Chandragupta Maurya and His Times c11.47

c11.47

**Kauṭilya on Towns or Forts.** The location of cities as thus described by Megasthenes corresponds closely to what Kauṭilya recommends for them (*Nadīparvata-durgaṁ nadīsaṁgame hradasya vā antardvīpaṁ sthalaṁ prāstaraṁ pārvatam*) [II. 3]. Kauṭilya here mentions all varieties of forts, such as those built (1) on the bank of a river, (2) at the confluence of rivers, (3) on a lake, (4) in an island, (5) in a desert (*dhānvana*), (6) in a forest (*vana*) and (7) on a hill in stone (*pārvataṁ prāstaram*). Of all these forts, Kauṭilya prefers the fort on a hill as being defended by nature (*svāraksham*), difficult to besiege (*durūparodhi*), and to climb up (*kṛichchhrārohaṇam*), while it can be further defended by hurling down blocks of stones and trees (*śila-vṛikshapramokshaścha*) at the invaders (*mahāpakariṇām*). He does not approve of a fort on a river (like Pāṭaliputra), as the river lends itself to crossing by bridges of wood, elephants and boats (*hasti-stambha-saṅkrama-setubandhanaughiḥ sādhyam*), while it may also be drained of its waters (*anityagāmbhīryam avasrāvyudakam*) or rendered shallow [VII. 10]. Like the Greek writers, Kauṭilya, as a native of Taxila, shows his preference for a hilly fort from his personal experience of the heroic defence offered by rock-citadels like Massaga or Aornus against the siege of Alexander. He also must have seen how Alexander was easily crossing the rivers by his ‘bridges of boats’. By thus crossing the Jhelum, he was able to defeat his most powerful foe, Porus. In VII. 12, he definitely prefers a hill-fort to a fort on a river, and the latter to an inland fort (*sthala-durga*). In VIII. 1, he mentions the isolated fort on a hill, promontory (*antarīpa*), or island (*dvīpa*) as insecure for its paucity of population.