on a large scale in Ancient India, still they were resorted to only as the last means. When once war was declared, the warrior was expected to fight to the finish. All glory was to the soldier who died in the field of battle. Appeal was so made by the Purohita to the soldiers as to stimulate their heroic spirit. It is said that the valourous soldiers who give up their lives in righteous warfare reach the worlds of heaven much more quickly than the Brahmans who wish to attain heaven through performance of sacrifices and austerities.³ The idea is that once in the field, the soldier must not desert it or even retreat.

c9.s3.2

³ Bk. X, ch. 3.

kūṭayuddha

c9.s3.t1.1

A detailed reference to the *kūṭayuddha* or warfare by deceit by the author of the *Arthaśāstra* has made some scholars draw the conclusion that the *Arthaśāstra* attaches importance to that kind of warfare where considerations of morality are subordinated to those of expediency and practical gain.¹ But later on it is stated that even in the *Arthaśāstra*, the *kūṭayuddha* occupies only a secondary or less honourable place.² The *Arthaśāstra* being a text-book on polity considers all the aspects of that polity. In speaking on the different kinds of warfare it is natural for the author to refer to every one of them and supply such details as were then available to him. This does not mean that the *kūṭayuddha* is recommended at all times. This kind of warfare is justified only in certain cases, and under peculiar conditions. Kauṭalya advocates only fair fighting and this is seen from the way in which he discusses the different methods of capturing a fortress. He condemns incendiarism by saying that the use of fire is an offence against God inasmuch as it would cause destruction to men, grains, cattle, gold, raw materials, etc.³

c9.s3.t1.2

¹ S. V. Viśvanātha, *Inter. Law*, p. 121.

c9.s3.t1.3

² *Ibid.*, p. 124.

c9.s3.t1.4

³ aviśvāsyo hyagniḥ daivapīḍanam ca| apratisaṃghāta praṇidhānyapaśuhiraṇyakupyadravyakṣayakaraḥ|—Bk. XIII, ch. 4.

attention to the sick and the wounded

c9.s3.t2.1

Special attention was devoted to the sick and the wounded. Physicians accompanied the army with surgical instruments (*śastra*), mechanical appliances (*yantra*), healing balm (*sneha*), dressing cloth (*vastra*), and nurses (*striyaḥ*). They took their stand in the rear and inspired the soldiers.⁴

c9.s3.t2.2

⁴ Bk. X, ch. 3. Cp. *Śānti*, 95, 12.

Non-combatants unmolested

c9.s3.t3.1

Another feature of the ancient warfare was that the non-combatants were left unmolested. Megasthenes says: "Nor would an enemy coming upon a husbandman at work on his land do him any harm, for men of this class being regarded as public benefactors are protected from all injury. The land thus remaining unravaged and producing heavy crops supplies the inhabitants with all that is requisite to make the life very enjoyable."¹ Again with regard to the treatment of the conquered, Kauṭalya is of opinion that the conquered people should not be disturbed from the observance of their own laws and customs (*dharma*).² This is perhaps in keeping with what Aśoka says concerning the unsubdued borderers. 'The King desires that they should not be afraid of me, that they should trust me and should receive from me happiness and not sorrow. The king will bear patiently with us so far as it is possible to bear with us........the king is to us even as a father: he loves us even as he loves himself: we are to the king even as his children.'³ It is ordained that the family members of the slain soldier should not be deprived of their property or lands. On the other hand they must be reinstated.⁴ There is thus a record of humane laws of war expounded by Kauṭalya in accordance with tradition and corroborated by the Greek contemporary writer.

c9.s3.t3.2

¹ Fg. 1, p. 39 (Cal.) 1926.

c9.s3.t3.3

² Bk. VII ch. 6; Bk. XIII, ch. 5.

c9.s3.t3.4

³ Smith, Aśoka, p. 177.

c9.s3.t3.5

⁴ na ca hatasya bhūmidravyaputradārābhimanyeta kulyānapyasya sveṣu pātreṣu sthāpayet||—Bk. VII, ch. 16. Cp. Śānti, v. 57.

Sec. iv. The Organisation of the Army

c9.s4.1

The army primarily constituted of the Kṣatriyas, well-trained and well-disciplined. In discussing the merits and demerits of forces consisting of the Brahmans, Kṣatriyas, Vaiśyas, and Śūdras respectively, Kauṭalya would attach no value to an army composed of Brahmans. He would prefer only a pure Kṣatriya host, though under certain circumstances a mixed host could be recruited which would be only bales of cotton signifying thereby the uselessness of that army. Much discrimination was urged in the matter of recruitment. There were of course the hereditary troops (maula) and these certainly constituted the standing army to which there is the evidence of Diodorus.¹ According to this authority this army was paid a handsome salary and was regularly supplied with arms, ammunitions, etc., by the state. This corresponds to the Kauṭaliyan arsenal department under the lead of the Āyudhāgārādhyakṣa. Under the latter’s management weapons of war and other accessories to a military expedition were manufactured and kept in store for the supply of soldiers whenever there was an occasion for it. What these were and what the nature of the equipment was are given in detail.² The reference to the Board of supply and commissariat in the Greek records can be fitly compared with this department of the Arthaśāstra.

c9.s4.2

¹ II, 41.

c9.s4.3

² Ar. Sās., Bk. II, ch. 18.

c9.s4.4

Besides the standing army, the fighting force consisted of hired men (bhṛtakas), contingents supplied by corporate associations (śreṇibala), contingents supplied by the ally (mitrabala), and members of forest-tribes (*āṭavibala*). From the nature of the recruitment and from the significant statement in the *Kauṭalīya*, *hrasvaḥ pravāsaḥ* it can be safely assumed that this part of the army was engaged only for the time being, and when once their service was not required it was disbanded. There is no evidence on record to show that either conscription was in use or the army was a militia. If the records of Pliny¹ and Plutarch² could be believed the army of Candragupta consisted of as many as 9,000 elephants, 30,000 horses, and 60,000 footmen besides chariots. This means that the traditional four-fold division of the army continued in existence and was in the employ of the state. This division of the army also finds a mention in the *Kauṭalīya* with the respective uses to which each limb of that organism was put.

c9.s4.5

¹ VI, 19.

c9.s4.6

² Alex., ch. 62.

c9.s4.7

We have the evidence of Arrian to show that there was more than one method of equipment in vogue. The common mode is here furnished. "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 archer's shot,—neither shield, nor breastplate, 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 all 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."¹

c9.s4.8

With regard to the equipment of the cavalry Arrian remarks: "The horsemen are equipped with two lances like the lances called saunia, and with a shorter buckler than that carried by the footsoldiers. But they do not put saddles on their horses, nor do they curb them with bits like the bits in use among the Greeks or the Kelts, but they fit on round the extremity of the horse's mouth a circular piece of stitched raw ox-hide studded with pricks of iron or brass pointing inwards, but not very sharp: if a man is rich he uses pricks made of ivory. Within the horse's mouth is put an iron prong like a skewer, to which the reins are attached. When the rider, then, pulls the reins the prong controls the horse, and the pricks which are attached to this prong goad the mouth, so that it cannot but obey the reins."²

c9.s4.9

The equipment of the chariot of Poros can be taken as the standard in vogue in the Mauryan epoch. Each chariot was "drawn by four horses and carried six men, of whom two were shield-bearers, two archers posted on each side of the chariot and the other two charioteers as well as men-at-arms, for, when the fighting was at close quarters they dropped the reins and hurled dart after dart against the enemy."³ Three archers besides the mahout or driver rode an elephant.⁴

c9.s4.10

¹McCrindle, Arrian XVI, pp. 225-26, (Cal.). ²Ibid., p. 226. ³Curtius, VIII, 14. ⁴See Strabo, XV, 52; Aelian, XIII, 10.

c9.s4.11

Of all the figting forces the elephant force was deemed the best and full reliance was placed on its strength. On this depended victory or defeat.¹ It is said that the superiority of this force attracted the attention of the Seleucid monarchs who took to the oriental mode of warfare and especially employed elephants.²

c9.s4.12

¹ *Ar. Sās.* Bk. VII, ch. 2.

c9.s4.13

² E. R. Bevan, *The House of Seleucus*, Vol. II, p. 289 (1902, London).

