Pramāṇa · Search · About · API

The Social and Military Position of the Ruling Caste in Ancient India, as Represented by the Sanskrit Epic c2.s5: IV. The Military Position of the Ruling Caste

The Social and Military Position of the Ruling Caste in Ancient India, as Represented by the Sanskrit Epic c2.s5

Language
English

Contents

IV. The Military Position of the Ruling Caste

c2.s5.1

1. Philosophy of War.—It has long been popular to dwell upon the religious and meditative nature of the Hindus. We think of them as priests, not as soldiers. In general, this is not wrong; but in so doing we ignore an important element in the constituents of the Hindu character. This theosophic vein

c2.s5.2

was neither original nor universal. Our earliest literature is indeed religious, though with but little mysticism. But the religious element did not penetrate deeply into unpriestly classes. One is too apt to dispose of the general Hindu as Max Müller does with the words: ‘To the Greek, existence is full of life and reality; to the Hindu, it is a dream and a delusion.’ (Ancient Sanskrit Lit., p. 18.) If we mean by the Hindu the Hindu philosopher and priest, this is true; but if we apply it to the Hindu at large, it is as misleading as to interpret the spirit of our earlier Europe by the writings of a Thomas à Kempis or a Molinos. The priest certainly came to believe in life as an illusion, and his doctrine has had its great and bad effect upon the Epic poetry; but if we study the coarse, sensual, brutal, strife-loving, blood-hungry Hindu warrior; if we revert to the Vedic ancestor of this ferocious creature, and see what joy in life as life is portrayed in battle-hymn and cattle-hymn, we shall be ready to admit, I think, that through the whole history of the Hindu, from the early Vedic until the pseudo-Epic period, there reigned the feeling, in the larger class of the native inhabitants, that existence is full of life and reality. I would not cavil at Müller’s distinction, because it is plain he means that in general aspect such a difference is perceptible. But this is a difference that would fall to pieces, were we to eliminate the literary class, from whose works we form such a judgment. The Hindu soldier’s view of existence must be got mainly by inference, for the priest has done his best to inspire the knight with the thoughts of the priest; but if we study even priestly delineations of military life, we shall see that philosophy and even religion lay far from the soldier’s heart. His life was bent on the material things of this world, as was the farmer’s. He was no dreamer, till the priest retouched his portrait.

c2.s5.3

I turn now to a study of this warrior feeling. To subdue an enemy, three means are popularly quoted. Of these, the first is conciliation, the last is war. This introduces us fitly to the theoretical as opposed to the practical side of the military sentiment. As a matter of fact, ‘conciliation’ has little part to play in the early story; but in the later development of the Epic drama, the first means of attaining political ends is faithfully carried out.*

c2.s5.4

∗ Brihaspati, in xii. 69. 23, gives only conciliation, bribery, and dissension as the three legitimate means. But elsewhere we find other lists, making the ‘means’ four in number, or even more—five, or seven being adduced (compare ii. 5. 21, and ib. 61; Kām. Nit. xvii. 3; x. 10; viii. 70). ‘Polity’ is made a means, as in v. 132. 31-32, where a king is thus exhorted to recover his kingdom: ‘to beg is not allowed thee; to till the soil is shame; a knight thou art, and livest by might of arms alone; then take again thy kingdom, by any means thou canst—by

c2.s5.5

Peace is the ultimate goal of a happy kingdom; but throughout the Epic peace is presupposed as an anomaly in life. Constant strife, with insidious citizens and with open foes, must always be carried on. ‘Through force and punishment is peace attained; no coward can do right; no coward does his duty. On the king depends all virtue; on virtue, heaven; on heaven, the gods; on gods, the rain; on rain, plants; on plants, men—that king who (by completing the causal nexus) is the creator of men is equal to ten learned priests. So says Manu’ (i. 41. 28 ff.). For this oft-given reason the king is enjoined to recover a lost kingdom, or defend a threatened one, in any way he can. The kingdom belongs to him by hereditary right (vaṅcabhojyam), and he must never despair (iii. 78. 9; v. 136. 1). We find of course a number of platitudes against vengeance: ‘The good think not of vengeance, but to do good to their enemies; the highest sort of men are patient’ (ii. 73. 6 ff.). But the Epic heroes are (as Duryodhana is described to be) ‘razor-hearted,’ and let even their friends, as Vidura sadly remarks, be punished in their wrathful folly (i. 128. 46; ii. 64. 12). Vengeance is the mainspring of the whole drama. If the king is unable to subdue his foes openly, he must be a hypocrite and pretend love till the time is ripe for vengeance. This is the essence of royal polity in ‘cases of distress’ (xii. 140. 9 ff.). ‘He must be suave and agreeable till he can crush his foe; he must pattern himself after the tricks of animals; like a cuckoo should he watch, like a boar should undermine, like a mountain be steadfast, and in all cases possess impassibility (anullaṅghanīyatvam), anxious to get good luck like an empty house; capable of many disguises like a player; now drawing himself in like a turtle, or being fierce as a wolf, swift as an arrow, etc., as occasion shall demand; trusting no one, but keeping himself informed by means of spies. No dry enmity, but fruitful hate, should be

c2.s5.6

kindness or dissension, by bribery, force, or guile’ (kṣatriyo ‘si kṣatāt trātā bāhuviryopajīvitā, etc.). The five are here sāmnā bhedena dānena daṇḍenā ’tha nayena vā; and naya is political intrigue. But in vi. 3. 81 we find pacification, dissension among foes, and open war quoted as the ‘three means;’ where, since ‘numbers do not give victory,’ the two first should be tried before the third. The regular three appear in v. 82. 13, and seem implied in v. 33. 62, where we read: trayopāyāḥ . . . śrūyante . . . kanīyān madhyamaḥ śreṣṭhaḥ (iti vedavido viduḥ), if we permit the commentator to read upāyāḥ, and to resolve into war, dissension and bribery (as one), and conciliation; but apāyāḥ, referring to desire, duty, and greed, may be the meaning, or trayo nyāyāḥ may be read (N. 7). Three means appears the oldest form; four means is a later idea, as kept in xii. 356. 6 (conciliation, dissension, bribery, force), and M. vii. 107-109. The pseudo-Epic also employs the caturvidham or ‘four-fold means,’ in a loose way, for means to any accomplishment, and makes the group refer thus to doing anything ‘by sight, thought, voice, or act:’ xii. 291. 16, his; let him not use his arms when he can have a boat; let him not attempt the impossible, for it is no use trying to eat a cow’s horn; but when he can, let him go straight to killing men, destroying houses, spoiling roads, and ruining his foe as best he may. Let him corrupt his foe’s ministers, appeal to his own people’s weaknesses, win the confidence of the heads of guilds, and endear his ministers by favoring their families. Only a learned priest he had best avoid to quarrel with, for long are the arms of a wise man; but otherwise, whatever foe he has, for that foe’s destruction let him toil.’*

