365bet娱乐

As pointed out earlier, the battle started with the blowing of trumpets (turiya) 2 or conches (samkha)? In the battle, a warrior of merit, hoisted his standard on the chariot. Importance of both the leader and his army becomes clear from some of the descriptions of the battles in the [?]. The battles appear to have been decided more on the valour of the leader than on that of army as a whole. There are two such instances in the the Vasudevahindi by Sanghadasa Vasudeva could turn the tables in a battle just because of his personal skill. In both these instances, a when the army of Vasudeva was facing a defeat, he straightway made an access to the enemy chief, killed his horses and charioteer, broke his bow and yoke, felled his standard and captured him. The victory was decided in the favour of Vasudeva 5. 1. Ibid., II. 22b. 2. Vasudevahindi by Sanghadasa, 207. 3. Ibid., 365. 4. Ibid., 81. 5. Ibid., 119, 207 ; to avoid the slaughter of poor soldiers (kivanavaha), king asaggiva and Tivitthu fight a dual to decide the victory, Vasudevahindi(F), 314-15.

145 Before the start of the battle, both the armies arranged themselves in arrays and counter-arrays (vuha, padivuha) 1. In the battle with Vasudeva who had arranged his army in the plan of on eagle (gurula), Govimamta thought it fit to counter-array it with the plan of a 2 crocodile ². The victory according to the Vasudevahindi by Dharmadasa, depended on many factors: army, friends, counsel of ministers, nettle of the soldiers and person 1 lour of the leader³. But on several occasions it was decided on the last factor. The example of Vasudeva and king Mamdaradeva is illustrative in this connection. They came to an agreement that instead of contributing towards the killing of several minor warriors, it was better to decide the victory by arranging a mutual combat, between themselves only. Both of them fought in various ways; first with missiles and at last with fists. Lctimately king Mamdaradeva accepted his defeat. 4 Ethics of War : The difference in weapons used by different army units has already been pointed out. Because of this difference in equipment and the convention of fighting with 1. Vasudevahindi(m), II. 35-36. 2. Ibid., II. 131b. 3. Ibid., II. 141a. 4. Ibid.; II. 146b.

146 one's equal, the description of battles in the Vasudevahindi by Sanghadasa sow the various units in the army fighting with their respective counterparts. In this connection, the story of Vasudeva Tivitthu is illustrative. Entrusted with the work of lessening the fear of lions in the mind of the subjects, Tivitthu entered the forest in a chariot. Seeing that the lions have no chariot or the weapons, he gave up both these as it was against the ethics of a khattiya to fight with one less equipped. In his combat with the lion he tore the latter into two². It was held to be against the code of behaviour for a warrior (khattiyadhamma) if many warriors collectively attacked a single warrior³. The idea of khattadhamma appears prominently also in the Vasudevahindi(H). according to the code, a warrior was at not expected to strike his enemy when he was sleeping 4, or was less equipped than himself 5, or running away in fear 1. X. Vasudevahindi(F), 207, 365. 2. Ibid.; 311. 3. Vasudevahindi by Sanghadasa, 365 ; of course, such codes were never observed by bands of warriors or the defending travellers. Both of them employed tricks, Vasudevahindi(F), 45-46. 4. Vasudevahindi(m), II. 45a. 5. Vasudeva's fight with a lion without weapons Vasudevahindi by Dharmadasa, II.48. Similar fight with a demon; Vasudevahindi(A), II, II, 6a.

147 from the battle field or wounded². person killing his enemy in his sleep was taken to be as good as a murderer (chalaghadi)³. Before striking his opponent a warrior was expected to challenge him in a proper manner (khattachamnaigarana)". The ideal of a good khattiya was ultimately that of an 'excellent man' (uttamapurisa) who had all the noble qualities including that of offering asylum to a person who has surrendered 5. 1. Ibid.; II. 2b. 2. Ibid.; II. 242a; an exception was made in the case of 3. a previous oath to execute revenge, as in the case of anasavega whose blood was taken out by Vasudeva, after the former's defeat; Vasudevahindi by Dharmadasa, II.45a. Ibid. # 4. Vasudevahindi by Dharmadasa, II. 132b. 5. Ibid., II. 73ab.