The Maurya Empire was one of the first geographically extensive empires in South Asia. The formation of the Mauryan Empire coincided with the invasion of India in the North-West of the armies of Alexander of Macedon in 327 BCE, most likely from territory in the Punjab.
[1]
From circa 322 BCE until 187 BCE, the Mauryas extended their control over almost the entire subcontinent excluding Sri Lanka and the southernmost coast, as well as expanding northwest in Afghanistan.The exact origin of the empire is not clear.
[1]
The empire was built on the earlier model of the Nandas. The first three rulers, Chandragupta (324/321 BCE-297 BCE), Bindusara (297 BCE-273 BCE) and Ashoka (268 BCE-232 BCE) oversaw the main period of expansion and codification of the imperial state, with subsequent rulers attempting to preserve the gains made by the first three Kings until 187 BCE. Evidence of diplomacy between the Alexandrian successor state and the Mauryas Empire exist, though whether this was extensive is unclear. Exact details of when the conquests of territory took place are also murky, but evidence seems to indicate that the majority took place under the founder King Chandragupta.
[1]
The reign of Ashoka was a period of stability and marked the peak of the empire, as well as religious reform. The Maurya Empire entered a period of decline and instability following his death, with weak rulers overseeing a quickly fragmenting state facing outward invasion by Bactrian Greeks. Brihadratha would be the last ruler of the Maurya dynasty, killed by his military commander Pushyamitra in 187 BCE. The commander would be the founder of the successor state of the Shunga Dynasty.
[1]
Population and political organization
The King was the head of state, he controlled the military and the bureaucratic administration.
[2]
The Empire was organized under a large bureaucracy and divided into four provinces named after the cardinal directions. Each province had a separate hierarchal administration, with the system duplicated at the capital to oversee the empire.
[1]
A unique account of the Mauryan imperial administration is preserved in The Arthasastra. A handbook for governance which outlines a module of centralized government, although whether it is descriptive or an idealized version of the administration is disputed.
[3]
Population estimates for this period vary widely ranging from 18,000,000 to 100,000,000.
[4]
The Imperial Capital, Pataliputa was the largest settlement with an estimate of 50,000 inhabitants provided by (Clark 2013, 159).
[5]
[6]
[1]: (Singh 2008, 324-358) Singh, Upinder. 2008. A History of Ancient and Early Medieval India: from the Stone Age to the 12th Century. Pearson Education India. pp. 324-358. https://www.zotero.org/groups/1051264/seshat_databank/items/collectionKey/HJR7J7RC/itemKey/VUIEUHVK
[2]: (Sen 1999, 137) Sen, Sailendra Nath. 1999. Ancient Indian History and Civilization. New Age International. p.137 https://www.zotero.org/groups/1051264/seshat_databank/items/collectionKey/HJR7J7RC/itemKey/5Q53QHG7
[3]: (Subramaniam 2001, 80) Subramaniam, V. 2001. ‘Indian Legacy of Administration’. In: Farazmand, Ali. ed. Handbook of Comparative and Development Public Administration. CRC Press.p.80 https://www.zotero.org/groups/1051264/seshat_databank/items/collectionKey/HJR7J7RC/itemKey/5T7BBX36
[4]: (Gabriel 2002, 218) Gabriel, Richard A. 2002. The Great Armies of Antiquity. Greenwood Publishing Group. p.218 https://www.zotero.org/groups/1051264/seshat_databank/items/collectionKey/HJR7J7RC/itemKey/VAWK3Z9E
[5]: (Clark 2013, 159) Clark, Peter, ed. 2013. The Oxford Handbook of Cities in World History. Oxford: Oxford University Press. p. 159 https://www.zotero.org/groups/1051264/seshat_databank/items/collectionKey/HJR7J7RC/itemKey/37G4SSGG
[6]: (Singh 2008, 118) Singh, Upinder. 2008. A History of Ancient and Early Medieval India: from the Stone Age to the 12th Century. Pearson Education India. p.118 https://www.zotero.org/groups/1051264/seshat_databank/items/collectionKey/HJR7J7RC/itemKey/VUIEUHVK
| present |
| absent |
| inferred present |
| inferred present |
| inferred present |
| absent |
| absent |
| absent |
| inferred present |
| absent |
| present |
| inferred present |
| present |
| inferred present |
| present |
| present |
| present |
| unknown |
| present |
| inferred present |
| Year Range | Magadha - Maurya Empire (in_mauryan_emp) was in: |
|---|---|
| (324 BCE 303 BCE) | Middle Ganga |
| (303 BCE 300 BCE) | Kachi Plain Middle Ganga |
| (300 BCE 206 BCE) | Kachi Plain Middle Ganga Deccan |
| (206 BCE 194 BCE) | Kachi Plain Middle Ganga |
| (194 BCE 188 BCE) | Middle Ganga |
[1] The city of Pataliputra was located at the confluence of the Ganges and the Sone. It covered an area of 15 KM long by 3 KM wide, and was surrounded with a moat, sewage systems, and a large wall with a reported 64 gates and 570 towers. [1] Also called Patna. [2]
[1]: Sinha, Bindeshwaxì Prasad, and Lala Aditya Narain. "Pataliputra Excavations 1955-56." The Directorate of Archaeology and Museums, Bihar, Patna (1970).
[2]: (Bradford and Bradford 2001, 125) Bradford, Alfred S. Bradford, Pamela, M. 2001. With Arrow, Sword, and Spear: A History of Warfare in the Ancient World. Greenwood Publishing Group.
Note on Asoka’s Buddhism: "the distinction between Hinduism and Buddhism in India was purely sectarian and never more than the difference between saivism and vaishnavism. The exclusiveness of religious doctrines is a Semitic conception, which was unknown to India for a long time. Buddha himself was looked upon in his lifetime and afterwards as a Hindu saint and avatar and his followers were but another sect in the great Aryan tradition. Ashoka was a Buddhist in the same way as Harsha was a Budhist, or Kumarapala was a Jain. But in the view of the people of the day he was a Hindu monarch following one of the recognized sects. His own inscriptions bear ample withness to the fact. While his doctrines follow the middle path, his gifts are to the brahmibns, sramansa (Buddhist priests) and others equally. His own name of adoption is Devanam Priya, the beloved of the gods. Which gods? Surely the gods of the Aryan religion. Buddhism had no gods of its own. The idea that Ashoka was a kind of Buddhist Constantine declearing himself against paganism is a complete misreading of India conditions. Asoka was a kind or Buddhist Constantine declearing himself against paganism is a complete misreading of India conditions. Asoka was essentially a Hindu, as indeed was the founder of the sect to which he belonged." [1]
km squared. A bit beyond the area of the Ganges valley.
