[Pramāṇa](https://indike.org/pramana/) › [Studies](https://indike.org/pramana/ins) › [Polity, law and society](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.polity) › [War in Ancient India](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.polity.dikshitar-1944) › c9.s3 # War in Ancient India c9.s3: Section V: Construction and Siege of Forts War in Ancient India c9.s3 - **Language:** English ## Contents - [c9.s3.t1 Siege Operations](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.polity.dikshitar-1944.c9.s3.t1) — 26 parts ### Section V: Construction and Siege of Forts ### [c9.s3.1](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.polity.dikshitar-1944.c9.s3.1) One kind of land fight was siege warfare. The ancient kings attached very great importance to fortresses, for they served as the main base to defend the kingdom against the invasions of the enemy. The capital city of every ruling chief was surrounded by fortifications either natural or artificial.³⁷ The natural ones were water-fortifications, mountain-fortifications, desert-fortifications, and forest-fortifications.³⁸ Of these forms more value was attached to the water and mountain-fortifications as affording ampler protection for people and serving as impassable and insurmountable barriers to the invading enemy. The treasury was located in the citadel itself. Artificial fortifications like the Maginot Line in France were those which were specially constructed with a view to defend the capital from an invading enemy. Every fort town was surrounded by a deep and wide ditch closely touching the lofty rampart walls thrown around. Here in these ramparts usually poisonous and thorny plants were allowed to grow. ### [c9.s3.2](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.polity.dikshitar-1944.c9.s3.2) ³⁶ VII, 171, 12: See also Hopkins, \*op. cit.\*, pp. 255-56. ### [c9.s3.3](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.polity.dikshitar-1944.c9.s3.3) ³⁷ For a description of the six forts see the \*Auśanasa Dhanurveda\* quoted in the \*Lakṣaṇaprakāśa\*, pp. 239-41; also \*Viṣṇusmṛti\*, ib, p. 242; See also \*Siddhāntaśekhara\*, \*Ibid.\*, pp. 242-45. ### [c9.s3.4](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.polity.dikshitar-1944.c9.s3.4) ³⁸ \*Mhb. Śānti.\* 86.5-15; \*Viṣṇu.\* ch. iii; \*Agni.\* 106. ### [c9.s3.5](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.polity.dikshitar-1944.c9.s3.5) Going back to the \*Rg Veda Samhitā\*, we find tribes living in fortifications known by the name ‘pūr’, an earth-work strengthened by a palisade or, possibly, occasionally by a stone wall.³⁹ There are numerous references to such kinds of fortress buildings which were besieged and destroyed by the invading hosts. In the later Brāhmaṇa literature also there is a distinct reference to the existence of forts. In the annual sacrifice portion of the \*Aitareya Brāhmaṇa\* the three Agnis or fires are described as forming three forts to prevent the Asuras from disturbing the sacrifice.⁴⁰ These, being afraid of these fires, with Agni in front and behind, took to flight. Thus the Asuras and the Rākṣasas were exterminated. Here, even the idea of setting fire to the buildings as a last resort receives emphasis. In the \*Kauṣitaki Brāhmaṇa\* the Upāsadas are described as the citadel of the Asuras, the enemies of the Devas.⁴¹ Here, these take refuge against the gods. They make citadels of iron⁴² in this world, of silver in the atmospheric regions, and of gold in the sky beyond. It may therefore be said without any fear of contradiction that the use of forts was well known to the people of the Vedic age. ### [c9.s3.6](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.polity.dikshitar-1944.c9.s3.6) ³⁹ \*The Cambridge History of India\*, Vol. I, p. 86. ### [c9.s3.7](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.polity.dikshitar-1944.c9.s3.7) ⁴⁰ ii, II (vii, I)—(A. B. Keith). ### [c9.s3.8](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.polity.dikshitar-1944.c9.s3.8) ⁴¹ VIII, 8 (\*Ibid.\*) ### [c9.s3.9](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.polity.dikshitar-1944.c9.s3.9) ⁴² \*RV.\* Bk. II, 20; III, 12; Cf. \*Manu.