Pramāṇa · Search · About · API

War in Ancient India c7.s4: Section IX: Characteristics of a Good Army

War in Ancient India c7.s4

Language
English

Section IX: Characteristics of a Good Army

c7.s4.2

Professors Macdonell and Keith remark that in the Vedic period ‘in war the Vaiśya must have formed the bulk of the force under the Kṣatriya leaders. But like the Homeric commoners, the Vaiśyas may well have done little of the serious fighting, being probably ill provided with either body armour or offensive weapons.¹²⁵ They further disagree with Zimmer who advances an untenable theory, from the terms Śardha, Vrāta and Gaṇa, that the Vedic host fought according to clan (viś), village (grāma) and family¹²⁶ (Altin. Leben, 162). The epic host satisfied the requirements which were prescribed by the Arthaśāstra. Here the army was composed of the hereditary troops (maula), hired troops (bhṛta), soldiers belonging to the corporations (śreṇi), troops of allies, of enemy and of wild tribes.¹²⁷ Kautalya enters into a discussion on the relative merits of the army composed of these troops. A body of soldiers who are of the same country, caste, and training is a great asset. Later on he says that the best army is one recruited from hereditary troops well disciplined and loyal. Next come the hired soldiers who are considered better than the śreṇi warriors provided they were easily accessible and obedient. But the śreṇi warriors are deemed superior to those of an ally if they are of the locality and share the feelings of their master. The volunteers of an ally are better than those coming from an enemy country. Even here the army of an enemy led by an Arya is better than that of foresters. The last two are to be treated with caution and something like a serpent. These constituted the ṣaḍaṅgabala of a king and must not be confounded with the ṣaḍaṅga or the sixfold force. A State may possess all these six kinds of troops at one and the same time and employ them to advantage. The discussion on the relative merits of these different forces should not be understood to imply that only one kind of troops was employed at one and the same time.¹²⁸

c7.s4.3

¹²⁵ Vedic Index, ii, p. 334.

c7.s4.4

¹²⁶ R.V.V. 53.11.

c7.s4.5

¹²⁷ Bk. IX, 11.

c7.s4.6

¹²⁸ See also *Kāma.* 18. 2. 25 f; *Manu*, VII, 185.

c7.s4.7

The *Śukranīti* further describes the characteristics of a good army. Here a distinction is made between the standing army and the newly recruited army, the trained army and the untrained army, the efficient army and the inefficient army (*sāra* and *asāra*). In short this political treatise envisages two kinds of recruitment—*gulmībhūta* answering to the standing army, and *agulmaka* corresponding to the mercenary troops,¹²⁹ though it is not altogether unfamiliar to the other balas with the exception of *śreṇibala* mentioned in the

c7.s4.8

¹²⁹ > सेनाबलं तु द्विविधं स्वीयं मैत्रं च तद्विधा ।

c7.s4.9

मौलसाधकभेदाभ्यां सारासारं पुनर्द्विधा ॥
अशिक्षितं शिक्षितं च गुल्मीभूत मगुलमकं ।
दत्तास्त्रादि स्वशस्त्रास्त्रं स्ववाहि दत्तवाहनम् ॥
सौजन्यात् साधकं मैत्रं स्वीयं भृत्या प्रपालितं ।
मौलं बहुबदान्धं साधस्कं यत् तदन्यथा ॥
सुयुद्धकामुकं सारमसारं विपरीतकं ।
शिक्षितं व्यूहकुशलं विपरीत मशिक्षितं ॥
गुल्मीभूतं साधिकारि स्वास्मिक मगुलमकं ।
दत्तास्त्रादि स्वामिना यत् सशस्त्रास्त्रमतोऽन्यथा ॥
कृतगुल्मं स्वयं गुल्मं तद्वच्च दत्तवाहनं ।
आरण्यकं किरातादि यत् स्वाधीनं स्वतेजसा॥
उत्सृष्टं रिपुणा वापि भृत्यवर्गे निवेशितं ।
मेदाधीनं कृतं शत्रोसैन्यं शत्रुबलं स्मृतं ।
उभयं दुर्बलं प्रोक्तं केवलं साधकं न तत् ॥ IV. 7. 9-15.