c2.s5.7

This mode of procedure is particularly for outward foes; but like means must guard against inward discontent, since the worst condition of ‘distress’ is where weak and low men have power in a kingdom (iii. 35. 17). No respect whatever is due to a king that does not somehow or other subdue his enemies. He sinks like a cow in the mud, and is helpless as an ant (iii. 35. 7; ii. 15. 11). With such teaching, the motto ‘Peace I think the best thing’ (ii. 15. 5) is a superfluous addition. There was no peace till all were crushed.

c2.s5.8

2. The general fighting force and military sentiment.—The whole business of the whole warrior caste was fighting. Members of other castes fought also. ‘Except in some wildly supernatural legends,’ says Wheeler (Hist. Ind. i. 77), ‘the Brahmans are not represented as warriors.’ He refers to Droṇa, the priestly warrior. But the legend is of great importance, and shows us plainly that it was conceived as possible, even if extraordinary, that a priest should be a leader in war. Another legend points to the fact that priests were only in the later time regarded as unfitted for martial practices. When the Pāṇdus go disguised to Kṛishṇā’s self-choosing, they assume the dress of priests. As a priest Arjuna steps out and performs wonders with the bow. The warriors present are incensed that a priest can surpass them in shooting; but the incident shows the not impossible attitude of the priestly caste in respect of handling weapons. It is only after the deed is done that the angry and defeated warriors make a rule that no priest henceforth shall enter the lists to contend in feats of arms with the knights. In spite of Wheeler’s cutting dismemberment of the poem, there remains nothing wildly supernatural or even improbable in this legend. Again, compare a king’s universal challenge: ‘Is there one that bears a weapon and is equal unto me in fight, either slave or farmer or knight or priest’ (v. 96. 7). Even the son of Droṇa, who was one of the bitterest warriors in the Epic, retains so much of priestly character that he is reproached for using a weapon, and called a ‘priest but in name:’ an indication of the soldier-priest’s rarity, but a proof of the circumstance that the priest still as priest (as member of the caste) fought on the field (see below, § 4). Further, it was the formal law that any priest might serve as a soldier if unable to support himself as a priest. In view of legend and law it seems wrong to say that ‘priests are never represented as soldiers save in wildly improbable legends.’ That one of the lawgivers disputes this law shows again that, while not universal, it was not uncommon.*

c2.s5.9

∗ The allusion to the empty house is explained by the fact that a house not yet occupied is glad to have its first inmate make a lucky entrance; so the inception of his plan he should strive to have done under favorable auspices. The reference to the boat is drawn from an antique law forbidding a man (avoiding toll) to swim a river where a ferry has been placed. So a king should wait for the proper means to convey him to his goal (Compare Vās. xii. 45, bāhubhyāṃ na nadīṃ taret; M. iv. 77, etc.). The Manu code has also many of the comparisons drawn from the acts of animals. Compare vs. 24 with M. vii. 105; 25 (a) = M. vii. 106 (a), etc. The spies are here recommended as usual for parks, halls, and places where priests meet. Compare above, p. 152. The allusion to the cow’s horn (anarthakam anāyuṣyaṃ goviṣāṇasya bhakṣaṇam, 56) is explained by the addition ‘the teeth touch it, but no food is obtained.’ Compare with these mottoes Kām. Nit. v. 1; Ag. P. 224. 27, etc. The heads of guilds mentioned in vs. 64 are the same as those already discussed above, p. 82. With vs. 69 ff. compare Böhtlingk’s Sprüche, mahate yo and na tat taret; with the last proverb, 68, compare v. 37. 56; 38. 8.

c2.s5.10

The mass of the army, the despised conglomerate array useful only for a wall, is composed of all the lowest castes, mixed with barbarians and foreigners. Among these too fought the men of the people-caste, when necessity called them into the field, as the quotation from a battle-chapter given below shows: where it is also stated, were the proof needed, that the slave too obtains heaven by fighting and dying in battle. In general, therefore, we may say, reverting to the earliest period, that first of all the whole people fought on the field; that in the Epic period the knights fought as the main soldiers; that some reminiscence remains even of the priests’ use of arms; that the agricultural caste rarely but really fought in battle (against the statement of the Greek historians), and that the slave-caste with other un-Aryan elements of the state went to make up the projectile force as mass in the battle array, but were without individuality. No low man gets a reputation for bravery or even for cowardice. He is but a brick in a row. The common warriors, however, those unable to bear the expense of cars or good arms, were retainers of the kings and lords, and (probably according to their wealth or bravery) were appointed to the positions of under-officers, or led the van in charges.

c2.s5.11

∗ Compare G. vii. 6 (but see Bühler’s Intr. p. lii); Vās. ii. 22; M. x. 81.

c2.s5.12

‘The essence of warrior duty lies in fighting’ is the hundred-times-repeated axiom and motto of all the caste. A few of their own expressions will show how deep a moral hold this law of their fighting caste had on the Hindus. It is indeed no ill to die in battle when one has been challenged to the fight; but forever noblest is the death of those that fight straightly and turn not aside.* Not a pleasure only, but the highest duty is it to die in war: ‘Fight now, be firm; no other duty has a king than slaying foes’ (v. 160. 71). No matter how challenged, the warrior must respond. So a suddenly challenged king answers at once to a peremptory challenge by speedy preparation: ‘Mindful of the warrior’s duty, he laid his crown aside and braided up his hair,’ the formal beginning for the fight.†

