Historical Battles in Ancient & Medieval Bharat

[Carl_T]

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

I believe the slightly curved sword is a Turkish or Mongol idea, because Indian cruved swords don't look like the Arab scimitar.

[Rahul M]

Swords remained straigh for a long time. didn't know when the swords got curve............
For at least 2400 years the blade remained straight

thanks for the images.

virtually all curved swords, from the persian shamser, to the Indian talwar to the european sabre and even possibly the japanese katana owe their origin to the curved mongol schimitar.

no 3 comes closest to what we know about the mongol sword looked like.
curved swords have the advantage of higher strength than a straight sword of the same weight and material and ease of drawing in restricted environs like on horseback.

____________________________________

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.

about horse archers ? yes, we have already come to that conclusion.

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

you are depressing me !

I agree that we had become ossified in terms of strategy, even in other parts of the world, it is common in relatively isolated societies. innovation in military tactics and technology is almost always a direct result of interaction with foreign military powers.
the greek city states for example practiced a form of almost ritualistic infantry battles with hoplites and skirmishers and didn't change much in terms of tactics because of the mixed success against the achaeminids. when the time came, it was only thus only too easy for the macedonians with their combined arms armies to capture all of greece in a few years.

I believe the slightly curved sword is a Turkish or Mongol idea, because Indian cruved swords don't look like the Arab scimitar.

even the arab schimitar comes from the mongols.

[Carl_T]

Yeah, looks like the curved swords came with mongols and turks, here are the swords of Muhammad (or so the guy claims), all are straight except one.

http://ibnulazim.wordpress.com/2008/09/ ... ammad-saw/

[CalvinH]

RahulM thanks for the information. Very informative.

[Rahul M]

you are welcome calvin.

ancient Indian armoured elephant.

[/URL]

Most ancient authors say nothing about towers on elephants' backs; nor are towers to be found in artworks. The crew usually consisted of 2-4 men, including a driver with an ankusha - a pointed
goad supplied with a sharp hook. Bows and arrows were common weapons of the crew; javelins
and spears were less frequent. The warrior on the croup was often a standard-bearer. Elephants
were sometimes covered with armour, but this was expensive. This plate shows one such
elephant. The reconstruction is based on plates discovered in Taxila, which date as far back
as the turn of the new era.

the head armour isn't as accurate IMO, it would extend much further down the truck as flexible and not one piece plate armour.

[Murugan]

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

My pleasure indeed. Discovery of this coin has also proved beyond doubt the existence of vaishnavites before christ. similarly the brahmi inscriptions on heliodorus pillar at besnagar provided enough proof of existence of vaishnavs in indo-greek kingdoms beyond present day Takshshila in the era BC. (though OT)

[Rahul M]

^^^
puru's army was said to have gone to battle with the macedonians with a large banner of 'herakles' (which is how greeks referred to krishna). this was of course centuries before christ.

[Vril]

can some one please post about king Bharat after whom our country is named.

also few related questions:
1. Was is name pronounced as Bharat ( Shri Ram's brother) or as Bhaarat ( as in bharat rakshak)
2. If he was King Bharat(a male), why do we say Bharat Mata Ki jai

thanks

[Yagnasri]

Bharatha is the son of Emporar Vrushabha of Ayothya who is the a (first?) thirdhankara of Jains. As per Srimadh Bhagavatham Vrushbha is also incornation of Bhagavan Vishunu. Our nation is named after that Bharatha. You may well aware of the story of his brother Bahubali etc..

The mistaken idea is that the name has come from Bharata son of Dushyanth ( of Puru dynasty and nayaka of Abhigyana Shakuntalam of Kalidasa).

[Vril]

^^ thanks Narayan Rao. could elaborate story of Bahubali? Also why is the name after him.?? and what was our country called before that?

thanks

[peter]

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.

Hard to agree with as Hunting wild boar and other animals in rajasthan was extremely common.

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.

