Historical Battles in Ancient & Medieval Bharat

[peter]

our primary weakness has always been against horse archers. even in the alexander-puru battle, the importance of alexander's horse archers are never emphasized enough. in virtually every battle with outsiders since then where Indian kings lost, the nemesis was the horse archer. why we didn't develop mounted archery is a very perplexing question, we had both the ingredients in good supply, cavalry and good archers. even a light cavalry specifically meant to deal with mounter archers could have possibly done the trick.
it would be interesting to know, if we ever can, what tactics and units skandagupta employed against the white hun invasion which was reportedly crushed mercilessly. AFAIK the huns were primarily a cavalry based army with a preponderance of mounted archers. incidentally, it was during his reign and probably during this campaign against the huns that the classical Indian army rejected the use of chariots, the fourth arm of the chaturanga increased the importance of cavalry.

Did porus really loose? Have you read this: http://forums.bharat-rakshak.com/viewto ... 55#p446155 ?

Also lack of bows and arrows and the whole deal about strategy or the lack of it in India in medieveal times seems to be addressed by the poet Padmanabh in his Kanhad Dev Prabandh. I am attaching a few pages from the book translated by Professor VS Bhatnagar http://books.google.com/books?id=tsdjAA ... CCUQ6AEwAA. This snippet deals with the attack by Kanhaddev's army on Alla-ud-din's army when the delhi army was returning after plundering gujarat. It is said that Ulugh Khan, general of Ala-ud-din khilji was leading a considerably larger army then what kanhad dev, a petty chieftain, could muster.

[peter]

One thing to realise is role of foot and mouth disease in decimatig indian horses. It was a major factor in the need to import horses which also would soon die off. Its wonder that cavalry was even considered as an arm.

Very interesting. Do you have references for this?

[VinodTK]

Army celebrates 269th anniversary of Colachel Battle

Nagercoil, Jul 31 (PTI) 16 Madras (Travancore), an army unit stationed at Pangode near here, today celebrated 269th anniversary on victory of Travancore over Dutch at War Memorial, Colachel here, today. On 31st July 1741, in battle the forces of king Marthanda Varma defeated the Dutch, both at sea and land. This earned the House of Travancore the distinction of being the only Asian military power to ever have defeated a leading European sea power at sea and land. Marthanda Varma recorded this victory of Indian soldiers and sailors in a combined sea and land battle, with a 'victory pillar' erected near the beach of Colachel.PTI COR

[peter]

Army celebrates 269th anniversary of Colachel Battle

Nagercoil, Jul 31 (PTI) 16 Madras (Travancore), an army unit stationed at Pangode near here, today celebrated 269th anniversary on victory of Travancore over Dutch at War Memorial, Colachel here, today. On 31st July 1741, in battle the forces of king Marthanda Varma defeated the Dutch, both at sea and land. This earned the House of Travancore the distinction of being the only Asian military power to ever have defeated a leading European sea power at sea and land. Marthanda Varma recorded this victory of Indian soldiers and sailors in a combined sea and land battle, with a 'victory pillar' erected near the beach of Colachel.PTI COR

Are more details available on this battle?

[Rahul M]

peter, thanks for the images but I didn't get what your point was.

[peter]

peter, thanks for the images but I didn't get what your point was.

1) Medieval Indians (Hindus) did not all believe in static warfare techniques. They did not mind attacking even in the night as a sneak attack!

2) Use of bows and arrows by rajputs is attested to in the fight between Ulugh Khan (the mongol general of Ala-ud-din) and the Jalore army.

3) The use of bows and arrows by mobile archers was of not much importance in wars with rana sanga perhaps , if we make a leap of faith, that his army would also have had archers since Jalore a few hundred years ago knew how to use them well. This is borne out by Dale's analysis posted above as well as from the snippet of baburnama where Babur does not praise his archers for the victory at Khanua.

[Rahul M]

peter, I didn't say anything about 'lack' of bows and arrows, rather the exact opposite.
you ought to read more carefully.

[peter]

peter, I didn't say anything about 'lack' of bows and arrows, rather the exact opposite.
you ought to read more carefully.

From your earlier writeup:

our primary weakness has always been against horse archers. even in the alexander-puru battle, the importance of alexander's horse archers are never emphasized enough. in virtually every battle with outsiders since then where Indian kings lost, the nemesis was the horse archer. why we didn't develop mounted archery is a very perplexing question, we had both the ingredients in good supply, cavalry and good archers. even a light cavalry specifically meant to deal with mounter archers could have possibly done the trick.

