History of Dharmashastra (Ancient and Mediaeval Religious and Civil Law in India) v4.c62.458
History of Dharmaśāstra (Ancient and Mediaeval Religious and Civil Law in India) v4.c62.458
- Language
- English
v4.c62.458.1
The Āśramavāsikaparva²⁶³ (7. 7-8) names five kinds (except *amitra*) and states that maula and mitra armies are superior to the rest and hired troops and śreṇi troops are each other's equals. This division of armies into various kinds is mentioned in the grant of Dhruvasena I of Valabhī in Gupta-Valabhī year 206 (E. I. vol. XI. p. 106, where the king is said to have acquired the kingdom with the help of maula, bhṛta, mitra and śreṇi armies). Mānasollāsa defines the āṭavika²⁶⁴ army as consisting of *niṣādas*, *mlecchas* and similar castes dwelling in the vicinity of mountains and *amitra* troops as soldiers who once belonged to an enemy king but being defeated were taken captive and made slaves. According to the Rājanītiratnākara (p. 38) 'aribala' means 'troops that come to a king after leaving the king's enemy'. Kām. XVIII. 7 says that the āṭavika troops are, by nature, irreligious, greedy, *anāryas* and non-observers of truth. They correspond to the *pendharis* and freebooters of later times. The reasons why hereditary and other troops are superior to amitra and āṭavika varieties are explained at great length by Kauṭ. IX. 2 and Kām. XVIII. 5-9. Kauṭ. (IX. 2) states that an *amitra* army led by an ārya is superior to wild tribe troops. Both of them are out for plunder and in case no plunder can be had or when there is a disaster they may prove as dangerous as snakes.
v4.c62.458.2
By śreṇī-bala he has in mind the organized bands of soldiers to whom he refers elsewhere as 'vārtāśastropajīvinaḥ' (vide p. 89 above). As it is not unlikely that members of trade-guilds either themselves learnt the profession of arms or engaged soldiers for the protection of their merchandise and property, these could be pressed into his service by a king in case of need and were distinguished from the hereditary army and hired troops as 'śreṇī-bala'. Differing from the *ācāryas* that troops composed of brāhmaṇas, kṣatriyas, vaiśyas and śūdras are superior for enlistment in the order of the castes, Kauṭ. holds that an army of kṣatriyas well-trained in the wielding of arms or an army of vaiśyas and śūdras having greater numerical strength is better than an army composed of brāhmaṇa soldiers, since an enemy may win over the latter army by prostrating himself before them.²⁶⁵ Vide H. Dh. vol. II. pp. 122-123 for discussion on the question whether brāhmaṇas could become soldiers. In Udyogaparva 96. 7 (cr. ed. chap. 94) it is said that king Dambhodbhava every day asked in the morning whether there was any śūdra, vaiśya, kṣatriya or brāhmaṇa equal or superior to him in armed conflict. That shows that soldiers of castes other than kṣatriyas were not unheard of in the Epic age. Kām. IV. (63, 65, 67) says that the hereditary army (pitṛ-paitāmaha) should consist mostly of kṣatriyas. In the Maliya copperplate of Mahārāja Dharasena II (252 Valabhi saṁvat i. e. 571-72 A.
v4.c62.458.3
D.) Bhaṭārka, the founder of the Valabhi dynasty, is said to have secured the kingdom with the help of maula, bhṛta, mitra and śreṇi troops (Gupta Inscriptions p. 165). Śukra (II. 137-139) says that the soldiers may be śūdras, kṣatriyas, vaiśyas, mlecchas or of mixed castes, provided they are brave, restrained, well-built, devoted to their master and their dharma, and hate the enemy. Śānti (101. 3-5) describes in what respects soldiers from Gāndhāra, Sindhu and other countries and Yavanas and Deccan soldiers excel, remarks that brave and strong men are to be found everywhere (verse 6) and that men from the border (i. e. *bhillus* and *kaivartas* according to Nīlakaṇṭha) are desperate fighters, would never run away from battle and so should be preferred for enlistment in the army (verse 19). The Yaśastilaka III (pp. 461-467) describes the characteristics of Northern Indian (auttarāpatha), Deccan (dākṣiṇātya), Dramila (South Indian), Tirhut (Tairabhukta) and Gurjara soldiers. An army was said to be composed of four parts, viz. elephants, horses, chariots and foot-soldiers (caturaṅga bala). Kām. XVIII. 24 says that *bala* is sixfold, viz. the four sections of infantry, cavalry, chariots and elephants together with *mantra* (line of policy) and kośa (treasury). In Śānti. 103. 38 the army is said to have six aṅgas (the well-known four plus kośa and roads for traffic). According to Kauṭilya (II. 2, VII. 11) and Kām. XIX.
v4.c62.458.4
62 the destruction of the enemy's forces and victory depended on elephants.²⁶⁶ Śāntiparva (100. 24) says that an army in which the infantry predominates remains firm and that cavalry and chariots are all right when there is no rain. Śānti (59. 41-42) enumerates eight elements of the army viz. the well-known four (elephants etc.), viṣṭi (labourers or porters who gave free labour and were only fed but were paid no wages), boats, spies, and guides (deśika).²⁶⁷ Vide Śānti 121. 44 also. In the Mahābhārata elephants do not, except in rare cases, play any role in the fighting that went on, while chariots and the other arms of an army are described everywhere. In the Virāṭaparva (65. 6) Vikarṇa was seated on an elephant when he attacked Arjuna; Bhīṣmaparva 20. 7 refers to Duryodhana as riding an elephant and (95. 32-33) Bhagadatta is described as seated on an elephant when he attacked Bhīma. In this respect the Epic carries on the vedic tradition. Megasthenes (Fragment 1 p. 30) notes that in ancient India elephants were trained for war and turned the scale of victory. Vast armies were kept by ancient kings and emperors. When Śatrughna started against the demon Lavaṇa he had an army of 4000 horses, 2000 chariots and 100 elephants with him (Rāmāyaṇa VII. 64. 2-4). In the Daśakumāracarita VIII the cynical jester Vihārabhadra reminds his master that the latter had 10000 elephants, three lakhs of horse and numberless foot-soldiers (B. S. S. p. 133, of ed. of 1919).