Ancient/Medieval Hindu militaries, and the role the kshatriya varna and its jatis

[Maklodes]

Can anyone recommend a good source on this sort of thing?


My basic questions basically pertain to the military establishments (army and navy) of Hindu states -- and, in particular, the role of the kshatriya varna. I'm mostly thinking of Hindu states in antiquity or the middle ages, like the Guptas or the Rashtrakutas. TBH, I'm a little lost when it comes to Indian history.

Basically, what was the role of the kshatriya varna, militarily?

Were basically all soldiers kshatriya? Or was it that more elite positions like officers and heavy cavalrymen were kshatriya, but common soldiers were drawn from all varnas? Or did they actually make much less of a big deal out of it than I'm assuming, and Hindu princes cared much more about whether people could fight or command well -- and whether they were loyal -- than their jati or varna?

Did non-Hindu rulers such as the Mauryans differ in how they constituted their armed forces, with respect to jati distinctions?

Did different jatis within the kshatriya varna have different roles? For example, might one jati be established as a source of archers, and another as a source of heavy cavalry, and another as a source of sailors and naval warfare specialists?

Were there ever any attempts to create guard units drawn from lower castes (or dalits), in the hopes that they wouldn't have the social standing to pose a threat to their sovereign as a kshatriya guard might?

[Tankbustaz]

I would recommend RC Majumdar

Champa, Ancient Indian Colonies in the Far East
Suvarnadvipa, Ancient Indian Colonies in the Far East, Vol.II
The History and Culture of the Indian People
Ancient India
Vakataka – Gupta Age Circa 200–550 A.D.
The standing army was made up of Kshatriya in the earlier phases of Mauryan rule, mostly under Chandragupta, whereas the different militia forces would probably be made up of different varnas. Brahmins were not encouraged to join the army due to their lack of bloodlust. By the time of Ashoka, a many of the guidelines of the Arthashastra were incorporated into Mauryan rule. At that time caste was not similar to the social construct seen by the British later on. It was far more fluid. The Sungas, who repelled the Indo-Greeks were a Brahmin dynasty, while the famous Guptas were a Vaishya (trader) dynasty.

Due to the prevalence of archery as a pinnacle of combat, most kshatriyas would be trained as Archers along with the use of swords. The use of heavy cavalry into the subcontinent came with the Kushans and was rapidly adopted by the Gupta empire. Most of the cavalry recruitment was done in present day Rajasthan because it had a long history of cavalry. Naval duties in the Ganga river were done by specialised communities who were wholly employed by the King.

The books that I mentioned analyze the navies of the South Indian Kingdoms who established trading posts and colonies in large parts of SE Asia. BTW the Mauryans were predominantly Hindu, only Ashoka became a Buddhist, but strangely he called himself "beloved of the gods" on his inscriptions.

[Maklodes]

Thank you. Looks like a good collection of sources.

[Rijul.J.Ballal]

Just remember to avoid textbooks and websites and to a large extent take everything with a grain of salt. In my experience Indian authors have a way of being extremely biased when history is involved.

[NobleWoman]

I dont think that the caste system was so rigidly implemented in the military sphere. Pushyamitra Sunga, who overthrew the last Mauryan emperor to start his dynasty, was a Brahmin and a general in the Mauryan armies. Parshuram, whop is credited with imparting knowledge of warfare in South India, was a Brahmin. The teachers of warfare to kshatriyas were all Brahmin (references in Mahabharata and Ramayana), and often fought in the wars also as in the case of Dronacharya (Mahabharata).

[Roma_Victrix]

All good points, but you certainly wouldn't see the untouchable Dalit joining any of the military's ranks before the modern era, correct?

[Rijul.J.Ballal]

but you certainly wouldn't see the untouchable Dalit joining any of the military's ranks before the modern era, correc

Don't be so sure, Firstly caste divisions are far,far,far more numerous than one would expect so they division between Dalits and warrior could be larger or smaller depending on region.
In the Hoysalal kingdom there was one king who allowed this i think.A lot of Islamic sultanates did not care for caste either. Also the caste system was challenged quite a few times-in Buddhist,Jain and other states where there were attempts at socio-cultural reforms[there were quite a few{short lived all of them, but numerous all the same}] the caste divide would also have declined.
And realistically speaking in times of war caste became less important when you needed more men.If you really want to understand the caste system you must first understand that it varies with time, location and ruler.