I gathered from reading the above that you are suggesting that Indians did not have good horse archers. My point in quoting Padmanabhs' Prabandha was to negate this point of view. Did I misread your writeup above or did you mean something else?

[Rahul M]

where does it say anywhere that mounted archers were used by Indians ? I didn't say Indians didn't have good horse archers, I said we had NO horse archers. nothing I've read anywhere suggests otherwise.

p.s. foot archers != horse archers. the former we had in good quantity and the quality and technology was probably the best in the world. your post confuses between the two.

[Lalmohan]

vijayanagar recruited turushka horse archers and used them successfully against the bahmanis who had their own. in the final battle, his turushkas changed sides at the crucial moment...

i believe the Sakyas (scythians) also brought horse archers into India and since they settled, they must have had the capability in place for some time. however as they because settled and civilised, they lost the art. undoubtedly it takes great time, effort and space to rear horses and learn horse archery. as others have pointed out, the mongols learnt it as a basic tool of survival on the steppe

[Rahul M]

the exception being the japanese yabusame archers, who seem to have developed it independently in a quite different environment to the central asian tribes.

hiring horse archers was quite common, alexander did it, romans did it and so on.

[Airavat]

Peter is partly right. Meaning, shooting arrows from horseback was an additional skill learned by Rajputs, at least in Rajasthan, and there are several paintings depicting such horse-archery during shikar. This one is part of a bigger hunting scene from a Mewar miniature painting:



Picking up such a skill was a necessity of the times. But only the ruler and his nobles had the time and money to invest in acquiring this skill. For the common Rajput soldier, whether he was out hunting or defending his fields and village, horse-riding and bearing lances and swords were the military skills acquired since childhood. Therefore horse-archery was an acquired skill for the Rajput rulers and chieftains, but there were no horse-archery units of cavalry in the manner of the Central Asians.

[peter]

where does it say anywhere that mounted archers were used by Indians ? I didn't say Indians didn't have good horse archers, I said we had NO horse archers. nothing I've read anywhere suggests otherwise.

p.s. foot archers != horse archers. the former we had in good quantity and the quality and technology was probably the best in the world. your post confuses between the two.

Here is one of the preceeding page to the ones I have posted earlier. In this page the weapons carried by Kanhadde's horse borne warriors is described. One of the weapon described is a bow, Furthermore if you read page 24 posted above just before the para which talks about the twang of bows you will see it describes a charge of the cavalry. The subsequent para about bows also applies to the same group of warriros. In this war with ulugh khan there is no mention of any infantry by Padmanabha. Infantry in rajasthan was not common. as most everyone owned horses.

[peter]

Peter is partly right. Meaning, shooting arrows from horseback was an additional skill learned by Rajputs, at least in Rajasthan, and there are several paintings depicting such horse-archery during shikar. This one is part of a bigger hunting scene from a Mewar miniature painting:



Picking up such a skill was a necessity of the times. But only the ruler and his nobles had the time and money to invest in acquiring this skill. For the common Rajput soldier, whether he was out hunting or defending his fields and village, horse-riding and bearing lances and swords were the military skills acquired since childhood. Therefore horse-archery was an acquired skill for the Rajput rulers and chieftains, but there were no horse-archery units of cavalry in the manner of the Central Asians.

Wonderful! Would you know if rajputs and mughals hunted differently? Most mughal paintings of hunts seem to suggest lot of people on a hunt yet rajput paintings suggest singular hunting events where one person is the only one hunting. What were the reasons for this difference?

Also what could be the reason that in the land where archers like Rama and Arjuna were praised for their archery skills their supposed descendants gave up on this skill and had to relearn it?

[Rahul M]

thanks for that page ! this is interesting indeed. I had assumed that swordsmen referred to infantry but reading all of it I'm not that sure. may be airavat ji can judge better.

Also what could be the reason that in the land where archers like Rama and Arjuna were praised for their archery skills their supposed descendants gave up on this skill and had to relearn it?

whoever said they gave up their skill and had to relearn ? where are you getting this from ?

[Lalmohan]

the mughals would have hunted mongol style - which was essentially a military training system. the idea was instituted by Genghiz. all the units in the hunt were required to encircle an area and then systematically proceed in an orderly formation towards the centre regardless of terrain or danger, driving the game forward. no creature bird or beast was allowed to escape this net. any unit or individual not performing fully would be executed. i expect that in mughal usage, this may have been watered down

[wilson_th]

^^^^^
On Battle of Colachel

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eustachius_De_Lannoy

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Colachel

[tsarkar]

why we didn't develop mounted archery is a very perplexing question, we had both the ingredients in good supply, cavalry and good archers. even a light cavalry specifically meant to deal with mounter archers could have possibly done the trick.

