The Age of Wrath: A History of the Delhi Sultanate (43 page)

Most of these figures are quite probably hyperbolic. But whatever be the factuality of these figures, Indian armies were usually of mammoth size. Large size however did not necessarily mean great strength. In fact, the huge size of Indian armies often turned them into unwieldy, uncontrollable rabbles, which could be easily routed by a small, tightly organised army, as Mahmud Ghazni proved again and again during his Indian campaigns, and as Babur would later prove in his battle against Ibrahim Lodi. Similarly, in the peninsula, the Bahmani sultans usually won their battles against the much larger forces deployed by the rajas of Vijayanagar.

Adding to the unwieldiness and bedlam of Indian armies were the hordes of non-combatants that accompanied the army, such as various vendors and service providers, as well a large number of prostitutes. In the train of the Vijayanagar army there were, according to Barbosa, five or six thousand women, paid for by the raja, evidently to provide the soldiers with essential sexual services. The army on the march was also invariably followed by hordes of irregulars, adding to the chaos in the army and the devastation it caused all along the route of its march.

INDIAN ARMIES IN the early medieval period consisted of four main divisions: elephants, cavalry, archers, and infantry. The army usually also had
a few non-combatant wings in it, such as engineers—to serve as sappers and miners, and to man siege engines—surgeons, physicians, and scouts.

In time two new corps—cannoneers and musketeers—were added to the Indian army, and they would play an increasingly prominent role in battles. But chariots, which had a crucial role in battles in ancient India, had virtually disappeared from the scene by the late classical period; they are not even mentioned in Harsha’s army. As for the navy, some South Indian kingdoms, the Cholas for instance, had a strong naval presence in the Indian Ocean in the classical period, but their role sharply declined by the early medieval period, and the control of the seas around India passed on to Arabs and Chinese, and eventually to Europeans. Some Indian kingdoms probably still maintained small naval fleets at this time, but there is hardly any information on this. There was however a strong presence of pirates on the western peninsular coast of India, with some of the pirate chieftains commanding as many as thirty warships.

The major reliance of Indian armies in the early medieval period was on their war elephants, and kings and generals usually rode into battle on elephants, for safety as well as to have a commanding view of the battle. War elephants have been in use in India from ancient times. King Porus of northwestern India is recorded to have deployed 200 elephants in his battle against the invading army of Macedonian king Alexander in the fourth century
BCE
. Alexander however did not think much of the value of elephants in battle, and he devised a tactic to turn them against their own side, and thus rout the raja. Similarly, Timur in his battle against sultan Mahmud of Delhi in the late fourteenth century
¹
also devised a tactic to counter the threat of elephants, and win the battle.

But these were rare incidents. Elephants normally played a decisive role in Indian battles. And the size of the elephant corps in Indian armies grew greatly over the centuries, and in time their use in war spread from India to Central Asia, and even to Europe. Ghaznavids were the first Muslim kings to use elephants in large numbers in battle—Mahmud Ghazni is said to have maintained a stable of 1000 elephants, tended by Hindu mahouts. Balban valued elephants very highly, and held that ‘one elephant was worth 500 horsemen.’ The ‘elephant possesses more intelligence than any other animal in the world,’ states Varthema. ‘I have seen some elephants which have more understanding, and more discretion and intelligence, than many kind of people I have met with.’

Confronting elephants in the battlefield was a horrifying experience for most invading armies. Elephants, notes Razzak, ‘in their size resemble
mountains and in their form resemble devils.’ In battle they were usually made even more terrifying by being armoured and armed. ‘Large scythes are attached to the trunks and tusks of the elephants, and the animals are clad in ornamental plates of steel. They carry a howdah, and in it are twelve men in armour with guns and arrows,’ reports Nikitin. These soldiers, according to Timur, also threw grenades and fireworks, and shot rockets at the enemy.

The very sight and smell of elephants, as well as their trumpeting, threw the horses of invaders into panic. And the terrifying charge of elephants, which could reach speeds of up to thirty kilometres an hour, usually disarrayed the enemy infantry and cavalry, and made them flee pell-mell. All this made elephants an object of absolute terror for invading armies, more so as the all too real terrors of these beasts were magnified fantastically in the legends about them. Even as late as the close of the fourteenth century, when Timur invaded India, these legends persisted, and they dispirited the Mongol soldiers.

