Game: Chandragupta

Thread: Notes from the Designer #26 - An Annotated Bibliography

SRWelch00 — 2008-09-24T11:54:03+00:00

An Annotated Bibliography … and some parting words

For this last installment we’ll return to the beginning of “Notes from the Designer.” As you will recall back in Notes #2, one of the initial challenges in researching Chandragupta was finding sources of research on ancient Indian military history and in particular the Mauryan Empire.

Fortunately, the sources were there. Many of them are the products of Indian academics; others, while authored by Westerners, have been fortuitously kept in print by Indian printing houses. Though some come more recommended than others, all were a fascinating read and provided a piece of information or a viewpoint that proved helpful in some way to the development of the game. I offer an annotated version of the bibliography (the non-annotated version appears in the game’s Playbook) for those of you who are interested.

So at last, on the “eve” of GMT’s publication of the game, I bring these “Notes from the Designer” to a close. I’ve enjoyed writing them and receiving your feedback. But most importantly, I am truly indebted to all of you whose unflagging enthusiasm and interest has made Chandragupta a reality. To you I give my heartfelt thanks.

This is not the last that the Great Battles of History will see of ancient India … and beyond … so stay tuned. In the meantime, enjoy the game! I’ll see you soon back here on ConsimWorld.

Steve Welch

Chandragupta: An Annotated Bibliography

Bhargava, P.L. Chandragupta Maurya : A Gem of Indian History (New Delhi: DK Printworld, 1996). This monograph, originally Bhargava’s doctoral dissertation, traces Chandragupta’s origins and his rise to power. Bhargava relates Hindu, Jain, Buddhist and Greek legends and folklore to knit together his narrative.

Chakravarti, P.C. The Art of War in Ancient India (New Delhi: Low Price Publications, 1993). Despite the “low price” publication, Chakravarti’s work is the seminal modern study of ancient Indian warfare, first published in 1941. Providing excellent descriptions of the elements of the four-fold Indian army, Indian encampments, fortification and siegecraft, and arms and armor, the work also contains an excellent bibliography of period sources. Highly recommended. This and Majumdar’s work formed the basis of research for the game Chandragupta.

Das, H.C., Military History of Kalinga (Calcutta: Punthi Pustak, 1986). A good treatment of military history focused on Orissa and southern India, from ancient times to Kalinga’s conquest by the Muslims in 1586.

Dikshitar, V.R. Ramachandra. War in Ancient India (Delhi: Motilal Banarsidass, 1987). Dikshitar opens his work with a long discourse on the psychological factors of war in ancient India and ends with a history of Indian diplomacy. Though there are relatively good sections on weaponry, the laws of war (“Dharmayuddha”), and interesting appendices on war music, flags, and manuscripts of the era, Dikshitar’s work is tarnished by an uncritical acceptance of the claims of religious texts – including magical weapons and “aerial chariots.”

Kautilya, Arthashastra. Translated by S. Sastri, Mysore, 1923. The Arthashastra (meaning, “the science of polity”) is the period source on Mauryan-era military organization, tactics, encampments, espionage, as well as a general treatise on statecraft and economic policy. Though named as Kautilya and/or Vishnugupta, the author is traditionally identified as Chanakya (ca 350-283 BCE), the Takshashila scholar who became Chandragupta’s Prime Minister. Several decent translations are available on the web.

Majumdar, Bimal Kanti. The Military System in Ancient India (Calcutta: Firma K.L. Mukhopadhyay, 1960). This work traces the evolution military ideas and practices in ancient India, from the earliest times to the conquest of the Turks. Treated chronologically, Majumdar also appends a critical analysis of the breakdown of the Indian military system. Highly recommended.

Marshall, Sir John Hubert. A Guide to Taxila (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1960). Marshall provides a topographical and historical background for the three cities that over time were all incarnations of the famous Takshashila. The highly detailed fold-out topographical map was used for the Khashas and Takshashila map in the game Chandragupta.

McCrindle, John W. Ancient India as Described by Megasthenes and Arrian (New Delhi: Munshiram Manoharlal Publishers, 2000). Another good period resource, McCrindle’s translation of the original works provides a fascinating window into ancient India as perceived by contemporary Greeks.

Narain, A.K., The Indo-Greeks (Delhi: B.R. Publishing Corporation, 2003). Narain’s “revisited and supplemented” work is thorough and fairly comprehensive, and marked by an erudition that equals that of Tarn. Narain benefits from newer research, including numismatic and archeological evidence that was not available to the British scholar.

Sastrik, K.A. Nilakanta, The Age of the Nandas and Mauryas (Delhi: Motilal Banarsidass Publishers, 1988). Very good history of the two dynasties, including polity, religion, and trade.

Scullard, Elephant in Greek and Roman World (Ithaca: Cornell University Press, 1974). An in-depth and definitive study of the pachyderm and its use in the classical world by the prolific and respected Scullard.

Tarn, W.W., The Greeks in Bactria and India (Edinburgh: Munshiram Manoharlal Publishers, 1980). Originally published in 1938, Tarn’s history of the Euthydemids and Hellenism in eastern Iran and northern India provides the Greek point of view for this otherwise neglected area of history. Though long noted for his erudition, Tarn has been criticized for his idealistic treatment (some would say “hero-worship”) of Alexander the Great and Demetrius II. Some Indian scholars, notably A.K. Narain, have challenged a number of Tarn’s assumptions.

Thaplyal, Kiran Kumar and Shive Nandan Misra eds, Select Battles in Indian History (Delhi: AgamKala Prakashan, 2002). 2 vols. An excellent starting point for any game designer interested in India, the two volumes describe battles from Vedic times to 2000 CE, each battle given a chapter with its own bibliography. One flaw, however, is that the editors do not attribute the chapters to their respective authors. Otherwise, very useful.

Waddell, L.A., Report on the Excavations at Pataliputra (Patna) (New Delhi: Asian Educational Services, 1996). A reprint of the original 1903 report on the excavations of the ruins of the ancient city, previously thought to have been swept away by the Ganges. Many interesting plates, including a handy fold-out map.

Thread: Shipping in October

masaakunokouchi — 2008-09-20T18:20:56+00:00

shipping in October!!!! *frothing at the mouth* mwhahahahaahaha
I can't sleep.

Thread: Notes from the Designer #25 - The Scenarios: Battle of Kalinga

SRWelch00 — 2008-08-23T15:32:15+00:00

The Scenarios: Battle of Kalinga, 261 BC

Bindusara was fortunate in having in his sons, especially Ashoka (“Free of Sorrow”), “proconsuls of exceptional ability” who did much to curb the rebellious princedoms and clans in outlying provinces. With their help it was not difficult to maintain the empire inherited from his father, Chandragupta, and even to extend its boundaries.

Ashoka was the proconsul of Takshashila prior to his ascension to the throne, which he seized – as legend has it – as outcome of a fratricidal struggle that he waged after his father became ill. There is no clear evidence, but some scholars suggest that Ashoka is the son of Bindusara and the Greek princess Helen, daughter of Seleucus.

Chandragupta and Chanakya had been hostile to non-monarchial states. Many such states, quasi-democratic oligarchies as well as republics, had been weakened by the wars with Alexander, and that weakness made possible the eventual hegemony of the Mauryan Empire. Thus, the Mauryans had always kept a wary eye on Kalinga. A large and fiercely independent saņgha (republic), Kalinga had been originally conquered by Ugrasena Nanda, but regained its independence during the rule of Sahalya, and remained so until the reign of Ashoka Maurya.

Eight years after his anointment, Ashoka marched on Kalinga. On a battlefield near the village of Dhauli the Kalingan army was defeated. Records affirm that 100 thousand were slain, 150 thousand were deported (enslaved), and many times that number died thereafter. It is said that the river Daya nearby ran red with the blood of the slain.

After the battle Ashoka ascended the hillocks to survey the field he had won; at twilight he saw heaps of dismembered bodies of soldiers and animals, heard the cries of wounded, witnessed the anguish of women searching the dead for their husbands and sons. As the story is told, the slaughter filled Ashoka with such anguish he changed from Chandashoka (“Ashoka the Terrible”) to Dharmashoka (“Ashoka the Pious”). He became a Buddhist.

There seem to have been no more Mauryan wars after Kalinga. Ashoka codified a civil law for the empire, and expanded its borders – largely through diplomacy, it appears, and through Buddhist missions -- practically over the whole if India except for the extreme south of the peninsula. In the north he built the town of Shrinagari (modern Srinagar) in Kashmir.

The Mauryan Empire collapsed within 50 years of Ashoka’s death. After its collapse, Kalinga briefly enjoyed its own small empire in Southern India.

The names of Kalingan leaders have been lost; names here are taken from prominent Kalingan dynasties that struggled for power when the Mauryan yoke was thrown off a generation later. Names for Ashoka’s subordinates are taken from various sources associated with Ashoka’s regime; Upagupta was Ashoka’s spiritual leader. Since Chanakya is probably retired by now (that rebellion in Takshashila cannot have helped his political career), he is replaced as Ashoka’s second-in-command by Subandhu, who is said to have been Chanakya’s political rival.

The Combatants:
The Mauryan imperial army at its full flower – facing the equally formidable Kalingan army.

The Battlefield:
One full map of flat terrain, with Dhauli hill on a half-map extension. This and the Takshashila scenario are the only battles whose historical location is known. The game map was based upon satellite images of the site provided by Mark Matney.

Special Features:
This is the grand, set-piece battle of the game. A truly huge and bloody battle.

Elephant-pulled chariots were (and still are) well known, but their military use is unclear. Given the ubiquity of Indian war elephant in this era as well as the prestige enjoyed by the chariot, however, we offer the Elephant Chariot (“elCH”). Kalinga was the breeding ground for the best and largest of the beasts that could, presumably, pull a large war-cart (and besides, the Kalingans can use the help).

This is the last of the battles of Chandragupta, and thus the end of our ongoing historical discussion of the Mauryan Empire. Next week, for the last installment of Notes from the Designer, I’ll present an annotated bibliography for the game.

SRW

Image

SRWelch00 — 2008-07-30T13:44:21+00:00

Sample counter art

Thread: Chandragupta - Sample counter art

SRWelch00 — 2008-07-30T13:29:08+00:00

Chandra fans -- check out the SneakPeek sample counter art just posted over at GMT's page. It gives a little taste of the game's color and variety ... cataphracted elephants, heavy chariots, tribals, Greek hoplites.

