Pramāṇa · Search · About · API

The Army of the Indian Moghuls: Its Organization and Administration c11.s1: I. Bows

The Army of the Indian Moghuls: Its Organization and Administration c11.s1

Language
English

I. Bows

c11.s1.1

The Moghul bowmen were considered to be especially expert with their weapon; as Bernier, 48, "a horseman shooting six times before a musketeer can fire twice." The word *oqchī* quoted by Horn, 108, from the *Akbarnāmah*, is hardly to be found in the later writers, those of the 18th century; an archer is styled by them a *Tīr-andāz* (literally, arrow-thrower), not *oqchī*¹. But that word is used by Anand Rām once in reference to Aḥmad Abdālī's first invasion in 1161 H. (I. O. L. N°. 1612, fol. 70*b*), though there the scribe has spelt it *aunchī*. Shakespear, 219, has what he classes as a Hindī word, *opchī*, defined as "A man armed with weapons or clothed in mail." May this not be a corruption of *oqchī*, an archer? This word, *opchi*, is used by Shridhar Murlīdhar in his poem on Farrukhsīyar, line 594, (Journal A. S. B. (1900) Vol. LXIX, i, 14, 39):

c11.s1.2

¹ Pavet de Courteille, Dict., 68, اوق, an arrow.

c11.s1.3

पिले ओपची तोपची तोपो घनेरे *Pile opchī topchī topo ghanere.*

c11.s1.4

“Gathered archers, gunners, guns, without end.” Of course, this may be simply the reduplication so common in Indian vernaculars, such as *khānā-wānā*, food, *pānī-wānī*, water. Mḥd Qāsim, Aurangābādī, *Aḥwāl-ul-khawāqīn*, 288*a*, and a rather later writer, Khair-ud-dīn (c. 1203 H.), *‘Ibratnāmah*, 105, have *kamāndār* (bow-holder) for archer.

c11.s1.5

*Charkh*. In the *Jahān kushāe Nādirī* of Mirzā Mahdī, p. 233, (year 1151 H.) we have a reference to the *Charkhchi-bāshī*, or head of the *charkh* men. W. Jones, “Nader Chah”, ii, 66, renders this by “maitre de l’artillerie”, and is followed by the German translator, 293. Steingass has neither *charkhchi* nor *charkhchi-bāshī*. *Charkh* has many meanings: among them being “a wheel,” “a cart,” “a crossbow.” Here I suppose we ought to render *charkh* by “cross-bow”, and not by “artillery.” *Charkhchī* is to be found in the *Mujmil-ut-tārīkh ba‘d Nādiriyah*, p. 95, line 13.

c11.s1.6

*Kamān*. The Moghul bow (*kamān*) was about 4 feet long, and generally shaped in a double curve. The bow was of horn, wood, bambū, ivory, and sometimes of steel (Egerton, 81, note to N°. 80). Two of these steel bows, in the Emperor of Russia’s collection at Zarkoe Selo, belonged to the emperor, Bahādur Shāh (1708—1712); they bear verses in his honour and are covered with rich gold damascened work (Egerton, 114, note to N°. 457). The grip was generally covered with velvet. Mr. Egerton, 144, describes the Persian bow in detail, and the same description applies, there can be little doubt, to the bows used in India, for there they copied everything Persian, and in fact many of the principal officers were themselves Persians.

c11.s1.7

Mr. Egerton says “the concave side of the bow (the convex when strung) was lined with several strings of thick catgut to give it elasticity and force. The belly is made of buffalo or wild goats’ horn, jet black and of a fine polish; glued to this is a thin slip of hard, tough wood. The ends are fashioned to represent snakes' heads. The horn is left plain, while the wooden back is decorated with rich arabesques of birds, flowers or fruit intermingled with gilding.” Captain Thomas Williamson, “Oriental Field Sports”, 87, describes thus the construction of the Indian bows kept for show or amusement, and also carried by travellers. They were of buffalo horn in two pieces curved exactly alike, each having a wooden tip for the receipt of the string; their other ends were brought together and fastened to a strong piece of wood that served as a centre and was gripped by the left hand. After being neatly fitted, they were covered with a size made of animal fibres, after which very fine tow was wrapped round, laid on thin and smooth. They were then painted and varnished.