This is contested between two main positions among scholars. The first assumes that empires and centralization happen together, and is based on an uncritical reading of the main source for the period, the Arthashastra. The source is from the perspective of elites in the imperial centre, and may be overstating the efficiency of the state. [1] . The work of Gerard Fussman instead presents an argument that the empire could not have been centralized based on both the size and the technology of communication avaliable at the time. This argument is further bolstered by the presence of non-literal translations of edicts in local administrative languages. [2] As with most questions of this nature, the empire was in parts centralized, and part autonomous. It was a large metropolitan state with an outward looking elite overseeing with varying degrees of success over a large and in no way homogeneous collection of functionaries at both the provincial, district and village level connected together through a central vision originating with the King.
[1]: Singh, Upinder. A History of Ancient and Early medieval India: from the Stone Age to the 12th century. Pearson Education India, 2008, p. 340
[2]: Singh, A History of Ancient and Early medieval India, p. 340
The administrative and most widely used language for governance was Prakrit. Following the conversion of King Ashoka to Buddhism, Sanskrit was of increasing importance. Greek and Aramaic translations of edicts also indicate a reliance on local languages. There was no common language to unify the entirety of India. This lack of a common language was somewhat mitigated by the use of two different written scripts, the Brahmi and the Kharoshthi. The regional dialects of prakrit and limited surviving examples makes estimates largely speculative. [1]
[1]: Toynbee, Arnold Joseph, and David Churchill Somervell. A study of history: abridgement of volumes i-; by DC Somervell. Oxford University Press, 1948. p. 49
The administrative and most widely used language for governance was Prakrit. Following the conversion of King Ashoka to Buddhism, Sanskrit was of increasing importance. Greek and Aramaic translations of edicts also indicate a reliance on local languages. There was no common language to unify the entirety of India. This lack of a common language was somewhat mitigated by the use of two different written scripts, the Brahmi and the Kharoshthi. The regional dialects of prakrit and limited surviving examples makes estimates largely speculative. [1]
[1]: Toynbee, Arnold Joseph, and David Churchill Somervell. A study of history: abridgement of volumes i-; by DC Somervell. Oxford University Press, 1948. p. 49
persons. Pataliputra was the largest urban agglomeration of the Indian subcontinent, encompassing 2,200 hectares. Other specialists argue for a lower estimate based on the theory that most of the population lived within the inner moat in a territory of 340 hectares, providing an estimate of 50,000 inhabitants.
[1]
As an indication of population density within the city of Pataliputra were two and three story houses.
[2]
[1]: Clark, Peter, ed. The Oxford Handbook of Cities in World History. Oxford University Press, 2013. p. 159
[2]: (McClellan III and Dorn 2015, 164) McClellan III, James E. Dorn, Harold. 2015. Science and Technology in World History: An Introduction. JHU Press.
persons. Pataliputra was the largest urban agglomeration of the Indian subcontinent, encompassing 2,200 hectares. Other specialists argue for a lower estimate based on the theory that most of the population lived within the inner moat in a territory of 340 hectares, providing an estimate of 50,000 inhabitants.
[1]
As an indication of population density within the city of Pataliputra were two and three story houses.
[2]
[1]: Clark, Peter, ed. The Oxford Handbook of Cities in World History. Oxford University Press, 2013. p. 159
[2]: (McClellan III and Dorn 2015, 164) McClellan III, James E. Dorn, Harold. 2015. Science and Technology in World History: An Introduction. JHU Press.
squared kilometers.
Mauryas in Deccan
"The recent archaeological survey by Allchin has also pointed out that while there existed a few possible ’Mauryan’ cities in the Deccan and coast Andhra (such as Dharanikota and Sannati in Karnataka), they were distinctly small in scale compared with the cities of the Gangetic valley."
[1]
"... such insignificant Mauryan presence in the Deccan may represent the non-unified nature of the Mauryan empire. Although the dynasty succeeded in holding vast territory through its military power and refined ruling structure, it was probably almost impossible to constitute a united empire controlled by central government due to the absence of an efficient communicate network and the great diversity of regional traditions. It is more likely that Mauryan rule in the provincial areas was primarily a supervisory role which remained at the upper level. The main concern in the provincial areas was extracting revenue from existing resources to enrich the core region (i.e. the lower Gangetic Valley) rather than changing local societies to establish unified rule in the empire. Although the Mauryas could possibly have had direct control over a few key locales such as Amaravati/Dhamnakataka, the remaining areas, which most probably retained their megalithic culture, may have been beyond their concern, may have been beyond their concern. In short, the Mauryan imperial expansion did not cause immediate and fundamental social changes in the lower Krishna valley."
[1]
Mauryan Empire: "more recent scholarship has emphasized the discontinous geography of the empire and the internal variability in its administration ... In particular, Mauryan territories in the Deccan and south India appear to have been quite limited, restricted to areas near important mineral resources, especially gold sources along the Tungabhadra River and in the Kolar region of south India. Asokan inscriptions are rare in the western and eastern Deccan areas where the Satavahana polity emerged (... though Satavahana and Mauryan inscriptions co-occur at Sanchi, Amaravati, and Sannathi). Other than Asokan inscriptions and some rare trade wares, these areas contain little direct evidence of the Mauryan presence, and no evidence of the form that presence may have taken. ... claims for its universal status and highly centralized political structure appear to have been overstated."
[2]
[1]: (Shimada 2012, 116) Shimada, Akira. 2012. Early Buddhist Architecture in Context: The Great Stupa at Amaravati (ca. 300 BCE-300 CE). BRILL.
[2]: (Alcock 2001, 159) Alcock, Susan E. 2001. Empires: Perspectives from Archaeology and History. Cambridge University Press.
Expert dispute. Order of magnitude difference between high and low estimates. The high figure is partly supported by ancient accounts of large army sizes. If the ancient accounts of army sizes are all wild exaggerations then the lower figure could be realistic.
"The population of India during this period was somewhere between 120,000,000 to 180,000,000 people."
[1]
- note this figure is for the whole of India. Ganges basin perhaps 60% of total.
In Ganges basin 15 million in 500 BC, 20 million in 200 BCE.
[2]
[15.5-181] Million.
[3]
the vast difference in estimates is based on the lack of evidence outside of archaeological evidence in excavated urban territories.
[1]: (Gabriel 2002, 218) Gabriel, Richard A. 2002. The Great Armies of Antiquity. Greenwood Publishing Group.
[2]: (McEvedy and Jones 1978, 182) McEvedy, Colin. Jones, Richard. 1978. Atlas of World Population History. Penguin Books Ltd. London.
[3]: Estimate for the whole period 342-187 BCE. Clark, Peter, ed. The Oxford Handbook of Cities in World History. Oxford University Press, 2013. p. 159
Expert dispute. Order of magnitude difference between high and low estimates. The high figure is partly supported by ancient accounts of large army sizes. If the ancient accounts of army sizes are all wild exaggerations then the lower figure could be realistic.
"The population of India during this period was somewhere between 120,000,000 to 180,000,000 people."
