Indian Armies

[Custor]

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?

[aligern]

I recall coloured St Andrews crosses and stars rather in the style of a Macedonian star.

Roy

[Mark G]

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

[Richard Lockwood]

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!

[Dangun]

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

[Patrick Waterson]

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.

[aligern]

 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

[Dangun]

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.

[Mark G]

Roundway are now via Navwar, aren't they.

they could really use some images on their webpage

[Dave Beatty]

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")

[Patrick Waterson]

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.

[tadamson]

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..

[tadamson]

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..

[aligern]

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

[tadamson]

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).