The Kampili Kingdom was a small, short-lived polity founded along the northern shore of the Tunghabadra river.
[1]
An absolute date for its founding could not be found in the specialist literature, but, in 1327 CE, the region was conquered by the Delhi Sultanate.
[2]
Population and political organization
Little is known about the sociopolitical structures of this polity,
[2]
and no population estimates could be found in the specialist literature.
[1]: (Sinopoli 2003, 74) Carla Sinopoli. 2003. The Political Economy of Craft Production. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
[2]: (Sinopoli 2003, 75) Carla Sinopoli. 2003. The Political Economy of Craft Production. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
| alliance with [---] |
| Vijayanagara Empire |
| elite migration |
| UNCLEAR: [elite replacement] |
| unitary state | |
| nominal |
| unknown |
| present |
| unknown |
| inferred present |
| inferred present |
| inferred present |
| unknown |
| inferred present |
| inferred present |
| inferred present |
| inferred absent |
| inferred very rarely |
| inferred absent |
| inferred absent |
| inferred absent |
| inferred absent |
| inferred absent |
| inferred absent |
| inferred absent |
| inferred absent |
| inferred absent |
| inferred absent |
| Year Range | Kampili Kingdom (in_kampili_k) was in: |
|---|---|
| (1280 CE 1310 CE) | Deccan |
Initially fuedatory under Hoysalas which under Mummadi Singeya Nayaka declared independence in 1280 CE. During his rule Kampili was attacked by the Yadavas/Sevunas (in context of Yadavas-Hoysala war?). Singeya Nayaka was succeeded by his son Kampiladeva who was attacked by the Hoysalas (who perhaps wanted to reclaim territory after the ruler that declared independence had died?). This may have caused a Kampili alliance with Yadavas. The kingdom was attacked by the Sultanate of Delhi and was conquered in three invasions c1327-1328 CE, at which time they may have been a fuedatory of the Yadavas (although an authoritative source says Kampili was an independent Hindu kingdom
[1]
). Another source says annexed by Muhammad Tughluq in 1326 CE.
[2]
Founder: Mummadi Singeya Nayaka ... CE ? - 1313 CE
"The governors of Hoysala, Singeya Nayaka-III (1280-1300) declared independance to the kingdom of Kampili around 1280 AD. Soon the kingdom faced attack by the Yadava king Ramachandra but the latter was replused. His son Kampiladeva (Khandeyaraya) ascended the throne in the year 1300 AD, but soon entered into conflict with the Hoysalas. The kingdom faced constant threat for the powerful kingdom from Hoysalas and Yadavas. But in 1327, the Muslim expedition too toll of Ramachandra Yadava and his kingdom as well as Kampiladeva’s and opened up for the Muslim rulers."
[3]
"The founder of the kingdom Mummadi Singa died in A.D. 1313 and was succeeded by his son Kampilideva."
[4]
-- questionable source?
"Kampili was a small but powerful kingdom founded by Mummadi Singeya from the fragments of the disintegrating Devagiri kingdom. Kampilideva succeeded Mummadi Singeya in 1313 CE. ... It took three well equipped invasions before Kampili faded into the night."
[5]
-- source is a blog
"Mummadi Singeya Nayaka, the governor of Kummata (Bellary District) was an important feudatory chief under Narashima."
[6]
Narashima was a king of the Hoysala Kingdom.
[7]
Singeya Nayaka-III. "Mummadi Singeya Nayaka of Kummata was carrying on a continuous Guerilla fight against the Sevunas, thus distracting the latter from the operation of the Hoysala territory. He had a good alliance with the Hoysalas and when Sevuna Ramachandra’s subordinates Mahamandalesvara Kannaradeva, Mahapradhana Vanadevarasa, Vira Chavundarasa and Hanuman marched to Doravdi and Kurugod, he gave strong resistence to them."
[8]
Kampilideva Nayaka
[9]
or Kampili Raya ... CE ? - ... CE ?
"This photograph of an old Kannada inscription (1309 AD) was taken by me on the Hemakuta hill temple complex at Hampi, a UNESCO world heritage site in the Bellary district of Karnataka state, India. The inscription is ascribed to King Kampili Raya of the tiny Kingdom of Kampili (modern Bellary district)"
"For approximately fifteen years, the forces of Kampili-Raya successfully resisted Sultanate attacks. In 1327, after two failed attempts, the Sultanate army killed Kampili-Raya, and his kingdom collapsed."
[10]
"the history of the Kampili as an independent kingdom, must have commenced in AD 1312. We learn from Muhammadan historians that the kingdom was destroyed in AD 1327-28. It flourished only for 15 years, i.e., from AD 1312 to 1327, during which it was governed by two kings Mummadi Singa and Kampili Raya."
[11]
Record of gold coins says: "Kingdom, c. 1280-1327" "Kampiladeva, 1300-1327"
[12]
Kumara Rama ... CE ? - ... CE ?
"Singhana II (1199-1247 C.E.), the greatest of the Sevunas, extended the Sevuna kingdom upto the Tungabhadra. But the Sevunas were defeated by the army of Delhi Sultan in 1296 C.E, again in 1307 C.E and finally in 1318 C.E, and thus the kingdom was wiped out. Their feudatory, Kumara Rama and his father Kampilaraya of Kampili also died fighting against the Muslims in C. 1327 C.E."
[13]
-- questionable source?
[1]: (Sadasivan 2011, 191) Sadasiva, Balaju. 2011. The Dancing Girl: A History of Early India. Institute of Southeast Asian Studies.
[2]: (SarDesai 2007, 149) SarDesai, D. R. 2007. India: The Definitive History. Westview Press.
[3]: https://www.forumancientcoins.com/india/southind/kampili/south_kampili.html
[4]: Vardhan, Aditya. http://www.preservearticles.com/2011102916076/short-essay-on-expedition-of-mohd-tughluq-against-kampili.html
[5]: https://jambudveep.wordpress.com/tag/kampili/
[6]: (Patel 2001, 27) Patel, Radha M. 2001. Life and times of Hoysala Narasimha III. University of Mysore. Prasaranga.
[7]: (Patel 2001) Patel, Radha M. 2001. Life and times of Hoysala Narasimha III. University of Mysore. Prasaranga.
[8]: (Patel 2001, 20) Patel, Radha M. 2001. Life and times of Hoysala Narasimha III. University of Mysore. Prasaranga.
[9]: (Sadasivan 2011, 191) Sadasivan, Balaju. 2011. The Dancing Girl: A History of Early India. Institute of Southeast Asian Studies.
[10]: (Sinopoli 2003, 75)
[11]: (Ramanayya 1929, 15)
[12]: (Friedberg and Friedberg 2009, 468) Friedberg, Arthur L. Friedberg, Ira S. 2009. Gold Coins of the World: From Ancient Times to the Present: an Illustrated Standard Catalogue with Valuations. Eighth edition. Coin & Currency Institute. Clifton.
[13]: Shashidhar, Melkunde. A History of Freedom and Unification Movement in Karnataka. Lulu.com
Probably alliance with Yadavas/Hoysalas at times and with other Hindu kingdoms versus Sultanate of Delhi.
"The rulers of Kampili began their careers as tributaries of the Yadava kings of Devagiri, the first Deccani polity defeated by the Delhi Sultanate. Following Sultanate occupation of Devagiri, the Yadava general Muhammad Singa fled with his son Kampili to the northern shores of the Tungabhadra River, where he established a base from which to resist Sultanate forces (Stein 1989a: 18)." [1]
[1]: (Sinopoli 2003, 74)
"The rulers of Kampili began their careers as tributaries of the Yadava kings of Devagiri, the first Deccani polity defeated by the Delhi Sultanate. Following Sultanate occupation of Devagiri, the Yadava general Muhammad Singa fled with his son Kampili to the northern shores of the Tungabhadra River, where he established a base from which to resist Sultanate forces (Stein 1989a: 18)." [1]
[1]: (Sinopoli 2003, 74)
Inferred from the following: "With the exception of Kampili, which never controlled large territories, each of these states incorporated local elites into their administrative structures in various ways, adding additional levels of complexity to this shifting political mosaic."
