Historical Battles in Ancient & Medieval Bharat

[Lalmohan]

the princes i think were housed in the building that is now the tolly club

[tsarkar]

I am posting the following two descriptions as a reminder that Indians did maintain some degree of proficiency in naval warfare throughout the ages. They are relatively less well known vis-a-vis Kunjali Marakkar and Kanhoji Angre -
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mokhadaji_Gohil
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timoji

[ramana]

Pragati, book review of Parag's book

For a Triad of Freedoms

[Samudragupta]

Why Shivaji is a pan-Indian hero

It is worthwhile examining the 'what if' of history. Abandoning the secular legacy of Akbar, Aurengzeb, his great great grandson, had embarked on the 'Islamisation' of India. It is the Marathas, inspired by Shivaji, who fought Aurengzeb and saved India from following the fate of Persia. The proof of Maratha victory lies in the fact that Aurengzeb lies buried, not in Lahore ,Delhi or Agra, but near Aurangabad down south.

http://www.rediff.com/news/column/why-s ... 110224.htm

Is Col. Sab is in BRF?

[Airavat]

The Vaishyas in battle

The functions performed by the Vaisha community in ancient times being so vital to the life and growth of the Hindu nation, its members naturally developed moral and physical qualities of a high order. They were men of vigorous constitution, of great courage and valour, clear and bright intelligence, of a daring nature, ready to face danger, cross seas, fight their way in distant and savage countries, and obtain and secure from all parts of the world, things necessary for the welfare and advancement of humanity, useful to man in peace and war, in health and sickness. Even in medieval times, the Vaishas were a most prominent community in India, respected and esteemed by all They were great administrators, and held the highest offices in the State along with the Rajputs as Commanders, Ministers, Ambassadors and Governors.

Students of the history of Rajputana know how Ratan Chand Bhandari, the naib of Maharaja Abhai Singh of Jodhpur (A, D. 1724-1750) Viceroy of Gujrat fought several battles against the Mahrattas and defeated them ; how Bhandari Bachhraj led the Marwar forces against Pilaji Gaekwar during the same period ; how Mehta Sahib Chand, the Commander of the Jodhpur forces led his army against Ghanerao and conquered it in Maharaja Man Singh's time ; how Mehta Gyan Chand fought against and reduced to submission the Shekhawat Rajputs who had plundered Did wana in 1804.

Indraraj who in 1807 A. D. led an army of 20,000 men against Bikaner. Though a Jain by religion he hesitated not to shed blood when that had to be done. During the campaign against Bikaner, the enemy defiled the water of the wells on the march by throwing bones and dead bodies of cows in them. Indraraj would take out the bones and the dead bodies, throw in some Ganges water in the wells,would himself first drink the water and then made his arrny use it. His brother Dhanraj was Governor of Ajmer when Sindhia's famous general, DeBogine, attacked that city in 1790 Dhanraj defied DeBoigne and declared that he would never give Ajmer alive. DeBoigne could not take Taragarh, the fortress of Ajmer, and had to move on to Merta.

I will give you one more instance of Vaisha heroism. The Mughal Emperor Muhammad Shah granted the districts of Pur, Mandal and Mandalgarh to Nawab Ranbaz Khan, the leader of the Mewatis. Ranbaz Khan advanced at the head of the Imperial army to take possession of the districts, which had been forcibly incorporated by the Maharana of Udaipur into his dominions. Maharana Sangram Singh II (1710-1733) prepared to fight and ordered his Sardars to oppose the Nawab. K. Umed Singh of Shahpura, Thakur Jai Singh of Badnor, Maha Singh of Kanod and other Sardars came with their levies. The Rao of Begun sent his contingent under his kamdar Kothari Bhim Singh. When the council of war was held, the Rajput Sardars seeing Bhirn Singh smiled, and Gangadas addressing Bhim Singh said "Kothariji, there is no occasion to weigh ata here." Bhim Singh, who was a Mahajan (Vaish), retorted, "I will weigh ata with both hands to-morrow, then you will see," The next morning, when the two armies met on the banks of the Khari river, the first to appear in the field was Kothari Bhim Singh with swords in both hands. Addressing the Rajputs chieftains he exclaimed, "Come and see how I weigh ata." Saying this, he spurred his horse and charged the Imperial army with a vigour and dash that astonished the friend and the foe alike. The Rajputs feeling ashamed that the attack had been opened by a Vaisha, became furious and attacked the enemy, determined not to be outdone by any one.

Ranbaz Khan had with him, 5,000 archers famous for their skill in archery. But the charge of the Rajputs led by Kothari Bhim Singh was so furious and sudden that the archers had no time to take out their arrows. Hand to hand fight with swords, daggers and lances took place, Nawab Ranbaz Khan and his brother Nahar Khan were killed, and Dindar Khan and his sons fled wounded to Ajmer, the Mewatis and the Delhi army sustained a disastrous defeat.

From the Speeches And Writings of Har Bilas Sarda

[Yagnasri]

Guruji,

As per one version the great Hemu is also a Vaishya. Of course there is another version which says he is a Bramhin.

[sol]

Question?

The peshwas were Brahmanas, is that right?

Yes, the Peshwes were Kokanastha Brahmins (from the Konkan region). Their place of origin was Shrivardhan in Raigad district. Their original family name was Bhats. The term "Peshwe" means Prime Minister, a title used by the Maratha rulers of the 16th-17th centuries.

[svinayak]

http://2ndlook.wordpress.com/2009/02/28 ... and-india/

3 Battles That Changed World History – And India
But, the India connection …
Of course, India is not what India calls itself. Bharat(ah) and aryavart are the more common names. Bactra (possibly) is the Greek pronunciation of Bharat(ah).

For most modern Western historians (and also modern Indian historians), only the Core North India, is Indian history, society and culture.

This is the history which colonial historians propagated and showed India as a defeated civilisation. Invaded, pillaged and dominated. Inferior. Technologically backward. This is the history that is taught in schools and exists in popular imagery. Despite its many fallacies, this view is being perpetuated by propaganda interests of the West in general and the Anglo Saxon Bloc in particular – in addition to the (various versions of) Congress party which has been the ruling party for most of post-colonial India’s existence.

