EARLY CLASSICAL INDIAN ARMIES IN DEPTH

 

OVERVIEW

As mentioned on the Gallery page, the Early Classical Indian military system was built around the concept of the Four-fold Army (Caturangabala), which was really a reference to troop-types or classes of troops (herein referred to as “corps”)—elephantry (hasti), chariotry (rathin), cavalry (ashva), and infantry (patti). There were also four “grades” of soldiers—regulars (maula), mercenaries (bhrta/bhrita), militia (sreni), and wildmen (atavika/utavi/atavabalam). Each army (sena) was commanded by a senior general (sarva-senapati), with a staff of chief officers who oversaw each corps—chief of elephantry (hastyadhyaksha), chief of chariotry (rathadhyaksha), chief of cavalry (asvadhyaksha), chief of infantry (pattyadhyaksha), chief of artillery (ayudhagaradhyaksha), and chief of ships (navadhyaksha)(note how the chiefs of artillery and ships indicate a departure from the idealized system with two additional corps). It is unknown whether these were field officers—men who commanded troops in battle—or whether they were logistics officers that only oversaw the organization and supply of the relevant corps on the march and in camp (skandhavara). They could have been both, acting as logistics officers on the march and in camp, but taking direct command of a specific division or battalion in battle. Considering the way troops were deployed for battle (see below), it seems unlikely that any one of these officers commanded all the units in his corps in any given battle, since the different corps were often divided between two or more divisions in any given battle array. This is also a list of all the possible corps chiefs in a given army, and as with so much that is described in the period tactical manuals it is an ideal overview that may not have always directly correlated to reality. For example, it seems unlikely that armies that had no elephants would have had a corps chief of elephantry, and only states carrying out naval operations would have had need of a corps chief of ships.

 

The composition of each army was determined by the available resources of a given state. Each army was sub-divided into two tiers of tactical formations—“divisions” (gulma/gana) and “battalions” (senamukha). Deployment was organized into a “battle array” (vyuha) that typically consisted of a “vanguard” (urasyam), “rearguard” (pratigraha), “flankers” (kaksau), and “wings” (paksau). Each of these positions in the battle array (there were sometimes more) generally corresponded to divisions, and were the primary unit of maneuver. The vanguard division normally consisted of the leading battalions, the rearguard was a reserve, the flanking divisions (x2) were positioned to either side of the vanguard and/or rearguard, and the wing divisions (x2) were positioned outside of the flankers. This was an ideal deployment, and Classical Indian tactical manuals include a dizzying number of different possible battle arrays intended to compensate for different factors a general might face in different situations, but the historical writings of foreign peoples that faced Classical Indian armies (e.g., the Persians, Greeks, and Macedonians) usually describe Indian deployments in terms that corroborate the standard battle array mentioned in the Arthashastra. Indeed, some of the battle arrays seem fantastical, and it is not known whether they were ever actually used. Each division of the array (i.e., vanguard, rearguard, flankers, wings) was commanded by its own general (senapati) and consisted of a mix of battalions. As stated above, it is possible the division commanders were chosen from among the corps chiefs, although divisions normally did not consist entirely of battalions drawn from only one corps. Battalions, on the other hand, were both grade-specific (i.e., maula, bhrta, sreni, or atavika) and corps-specific (i.e., elephantry, chariotry, cavalry, or infantry), but a division was created by brigading different battalions together. The composition of divisions (i.e., which battalions would be assigned to which division) was