c11.s1.8

*The notch.* The notches at the ends into which the string was fixed were called *goshah* (Steingass, 1104), literally “corner,” also *sūfār* (*Dastūr ul Inshā*, 228, Steingass 709). The latter word is used in *Aḥwāl-ul-khawāqin* (c. 1147 H.), fol. 12*a*.

c11.s1.9

*The string.* This was called either *zih* or *chillah*. Hindī names are *rodā*¹, Shak., 1195, catgut, a sinew used as a bow-string, and *panach* or *panchak* (id. 552, 553). Bow strings were made of strong threads of white silk laid together until of the thickness of a goose quill. Whipping of the same material was then bound firmly round for a length of three or four inches at the centre, and to this middle piece large loops of scarlet or other colour were attached by a curious knot. These gaudy loops formed a striking contrast to the white silk (Egerton, 144). Captain Williamson, on the contrary, says, p. 87, that the string was composed of numerous thin catguts laid together without twirling, then lapped with silk in the middle and at the ends.

c11.s1.10

¹ *Rodā*, a bow string, is in Steingass, 592. Is it Persian or Hindi or both?

c11.s1.11

*The finger stall.* This was called *zihgīr* (Steingass 631), bow-string holder, or *shast* (id. 743). It was also styled *Shast-āwez* (Anand Rām, *Mirāt-ul-Iṣṭilāḥ*, fol, 155*b*, 182*a*). Of this last the etymology would be *shast*, the thumb, *āwez*, attached or fastened to, that is, a thumb-stall. Blochmann, *Āīn*, i, 111, Nº. 42, and note 3, says the *shast-āwez* was a weapon resembling the *girih-kushā*, Nº. 43, that is, a kind of spear. He has no figure of it. May he not have been mistaken, and is not Anand Rām’s direct assertion to be preferred?

c11.s1.12

The bowman drew with his thumb only, the bent forefinger being merely pressed on one side of the arrow nock to secure it from falling, or as Dr. Weissenberg (quoting v. Luschau) says, p. 52, the forefinger was pressed on the nail of the thumb to strengthen the pull without increasing the exertion. To prevent the flesh being torn by the bow string the *zihgīr* had been invented (Egerton, 114). It was a broad ring, and according to a man’s rank and means was of precious stone, crystal, jade, ivory, horn, fishbone, gold or iron. A very valuable *zihgīr*, part of the Lāhor booty, one that had belonged to Lord Dalhousie, is described in the “Daily Telegraph” of the 10th November 1898. It was formed of a single emerald and was 2 3/8 inches across at the widest part and 1 1/4 inches in depth. It bore an inscription which is thus translated: “For a bow ring for the King of Kings, Nādir, Lord of the Conjunction, from the Jewel House it was selected, 1152” (= A.D. 1739). From the date and the wording of this inscription it is to be inferred that it was part of the spoil carried off from Dihli. How it found its way back to Lāhor we do not know. Sometimes two thimbles were worn instead of a *zihgīr*, on the first and second fingers of the right hand. Upon the inside of this ring (the *zihgīr*), which projected half an inch, the string rested when the bow was drawn; on the outside the ring was only half the breadth, and in loosing the arrow the archer straightened his thumb, which set the arrow free. (Egerton, 114, quoting the *Book of Archery*, 136). By the use of the ring the distance to which an arrow could be shot was increased. But its use required skill and practice; the Hindūs used instead a thumbstall of leather (*Mirāt-ul-Iṣṭilāḥ*, fol. 155*b*). These rings with a spare string were usually carried in a small box suspended at the man's side (Egerton, 114). Dr. S. Weissenberg, of Elisabethgrad, Russia, has devoted an article to these rings in the *Mittheilungen der anthropologischen Gesellschaft in Wien*, Band XXV (1895) pp. 50—56, where he gives figures of eight of them. He divides them into two classes 1) cylindrical, 2) with tongue-like projection. Those described by him are of bone or stone, and six out of thirteen were found in the ruins of Sarae, a former capital of the Qipchāq. See also a thumb ring of ivory (now in the Nuremberg museum) figured on the plate at p. 887 of A. Demmin, "Die Kriegswaffen", 4th ed., 1893.