[1]
"The Hoysala state remained a significant southern power until the sultanate invasions in AD 1310."
[2]
[1]: (Sinopoli 2003, 66)
[2]: (Sinopoli 2003, 74)
Inferred from the following: "With the exception of Kampili, which never controlled large territories, each of these states incorporated local elites into their administrative structures in various ways, adding additional levels of complexity to this shifting political mosaic."
[1]
"The Hoysala state remained a significant southern power until the sultanate invasions in AD 1310."
[2]
[1]: (Sinopoli 2003, 66)
[2]: (Sinopoli 2003, 74)
in squared kilometers. Range estimate based on drawing points from the middle of Raichur district to Anantapur city (thus encompassing Bellary between them) then drawing a point to Shivamogga city (which takes in Chitaldurg district). This forms a triangle shape with an area of 20,000. Will express estimate of polity size (maximum extent?) with range of 10,000-30,000.
kingdom of Kampili (Anantpur, Shimoga, and Chitaldurg districts).
[1]
Anantapur district 19,130 km2
Shimoga district 8,495 km2
Chitradurga district 8,440 km2
While Bellary (not mentioned by source), Anantpur and Chiltradurga districts are contiguous, Shimoga district is not. If the described area shown below outlines the areas under control the kingdom was larger than maps that present it as the region of Bellary only.
"The Kingdom of Kampili on the Raichur Doab between the Krishna and Tungabhadra rivers was protected by the strong forts of Kunmata and Anegondi."
[2]
-- If we include Raichur (on the above map) the kingdom would be even larger.
[1]: (SarDesai 2007, 149) SarDesai, D. R. 2007. India: The Definitive History. Westview Press.
[2]: (Sadasivan 2011, 191) Sadasiva, Balaju. 2011. The Dancing Girl: A History of Early India. Institute of Southeast Asian Studies.
levels. Inferred continuity with previous polity.
Hoysalas had a professional military.
[1]
and likely the there would have been at least four levels thus:
1. King
2. General3. Officer/s"several scholars have suggested that the reputed founders of Vijayanagara, the Sangama brothers, had been officers in the Kampili military."
[2]
4. Individual soldier
[1]: J. Duncan M. Derrett, The Hoysalas (1957), p. 105
[2]: (Sinopoli 2003, 74-75)
levels. Inferred from previous polity.
1. Governor >>> King
"Mummadi Singeya Nayaka, the governor of Kummata (Bellary District) was an important feudatory chief under Narashima."
[1]
Narashima was a king of the Hoysala Kingdom.
[2]
Under the Hoysalas, the administration of the provinces was just the replica of the central administration. The governors charged both civil and military functions. They were made responsible not only for the peace, tranquility, law and order, but also for efficient administration
[3]
_Central administration_
2.Under the Hoysalas, the king was assisted in administration by his ministers: Sandhivigrahi was the foreign minister, Sarvadhikari was an official with powers to supervise all departments, Bahataaraniyogadhipati was an official who headed 72 departments, Mahabhandari was the senior treasurer, and Dharmadhikari was the minister of justice. Paramavishvasi or personal secretary of the king and Mahapasayita or chief master of the robes were other senior officials. At times, these officials held their office hereditarily. The ministers also held military office
[4]
Under the Hoysalas, "The Governors had a number of officers under their control. They were Pergades or heggades, Sunkaverggade, Manikya Bhandri Manneya Nadagavunda, Gaunda, Senabaova, etc. The Pergades were officers entrusted with the task of managing the revenues of the state and also of general administration."
[5]
3.4.
_Regional administration_
2. Town leader? Town had a Nagara assembly.Within the Hoysala Kingdom "Like the village, town also maintained an assembly know as Nagara"
[6]
3. Village leader? Village had a Nagara assembly
4. SenabovaWithin the Hoysala Kingdom "The senabova also drafted the text of epigraphical records. We have many instances where senabova was the author of epigraphs. In short the presence of the senabova was essential in important activities of the village."
[7]
[1]: (Patel 2001, 27) Patel, Radha M. 2001. Life and times of Hoysala Narasimha III. University of Mysore. Prasaranga.
[2]: (Patel 2001) Patel, Radha M. 2001. Life and times of Hoysala Narasimha III. University of Mysore. Prasaranga.
[3]: H.V. Sreenivasa Murthy and R. Ramakrishnan, A History of Karnataka (1978), p. 124
[4]: Suryanath U. Kamath, A concise history of Karnataka (1980), p. 137
[5]: (Patel 2001, 42) Patel, Radha M. 2001. Life and times of Hoysala Narasimha III. University of Mysore. Prasaranga.
[6]: (Patel 2001, 45) Patel, Radha M. 2001. Life and times of Hoysala Narasimha III. University of Mysore. Prasaranga.
[7]: (Patel 2001, 47) Patel, Radha M. 2001. Life and times of Hoysala Narasimha III. University of Mysore. Prasaranga.
During the Hoysala Kingdom, of which this polity was initially a fuedatory, the soldiers were professional under Ballala II [1] however ministers of the government could also be military officers which would imply at least some of them were non-specialist. [2] "several scholars have suggested that the reputed founders of Vijayanagara, the Sangama brothers, had been officers in the Kampili military." [3]
[1]: J. Duncan M. Derrett, The Hoysalas (1957), p. 105
[2]: Suryanath U. Kamath, A concise history of Karnataka (1980), p. 137
[3]: (Sinopoli 2003, 74-75)
During the Hoysala Kingdom, of which this polity was initially a fuedatory, the soldiers were professional under Ballala II [1] however ministers of the government could also be military officers which would imply at least some of them were non-specialist. [2] "several scholars have suggested that the reputed founders of Vijayanagara, the Sangama brothers, had been officers in the Kampili military." [3]
[1]: J. Duncan M. Derrett, The Hoysalas (1957), p. 105
[2]: Suryanath U. Kamath, A concise history of Karnataka (1980), p. 137
[3]: (Sinopoli 2003, 74-75)
Under the Hoysalas "The Governors had a number of officers under their control. They were Pergades or heggades, Sunkaverggade, Manikya Bhandri Manneya Nadagavunda, Gaunda, Senabaova, etc. The Pergades were officers entrusted with the task of managing the revenues of the state and also of general administration." [1]
[1]: (Patel 2001, 42) Patel, Radha M. 2001. Life and times of Hoysala Narasimha III. University of Mysore. Prasaranga.
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
No persuasive evidence could be found, in the literature consulted, for the existence of a postal service of any kind in India, between the end of the Mauryan period and the fourteenth century, when Ibn Battuta visited the Delhi Sultanate and described its communication services. However, it is entirely possible that such systems existed in at least some polities, especially the larger ones.
No persuasive evidence could be found, in the literature consulted, for the existence of a postal service of any kind in India, between the end of the Mauryan period and the fourteenth century, when Ibn Battuta visited the Delhi Sultanate and described its communication services. However, it is entirely possible that such systems existed in at least some polities, especially the larger ones.
No persuasive evidence could be found, in the literature consulted, for the existence of a postal service of any kind in India, between the end of the Mauryan period and the fourteenth century, when Ibn Battuta visited the Delhi Sultanate and described its communication services. However, it is entirely possible that such systems existed in at least some polities, especially the larger ones.
"The Kingdom of Kampili on the Raichur Doab between the Krishna and Tungabhadra rivers was protected by the strong forts of Kunmata and Anegondi. The Muslim armies repeatedly attacked Kampili and captured Kunmata on their third attempt." [1] -- how were the effective fortifications at Kunamata and Anegondi built?