Sample counter art: http://www.gmtgames.com/gbchand/ChandraSampleUnits.jpg
Chandragupta page: http://www.gmtgames.com/p-40-chandragupta.aspx

Enjoy!

SRW

Thread: Notes from the Designer #24 - The Scenarios: Suppression of the Khashas

SRWelch00 — 2008-07-29T14:00:55+00:00

The Scenarios: Suppression of the Khashas 274 BC

Though he was hailed as “Slayer of Enemies,” Chandragupta’s son Bindusara was friendly with the Hellenic world and was known to have had a taste for Greek figs, wine, and philosophy. Little is known, however, about the military conquests of Bindusara. He is generally thought to have consolidated (if not expanded) his father’s empire, but from the chronicles of Taranatha, we are told that Bindusara “destroyed kings and nobles of about sixteen cities” in the rebellious Khasa rajya, or realm of the Khashas. The Khashas, whose settlements in the former kingdom of Puru extended from Jhelum to the west of Kashmir, were likely independent principalities united by clan or tribal connections who chafed at Mauryan imperial power.

Bindusara was said to have added the Deccan Peninsula to the Mauryan empire, though his son Ashoka is also said to have done the same (the latter is more likely). In Greek Bindusara was given the epithet “Amitochrates,” or Amitragatha, or the “destroyer of enemies.”

Chanakya was certainly older by this time, but probably still active; Bindusara retained him from his father’s court.

The Combatants:
The Mauryan army, led by Bindusara, with Ashoka and Chanakya as Wing Commanders, against the Khashan tribal army.

The Battlefield:
Tribal strongholds on rugged mountain terrain. The Khashas’ strongholds were West of the Jhelum (“Hydaspes”) River, though the historical locations of these battles are not known. We have opted to “condense” what was probably a series of scattered revolt suppressions into two scenarios. The terrain is based on a topographical map of the area just east of Takshashila, as rendered in Marshall’s A Guide to Takshashila.

Special Features:
These scenario features a daytime assault scenario, plus a night scenario that gives the Khashas a chance for a surprise attack against the bivouacked Mauryans. Special rules for the scenario include ambush options for the Khashans, and night combat.

Next week: The Scenarios – Battle of Kalinga.

Thread: Notes from the Designer #23 - The Scenarios: Revolt in the Provinces

SRWelch00 — 2008-07-14T14:04:33+00:00

The Scenarios: Revolt in the Provinces, 275 BC

From the Buddhist narratives Divyavadana, it is related that Chandragupta’s grandson Ashoka, while proconsul of Takshashila, was commissioned by his father Bindusara with the task of restoring order during a popular revolt against “wicked officials” (i.e. high-handed oppression by local ministers). The “official” history takes pains to reassure that the people were not opposed to the “Kumara [prince] or even king Bindusara.”

Certainly the victor writes history, and given the autocratic nature of the Mauryan state machinery, we opt to put a more cynical (and interesting in game terms), but we like to believe realistic, twist to the officially approved propaganda of the Divyaāvadana. In our version, the aging Chanakya, as viceroy of Takshashila, is the one faced with an uprising by the city’s merchant class. Chanakya’s forces occupy a portion of the city; the “rebel” forces – a coalition of Sreni – occupy part of the city, and its gates and the roads leading to it. Ashoka, with a force of Maula, must rescue the beleaguered Chanakya.

The Combatants:
Chanakya is holed up in the center of the city, controlling the Palace, Temple, and the western gate. Arrayed against him is a coalition of Guild militias who occupy northern and southern districts of the city as well as the surrounding countryside. On its way is the Mauryan relief force commanded by Ashoka with Subandhu, equipped with Sarvatobhadra siege artillery.

The identity of the “wicked officials” is not known. We are assuming here that neither Maula nor Bhrta would have been involved; the former due to their loyalty to the imperial throne, and the latter because they were not in the employ of local magistrates. So we’re allowing the local officials to use their own corporate levies – the “Guilds” – as their troops.

The Battlefield:
The city of Takshashila.

Special Features:
This scenario is unusual in that the Rebels’ victory conditions are to kill Chanakya or force him from the city. Tensions is high for both players – Chanakya must hold on long enough to be rescued by Ashoka, while the Rebels must balance their limited forces between two competing priorities … besieging Chanakya inside the city, and holding back the Mauryan relief force outside it.

Thread: Re: final map art

SRWelch00 — 2008-07-01T14:52:58+00:00

These look very nice, Mike! Can't wait to see them in print ...

Counter art is almost done, too. Just waiting for the proofs of the rules, charts, and scenario booklet.

Steve

Thread: Notes From the Designer #22 -- The Scenarios: Gandhara

SRWelch00 — 2008-07-01T14:49:50+00:00

The Scenarios: Gandhara, 304 BC

According to Grainger, after his stalemate with Antigonus in 308, Seleucus conquers Bactria and then proceeds to Gandhara on India’s western frontier. Marching through Oxyartes’ satrapy of Paropamisadai and then down the Kabul River, he crosses at the confluence of the Indus somewhere in the vicinity of modern Attock in Pakistan. On the East bank of the Indus Chandragupta confronts him. With his back to the river, Seleucus fought to what was possibly a tactical draw, but it was a strategic loss. Having gambled so far from home but failing to achieve a victory, Seleucus is “gifted” 500 war elephants from the Mauryan emperor in exchange for the surrender of his possessions in the Indus valley, Arachosia, and Gedrosia. Sources suggest that the cession of these territories were treated as the dower of Seleucus’ daughter in her marriage to Chandragupta’s son, Bindusara.

Seleucus’ leaders were Sibyrtius, Satrap of Arachosia and Gedrosia, Polyarchus, who had defected from Antigonus when Seleucus made his big appearance, and Patrocles, who held out against Demetrius while Seleucus was in the east fighting Nicanor.

After the conclusion of peace in 303 BC, Seleucus sends the traveler and geographer Megasthenes to Chandragupta’s court at Pataliputra. Megasthenes’ records his observations of India in his work Indica, which would become an important source to later Western writers such as Arrian and Strabo.

The battle with Seleucus was probably Chandragupta’s last major engagement. He inclined towards Jainism in later life, abdicating the throne to his son Bindusara. Chandragupta died in his early fifties, in 293 BC.

The Combatants:
The Mauryan army versus the Greek/Macedonian army of Seleucus. Seleucus’ commanders included Sibyrtius, Satrap of Arachosia and Gedrosia who was originally an ally of Eumenes but fell out of favor and became an ally of Antigonus, then Seleucus. Polyarchus also defected from Antigonus, and Patrocles, who held out against Demetrius while Seleucus was in the east fighting Nicanor, was a good strategist and thus probably Seleucus’ second-in-command.
OOB for the Greeks is courtesy of research by Mark Matney.

The Battlefield:
Seleucus is squeezed close to the sands and mud of the Indus River at his back, leaving him with little room to maneuver. The area is more-or-less in the general vicinity of the actual battle (as much as we know) though the terrain has certainly changed in the last two millennia (the course of the Indus, as with many rivers in India, changes constantly). The map is based in satellite images provided by Mark Matney.

Special Features:
The Indian light troops are no match for the Seleucid heavy infantry, but this is offset by the former’s superiority in elephants. How well the Seleucid player handles his cavalry against Chandragupta’s elephant corps will determine whether or not the Macedonian army comes out on top.

Next week: The Scenarios -- Revolt in the Provinces.

Thread: final map art

lmyrick — 2008-06-23T17:38:06+00:00

I just posted some images from the final map art.

http://www.boardgamegeek.com/images/game/26458

Image

lmyrick — 2008-06-23T16:44:37+00:00

The final Kasha map

Image

lmyrick — 2008-06-23T16:43:48+00:00

Portion of the Camp map

Image

lmyrick — 2008-06-23T16:42:53+00:00

Final Taxila map

Thread: Notes from the Designer #21 -- The Scenarios: Takshashila

SRWelch00 — 2008-06-23T13:46:27+00:00

The Scenarios: Takshashila 316 BC

After overthrowing the Nandas, Chandragupta had to justify his new dynasty by proving it able to secure the protection of the people against foreign invasion by the Greeks. His opportunity presented itself out in the western province of Gandhara, in the city-state called Takshashila.

Takshashila (aka “Taxila” in Greek) was at the time under the joint rule of the Indian king Ambhi, who had allied himself years earlier with Alexander against his rival king Puru (“Porus” of Hydaspes fame), and the Thracian general Eudamus, a successor of Phillipus. When Eudamus treacherously has Puru murdered, a native revolt begins.

Shrewdly, Chandragupta transforms the revolt into an organized military action against Takshashila. Not only is Takshashila garrisoned by the hated Yavana – Greek and Macedonian mercenaries – but it is strategically important as a trade-route crossroads, connecting the Mauryan home kingdom of Magadha with Bactria. Seizing Takshashila would extend the young Mauryan Empire out to India’s western frontier.

Eudamus is not committed to this battle – his joint rule with Ambhi was meant to be temporary, but his permanent appointment as satrap was never made. When things become “too hot,” therefore, Eudamus throws in the towel. He quits India to later help Eumenes in his fight against Antipater. The Greek officers remaining are put to the sword by the Mauryan troops, and Chandragupta assigns Chanakya – born in Takshashila – as its viceroy.

The Combatants:
Chandragupta, now leading a fully-fledged Mauryan army, confronts an alliance of Greeks and Indians outside the city of Takshashila. The Yavana army is comprised of Phalanxes and Hoplites, plus the vaunted heavy cavalry. The Indian king Ambhi, allied with Eudamus against Chandragupta, garrisons the city and is arrayed outside its northern gates.

Because Eudamus needs his elephants for war with Eumenes against Antipater, he was loath to commit them to battle – they count their full TQ for withdrawal purposes. Incidentally, according to Sastri, the elephants were ones that Eudamus had seized from Puru.

The OOB for Eudamus’ forces is courtesy of research by Mark Matney.

The Battlefield:
The battle takes place in the valley of the Tamra Nala river, bounded by rugged hills overlooking Takshashila from the east. The centerpiece of the terrain is the city itself – the walled city, with four gated entrances, surrounding dense city blocks of congested dwellings. In the center of the city is its temple and palace.
The game map is based upon topographical maps drawn by archaeologist J. M. Marshall’s A Guide to Taxila.

