Ancient Indian Empires and Weapons

[nongaddarliberal]

I had posted a question to three YouTubers, linybeige, scholagladiatoria, and skallagrim, all asking them if they had any info on ancient Indian swords, before the medieval era, and any info on what armour was used by infantryman, if any. Because the famous curved tulwar was introduced in India in the medieval era. All three eventually got back to me and told that they couldn't really find any information on it. Scholagladiatoria is really passionate about Indian tulwars and khandas, but even he didn't know what was being used in the ancient era in India.

I read quite a few books on Indian history, and paid close attention to any description of weapons or armour. From what I found, our average Indian soldier wore no armour, was equipped with a shield and a spear, or with a bow and arrow. A lot of books specifically talk about how the medieval indian armies were at a disadvantage against the invading central asians, because the central asians wore chainmail and breastplate, and were equipped with the composite bow which allowed for horse archery.

Especially crucial is the horse archery, which gave them a significant advantage against our spear equipped cavalrymen. But then some history books say that there were horse archers even in the Gupta empire. It's confusing.

 

[nongaddarliberal]

Btw, linybeige, skallagrim and scholagladiatoria are I think the three biggest channels on YouTube concerning medieval and ancient weapons and combat. You guys should check them out.

 

[Tactical Frog]

Especially crucial is the horse archery, which gave them a significant advantage against our spear equipped cavalrymen. But then some history books say that there were horse archers even in the Gupta empire. It's confusing

Any mention of foreign mercenaries in Gupta empire times ? It could explain the presence of horse archers.
Roman armies used a lot of German mercenaries as auxiliary cavalry. At a point, there were even Huns mercenaries fighting for Rome.

 

[Razor]

Must say Kunal Biswas and shaitan are among the most valuable and knowledgeable members of the forum.
Very interesting thread, this one.

 

[nongaddarliberal]

Any mention of foreign mercenaries in Gupta empire times ? It could explain the presence of horse archers.
Roman armies used a lot of German mercenaries as auxiliary cavalry. At a point, there were even Huns mercenaries fighting for Rome.

Yes, there are account of scythian mercenaries in the Gupta army. That should explain it. But unfortunately horse archery was not indegenized into Indian practice, and we paid for it dearly when the central asians arrived.

 

[Willy2]

Any mention of foreign mercenaries in Gupta empire times ? It could explain the presence of horse archers.
Roman armies used a lot of German mercenaries as auxiliary cavalry. At a point, there were even Huns mercenaries fighting for Rome.

Not necessarily mercenary...Saka+bactrian ppl came down from central asia to settle in north-indian plains after fall of Mauryan empire , there are many small Indo-saka , greeko-Bactrian kingdoms in modern Punjub , Gujrat ,sindh...last on is western Satrapas which live upto 4th century AD ...These ppl might bring the horse archers in mainstream Indian military .

@nongaddarliberal even rome with heavy armour and advance shield and formation defetaed by horse riding huna . It's really hard for any army by then to stand against cavalry with spear+archer etc .
Also Indian bow is very dangerous , only English longbow can give indian bow a fight . So I think Indian archer might be well feared.

Another thing is many photos here in this thread shows axe holding soldier , may be we underestimate use of machete and axe as a weapon .
There are many things yet to discover , but god knows when anti-national colonist loonies let ASI to do it's job.

 

[Suryavanshi]

Not necessarily mercenary...Saka+bactrian ppl came down from central asia to settle in north-indian plains after fall of Mauryan empire , there are many small Indo-saka , greeko-Bactrian kingdoms in modern Punjub , Gujrat ,sindh...last on is western Satrapas which live upto 4th century AD ...These ppl might bring the horse archers in mainstream Indian military .

@nongaddarliberal even rome with heavy armour and advance shield and formation defetaed by horse riding huna . It's really hard for any army by then to stand against cavalry with spear+archer etc .
Also Indian bow is very dangerous , only English longbow can give indian bow a fight . So I think Indian archer might be well feared.

Another thing is many photos here in this thread shows axe holding soldier , may be we underestimate use of machete and axe as a weapon .
There are many things yet to discover , but god knows when anti-national colonist loonies let ASI to do it's job.

Who appoints the ASI chief?
If we could just appoint a non commies leftist person but someone who actually takes pride as well as interest in Indian History and give him support he could do wonders.