generally not determined until the army deployed for battle, battalions being assigned to different divisions based on the plan of battle. Attention was paid to placing battalions consisting of certain corps in appropriate positions in the battle array (e.g., battalions of elephantry and chariotry were usually in the vanguard, infantry in the rearguard and flanking divisions, and cavalry and wildmen in the wings), but this was not always the case. In particular, the flanking divisions in many battle arrays had a similar composition to the vanguard, and infantry battalions were often used to reinforce elephantry, chariotry, and cavalry. Similarly, battalions consisting of the same grade were often (although not always) deployed in mutually supporting positions in the battle array (i.e., maula battalions with other maula battalions, bhrta with bhrta, etc.), although once again, the Classical Indians were not slavish about it, and the maula, who were considered the most reliable troops, were often used to anchor different divisions of the battle array (e.g., maula elephantry in the vanguard, maula chariotry in the flanking divisions, maula cavalry in the wings, and maula infantry bowmen in the rearguard). The commanders of battalions were known as nayaka, regardless of grade or corps, which seems to have been a generic title that simply meant “commander.” The senior general, the generals of the divisions of the battle array, the corps chiefs, and the battalion commanders were usually, although not always, drawn from the kshatriya caste. Brahmin could, however, serve in these positions, and in republics or in militia units vaishyas could command. Even veteran shudra could rise through the ranks—the Nanda Dynasty (345-321 BCE) of the Magadha Empire was founded by Mahapadma Nanda, the son of the last Shishunaga emperor, Mahanandin (a kshatriya), and one of his female servants (a shudra). Mahapadma Nanda staged a palace coup, murdered his father, and then carried out a purge of kshatriyas from the high command of the Magadhan military, which he then reorganized along more professional lines (i.e., caste was subordinated to ability in the command structure). He then embarked on a series of campaigns that greatly expanded the territories of the empire (before the Nandas, Magadha controlled only the Lower Gangetic Plain, but the Nandas expanded this to include the Upper Gangetic Plain, as well as the Chota Nagpur and Malwa plateaus), and the purge/restructuring of the military was extended to each conquered realm. Obviously, this made the Nanda emperors (there were nine in succession) immensely unpopular with the upper castes, and later Brahmanic literature was highly critical of them, but the fact of their success, as well as the obvious continued professionalization of the military system of the Magadha Empire and the other Mahajanapadas, argues that they merely capitalized on a trend that must already have taken hold. Colored hair, elaborate jewelry, finely decorated equipment, and brightly colored clothing typified members of the command structure. Female warriors (matrika) were rare, but they are mentioned in period texts. In particular, several emperors of the Maurya Dynasty (322-185 BCE) were said to have had guard units that consisted entirely of female archers. Each battalion usually had an icon made of carved and painted wood or worked in bronze, gold, or silver studded with gems, that was the emblem of the unit. Common themes in period art and texts are the sun (surya), fish (matsya), rooster (kukkuta), crescent moon (ardhacandra), boar (varaha), bull (cakra), a mythical bird known as a garuda, and the lion-headed man known as a narasimha. Vexilla-style flags did not come into vogue until the Gupta Dynasty (Late Classical Indian, beyond the scope of this gallery), although parasols seem to have often served the role later assigned to flags—to identify the location of leaders and relay simple signals. Drums, flutes, horns, cymbals, parasols, dispatch riders, and runners were all used for command-and-control signaling and dispatch. 