Special Features:
Players are given two scenarios here, the Set Piece Battle plus a City Assault Battle. With the City Assault, the Mauryan is given an opportunity to use his elephants to pull down the cities’ gates – not as easy a task as with camp gates – and to use the Indian version of the catapult, the jamadagnya.

Next week: The Scenarios -- Gandhara.

Thread: Notes from the Designer #20 - The Scenarios: Revolt of Malayaketu

SRWelch00 — 2008-06-09T20:58:57+00:00

The Scenarios: Revolt of Malayaketu, 317 BC

This scenario is based on events from the play Mudrarakshasa, which was “probably based on events which actually occurred” (according to Bhargava, at least). And it gives us an excellent opportunity to introduce the Indian military camp to the game, as described in “Notes” #13.

The political background is certainly plausible. Having won power with the help of independent tribes and principalities, Chandragupta promptly evades the pre-war promises he had made them. Betrayed, the tribal chieftains rise against Chandragupta. The revolt is led by the son of Parvataka, named Malayaketu, with the help of five other chiefs and an ex-minister of the Nanda regime named Rakshasa.

Chanakya gets to work, employing “other political means” against the rebels, e.g. he has several of Malayaketu’s allies poisoned and uses guile to sow dissension among the tribes. Weakened, the rebels are then attacked in camp, at night.

The Combatants:
The Mauryans now have a largely professional army of Maula and Bhrta troops with Chanakya as OC leading the vanguard of charioteers. The Mauryans have now fully adopted the “fourfold” or Caturangabala division of the traditional Indian military system, with an Elephant, Chariot, Cavalry and Infantry corps (see “Notes”#4). Malayaketu’s band is mixed, with a large contingent of disaffected Tribal and Sreni “rebels.”

The Battlefield:
The Camp Extension map … this is an all-out assault on Malayaketu’s camp.

Special Features:
The Indian Camp is the centerpiece of the scenario. Included also is a Tribal Loyalty rule, by which the wily Chanakya can “turn” some of Malayaketu’s Tribal allies prior to the game’s start! The scenario also offers opportunity for the Mauryan’s to use their EL units to breach camp gates and tear down its towers.

Next week: The Scenarios -- Takshashila.

Thread: Notes from the Designer #19 - The Scenarios: Magadha

SRWelch00 — 2008-05-29T21:44:19+00:00

Though Ugrasena Nanda apparently was a great conqueror and able ruler, his rich and powerful sons were not. As Ugrasena grew older, his sons’ greed and corruption became intolerable. Using this as well as the Nanda’s lowness of birth to drum up popular support of their rebellion, Chanakya and Chandragupta began to broaden their anti-Nanda coalition. Among the freedom-loving clans and princes of Punjab and Sindh, most of whom had given stout resistance to the foreign invader Alexander, they find the military support they had been seeking.

After the failed attack on Pataliputra, the banner of revolt was raised again, this time with the help of the chieftain Parvataka and his brother Vairodhaka. According to legend, Chanakya was the commander of the chariot corps for Chandragupta’s army.

The Nandan troops fought vigorously under the command of Bhadrasala. The eldest of the Nanda princes was called Sahalya; he and his brothers Chandramas and Dhana, who all shared sovereign power him, perished (they were most likely put to the sword). Parvataka apparently died in this battle.

The Combatants:
Chandragupta’s troops, a combination of mercenary Bhrta, Tribals and Sreni, now augmented by professional Maula “hereditary” troops (see “Notes” #9), were levied with wealth procured by metallurgy and mining. They face off against the Nandan imperial army, this time under command of prince Sahalya.

The Battlefield:
The battle lines are drawn on a featureless plain, but this time just west of the Nanda’s camp. The camp extension map is used, introducing players to the Indian military camp.

Special Features:
There are two scenarios here, a standard set-piece battle plus a “Camp Assault” option that allows players to extend the scenario to include an attack on the Nandas’ camp. The “Retire to Camp” optional rule is therefore introduced in this scenario, allowing the Nandas to – under certain circumstances – beat a retreat to the camp. If they do so, the victory conditions for the Mauryans change to a territorial objective … they must take the camp.

Sahalya is more of a liability than a benefit here … if he gets killed, the more capable Bhadrasala becomes the Nandas’ OC.

Next week: The Scenarios -- Revolt of Malayaketu.

Thread: Notes from the Designer #18 - The Scenarios: Pataliputra

SRWelch00 — 2008-05-19T22:15:05+00:00

The Scenarios: Pataliputra

As we saw in “Notes from the Designer” #15, the kingdom of Magadha was originally brought under rule by a prince of the Paurava family (of “Porus” fame). The dynasty, known as Haryanka, came to an end when its last king was murdered by a usurper known today only as Shishunaga. Shishunaga had a successful career, ruling over several kingdoms in what could legitimately be called India’s first empire, but his karma (one could say) eventually caught up with him. According to Curtius, the bastard son of the last prince of the Haryanka clan – known as Ugrasena Nanda – thrust a dagger into Shishunaga’s throat, then promptly had the royal children murdered. The Nanda dynasty was born.

Born of a Sudra (plebian or labor-caste) courtesan, Nanda waged war against the aristocracy, exterminating many of the Kshatriya (warrior caste) dynasties in his growing empire. In doing so he garnered the relentless hostility of politically minded Brahmins such as Chanakya, a political refugee from the Nandan court who quickly rose to the occasion and began plotting to overthrow the government in Gandhara. Chanakya flees to Takshashila where he meets Chandragupta, and he and his young protégé begin recruiting mercenaries and other armed malcontents for a rebellion.

This inaugural battle did not go well for Chandragupta, as he and his insurgents brashly attacked the capital without having consolidated their power base among the “hereditary” (i.e. Maula) military class (see “Notes” #9). By all accounts they were defeated, forcing them to regroup in the countryside to build up their military strength and political support.

The Combatants:
The Nanda army vs. Chandragupta’s coalition of tribals, guild militia, and mercenaries. From Jain legend, Chanakya was a charioteer in the initial uprising against the Nandas. As Chandragupta was quite young here, Chanakya is likely to have been the OC. It is not known who commanded the Nandas, but we opt here to give the assignment of mopping up this insurrection to the Nanda’s able general Bhadrasala, who enjoyed some respect as Mahasenapati (commanding general), even among his adversaries. Chandramas and Dhana were the younger of Ugrasena’s sons; we’ve given them commands here appropriate for Nandan princes.

The Battlefield:
The historical location is not known, though it is generally described as being waged outside the walls of Pataliputra (very rash indeed!) in basically flat and featureless terrain.

Special Features:
This scenario introduces the players to Dharmayuddha, discussed in “Notes” #10.
Next week: The Scenarios -- Magadha.

Thread: Notes from the Designer #17 -- Chandragupta Meets Alexander

SRWelch00 — 2008-05-12T14:27:56+00:00

Chandragupta Meets Alexander

To preserve and augment the nascent Magadhan empire, to “unify the innumerable fragments of distracted India” and to protect the country against foreign menace, India would require a leader of greater prominence and vision than the previous figures that had heretofore “strutted about the Indian stage” as Sastri puts it. Such a man, as recorded by Plutarch and Justin, first appeared before Alexander in the Punjab (326-325 BCE) as a adolescent “about whom tradition records signs and portents of an august destiny.”

While most traditions record that Chandragupta was of royal extraction, some, notably Jain, attest that he was a novus homo born of the daughter of a peacock-tamer (a mayuraposhaka) of an obscure village. Buddhist sources on the other hand place him with the ruling family (the “Moriyas”) of the republican city-state of Pipphalivana who, expelled in an attack by a neighboring raja, settled in a new home which abounded in mayuras or peacocks (thus the peacock became the symbol of the Maurya clan). The place was presumably located in Magadha, because when king Mahapadma Nanda ascended the Magadhan throne, the Moriyas suffered the same fate as other Kshatriya clans and Chandragupta’s father was killed. While pregnant, it is said, Chandragupta’s mother fled with her father’s relatives and lived at Pataliputra under the guise of peacock-tamers … a fitting and ironic disguise, as the symbol of the peacock was the only remaining vestige of the family’s royal status.

Chandragupta’s uncommon intelligence in his boyhood is related in several of the stories. One of them is repeated by Bhargava:

“The king of Simhala sent to the court of the Nandas a cage containing a lion of wax so well made that it seemed to be real. He added a message to the affect that anyone who could make that fierce animal run without opening the cage should be acknowledged to be an exceptionally talented man. The dullness of the Nandas prevented their understanding the double meaning contained in the message, but Chandragupta […] offered to undertake the task. This being allowed, he made an iron rod red hot and thrust it into the figure, as a result of which the wax soon ran and the lion disappeared.”

This legend, which has Chandragupta living for some time in the Nandan court, is not corroborated by any other source and thus belongs to the realm of legend. But the independent Buddhist and Jain traditions, however, agree that at some point in his early life his path and that of Chanakya’s crossed. Perhaps the boy’s precocity, combined with his noble Kshatriya extraction, presented in the shrewd Brahmin’s mind an opportunity, a figure around which to rally a Kshatriya-based rebellion against the hated Nandas.

In any case, in 326-25 BCE Chandragupta left Magadha, having fled the Nandan court after implication in sedition against it according to some accounts, and found himself in the Gandharan capital of Takshashila. While on the western frontier Chandragupta meets Alexander of Macedon, a fact recorded by both Justin and Plutarch. The young Maurya is reported to have offended Alexander by his impudent tone, in which he informs the conqueror that he had “narrowly missed making himself master of the country [India],” since its rulers in the East – the Nandas – were despised by their subjects for their weakness, stupidity, and mean origin. Alexander gave orders to kill the boy.

Thus, Chandragupta emerges from obscurity to into the full view of Western history. But he meets an arguably more important figure in terms of his immanent destiny with Indian history. Fleeing Takshashila and taking refuge in a forest tract, he began drawing together there a band of mercenaries and armed malcontents, solicited to overthrow the government in Gandhara. Among them he meets another political refugee of the Nandan court, the Brahmin Chanakya. The young noble and the older man, the shrewd political creature who would become his mentor, begin their struggle to uproot the Nandans.

Here ends the historical and military background for Notes from the Designer. The subsequent installments will begin where the game Chandragupta does, with historical notes and synopses for the battles of the game, starting with the battle of Pataliputra.

Next week: The Scenarios -- Pataliputra.

Thread: Chandragupta ... ETA July 2008!