\* VII, 74. ### [c9.s3.10](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.polity.dikshitar-1944.c9.s3.10) Coming to the epoch of the \*Arthaśāstra\*, Kautalya says: “In the construction of the rampart care should be had that on the outer portions there should be no space whatsoever for movement of any sort and the few openings allowed should be covered with invisible obstructions: on the inner side of these ramparts there must be two platforms on opposite sides, a big hall, two upper-stories provided with an ascending and a descending staircase, iron bolts, massive beams, and turrets being thrown over the huge gates. What were known as Aṭṭālakas were places for locating both movable and immovable defensive weapons. Hanumān speaks of the imposing appearance of the Aṭṭālakas of the Laṅkā fortress. The fort was furnished with a lotus pool which should never dry up. There was a special place for the worship of the goddess Kumarī. Perhaps this refers to the caitya, usually a feature of the palace. Here the guardian deities were housed and prayers offered for the welfare of the kingdom in general. This expression also occurs in the Rāmāyaṇa in connexion with Rāvaṇa’s palace. Between these towers or turrets broad streets were laid out with storied buildings on either side. There was a separate road for the gods. Perhaps the processions on festival occasions passed through this pathway. According to the Arthaśāstra the fortress was to be furnished with twelve gateways with passages, open and secret, both through land and water. From this different roads of various dimensions branched off, one leading to the neighbouring forests, and others to the country parts.⁴³ ### [c9.s3.11](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.polity.dikshitar-1944.c9.s3.11) ⁴³ Ar. Śās. II, 3. ### [c9.s3.12](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.polity.dikshitar-1944.c9.s3.12) Kauṭalya then speaks of the construction of the royal palace inside the fort. This occupied one-ninth of the whole area of the fort. To the north-east of the palace lived the priests, ministers and other higher officials, while to the south-east were situated the kitchen and stables. On the western side the merchants, artisans, and kṣatriyas had their residences. Near these were located the offices and the treasury, while opposite were the store-house and the arsenal. To the southern side of the palace lived musicians, prostitutes, and superintendents of the city, of commerce, and of other departments. To the west lay the residences of the Śūdra classes and those engaged in small industries. In the north-west were the bazaar-streets and hospitals with clusters of guilds and groups of workmen of various trades and manufacturers. In the heart of the city were a number of temples devoted to different cults. In the northern and eastern directions were situated burial grounds for the lower castes and in the south those for higher castes. Heretics and the Caṇḍāla community had their quarters beyond these grounds. Flower, fruit and vegetable gardens, side by side with rice fields, lay scattered throughout, both within and without the city. A well with good drinking water was dug at a distance of every ten houses. All the essential articles of daily use, such as food-stuffs, oil, and salt, were stored inside the fort so as to suffice for long periods of siege.⁴⁴ From this it appears that forts were systematically designed. ### [c9.s3.13](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.polity.dikshitar-1944.c9.s3.13) ⁴⁴ \*Ar. Śās.\* II, ch. 3. ### [c9.s3.14](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.polity.dikshitar-1944.c9.s3.14) Some of the \*Dharmaśāstras\* also throw light on the kind and use of fortresses in general. Manu,⁴⁵ says, “that the king should find his residence in a well guarded fort either surrounded by deserts, forests or water.” The best is, indeed, the hill-fortress.⁴⁶ The importance of citadels is well brought out by Manu in the succeeding stanzas. Standing behind the battlements of the citadel one bowman could easily withstand one hundred bowmen and one hundred bowmen ten thousand bowmen.⁴⁷ A king was thus enabled to defend his capital against great odds with the aid of a few able archers and warriors. As a source of great defence, fortifications were a valuable feature of ancient states. But the existence of mere fortresses would not produce the intended effect. So Manu ordains that they should be garrisoned with a large equipment of soldiers, engines and water-supply. Without an ample provision of these things any amount of defence would be neither adequate nor efficient. ### [c9.s3.15](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.polity.dikshitar-1944.c9.s3.15) ⁴⁵ \*Manu.\* 7. 70-71. ### [c9.s3.16](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.polity.dikshitar-1944.c9.s3.16) ⁴⁶ \*Agni.\* ch. 222.5. ### [c9.s3.17](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.polity.dikshitar-1944.c9.s3.17) ⁴⁷ Manu. 7. 74-6. ### [c9.s3.18](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.polity.dikshitar-1944.c9.s3.18) When the enemy attacked, the defender should take refuge in a fort, removing all the inhabitants of the villages into it and gathering in quantities of all sorts of grain available.