Encyclopedia of Muhammad

Languages

اردو

Military Syestem of Ancient India

Military was an important institution of the ancient India. The army was maintained to meet different warlike conditions. This need gave rise to the Ksatriya or warrior caste, and the ksatram dharman was forged to give guidance about the primary duty of war. Even the necessary education, drill, and discipline to cultivate militarism were confined to the members of the Ksatriyas only. Consequently, it prevented the spread of militant attitude to the other communities but dominance of Ksatriyas was turned forever into a threatening position for the other castes. Military was used for the personal gains of the ruling class as it can be seen in the present conditions as well.

Ancient Indians had created many ‘moral’ and ‘ethical’ laws for war, but during the battles, they never followed these laws. At the battle of Hydaaspes which was fought between Alexander and Poros, the latter had a cavalry of 4000 strong, 300 chariots, 200 elephants, and an efficient infantry force of 30,000 soldiers. The king of Magadha had, about this time, a large and powerful army consisting of 600,000 foot-soldiers, 30,000 horses and 8,000 elephants. The Gangaridae 1 possessed 1,000 horses, 700 elephants and 60,000 foot-soldiers. Pliny further mentions on the authority of Megasthenes that the Andhra Kingdom had 100,000 foot-soldiers, 2,000 cavalry, and 1,000 elephants, while Kalinga kept 60,000 foot-soldiers, 10,000 horses and 700 elephants and the king of Suarashtras maintained an army of 1,600 elephants, 150,000 foot-soldiers and 5,000 cavalry troops. The Kanauj kingdom possessed an army of 5,000 elephants, 2,000 cavalry, and 50,000 foot-soldiers which were later on increased to 60,000 war elephants and 100,000 cavalry troops to destroy the armies of their enemies in different times with quick and strong responses.

Divisions of the Army

The army was divided into four sections namely, infantry, cavalry, chariots and elephants. The relative usefulness of the different sections depended upon the seasons and the nature of the operations in which the army was engaged. Thus, according to the Mahabharata, an army in which chariots and horsemen predominated was regarded as very effective in a battle which was fought in fine weather, while one which had a large number of foot soldiers was held as better in the rainy season.

Foot soldiers were of various classes. Chanakya classified them as regulars (maula), hired soldiers (bhrita), those supplied by fighting corporations (sreni), those recruited from the enemy’s country, those recruited from the country of an ally, and lastly, those recruited from amongst the wild tribes. The main body of the soldiers of the country was selected from the bravest of the people; and as sons followed the profession of their fathers, they soon became very proficient in the art of war. On the battle field, the hereditary soldiers were placed in front and in positions of importance, while the mercenary troops were usually stationed in the rear.

The cavalry formed a very important part of the army. Its value lay in its quick movement, and it was regarded as a special unit for occupying advanced positions, for protecting the treasury and for cutting off the enemy’s supply, for delivering attacks against the enemy’s forces and for pursuing a retreating foe. A large cavalry force was held essential in order to keep an extensive kingdom under control, and Chandragupta’s military strength depended very largely upon the superiority of his cavalry.

Chariots were of various kinds. They were of special use in protecting the army against the enemy’s attacks, seizing the enemy’s positions and breaking the compact array of the enemy’s army. Elephants were regarded as very useful in warfare. The destruction of the enemy’s army was heavily dependent upon elephants.

Some of the ancient rulers had naval departments as well. It has been mentioned by Hiuen Tsiang that the king of Assam possessed a fleet of 30,000 ships. Each section of the army was divided into various divisions which were named Patti, Senamukha, Gulma, Gana, Vahini, Pratna, Chamu, Anikini, and Akshauhim. They were the same as the modern division of the army such as sections, platoons, brigades, companies, battalions, regiments, divisions and army corps. 2

The profession of war was carried on by the fighting classes but Rishis and Brahamnas followed the army to the battle field and took part in the fight. Some wars were raiding expeditions for the capture of cattle, or expeditions to recover stolen cattle and punish the raiders or for capturing women 3 as the Rig-Veda states:

  With strength of limb the hero slays the hero, when bright in arms they range them for the combat. When two opposing hosts contend in battle for seed and offspring, waters, kine, or corn-lands. 4

