<!--QuoteBegin-rajesh_g+Jan 5 2009, 03:38 AM-->QUOTE(rajesh_g @ Jan 5 2009, 03:38 AM)<!--QuoteEBegin-->Bodhiji
Sometime ago when I read Dharampal's books he mentioned something interesting regarding the military strategies.
<!--QuoteBegin--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->Dharampal offers an interesting perspective on why India languished militarily. He indicates that Indian society contributed very little revenue to the military and mostly had local systems. I cant remember where I read it but just as a note to myself. I think he mentioned that most areas had about 5% allocation for the rajyas. Aurangzeb increased revenues to about 20% of agri produce. Marathas and Vijayanagara kingdoms also tried to raise the share of revenues but in the end were not very successful. Brits had about 40-50% taxation.<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
[right][snapback]92680[/snapback][/right]
<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Rajesh Ji,
kauTalya has laid down elaborately how kings should collect the revenue, and if I remember right, then about the spending on the forces too. But let us understand that the Hindu nation was not overly-federalist as we see it in imperial colonist countries. True, a chakravartin had to prove himself the lord over other rulers, but there existed pretty much an accepted mode of shared governance, reducing the need for huge standing armies and expenditure.
In artha-shAstra, kauTalya also tells about setting up self-sustained macro-economies of each village-town. Each village has its own independant economic system without having any dependence from center, including the police and "armed men".
Also, the traditional military composition was based on a standing army and a reserve army. Many of the militarymen were not paid full time soldiers as it is these days. They were of course trained soldiers, but who were granted by the King, lands and other economic means to support themselves during the time of peace, and called to the fight when the time of war came. This arrangement meant less burden on central exchequer too. (The model probably would have became unsustainable of course, in later periods when their scale was unable to meet the demand from the invasions.)
Likewise, remember that the infantry weapons factories were also allowed to sell weaponry to public, besides supplying to the king's army. So you have mentions of several arrow-makers and sword makers doing this as a business -- and in this model too, king need to spend less (or collect revenue for) maintaining a dedicated source of infantry-scale weapons, besides maybe foundaries for artillery.
Also the "private property" and right to protect it by individuals, meant less burden on the king's revenue. We hear of wealthy merchants and guilds of shreShThI-s having their own personal armies to protect their own ports, storehouses, even townships and in-transit sArtha-s. King could always call their forces in too, and they could come to the king for protection as well. But again, not over-reliance on the King's army. (If I remember I read it in one of the works of R C Majumdar, will confirm when I get the time).
(My understanding and I may be all wrong.)
Sometime ago when I read Dharampal's books he mentioned something interesting regarding the military strategies.
<!--QuoteBegin--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->Dharampal offers an interesting perspective on why India languished militarily. He indicates that Indian society contributed very little revenue to the military and mostly had local systems. I cant remember where I read it but just as a note to myself. I think he mentioned that most areas had about 5% allocation for the rajyas. Aurangzeb increased revenues to about 20% of agri produce. Marathas and Vijayanagara kingdoms also tried to raise the share of revenues but in the end were not very successful. Brits had about 40-50% taxation.<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
[right][snapback]92680[/snapback][/right]
<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Rajesh Ji,
kauTalya has laid down elaborately how kings should collect the revenue, and if I remember right, then about the spending on the forces too. But let us understand that the Hindu nation was not overly-federalist as we see it in imperial colonist countries. True, a chakravartin had to prove himself the lord over other rulers, but there existed pretty much an accepted mode of shared governance, reducing the need for huge standing armies and expenditure.
In artha-shAstra, kauTalya also tells about setting up self-sustained macro-economies of each village-town. Each village has its own independant economic system without having any dependence from center, including the police and "armed men".
Also, the traditional military composition was based on a standing army and a reserve army. Many of the militarymen were not paid full time soldiers as it is these days. They were of course trained soldiers, but who were granted by the King, lands and other economic means to support themselves during the time of peace, and called to the fight when the time of war came. This arrangement meant less burden on central exchequer too. (The model probably would have became unsustainable of course, in later periods when their scale was unable to meet the demand from the invasions.)
Likewise, remember that the infantry weapons factories were also allowed to sell weaponry to public, besides supplying to the king's army. So you have mentions of several arrow-makers and sword makers doing this as a business -- and in this model too, king need to spend less (or collect revenue for) maintaining a dedicated source of infantry-scale weapons, besides maybe foundaries for artillery.
Also the "private property" and right to protect it by individuals, meant less burden on the king's revenue. We hear of wealthy merchants and guilds of shreShThI-s having their own personal armies to protect their own ports, storehouses, even townships and in-transit sArtha-s. King could always call their forces in too, and they could come to the king for protection as well. But again, not over-reliance on the King's army. (If I remember I read it in one of the works of R C Majumdar, will confirm when I get the time).
(My understanding and I may be all wrong.)