The Army of the Indian Moghuls: Its Organization and Administration c17: Chapter XV. Discipline, Drill, and Exercises
The Army of the Indian Moghuls: Its Organization and Administration c17
- Language
- English
Chapter XV. Discipline, Drill, and Exercises
c17.2
According to our European notions discipline was extremely lax, if not entirely absent. Bernier, 55, tells us that when once thrown into confusion, it was impossible to restore a Moghul army’s discipline, while during the march they moved without order, with the irregularity of a herd of animals; and Europeans generally held the true cause of their dread of fire-arms, and particularly of artillery, to lie in the inexperience of their leading men, who never understood the advantage of discipline or the use of infantry (Cambridge, “War”, Introduction, viii).
c17.3
Nobles while at headquarters were bound to appear twice a day, morning and evening, at the emperor’s audience, and on this point they were strictly supervised. But there seems to have been no regular drill and no manœuvres. From time to time they paraded their troops in the outer court during the time of public audience, and the state of the horses and elephants was then observed. Occasionally, but very rarely, there were special parades in the open¹; these generally took place on the line of march, the emperor passing in review the troops of some particular commander, as he was making his march to his next camping ground. For instance, Dāūd Khān, Pannī, thus paraded his troops before Bahādur Shāh on the 26th Ramaẓān 1120 H. (8th Dec. 1708), Danishmand Khān, entry of that date.
c17.4
¹ These were the Maḥallah already referred to, see ante, p. 46. The phrase in Khurāsān was Sān dīdan, see Mujmil ut-tārīkh ba‘d Nādirīyah, p. 81, line 5.
c17.5
Organization. There was no regimental organization; the only divisions known were those created by reason of each chief or noble having his own following of troops. Such words as *tūmān* or *tūmāndār* have no strict or definite meaning. The first meant any body of soldiers, and the second the leader or head of such a body. *Jamaʿhdār* is a word of the same signification and equally vague, though it may be taken as denoting a smaller man than a *tūmāndār*. *Qashūn* is a word employed in the second half of the 18th century, having been borrowed from the Durrānī system, but I do not think it had a much more definite sense than the above words. In the dictionary, Steingass 971, قشون is defined as T., body, company, troop, army, soldier, military station.
c17.6
As for uniform, the only sign of it originally was a red turban worn by all in the imperial employ. For the great mass of the army there was usually no uniformity of dress; but in a general way each class of troops dressed in a similar style, Persians in one way, Mughals in another, Hindustānī Mahomedans could be distinguished from Rājputs, and so forth (Horn, 25). But such distinctions, though obvious at once to a practised eye, would take long to record, even if we knew sufficiently what they were. One Sābit Khān, at one time *faujdār* of ʿAlīgaṛh, was famed as the introducer of a kind of attire for soldiers, which was called after him the *sābit-khānī* dress. There were, however, some few regiments clothed in uniform. For example, as early as Farrukhsīyar's reign the " *Surkh-poshān* " (the Red Regiment) is spoken of. (Ījād's *Farrukh-shāh nāmah*, fol. 27, line 3). And it would seem from a passage in the *Sharāif-i-ʿusmānī*, p. 207, line 4, that in Muḥammad Shāh's time there were some regiments of body-guards clad alike, and known as the *surkhposh*, *zardposh* and *siyāhposh*, from the colour of their coats, red, yellow or black. These men carried gold or silver clubs (*gathak*).
c17.7
The Chaghatāe origin of the ruling house and many of its officers was shown in the frequent occurrence of military terms from the language used in Central Asia. The emperor and many about the court spoke and understood the Chaghatāe language so late as 1173 H. (1759-60), *Seir*, iii, 142; and Mustapha, id., iii, 400, note 63, tells us that up to the time he wrote (c. 1785), the word *atlān* (Be mounted) was "carried round to the horse guards when the emperor is going to mount his elephant". (P. de C., 5, from اتلانق, *atlānmaq*, to ride on horseback). Another instance of familiarity with Eastern Turkish is found in 1739, when Āghar Khān of the Āghar tribe, whose family had been settled in India over a hundred years, talked to Nādir Shāh in that language, and even composed some verses in it, *Ashob*, fol. 258*a*.