⁴⁸ If this were not possible he might destroy the bridges and minor forts in his own territory and set fire to the grain stores, etc., so that they might not be used by the invading king. Fresh ramparts should be thrown round his own fort on the outside. The moats must be filled up with creepers and with sharks and crocodiles. Pointed and sharp spikes of various kinds must be fixed in the bottom of the moats, thus obstructing their crossing by the enemy. The walls of the fort should be defended with fire-implements and guns and the gateways with death-dealing engines. Śataghnis or cannon and other weapons should be furnished on the impenetrable ramparts, so that an effective defence might be offered even against a powerful invader. Thus in Bhīṣma’s learned opinion a fort surrounded by a huge wall and a ditch full of water and furnished with only one entrance is the best.⁴⁹ It is again seen that the number of gates for the fort seems in no way to have been restricted. For example, if we may believe the testimony of Megasthenes, Pāṭaliputra was encompassed by a moat six \*plethrons\*49a broad and 30 cubits deep, and the ramparts were furnished with 572 towers and above all 64 gates.⁵⁰ ### [c9.s3.19](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.polity.dikshitar-1944.c9.s3.19) ⁴⁸ Mhb. Śānti. 59, 35-37; Ibid. 41-45. ### [c9.s3.20](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.polity.dikshitar-1944.c9.s3.20) ⁴⁹ \*Ibid.\* 100, 15. ### [c9.s3.21](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.polity.dikshitar-1944.c9.s3.21) 49a Plethron was a Greek unit of measurement about 101 English feet. ### [c9.s3.22](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.polity.dikshitar-1944.c9.s3.22) ⁵⁰ \*The Indica of Arrian\* (McCrindle). ### [c9.s3.23](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.polity.dikshitar-1944.c9.s3.23) Kāmandaka belongs to the Kauṭalīyan school. He speaks of only five kinds of fortresses, water, (e.g. the modern water defences of the Meuse), hill, forest, (e.g. the present Ardennes Forest affording natural obstacles), barren plain, or desert.⁵¹ The recommendations made for providing defence and safety are the same as in Kauṭalīya. As a typical illustration of a fort as gathered from literary sources, the castle of Laṅkā figures prominently in the \*Rāmāyaṇa\*. Hanumān describes the city as he saw it.⁵² The doors were huge and massive and fastened with iron bolts. Above them were stationed several kinds of arms and machines to guard them from invaders. Hundreds of Śataghnis were found arranged in order at the entrance. The walls were unscalable, and their sides were decorated with numerous precious stones of high value. Surrounding these there was a deep and wide moat filled with pure water and containing several wild aquatic animals. There were four bridges over the moat, protected on both sides with huge destructive engines. The citadel was further defended by water, hill, and other artificial fortifications. It was fully garrisoned with horses, elephants, and hundreds of brave Rākṣasa warriors. ### [c9.s3.24](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.polity.dikshitar-1944.c9.s3.24) ⁵¹ \*Kāmandaka\*, IV, 55-59. ### [c9.s3.25](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.polity.dikshitar-1944.c9.s3.25) ⁵² \*Yuddha.\* ch. 3. ### [c9.s3.26](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.polity.dikshitar-1944.c9.s3.26) There is also an interesting description of Ayodhyā in the same work. It was twelve yojanas in length and ten in breadth.⁵³ Broad and spacious roads were laid throughout. Everything was kept in order. It had strong gates with massive doors. By the side of the wall was a fathomless moat. In the city were numerous artisans, merchants, soldiers and other classes of people. Corn-fields and gardens met the eye everywhere. ### [c9.s3.27](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.polity.dikshitar-1944.c9.s3.27) ⁵³ Bālakāṇḍa, ch. 5. ### [c9.s3.28](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.polity.dikshitar-1944.c9.s3.28) The conception of fortresses in medieval India was not very different from that in ancient India. It would be interesting to study here how the Mānasāraśilpaśāstra, an important work on Indian architecture,⁵⁴ defines the Padmaka type of a fortress city having eight, twelve or sixteen gates and the whole surrounded by a huge wall and a moat. It is said that suitable sites for a fort are those where water can be got in all seasons and hence either near a sea-shore, or by the river-side or in a forest-plain. The gateways are to have huge double-doors, securely fastened by strong bolts. Above them are to be placed firing guns and other destructive war-machines with soldiers stationed near them. ### [c9.s3.29](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.polity.dikshitar-1944.c9.s3.29) ⁵⁴ Indian Architecture (Ananthalwar) Vol. III, Bk. i, ch. 9. (Text and Trans. by P. K. Acharya—Oxford Press, 1933). ### [c9.s3.30](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.polity.dikshitar-1944.c9.s3.30) Besides the Padmaka type, which has the plan of a circle or a square, other plans recommended are the svastika type, more or less rectangular in form, and the \*kārmuka\* or bow-like type. Over these towers are to fly flags with guardsmen near them and here music is to be played.