Weaknesses of Indian Armies: Organization & Plunder

The Composition of Indian Armies: A Source of Weakness

The armies of ancient and medieval India were rarely homogenous entities. They were typically built around a core of standing armies (often consisting of infantry, cavalry, and elephants) maintained by the ruler. However, these were frequently supplemented by forces provided by:

• Local Levies: Peasants and local landowners were often required to contribute soldiers, particularly during times of war. These levies were often poorly equipped and lacked professional training.
• Samanta Contributions: Under the feudal system, *samantas* (feudal lords) were obligated to provide troops to their overlord. The quality and reliability of these troops varied greatly depending on the *samanta’s* loyalty and resources.
• Mercenaries: Foreign mercenaries, such as those from Central Asia (Turks, Persians) and even further afield, were frequently employed. While often skilled warriors, their loyalty was often questionable, and they were primarily motivated by financial gain.

This diverse composition created several problems. Coordination between different types of troops was difficult, and a lack of unified command often hampered military operations. The reliance on levies and *samanta* contributions meant that the army’s strength fluctuated depending on the political climate and the willingness of these groups to cooperate.

Discipline and Plunder: The Consequences of a Dispersed Army

The excerpt rightly points to the issue of plunder and harassment of the civilian population. The dispersed nature of the army, coupled with a lack of strict discipline, often led to widespread looting, particularly during campaigns. This was not merely a byproduct of war; it was often a deliberate policy, as exemplified by Prithviraja Chauhan’s boast about laying waste to enemy territory. This practice had several negative consequences:

• Economic Disruption: Looting and destruction of crops disrupted agricultural production and trade, leading to famine and economic hardship.
• Alienation of the Population: The indiscriminate plunder alienated the local population, making it difficult to secure their support and potentially fueling resistance.
• Erosion of Authority: The inability to control the army’s behavior undermined the ruler’s authority and prestige.

Regional Variations and Examples

The extent of these weaknesses varied across different regions and periods. For example:

• The Mauryan Empire (322-185 BCE): While the Mauryan army was relatively well-organized and centrally controlled, it still relied on a large number of conscripted soldiers. Kautilya’s *Arthashastra* details elaborate provisions for maintaining discipline and ensuring the loyalty of the army, suggesting that these were ongoing concerns.
• The Gupta Empire (320-550 CE): The Gupta army saw a greater reliance on cavalry and a decline in centralized control. The *samanta* system became more prominent, leading to increased regional autonomy and a weakening of central authority.
• The Delhi Sultanate (1206-1526 CE): The Delhi Sultanate relied heavily on Turkish and Afghan mercenaries. While these mercenaries were often skilled warriors, their loyalty was often questionable, and they frequently engaged in plunder and rebellion. Alauddin Khalji attempted to address this by introducing a system of direct recruitment and payment of soldiers, but this was not always successful.
• The Mughal Empire (1526-1857 CE): The Mughals initially relied on a centralized army based on the *mansabdari* system. However, over time, the *mansabdars* gained increasing autonomy, and the quality of the army declined.

Comparison with Contemporary Armies

Compared to contemporary armies in other parts of the world, such as the Roman legions or the Mongol hordes, Indian armies often lacked the same level of discipline, standardization, and logistical support. The Roman army, for example, was a highly professional force with a standardized training regimen and a well-developed supply system. The Mongol army, while also relying on levies, was united by a strong centralized command and a ruthless discipline.