Airavat has given a good explanation, I’ll add my bits.

1. The steppe nomads primary source of food was hunting, they didn’t practice agriculture. Hence children practiced archery. Indian hunts were for sport, that involved beaters herding sport. Common Indian soldiers were farmers when not at war, and rarely hunted with the frequency or skillfulness of a nomadic tribe hunting a huge herd of deer tracking them for days. The Delhi Sultanate Turks and later Mughals lost those skills as they settled in India.

2. Composite bows lose lamination and decay with humidity. The ingredients provided by domesticated animals is not good enough, while hunting was not a daily practice as in Central Asia. One needs to understand that bow manufacturing and repair was a daily routine and not one time activity. However, given the lack of daily hunting in India, ample supply of raw material was unavailable. Prolonged stay in the humid subcontinent made the bows useless.

3. The eastern side of the Indus onwards is a tropical geography. The humid environment, unlike the dry climate of Central Asia, is a good breeding ground for diseases, and horses suffered a terrible mortality rate in India. Every soldier needed 3-4 horses and switched horses every 3-4 hours to avoid fatiguing them. Throughout history, most Indian rulers imported horses from Balkh and Central Asia. Marwari and Kathiyawari horses were sufficient only for Rajput armies. Non Rajput armies, initially the Hindu states in the hinterland like Sen, Yadava, Hoysala and Kakatiya and later the Sultanate, and later Mughals were completely dependent on imports. Bakhtiyar Khilji’s troops pretended to be horse traders, and hence were allowed uncontested by the Sen army in Bengal. Until the Dakhani breed, there was no indigenous breed that could survive Indian climatic conditions.

4. One their Central Asian troop, supplies and logistic flow dried up, like Delhi Sultanate at Panipat and Mughals at Karnal, they were as vulnerable as their predecessors.

So, to sum it up, we never had the raw materials and we never had the imperative to hone those skills.

Also what could be the reason that in the land where archers like Rama and Arjuna were praised for their archery skills their supposed descendants gave up on this skill and had to relearn it?

Archery skills were always present, mounted archery wasnt. Balkh was a part of Aryavarta and Ramayana, Mahabharata and Kalidasa Raghuvansham mentions horses from Balkh and Kamboj being prized by local rulers. So while horses were available in those days, once Turkish suppliers like Bakhtiyar Khilji, who was a first generation convert, put religious preferences forefront, then supply to local kingdoms dried up.

Are you sure about the infantry bit? Whatever I have read seems to point that infantry was not really the norm atleast in rajasthan.

Yes, numerous books. Other than Rajput wars, the numerical superiority of Indians was infantry. Indians were always short of cavalry until the Maratha deployed the Dakhani breed. One example http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Talikota

Which battle did you have in mind for the single charge? There are many counter examples.

I find Indians made only frontal attacks in major battles, no pincer movements, no outflanking attempts.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battles_of_Tarain
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Khanwa
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Panipat_(1761)

The importance of maneuver warfare is repeatedly lost on Indian Armies.

What do you mean by this?

The simple reason that Prithviraj Chauhan allowed himself to be encircled at Tarain and the Marathas could not keep their supply lines open at Panipat, they lost freedom of maneuver.

From http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Khanwa "they made repeated desperate attacks on the Emperor's center"

I dont find any mention of rear guards, pincer movements, outflanking attempts, cutting off supply lines, etc by Indian forces. The only notable exception was Shivaji and the Marathas. Otherwise all I read is frontal attacks.

[Rahul M]

I agree with all of your points except the part about the composite bow. Indians had been using reflex bows, which are a more developed version of composite bows since at least the days of Guptas ( http://forums.bharat-rakshak.com/styles ... target.gif ) and probably since the time of the Mauryans. even steel bows are said to have been developed around the turn of the millenium. I'm sure you are aware of megasthenes' description of gangahridai longbowmen.
subsequent texts like dhanurved note that for an archer to be proficient he had to be able to pierce half a finger width thick metal armour or 6 layers of toughened hide, penetrating power like that can't be developed from bamboo bows.

[tsarkar]

Rahul - You are correct, the recurve bow was known to India, and it is more complex than a composite bow. However, there are natural recurves, like bone, and composite ones. I am sure the Indians were exposed to composite bows via Huns and Scythians (Sakas) and Kushans. Or it might have been independently developed.

While composite bows do carry more power, they lacked the ruggedness to be a standard issue weapon. So we may find examples with kings and sportsmen on coins, most troop weapons were longbows that are self bows (single piece wood and bamboo).