⁵⁵ Just near the main gateway are to be built the royal palace and the residences of the principal officers. Behind was the harem. Between them the kitchens and store-rooms were located. In the south we have the arsenal and the pleasure gardens and in the north the fourfold forces. Separate quarters for all classes in the interior and separate tanks for men and beasts are a speciality. The guardian deity is to be worshipped in a separate apartment. Streets of different dimensions were laid out and equipped with lamp-posts. The suburbs of the castle-palace led to the country. ### [c9.s3.31](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.polity.dikshitar-1944.c9.s3.31) ⁵⁵ \*Indian Architecture\*, Vol. III, ch. xi. ### [c9.s3.32](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.polity.dikshitar-1944.c9.s3.32) There is another equally important work on architecture, attributed to king Bhoja, \*Samarāṅgana-sūtradhara\*, in which mention is made of four kinds of fortresses. Surrounded by a chain of lofty hills difficult to scale is the mountain castle. Full of thorns, shrubs and trees and interspersed with pieces of water on every side and with secret passages leading to and from it, is the \*mūladurga\* or forest castle. Surrounded by deep waters on all the four sides and presenting a beautiful physical appearance, it became a water-fortified castle. The last is the desert-fortification.⁵⁶ This classification, it may be observed, is the same as Manu’s. But a later work like the \*Hariharacaturanga\* gives the traditional classification of six forts, and one of the names is worth noting, Dharmadurga (Bk. VI). ### [c9.s3.33](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.polity.dikshitar-1944.c9.s3.33) ⁵⁶ Vol. I, ch. viii, 36-39. ### [c9.s3.34](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.polity.dikshitar-1944.c9.s3.34) There are also several other literary references to the fortresses which are both interesting and valuable. According to the \*Agnipurāṇa\*, the fore-part of a city should be in the form of a bow.⁵⁷ Goldsmiths and other artisans were to occupy the south-east portions; actors and dancers the south, and the minor artisans and fishermen the south-west, the arsenal department in the west, public offices in the north-west, Brahmans and monks in the north, merchant guilds in the south-east; the Kṣatriyas, the army and its commanders in the east, the Śūdras in the west, and the Mlecchas on the outer fringe. Temples for the gods and other guardian deities were to be built in any direction; the harem and the palace of the king were to be in the east, while the royal kitchen and the store-room were in the south-east and the north. ### [c9.s3.35](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.polity.dikshitar-1944.c9.s3.35) ⁵⁷ \*Agnipurāṇa\*, I, 106. ### [c9.s3.36](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.polity.dikshitar-1944.c9.s3.36) The \*Śivatattvaratnākara\* has an interesting chapter on the use and construction of a fortress.⁵⁸ A king without a fort is compared to a snake without poison and an elephant without a rut. Here nine kinds of fortresses are mentioned. To the classical six of the \*Mahābhārata\*, three more are added. This only shows that as time went on, the types of fortresses increased in number. According to this late authority, the best are the mountain and the water-fortifications, while the Darudurga and Naradurga belong to the inferior kind. Secret ways with machines and weapons guarding them are mentioned, besides the collection of articles for daily use. ### [c9.s3.37](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.polity.dikshitar-1944.c9.s3.37) ⁵⁸ Kalola, 5, Taranga, 6. ### [c9.s3.38](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.polity.dikshitar-1944.c9.s3.38) The fort must be garrisoned with all classes. But the artisans ought to be greater in number, since they are required for manufacturing war materials. Smaller in number may be the Brahmans, for their services are required only for propitiating the deities and performing the necessary rites to ensure victory. Otherwise they are not of much value for purposes of warfare. The Śukranītisāra⁵⁹ has the significant statement that to live in a fortress not furnished with food and weapons is to live only in imprisonment. ### [c9.s3.39](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.polity.dikshitar-1944.c9.s3.39) ⁵⁹ Śukra, I, 