c2.s5.13

In fact, it makes no difference whether one expects to kill or to be killed in the contest, he must fight; and in either case he gets his reward; for ‘crooked is war always; who strikes, and is not struck again? But it is the same if one be slain or not, for he that dies in battle wins victory from death;’‡ for ‘death in battle is the womb of heaven’ (ii. 22. 18). Even the punning etymology of the word warrior is called upon to defend this view. Not to kill the foe is a sin; the warrior is called ‘he that saves from destruction;§ therefore he lives by destruction.’ All a warrior’s superiority lies in force, as does the priest’s in texts, the farmer’s in wealth, and the slave’s in his age alone (v. 168. 17). The same idea is often repeated.‖ ‘Boldness alone is the hero’s own law.’¶ ‘There is,’ it is said again, ‘absolutely no rule but conflict for one of the warrior caste’ (iii. 35. 35). ‘To escape is a disgrace; to die in battle is best; to ask for mercy is a sin; sweet is it to die in battle; the path to heaven lies in fighting.’** Wherever we find the topic touched, it is handled in the same way.†† One should fight strongly and unselfishly (*niraḥaṃkāra*), for fighting is the eternal law; and one may slay an elder and a better who comes to attack him,* for one should ‘show no mercy to the foe.’ Such determination in warfare naturally gave rise to proverbial expressions embodying the comparison with others less bloody by nature.† It was even regarded not alone as a disgrace, but as a sin, for a warrior not to die (as we should say) ‘in his boots.’ ‘To die of disease in a house is a sin’ is more than once emphatically said (vi. 17. 11; xii. 97. 14–23). As a consequence of the necessity of battle, all caste-rules were laid aside. The knight might kill anyone that attacked him. Not even the priests were sacred.‡ The psychical reason added to this rule might have applied to other cases, had the priests seen fit; for ‘the soul is not killed; it seeks a new home;’ and, after all, ‘it is not the slayer that slays, but fate.’§ So it is said distinctly ‘if one sees a priest among those raising arms against him, a priest acting just like a warrior, and kills him when he is thus fighting, that is not ‘priest-murder’ at all: that is the decision in the works on duty.’‖ This is a clear indication that the rules on duty found it necessary to provide for a very possible contingency by exculpating the slayer of a priest in advance.

c2.s5.14

∗ iii. 33. 16–17; āhave, so the verb āhvayad dvairathenā ’jau, xii. 5. 1 etc., ‘called out’ to a duel (see below in battle). † keçān samanugṛhya, ii. 23. 5 ff. ‡ v. 72. 53, cf. ff. Compare R. vi. 93. 24–25; parāir vā hanyate vīraḥ parān vā hanti saṃyuge, iyaṃ hi pūrvanirdiṣṭā gatiḥ kṣatriyācācvatī, ff. § kṣatatratā kṣatāj jīvan, vii. 197. 4, 38; 143. 66; above, p. 114. ‖ Compare ii. 21. 50 ff., and with 52 cf. v. 132. 7, the ‘arm-power’ of the warrior against ‘voice-power’ of the priests. ¶ svako hi dharmaḥ çūrānāṃ vikramaḥ; and if the ‘three means’ fail, conquer by boldness, i. 202.

c2.s5.15

¹⁸ ** iv. 38. 29; v. 3. 20 ff.; 185. 11; viii. 93. 55 ff. = ix. 19. 63 (ib. 59 = ib. 64). †† The exhortations just before the great war opens are not more expressive than those in mid-fight. They all breathe the same spirit, that it is pleasant and holy to die fighting, and that this assures heaven hereafter. ‘The best death is on the field of battle;’ ‘either victory or a battle-death—this is the eternal law proclaimed by the creator,’ (v. 51. 51; 73. 4; ix. 31. 34). Compare also v. 75. 23: ‘a warrior does not own what he does not win by his strength’ (yad ojasā na labhate kṣatriyo

c2.s5.16

So overwhelming appears to the Epic poet the moral force back of the warrior’s physical might that we have one sad statement in respect of that might: ‘Right is that which a strong man understands to be right.’¶ Above all, the natural mourn-

c2.s5.17

na tad aṇute), for what he does win belongs to him, except for the share deducted for the king. Compare M. vii. 96–97 and G. x. 20–23: the victor has all the spoils of battle except cars and riding-animals, which fall to the king; as does also a special share of all the booty saving what a knight has thus gained by a duel; all other things won in battle are divided among the army; compare also Kām. Nīt. xix. 21. Death in some holy spot is particularly desirable, such as ‘kuruṣetra, the all-holy’ (v. 141. 53). ‘To fight as long as life shall last, to bow to priests and duty’ is the summary of a warrior’s code (v. 134. 40; 127. 15 ff). Sometimes the priest comes after duty, as ib. 127. 20. This is a perverted quotation.

c2.s5.18

* vi. 122. 37; 107. 101 ff. : the Divinity speaks.

c2.s5.19

† xii. 14–15; 22. 4; iii. 22. 23; 27. 37, 39; 28. 7; v. 38. 29: conversely we find ‘tender-hearted as a priest’ (iii. 35. 20).

c2.s5.20

‡ For ‘wrath obtains wrath’ as its reward. This is the proverbial *ātatāyin* doctrine kept in the law-codes, of which different forms exist: xii. 15. 55; 34. 19; 56. 30; iii. 29. 27; M. viii. 351; Āp. 1. 10. 29. 7, quoted from a Purāṇa; Vās. iii. 17; B. i. 18. 13. It refers to a secret assassin or an open foe. Curious is *manyus tam manyum ṛcchati* = ἔρις δ’ ἔριν ἀντιφυτεύει, Pseudo-Phocyl. 78.

c2.s5.21

§ ‘Fate I deem the highest thing; manliness is no avail,’ ii. 47. 36, etc.; v. 159. 4, 14, ‘man is worked by fate like a wooden machine’ (*dāruyantravat*).

c2.s5.22

‖ v. 178. 51; note the conclusion: one may act toward another as that other acts toward him (53).

c2.s5.23

¶ ii. 69. 15: said by Bhishma.