I used to think the same but in reality Arab horses were not that suited for hard terrain of India. They had very delicate legs and broke often on rough grounds in India. Marwari and Kathiwari were bred in ample quantity and were the mainstay of Indian armies. Infact more indegenous breeds of horses existed besides these two.

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.

Wait a minute Ramayana and Mahabharata are replete with chariot warfare using bows and arrows. Shooting arrows from a fast moving platform was a skill people had in India and had used it well. There are descriptions of people putting the "horse lagaam" in their teeth and fighting with swords in both hands. See no reason why they could not practice archery on a horseback. Did you read Padmanabha's snippet given above? He talks about having a bone bow as a standard issue to each horsemen.

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

Majority of wars with the invaders took place in northern India. "Naarthies" filtered a lot of invasions from the south. So the invaders were fought with cavalry predominantly.

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.

Not true. Prithviraj Chauhans army in the first battle of Tarain outflanked Ghori's army.

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.

No not true. See above.

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.

Khanua is getting deconstructed here. Artillery of Babur was of not much importance either at Panipat or at Khanua. Babur's wings almost gave away when "suddenly" he won says a contemporary historian!

[peter]

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.

You are welcome. I have collected many such books. What I have seen in travelling through rajasthan is that tens of thousands of primary sources are rotting in various libraries for the want of funds. Who knows what other gems exist!

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 ?

Well the general impression is that expertise in horse back archery was an import from outside of India or in other words an acquired art. I was just questioning the basis of this thesis given the richness of chariot warfare in Hindu scriptures.

[peter]

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

Is this really true? What was the role of skirmishers in mughal armies? Did'nt they had both matchlock men and archers on horseback?

[Airavat]

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

Not true.

I agree with Peter here. The historian RC Majumdar writing in The Delhi Sultanate observed that the greatest extent of the Sultanate was established by Muhammad bin Tughluq (1325-51) but even he failed to conquer Rajasthan:

"To Muhammad bin Tughluq, either as crown-prince, or as Sultan, belongs the credit of all these conquests which completed the triumph of Islam and seemed to have finally put an end to Hindu independence in the South. The authority of the Sultan was acknowledged all over India, save Kashmir, Orissa, Rajasthan and a strip of Malabar Coast, and he established an effective system of administration over this vast empire."

Now, Kashmir and the Malabar coast (Kerala) are ruled out because there was no invasion of these regions. Orissa also faced only one invasion by way of Bengal, but Rajasthan was bang next door to Delhi! So had the Rajputs only made "frontal charges" they would have been crushed in battle after battle and their lands would have been occupied by the invaders.

This did not happen partly because of the fierce resistance and the tactic of "jauhar" which denied the Turks any resources or converts from a fallen fort. But where old clans fell, new ones rose to replace them (like the Sesodias and the Rathods) and they defeated and drove out the Turks from Rajasthan in a series of battles. "Frontal attacks" could not have won all these battles?

RC Majumdar writes: "It is also quite clear from contemporary chronicles that Muhammad Tughluq and the later Sultans practically left Rajputana severely alone, and the various Rajput principalities recognised Mewar as the paramount power at least in name."

[jambudvipa]

Peter great post I agree with most of your points except this :
"Majority of wars with the invaders took place in northern India. "Naarthies" filtered a lot of invasions from the south. So the invaders were fought with cavalry predominantly."

Do you mean to say the north filtered a lot of invasions to the south?
The rajputs were able to hold their own ground,but they could hardly stop the Delhi sultantate from expaniding down south.
In this case where does the question of filtering down invasions arise?

Timur was not looking to penetrate down south.i read somewhere that one of the principal opponents he regarded was the kingdom of Vijayanagar.

and it was hardly the rajputs who assisted the ferocious war of liberation which broke out in south India (Karnataka,Andhra,Tamil Nadu) very much in Mohd Tughlaqs lifetime.The powerful Vijayanagara empire was the direct result of this combined effort of hindu arms in the south.The destruction of the Madurai sultante was another consequence.