[1]: (Sadasivan 2011, 191) Sadasiva, Balaju. 2011. The Dancing Girl: A History of Early India. Institute of Southeast Asian Studies.
"The Kingdom of Kampili on the Raichur Doab between the Krishna and Tungabhadra rivers was protected by the strong forts of Kunmata and Anegondi. The Muslim armies repeatedly attacked Kampili and captured Kunmata on their third attempt." [1] -- how were the effective fortifications at Kunamata and Anegondi built?
[1]: (Sadasivan 2011, 191) Sadasiva, Balaju. 2011. The Dancing Girl: A History of Early India. Institute of Southeast Asian Studies.
Commenting on Jean Deloche’s ’Studies on Fortification in India’ a book reviewer says that fort construction "with long-term building and modification programs ... became the focal point for local populations as well as for their leaders" and often were "placed at points on the landscape that already were natural strongholds and places of ritual devolution". [1]
[1]: (Smith 2010, 273) Monica L Smith. January 2010. Journal of the American Oriental Society. 130.2. Studies on Fortification in India. Collection Indologie, vol. 104. Four Forts of the Deccan vol. 111. Senji (Gingee): A Fortified City in the Tamil Country. vol. 101 by Jean Deloche.
"The Kingdom of Kampili on the Raichur Doab between the Krishna and Tungabhadra rivers was protected by the strong forts of Kunmata and Anegondi. The Muslim armies repeatedly attacked Kampili and captured Kunmata on their third attempt." [1] -- what were the nature of the obviously fairly effective fortifications at Kunamata and Anegondi?
[1]: (Sadasivan 2011, 191) Sadasiva, Balaju. 2011. The Dancing Girl: A History of Early India. Institute of Southeast Asian Studies.
"Till date, the best study of the evolution of fortifications in India from the Indus Valley Civilization till the rise of British power, remains Deloche’s monograph on fortification in India. Deloche notes that between the third and fourteenth centuries, the Hindu rulers constructed complex gateways, towers and thicker walls with earthen embankments in order to make their durgas (forts) impregnable." [1] Deloche’s studies on Indian fortifications are in French. "The Kingdom of Kampili on the Raichur Doab between the Krishna and Tungabhadra rivers was protected by the strong forts of Kunmata and Anegondi. The Muslim armies repeatedly attacked Kampili and captured Kunmata on their third attempt." [2] -- what were the nature of the obviously fairly effective fortifications at Kunamata and Anegondi?
[1]: (Roy 2011, 123) Kaushik Roy. Historiographical Survey of the Writings on Indian Military History. Sabyasachi Bhattacharya. ed. 2011. Approaches to History: Essays in Indian Historiography. Primus Books. Delhi.
[2]: (Sadasivan 2011, 191) Sadasiva, Balaju. 2011. The Dancing Girl: A History of Early India. Institute of Southeast Asian Studies.
"The Kingdom of Kampili on the Raichur Doab between the Krishna and Tungabhadra rivers was protected by the strong forts of Kunmata and Anegondi. The Muslim armies repeatedly attacked Kampili and captured Kunmata on their third attempt." [1] -- what were the nature of the obviously fairly effective fortifications at Kunamata and Anegondi? Commenting on Jean Deloche’s ’Studies on Fortification in India’ a book reviewer says " certain types of multiple ditches on the exterior of medieval forts were likely to have been placed to ’impede the approach of elephants.’” [2]
[1]: (Sadasivan 2011, 191) Sadasiva, Balaju. 2011. The Dancing Girl: A History of Early India. Institute of Southeast Asian Studies.
[2]: (Smith 2010, 274) Monica L Smith. January 2010. Journal of the American Oriental Society. 130.2. Studies on Fortification in India. Collection Indologie, vol. 104. Four Forts of the Deccan vol. 111. Senji (Gingee): A Fortified City in the Tamil Country. vol. 101 by Jean Deloche.
Commenting on Jean Deloche’s ’Studies on Fortification in India’ a book reviewer says " certain types of multiple ditches on the exterior of medieval forts were likely to have been placed to ’impede the approach of elephants.’” [1]
[1]: (Smith 2010, 274) Monica L Smith. January 2010. Journal of the American Oriental Society. 130.2. Studies on Fortification in India. Collection Indologie, vol. 104. Four Forts of the Deccan vol. 111. Senji (Gingee): A Fortified City in the Tamil Country. vol. 101 by Jean Deloche.
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 in the possession of Artaxerxes II of Persia (c400 BCE). [1]
[1]: (Singh 1997, 102) Sarva Daman Singh. 1997. Ancient Indian Warfare: With Special Reference to the Vedic Period. Motilal Banarsidass Publishers. Delhi.
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 in the possession of Artaxerxes II of Persia (c400 BCE). [1]
[1]: (Singh 1997, 102) Sarva Daman Singh. 1997. Ancient Indian Warfare: With Special Reference to the Vedic Period. Motilal Banarsidass Publishers. Delhi.
’Usually replaced by steel but likely used for ornamental reasons and for handles if not for bladed weapons.
"The Hindus used bows made of cane or bamboos which were inferior in range, accuracy and penetrative power when compared to the composite bows." [1] Composite bow came to India with the Kushanas but "after the collapse of the Gupta Empire, the use of composite bows died out in India." [1]
[1]: (Roy 2011, 122) Kaushik Roy. Historiographical Survey of the Writings on Indian Military History. Sabyasachi Bhattacharya. ed. 2011. Approaches to History: Essays in Indian Historiography. Primus Books. Delhi.
"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." [1]
[1]: (Phillips 2016) Henry Pratap Phillips. 2016. The History and Chronology of Gunpowder and Gunpowder Weapons (c.1000 to 1850). Notion Press.
"The Hindus used bows made of cane or bamboos which were inferior in range, accuracy and penetrative power when compared to the composite bows." [1] Composite bow came to India with the Kushanas but "after the collapse of the Gupta Empire, the use of composite bows died out in India." [1]
[1]: (Roy 2011, 122) Kaushik Roy. Historiographical Survey of the Writings on Indian Military History. Sabyasachi Bhattacharya. ed. 2011. Approaches to History: Essays in Indian Historiography. Primus Books. Delhi.
"There was no significant change in the weaponry of the Indian army from ancient to classical times; in fact, according to Kosambi, there was a decline in the standard of arms. Indian soldiers were mostly very poorly equipped, noted Marco Polo." [1] Present during the preceding Hoysala period: "The Hoysala Army could be taken as a microcosm of the force structure of the Hindu polities in Deccan and South India. The infantry carried bamboo bows, swords, spears and shields." [2]
[1]: (Eraly 2011, 169) Abraham Eraly. 2011. The First Spring: The Golden Age of India. Penguin Books India Pvt. Ltd. New Delhi.
[2]: (Roy 2015, 98) Kaushik Roy. 2015. Warfare in Pre-British India - 1500 BCE to 1740 CE. Routledge. London.
"There was no significant change in the weaponry of the Indian army from ancient to classical times; in fact, according to Kosambi, there was a decline in the standard of arms. Indian soldiers were mostly very poorly equipped, noted Marco Polo." [1] Present during the preceding Hoysala period: "The Hoysala Army could be taken as a microcosm of the force structure of the Hindu polities in Deccan and South India. The infantry carried bamboo bows, swords, spears and shields." [2]
[1]: (Eraly 2011, 169) Abraham Eraly. 2011. The First Spring: The Golden Age of India. Penguin Books India Pvt. Ltd. New Delhi.
[2]: (Roy 2015, 98) Kaushik Roy. 2015. Warfare in Pre-British India - 1500 BCE to 1740 CE. Routledge. London.
"There was no significant change in the weaponry of the Indian army from ancient to classical times; in fact, according to Kosambi, there was a decline in the standard of arms. Indian soldiers were mostly very poorly equipped, noted Marco Polo." [1] Present during the preceding Hoysala period: "The Hoysala Army could be taken as a microcosm of the force structure of the Hindu polities in Deccan and South India. The infantry carried bamboo bows, swords, spears and shields." [2]
[1]: (Eraly 2011, 169) Abraham Eraly. 2011. The First Spring: The Golden Age of India. Penguin Books India Pvt. Ltd. New Delhi.