c7.s4.10

Kauṭalīya. This indicates that the śreṇis must have died out as political entities by the time the Śukranīti was composed.

c7.s4.11

In the opinion of the Kauṭalīya¹³⁰ that was the best army which was composed purely of Kṣatriyas, of noble birth, strong-bodied and well-disciplined, with a contented home, ready to march over the roughest tracts and for a considerable length of time, valorous, accustomed to varieties of climate, and hence inured to privations and fatigue, well trained in all arts and modes of warfare, and also in the handling and application of weapons, and which never loses its sense of obedience and loyalty to the King. Further, it is said that a standing army recruited from the warrior caste, even though disobedient, is infinitely superior to a force recruited from different classes of people, for the former can be easily conciliated and brought round.¹³¹ Kauṭalya has no confidence in an army composed of Brahmans or even Vaiśyas or Śūdras.¹³²

c7.s4.12

¹³⁰ Bk. IX, 2.

c7.s4.13

¹³¹ Ar. Śās. Bk. VI. 1. This is in agreement with the view of Clausewitz who says that military virtue is a quality of standing armies (Vol. I, p. 183).

c7.s4.14

¹³² Ar. Śās. Bk. IX. 2; Śānti, 101, where the chief characteristics of the warriors of the different countries are given. The South Indians are said to be experts in sword warfare.

c7.s4.15

This raises the question whether soldiers were drawn also from the Brahman caste. There is no evidence anywhere that the State itself enlisted these people. But if members of this caste volunteered their services, no doubt, they were admitted to the ranks. The army of Brahmans, says the Arthaśāstra, could be won by means of supplication (praṇipāta). That of the the Roman world, and the most important events of the reign of Constantine are thus represented as the immediate consequences of his conversion. But the historian, who must be content with the evidence of the times, will not be easily persuaded that the zeal of Constantine was not stimulated by the hope of political advantage, or that the conversion of the empire was not the result of a long and gradual process of change.

c7.s4.16

The conversion of Constantine is a subject which has been discussed with great warmth by the historians of the church, and it is not surprising that their opinions should be divided. The panegyrists of the emperor, who were eager to celebrate his piety and his zeal, have represented his conversion as a miraculous event, which was confirmed by the appearance of a cross in the sky, and by the victory which he obtained over his rival Maxentius. The critics, on the other hand, who are less disposed to believe in the supernatural, have sought to explain the conversion of Constantine by the influence of his mother Helena, or by the political necessity of securing the support of the Christians, who were already a powerful and influential body in the empire.

c7.s4.17

It is probable that the truth lies between these two extremes, and that the conversion of Constantine was the result of a combination of motives, in which the influence of his mother, the political advantages of the Christian religion, and the genuine conviction of his own mind, all played a part. The character of Constantine was complex and contradictory, and it is not easy to determine the precise nature of his religious beliefs. He was a man of great ambition and of great ability, and he was always ready to adapt his conduct to the circumstances of the time.

c7.s4.18

The conversion of Constantine was a turning point in the history of the Roman empire, and it had a profound influence on the development of the Christian church. The emperor, who had once been the persecutor of the Christians, became their protector and their patron, and he used his power to promote the interests of the church and to suppress the pagan religion. The conversion of Constantine was the beginning of a new era in the history of the world, and it is a subject which will continue to be discussed by historians for many years to come.

c7.s4.19

as taking part in wars of the period. Even in comparatively late times, we find Brahman Generals in command of armies of their kings, e.g., Rama Iyen Dalavai, the great co-adjutor of Mārtāṇḍa Varma, the maker of modern Travancore.