SRWelch00 — 2008-05-10T19:08:41+00:00

... coming soon, more "Notes from the Designer" ...

SRW

Thread: Chandragupta -- in Arts and Graphics dept

SRWelch00 — 2008-02-12T18:18:19+00:00

Playtesting is winding down on Chandragupta , and the game's maps and counters are now in the capable hands of the art department. Can't wait to see what Rodger's team does with this new Indian venue for GBoH!

Meanwhile, the playtesting team made some modifications to the rules for the "Revolt in the Provinces" and the "Khashas" scenarios, with promising results. Here's a recent playtest of the "new, improved" Revolt scenario from Mike Ollier:

REVOLT IN THE PROVINCES GBOH, FEBRUARY 9 PLAYTEST
Mike Ollier
TIME: Approximately 2 hours OUTCOME: Sreni victory.

TURN #1:
Kashyap set up outside the east gate and Bushana outside of the north gate. The Elephant trainers set up outside of the west gate. Vyadi’s artisans were inside in the northern half of the city and Nehra’s traders were in the southern half. Chanakya installed himself in the temple with two lines running almost back to back cutting the city into northern and southern halves.

Kayshap successfully activated and started moving through the east gate. Nehra’s traders pressed the south-facing side of Chanakya’s position. Vyadi’s artisans hit the north-facing side but lost 2 LI in the process – although they had at least inflicted some hits. Bushana failed to activate. He intended to get his LI and LC into the city and bar the gate as soon as possible to avoid having to fight the relief force. Khamsa did activate but he was hoping to damage the west gate and make use of his EL that way. They are not much use inside the city so the only other strategy, considering their low 5 TQ, is to run away. They decided to face down whatever comes along when the Mauryans showed up.

Subandhu raced in from the 2500 hex road with LN and LC in column. He obtained 2 momentum activations and brought his cavalry within 2 hexes of Bushana’s force. Ashoka entered with EL in column on the 1013 hex road and likewise came within 2 hexes of Khamsa’s EL before the turn ended.

Khamsa’s EL did roll a “0” and a “damage” marker was placed on the west gate.

Mauryans (M) lost: 0 Sreni (S) lost: 4

TURN#2:
Kayshap brought two Temple Guards to their TQ-1. Chanakya’s charisma and the Mauryan Rout Rule kept them in the game. Kayshap lost 1 LI. Nehra lost 2 LI and risked being counter-attacked in the southern part of the city. Vyadi managed to eliminate 1 Li of the Temple Guards. Bushana manages to activate but he could only get his LI in through the gates. The LC are left to their fate outside the walls.

Subandhu routed 2 LC and destroyed another. He tried for momentum and rolled a “9” – die roll of doom! He rolled another “9” and suffered a crisis of faith – meaning all of his units within his command had to pull back two hexes.

Khamsa decided to make a break for it with his LI, leaving his EL around the west gate to face Ashoka alone. Khamsa hoped to get round to the south gate and get safely inside. (This is what he probably should have done at the outset to avoid losing his EL). In his activation, Ashoka destroyed most of Khama’s EL but, of course, the rampaging ELwere in close quarters with his own EL and they suffered 2 losses as a result. Ashoka succeeded with one momentum and caught up with the fleeing EL Trainer LI, routing 2 of them.

Meanwhile, inside the city, Chanakya discovered that even with his charisma and rout rule benefits, the stress of continued combat would wear down his embattled defenders. Trading hits with engaged units put some of his units in peril. 2 MI failed rout rule TQ checks. He managed to get momentum and removed hits from some units temporarily out of the action. He was trying to reorganize his defence to account for the gaps left when the MI were eliminated but he failed a momentum roll. He rolled that dreaded “9” and then a “0”, which allowed Vyadi to be resurrected. Vyadi’s LI rushed into the palace and attempted to take Chanakya in the Temple, itself but he held on – this time.

M: inside 18 S: 28
Outside 14

TURN #3
Kayshap eliminated 1 Temple Guard LI. Nehra eliminated 1 LI as he turned his attention to blocking the west gate from the inside in anticipation of Ashoka’s arrival.

Vyadi had LI in the palace, in the road between the palace and the temple, and assaulting the rear of the south-facing line of Chanaya’s defenders. He did not manage to inflict any losses on Chanakya’s force, however, and he lost 1 LI of his own.

Ashoka cleared the way to enter the west gate but failed in his momentum attempt needed to actually get inside with an EL unit.

Bushana activated next and raced through the streets with the LI he had succeeded in getting inside the city. He made directly for the temple and Chanakya. He inflicted enough hits to force the temple LI stacked with Chanakya to make a rout roll – which it failed and was thereby eliminated. Between the ZOC’s of Kayshap, Vyadi, and now Bushana’s units, Chanakya had nowhere to run and he was eliminated – ending the scenario.

M: inside 24 S: 36
Outside 14

This one was close. Chanakya might have escaped through the westgate if he had not had that die roll of doom.

"Revolt" promises to be a tense, fast-paced scenario, and fairly well-balanced ... you'll have have fun with this one!

SRW

Thread: Re: Chandragupta -- Indian Military Grades

SRWelch00 — 2008-01-27T16:47:21+00:00

Thanks, Shane, for supporting Chandragupta! I'm happy to report that playtesting is winding down, and the game is moving at last into GMT's art department for design of new counters, etc.

SRW

Thread: Re: Chandragupta -- Indian Military Grades

ShaneB — 2007-12-09T14:28:44+00:00

Thanks for posting all of these articles. A buddy has P500'ed this, and we're keen to play (meanwhile, we're enjoying Ran).

Thread: Notes from the Designer #16 -- The Brahmin Chanakya

SRWelch00 — 2007-03-31T23:16:03+00:00

The Brahmin Chanakya

The elder king Nanda of Magadha died – by natural causes as far as we can tell – in roughly 329 BCE, and was survived by his eight sons. These sons, the eldest of whom was named Sahalya, would rule Magadha for another twelve years. Though the Greeks would not know his name, they referred to him as “Agrammes,” a corrupted form of Augrasainya, i.e. the son of Ugrasena, the first Nanda. The Puranas indicate that Sahalya shared sovereign power with his brothers.

According to all sources, the Nanda brothers were not only powerful but exceedingly rich. Their inability to rule over the vast dominions they had inherited as well as a reputedly irreligious disposition, made them very unpopular; but their greed apparently garnered hatred among the public. A passage in the chronicle Kathasaraitsagara claims that the brothers possessed some “990 million gold pieces,” a sum certainly pointing towards crushing tax levies, if not rampant extortion. The last of the sons, Dhana, was supposedly addicted to hoarding treasure, so much so that he had the banks of the river Ganges excavated for the express purpose of burying the Nandas’ cache of gold, silver, and other precious items. The Magadhan state, meanwhile, levied heavy taxes on almost every commodity imaginable, including skins, gums, trees, and stone.

While the lowness of Mahapadma Nanda’s birth may not have troubled the broad-minded Magadhans per se, the misrule of his offspring later brought their low origins into public prominence. And there could be no greater cause of public hostility than evidence that Magadha’s proud empire was beginning to disintegrate under the sons’ reign. The kingdom of Kalinga, one of Magadha’s chief rivals, had been partially conquered during Mahapadma’s rule. Sometime after his death, however, the Kalingans had successfully thrown off Magadha’s yoke and regained their independence. This erosion of Magadha’s prestige and power was squarely blamed upon the Nanda brothers’ profligacy.

The public hostility was naturally seized upon as an opportunity by the Kshatriya clans who had been brutally deposed by the usurping and low-born Nandas. Rule by the bastard offspring of a Sudra (labor caste) woman was also a transgression of the traditional social hierarchy, and conservative Brahmin factions conveniently spun this transgression in the public eye as the root of Magadha’s ills.

One such Brahmin was a native of Pataliputra by the name of Vishnugupta Chanakya. Though a shrewd man and with apparently formidable political instincts – he would later become the author of the seminal treatise on Mauryan statecraft, the Arthashastra -- Chanakya’s motivations were not purely the salvation of Magadha’s honor and prestige. Rather, he was motivated by a personal vendetta against the Nanda dynasty.

According to legend, Chanakya was invited by the Nanda’s chief minister, Sakatala, to preside at a celebration in the Nandan court. During the celebration, however, Sahalya Nanda publicly snubbed Chanakya and gave precedence to a rival Brahmin (named Subandhu; Subandhu and Sakatala will make appearances as commanders in Chandragupta). This offended the volatile Chanakya so deeply that he vowed to kill Nanda for his insult. Apparently the king got wind of Chanakya’s oath. But before he could be arrested, Sakatala – who, as it happened, was secretly collaborating with the opposition – helped the Brahmin escape Pataliputra. Chanakya fled to the west, settling in the city of Takshashila in the kingdom of Gandhara.

In Gandhara, Chanakya’s path would converge with that of a young man whose destiny would change the Brahmin’s fate, and India’s. There he would meet Chandragupta Maurya. But another personality, a foreign invader from Macedon, was about to change India’s history as well. And he, too, would meet – if only briefly – the future emperor of the Mauryan empire.

Next week: Chandragupta meets Alexander.

Thread: Notes from the Designer #15 -- The Nandas

SRWelch00 — 2007-03-12T23:05:11+00:00

The Nandas

The regicide Nanda, illegitimate son of the last descendant of Bimbisara and a labor-caste, or Sudra, woman, assassinated the usurper Kakavarna in 357 BCE. According to the account by Curtius, Nanda ruled Magadha in the name of Kakavarna’s 10 sons for several months, pretending to act as their guardian until he had them all put to death. In short order, Nanda then moved to exterminate all of the aristocratic Kshatriya (warrior caste) clans that had retained independence within the Magadhan sphere, incorporating their territories under his rule. Gone was the loose assemblage of feudal baronies under Kshatriya bloodlines. For the first time in Indian history, there was now an empire stretching beyond the Gangetic basin, from the Himalayas to the Godavari River, under the absolute rule of a single man.

Known by the popular epithets Mahapadma (“lord of immense wealth”) and Ugrasena (“lord of a formidable army”), Nanda was clearly a powerful king. Inheriting a system of standardized administration headed by powerful military and political advisors, Nanda continued the program of imperialism and political consolidation first inaugurated by Sishunaga. Along with a rigorous and efficient ministerial apparatus, Nanda also maintained a powerful fighting machine. Curtius counts the Magadhan army as consisting of 20,000 cavalry and 200,000 infantry, besides some 3,000 elephants and 4,000 war chariots. Surviving Buddhist texts name the formidable general of the Nandan army as Bhadrasala. Bhadrasala commands the Nandan forces in Chandragupta’s first two scenarios, “Pataliputra” and “Magadha” (more on these scenarios later).

