From Mohenjo Daro to Mediaeval. This topic could be split into different periods if enough material and interest emerge.
Quote from: Patrick Waterson on July 16, 2012, 09:40:42 AM
From Mahabharat to Mediaeval.
Meaning to miss Mohenjo-Daro?
Mohenjo-Daro to Mediaeval is equally alliterative ;D
Jim
I find Indian armies quite an attractive concept and will run a Kushan force at Britcon. However, the classic Indian of say Porus is very difficult to win with. Elephants are easily countered, the cavalry are useless and the chariots are colourful but hopeless. I suppose that I should not be surprised because when we do get to see Indian armies through objective eyes in the eighteenth century they are vast, but incapable of manoeuvre and tactically inept. Perhaps the early armies are as bad in real life as they seem on the tabletop.
Roy
Well most Indian armies fought other Indian armies. I suppose we could say that the fact that India tended to be the invaded, rather than the invader, is due to them being decent people, but frankly I suspect that it is more indicative of military inefficiency.
Jim
I was about to agree with you Jim, India is rather easier to invade than to attack from. There are however, some Indian aggressions, chiefly out to Indonesia I think. However, I doubt that Indonesian armies were much in the way of world class fighting machines.
Roy
I don't know the area or period too well but I get the impression that there was an element of both divide and rule, but also a considerable difference in size of forces available. But it does stress that from a wargaming point of view there doesn't seem to be a lot available on Indian naval power.
Jim
Quote from: aligern on August 03, 2012, 08:02:07 PM
I find Indian armies quite an attractive concept and will run a Kushan force at Britcon. However, the classic Indian of say Porus is very difficult to win with. Elephants are easily countered, the cavalry are useless and the chariots are colourful but hopeless. I suppose that I should not be surprised because when we do get to see Indian armies through objective eyes in the eighteenth century they are vast, but incapable of manoeuvre and tactically inept. Perhaps the early armies are as bad in real life as they seem on the tabletop.
As someone who is - allegedly - in the process of doing an article on the Battle of the Hydaspes, I would second that to an extent. Curiously enough, Persians seemed to hold Indian troops in high regard, especially Indian cavalry - Indians were one of the contingents Mardonius chose to keep in 480-479 BC and at Gaugamela Indian cavalry were 'brigaded' with Persian, which suggests a degree of esteem.
The passivity of Indian infantry at the Hydaspes could be both lack of quality and lack of initiative. Indians themselves seem to have regarded their mounted arm (chariots, elephants, cavalry) as their battlewinners, with infantry acting in support if they acted at all. I recall a later observation (forgotten the source, sorry) that only front rank men in Indian infantry contingents actually fought, while the other nine ranks just yelled: "Kill, kill!". How true this is and how applicable to the period in question is something I leave for the reader's evaluation.
Patrick
I guess the question would be, what did the 2nd man do if the first one was struck down? Take his place? Run away? Depending on what weapons they used, there might have been precious little the subsequent ranks could do beyond providing moral support.
I wonder if this is a case of a very specialised style of warfare that is particular to India. After arriving as up armoured Mongols (Tamerlane with an Art degree) the Moghuls soon adopt elephants and immobile artillery and vast numbers of useless footmen. It is as though you are not worthy of admiration in India unless you have thousands upon thousands of useless men attending you. We have a Western bias towards analysing armies which emphasises effectiveness, whereas it is quite possible that the display of power and patronage was at least as important to other cultures.
Roy
The Chinese found that flag wavers and men making lots of noise were perfectly effective against many of their traditional opponents.
Where battles were fought to impose an authority that was barely more than nominal it might be that the main thing was a demonstration of intent, you brought along enough men to prove you were serious
Jim
An insightful observation which perhaps says much about Achaemenid Persian armies.
Actually this sort of attitude can spill over into the West.
I think it was after Waterloo where some Guard were caught by cavalry and formed square, leading to a stand-off.
The cavalry couldn't really hurt the guard, who couldn't really escape.
Called upon to surrender the Guard agreed that if the Cavalry got artillery brought up by a certain time, (I think they even specificed guns loaded and gunners with matches lit) then they'd surrender.
Everyone sort of relaxed a bit, and by the appropriate time the Guard officers were invited out to inspect the artillery. They did, Honour was satisfied and they surrendered.
(Or so memory tells me)
If you don't actually have any particular grudge against the enemy, and if what you're trying to impose isn't really going to make all that much difference to them then you really just have to project enough power to be convincing.