Some of the myths that have taken root and which have done much damage to the post colonial India. The infamous population theory, Chidambaram’s ill-informed 5000 years of poverty, poor natural resources, the supine Hindu, non-aggressive behavior by Indians amongst many others myths.

One India is North of Vindhyas and the other is South of Vindhyas. These 2 India’s have a overlap (as is to be expected) and are complementary. The North of Vindhyas, stretching from modern day Orissa, MP, Maharashtra upwards has its core around the Indo Gangetic plains and the Himalayas. It is the core of North Indian geography.

This North Indian geography radiates out and spreads on the उत्तरपथ Uttarapatha (the Western world knows this as the Silk Route) to modern day Samarkand, Afghanistan, Tibet, Pakistan, Iran, Oman, Tajikstan upto the Caspian Sea. Central Asian tribes and kingdoms of Persians, Sakas /Scythians, Kushans (Kanishka, their most famous ruler), Huns, Mongols, Tartars set up empires with shifting boundaries. Hueng Tsang narrates that India ruled till east of Taklamakan desert. The famous ‘robber baron’ of colonial archaeology, Sir Aurel Stein, recovered many Indian language scripts from Central Asia.

Along the Dakshinapatha दक्षिणपथ

There is another part to that history – which today influences and touches half the world. This history is full of wealth, military successes and a spread which taken India deeper than any other civilisation in the world. While the previous history was along the उत्तरपथ uttarapath, this story lies along the दक्षिणपथ dakshinapatha.

Its starts at Kerala, a highway across Nagpur Jhansi, Gwalior, Delhi ,Kashmir and ends in modern Iran. This history and geography is loosely dominated by the Dravidian segment of India.

Colonial historians (from India and the West) dismissed Dravidian history as subordinate and lesser than Aryan on the basis of the Aryan Invasion Theory. Now that the Aryan Invasion /Migration Theory does not have a leg to stand on, the contribution by the Dravidians along the dakshinapatha दक्षिणपथ becomes more important.

Military paradigm changes
From the battle of Kadesh to the retreat of Alexander, Indic rulers changed the military paradigm. Buddhist texts talk about 16 mahajanapadas – which formed this ruling federation. Five very important changes were seen. Buddhist texts refer to the “the 63,000 kings of Jambudwipa”. Power was distributed amongst the many kings to provide a choice of competing administrations, to which the populations could migrate, based on advantage, opportunity and benefit.

One - war chariots became less important. By the time of Alexander’s march in India, chariots were a minor part of the Indian armies. Instead, the importance of cavalry increased. Bessos, the Bactrian mathista, designated to succeed Darius III, led the successful Indic cavalry charge, at Gaugamela, on the Macedonian right flank – which forced Alexander to focus on the centre of the Persian army, led by Darius III.

When Alexander finally was able to make his way to India, he met a fierce onslaught of the Indian cavalry units – supported by fearsome elephants. Indian cavalry units were always smaller than in other nations due to paucity of horses in India. India was a traditional importer of horses. For combat use, Indian cavalry used imported horses and Indian breeds. Behind Rajput power, was the successful breeding of the Marwari horses, which came about only in the 12th century. Earlier Indian horses easily trained and more intelligent, but smaller with less stamina, and used as as pack animals.

Two - a system of alliances supporting frontline kingdoms in the entire North West Indian swath was formulated. For instance, against the Assyrian invasion, led by Semiramis, a minor Indian king, Stabrobates, was supported to beat back the Assyrian invasion. Against Cyrus the Great, Tomyris, a Scythian Queen was supported to massacre Persian invaders. Alexander’s nightmare began immediately, as soon as he crossed into the Indic area.

Instead of the complete capitulation and collaboration that Alexander got from the defeated Achaemenid ruling family of Sisygambis, Stateira, Oxathres (brother of Darius III; also written as oxoathres and oxyathres) et al, the foursome of Bessos, Spitamenes, Datafernes and the Scythians made Alexander’s life miserable. At Gaugamela, it was Bessos and his Indian cavalry, which broke Alexander’s formations.

The tribes and kshatrapas (satraps) of Indian North West swath, delayed Alexander for nearly three years – before he could step into India. In India, Alexander had to pay the King of Taxiles, Omphis, (Ambi) 1000 talents of gold (more than 25 tons of gold) – to secure an alliance. He had to return the kingdom of Punjab to Porus – purportedly, after winning the battle. His loot and pickings from India were negligible. Alexander’s response – “the Macedonians frequently massacred the defenders of the city, especially in India.”

Alexander realized that the Indian Brahmins had influenced the Indian princes to organize and support the Indian war against Alexander. Greek sources cite, how at ‘The City of Brahmans’, he massacred an estimated 8000-10,000 of these non-combatant Brahmins. Thus while, invaders were kept at bay, within the Indic area, borders and crowns kept changing and shifting.

Less than 300 years after Alexander, Romans came close to Indian border. They were led by Marcus Licinius Crassus – estimated (or allegedly) worth 200,000,000 sestertii. A writer of classical journals estimated that to be worth about 7.6 million in 1860. Inflation adjusted, about 7.6 billions. Source of Crassus’ wealth – slavery, corruption, pillage, bribery et al. Crassus is more famous in history for three things – One, for his wealth, Two – for having crucified thousands of rebellious slaves on the Via Appia, after defeating Spartacus’ Slave Army and Three, as the man who funded the rise of Julius Caesar.

It is his death, that is usually glossed over.

The rich Crassus decided to chase military fame – “to penetrate even to Bactria, India, and the shores of the Eastern Ocean.” The North West swath was ruled by the Indo-Parthian rulers from circa 100 BC onwards. Western historical narratives place King Guduvhara (Western historians think he is Gondophares) as a prominent king of this era – based on a mix of coins and contradictory written evidence. The value of numismatics in India gets diluted, the moment one factors the fact that Indian rulers did NOT have an exclusive prerogative to mint coins. Freedom to issue coinage was general – based on the acceptability of the issued coinage. Hence, Indian royal Indian coinage was usually crude and simplistic.