Nanda was a powerful monarch, but he was also a novus homo, and waging war against Kshatariya ascendancy gained him powerful enemies. He also garnered the relentless hostility of politically astute Brahmins.

Next week: Enter Chanakya.

Thread: Notes from the Designer #14 -- India's First Empire

SRWelch00 — 2007-02-25T19:08:14+00:00

Chandragupta : The Kingdom of Magadha

To understand the military campaigns fought by the Mauryas, we need to understand something political and cultural environment that gave rise to both Chandragupta Maurya and the eastern Indian kingdom that gave rise to the dynasty he overthrew.

As you recall (way back in Notes From the Designer #3), the two ancient Vedic tribes, the Purus and the eponymous Bharatas, formed the Kuru nation in what today is called Hiryana state in northwest India (and includes the national capital of Delhi). Sometime in the 11th century BCE, the descendants of the celebrated Kuru monarch, Janamejaya – said to be the great-grandson of Arjuna, the warrior-hero of Mahabharata fame – expanded the kingdom eastward into what is now the state of Uttar Pradesh. By the 6th century BCE, the Kuru mantle had expanded further eastward to encompass a large state in eastern India, rich for its fertile soil and positioned strategically between the upper and lower parts of the Gangetic plain. This was the state of Magadha, located in today’s south Bihar.

The 6th and 5th centuries BCE were a period of revolutionary religious, social, and political changes in India, and the kingdom Magadha was in the thick of it. Two of the world’s great religions, Buddhism and Jainism, were founded in Magadha during this period, revealing a broad outlook reflected in social polity as well. As K. N. Sastri explains, Brahmins in the realm could fraternize with Vaishyas, Kshatriyas could admit plebian (Sudra) girls to their harem, “blue-blooded aristocrats” could be done to death by the child of a courtesan, and a barber could aspire to imperial dignity.

As with the evolution of universal religion, the ambition for pan-Indian empire was also fostered by the outward-looking Magadhans. Though the early dynastic history of Magadha is shrouded in myth, the historical record coalesces roughly around 560 BCE with the Haryanka dynasty. It was at this time that prince Bimbisara – only fifteen years old at the time – was anointed king. Ruling for some 52 years, Bimbisara launched his kingdom’s career in conquest and aggrandizement, a program of imperialism that would not end until Ashoka Maurya sheathed his sword after the conquest of Kalinga in 261 BCE.

Magadha’s most powerful rival was the kingdom of Avanti (modern Malwa in Uttar Pradesh). Founded by a regicide minister named Pulaka, the Pradyota dynasty of Avanti had brought under its subjection a number of neighboring states, all coveted by Magadha. The opportunity to seize Avanti would come in 422 BCE with, ironically, the slaying of Magadha’s king. Apparently a weakling, this king was the last of descendant of Bimbisara. His murderer, a man by the name of Sishunaga (“little slave of the Nagas”), proved a powerful ruler when he mounted Magadha’s throne in 422. Immediately Sishunaga set out for conquest. He “destroyed the glory of the Pradyotas,” defeating their large army and conquering Avanti. Soon after, the powerful kingdoms of Kosala and Vatsa were annexed to Magadha as well.

Of the dynasties that had ruled over Magadha, Avanti, Kosala and Vatsa at the time of the Buddha’s nirvana in the mid 6th century BCE, the genealogies of all come to an abrupt end 140 years later, after the ascension of Sishunaga to the Magadhan throne. Magadha’s dominions in this time became large enough to be called an empire, and Sishunaga thus the first Indian king who could be called an emperor. Sishunaga’s son, called Kakavarna – meaning “crow-colored”, apparently because of his dark complexion – succeeded him (peacefully) in 383 BCE. A patron of Buddhism and an able leader, Kakavarna moved the capital of Magadha to the city of Pataliputra. Founded on the south bank of the Ganges in 500 BCE, the city would withstand the test of time for 2,500 years. Today, under the name Patna, it is the capital of the state of Bihar.

Sishunaga’s dynasty, however, would not prove as long-lived. A powerful official within Kakavarna’s court, a man who bore the name Nanda, had earned the confidence of the monarch. According to the Puranas (a genre of Hindu literature treating history, tradition, and religious myth), though, this Nanda was the son of a Sudra woman and Mahanandin – the last king of the Haryanka dynasty, murdered by Kakavarna’s father some forty years earlier. Undoubtedly, this Nanda and his sympathizers must have considered Sishunaga and Kakavarna as usurpers.

Nanda and his group waited for the right opportunity to seize the throne. When the time came, an agent of the Nanda faction thrust a dagger into Kakavarna’s throat. Nanda reclaimed the usurped Magadhan throne. But Nanda’s dynasty was destined to last no longer than Sishunaga’s.

Next week: The Nandas.

Thread: Notes from the Designer #13 -- Camps and Fortifications

SRWelch00 — 2007-02-11T21:51:33+00:00

Camps and Fortifications

Both archeological and literary evidence carry the history of fortification in India to antiquity. Towns and settlements excavated from the pre-Vedic “chalcolithic” period, show signs of protection by massive stone walls. The Vedas speak of the use of stone and sun-dried brick, hardened earth, construction of palisades and berms, and so forth. Later, in the Epic period, we read of cities being fortified with walls and ramparts, complete with buttresses, watch-towers and massive gates. Water-moats, dry-moats, and “mud-moats” are also described.

Archeological evidence confirms this and has also brought to light construction methods, materials, and a host of other detailed information. The city of Takshashila, known as “Taxila” to the Greeks (and appearing in two Chandragupta scenarios), has been excavated, unearthing evidence regarding its protective stone walls, street pavements, and its densely packed warren of alleys and lanes. Pataliputra, the capital of the Nanda – and later, the Mauryan – dynasty, was on the other hand fortified with timber, not brick. According to Arrian, Indian towns built on the banks of a river (as was Pataliputra) were largely built of wood, as heavy stone construction would not survive on the softer ground of a river’s floodplain.

The ancient Hindu concepts on fortifications are described in great detail by Kautilya, who considers fortification as one of the seven constituent elements of the state. With Kautilya’s usual predilection for classification, the Arthashastra delineates between hill, water, desert, and forest forts, and recommends the various terrain features most advantageous to each of the four categories. As one might expect, the hill-fort was the variety most preferred.

Apart from the permanent stronghold, there was also the matter of fortified encampments for the army on the march. Again, Kautilya provides a clear enunciation of the principles and methods of ancient Hindu encampment of the Mauryan era, offering numerous tantalizing details. So tantalizing, in fact, that we’ve given the ancient Indian encampment a star role in two of Chandragupta’s scenarios.

The Indian military camp was large, a mini-village as it were, containing not only the combatants and the accoutrements of war and their provisions, but also a motley host of non-combatants numbering priests, bards, vendors and traders, physicians and surgeons, hunters and their dogs, and of course the ubiquitous accompaniment to men on the march – prostitutes. The Arthashastra recommends camps to be located near rivers for water supply and the filling of moats, and if possible to also be flanked by a forest for protection. The camp was to be of a size adequate not only to contain the marching force but also to be protected by it from within. If the Mahasenapati’s entire host was encamped in the field, for example, the camp would be quite huge – “1000 by 500 bows” for instance, or over a mile in length and 2/3 of a mile in width.

Regardless of the size, the Mauryan-era camp followed the same basic plan. On a site declared to be the best according to the “science” of such things, Kautilya declares that “the nayaka, the carpenter, and the astrologer should measure a circular, rectangular, or square spot for the camp which should, in accordance with the available space, consist of four gates, six roads, and nine divisions.”

The heart of the camp was the royal pavilion. In this, placed to the north of the camp’s geographic center, were the quarters of the king; immediately to the west was the royal harem and the quarters of the harem’s guard. In front of the royal pavilion (apparently at the physical center of the camp) was erected a shrine for worship, and across from this, to the south of the center was a royal audience tent. To the right of the king’s quarters was placed the treasury and other administrative offices, to the left were the stables for the king’s horses and elephants.

Four concentric defensive enclosures were then constructed, each one surrounding the other at a distance of about 210 yards, with the royal pavilion at the center of the innermost enclosure. This innermost or “First” enclosure immediately protecting the king’s quarters, treasury, harem, etc., was made of carts or wagons. It is uncertain how the wagons were arranged, but one could assume that they lashed together or fixed in position by being buried partially buried, etc. (as was practiced elsewhere, i.e. the Spartan women’s defenses against Phyrrus). To the forefront of the First Enclosure was housed the prime minister (e.g. Chanakya) and the kitchen, armory, and storehouse.

Surrounding the First enclosure was a perimeter of thorny shrubs or methipratati, an ancient-Indian version of concertina wire, as it were. Within this, the Second enclosure, resided the headquarters of the commander-in-chief (if not the same as the king), the barracks of the maula and bhrta troops, and stables for the cavalry and chariot corps. The barracks usually consisted of round tents, though wooden huts were sometimes constructed for longer stays.

The Third enclosure was the palisade wall and gates of the camp proper, protecting the elephant corps, the sreni or guild levies, blacksmiths, carpenters and other military artificers. Surrounding the camp walls was a Fourth enclosure made up of an earthen wall and ditch. Protected by this berm – and safely outside the camp walls – were stationed the tribal levies and any commandeered labor. Merchants, the courtesan corps, and other riff-raff were welcomed to pitch their tents outside of the defensive barriers along the main road leading to the camp’s gates.

For security (spying was always a problem), a password and/or passport system was used to restrict access into the various enclosures of the camp. Spiked pits, moats and the other usual defenses were secretly placed around the perimeter, including a special three-pointed rod (called a hastivaraka especially designed to deter elephants. Patrolling the terrain outside of the camp were huntsmen and dog keepers who acted as spies and sentinels, ready to sound a trumpet or signal with fire the approach of the enemy.

As with military camps everywhere, discipline was of utmost importance. All drinking, gambling, and social gatherings inside the Hindu camp were prohibited. Outside the camp however, in the shantytown of hawkers and hookers, such restrictions undoubtedly did not apply.

