Ancient Indian Battlefield Tactics - Historum

bluesman · April 13th, 2011, 07:35 PM

Hello:

Reading a certain other monster thread made me curious as to what standard composition and tactics of ancient Indian militaries may have used. Armaments would be very interesting to me, as well.

I am a total newcomer to this topic, so unfortunately I cannot narrow it down beyond pre-gunpowder years. All education is enthusiastically welcomed.

Of particular interest:
-Tactical maneuvering- is there any trace of tactical (single battle) maneuvers or formations used? I'm talking about things similar to Vegetius and Sunzi.

-Composition- similar to formation, but a basic 'ideal' force composition and how the different branches of the army may be arrayed on a field

-Political/social role of generals and commanders

-Weaponry employed

PLEASE note, I am not asking for comparisons in quality to other groups of people beyond points helpful to illustrate a point. I beg you not to compare overall quality of force with other cultures.

Like I said, I love learning this stuff but I am an absolute beginner here.

EDIT: If this is redundant or in the wrong place, I apologize. I posted this here instead of Military History because I am interested in discussing the aforementioned area as opposed to general military history.

**The Imperial** · April 13th, 2011, 09:39 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by bluesman

Hello:

Reading a certain other monster thread made me curious as to what standard composition and tactics of ancient Indian militaries may have used. Armaments would be very interesting to me, as well.

I am a total newcomer to this topic, so unfortunately I cannot narrow it down beyond pre-gunpowder years. All education is enthusiastically welcomed.

Of particular interest:
-Tactical maneuvering- is there any trace of tactical (single battle) maneuvers or formations used? I'm talking about things similar to Vegetius and Sunzi.

-Composition- similar to formation, but a basic 'ideal' force composition and how the different branches of the army may be arrayed on a field

-Political/social role of generals and commanders

-Weaponry employed

PLEASE note, I am not asking for comparisons in quality to other groups of people beyond points helpful to illustrate a point. I beg you not to compare overall quality of force with other cultures.

Like I said, I love learning this stuff but I am an absolute beginner here.

EDIT: If this is redundant or in the wrong place, I apologize. I posted this here instead of Military History because I am interested in discussing the aforementioned area as opposed to general military history.

Quote:

Arthashastra does have tactics in it. Actually, it's a guide written by a Guru(a teacher) written for his disciple (Chandragupta Maurya) on how to run his country, as Chandragupta was not educated when a kid.

Mahabharata is not contemporary to Alexander's scenario. In Mahabharata, pre-Alexander, the armies of India were different, that period was called the "Age of Chariots".

In this period, Chariots were the backbones of the Indian armies. Chariots were equivalent to medieval knights- both were elite nobles. Chariots were followed by poorly trained and equipped levy infantry(much like how the peasants followed their knights in battlefields).

But chariots themselves were heavily armored and equipped. They were huge- their floor was 4 feet off the ground, their charioteers were also highly trained nobles, they drove the chariot seated. The nobleman was generally a highly trained archer (archery was considered the highest order class of fighting, much like the archer culture of England), he was equipped with expensive metal longbows, intended to punch trough enemy noblemen's silk armor. The chariot would look like a hut on four wheels, pulled by 2 or 5 horses.

Elephants were still not the prominent units in an Indian army.

Mahabharata has various tactics, but heavily centered on chariot warfare-
Archers in chariots killed the enemy chariot's horses, charioteer to slow the enemy chariots, and sometimes damaged the chariot's wheels to neutralize them.

The use of assassins and spies is heavily mentioned in the Mahabharata- assassins killed the Pandava's sons, and spies would would inform the leaders of opposite armies on the tactics the enemy army was using the next day in the battlefield.

Setting fire to enemy camps at night also has a mention, by throwing a flaming ball of oiled clothes(though the mechanism, of throwing this is unknown).

