Pre-Buddhist India: A Political, Administrative, Economic, Social and Geographical Survey of Ancient India Based Mainly on the Jataka Stories c4.s1: Chapter V. Military Organisation
Pre-Buddhist India: A Political, Administrative, Economic, Social and Geographical Survey of Ancient India Based Mainly on the Jātaka Stories c4.s1
- Language
- English
Contents
- c4.s1.t1 II. Warfare — 81 parts
Chapter V. Military Organisation
c4.s1.2
THE FOUR-FOLD ARMY
c4.s1.3
AS WARS AND FRONTIER-troubles were quite frequent in those days, each State had necessarily to keep and maintain a well-equipped and organized military force at its command. Though the stories do not enlighten us much upon this military organisation, whatever little they give is not altogether valueless.
c4.s1.4
The traditional division of an army into four component parts is quite familiar (*caturaṅgiṇī senā*).¹ These consisted of chariots (*ratha*) elephants (*hatthi*) cavalry (*assā*) and infantry (*patti*).² There are also references to a complete army of ‘Eighteen *akkhohiṇīs*’ (*aṭṭhārasa akkhohiṇī saṃkhāya senā*)³ well-known as the combined force of the Kauravas and the Pāṇḍavas in the Great War.⁴
c4.s1.5
¹ J., III, p. 249; IV, p. 125; V, p. 486; VI, p. 275-G. 1188.
c4.s1.6
² J., V, p. 195-G. 4; 322-G. 125 “*Hatthiassarathapattisenāya caturaṅgiṇī*. VI, p. 275 G. 1188.
c4.s1.7
³ J., VI, p. 21-G. 67; pp. 395, 399, 409, 434, 435.
c4.s1.8
⁴ See Hopkins, op. cit., p. 196 “This is an enormous number, making a total of 3,936,600 in the whole of the forces engaged and is doubtless a great exaggeration. P. N. Banerji, op. cit., p. 201; also G. T. Date, *The Art of War in Ancient India*, p. 53.
c4.s1.9
A chariot was a very important and an esteemed apparatus of war. No details as to its construction are however met with. But we may imagine it to be not very materially different from the Epic chariot which again was not a great development on the Vedic one. Let us observe its different parts (*aṅgā*) which were complete (*samattā*) and well-fastened to one another (*susaññatā*).⁵ It had generally two wheels (*cakka* or *cakra*) probably four angular wides,⁶ spokes (*ārā*) and a nave (*nābhi*). The rim and the felly together constituted the *nemi*. The hole in the nave was called ‘*kha*’ into which the end of the axle was put. The axle (*akkha-akṣa*) was made of wood and the body of the chariot (*kosa*) was placed above it. There were seats for the warriors (*upādhiyo-upasthā*)⁷ Ordinarily, there was a pole (*īsa* or *kubbaro-kūbara*),⁸ which was fastened to the box of the car on one end and passed through the yoke on the other end. The yoke (yugo) was placed on the necks of the horses, one on each side of the pole. The fastenings of the yoke are termed yottaka (yoktṛ-modern jotar) which fastened the yoke and the pole in the middle and probably the two ends of the yoke with the neck of the horses. There were reins, raśmi, controlled by the Sārathi who goaded the horses with the patoda. The car-pole, held at one end by the yoke, was either regarded as divided at the heavy end into three parts, two of these being side braces that ran behind the horses and connected at each end with the axle-wood, and this was called the ‘three-fold piece’ tidaṇḍa (tridaṇḍa or triveṇu) or this piece was a triangle of bamboo one side of which was parallel to the axle and the other two ran together to the pole.¹ There was a white chaṭṭaka (chhatra) or an umbrella above. Whether the sides (pakkhara) had railings or not we do not know.² The noiseless running of the car (akūiana) seems to be praised. The little, light and swift (lahu-laghu) car was desirable. The normal number of horses seems to have been two, but four are also often mentioned.³ “It is uncertain whether in these cases, the extra horse was attached in front or at the side; possibly both modes were in use.”⁴ This is a typical description of a war-chariot:
c4.s1.10
⁵ J., IV, pp. 209-10; J, VI, pp. 252-3 GG. 1127-36, names almost all the parts of a chariot which is here taken to compare with the human body. See for these parts Hopkins, op. cit., pp. 237-43; Date, op. cit., pp.46-8; *Ved. Ind.*, II, pp. 201-3.
c4.s1.11
⁶ J., IV, p. 210, by the bye, seems to indicate that in place of an iron sheath, a strap of leather like that of a lion’s skin may also be used, and used with a greater advantage as in that case the *nemi* would be much stronger (*gaḷacammaṃ uppātetvā caturaṅgula matte ṭhane ayapaṭ ṭhena viya neminaṇḍale parikkhitu nemi ca thirā bhavissati*), *ayosukatanemiyo* in J., VI, p. 580-G. 2382.
c4.s1.12
⁷ Hopkins, op. cit., p. 238-9; *Vedic Index*, II, p 207.
c4.s1.13
⁸ When a distinction is intended, *īsa* is the lower, *kūbara* the upper end of the pole. J. A O. S., 13, p. 241.
c4.s1.14
¹ Hopkins, op. cit., pp. 241-2. This reference to the tidaṇḍa in J., VI, p. 252-G. 1132 is obscure to the English translators, See J. VI, p. 125 n.
c4.s1.15
² Hopkins, op. cit., 13, p. 240.