Also except for the arid parts of the deccan which not coincidentlly were ruled by the Muslim sultanates whose strength lay in their cavalry, I dont think the climate of rest of the region was conducive for horses.

Even before the muslim intervention the Pandyas etc imported large number of horses from abroad to sustain their cavalry forces.

[Lalmohan]

deccan and southwards, the terrain does not favour either chariots or cavalry formations operating freely
fighting advantage centred around elephant power, until i suppose gunpowder

also, it seems that invaders flowed through the north in different ways, suggesting not so much annihilation or total conquest, but temporary advantage and movement through to specific locations, e.g. doab; and an uneasy truce with the indigenous kingdoms in the 'rear'. hence the south was just as much subjected to islamic onslaught, though perhaps one could argue that it was slightly more indigenised islamic than purely foreign

[Rahul M]

Well the general impression is that expertise in horse back archery was an import from outside of India or in other words an acquired art. I was just questioning the basis of this thesis given the richness of chariot warfare in Hindu scriptures.

for one, chariot archery is not same as horseback archery, since chariots offer a much more stable platform for shooting. secondly, archery was only one of several uses of chariots in warfare, some were used to charge down infantry formations, other larger ones were used to carry soldiers into battle and so on.
chariot archery and horse archery are in no way comparable. moreover, chariot archery of the type described in the mahabharat for instance refers to a duel type engagement between individual warriors with chariots mostly stationary ?
which is a completely different approach to the hit and run tactics of a horse archer.

the general impression is there and it is justified because there is virtually no evidence of horse archery developing in India that I know of. the one you presented is intriguing but inconclusive without further supporting information.

[Lalmohan]

the horse archer formation is superb in the attack and feint retreat, but it must have strong cohesion and command and control to be effective. whilst central asian nomads always used these tactics, its only genghiz khan that first properly institutionalised it as an effective war fighting system. battle after battle sees what appears to be a disorganised rabble charge the front line and then scatter, only to regroup sharply and drive deadly volleys of arrows into the pursuing ranks, who are invariably then drawn into a heavy cavalry ambush as they start to lose cohesion. the mongols wiped out most of the persian extended empire and eastern europe using these tactics. however, the Rus (having fought as satraps) learned well, and eventually turned the tables on the mongols in a later battle and crushed them comprehensively, finally lifting 'the tartar yoke'

[peter]

Peter great post I agree with most of your points except this :
"Majority of wars with the invaders took place in northern India. "Naarthies" filtered a lot of invasions from the south. So the invaders were fought with cavalry predominantly."

Do you mean to say the north filtered a lot of invasions to the south?
The rajputs were able to hold their own ground,but they could hardly stop the Delhi sultantate from expaniding down south.
In this case where does the question of filtering down invasions arise?

I should clarify my point. If one does a survey of medieveal history most of the invasions took place via north western India. People who were living in that region had to bear the brunt of those invasions. Invading armies moved southwards only after they had a decent foothold in the north. Consequently the first organized "invasion" of south took place under Malik Kafur at the end of the 13th century full 600 years after the first invasions started against the hindu rulers in what is afghanistan, punjab and rajasthan.

Also please take a look at this: Organization of Indian Kingdoms during the time of Invasions

[peter]

the general impression is there and it is justified because there is virtually no evidence of horse archery developing in India that I know of. the one you presented is intriguing but inconclusive without further supporting information.

I feel that a lot more is known about the organization of invading armies compared to indegenous armies. Situation is complicated even more by our history writing institutions relying on court chroniclers of the invaders and not paying much attention to history chronicled in vernacular languages. Vernacular sources do exist but are not widely available and some times not written in english. I quote from one such book which is largely based on vernacular sources and luckily written in English. It is called "Kheechi Chauhan history" and talks about the archery skills of rajputs.

a) Attack of Mahmud Khilji on Khichis at Gugron:


b) Saving of Tijanias and fight with Mir Ghudle Khan

[peter]

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

Not true.

