War in Ancient India c7.s4.2

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