c11.s1.13

*Takhsh kamān*. This is N°. 13 of the *Āīn* i, 110, and it is described by Blochmann, p. v, as a small bow. It is shown in figure N°. 12 of plate xii. Steingass, 288, defines *takhsh* as a cross-bow, an arrow, a rocket.

c11.s1.14

*Kamān-i-gurohah*. This was a pellet-bow, identical, I presume, with the modern *gulel*, with which boys scare birds from the ripening crops. It is N°. 38 in the *Āīn* i, 111 and appears as N°. 32 of plate xiii. Steingass, 1085, has for *guroha*, a ball or spherical figure.

c11.s1.15

*Gobhan*. The sling, *Āīn* i, 111, N°. 45 and plate xiii, N°. 38, may as well be included here. The form in Shakespear 1727, is *gophan*. Khāfī Khān, ii, 656, uses the word *sang-i-falākhan* for the slings brought by the villagers who assembled in 1710 to aid in the defence of Jalālābād town against the Sikhs led by Bandah. Steingass, 936, has فلاخن ,فلاخان ,فلاسنگ ,*falākhan, falākhān, falāsang*, a sling.

c11.s1.16

*Kamthah, kamanth*. This is the long bow of the Bhīls. We find it named in the *Āīn* list, i, 111, as N°. 39 under the first form; the second is that used by Anand Rām, Mukhliṣ, *Mirāt-ul-Iṣṭilāḥ*, fol. 184*b*. Blochmann, p. x, in describing fig. 33 of his plate xiii confounds the *kamtha* with the *Kamān-i-guroha* or pellet bow. I think this must be wrong. Steingass, 1051, has a word *kamnait*, an archer, which he thinks might be from P. *kamān*, bow, plus Sanskrit, *netā*, owner. The word might, with more probability, be connected with the above words *kamtha* or *kamanth*, just as *dhalait*, a man with a shield, comes from *dhāl*, a shield; or *gorait*, a watchman, from *agornā*, to watch. According to Shakespear, 2258, *kamthā* is Hindī for a bow of bambu.

c11.s1.17

The Bhīls held the bow by the foot, drawing the string (*chillah*) with the hand, and shooting so strongly that their arrows could penetrate an elephants’ hide. W. Egerton, 75, quoting Tod’s “Rajpoot Tribes” (a reference which I have failed in verifying) says the principal weapon of the Bhīls was the *kamptī* or bambū bow, with a string made of a thin strip of the elastic bark of the bambu. In their quiver were sixty barbed arrows each a yard long, those intended for striking fish having heads which came off the shaft on striking the fish. A long line connected this head and the shaft, so that the shaft remained on the water by way of a float.

c11.s1.18

*Nāwak*. This was a pipe through which an arrow was shot. As I understand it, this was either a cross-bow, or formed in some way a part of the ordinary bow. It was not, I think, a mere blow-pipe, like those used by the Malays for their poisoned arrows, as mentioned by Egerton, 97, 98, Nos 263—268. Those specimens of the pipe are 6 feet 6 inches to 7 feet 6 inches long, and the arrows used with them 12 inches long. The *nāwak* is N°. 14 of the *Āīn* list, i, 110, but there is no figure of it. The weapon was known at Farrukhābād in the 18th century (Journal A. S. B., XLVII, 331). Steingass 1382, has *nāo*, a trough, a pipe, and *nāwak*, dim. of *nāo*, a small arrow, an arrow for shooting birds, with notch on side; a tube through which an arrow is projected; a cross-bow; a reed or anything hollow.

c11.s1.19

*Tufak-i-dāhan*. The *Āīn* has also a blow-pipe, which it calls *tufak-i-dāhan* (lit. mouth-tube), N°. 40, i, iii and N°. 34, plate xiii. Steingass, 314, defines this as a tube for shooting clay balls through by force of the breath.

