Indian Armies

[Duncan Head]

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. (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.

[tadamson]

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. (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..

[Patrick Waterson]

lots of bits..

Ancient government, was primarily all about raising troops everywhere.

Nice, succinct and quintessentially true snap definition.

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.

[Rob Miles]

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

[Duncan Head]

I'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.

In 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.
Unpatterned shields, a good bit later, from Ajanta, here

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?

The 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.

They 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.

[Rob Miles]

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!

[Andreas Johansson]

Colourful Indian armies are more a medieval-early modern thing, I think?

[Dave Beatty]

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

[Patrick Waterson]

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

But, I did say arguably in my orginal post

That you did, Dave: I give you that.

[Dave Beatty]

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

[Rob Miles]

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>