I agree with Peter here. The historian RC Majumdar writing in The Delhi Sultanate observed that the greatest extent of the Sultanate was established by Muhammad bin Tughluq (1325-51) but even he failed to conquer Rajasthan:

"To Muhammad bin Tughluq, either as crown-prince, or as Sultan, belongs the credit of all these conquests which completed the triumph of Islam and seemed to have finally put an end to Hindu independence in the South. The authority of the Sultan was acknowledged all over India, save Kashmir, Orissa, Rajasthan and a strip of Malabar Coast, and he established an effective system of administration over this vast empire."

Now, Kashmir and the Malabar coast (Kerala) are ruled out because there was no invasion of these regions. Orissa also faced only one invasion by way of Bengal, but Rajasthan was bang next door to Delhi! So had the Rajputs only made "frontal charges" they would have been crushed in battle after battle and their lands would have been occupied by the invaders.

This did not happen partly because of the fierce resistance and the tactic of "jauhar" which denied the Turks any resources or converts from a fallen fort. But where old clans fell, new ones rose to replace them (like the Sesodias and the Rathods) and they defeated and drove out the Turks from Rajasthan in a series of battles. "Frontal attacks" could not have won all these battles?

RC Majumdar writes: "It is also quite clear from contemporary chronicles that Muhammad Tughluq and the later Sultans practically left Rajputana severely alone, and the various Rajput principalities recognised Mewar as the paramount power at least in name."

Thanks Airavat. I feel that the defeats suffered by Indians are more well known compared to the victories they gained. Consequently all that gets discussed is the reasons for defeats! Can you be tempted to write a book on medieveal Indian wars since you have an impeccable grasp of details of this era?

It is great to have this discussion here but ultimately it would get buried in a corner on the world wide web. It would be of immense help for people at large and some open minded history professors to read a well researched book on medieveal wars in India written more from an Indian perspective.

[Rahul M]

peter, it still doesn't say anything about horse archers. if anything, the armour piercing shots described (medieval invader armies were invariably armoured) indicate infantry longbows, since cavalry archers used bows that didn't generate as powerful shots.

I'm not disputing that the history we get is loaded towards one direction but neither does it mean that we can believe anything we want without proof.

lalmohan ji, it is said that chengis khan perfected it but it was the parthians much before him who first used these tactics with notable success.

[jambudvipa]

Peter ,thanks for the reply.I agree with you there.
The contribution of the great shahi kings of Kapisa ie Jayapala etc is never taught in our schools.

This thread has been a big source of info from gurus like Airavat ji and you.
It would be an excellent idea for Airavat ji to pen a book on the mediveal era.

could you give a list of must read books which give a vernacular account of rajput battles against Muslims?

TIA

[peter]

I'm not disputing that the history we get is loaded towards one direction but neither does it mean that we can believe anything we want without proof.

Let us see the evidence thus far:
a) Padmanabha in Prabandha says a bow was a standard weapon carried by cavalry
b) He further describes use of bows by cavarly of Kanhadadev in their engagement with Ulugh Khans forces
c) In the Siege of Gugraun by Mahmud Khilji the khilji court historian describes cavalry of rajputs as using spear and bows to inflict damage on the khilji army.
d) Attack on Gudle khan and piercing of his head by opposing archers points that this skill was rather practiced and developed.

[peter]

Peter ,thanks for the reply.I agree with you there.
The contribution of the great shahi kings of Kapisa ie Jayapala etc is never taught in our schools.

This thread has been a big source of info from gurus like Airavat ji and you.
It would be an excellent idea for Airavat ji to pen a book on the mediveal era.

could you give a list of must read books which give a vernacular account of rajput battles against Muslims?

TIA

All the various raso books (like prithviraj raso, Khoman raso etc) talk a lot about warfare. They sometimes are hard to follow because descriptions of wars are allegorical and bring in Krishna and Arjun and other mythological characters into the discussion. One good source for rajasthani books is this bookstore in Jodhpur. I visited them many years ago and they have an online catalogue which you can access here:
http://rgbooks.net/english.pdf and
http://rgbooks.net/hindi.pdf

[Rahul M]

peter, only (a) is specific, (b) and (c) could mean infantry as well unless I'm much mistaken. (d) is completely irrelevant, it says archers performed well, it doesn't tell us whether they were infantry or cavalry.
in fact, when it is cavalry archers the usual practice is to mention it explicitly and I'm reasonably certain the translator knows this as well. he has not done so in even one place. IOW you are insisting on reading 'archer = horse archer' without conclusive evidence.

