Some information about the Guptas

[Chelchal]

Just want to reiterate what a fantastic mod this is. If the modders wish to incorporate any of this information, great, it could add to the flavor of the game. If not, that's fine, since the focus is on the Mediterranean anyways.

The main military manual from the Gupta era was the Shiva Dhanur-veda, a 5th/6th century compilation of earlier writings about archery. These are from an 1888 translation by Peter Peterson, of Balliol College, Oxford.

A Sarnga-bow is successfully used by the soldiers on elephant back and the cavalry. For charioteers and foot soldiers, however, a bow made of Bamboo is more useful.

The sarnga bow was the Indian term for the asymmetric composite type bow also used by the Persians, Romans, and nomads. The emperor Chandragupta II is holding one here on horseback. I think this implies the Guptas did have horse archers after all. I did notice the mod already shows the archers on elephants using such a bow. While the Indian long bow was very powerful, it was also very cumbersome. It required the foot archers to rest it into the ground to get a firm footing while shooting. During the Battle of the Hydaspes, it had just rained, and Porus's archers struggled in the mud. The reference to chariots here seems to be an anachronism. All Indian bows used either silk or animal intestines for the bowstring.

The arrowhead should be made of pure iron. It should be sharp and pointed and without any sort of disorder. The head of the arrow should be painted with a coating of ‘diamond’ protective paste according to the proportion of the feathers (vajra means hard as diamond).

I think the important thing is the focus on iron arrowheads. The "diamond paste" seems metaphorical.

The head or tip portion of an arrow may be made of brass and its shape will be like that of a horse-shoe; or it may be like the tail of a cow or it may of the shape of a half-moon. An arrow is called ‘Bhalla’ (i.e. a missile) when its head is as sharp as the tip of a needle, and again it is known as ‘Dvibhallakam’ (.i.e., double missile) when there are two tips like the teeth of a heifer.

By the arrows (made of brass or purified iron) skin should be pierce; by razorblade arrows, the enemy’s arrows (and his hands) may be severed, and by needle pointed arrows a shield or armour may be pierced, and an arrowhead shaped like half a moon should be used to sever the head of the enemy.

These are the anti-personnel arrows.

Naraca is a round totally made of iron. In some naracas, there are five broad wings and such rounds are always effective (in hitting the targets).

These iron shafts are used against elephants or men working siege equipment.

Nalika is a form of round, shot from a weapon like the gun fitted with tube or barrel; it is used while a target is to be hit at a great distance, or in a war taking place in a high fort.

These are much larger arrows, for ballista type weapons. They could be mounted on elephants.

When an archer is on the move himself and also aims at a moving target, then the target (and situation) is known by the name ‘dvayacala’ meaning ‘two moving elements (the archer as well as the target)’. To pierce such targets one has to practise very hard.

A reference to horse archery? Although Procopius also describes Huns in the army of Belisarius shooting while running on foot.

Iron plates measuring the thickness of one-and-a-half fingers should be prepared (as targets for exercise). An archer who pierces such plates with a single arrow is known by the designation of Drdhghati – a tough marksman (marksman of tough targets).

The targets for these Drdhgati archers would obviously be heavily armored foes, like cataphracts. I guess the Gupta heavy archers in the game are these guys since they're pretty devastating against a cavalry charge.

An archer who can penetrate twenty-four layers of leather with a single arrow can pierce even the skin of a powerful elephant.

Again, useful against either elephants or men in leather armor. According to David Nicolle, Central Asian nomads frequently used leather lameller armor.

A target made of iron can be pierced by arrows named ‘kakatunda’ (beak of the crow) and targets of leather (like shields or armour) can be pierced by arrows named ‘aramukha’ (a lump of earth). An earthen jar or a lump of earth may be hit through a moving (disc) wheel by an arrow named ‘suchimukha’.

The respective name for armor piercing arrowheads.