c7.s4.20

Did the Brahman lose his social pre-eminence by taking to the profession of arms? According to the *Baudhāyana Dharmaśāstra*, a member of the Brahman caste unable to keep his body and soul together by following his hereditary occupation may take up the profession of arms without prejudice to his svadharma. This receives confirmation from the *Mahābhārata*. Some scholars are of opinion that Gautama does not countenance this rule, but the fact is that, in Gautama’s opinion, a Brahmana would not be a valuable acquisition to the army, as he is unused to the horrors of war.

c7.s4.21

It will thus be seen that the Kṣatriyas formed the rank and file of an army, but that in exceptional times, as during great and sudden calamities, members of other castes were also recruited. The inference is that the recruits from other castes generally reverted to their old occupations as soon as circumstances permitted.

c7.s4.22

We have documentary evidence of the highest value in the inscriptions of the Great Choḷas to show how an army was organised in the tenth century A.D. in South India. As many as thirty-one regiments are mentioned in the Tanjore inscriptions.¹³⁵ Most of these regiments have been called after the surnames or titles of the reigning king or his son:—

c7.s4.23

¹³⁵ S.I.I., ii, pt. I, pp. 9 and 10.

c7.s4.24

1. Perundanattu Ānaiyātkal (elephant corps).
2. Paṇḍita Śora-Terinda-Viḷḷigal (bowmen).
3. Uttama Śora-Terinda-Andalagattālār.
4. Nigarili Śora-Terinda-Udanilai Kudiraich-chevagar (horsemen).
5. Mummaḍi Śora-Terinda-Ānaippāgar (mahouts).
6. Vira Śora-Aṇukkar.
7. Parāntaka Kongavālār. 8-9. Mummaḍi Śora, and Keralāntaka Terinda Parivārattār (servants).
10. Mūlaparivāra Viṭṭeru (standing army).
11. Singalāntaka Terinda Parivārattār (servants).
12. Śirudanattu Vaḍugakkālavar.
13. Valangai-Parambaḍaigalilār. 14-27. Perundanattu, Śirudanattu, Aragiya-śora-terinda, Aridurgalanghana, Chaṇḍaparākrama Terinda, Iḷaiya Rājarāja Terinda, Kṣatriya Śikhāmaṇi Terinda, Rāja-Nittavinoda Terinda, Rājakanthirava Mūrtavikramābharaṇa, Rāja Terinda, Rājavinoda Terinda, Raṇamukha Bhīma Terinda, Vikramābharaṇa Terinda-Valangai Velaikkārar. It is not easy to exactly identify these Velakkāra troops. These were largely drawn from the Right Hand classes. It is significant that the Left Hand classes do not figure among the regiments which from the extensive nature, seem to be a people's army. However that may be what interests us is the term Velakkārar. They were probably a volunteer corps as has been suggested, raised temporarily for a certain contingency. What is more interesting is that the Velakkāra troops are mentioned in the Mahāvamsa and in the service of King Vijayabāhu (A.D. 1065-1120). Here they were mercenaries raised with a definite object viz. for an expedition against the Choḷa country. In the light of this are we tempted to identify the Velakkārar of Rājarājadeva as mercenaries. There is however no evidence of Rājarāja raising mercenary troops. His troops were all regular soldiers. We therefore agree with the suggestion that originally regular troops, these Velakkārar, eventually developed into mercenaries (See S.I.I. II. p. 10). All were recruited from the Right Hand classes of the kingdom.

c7.s4.25

28-29. Keralāntaka vāsal, and Aṇukka vāsal Tirumeykāppar (body-guards).

c7.s4.26

30. Parivāra Meykāppargal.

c7.s4.27

31. Palavagai Parampaḍaigalilār.

c7.s4.28

Some of these regiments were entrusted with duties other than military, for example, temple-building and temple musicians. It is curious to note that all the eighteen musicians of the temple were recruited from these regiments. And twelve of them were from the Velakkāra troops. Here is an indication that under the Choḷa regime the military helped in the great public works of the State, even as the army departments and engineers have been requisitioned in the days of East India Company for the construction of roads, canals and railways.

Linked texts (8)