c11.s1.20

Arrows. The arrow (*tīr*) is given at N°. 15 of the list in the *Āīn* i, 110, and it is shown as fig. 14*a* on plate xii. Another name, *sihām* is found in the *Mirāt-i-Aḥmadī*, fol. 178*a*; it is the plural of *sahm*, an arrow, Steingass, 710; see also Lane, “Lexicon,” 1454, *sahamahu*, iii. Captain Williamson, “Oriental Field Sports,” 87, says that in Bengal there were two kinds of arrow shafts, the common kind made of reeds, and those used against tigers, made of wood. To the first kind the heads were attached by resin; in the second kind, a hole was bored and the head while red-hot was forced into it. Some arrows in the India Museum are 2 feet 4 inches long (Egerton 130, N°. 604). One as long as 6 feet, obtained at Lakhnau in 1857, must have been used with a large bow. The names of the parts of an arrow were for the shaft¹ P. *kilk*, lit. reed, Hindī, *sāri* (Shakes. 1285, also the name of a kind of reed); for the head, P. *paikān*, H. *bhāl*; for the feathers, P. *par*. The feathers were frequently black and white mixed (*ablaq*). Ordinarily the head was of steel, but the Bhīls used arrow-heads of bone.

c11.s1.21

¹ In Budāonī (Printed Text, i, 418, l. 3) there is an expression, *katībah-i-bāsh*, which Blochmann marked as doubtful in his copy (now in my possession), without suggesting any alternative; Ranking, 537, substitutes *katāh-i-bās*, and translates “bamboo shaft.” I cannot find *katah* in the dictionaries, Persian or Urdū, unless it be a form of कठ *kath*, “wooden.” If so, “wooden-bambu” seems an odd combination.

c11.s1.22

*Tukah, Tukkah*. — This was the name of an arrow without a head. One was said to have been fired in anger by Āʿẓam Shāh at his principal general, Zu’lfiqār Khān, at Jājau on the 18th June 1707, - Yaḥyā Khān, fol. 113*b*. Steingass, 819, explains the word as “an arrow without a point, but with a knot at the end.”

c11.s1.23

In the 18th century the kinds of arrows in use among the Pathans of Farrukhābād (Journal A. S. B., XLVII, 332) were 1) *Lais*, Shakes., 1809, twig, practising arrow, 2) *qalandara*, 3) *kohar-tarāsh*, 4) *ghera*, broad-headed, 5) *nuktah*, or perhaps *na-kaṭṭa*, headless arrow, lit. non-cutting; compare Egerton, 137, note preceding N°. 710, as to the blunt, heavy arrow used in Sind, 6) *thūth*, or perhaps better, *thonṭh*, Shakes. 743, H. for beak, bill, 7) *ankrī-dār*, with a bent head, shaped like a saddle-maker’s needle (*ankrī*, a hook), i. e. barbed. In his time (1780—1807) Captain Williamson, 87, found some very broad arrow heads in use in the west of Bengal, towards Bahār. There was one of crescent shape more than four inches across at the barbs. Though they did not penetrate easily, yet when they happened to graze a limb, they cut desperately. When discharged among bodies of troops they were found to do amazing mischief. The following names of arrows are found in *Dastūr-ul-Inshā*, 228, 1) *gherah*, broad-headed, 2) *do muhānah*, two pointed or barbed, 3) *taraḥ-i-māh*, fullmoon or circular head, 4) *taraḥ-i-ḥalāl*, crescent shaped head, 5) *taraḥ-i-bādām*, almond-shaped head, 6) *taraḥ-i-toko*?, 7) *siḥ-bhālah*, three-spear headed, i. e. trident-shaped, 8) *taraḥ-i-khornī*, 9) *taraḥ-i-khār*, thorn-shaped, 10) *taraḥ-i-khākī*, Shakes. 974, epithet of a kind of arrow, what kind he does not say. James Fraser, *Nadir Shah*, 143, note, thus describes the arrow used for practising at the earthen target described a little further on. “The arrows for this exercise have the iron part quite round, about four fingers long, of the size of the reed until near the point, where they are somewhat thicker, from which part they taper gradually to a sharp point. The length from the thickest part to the point is from a quarter to one inch.”

c11.s1.24

Symbolical use of arrows. — The pagan Arabs used arrows in a game of chance, Hughes, “Dict. of Islam,” p. 309, under *Al maisir*, الميسر. Divining by arrows was forbidden by Muḥammad, see Sale’s “Preliminary Discourse”, section v, and the Qurān, v, where the word used is zalmun (singular) azlāma (plural), an unfeathered, unpointed arrow. The mode of procedure is set out in E. W. Lane’s Lexicon, p. 1247, under zalamun, “he cut off”, section viii. The practice, however, survived in spite of the prohibition; and in 1544 we find Humāyūn getting into trouble with Shāh Tahmāsp on this account. He marked twelve of his best arrows with his own, and eleven inferior ones with Tahmāsp’s name—Erskine, “Baber and Humāyūn,” ii, 289.