Irrespective of whether an archer rides on an elephant, or a horse or moves on foot, if he practises while moving, is sure to succeed in piercing his target.

This implies that there were elephant archers, foot archers (these two are in the game) and horse archers. The language doesn't seem to be terribly clear though.

He should also place in the chariot a sword (khadga), shield (carma), mace (gada), spear (sakti), parigha (a type of weapon), hammer (mudgara), projectiles (naraca), axes (parasu), lance (kunta), pattisa (a type of weapon) and ardi (a type of weapon) etc..

The khadga, gada, and kunta (like the Roman kontos) were used from horseback. The gada was a special weapon of the armed nobility (the kshatriyas.)

One who does not have a chariot or elephant, will ride on horseback, fixing a quiver on his vest belt and taking a sword, sakti (spear) and bow in hand.

Finally, a clear reference to horse archery.

The technique of making a formation (vyuha) in a battle is as follows – the charioteers should be placed in front, behind them the elephants, the infantry at its back and the cavalry should be placed to each side.

Again, the anachronistic reference to chariots. They were pretty useless against Alexander and the Scythian and Tocharian invaders. Chariots were used by the epic heroes, so this is a flowery reference, like a Roman historian quoting the Iliad. More practically, this formation shows the weakness of the Indian line infantry, and indicates the elephants as the "stars" of the army. I think SAI reflects this pretty accurately for the Guptas.

The formation of the soldiers may be planned in the shape of a half moon, or as a circle or a carriage, a fish, a lotus, or simply by making rows or in the shape of a bush.

A pretty way of recommending a concave battle line. I believe this formation was a favorite of Julian's as well considering he used it against both the Germans at Brumath and the Persians at Maranga.

The King should keep around him for his protection those princes who have received the status of feudal lords or subordinate Kings and also all other attendants who are loyal and have aptitude to serve the King.

Composition of the bodyguard

Even five hundred heroes can defeat a large army. Sometimes even if five, six of seven such heroes fight bravely, they may defeat the enemy.

The usefulness of elite troops.

But a single cowardly archer who breaks ranks can destroy the power of a large number. Even the most heroic and greatest fighters will suffer a breakdown of morale (they will desert with such a coward in their midst and face defeat)...A strong and insuperable battalion may run away and court defeat, just like animals who are afraid of surging floodwater (if a coward breaks ranks.)...A hero who can regroup fleeing soldiers, return to combat and rout the enemy will receive the eternal fruit of the sacrifice of Asvamedha at every step.

The importance of moral, the critical dangers of panic and routing. The game shows this really well.

In this world there are two types of human beings who can ascend to Heaven (penetrating the orb of the Sun): one is the ascetic who has extirpated his sense and knowledge through performing Yoga and profound meditation. The other is a hero who dies in hand-to-hand combat...If a hero dies surrounded by his enemies, without uttering a word in fear, it is sure that he will reach that eternal sphere (Heaven).

That is to say, a warrior who dies bravely will escape the cycle of reincarnation and rebirth and attain moksha (nirvana)

(Enemy) heroes who faint, or are wounded, or whose weapons are broken, or who are fighting with another warrior, or who are asking for asylum or refuge, should not be killed...A mighty warrior should not chase a weak fighter who is running away, because a warrior who apprehends death may suddenly become aggressive and brave.

Attacking routing foes was seen as both dishonorable and dangerous (since it cuts off their line of retreat and forces them to fight.) Of course, these rules applied between the Indian kingdoms; against mlecchas (barbarians) from Central Asia, anything goes.

An emperor should organize his army comprising four arms (‘caturanga’, i.e. the charioteers, soldiers mounted on elephant, cavalry and infantry) into a formation (vyuha) to encircle the enemy and deploy valiant heroes in front of it if he wants to become victorious in war.

Incidentally, this is exact premise of chess (which was originally called chaturanga) and which first arose in India at this time.