c4.s1.16
³ J., I, p. 181—“Dve bhatikā sindhave rathe yojetvā . II, p. 39 “Sabbasetacatusindhava-yuttarathavare ; VI, p. 223-G. 965 “Tatrāsum kumudā yuttā cattāro sindhavā hayā.”
c4.s1.17
⁴ Vedic Index, II, p. 202. Hopkins, op. cit., pp. 242-2: 250-1.
c4.s1.18
“Lo! Sixty thousand cars all yoked with banners flying free
With tiger skin and panther hide, a gorgeous sight to see,
Each driven by mailed charioteers, all armed with bow in hand.”⁵
c4.s1.19
⁵ J., V, p. 259—GG. 49-50; VI, pp. 48-G. 172-3; 49-G. 205-6. On the standards and flags of the Epic war-car Hopkins remarks: “They bear an important part in battle, for they upholder of his whole army. They are not however national, but individual,” J. A. O. S., 13 p. 243. The best horses in the stories are always white Sindh horses and scarcely Kāmbojakas. See J., I, pp. 175, 181; II, pp...39, 428; VI, pp. 223—G. 965; Kāmbojakā assatarā: J. IV, vāhi; cf. for all these, Hopkins, op. cit. pp. 255-7 For the equipment of the chariot of Poros see Curtius VIII, 14; for its representation on the bas-reliefs at Sāñchi and the Barhut Stupas. See Cunningham, Stupa of Bharhut, plxii,
c4.s1.20
No reference is to be found in the stories as to the size and dimensions of the different parts of a chariot.⁶
c4.s1.21
⁶ The Vedic car had 188 aṅgulis (finger-breadths) for the pole, 104 for the axle, and 86 (i.e., 120 aṅgulas) in height, and 12 puruṣas in width. Other kinds of chariots of different dimensions are also mentioned: Arthaśāstra, II, 23.
c4.s1.22
The elephant was a new animal for the early Vedic Indians who recognized it as the animal with a hand (mṛga-hastin).⁷ But in course of time the people became acquainted with it and, as in the Epics, so in the Jātaka stories, it had taken an honourable rank in the army and on other royal occasions. In the stories before us we find these war-animals clad in armour, mounted upon by mahauts (gāmaṇis) and armed warriors and causing a great havoc in battle. It seems, the king, when he led the army against his enemy, sat on his special elephant (*maṅgalahatthi*) and thence attacked the enemy's city.¹ Besides this state-elephant, there were of course a host of other elephants. Their value in fight was recognised. In fact, the battle-field was thought to be their home. Thus spurs a warrior :
c4.s1.23
⁷ Vedic, Index, II, pp. 171-2.
c4.s1.24
¹ J., II, pp. 22, 94 ; III, p. 385. ² J., II, p. 95-G 61—“*Saṅgāmāvasaro sūro*” Cf. *Arthaśāstra*, VII, 2 ; and for Greek writers who praise this beast see McCrindle, *Megasthenes and Arrian*., pp. 93 ff ; 222. ³ J., III, p. 386-G. 98. ⁴ J., II, p. 95. ⁵ Ibid., p.
c4.s1.25
“O Elephant, a hero thou, whose home is in the field,
There stands the gate before thee now : why dost thou
turn and yield !”²
c4.s1.26
The tremendous havoc that these sturdy beasts did in battles is described in many a story. ‘*Yuddhe vikkantacāriṇā*’,³ they really were. “Winding his trunk about the shafts of the pillars he tore them up like so many toad stools ; he beat against the gateway, broke down the bars, and forcing his way through entered the city and won it for its king.”⁴ In another scene the elephant is seen trampling and frightening away the host and breaking the camp and seizing the king by his topknot.⁵ The ideal war-elephant is strongly-tusked and best when sixty years old—‘a type of male vigour.’
c4.s1.27
“*Nāgā ca kappitā dantī balavantā saṭṭhihāyanā*”.⁶
c4.s1.28
These elephants were, as we said, clad in armour in girths and caparisons.⁷ And the mahauts—*gāmaṇis*—were armed with spikes and hooks (*tomaraṅkusā*) to urge and direct the beast. The warriors who sat on their backs (*nāgakhandhādhipatino*) were the brilliant princes, brilliant in their ornaments and dress, carrying swords, well-oiled, glittering, held fast, these mighty men who strike and strike again, and wave their banners.⁸ There were special elephant trainers (*hatthācariyās*) in the king’s service.⁹ In times of peace the elephants were richly decorated and used for processions.¹⁰
c4.s1.29
The third part of the four-fold army consisted of horsemen. Horse-riding was well known even in *Vedic* times,¹¹ but its use in battle in those early days is not proved.¹² In the Epic, of course, cavalry is a separate part or body (*kulam*)¹³ though the mounted soldiers do not necessarily act together. “They appear,” says Hopkins, “as concomitants, dependent groups, but separate horsemen appear everywhere. Their employment was much influenced by that of the elephants.”¹
c4.s1.30
²² These deeds of strength are included in Kauṭilya's enumeration : *Arthaśāstra*, x. 4. ⁶ J., VI, pp. 449-G 1579 ; 581-G. 2392. *Cf.* Hopkins, op. cit., 13 p. 268. ⁷ J., V, p. 258-G. 43 “*Suvaṇṇakacchā mātaṅgā hemakappanavāsasā*” VI, pp. 21—G. 64 ; 47-G. 168 ; 49-G. 199 ; 581-G. 2392 “*Kacchāya baddhamānāya kuñcam nadati vāraṇo*.” ⁸ J., VI, p. 449—GG. 1579-84. ⁹ J., II, pp. 20-2 ; VI, p. 47. ¹⁰ *Supra*, p. 109. ¹¹ *Vedic Index*, I, p. 42. ¹² Ibid. ¹³ Hopkins, op. cit., p. 13, 262.
