365bet

Warfare and Military System in Vedic Literature

by Rinki Deka | 2023 | 39,711 words

This page relates ‘Fortification and Siegecraft� of the study on Warfare and the Military System of ancient India as gleaned from the Vedic Literature. The purpose of this work is to study the defensive and offensive systems of the Vedic people, including their army divisions, political and administrative systems, use of arms and armours, fortification, ethics and other principles related to warfare; while reflecting the social system and cultural aspects of ancient India.

Go directly to: Footnotes.

The fundamental principles of fortification were known and practised as early as in the Vedic period. The oldest literary record of India, i.e. the ṻ岹-ṃh refers to the fort.[1] The words pur and pura occur in the ṃh[2] and later Vedic texts[3] in the sense of rampart, fort or stronghold. According to A.A. Macdonell and A.B. Keith, the purs were merely places of refuge against attack, ramparts of hardened earths with palisades and a ditch.[4] The word ī is mentioned in the ṻ岹-ṃh,[5] which refers to defences thrown up against an enemy, apparently earthworks or dikes.[6]

Sāyaṇācārya interprets the term �

dehya� digdhā upacitā ܰī ܰī� tadīyān dehān vā /[7]

In the Vedic period, towns and settlements were protected by stone walls, both for strategic reasons and for the protection of the life and property from marauding bands in the neighbourhood. The city gates are mentioned in the ٳ󲹰岹貹śṣṭ also.[8] The king should keep weapons ready around the ramparts and surrounding the city. The word is mentioned in the ṻ岹-ṃh,[9] which according to Griffith, means the castles of the clouds as opposed to the stone strongholds of men.[10] The term ܰ, great fort, occurs in the ղٳپīⲹ-ṃh[11] and the ٲⲹ󳾲ṇa.[12] The owner of pur is called ū貹پ.[13]

Sāyaṇācārya explains the term ū貹پ

ū貹پ� ܰ� 峾Բ�/[14]

ū貹پ, the chief of a fort under attack, might have been a ruler or governor or a regular officer, who was the commander of a permanent garrison. ū貹پ, according to J. Muir, might have been a ruler or governor or lord of a city or fortified place in a Ṛgvedic verse.[15] He was the lord of a city who ruled with good governance. Three fires are described as forts in the ٲⲹ󳾲ṇa, which prevent the Asuras from disturbing the sacrifice.[16] The Asuras took to fight at the sight of those forts. The forts were sometimes made of stone (Գī)[17] or sometimes made of iron (ⲹī).[18] The fortification must have been occasionally of considerable size, as one was called broad and wide (ṛtī and ܰī).[19] A fort full of kine, called dzī, is mentioned in the ṻ岹-ṃh, showing that strongholds were used to hold cattle.[20] Cities with hundred walls or fortification called, śٲᾱ are referred to in the ṻ岹-ṃh.[21] Of course, Sāyaṇācārya explains this word śٲᾱ as having countless walls.

He states

śٲᾱbhi�/ śatamityaparimita峾/ asaṃkhyātabhogavadbhi� pūrbhi� pālanai� jetavyai� śatrūṇāṃ nagarairvā/[22]

They are alluded to as figurative expression of the means of protection afforded by the gods. The autumnal forts are also referred to in the ṻ岹-ṃh.[23]

Sāyaṇācārya in this context says�

śī� saṃvatsaraṃbԻ󾱲ī� saṃvatsaraparyanta� prāraparikhādibhirdṛḍhīkṛtā� ܰ� śatrūṇāṃ ܰī� avātira� anāśaya�/[24]

Griffith interprets the autumnal forts as the strongholds on high ground occupied as places of refuge during the heavy rains, or ‘the brilliant battlemented cloud-castles, which are so often visible in the Indian sky at this period of the year�.[25] According to Sāyaṇācārya, autumnal forts are cities or strongholds of Ś, a demon.[26] There are references to the pur ṣṇ or moving fort in the ṻ岹-ṃh,[27] which may be an engine for assaulting strongholds, but sometimes it was like a kind of chariot. According to A.A.Macdonell and A.B. Keith, it may, like the Trojan horse, have been an Indian anticipation of the Roman means of assaulting a town.[28]

The sieges of forts are mentioned in the ṃh and the 󳾲ṇa.[29] The fortresses, which were constructed of wood were sought to be destroyed by fire. ղśԲ or fire has been described to have pierced the citadel of enemy.[30]

Commenting on the this, Sāyaṇācārya says�

he vaiśvānara�/ yat yadā pūrave rājñe śośucāna� īⲹԲ� ܰ� tasya śatrūṇāṃ ܰ� darayan dārayan adīde� ajvala�/[31]