Warriors marched to battle with raised banners. Many flags were used. The war drum was beaten as a signal of the beginning of the fight and the heroes grasping weapons specially burnished. The body of the warrior was protected by mailed armor and the head by a helmet. He also protected himself with a shield. The bow was made of a shaft and a string of cow gut. 5

The smallest unit of the Indian army, a Patti, is described to consist of 1 chariot, 1 elephant, 3 horses, and 5 men. The Senanmkha, Gulma, Gana, Vdhim, Prtanci, Camu, and Anikinl are respectively three times as big as the corps preceding them, and the 9th formation, which was called Akmuhim and was considered to represent a complete army, Avas ten times as numerous as the preceding Anikinl. The Nitiprakasika after describing the original Patti, goes on to say that a chariot, an elephant, one of 100 horses and 1,000 men; a horse one of 1,000 soldiers, and that a foot soldier had ten followers.

The Sukraniti gives a much more sensible distribution. According to that work the aggregate of the military unit would be 5 chariots, 10 elephants, 40 camels, 64 bulls, 320 horses, and 1,280 men. The formation of an army into different columns is a subject to which great attention was paid. Four different kinds of such columns or varvas are enumerated—the Danda, Bhoga, Asamhata, and Mandala; the first had 17 varieties, the second 5, the third 6, and the fourth 2. Besides these, five most important columns were not enrolled in any of these four sets; they were called Vardha, Makara, Oaruda, Kraunca, and Padma.

All these troops were commanded by generals, whose rank depended upon the number of troops under their orders. The ministers of the king held mostly also the office of generals. All the soldiers, from the private to the commander-in chief, received their pay regularly every month. The crown prince, who was generally the next in command to the king, received every month 5,000 varvas, or gold coins; the commander-in-chief drew 4,000 varvas; the atiratha, the first charioteer, who was usually a royal prince, received 3,000 varvas; the maharatha 2,000 varvas; the rathika and the gajayodhi, 1,000 varvas each; the ardharatha 500 varvas; the ekaratha (commander of a chariot), and the leader of an elephant got each 300 niskas. The general commanding all the cavalry obtained 3,000 niskas; the general in command of the whole infantry received 2,000 niskas. An officer commanding 1,000 men of infantry got 500 niskas; an officer who led the same number of troopers received 1,000 niskas an officer wlio had 100 small pattis under his command and who must ride on a horse drew only 7 varvas, while a private got 6 suvarnas. 6

Punishments for the Losers

At the end of the battle, the punishments awarded to the defeated enemies were very cruel. The victorious used to split the mushkau and cut off the sepas of their foes. Piercing the vitals and hewing off arms, stripping off the skin, cutting the flesh in pieces, wrenching off sinews, breaking the bones, and smiting out marrow, were other forms of dealing with the foe. 7

Weapons

Some unidentifiable weapons were mentioned e.g. arbudi, nyarbudi and trishandi in the books of ancient Indian history which do not have any proper description in any book and their authentic pictures are also not found in any historical record. It is confirmed that the king and the nobles, the Kshatriyas, fought from chariots of simple construction, the warrior standing on the left hand of the charioteer on whose skill they so largely depended. The warrior when completely equipped wore coat of mail and helmet and a hand or arm guard to save his arm. The arrow had a reed shaft and the tip was either of horn or of metal; poisoned arrows were sometimes used. 8

The measurement of a bow was given as 4x24 inches. In the Kodanda Mandana the various characteristics of a bow are given. Eighteen kinds of bows are mentioned according to the strings as heavy or light. The weight of a bow used by a learner was 300 palas, and the weight which was made of reed was 400 palas and the weight of the bow used in battle was 700 palas, and those bows used for distance targeting were of 950 or 1000 palas.