On the other hand, private coinage, exquisitely crafted by Greco-Bactrians. These coins possibly gave rise to Japanese yen and the Chinese yuan, from the word yavana, Sanskrit name for Greeks. The capital of these Indo-Parthian kingdoms was Takshashila – the major centre of Indian learning and the site of the Takshashila University.


Early Indian figure with a stirrup (Courtesy - An early history of horsemanship By Augusto Azzaroli).
A lesser known noble of this kingdom was the Suren family – one of who, led an Indo-Parthian-Iranian army against Roman armies, in 53 BC at Carrhae, led by the billionaire, Marcus Licinius Crassus. The Surens were possibly powerful warlords – ruling over Siestan (Shakyastan).

These Indo-Scythians, expert horsemen and archers, creators of the Parthian Shot (popularized as parting shot), pulverized the Roman armies. The Indian invention of the toe-stirrup, a first in the world happened probably around 500 BC-300 BC, at the latest by 200BC. The Indian invention of the toe-stirrup, made the Parthian cavalry into a fearsome fighting force.

Crassus was captured – and his greed was satiated when molten gold was poured down his throat. Mark Anthony tried avenging Crassus defeat – with a disastrous defeat, again.

For the next nearly 400 years, Romans were wary of any large expeditions into Indo-Persian territories. At least, the Italians did not forget Crassus. 1800 years later, Dante Alighieri, asked Crassus, “‘Crassus, tell us, because you know, how does gold taste?”

Of General Suren, not much is known – which by now, should not surprise us. Also, some ancient maps show the Gandhara-Takshashila region as Suren. Suren also supposedly ‘lacked strategic vision’ – these days, is called ‘killer instinct’, for which he was shortly later killed. But it is interesting that the enemies of the daiwas (enemy of devas are the asuras, in Indian scriptures), the Zoroastrians (followers of Ahura Mazda, speculatively Mahishasura) allied themselves with a Suren. The House of Suren’s had traditional rights to install the crown of Persian rulers.

Three – the biggest game changer were the elephant corps. War elephants was an Indian invention and an Indian monopoly. After the defeat and death of Cyrus The Great at the hands of Tomyris, the Persians stopped looking India-wards. 500 years later (nearly), with the help of the Indian elephant corps, the Sassanians stopped the Romans at Persian borders in 363 AD.

With these three changes, Indian heartland became invincible. Empire builders like the Assyrian Queen, Semiramis and the Achmaenian Emperor, Cyrus the Great mounted expensive campaigns to conquer India – and barely escaped with their lives. Later, Genghis Khan’s armies avoided India completely. Timurlane could invade India – when Delhi was under rule by a foreign dynasty, the Tughlaks. Indian invincibility and military prowess was unmatched till the 13th century – when the first foreign rulers, the Slave Dynasty rulers from the Levant started ruling from Delhi – Qutubuddin Aibak, in 1206.

Four – Indian teachers and intellectuals were sent to all corners of the world. The spread of Buddhism in Asia is well chronicled. Socrates’ encounter with an Indian yogi however, is not so well known. Mani, the Buddhist teacher was feared by the Vatican for the next 1000 years. Vatican killed, burnt and quartered all those who displayed any leaning towards Manicheanism. Islamic invaders searched and destroyed statues or ‘boet’ (meaning statues of Buddha?). In 2nd century AD, Origen, a Christian pioneer, attributed the spread of Christianity “The island (Britain) has long been predisposed to it (Christianity) through the doctrines of the Druids and Buddhists, who had already inculcated the doctrine of the unity of the Godhead”

Five - Indic legal and political structures were introduced. The usage of gold was popularized and became widespread as an economic tool. Coinage in India was not a royal prerogative or implemented by fiat. Even the British colonial government could not impose a single currency system in India.

Thus, for instance, there were intricate Greco-Bactrian coins, compared to crude and simple Indic coins. Sanskritic and Dravidian systems were used to structure ancient languages like Akkadian and Elamite.

The foremost administrative innovation was the concept of Bharata(ah) - the aryavart and the arya dhwaj. Comprising of 16 to 30 mahajanapadas, Bharata(ah) became a federation of kingdoms. Each of these kingdoms became a series of succeeding lines of defence against invading armies. What the European Union is grappling with, (and may yet fail) for the last 300 years, was implemented and used 3000 years ago in India.

The foremost proponent of this Indic construct, well known to modern history, is Kautilya Chanakya. Western colonial historians, have spitefully, called him the Indian Machiavelli. Chanakya, encoder-in-chief of Indic statecraft, came a full 1700 years before Machiavelli, who took office, after Savonarola was served en flambe to the Borgia papacy, in a declining and decadent Florence, under the Medicis.

[peter]

curved blade or curved edge ? the two are not same, curved edged sword was definitely there as was the kharga (if you call it a sword and it is curved in the opposite direction) but I'm not aware of any curved sword in India before medieval period.
if you can post the exact references it would be helpful.

Bana wrote Harsha Charitra in 7th century A.D before the arrival of Arabs in India. He describes a "taravari" which is a one edged sword. The "R" and "L" in indic languages is frequently inter changed so what Bana is describing is a Talwar.

Here is the reference:
http://www.sanskrit-lexicon.uni-koeln.de/monier/

Enter: taravAri in the citation field and then click on the link Hcar.

Since the definition of talwar has not changed from Harsha's time to medieval and modern the taravAri mentioned by Bana is the modern talwar.

weapons in SE asia usually follow a different evolution path. the slightly curved chinese dao is a possible source for example. it's difficult to say anything unless we have a look at the terracota figure can we ?

Will try to post it when I get close to the book.

[peter]

The great irony about the paucity of gunpowder weapons in India is that it was the biggest exporter of Saltpeter (potassium nitrate) to the west during the 1600-1800 period. The other two ingredients, charcoal and sulfur, are relatively easy to obtain, but saltpeter is not.