 

[Willy2]

ministry of culture , in past archaeologist hold the DG position ,now mainly bureaucrats are appointed in that post .

 

[Tactical Frog]

Another thing is many photos here in this thread shows axe holding soldier , may be we underestimate use of machete and axe as a weapon .

The axe was weapon of choice of Saxons til Hastings battle . Definitely not a bad weapon. Franks (predecessors of modern France) also used axes known as franciscas as throwing weapons, around 500 AD.

 

[Dreamhunter]

I had posted a question to three YouTubers, linybeige, scholagladiatoria, and skallagrim, all asking them if they had any info on ancient Indian swords, before the medieval era, and any info on what armour was used by infantryman, if any. Because the famous curved tulwar was introduced in India in the medieval era. All three eventually got back to me and told that they couldn't really find any information on it. Scholagladiatoria is really passionate about Indian tulwars and khandas, but even he didn't know what was being used in the ancient era in India.

I read quite a few books on Indian history, and paid close attention to any description of weapons or armour. From what I found, our average Indian soldier wore no armour, was equipped with a shield and a spear, or with a bow and arrow. A lot of books specifically talk about how the medieval indian armies were at a disadvantage against the invading central asians, because the central asians wore chainmail and breastplate, and were equipped with the composite bow which allowed for horse archery.

Especially crucial is the horse archery, which gave them a significant advantage against our spear equipped cavalrymen. But then some history books say that there were horse archers even in the Gupta empire. It's confusing.

The Indian armies evolved throughout the ages and you can not compare an army from the Maurya age to the Gupta age. The Central Asian armies had an advantage because of the horse archers but the Central Asian armies for some reason struggled in India much more than anywhere else in the world. While regions like Persia, Turkey, North Africa and East Europe fell rather easily to Central Asian armies, the wars between Indian Dynasties and Central Asian Dynasties continued until the arrival of the British.
For example Prithviraj Chauhan defeated Ghori in the first battle and Ghori was forced to return with a much larger army to defeat Chauhan. Alaudin Khilji of the Delhi Sultanate was defeated by Prataparudra of Kakatiya in the first campaign and Khilji had also to return with a much larger army and was only able to win because of the superior amount of soldiers. But the Delhi Sultanate was at the end defeated and driven out of Southern India by the Vijayanagar Empire. From the 14th to 16th century, at a time when Central Asian armies overrun the major part of the world, the Central Asian armies suffered major defeats to Vijayanagar Empire in the south, the Gajapati Dynasty in the east and to Mewar Dynasty in the northwest. So the Indian armies must have changed something in the way they fought wars

 

[Willy2]

Also , another thing is in my mind that Indias might in past age prefer spear to sword .

Now to be a good soldier with spear needed to be agile , thats mean armour have to be light ,otherwise this agility will gone , but if armour is light then it's useless , unlike now in old days ,light armour was similar to wear dress.
So thats why Indian soldier probably don't wear any armour .

 

[balwnatlk]

HISTORY IS GOING TO CHANGE NOW! GOING TO BE REWRITTEN AGAIN!

India: बागपत, सिनौली में खुदाई के दौरान महाभारत काल के रथ, मुकुट मिले

https://www.thebetterindia.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/06/3-2.jpg

https://www.thebetterindia.com/wp-c...ealogical-Excavation-site-Uttar-Pradesh-2.jpg

 

[nongaddarliberal]

The Indian armies evolved throughout the ages and you can not compare an army from the Maurya age to the Gupta age. The Central Asian armies had an advantage because of the horse archers but the Central Asian armies for some reason struggled in India much more than anywhere else in the world. While regions like Persia, Turkey, North Africa and East Europe fell rather easily to Central Asian armies, the wars between Indian Dynasties and Central Asian Dynasties continued until the arrival of the British.
For example Prithviraj Chauhan defeated Ghori in the first battle and Ghori was forced to return with a much larger army to defeat Chauhan. Alaudin Khilji of the Delhi Sultanate was defeated by Prataparudra of Kakatiya in the first campaign and Khilji had also to return with a much larger army and was only able to win because of the superior amount of soldiers. But the Delhi Sultanate was at the end defeated and driven out of Southern India by the Vijayanagar Empire. From the 14th to 16th century, at a time when Central Asian armies overrun the major part of the world, the Central Asian armies suffered major defeats to Vijayanagar Empire in the south, the Gajapati Dynasty in the east and to Mewar Dynasty in the northwest. So the Indian armies must have changed something in the way they fought wars