A major problem with elephants in battle was that they often ran amuck, throwing their own army into disarray. Still, elephants continued to play a crucial role in Indian battles till the late medieval period. But their role gradually declined thereafter, for the use of firearms made them obsolete. Moreover they were easy targets for cannons. The role of elephants in the army then became limited to hauling heavy military equipments.

NEXT IN IMPORTANCE to elephants in the early medieval Indian armies were mounted archers, who usually carried spears, swords and battle-axes, apart from bows. Their arrow heads were sometimes poisoned. Several thousands of these cavalrymen simultaneously charging at full tilt and shooting arrows was an onslaught which few infantry formations could withstand. Balban, according to Barani, held that a cavalry force of six or seven thousand could easily rout a hundred thousand strong infantry force.

India did not breed good quality horses at this time, so they had to be imported in large numbers from the Middle East and Central Asia. This was done by rajas as well as sultans. ‘The king,’ says Nuniz about the raja of Vijayanagar, ‘every year buys thirteen thousand horses of Ormuz, and country-breds, of which he chooses the best for his stable, and gives the rest to his captains.’ This had to be done every year, for, as Barbosa states, ‘horses do not thrive well in their country and live therein but a short time,’ because of the hot and humid climate of India.

Indian kings also regularly recruited a good number of foreign cavalrymen—Turks and other steppe people—as they were far superior to local cavalrymen. But they too, like imported horses, had to be recruited afresh periodically, as the spirit and energy of foreign soldiers tended to decline in the enervating climate of India.

Elephant and cavalry divisions were the most powerful units of the early medieval Indian armies, to which artillery and musketry divisions were later added. But the largest numerical constituent of Indian armies has always been the infantry. This however was also its weakest wing, being an ill-disciplined horde with hardly any military training, many of them just temporary recruits from among peasants.

A curious constituent of the medieval Indian armies was its contingent of martial ‘ascetics’, about whom there are several vivid accounts in the chronicles of the Mughal period, and they were no doubt a notable presence in the Indian armies of the early medieval period as well. These ‘ascetics’ entered into battle stark naked, but with their bodies daubed all over with paint and ash. Elsewhere in Asia too, as well as in Europe, there were bands of warrior monks in medieval times, but the Indian warrior monks were entirely different from them, and were rather like bands of primitive predators. ‘Never have I seen yogis like this,’ comments Kabir, a fifteenth-century mystic poet of North India. ‘Shall I call such men ascetics or bandits?’

MOST MEDIEVAL INDIAN armies were not integrated units, but amalgams of disparate and incongruent elements. The clothes and weapons of their soldiers varied from group to group, even from person to person. There were no uniforms for soldiers, so each dressed as he liked. Often the dress of soldiers, particularly of the infantry, was minimal, as of the common people. South Indian soldiers at this time were ‘all naked and bare-footed,’ reports Nikitin, apparently ignoring the loincloth that they no doubt wore.

In contrast to this, soldiers in Afghanistan were well-dressed and well-armoured. ‘It is the practice in the armies of Ghur for the infantry to protect themselves in battle with a covering made of a raw hide covered thickly on both sides with wool or cotton,’ writes Siraj. ‘This defensive covering is like a board, and is called
karoh
. When men put it on they are covered from head to foot, and their ranks look like walls. The wool is so thick that no weapon can pierce it.’ Similarly, Yadgar found that some soldiers in North India, presumably migrants from Central Asia, were ‘clothed in chain armour, which was concealed by white clothing.’

Most Indian kings and chieftains, as well as their senior officers, unlike the common soldiers, dressed in their best for battle, and wore their finest jewellery, presumably to impress and inspire their soldiers, and to awe the enemy. Thus when King Jayapala of Punjab was captured by Mahmud Ghazni in a battle, he, according to Al-Utbi, was found to be wearing several opulent jewels, such as a necklace ‘composed of large pearls and shining gems and rubies set in gold.’ Similarly, Ibrahim Lodi was heavily bejewelled when he fought against Babur in the battle of Panipat.

