Abraham Eraly - The Age of Wrath - A History of the Delhi Sultanate

A curious constituent of the medieval Indian armies was its contingent of martial ‘ascetics’, about whom there are several vivid accounts in the chronicles of the Mughal period, and they were no doubt a notable presence in the Indian armies of the early medieval period as well. These ‘ascetics’ entered into battle stark naked, but with their bodies daubed all over with paint and ash. Elsewhere in Asia too, as well as in Europe, there were bands of warrior monks in medieval times, but the Indian warrior monks were entirely different from them, and were rather like bands of primitive predators. ‘Never have I seen yogis like this,’ comments Kabir, a fifteenth-century mystic poet of North India. ‘Shall I call such men ascetics or bandits?’

MOST MEDIEVAL INDIAN armies were not integrated units, but amalgams of disparate and incongruent elements. The clothes and weapons of their soldiers varied from group to group, even from person to person. There were no uniforms for soldiers, so each dressed as he liked. Often the dress of soldiers, particularly of the infantry, was minimal, as of the common people. South Indian soldiers at this time were ‘all naked and bare-footed,’ reports Nikitin, apparently ignoring the loincloth that they no doubt wore.

In contrast to this, soldiers in Afghanistan were well-dressed and well-armoured. ‘It is the practice in the armies of Ghur for the infantry to protect themselves in battle with a covering made of a raw hide covered thickly on both sides with wool or cotton,’ writes Siraj. ‘This defensive covering is like a board, and is called karoh . When men put it on they are covered from head to foot, and their ranks look like walls. The wool is so thick that no weapon can pierce it.’ Similarly, Yadgar found that some soldiers in North India, presumably migrants from Central Asia, were ‘clothed in chain armour, which was concealed by white clothing.’

Most Indian kings and chieftains, as well as their senior officers, unlike the common soldiers, dressed in their best for battle, and wore their finest jewellery, presumably to impress and inspire their soldiers, and to awe the enemy. Thus when King Jayapala of Punjab was captured by Mahmud Ghazni in a battle, he, according to Al-Utbi, was found to be wearing several opulent jewels, such as a necklace ‘composed of large pearls and shining gems and rubies set in gold.’ Similarly, Ibrahim Lodi was heavily bejewelled when he fought against Babur in the battle of Panipat.

As in dress and ornaments, so also there were wide variations in the weapons carried by Indian soldiers, for these were not supplied by the state, but procured by each soldier, according to what he preferred or could afford. According to Chach-nama , an eighth century Arabic chronicle, the common weapons of the Indian soldiers in early medieval India were ‘swords, shields, javelins, spears, and daggers.’ Other sources indicate that they also carried lances, maces and lassos. Battuta found that in North India mounted soldiers usually carried two swords: one, called the stirrup-sword, was attached to the saddle, while the other was kept in his quiver. In South India, according to Nikitin, foot-soldiers carried ‘a shield in one hand and a sword in the other.’ And Nuniz reports that the soldiers of Vijayanagar ‘were all well armed, each after his own fashion, the archers and musketeers with their quilted tunics, and shield-men with swords and poignards in their girdles. Their shields are so large that there is no need for armour to protect the body, which is completely covered. Their horses were in full clothing. The men wore doublets, and had weapons in their hands. And on their heads were headpieces after the manner of their doublets, quilted with cotton.’ Says Razzak about Kerala soldiers: ‘In one hand they bear a … dagger … and in the other a shield made of cowhide.’

Mangonels and other naphtha and missile-throwing devices were in general use in the army of the Delhi Sultanate right from the beginning, and it was common for Indian armies to hurl incendiary arrows and javelins, as well as pots filled with combustible materials, into enemy forts and against enemy soldiers. But it was only in the mid-fourteenth century that gunpowder, invented in China in the ninth century, was introduced into India, presumably by Mongols or Turks. This was then used in various explosive devices by the army. But it took another century before Indian armies began to use firearms regularly in battle. And it was still later that cannons came to be used in India — the first recorded instance of the use of cannons in India was by Babur in the battle of Panipat in 1526. But thereafter the use of cannons became fairly widespread in field battles in India, and they played a decisive role in the battle of Talikota in 1565.

Indian kings generally preferred to recruit foreign soldiers to serve as musketeers and to man their artillery, because of their greater experience and superior skills in the use of these weapons. The artillery of the Deccan sultans in the battle of Talikota was, for instance, commanded by a Turk. There were also a number of Portuguese gunners in the armies of South Indian kingdoms.

THE PACE OF advance of an Indian army into battle was slow, because of the slow pace of its infantry, which was normally its largest division. ‘In ordinary cases eight kos (about 26 kilometres) would be one day’s march,’ states Siraj. But in an emergency the army could cover double that distance or even more. Timur in his autobiography states that he once covered twenty kos in one day, though usually he covered only six kos in a day. Laden with plunder his army marched even more slowly, covering only four or five kos a day on the average.

The armies on the march were often ruthlessly predatory. They advanced trampling down everything on their way, and devastating the country — pillaging, slaughtering people, and spreading terror — even in their own kingdom. According to Amir Khusrav, wherever the army marched, every inhabited spot was desolated. And since the army was constantly on the march, the devastation it caused was also ceaseless. The only way people could save themselves was by fleeing from the path of the army. And this they invariably did.

If this was the manner in which the army advanced into battle, its retreat from the battlefield was often even more chaotic, especially after a defeat or some other calamity. Thus when the Delhi Sultanate army retreated from Sind following the death of Muhammad Tughluq, ‘every division of the army marched without leader, rule, or route, in the greatest disorder,’ states Barani. ‘No one heeded or listened to … anyone.’

In sharp contrast to the chaos in the army on the march, military camps were usually well laid out and well organised in medieval India. Though there is hardly any information on the military camps of the Delhi Sultans, there is a fair amount of information on the practices in peninsular India, in Hindu as well as Muslim camps. Presumably the camp scene in North India was not much different from this. In all cases particular care was taken to protect the army camp against surprise attacks. According to Ferishta, the Bahmani sultan while on a campaign ‘surrounded his camp with carriages after the usage of Turkey, to prevent the enemy’s foot from making night-attacks.’

The most detailed account we have of a medieval military camp is about the camp of the Vijayanagar army. ‘The camp was divided into regular streets,’ reports Nuniz. ‘Each captain’s division had its own market,’ which was well-stocked with all kinds of provisions and other supplies, as in a city market; and there were there a number of craftsmen of all sorts, even jewellers. Such was the appearance of the Vijayanagar army camp that in it one ‘would think that he was in a prosperous city,’ and it was hard to believe that a war was going on.