[Chelchal]

Theoretically the Gupta monarch was an absolute ruler. Practically, his powers were limited by custom. According to the Arthashastra, the ideal ruler

• Has self-control, having conquered the inimical temptations of the senses;
• Cultivates the intellect by association with elders;
• Keeps his eyes open through spies;
• Is ever active in promoting the security and welfare of the people;
• Ensures the observance (by the people) of their dharma by authority & example;
• Improves his own discipline by (continuing his) learning in all branches of knowledge; and
• Endears himself to his people by enriching them and doing good to them.
• Keep away from another's wife;
• Not covet another's property;
• Practice ahimsa (non-violence towards all living things);
• Avoid day dreaming, capriciousness, falsehood and extravagance; and
• Avoid association with harmful persons and indulging in (harmful) activities.

The Chinese monk Faxian visited India during the late 4th, early 5th century. He noted the Guptas preferred to mutilate criminals rather than execute them. The law tended to founded on Hindu scripture with Buddhist influence. Obviously the king could not commit total non-violence (ahimsa) but as Faxian's observation shows, at least he (Chandragupta II ruled at that time) avoided executing people if he could. The Guptas directly ruled the Gangetic plain. These territories were surrounded by the client kingdoms who paid tribute and occasionally furnished troops for campaigns. Whenever possible, the Guptas reinstated other Indian rulers they had overrun. It was seen as wicked and in defiance of cosmic order to completely destroy these other kingdoms. Between the Hindu kingdoms, warfare was ritualized. Retreating foes were not attacked. Sundown meant a truce in the fighting. The fighting was confined to the field of battle; armies were not supposed to burn villages or farms and anyways there were religious prohibitions against harming agriculture.

Such mercy was not extended to "barbarians" from Central and Western Asia. According to the chronicle Brihat-Katha-Manjari, Chandragupta II

unburdened the sacred earth of the

Barbarians like the Shakas, Mlecchas, Kambojas, Yavanas, Tusharas, Parasikas, Hunas, etc. by annihilating these sinful Mlecchas

. It's a slight exaggeration, of course, and some of these barbarians are anachronistically mentioned, but battles against the "barbarian" were meant to be battle of annihilation.

The common people were not heavily taxed. The Guptas lacked a bureaucracy comparable to the Romans, but they didn't really need one either. The majority of people were free farmers, who more or less governed themselves autonomously through village councils (panchayats). They paid taxes in kind to the King's tax agents. The King even dealt directly with representatives from the various councils (which reduced corruption by cutting out middlemen.) The yields were usually fairly high and and since taxes were not heavy, the kingdom was rarely in arrears. The King could also levy foot soldiers from the villages, or laborers to work in mines or forests (which were under imperial administration.) These men were paid wages for such public works projects, and slavery, as it existed in the Greco-Roman world, was not know in the Gupta realm.

Another critical institution was that of the guilds, or Srenis. Their importance cannot be overemphasized. There were very powerful and dominated economic life in the Gupta empire. Not even the king fully controlled them. Virtually every industry and craft was organized into a guild. The guilds had official seals recognized by the king. They supplied the king with technical experts to over see mines, roads, forests, and ports. All horses and elephants were properties of the state, but even the mahouts and horse breeders were in guilds. The guilds even maintained powerful militias. In peacetime, they were a sort of gendarmerie to protect roads, ward of brigands and help the king maintain law and order, especially in regards to commerce. In wartime, the guild militias marched under the kings banner. They also had their own banners to their patron gods and goddesses, or totemic animals. Since the guilds were very rich, their soldiers were well equipped with armor, swords and javelins. They had an economic interest in defending the state so their loyalty was reliable. At the same time, the King strove to minimize conflicts between guilds, which could potentially turn violent.