[Tankbustaz]

People from all castes became rulers, the Nandas were supposed to be low caste usurpers. However, they ceremonially became reborn as Kshatriyas. There were lots of them after the fall of the Gupta empire.

Bhil tribals were used extensively as levies, and Rajputs of all castes were expected to fight. This was way before the modern era.

[Rijul.J.Ballal]

Bhil tribals were used extensively as levies, and Rajputs of all castes were expected to fight. This was way before the modern era.

Yes exactly!

[Tankbustaz]

I wonder where this trope of Dalits being treated as subhuman pezants + slaves comes from? It certainly was a capital punishment for someone to sell another person.

[Rijul.J.Ballal]

It certainly was a capital punishment for someone to sell another person

I remember mentions of quite a few south indian kingdoms having well established slave markets.

I wonder where this trope of Dalits being treated as subhuman pezants + slaves comes from?

Are you suggesting that they were not treated badly? They were not slaves but at certain points in history their conditions were horrifying.

[Tankbustaz]

No I am saying that they weren't treated badly, just saying that they weren't oppressed by evil Brahmins all round the clock as our dear politicians seem to suggest. They were treated quite poorly in Northern India after 1200s but then Hindus in general were treated quite poorly as well.
Dalits made large parts of all armies in the subcontinent, and many Marathis from the depressed classes rose to prominence in the Maratha Empire, especially after it expanded rapidly post Aurangzeb.
The concept of slavery was introduced via the Islamic empires, and wiki says that established slave markets were present in North India in general, and Delhi in particular. Considering the fact that Marathas treated slaves like people,freed them, allowed them to marry, etc and not like cattle like the rest of the world in the 17th and 18th century says a lot about established slavery in the subcontinent.

[Rijul.J.Ballal]

No I am saying that they weren't treated badly, just saying that they weren't oppressed by evil Brahmins all round the clock as our dear politicians seem to suggest. They were treated quite poorly in Northern India after 1200s but then Hindus in general were treated quite poorly as well.

true.

Dalits made large parts of all armies in the subcontinent, and many Marathis from the depressed classes rose to prominence in the Maratha Empire, especially after it expanded rapidly post Aurangzeb.

Also correct.

The concept of slavery was introduced via the Islamic empires, and wiki says that established slave markets were present in North India in general, and Delhi in particular.

The slave market's certainty grew more extensive when we came into contact with the idea's that existed in the Islamic world and Occident.

Considering the fact that Marathas treated slaves like people,freed them, allowed them to marry, etc and not like cattle like the rest of the world in the 17th and 18th century says a lot about established slavery in the subcontinent.

Yes and no, They did help slaves in the subcontinent but the conditions of the lower castes in certain areas was quite bad[not always though] I remember reading somewhere that in certain cities Shudras were not let into cities had to wear certain clothing etc. I can't give you can proper sources[Ambedkar's works do mention this, although I think we can agree that he is a little biased]

[Tankbustaz]

My point is that it was not a grimdark oppression like our present day historians make it out to be. I am an ethnic Bengali, and we didn't have an cattle-like of people from lower castes. To say Ambedkar is a "little" biased would be mild. A great man personally, but to take his word as the gospel truth would be a mistake that many make.

Think about it, Hampi didn't use slave labour, The Rajputs certainly didn't use slaves. The Sikhs were given the epithet Sardar because they would regularly free slaves taken captive by afghans and the mughals. The concept of owning someone as property really doesn't gel well with the concept of Karma anyway. Empirical evidence suggests that there was no slave market as such until the Islamic invasions, and they were present only in the regions which were the longest under the differing sultanates.

[Rijul.J.Ballal]

Think about it, Hampi didn't use slave labour, The Rajputs certainly didn't use slaves. The Sikhs were given the epithet Sardar because they would regularly free slaves taken captive by afghans and the mughals. The concept of owning someone as property really doesn't gel well with the concept of Karma anyway. Empirical evidence suggests that there was no slave market as such until the Islamic invasions, and they were present only in the regions which were the longest under the differing sultanates.

An excellent point indeed.