After all, if you 'win' then your new subjects are going to depend on you for security, so they need to know you can project enough power into the area to protect them. With the Persian system you were offering them not a complete new social and military system, but the same system that they were used to, PLUS a bit of Persian help when needed. There might or might not be trade and security gains as well, but I'm not entirely sure the trade figured all that much in the lives of most people.
Taxation changed to pay for it, but whether it increased much or was merely redirected, I don't know whether we know. An element of the local elite might well have taken a hit.
On the positive side, those who fought almost certainly got to keep their lands that they needed to support themselves, and their taxation didn't increase because they tended to supply military service in lieu of cash.
For them there would be less fighting on their borders, with the risk of their own lands being hit, and instead occassional campaigns far away, supported by the logistics of the Empire.
So the Persian army appearing might be regarded as a form of competitive tender. The opposing army would look at it, weigh up the logistics, the perks, the various other things on offer, and would then be faced with the decision as to whether they wanted to genuinely fight, or merely put up enough of a fight so that they were valued by the new boss.
Jim
When Gustavus Adolphus (who was quite serious about getting up close and killing people) was about to intervene in the TYW, he put great importance on having his troops nicely dressed, so that the Germans (both enemies and allies) would realize this was a serious army* and not a mere rabble of Arctic beggars. All later monarchs and commanders who obsessed about uniforms were surely following similar lines of thought - what you seem to an extent becomes what you are.
* I am serious king. This is serious army.
Just finished basing a 900pt 15mm FOG army. Last detail is the elephant mounted General. He needs a standard to rally the troops. What symbols were used on Indian standards?
I recall coloured St Andrews crosses and stars rather in the style of a Macedonian star.
Roy
I think a 2 x 3 grid with whatever you like in side each square is also pretty standard.
moon and stars seem common, and I would not think a wheel out of place either.
JJ has some links to indian 28's around 3/4 down his page here.
http://www.ancientbattles.com/index_01_AncientBattles.html
I have a Mikes Models 15mm Indian army, the useless Poros version of course, dating back to 1978. My first ever Ancients army, bought with winnings from a couple of chess tournaments at the age of 15. How I love(d) them. How useless they were (are). I can't recall ever winning with them. A year or so ago I painted up some Chariot Miniatures Indians to swap with former Editor John Graham-Leigh for his Mikes Models Indians, so I can expand and adapt to fit more recent rulesets. I feel I got the best of the deal, however nice those Chariot figures are. One day my Indians will ride again!
Patrick,
I know I am dredging this thread up from over 2 years ago...
But what was the context of this thread? Was it a particular source or issue?
I ask because I have been thinking about writing something on a medieval Indian army.
Cheers
Nick
Quote from: Dangun on January 01, 2015, 12:43:12 PM
Patrick,
I know I am dredging this thread up from over 2 years ago...
But what was the context of this thread? Was it a particular source or issue?
I ask because I have been thinking about writing something on a medieval Indian army.
Cheers
Nick
The thread was really for people with an interest in Indian armies to air their thoughts, findings and particular areas of interest for the benefit of all. Now that Hydaspes is on the Battle Day menu, it could be suitably topical, but please by all means ask/make observations/inform with regard to mediaeval Indian armies.
Indian costume really falls into two styles, those long white skirts that Richard writes about in Slingshot 297 , the other the Arab/ Turkic styles of Rajasthan , the Punjab, Afghanistan. The firmer styles stay remarkably constant from the Ancient period all the way through to the 16th century and later. Paintings of Rajput 16th or 17th century troops show accompanying Indians with bare chests and long dhotis that would look fine in Poros army. The troops of Vijaynagar , the 16th century Hindu state would also look very similar. That jeans tgat you could build into your Indian army some of the excelkent 15mm figures from Roundway and the nice range from Museum Miniatures who do a neat chariot and tasty elephants with fighting pkatforms.
Roy
Sources for the geography are frustratingly bimodal...
Lots of good stuff in the classical period's literary histories, and then, as Roy suggests, more detail later on the Rajputs etc.
But in the middle period - broadly medieval - it is a bit barren.
Roundway are now via Navwar, aren't they.
they could really use some images on their webpage
Quote from: aligern on August 03, 2012, 08:02:07 PM
However, the classic Indian of say Porus is very difficult to win with.
