Evaluation of Indian War Tchnniques

Department of Defence & Strategic Studies

FYBA

Topic I       Evaluation of War Techniques

War in Ancient India.

Assistant Prof Yosuda

            The foregoing survey may convince an impartial student of history that the ancient Hindus had evolved precepts on fair fighting which formed a chivalrous code of military honor.

On the whole, however, it would seem that wars in ancient India were characterized by less violence and savagery than wars elsewhere. There is no recorded instance of such wanton and cold-blooded atrocity as Athens perpetrated against Melos, Corcyra and Mytilene, or the wearers of the Cross against the defenders of the Crescent in 1099 A.D. Such incidents of war as the indiscriminate slaughter of all men of military age or the enslavement of women and children of the conquered state were hardly known. On the whole, the chiefs were considerate of each other's rights. 

This was also the Kautilyan ideal of dharmavijayan, and the typical Hindu method of creating unity out of diversity in the political sphere. It was a well-established maxim of statecraft that a victor should acquiesce in the continuance of the laws, beliefs and customs of the vanquished peoples, and that instead of seeking to extermination of the defeated dynasties, he should be content with submission and tribute. It is also the reason why some of the princely families in India can boast of an ancestry unequalled by any royal house in Europe. 

It is of paramount importance to remember that in India the social, economic and religious life of the people pursued their course irrespective of the activities of the state. As early as as the 4th century B.C. Megasthenesnoticed a peculiar trait of Indian warfare.

"Whereas among other nations it is usual in the contests of war to ravage the soil, and thus to reduce it to an uncultivated waste, among the Indians, on the contrary, by whom husbandmen, the tillers of the soil, even if battle is raging in the neighborhood, are undisturbed by any sense of danger, for the combatants on either side, in waging the conflict, make carnage of each other but allow those engaged in husbandry to remain quite unmolested. Besides they never ravage an enemy's land with fire nor cut down its trees."

Through the Middle Ages

           The towering figure in early military science was Alexander the Great, who destroyed the Persian Empire built by Cyrus the Great. He recognized the importance of maintaining reserves, pursuing the enemy, building up supplies (stockpiling), and making use of elaborate scouting (intelligence). In the 4th cent. B.C. Vegetius wrote a summary of military matters which is an important source of information on the Roman military. In the Punic Wars (between Rome and Carthage), Hannibal emerged as the outstanding field commander. His famous victory at Cannae (216 B.C.) over the Roman armies is still studied as an example of battlefield tactics. The study of military theory captured the imagination of several Byzantine emperors, who hoped to restore the glory of the Roman Empire. They studied the operations of the Roman legions and reduced the studies to what may be called the foundations of military science. Strategicon (c.578), compiled by Emperor Maurice, and Tactics (c.900), issued by Emperor Leo VI (Leo the Wise), are exhaustive treatises on the subject.

           In Western Europe during the Middle Ages military science did not advance as quickly as its practice did, although siegecraft (see siege) was much studied. Although early military theorists thought the Crusaders completely ignorant of military principles, recent studies have shown that medieval warfare was not devoid of strategy and tactics. John Zizka, the leader of the Czech Hussites, in the early 15th cent. was particularly innovative. He adopted the wagon-fort as a unit of tactics, made artillery a maneuverable arm, and was the first commander to employ cavalry, infantry, and artillery in efficient tactical combination. He also espoused the principle that mobility is a better protection than armor.

Professor H. H. Wilson says:

"The Hindu laws of war are very chivalrous and humane, and prohibit the slaying of the unarmed, of women, of the old, and of the conquered."

At the very time when a battle was going on, be says, the neighboring cultivators might be seen quietly pursuing their work, - " perhaps ploughing, gathering for crops, pruning the trees, or reaping the harvest." Chinese pilgrim to Nalanda University, Hiuen Tsiang affirms that although there were enough of rivalries and wars in the 7th century A.D. the country at large was little injured by them. 