237-57. ### [c9.s3.40](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.polity.dikshitar-1944.c9.s3.40) Again, in the Tamil classic, Maduraikkāñji, of the early centuries of the Christian era, there is an excellent description of the fortification of Madura,⁶⁰ the capital city of the Pāṇḍiyan king. It was intersected by grand streets with palatial buildings on both sides. A forest dense with the trees and shrubs difficult for the enemy to march through surrounded it and served as a sort of protection. It was succeeded in turn by a very deep moat of pure and clear water. There were huge gates, lofty towers above, and massive walls around, one of which was full of ornamental paintings. The palace stood high above these, with its numerous storied buildings and crowned with flags of various hues. There were two extensive bazaar streets attracting all classes of people throughout the day. Women decked with ornaments and well dressed were seen standing in the front verandahs of their houses. Here the Brahmans, the Buddhists, and the Jains lived side by side and in harmony. There were merchants and artisans of various trades and professions. ### [c9.s3.41](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.polity.dikshitar-1944.c9.s3.41) ⁶⁰ Ind. Ant., Vol. 40, p. 227. ### [c9.s3.42](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.polity.dikshitar-1944.c9.s3.42) Taking a general view of the different descriptions of fortresses, some of these formations appear to be fantastic and recall those of China. Still the real military value of some forms of fortresses cannot be underrated. The mere possession of a fort would not by itself be of strength and value. ### [c9.s3.43](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.polity.dikshitar-1944.c9.s3.43) The \*Agnipurāṇa\* specifies five defects as seriously impairing the strength and value of fortresses in general.⁶¹ These are (1) the drying and silting up of the ditch with sand and mud; (2) the bad and neglected condition of the ramparts and towers; (3) the continuance in use of old, worn-out and inefficient instruments and machines of warfare; (4) a neglected arsenal and (5) an insufficient garrison of soldiers. So it was the duty of a king to see that a fortress was properly maintained to stand an effective siege. ### [c9.s3.44](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.polity.dikshitar-1944.c9.s3.44) ⁶¹ \*Agnipurāṇa\*, Ch. 241, sl. 28. ### Siege Operations ### [c9.s3.t1.1](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.polity.dikshitar-1944.c9.s3.t1.1) How the siege operations were conducted and what devices and tactics were adopted to get possession of the enemy’s fortresses may next engage our attention. Five methods seem to have been employed in capturing a fort.⁶² They were intrigue, \*apasarpan\* or pretending to retreat, \*vamanam\* or winning over the people, \*paryu-vasanam\* or actual siege, and \*avamartha\* or taking by assault. In Kauṭalya’s opinion, an invading king should not, all at once, commence the siege of the enemy’s fortress, for such a procedure would ultimately land him in trouble. So a regular siege must be preceded by a considerable reduction of the enemy’s forces. This alone would easily lead him to victory in the struggle. ### [c9.s3.t1.2](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.polity.dikshitar-1944.c9.s3.t1.2) ⁶² \*Ar. Śās.\* pp. 407-08. ### [c9.s3.t1.3](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.polity.dikshitar-1944.c9.s3.t1.3) Employing means, whether fair or foul, the would-be conqueror should prepare the way for a well-laid siege. ### [c9.s3.t1.4](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.polity.dikshitar-1944.c9.s3.t1.4) A messenger should speak highly of his omniscient and supernatural powers and of his close association with several deities, and thus evoke a sort of awe and reverence in the enemy towards him. Again, heretics and jugglers may be specially employed to seduce the enemy's subjects from their loyalty to their lord by playing upon their humour through the display of various kinds of magical tricks. Or again, officials in the employ of the invader should pretend to have been dismissed by their master and seek employment with the defending sovereign. And after they gained his confidence they were to aim at his life. Further, the would-be conqueror, to ensure eventual success, should win over guilds of merchants and other public corporations, and thus weaken the enemy. These and other methods prescribed by Kauṭalya may appear to laymen as unscrupulous, but they could be justified on the ground that his work is a treatise of expediency, and therefore these various means recommended for winning over the enemy's subjects or reducing his strength have indeed an ethical character, for it is the svadharma of a kṣatriya king to conquer the enemy though it might cost his life. ### [c9.s3.t1.5](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.polity.dikshitar-1944.c9.s3.t1.5) With such preliminaries the invader might begin the siege if he found that everything else was in his favour and not in the enemy's.⁶³ The opportune moment to commence siege operations might be when the enemy was in distress or suffered from disease, when his officers were disloyal and given to bribery, or when he possessed inadequate or ill-equipped defences, or had no ally to support him. The invader should wait for some such opportunity, and when it presented itself should not let it go, for there is only one tide in the affairs of men. Again, if the invader could not effect his purpose satisfactorily and found the enemy's people and officers above corruption or bribery, then he must have recourse to other and more effective means. Particularly when the enemy's subjects assumed the offensive, the invader might destroy their crops, water sources and stores, cut off their communications and place all kinds of obstruction in their path. This is only the pratikriya of Indian political literature. It is not, therefore, considered a sin. For instance, Hanumān burnt down the whole city as his tail was set fire to. Thus by destroying their crops and depriving them of their cattle, an invading king prepared the ground for laying a siege to the enemy's fort. ### [c9.s3.t1.6](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.polity.dikshitar-1944.c9.s3.t1.6) ⁶³ \*Ibid.\*, pp. 404-05. ### [c9.s3.t1.7](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.polity.dikshitar-1944.c9.s3.t1.7) During the actual operations of a siege, the ditch surrounding the ramparts of a fort if empty, should first be filled by the besiegers with water and with mud and sand if it contained water. Then reaching the outer walls of the parapet, and finding them strongly guarded with well-equipped warriors, machines, explosives, and other materials might be used to bring down the walls by assault. In the meantime, the cavalry troops would be employed in forcing a passage through the various gateways of the fortifications. If these endeavours should not bear fruit, then recourse might be had to the use of fire. This was the last alternative, for Kauṭalya himself says that it is immoral and should be used only in an extreme crisis. Arrows vomiting fire could be shot both at the defenders of the fortress and into its interior. But this would not be sufficient to set fire to the whole of the fortress inside. So it is suggested that the tails of birds could be tied with ‘agniyoga’ which, when deposited on the roofs of the houses, would ignite and reduce the whole building to ashes.⁶⁴ In a fragment of Megasthenes, mention is made also of a kind of boiling oil used in warfare and especially in sieges. It was extracted for the king, according to Ktesias, from a worm found in the Indus. The oil had the power to ignite everything. What exactly the worm referred to is, has not been finally settled, though Professor Wilson identified it with the alligator. ### [c9.s3.t1.8](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.polity.dikshitar-1944.c9.s3.t1.8) ⁶⁴ Even in modern wars, birds are not without use, (e.g. carrier pigeons are particularly useful in carrying messages). ### [c9.s3.t1.9](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.polity.dikshitar-1944.c9.s3.t1.9) If, despite such methods,⁶⁵ the enemy would still not submit, and offer a defensive attack and there was no chance of bringing down the fortress, other methods were recommended as a last resort. One such method is to befriend the enemy, observe carefully his weak points, and suddenly strike him, thus depriving him of his citadel. If this should fail, the invader may feign defeat and exhaustion, and setting fire to his own camp, pretend to retreat, and thus induce the enemy to open his gates and come out. He should then turn back and take the fortress by storm without losing a single moment. ### [c9.s3.t1.10](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.polity.dikshitar-1944.c9.s3.t1.10) ⁶⁵ \*Ar. Śās.\* XIII, ch. 4. ### [c9.s3.t1.11](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.polity.dikshitar-1944.c9.s3.t1.11) Another factor to be reckoned with was the use of elephants in siege warfare.⁶⁶ That these animals were used for demolishing the fort-walls is seen, beside other evidences, from the first fragment of the \*Indika\* of Ktesias. These animals were particularly trained for this purpose. At a given signal from their leader these animals rushed impetuously towards the walls and pressed themselves against them. ### [c9.s3.t1.12](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.polity.dikshitar-1944.c9.s3.t1.12) ⁶⁶ \*Indika\* of Ktesias (Fragments, \*IV). ### [c9.s3.t1.13](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.polity.dikshitar-1944.c9.s3.t1.13) We have a good description of the siege of the Lanka fortress in the \*Rāmāyaṇa\*. Hearing that Rāma was approaching with vast monkey hosts, Rāvaṇa stationed very brave men to defend the four gates of his citadel, himself defending the northern gate.⁶⁷ The monkey warriors with trees and rocks destroyed the upper portions of the great walls and filled the moat with trees, rocks and straw.⁶⁸ Several thousands of monkeys under their leaders made an onslaught against the gateways. But the Rākṣasas hurled incessantly innumerable darts and Bhindipālas from the walls. Gradually all the Rākṣasas were killed. Finding that the city had not fallen, Sugrīva ordered what we may call a mass attack.⁶⁹ Thereupon the monkey-warriors with fire-brands in their hands advanced towards the gates and set fire to them. Some of them entered the city and set fire to the highways and byways as well as the great storied buildings and even the palace. Enraged at this, Indrajit thought of vanquishing the enemy by the use of stratagem.⁷⁰ He brought in his car an illusory figure of Sītā and had her slain in the presence of these monkey-warriors. Then he performed some \*homas\* and sacrifices at Nikumbhala secretly in order to overwhelm the enemy’s forces and rout them thoroughly. But it was discovered, and he was soon killed by Lakṣmaṇa. It may be noted also that fire was resorted to only towards the end of the siege and that Rāma very dexterously allied himself with Vibhīṣaṇa who offered to help him. This alliance with an important member of the enemy’s party was, indeed, a clever move which ultimately paid very well. For but for his timely warning Indrajit might have finished his ceremonies at Nikumbhala and proved more than a match for the allies through his prowess and capacity for producing illusions. Lastly, the city was entered and Rāvaṇa was killed in a fierce battle. Thus did Rāma come into possession of the city. ### [c9.s3.t1.14](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.polity.dikshitar-1944.c9.s3.t1.14) ⁶⁷ \*Rāmāyaṇa\*, Yuddha kāṇḍa, ch. 36. ### [c9.s3.t1.15](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.polity.dikshitar-1944.c9.s3.t1.15) ⁶⁸ \*Ibid.\*, ch. 46. ### [c9.s3.t1.16](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.polity.dikshitar-1944.c9.s3.t1.16) ⁶⁹ \*Ibid.\*, ch. 75. ### [c9.s3.t1.17](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.polity.dikshitar-1944.c9.s3.t1.17) ⁷⁰ \*Ibid.\*, chh. 81-82. ### [c9.s3.t1.18](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.polity.dikshitar-1944.c9.s3.t1.18) According to the \*Agnipurāṇa\* the invading monarch should carefully note that part of the citadel over which the crows came in and went out, and concentrate his attack on that quarter.⁷¹ If this were done, it was believed that the fort would be captured in the end. Before starting on a military expedition, Kālidāsa says that the king should see that the capital fortress as well as the frontier fortifications were well-fortified and defended.⁷² For the value of a fortress to the king is incalculable. Only after such precautions had been taken did Rāghu set out on his famous Digvijaya. ### [c9.s3.t1.19](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.polity.dikshitar-1944.c9.s3.t1.19) ⁷¹ \*Agnipurāṇa\*, ch. 232. ### [c9.s3.t1.20](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.polity.dikshitar-1944.c9.s3.t1.20) ⁷² \*Raghuvamśā\*, Canto IV, 26, 17, 52. ### [c9.s3.t1.21](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.polity.dikshitar-1944.c9.s3.t1.21) Fear of foreign invasion is not the sole motive that necessitates the construction of these huge forts. Does not the lion, the king of animals, and a fierce destroyer of the gigantic elephant, have its abode in the mountain caves? So also there are advantages in a fortified palace. ### [c9.s3.t1.22](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.polity.dikshitar-1944.c9.s3.t1.22) Having thus captured the enemy’s fortress, the invader should show mercy to the weak and the wounded. He must remove all his enemy’s soldiers and warriors and replace them with his own men, lest the former should do any mischief. Then he should make a triumphal entry into the palace with all the paraphernalia of a victor. After the fall of the citadel Laṅkā, Rāma with his hosts spent the night in the city adorned with his garland of victory. He generously granted the kingdom to Vibhīṣaṇa, the brother of the slain king. ### [c9.s3.t1.23](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.polity.dikshitar-1944.c9.s3.t1.23) Let me conclude this section by referring to the attitude of modern military experts towards the use of fortifications. Most of them take the view that as conditions exist at present fortresses are unnecessary and dangerous. The men garrisoning them might be better employed in other places. Both the country and the army are either ruined by them or draw from them no tangible benefit. They entail enormous and wasteful expenditure for their building, maintenance, and garrisoning with troops. In fine, fortresses are seldom anything but an incubus. These remarks of a weighty authority must be respected, though we see a tinge of exaggeration in them. There is a wrong notion that is still current, namely, that these forts have lost their military value and are an anachronism since the invention of gun-powder.⁷³ But Dr. Oppert and some other scholars have demonstrated that gunpowder was in use in ancient India even in very early times, and still those strongholds were recommended as safe ones. ### [c9.s3.t1.24](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.polity.dikshitar-1944.c9.s3.t1.24) ⁷³ Clarke's \*Mediaeval and Military Architecture\*, Vol. I. \*Operations of War\*. ### [c9.s3.t1.25](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.polity.dikshitar-1944.c9.s3.t1.25) No doubt they were costly defences and some of the soldiers mobilised in the forts could have played a useful part in the open field. But there is the other side of the shield. It was during the last Great War, as we all know, that the fortresses in Belgium offered a stubborn resistance to the Germans, but for which the latter might in all probability have overwhelmed the whole of France. In fact they were decisive in arresting the progress of Germany. Therefore to decry the value of a fort is to misjudge its merit. It was perhaps rightly said that the “fortifications of Paris assure more powerfully the independence of France against the attacks of all Europe than the acquisition of many provinces which would only so much the more extend the frontier.” It may be that the extensive use of gunpowder in recent times has facilitated their destruction much more quickly than before. But this is not a sufficient argument for condemning such a useful institution which has rendered glorious service through the ages. Even the use of heavy guns and shells has not thrown the dug-out trench out of its usefulness. Trench warfare is but one kind of defensive operation from the security of the fortified and protected underground trench.73a ### [c9.s3.t1.26](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.polity.dikshitar-1944.c9.s3.t1.26) 73a The trenches during the Great War of 1914-18 and the underground fortifications of the Maginot and Siegfried Lines may be noted in this connection. It may be recalled that the Barrier Fortress effectively checked Louis XIV's ambitious schemes of conquest of the Netherlands in his wars. ## Linked texts (18) - [Kauṭilīya Arthaśāstra](https://indike.org/pramana/in.niti.artha.kautilya.2.3) — Kauṭilya, Sanskrit - [Agnipurāṇa](https://indike.org/pramana/in.purana.agni.222.5) — Vyāsa, Sanskrit - [Vālmīkirāmāyaṇa](https://indike.org/pramana/in.lit.ramayana.valmiki.6.3) — Vālmīki, Sanskrit - [Kauṣītakibrāhmaṇa](https://indike.org/pramana/in.veda.brahmana.kausitaki.8.8) — Kauṣītaki, Sanskrit - [Mānava Dharmaśāstra](https://indike.org/pramana/in.niti.dharma.manu.7.74) — Manu & Bhṛgu, Sanskrit - [Aitareyabrāhmaṇa](https://indike.org/pramana/in.veda.brahmana.aitreya.2.11) — Mahidāsa Aitareya, Sanskrit - [Mahābhārata](https://indike.org/pramana/in.lit.mahabharata.vyasa.12.100.15) — Vyāsa, Sanskrit - [Raghuvaṃśa](https://indike.org/pramana/in.lit.kavya.mahakavya.rama.raghuvamsa.4.26) — Kālidāsa, Sanskrit - [Ṛgvedasaṃhitā](https://indike.org/pramana/in.veda.samhita.rg.2.20) — Sanskrit - [Samarāṅgaṇasūtradhāra](https://indike.org/pramana/in.art.silpa.samaranganasutradhara) — Bhoja, Sanskrit - [Mānasāra](https://indike.org/pramana/in.art.silpa.dravida.manasara) — Sanskrit - [Vaiṣṇava Dharmaśāstra](https://indike.org/pramana/in.niti.dharma.visnu) — Viṣṇu, Sanskrit - [Ἰνδική](https://indike.org/pramana/inf.gr.roman.arrian.indica) — Λούκιος Φλάουιος Ἀρριανός, Ancient Greek - [Śivatattvaratnākara](https://indike.org/pramana/in.niti.dharma.rajadharma.sivatattvaratnakara.5.6) — Basappa Nāyaka 1684, Sanskrit - [Hariharacaturaṅga](https://indike.org/pramana/in.niti.artha.hariharacaturanga) — Godāvara Miśra, Sanskrit - [Kāmandakīya Nītisāra](https://indike.org/pramana/in.niti.artha.kamandaka_nitisara) — Kāmandaki, Sanskrit - [Siddhāntaśekhara](https://indike.org/pramana/in.astro.siddhanta.early.siddhantasekhara) — Śrīpati, Sanskrit - [Lakṣaṇaprakāśa (Mitramiśra)](https://indike.org/pramana/in.niti.dharma.nibandha.laksanaprakasa) — Mitramiśra, Sanskrit --- Source: [https://indike.org/pramana/ins.polity.dikshitar-1944.c9.s3](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.polity.dikshitar-1944.c9.s3) · Pramāṇa