Agni also drove out the Dasyus from their hiding places by burning and blazing fiercely.[32] Indra, with the help of kindled fire, burnt up all their weapons that bore away ٲīپ and made him rich with kine and cars and horses.[33] Indra, the Āryan battle god, goes on from fight to fight intrepidly destroying fort after fort with strength.[34] He overthrows� the non-Āⲹ kings and rends their forts ‘as age consumes a garment.�[35] Therefore, one of his epithets is ܰṃd, i.e. fortdestroyer.[36]

Sāyaṇācārya interprets this word

ܰṃd ܰīṇāṃ ܰ� dārayitarhe indra/[37]

Griffith states that, Indra, with his lightning, destroys the cloud castles of the demons of the air.[38] Agni along with Indra, figures as a fort-destroyer,[39] and helps him to reduce ninety castles of the .[40]

Arrows tipped with flame were also used in siege DZپDzԲ�

seneva sṛṣṭāma� dadhātyasturna didyuttveṣapratī /yamo ha jāto yamo janitva� 첹ī貹پᲹī 峾//[41]

In this context, Sāyaṇācārya says that the term didyut means vajra, but here the term is used in the sense of ṣu.[42] The ղٳپīⲹ-ṃh[43] states that the Asuras had three citadels, the lowest was of iron, and then there was one of silver and then one of gold. The gods made ready an arrow, Agni as point, Soma as the socket and վṣṇ as the shaft. Rudra cleft the three citadels and drove away the Asuras from these worlds.[44]

Footnotes and references:

[back to top]

[1]:

ṻ岹-ṃh , 1.33.12, 1.53.7, 1.61.5, 1,63.7, 1.103.3, 4.16.1

[2]:

Ibid., 1.53.7, 1.131.4, 1.166.8, 3.15.14, 4.27.1

[3]:

ղٳپīⲹ-󳾲ṇa , 1.7.7.5 Also vide, Śٲ貹ٳ-󳾲ṇa , 3.4.4.3, 6.3.3.25

[4]:

Vide, Macdonell, A.A. & Keith, A.B., op. cit., Vol.1, p. 539

[5]:

purūṇi yaścyautnā śambarasya vi Բپ� nava ca dehyo han/ ṻ岹-ṃh , 6.47.2 Also vide, Ibid., 7.6.5

[6]:

Vide, Macdonell.A.A. & Keith, A.B., op. cit., Vol.1, p 379

[7]:

ⲹṇa, ṻ岹-ṃh , 6.47.2

[8]:

puradvare ܰṣo indrakīle janakṣaya�/ brahmāyatanaghāteṣu brāhmaṇānāmupadrava�// Atharvaveda-貹śṣṭ , 58.4.2 Also vide, Ibid., 64.5.3,70.27.1

[9]:

峾su pūrṣu paro apramṛṣya� nārātayo vi naśannānṛtāni /ṻ岹-ṃh , 2.35.6

[10]:

Vide, Griffith, R.T.H., op. cit., p.154

[11]:

ղٳپīⲹ-ṃh , 6.2.3.1

[12]:

te abruvannupasada upāyāmopasadā vai ܰ� ᲹⲹԳīپ�./ Aitareya-󳾲ṇa , 1.4.6

[13]:

mitrāyuvo na ū貹پ� suśiṣṭau madhyāyuva upa śikṣanti yajñai� /ṻ岹-ṃh , 1.173.10

[14]:

ⲹṇa, Ibid.

[15]:

Vide, Muir. J., Original Sanskrit Texts, Vol. V, p. 456

[16]:

vai yajñamatanvata tāṃstanvānānܰ abhyāyan, yajñaveśasameṣāṃ kariṣyāma iti tānāprīte paśau pura iva paryagneryūpa� prati ܱܰⲹṃsٱ pratibudhyāgnimayī� purastriܰ� paryāsyanta yajñasya cā”tmanaśca guptyai, tā eṣāmimā agnimayya� puro īⲹ bhrājamānā atiṣṭhaṃstā ܰ anapadhṛṣyaivāpādravaṃste’gninaiva purastād asurarakṣāṃsyapādhnatāgninā 貹ś// Aitareya-󳾲ṇa , 2.2.1

[17]:

śatamaśmanmayī� ܰmindro vyāsyat/ divodāsāya dāśuṣe// ṻ岹-ṃh , 4.30.20

[18]:

agne gṛṇantamaṃhasa uruṣyorjo napātpūrbhirⲹībhi� /Ibid., 1.58.8 Also vide, Ibid., 2.20.8, 4.27.1, 7.3.7, 7.95.1, 10.101.8