[1]
- note this figure is for the whole of India. Ganges basin perhaps 60% of total.
In Ganges basin 15 million in 500 BC, 20 million in 200 BCE.
[2]
[15.5-181] Million.
[3]
the vast difference in estimates is based on the lack of evidence outside of archaeological evidence in excavated urban territories.
[1]: (Gabriel 2002, 218) Gabriel, Richard A. 2002. The Great Armies of Antiquity. Greenwood Publishing Group.
[2]: (McEvedy and Jones 1978, 182) McEvedy, Colin. Jones, Richard. 1978. Atlas of World Population History. Penguin Books Ltd. London.
[3]: Estimate for the whole period 342-187 BCE. Clark, Peter, ed. The Oxford Handbook of Cities in World History. Oxford University Press, 2013. p. 159
based on size and complexity
The archaeological and literary profile of cities from this period are less well developed than during the proto-historic Happaran period. The primary evidence is in the Ganga valley, and less information outside of this area.
[1]
(4) Imperial Capital: Pataliputa. 2500 hectares (12 square miles.) Largest Asian city at the time.
[2]
(3) Large secondary centres: Taxila, Mathura, Brita. All secondary cities 240 hectares to 16 hectares in size.
[3]
(2) Smaller settlements. 14-4 hectares in size.
[4]
(1) Villages and semi-permanent encampments. No firm data. "The archaeology of village settlements of the Mauryan period has scarcely begun."
[4]
[1]: Singh, Upinder. A History of Ancient and Early medieval India, pp. 334-344
[2]: Singh, Upinder. A History of Ancient and Early medieval India, p.118.
[3]: Allchin, F. Raymond. The Archaeology of Early Historic South Asia: The Emergence of Cities and States. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1995.p.209.
[4]: Allchin, F. Raymond. The Archaeology of Early Historic South Asia: The Emergence of Cities and States. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1995. p.209.
The Purohita was the royal priest. However, the sanctioned religions of the empire changed with the monarchs, and the multitude of faiths in such a diverse empire is staggering. King Chandragupta followed Jainism, Bindusara followed the ascetic tradition known as Ajivikas, and Ashoka implemented and heavily supported Buddhism. Individual faiths were undergoing reform throughout the period as well. It is therefore likely that the royal priest was not necessarily resident at court, and rather largely ceremonial.
[1]
[2]
"Buddhist monastic communities replaced the caste system with one based on year of ordination. Previously ordained monks enjoyed rights and privileges higher in status than monks ordained later, and monks were categorically of higher status and privilege than nuns. In effect seniority and gender provided criteria for social status and increased access to ’pure’ teachings and exemption from ’impure’ duties."
[3]
.
Jainism:
[4]
(5) Arihants (ones who have conquered their inner enemies)
(4) Siddhas (Liberated Ones)
(3) Acharyas (who head the Order)
(2) Upadhyays (who teach the message)
(1) Sadhus (Monks/Seekers)
[1]: Craig, Graham, Kagan, Ozment, Turner, The Heritage of World Civilizations (2011), p. 134
[2]: Ashoka declared "the followers of all religions as pasamdas...on the same plane" Irfan Habib, Mauryan India (1931), p. 138
[3]: P. Nietupsky, Hygiene: Buddhist Perspective, in W.M. Johnson, Encyclopedia of Monasticism (2000), p. 628
[4]: Singh, Upinder. A History of Ancient and Early medieval India, pp 312-319
1. King
2. Mantrin or Mahamatra
[1]
3. Council of Ministers (Mantri parishad)
[1]
4. Infantry board of the War Office with 5 chiefs
4. Commissariat board of the War Office with 5 chiefs
4. Transport board of the War Office with 5 chiefs
4. Elephant board of the War Office with 5 chiefsWar Office: comprised of 6 boards (each with 5 members or chiefs), heading elephants, chariots, cavalry and infantry and commissariat and transport.
[2]
4. Chariot board of the War Office with 5 chiefs
4. Cavalry board of the War Office with 5 chiefs
3? Antaravamshika (chief of the palace guard)
[3]
3. Committee of 30"According to Megasthenes, the Seleucid Ambassador to Ashoka’s court, the imperial army itself was run by a committee of thirty of these superintendents while each branch or department - infantry, cavalry, elephants, chariots, navy, commissariat, etc. - was run by a committee of five men."
[4]
3. Senapati (Chief of the army)
[2]
- aksauhini (army)"The general of the army was also a Mantri of equal status..."
[1]
4. gulma (three senamukha)5. senamukha (three patti)6. patti (15 man mixed unit)"Indian armies of this period had within them a basic unit called the patti, a mixed platoon comprised of one elephant carrying three archers or spearman and a mahout, three horse cavalrymen armed with javelins, round buckler and a spear, and five infantry soldiers armed with shield, broadsword or bow. This fifteen-man unit when assembled in three units formed a senamukha or company. Three of these formed together comprised a gulma or battalion. Units were added in multiples of three, forming an aksauhini or army comprised of 21,870 patti."
[5]
7. Individual soldier
"Sources also speak of military units formed around multiples of ten""
[5]
[1]: (Subramaniam 2001, 80) Subramaniam, V. in Farazmand, Ali. ed. 2001. Handbook of Comparative and Development Public Administration. CRC Press.
[2]: Abraham Eraly, Gem in the Lotus (2005), p. 410-11
[3]: Singh, Upinder. A History of Ancient and Early medieval India, pp. 345-348
[4]: (Gabriel 2002, 217) Gabriel, Richard A. 2002. The Great Armies of Antiquity. Greenwood Publishing Group.
[5]: (Gabriel 2002, 218) Gabriel, Richard A. 2002. The Great Armies of Antiquity. Greenwood Publishing Group.
1. King
"all the officials owed their loyalty to the king and not to the State. This meant that a change of king could result in change of officials leading to the demoralization of the officers. Mauryas had no system of ensuring the continuation of well-planned bureaucracy."
[1]
"The existence of an elaborate network of royal spies bolstered the autocratic nature of Mauryan government."
[2]
_Central government_
2. mantrin or Mahamatra (Great Councilor) in the Mantriparisad
[3]
[4]
Amatyas, Sachivas etc. were top officers and public servants.
[4]
Are these titles for jobs or terms for a collective?
2. purohita (Chief Priest) in the Mantriparisad
[3]
2. sannidhatr or samnidhartru (Treasurer) in the Mantriparisad
[3]
[5]
3? Samaharti (chief collector of the revenue)
[5]
3. Superintendent of Tolls
[6]
Kautilya in the Arthashastra: "Superintendent of Tolls shall erect near the large gate of the city both the toll-house and its flag facing either the north or the south. When merchants with their merchandise arrive at the toll-gate, four or five collectors shall take down who the merchants are, whence they come, what amount of merchandise they have brought and where for the first time the sealmark (abhijnánamudrá) has been made (on the merchandise)."