c2.s5.24

ing for the dead is forbidden. Formal mourning with appropriate rites is fit service at the funeral of a warrior; but one should not lament long in his heart for those that are slain in battle. First, because he that does so ‘gets only woe on woe,’ since fighting and being slain is to the warrior what penance is to the priest and service to the slave, and the dead have obtained happiness; next, because one should console himself by himself, and not allow useless grief to cloud his mind; naught is better to the warrior than war; to avoid it is to lose place on earth and in heaven; to flee is un-Aryan, ungodly.*

c2.s5.25

So, in spite of some melancholy objection to death, and the thought that posthumous fame is no better than ‘a wreath

c2.s5.26

∗ xi. 2. 20; 9. 21 ff.; 26. 4 ff.; xv. 31. 4; ix. 31. 24. These passages are easily multiplied. I select but a few of epigrammatic or special moral interest: ‘We know not whether death comes by day or by night; but this we know—that nothing immortal lies in peace’ (ii. 17. 2). ‘The palace of Indra is for them that seek their death in battle’ (ii. 12. 21). ‘For war was the warrior born, victor or vanquished he goes to Indra’s heaven’ (v. 135. 13). ‘A knight’s rule is “the weapon forever;” he should not seek to be a priest; for Indra was a warrior, and slew his sinful kin’ (xii. 22. 5 ff : although in the same book Vasistha has to exhort Indra to ‘make up his mind like an Aryan and slay his foes,’ ib. 282. 24). ‘A pious priest and a warrior dying face to the foe both (attain the same end, and) split the disk of the sun’ (v. 33. 61). ‘Face to the foe—who dies thus, endless his heaven’ (iii. 54. 18). ‘Do not grieve, my friends,’ says even the sinful Duryodhana, ‘for if the Vedas be any rule to you, I have conquered the world to come, in that I have not swerved from knightly law’ (ix. 65. 28 ff. : cf. iii. 52. 25, yadi vedāḥ pramāṇāḥ) So it is said (xi. 26. 12 ff.): ‘They that die slaughtered (by chance) go to worlds of gods and kings; they that die with the thought “I will die” join the angels; they that hold out against all odds, these go to the home of Brahma; while even those that have begged for mercy, if they still die with their faces to the foe, go to the guhyaka world; moreover, those that die anyhow on the field of battle, even if killed by accident (not slaughtered by the sword), go to the Kurus of the North after death’ (12: hutāni śarīrāṇi B., hatāni C. 767 : cf. xii. 98).

c2.s5.27

The hero-king of the Epic is told that he may make his mind easy for the slaughter of so many human creatures by performing a penance —‘even a little penance,’ it is contemptuously added. The whole passage shows disdain for the weak sorrow of a king who could grieve for the deaths caused by his glorious wars, and adduces the constant argument that a king should ‘protect:’ or, as here applied, should ‘protect his rights;’ for the king’s duty is to slay anyone that turns right into wrong, it is fate; the king is not the slayer of the men that die in battle, it is the woodman; the king is not the slayer of the tree it is the woodman; the king is not the slayer of the men that die in battle; even the gods once filled the earth with bloody oceans, when they fought with the demons; if it lies on the king’s conscience that many have been slain for his sake, let him do penance; or, if he will, let him perform the great horse-sacrifice, which will certainly relieve his soul of all evil (xii. 32. 2 ff.—33. 25; 97. 1 ff. : cf. ib. 23, ‘it is a sin to die in bed,’ and, therefore, a virtue to die in battle). The metaphor of the ocean of blood is elsewhere fully carried out. Compare the battle-scenes below, or e. g. xii. 55. 18: the bodies are islands; the flags, the sea-foam; one waters earth with blood; grasses it with hair; hills it with corpses.

c2.s5.28

adorning a dead man,’* the usual and effective spurs to courage are duty and glory. ‘I elect glory even at the cost of life,’ says the Kurus’ chief hero;† for ‘victory is the root of right, and death is better than lack of fame.’‡ But fear inspired courage also; for according to the Epic rule a deserter is killed, and may even be burned to death.§

c2.s5.29

† iii. 300. 31: *vṛṇomi kīrtiṃ loke hi jīvitenā 'pi*.

c2.s5.30

‡ xii. 100. 39–40.

c2.s5.31

§ xii. 97. 22. The same kind of punishment with the same kind of fire is here decreed for the deserter as that which the law-codes enjoin for a warrior or man of the people-caste that has dishonored a woman of the priestly caste. Compare Vās. xxi. 1–3; M. viii. 377 (*kaṭāgninā*).

c2.s5.32

The question naturally arises, how far the formal expression of opinion reflects here the true spirit of the soldiers. To this the answer is, as it seems to me, that the chiefs are rightly represented as preferring death to defeat, and as delighting in the fierce shedding of blood; while the masses need these exhortations to encourage them. Every hero, of course, because he is a hero, exults in the battle; only the king of the Pāndus, by what in each case appears to be interpolation, is made to grieve and sorrow over the result of war; and the greatest knight, Arjuna, is made to feel a moral fear of killing before the fight begins.

c2.s5.33

But the common soldiers, for the most part mercenary troops, are supplied with these sentiments as exhortative pills to stimulate their slower valor; and, too, oftentimes in vain. That almost Mohammedan outburst referred to above (‘sweet it is to die in battle; the path to heaven lies in fighting,’ viii. 93. 55 ff.) is the last desperate call of a great chief seeking to rally his frightened troops. But the call has absolutely no effect; it does not stimulate the churls behind him to love of glory at the expense of life. They run away. As we shall presently see, this is no exception to the general order of events. The true warrior by caste is really indoctrinated with these sentiments to such an extent that he willingly dies for glory’s sake as well as for duty’s; but the mass of the army was cowardly, trumped to battle at the outset, and eagar to avoid danger whenever it arose.‖

c2.s5.34

‖ As I have already observed, the common soldiers are led into the battle on the principle that quantity is more important than quality. ‘An army with a mass of foot soldiers becomes solid’ (*padātibahu-lā senā dṛḍhā bhavati*), xii. 100. 24 (or *çatrūñ jayati* in Ag. P. 227. 7): cf. Epic, ib. 99. 18, *na hi çāuryāt param; sarvaṃ çūre pratiṣṭhitam*.

c2.s5.35

Interesting as the exhibition of morale given by the quotations above may be (and it seems to me that the poets have enabled us to get a tolerably clear idea of this, and portrayed the fighting force with what we may assume to be a true imitation of the actual conditions obtaining in Hindu warfare), it only brings out the more strongly our lack of information in regard to the real war-life of the king’s common soldiers. What we do know may be briefly recapitulated here, before we proceed to the subject of military tactics. As to the primitive Hindu soldier of the pre-Epic period, how he was supported, what he did in peace, etc., we know next to nothing save by inference, and by works too late to be considered as valid for the Epic period. We judge that his pay was a part of the booty; that at first he was a fraction of the common folk, and in peace was not different from his neighbors; tending cattle, offering sacrifice, repelling assaults, making forays, as times and wishes twirled his inclination. But gradually the cattle were left to others that preferred a quiet life; agriculture arose, and caste gratings separated thenceforth and forever the hired soldiers from the ranchman and the farmer. Now he belonged wholly to the king, and drew his pay from his valor, or, later still, from a regular stipend, plus what (with certain exceptions) his individual bravery enabled him to seize as private booty on the field of war. In the Epic period (and the reports of the Greeks support the native authorities) he lives a life in part beautifully resembling that of the German soldier. In war he fights as he is bid. In peace he amuses himself, and does nothing else. He receives a regular wage (which ought to be paid in advance), but is not employed by the king on the strength of this support to attend to civil business. His life must be free from business affairs, and his wife is supported by a pension when he is slain. His position theoretically is inferior only to the priest’s, and in social practice inferior also only to his aristocratic superiors of the same caste.*

c2.s5.36

∗ iii. 301. 7; *mṛtasya kīrtir martyasya yathā mālā gatāyuṣaḥ*.

c2.s5.37

∗ These points, incidentally touched on already, may be illustrated by the following: ‘the daily allowance and (monthly) wage of the army to be paid as stipulated and at the time agreed upon’ (kaccid balasya bhaktaṃ ca vetanaṃ ca yatho’citam, saṃprāptakāle dātavyaṃ dadāsi na vikarṣasi, ii. 5. 48, and the same in R. ii. 109. 41); ‘support the wives of those that for your sake have gone to death’ (ii. 5. 54 : cf. xii. 86. 24; cf. also Nītipra. vi. 106–107); ‘one must not engage in business affairs with a king’s soldier’ (rājabhṛtyaḥ . . . senājīvī ca . . . vyavahāreṣu varjanīyāḥ, v. 37. 30). The rules for booty have been given above. Ease and pleasure were the fruits of peace. Compare the Greek’s account (Diodor. xli. : πέμπτον δὲ στρατιωτικὸν, εἰς τοὺς πολέμους εὐθετοῦν, τῷ μὲν πλήθει δεύτερον, ἀνέσει δὲ καὶ παιδιᾷ πλείστῃ χρώμενον ἐν ταῖς εἰρήναις Τρέφεται δ’ ἐκ τοῦ βασιλικοῦ πᾶν τὸ πλῆθος τῶν στρατιωτῶν καὶ τῶν πολεμιστῶν. ἵππων τε καὶ ἐλεφάντων. Arrian, Ind. xii., fills this out a little : πέμπτον δὲ γένος ἐστὶν Ἰνδοῖσιν οἱ πολεμισταὶ, πλήθει μὲν δεύτερον μετὰ τοὺς γεωργοὺς, πλείστῃ δὲ ἐλευθερίῃ τε καὶ εὐθυμίῃ ἐπιχρεόμενον· καὶ οὗτοι ἄσκηται μούνων τῶν πολεμικῶν ἔργων εἰσί. He adds that they make their own arms and have servants to attend them in camp, and proceeds : αὐτοὶ δὲ ἔστ’ ἂν μὲν πολεμέει δέῃ πολεμέουσιν, εἰρήνης δὲ γενομένης εὐθυμέονται· καὶ σφιν μισθὸς ἐκ τοῦ κοινοῦ τοσόσδε ἔρχεται ὡς καὶ ἄλλους τρέφειν ἀπ’ αὐτοῦ εὐμαρέως. Compare Strabo, above p. 124.

c2.s5.38

3. Military Tactics.—The formal account of possible military manœuvres given in the Manavic code is, as compared with the Epic, both redundant and deficient. Enough remains of exact similarity to show that the code speaks of movements well authorized by tradition as by precept. Probably both the Manavic law and the Epic are indebted for their full facts to the military codes published by the two greatest authorities on such matters, Brihaspati and Uçanas. That is to say, the completing Epic supplied itself with descriptions from the usually recognized possibilities of warfare, and the Manavic code copied the current military rules (*yuddhadharma*) ascribed to these men, and which may well have been existent in some form or other (as a manual) before our present Manu was composed.

c2.s5.39

If the king is resolved on going out to attack a neighboring kingdom, he should make the expedition, if he can select his time, either in the moon corresponding to the time from the middle of November to the middle of December, or during the two moons from the middle of February to the middle of March.* These are the months most suitable for a campaign; but he should not regard this as a rule. He may go, adds the pseudo-Epic, at any other time, if it suits his purpose better.† In what way the line of march is to be taken up we are not particularly told. The army advances in an irregular body, led by the chief generals, the king being in the middle. The baggage-wagons and provision-wagons and the women

c2.s5.40

† xii. 100. 9 ff. : cf. ib. 69. 20; M. vii. 182; Nitiprak. vii. 51; Ag. P. 227.

c2.s5.41

With this account from Megasthenes it is interesting to compare Tacitus: Quotiens bella non ineunt, multum venatibus plus per otium transigunt, dediti somno ciboque. Fortissimus quisque nihil agens delegata domus et penatium et agrorum cura feminis senibusque et infirmissimo cuique ex familia; ipsi hebent; mira diversitate naturæ, cum iidem homines sic ament inertiam et oderint quietem (G. 15). Holtzmann (Epos, s. 5, with notes) has compared many of the points wherein the Hindu Epic ‘is often the best commentary on the Germania.’ There are so many points of contact between the ethnographic description of the Germania and the life of the Hindu, both in the original texts and in what remains of Megasthenes, that the question has risen in my mind whether Tacitus, in representing an ideal opposed to the rank life of the Roman Imperial period (as some have assumed to be the cause of his writing), did not fill out his lacunæ of information with the reports of an equally foreign and more unknown folk, and help himself from the descriptions of Megasthenes (of which we have now but part). The position of the great chiefs, the fondness for dice, the description of the soldier-life, all correspond. What information concerning the Germans the writer really had would supersede the worth of imagination or of borrowing. Where he had none, he might have borrowed.

c2.s5.42

∗ The Pāndus sent their embassy to the Kurus in the month kāumuda, after fall. It was seven days before the new moon when the ambassador, failing to procure terms of peace, agreed that hostilities should begin when the seven days were over: v. 83. 7; 142. 18.