 

During the Vedic Period, chariotry had been the main arm of the nobility, and there were still chariots in Classical Indian armies (and they were still mostly manned by kshatriya), although elephantry gradually supplanted chariotry as the prestige corps, and cavalry replaced chariotry altogether by the about 400 CE. The chariots fielded by most of the Mahajanapadas would have been large, pulled by four horses (usually hitched side-by-side), with a crew of three or four (driver, warrior, and one or two secondary warriors, one of whom used a parasol to guard the crew from missile weapons). Smaller states, lesser kshatriya, and the nobles of the Dravidian/Tamil tribes usually used two-horse chariots with a crew of two (driver, warrior). Greek sources regarding the Battle of the Hydaspes (May 326 BCE) between Alexander of Macedon and the Kambojan king, Poros, state that Poros' chariotry had four horses and six crewmen, but this arrangement is not attested in any Indian source at any time, and is probably inaccurate (indeed, no Indian source ever mentions Poros, and it has been suggested that the Greeks used a bastardized transliteration of the name of the tribe they were fighting at the Hydaspes—the Pauravas—as the name of their king, and thus it might be taken to mean, "king of the Pauravas," rather than as an actual personal name). Believe it or not, there was also an elephant chariot (hastiratha) mentioned in period texts and often the subject of period art—basically a large armored wagon pulled by an elephant. Normally, war-wagons (ushtrabala) were pulled by oxen and were considered to be a substitute for chariotry in poor states that could not field substantial numbers of chariots—I've seen it falsely stated that these war-wagons were used by republics because they did not have nobles with chariots and/or elephants, but this assertion is contradicted by period tactical manuals (and republics still often had kshatriya, brahmin, and vaishya oligarchs). The sides and roof of these war-wagons were hide-covered rattan (if they had a standard compliment of soldiers, I've never seen it enumerated in any source). War elephants (samnahya) were ridden into battle in three distinct ways—astride (dantistha), by carriage (varandaka), or by war-tower (vahana). In each of these three styles, there was usually an elephant driver (mahamatra) who sat astride the elephant's shoulders, just behind the head and neck, and used a goad (ankusa/ankusha) to direct the elephant in its movements. Warriors riding astride would be arranged in a row of two or three behind the driver (usually primary warrior, a parasol bearer, and sometimes a secondary warrior). The parasol (chatra) was not just decorative—it was often made of padded wool over a rattan frame and could be used as a kind of shield (mostly against missiles), and it was often used as a signaling device and as a signifier of prestige for commanders (i.e., a precursor to use of flags). The elephant carriage could be as simple as a tandem saddle arrangement that provided a slightly more secure seat to riders astride (and also had attachment points for hanging equipment) or a more elaborate tandem bench arrangement, where the riders sat on benches affixed to a platform, sometimes with a canopy (they could both sit on the benches and stand between them). The war tower was basically a wooden or hide-covered rattan box strapped to the elephant's back, in which the warriors would stand, the walls of the box generally coming up to chest-level on the men. Shields were often bolted to the sides of the war tower for added armor. Both carriage and war-tower carried between three and four men during this period (in addition to the driver). Most elephants were very lightly armored with quilted barding and/or thickly napped and highly decorated caparison (astarna), although elite units of elephantry had larger, more powerful elephants provided with armor (prakhara), usually with a plate chamfron for the head (sometimes with segmented plates down the trunk) and coat-of-plates barding for the body. The exposed skin of war elephants was often painted in elaborate designs. Chariotry, war-wagons, and elephantry were primarily platforms for archery, although javelins were also common, and even two-handed spears/lances (tamara) were used. Cavalry did not fully come into its own in India until the Late Classical Period, but the Mahajanapadas could still field substantial battalions of cavalry—these were generally spear, sword, and javelin-armed, usually using volleys of javelins to "soften up" enemy formations, followed by closing to hand-to-hand combat when a tactical advantage was perceived. Cavalry scouts and dispatch riders were also common. Despite the high prestige of the chariotry, elephantry, and cavalry, the bulk of Classical Indian armies were infantry, and most of these were bowmen. There were also units of spearmen/javelinmen, although these were usually used to provide support to chariot, elephant, and cavalry units or as flankers or scouts. The primary maula infantry battalions were mixed units, with shield-carrying spearmen/javelinmen in front and bowmen behind, although unfortunately we have no specific information concerning the depth of these formations or the ratio of spearmen/javelinmen to bowmen (they were likely similar to contemporary Persian sparabara). Other infantry battalions do not seem to have used these mixed formations (i.e., they were either all spearmen/javelinmen or all bowmen), although as I've stated, battalions of spearmen/javelinmen were often used alongside battalions of elephantry, chariotry, or cavalry as a screen or as escorts (padaraksa) to drive off opposing skirmishers, clear caltrops, and prevent enemy infantry from getting close enough to harm the elephants or horses. Finally, there were some royal guard units (antarvamsikasianya) of infantry that were armed primarily with sword, axe, club, and/or mace, but these were generally few in number and acted like shock troops. Similarly, the units of the so-called wildmen (atavika is my favored term) were divided between elephantry or chariotry (chiefs and elites), elite shock infantry (cata) armed with hand-to-hand weapons, and infantry levies armed primarily with bows. They were usually deployed on the wings, and due to their tendency to operate in loosely organized formations, they were expected to exploit difficult terrain considered unsuitable for the regular units (bhata) of the army.

 