Colonel James Tod, author of Annals and Antiquities of Rajasthan: or the Central and Western Rajput States of India (April 1998) wrote:

"To spare a prostrate foe is the creed of the Hindu cavalier, and he carried all such maxims to excess."

What were the causes which led to the downfall of the Hindus? Why did the Indian states fall prey to the Muhammadan Turks in the 11th and 12th century?

King Asokawanted to convert his empire into an open-air Buddhist monastery, at the expense of Hindu taxpayers whose interests in turn were marginalized. Buddhist principles derided martial prowess and criminally neglected the intrepidity and valor which fought for national independence. The excessive propaganda for unrestricted ahimsa which King Asokacarried on by his use of political authority throughout his empire, cut at the very root of the Indian empire. 

For a few generations following Ashoka's demise, 'non-violent' Buddhists ate into the vitals of India's external defense, leaving the country vulnerable to a second wave of Greek attacks.  

According to Priyadarshi Dutta:

"The Greeks, who had concluded a treaty with Chandra-gupta Maurya, moved in to Ayodha before the Kalinga King Kharvela repulsed them. Later Pushyamita Sunga assassinated the last Maurya King and salvaged India. Buddhism vanished from India as a result of Muslim onslaught because none of them had the liver of the likes of say, Guru Govind Singh. While Hindus and Sikhs resisted Muslim onslaught, Buddhist submitted en mass to Islam."

The Hindu defenders of the country although fully equal to their assailants in courage and contempt of death were nevertheless, divided among themselves. This division and disunion also enabled the crafty Turk invaders from the north to exploit the differences within the country. Hindus were more civilized and prosperous than the Turks. Moreover, the Turks had rude rigor of a semi-civilized barbarians who combined the fierce religious zeal of neo-converts. To spread their faith by conquest doubled their natural zest for battle and endowed them with the devoted valor of martyrs. In addition, the concept of ahimsa tended to create in certain sections of Hindus a deep abhorrence to all forms of violence. 

            The Bhagavad Gita's great message: that violence is sometimes necessary, if it flows from Dharma. Non-violence in thought, word and deed is the ideal of the yogi, as the Gita points out. Violence is never an ideal in a civilized society, but it cannot be avoided. Rulers of society have to employ it for their preservation. Even this terrible action can be performed as selfless service when lawless societies (eg. Muhammadan Turks or Europeans who came to India as invaders) prey upon others out of greed.

Literary Evidence

           Sanskrit literature is full of references to river transport and sea voyages. Sometimes we have graphic descriptions of fleets, even of ship-wrecks. The Rig-Veda is taken as the earliest extant work of the Aryans, though there is no general agreement as to its exact age. At one place, Rishi Kutsa Angirasa prays to Agni:

“Remove our foes as if by ship to the yonder shore. Carry us as if in a ship across the sea for our welfare.”

           In Ramayana: In Valmiki’s Ramayana, we come across beautiful descriptions of large boats plying on the Ganga near Sringiberapura. King Guha of that place arranges a magnificent boat for Rama accompanied by Lakshman and Sita, in exile, to enable the party to cross the river.When Bharat comes later to the same place, with the whole royal household, citizens of Ayodhya and a large army, with the intention of bringing Rama back to Ayodhya from exile, the same King Guha, suspecting Bharata’s intentions, take precautionary measures by ordering five hundred ships, each manned by one hundred youthful mariners to keep in readiness, should resistance be necessary. The descriptions of the ships is noteworthy:

“Some (of the ships) reared aloft the swastika sign, had tremendous gongs hung, flew gay flags, displayed full sails and were exceedingly well built”

The ships chosen for Bharata and the royal ladies of the royal household had special fittings and furniture as well as yellow rugs. 