c11.s1.25

Shooting an arrow into the air is said by Portuguese writers to have been a recognized mode of declaring war in the Vijyanagar state and Malabar. The particular instance is of 1537 at Diū, where Bahādur of Gujarāt ordered an arrow to be shot into the air as a declaration of war—Whiteway, “Portuguese in India”, 249, note 1, on the authority of Castanheda, ii, 16 (reprint of 1833) and Correa, iv, 708, “Lendas da India”, 4 vols., 1858—61. I have not met with mention of this practice in any native author, and Major J. S. King informs me that he knows of none. Perhaps it was of Hindu origin.

c11.s1.26

At the same place Mr. Whiteway mentions the gift of an arrow from the King’s quiver as a security for peace. The King’s quiver was also used as a symbol of authority (Whiteway, loc. cit.). The instance given is from the Mirāt-i-Sikandarī, where Humāyūn in 1537 released Bahādur Shāh’s minstrel, and bound his own quiver round the man’s loins. Clothed with this authority, every prisoner that the minstrel claimed as his relation was released (Bayley, “Gujarāt”, 389). Another instance of this practice is to be found in the Tārīkh-us-Sind of Muhammad Ma‘sūm, under the year 924 H. (1518), where Shāh Beg, Arghūn, gave an arrow to the qāẓī of Taṭṭah (Malet, p. 80).

c11.s1.27

Quiver. The Persian name is tarkash: but I have found the Arabic word ja‘bah used once on fol. 59b of the Farrukhnāmah of Shekh Muhammad Mun‘im, Ja‘farābādī (4th year of Farrukhsīyar). It was generally a flat case, broad at the mouth, one side straight and the other sloping to a point, provided with a strap for carrying over the shoulder. This broad shape is due apparently to the fact that the quiver was used to hold the bow as well as the arrows, see plate xvii in B. M. Addl. 5254 (Rieu, 780), and the plate in Valentyn, opposite iv, 304. There must have been, however, separate bow-cases, *qirbān*, for they are named as well as the *tarkash*, or quiver, in Kāmwar Khān’s entry of the 21st Zūl Qa‘dah 1134 H. In the India Museum are five specimens, Egerton, Nos 367, 369 (p. 108), 460 (p. 115), 601, 602 (p. 130). Of these one is of an unusual shape, namely, cylindrical. Common quivers were covered with leather, more costly ones with blue or red velvet, and these were often embroidered on one side in gold or silver. These covers sometimes were applied to strange uses. During Humāyūn’s exile in Persia (1544), Shāh Tahmāsp folded up his carpet, so that no one could share any portion. Humāyūn would thus have been forced to sit on the bare ground, when one of his followers took off the ornamented cover of his quiver, tore it open and spread it as a seat for his master, Erskine, “Baber and Humāyūn”, ii, 294. The quiver is No. 16 of the *Āīn* list, i, 110, and it appears as figure No. 15 on plate xii. One of a slightly different shape from the usual pattern is given in Egerton’s plate i (p. 24), copied from that in Langlès’ “Monuments.” Here the quiver is the same width all the way down, having one side straight and the other shaped in two crescent-like curves.

c11.s1.28

*The Leather Guard (Godhū).* This is mentioned in Egerton, 114, and it was worn on the left arm. That is, I suppose, if the shooter were not in armour, and thus already provided with a mailed glove and steel arm-piece. Hansard, “Book of Archery”, 137, speaks of one as “a quilted half sleeve of common velvet or fine cloth, which protects the arm from being bruised by the chord in its return”. The word *godhū* I have not been able to trace. Two Central Asian arm-guards, one of bone and one of iron, are figured by Weissenberg, l. c. p. 54. They are now in the Ethnographical Museum at St. Petersburg.