[6]
4. Collector of Tolls
2. sandhivigrahika (Minister for Military Affairs) in the Mantriparisad
[3]
3. Superintendents of the Military Administration (e.g. Superintendent for Armories)"The military system was controlled by high-ranking civilian superintendents who oversaw the operation of state armories where all military equipment and weapons were manufactured, as well as supply depots, cavalry, elephants, chariot corps, and infantry, including provisions, training, and general combat readiness."
[7]
4. Manager of one of the state armories (or Stables, Supply Depot etc.)5. Artisan in state armory
2. senapata (Chief General) in the Mantriparisad
[3]
2. mahaksapatalika (Chief Secretary) in the Mantriparisad
[7]
3. Superintendent of a department
[7]
/ Adhyakshah (large number of individual department heads)
[5]
including State Goldsmith, Itthijhakkamahatas (minister of women’s welfare)
[5]
and Dhamma-mahamatas (ministers in charge of spreading dhamma)
[5]
4. Goldsmith of the Mint
[6]
5. ArtisanKautilya in the Arthashastra wrote: "The State Goldsmith shall employ artisans to manufacture gold and silver coins (rúpyasuvarna) from the bullion of citizens and country people."
[6]
_Provincial government_
3. Viceroy or Kumaras of four large regions or provinces
[4]
"The central administrative structure was generally replicated in the regions or provinces governed by viceroys. These were subdivided into divisions and districts."
[4]
4. Council of Ministers5. Top officers and public servants
4. Divisions of regions / provinces
[4]
5. District officer Pradeshtri or Sthanika
[4]
6. Technical or clerical officials (Yuktas)
[4]
6. Sthaniya (800 villages) - sub-district official
[5]
- refers to fortress/forts (Arthasastra)
6. Dronamukhaa (400 villages) - sub-district official
[5]
- refers to fortress/forts (Arthasastra)
6. Karvatika (200 villages) - sub-district official
[5]
- refers to fortress/forts (Arthasastra)
6. Sthaniya (10 villages) - sub-district official
[5]
- refers to fortress/forts (Arthasastra)
6. Village government under Gopa
[4]
Gramika (village headman), Grama-vriddhas (village elders)
[5]
7."Village government"
[4]
Loyalty and efficiency was achieved through "an elaborate system of internal spying and inspection, the hard work and vigilance of the emperor and his cohorts, and thirdly through a skeletal monetary economy was cash payments."
[4]
_Notes_
"more recent scholarship has emphasized the discontinous geography of the empire and the internal variability in its administration ... In particular, Mauryan territories in the Deccan and south India appear to have been quite limited, restricted to areas near important mineral resources, especially gold sources along the Tungabhadra River and in the Kolar region of south India. Asokan inscriptions are rare in the western and eastern Deccan areas where the Satavahana polity emerged (... though Satavahana and Mauryan inscriptions co-occur at Sanchi, Amaravati, and Sannathi). Other than Asokan inscriptions and some rare trade wares, these areas contain little direct evidence of the Mauryan presence, and no evidence of the form that presence may have taken. ... claims for its universal status and highly centralized political structure appear to have been overstated."
[8]
"We have a very detailed account of the structure and functions of Mauryan imperial bureaucracy in both Kautilya’s Arthasastra and from the inscriptions of emperor Asoka. ... Arthasastra’s first six "books" form probably the most detailed manual of monarchical administration in the ancient or medieval world, though more scholarly attention has been devoted to the last nine books, on war, diplomacy and international relations."
[9]
The Mauryan empire was not a homogeneous whole. It was made up of three concentric areas. The administration consisted of a metropolitan centre, core territories undergoing state formation, and peripheral areas with a number of pre-state societies. It is therefore the case that the administrative levels and level of delegation most likely varied greatly, but in all cases was essentially exploitative.
[10]
Kautilya’s Arthasastra and the Asoka inscriptions agree on "about two or three top levels in central administration; a minister or ministers called Mantrin (Kautilya) or Mahamatra (Asoka); a council of ministers at the next level (Mantri parishad), and many top officers and public servants variously called Amatyas or Sachivas, in a clear hierarchy. These three levels were retained with slightly changed names in the later Gupta Empire in the fifth century A.D. and under Harsha in the seventh century. The general of the army was also a Mantri of equal status, as were the viceroys or Kumaras of the four large regions or provinces of the Mauryan Empire. ... The central administrative structure was generally replicated in the regions or provinces governed by viceroys. These were subdivided into divisions and districts. The district has continued to be the nerve center of field administration today. The district officer then called Pradeshtri or Sthanika seems to have been much the same as his present day counterpart. He combined revenue collecting and magisterial duties and supervised the work of other technical or clerical officials (Yuktas) as well as village government under the Gopa."
[4]
_Notes for other polity sheets_
"This bureaucratic system founded by Kautilya, Chandragupta, and Asoka was adopted by the successor empires of the Guptas, and Harsha with minor changes of name and substance."
[4]
"The Guptas in the North and the Cholas in the South made a sophisticated system of village self-government an integral part of the administrative system. But the overall structures of central and provincial administration were essentially modifications of the Arthasastra-Asoka model."
[11]
"Successive generations of scholars writing on statecraft replicated his ideas in a redefined adaptive manner keeping alive the same ideas of proper administration. Secondly, the general imperial administrative structure of Kautilya was adaptable for smaller empires after the 7th century, of the Vakatakas, Pratiharas, and Palas and they were also borrowed by the Mughal Empire later. But they could not be sustained in their fullness in a gemeinshaft society, without the total commitment of the intellectual elite."
[12]
[1]: http://uhami.com/maurya_empire30802.htm
[2]: (McClellan III and Dorn 2015, 164) McClellan III, James E. Dorn, Harold. 2015. Science and Technology in World History: An Introduction. JHU Press.
[3]: (Gabriel 2002, 216) Gabriel, Richard A. 2002. The Great Armies of Antiquity. Greenwood Publishing Group.
[4]: (Subramaniam 2001, 80) Subramaniam, V. in Farazmand, Ali. ed. 2001. Handbook of Comparative and Development Public Administration. CRC Press.
[5]: Singh, Upinder. A History of Ancient and Early medieval India, pp. 345-348
[6]: https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Arthashastra/Book_II
[7]: (Gabriel 2002, 217) Gabriel, Richard A. 2002. The Great Armies of Antiquity. Greenwood Publishing Group.
[8]: (Alcock 2001, 159) Alcock, Susan E. 2001. Empires: Perspectives from Archaeology and History. Cambridge University Press.
[9]: (Subramaniam 2001, 78) Subramaniam, V. in Farazmand, Ali. ed. 2001. Handbook of Comparative and Development Public Administration. CRC Press.
[10]: Singh, Upinder. A History of Ancient and Early medieval India: from the Stone Age to the 12th century. Pearson Education India, 2008. p. 341
[11]: (Subramaniam 2001, 80-81) Subramaniam, V. in Farazmand, Ali. ed. 2001. Handbook of Comparative and Development Public Administration. CRC Press.
