<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->Regarding Indian warfare in History.
1. Always defensive.<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Bajwa, this shows not the weakness but the strength of the Ancient kingdoms. Co-existance was considered more important than expanding borders. There was no Offense physically, culturally or by any other means from the Indian side owing to the principle of co-existance. Thus defensive is not all that bad. It's a weak argument to say that national defense should become national offense.
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin--> 2. Egoistic and aversion to foreign weapons, tactics and technology. <!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Perhaps. Perhaps not. I would not call it more of an aversion than pride in indegenous research. You may have heard of coutnries importing and now exporting nuclear technology. India is not averse to weaponry, but definitely has always taken pride in producing it's own historically. (Arrow, Su-30 etc that's imported of late are a different subject. There is no aversion to foreign technology there. No ?)
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->3. Stupid rites and rituals. (war only from dusk to dawn) that brought downfall when Ghauri, Ghaznavi attacked late nights., also food restrictions (ghauri and ghaznavi simply corrupted the closeby water stream with beef causing hungry soldiers to fight for 1/2 days).<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Firstly, I presume you mean dawn to dusk. Yes, and I agree that the failure was owing to ignorance of the Art of War. Arthashastra, (which pre-dates islam by a 1200 years), talks about KootaYuddha (covert warfare), mercenaries, use of assasins, and also arson as a weapon. The downfall from islamic invasion was owing to lack of unity and of understanding the principles of warfare. Not because of lack of definition of it.
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->4. Command structure was unknown even to soldiers (when a king or general died the whole army fled).<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Again, owing to ignorance of the principles. Please read the Arthashastra before throwing around words. Command and control structures not only of a single army, but of coalition forces is also mentioned in the arthashastra. (Please note that the arthashastra was NOT the only source of the "science of warfare", there was dhanur-veda, and also commentaries by Bharadwaj, Visalaksha etc.
http://www.swaveda.com/Governance/Arthas...ok%209.htm
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin--> 5. Too much reliance on astrology and Brahmins (auspicious timing was generally inauspicious for india).<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
That was only to inspire the ground forces as per Arthashastra. Indeed there is a quote from Chanakya, "Like the pole-star in the north, Money alone guides the fate to make more money. Of what use are the stars in the sky?"
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->6. Caste System often resulted in defeat of armies where only Brahmins and Rajputs fought while farmers and others just watched the wars.<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Mahabaratha had witnessed a "Son of a Charioteer" as the commander-in-chief. (Karna may have been a kshatriya, but dhuryodhana did not know it at the time of appointment.) Rama's army was headed by Sugreeva - who was not part of any varna.
Most importantly in recorded history, <b>Chanakya's army was headed by Chandragupta MORIYA.</b>
Here is a quote for you from Arthashastra on the composition of armies:
<i>
Brihaspathi says that of the armies composed of Brahmans, Kshatriyas, Vaisyas, or Súdras, that which is mentioned first is, on account of bravery, better to be enlisted than the one subsequently mentioned in the order of enumeration.
No, says Kautilya, the enemy may win over to himself the army of Brahmans by means of prostration. Hence, the army of Kshatriyas trained in the art of wielding weapons is better; or the army of Vaisyas or Súdras having great numerical strength (is better).
Hence one should recruit oneâs army, reflecting that "such is the army of my enemy; and this is my army to oppose it." </i> (ref: http://www.swaveda.com/Governance/Arthas...ok%209.htm )
I would love to see some educated comments from you on this.
1. Always defensive.<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Bajwa, this shows not the weakness but the strength of the Ancient kingdoms. Co-existance was considered more important than expanding borders. There was no Offense physically, culturally or by any other means from the Indian side owing to the principle of co-existance. Thus defensive is not all that bad. It's a weak argument to say that national defense should become national offense.
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin--> 2. Egoistic and aversion to foreign weapons, tactics and technology. <!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Perhaps. Perhaps not. I would not call it more of an aversion than pride in indegenous research. You may have heard of coutnries importing and now exporting nuclear technology. India is not averse to weaponry, but definitely has always taken pride in producing it's own historically. (Arrow, Su-30 etc that's imported of late are a different subject. There is no aversion to foreign technology there. No ?)
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->3. Stupid rites and rituals. (war only from dusk to dawn) that brought downfall when Ghauri, Ghaznavi attacked late nights., also food restrictions (ghauri and ghaznavi simply corrupted the closeby water stream with beef causing hungry soldiers to fight for 1/2 days).<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Firstly, I presume you mean dawn to dusk. Yes, and I agree that the failure was owing to ignorance of the Art of War. Arthashastra, (which pre-dates islam by a 1200 years), talks about KootaYuddha (covert warfare), mercenaries, use of assasins, and also arson as a weapon. The downfall from islamic invasion was owing to lack of unity and of understanding the principles of warfare. Not because of lack of definition of it.
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->4. Command structure was unknown even to soldiers (when a king or general died the whole army fled).<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Again, owing to ignorance of the principles. Please read the Arthashastra before throwing around words. Command and control structures not only of a single army, but of coalition forces is also mentioned in the arthashastra. (Please note that the arthashastra was NOT the only source of the "science of warfare", there was dhanur-veda, and also commentaries by Bharadwaj, Visalaksha etc.
http://www.swaveda.com/Governance/Arthas...ok%209.htm
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin--> 5. Too much reliance on astrology and Brahmins (auspicious timing was generally inauspicious for india).<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
That was only to inspire the ground forces as per Arthashastra. Indeed there is a quote from Chanakya, "Like the pole-star in the north, Money alone guides the fate to make more money. Of what use are the stars in the sky?"
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->6. Caste System often resulted in defeat of armies where only Brahmins and Rajputs fought while farmers and others just watched the wars.<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Mahabaratha had witnessed a "Son of a Charioteer" as the commander-in-chief. (Karna may have been a kshatriya, but dhuryodhana did not know it at the time of appointment.) Rama's army was headed by Sugreeva - who was not part of any varna.
Most importantly in recorded history, <b>Chanakya's army was headed by Chandragupta MORIYA.</b>
Here is a quote for you from Arthashastra on the composition of armies:
<i>
Brihaspathi says that of the armies composed of Brahmans, Kshatriyas, Vaisyas, or Súdras, that which is mentioned first is, on account of bravery, better to be enlisted than the one subsequently mentioned in the order of enumeration.
No, says Kautilya, the enemy may win over to himself the army of Brahmans by means of prostration. Hence, the army of Kshatriyas trained in the art of wielding weapons is better; or the army of Vaisyas or Súdras having great numerical strength (is better).
Hence one should recruit oneâs army, reflecting that "such is the army of my enemy; and this is my army to oppose it." </i> (ref: http://www.swaveda.com/Governance/Arthas...ok%209.htm )
I would love to see some educated comments from you on this.