Is it not peculiar that a country/region that sold the most important ingredient of gunpowder to the west never developed or used gunpowder weapons to the same level as the west?

It is interesting to note that Aurangzeb had banned the export of saltpeter from India on the pretext that the west would use it against the ottomans who were aurangjeb's co-religionists!

Though during the time of Sikhs the Sikh guns were better then the ones owned by EIC. Kaushik Roy's book is the source for this. He has reproduced a letter from EIC officers praising the captured sikh guns.

Though my pet peeve is that a good cavalry charge most often carried the day!

[peter]

Airavat,

Here is a snippet from Jadunath Sarkar's History of Aurangzeb describing the battle of Smaugarh.

Issuing from his Centre, Dara advanced by his left side towards Aurangzib's right front, beating all his drums as if the victory had been already achieved by Rustam Khan's charge and nothing was left but to follow it up and annihilate the enemy. But he was soon un-deceived. Aurangzib's artillery had, as we have seen, already repelled Rustam's cavaliers, and stood calmly reserving their fire "until Dara had come quite close. Then all of a sudden the enemy discharged his cannon, musketry, and swivel pieces, which struck us and frightened numbers of our men, who scattered this way and that." Finding himself in imminent peril, Dara did not yet lose heart but turned to the right, to avoid the enemy's artillery, rallied his men, and fell upon Shaikh Mir's division. Aurangzib had pushed up so much reinforcement to the front and so many of his men had dispersed before Dara's advance, that for a time he was left without any guards. If Dara could then have forced his way to his rival's side, the victory would have been his.

Before this paragraph Sarkar says on the authority of various court historians of Aurangzeb's time that Dara was a bad general:

"Dara, who was ignorant of the rules of war and lacked
experience in command, foolishly hastened with the Centre and the Advanced Reserve in person, after the charge of Rustam Khan, and placed his own Van and Artillery behind himself." {Alamgirnamah, 99)

"Dara, in great excite- ment and helplessness, forgetting true generalship, foolishly drove his elephant beyond his own artillery, charged with a party of Syeds of Barha and Mughals, and thus forced his own guns to be silent." (Kambu, 15a.)

"Dara like an inexpert fighter disordered his own arrangement of troops and advanced beyond his artillery." (Aqil Khan, 47).

My question is Dara was close to victory as Aurangjeb was with very small number of guards (one source says he had just 1000 men left with him) and Dara could have easily smashed his way through. At this critical juncture why did Dara turn left?
Obviously court historians' analysis and then Sarkar following them and agreeing with them has to be taken with a pinch of salt since Sarkar himself describes Dara being on the verge of victory!

[Lalmohan]

history is written by the victor - it is in the winning side's historian's interest to ridicule the vanquished foe

[ramana]

Peter and RahulM, Its high time we have a thread on Indian swords.

Peter,
Please lead the effort.

[Klaus]

^^^ Methinks the sword design evolution started off with improvements in metallurgy, specifically forging and early alloying attempts at making spring steel, which was successful in the Bunt region of West Coast, Wootz steel is known to have given rise to spring steel, there is Western propaganda going on that Wootz steel manufacture know-how is lost for good so that Indians will not bother to re-discover it again. Thankfully, a sword made of spring steel has made a comeback into Indian psyche once again.

[tsarkar]

The Vaishyas in battle

Thanks for a good article, Airavat, it has interesting snippets on how complacent the Mughals had become with time.

Ranbaz Khan had with him, 5,000 archers famous for their skill in archery. But the charge of the Rajputs led by Kothari Bhim Singh was so furious and sudden that the archers had no time to take out their arrows. Hand to hand fight with swords, daggers and lances took place, Nawab Ranbaz Khan and his brother Nahar Khan were killed, and Dindar Khan and his sons fled wounded to Ajmer, the Mewatis and the Delhi army sustained a disastrous defeat.

Typically, archers positioned themselves behind stakes or pickets to break cavalry charges, first used by the Turks in 1396 in the battle of Nicopolis http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Nicopolis and reused by the British in the famous Battle of Agincourt http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Agincourt. Babur positioned his guns and dismounted archers behind Araba using the same tactic at Panipat in 1526.

However, the English had become complacent by the Battle of Patay http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Patay in 1429 and did not deployed stakes and pickets and were slaughtered by French cavalry. Getting trained archer replacement is not easy, given the years required to train archers. The English campaign collapsed and the French regained their independence.

archers had no time to take out their arrows

Because the complacent Mughals forgot to deploy Babur's araba to delay cavalry for their archers.

Hand to hand fight with swords, daggers and lances took place

Mughal archers, like any archer, are untrained for hand to hand fighting and were slaughtered by the Rajputs.

Given the lead time required to train archers, over such battles, one of the key advantages of the Mughals was negated over time, just like the English longbowmen could not replace their attrition numbers in the 100 year's war.

The battle described by you is the Indian equivalent of the Battle of Patay.

[Sanku]

archers had no time to take out their arrows

Because the complacent Mughals forgot to deploy Babur's araba to delay cavalry for their archers.
.

Or they did not have enough time, this was a invading army in the area, and perhaps they were attacked before they could deploy themselves?

[Rahul M]

it's not correct to say all archers are untrained for 'hand to hand combat' (I guess you mean melee and not hand to hand combat). In ancient India archers tended to be quite handy in melee and carried large broadsword as back up weapons. there are other examples from around the world like the cretan archers who were similarly reputed.

[Lalmohan]

in many armies regular archers were trained or self taught in the basics of weapons handling and would often work with other infantry arms. very true of ancient india. in militias and levies where citizens would muster to fight for their kings (e.g. medieval england) the villager may have been a good archer and might be able to use a quarter staff, but probably had no training in sword usage. if faced with an armoured knight and out of arrows, would be at a big disadvantage

[ramana]

tsarkar, I read many accounts of the Hundred Year war between England and France. While the English trumpet Agincourt and the longbow men, they dont talk about the end battles which the French won- Battle of Castillon. The French formed groups of soldiers with guns. The French nobility/knights dispised these commoners with guns. Soon after these men disbanded and were adopted by Fredinand of Castile and led to retaking Andulasia in Spain. The Spanish due to the long duree of fighting the Moors had a more eglatarin force of knights and commoners and found no problems in mixing.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hundred_Years'_War


* growing up in India, I thought the English won the war and the French were wusses.