Also, before a battle began, a neutral party and both the enemy commanders would meet and discuss the rules of warfare, the Kurukshetra war had the following rules(all were broken in the course of battles)-
*No one should attack an enemy from his back
*No one should attack an enemy while he is shifting his injured colleagues
*No one should kill a surrendering enemy
*A chariot should not attack an enemy on foot
*A chariot should not attack cavalry
*A chariot should attack only enemy chariots
*Elephants should engage only enemy elephants
*Elephants should not massacre enemy infantry by trampling them

etc etc

The Kurukshetra War also has a heavy mention of using battle formations-

Quote:
Military formations

Intricate rock carvings showing Abhimanyu entering the Chakra vyuha.

At various times during battle, the supreme commander of either army ordered special formations ("vyuhas"). Each formation had a specific purpose; some were defensive while others were offensive. Each formation had its specific strengths and weaknesses. Mahābhārata' list the following:

Krauncha vyuha (heron formation)
Makara vyuha (crocodile formation)
Kurma vyuha (tortoise or turtle formation)
Trishula vyuha (the trident formation)
Chakra vyuha (wheel or discus formation)
Kamala vyuha or Padma vyuha (lotus formation)
Garud vyuha (Eagle formation)
Oormi vyuha (Ocean formation)
Mandala vyuha (Galactic formation)
Vajra vyuha (diamond/ thunderbolt formation)
Shakata vyuha (Box/Cart formation)
Asura vyuha (Demon formation)
Deva vyuha (Divine formation)
Soochi vyuha (Needle formation)
Sringataka vyuha (Horned formation)
Chandrakala vyuha (Crescent/ Curved Blade formation)
Mala vyuha - Garland formation

It is not clear what the formations actually indicate. They may be formations bearing resemblance to animals, or they may be names given to strategies and formations.[15]
For a general idea, read

Kurukshetra_War

**** The above is a description of Indian Armies in the Age of Chariots, a pre-Alexander period.

The above is from a post in that monster thread.. . .

http://www.hinduwisdom.info/War_in_Ancient_India.htm

http://www.allempires.com/article/in..._ancient_india

**The Imperial** · April 13th, 2011, 09:44 PM

This is an excellent post by Gauda from another thread(hope he doesnt mind me doing this)-

Quote:

Their infantry were a mixture of swordsmen and archers. The swordsmen were lightly armored and armed with one of two types of swords: the double edged straight sword( Khanda), which was similar to size & weight as the gladius and the katar: a novel 'punching sword', where the blade sat in front of the knuckles and not perpendicular to it.
The use of the Katar was a specialist job, predominantly designed to kill an elephant with a punching blow but the arrival of the heavily armored phalanx proliferated the use of the katar in Indian infantries, since the katar was the most effective ancient weapon for armor piercing.

The other segment of the Infantry were the archers: they used longbows, usually made of bamboo and fired arrows which were steel tipped with a bamboo shaft. These longbows were one of the most feared weapons in the arsenal: their draw weight was greater than the hun bows and their flexibility due to the bamboo core made them extremely cheap to mass produce and maintain. The only problem of the longbow was that it needed to be anchored in the ground when fired and sometimes, especially in the rainy season, the archers were rendered useless due to their inability to anchor the bow in muddy grounds( this was one of the crucial elements of Alexander's victory at Hydaspes river).

The cavalry was similar to the companion cavalry: the rider was armored in a leather & steel plate mail armor and carried spears with the khanda as the side arm.

The chariots, which survived in Indian warfare longer than in any other part of the world ( up to 800-900 CE), largely due to the vast Indo-gangetic plain being favourable to chariot combat, were designed differently than the Persian scythed chariots: These chariots carried a driver and an archer, the driver's main job was to keep the chariot away from infantry formations while the archer picked off targets.