Classical Indian tactical manuals distinguish between three classes of weapons (ayudhani)—“long-range” (mukta), “mid-range” (muktamukta), and “hand-to-hand” (amukta). The only long-range weapon was the bow (dhanus) and arrows (vana). Early Classical Indian bows were usually made of bamboo (capa) or wood (tala), with a bamboo-fiber string, and after about the end of the fourth century BCE composite bows gained in popularity, using horn (srnga) to reinforce the tips. The maula and bhrta specialized in the use of a particular bamboo longbow, up to six feet in length unstrung, that required substantial strength and technique to string and which utilized particularly long and heavy arrows. The Classical Indian definition of a mid-range weapon was a weapon that could be used both in hand-to-hand and ranged (in this case, thrown) combat. As with long-range combat, there was really only one class of weapons in this category—the spear (sula). The lack of specificity in terms—basically, all spears and javelins were referred to simply as sula—has led to confusion among many modern authors, as well as difficulty in classifying these troops for war-gaming, but I think if you imagine them to be the Indian equivalent of Hellenistic thureophoroi/thyreophoroi, you're probably not too far off the mark. It appears that they may have used thrown spears/javelins as a prelude to closing with swords, but it is possible that they also sometimes used spears in close combat. We just don't know for certain. There were a number of hand-to-hand weapons, mostly used as sidearms, although as I've mentioned there were elite units of infantry that whose tactical stance was geared primarily toward hand-to-hand combat. As in many pre-gunpowder military systems, the sword (asi) had the greatest prestige. There were several different designs—a saber-like single-edged weapon called a nistrimsa, a long sword with twin parallel blades that tapered to a point (called an asiyasti) that could be used one- or two-handed, and a shorter weapon with a leaf-shaped blade known as a mandalagra. There were both one-handed (gada) and two-handed (mausala) varieties of the mace, as well as a spiked mace (yashti) and two-handed iron-bound club (mudgar). There were also one-handed (parasu) and two-handed (kuthara) battleaxes. Finally, the short-shafted trident (trisula) was both a weapon and, due to its association with the cult of Shiva, a symbol of office (i.e., the weapon of choice for some kshatriya). There were five types of shield. There was a small, round, all-metal buckler called a carman; a round, hide-covered rattan shield known as a kitika; an oddly shaped, roughly triangular shield with rounded vertices that was called a hastikarna (“elephant’s ear”); a truly strange-looking trifurcate design called a talamula (“root of the tala tree”); and a rectangular shield, sometimes tombstone-shaped with a rounded upper edge, called a kapata. Armor was rare, usually limited to upper caste officers, elite troops, and/or veterans. Most helmets (lohajala) were simple cone-shaped caps of iron or bronze, although the Classical Indians were among the earliest civilizations to produce steel (wootz). Body armor (varmani) invariably took the form of a jacket (jalika) or vest (patta) of padded wool (sutrakankata), mail (kavaca), or scale (kavacin). Tension and torsion artillery was used, sometimes lavishly—the general term for all artillery was yantra (literally, “machines”). A distinction was made between mobile artillery (calayantrani), which was used in the field in support of the other corps, and fixed artillery (sthitayantrani), which was usually used in siege warfare (attacking and defending) and naval warfare. The primary designs of mobile artillery were a stone-throwing torsion catapult (sarvatobhadra), and a bolt-throwing tension ballista (jamadagnya). 

 

MAULA

The Maula (pronounced MAW-luh) were professional soldiers that were the mainstay of most Early Classical Indian armies. Although membership in the Maula grade was hereditary, initial recruitment into the corps was possible from any caste, the hereditary nature of the position being a privilege earned through service (i.e., if you were the son of a Maula, you were a favored candidate for recruitment, but aspirants of ability were always welcome, and once you became a Maula your male descendants then also enjoyed favored status). The hereditary nature of the position tended to tie Maula families to particular states (kingdom or republic), although with the expansion of the Magadha Empire there were Maula battalions whose primary allegiance was to the imperial house, no matter where they were stationed. The Maula were the army regulars of most of the Mahajanapadas and the Magadha Empire, paid out of the state treasury, and forming the main professional corps of most armies. They were used as garrison troops, bodyguards for leaders, and as the core of most field armies. Their equipment was provided by state manufactories and was generally uniform and of high quality (although each state's arms manufacturing system was basically a networked craft industry with many small-scale producers contributing material that had to meet specifications, but there was no true uniformity of kit). Maula units were provided with battle-dress (sangrama-sajja) and kit (upakaranani). Maula “uniforms” would have been the same style of clothing worn by every Indian soldier—a wrap (adhovasa) for the lower body, similar to the modern Indian dhoti, a mantle (uttariya) in inclement weather, and a turban (ushnisha) for the head—but with uniform colors and designs (likely including shield insignia). Maula infantry were drilled to operate in tight, coordinated formations. The Maula often fought alongside their noble patrons from elephants and chariots (like bodyguards), but the majority fought on foot (as bowmen or spearmen/javelinmen). It is believed that most of the early dedicated cavalry battalions fielded by Classical Indian states were maula and bhrta battalions. Although the wealthiest states did provide some body armor and helmets as part of the kit of the Maula battalions, the overwhelming majority of Maula soldiers would have been unarmored, and only spearmen/javelinmen carried shields. Maula and Bhrta bowmen seem to have specialized in the long bamboo bow (capadhanus), while Sreni and Atavika were usually armed with short wooden self-bows (taladhanus). Both Maula bowmen and spearmen/javelinmen generally carried the large asiyasti longsword as a sidearm, although commanders and elite guard infantry battalions could be armored and armed with the full range of Classical Indian hand-to-hand weaponry (see above).