Roy
Actually, an Early Indian army fielded by Dave Dietrich and myself won 1st place in the Cold Wars Doubles Open tournament a few years ago (Warrior rule set). A key was having six units of 48 figures of Irregular D longbow (huger shooting power and tough to damage because they are so big). Heavy chariots are effective when properly supported (that is what we used the cav for) as are elephants.
I'll be running a 2000 point Warrior game of Hydaspes in Portland, Oregon on 28 March starting at 5PM (at Guardian Games) if anyone cares to join in I'll have room for 8. I'll likely do this again at Enfilade over the last weekend in May up at Olympia (Washington, not Greece)!
Historically, Hydaspes was arguably Alexander's hardest won victory so if Indian armies don't fare well on the gaming table perhaps it is a problem with the rules. In Warrior, Indian armies are very tough to beat.
Cheers,
Dave in Oregon (okay, I have to say it, "Go Ducks")
Quote from: Dave Beatty on January 06, 2015, 04:57:11 AM
Historically, Hydaspes was arguably Alexander's hardest won victory so if Indian armies don't fare well on the gaming table perhaps it is a problem with the rules. In Warrior, Indian armies are very tough to beat.
Hydaspes was also one of Alexander's most complete victories, in that he bagged practically the entire opposing army plus the C-in-C. The way I read the battle, he flat-footed Porus at every turn and maximised his own advantages while leaving most of the Indian line with nothing to shoot at. But more on this anon.
Quote from: Dangun on January 02, 2015, 01:52:02 AM
Sources for the geography are frustratingly bimodal...
Lots of good stuff in the classical period's literary histories, and then, as Roy suggests, more detail later on the Rajputs etc.
But in the middle period - broadly medieval - it is a bit barren.
There are a lot of online maps etc..
For a published history: Gurcharan Singh Sandhu "A Military History of Medieval India"Vision Books, New Delhi, 2003 ISBN 8170945259
It's readable but not academic, and some of Major General Sandhu's tactical conclusions are (understandably given his career) heavily based on modern armoured warfare. A pretty comprehensive coverage though.
Tom..
Back to Hydaspes..
I was very impressed by Jeff Jonass' piece in Slingshot 297. I would like to suggest some additional thoughts on Porus' army.
I agree that the Arthashastra is a good starting point
, though I assume that Jeff has used Shamasastry's translation (a modern abridged version, still 600+ pages is available in several places on line). This misses a lot of the useful 'extra' information. (P.P. Kangleys 3 vol version from 1960-65 is the fullest translation I'm aware of).
eg there is a list of various vyúha (battle arrays), one version of the 'staff-like array' has shielded infantry to the front, archers massed behind and elephants standing 'like towers in a wall', this sounds very like the Greek descriptions.
These arrays were used by armies organised in the chaturangabala (four-fold array - infantry, cavalry, chariots and elephants). Kautilya suggests that in these armies for each of the troop types these was a simple structure: 10 members are commanded by a Padika, 10 Padikas by a Senupati, and 10 Senupatis by a Nayaka (direct equivalent of a Chilliarch).
There is a strong case for Porus to have his hereditary troops in the latest mixed troops style..
Each elephant had 3 fighting crew and five supporting groups, each of a horseman, five foot soldiers and five foot guards (almost all historians see the foot soldiers as archers and the food guards as shielded spearmen). this was a pati commanded by a Patika.
9 pati formed a senupati under a Senupati. This was apparently the basic fighting group.
The Nayaka had a permanent command of 10 Senupati, but only deployed five in the battle line (rather suggesting that the rest were 'phantom' troops. The body of 45 elephants, 135 crew, 225 horsemen, 675 archers and 675 spearmen is significantly larger than the earlier Nayaka commands.
Interestingly Kautilya gives the rank and file separations and the 9 elephant senupati covers almost exactly the width/depth of a 15mm DBA/DBM/DBMM elephant base. So 5 El(S) would be a nayaki.
Tom..
useful and thought provoking post Tom. I'd still tend to the idea that Indian systems are often about raising troops and how the burden of military service and the benefits of land ownership are linked. India is remarkable and quite different to the West its their ability to support. huge armies. Poros , after all,was ruling only a small part of the sub continent. To refer to the earlier part of this dscussion, elephants are really rather useless. Elephant based armies cannit hold off the Saka,the Kushans, the Huns, the Arabs, the Turks, but one gets the moression that unoess you have elephants you do not count as a. serioys ruler.nSimilarly with the chariots, more about prestige than military effectiveness. Its a good example of IMP from a Western point of view being misleading when the military choices are restricted by a set of social rules.