First example – Puru’s troops were unable to use their bows on ground because it had rained and hence the bows slipped on the ground. This is an indication of longbow because composite bows are typically short.

Second example – The Gangaridai, too were longbowmen, as you correctly mention in Megasthenes account.
Third example – India’s most famous bowman – the Malhi chap who shot Alexander – not much is mentioned about the bow he used, but a longbow is suitable for use from behind fortifications.

Lastly, I don’t read latter Turks of the sultanate or latter Mughals employing horse archers columns.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Composite_bow mentions that hide glue, collagen and cartilage used to make a composite bow deteriorate with humidity.

So while I fully agree that the composite bow was known to Indians, it was not a standard issue weapon because of deterioration in prolonged humidity.

Which makes me wonder, did the timing of invasion play a role. I know invaders avoided monsoons because of logistic difficulties. They got their information from Central Asian merchants who made regular trips to India.

I grew up in Bhutan in the 60s, and bamboo longbows were prevalent there. They have amazing range, though composite bows impart greater power.

[Yagnasri]

Satavahana infantry is called Dhanushkas. Foot archers and the Mounted archers on Elephant and Chariots are there since BC times with Indians.

[Airavat]

Can anyone throw some light on the means and ways of communication on the battlefield. To be highly maneuverable, I feel some good means of communication/signalling should have developed.

From ancient times musical instruments were used as a means of passing orders to the various divisions of the army, which would be strung out across several kilometers. The shankh or conch shell was for the commencement of battle in ancient times.

Different instruments (big drums, pipes, trumpets, kettle-drums, etc.) were targeted for different units, and the pace and style of music would communicate the order for that unit. A slow and steady pace for that unit to get into formation, a faster pace for advancing and building momentum, and a rapid pace for crying out the battle cry and launching into the enemy. Other beats of music were used to order retreat, others to signal the arrival of an important chieftain, and still others to sound a general alert when an enemy was sighted.

In the medieval era kettledrums (naqqara or naggada) were associated with cavalry and were carried on horseback within that cavalry unit. They would alter the pace of beating these kettledrums for ordering a general alert, for the cavalrymen to get into formation, to advance and build momentum, and a mad flourish of beats to signal the charge. After victory was gained the kettledrums would be beaten in celebration, and the gait of the horses would match that musical beat. For example the Marwari horse even today is trained to match its gait and dance to different beats of the drums.

The Indian Army's military music follows the European tradition only, although some units may be using Indian instruments.

[Lalmohan]

the turkish army has created an ottoman era band with traditional instruments and marching, certainly interesting

[Murugan]

Here are the images of coins of Gupta kings, clearly showing the type of Bows they were using:

Chandragupta Vikramaditya's Time : Bow is Clearly visible in his Lion Slayer Type Coin

Samudragupt Archer Type

Samudragupt Tiger Slayer Type

******

A Nice image of Samudragupt with a Battle Axe in Battle Axe type coin

Horseman Type coins shows various kind of decoration of horses and postures on Kumargupt coins

Swordtype Gupta Coins

Swords are straight

[niran]

from what i know, Bows had this method of manufacture,



the line pictures are a bit poor, but will try to convey the method
in "a" the basic shape of the bow carved out of wood, the length
and thickness was depended upon the strength of the Archer who
would use it, what wood, me do not remember, they had tech to dry the wood
and
"b" have hair like jutting out, it denotes the space carved out of the wood,
then some solution was applied and the Bow dried in Sun light, the space
would be filled with different material, ranging from Horns, Bones, metals
to wood, this would then be wrapped in another High Tech made from wood/animal hair
string. and again the solution applied, and Sun dried.
the whole process would take 4 months in Summer and 6 months
in Rainy and winter seasons.

[Lalmohan]

dont forget reverse camber, thats what gives it the elasticity

[Philip]

While not about Indian wars,this is a fascinating piece by Robert Fisk about the oratory of war,quotes from Churchill,Shakespeare,etc. which There must be great Indian quotes too from the pages of history,which could add to these quotes.

The oratory of war: In search of the few

Seventy years after Winston Churchill's greatest wartime address, Robert Fisk reflects on the power of words, the problem with famous speeches – and why the best quotes aren't in history books

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world ... 41646.html

But I'm not certain that the really great quotations have to be clever or said in war or in holy books. Take the following: "Civilisation means a society based upon the opinion of civilians. It means that violence, the rule of warriors and despotic chiefs, the condition of camps and warfare, of riot and tyranny, give place to parliaments where laws are made, and independent courts of justice in which over long periods those laws are maintained."