[2]: (Roy 2015, 98) Kaushik Roy. 2015. Warfare in Pre-British India - 1500 BCE to 1740 CE. Routledge. London.
"There was no significant change in the weaponry of the Indian army from ancient to classical times; in fact, according to Kosambi, there was a decline in the standard of arms. Indian soldiers were mostly very poorly equipped, noted Marco Polo." [1] Present during the preceding Hoysala period: "The Hoysala Army could be taken as a microcosm of the force structure of the Hindu polities in Deccan and South India. The infantry carried bamboo bows, swords, spears and shields." [2] In the preceding period "Hoysala cavalrymen were lancers." [2]
[1]: (Eraly 2011, 169) Abraham Eraly. 2011. The First Spring: The Golden Age of India. Penguin Books India Pvt. Ltd. New Delhi.
[2]: (Roy 2015, 98) Kaushik Roy. 2015. Warfare in Pre-British India - 1500 BCE to 1740 CE. Routledge. London.
"There was no significant change in the weaponry of the Indian army from ancient to classical times; in fact, according to Kosambi, there was a decline in the standard of arms. Indian soldiers were mostly very poorly equipped, noted Marco Polo." [1]
[1]: (Eraly 2011, 169) Abraham Eraly. 2011. The First Spring: The Golden Age of India. Penguin Books India Pvt. Ltd. New Delhi.
In the preceding period the Hoysala had cavalrymen. [1] "In the classical age, Indian armies were still organized, as they had been a thousand years earlier, into four divisions: infantry, cavalry, chariots and elephants." [2]
[1]: (Roy 2015, 98) Kaushik Roy. 2015. Warfare in Pre-British India - 1500 BCE to 1740 CE. Routledge. London.
[2]: (Eraly 2011, 163) Abraham Eraly. 2011. The First Spring: The Golden Age of India. Penguin Books India Pvt. Ltd. New Delhi.
"In the classical age, Indian armies were still organized, as they had been a thousand years earlier, into four divisions: infantry, cavalry, chariots and elephants." [1] Possible but Kampi Kingdom was a small state so question is whether they had the resources to maintain war elephants.
[1]: (Eraly 2011, 163) Abraham Eraly. 2011. The First Spring: The Golden Age of India. Penguin Books India Pvt. Ltd. New Delhi.
In ancient India the buffalo, bullock, yak, goat, camel, elephant, horse, ass and the mule were all used for transport [1] [2] in different regions according to local conditions. [2]
[1]: (Mishra 1987, 83) Kamal Kishore Mishra. 1987. Police Administration in Ancient India. Mittal Publications. Delhi.
[2]: Prakash Charan Prasad. 1977. Foreign Trade and Commerce in Ancient India. Abhinav Publications. New Delhi.
Kampi Kingdom was covered a small area away from the principal regions of camel habitat in south Asia.
Kautilya’s Arthasastra, written after 200 BCE, mentions "dense structures made of the skin, hooves, and horns/tusks of the river dolphin, rhinocerous, Dhenuka, and cattle" used as armor. [1]
[1]: (Olivelle 2016, 142-143) Patrick Olivelle trans. 2016. King, Governance, and Law in Ancient India: Kautilya’s Arthasastra. Oxford University Press. Oxford.
“Many scholars have felt impelled to emphasise the toleration of different sects and denominations evinced by Indian rulers. [...] It seems fairly clear that, traditionally in India, people readily transferred or distributed their allegiance between different sects, seeing no logical inconsistency in approaching different gods for different purposes, and that this apparently syncretic style of religious behaviour encouraged a relaxed attitude to what others did as well; evidently, too, rulers generally extended their acceptance of this practice." [1]
[1]: (Copland, Mabbett, Roy, Brittlebank and Bowles 2012: 74-77) Seshat URL: Zotero link: ATSZ6QBU
“Thus, by 1324, the territories of the Delhi Sultanate reached up to Madurai. The last Hindu principality in the area, Kampili in south Karnataka, was annexed in 1328.” [1]
[1]: (Chandra 2007 :101) Chandra, Satish. History of Medieval India: 800-1700. India, Orient BlackSwan, 2007. Seshat URL: Zotero link: 83WJWTC2
“Muslims had been part of South Indian society for a long time before Vijayanagara was founded. Muslim traders and even fighters were known on the Malabar coast from the tenth century. Arabs and other Muslims formed parts of the cosmopolitan trading communities found scattered along the whole western coast of India, and their presence along the eastern coast was recorded not much after the tenth century. Moreover, as early as the 1140s there are references to Muslim fighters employed by Hindu kings, such as the Hoysala king Jagademalla. These soldiers had no apparent connection with the Turkic warriors from Delhi who began their incursions into the South in the early fourteenth century.” [1]
[1]: (Stein 2008: 20) Stein, Burton. (1990) (2008). The New Cambridge History of India: Vijayanagara. United Kingdom, Cambridge University Press. Seshat URL: Zotero link: J6KXNT5E
“Thus, by 1324, the territories of the Delhi Sultanate reached up to Madurai, The last Hindu principality in the area, Kampili in south Karnataka, was annexed in 1328.” [1]
[1]: (Chandra 2007 :101) Chandra, Satish. History of Medieval India: 800-1700. India, Orient BlackSwan, 2007. Seshat URL: Zotero link: 83WJWTC2
“Thus, by 1324, the territories of the Delhi Sultanate reached up to Madurai, The last Hindu principality in the area, Kampili in south Karnataka, was annexed in 1328.” [1]
[1]: (Chandra 2007 :101) Chandra, Satish. History of Medieval India: 800-1700. India, Orient BlackSwan, 2007. Seshat URL: Zotero link: 83WJWTC2
“Many scholars have felt impelled to emphasise the toleration of different sects and denominations evinced by Indian rulers. [...] It seems fairly clear that, traditionally in India, people readily transferred or distributed their allegiance between different sects, seeing no logical inconsistency in approaching different gods for different purposes, and that this apparently syncretic style of religious behaviour encouraged a relaxed attitude to what others did as well; evidently, too, rulers generally extended their acceptance of this practice. [...] Much of the evidence, then, suggests that all the diverse religious sects were freely tolerated by a prevailing world view that was ready to acknowledge a certain common validity. Yet it is unlikely that such a view could rise to the status of cultural orthodoxy without friction. Although references to religious wars and persecutions are conspicuously absent from the historical record of ancient India, this does not rule out lesser types of conflict, and some scholars believe that there is indeed evidence of localised disagreement and resentment. [...] For example, the Arthaśāstra gratuitously advises the agents of a king to help themselves, on behalf of the ruler, to the property of groups on the fringes of society who might not have powerful friends. Moreover, there are hints in scattered sources that the followers of orthodox Brahman teachers at times ganged up against Buddhist or Jain establishments that had lost their former patronage. [...] Still, hard evidence of religious persecution in these ancient times is scattered and fragmentary. In the absence of more solid evidence, the view has gained ground that pre-modern India had a cultural unity that precluded communal conflict, but we think that this picture is not sufficiently nuanced. Doniger’s perception that there was widespread persecution of non-Brahmans during the first millennium may fairly represent the situation that arose at certain times, but we cannot be at all sure how widespread the phenomenon was, or at what times it was most marked.//"Still, we should note that, simply as a matter of practical politics, there was at least one factor that would certainly have acted to limit the ferocity of any sectarian persecutions – the absence of a clear and powerful advantage at all times for kings in identifying themselves with the Brahman interest. No clear dividing line existed, in fact, between ruling families that were of ‘genuine’ ‘Aryan’ descent, and the rest; the ruling elite presided over heterogeneous populations within which Brahmanism, as an agent of Sanskritisation and as a common cultural denominator, was slowly feeling its way towards a new role, directed towards shaping an inclusive syncretism. Thus, the Brahmanical revival could not afford to go too far. Especially, it had to be very wary of attacking the prudent preference of kings for policies that had the capacity to attract wide support among the multiple disparate groups that constituted the citizenry. The Brahmans had to make do with whatever qualified honour they could find within the frame of an eclectic culture. Such structural constraints are likely to have kept them from striking at their enemies too wantonly.” [1]
[1]: (Copland, Mabbett, Roy, Brittlebank and Bowles 2012: 74-77) Seshat URL: Zotero link: ATSZ6QBU