The third most important institution was that of the Buddhist community, or Sangha. Buddhism and Hinduism were of course the two great Indian religions of the time. The Guptas patronized both, along with Jainism. However, Buddhism was far more organized than Hinduism, and easily comparable to the orthodox Church within the Roman empire after Constantine. It had a hierarchy and departments. It ran charities and hospitals (as did the guilds) and other welfare institutions. It had nunneries and monasteries (which may have influenced their Christian counterparts.) The sangha even ran educational institutes like Nalanda university, which attracted pilgrims from as far away as China (Faxian and Xuantang.) Buddhism was popular with the common people since it was egalitarian and overcame caste differences. Farmers and merchants also liked it since it discouraged violence (which helped commerce), and the military restrictions against attacking civilians and farms came from both Hindu and Buddhist precepts.

Not only did India itself mine a great deal of gold, but since its exports were greatly desired, the Gupta kingdom received a great deal of gold coinage from the Persian and Roman realms; the taxation of the merchants who brought this gold back was the primary source of coin revenue, as distinct from the taxation in kind received from the village panchayats. Roman coinage was very widely circulated and not necessarily melted down. In India, the Roman emperor's face was simply scratched to indicate that he held no authority there. The value of foreign coins was determined by the precise system of measurements, weights and scales that the Indians had used since at least 2500 BC. Therefore a clipped denarius was of lesser value than an unclipped one; if a merchant tried to pass of a debased solidus, he would be quickly discovered. He did not need to be punished at a court. The guilds would ostracize him and he would be ruined. As indicated by the horse archer coin in the first post, the Gupta rulers maintained their own native mints.

Sources:

The Gupta Empire, Radhakumud Mookerji
Ancient India, Rajesh Chandra Majumdar
A History of India, Hermann Kulke & Dietrich Rothermund
Shiva Dhanur-veda, Sarngadhara, 5/6th centuries
The Encyclopedia of Tibetan Symbols and Motifs, Robert Beér
Attila and the Nomad Hordes, David Nicolle

[julianus heraclius]

Great stuff here Chelchal, unfortunately I can't give the Guptas there own horse archer model as I don't have the space in the mdb or edu files, but could allow for them to recruit steppe horse archers.

[Julianus Flavius]

Maybe give the Gupta Cavalry bows in addition to their spears?

[Chelchal]

I don't think it would terribly affect game play either way; even native horse archers couldn't have been very great in numbers. Like the Chinese, the ancient Indians tried to import horses from Central Asia, similar to the "heavenly horses" from Ferghana, which they obtained from the Asvakas and Kambojas, who were nomadic Iranian tribes. According to Kulke and Rothermund's book, the ancient Indians had trouble breeding large numbers of horses and were usually reduced to importing them from the Northwest (I do not know why.)

Maybe guild forces could figure more prominently in the Gupta army. It might be a bit unfair to give them additional heavy infantry in addition to their elephants and longbowmen; perhaps the Kushan infantry units could be redone as guild troops? It would also be interesting if somehow guild and Buddhist institutions could be incorporated into Gupta settlements.

I don't mean to keep harping on the guilds, but the fact that they endured in some form or another until the British came should say something.

[julianus heraclius]

I don't think it would terribly affect game play either way; even native horse archers couldn't have been very great in numbers. Like the Chinese, the ancient Indians tried to import horses from Central Asia, similar to the "heavenly horses" from Ferghana, which they obtained from the Asvakas and Kambojas, who were nomadic Iranian tribes. According to Kulke and Rothermund's book, the ancient Indians had trouble breeding large numbers of horses and were usually reduced to importing them from the Northwest (I do not know why.)

Maybe guild forces could figure more prominently in the Gupta army. It might be a bit unfair to give them additional heavy infantry in addition to their elephants and longbowmen; perhaps the Kushan infantry units could be redone as guild troops? It would also be interesting if somehow guild and Buddhist institutions could be incorporated into Gupta settlements.

I don't mean to keep harping on the guilds, but the fact that they endured in some form or another until the British came should say something.