Strong stuff, isn't it? So much for the Blairs and Bushes and Iraq and Abu Ghraib. And the author? Churchill, of course!

[Rahul M]

tsarkar ji, not all glues are water soluble and wiki refers to mongol bows only which were a different technology altogether. we can't just assume that Indian bows were not of the recurve type when most evidence points the other way. images, descriptions of bows in texts and so on.

philip saar, watch lord of the rings part three. king theoden does a better job than any of them !

[ManjaM]

In the above picture, #12 is an Indian Bow. I think it is a recurve.



in the above picture-
Bow designs
#1-Cylon self bow,
#2-India
#3-India composite hand painted
#4-India steel
#5-India, #7-Turkish composite

Please note that #2, #2 and #4 are definitely recurve. Picture shows them unstrung.
An interesting article that i found on traditional archery in India - http://www.atarn.org/india/maharaja.htm

[Carl_T]

What were the bows made of? I think it would be hard to bend back steel, so was it bonded to anything?

[Lalmohan]

steel would be hammer forged into curved shape in hot condition and then suitably cooled/quenched to maintain shape. However, a steel bow is likely to be very heavy, so wondering what would be the specific usage mode?

[Rahul M]

does not seem particularly heavy.


carl, I'm not a materials expert but amount of carbon determines the springiness and strength of steel. for the correct proportion it would be possible to draw a steel bow which regains its shape on release without distorting it with time.

[Carl_T]

Oh nice, thanks. Might try to make one of these.

[jambudvipa]

Peter: thanks for the feedback.Great job in posting the pages of Kanhadade prabandha.

gents i have posted some ebooks on Mughals in the ebooks thread.might be of intrest.

[CalvinH]

Is the re-curve bow the one where the bow is naturally bent the other way (in construction) and is then made to bent the opposite way (using great force) and when the ends are tied with strings the tension provides the bulk of the force the arrows carries?

Did Maharan Pratap died while tying the string to a similar bow. I have heard that he died while tying the string to his bow when the string broke. The impact opened his old wounds which eventually led to his death.

[Rahul M]

no, that would be the reflex bow, where the arms tend to move away from the user when unstrung. it is a further development along the path of the recurve bow.

one easy way to tell them apart is the classic 3piece (handle and 2 arms) look of Indian bows, which signify the reflex bow. these bows are harder to string and this is probably also why stringing bows is such an important part of the ramayan. remember the story of ram breaking shiv's bow ?

the steel bow above would probably be classified as recurve although the material gives its own advantage. do note the twists at either end of the arms to prevent permanent bends in the bow structure.

[CalvinH]

RahulM thanks. I saw some episode where a person has to sit on his knees and use his two arms and back to strung the bow. It required enormous strength and I think shiv's bow was considered very difficult.

[Murugan]

Swords remained straigh for a long time. didn't know when the swords got curve.

A coin Depicting Balaram and Srikrishna of Agathokles 185-170 BC shows Srikrishna Standing with Sheathed Sword and Chakra. While balaram is holding a gada - mace - and plow.

to

Kushan king Kanishka 100-126 AD holding sword

to

Chandragupta II 380-414 AD

to

Yadavs of Devgiri - King Mahadev 1261-1270 AD

Predating all is this copper sword of 12-13th Century BC

For at least 2400 years the blade remained straight

[Murugan]

Two Distinct Greek Bow (comparing with Gupta Bows)

Bow 1

Bow 2

[tsarkar]

The question is not whether Indians had the technology. I fully agree with you Rahul, that Indians had the technology. The question is whether Indians employed the technology. The answer is no.

The Delhi Sultanate Turks could not employ horse archer columns against the Mughals at Panipat and Mughals unwilling/unable to maneuver at Karnal.

We also had wootz steel and yet couldn’t leverage it.

The situation is similar to India having Arjun and IA not using it

BTW, frontal charges often worked under effective generalship. One example is http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_the_Bridge The Persians effectively hemmed the Arabs against the river and slaughtered them and Iraq was once again under Persian control. The usage of elephants makes clear how military technologies were exported even in those days. The elephants definitely originated from India.

My PoV is that more than just having a novel technology, effectively employing resources on hand plays a decisive role in battle. More than technology, we always failed at strategy.

Murugan – The hal-dhar Balrama coin is quite fascinating. Thank you for providing an important marker of Indian history.

The straight kharag / khanda was the original indian sword. The khanda was quite effective in thrust and slash against leather/metal armour of the central asians. The curved talwar was introduced by the central asians and was more suitable for cavalry use. The curve gives a larger cutting edge to a sword of relatively less height and was effective in slash