Strategic and Tactical Principles of Warfare

           

            Military commanders and theorists throughout history have formulated what they considered to be the most important strategic and tactical principles of war. Napoleon I, for example, had 115 such principles. The Confederate general Nathan Bedford Forrest had but one: "Get there first with the most men." Some of the most commonly cited principles are the objective, the offensive, surprise, security, unity of command, economy of force, mass, and maneuver. Most are interdependent.
            Military forces, whether large-scale or small-scale, must have a clear objective that is followed despite possible distractions. Only offensive operations--seizing and exploiting the initiative--however, will allow the choice of objectives; the offense also greatly increases the possibility of surprise (stealth and deception) and security (protection against being surprised or losing the possibility of surprising the enemy). Unity of command, or cooperation, is essential to the pursuit of objectives, the ability to use all forces effectively (economy of force), and the concentration of superior force at a critical point (mass). Maneuver consists of the various ways in which troops can be deployed and moved to obtain offensive, mass, and surprise. A famous example that illustrates most of these principles occurred during World War II when the Allied forces eventually agreed on the objective of defeating Germany first with a direct offensive against the European continent. Under a combined command headed by Gen. Dwight D. Eisenhower, they effectively massed their forces in England, deceived Germany regarding the point of invasion, collected intelligence on the disposition of German forces, and set the vast maneuver called Operation Overlord into motion.
            Unthinking rigid attention to a principle of war, however, can be unfortunate. In the face of two Japanese naval forces, Adm. William Halsey's decision at Leyte Gulf not to divide the fleet (the principle of mass) led to the pitting of the entire enormous American naval force against a decoy Japanese fleet. Division of the fleet (maneuver) would still have left Halsey superior to both Japanese forces.

Strategic and Tactical Maneuvers

             Classification of actual military types of maneuvers and their variations have long been a part of military science. New technology and weapons have not drastically altered some of the classical types of offensive maneuver: penetration, envelopment, defensive-offensive maneuvers, and turning movements. 

The penetration--one of the oldest maneuvers--is a main attack that attempts to pierce the enemy line while secondary attacks up and down the enemy line prevent the freeing of the enemy reserves. A favorite maneuver of the duke of Marlborough (early 18th century), it was also used by Gen. Bernard Montgomery at El Alamein (1942).
            The envelopment is a maneuver in which a secondary attack attempts to hold the enemy's center while one (single envelopment) or both flanks (double envelopment) of the enemy are attacked or overlapped in a push to the enemy's rear in order to threaten the enemy's communications and line of retreat. This forces the enemy to fight in several directions and possibly be destroyed in position. New variations include vertical envelopments (Airborne Troops or airmobile troops) and amphibious envelopments. Noted single envelopments were accomplished by Alexander the Great at Arbela (or Gaugamela, 331 BC), Robert E. Lee at Chancellorsville (1863), and Erwin Romme at Gazala (1942; leading to the capture of Tobruk); famous double envelopments include those of Hannibal at the Battle of Cannae (216 BC), the American Revolutionary War Battle of Cowpens (1781), and the destruction of the 7th German Army at the Falaise Gap (1944). 

Defensive-offensive maneuvers include attack from a strong defensive position after the attacking enemy has been sapped in strength, as in two battles of the Hundred Years' War, Crecy (1346) and Agincourt (1415), or feigned withdrawals that attempt to lure the enemy out of position as performed by William the Conqueror at the Battle of Hastings (1066) and by Napoleon at the Battle of Austerlitz (1805).
            Turning maneuvers are indirect approaches that attempt to swing wide around an enemy's flank to so threaten an enemy's supply and communication lines that the enemy is forced to abandon a strong position or be cut off and encircled. Napoleon was a master of the turning movement, using it many times between 1796 and 1812. Robert E. Lee used the maneuver at the Second Battle of Bull Run (1862); the German drive to the French coast in 1940 was another example.

The Historical and Theoretical Development of Strategy and Tactics

            The historical roots of strategy and tactics date back to the origins of human warfare and the development of large-scale government and empire. The dense tactical infantry formation of overlapping shields called the phalanx, for example, existed in an early form in ancient Sumar (c.3000 BC). The development of strategy and tactics parallels to some extent the growth, spread, and clash of civilizations; technological discoveries and refinements; and the evolution of modern state power, ideology, and nationalism.