“Many scholars have felt impelled to emphasise the toleration of different sects and denominations evinced by Indian rulers. [...] It seems fairly clear that, traditionally in India, people readily transferred or distributed their allegiance between different sects, seeing no logical inconsistency in approaching different gods for different purposes, and that this apparently syncretic style of religious behaviour encouraged a relaxed attitude to what others did as well; evidently, too, rulers generally extended their acceptance of this practice. [...] Much of the evidence, then, suggests that all the diverse religious sects were freely tolerated by a prevailing world view that was ready to acknowledge a certain common validity. Yet it is unlikely that such a view could rise to the status of cultural orthodoxy without friction. Although references to religious wars and persecutions are conspicuously absent from the historical record of ancient India, this does not rule out lesser types of conflict, and some scholars believe that there is indeed evidence of localised disagreement and resentment. [...] For example, the Arthaśāstra gratuitously advises the agents of a king to help themselves, on behalf of the ruler, to the property of groups on the fringes of society who might not have powerful friends. Moreover, there are hints in scattered sources that the followers of orthodox Brahman teachers at times ganged up against Buddhist or Jain establishments that had lost their former patronage. [...] Still, hard evidence of religious persecution in these ancient times is scattered and fragmentary. In the absence of more solid evidence, the view has gained ground that pre-modern India had a cultural unity that precluded communal conflict, but we think that this picture is not sufficiently nuanced. Doniger’s perception that there was widespread persecution of non-Brahmans during the first millennium may fairly represent the situation that arose at certain times, but we cannot be at all sure how widespread the phenomenon was, or at what times it was most marked.//"Still, we should note that, simply as a matter of practical politics, there was at least one factor that would certainly have acted to limit the ferocity of any sectarian persecutions – the absence of a clear and powerful advantage at all times for kings in identifying themselves with the Brahman interest. No clear dividing line existed, in fact, between ruling families that were of ‘genuine’ ‘Aryan’ descent, and the rest; the ruling elite presided over heterogeneous populations within which Brahmanism, as an agent of Sanskritisation and as a common cultural denominator, was slowly feeling its way towards a new role, directed towards shaping an inclusive syncretism. Thus, the Brahmanical revival could not afford to go too far. Especially, it had to be very wary of attacking the prudent preference of kings for policies that had the capacity to attract wide support among the multiple disparate groups that constituted the citizenry. The Brahmans had to make do with whatever qualified honour they could find within the frame of an eclectic culture. Such structural constraints are likely to have kept them from striking at their enemies too wantonly.” [1]
[1]: (Copland, Mabbett, Roy, Brittlebank and Bowles 2012: 74-77) Seshat URL: Zotero link: ATSZ6QBU
“Many scholars have felt impelled to emphasise the toleration of different sects and denominations evinced by Indian rulers. [...] It seems fairly clear that, traditionally in India, people readily transferred or distributed their allegiance between different sects, seeing no logical inconsistency in approaching different gods for different purposes, and that this apparently syncretic style of religious behaviour encouraged a relaxed attitude to what others did as well; evidently, too, rulers generally extended their acceptance of this practice. [...] Much of the evidence, then, suggests that all the diverse religious sects were freely tolerated by a prevailing world view that was ready to acknowledge a certain common validity. Yet it is unlikely that such a view could rise to the status of cultural orthodoxy without friction. Although references to religious wars and persecutions are conspicuously absent from the historical record of ancient India, this does not rule out lesser types of conflict, and some scholars believe that there is indeed evidence of localised disagreement and resentment. [...] For example, the Arthaśāstra gratuitously advises the agents of a king to help themselves, on behalf of the ruler, to the property of groups on the fringes of society who might not have powerful friends. Moreover, there are hints in scattered sources that the followers of orthodox Brahman teachers at times ganged up against Buddhist or Jain establishments that had lost their former patronage. [...] Still, hard evidence of religious persecution in these ancient times is scattered and fragmentary. In the absence of more solid evidence, the view has gained ground that pre-modern India had a cultural unity that precluded communal conflict, but we think that this picture is not sufficiently nuanced. Doniger’s perception that there was widespread persecution of non-Brahmans during the first millennium may fairly represent the situation that arose at certain times, but we cannot be at all sure how widespread the phenomenon was, or at what times it was most marked.//"Still, we should note that, simply as a matter of practical politics, there was at least one factor that would certainly have acted to limit the ferocity of any sectarian persecutions – the absence of a clear and powerful advantage at all times for kings in identifying themselves with the Brahman interest. No clear dividing line existed, in fact, between ruling families that were of ‘genuine’ ‘Aryan’ descent, and the rest; the ruling elite presided over heterogeneous populations within which Brahmanism, as an agent of Sanskritisation and as a common cultural denominator, was slowly feeling its way towards a new role, directed towards shaping an inclusive syncretism. Thus, the Brahmanical revival could not afford to go too far. Especially, it had to be very wary of attacking the prudent preference of kings for policies that had the capacity to attract wide support among the multiple disparate groups that constituted the citizenry. The Brahmans had to make do with whatever qualified honour they could find within the frame of an eclectic culture. Such structural constraints are likely to have kept them from striking at their enemies too wantonly.” [1]
[1]: (Copland, Mabbett, Roy, Brittlebank and Bowles 2012: 74-77) Seshat URL: Zotero link: ATSZ6QBU
“Many scholars have felt impelled to emphasise the toleration of different sects and denominations evinced by Indian rulers. [...] It seems fairly clear that, traditionally in India, people readily transferred or distributed their allegiance between different sects, seeing no logical inconsistency in approaching different gods for different purposes, and that this apparently syncretic style of religious behaviour encouraged a relaxed attitude to what others did as well; evidently, too, rulers generally extended their acceptance of this practice. [...] Much of the evidence, then, suggests that all the diverse religious sects were freely tolerated by a prevailing world view that was ready to acknowledge a certain common validity. Yet it is unlikely that such a view could rise to the status of cultural orthodoxy without friction. Although references to religious wars and persecutions are conspicuously absent from the historical record of ancient India, this does not rule out lesser types of conflict, and some scholars believe that there is indeed evidence of localised disagreement and resentment. [...] For example, the Arthaśāstra gratuitously advises the agents of a king to help themselves, on behalf of the ruler, to the property of groups on the fringes of society who might not have powerful friends. Moreover, there are hints in scattered sources that the followers of orthodox Brahman teachers at times ganged up against Buddhist or Jain establishments that had lost their former patronage. [...] Still, hard evidence of religious persecution in these ancient times is scattered and fragmentary. In the absence of more solid evidence, the view has gained ground that pre-modern India had a cultural unity that precluded communal conflict, but we think that this picture is not sufficiently nuanced. Doniger’s perception that there was widespread persecution of non-Brahmans during the first millennium may fairly represent the situation that arose at certain times, but we cannot be at all sure how widespread the phenomenon was, or at what times it was most marked.//"Still, we should note that, simply as a matter of practical politics, there was at least one factor that would certainly have acted to limit the ferocity of any sectarian persecutions – the absence of a clear and powerful advantage at all times for kings in identifying themselves with the Brahman interest. No clear dividing line existed, in fact, between ruling families that were of ‘genuine’ ‘Aryan’ descent, and the rest; the ruling elite presided over heterogeneous populations within which Brahmanism, as an agent of Sanskritisation and as a common cultural denominator, was slowly feeling its way towards a new role, directed towards shaping an inclusive syncretism. Thus, the Brahmanical revival could not afford to go too far. Especially, it had to be very wary of attacking the prudent preference of kings for policies that had the capacity to attract wide support among the multiple disparate groups that constituted the citizenry. The Brahmans had to make do with whatever qualified honour they could find within the frame of an eclectic culture. Such structural constraints are likely to have kept them from striking at their enemies too wantonly.” [1]
[1]: (Copland, Mabbett, Roy, Brittlebank and Bowles 2012: 74-77) Seshat URL: Zotero link: ATSZ6QBU