I'm not sure about your assertion that rajput armies were exclusively cavalry ones. it was predominantly made up of cavalry but AFAIK there were infantry units too.

[Rahul M]

airavat ji, could you educate us on the horse breeds used in ancient Indian armies ? were these local breeds, ancestors of the marwari/kathiawari or some central asian/persian breeds ? I know that details are not available but even tidbits would be valuable.
if you have any info if heavy cavalry was used or not, that would be appreciated as well.

[peter]

peter, only (a) is specific, (b) and (c) could mean infantry as well unless I'm much mistaken. (d) is completely irrelevant, it says archers performed well, it doesn't tell us whether they were infantry or cavalry.

Let us go with a). Since bow was a standard issue to the cavalry do you reckon it was not used by cavalry at all? Why would they carry it on the horse and not use it?

Also if you look at Airavat's post here: Archer hunting a boar: do you believe that shooting an infantry or another cavalry was harder compared to shooting a boar? Since shooting a boar with an arrow was common why would using the bow to kill on horseback be a novelty?

[Lalmohan]

rahul - the mongol composite bow i believe had a draw strength of 120lbs, compared to the english longbow of 80lbs (which was considered a very potent anti armour weapon, comparable only to the crossbow (in europe)), if we assume then that all of that becomes kinetic energy - the mounted archers ought to be packing a massive punch or trade that for range for harrassing fire

one of the discovery channel programmes recently had a lot of stuff on arrow head penetration - interesting to note that arrowheads could penetrate considerable steel armour (breastplates) even at some range. for the light horse archers, closing rapidly and firing a powerful shot at fairly close range, they could probably cause havoc even with heavy armoured cavalry formations

also, if we believe that the rajputs are descendants of the hunnish tribes that came to india then they ought to have brought mounted archery with them and presumably kept it alive. perhaps the huns didnt use close formations or used complex manouevres... don't know!

[Rahul M]

everything that a soldier is issued with is not directly related to fighting. the bows could well have been used for hunting, a very necessary requirement for a mobile force that lives off the land.
by now I'm a little tired of repeating, circumstantial evidence or conjecture does not equate to conclusive evidence. what you have presented till now has not even a small amount of direct evidence. if horse archery was a regular part of rajput armies why isn't it represented in the paintings of the period, for instance ? or in the arms from that era ?

also, if we believe that the rajputs are descendants of the hunnish tribes that came to india then they ought to have brought mounted archery with them and presumably kept it alive. perhaps the huns didnt use close formations or used complex manouevres... don't know!

I think airavat ji has crushed that myth quite well !

I'll get back to you about the arrow penetration thing.

[Airavat]

On horses, the ancient Vedic texts state that the best horses (for use in pulling chariots) are bred in the lands around the Saraswati River (northern Rajasthan).

Early medieval texts mention Vanayu (Arabia and Persia), Kamboja (Afghanistan), and Turushka (Central Asia) horses as the best and local breeds of Trigartta (Punjab-Himachal), Gurjara (Gujarat-Rajasthan), Avanti (Madhya Pradesh), and Saurashtra (Gujarat) as being inferior.

In the medieval era this page from the Kanhadde-Prabandh posted by Peter talks of Kanhad Dev's army having both indigenous as well as foreign breeds like the Khurasani and Turki. This is the general trend in that period when Indian armies strove to increase their cavalry forces to match the invaders. From their location along the trade routes going to West and Central Asia, the Rajputs were best placed to attack the Muslim trade caravans and carry off hordes of foreign horses. At the same time they developed the local breeds like the Marwari and Kathiawari.