Roy
lots of bits..
Ancient government, was primarily all about raising troops everywhere.
Porus running a 'small part of India' is true, but it's probably 90,000 sq km, predominately intensively agricultural - think of the Nile delta with a fringe of forested hills on two sides. It straddled the trade route from the West into India proper and was rich and highly populated.
The elephant thing is more about geography and climate. In much of India horses do not fare well. throughout history Indian rulers, just like Chinese rulers, imported huge numbers of horses (and the Afghans, Xiongnu etc carefully provided geldings whenever possible). Trained elephants were invaluable for the engineers in the Indian armies. For road clearing, wood collection etc. they are better than anything outside of SE Asia. They were also a significant force multiplier in sieges, which were always more common than battles (we tend to forget this as wargamers).
Elephants and chariots had a huge psychological effect in battle that we shouldn't discard. The Macedonians were very aware of this, Hellenistic armies fielded contingents whenever they could. The combination of 'heavy' chariots and cavalry was very successful for a long period. The killer blow against them was horse archers. In China, Iran and India the appearance of large numbers of horse archers eliminated chariots as battlefield weapons. In Persia some survived having added scythes etc. to enhance shock and awe. It's worth considering here the contemporary media frenzy whenever 'tanks' are used.
Actually this leads to another reason why the Hydaspes was historically important. Alexander (who clearly knew a good weapon system when he saw it) brought significant numbers of horse archers with him. This was the first time an invader led horse archers against Indian armies (Persian, Bactrians etc didn't campaign East og he Indus). Tellingly it was the horse archers who knocked out the chariot-cavalry advance force under Porus jr. and led the attack on the Indian left wing (again cavalry supported by chariots).
Quote from: tadamson on January 09, 2015, 01:46:22 AMI agree that the Arthashastra is a good starting point, though I assume that Jeff has used Shamasastry's translation (a modern abridged version, still 600+ pages is available in several places on line). This misses a lot of the useful 'extra' information. (R.P. Kangle's 3 vol version from 1960-65 is the fullest translation I'm aware of).
http://www.sanskritebooks.org/2009/11/arthashastra-of-chanakya-english-translation/ has all three volumes of the Kangle edition as scanned pdfs.
Have you looked at the Penguin edition (L N Rangarajan, 1992)? It's deliberately a less literal translation than Kangle, aiming at comprehensibility rather than "literary exactness", whcih seems to be an interesting project.
There is also a much newer translation (Patrick Olivelle, OUP USA, 2013) but at a list price of £97 perhaps a little pricy.
Quote from: Duncan Head on January 09, 2015, 01:27:54 PM
Quote from: tadamson on January 09, 2015, 01:46:22 AMI agree that the Arthashastra is a good starting point, though I assume that Jeff has used Shamasastry's translation (a modern abridged version, still 600+ pages is available in several places on line). This misses a lot of the useful 'extra' information. (R.P. Kangle's 3 vol version from 1960-65 is the fullest translation I'm aware of).
http://www.sanskritebooks.org/2009/11/arthashastra-of-chanakya-english-translation/ has all three volumes of the Kangle edition as scanned pdfs.
It's a very useful site though.. And a good link for anyone going to Battle Day !
Have you looked at the Penguin edition (L N Rangarajan, 1992)? It's deliberately a less literal translation than Kangle, aiming at comprehensibility rather than "literary exactness", whcih seems to be an interesting project.
There is also a much newer translation (Patrick Olivelle, OUP USA, 2013) but at a list price of £97 perhaps a little pricy.
The English version there is the abridged Shamasastry, the 3 volumes are Sastri's 1923 Sanscrit text. I like the Penguin, but it deviates a lot and misses great chunks. Olivelle I wasn't aware of - another one for the 'lottery list'.
Tom..
Quote from: tadamson on January 09, 2015, 12:37:56 PM
lots of bits..
Ancient government, was primarily all about raising troops everywhere.
Nice, succinct and quintessentially true snap definition. :)
Quote
The elephant thing is more about geography and climate. In much of India horses do not fare well. throughout history Indian rulers, just like Chinese rulers, imported huge numbers of horses (and the Afghans, Xiongnu etc carefully provided geldings whenever possible). Trained elephants were invaluable for the engineers in the Indian armies. For road clearing, wood collection etc. they are better than anything outside of SE Asia. They were also a significant force multiplier in sieges, which were always more common than battles (we tend to forget this as wargamers).
