How did the Indians fight?

[antisocialmunky]

I've been wondering how exactly the Indians fought in this period. Aside from the partial hellenization of the area and their employment of elephants, I don't really know much about the subject and hope you guys can enlighten me. I forget whether this was the Aryan period but if it is, did they differ in their military?

[Thaatu]

They fought like buffalos, but no, they didn't have elephants, unless they bought some from Phoenicians or Martians. :indian_chief:



Forgive me. I hope someone will answer properly.

[Treverer]

I've been wondering how exactly the Indians fought in this period. Aside from the partial hellenization of the area and their employment of elephants, I don't really know much about the subject and hope you guys can enlighten me. I forget whether this was the Aryan period but if it is, did they differ in their military?
Far from being a specialist in this matter, my first hint would be to look at wikipedia, especially the links there. If there are some they might direct you to more indepht knowledge databases.

Yours,
T.

[The General]

I don't know much either, but I do know that they did use (light, I presume, the heat must make it impossible to endure long battles in heavy armour) cavalry, and that the Elephants played an important role, naturally. Also, the Indian longbowmen were famous, both numerous and skillful.

[macsen rufus]

Read the Mahabharata ... :clown:

[Intranetusa]

I've been wondering how exactly the Indians fought in this period. Aside from the partial hellenization of the area and their employment of elephants, I don't really know much about the subject and hope you guys can enlighten me. I forget whether this was the Aryan period but if it is, did they differ in their military?

The Aryan/Indo-Iranian-European migration period was around 4000 BCE, and they came into India around 2000 BCE. So this is much much later after the migrations.

[Watchman]

What I've often wondered about is what happened to those big Assyrian-ish chariots of theirs Alexander encountered at least at Hydaspes... were those still around by the EB period, or had the warrior caste finally recognised their numerous shortcomings and delegated them to ceremonial ?

[antisocialmunky]

Read the Mahabharata ... :clown:

That's not a bad suggestion.

[Tellos Athenaios]

What I've often wondered about is what happened to those big Assyrian-ish chariots of theirs Alexander encountered at least at Hydaspes... were those still around by the EB period, or had the warrior caste finally recognised their numerous shortcomings and delegated them to ceremonial ?

You could find an asnwer in the EBH vaults... AFAIK. :wink:

[Watchman]

Yeah, maybe if I dedicated a day to wading through them or something... and that that wouldn't really enlighten Joe Public anyway.

[Tellos Athenaios]

True. But at 3:54 AM a frazzled mind does not always think clearly...

[J.Alco]

Where's an Asia Ton Barbaron specialist when you need one?

[Malik of Sindh]

I didin't know we had a specialist.

[The Persian Cataphract]

Chariotry had a strong place in Indian heraldry, not least as the favourite means of transporation for high nobility or royalty, but it also carries great mythological and religious impact to it. Even though the chariot remained quite a cumbersome element, it remained to be the favoured vehicle for Indian commanders and high officers for some time, well into the Mauryan period (When Indian cavalry was undergoing a transitionary phase). It was regarded as more prestigious and implied a certain rallying point.

[Watchman]

The Indians weren't exactly alone in that then mind you. One need merely look at the favoured "command vehicle" of Achaemenid monarchs or the role of the chariot in Roman triumphal parades to see close enough parallels - and that among peoples who had for most intents and purposes (except for the terror/distruption weapon role of the Achaemenid scythed version) abandoned the chariot as a weapon of war rather longer ago.

Heck, you still these days sometimes see tanks referred to as "chariots" when people feel like waxing poetic... :dizzy2:

[Captn. James Crunch]

A bit of a vague question (like asking how the barbarians fought) as different cultures fought in different ways.

I haven't read any Indian history books lately but basically, north of the Deccan plateau (Aryans) were more cavalry oriented than the rest of India. Not too sure about the Pandyas and other southern peoples but the Oriyyas, Biharis, Bengalis, Assami and Arakanese made more heavy use of war elephants (also people in Ceylon). The Tibetans and later the Nepalis had superior cavalry and this was one of the reasons their influence was to great in the area.
The biggest difference between Indian armies and other European and Asian militaries was their size. There is a quote which sums it up really well (can't remember the exact wording, but its something like:
Persians were known for their archery, (someone) were known for their (something) and India was known for her armies.

[antisocialmunky]

Heck, you still these days sometimes see tanks referred to as "chariots" when people feel like waxing poetic... :dizzy2:

Merkava much?

[Intranetusa]

I haven't read any Indian history books lately but basically, north of the Deccan plateau (Aryans) were more cavalry oriented than the rest of India.


Persians were known for their archery, (someone) were known for their (something) and India was known for her armies.

I'm think by the time of EB, the Aryans had mixed with the entire populace of India both in the north and in the south. Saying "India was known for her armies" is a bit vague lol

[KuKulzA]

India... at the time....

except in the north the cavalry wasn't much to mention... however... hundreds of elephants... heavy (armored?) chariots pulled by four horses each... large companies of archers and thousands of infantry levies from the rural areas reinforced by groups of elite professional infantry warriors....

the elephants served as rallying points and as elephants would normally function as... often princes and kings would sit atop elephants... and often they had towers... and also the men on the howdah would have long spears, javelins, bows, etc... and the elphant could have knives, or rope, or flails, attached to its tusks...
the chariots weren't light harassment chariots but when panzer-style and ran people down... but like any chariot they didn't feel too comfy in rough terrain
longbowmen and other archers were apparently very common and I have heard somewhere that archery was a 'noble' war art
and then infantry infantry infantry.... Indian armies were some of the largest armies of the time...

that's just to give you an idea...

read this: Arthashastra (http://www.mssu.edu/projectsouthasia/history/primarydocs/Arthashastra/index.htm)
it's like Art of War by Sun Tzu except from India and you'll notice Indian ideas and formations and troops types



EDIT: so when they say India was known for its armies...
that translates to: India was known for its HUGE armies...