“Many scholars have felt impelled to emphasise the toleration of different sects and denominations evinced by Indian rulers. [...] It seems fairly clear that, traditionally in India, people readily transferred or distributed their allegiance between different sects, seeing no logical inconsistency in approaching different gods for different purposes, and that this apparently syncretic style of religious behaviour encouraged a relaxed attitude to what others did as well; evidently, too, rulers generally extended their acceptance of this practice. [...] Much of the evidence, then, suggests that all the diverse religious sects were freely tolerated by a prevailing world view that was ready to acknowledge a certain common validity. Yet it is unlikely that such a view could rise to the status of cultural orthodoxy without friction. Although references to religious wars and persecutions are conspicuously absent from the historical record of ancient India, this does not rule out lesser types of conflict, and some scholars believe that there is indeed evidence of localised disagreement and resentment. [...] For example, the Arthaśāstra gratuitously advises the agents of a king to help themselves, on behalf of the ruler, to the property of groups on the fringes of society who might not have powerful friends. Moreover, there are hints in scattered sources that the followers of orthodox Brahman teachers at times ganged up against Buddhist or Jain establishments that had lost their former patronage. [...] Still, hard evidence of religious persecution in these ancient times is scattered and fragmentary. In the absence of more solid evidence, the view has gained ground that pre-modern India had a cultural unity that precluded communal conflict, but we think that this picture is not sufficiently nuanced. Doniger’s perception that there was widespread persecution of non-Brahmans during the first millennium may fairly represent the situation that arose at certain times, but we cannot be at all sure how widespread the phenomenon was, or at what times it was most marked.//"Still, we should note that, simply as a matter of practical politics, there was at least one factor that would certainly have acted to limit the ferocity of any sectarian persecutions – the absence of a clear and powerful advantage at all times for kings in identifying themselves with the Brahman interest. No clear dividing line existed, in fact, between ruling families that were of ‘genuine’ ‘Aryan’ descent, and the rest; the ruling elite presided over heterogeneous populations within which Brahmanism, as an agent of Sanskritisation and as a common cultural denominator, was slowly feeling its way towards a new role, directed towards shaping an inclusive syncretism. Thus, the Brahmanical revival could not afford to go too far. Especially, it had to be very wary of attacking the prudent preference of kings for policies that had the capacity to attract wide support among the multiple disparate groups that constituted the citizenry. The Brahmans had to make do with whatever qualified honour they could find within the frame of an eclectic culture. Such structural constraints are likely to have kept them from striking at their enemies too wantonly.” [1]
[1]: (Copland, Mabbett, Roy, Brittlebank and Bowles 2012: 74-77) Seshat URL: Zotero link: ATSZ6QBU
“Many scholars have felt impelled to emphasise the toleration of different sects and denominations evinced by Indian rulers. [...] It seems fairly clear that, traditionally in India, people readily transferred or distributed their allegiance between different sects, seeing no logical inconsistency in approaching different gods for different purposes, and that this apparently syncretic style of religious behaviour encouraged a relaxed attitude to what others did as well; evidently, too, rulers generally extended their acceptance of this practice. [...] Much of the evidence, then, suggests that all the diverse religious sects were freely tolerated by a prevailing world view that was ready to acknowledge a certain common validity. Yet it is unlikely that such a view could rise to the status of cultural orthodoxy without friction. Although references to religious wars and persecutions are conspicuously absent from the historical record of ancient India, this does not rule out lesser types of conflict, and some scholars believe that there is indeed evidence of localised disagreement and resentment. [...] For example, the Arthaśāstra gratuitously advises the agents of a king to help themselves, on behalf of the ruler, to the property of groups on the fringes of society who might not have powerful friends. Moreover, there are hints in scattered sources that the followers of orthodox Brahman teachers at times ganged up against Buddhist or Jain establishments that had lost their former patronage. [...] Still, hard evidence of religious persecution in these ancient times is scattered and fragmentary. In the absence of more solid evidence, the view has gained ground that pre-modern India had a cultural unity that precluded communal conflict, but we think that this picture is not sufficiently nuanced. Doniger’s perception that there was widespread persecution of non-Brahmans during the first millennium may fairly represent the situation that arose at certain times, but we cannot be at all sure how widespread the phenomenon was, or at what times it was most marked.//"Still, we should note that, simply as a matter of practical politics, there was at least one factor that would certainly have acted to limit the ferocity of any sectarian persecutions – the absence of a clear and powerful advantage at all times for kings in identifying themselves with the Brahman interest. No clear dividing line existed, in fact, between ruling families that were of ‘genuine’ ‘Aryan’ descent, and the rest; the ruling elite presided over heterogeneous populations within which Brahmanism, as an agent of Sanskritisation and as a common cultural denominator, was slowly feeling its way towards a new role, directed towards shaping an inclusive syncretism. Thus, the Brahmanical revival could not afford to go too far. Especially, it had to be very wary of attacking the prudent preference of kings for policies that had the capacity to attract wide support among the multiple disparate groups that constituted the citizenry. The Brahmans had to make do with whatever qualified honour they could find within the frame of an eclectic culture. Such structural constraints are likely to have kept them from striking at their enemies too wantonly.” [1]
[1]: (Copland, Mabbett, Roy, Brittlebank and Bowles 2012: 74-77) Seshat URL: Zotero link: ATSZ6QBU
“Many scholars have felt impelled to emphasise the toleration of different sects and denominations evinced by Indian rulers. [...] It seems fairly clear that, traditionally in India, people readily transferred or distributed their allegiance between different sects, seeing no logical inconsistency in approaching different gods for different purposes, and that this apparently syncretic style of religious behaviour encouraged a relaxed attitude to what others did as well; evidently, too, rulers generally extended their acceptance of this practice. [...] Much of the evidence, then, suggests that all the diverse religious sects were freely tolerated by a prevailing world view that was ready to acknowledge a certain common validity. Yet it is unlikely that such a view could rise to the status of cultural orthodoxy without friction. Although references to religious wars and persecutions are conspicuously absent from the historical record of ancient India, this does not rule out lesser types of conflict, and some scholars believe that there is indeed evidence of localised disagreement and resentment. [...] For example, the Arthaśāstra gratuitously advises the agents of a king to help themselves, on behalf of the ruler, to the property of groups on the fringes of society who might not have powerful friends. Moreover, there are hints in scattered sources that the followers of orthodox Brahman teachers at times ganged up against Buddhist or Jain establishments that had lost their former patronage. [...] Still, hard evidence of religious persecution in these ancient times is scattered and fragmentary. In the absence of more solid evidence, the view has gained ground that pre-modern India had a cultural unity that precluded communal conflict, but we think that this picture is not sufficiently nuanced. Doniger’s perception that there was widespread persecution of non-Brahmans during the first millennium may fairly represent the situation that arose at certain times, but we cannot be at all sure how widespread the phenomenon was, or at what times it was most marked.//"Still, we should note that, simply as a matter of practical politics, there was at least one factor that would certainly have acted to limit the ferocity of any sectarian persecutions – the absence of a clear and powerful advantage at all times for kings in identifying themselves with the Brahman interest. No clear dividing line existed, in fact, between ruling families that were of ‘genuine’ ‘Aryan’ descent, and the rest; the ruling elite presided over heterogeneous populations within which Brahmanism, as an agent of Sanskritisation and as a common cultural denominator, was slowly feeling its way towards a new role, directed towards shaping an inclusive syncretism. Thus, the Brahmanical revival could not afford to go too far. Especially, it had to be very wary of attacking the prudent preference of kings for policies that had the capacity to attract wide support among the multiple disparate groups that constituted the citizenry. The Brahmans had to make do with whatever qualified honour they could find within the frame of an eclectic culture. Such structural constraints are likely to have kept them from striking at their enemies too wantonly.” [1]