The arrow comes next. Its length was three cubits. Two movements were peculiar to it. The arrows were made of either iron or bamboo, the latter well grained of good vein and of a golden color. It had feathers at the tail end and were oiled so that they could be used easily. The shaft if the superior type of arrow was 12 mustis (one musti = one pala) the middle one was 11 mustis and the last one 10 mustis. 9

The foot soldiers carried a bow made of equal length with the man who bore it. This they rested upon the ground, and pressed against it with their left foot and discharged the arrow after having drawn the string far backwards for the shaft they used was little short of being three yards long. In their left hands, they carried bucklers made of hide which were not so board as those who carried them but were as long. Some were equipped with javelins instead of bows, but all carried a sword which was longer than three cubits and they fought with it in close combat. The horsemen were equipped with two lances, one of them was long and the other one was short (which was carried by the foot soldiers as well). The horse men did not put saddles on their horses nor did they curb them with the bits which were used by the Greeks or the kelts, but they fitted the mouth of the horses with a circular piece of stitched raw ox hide studded with pricks of iron or brass which were pointing inwards. But they were not very sharp. The rich people used pricks made of ivory. Within the horse’s mouth is put an iron prong like a skewer, to which the reins were attached. When the rider pulled the reins, the prongs controlled the horse and the pricks which were attached to this prong goaded the mouth so that it could not do anything but obey the reins. 10

Naval Warfare

The navy was used to transport troops to distant battlefields, participate in actual warfare and was primarily meant for protecting the kingdom’s trade on sea and navigable rivers and the maritime trade routes by destroying pirates. The warships were used in battles which, as compared to land battles, remained low in proportion. The ancient Indians preferred to fight on land and fights on sea were not given much importance, except in a few cases where destroying the enemy navy became crucial. The ships were mostly used to conquer islands, as has been presumed for the campaign of the Gupta emperor Samudragupta (335 A.D.– 380 A.D.), or for fighting seafaring peoples as the Satavahanas (1st century B.C.–2nd century A.D.) did.

Dynasties in the western, southern and (coastal) eastern parts of India, situated on the sea coast, relied heavily on maritime trade and the sea and built navies that were used in war. It was in these parts and the adjacent high seas that ancient India saw most of its naval warfare in practice. The most compelling reason was that to capture the highly lucrative foreign trade of the enemy, it was necessary to destroy his navy that protected it. Wars with Sri Lankan kings made the southern dynasties add to their navy. The Cholas (4th century B.C. to 13th century A.D.) conducted expeditions even to Southeast Asia. 11

Naval warfare was also well-known in the days of Manu, for he had laid it down that boats should be utilized for military purposes when the theatre of hostilities abounded in water. 12 A very much later work, the Yuktikalpataru, specifies a class of boats called agramandira (because they had their cabins towards their prows) as eminently adapted for naval warfare.

It was in the time of Chandragupta Maurya that the first real attempt to build a royal navy of any magnitude was made. Megasthenes states that Chandragupta's war-office was divided into six boards, of which the first was associated with the Chief Naval Superintendent. The fact that a committee of five members was appointed to co-operate with the admiral of the fleet probably indicates that the number of war-boats maintained by the Maurya emperor was not altogether insignificant. 13

Famous Battles

Before battle, formal declarations were not commonly given in most of the ancient wars which was against the war ethics. Normally the attacking nation also used to impoverish the foe by laying embargo on their merchandize and by starving them in to submission. At the same time, the attacking nations also used to run underground campaigns against the enemy in which spies and secret agents took a prominent part. Others believed that attacking at the right moment without informing the enemy was key to success which was completely condemned in the divine teachings. Some even used treachery as a tool for success in war. 14

Battle of Ten Kings

The battle of ten kings also known as Dasarajna, was the most famous battle of the Rigveda. The battle took place during the middle or main Rigvedic period near the Ravi River in Punjab. It was a battle between the Puru Vedic Aryan tribal kingdoms of the Bharatas, allied with other tribes of the north-west India, and the Trtsu-Bharata king Sudas, who defeated other Vedic tribes. This battle was fought in 1930 B.C. 15

Trtsus people lived on the bank of the river Parusni which is known as Ravi nowadays. Divdasa was the king of Trtsus and Sudas was his son or grandson. Divdasa was a war like prince. He had fought the Yadus and Turvasas, and he had defeated Sambara who was the great Dasu king. He had demolished ninety-nine forts, exterminated the Panis, the Paravatas and the Brsaya. Visvamitra the head of Bharta clan, was the Purohita of Sudas, the son of Divdasa. There was a conflict between Visvamitra and Sudas. The seer pronounced the hymn against Vasisthas, invoking the aid if Indra for himself and his Progeny. He then organized a strong confederacy of ten kings i.e. the Turvasas, the Purus, the Simyus, the Ajas, the Sigrus, the Anus, the Druhyus, the Bharatas, the Yadus and Yakus. 16