[svinayak]

^^^ Methinks the sword design evolution started off with improvements in metallurgy, specifically forging and early alloying attempts at making spring steel, which was successful in the Bunt region of West Coast, Wootz steel is known to have given rise to spring steel, there is Western propaganda going on that Wootz steel manufacture know-how is lost for good so that Indians will not bother to re-discover it again. Thankfully, a sword made of spring steel has made a comeback into Indian psyche once again.

Where is this propaganda
I want to track it and study it

[tsarkar]

Or they did not have enough time, this was a invading army in the area, and perhaps they were attacked before they could deploy themselves?

Even Babur was an invading army at Panipat & Khanua, but night before battle he prepared his positions. The description mentions the Rajputs had a war council day before battle, so the Mewati army would have had similar deliberations before battle. If they didnt deploy scouts and were unaware of large Rajput presence, its even more lethargic of them.

it's not correct to say all archers are untrained for 'hand to hand combat' (I guess you mean melee and not hand to hand combat). In ancient India archers tended to be quite handy in melee and carried large broadsword as back up weapons. there are other examples from around the world like the cretan archers who were similarly reputed.

Those from nobility could have been, in the words of Duryodhan in Gita, "Sarva Yuddha Visharada", because they did not have to earn their livelihood. Practically a normal human being can skill only in specific tasks. A chap cannot be a proficient paratrooper and a proficient tank operator at the same time. Swordsmanship would require x hours daily practice and archery y hours for achieving combat proficiency. Most common soldiers could not devote x+y hours daily practice to both. This applies to Turkish/Mongol archers. They would have been mincemeat for Rajput cavalry once their long range advantage was negated.

[Rahul M]

nope, it was common foot archers, not nobility. the gap b/w an archer and a swordsman was not as much as that between a para and a tanker.

all missile troops got some training in rudimentary melee fighting. for uber trained soldiers like Indian longbowmen, whose training stretched out for years, even a secondary training in swordsmanship would make them quite proficient due to the amount of training involved.

[Klaus]

Where is this propaganda
I want to track it and study it

Any research attempt aimed at developing a mechanism to develop genuine Damascus steel pattern is criticised and put down, the common refrain is that:
1. there is no baseline Damascus steel which exists for selection and comparison purposes
2. If there exists such a baseline, it certainly is not a typical Damascus steel.

IMO Wadsworth-Sherby attempt was valid but was put down by rival research groups as being not duplicable in nature.

Wootz has invariably been hyphenated with Damascus steel and potrayed as being exclusively in the form of ingots, although indigenous Wootz blade does exist, independent of Damascus linkage. Hence the Raichur link needs to be given more propaganda.

[peter]

history is written by the victor - it is in the winning side's historian's interest to ridicule the vanquished foe

Indeed! But it would be interesting to see what your and other's analysis would say if you did the following:
a) go to google.com
b) in the search box type-> site:archive.org samugarh

You will get few dozen hits out of which perhaps less then half a dozen give details about samugarh and dara.

[peter]

Babur positioned his guns and dismounted archers behind Araba using the same tactic at Panipat in 1526.

But is it apples and apples? On the strength of babur nama we know at least in the battle with Sangram Singh neither artillery nor archers had much of an impact. In the battle of panipat too it would seem later day historians have read a bit too much on the supposed impact of archers and associated tactics.

[peter]

Peter and RahulM, Its high time we have a thread on Indian swords.

Peter,
Please lead the effort.

Thanks for the kind encouragement Ramana but I am not sure about my competence on this. Would it be possible for other learned editors here to form a "virtual guild" and perhaps target a book?

[peter]

Most common soldiers could not devote x+y hours daily practice to both. This applies to Turkish/Mongol archers. They would have been mincemeat for Rajput cavalry once their long range advantage was negated.

But don't we know what were the standard weapons carried by mongol cavalry? Swords were standard issue to all.

[jambudvipa]

Peter ,nice to see you back !

Klausji, can you clarify what Raichur connection means?

[Klaus]

Klausji, can you clarify what Raichur connection means?

Apologies if this has been posted here before: Wootz Steel.

Check the sections on Deccani Wootz, Wootz from Tamil Nadu. There was a corridor running from Krishna river to Thanjavur in the south which was the most likely centres for Wootz steel manufacture. The article needs a lot of cleanup as it contains a mix of historical, anecdotal, research and survey results along with metallurgical and technical details.

There are a few more articles, however there are obscure references to India, emphasis is given on the role played by Persian middlemen and refineries in Persia.

[peter]

Airavat,

Here is a snippet from Jadunath Sarkar's History of Aurangzeb describing the battle of Smaugarh.

Issuing from his Centre, Dara advanced by his left side towards Aurangzib's right front, beating all his drums as if the victory had been already achieved by Rustam Khan's charge and nothing was left but to follow it up and annihilate the enemy. But he was soon un-deceived. Aurangzib's artillery had, as we have seen, already repelled Rustam's cavaliers, and stood calmly reserving their fire "until Dara had come quite close. Then all of a sudden the enemy discharged his cannon, musketry, and swivel pieces, which struck us and frightened numbers of our men, who scattered this way and that." Finding himself in imminent peril, Dara did not yet lose heart but turned to the right, to avoid the enemy's artillery, rallied his men, and fell upon Shaikh Mir's division. Aurangzib had pushed up so much reinforcement to the front and so many of his men had dispersed before Dara's advance, that for a time he was left without any guards. If Dara could then have forced his way to his rival's side, the victory would have been his.