c4.s1.31
¹ *Ibid.*
2. J., I, p. 179; V, p. 322-G. 123; VI, p. 139-G.
c4.s1.32
In our stories this cavalry-host is as firm and sturdy as the war-cars and the elephants. These war-horses were clad in iron-armour (*vammam*) and mail (*sannāham*).² The best thorough-breds were the Sindhava horses and were called *ajānīyā*: *Ajānīya ca jātiyā Sindhavā sīghavāhanā*,³ though Kamboja horses are also known.⁴ Thus are the thoroughbreds described:
c4.s1.33
³ J., V, p. 259-G. 46; VI, pp. 47-G. 170; 49-G. 201, 579-G. 2380; other epithets *Jātarūpamayā kannā* and *kacambhamayā khurā*: J. VI p. 268-G. 1161.
c4.s1.34
⁴ J., IV, p. 464-G. 242; *Arthaśāstra*, II, 30.
c4.s1.35
“No matter when or where,
In weal or woe,
The thorough-bred fights on ;
The hack (*valavā*) gives in,”⁵
c4.s1.36
⁵ J., I, p. 181-G.
c4.s1.37
and so in another place a noble horse fallen wounded on the battle-field is made to utter these brave words before his charger:
c4.s1.38
“Though prostrate now, and pierced with darts, I lie,
Yet still no hack can match the destrier.
So harness none but me……”⁶
c4.s1.39
⁶ J., I, p. 180.
c4.s1.40
The cavalry-men were armed with swords and bows (*illiyācāpadhārī*),⁷ but not lances as Arrian is reported⁸ to have seen in the Mauryan cavalry.
c4.s1.41
⁷ J., V, p. 259-G. 47; VI, pp. 47-G. 1711; 49-G. 202; 579-G. 2381.
c4.s1.42
⁸ McCrindle, op. cit., p. 221.
c4.s1.43
INFANTRY. Foot-soldiers constituted the main portion or force of the army. We have no information from these stories as to the various classes of these soldiers like the *maula*, *bhṛtaka*, *śreṇibala*, *mitrabala*, or *aṭavika* of Kauṭilya.⁹ But it seems certain that they were recruited from the brave people of the Kṣatriya blood, faithful to the core.¹⁰ The foot-soldiers also were clad in mail-coats in order to protect themselves from the attacks of the sharp arrows and other dangerous missiles.¹¹ And in their hands they carried various weapons, noticeable among them being bows and swords and spears. They probably were dressed up in robes of different colours, some in blue some in brown and others in white.¹ Most of these foot-soldiers were trained archers, as we find that archery was in a greatly advanced stage in those days, and kings kept those versed in this branch in their service.² The soldiers clad in armour, *Kalāpa* on their heads, with leather-shields and bows in their hands, present a typical scene of the infantry :
c4.s1.44
⁶¹⁴ *Uracchado* occurs at *ibid.*, p. 265.
c4.s1.45
²³ *Ajāñño* and *valavā* are distinguished here as in “seyyo va valavā bhojjho in J I p.
c4.s1.46
¹⁸⁰ *Valavā* perhaps represents the Vedic *Vaḍavā*, “mare”—of the Vedic Index, II, p. 237.
c4.s1.47
⁹ *Arthaśāstra*, IX, 2.
c4.s1.48
¹⁰ Cf. the perilous tests to which the soldiers were subjected in J., III, pp. 5-6.
c4.s1.49
¹¹ J., VI, pp. 448-G. 1575 (*vammim*); 579-G. 2374 (*Sannaddha*); also V, p. 373-G. 140.
c4.s1.50
¹ I. VI, p. 519, G. 2375.
c4.s1.51
² J., I, p. 356-7; V, p. 128.
c4.s1.52
*(Nassa) cammam va kītam va*
*Vammine ca dhanuggahe.*³
c4.s1.53
³ J., V, p. 373—G. 140.
c4.s1.54
The above were the four component parts⁴ of the army. But these did not exhaust the composition of a complete army. There accompanied with the army carpenters and other workmen with their tools ready, sages and *paṇḍits* for opportune advice and encouragement, other mercenaries with conches and drums. Here is a vivid description of the army of the Pañcāla king Cūlaṇi : "This army of Pañcāla is infinite. Men with burdens on their backs (*piṭṭhimati*), foot-soldiers, men skilful in fight, men ready to destroy, a great din, the noise of drums and conches, here is all skill in the use of steel weapons (*lohavijjālaṅkārā*) here are banners and knights in mail, artisans (*sippi*) and warriors (*Sūrā*). Ten sages (*paṇḍitā*) are here, profound in wisdom, secret in stratagem (*rahogamā*) and eleventh, the mother of the king encouraging the host of Pañcāla.... this host arrayed with three intervals...."⁵
c4.s1.55
⁴ There is no reference to anything like a naval force in the *Jātaka* stories. Both Kautilya and Megasthenes speak of the department in detail. See Dikshitar, *Hindu Adm. Institutions*, p. 294-6.