Early Strategy and Tactics

            The Mediterranean basin saw the dawn of modern military strategy and tactics. It was under such leaders as Philip II (382-336 BC) and Alexander the Great (356-323 BC) of Macedonia and Hannibal (247-183 BC) of Carthage that the first great strides were made in military science. Philip combined infantry, cavalry, and primitive artillery into a trained, organized, and maneuverable fighting force backed up by engineers and a rudimentary signaling system. His son Alexander became an accomplished strategist and tactician with his concern for planning, keeping open lines of communication and supply, security, relentless pursuit of foes, and the use of surprise. Hannibal was a supreme tactician whose crushing victories taught the Romans that the flexible attack tactics of their legions needed to be supplemented by unity of command and an improved cavalry. The Romans eventually replaced their citizen-soldiers with a paid professional army whose training, equipment, skill at fortification, road building, and siege warfare became legendary. The Byzantine emperors studied Roman strategy and tactics and wrote some of the first essays on the subject. 

The Middle Ages saw a decline in the study and application of strategy--with the exception of the great Mongol conqueror Genghis Khan. Medieval tactics began with an emphasis on defensive fortifications, siegecraft, and armored cavalry. The introduction, however, of such new developments as the crossbow, longbow, halberd, pike, and, above all, gunpowder began to revolutionize the conduct of war.

The Emergence of Modern Warfare

            Gustav II Adolf, king of Sweden (r. 1611-32), has been called the father of modern tactics because he reintroduced maneuver into military science. His disciplined national standing army--differing from the common use of mercenaries--was organized into small, mobile units armed with highly superior, maneuverable firepower and supplemented by mounted dragoons (his creation) armed with carbine and saber. Frederick II (the Great) of Prussia (r. 1740-86), the master of initiative and mass, conducted war in an age of limited warfare--armies were small and expensive; road and supply systems were inadequate. In the Seven Years' War (1756-63), Frederick faced a coalition whose various forces almost surrounded Prussia. Using a strategy of interior lines, Frederick--supported by a highly disciplined army and horse artillery (his creation)--would quickly maneuver, assemble a superior force at some decisive point along the line of encirclement, and, with massed howitzer fire, strike hard against an enemy flank before moving to another point. 

With Napoleon I, however, the age of modern warfare was born. The French Revolution had produced a mass patriot army organized into loose divisional formations. Napoleon carefully planned his campaigns and quickly maneuvered his troops by forced marshes to a selected field of battle. His battles began with skirmishing and cannonading, followed by an overwhelming concentration of forces in shock bayonet attacks against enemy flanks in turning and enveloping movements designed to utterly destroy opposing forces. Because of the greater complexities of warfare, a rudimentary general staff began to emerge under Napoleon.

The 19th Century: Theory and Technological Change

            Napoleonic strategy and tactics were closely studied by the first great theorists of war, the Prussian general Carl von Clausewitz (1780-1831) and the French general Antoine Jomini (1779-1869). Clausewitz's On War (1832-34; Eng. trans., 1908) emphasized the close relationship between war and national policy and the importance of the principles of mass, economy of force, and the destruction of enemy forces. Jomini, on the other hand, emphasized occupying enemy territory through carefully planned, rapid and precise geometric maneuvers. Whereas Jomini's theories had influence in France and North America, Clausewitz's teachings in particular were influential on the great Prussian military strategists of the 19th century, Helmuth Karl Bernhard Moltke--architect of victory in the Franco-Prussian War (1870)--and Alfred von Schlieffen--creator of the Schlieffen plan (defense against Russia and envelopment of France), which Germany applied in a modified form at the beginning of World War I.