[1]: (Copland, Mabbett, Roy, Brittlebank and Bowles 2012: 74-77) Seshat URL: Zotero link: ATSZ6QBU
“Many scholars have felt impelled to emphasise the toleration of different sects and denominations evinced by Indian rulers. [...] It seems fairly clear that, traditionally in India, people readily transferred or distributed their allegiance between different sects, seeing no logical inconsistency in approaching different gods for different purposes, and that this apparently syncretic style of religious behaviour encouraged a relaxed attitude to what others did as well; evidently, too, rulers generally extended their acceptance of this practice. [...] Much of the evidence, then, suggests that all the diverse religious sects were freely tolerated by a prevailing world view that was ready to acknowledge a certain common validity. Yet it is unlikely that such a view could rise to the status of cultural orthodoxy without friction. Although references to religious wars and persecutions are conspicuously absent from the historical record of ancient India, this does not rule out lesser types of conflict, and some scholars believe that there is indeed evidence of localised disagreement and resentment. [...] For example, the Arthaśāstra gratuitously advises the agents of a king to help themselves, on behalf of the ruler, to the property of groups on the fringes of society who might not have powerful friends. Moreover, there are hints in scattered sources that the followers of orthodox Brahman teachers at times ganged up against Buddhist or Jain establishments that had lost their former patronage. [...] Still, hard evidence of religious persecution in these ancient times is scattered and fragmentary. In the absence of more solid evidence, the view has gained ground that pre-modern India had a cultural unity that precluded communal conflict, but we think that this picture is not sufficiently nuanced. Doniger’s perception that there was widespread persecution of non-Brahmans during the first millennium may fairly represent the situation that arose at certain times, but we cannot be at all sure how widespread the phenomenon was, or at what times it was most marked.//"Still, we should note that, simply as a matter of practical politics, there was at least one factor that would certainly have acted to limit the ferocity of any sectarian persecutions – the absence of a clear and powerful advantage at all times for kings in identifying themselves with the Brahman interest. No clear dividing line existed, in fact, between ruling families that were of ‘genuine’ ‘Aryan’ descent, and the rest; the ruling elite presided over heterogeneous populations within which Brahmanism, as an agent of Sanskritisation and as a common cultural denominator, was slowly feeling its way towards a new role, directed towards shaping an inclusive syncretism. Thus, the Brahmanical revival could not afford to go too far. Especially, it had to be very wary of attacking the prudent preference of kings for policies that had the capacity to attract wide support among the multiple disparate groups that constituted the citizenry. The Brahmans had to make do with whatever qualified honour they could find within the frame of an eclectic culture. Such structural constraints are likely to have kept them from striking at their enemies too wantonly.” [1]
[1]: (Copland, Mabbett, Roy, Brittlebank and Bowles 2012: 74-77) Seshat URL: Zotero link: ATSZ6QBU
“Many scholars have felt impelled to emphasise the toleration of different sects and denominations evinced by Indian rulers. [...] It seems fairly clear that, traditionally in India, people readily transferred or distributed their allegiance between different sects, seeing no logical inconsistency in approaching different gods for different purposes, and that this apparently syncretic style of religious behaviour encouraged a relaxed attitude to what others did as well; evidently, too, rulers generally extended their acceptance of this practice. [...] Much of the evidence, then, suggests that all the diverse religious sects were freely tolerated by a prevailing world view that was ready to acknowledge a certain common validity. Yet it is unlikely that such a view could rise to the status of cultural orthodoxy without friction. Although references to religious wars and persecutions are conspicuously absent from the historical record of ancient India, this does not rule out lesser types of conflict, and some scholars believe that there is indeed evidence of localised disagreement and resentment. [...] For example, the Arthaśāstra gratuitously advises the agents of a king to help themselves, on behalf of the ruler, to the property of groups on the fringes of society who might not have powerful friends. Moreover, there are hints in scattered sources that the followers of orthodox Brahman teachers at times ganged up against Buddhist or Jain establishments that had lost their former patronage. [...] Still, hard evidence of religious persecution in these ancient times is scattered and fragmentary. In the absence of more solid evidence, the view has gained ground that pre-modern India had a cultural unity that precluded communal conflict, but we think that this picture is not sufficiently nuanced. Doniger’s perception that there was widespread persecution of non-Brahmans during the first millennium may fairly represent the situation that arose at certain times, but we cannot be at all sure how widespread the phenomenon was, or at what times it was most marked.//"Still, we should note that, simply as a matter of practical politics, there was at least one factor that would certainly have acted to limit the ferocity of any sectarian persecutions – the absence of a clear and powerful advantage at all times for kings in identifying themselves with the Brahman interest. No clear dividing line existed, in fact, between ruling families that were of ‘genuine’ ‘Aryan’ descent, and the rest; the ruling elite presided over heterogeneous populations within which Brahmanism, as an agent of Sanskritisation and as a common cultural denominator, was slowly feeling its way towards a new role, directed towards shaping an inclusive syncretism. Thus, the Brahmanical revival could not afford to go too far. Especially, it had to be very wary of attacking the prudent preference of kings for policies that had the capacity to attract wide support among the multiple disparate groups that constituted the citizenry. The Brahmans had to make do with whatever qualified honour they could find within the frame of an eclectic culture. Such structural constraints are likely to have kept them from striking at their enemies too wantonly.” [1]
[1]: (Copland, Mabbett, Roy, Brittlebank and Bowles 2012: 74-77) Seshat URL: Zotero link: ATSZ6QBU
“Many scholars have felt impelled to emphasise the toleration of different sects and denominations evinced by Indian rulers. [...] It seems fairly clear that, traditionally in India, people readily transferred or distributed their allegiance between different sects, seeing no logical inconsistency in approaching different gods for different purposes, and that this apparently syncretic style of religious behaviour encouraged a relaxed attitude to what others did as well; evidently, too, rulers generally extended their acceptance of this practice. [...] Much of the evidence, then, suggests that all the diverse religious sects were freely tolerated by a prevailing world view that was ready to acknowledge a certain common validity. Yet it is unlikely that such a view could rise to the status of cultural orthodoxy without friction. Although references to religious wars and persecutions are conspicuously absent from the historical record of ancient India, this does not rule out lesser types of conflict, and some scholars believe that there is indeed evidence of localised disagreement and resentment. [...] For example, the Arthaśāstra gratuitously advises the agents of a king to help themselves, on behalf of the ruler, to the property of groups on the fringes of society who might not have powerful friends. Moreover, there are hints in scattered sources that the followers of orthodox Brahman teachers at times ganged up against Buddhist or Jain establishments that had lost their former patronage. [...] Still, hard evidence of religious persecution in these ancient times is scattered and fragmentary. In the absence of more solid evidence, the view has gained ground that pre-modern India had a cultural unity that precluded communal conflict, but we think that this picture is not sufficiently nuanced. Doniger’s perception that there was widespread persecution of non-Brahmans during the first millennium may fairly represent the situation that arose at certain times, but we cannot be at all sure how widespread the phenomenon was, or at what times it was most marked.//"Still, we should note that, simply as a matter of practical politics, there was at least one factor that would certainly have acted to limit the ferocity of any sectarian persecutions – the absence of a clear and powerful advantage at all times for kings in identifying themselves with the Brahman interest. No clear dividing line existed, in fact, between ruling families that were of ‘genuine’ ‘Aryan’ descent, and the rest; the ruling elite presided over heterogeneous populations within which Brahmanism, as an agent of Sanskritisation and as a common cultural denominator, was slowly feeling its way towards a new role, directed towards shaping an inclusive syncretism. Thus, the Brahmanical revival could not afford to go too far. Especially, it had to be very wary of attacking the prudent preference of kings for policies that had the capacity to attract wide support among the multiple disparate groups that constituted the citizenry. The Brahmans had to make do with whatever qualified honour they could find within the frame of an eclectic culture. Such structural constraints are likely to have kept them from striking at their enemies too wantonly.” [1]