c4.s1.56
⁵ J., VI, pp. 396-7—GG. 1451-8. A similar description occurs at J. V, 322-GG. 117-28; the music in the army consisted of ' *bheri*, *mūtiṅgā* ca *saṅkhā* *panavadendimā*'; the tumultuous army is thus pictured: '*akkhobhanī* *apariyantā* *sāgarasseva* *ūmiyo*' 'Unbroken, limitless, as are the billows of the main.' The ordinary soldiers *khaggam* *chattam* ca *paṇḍaram*" J. VI, p. 22-G. 72; also V, p. 322-GG. 119-22. See Hopkins, *J. A. O. S.*, pp. 316 ff.
c4.s1.57
We see how well-equipped the *Jātaka*-army was. No reliance can be placed however on loose statemets as to its numerical strength. And moreover the statements are in themselves not clear. Sometimes the number of the warriors (*yodhā*) is only 500,⁶ at others 1000⁷ while 60,000 is a stock phrase.⁸ 14,000 is the number given for each of the three forces of elephants, chariots and horses in one place,⁹ whereas in another¹⁰ it is 60,000. The numbers may not be precise, but they seem reasonable at least, when we know, even from the notices of foreign travellers, that 'armies of vast proportions were not unknown in India.' The army of Chandragupta Maurya, according to the records of Pliny and Plutarch, consisted of as many as 9,000 elephants, 30,000 horses and 60,000 footmen, besides chariots,¹ while according to Strabo² his camp had 400,000 soldiers.
c4.s1.58
⁶ J., II, p. 401—*pañcasatamattā* *mahāyodhā*.
c4.s1.59
⁷ J., I, pp. 263-4—*Sahassamattā*....*Sūramahāyodhā*; III, pp. 5, 6.
c4.s1.60
⁸ J., VI, p. 579-G. 2374—"*saṭṭhisahassāni* *yadhino* *cārudassanā*"
c4.s1.61
⁹ Ibid., pp. 579-80; GG. 2378-82.
c4.s1.62
¹⁰ J., V, pp. 258-9-GG. 43-50.
c4.s1.63
¹ See Dikshitar, *The Mauryan Polity*, p. 190.
c4.s1.64
² McCrindle, *op. cit.*, p.
c4.s1.65
The whole of the army-organisation was thus divided into several divisions which were probably under different generals. But the whole army-pati—who was one of the chief administrative heads. Though no clear picture of this officer is given by the stories, we can well imagine his position from some general statements made about him. Often, as we have seen,³ he belongs to the ruling family and, as such, occupies a prominent place among the ministers. In fact one *Jātaka*⁴ clearly suggests that he was the first among all ministers. As the title indicates, he was the leader of the army, and in wars occupied the next highest military post after the king. In times of peace, however, he is seen acting as a judge⁵ and looking after the due protection of life and property of the citizens.⁶ He resides in a well-guarded palace with gates and watch-towers in the city and lives in prosperity,⁷ conferring with other ministers on important matters.⁸ It seems to us that the *Mahāsenagutta*—protector of the army—twice mentioned in the stories,⁹ is the same as the *Senāpati*, and there is nothing to distinguish between the two as Fick¹⁰ seems to do.
c4.s1.66
³ *Supra*, p. 95.
c4.s1.67
⁴ J., V, p. 178—“*Senāpatipamukhāni asīṭiamaccasahassāni*”
5. J., II, p. 186; V, p. 125.
c4.s1.68
⁶ J., V, pp. 212; 459.
c4.s1.69
⁷ *Ibid*, p. 213, 214-G. 60.
c4.s1.70
⁸ *Ibid*, p. 461.
c4.s1.71
⁹ *Ibid*, pp. 115, 184.
c4.s1.72
¹⁰ *Op. cit.*, p. 146 n.
II. Warfare
c4.s1.t1.2
Well-organised and well-constituted as the armies were in those days, it is but natural to see that the art of warfare, together with its various tactics, stratagems and practices, was well known. The unsafe condition of the frontiers due to the depredations of robbers and the aggressions of neighbouring kings or even the revolts of impatient princes, no doubt, kept the hands of the soldiers full. When the troops stationed on the borders (*paccantayodhe*) failed to cope with a situation, they sent letters to the king who immediately proceeded to the scene of operations, even though the season might not be favourable.¹¹
c4.s1.t1.3
⁵⁵ According to Arrian, Porus possessed cavalry 4000 strong, chariots 300, elephants 200, and 30,000 efficient infantry. For various other estimates see Date, *op. cit.*, pp. 53 ff., P. N. Banerji, *op. cit.*, pp. 196-7.
c4.s1.t1.4
¹¹ J., I, pp. 304, 313, 437; II, pp. 74, 96, 208; 274; 315; III, pp. 8, 400,497; IV, pp. 189, 446; V, p. 135.
c4.s1.t1.5
When a fight was to ensue, the whole army was warned to assemble for the purpose by beats of martial drum.¹ One might infer from this that, "there were either no fixed quarters for the troops or that they lived in different barracks in different parts of the city, and were therefore required to be collected together by some convenient means. Or was it calling a citizen-militia to arms ² The latter seems to be the more primitive stage and, from the nature of references to warriors, the inference is that there were regular troops, though there was no caste-restriction in the recruits. As to the real war-life of these soldiers we know next to nothing from these stories. How they were supported, what they did in peace, what they did get from the king as salary, if they at all got it, are questions which cannot be satisfied with answers. Inference makes us say, however, that the pay of the soldier was a part of the booty in war: that the older stage when he was a fraction of the common folk, carrying on ordinary activities of tending cattle, offering sacrifices etc. had gone, and now he had become a regular officer of the king.³
c4.s1.t1.6
¹ J., I, p. 358; III, p. 160; IV, p. 170 "nagare bheriṃ carāpetvā balakāyaṃ sannipātetthā".