Then there is the war elephant, the most destructive weapon of the ancient world IMO: again, the Indian war elephants were trained differently than those used by Greeks, Hannibal and the Persians: They were not used solely with the purpose of crushing the enemy with frontal assault, they were also archer towers. Infact, the predominant role of the Indian war elephant was to be an archery station. The elephant carried three people, one being the driver, another being the archer and the third person armed with pole-arms, who's job was to prevent the elephant from being attacked from behind.
The elephants themselves were armored: the Indians developed not only the howdah, they also developed a cable and pulley system with which they could control the tightening and losening of heavy carpets put on the elephant to protect most of its body and underside: the tightening was done only when the elephant was in midst of enemy infantry, since keeping an elephant perpetually bound in carpets in the tropical heat would no doubt cause a stroke or two. The elephants were also armed with blades attached to their tusks and barbed wire encircling their feet. their frontage (forehead) was usually covered with bronze plating.
This gave the elephant cavalry the option to either hang back and pick off targets from their superior vantage point or to charge into combat and literally steamroll enemy troops.

By the time of the Nanda empire( predecessor to the Mauryan empire), a fifth wing was added to the military structure: the navy. India has several big rivers where navy of various sizes could be deployed and manuevered and the conquests of the Nandas involved series of naval wars on the Ganges and its tributaries. The Indian warship initially used archers with fire arrows and catapults (but not battering rams) but later (by the time of the Gupta empire) was also used for amphibious assaults.

The Arthashastra mentions the Mauryan emperors maintaining a professional core of 8000-10,000 war elephants, 20,000-30,000 chariots, 40,000-50,000 cavalry and 75,000-100,000 infantry, usually split 2/3rds in melee fighters and 1/3rd in archers.
These forces were exclusively professional armies, while the regional police forces were often conscript levies and in times of war, the numbers of the professional core augumented with peasant levies.
This professional core of soldiers were maintained well before Rome (from the establishment of the Mauryan empire in 320 BCE) and well after Rome - until the collapse of the Kanauj triangle of power in 900-950 CE.

http://www.historum.com/asian-histor...dian-army.html

Hercules · April 14th, 2011, 02:39 AM

Should we take the discussion over Indian battle tactics here or keep writing in the other thread?

Hercules · April 14th, 2011, 02:42 AM

Anyways... this was my reply to the post given above by Imperialmen :

You are wrong (good thing that you are) regarding Arthasastra. In the 10th book titled "Related to War", there are 6 chapters full of very valuable details given "Greek style". For example, Arth.10.5 " The infantry should be arrayed such that the space between any two men is a sama (14 angulas); cavalry with three samas; chariots with four samas; and elephants with twice or thrice as much space (as between any two chariots). With such an array free to move and having no confusion, one should fight. A bow means five aratnis (5 x 54 = 120 angulas). Archers should be stationed at the distance of five bows (from one line to another); the cavalry at the distance of three bows; and chariots or elephants at the distance of five bows. The intervening space (aníkasandhi) between wings, flanks and front of the army should be five bows. There must be three men to oppose a horse (pratiyoddha);fifteen men or five horses to oppose a chariot or an elephant; and as many (fifteen) servants ( pádagopa) for a horse, a chariot and an elephant should be maintained.

Three groups (aníka) of three chariots each should be stationed in front; the same number on the two flanks and the two wings. Thus, in an array of chariots, the number of chariots amounts to forty-five, two hundred and twenty-five horses, six hundred and seventy-five men, and as many servants to attend upon the horses, chariots and elephants--this is called an even array of troops. The number of chariots in this array (of three groups of three chariots each) may be increased by two and two till the increased number amounts to twenty-one. Thus, this array of odd numbers of chariots gives rise to ten odd varieties. Thus the surplus of the army may therefore be distributed in the above manner. Two-thirds of the (surplus) chariots may be added to the flanks and the wings, the rest being put in front. Thus the added surplus of chariots should be one-third less (than the number added to the flanks and wings). This explains the distribution of surplus elephants and horses. As many horses, chariots, and elephants may be added as occasion no confusion in fighting."

This kind of texts is very difficult to find in Indian literature, which is filled with myths and Gods, heroic battles with superweapons, rather than more mundane but usable descriptions of battles and trustworthy information. In the same book of Arthasastra formations are also given which you can use, while the ones from Mahabharata are unfortunately not described and sound unwieldy (much like some Chinese formations I have come across in similar books). It is sad that the Indians do not seem to have works about war and history that are not poetic/epic/religious. I am in search for such texts...

**The Imperial** · April 14th, 2011, 03:05 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Hercules

Anyways... this was my reply to the post given above by Imperialmen :

You are wrong (good thing that you are) regarding Arthasastra. In the 10th book titled "Related to War", there are 6 chapters full of very valuable details given "Greek style". For example, Arth.10.5 " The infantry should be arrayed such that the space between any two men is a sama (14 angulas); cavalry with three samas; chariots with four samas; and elephants with twice or thrice as much space (as between any two chariots). With such an array free to move and having no confusion, one should fight. A bow means five aratnis (5 x 54 = 120 angulas). Archers should be stationed at the distance of five bows (from one line to another); the cavalry at the distance of three bows; and chariots or elephants at the distance of five bows. The intervening space (aníkasandhi) between wings, flanks and front of the army should be five bows. There must be three men to oppose a horse (pratiyoddha);fifteen men or five horses to oppose a chariot or an elephant; and as many (fifteen) servants ( pádagopa) for a horse, a chariot and an elephant should be maintained.

Three groups (aníka) of three chariots each should be stationed in front; the same number on the two flanks and the two wings. Thus, in an array of chariots, the number of chariots amounts to forty-five, two hundred and twenty-five horses, six hundred and seventy-five men, and as many servants to attend upon the horses, chariots and elephants--this is called an even array of troops. The number of chariots in this array (of three groups of three chariots each) may be increased by two and two till the increased number amounts to twenty-one. Thus, this array of odd numbers of chariots gives rise to ten odd varieties. Thus the surplus of the army may therefore be distributed in the above manner. Two-thirds of the (surplus) chariots may be added to the flanks and the wings, the rest being put in front. Thus the added surplus of chariots should be one-third less (than the number added to the flanks and wings). This explains the distribution of surplus elephants and horses. As many horses, chariots, and elephants may be added as occasion no confusion in fighting."

This kind of texts is very difficult to find in Indian literature, which is filled with myths and Gods, heroic battles with superweapons, rather than more mundane but usable descriptions of battles and trustworthy information. In the same book of Arthasastra formations are also given which you can use, while the ones from Mahabharata are unfortunately not described and sound unwieldy (much like some Chinese formations I have come across in similar books). It is sad that the Indians do not seem to have works about war and history that are not poetic/epic/religious. I am in search for such texts...

What do you exactly mean by tactics? Give me examples of tactics written in historical sources.

bluesman · April 14th, 2011, 05:56 AM

Thanks a lot. I realize with some regret that this covers the same material as another thread, but reading the back and forth there sometimes makes me think I'm going to have a brain aneurism. I like pure information, no argument approach more than learning in the context of debate.

Thanks again.

**The Imperial** · April 14th, 2011, 06:02 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by bluesman

Thanks a lot. I realize with some regret that this covers the same material as another thread, but reading the back and forth there sometimes makes me think I'm going to have a brain aneurism. I like pure information, no argument approach more than learning in the context of debate.

Thanks again.

But i warn you, there's a storm coming over this thread soon....

Huge debates are about to roar.....

take care...

Hercules · April 15th, 2011, 04:20 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by imperialmen

What do you exactly mean by tactics? Give me examples of tactics written in historical sources.

The quoted text (the one you quoted) is a good example. How different troops arrayed in line, numbers, terminology, intervals, position, stratagems, how to utilize terrain, how to use archers, infantry, cavalry, chariots, elephants... In Romanograecian literature we have manuals like those of Aelian, Asclepiodotus, Onasander, Vegetius, Nicephorus Ouranos, Leo VI etc, collections of stratagems like those of Polyaenus or Frontinus, realistic descriptions of battles, references to tactical details or situations one can use to come to conclusions like those found in Xenophon, Thucydides, Arrian, Polybius, Julius Caesar, Marcellinus, Appian, Bryennius, Anna Comnena, Agathias etc etc etc. My quote from Arthasastra is exactly like that.

**Frank81** · April 15th, 2011, 01:10 PM

Look a real battle and take the information you need:

Hydaspes river, India, 326 BC

Quote:

For he was informed that Porus, with the whole of his army, was on the other side of that river, having determined either to prevent him from making the passage, or to attack him while crossing.
...

ALEXANDER encamped on the bank of the Hydaspes, and Porus was seen with all his army and his large troop of elephants lining the opposite bank.’ He remained to guard the passage at the place where he saw Alexander had encamped and sent guards to all the other parts of the river which were more easily fordable, placing officers over each detachment, being resolved to obstruct the passage of the Macedonians.

...

But he perceived that it was impossible for him to cross at the place where Porus himself had encamped near the bank of the Hydaspes, not only on account of the multitude of his elephants, but also because a large army, and that, too, arranged in order of battle and splendidly accoutred, was ready to attack his men as they emerged from the water.

...

In the night he led most of his cavalry along the bank in various directions, making a clamour and raising the battle-cry in honour of Enyalius.’ Every kind of noise was raised, as if they were making all the preparations necessary for crossing the river. Porus also marched along the river at the head of his elephants opposite the places where the clamour was heard, and Alexander thus gradually got him into the habit of leading his men along opposite the noise. But when this occurred frequuently, and there was merely a clamour and a raising of the battle~cry, Porus no longer continued to move about to meet the expected advance of the cavalry; but perceiving that his fear had been groundless, he kept his position in the camp. However he posted his scouts at many places along the bank.

...

Aristobulus says that the son of Porus arrived with about sixty chariots before Alexander made his later passage from the large island, and that he could have hindered Alexander’s crossing (for he made the passage with difficulty even when no one opposed him), if the Indians had leaped clown from their chariots and assaulted those who first emerged from the water. But he passed by with the chariots and thus made the passage quite safe for Alexander; who on reaching the bank discharged his horse-archers against the Indians in the chariots, and these were easily put to rout, many of them being wounded. Other writers say that a battle took place between the Indians, who came with the son of Porus, and Alexander at the head of his cavalry when the passage had been effected, that the son of Porus came with a greater force, that Alexander himself was wounded by him, and that his horse Bucephalas, of which he was exceedingly fond, was killed, being wounded like his master by the son of Porus. But Ptolemy, son of Lagos, with whom I agree, gives a different account. This author also says that Porus dispatch ed his son, but not at the head of merely sixty chariots; nor is it indeed likely that Porus hearing from his scouts that either Alexander himself or at any rate a part of his army had effected the passage of the Hydaspes, would dispatch his son against him with only sixty chariots.’ These indeed were too many to be sent out as a reconnoitring party, and not adapted for speedy retreat; but they were by no means a sufficient force to keep back those of the enemy who had not yet got across, as weIl as to attack those who had already landed. Ptolemy says that the son of Porus arrived at the head of 2,000 cavalry and 120 chariots; but that Alexander had already made even the last passage from the island before he appeared.

...