c17.8
*Punishments.* For desertion to the enemy we read occasionally of men being blown from the mouth of a gun. In 1714 two Mīnā robbers were blown from guns by Ḥusain ʿAlī Khān, when on the march from Dihlī to Ajmer. Again Ḥaidar Qulī Khān, when commanding at the siege of Āgrah in 1131 H. (1719), had recourse to this punishment with good effect, *Siwāniḥ-i-khiẓrī* (my copy). In the year 1174 H. (1760) the Mahrattahs blew away from guns two Maḥomedan leaders taken prisoners by them at Kunjpūrah, "History of the Rohelas" by Rustam ʿAlī, Bijnorī, fol. 51*a*. And in 1175 H. (30th May 1762) the Mahrattah commander, Narū Pandit, blew two men from guns at Burhānpūr, *Mirāt-uṣ-Ṣaffā*, 116*a*. In the "Abrégé Historique" prepared by Colonel Gentil in 1772, (E. Blochet, "Inventaire et description des miniatures des Mss. orientaux conservés à la Bibliothèque Nationale", p. 202, N°. 219) there is a picture of a man tied to the mouth of a cannon. Horn deals with the subject of desertion on pp. 49 and 51, but both of his references to Bābar's memoirs, viz., P. de C. ii, (should be i) 325, and ii, 352, 353, seem to be cases of surrender. That to the *Bādshāhaāmah* i, 334, is not a case of desertion at all. The garrison of Manṣūr-gaṛh in Orissa (1049 H.) asked for quarter by holding blades of grass between their teeth. This is the well-known Indian custom of indicating submissiveness, see Elliot, “Supp. Gloss.”, 252, s. v. Dānt-tinkā (teeth-straw), which is practised by villagers to this day. It is also said to have been resorted to by the Mahrattah horsemen at Dihlī (Feb. 1719), when they were overpowered in a street riot, Mḥd Qāsim, Lāhori, *‘Ibratnāmah* 244, my copy. Another instance is found in a book written c. 1147 H., *gāh dar dandān giriftah* (*Aḥwāl-i-khawāqīn*, fol. 217a).
c17.9
Drill. There seems to have been no drill for soldiers, as such, and no training in combined movements of any sort. The individual, on the other hand, paid the minutest attention to the training of his body, and exercising himself with all his weapons. For this there were the series of movements practised daily, known as *kasarāt*. In 1791 an English visitor to the Nizam’s camp near Kaḍapah (Cuddapah) writes to the following effect, Ouseley, “Or. Coll”, 1795, i, 21—32, “the traces of order, discipline, and science are so faint as to be scarcely discernible, except in the outward appearance of the men, the management of their horses, and their dexterity in the use of the spear and sabre, which individually gives a martial air”. He adds that the men exercise at home with dumb bells or heavy pieces of wood; and he also describes the *kasarāt* movements. There were in addition the clubs called *mugdar*, the chain bow or *lezam*, Egerton 147, 150-1, N°. 808, and single-stick play. In this last, a stick covered with a loose sheath of leather was held in one hand and a small round buckler in the other, Egerton, 148, quoting from Mundy (3rd ed. 1858, p. 165, 191, 310, 322). The stick is called *gudkā*, *gadkā* or *gadgā*, a little club, from *gadā*, a club (Shakes. 1689). An account will be found in Briggs, “Ferishta”, iii, 207, of *yak-ang-bāzī*, play with one single-stick or sword, and *do-ang-bāzī*, with sword and shield, or two swords, one held in each hand. There were also wrestling bouts, which usually took place in the rainy season. For mounted men there were tent-pegging and shooting at bottles: and the archers had their daily shooting at an earthen mound or target.
c17.10
*Swordplay.* The swordsmen were exceedingly skilful and active; their attack and defence being accompanied by the wildest gestures, the most extraordinary leaps, and elaborate feints of every sort. Something of this may still be seen at any Muḥarram festival, where the most complicated evolutions and sweeping circular cuts are made with the straight gauntlet sword or *paṭṭā*.
c17.11
Burton, writing of Sindh in 1844, gives us a good picture of Indian single-stick and sword-play. The usual style of sword exercise in India is, he says, “Life”, i, 119, with a kind of single-stick, ribboned with list cloth up to the top, and a small shield in the left hand. The swordsman begins by “renowning it”, vapouring, waving his blade, and showing all the curious *fantasie* that distinguish a Spanish *espada*. Then, with the fiercest countenance, he begins to spring in the air, to jump from side to side, to crouch, and to rush forwards and backwards, with all the action of an excited baboon. They never thought of giving “point”: throughout India the thrust is confined to the dagger. The cuts as a rule were only two, one on the shoulder and the other, in the vernacular called *qalam*¹, at the lower legs. Nothing was easier than to guard these cuts and to administer a thrust that would have been fatal with steel. Colonel Blacker on the other hand, “War”, 302, thought more highly of the native cutting stroke, it being the only one capable of penetrating the quilted jackets, or the many folds of cloth worn as turbans by Indians. The colonel held the opinion that the then Dragoon sword would not penetrate these, even by giving “point”. He adds “the native practice not only requires a stiff wrist, but a stiff though not a straight elbow, for a cut that shall disable”.
c17.12
¹ Probably from *qalam kardan*, to lop or prune.
c17.13
Fitzclarence, 102, thus describes the charge made on the Sitabaldi hill by the Nāgpur Rajah’s Arabs on the 26th Nov. 1817. “Their manner of advancing was exceedingly imposing. Being perfectly undisciplined, they advanced in a crowd; the bravest being in advance and taking high bounds and turning two or three times round in the air, they rushed forward to the sound of small drums, accompanied by the perpetual vociferation of the war-cry ‘Dīn! Dīn! Muḥammad!’ This sounds at a distance like ‘ding, ding’, which is often used instead of the correct expression”. As this represents what was, no doubt, the long-established mode of fighting on foot, I give it, in spite of its referring to a period after the fall of Moghul rule.