c4.s1.t1.7
² Sen, op. cit., p. 131.
c4.s1.t1.8
³ Able remarks of Hopkins on the Epic soldier can be applied here: "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 neighbours, tending cattle, offering sacrifices, 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 valour, or later still, from a regular stipend, plus what his individual bravery enabled him to seize as private booty on the field of wars. In the Epic period 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"—J. A. O. S., 13, p. 190. Both Megasthenes and Arrian support our inference. See McCrindle, op. cit., pp. 85, 211.
c4.s1.t1.9
We have no very detailed description of the march of the army. As the most common feature of warfare is around the city—the capital city—and not in open battle-fields, it is natural that we do not find any such description. One interesting thing we know. The army during its march set up camps (*khandhāvāraṃ*).⁴ Some specific time of the year must have been regarded as proper and seasonable (*kāle*) for starting on a campaign.⁵ The army marched in regular bands (*vaggavaggā*).⁶ The army took a suitable position, not far from the city on which the attack was to be made. An aspiring king of Benares once comes to capture the Gandhāra capital, and stations his different forces in this manner: "Here be the elephants, here the horses, the chariots here, and here the footmen: thus do ye charge and hurl with your weapons; as the clouds pour forth rain, so pour ye forth a rain of arrows;" and he stirs up his soldiers with an exhortation.⁷ The arrangement of the different orders of the army in the above instance must have been in accordance with some one of the arrays *Vyūhas* known in those days. Three such orders of battle are known to the *Jātakas*, viz., the Lotus array, the Wheel array and the Waggon array.¹ Amongst these, the Lotus order as arranged by the leader of the boars against a tiger is described in a legendary manner as follows: "In the midst he placed the suckling pigs, and around them their mothers, next to these the barren sows, next a circle of young porkers, next the young ones with tusks just a-budding, next the big tuskers, and the old Boars outside all. Then he posted smaller squares of ten, twenty, thirty a-piece here and there (*dasavaggam visativaggam*). He made them dig a pit for himself, and for the tiger to fall into a hole of the shape of a winnowing basket: between the two holes was left a spit of ground for himself to stand on. Then he, with the stout fighting boars, went around everywhere encouraging the Boars."²
c4.s1.t1.10
⁴ J., II, p. 208; V, p. 195; VI, p. 528.
c4.s1.t1.11
⁵ J., II, p. 208—G. 150. Cf. J. A. O. S., 13, p. 191; Dikshitar, Hindu Adm., Inst., p. 297.
c4.s1.t1.12
⁶ J., III, p. 6; IV, p. 346. Cf. Arthaśāstra, X, 2.
c4.s1.t1.13
⁷ J., II, p. 217 and GG. 156-7; also Ibid., pp. 219-21; VI, p. 405. Kautilya gives valued consideration on the choice of a suitable ground for encamping the forces which must be favourable to the invading monarch and unfavourable to the enemy: Arthaśāstra, X, 4.
c4.s1.t1.14
¹ J., II, pp. 405-6 "Yuddhaṃ nāma padumavyūhacakkavyūhasakaṭavyūhavasena tividhaṃ hoti;" IV p 345-"Yuddhaṃ nāma sakaṭavyūhādivasena tividhaṃ hoti." Details of various other arrangements are found scattered in the Dharmasūtras, Arthaśāstra, Purāṇas the Epics and later works on 'Niti'.. Even if we disregard other later works like the Agni Purāṇa, which give codes of war in accordance with Prof. Hopkins' strict and cautious criticism against using them for more antique period, we cannot possibly ignore Kauṭilya who is so precise and combines in himself practical knowledge with theory. See Hopkins, J. A. O. S., 13, p. 194, note. Not to speak of other works, Kauṭilya mentions details of various battle-arrays which include our Sakaṭa and Cakka vyūhas; See Arthaśāstra, X, 6. For the detailed descriptions and maps of these, see Date, op. cit., pp. 72 ff; 94. 105.
c4.s1.t1.15
² J., II, pp. 405-6; p. 345.
c4.s1.t1.16
Legendary though this account is, it no doubt, brings out the underlying idea behind such an arrangement of army-forces in actual warfare. "The order was a concentric one, based on a careful adjustment and assortment of the varying degrees of strength of the different elements of the army, and the posting of the different grades of the fighting material in such a fashion, that the strongest and the most efficient of the members always occupied the outermost circle."³
c4.s1.t1.17
³ Sen, op. cit., p. 132.
c4.s1.t1.18
Before the actual start of the war (*saṅgāme paccupaṭṭhite*) the purohita and other wise sages who accompanied the army or the leader or the king himself made a short but passioned speech to inspire and encourage the soldiers to fight to the finish and never fly from the field.⁴ *Saṅgāme apalāyinam* is the epithet of a true hero.⁵ And everything should be at the foot of Honour:
c4.s1.t1.19
⁴ See J., II, pp. 217-GG. 156-7; 213-G. 158.