c2.s5.43

⁶ The passage here quoted from the later Epic gives details on roads, the suitable ground for horses to fight on, etc.

c2.s5.44

follow. The headquarters of the king are guarded by troops stationary and movable. Behind come other generals.* On arriving at the place where the conflict is likely to take place, the king or commander encamped the army (*niveçam kārayāmāsa* or *niveçayāmāsa senām*) upon a level place of broad extent, and the soldiers pitched their tents (*veçā*); while the headquarters of the general commander (*skandhāvāra*) were guarded by squads of men (*gulmāḥ*), as on a march. The first care was to clear the ground, and for this purpose, any outlying posts of the enemy (*sāinikā gulmāḥ*) having been driven off, the commander with the help of his generals had the camp limits marked out (*çibiram māpayāmāsa*), and a trench dug about it (*khānayāmāsa parikhām*), which, for the sake of greater protection (*guptyartham*), was guarded by troops. The camp itself (*çibira* or *senāniveça*) consisted of separated tents stored with arms.† Such a camp is described as looking like a city; and if, as is probable, the poet does not exaggerate in saying that, besides the fighting men, all the artizans, bards, traders, and prostitutes deemed necessary had also their residence inside the camp-limits, we may well believe the comparison corresponds to truth.* Watchwords and secret signals by which friends may be recognized are given out before the battle begins (*abhijñānāni* or *saṃjñāḥ*, vi. 1. 11 ff.). Fighting does not begin till morning. The array for the day is decided upon, and the troops advance, being in general stationed in such propinquity that each soldier shall feel himself surrounded by his own relatives: that is, as far as possible, the clan and family divisions are to be observed. ‘Death in a house is not approved of in the case of warriors; that would be destructive of the pride of proud heroes; that would be wrong and pitiable indeed; . . . such a death ought no hero (*vīraḥ*) to endure. But a warrior ought to die causing destruction in the ranks of war, surrounded by his kin, hewn down by sharp weapons. . . . Fired by love and pride, a true hero dies thus, and goes to Indra’s heaven.’† It is also worthy of note that, before the advance to the field of conflict, a religious fire-service is performed. This ceremony is doubtless the same on the part of the Kurus as that alluded to as performed by the Pāṇdus: viz., a devotion of the foes to destruction over a war-fire. Probably we are to understand a formal rite, in which the gods are called upon to destroy the foes of the sacrificer. The ceremony is performed by the family-priest of the Pāṇdus.‡

c2.s5.45

∗ v. 151. 50 ff. In the abstract of this portion of my paper as already reported (Proceedings, May, 1887), I have suggested that the Manavic orders of march really refer to battle-arrays. They do, but I should have put the case differently. What is described in the Manavic code is a series of battle-arrays and at the same time of march-arrays. In other words, the law-book implies that, from the time the king leaves his capital, he shall draw out his forces in full preparation for conflict. Thinking of long marches, I overlooked this possibility, and was thence led to believe that the ‘battle-arrays’ of the code were only for the field of conflict with instant prospect of fighting. And in fact the fighting is supposed to be immediate. All is here described as on a battlefield. Hence an imminent foe must be intended, and the ‘march’ is from its beginning an advance against a possibly instantaneous attack. *Vyūha* is, I think, not used for a long march. *Senāyoga* or *yātrā* is the proper term for that (or *yātrikam*, xii. 100. 10; 69. 20; 103, 40). Thus, in v. 151. 56, we find an irregular body of the Pāndus advancing (*prayātānām*) toward Kurukshetra, their only care being to keep the king in the middle. But when they arrive on the field, they are spread out at once in a *vyūha*, which is not the case before (*āsādya tu kurukṣetram vyūdhānīkāḥ prahāriṇaḥ, pāṇḍavaḥ samadṛçyanta nardanto vṛṣabhā iva*, so in xv. 7. 12 ff. the king is first to march (*yātrāṃ gacchet*), and then to set his army before the foe in proper order, using the ‘wagon,’ ‘lily,’ or ‘thunderbolt’ array, as explained by Uçanas. Compare also R. ii. 90. 12, 19; 87. 1, 4, where the general-in-chief goes in advance on a march; and roadmakers, ditch-diggers, machine-makers, etc., etc., go before the army to facilitate the journey. I said that *mārga* was manœuvre in the Manavic passage. I was wrong; it is the route; used as e. g. the word appears in the story of Rāma, Mbh. iii. 283. 40; 291. 60, and in R. ii. 90. 32, *çāstradṛṣṭena mārgeṇa*. But here, too, the route is taken by the army arranged as if for battle; for such is the meaning of the following words: *bṛhaspatinayena ca*, ‘according to the rule of Bṛhaspati’ (explained below).

c2.s5.46

† Bows, bowstrings, corselets, swords, honey, butter, lac, fodder, arrows, axes, spears, quivers, besides ponderous machines, are prominent among the stores of the camp. The use of some of these will be described below. Chariots, armed elephants, etc., are in all parts of the camp.

c2.s5.47

† *raṇeṣu kadanaṃ kṛtvā jñātibhiḥ parivāritaḥ, tīkṣṇaiḥ çastrāir abhikliṣṭaḥ kṣatriyo mṛtyum arhati*, xii. 97. 28 ff. ; *cauṭīra* (25), *vīra* (27), *çūra* (29). In vi. 94. 37 also *jñātibhiḥ parivāritaḥ*.

c2.s5.48

‡ v. 195. 1 ff. Compare v. 126. 2; and *purohitāḥ çatruvadhaṃ vadan-taḥ*, in vi. 22.

c2.s5.49

The special tactics employed on entering the field will now be given, and then the use of arms. These subjects should be studied solely by the light of the military movements described in the Epic.* The ‘arrays’ mentioned by the earlier code of Manu, however, correspond so closely to the Epic usage that for preliminary understanding of the term the legal forms may be here mentioned.† The army may be formed into an oblong column; a wedge; a rhombus; a body like two triangles with apices joined (the bases forming the van and rear); one long slender line; a rhomboid with extended sides;* one long heavy phalanx. One should encamp in a circle, with the king in the center.†

c2.s5.50

∗ v. 151. 58; 152. 1 ff.; 161. 1; 195. 12 ff. Five yojanas is the size of the Kurus’ camp (ib. 15).