The alliance of Ten Kings advanced under the guidance of Visvamitra from the east. They had to cross the Sutudri and Vipasa before reaching the southern bank of the Parusni. But these two rivers were found to be in high flood. So, it was very difficult for the united army to cross them without the help of boats. They crossed the rivers and reached the country between the Vipasa and the Parusni. The leaders of the invading army formed the plan of creating a breach of Trtsus. The embankment at the higher part of the river was opened which diverted the waters and flooded the entire low-lying plains of the Trtsus. It was believed that this move could secure an easy victory and embarrass the enemy. But this stratagem was a complete failure. The river Parusni ran between the Sudasa’s army and encamped army. The main army of the confederacy was encamped on the other bank. This gave them some sure protection. But this situation had been getting serious, critical and intolerable. Sudasa detached a portion of his valiant army and they crossed the higher up part of the river. They reached the rear of the enemy’s camp and surrounded them, determined to attack them fiercely. The army of the confederacy had not expected this type of attack. So, they were not prepared for the battle. Sudasa’s army surrounded the camp. There was no way for escape in any direction except the river. Numbers hurled themselves in to the Parusni. They were either drowned or carried away by the rapid currents. Those who safely reached the northern bank were at the encamped army of Sudasa. They were either killed or captured. The Sudas, king of the Bharatas, defeated, with heavy losses, the confederate tribes led by ten kings. 17

Mahabharata

The Kurukshetra War, which is also known as Mahabharata War, is a war described in the Indian famous epic poem Mahabharata which is full of doubts and based on those historical events which seem not only impossible but ridiculous as well. Several scholars of history are reluctant to accept even the occurring of this war in reality but due to its fame in the Hindu epic, it is discussed briefly. The conflict arose from a dynastic succession struggle between two groups of cousins, the Kauravas and Pandavas, for the throne of Hastinapura in an Indian kingdom called Kuru. It involved a number of ancient kingdoms participating as allies of the rival groups. It was fought approximately between 3100 B.C. and 2000 B.C. 18

The location of the battle is described as having occurred in Kurukshetra in north India. Despite only referring to these eighteen days, the war narrative forms more than a quarter of the book, suggesting its relative importance within the epic, which overall spans decades of the warring families. The narrative describes individual battles and deaths of various heroes of both sides, military formations, war diplomacy, meetings and discussions among the characters, and the weapons used.

The Kuru territories were divided into two and were ruled by Dhritarashtra (with his capital at Hastinapura) and Yudhishthira of the Pandavas (with his capital at Indraprastha). The immediate dispute between the Kauravas (sons of Dhritarashtra) and the Pandavasarose from a game of dice, which Duryodhana won by deceit, forcing his Pandava cousins to transfer their entire territories to the Kauravas (to Hastinapura) and to go into exile for thirteen years. The dispute escalated into a full-scale war when Duryodhana, driven by jealousy, refused to restore to the Pandavas, their territories after the exile as earlier decided, because Duryodhana objected that they were discovered while in exile, and that no return of their kingdom had been agreed upon.

Both started preparations of war. The feud culminates in a series of great battles on the field of Kurukshetra (north of Delhi, in Haryana state). 19 The battle raged for 18 days. The army totaled 18 akshauhinis, 7 on the Panadava side and 11 on the Kaurava (1 akshauhini = 21,870 chariots + 21,870 elephants + 65,610 horses + 109,350 soldiers on foot). Casualties on both sides were high. When it all ended, the Pandavas had won the war but lost almost everyone they held dear. Duryodhan and all of the Kauravas had died, as had all of the menfolk of Draupadi's family, including all of her sons by the Pandavas. The now-dead Karna was revealed to be a son of Kunti's from before her marriage to Pandu, and thus, the eldest Pandava and the rightful heir to the throne. The grand old man, Bheeshm, lay dying; their teacher Drona was dead as were several kinsfolks related to them either by blood or by marriage. In about 18 days, the entire country lost almost three generations of its men. 20

Battle of Hydapases

The battle of hydapases, was an epoch-making event in the history of ancient India. It was fought between Alexander of Greece and Porous, the king of Pauravas. The battle was fought in summer of 326 B.C. 21 Hydapases was one of the five rivers in Punjab, which nowadays is known as Jhelum.