c4.s1.t1.20
⁵ J., VI, p. 449-G. 1577. Cf. J., III, p. 5 "anivattino hutvā yujjathā."
c4.s1.t1.21
Where shafts and spears in battle's van are hurtling fast and free,
And in the rout when comrades fall or turn them round and flee,
At Honour's voice they check their flight even at the cost of life,
And panic-stricken as they were once more renew the strife."⁶
c4.s1.t1.22
⁶ J., V, p. 410-G. 283.
c4.s1.t1.23
It is very rarely, if at all, that we witness an open fighting between two hostile armies. The Assaka-Kaliṅga conflict may be taken as typical. The two armies meet on the borders of their respective kingdoms. The Assaka king, advised by his intelligent minister, marches on a thorough-bred with his thousand followers against the opposite host. The Assaka army is victorious, for it has:
c4.s1.t1.24
“……the hero bold.
The fixed resolve that may not yield,
Intrepid prowess in the field,
High courage and adventurous might.”¹
c4.s1.t1.25
¹ J., III, p. 3-7 and G. 4.
c4.s1.t1.26
The siege-warfare, on the other hand, was the usual practice. The aggressive king would besiege his neighbour’s capital and would take the offensive with the call of “either surrender or battle.” If it was surrender, it was all right, otherwise the besieged king had to be ready for battle. It was for this reason that the cities of those days were so strongly fortified. The fortifications consisted of walls (*pākāra*) and, at intervals, gates (*dvāra*) with towers (*aṭṭalakoṭṭhaka*) and battlements (*gopura*). And immediately surrounding the walls, were moats and trenches (*parikhā*) which obstructed the approach of the enemies as far as practicable.² In one instance, along the rampart of the city, watch towers were constructed at the four gates and between the watch towers three moats were dug, *viz.*, a water-moat, a mud-moat and a dry moat.³ The walls were generally built of bricks (*iṭṭhikā*)⁴ and the height did not extend beyond 18 cubits.⁵
c4.s1.t1.27
² J., II, pp. 50, 95; IV, p. 106-G. 38. “Ukkiṇṇantaraparikhaṃ dalhamaṭṭālakoṭṭhakaṃ.” VI, p. 276-GG. 1190-1.
c4.s1.t1.28
³ J., VI, p. 390—“nagare mahāpākāraṃ….tathā anupākāradvāraṭṭālake antaraṭṭālake udakaparikhaṃ kaddamaparikhaṃ sukkha parikhaṃ ti tisso parikhā.” Cf. Arthaśāstra, II 3.
c4.s1.t1.29
⁴ J., III, p. 446.
c4.s1.t1.30
⁵ J., IV, p. 182 “aṭṭhārasahatthaṃ pākāraṃ.”
c4.s1.t1.31
The first step during the operation of the siege was directed against the ditches. Thus we hear a command given by the invading king to his army: “Disperse all about the city, fill up the trenches, break down the walls, raze the gate-towers, enter the city, use the people’s heads like pumpkins cast on a cart ….”⁶ But this was not an easy task. The besiegers could surround the city, could girdle it with fences of elephants and horses, chariots and mass of soldiers,⁷ arranged in any number of ways.⁸ But the actual attack very often taxed the skill and energy of the besiegers to the utmost in scaling or battering down the walls of the enemy’s city, and success was hard to get, if at all.⁹
c4.s1.t1.32
⁶ J., VI, p. 400—“Khippaṃ ito ito ca nagaraṃ avattharitvā parikhaṃ bhinditvā, pākāraṃ maddantā dvāraṭṭālake bhinditvā nagaraṃ pavisitvā sakaṭehi kumbhaṇḍāni viya mahājanassa sissāni gaṇhātha.”
c4.s1.t1.33
⁷ Ibid, p. 396.
c4.s1.t1.34
⁸ Ibid, p. 397-G. 1457 “tisandhiparivāritā” p. 435, “tisandhicatusaṅkhepam.”
c4.s1.t1.35
⁹ J., II, pp. 218, 221; III, p. 159 “parehi appadhamsiyaṃ”
c4.s1.t1.36
First, the trenches were so deep and filled with water or mud, with snakes and crocodiles, that it was not a very easy task to cross them.¹ Even if they could, the walls and gate-towers afforded a stronger resistance. For it was from there that the mighty warriors belonging to the other party, roused up and, armed with all manner of weapons, marched up to the gate and red-hot missiles, showers of mud and stones, were thrown upon the invaders. When the latter were in the ditch, attempting to destroy the wall, the men in the gate-towers dealt havoc with arrows, javelins and spears, with the result that the attempt of the invaders ignominiously failed.²
c4.s1.t1.37
¹ J., VI, p. 407-8. "*parikhāyaṃ kumbhīlādīnaṃ galakumbhīla*" Cf. Arthaśāstra, II, 3.
c4.s1.t1.38
² J., VI, p. 400 "....taṃ sutvā sūrayodhā nānāvidha ārudhahatthā dvārasamīpaṃ gantvā....puresehi pakkamāla-kalalasiñcanapāsāṇapātanādīhi upaddutā patikkamanti, pā-kāraṃ bhindissāma' ti parikham otiṇṇe pi antarāṭṭaleeu thitā usu-satti-tomarādīhi mahāvināsaṃ pāpenti."