---

We have now reached the extent of the historical data, the “what we know” of the ancient Indian military system. From the archeological data, as well as collaborating foreign and other literary evidence, we can with some confidence build and equip an ancient Indian army of the Mauryan era, organize it into its four-winged catarungabala, array it on the battlefield and place it in an authentic military encampment. We can tailor the GBoH game system to represent the unique features of the Indian military, and we can create orders-of-battle for our armies.

What remains now is to create scenarios for the game. But to design specific battle scenes -- to populate them with their leaders, balance them towards an historical outcome, and to place them within any contemporary political and military context -- the data with which we must work becomes murkier. The historical evidence used from here forward is exclusively literary, and sometimes found only in drama, legend, and other apocryphal sources.

But, remembering that we are designing a game, a simulation meant to be fun as well as instructive, we won’t let the fog of Indian history impede us. In fact, it will become an Opportunity, giving us the creative freedom to design some interesting and unusual scenarios.

Next week: India’s First Empire.

Image

Sir Loin o Beef — 2007-02-09T18:17:55+00:00

In play at BROGfest '07

Thread: Notes from the Designer #12 -- Battle Arrays

SRWelch00 — 2007-02-05T22:09:41+00:00

Chandragupta : Battle Arrays

Indian troops of the Mauryan era were drilled in a plethora of battlefield movements, all directed by the nayaka, a subordinate leader roughly equivalent to a battalion or regiment commander. According to Kautilya, Indian troops were trained to perform maneuvers and form into battle arrays by means of an elaborate scheme of trumpet sounds, flags and ensigns signaled by the nayaka and his command structure. Some period sources provide a long list of technical movements and poses, but the more salient ones include “moving backwards, standing still, lying, running apace, rushing headlong into the hostile army, and moving in different directions in accordance with the signals.”

Kautilya advocates that commanders consider the character and composition of their forces before selecting a battlefield, and accordingly chose a location offering the greatest possible disadvantage to the opponent. Kautilya enjoined commanders to avoid arraying their forces facing the south or the sun, or against the wind, and to take up positions not too distant from an escape route to a fortress or other place of safety. According to foreign writers, the latter piece of advise was often practiced, though it had its disadvantages – an army was more tempted to flee to the safety of its camp walls when the going got rough.

Once the hostile armies faced each other on the field, the commander was then to draw up his forces in one of many and various battle-orders, or (in Sanskrit) vhuha). The battle array was a topic treated at great length in nearly all of the ancient Hindu military texts. In the Epic era, the tactical array consisted of three divisions, wings (paksau), the front or vanguard (urasyam), and the rear (pratigraha). Latter were added flanks (kaksau), then the further divisions of center, rear-center, and rear-guard.

The battle arrays were embellished with some poetic license in the Epics, where some are described as shaped like a “thunderbolt,” or a “crocodile” or “heron” complete with “beak” and “eyes” (the latter reputedly occupied by the commanders). Kautilya, writing a technical treatise and not epic poetry, is naturally more prosaic, and describes the battle arrays in a coherent fashion that more reflects military practice. Broadly speaking, he gives arrays four classifications, e.g. “staff-like” or the familiar ranked formations (danda), “snake-like” or columnar arrays (bhoga), circular mandala formations, and detached orders called asamhata. For example, when describing the seventeen different versions of staff-like arrays, Kautilya explains that it is called “padara (‘breaking the enemy’s army’) when its flanks are made to project in front; it is known as drdhaka (‘firm’) when its wings are stretched back … when the front is made to bulge out, it is called shyena (‘hawk’),” etc.

The snake or bhoga array was one in which the troops of the different divisions (front, flank, wing, etc.) were arrayed in a continuous chain or column. Among the five varieties of bhoga array was the sarpasari, which had a serpentine movement, others described as “wagon” or “crocodile,” and even an array called gomutrika -- “course of a cow’s urine.” Whatever unusual configuration, these were not simply columns of marching troops but were bona-fide battle arrays, with deliberately determined shape and depth among the divisions.

One of the more interesting is the circular or mandala array, defined as a battle-order in which the wings, flanks, and front stand in close proximity to one another without any intervening space. When arranged so as to face in all directions, it was called Sarvatobhadra. Lastly, there was the irregular or asamhata array, in which the wings, flanks and front were positioned apart from one another.

Besides the arrangement of wings, flanks, front, etc., battle orders would be arranged according to the constituent limbs of the caturangabala. In the Arthashastra, for instance, Kautilya writes that the array in which “chariots form the front, the elephants the wings, and horses the rear, is called arishta, that in which infantry, cavalry, chariots and elephants stand one behind the other is called acala,” etc. Kautilya further recommends which array to form in opposition to the enemy’s battle-array, and so forth.

Indian battle-arrays will add a bit of chrome to the game Chandragupta , giving a rather exotic look to the initial arrangement of units on the battlefield. Some of the more unusual mandala and snake-like arrays may be offered in some of the scenarios, pending the playtesters “kicking the tires,” as it were. One interesting option may be to offer players an option of choosing from among Kautilya’s arrays for their initial setup.

Next week: The Indian military camp.

Thread: Chandragupta -- Army Strength & Organization

SRWelch00 — 2007-01-29T17:35:51+00:00

Chandragupta : Size, Strength, and Organization of the Army

We must rely on foreign (Greek) sources for numbers of the land forces maintained by the various Hindu states of Chandragupta’s era, including those of the Mauryas. Indian records simply do not provide the numerical strength of military forces, and figures cited in the Epics are fanciful and contradictory.

At the time of the Macedonian invasion, Alexander’s historians relayed the strengths in infantry, cavalry, chariots, and elephants, of a number of the kingdoms and tribal chiefdoms he encountered. Later, Seleucus’ ambassador to the Mauryan court at Pataliputra, Megasthenes, recorded figures for the strength of Chandragupta’s forces as well as a number of other kingdoms that bordered the Mauryan empire. Though the possibility of exaggeration is never distant – Megasthenes, for instance, uncritically recorded what he was told by his boastful Mauryan hosts – these numbers are at least plausible. Other evidence asserts that the Indians, particularly the Mauryas and the large independent kingdoms such as Kalinga, did field armies that were quite large (often to the point of unwieldy) and maintained reserves at considerable expense to the state’s exchequer.

As for army organization, we have better data from the Epics, military lexographies of the era, and particularly Kautilya’s Arthashastra. Essentially, the ancient Indian army was divided into squads, platoons, battalions, etc., with a corresponding leadership hierarchy. According to Kautilya, the smallest unit was a squad of ten under command of a padika, every ten padikas were under command of a platoon-level officer, and so on, the units increasing by magnitudes of ten through a chain of command to the commander-in-chief or mahasenapati. Epic-era sources differ with Kautilya in basing the military units in magnitudes of three rather than ten, but in any case it is clear that the Indians employed a hierarchical command structure over their large armies.

There is some confusion surrounding Kautilya’s definition of some of the subordinate commanders – a problem originating, I suspect, in the Arthashastra’s redactors rather than Kautilya – but it is logical to assume that the mahasenapati was in command of his field generals or senapati. The nayaka, a battalion- or regimental-level commander, is said by Kautilya to be in charge of sounding orders to the troops for their actual movements on the battlefield and their formation in to battle arrays, etc. Thus, for the game Chandragupta , we use the terms mahasenapati, senapati, and nayaka to denote the Overall Commander, Subordinate/Wing Commanders, and the Contingent-Commanders of the Indian forces, respectively.

When describing the hierarchical command structure, Kautilya states that “for every ten members of the constituents of the army, there must be one commander, called padika.” It is not clear what Kautilya here means by “constituent,” though the implication is that he is referring to the caturangabala. The ratio of unit types – infantry vs. chariot vs. elephant etc. – certainly was not a one-to-one correspondence, however. Would 100 elephants be considered a “platoon” equal to a platoon of 100 footmen? Probably not. Other sources, notably the Mahabharata and the lexicography of Amara, more reasonably distribute the weapons types in a ratio of one chariot, one elephant, and three cavalry for every five foot soldiers.

There are some problems with this, however. First, in this scheme the military units are described as consisting of all four unit types, i.e. a squad supposedly containing five infantry, three cavalry, plus one chariot and elephant each. It is extremely doubtful that this was actual military practice. Furthermore, the term for squad is patti, which is synonymous with “foot-soldier,” suggesting that the smallest military unit was infantry-only. By inference (and a dose of common sense), we can be fairly confident that Indians did not employ some novel “combined arms” system of chariots, elephants, cavalry, and infantry at the tactical level. Lastly, the ratio of foot-soldiers – 50% of the army, according to this scheme – seems rather low, and is not consistent with foreign sources’ description of actual Indian armies on the battlefield or Indian sources’ own depictions of Indian infantry as a conglomerate horde.

So, in order to make sense out of this muddle we need to produce a synthesis combining the “ten-based” unit structure outlined by Kautilya with ratios amongst the caturangabala approximating those described in the Epics, and add in a bit of common sense gleaned from what is known about the military organization of other civilizations of the era (e.g. the Persians). Lastly, with V. R. R. Dikshitar’s cogent analysis of the contradictory lexicons for army officer and unit names, we are able to construct an organizational scheme that can be said to provide, with at least a reasonable degree of confidence, a plausible and historical scheme for building the orders-of-battle for our Chandragupta scenarios.

Next week: Of staffs, mandalas, and snakes.

Thread: Notes from the Designer #11 -- Army Strength & Organization

SRWelch00 — 2007-01-29T17:29:26+00:00

Size, Strength, and Organization of the Army

We must rely on foreign (Greek) sources for numbers of the land forces maintained by the various Hindu states of Chandragupta’s era, including those of the Mauryas. Indian records simply do not provide the numerical strength of military forces, and figures cited in the Epics are fanciful and contradictory.

At the time of the Macedonian invasion, Alexander’s historians relayed the strengths in infantry, cavalry, chariots, and elephants, of a number of the kingdoms and tribal chiefdoms he encountered. Later, Seleucus’ ambassador to the Mauryan court at Pataliputra, Megasthenes, recorded figures for the strength of Chandragupta’s forces as well as a number of other kingdoms that bordered the Mauryan empire. Though the possibility of exaggeration is never distant – Megasthenes, for instance, uncritically recorded what he was told by his boastful Mauryan hosts – these numbers are at least plausible. Other evidence asserts that the Indians, particularly the Mauryas and the large independent kingdoms such as Kalinga, did field armies that were quite large (often to the point of unwieldy) and maintained reserves at considerable expense to the state’s exchequer.