[CirdanDharix]

War varied alot depending on the region; in the Aryanised north, the style of warfare was fairly influenced by Iran. In the South, it would have been very different. Much of India is unhopsitable to horses, and this had a big impact on tactics; cavalry was important enough in the North by the EB period, but still lagging behind that of the rest of Eurasia. In the South, cavalry would have been nonexistent; even in later times, the Southern Indian states would be almost exclusively reliant on imported horses from Iran and Arabia (hence the strategic importance of Goa, the "horse port"). By the time the Marathas would rise to prominence (ca 1700CE), the Dekkan would have indigenous breeds of ponies, but not warhorses. But here I err. You would have two very distinct forms of warfare in the deep South and in the Aryanised Indo-Gangetic plain, possibly with some intermediary forms in the Dekkan between the Narmada and the Godaveri rivers.

[Captn. James Crunch]

KuKulzA beat me to it, but yeah that was the idea the quote was expressing.
As for the cavarly, this was always a problem in India, even until the time of the Palas who rather than import horses in large amounts made heavy use of the Kambojas.

Also as regards to chariotry, Indian chariots were very different from the chariots seen in other cultures, firstly because of their size (usually at least six feet tall and pulled by four armored horses) and relative maneuverability and secondly because of their use in warfare. Whereas chariotry west (and north) of India were used mainly to break up enemy formations, Indian chariotry evolved into a supporting role to their war elephants (basically the elephants crashed into the enemy, followed by chariots who would run down and pick off the ones who survived the elephants).

"Aryanization" really began in the Emperor Ashoka's reign and even then it was limited to peninsular India. The Gupta dynasty was largely responsible for the Aryanization of the entire subcontinent, but that happened around the 4th century.

[Maeran]

"Aryanization" really began in the Emperor Ashoka's reign and even then it was limited to peninsular India. The Gupta dynasty was largely responsible for the Aryanization of the entire subcontinent, but that happened around the 4th century.

I'm pretty sure that wasn't the case.

If you see Aryanisation taking place in peninsular India (the Deccan and the south) then this is because the north was already infused with India's special brand of 'Aryanisation'- and it's easier to talk of this in India than elsewhere because the process seems to have gone from India to the far east in more or less historical times, and the Vedic people apparently did refer to themselves as 'Arya'.

Buddha himself came from a Ksatriya family in the mid north of India and during his life (which was during the 5th century BC) he traveled around the area of Magadha which was a fairly prominent power on the middle Ganges. So that area at least was well established as an aryanised area some centuries before the Mauryas.

[keravnos]

Originally Posted by EB member Spurius Brontosaurus, born and raised in India,




“Porus drew up his army in the so-called Garuda[i.e. eagle] formation, one of the standard ways in which Indian commanders arrayed their soldiers on the battlefield. Its object in placing 200 elephants in front of his infantry was to scare away Alexander’s cavalry … Both wings of Porus’ army were protected by 150 chariots and 2,000 cavalry” Chariot, The Astounding Rise and Fall of the World’s First War Machine”, Arthur COTTERELL pg 144

“News had reached the Macedonians that the Nanda army comprised 200,000 infantry, 20,000 cavalry, 2,000 chariots and 4,000 elephants” COTTERELL pg 147

[WARRY (Alexander 334-323 BC, Conquest of the Persian Empire”, John WARRY... pg 79) compares sources on number of chariots in the battle of Hydaspes. Arrian gives 300 out of a total force of 34,500; Rufus 300 on 30,385; Diodorus Siculus gives over 1,000 of 54,000+ a small component of the total army]

“ After having pleased the army with rewards and honours, the commander-in-chief should address it and say:-- A hundred thousand (panas) for slaying the king (the enemy); fifty thousand for slaying the commander-in-chief, and the heir-apparent; ten thousand for slaying the chief of the brave; five thousand for destroying an elephant, or a chariot; a thousand for killing a horse, a hundred (panas) for slaying the chief of the infantry; twenty for bringing a head; and twice the pay in addition to whatever is seized” – ARTHASASTRA Book X

“Favourable positions for infantry, cavalry, chariots, and elephants are desirable both for war and camp… That which is even, splendidly firm, free from mounds and pits made by wheels and foot-prints of beasts, not offering obstructions to the axle, free from trees, plants, creepers and trunks of trees, not wet, and free from pits, ant-hills, sand, and thorns is the ground for chariots” – ARTHASASTRA Book X

“ Protection of the army; repelling the attack made by all the four constituents of the enemy's army; seizing and abandoning (positions) during the time of battle; gathering a dispersed army; breaking the compact array of the enemy's army; frightening it; magnificence; and fearful noise--these constitute the work of chariots.” – ARTHASASTRA Book X

Armies are often referred to as having four constituents (“chaturanga”) which are infantry, cavalry, elephants and chariots.

[russia almighty]

kern couldn't have pikes worked if the Indo-Greeks or Baktrians had caltrops ?


Hell does anyone have any idea what they would do to an elephants feet?

[Elthore]

hah, makes you wonder how effective a warmachine could have been if it had to avoid ant-hills!

[Maeran]

Behold the works of the mighty Maeran!
King of Kings and Protector of the Goodly
He that crushed perfidious foes under chariot wheels
But only where there were no anthills, sand, wagon tracks, plants or other such tiny obstruction.

What kind of battlefield is flat and totally free of obstructions? Presumably the battlefield is also divided into black and white squares before the chariots can engage.