c2.s5.51

⁷ The first passage represents the Kurus marching out to the field against the Pāṇdus, adorned with garlands and clothed in white (verse 2). Like the Spartans, the Hindu soldiers were careful to attend to their hair before a battle, binding it up about their heads. As a further preliminary, they arrange their beards (or shave, *kḷptaçmaçru*), viii. 58.

c2.s5.52

³³ Compare the ceremony (repeating Vedic verses) enjoined in Āçvalāyana (G. S. iii. 12. 1 ff.) for the Purohita to perform when the king goes into battle. I may mention in this connection that the king instead of the priest may say the verses (ib. 20); and that the only *vyūhas* known are those of Aditi and Uçanas (ib. 16), if this lies in the words *ādityam āuçanasam vā ’vasthāya prayodhayet* (*asthāya* is the Epic word). The Ait. Br. has directions for consecrating the chariot as a means of victory (viii. 10; Weber, *Ind. Stud.* x. 31). In later times compare Ag. P. 125. 49 ff., a fire-sacrifice at the beginning of battle to insure victory, where animals are sacrificed (*juhuyān* (nṛ-?) *māṃsam*, 50).

c2.s5.53

∗ And not by the darkness of later formal codes on war. The materials for Hindu antiquities must, it seems to me, first be drawn exclusively from the classical or older literature, and not from the late didactic works until the Epic has declared itself. Such modern explanatory books as the ‘Politys’ form, on account of the difference in age and the wholly theoretical character of the contents, rather an obscuration than an elucidation of the facts we seek. They are instructive only as illustrating the Epic, and help us when they confirm the data drawn from real literature; but when they contradict such data, they are to be ignored—unless one seeks to form a continuous chain from the Epic period to the latest age, and to do so will arrange the didactic material after that drawn from the Epic. But to confound and mix the two, to quote a Niti on military matters as if entitled to like consideration with the Epic, is to allow a succeeding age to interpret a former, and ignore a possible development bridging the two. Thus, besides the simple Epic sprinkling of the king at the consecration, the universal ‘sprinkling’ of all the king’s arms, the nīrājanāvidhi (Ag. P. 267 ff.), the raising of the daṇḍa, so elaborately described with the triumphal arch and lustration in Bṛh. Saṃh., chap. 43-45, have no meaning for the Epic period, interesting as they are for that of the Harivaṃśa and following epochs. Thus also it is from no wish to exclude outside aid that I here put aside the technical divisions of the Nītisāra of Kāmandaki and of the Nītiprakāśa; but a glance will show the Epic student what false guides these are. Everything is here on a modern footing. The older order has been not only increased but changed. The formal divisions of arms, arrays, employments do not accord with the more ancient records. I regard such works (including the Agni Purāṇa) as useful solely for giving us light on a later period; and, while thinking an interesting parallel to the Epic to be worth noting, do not consider the statements of such literature, when more detailed, as explanatory of the Epic; nor, when opposed, as authoritative. The four great divisions of the Niti’s vyūhas have no parallel in the Epic; and e. g. the śyena as a subdivision of the daṇḍa is misleading; nor are the names of the divisions, daṇḍa, bhaga, asaṃhata, maṇḍala (Nītiprak. vi. 3 ff.), known as such to the Epic; while the relegation of the varāha, makara, gāruḍa, krāuñca, padma to an extra class not contained under any head by Epic tradition. Details, like those on the size of the daṇḍa (Ag. P. 61. 35 ff.), do not necessarily oppose the Epic, but may be quoted only as modern specifications. So, too, of the Bṛhat Saṃhitā. My objections to this class of literature I explain rather fully, since it might well be asked what need, in the light of Wilson’s work and the texts published by later editors, we have of another investigation on military matters, especially on arms, etc. It is sufficient to say that, if we follow even Wilson’s results, who has based his researches on the imitative Purāṇas, we obtain many statements contradicted by the usage of the Epic. It is the latter that is most important. Still greater discrepancies occur in comparing the formal war-codes with our poem. In each case the codes reflect a later period, although they have of course inherited much that is old and common with the didactic parts of the older work.

c2.s5.54

† M. vii. 187 ff. For later works, compare Ag. P. 235 (raṇadīkṣā) ff.; Kām. Nit. xix. (seventeen forms are given); and Nītiprak. vi. 3-9.

c2.s5.55

To return to the Epic: At sunrise, or before, the king holds a short conference with the commander-in-chief, and either selects a battle-array himself, or directs the commander to do so. There is of course at times a doubt as to which form is preferable; and we find in one instance that the king himself insists on the long and slender line, while his best knight recommends the solid phalanx; for the chief officers are present at the conference. There seem to be no party or national orders. Each side selects one of the current forms, occasionally choosing one day the form that defeated them when chosen by the other the day before. If anticipated, the commander scrutinizes the foe's orders before deciding his own. After a selection has been made, the troops advance in different companies and regiments.‡ We must pause here to ask what is the assumed distribution of the forces. We have, according to tradition, two different arithmetical progressions in differentiating the number of forces in the various bodies. According to a report which seems entirely theoretical (xii. 100. 31), the men are subdivided into groups of a thousand with a general at the head; of a hundred with a captain; of ten with a sergeant. This bears a close resemblance to the distribution of royal officers throughout the realm, the names being similar. In the one case we have ‘a lord of a thousand villages,’ ‘lord of one hundred,’ and ‘lord of ten;’ in the other ‘lord of a thousand men,’ etc. This distribution is not known in the fighting scenes, but neither is the following; and we can draw no definitive results as to the antiquity of division in either case. Vasishtha’s division (see the note below) would imply that a decimal arrangement was the base of the army’s make-up. The other arithmetical progression is mainly by three, instead of ten. Here we also find that the names designating the different bodies are not known as such, technically speaking, in the battle-scenes. What is called a company may mean a whole division or a whole army. Moreover, the numbers are in quantity absurd, when we remember that the Kurus are said to have put upon the field eleven times the highest number in the list, which should make an army of more than two hundred thousand chariots, as many elephants, more than a million men, and over half a million horses. Such exaggeration is, however, common in the Epic; and, by comparing several accounts of the numbers wounded in different cases, it will be seen that we often have to divide by a hundred or a thousand to reach a reasonable limit. The same absurdity is repeated at the end of our war. After almost countless hosts had been slain, the poor remnant on each side was as follows: On the Kuru side there remained eleven thousand chariots, ten thousand seven hundred elephants, fully two hundred thousand horses, and thirty million men.* The Pāṇḍu army (originally seven ‘whole armies’) now consisted of six thousand chariots, as many elephants, ten thousand horses, and ten million foot-soldiers. Such was the *balaṃ śeṣam*, ‘remnant,’ on the morning of the last day (ix. 8. 41.). The opening forces are found in as extraordinary sums; where, to instance only one case, the number of *vaçavartinaḥ* (or soldiers brought into the field by one ally) implies one hundred thousand chariots (vi. 17 and 18). The systematic scheme of what an army is to be can, therefore, be looked upon only as a very late attempt to make technical divisions of which the true Epic knows nothing. The list may, however, be of interest. The name of the force stands to the left.