            The 19th century was an era of far-reaching technological change that vastly altered the scope of tactics and strategy, an alteration seen in what has been called the first total war, the U.S. Civil War. Railroads and steamships increased the volume, reach, and speed of mobilization and of conscription. The consistent support of war industry became critical. The growth in range and accuracy of rifle firepower created new tactical problems: artillery had to be placed further behind the lines, massed charges became ineffective if not disastrous, cavalry became limited to reconnaissance and skirmish, and troops began to fight from trenches and use grenades and land mines. Telegraph communications linked widening theaters of war and made large-scale strategy and tactics possible. During the U.S. Civil War the large-scale strategy of the North (blockade, division of the Confederacy, destruction of the Confederate armies and supplies) backed by superior industry and manpower were the key factors in its victory. The development of the machine gun late in the 19th century would have its most telling effect in World War I.

World Wars: Trench Tactics to Nuclear Strategy

            World War I began with immense, rapid, national mobilizations and classical offensive maneuvers, but after mutual attempts at envelopment at and after the Battle of the Marne, stationary trench warfare ensued across a wide battlefront. A war of attrition set in that called for total national involvement in the war effort. Two key technological developments in the war were to fashion the strategic and tactical debates of the 1920s and 1930s. The use of airpower was advocated by such theorists as Giulio Douhet (1869-1930), Billy Mitchell, Henry ("Hap") ARNOLD, and Hugh Trenchard (1873-1956). They insisted that air power alone could win wars, not only by striking at enemy forces but by strategic bombing--the massive attack on cities, industries, and lines of communication and supply that characterized part of allied strategy during World War II. The other World War I development was that of motorized armored vehicles such as the tank. The use of the tank as the new cavalry of the modern age was advocated by B. H. Liddell Hart (1895-1970), Charles de Gaulle (1890-1970), and J. F. C. Fuller (1878-1966) in the interwar period. The Germans were the first to effectively use the tactical offensive combination of air and tank power in the field of battle in the blitzkriegs, under such commanders as Heinz Guderian and Erwin Rommel, which conquered much of Europe in World War II. 

Although a wide variety of tactics were used all over the world, the primary tactical advance in World War II may have been that of amphibious warfare. The principal significance of World War II, however, was in the first application of truly global strategies wielded by massive coalitions dedicated once again to the offensive. The development of nuclear weapons, which continued after the war, introduced the new science of nuclear strategy and tactics. The immense destructive nature of these weapons, however, meant that warfare of limited strategic goals, using conventional but constantly refined weapons and conventional (and sometimes unconventional) tactics, would predominate in the years after World War II.

Ronald E. M. Goodman
Copyright - 1993 Grolier Electronic Publishing, Inc.

Bibliography: Beaufre, Andre, An Introduction to Strategy (1965); Brodie, Bernard, Strategy in the Missile Age (1959); Chandler, D. G., The Campaigns of Napoleon (1966); Dupuy, R. E. and T. N., The Encyclopedia of Military History (1977); Earle, Edward M., et al., eds., Makers of Modern Strategy (1973); Ellis, John, The Social History of the Machine Gun (1975); Fuller, J. F. C., A Military History of the Western World, 3 vols. (1954-56); Kahn, Herman, On Thermonuclear War (1969); Kissinger, Henry, Nuclear Weapons and Foreign Policy (1959); Liddell Hart, B. H., Strategy: The Indirect Approach (1954; rev. ed., 1967).

War Definition:

What is a War?

1)      A contest between nations or states, carried on by force, whether for defence, for revenging insults and redressing wrongs, for the extension of commerce, for the acquisition of territory, for obtaining and establishing the superiority and dominion of one over the other, or for any other purpose; armed conflict of sovereign powers; declared and open hostilities.

2)      To contend; to strive violently; to fight.

3)      A striking or dashing together; violent collision; as, a conflict of elements or waves.