As for army organization, we have better data from the Epics, military lexographies of the era, and particularly Kautilya’s Arthashastra. Essentially, the ancient Indian army was divided into squads, platoons, battalions, etc., with a corresponding leadership hierarchy. According to Kautilya, the smallest unit was a squad of ten under command of a padika, every ten padikas were under command of a platoon-level officer, and so on, the units increasing by magnitudes of ten through a chain of command to the commander-in-chief or mahasenapati. Epic-era sources differ with Kautilya in basing the military units in magnitudes of three rather than ten, but in any case it is clear that the Indians employed a hierarchical command structure over their large armies.

There is some confusion surrounding Kautilya’s definition of some of the subordinate commanders – a problem originating, I suspect, in the Arthashastra’s redactors rather than Kautilya – but it is logical to assume that the mahasenapati was in command of his field generals or senapati. The nayaka, a battalion- or regimental-level commander, is said by Kautilya to be in charge of sounding orders to the troops for their actual movements on the battlefield and their formation in to battle arrays, etc. Thus, for the game Chandragupta, we use the terms mahasenapati, senapati, and nayaka to denote the Overall Commander, Subordinate/Wing Commanders, and the Contingent-Commanders of the Indian forces, respectively.

When describing the hierarchical command structure, Kautilya states that “for every ten members of the constituents of the army, there must be one commander, called padika.” It is not clear what Kautilya here means by “constituent,” though the implication is that he is referring to the caturangabala. The ratio of unit types – infantry vs. chariot vs. elephant etc. – certainly was not a one-to-one correspondence, however. Would 100 elephants be considered a “platoon” equal to a platoon of 100 footmen? Probably not. Other sources, notably the Mahabharata and the lexicography of Amara, more reasonably distribute the weapons types in a ratio of one chariot, one elephant, and three cavalry for every five foot soldiers.

There are some problems with this, however. First, in this scheme the military units are described as consisting of all four unit types, i.e. a squad supposedly containing five infantry, three cavalry, plus one chariot and elephant each. It is extremely doubtful that this was actual military practice. Furthermore, the term for squad is patti, which is synonymous with “foot-soldier,” suggesting that the smallest military unit was infantry-only. By inference (and a dose of common sense), we can be fairly confident that Indians did not employ some novel “combined arms” system of chariots, elephants, cavalry, and infantry at the tactical level. Lastly, the ratio of foot-soldiers – 50% of the army, according to this scheme – seems rather low, and is not consistent with foreign sources’ description of actual Indian armies on the battlefield or Indian sources’ own depictions of Indian infantry as a conglomerate horde.

So, in order to make sense out of this muddle we need to produce a synthesis combining the “ten-based” unit structure outlined by Kautilya with ratios amongst the caturangabala approximating those described in the Epics, and add in a bit of common sense gleaned from what is known about the military organization of other civilizations of the era (e.g. the Persians). Lastly, with V. R. R. Dikshitar’s cogent analysis of the contradictory lexicons for army officer and unit names, we are able to construct an organizational scheme that can be said to provide, with at least a reasonable degree of confidence, a plausible and historical scheme for building the orders-of-battle for our Chandragupta scenarios.

Next week: Of staffs, mandalas, and snakes.

Thread: Notes from the Designer #10 -- The Laws of War

SRWelch00 — 2007-01-22T16:37:17+00:00

Chandragupta : The Laws of War

No code of military conduct is mentioned in the Vedic literature, but epic and Puranic literature holds an excellent military code approaching the laws of war known in modern international law. Essentially, it promulgates against striking down an unarmed, unequalled and fallen foe, emphasizes showing quarter, punishing indiscipline and betrayal, and rewarding meritorious service, humane treatment of prisoners of war, and abstention from seizing enemy property, etc. Property and places of public worship were respected such that even “when battle is raging in their neighborhood,” noncombatants on either side were not to be disturbed. Wealth obtained through booty was still allowed, of course, though a vanquished king in turn was expected to voluntarily hand over what was justly due the conqueror.

These ethics of war were recognized as dharmayuddha, or war that followed the principles of dharma, here meaning a just and righteous war that had the approval of society. Dharmayuddha employed no treachery or artifice, and the preliminaries were settled by the belligerents before a battle was actually conducted. There was no stratagem or secrecy employed in Dharmayuddha -- it was a straight fight regulated by carefully delineated rules of battle. In other words, no attacks on the flanks or from the rear, and warriors were allowed only to fight with their equals or betters. Those who retreated out of fear were despised, but attacks against the retreating were prohibited. Charms, spells, or the use of mantras were prohibited, and no one was allowed to kill “the sleepy or the thirsty, or the fatigued,” nor camp followers, Brahmans, cows, outcastes. War-musicians, eunuchs, ascetics, and last but not least, hermaphrodites, could not be killed (though escaping warriors disguised as such could be captured and exiled).

As to the “equal-or-betters” restriction, this would entail a prohibition against attacks by soldiers against weaker opponents in terms of armor, mobility, or conveyance. Elephant warriors, deemed the strongest of all, were allowed to attack only other elephant warriors; cavalry could attack elephants or other cavalry, but not chariots (which were less mobile than cavalry) nor unmounted infantry. Chariots could attack any type of unit with the exception of infantry, and infantry, deemed weakest of all, were allowed to attack any other opponent. In a head-to-head fight, attacking a superior opponent (visualize light infantry in a frontal attack against cataphracted elephants) may not have been prudent, but at least it was valorous.

The opposite of dharmayuddha was kutayuddha or “unjust” warfare, sometimes also termed mantrayuddha for its use of charms or magical invocations. This was secret warfare in which artifice, stratagem, deception, and ruthlessness were employed. Generally, kutayuddha was permissible only as a last resort and for purposes of defense. By the time of the Mauryans, however, the principles of righteous warfare were often sacrificed at the altar of expediency, and the ever-Machiavellian Kautilya included kutayuddha in his treatise on War Polity in the Arthashastra, describing the use of spying, misinformation, bribery, assassination, night attacks and ambush, etc. Certainly, the pragmatic requirements of maintaining empire were at tension with the war ethics from the Epic tradition. Essentially, Kautilya deemed that an enemy could be justifiably paid in his own coin – if he used kutayuddha, kutayuddha should be used against him.

Dharmayuddha will be playtested as an Optional Rule for Chandragupta .

Next week: Size matters.

Thread: Chandragupta -- The Laws of War

SRWelch00 — 2007-01-22T16:32:02+00:00

Thread: Chandragupta -- Indian Military Grades

SRWelch00 — 2007-01-15T20:31:05+00:00

Maulas and Bhrtas and Srenis, oh my!

The classification of troops on a qualitative hierarchy is not new, but the Indian system is perhaps unique in that its troops were graded emphatically upon perceived loyalty rather than upon training. This hierarchy, first referenced in the Epics, consisted of (in descending order of quality) hereditary or professional troops, followed by mercenaries, guild levies, and lastly the forest tribes. Though roughly divided by source of recruitment, and thus necessarily factoring training and professionalism, the hierarchy in the Epic Age definitely conflated professionalism with loyalty.

In the Arthashastra, Kautilya reveals that the loyalty-based hierarchy of troops was firmly embedded feature of the Mauryan military system, and he goes to some length to rationalize this gradation. The military grades follow in descending rank as they appear in the Arthashastra:

· Maula -- the “hereditary” or professional troops, maulas were most likely connected by caste and clan with the king. They were so prized for their unfaltering loyalty and fortitude that Kautilya recommends that only maulas should be mobilized against an enemy possessing a “powerful secret service.” The maulas were endowed with special privileges by the state, including rent-free lands in addition to cash wages while on active service, and there are grounds for believing that they were recruited from certain localities (villages which were tax exempt in lieu of military service) or by voluntary enlistment from military tribes of largely Kshatriya caste. Being “hereditary” – a lifelong vocation passed from father to son – they formed the equivalent of a standing army, and were the best trained and most skilled of India’s soldiers.

· Bhrta -- those who fought for pay, i.e. mercenaries. The bhrta were recruited from inside or outside the kingdom. They seemed to have been paid on a “retainer” basis, as they are noted to be “near at hand and always ready to march” in the Arthashastra, and deemed generally obedient to the king. Plutarch observes (in Lives) that, upon Alexander’s invasion, they “defended the cities that hired them with great vigor.”

· Srenis or Sreni-balam -- or guild levies. Analogous to “trade guild,” these were the militias from a class of corporate guilds that followed some industrial arts and carried on the military profession at the same time. Enlisted in the royal army under their own chiefs, they were probably contracted as levies to the king and usually were called out in time of invasion. Some of the most famous of these were the silkweavers’ guild and the corporation of traders.

These commercial-cum-military societies grew out of the need of local communities for protection from brigandage as well as that of merchants’ need to protect their trade routes and caravans. As such, they were both a source of strength and weakness to the state. They were useful in that they provided a means of local defense, including the protection of temples and shrines, and could be relied upon to provide troops during national emergency. But they were also rather numerous and at times became powerful enough to defy the state. Advocates of the imperialism such as Kautilya, naturally, looked upon this independence, with great distrust. Because they were known to engage in private warfare with one another, Kautilya recommended that they be kept at odds with one another, through intrigue, so that they wouldn’t become too powerful in unity.

· Atavi-balam -- or Tribals, were the “predatory hordes” recruited from the tribes dwelling in the forests and mountains. Led by their chieftains, they brought their own war apparatus to the battlefield but fought for pay and plunder, and were considered useful when an army had to pass through morasses, defiles, and other difficult terrain. But, as they were deemed a danger to peaceful settlements even in their own neighborhoods, they were considered utterly untrustworthy, a wild and undisciplined lot. Kautilya nonetheless lauds them as being “numerous and brave, ready to fight in broad daylight” and particularly useful for ravaging an enemy’s countryside during invasion.

Two other “grades” sometimes mentioned include soldiers supplied by feudatory chiefs or allies (suhrd-balam) and troops captured or won over from the enemy (dvisad-balam). Whatever the grade, both soldiers and commanders seemed to have been recruited from all the castes, not exclusively the warrior Kshatriyas. Brahmanas (the priestly caste, including Chanakya himself) were known to both serve and lead, and Sudras (laborers) and Vaishyas (merchants) were apt to have joined the rank and file, particularly the militia levies.