When they perceived that Alexander himself and the body of cavalry around him had made the assault, not in line of battle regularly formed, but by squadrons, they gave way; and 400 of their cavalry, including the son of Porus, fell in the contest. The chariots also were captured, horses and all, being heavy and slow in the retreat, and useless in the action itself on account of the clayey ground. When the horsemen who had escaped from this rout brought news to Porus that Alexander himself had crossed the river with the strongest part of his army, and that his son had been slain in the battle, he nevertheless could not make up his mind what course to take, because the men who had been left behind under Craterus were seen to be attempting to cross the river from the great camp which was directly opposite his position. However, at last he preferred to march against Alexander himself with all his army, and to come into a decisive conflict with the strongest division of the Macedonians, commanded by the king in person. But nevertheless he left a few of the elephants together with a small army there at the camp to frighten the cavalry under Craterus from the bank of the river. He then took all his cavalry to the number of 4,000 men, all his chariots to the number of 300, with 200 of his elephants and all the infantry available to the number of 30,000,’ and marched against Alexander. When he found a place where he saw there was no clay, but that on account of the sand the ground was all level and hard, and thus fit for the advance and retreat of horses, he there drew up his army.2 First he placed the elephants in the front, each animal being not less than a plethrum’ apart, so that they might be extended in the front before the whole of the phalanx of infantry, and produce terror everywhere among Alexander’s cavalry. Besides he thought that none of the enemy would have the audacity to push themselves into the spaces between the elephants, the cavalry being deterred by the fright of their horses; and st~less would the infantry do so, it being likely they would be kept off in front by the heavy-armed soldiers falling upon them, and trampled down by the elephants wheeling round against them. Near these he had posted the infantry, not occupying a line on a level with the beasts, but in a second line behind them, only so far behind that the companies of foot might be thrown forward a short distance into the spaces between them. He had also bodies of infantry standing beyond the elephants on the wings; and on both sides of the infantry he had posted the cavalry, in front of which were placed the chariots on both wings of his army.

...

When he had surveyed the arrangement of the Indians, he resolved not to advance against the centre, in front of which the elephants had been posted, and in the gaps between them a dense phalanx of men arranged; for he was alarmed at the very arrangements which Porus had made here with that express design.

...

MEANTIME the Indians had collected their cavalry from all parts, and were riding along, advancing out of their position to meet Alexander’s charge. Coenus also appeared with his men in their rear, according to his instructions. The Indians, observing this, were compelled to make the line of their cavalry face both ways;’ the largest and best part against Alexander, while the rest wheeled round against Coenus and his forces. This therefore at once threw the ranks as well as the decisions of the Indians into confusion. Alexander, seeing his opportunity, at the very moment the cavalry was wheeling round in the other direction, made an attack on those opposed to him with such vigour that the Indians could not sustain the charge of his cavalry, but were scattered and driven to the elephants, as to a friendly wall, for refuge. Upon this, the drivers of the elephants urged forward the beasts against the cavalry but now the phalanx itself of the Macedonians was advancing against the elephants, the men casting darts at the riders and also striking the beasts themselves, standing round them on all sides. The action was unlike any of the previous contests;
for wherever the beasts could wheel round, they rushed forth against the ranks of infantry and demolished the phalanx of the Macedonians, dense as it was. The Indian cavalry also, seeing that the infantry were engaged in the action, rallied again and advanced against the Macedonian cavalry.

...

The beasts being now cooped up into a narrow space, their friends were no less injured by them than their foes, being trampled down in their wheeling and pushing about. Accordingly there ensued a great slaughter of the cavalry, cooped tip as it was in a narrow space around the elephants. Most of the keepers of the elephants had been killed by the javelins, and some of the elephants themselves had been wounded, while others no longer kept apart in the battle on account of their sufferings or from being destitute of keepers. But, as if frantic with pain, rushing forward at friends and foes alike, they pushed about, trampled down and killed them in every kind of way. However, the Macedonians inasmuch as they were attacking the beasts in an open space and in accordance with their own plan, got out of their way whenever they rushed at them; and when they wheeled round to return, followed them closely and hurled javelins at them; whereas the Indians retreating among them were now receiving greater injury from them.

...

When Porus, who exhibited great talent in the battle, performing the deeds not only of a general but also of a valiant soldier, observed the slaughter of his cavalry, and some of his elephants lying dead, others destitute of keepers straying about in a forlorn condition, while most of his infantry had perished, he did not depart as Darius the Great King did, setting an example of flight to his men; but as long as any body of Indians remained compact in the battle, he kept up the struggle. But at last, having received a wound on the right shoulder, which part of his body alone was unprotected during the battle, he wheeled round. His coat of mail warded off the missiles from the rest of his body, being extraordinary both for its strength and the close fitting of its joints, as it was afterwards possible for those who saw him to observe. Then indeed he turned his elephant round and began to retire.