Before this paragraph Sarkar says on the authority of various court historians of Aurangzeb's time that Dara was a bad general:

"Dara, who was ignorant of the rules of war and lacked
experience in command, foolishly hastened with the Centre and the Advanced Reserve in person, after the charge of Rustam Khan, and placed his own Van and Artillery behind himself." {Alamgirnamah, 99)

"Dara, in great excite- ment and helplessness, forgetting true generalship, foolishly drove his elephant beyond his own artillery, charged with a party of Syeds of Barha and Mughals, and thus forced his own guns to be silent." (Kambu, 15a.)

"Dara like an inexpert fighter disordered his own arrangement of troops and advanced beyond his artillery." (Aqil Khan, 47).

My question is Dara was close to victory as Aurangjeb was with very small number of guards (one source says he had just 1000 men left with him) and Dara could have easily smashed his way through. At this critical juncture why did Dara turn left?
Obviously court historians' analysis and then Sarkar following them and agreeing with them has to be taken with a pinch of salt since Sarkar himself describes Dara being on the verge of victory!

Continuing the discussion of battle of Samugarh from: http://horsesandswords.blogspot.com/200 ... ugarh.html

Gohad later became one of the three leading Jat states along with Bharatpur and Dholpur. On the other hand, Champat Rao Bundela was killed by order of Aurangzeb only three years later and his famous son Chhatrasal led a campaign to free Bundelkhand from Aurangzeb's oppression.

Do we know the reason for Champat Rai's assasination?

PS: Thanks Jambudvipa!

[Rahul M]

once of the best articles on wootz steel, this one is from IISC's mat-sc dept.
http://materials.iisc.ernet.in/~rangu/text.pdf

[Shwetank]

Peter and RahulM, Its high time we have a thread on Indian swords.

Well things have progressed since I last visited here. I had been meaning to do a discussion on the Indian arms myself but never got around to it and now i've forgotton a lot of the information and references I had gathered . I remeber posting a few pics once but I went in search for more info elsewhere didnt think it was appropiate here (as in no one was much interested in the weapons themselves I thought). I don't think it should be limited to swords at all but all the arms (and there is such variety). Not as much information as on European or Chinese stuff as usual. The starting sources usually recommended for people looking at arms in the subcontinent exclusively are usually Rawson and Egerton (EDIT: my bad I said elgood instead of egerton before, I said I had forgotton , Elgood did a much more recent book and also deals with the associated rituals and ethnography, still worth checkin out) if I remember correctly. They have the old colonial atitude going at times (especially Egerton who is 19th cent. and uses archaic terms and stuff but his book is available almost completely on Google Books I think) but they collected a lot of data and specimens to look at. Ofcourse they have a tendency to attribute the source of something to outside influences if in doubt (even the automatically assumed the khukhri is descended from kopis connection has continuity issues to be considered). Anyway will get around to it if I have time (or sudden period of lack of laziness ). The hardest area is to find information before mainstraim islamic influence, (prior to I guess 15th, even 14th century). Ofcourse some of the best specimens are with foreign collectors and musuems.Here are some interesting galleries of collected pictures on arms from subcontinent, they are visually interesting but provide good look at different forms. Again they are meant to have a discussion and more captions with them eventually but still a valuable source for generating discussion or viewing (and some gorgeous crafstmanship there).

General collection of arms pictures various sources 1
General collection of arms pictures various sources 2

Some of the best sources are collectors and websites trading in these items. Akaal Arms is one with high-res pics but older items are lost from archive, here's some from there but visit the website to see quite a few more:Limited Akaal Arms gallery

Auction House in Germany, again many items lost from old archived catalogues. Hermann Historica Lots of variety and some rare pieces but high res-pics only start to appear at end and their new catalogues have very very high res-pics, but they are not uploaded to the gallery yet .

Oriental Arms has Huge collection and keeps extensive archives, but lower quality pictures and items are often more common and generic (get boring very quickly), harder to find the quality pieces worth looking at. Here's some good pieces from their archives, but more should be added sometime. Oriental Arms CollectionYou can check out their website archives yourself if you want to find them faster.

Rahul M wrote:
curved blade or curved edge ? the two are not same, curved edged sword was definitely there as was the kharga (if you call it a sword and it is curved in the opposite direction) but I'm not aware of any curved sword in India before medieval period.
if you can post the exact references it would be helpful.

Bana wrote Harsha Charitra in 7th century A.D before the arrival of Arabs in India. He describes a "taravari" which is a one edged sword. The "R" and "L" in indic languages is frequently inter changed so what Bana is describing is a Talwar.

Here is the reference:
http://www.sanskrit-lexicon.uni-koeln.de/monier/

Enter: taravAri in the citation field and then click on the link Hcar.

Since the definition of talwar has not changed from Harsha's time to medieval and modern the taravAri mentioned by Bana is the modern talwar.

This is interesting and goes back to the foreign influences thing and the constant blending of influences and styles that happens in subcontinent (although with weapons that happens universally in all cultures really). The standard view is that yes curved blades were present but the the long slender curved shape of the talwars is specifically outside influence form Iran/Turko outsiders, the counterpart Persian shamshir basically have identical shape and differ mainly in the handle (talwars have the distinctive round disc pommel present on Indian swords from ancient days). The Persians in turn got influence from Arabs/turks (arabs have saif similar shape but saif may also refere to any sword I think (just like talwar is often used in India, but these are ethnographic questions and culture is rarely so clear cut and classifiable) and turks have yataghans (where have much more different shape but still the cuved blade is used in the slashing motion (especially from horses) common for this class). Both arabs and persians origianally had straight swords and that was the main shape in India too (old statues and scenes show this invariablly before turko invasions, which makes all those historical dramas like MB which show curved talwars suspect ). So might be they applied the old word to new variations of swords? or maybe there was very similar shape present which got blended into the current one (i mean there must be some slighlt change or manipulation of it because the shape is nearly identical to that found in Middle east after the same time period of invasians/influence form Central Asian nomads, so to have exact same shape indigenously develop is too much of a coincidence.) Well it is hard to tell what exactly with such old history anyway.