After conquering Persia, when Alexander reached Kabul, and asked the king of Taxila to submit, the king named Sasi Gupta submitted and offered his aid against his neighbor king, Porus. Alexander after getting assurance of aid from the king of Taxila, divided his army in two divisions. He sent one division in advance to march to Indus and with the other division marched against the mountain tribe around Kabul valley. Later he met his first division near the Indus and crossed the river at Ohind, sixteen miles above Attock. He arrived in Taxila and from there he sent messages to Porus to submit. The land between Jehlum and Chenab was the kingdom of Porus and his tribe Pauravas.

Porus had an army of 50,000 foot-soldiers, 3,000 horses, 1,000 chariots and 130 elephants but on the other hand, army of Alexander in Kabul was around 25,000 to 35,000. 22 On the Hydapes tributary of the great river, Porus blocked Alexander’s advance with some 50,000 troops. Leaving the bulk of his army (around 40,000) troops on the west bank of the river, Alexander made a night march 18 miles upstream, where he crossed the river on crude pontoons with a detachment of 14,000 picked cavalry and infantry. 23 When Porus learned that Alexander had advanced over the river, he marched to attack. Porus put his cavalry on the flanks and infantry in the center, with the elephants in front. 24 Porus learned of their crossing too late. Catching his infantry by surprise, the Macedonians immediately killed about half of them. As he did in his previous battles, Alexander avoided a confrontation in the center of the battlefield. He attacked Porus’s flank, and Porus was forced to reorganize his forces. Alexander then took advantage of Indian confusion and attacked decievely. Alexander’s archers also shot the elephant’s manhuts (drivers). Many of Indian soldiers retreated, but Porus kept fighting on from the back of his elephant. Alexander sent a messenger to Porus, who surrendered after eight hours of fighting. 25 After the war when Porus was captured, he was asked by Alexander how he wanted to be treated. Plutarch wrote: he answered, ‘as a king’ which shows his proud nature that could not even changed after an open defeat. 26

Alexander indeed treated Porus as a king, allowing him to retain his lands. Following the battle, Alexander founded two cities in this region, one at the spot of the battle called Nicaea (Greek for Victory) in commemoration of his success and one on the other side of the Hydapases called Alexandria Bucephalus, to honor his faithful steed, which died soon after this battle.

Kalinga War

While the early part of Ashoka's reign was apparently quite bloodthirsty, he became a follower of the Buddha's teaching after his conquest of Kalinga, on the east coast of India in the present-day state of Orissa. Kalinga was a state that prided itself on its sovereignty and democracy; with its monarchical-cum-parliamentary democracy, it was quite an exception in ancient India, as there existed the concept of Rajdharma, meaning the duty of the rulers, which was intrinsically entwined with the concept of bravery and Kshatriya dharma (the duty of the warrior class, expounded by Krishna in the Bhagavad Gita).

The Kalinga war occurred during 265-263 B.C. because one of Susima's brothers had fled to Kalinga and found official refuge there. This enraged Ashoka immensely, and he was advised by his ministers to attack Kalinga for this act of treachery. Ashoka then asked Kalinga's royalty to submit before his supremacy. When they defied this diktat, Ashoka sent one of his generals to Kalinga to make them submit.

The general and his forces were, however, completely routed through the skilled tactics of Kalinga's commander-in-chief. Ashoka, baffled at this defeat, attacked with the greatest invasion ever recorded in Indian history until then. Kalinga put up a stiff resistance, but was no match for Ashoka's brutal strength. The whole of Kalinga was plundered and destroyed: Ashoka's later edicts say that about 100,000 people were killed on the Kalinga side along with ten thousand from Ashoka's army; thousands of men and women were deported. At the time, Ashoka possessed the largest standing army of his day—600,000 infantry, 30,000 cavalry, and 9,000 war elephants. 27

Ashoka annexed the state of Kalinga after a bloody battle. After that, he contemplated about the suffering he inflicted on the people, converted to Buddhism and became sympathetic to the civilizing force of religions. 28