c17.14
*Horsemanship.* The cavalry had their horses trained to a sort of *manège*, where the horse was made to stand on its hind legs and then advance by bounds for a considerable distance. This manœuvre was resorted to in Bundelkhand whenever a man on horse-back attacked any one on an elephant. Once, when Muḥammad Khān, Bangash, invaded Bundelkhand in 1727, he was thus attacked. As he writes in his report to the emperor: “I drove my elephant straight into the thick of the enemy, where my men seemed to be struggling hopelessly against them. At this moment two of the enemy’s horsemen, one after the other, rode their horses with the greatest boldness at my elephant, so that their forefeet were on the elephant. By God’s aid they were, one after the other, dispatched by our arrows” (see the official report in Shākir Khān’s *Gulshan-i-ṣādiq*, my copy). This caracolling is still adhered to by the cavalry in the Bundelkhand native states, as could be seen by those who witnessed the review of their troops at Āgrah in 1876, in the presence of the then Prince of Wales.
c17.15
The Persians in the Moghul service did not think much of Indian horsemanship, judging from the following passage of an anonymous memoir written about the middle of the 18th century. "As a rule the people of India do not know how to ride, and horsemanship is unknown in Hindūstān. In addition, they use their utmost efforts to efface from horses all the qualities of the horse, and make it epileptic and mad. Their movements are not regulated by an intelligible principle, and it is impossible for them to be under the rider's control. I am a good rider and relying on my skill, I have often mounted Indian horses barebacked, in the belief that they would not be too much for me; and yet, when I have wanted to go east, they have carried me north, south, or west, and vice versa. If one wants to control the speed of the horse and make him travel at the speed one wishes, the beast either stands up on his hind legs or jibs, or hugs a wall till he crushes his rider or kills him in some other way. His paces are accompanied by jumps wholly unnatural". (*Tārīkh-i-Faraḥ Bakhsh*, trans. W. Hoey, i, App. p. 7).
c17.16
In this connection the following passage, although written in 1844, is quite as applicable to the Indian Moghuls as if it had been written a century or two earlier. "All nations seem to despise one another's riding, and none seem to know how much they have to learn. The Indian style has the merit of holding the horse well in hand, making him bound off at a touch of the heel, stopping him dead at a hand gallop, and wheeling him round on a pivot. The Hindu (Indian?) will canter over a figure-of-eight, gradually diminishing the dimensions tell the animal leans over at an angle of 45°, and throwing himself over the off side and hanging down to the earth by the heel, will pick up sword or pistol from the ground". (Burton, "Life", i, 135). This is as favorable as the preceding extract was unfavorable. When doctors disagree, who shall decide?
c17.17
Mounting Guard. In time of peace the nobles took it in turn to mount guard with their troops at the palace gate. This was called *chauki* and the guard-house was the *chaukī-khānah* ¹. The rules will be found in the *Āīn*, i, 257. The duty lasted for twenty-four hours and recurred once a week. The relief took place every evening. There was also another division of the army into twelve parts, each of which mounted guard for one month. But I do not see how the two divisions, that into seven and that into twelve parts, are to be reconciled with each other.
c17.18
¹ Steingass, 402, *chauki*, H. a raised seat, chair; a guard; a place for collecting customs; a watchhouse. J. Shakes. 507, *chauk*, a market, a city square; a court yard.
c17.19
*Hunting.* The nearest approach to army manœuvres was when the army or a division was ordered out to take part in a royal hunt. This subject is touched on by Horn, 69. One branch of the army combined two functions; in peace they were huntsmen, in war, skirmishers. These were the *Qarāwal*, with the *Qarāwal Begī*, or Chief Huntsman, at their head ². Horn, 69, refers to two descriptions of a royal hunt, namely, Budāunī, iii, 92, and Erskine, “History”, ii, 286. I add another from Anand Rām, *Mirāt-ul-Iṣṭilāḥ*, fol. 184a. *Shikār-i-qamrghāh* (or *qamrgāh*), also *shikār-i-jargāh*, is called in Hindī *haṭā-jorī* ³. For this hunt a king gives orders, through his huntsmen (*qarāwal*), to his governors and the zamīndars and cultivators (ryots) to surround a wide space full of game. This was closed in on daily till the area was very small. Then the ruler and his friends arrived, entered the enclosed space, and hunted the game. As this was a privilege (*qūruq*) of kings, no one else, not even a great noble, was allowed to practise it. This method was also followed in Īrān; in India it was given up after the middle of ‘Ālamgīr’s reign.
c17.20
² Steingass, 962, a sentinel, watchman, spy, guard; the vanguard, a gamekeeper, a hunter.
c17.21
³ *Kamrghah*, Steingass, 988, the hunting ring formed to enclose the game in the grand royal chase. Id, 360, *jargāh*, a circle or ring of men or beasts. *Haṭnā*, H. to drive back, *joṛnā*, to collect, therefore *haṭā-joṛī*, a drive of game.
Linked texts (1)
- Tārīkh-i Firishta — Muḥammad Qāsim Hindū Shāh Firishta 1606, Persian