The colonial writers who distorted Indian History, and the leftists who follow them, kept on insisting that these horses had "foreign blood". Some of them even claimed that these indigenous horse had "foreign descent"! This was the usual tactic of such writers to ascribe foreign origins to anything and everything in India. In 2005 a DNA study: "Genetic diversity and bottleneck studies in the Marwari horse breed", found that the Marwari horses had little in common with foreign breeds.

Therefore the horses in Rajasthan and Gujarat have an ancestry going back to Vedic times, and they were later improved through selective breeding. Horses in other parts of India (lakhi, multani, dakhini, jangala) are mostly extinct so little is known about their ancestry.

[Rahul M]

thanks a lot, we also know from a description by a greek historian that Indian light cavalry, possibly from the sindh rajasthan area formed part of the army of the persian empire.

btw, this question is for peter as well, what was rajasthan called in ancient times ?

[Airavat]

Let us go with a). Since bow was a standard issue to the cavalry do you reckon it was not used by cavalry at all? Why would they carry it on the horse and not use it?

In 1178 when Muhammad Ghori invaded Gujarat, sacking Nadol and Kiradu on the way, the contemporary text Prithviraj Vijay states, "When these fiends in the shape of men took possession of Nadol, the warriors of Prithviraja took up their bows and the emperor became angry and resolved to lay Ghori's glory to dust."

Does the phrase "warriors of Prithviraja" refer to the entire army or to the chief nobles and generals in attendance at his court? Since the context is the report from the messenger about Ghori's advance towards Gujarat, which was delivered to Prithviraj at his court.

In all medieval Indian armies, whether Delhi Sultanate, Mughals, Vijaynagar, Deccan Sultanates, etc. horse-archery units were formed by hired soldiers from Central Asia. Rajput armies do not show separate horse-archery units in that manner; the references in the Kanhadde Prabandh are to arrows being discharged first, and then the use of swords, lances, and even daggers, at close quarters. There are many paintings depicting bows and quivers being carried on horseback by the Rajput rulers and nobles.
http://photos1.blogger.com/x/blogger/24 ... erri11.jpg
princess with a quiver on her saddle.

[Lalmohan]

rahul - i am not proposing that rajpus had horse archer formations, i dont think they did at all. but archery was very much part of all indian armies. so dont be tired! (this is a very educative thread)

also, i must have missed airavat's comments on rajput origins... happy to learn if you can point me in the right direction

[Murugan]

A Still from Alexander the Great Movie showing elephant armour



While This One is Different

[Murugan]

some info on dhanurved

info on mauryan army

[Rahul M]

^^ both are very wrong. this film's nonsense depiction of puru's army has polluted the already erroneous perception of ancient India's military like nothing else.

LM ji, I started this topic with a statement about Indian archers,
from what I've read, both in terms of technology and skill, Indian foot archers were the best bar none.

[Rahul M]

murugan ji, the second link is from a game (I should know, I'm making a mod on it ) which uses the film alexander as its primary source. it is the frustration from watching these stupid depictions that forced me to become involved in making a realistic mauryan faction for a game.

isn't this http://img408.imageshack.us/img408/8233/73788201.jpg more realistic than this ? http://www.ancient-battles.com/catw/mer ... rchers.png

[Singha]

whatever be the merits or demerits of arab horses, the Cholas are reported to have imported a few hundred every year by ship.

[Singha]

what is the ancestry of the Manipuri horse?

some kind of import during bengal nawabi era or found there earlier?

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

since the people of manipur are hardly tatars but likely of indo-burmese-thai stock could it be this horse had reached manipur from tibet or china via the eastern trade routes?

numbers available seem to be low, since the ahoms and koch's who ruled assam did not have big cavalry units and were hence at a disadvantage on the rare occasions when bengal nawab/mughal armies could force a battle on firm open ground suitable for cavalry moves. most of the time, the mughal horses and soldiers died in droves from disease, flies, water and humid weather. and these were people who were not that comfortable in delhi-UP weather to start with.