[1]: (Copland, Mabbett, Roy, Brittlebank and Bowles 2012: 74-77) Seshat URL: Zotero link: ATSZ6QBU
“Many scholars have felt impelled to emphasise the toleration of different sects and denominations evinced by Indian rulers. [...] It seems fairly clear that, traditionally in India, people readily transferred or distributed their allegiance between different sects, seeing no logical inconsistency in approaching different gods for different purposes, and that this apparently syncretic style of religious behaviour encouraged a relaxed attitude to what others did as well; evidently, too, rulers generally extended their acceptance of this practice. [...] Much of the evidence, then, suggests that all the diverse religious sects were freely tolerated by a prevailing world view that was ready to acknowledge a certain common validity. Yet it is unlikely that such a view could rise to the status of cultural orthodoxy without friction. Although references to religious wars and persecutions are conspicuously absent from the historical record of ancient India, this does not rule out lesser types of conflict, and some scholars believe that there is indeed evidence of localised disagreement and resentment. [...] For example, the Arthaśāstra gratuitously advises the agents of a king to help themselves, on behalf of the ruler, to the property of groups on the fringes of society who might not have powerful friends. Moreover, there are hints in scattered sources that the followers of orthodox Brahman teachers at times ganged up against Buddhist or Jain establishments that had lost their former patronage. [...] Still, hard evidence of religious persecution in these ancient times is scattered and fragmentary. In the absence of more solid evidence, the view has gained ground that pre-modern India had a cultural unity that precluded communal conflict, but we think that this picture is not sufficiently nuanced. Doniger’s perception that there was widespread persecution of non-Brahmans during the first millennium may fairly represent the situation that arose at certain times, but we cannot be at all sure how widespread the phenomenon was, or at what times it was most marked.//"Still, we should note that, simply as a matter of practical politics, there was at least one factor that would certainly have acted to limit the ferocity of any sectarian persecutions – the absence of a clear and powerful advantage at all times for kings in identifying themselves with the Brahman interest. No clear dividing line existed, in fact, between ruling families that were of ‘genuine’ ‘Aryan’ descent, and the rest; the ruling elite presided over heterogeneous populations within which Brahmanism, as an agent of Sanskritisation and as a common cultural denominator, was slowly feeling its way towards a new role, directed towards shaping an inclusive syncretism. Thus, the Brahmanical revival could not afford to go too far. Especially, it had to be very wary of attacking the prudent preference of kings for policies that had the capacity to attract wide support among the multiple disparate groups that constituted the citizenry. The Brahmans had to make do with whatever qualified honour they could find within the frame of an eclectic culture. Such structural constraints are likely to have kept them from striking at their enemies too wantonly.” [1]
[1]: (Copland, Mabbett, Roy, Brittlebank and Bowles 2012: 74-77) Seshat URL: Zotero link: ATSZ6QBU
“Many scholars have felt impelled to emphasise the toleration of different sects and denominations evinced by Indian rulers. [...] It seems fairly clear that, traditionally in India, people readily transferred or distributed their allegiance between different sects, seeing no logical inconsistency in approaching different gods for different purposes, and that this apparently syncretic style of religious behaviour encouraged a relaxed attitude to what others did as well; evidently, too, rulers generally extended their acceptance of this practice. [...] Much of the evidence, then, suggests that all the diverse religious sects were freely tolerated by a prevailing world view that was ready to acknowledge a certain common validity. Yet it is unlikely that such a view could rise to the status of cultural orthodoxy without friction. Although references to religious wars and persecutions are conspicuously absent from the historical record of ancient India, this does not rule out lesser types of conflict, and some scholars believe that there is indeed evidence of localised disagreement and resentment. [...] For example, the Arthaśāstra gratuitously advises the agents of a king to help themselves, on behalf of the ruler, to the property of groups on the fringes of society who might not have powerful friends. Moreover, there are hints in scattered sources that the followers of orthodox Brahman teachers at times ganged up against Buddhist or Jain establishments that had lost their former patronage. [...] Still, hard evidence of religious persecution in these ancient times is scattered and fragmentary. In the absence of more solid evidence, the view has gained ground that pre-modern India had a cultural unity that precluded communal conflict, but we think that this picture is not sufficiently nuanced. Doniger’s perception that there was widespread persecution of non-Brahmans during the first millennium may fairly represent the situation that arose at certain times, but we cannot be at all sure how widespread the phenomenon was, or at what times it was most marked.//"Still, we should note that, simply as a matter of practical politics, there was at least one factor that would certainly have acted to limit the ferocity of any sectarian persecutions – the absence of a clear and powerful advantage at all times for kings in identifying themselves with the Brahman interest. No clear dividing line existed, in fact, between ruling families that were of ‘genuine’ ‘Aryan’ descent, and the rest; the ruling elite presided over heterogeneous populations within which Brahmanism, as an agent of Sanskritisation and as a common cultural denominator, was slowly feeling its way towards a new role, directed towards shaping an inclusive syncretism. Thus, the Brahmanical revival could not afford to go too far. Especially, it had to be very wary of attacking the prudent preference of kings for policies that had the capacity to attract wide support among the multiple disparate groups that constituted the citizenry. The Brahmans had to make do with whatever qualified honour they could find within the frame of an eclectic culture. Such structural constraints are likely to have kept them from striking at their enemies too wantonly.” [1]
[1]: (Copland, Mabbett, Roy, Brittlebank and Bowles 2012: 74-77) Seshat URL: Zotero link: ATSZ6QBU
“Many scholars have felt impelled to emphasise the toleration of different sects and denominations evinced by Indian rulers. [...] It seems fairly clear that, traditionally in India, people readily transferred or distributed their allegiance between different sects, seeing no logical inconsistency in approaching different gods for different purposes, and that this apparently syncretic style of religious behaviour encouraged a relaxed attitude to what others did as well; evidently, too, rulers generally extended their acceptance of this practice." [1]
[1]: (Copland, Mabbett, Roy, Brittlebank and Bowles 2012: 74-77) Seshat URL: Zotero link: ATSZ6QBU
“Many scholars have felt impelled to emphasise the toleration of different sects and denominations evinced by Indian rulers. [...] It seems fairly clear that, traditionally in India, people readily transferred or distributed their allegiance between different sects, seeing no logical inconsistency in approaching different gods for different purposes, and that this apparently syncretic style of religious behaviour encouraged a relaxed attitude to what others did as well; evidently, too, rulers generally extended their acceptance of this practice." [1]
[1]: (Copland, Mabbett, Roy, Brittlebank and Bowles 2012: 74-77) Seshat URL: Zotero link: ATSZ6QBU
“Many scholars have felt impelled to emphasise the toleration of different sects and denominations evinced by Indian rulers. [...] It seems fairly clear that, traditionally in India, people readily transferred or distributed their allegiance between different sects, seeing no logical inconsistency in approaching different gods for different purposes, and that this apparently syncretic style of religious behaviour encouraged a relaxed attitude to what others did as well; evidently, too, rulers generally extended their acceptance of this practice." [1]
[1]: (Copland, Mabbett, Roy, Brittlebank and Bowles 2012: 74-77) Seshat URL: Zotero link: ATSZ6QBU