As in dress and ornaments, so also there were wide variations in the weapons carried by Indian soldiers, for these were not supplied by the state, but procured by each soldier, according to what he preferred or could afford. According to
Chach-nama
, an eighth century Arabic chronicle, the common weapons of the Indian soldiers in early medieval India were ‘swords, shields, javelins, spears, and daggers.’ Other sources indicate that they also carried lances, maces and lassos. Battuta found that in North India mounted soldiers usually carried two swords: one, called the stirrup-sword, was attached to the saddle, while the other was kept in his quiver. In South India, according to Nikitin, foot-soldiers carried ‘a shield in one hand and a sword in the other.’ And Nuniz reports that the soldiers of Vijayanagar ‘were all well armed, each after his own fashion, the archers and musketeers with their quilted tunics, and shield-men with swords and poignards in their girdles. Their shields are so large that there is no need for armour to protect the body, which is completely covered. Their horses were in full clothing. The men wore doublets, and had weapons in their hands. And on their heads were headpieces after the manner of their doublets, quilted with cotton.’ Says Razzak about Kerala soldiers: ‘In one hand they bear a … dagger … and in the other a shield made of cowhide.’

Mangonels and other naphtha and missile-throwing devices were in general use in the army of the Delhi Sultanate right from the beginning, and it was common for Indian armies to hurl incendiary arrows and javelins, as well as pots filled with combustible materials, into enemy forts and against enemy soldiers. But it was only in the mid-fourteenth century that gunpowder, invented in China in the ninth century, was introduced into India, presumably by Mongols or Turks. This was then used in various explosive devices by the army. But it took another century before Indian armies began to use firearms regularly in battle. And it was still later that cannons came to be used in India—the first recorded instance of the use of cannons in India was by Babur in the battle of Panipat in 1526. But thereafter the use of cannons became fairly widespread in field battles in India, and they played a decisive role in the battle of Talikota in 1565.

Indian kings generally preferred to recruit foreign soldiers to serve as musketeers and to man their artillery, because of their greater experience and superior skills in the use of these weapons. The artillery of the Deccan sultans in the battle of Talikota was, for instance, commanded by a Turk. There were also a number of Portuguese gunners in the armies of South Indian kingdoms.

THE PACE OF advance of an Indian army into battle was slow, because of the slow pace of its infantry, which was normally its largest division. ‘In ordinary cases eight kos (about 26 kilometres) would be one day’s march,’ states Siraj.
But in an emergency the army could cover double that distance or even more. Timur in his autobiography states that he once covered twenty kos in one day, though usually he covered only six kos in a day. Laden with plunder his army marched even more slowly, covering only four or five kos a day on the average.

The armies on the march were often ruthlessly predatory. They advanced trampling down everything on their way, and devastating the country—pillaging, slaughtering people, and spreading terror—even in their own kingdom. According to Amir Khusrav, wherever the army marched, every inhabited spot was desolated. And since the army was constantly on the march, the devastation it caused was also ceaseless. The only way people could save themselves was by fleeing from the path of the army. And this they invariably did.

If this was the manner in which the army advanced into battle, its retreat from the battlefield was often even more chaotic, especially after a defeat or some other calamity. Thus when the Delhi Sultanate army retreated from Sind following the death of Muhammad Tughluq, ‘every division of the army marched without leader, rule, or route, in the greatest disorder,’ states Barani. ‘No one heeded or listened to … anyone.’

In sharp contrast to the chaos in the army on the march, military camps were usually well laid out and well organised in medieval India. Though there is hardly any information on the military camps of the Delhi Sultans, there is a fair amount of information on the practices in peninsular India, in Hindu as well as Muslim camps. Presumably the camp scene in North India was not much different from this. In all cases particular care was taken to protect the army camp against surprise attacks. According to Ferishta, the Bahmani sultan while on a campaign ‘surrounded his camp with carriages after the usage of Turkey, to prevent the enemy’s foot from making night-attacks.’