c4.s1.t1.39
When such attempts at storming and attacking failed, other means to cause the other party to surrender were thought of. Here it was that stratagies and diplomacy came to play an important part. Men of shrewd commonsense and profound wisdom, being at the helm of military affairs, brought into play their endless manoeuvres and novel tactics, thus lending a considerable interest to martial operations.³ Stoppage of supplies of necessary provisions, by means of blockade, seems to have been a very familiar device by which obstinate resistance could be forced into surrender.⁴ In order to avert the calamity consequent upon such a blockade, elaborate and comprehensive measures were taken before-hand for storing up food, water, wood and other necessaries of life by far-sighted ministers and advisers of the king. The city was thoroughly guarded. Poor people residing in the city were removed outside, where they could be free to get food and water, and instead rich families from outside were brought and settled in the city, and great quantities of corn and water stored up.⁵
c4.s1.t1.40
³ Sen, op. cit., pp. 132-3.
c4.s1.t1.41
⁴ J., I, p. 409 "Sabbadīsu sañcaraṃ pacchinditvā nagaraṃ rundhi....tato dārūda-kabbhattaparikkhayena kilantamanussam nagaraṃ vinā yuddhena jantussati." VI, pp. 400, 401, 402, 406.
c4.s1.t1.42
⁵ J., VI, pp. 390, 393; 400-2.
c4.s1.t1.43
A regular system of espionage was another feature of such siege-warfare. Spies (*upanikkhittapurisa*) were regularly employed to watch the activities and preparations going on in the enemy's camp, and secret reports were received which greatly helped to determine lines of actions to be taken against the enemy.⁶ The postern gate (*Cūladvāra*) of the city was the usual way through which the ingress or egress of these men was possible. Ingenuous efforts were made through these spies who mixed up with the enemy's people to know the secrets, and spread internal dissensions and disaffection by "so representing the facts (*mūsāvādam*) as to produce an impression, that the whole army had been corrupted by taking bribes from the other party." In this way the forces were disrupted and plans failed.¹ Sending and receiving of messages were mostly effected by fastening letters to the arrows and throwing them in the desired direction.² Flight of the king or the leader from the field was an unfailing signal for his party to retreat.³
c4.s1.t1.44
⁶ Ibid., pp. 296-G. 1293. "*Arakā parivajjeya sahitum pahitaṃ janaṃ;*" 389-90; 401-2: These spies, both in peace and war, being away from their families, had the right of allowance and maintenance for their families from the State.
c4.s1.t1.45
¹ Ibid., pp. 391, 399, 401, 403.
c4.s1.t1.46
² J., II, p. 90; VI, p. 400 “*paṇṇaṃ likhitvā kaṇḍe bandhitvā taṃ pavattim pesesuṃ*.”
3. J., II, p. 21.—“*Niññāyakattā saṅgāmassa mahantaṃ pi balaṃ yujjhamānaṃ thokatohokaṃ osakkati*.” VI, pp. 405, 409, 446—G. 1563.
c4.s1.t1.47
There remain now a few observations to be made as regards warfare. It was realized that “a small army with counsel could conquer a large army that has none, one king could conquer many, even as the rising sun conquers the darkness.”⁴ There is nothing more to be said with regard to the ethical side of war. The long-standing custom of not hurting a messenger or ambassador was followed.⁵ It is moreover probable that wounded soldiers in war were carried away on stretchers (*phalakā*) and properly treated.⁶ When a king was invited by another king, the expenses (*paribbayam*) of his army were borne by the latter.⁷ The victorious king while returning to the city, went round it in a solemn procession,⁸ and the warriors feasted on dainties.⁹
c4.s1.t1.48
⁴ J., VI, p. 448—G. 1566 “*Appaseno pi ce mantī mahāsenam amantīnaṃ jināti rājano adicco v’udayan tamaṃ*.”
5. J., II, p. 319—“*dūto smiti vadantaṃ na vārenti* ;” VI, p. 528 “*tasmā dūtaṃ na hananti esa dhammo sanantano*.” Cf. S. V. Viśvanātha, *International Law in Ancient India*, p. 29.
c4.s1.t1.49
⁶ J., VI, p.
c4.s1.t1.50
⁸ J., I, p. 438.
c4.s1.t1.51
⁹ J., III, p. 522-G. 75.
c4.s1.t1.52
WEAPONS. Various kinds of weapons were in use for offensive and defensive purposes. It is not necessary to go into detailed descriptions of each.¹⁰ Bow (*dhanu, cāpa*), quiver (*kaṇḍa*) and arrow (*sara*) were familiar. There were three parts of an arrow: *tāla* handle, *daṇḍaka* stock, and *vaja*-feathers.¹¹ Poisoned arrows were also in use.¹² *Nārāca* was perhaps an iron arrow.¹³ *Vāsī, pharasu* or *kuṭhārī* representing axe, and *mugara*, a kind of club, were ordinary weapons.¹⁴ *Sūla* was a trident spit.¹⁵ Sword and spear were more familiarly used; *Sarasatti* is a frequent compound;¹⁶ *tomara* was a kind of javelin.¹⁷ Sword (*khagga: asi*) reigns supreme. The common type was about 33 *aṅgulas* long,¹⁸ “of the colour of sheat-fish, well-oiled, glittering, well-finished, very sharp, made of tempered steal and strong.¹⁹ Sheath and hilt of the sword—*tharu: thala* are known.²⁰ *Vajira-vajra* or the thunderbolt is mentioned.²¹ Of defensive armour and weapons, we have both *cammam* and *vammam*. The leather-shield (*cammam*) is described as of a hundred layers carefully wrought by leather-workers and a strong defence against arrows.¹ And coat-of-mail or armour was also very well known, and used, as the word *vammino*, so frequently occurs. It was worn underneath the undergarment (*nivāsanantare*).² *Kīṭa*, *Karoṭi* and *Uṇhīsa* representing the diadem worn on the head are known.³
c4.s1.t1.53
⁵⁵ “*laddhappahāre phalake nippajjāpetvā vuyhanti*.”