[19]:

agne tva� pārayā navyo asmāntsvastibhirati durgāṇi ś / pūśca ṛtī ܱ na ܰī 󲹱 toya tanayāya śa� yo� //Ibid., 1.189.2

[20]:

ā na indra mahīmiṣa� ܰ� na darṣi dzīm/ uta suvīryam //Ibid., 8.6.23

[21]:

śٲᾱbhistamabhihruteraghātpūrbhī rakṣatā maruto yamāvata / ᲹԲ� yamugrāstavaso virapśina� ٳ󲹲 śaṃsāttanayasya puṣṭṣu //Ibid., 1.166.8 Also vide, Ibid., 7.15.14

[22]:

ⲹṇa, Ibid., 1.166.8

[23]:

ṣṭ asya vīryasya pūrava� puro yadindra śāradīravātira� sāsahāno avātira�/ṻ岹-ṃh , 1.131.4 Also vide Ibid., 1.174.2, 6.20.10

[24]:

ⲹṇa, Ibid., 1.131.4

[25]:

Vide, Griffith, R.T.H., op. cit., pp. 91, 120

[26]:

śī� śarannāmno’surasya ṃbԻ󾱲ī� sapta saptasaṃkhya� ܰ� ܰī�../ ⲹṇa, ṻ岹-ṃh , 6.20.10

[27]:

ṻ岹-ṃh , 8.1.2-8

[28]:

Vide, Macdonell.A.A. & Keith, A.B., op. cit., Vol.II, p.417

[29]:

ղٳپīⲹ-ṃh , 6.2.3.1 Also vide, Śٲ貹ٳ-󳾲ṇa , 3.4.4.3-5

[30]:

ٱ󾱲 ś āyannasiknīrasamanā jahatīrbhojanāni / vaiśvānara pūrave śośucāna� puro yadagne darayannadīde� // ṻ岹-ṃh , 7.5.3

[31]:

ⲹṇa, Ibid.

[32]:

tve asurya� vasavo nyṛṇvankratu� hi te mitramaho juṣanta / tva� dasyūrokaso agna āja uru jyotirjanayannāryāya //ṻ岹-ṃh , 7.5.6

[33]:

sa pravoḷhṛṛnparigatyā dabhīterviśvamadhāgāyudhamiddhe agnau/ sam gobhiraśvairasṛjadrathebhi� somasya tā mada indraścara// Ibid., 2.15.4

[34]:

yudhā yudhamupa ghedeṣi dhṛṣṇuyā ܰ ܰ� samida� haṃsyojasā/ Բ yadindra sakhyā parāvati nirbahayo Բܳ� māyinam// Ibid., 1.53.7 Also vide, Ibid., 1.32.6,1.33.12,1.61.5, 3.34.1, 4.30.20

[35]:

Ibid., 1.53.8, 9, 1.54.6, 2.14.6, 4.16.13

[36]:

Ibid., 8.1.7,8

[37]:

ⲹṇa, Ibid., 8.1.7

[38]:

Vide, Griffith, R.T.H., op. cit., p.65

[39]:

agne sa tva� ܰ� ܰīsپ� ܰī� rurojitha bhagnavānasi/ yadvā tripuradahanasādhanabhūte bāṇe’gneranīkatvenāvasthānādagni� ܰṇi bhagnavānityucyate/ ⲹṇa, ṻ岹-ṃh , 6.16.39. Also vide, ṻ岹-ṃh , 7.6.2

[40]:

indrāgnī Բپ� puro dāsapatnīradhūnutam/ṻ岹-ṃh , 3.12.6

[41]:

Ibid., 1.66.8

[42]:

didyuditi vajra峾/ tena cātreṣurlakṣyate/ ⲹṇa, Ibid.

[43]:

teṣāmܰṇāṃ پ� pura āsannayasmayyavamā’tha rajatā’tha 󲹰ṇ� tā jetu� nāśaknavantā upasadaivājigīṣantasmādāhurścaiva� veda yaśca nopasadā vai ܰ� jayantīti ta ṣu samaskurvatāgnimanīka soma śⲹ� ṣṇ� teᲹԲ� te’bruvanka imāmasiṣyatīti //T S., 6.2.3.1

[44]:

Ibid., 6.2.3.2

Let's grow together!

I humbly request your help to keep doing what I do best: provide the world with unbiased sources, definitions and images. Your donation direclty influences the quality and quantity of knowledge, wisdom and spiritual insight the world is exposed to.

Let's make the world a better place together!

Like what you read? Help to become even better: