Pramāṇa · Search · About · API

The Mauryan Polity c9.s4: Sec. iv. The Organisation of the Army

The Mauryan Polity c9.s4

Language
English

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).

Linked texts (4)