Expert’s Thoughts:

I am not only a pacifist but a militant pacifist. I am willing to fight for peace. Nothing will end war unless the people themselves refuse to go to war.
Albert Einstein

I do not believe that civilization will be wiped out in a war fought with the atomic bomb. Perhaps two-thirds of the people of the earth will be killed.
Albert Einstein

You cannot simultaneously prevent and prepare for war.
Albert Einstein

I know not with what weapons World War III will be fought, but World War IV will be fought with sticks and stones.
Albert Einstein

It is my conviction that killing under the cloak of war is nothing but an act of murder.
Albert Einstein

A prisoner of war is a man who tries to kill you and fails, and then asks you not to kill him.
Winston Churchill

When you are winning a war almost everything that happens can be claimed to be right and wise.
Winston Churchill

I am never going to have anything more to do with politics or politicians. When this war is over I shall confine myself entirely to writing and painting.
Winston Churchill

In war as in life, it is often necessary when some cherished scheme has failed, to take up the best alternative open, and if so, it is folly not to work for it with all your might.
Winston Churchill

In war, you can only be killed once, but in politics, many times.
Winston Churchill

What is a Conflict?

Never in the field of human conflict was so much owed by so many to so few.
Winston Churchill

Republicans are for both the man and the dollar, but in case of conflict the man before the dollar.
Abraham Lincoln

I reject any religious doctrine that does not appeal to reason and is in conflict with morality.
Mohandas Gandhi

The hottest place in Hell is reserved for those who remain neutral in times of great moral conflict.
Martin Luther King, Jr.

Man must evolve for all human conflict a method which rejects revenge, aggression and retaliation. The foundation of such a method is love.
Martin Luther King, Jr.

Peace is not absence of conflict, it is the ability to handle conflict by peaceful means.
Ronald Reagan

I am a woman in process. I'm just trying like everybody else. I try to take every conflict, every experience, and learn from it. Life is never dull.
Oprah Winfrey

I exhort you also to take part in the great combat, which is the combat of life, and greater than every other earthly conflict.
Plato

Conflict cannot survive without your participation.
Wayne Dyer

In dwelling, live close to the ground. In thinking, keep to the simple. In conflict, be fair and generous. In governing, don't try to control. In work, do what you enjoy. In family life, be completely present.
Lao Tzu

Wartime Concept by Experts for Strategic Studies View:

A wartime Minister of Information is compelled, in the national interest, to such continuous acts of duplicity that even his natural hair must grow to resemble a wig.
Claud Cockburn

All defense secretaries in wartime have, needless to say, made misjudgments.
Bill Kristol

Every vice was once a virtue, and may become respectable again, just as hatred becomes respectable in wartime.
Will Durant

Getting emotional about things is a peacetime luxury. In wartime, it's much too painful.
Edmund H. North

I have noticed, with much distress, the excessive wartime activity of the investigating bureaus of Congress and the administration, with their impertinent and indecent searching out of the private lives and the past political beliefs of individuals.
Wendell Willkie

In the war, most young men were inducted into the armed forces at the age of 17. A group of students was permitted to attend university before taking part in wartime research projects.
John Pople

In wartime we identify ourselves with the nation, and its interests are the interests of our primal selves.
George H. Mead

In wartime, truth is so precious that she should always be attended by a bodyguard of lies.
Winston Churchill

Nor do we begin to have a clear appreciation of what the increase in consumption of alcoholic beverages in wartime means in increased risk, and in loss of efficiency to the fighting and working forces of the country.
William Lyon Mackenzie King

Statistics have shown that mortality increases perceptibly in the military during wartime.
Alphonse Allais

The Constitution has not greatly bothered any wartime President.
Francis Biddle

The greatly increased consumption of alcoholic beverages is very largely a direct result of the increased purchasing power created by wartime expenditures.
William Lyon Mackenzie King

The last thing I wanted to do was to be a wartime President.
Lyndon B. Johnson

The man who gets drunk in peacetime is a coward. The man who gets drunk in wartime goes on being a coward.
Jose Bergamin

The services in wartime are fit only for desperadoes, but in peace are only fit for fools.
Benjamin Disraeli

Usually the nonsense liberals spout is kind of cute, but in wartime their instinctive idiocy is life-threatening.
Ann Coulter

Wars are not paid for in wartime, the bill comes later.
Benjamin Franklin

Referances:

Evaluation of Indian War Techniques : Prof. A.P. CHaudhary

Internet Sources :