[ramana]

Shewtank,
And all those guys didn't have native wootz steel. How did the properties of wootz influence sword design? I think the curved sword (slashing and cutting) was mainly developed due to wootz steel.

[ArmenT]

Let's get some sword myths out of the way here.
First, the reason why some blades are curved and others are straight has a lot to do with the number of cutting edges on the blade and the tempering procedure. If a blade has only one cutting edge, it naturally tends to curve during the forging process (because of the tempering process altering the crystalline structure of the blade), whereas if it has two edges, it tends to remain straight, because the two edges cancel each other ot.

Second, due to djinn fysikks, a curved blade tends to slash and slice better than a straight blade, whereas a straight blade can chop and thrust better. Now, curved blades were preferred by light cavalry people because they're easier to manipulate from a horse (slice one guy, then move on to next one), but Euro knights preferred straight blades during the middle ages. Why? Because their armor development during the early times and middle ages could easily defeat slashing and slicing swords and the only way to take out a guy wearing armor was to thrust through using a heavy blade. Couldn't pull out the sword easily after that though, but Euros were pretty much hack and thrust types ever since the Greek and Roman times. Only when armor began obsolete is when the Euros started to adopt curved swords. SDREs, on the other hand, never had anything close to plate armor and only had light cavalry too, so slicing blades were more preferred (more on this below. SDREs weren't originally curved blade users mainly either, they were straight blade cultures for a long time too)

Thirdly, there's good steel and there's master swordsmiths who know how to make a real sharp sword using tempering techniques. SDREs had plenty of the former, but not much of the latter. This is why Damascus, Viking and Japanese swordsmiths are well known and not Indian smiths. Also, it looks like ancient Indians knew that good iron ore came from a few particular mines, but didn't really know what made the ore superior (to be fair, neither did anyone else in the ancient world either). It had to do with the presence of certain other minerals in the iron ore. So when those mines ran out, wootz steel literally became a rare commodity overnight.

Plenty of cultures (Japanese, Mongols etc.) adopted curved swords without access to wootz steel. For instance, early Japanese swords from 300-400 AD were straight, but gradually curved swords became more popular. And for those cultures with no access to wootz steel, they could still make pretty good weapons using poor quality ore, by improving the quality of steel using pattern welding techniques (Vikings used to do this a lot and Japanese also later discovered this technique. Koreans also used it.). And there were plenty of Indian swords that were straight, even with easy access to wootz steel, e.g. Khanda, Maratha Pata sword, Nair swords etc. Curved swords seem to gain popularity in India only after Moghul rule started, as they brought curved swords from Persia.

[peter]

This is why Damascus, Viking and Japanese swordsmiths are well known and not Indian smiths.

Would have to disagree. Crucible steel was developed in India. It was exported to Damascus by Indian merchants before Christ and from there it came to be known as Damascus. Just like Arabic numerals. Originally from India, made popular in the west by/through Arabs. Another good example of Indian metallurgists prowess is the Delhi Iron pillar (originally from Udaygiri). Till date scientists don't have a handle on how a solid block of iron does'nt rust even though exposed to the elements.

Curved swords seem to gain popularity in India only after Moghul rule started, as they brought curved swords from Persia.

How can this be true when Bana in Harsha Charitra mentions use of Talwar? Also, as you alluded above w.r.t cavalry, just to extend your point, Indian armies had a big component of cavalry and curved sword is an indispensable item for cavalry men in the Indian context.

[ramana]

From force resolution aka djinn physics, a curved sword is good for cavalry charges. approx. 30 years ago I saw a book on sword mechanics which had a free body diagram and resolution of forces at the cutting edge. They showed cavalry charges need a curved blade. Also the scabbard plays a role in keeping the edge.

[ArmenT]

This is why Damascus, Viking and Japanese swordsmiths are well known and not Indian smiths.

Would have to disagree. Crucible steel was developed in India. It was exported to Damascus by Indian merchants before Christ and from there it came to be known as Damascus. Just like Arabic numerals. Originally from India, made popular in the west by/through Arabs.

You've completely missed my point. If you look at my previous post, I never said that Indians didn't have good steel. What I said was Indians didn't have outstanding swordsmiths. Demand for crucible steel from India is well known. Hell, even the Vikings imported some crucible steel with origins in South Asia. Damascus swords were well known for sharpness, but those swords weren't made in India, only the steel that went into making those swords. One is a raw material, the other is a finished product. There isn't any sort of historical record of swords from (say) Bangalore, Kerala, being of superior quality and of much demand in the middle-east. But there are names such as Masamune, the smiths of Bizen, Muramasa, Ulfbehrt, the smiths of Solingen etc. who were known for the quality of their blades.

Curved swords seem to gain popularity in India only after Moghul rule started, as they brought curved swords from Persia.

How can this be true when Bana in Harsha Charitra mentions use of Talwar? Also, as you alluded above w.r.t cavalry, just to extend your point, Indian armies had a big component of cavalry and curved sword is an indispensable item for cavalry men in the Indian context.

I screwed up one thing -- I typed "moghul" instead of "islamic" in my previous post. Cavalry can also use thrusting swords using the force of the horse's charge to double the impact. Plus, straight swords are pretty good at hacking movements too. Slashing is another matter though and this is where the curved sword is superior. There may have been some limited talwar use before Muslim rule, but honestly, just go to a museum and observe the old weapons from before islamic period, as well as old paintings and sculptures. Majority of them show straight swords. Wouldn't say that the arabs invented the curved sword either, they might have been influenced by the Mongols.

[Shwetank]

Shewtank,
And all those guys didn't have native wootz steel. How did the properties of wootz influence sword design? I think the curved sword (slashing and cutting) was mainly developed due to wootz steel.