[12]: (Subramaniam 2001, 84) Subramaniam, V. in Farazmand, Ali. ed. 2001. Handbook of Comparative and Development Public Administration. CRC Press.
[1]
The Ksatriya were a hereditary warrior class that formed the backbone of the army. They were supported by auxiliary forces made up of mercenaries, freelance soldiers, subordinate allies, deserters and forest and hill tribesmen.
"a complex war office with six subsidiary departments administered and provisioned a paid standing army of nearly 700,000 men and thousands of elephants."
[2]
"The army was to be recruited from ’robbers, mountain men, gangs, forest people, and warrior clans’. Soldiers were to receive a regular salary and their equipment".
[3]
"By the time of the Mauryas, whatever sort of conscription had once existed earlier had disappeared, and the imperial armies were armies of professional warrior aristocrats and other professionals fed, equipped, trained, paid, and otherwise maintained at great cost to the state."
[4]
[1]: Gabriel, Richard A. The great armies of antiquity. Greenwood Publishing Group, 2002. p. 217
[2]: (McClellan III and Dorn 2015, 164) McClellan III, James E. Dorn, Harold. 2015. Science and Technology in World History: An Introduction. JHU Press.
[3]: (Bradford and Bradford 2001, 126) Bradford, Alfred S. Bradford, Pamela, M. 2001. With Arrow, Sword, and Spear: A History of Warfare in the Ancient World. Greenwood Publishing Group.
[4]: (Gabriel 2002, 218) Gabriel, Richard A. 2002. The Great Armies of Antiquity. Greenwood Publishing Group.
The Arthashastra mentions a purohita (royal priest) in the King’s household. [1] There were ascetics or renunciants in society: the Ajivika, a Buddhist/Janist sect had places where regular ceremonies were held, "suggest they had a corporate organizations." [2] There was also Brahamans and the Buddhist monastic order the sangha. [3]
[1]: Singh, Upinder. A History of Ancient and Early medieval India: from the Stone Age to the 12th century. Pearson Education India, 2008. p.344
[2]: Singh, Upinder. A History of Ancient and Early medieval India: from the Stone Age to the 12th century. Pearson Education India, 2008. p.302.
[3]: Singh, Upinder. A History of Ancient and Early medieval India: from the Stone Age to the 12th century. Pearson Education India, 2008. pp.306, 312.
Military officers were present as a caste of individuals also used in civil governance, supported by a much larger group of individuals working the land under a developing caste system. The political treatise Arthasastra provided circumstantial evidence of the presence of military officers tasked with training the common soliders, referred to as Dhanurveda. [1]
[1]: Gabriel, Richard A. The ancient world. Vol. 1. Greenwood Publishing Group, 2007. p. 120
Buildings of the government bureaucracy, such as the Office of Accountants.
[1]
State controlled economy with buildings of "such state industries as weaving, salt provision, mining, and iron-making."
[2]
[1]: (Subramaniam 2001, 79) Subramaniam, V. in Farazmand, Ali. ed. 2001. Handbook of Comparative and Development Public Administration. CRC Press.
[2]: (McClellan III and Dorn 2015, 164) McClellan III, James E. Dorn, Harold. 2015. Science and Technology in World History: An Introduction. JHU Press.
Society was based on a Caste system.
[1]
"Although every effort was made by Chandragupta and his successors to select competent people to fill government positions, in a very short time these offices became virtually hereditary and, over time, the quality of government officials declined. The Indian Imperial state never developed a permanent bureaucratic system staffed by officials selected for merit and competence."
[2]
[1]: Singh, Upinder. A History of Ancient and Early medieval India, pp 418-421
[2]: (Gabriel 2002, 217) Gabriel, Richard A. 2002. The Great Armies of Antiquity. Greenwood Publishing Group.
Large "tentacular" bureaucracy.
[1]
The King ruled with the help of a small permanent staff of elder statesmen called the Mantriparisad. Each of the individuals oversaw an individual aspect, with an officer or adviser overseeing different aspects of statecraft. These included but were not limited to the Great Councillor called the mantrin, the chief priest called the Purohita or the head of the treasury, the sannidhatr, and the chief tax collector called the samahartr. One of the most important was the position of the minister of the head of military affairs, the sandhivigrahika. These were supported by the chief secretary called the mahaksapatalika. Beneath these top level officials were superintendents who oversaw day to day governance. These positions eventually became hereditary instead of being based on merit.
[2]
[3]
According to Conningham, there were state-level bureaucrats, professional bureaucrats during this time period
[4]
[1]: (Subramaniam 2001, 79) Subramaniam, V. in Farazmand, Ali. ed. 2001. Handbook of Comparative and Development Public Administration. CRC Press.
[2]: Gabriel, Richard A. The great armies of antiquity. Greenwood Publishing Group, 2002. p. 217
[3]: V. Subramaniam, The administrative legacy of ancient India, International Journal of Public Administration, Taylor Francis(1998)
[4]: Conningham, Rob, pers. comm. Interview with Harvey Whitehouse and Christina Collins, Jan 2017
Initially, office holders were appointed directly by the king, but hereditary office holding become common, in some areas attached to the land grants awarded with the office. [1]
[1]: Gupta, Dipankar. "From Varna to Jati: The Indian caste system, from the Asiatic to the feudal mode of production." Journal of Contemporary Asia 10, no. 3 (1980 ) p.260.
In the below quote, Rocher argues that professional lawyers did not exist in India for much of its history. Unhelpfully, Rocher does not provide dates or much in the way of temporal boundaries. However, the use of the word “ever” in the sentence “no written source allows us to draw the conclusion that the experts on legal matters ever developed into a professional group whose regular activities consisted in representing parties in the court” may perhaps be taken to mean that professional lawyers did not exist in India before the colonial era.
“Thus, we believe that at an early date—let us roughly say at the time of the dharmasutras—professional lawyers or, to be more precise, specialized dharmasastrins could not exist. The Indian sage in those days was a specialist in all of the texts related to a particular Vedic school. His specialized knowledge concentrated on a specific version of the Vedic samhita and all its related texts: brahmana, aranyaka, upanisad, srautasutra, grhyasutra, dharmasutra, etc. There were no specialists on dharmasastra, and, a fortiori, no specialists on law that were part of it.
“But the situation changed. The texts on dharma grew away from the Vedic schools. Gradually there may have come into being a specialized group of learned men whose main interest was dharma, and the various dharmasastras as such.
