Indian Armies

[Patrick Waterson]

From Mohenjo Daro to Mediaeval.  This topic could be split into different periods if enough material and interest emerge.

[Duncan Head]

From Mahabharat to Mediaeval.

Meaning to miss Mohenjo-Daro?

[Jim Webster]

Mohenjo-Daro to Mediaeval is equally alliterative 

Jim

[Patrick Waterson]

From Mahabharat to Mediaeval.

Meaning to miss Mohenjo-Daro?

I knew I had forgotten something ...

[aligern]

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

[Jim Webster]

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

[aligern]

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

[Jim Webster]

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

[Patrick Waterson]

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

[Andreas Johansson]

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.

[aligern]

 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

[Jim Webster]

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

[Patrick Waterson]

An insightful observation which perhaps says much about Achaemenid Persian armies.

[Jim Webster]

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

[Andreas Johansson]

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.