Twelve Hindu Rules of War and the Reality

1- One on One: The ancient Indians believed that a chariot needed to fight a chariot, the cavalry with cavalry and elephant riders with elephant riders so that the combat was done on equal grounds. However, it has been admitted that as rules of actual warfare, they found no place in the Hindu military system. |Do not fight those who are in distress: The rule was that when an antagonist had fallen in to distress, he should not be struck. Secondly it was believed that brave warriors did not shoot at one whose arrows were exhausted. However, the breaches of the rule recorded were more numerous than the observances. |Do not strike at certain places: Prohibition similar to ‘do not strike below the belt’. Striking beneath the belt was known as a deceitful mean. But like the others, this rule was rarely followed. |Attacking a retreating enemy: The rule was that no one should strike another that is retreating, or one who flees with disheveled hair. |Rule against slaying one who has asked for quarter: ‘He is no son of the Vrishni race who slayeth the foe fallen at his feet.’ This rule was useless because it was never followed in the confusion of the battle. |The general rule of sparing refugees and suppliants: ‘Even a wicked enemy, if he seeks shelter, should not be slain.’ This, indeed, was fundamental, but was forgotten. |Prohibition against slaying the handicapped: It was prohibited to slay those suffering from any natural, physical, or mental incapacity, whether due to permanent or accidental causes. Such rules were interesting as showing the fertility of mind of those who devised them, and how they seemed to take account of all possible cases. In battle however, they could not be observed. |Rules against killing anyone with special qualifications: ‘No one should kill him that is skilled in a special art (such as mining).’ This rule seems good but many of the people who possessed such traits were brutally killed in battle. |Do not harm the injured: The rule was stated as: ‘Let him not strike who has been grievously wounded’, secondly, he needed to be either sent home or given treatment. But the fact was that this rule was breached so many times that it felt that this rule was made to be broken. |Do not attack at night: ‘Night slaughter horrible and infamous.’ It embodies a wholesome instinct against treacherous attack, and a clear distinction between what was a regular act of war and what was murder. From the point of view of military strategy, both in theory and practice, night attacks were often urged, and often carried out. |Punishment of deserters: Heavy punishment was given to the deserters. They were slain or stoned, or even burned to death. The consequences of flying from battle were loss of wealth, death, infamy, and reproach. Worse still, it was believed that the person slain in flight had to bear the weight of his master's sins in the next world. |Not to turn one's back in battle: It was believed that death was held to be the happy end of the Kshattriya warrior. The warrior who fought fairly, Heaven awaited, if he was slain: if victorious, earth 29 but history proved that several times ancient Indian soldiers used to flee away from the wars because of the strong trance of their enemies.Even though the Ancient Indians maintained extremely large armies, they were unable to maintain their dominance in the subcontinent and later on, had to admit defeats in front of other powers. A. Basham states:
  B. M. Majumdar judiciously concludes that the weakness of Hindu India was due to the combination of many
factors, chief of which were internal weakness and possession of a higher technique of warfare by the enemies. 30

In almost all invasions, India was overrun by the invaders and could not put up the resistance which her size and resources demanded. One reason was that the marked variety of race, religion and culture, taken all together presented an almost unsurmountable obstacle to political unity. This disunity had created weaknesses in the Indian society. 31 Moreover, the low morale of the army and the unjust war-mongering schemes of the rulers also contributed in keeping the empire of Hindustan disunited which imminently led to their downfall as well. If their eminent scholars had paid more attention towards the divine guidance instead of their forged beliefs, surely the results would have been different and Hindustan would not only sustain itself and remain united, but would have been a super power of the world of that time and possibly of the future as well.

 

 