c11.s1.29

*Paikān-kash*. This word is from *paikān*, arrowhead, *kash*, root of *kashīdan*, to draw out. The implement was shaped like a pair of pliers, and as its name implies, was used to extract arrow heads from the body. It is N°. 19 of the *Āīn* list, i, 110, and figure N°. 146 on plate xii. The *tīrbardār*, N°. 18, (if the reading be correct) was another instrument for the same purpose.

c11.s1.30

*Target*. This was the توده, literally, heap, Steingass, 334, *todah*, Shakes., 700, *tūdah*. The latter is the present Indian pronunciation of the word. To secure a more perfect use of the bow and arrow it was usual to erect near an officer's tents a mound of earth, into which he or his men shot a certain number of arrows every day. It is referred to *en passant* by W. Egerton, 106, as a practice of the Rajputs, but its use was general and not by any means confined to them. For instance, we find this target in use by Nādir Shāh, who shot five arrows into one every afternoon. It is thus described by James Fraser, *History of Nādir Shāh*, 143, note, "Khak Towda is a heap of fine mould well sifted and beat strongly in between two stone walls. 'Tis five foot high, three feet thick, and from three to four feet broad. The front of it is very smooth and even, beat hard with a heavy trowel. One who is well skilled can shoot his arrow into to it quite to the head; whereas one that shoots ill (be he never so strong) can't put a third part in". In a general sense the word for a butt or target, or the object aimed at, was *hadaf* (Steingass, 1492).

c11.s1.31

*Modes of Shooting*. We are told in the *Risālah-i-tīr o kamān* that in archery there were twelve maxims to be obeyed. Of these three required firmness, (1) Hold the grip of the bow tight, (2) Keep the forefinger firm, (3) When the arrow is let fly, keep the advanced foot firm. Three things required easiness (1) the left side should be kept easy (2) the left foot the same, and (3) the other fingers. Three things required straightness (1) the body should be erect (2) the forehead held up (3) the elbow straight. Other three things were single: (1) use one side, (2) use one eye, (3) keep both hands in one direction. An arrow could have seven faults: (1) too wide a notch, (2) the shaft to be *karm*?, (3) the head imperfect, (4) the head too heavy, (5) the top end and butt of the shaft hollow, (6) the shaft not straight, (7) the bow too stiff. In shooting at a horseman 200 yards off, you should aim at his cap, if 100 paces off, at his mouth, if 50 paces, at his saddle. By so doing you will hit him in the chest. A good archer needs to practise constantly with the *Lezam*, a bow with an iron chain instead of a string. There are three ways of gripping the bow, *Changal-i-bāz* (literally, “Hawk’s claw”), *muḥarraf* (diagonally, on the slant), *ma-rabbaʿ* (square), according to the length of the shooter’s fingers. The arrow should be held without moving, and the advanced foot kept flat on the ground. As you let fly at the mark, you ejaculate, “In the name of God”. Shekh Allahyār Sānī, *Ḥadīqat-ul-aqālīm* (ms. additions in my copy), under Bilgrām, speaks of one ʿAbd-uṣ-Ṣamad, a perfect bowman, who taught the author to shoot in three ways, 1) in the style of the master Ṭāhirī, 2) *qabẓahgar*, 3) *musht*. Until that time Allahyār had shot only in the mode of Bahrām.

c11.s1.32

Captain Williamson, “Oriental Field Sports”, 87, says the bow was strung by placing one end under the thigh, and with both hands bringing the other end into due position, when the string was easily slipped into the groove made for it. Thirty inches of string was a common length, though some were longer. With a new bow it required a strong hand to bring the arrow up to its head.

c11.s1.33

The left hand was placed opposite the right breast, just far enough from the body to allow clear action: the butt of the arrow was pressed to the string, the fore and middle fingers of the right hand were then drawn steadily, until the head was near the forefinger of the left hand. The bow was always held perpendicularly. Native archers rarely missed an object the size of a tea cup at sixty or seventy yards, and Captain Williamson at Lucknow repeatedly saw a man lodge an arrow in a common walking stick at that distance. The hill people of Bengal were also very expert with the bow. They would lie on their back, steadying the bow with their feet horizontally, and at a distance of two or three hundred yards send the arrow through a common water pot, not more than a foot in diameter. They could shoot kites flying, and indeed rarely missed their object.

Linked texts (3)