One reason for that is geography. Central Asian nomadic horse archery requires large, flat open spaces to be effective. India at that time was covered almost entirely in jungle, far more than what we see today, especially in North India. This allowed our guys to bring them in close for melee combat, where they were at a disadvantage. The jungles also hampered their mobility. Unlike in Persia, Turkey and North africa, where they could zip from place to place very quickly because of the terrain, it was painstaking to move large armies within India.

 

[ezsasa]

HISTORY IS GOING TO CHANGE NOW! GOING TO BE REWRITTEN AGAIN!

India: बागपत, सिनौली में खुदाई के दौरान महाभारत काल के रथ, मुकुट मिले

https://www.thebetterindia.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/06/3-2.jpg

https://www.thebetterindia.com/wp-c...ealogical-Excavation-site-Uttar-Pradesh-2.jpg

Is there any data what is the estimated height of people found in the rakhigarhi site?

 

[Kay]

@nongaddarliberal
All great horse archer civilizations other than Samurai used composite bows (Parthians, Scythians, Huns, Turks, Mongols, Koreans). Composite bows were use deer horn /antler (for majority of composite bows) or buffalo horn (Korean bow). These horns were attached to the wood backing with the help of fish glue and sinew (fibers from tendons of goats and deer). This resulted in great tensile strength and a small recurve bow with draw weight equivalent to a large wooden self bow.
In Indian humid climate and rain these glue and sinew will fall apart and the bow becomes weak and impractical. So Kushans and other proto Scythians used those bows in Invading India, but once they became Indianized, they had to use Indian weapons and tactics. Same with Mughals.

 

[Pandeyji]

@nongaddarliberal
All great horse archer civilizations other than Samurai used composite bows (Parthians, Scythians, Huns, Turks, Mongols, Koreans). Composite bows were use deer horn /antler (for majority of composite bows) or buffalo horn (Korean bow). These horns were attached to the wood backing with the help of fish glue and sinew (fibers from tendons of goats and deer). This resulted in great tensile strength and a small recurve bow with draw weight equivalent to a large wooden self bow.
In Indian humid climate and rain these glue and sinew will fall apart and the bow becomes weak and impractical. So Kushans and other proto Scythians used those bows in Invading India, but once they became Indianized, they had to use Indian weapons and tactics. Same with Mughals.

I have read somewhere that one solution was the use of steel bows but these were expensive

 

[Project Dharma]

Kushans and other proto Scythians

Other proto Scythians like who? Isn't that theory totally debunked? I think Pashtuns have some proto Scythian ancestry but not us in the subcontinent.

 

[Kay]

Other proto Scythians like who? Isn't that theory totally debunked? I think Pashtuns have some proto Scythian ancestry but not us in the subcontinent.

Sakas (Scyhians) , Kushans (Bactrian) and Huns - central Asian groups who invaded and assimilated with India - all of them formed ancient Indian empires.
Perhaps you are referring to the Aryan invasion theory - that is different.

 

[Project Dharma]

Sakas (Scyhians) , Kushans (Bactrian) and Huns - central Asian groups who invaded and assimilated with India - all of them formed ancient Indian empires.
Perhaps you are referring to the Aryan invasion theory - that is different.

No, I understood you the first time. I believe that Scythian theory is mainly romanticized British view of Indian history.

Most N Indians that claim Scythian descent clade different from Scythians in R1a panel. However, they might have an elevated "NE European" component which is not actually true European but Steppe ancestry (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yamna_culture) and points towards herders settling in parts of N India like you said.

 

[Haldiram]

our average Indian soldier wore no armour, was equipped with a shield and a spear, or with a bow and arrow.

Seems to be the case.

There's a museum in Mumbai where they have all types of weapons and armor on display and they seem to suggest that the heavy armor was reserved only for the boss players. The rest of them had light (leather sheath) to no armor.

These are some pics from the museum :

Mughal armor :

Weapons :

Longbow :

This is called "Ankush", it's used to control elephants :