Elephants and chariots had a huge psychological effect in battle that we shouldn't discard. The Macedonians were very aware of this, Hellenistic armies fielded contingents whenever they could. The combination of 'heavy' chariots and cavalry was very successful for a long period. The killer blow against them was horse archers. In China, Iran and India the appearance of large numbers of horse archers eliminated chariots as battlefield weapons. In Persia some survived having added scythes etc. to enhance shock and awe. It's worth considering here the contemporary media frenzy whenever 'tanks' are used.
Actually this leads to another reason why the Hydaspes was historically important. Alexander (who clearly knew a good weapon system when he saw it) brought significant numbers of horse archers with him. This was the first time an invader led horse archers against Indian armies (Persian, Bactrians etc didn't campaign East of the Indus). Tellingly it was the horse archers who knocked out the chariot-cavalry advance force under Porus jr. and led the attack on the Indian left wing (again cavalry supported by chariots).
Again, good, perceptive analysis, although the China-India-Iran pattern seems not to have been repeated in Assyria/Babylonia and Egypt, which retained their chariotry quite late despite the appearance of the mounted archer in some quantity. The curiosity is that elephants became, at least in the Hellenistic world, considerably more widespread and popular than horse archers. There were plenty of Scythians out there, but only the Seleucids seem to have made a point of acquiring them. Everyone else seemed obsessed with Tarantines and Galatians.
Hi guys. Me again. The one with the hoplite fixation...
I've got an Indian army (archers....archers....moar ARCHERS!!), some of which I picked up in a semi-painted, badly based condition from someone who obviously lost heart at some point. Looking around, I see plenty of people painting the shields with a kind of Friesian cow hide pattern. Is there any evidence for this? In fact, what were the shield patterns/natural material for the average PBI javelin-armed chappies. I've seen plenty of examples of the more up-market shields (concentric patterns), but nothing for the cavalry shield.
Any ideas/sources/online examples out there I can use? And, whilst we're at it, I'm sick of white loincloths-- any evidence of dyes used in the Poros era and onwards for either the private or professional armies?
I still think the six-man chariot is a joke. Thinking of making a mock-up entitled 'Introducing the famous Poros Six-Man Cha... Oh bugger!'
Rob
Quote from: Rob Miles on February 16, 2015, 03:46:56 PMI've got an Indian army ... I see plenty of people painting the shields with a kind of Friesian cow hide pattern. Is there any evidence for this? In fact, what were the shield patterns/natural material for the average PBI javelin-armed chappies. I've seen plenty of examples of the more up-market shields (concentric patterns), but nothing for the cavalry shield.
Quote from: Arrian, Indica XVIIn their left hands they {infantry] carry small shields of untanned hide, narrower than their bearers, but not much shorter.
The "untanned hide" bit may be where the hide-patterned shields come from; offhand I can't remember anything more specific, which of course doesn't mean that there isn't anything.
The AMPW cavalryman's shield here (http://i.imgur.com/6LFFS.jpg).
Unpatterned shields, a good bit later, from Ajanta, here (https://sirimunasiha.files.wordpress.com/2011/08/img_0006.jpg)
QuoteAnd, whilst we're at it, I'm sick of white loincloths-- any evidence of dyes used in the Poros era and onwards for either the private or professional armies?
Quote from: Arrian, Indica XVIThe Indians wear linen garments, as Nearchus says, the linen coming from the trees of which I have already made mention. This linen is either brighter than the whiteness of other linen, or the people's own blackness makes it appear unusually bright. They have a linen tunic to the middle of the calf, and for outer garments, one thrown round about their shoulders, and one wound round their heads. They wear ivory ear-rings, that is, the rich Indians; the common people do not use them. Nearchus writes that they dye their beards various colours; some therefore have these as white-looking as possible, others dark, others crimson, others purple, others grass-green.
Quote from: Strabo XV.1.71They say ... that, in general, the Indians wear white clothing, white linen or cotton garments, contrary to the accounts of those who say that they wear highly coloured garments; and that they all wear long hair and long beards, and that they braid their hair and surround it with a head-band.
There is one reference in Mahabharata to guardsmen wearing red (https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=dmOUq73LZLgC&pg=PA204&lpg=PA204&dq=mahabharata+bodyguard+red&source=bl&ots=HjsQSSFl2N&sig=srl9TZwieLb8vHEA9DhvcEzxJNE&hl=en&sa=X&ei=2BbiVLODEYn2UJ7Ng8gI&ved=0CCMQ6AEwAA#v=onepage&q=mahabharata%20bodyguard%20red&f=false).