“Finally, as the amount of textual material increased, we may assume that certain experts, without detaching themselves completely from aspects of dharmasastra and from Hindu learning generally, accumulated a very specialized knowledge of one aspect of dharma: vivada and vyavahara, or, in modern terminology, law. It is very possible that at this stage the nature of legal representation (niyoga) also underwent a certain change. We do not want to exclude the possibility that, at that moment, in a number of cases legal competence played a role in the choice of a representative. We are even willing to accept that Vyasa refers to the very special circumstance in which the representative was paid for his services. However, no written source allows us to draw the conclusion that the experts on legal matters ever developed into a professional group whose regular activities consisted in representing parties in the court. The impression which we gather from the texts is that, even in cases where the representative was chosen because of his special competence on legal matters, and, a fortiori, in all other cases, the necessary condition for a person to represent a party was the existence, between the former and the latter, of a certain form of close personal relationship.”
[1]
[1]: (Rocher 1969: 399-400) Rocher, L. 1969. "Lawyers" in Classical Hindu Law. Law & Society Review 3 (2/3): 383-402. Seshat URL: https://www.zotero.org/groups/1051264/seshat_databank/items/QKMEMIHW/library
[1] However the "king was no law-maker. His function was to administer the law already established." This meant the people were able to "check and curb the arbitrary powers of the king." [2] Conningham validated this code in saying thatparts of the dharma are written down in edicts [3]
[1]: Radhakumud Mookerj, Chandragupta Maurya and His Times, Motilal Banarsidass Publications (1966)
[2]: V. R. Ramachandra Dikshitar, The Mauryan Polity (1932), p. 160
[3]: Conningham, Rob, pers. comm. Interview with Harvey Whitehouse and Christina Collins, Jan 2017
Layout of fortified settlement shows storehouses for grain, forest produce, flowers, liqour. [1] The bureaucracy had a Superintendent of Agriculture and another one for Forest Produce. [2]
[1]: See Fig.11.5. Allchin, F. Raymond. The Archaeology of Early Historic South Asia: The Emergence of Cities and States. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1995.p.227/
[2]: (Subramaniam 2001, 79) Subramaniam, V. in Farazmand, Ali. ed. 2001. Handbook of Comparative and Development Public Administration. CRC Press.
According to Conningham, Ashoka had wells dug for travellers. At Tilaco, there is a brick-lined water tank inside the city from this period which was for civic use [1] Regulations for "a place for keeping big jars for water". Layout of fortified settlement shows water storage area. [2] [3]
[1]: Conningham, Rob, pers. comm. Interview with Harvey Whitehouse and Christina Collins, Jan 2017
[2]: Radhakumud Mookerj, Chandragupta Maurya and His Times, Motilal Banarsidass Publications (1966), p.138. Higham, Charles. Encyclopedia of ancient Asian civilizations, p. 161
[3]: See Fig.11.5. Allchin, F. Raymond. The Archaeology of Early Historic South Asia: The Emergence of Cities and States. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1995.p.227.
The great Royal road laid down during the period forms the basis of an road network linking Bangladesh to the Punjab and Kabul. [1] [2] For a comparative perspective on transport infrastructure, see Monica Smith’s work. [3]
[1]: Craig, Graham, Kagan, Ozment, Turner, The Heritage of World Civilizations (2011), p. 134
[2]: Kirk, William. "Town and country planning in ancient India according to Kautilya’s Arthasastra." The Scottish Geographical Magazine 94, no. 2 (1978): 67-75
[3]: Smith, Monica L. "Networks, territories, and the cartography of ancient states." Annals of the Association of American Geographers 95, no. 4 (2005): 832-849.
Ports had existed on the coastline and in the estuaries of the major river arteries previous to the Mauryan period. Some were small settlements whereas others become large vibrant cities. These were primarily on the eastern and western coastal strips. The two most important was the city of Bharukaccha at the mouth of the Narmada river. [1]
[1]: Allchin, Frank Raymond, and George Erdosy. The Archaeology of Early Historic South Asia: The Emergence of Cities and States. Cambridge University Press, 1995. p. 140-142
the conquest of the former Achaemenid Satrapy of Sindh resulted in the acquisition of areas that had pre-existing irrigation canals and a large network of wells and other infrastructure. [1]
[1]: Samad, Rafi U. The Grandeur of Gandhara: The Ancient Buddhist Civilization of the Swat, Peshawar, Kabul and Indus Valleys. Algora Publishing, 2011. p. 34
The Royal road must have crossed some streams or rivers and required bridge-building.
The pillar Edicts of Ashoka, the Arthashastra. [1] The primary evidence of the writing in use during the period are the inscriptions of Asoka. The two major writing systems seem to have been Brahmi and Kharosthi. [2]
[1]: Singh, Upinder (2008). A History of Ancient and Early Medieval India: From the Stone Age to the 12th Century. New Delhi: Pearson Education.
[2]: Salomon, Richard. "On the origin of the early Indian scripts." Journal of the American Oriental Society (1995): 271-279.
The pillar Edicts of Ashoka, the Arthashastra. [1] The primary evidence of the writing in use during the period are the inscriptions of Asoka. The two major writing systems seem to have been Brahmi and Kharosthi. [2]
[1]: Singh, Upinder (2008). A History of Ancient and Early Medieval India: From the Stone Age to the 12th Century. New Delhi: Pearson Education.
[2]: Salomon, Richard. "On the origin of the early Indian scripts." Journal of the American Oriental Society (1995): 271-279.
The primary evidence of the writing in use during the period are the inscriptions of Asoka. The two major writing systems seem to have been Brahmi and Kharosthi, but as these are stone pillars coding the presence of other types of writing is problematic. The survival of the Arthashartra, a political manual of statecraft for a king would seem to indicate a larger literary tradition. [1]
[1]: Singh, Upinder, A History of Ancient and Early Medieval India: From the Stone Age to the 12th Century. (New Delhi, 2008), p. 320
Kautilya in the Arthashastra wrote "rich in gold and silver, filled with an abundance of big gems of various colours and of gold coins, and capable to withstand calamities of long duration is the best treasury." [1]
The Masakas was a tiny silver coin of the Mauryan period. Coins from the Mauryan period have a lower content of precious metals, and seem to have been alloyed with copper. The Masaka has been found throughout the Mauryan empire. The ’Arthasatra’ provides an account of four denominations of silver coinage also in circulation, with a values divided from 1 pana, the 1/2 valued ardha pada, the the pada, worth 1/4, the asha bhaga worth 1/8. Finally, there was the masaka, which was seemingly worth 1/16 of a Pada. [1] The Maskaka silver coins. "The shape, form and weight of these punch-marked coins suggests that they are indigenous, with no foreign influence." [2]
[1]: Rao Bandela, Prasanna Coin Splendour: A Journey Into the Past (Hyberdalad, 2000) pp. 26-31.
[2]: Rao Bandela, Prasanna Coin Splendour: A Journey Into the Past (Hyberdalad, 2000) p. 25.