Kautilya’s views on the hierarchical grading of troops were widespread but not shared universally; some sourced deemed guild and mercenary troops as of equal quality and reliability, etc. But as the game Chandragupta is based upon the Mauryan military model, it will emulate the hierarchy described in Kautilya’s Arthashastra. A hierarchical grading of Indian units will play a prominent role in the game Chandragupta , giving units interesting (and sometimes vexing) differences as to command, cooperation with other units, and so forth.

Next week: On whether to kick a man when he’s down.

Thread: Notes from the Designer #9 -- Indian Military Grades

SRWelch00 — 2007-01-15T20:19:15+00:00

Maulas and Bhrtas and Srenis, oh my!

The classification of troops on a qualitative hierarchy is not new, but the Indian system is perhaps unique in that its troops were graded emphatically upon perceived loyalty rather than upon training. This hierarchy, first referenced in the Epics, consisted of (in descending order of quality) hereditary or professional troops, followed by mercenaries, guild levies, and lastly the forest tribes. Though roughly divided by source of recruitment, and thus necessarily factoring training and professionalism, the hierarchy in the Epic Age definitely conflated professionalism with loyalty.

In the Arthashastra, Kautilya reveals that the loyalty-based hierarchy of troops was firmly embedded feature of the Mauryan military system, and he goes to some length to rationalize this gradation. The military grades follow in descending rank as they appear in the Arthashastra:

· Maula -- the “hereditary” or professional troops, maulas were most likely connected by caste and clan with the king. They were so prized for their unfaltering loyalty and fortitude that Kautilya recommends that only maulas should be mobilized against an enemy possessing a “powerful secret service.” The maulas were endowed with special privileges by the state, including rent-free lands in addition to cash wages while on active service, and there are grounds for believing that they were recruited from certain localities (villages which were tax exempt in lieu of military service) or by voluntary enlistment from military tribes of largely Kshatriya caste. Being “hereditary” – a lifelong vocation passed from father to son – they formed the equivalent of a standing army, and were the best trained and most skilled of India’s soldiers.

· Bhrta -- those who fought for pay, i.e. mercenaries. The bhrta were recruited from inside or outside the kingdom. They seemed to have been paid on a “retainer” basis, as they are noted to be “near at hand and always ready to march” in the Arthashastra, and deemed generally obedient to the king. Plutarch observes (in Lives) that, upon Alexander’s invasion, they “defended the cities that hired them with great vigor.”

· Srenis or Sreni-balam -- or guild levies. Analogous to “trade guild,” these were the militias from a class of corporate guilds that followed some industrial arts and carried on the military profession at the same time. Enlisted in the royal army under their own chiefs, they were probably contracted as levies to the king and usually were called out in time of invasion. Some of the most famous of these were the silkweavers’ guild and the corporation of traders.

These commercial-cum-military societies grew out of the need of local communities for protection from brigandage as well as that of merchants’ need to protect their trade routes and caravans. As such, they were both a source of strength and weakness to the state. They were useful in that they provided a means of local defense, including the protection of temples and shrines, and could be relied upon to provide troops during national emergency. But they were also rather numerous and at times became powerful enough to defy the state. Advocates of the imperialism such as Kautilya, naturally, looked upon this independence, with great distrust. Because they were known to engage in private warfare with one another, Kautilya recommended that they be kept at odds with one another, through intrigue, so that they wouldn’t become too powerful in unity.

· Atavi-balam -- or Tribals, were the “predatory hordes” recruited from the tribes dwelling in the forests and mountains. Led by their chieftains, they brought their own war apparatus to the battlefield but fought for pay and plunder, and were considered useful when an army had to pass through morasses, defiles, and other difficult terrain. But, as they were deemed a danger to peaceful settlements even in their own neighborhoods, they were considered utterly untrustworthy, a wild and undisciplined lot. Kautilya nonetheless lauds them as being “numerous and brave, ready to fight in broad daylight” and particularly useful for ravaging an enemy’s countryside during invasion.

Two other “grades” sometimes mentioned include soldiers supplied by feudatory chiefs or allies (suhrd-balam) and troops captured or won over from the enemy (dvisad-balam). Whatever the grade, both soldiers and commanders seemed to have been recruited from all the castes, not exclusively the warrior Kshatriyas. Brahmanas (the priestly caste, including Chanakya himself) were known to both serve and lead, and Sudras (laborers) and Vaishyas (merchants) were apt to have joined the rank and file, particularly the militia levies.

Kautilya’s views on the hierarchical grading of troops were widespread but not shared universally; some sourced deemed guild and mercenary troops as of equal quality and reliability, etc. But as the game Chandragupta is based upon the Mauryan military model, it will emulate the hierarchy described in Kautilya’s Arthashastra. A hierarchical grading of Indian units will play a prominent role in the game Chandragupta, giving units interesting (and sometimes vexing) differences as to command, cooperation with other units, and so forth.

Next week: On whether to kick a man when he’s down.

Thread: Chandragupta reaches 500 mark!

SRWelch00 — 2007-01-09T00:53:41+00:00

Chandragupta has reached over 500 orders in GMT's P500 program! See http://www.gmtgames.com/p500/gmtp50.asp.

Thanks to all of you at BGG who have supported the game and P500 ...

SRW

Thread: Chandragupta -- Arms & Armament: Elephants

SRWelch00 — 2007-01-08T00:19:25+00:00

Chandragupta , Arms and Armament – Part IV: Elephants

The War-Elephant (hasti)

Where other nations were valued for their horses and cavalrymen, India was prized for its war elephants. Once tamed and domesticated, the utility of the beast’s strength and size for purposes of warfare was quickly exploited, permanently placing the elephant in the front rank of the Indian military system. No other branch of the caturangabalawould surpass it. Palakapya, the author of the oldest extant treatise on elephant training, care, and description, would confidently boast,

[W]here there is truth, there is religion; where there is religion, there is prosperity; where there is beauty, there is nobility; and where there are elephants, there is victory.

There is no reference to the use of elephants in warfare in any of the Vedas; only in the Epics do we see elephants represented in military operations. By the time of the Macedonian invasion we see the elephant as the most important arm in Porus’ army, and in the subsequent decades the Nandas, then the Mauryas, would maintain huge contingents of the beasts. In his Arthashastra, Kautilya describes the war-elephants’ primary function as vanguard of a marching army, to prepare roads and campgrounds, batter down walls, gates, and towers of enemy fortifications, and to break up, scatter, and trample enemy troops.

In Megasthenes’ time, the war-elephant carried three warriors, two who shot from the side and one who shot from behind. A fourth man guided the beast in “much the same way as the pilot and captain of a ship direct its course with the helm.” In the sculptures at Sanchi and Ajanta, three instead of four riders are depicted, whereas contemporary texts variously prescribe as few as two and as many as six riders.
The elephantry fought primarily with bows, but also spears, and sometimes short-arms. The Mahabharata describes soldiers as even discharging stones and pots of oil from the backs of their pachyderms, much as defenders on a parapet.

Because he carried an ankusha or hook to guide the beast, the elephant driver was called an ankushadhara. The hook was a somewhat elaborate affair, gilded like a whip and decorated with peacock feathers. The hook was used for drawing-back motion, and the prod on its opposite end was used for driving on. Though the hook retained its name into the modern era, the ankushadhara would become the mahaut (the Anglicized “mahout”), the Hindu rendition of the Sanskrit word mahamatra, meaning “one having great measure.”

The elephants themselves were elaborately equipped. Their feet and their heads were ornamented, sometimes with pearls, wreaths, neck chains, pendants and bells, and they were probably painted for battle. The Mahabharata describes the use of spiked iron harnesses. A housing, also often decorated, appears on the backs of elephants depicted at Bharhut and Sanchi. These housings, seated upon protective cloth cushions, were kept tight by means of girth bands and were designed primarily to provide a firm seat or “saddle” for the riders (a covered “tower” was not yet in use).

Kautilya includes among the war-elephant’s accoutrements mail armor (“cataphracting”), arrow bags, and also the generic term yantra, in this context probably meaning armor or some other defensive contrivance (when applied to fortification or siegecraft, yantra refers to a missile-throwing device similar to a ballista or scorpion). We won’t provide war-paint for the EL counters in the game Chandragupta , but some units will be provided with an increased missile offense effectiveness as well as cataphracting.

Most ancient sources agreed that the elephants bred in the southeast, such as the region of Kalinga, were of the best quality and in good supply. Kautilya describes their domestication and training. Once captured, the animal lost its wildness by being incorporated into a herd of tame elephants, and then through various other means was subdued to the point that it would not object when its driver or trainer sat upon it. Then, based upon its general disposition, it was segregated for training in either peaceful “civilian” purposes (labor) or the services of warfare.

If classified as a war-elephant, the animal would then be trained in numerous maneuvers, such as moving forward in straight, traverse, or serpentine movements, trampling and killing, fighting with other elephants, assailing forts, and other feats such as laying down, sitting, “jumping” over fences, and “leaping” over pits or lines drawn on the ground. From the Greeks in the 4th century BCE to the Islamic invaders in the 11th and 12th centuries CE, the Indians’ training and handling of their war elephants often produced amazing results. India acquired such a reputation that it exported its elephant trainers and drivers to the countries outside of its borders. Even the iconoclastic Mahmud of Ghazni (11th century) employed Hindu trainers in his elephant corps.

Indian confidence in the war-elephant would endure well past the age of the Mauryas. Writing in the 9th century CE, the Arab merchant Sulaiman would note the huge contingent of elephants maintained by the king of Ruhmi, and remark that the king would only take to the field in winter because his elephants “could not endure thirst.” The elephant continued its central role in the Indian military, in fact, well past the Muslim conquests. As late as the 14th century, a medieval Hindu writer would declare that an army without elephants is as “despicable as a forest without a lion.” Only after the introduction of firearms did the proud Indian hasti finally lose its military value.

---

Thus were the Indian infantry, chariots, cavalry, and elephants armed for battle. Beside the division into the four limbs of the caturangabala, however, the ancient Indian military also divided its troops into “grades” based upon their loyalty, trustworthiness, and their manner of recruitment. These grades, ranked qualitatively, are treated at great length by Kautilya in his Arthashastra, and are the subject of next week’s “Notes.”

Next week: Will the real atavi-balam please stand up?

Thread: Notes from the Designer #8 -- Arms & Armament: Elephants

SRWelch00 — 2007-01-08T00:17:55+00:00