 

BHRTA/BHRITA

Bhrta (pronounced, VER-tuh or VER-ee-tuh) were similar to Maula, although they were not a standing army paid by the state. Rather, they were mercenaries hired on by particular rulers or republican oligarchs to serve as their personal bodyguards, private army, and/or to supplement the regiments of the Maula. Unlike the Maula, they had to provide their own equipment, and thus the quality of their equipment usually depended on the success of their military career (thus enabling them to demand better pay to better equip themselves), although one gets the feeling from period accounts that there were always units of veteran Bhrta available for hire, and that these units often enjoyed long and distinguished careers as well as high status (they remind me of late Medieval European “free companies”). As with the Maula, recruitment was not caste-based, although lesser kshatriya (i.e., those without official commands in a state's hierarchy) were probably represented in greater numbers simply by virtue of their greater likelihood to be interested in cultivating a military career. For this reason, veteran Bhrta battalions seem to have often had better equipment (or at least more armor) than Maula battalions, by virtue of the fact that many states chose to economize by short-funding the state arsenals from which the Maula were equipped. The Bhrta filled a similar tactical niche as the Maula—bodyguards for the high-caste nobles in the elephantry and chariotry, some elite guard infantry and cavalry battalions, and the bulk deployed as infantry bowmen or spearmen/javelinmen. On the whole, Bhrta units seem to have lacked the regimented and drilled discipline of the Maula—they are often mentioned in period texts getting drunk and causing disciplinary issues—and while I think it is appropriate to view the standard Maula mixed infantry battalions as being similar to contemporary Persian sparabara, I think it would be equally appropriate for purposes of war-gaming to classify Bhrta units as some sort of irregulars.

 

SRENI

The Sreni (pronounced, SHREE-nee) were urban militias that were recruited by the trade and/or merchant guilds, or that were recruited as religious cadres in service to a temple complex. Classical Indian cities generally had substantial trade and merchant guilds who had an interest in protecting their city from the depredations of competing states (or rebelling against heavy-handed governors of the Maghada Empire), and various temple cults also seem to have sometimes contributed fanatic hordes to the ranks of the Sreni—the unified Hindu pantheon had not yet developed, and the earliest cults of gods like Shiva and Vishnu were sometimes violently competitive and closely associated with certain states. Like the trade guilds, temple cults had a vested interest in protecting their city and its temples—which were repositories of wealth—but they also often joined campaigns out of fanatic zeal aimed at crushing the cult of an opponent. The vast majority of militia troops would have been—you guessed it—infantry bowmen, sometimes using ox-drawn wagons as a mobile archery platform, although due to their zeal and impetuosity, temple cadres likely fought as hard-charging shock infantry. Tactically, Sreni battalions were generally treated by the regular units of the army as being equivalent to the atavika—basically, unreliable auxiliaries usually deployed on the wings or used as expendable shock troops.

 

UTAVI/ATAVIKA/ATAVIBALAM

Atavika were, as the name suggests (“wildmen”), warriors of the unassimilated Tamil/Dravidian tribes that lived in the marginal areas around and in-between the various Indo-Aryan Mahajanapadas. It does not include the independent Tamil kingdoms of the south (Tamilikam), who should be dealt with separately. Due to the general hostility that existed between the Indo-Aryan and Tamil groups, Atavika were usually not recruited in large numbers because they were considered by the Indo-Aryans to be unreliable barbarians (the terms utavi, atavika, and atavibalam are basically the Sandskrit equivalent of calling someone a barbarian), and for their part the Tamils tended to view the Indo-Aryans with fear and distrust (considering that assimilated Tamils were usually shunted into the lower levels of the Shudra caste, or possibly some forerunner of the Dalit caste, this was probably prudent). However, there were still-powerful Tamil tribes (e.g., the Telugu, Gondi, Kannada, Tulu, Kodava, and Brahui peoples) that could field sizeable contingents in support of allied Indo-Aryan states. These and smaller groups of Tamil mercenaries could provide Early Classical Indian armies with a little tactical depth, fighting in native styles with native equipment, often as a screen to the Indo-Aryan deployment, on the far wings, to exploit difficult terrain, and/or to intimidate enemy civilians with their ferocity (i.e., as raiders). Atavika nobles could be mounted on elephants (astride), on light chariots (two horses, two wheels, two men) or on horseback (usually as mounted skirmishers), but most warriors would have been infantry, and most of these would have been bowmen (using a short self-bow called a vil). These bowmen could be organized into densely populated area-affect archery battalions, or dispersed as skirmishers (the latter capacity was favored for atavika mercenaries in Indo-Aryan service). However, the Tamil tribes had a fierce reputation, and there were also units of heavily armed shock infantry—despite the almost universal lack of significant armor (chieftains could sometimes be armored similarly to their Indo-Aryan neighbors, but most Atavika infantrymen would have had little more than a shield), there was a heavier emphasis on hand-to-hand combat amongst the Tamil tribes. Elite infantry would have carried a large body shield (ketayam) similar to the Indo-Aryan hastikarna, and could be armed with relatively heavy hand-to-hand weapons such as a long sword (vaal), spear (itti), machete (aruval), dagger (katti), and/or club (tantayutam).