Kautilya in the Arthashastra wrote "The king who finds himself in a great financial trouble and needs money, may collect (revenue by demand). In such parts of his country as depend solely upon rain for water and are rich in grain, he may demand of his subjects one-third or one-fourth of their grain according to their capacity." [1]
"Couriers (Dutas) are to be paid ten panans for carrying messages up to ten yojanas." [1] Kautilya in the Arthashastra wrote "A messenger of middle quality shall receive 10 panas for each yojana he travels; and twice as much when he travels from 10 to 100 yojanas." [2]
[1]: Radhakumud Mookerj, Chandragupta Maurya and His Times, Motilal Banarsidass Publications (1966), p.87.
According to a military historian (this needs confirmation from a Mauryan specialist): "military fortifications and buildings were mostly made of wood" [1] Fortified sites were present in India from the earliest times. Pre-Indus sites have been identified through the presence of stone towers and mud-bricks from 2400 BCE. There are other finds of low walls, and a second larger wall beyond the first. [2] The best example of fortifications in the Mauryan Empire are those of the capital city Pataliputra. The defensive perimeter was a palisade with 570 towers, 64 gates, and a moat six plethra wide and 30 ells deep. The walls would have encompassed 33.8 km by 25.5 km. [3]
[1]: Gabriel, Richard A. The great armies of antiquity. p. 220.
[2]: Singh, Sarva Daman. Ancient Indian Warfare: With Special Reference to the Vedic Period. Motilal Banarsidass Publ., 1989. p. 120
[3]: Schlingloff, Dieter. Fortified Cities of Ancient India: A Comparative Study. Anthem Press, 2013. p. 39
e.g around the village of Rajagriha. [1] [2]
[1]: Schlingloff, Dieter. Fortified Cities of Ancient India: A Comparative Study. Anthem Press, 2013. p. 39
[2]: Allchin, F. Raymond. The Archaeology of Early Historic South Asia: The Emergence of Cities and States. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1995., p.225.
Kautilya’s Arthashastra mentions fortified camps (Book X, Relating to War). Royal camps were constructed on the model of a fort. [1] [2] Site chosen by team of commander, astrologer and engineer. King’s quarters "surrounded by trenches, parapets, and a wall with gates." [3]
[1]: Schlingloff, Dieter. Fortified Cities of Ancient India: A Comparative Study. Anthem Press, 2013. p. 39
[2]: Allchin, F. Raymond. The Archaeology of Early Historic South Asia: The Emergence of Cities and States. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1995., p.230.
[3]: (Bradford and Bradford 2001, 126) Bradford, Alfred S. Bradford, Pamela, M. 2001. With Arrow, Sword, and Spear: A History of Warfare in the Ancient World. Greenwood Publishing Group.
e.g. earthen ramparts around cities. [1] [2]
[1]: Schlingloff, Dieter. Fortified Cities of Ancient India: A Comparative Study. Anthem Press, 2013. p. 39
[2]: Allchin, F. Raymond. The Archaeology of Early Historic South Asia: The Emergence of Cities and States. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1995, p.223.
Had a moat around Pataliputra so the concept of a defensive ditch as a cheap form of defensive measure would have been known to the Mauryans. Kautilya’s Arthashastra mentions ditches (Book X, Relating to War).
Referring to a period of time that appears to begin with the Mauryan era and include the first millennium CE:"The royal residence is designated with an old name the “interior city” (antaḥpura) and is described as being just as fortified as the city itself. There are even expressions where the palace wall is confused with the city wall and the castle gate with the city gate. Nonetheless, it would be a false conclusion were one to consider the royal residence, on the strength of this description, to be a citadel. We know from the narrative literature that it was easy to negotiate the moat and wall of the king’s palace by means of a pole or rope. The palace wall formed a police and not a military protection. Once besiegers had breached the city wall, the city lay at their feet. There was no last stand for the palace."". [1] Moat, ramparts, towers, gates around Pataliputra. [2] Were there concentric walls/ramparts here?
[1]: (Schlingloff 2013: 47) Seshat URL: https://www.zotero.org/groups/1051264/seshat_databank/items/itemKey/DAMFF2NV.
[2]: Schlingloff, Dieter. Fortified Cities of Ancient India: A Comparative Study. Anthem Press, 2013. p. 39
Indian iron smiths invented the ’wootz’ method of steel creation between 550-450 BCE. The Greek physician Ctesias of Cnidus commented on an Indian steel sword (or a sword of Indian steel?) in the possession of Artaxerxes II of Persia (c400 BCE). [1] At Naikund in Maharashtra: knowledge of steeling and hardening from 700 BCE. [2] Historical records show Indian steel was exported to Abyssinia in 200 BCE. (Biggs et al. 2013 citing Tripathi and Upadhyay 2009, p. 123). [3]
[1]: (Singh 1997, 102) Sarva Daman Singh. 1997. Ancient Indian Warfare: With Special Reference to the Vedic Period. Motilal Banarsidass Publishers. Delhi.
[2]: (Deshpande and Dhokey 2008) P P Deshpande. N B Dhokey. April 2008. Metallographical investigations of iron objects in ancient Vidharbha region of Maharashtra. Transactions of the Indian Institute of Metals. Volume 61. Issue 2-3. Springer. pp. 135-137.
[3]: Lynn Biggs. Berenice Bellina. Marcos Martinon-Torres. Thomas Oliver Pryce. January 2013. Prehistoric iron production technologies in the Upper Thai-MalayPeninsula: metallography and slag inclusion analyses of ironartefacts from Khao Sam Kaeo and Phu Khao Thong. Archaeological and Anthropological Sciences. Springer.
According to a military historian (this needs confirmation from a Mauryan specialist): "By the Mauryan period the Indians possessed most of the ancient world’s siege and artillery equipment including catapults, ballistas, battering rams, and other siege engines." [1] Kautilya’s Arthashastra mentions machines (Book II, The Duties of Government Superintendents") both immoveable machines (sthirayantram): Sarvatobhadra, jamadagnya, bahumukha, visvasaghati, samghati, yanaka, parjanyaka, ardhabahu and urdhvabahu; and moveable machines: Panchalika, devadanda, sukarika, musala, yashti, hastivaraka, talavrinta, mudgara, gada, spriktala, kuddala, asphatima, audhghatima, sataghni, trisula and chakra.
[1]: (Gabriel 2002, 220) Gabriel, Richard A. 2002. The Great Armies of Antiquity. Greenwood Publishing Group.
First historically known sling siege engines used by the Byzantine Empire.
According to a military historian (this needs confirmation from a Mauryan specialist) slings were present. [1] Soldiers from the hills also seemed to be armed with stones as a missile weapon. [2]
[1]: Gabriel, Richard A. The great armies of antiquity. p. 218-220
[2]: Singh, Sarva Daman. Ancient Indian Warfare: With Special Reference to the Vedic Period. Motilal Banarsidass Publ., 1989. p. 19
According to a military historian (this needs confirmation from a Mauryan specialist): The Indian bow was between five or six feet long and made of bamboo, and was used to fire cane arrows. The bow was fired by resting the base on the ground, making it less effective when muddy. [1] Kautilya’s Arthashastra mentions bows made from palmyra (karmuka), bamboo (kodanda), wood (druna), bone or horn (dhanus) that could fire iron, bone or wooden arrowheads (Book II, The Duties of Government Superintendents").