That's an interesting question, its properties certainly made it easier to make slender, light yet sharp blades. It might have contributed to its more frequent use and evolution in the middle east. Its hard to nail down exactly where the curved scimatars originated but they are supposed to be down to somewhere central asia with turkic tribes and possible influence from china (which had a huge variety of swords and techniques and influenced the central asian hordes plenty). Ofcourse wootz isn't needed for sabres as modern armies used them much later after wootz disappeared and you can make a curved shape fairly easy any quality steel. Earlier sabres were more straight becoming narrower towards tip which lent it some curve but the pronounced curves (almost C shape sometimes) came later. In general lower quality materials are worse at handling the stresses placed on vigorous slashing movements and so slender curved swords might have broken more often when made of lower quality material but become more common with wootz and higher quality techniques (the Japanese used high quality technique using multiplate forging). So the curved sword was not developed due to wootz but its later design might have been influenced by it.

First, the reason why some blades are curved and others are straight has a lot to do with the number of cutting edges on the blade and the tempering procedure. If a blade has only one cutting edge, it naturally tends to curve during the forging process (because of the tempering process altering the crystalline structure of the blade), whereas if it has two edges, it tends to remain straight, because the two edges cancel each other ot.

Well it might have some influence but this can be easily controlled and there are plenty of straight blades with one cutting edge, as I said above even the early Turkic sabres were almost straight and narrowed to a tip with slight curve at the end. I think this is not really the main factor and two edges canceling each other out is not at all needed. I'm no expert in sword-making or metallurgy (that's why I'm saying I think, feel free to correct me) but this is something I've never heard or come across before.

The straight sword in Europe is ofcourse well known where it was meant to pierce armour while lightly armoured nomads slashed with curved swords (I've even seen this contrast discussed in pop. culture history based shows). Curved blades could still be used against armour (the mongols and turks used them against the still armoured europeans). High-quality plate armour (which was not common ofcourse) was pretty good against it but lower standards stuff or armour where there was not full plate coverage (far more common especially in Eastern Europe) or against mail curved swords could still do quite some damage. Also this directly influenced the Europeans and eastern European countries picked up the curved blades (it became integral form of sword as far west as Poland). Ofcourse later in firearms based armies the sabre was widely adopted especially for the cavalry and their was discussion among the military thinkers over their benefits (quite some preferring native straight swords due to tradition/nostalgia) but the sabres (well not really that curved as talwars could get) continued to be used into modern armies in ceremonial roles.

there's good steel and there's master swordsmiths who know how to make a real sharp sword using tempering techniques. SDREs had plenty of the former, but not much of the latter. This is why Damascus, Viking and Japanese swordsmiths are well known and not Indian smiths.

The main export from India were the wootz ingots yes but there were certainly good smits in India too, by Mughal times there are pieces surviving showing high craftsmanship. About known swordsmiths, there are those from mughal times (unless you don't consider them indian or something) but mostly keeping records was not a strong in India (in all historical fields) and just because there is no one famous name doesn't mean there weren't good smiths. Also not sure how certain we can be there were not common tempered steel sharp swords as that is fairly basic skill in metal working which was certainly well established in subcontinent. Again not heard of this but the historians you are referring to might be doing the old taking a hunch and simply assuming nothing happened in India before foreign intervention (and India's climate makes it hard for many pieces to survive through and hard to really say if nothing existed in India's climate.) or they might have come up with some conclusive proof which shows this (it'd be interesting to look at if you could post the references).

And there were plenty of Indian swords that were straight, even with easy access to wootz steel, e.g. Khanda, Maratha Pata sword, Nair swords etc. Curved swords seem to gain popularity in India only after Moghul rule started, as they brought curved swords from Persia.

It wasn't really Ramana's contention that wootz was used only curved swords, it was ofcourse used in things other than swords as well (guns for instance). And Mughal rule was fairly late and turkic influence of curved swords started few centuries before.

Let's get some sword myths out of the way here.

Not sure what myths you are addressing in some of those points, more of a general knowledge state ment. The main myth would be that curved talwars weren't always present especially in ancient times and perhaps that wootz wasn't needed for scimatars (ramana was just asking its influence really and not sure how that became widespread enough to be a myth). And the straight sword part was directly addressed in the post just before yours...

[Shwetank]

Ah didn't see this post before posting last one.

There isn't any sort of historical record of swords from (say) Bangalore, Kerala, being of superior quality and of much demand in the middle-east. But there are names such as Masamune, the smiths of Bizen, Muramasa, Ulfbehrt, the smiths of Solingen etc. who were known for the quality of their blades.

Again as said in above post hard to tell. In chinese study they say they rose to great heights throughout history and then knowledge was lost/declined. This might have happened in subcontinent, hard to tell with these things (the chinese history stuff was also dismissed often by western historians as being inferior always i think).

I screwed up one thing -- I typed "moghul" instead of "islamic" in my previous post. Cavalry can also use thrusting swords using the force of the horse's charge to double the impact. Plus, straight swords are pretty good at hacking movements too. Slashing is another matter though and this is where the curved sword is superior. There may have been some limited talwar use before Muslim rule, but honestly, just go to a museum and observe the old weapons from before islamic period, as well as old paintings and sculptures. Majority of them show straight swords. Wouldn't say that the arabs invented the curved sword either, they might have been influenced by the Mongols.

Yea noted the pre-mughal point in post above. And noted arabs used to have straight swords before central asian influence (Muhammad's period swords were described as straight I believe).

Also the scabbard plays a role in keeping the edge.

Yup thats why they used wooden scabbards, was instance where I think British modern army issued cavalry sabres with metal scabbards (well metal is superior material ofcourse why use that primitive wood eh) and the swords were getting blunt by banging into the scabbard when carried around.

[ArmenT]

@shwetank: Your point about record keeping in India is taken. Some of the civilizations that India traded with kept pretty good records though. There are records about trade with India for items as varied as textile cloth, steel ingots, grain, pepper, indigo, gold, gems, sandalwood etc., but not much in the way of finished swords. Does that mean that India didn't know how to make swords? Nope. All it means is that they weren't so extraordinary that there was a demand for them. On the other hand, there are records in great detail about the demand for Benaras silk, Gujarat cloth, Malabar cloth, Bengal cotton, Dhaka muslin etc. because these were extraordinary enough compared to locally available goods in other countries.