I'm a little confused here Chelchal. On the one hand you are saying that there should be Gupta light horse with bows but on the onther that there would have been very few of them and so don't worry about it.

Then the issue of the Guilds. These could become an ancillary title for characters in game, but I get the view that these guilds also had armed units. So are you suggesting a heavily armed unit for the Guptas? If so, again I have a problem with capacity in the unit files for the mod. There is no more room unfortunately for any additional units.

Could or should the current Gupta Guard unit be changed instead, and if so into what?

[Chelchal]

I'm a little confused here Chelchal. On the one hand you are saying that there should be Gupta light horse with bows but on the onther that there would have been very few of them and so don't worry about it.

Sorry for my muddled writing. The nobles had horse archers in their ranks (and these men would be armored), but otherwise horse archers were recruited from the tribes from the Northwest, so your suggestion to have the Guptas recruit steppe horse archers resolves that and is historically accurate as well. I'm wondering if Julianus Flavius' suggestion to give the Gupta cavalry bows would be possible? I apologize for not understanding the issue with the mdb and edu files.

Altering the Gupta guards would be the best solution for the guild troops. As for their appearance, from cave paintings and contemporary writings, the heavier troops wore mail and lamellar armor while the lighter troops wore padded or quilted armor. Heavy infantry carried swords; from the Ajanta cave paintings, axes, and maces were more common. They also wore a conical helmet called a "sirastra" of Saka, Kushan or Sassanian origins which had hinged ear flaps.

I would recommend calling the Gupta clibanarii "kshatriya" cavalry instead, as the kshatriyas were the traditional warrior class of India. The sources I looked at also listed titles for petty kings and provincial governors within the Gupta administration, if you'd be interested in adding those to character descriptions.

[elendir]

@ Chelcal

Do you have images (or links) depicting the 'sirastra' from Ajanta paintings?
The only image I have is from Nagarjunakonda. Thanks

[Chelchal]

My apologies! The Sirastra image is indeed from Nagarjunakonda, not Ajanta. Going back to the readings, "sirastra" seems to be a pretty generic term for a helmet.

I was able to find more information in Asian Fighting Arts, by Draeger, Donn E, and Robert W Smith. A lot of military equipment was adopted by the Persians or Central Asians. A sirastra was often a metal conical helmet. It often included a "kantha trana" which was a sort of mail neck guard attached to the helmet. There was a domed version with a spike as well. Otherwise, turbans were the most common form of headgear.

Chain mail was commonly used by the nobles or the richer Sreni militias. A "ghughwa" was a mail suit with a coif. Kshatriyas would have worn lamellar armor as well. Leather armor was not common due to prohibitions against cow slaughter. Quilted linen was common among troops levied from farming communities. The levy troops were usually given large wicker shields similar to those of the Persian infantry. Better equipped soldiers had buckler sized shields, "phalukas", sometimes with a spike. They were made of wood and covered with leather (from goats or sheep).

[elendir]

I was able to find more information in Asian Fighting Arts, by Draeger, Donn E, and Robert W Smith. A lot of military equipment was adopted by the Persians or Central Asians. A sirastra was often a metal conical helmet. It often included a "kantha trana" which was a sort of mail neck guard attached to the helmet. There was a domed version with a spike as well. Otherwise, turbans were the most common form of headgear.

Chain mail was commonly used by the nobles or the richer Sreni militias. A "ghughwa" was a mail suit with a coif. Kshatriyas would have worn lamellar armor as well. Leather armor was not common due to prohibitions against cow slaughter. Quilted linen was common among troops levied from farming communities. The levy troops were usually given large wicker shields similar to those of the Persian infantry. Better equipped soldiers had buckler sized shields, "phalukas", sometimes with a spike. They were made of wood and covered with leather (from goats or sheep).

Do you mean you found the above information in Draeger's book?

[Chelchal]

That's correct.

[elendir]

mmmm.... I must have a look then!
I'd love to know about your sources... I'll send you a PM.