[1]: Gabriel, Richard A. The great armies of antiquity. p. 218-220
Mauryan soldiers only known to use self-bows & compound bows. [1] Known to Chinese in the first millennium BCE but Vedic literature does not describe anything like a crossbow although Pant suggests "the weapon mentioned as the nalika in ancient Sanskrit literature was a crossbow." [2] "The hand crossbow was usd on Indian battlefields probably from the third century A.D. It was mainly used as an infantry weapon and occasionally as a cavalry weapon. A Sanskrit inscription at Avanthipuram, in South India, reads: ’... Of him who has the name of Ananta impelled with speed and skillfully discharged from the machines of his bow fitted with the well stretched string....’ Obviously, the machine referred to was a hand crossbow." [2]
[1]: Sen, Sailendra Nath. Ancient Indian History and Civilization. New Age International, 1999. p. 388
[2]: (Phillips 2016) Henry Pratap Phillips. 2016. The History and Chronology of Gunpowder and Gunpowder Weapons (c.1000 to 1850). Notion Press.
Swords. [1] According to a military historian (this needs confirmation from a Mauryan specialist): heavy infantry used the nistrimsa, long two-handed slashing sword. [2] Kautilya’s Arthashastra mentions swords (nistrimsa, mandalagra, asiyashti) (Book II, The Duties of Government Superintendents").
[1]: (Bradford and Bradford 2001, 128) Bradford, Alfred S. Bradford, Pamela, M. 2001. With Arrow, Sword, and Spear: A History of Warfare in the Ancient World. Greenwood Publishing Group.
[2]: (Gabriel 2002, 219) Gabriel, Richard A. 2002. The Great Armies of Antiquity. Greenwood Publishing Group.
Lances. [1] Spears used as close-combat weapons are found depicted in art from the period. There were also thrown-spears.
[1]: (Bradford and Bradford 2001, 128) Bradford, Alfred S. Bradford, Pamela, M. 2001. With Arrow, Sword, and Spear: A History of Warfare in the Ancient World. Greenwood Publishing Group.
According to a military historian (this needs confirmation from a Mauryan specialist): dagger-axes. [1] in ancient China these were halberds, or Polearms. According to a military historian (this needs confirmation from a Mauryan specialist): "A special long lance, the tomara, was carried by infantry mounted on the backs of elephants" and used against enemy infantry who got too close. [1]
[1]: (Gabriel 2002, 219) Gabriel, Richard A. 2002. The Great Armies of Antiquity. Greenwood Publishing Group.
According to a military historian (this needs confirmation from a Mauryan specialist): horses were used by cavalry. [1] "By now the chariot, though still a royal status symbol, was obsolete." [2] Kautilya’s Arthashastra mentions cavalry and also a battle array of chariots, and suggested 15 men and 5 horses were needed to counter one (Book X, Relating to War). According to a military historian (this needs confirmation from a Mauryan specialist): "By the sixth century BCE, Indian armies had large cavalry contingents." [3]
[1]: Gabriel, Richard A. The great armies of antiquity. p. 218-220
[2]: (Bradford and Bradford 2001, 125) Bradford, Alfred S. Bradford, Pamela, M. 2001. With Arrow, Sword, and Spear: A History of Warfare in the Ancient World. Greenwood Publishing Group.
[3]: (Gabriel 2012, 127) Richard A Gabriel. 2012. Man and Wound in the Ancient World. A History of Military Medicine from Sumer to the Fall of Constantinople. Potomac Books. Washington, D.C.
According to a military historian (this needs confirmation from a Mauryan specialist) elephants were used as shock troops. [1] Kautilya in the Arthashastra wrote: "The victory of kings (in battles) depends mainly upon elephants; for elephants, being of large bodily frame, are capable not only to destroy the arrayed army of an enemy, his fortifications, and encampments, but also to undertake works that are dangerous to life." [2]
[1]: Gabriel, Richard A. The great armies of antiquity. p. 218-220
Kautilya’s Arthashastra mentions "hunters and keepers of dogs with their trumpets and with fire" (Book X, Relating to War).
According to a military historian (this needs confirmation from a Mauryan specialist) infantry carried long narrow shield made from raw oxhide over a wooden or wicker frame. [1] Ox-hide rather than cow leather for religious reasons. [2] Kautilya’s Arthashastra mentions armour made from iron, skins, hoofs and horns.(Book II, The Duties of Government Superintendents"). Kautilya’s Arthashastra mentions a head covering called sirastrana but not the material it was made from (Book II, The Duties of Government Superintendents"). Kautilya’s Arthashastra mentions coats extending to the knees, one which reached the floor, and another without arm covering (Book II, The Duties of Government Superintendents").
[1]: (Gabriel 2002, 219) Gabriel, Richard A. 2002. The Great Armies of Antiquity. Greenwood Publishing Group.
[2]: Gabriel, Richard A. The great armies of antiquity. p. 218-220
Helmets not known in this period. [1] According to a military historian (this needs confirmation from a Mauryan specialist) the helmet did not come into wide use until well after the Common Era, and for most of the ancient period the soldier relied mostly upon the thick folds of his turban to protect his head." [2] Kautilya’s Arthashastra mentions a head covering called sirastrana but not the material it was made from (Book II, The Duties of Government Superintendents").
[1]: Singh, Sarva Daman. Ancient Indian Warfare: With Special Reference to the Vedic Period p. 116
[2]: (Gabriel 2002, 220) Gabriel, Richard A. 2002. The Great Armies of Antiquity. Greenwood Publishing Group.
Worn by soldiers and animals. [1] Coat of mail worn by warrior on elephant. [2] Kautilya’s Arthashastra mentions mail armour for horses (Book X, Relating to War).
[1]: Singh, Sarva Daman. Ancient Indian Warfare: With Special Reference to the Vedic Period. Motilal Banarsidass Publ., 1989, p.116.
[2]: (Bradford and Bradford 2001, 128) Bradford, Alfred S. Bradford, Pamela, M. 2001. With Arrow, Sword, and Spear: A History of Warfare in the Ancient World. Greenwood Publishing Group.
The government bureaucracy had a Superintendent of Ships. [1] Naval board. [2]
[1]: (Subramaniam 2001, 79) Subramaniam, V. in Farazmand, Ali. ed. 2001. Handbook of Comparative and Development Public Administration. CRC Press.
[2]: (Bradford and Bradford 2001, 125-126) Bradford, Alfred S. Bradford, Pamela, M. 2001. With Arrow, Sword, and Spear: A History of Warfare in the Ancient World. Greenwood Publishing Group.