Thanks for that quick response. IIRC Indian cows are of a uniform dark brown or (sigh) entirely white. Friesian cows are highly unlikely. Looks like I'll be needing more of that ivory paint...
The Macedonians could probably be credited with the invention of sunglasses. I'd always assumed Indian armies were colourful affairs, but it seems they are brown and white with pretty chariots and elephants.
Rob-- whose copy of Arrian has arrived since the original post!
Colourful Indian armies are more a medieval-early modern thing, I think?
Quote from: Patrick Waterson on January 06, 2015, 08:12:07 PM
Quote from: Dave Beatty on January 06, 2015, 04:57:11 AM
Historically, Hydaspes was arguably Alexander's hardest won victory so if Indian armies don't fare well on the gaming table perhaps it is a problem with the rules. In Warrior, Indian armies are very tough to beat.
Hydaspes was also one of Alexander's most complete victories, in that he bagged practically the entire opposing army plus the C-in-C. The way I read the battle, he flat-footed Porus at every turn and maximised his own advantages while leaving most of the Indian line with nothing to shoot at. But more on this anon.
Ah, but his victory resulted in the highest casualty rate among the phalanx (700 according to Diodorus) and this Pyrhhic victory (coupled with the incessant rain and the prospect of fighting against more elephant armies) led to his army revolting.
Oh, and here is what Plutarch thought...
"As for the Macedonians, however, their struggle with Porus blunted their courage and stayed their further advance into India. For having had all they could do to repulse an enemy who mustered only twenty thousand infantry and two thousand horse, they violently opposed Alexander when he insisted on crossing the river Ganges " —Plutarch, Parallel Lives, "Life of Alexander" 62.1-4
But, I did say
arguably in my orginal post :)
Conversely, Arrian (generally considered a rather more reliable source) states that 80 of Alexander's original 6,000 infantry were killed and "in addition to these he lost ten of the mounted archers, who were the first unit to engage, about twenty of the Companions and 200 of the other cavalry." (Arrian V.18.3)
This would give a total of 310 killed (230 cavalry and 80 infantry) against Diodorus' 980 (280 cavalry and 700 infantry). Where Arrian and Diodorus differ, I trust Arrian to be closer to the truth.
80 dead infantry is more in keeping with the extended skirmish against elephantry described in our sources, and would suggest that the Indian infantry were not working very hard to affect the outcome.
That the fighting against elephants made an impression on the Macedonians is undeniable, but it seems to have been more along the lines of "d___d if I'm going through that lot again!" than "By Zeus, we got really clobbered!" Even Diodorus refers to it as a 'brilliant victory'.
Plutarch's account is the most succinct, emphasising the duration of the action but giving the sense of a foregone conclusion:
"
But Alexander, fearing the elephants and the great numbers of the enemy, himself assaulted their left wing, and ordered Coenus to attack their right. Both wings having been routed, the vanquished troops retired in every case upon the elephants in the centre, and were there crowded together with them, and from this point on the battle was waged at close quarters, and it was not until the eighth hour that the enemy gave up."
However the Macedonians still had plenty of go left in them after the battle: Plutarch again.
"
Accordingly, Alexander not only permitted him [Porus] to govern his former kingdom, giving him the title of satrap, but also added to it the territory of the independent peoples whom he subdued, in which there are said to have been fifteen nations, five thousand cities of considerable size, and a great multitude of villages. He subdued other territory also thrice as large as this and appointed Philip, one of his companions, satrap over it." - Life of Alexander 60.8
QuoteBut, I did say arguably in my orginal post :)
That you did, Dave: I give you that. :)
Some excellent sources on colors, costumes and equipment:
http://www.4to40.com/history/index.asp?p=Mauryan_and_Sunga_Periods_321-72_BC
http://www.whereincity.com/articles/historical/1672.html
The link below has some excellent color images from the Ajanta Caves - in particular this one from Cave 10 shows some bell shield patterns (attached)
http://asi.nic.in/asi_monu_whs_ajanta_images.asp
Thanks for that reference. Very useful, even if those shield patterns are well beyond my eyesight (54mm anyone)?
Damn! Just painted my umbrella purple and gold! Rats. Oh well! Too late now <sticks fingers in ear and sings 'The Purple Rose of Texas' very loudly>