c2.s5.56

∗ Bühler’s translation of the Manavic verse. † Daṇḍa, ҫakaṭa, varāha, makara, ҫūcī, garuḍa, vajra, padma, literally ‘staff, wagon, boar, sea-beast, needle, huge bird, thunderbolt, lily,’ are given as names of arrays, and the last of camp order. ‡ The commander ‘draws up the order’ (vyūhaṃ cakre), or draws up ‘a counter-order’ (against that of the foes, prativyūha). Drawn up, the foe is vyūdhānīka, ‘with face (acies) in battle order.’ It is usual to ‘counter against the foe’ (ҫatrūn prativyūhya), though the verb absolute is also common (cf. vii. 6. 8; 19. 38). One draws out the different acies : cf. v. 164. 4, anīkāni vyakarṣata.

c2.s5.57

| | | Chariots. | Elephants. | Foot-men. | Horses (cavalry-men). |
| *patti* | = | 1 | 1 | 5 | 3 |
| *senāmukha* | = | 3 | 3 | 15 | 9 |
| *gulma* | = | 9 | 9 | 45 | 27 |
| *gaṇa* | = | 27 | 27 | 135 | 81 |
| *vāhinī* | = | 81 | 81 | 405 | 243 |
| *pṛtanā* | = | 243 | 243 | 1215 | 729 |
| *camū* | = | 729 | 729 | 3645 | 2187 |
| *anīkinī* | = | 2187 | 2187 | 10935 | 6561 |
| *akṣauhiṇī* | = | 21870 | 21870 | 109350 | 65610 |

c2.s5.58

Each division is thrice its preceding, except in the last example, where the *akṣauhiṇī* or complete army is ten times the *anīkinī*. Other authorities make *gulma* the same as *gaṇa*, and *senāmukha* also thrice its present size. But even the Epic itself formally contradicts this division, and makes one army-corps (*senā*) consist of five hundred elephants and the same number of chariots; while ten of these make a *pṛtanā*; and ten of these, a *vāhinī*; the *patti* has five and fifty men; the gulma, one hundred and sixty-five; three gulmas make a gaṇa; and there is no difference between a patti and a senāmukha.* We have here a mixture of three and ten multiples. The earliest mention of formal army-divisions in the codes appears to point to a squad of ten factors as the unit of measurement; these factors being perhaps, as above, cavalrymen, foot-soldiers, war-car, and elephant: though no explanation of the ‘ten’ is given in the rule of Vasistha containing this division.†

c2.s5.59

∗ Literally, ‘three koṭis of foot-men’ (*pattikoṭyas tathā tisraḥ*): cf. R. vi. 4. 56, *śataṃ śatasahasrāṇāṃ koṭim āhur manīṣiṇaḥ*. Patti must here be the foot-soldier. There would thus be more men at the end of the war than at the beginning.

c2.s5.60

The Epic proper has, however, no definite terminology for divisions of the army. The same force has different names. Certain appellations denote a relatively large force; certain others, a relatively small one. Any of the names of the larger divisions may indicate the whole army without distinction. The only formal division recognized is that of the four-fold array; not a quantitative, but a qualitative distribution. ‘The four-fold army,’ everywhere alluded to as such in the early Epic, consists of an army divided according to kind into four groups: of foot-men, horse, chariot, and elephant (the last three

c2.s5.61

* v. 155. 24 ff.; the table above is from i. 2. 19 ff.

c2.s5.62

† I do not understand how ‘one elephant, one chariot, two horsemen, and three foot-soldiers’ make ‘ten parts,’ and, as I have not the text of the commentator, must suppose a clerical error in Bühler’s note to Vās. xix. 17. While the first-mentioned method of dividing the army into groups of regiments, companies, and squads (of one thousand, one hundred, and ten respectively), each with its commander (adhipati; the commander of one thousand being also called śūra), appears a late invention, it may, nevertheless, be based on an old unit of ten. If we compare the words of Vasistha (samyāne daçavāhavāhinī dviguṇakāriṇī syāt) with the late Epic distribution of officers, in which all those that can divide the foe’s force and re-establish their own disbanded force are counted equal and drinking together, and receiving double pay (dviguṇavetanāḥ), as applicable to all officers; and then find certain special officers called ‘leaders of ten’ (daçādhipatayaḥ), ‘leaders of a hundred,’ etc.—we might almost be tempted to transfer the meaning here to Vasistha’s words, and translate vāha as ‘dux’: ‘in an attack (samyāne), the army led by its leaders of ten shall be employed in the double (duty of breaking the foe’s ranks and holding its own).’ But this may seem far-fetched, and leaves no better meaning for the next verse than we had before; whereas, if we take vāha as squad (=patti), with Bühler, we may give a better sense to 18 (pratyekam prapāḥ syuḥ) by reading (instead of prapāḥ) pragāḥ, authorized by Pāṇini, and a natural error in writing, and rendering ‘and each squad shall have its fore-fighters,’ which was the practice in actual battle (compare purogama). The following verse of Vasistha (pumsām çatāvarārdhyam cā ’havayet) I take as an indication that the division of one hundred was the next to the division of ten in his system. I ought to add, however, that prapāḥ is authorized by the like Epic text, xii. 69. 53. The passage above from the Epic gives us the word (bala-) mukhyāḥ ‘captains’ as the general term for officers, and shows us in the following verses that the king ought to call these men together (mukhyān sannipātya) and exhort them before the battle (xii. 100. 30-32).

First 62 of 789 passages. Read on

Linked texts (14)