  • 1 This word is basically a plural and is derived from the base Ganges or Gange and refers to Ganges or the people ofGanges which lived in a particular area of Bengal. (Dineschandra Sircar (1971), Studies in the Geography of Ancient and Medieval India, Motilal Banarsidass, Delhi, India, Pg. 215.)
  • 2 Pramathanath Banerjea (1916), Public Administration in Ancient India, Macmillan & Co. Ltd., London, U.K., Pg. 196-200.
  • 3 P. T. Srinivas Iyenger (1912), Life in Ancient India in the Age of the Mantras, Sinivasa Varadachari & Co., Madras, India, Pg. 34-35.
  • 4 Ralph T. H. Griffith & Jagdish Lal Shastri (1999), The Hymns of Rig Veda, Motilal Banarsidass, Delhi, India, Pg. 300.
  • 5 P. T. Srinivas Iyenger (1912), Life in Ancient India in the Age of the Mantras, Sinivasa Varadachari & Co., Madras, India, Pg. 35-39.
  • 6 Gustav Opert (1880), On the Weapons: Army Organization and Political Maxims of the Ancient Hindus, Trubner & Co. London, U.K., Pg. 4-6.
  • 7 P. T. Srinivas Iyenger (1912), Life in Ancient India in the Age of the Mantras, Sinivasa Varadachari & Co., Madras, India, Pg. 35-39.
  • 8 E. J. Rapson (1922), Cambridge History of India: Ancient India, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, U.K., Vol. 1, Pg. 98.
  • 9 V. R. Ramachandra Dikshitar (1987), War in Ancient India, Motilal Banarsidass, Delhi, India, Pg. 96-98.
  • 10 J. W. Mcrindle (1877), Ancient India as described by Meghasthenes and Arrian, Trubner & Co., London, U.K., Pg. 220-221.
  • 11 Ancient History Encyclopedia (Online Version): https://www.ancient.eu/Ancient_Indian_ Warfare/: Retrieved: 29-01-2019
  • 12 Manu (1886), The Laws of Manu (Translated by G. Buhler), At the Clarendon Press, Oxford, U.K., Pg. 247.
  • 13 Prithvis Chandra Chakravarti (1930), The Indian Historical Quarterly: Naval Warfare in Ancient India, Vol. 4, No. 4, Pg. 646-648.
  • 14 W. S. Armour (1922), Transactions of the Grotius Society: Customs of Warfare in Ancient India, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, U.K., Vol. 8, Pg. 72.
  • 15 S.B Roy (1976), Date of Mahabharata Battle, The Academic Press, Haryana, India, Pg. 202.
  • 16 K. M. Munshi (1941), The Early Aryans in Gujarata, The University of Bombay, Bombay, India, Pg. 20.
  • 17 Rama Shankar Tripathi (1942), History of Ancient India, Motilal Banarsidass Publishers Private Limited, Delhi, India, Pg. 29.
  • 18 C. V. Vaidya (1905), The Mahabharata: A Criticism, A. J. Cambridge & Co., Bombay, India, Pg. 73.
  • 19 Encyclopedia Britannica (Online Version): https://www.britannica.com/topic/ Mahabharata: Retrieved: 29-01-2019
  • 20 Ancient History Encyclopedia (Online Version): https://www.ancient.eu/Mahabharata/: Retrieved: 29-01-2019
  • 21 T.G. Subrahmanyan, Famous Battles in Ancient India, Palit and Dutt Publishers, U. P., India, Pg. 11.
  • 22 Ibid, Pg. 15.
  • 23 David Eggenberger (1985), An Encyclopedia of Battles: Accounts of Over 1560 Battles From 1479 B.C. to the Present, Dover Publications Inc., New York, USA, Pg. 196.
  • 24 Encyclopedia Britannica (Online Version): https://www.britannica.com/event/Battle-of-the-Hydaspes: Retrieved: 29-01-2019
  • 25 Debra Skelton & Pamela Dell (2009), Empire of Alexander the Great, Chelsea House Publications, New York, USA, Pg. 57-58.
  • 26 Ancient History Encyclopedia (Online): https://www.ancient.eu/article/660/battle-of-hydaspes/: Retrieved: 19-03-2019
  • 27 New World Encyclopedia (Online Version): http://www.newworldencyclopedia.org/entry/Ashoka#Conquest_of _Kalinga: Retrieved: 30-01-2019
  • 28 William M. Johnston (2000), Encyclopedia of Monasticism, Routledge, London, U.K., Pg. 98.
  • 29 W. S. Armour (1922), Transactions of the Grotius Society: Customs of Warfare in Ancient India, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, U.K., Vol. 8, Pg. 74-78.
  • 30 A. Basham (1957), Journal of the Royal Asiatic Society: The Military System in Ancient India, The Royal Asiatic Society, London, U.K., Volume 89, Issue: 1-2, Pg. 129.
  • 31 K. C. Sagar (1922), Foreign Influence on Ancient India, Northern Book Center, Delhi, India, Pg. 13-14.