Sec. v. The War Office

c9.s5.1

The control and the organisation of the army and navy were under an efficient staff of six boards consisting of thirty commissioners in all. Five members constituted each board. The boards were those of the infantry, cavalry, chariots, elephants, the admiralty, and the commissariat.³ Kauṭalya makes no mention of such management by boards. According to this authority the six departments were under the control of different superintendents, such as the padyādhyakṣa, the aśvādhyakṣa, the rathādhyakṣa, the hastyādhyakṣa, the nāvādhyakṣa, and the āyudhāgārādhyakṣa, the last possibly the commissariat department of the Greek chronicles. Coincidences exist between the board of infantry and the department of padyādhyakṣa, the board of cavalry and the department of aśvādhyakṣa, the board of chariots and the department of rathādhyakṣa, the board of elephants and the department of hastyādhyakṣa, and the admiralty and the department of nāvādhyakṣa. Suffice it to say here that every department looked after the proper training of animals and men, their feeding, their health, their equipment, and their discipline. It is unnecessary to enumerate here every one of these. Though there is no pointed reference to the naval force and a department of admiralty in the Kauṭaliya, still we can assume that Kauṭalya has in mind a similar institution by his regulations to prevent smuggling, and other regulations as regards instruments of warfare, native vessels leaving for foreign countries, and foreign vessels entering the native ports. This assumption is well supported by the Greek evidence.

c9.s5.2

³ Fg., 35 and 36.

c9.s5.3

*The commander-in-chief*

c9.s5.4

Among the chief army officers the commander-in-chief played a significant role. He who was skilled in every kind of tactical and strategical mode of warfare and in handling weapons of war, and who could decide easily action or inaction in the circumstances of the situation, was qualified to be a commander. The following were among his other duties. He was to select the field of battle and camping grounds. He was to reinforce the strength of his army and take advantage of the time and the place for march, for engagement and for retreat. He was to maintain discipline of the host. He should employ such means as to create a dissension in the ranks of the enemy.¹ He was a permanent officer of the imperial government drawing a liberal salary of 48,000 paṇas.

c9.s5.5

¹ Bk. II ch. 33.

c9.s5.6

*Other Army Officers*

c9.s5.7

Other officers of the army were commandants of cavalry, infantry, chariots, and elephants.² There was yet another officer designated as *nāyaka*.¹ The salary fixed for him was 12,000 *paṇas*. Hence he held a status lower than that of a commander-in-chief. The *nāyaka* is the chief of ten *senāpatis* or commandants. Next in rank to the latter is the *padika* who is the chief of ten smaller military officials. The *nāyaka* attended to the array of different army constituents, to collect the scattered soldiers, to arrange for the halt, march, and retreat. He also arranged these army constituents by various signs, such as, the trumpet-sounds, flags, and standards.² Besides the various military officials there were other officers and servants who were non-combatants and were attached to the department of transport and co-ordinate supply. There were, first of all, cooks for the supply of food to the fighting men under the head-cook *mahānasa*. There were the *purohita* and war musicians with drums and gongs to encourage the troops to fight with enthusiasm. Medical men followed the army for the treatment of the sick and the wounded, besides nurses.³ Sappers, miners, and engineers (*vardhaki* and *viṣṭi*) under the command of an official designated *praśāsta* went in advance of the army in the course of the march repairing roads and constructing wells wherever necessary. They had also to attend to raising fortifications or demolishing them. They were again in charge of the construction of camps.

c9.s5.8

² Bk. II, ch. 30-32.

c9.s5.9

¹ Bk. V, ch .3.

c9.s5.10

² *Arthaśāstra*, Gaṇapati ed., Vol. III, pp. 141-2.

c9.s5.11

³ purastādadhvanassamyak praśāstā grahṇāni ca| yāyādvardhakiviṣṭibhyāmudakāni ca kārayet||—Bk. X, ch. 1.

Sec. vi. Conclusion

c9.s6.1

Thus the organisation of the army was efficient and excellent. It was so ably managed that the first Mauryan emperor succeeded in bringing a great part of India under his control besides effecting the expulsion of the Macedonian chieftains. The latter were so much impressed with the superior force of not only Candragupta but also his successors that they sought permanent alliance with the Mauryan emperors. The superior arms again enabled Bindusāra to effect other conquests in the Dekhan and South India. They further enabled Aśoka to effectively resist the Kaliṅgas who also possessed an equally formidable force. We shall close this section with the observation of V. A. Smith: "The military organisation of Candragupta shows no trace of Hellenic influence. It is based upon ancient Indian model and his vast host was merely a development of the considerable army maintained by the kingdom of Magadha."¹

c9.s6.2

¹ Early History, p. 153.

Linked texts (10)