7. Ibid, p. 428.
c4.s1.t1.54
¹⁰ For this one may be directed to Prof. Hopkins’ learned treatment in J. A. O. S., 13; pp. 269 ff. and Date, op. cit., p. 10 ff.
c4.s1.t1.55
¹¹ J., V, p. 130: feathers of heron: II, p. 89; V, p. 475-G.
c4.s1.t1.56
³⁹⁰ *nāli* should be quiver III, p. 220; *dhanutuhṇīra*, V, p. 129.
c4.s1.t1.57
¹² Ibid., p. 49; J. A. O. S., 13, pp. 277-8.
c4.s1.t1.58
¹³ J., IV, p. 182; V, p. 129; J. A. O. S., 13, pp. 275, 279.
c4.s1.t1.59
¹⁴ J., I, p. 273; II, p. 102; IV, p. 208.
c4.s1.t1.60
¹⁵ J., V, p. 163, 488.
c4.s1.t1.61
¹⁶ J., I, p. 173; III, p. 6; V, pp. 410, 481; VI, p. 400; *Kaṇaya* in I, p. 273.
c4.s1.t1.62
¹⁷ J., VI, p. 400.
c4.s1.t1.63
¹⁸ J., I, p. 273; III, p. 338.
c4.s1.t1.64
¹⁹ J., VI, p. 449—GG. 1581-3; *nettimsa-nistriṃśa*: Ibid., p. 188; 449-G. 1581.
c4.s1.t1.65
²⁰ J., III, pp. 220-1.
c4.s1.t1.66
²¹ J., IV, p.
c4.s1.t1.67
¹⁸² See Date, op. cit., p. 17.
c4.s1.t1.68
¹ J., VI, p. 454-G. 1610 *Yodhaphalaka*: V, p. 389.
c4.s1.t1.69
² J., VI, p. 296 (*nivatthakojo*), V, p. 129; *Saṇṇāhakañcukam*: ibid.
c4.s1.t1.70
³ J., V, pp. 128-9; 373-G. 140; VI, p. 592-G. 2464.
c4.s1.t1.71
Before closing up this chapter, we would like to notice the police arrangements of those times, as this should come under the head of military-organisation.
c4.s1.t1.72
As we are, all this time, speaking about central administration, we may leave the local police-system which, however, rested with the village-headman himself.
c4.s1.t1.73
For the city and towns, there was an official variously called chief-constable, city-governor and Lord Protector—the *nagaraguttika*. As the title signifies, he was the city governor, his duties being to guard the city, especially during the night, to arrest thieves and questionable personalities and to carry out sentences of punishment.⁴ At night-fall, the gates of the city were closed by the gate-keepers who called out three times before doing so,⁵ and the city-guards petrolled the streets.⁶ Probably, a drum was sounded to the night-watches⁷, which were three.⁸ The *nagaraguttika* wore round his neck, as a badge of his office, a wreath of red flowers⁹. He was "king by night."¹⁰ The police however was not above corruption.¹¹ Our *nagaraguttika*, perhaps, corresponds to the *nagala-viyohālaka* of Aśoka,¹² and the *nāgaraka* or the *pauravyavahārika* of Kauṭilya.¹³
c4.s1.t1.74
⁴ J., III, pp. 30, 59, 436.
c4.s1.t1.75
⁵ J., II, p. 379 "*nagaradeāraṃ pidhanavelāya tikkhattuṃ saddaṃ anusāvesi.*"
6. J., I, p. 457; II, p. 140; III, pp. 59, 436.
c4.s1.t1.76
⁷ J., V, p. 459—"*yāmaherieclā*"
8. J., I, p. 103 "*tiyāmaratti*"
9. J., III, p. 30 "*nagaraguttikānaṃ kaṇṭhe rattapupphadāma*"
10. Ibid.
c4.s1.t1.77
¹¹ J., III, pp. 59, 436.
c4.s1.t1.78
¹² Separate Kalinga Edict I.
c4.s1.t1.79
¹³ Arthaśāstra, I, 13; II, 36; IV, 5.
c4.s1.t1.80
There is an indication of the presence of a sort of 'Volunteer Police' (*aṭavirakkhikā*) who, dwelling at the entrance of woods and forests, hired themselves out to guide travellers through those forests which were frequently infested with robbers.¹⁴ It seems from the relations of these 'vanacarakas' with the king, that they had some official position and probably correspond to the Kauṭilyan *araṇyacaras*.¹⁵
c4.s1.t1.81
¹⁴ J., I, p. 283; II, p. 335; III, pp. 98, 150, 249, 371; V, pp. 22, 471.
c4.s1.t1.82
¹⁵ Arthaśāstra, II, 1, 34.
Cites (3)
- Jātakatthavaṇṇanā — Pāli
- Kauṭilīya Arthaśāstra — Kauṭilya, Sanskrit
- Jātaka — Pāli