[quote name='Hauma Hamiddha' date='Nov 14 2003, 06:45 AM'] The Vaimanika shatra seems to be recent concotion that was created in the early 1900s by a certain Subbaraya. There is not much support for this being an ancient text based on its language too. [/quote]
IIRC, The Ramayana has references to the Vimana. Here is a link from the IIT madras folks.. Albeit a lot of spelling mistakes and typos exist, it is the first link I could find. (I have a personal copy of the Valmiki Ramayana, and can vouch that the Shlokas are correct.) The reference is to Sundara Kandam Sarga 8 where Hanumaan enters Ravana's hangar to see the Pushpaka Vimana parked. There is no documentation of it in the Mahabaratha though.
Quote: Sundara Kanda: Sarga 8: Shloka 4-8. The great vanara saw the pushpaka vimanam, which was obtained with great deal of research; it could travel at great speed (mano vegam);Â It had a number of chambers, and views on all sides, It was capable of being guided by thought (automatic control?), It was unstoppable, and was well-decorated.
Quote: IIRC, The Ramayana has references to the Vimana. Here is a link from the IIT madras folks.. Albeit a lot of spelling mistakes and typos exist, it is the first link I could find. (I have a personal copy of the Valmiki Ramayana, and can vouch that the Shlokas are correct.) The reference is to Sundara Kandam Sarga 8 where Hanumaan enters Ravana's hangar to see the Pushpaka Vimana parked. There is no documentation of it in the Mahabaratha though.
I do not deny that the rAmAyaNa and mahAbhArata mention vimAnas and flying rathas. In the mahAbhArata see the section on the attack of the attack of shalva on the yAdavas. The use of a vimana is mentioned there. I can provide the sanskrit verses if I get the time.
What I meant is that the text called the vaimAnika shAstra as available appears to be a possible concoction of subbarAya or his agents.
I do not think the ancient Indians actually made vimAnas, but definitely had sufficient imagination to concieve them. Ancient nyAya-vaisheshika texts mention hot air balloons, this is something the Indians could have potentially made, though the scale is unclear.
The article was published in Times of India. But then standards of the old lady of bori bunder are at times questionable <img src='http://www.india-forum.com/forums/public/style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/tongue.gif' class='bbc_emoticon' alt='' />
[quote name='Hauma Hamiddha' date='Sep 30 2003, 11:13 PM'] A Hindu contribution: the war elephant
It has often been stated that many of the martial failure of Hindus has been due to the use of ponderous and slothful elephants in war. However, the Indians seem to have persisted with elephants until very recently. They first started using elephants right at the dawn of their civilization in the Indus period. What is the truth behind the elephant's utility?
âBhagadatta on his elephant, supratika, showering arrows on his foes, looked like the resplendent Sun scattering his rays on the earth... Like a cowherd driving his cattle in the forest, bhagadatta charged on his elephant repeatedly smiting the pANDva host. Like the cawing of confused crows when assailed by hawks and a loud noise was heard amidst the pANDava troops who fled away in great speed. That prince of elephants urged on by bhagadatta, with his ankusha, looked like a winged mount of yore. It filled the pANDu host with the fear sailing merchants feel at the sight of the swelling ocean. The elephants, chariot warriors, cavalrymen, flying in fear made an awful din that filled heaven, earth and the cardinal points. Mounted on that foremost elephant, rAja bhagadatta of pragjyotisha (Assam), pierced the hostile army like the fierce asura virochana entered the deva battle-array in the days of yore. In fear the people felt that one had multiplied into many and was coursing all over their ranks.--- Mbh. droNa parvA "
Thus did the king bhagadatta, an ally of duryodhana pierce the pANDava host on the 12th day of the great bhArata war, wreaking much havoc, before he was slain by arjuna.
About 1000 years later the descendents of the very protagonists of the great bhArata war were faced by an invasion of the mleccha king Alexander of Macedon. This time a variety of events, in addition to the leadership of Alexander made the mlecchas victorious. We are often told that the elephants proved the down fall of the Hindus in this battle however, closer scrutiny shows that this was not all the truth. From an account of the battle:
'âSome Macedonians were stamped underfoot crushing them to a bloody pulp armopur and all. Others were hoisted with their trunks and dashed to he ground. Others, again found themselves impaled by the great beasts tusks... The Macedonians never again wanted to face the elephants again in battle"
Later, in 312 BC the Indian elephants, obtained as prized gifts from the King of Kashmir, proved to be the cause for Ptolemaios victory against Demterius at Gaza, the son of Antigonos Monophathalmos, in the post Alexandrian, struggle for survival. Again in 301 Seleukos inaugurated the war elephants received as dowry from his brother-in-law Chandragupta Maurya, in his great show down with Antigonos and Demetrius at Ipsus, in Phrygia. In the fierce battle, Demetrius cut through the ranks of Cassander and Lysimachus the allies of Seleukos in a victorious cavalry charge. However, Seleukos wedged his Indian elephant division between Demetrius and his fatherâââ‰â¢s main division. It is said that nothing could stop the charge of the elephant division smashing everything in their path and slaying Antigonos. Selukosâââ‰â¢s successor Antiochus again used his elephants with devastating success against the Ptolemids in Raphia.
Thus, it appears that the elephant was not a liability, but a much sought after war technology, which the Greeks rather rapidly acquired from the Indians. This contention is supported by the prominent display of war elephants on the coins of Seleucid rulers like Antiochus III. Many Seleucid rulers also prominently displayed their elephant head gears. Furthermore, Ptolemids were also in search of elephants for themselves: They tried to capture and train the smaller African forest elephants from what is now Somalia. But it is said that the Seleucid Indian elephants frightened them even before battle was joined at Raphia.
So, the Hindu military theory about the elephant as a good war weapon, at least under certain circumstances, was probably not as ludicrous as it has been made to appear. This could explain the persistence of elephant over millennia in Indian war fare. Yet again, Timur-i-lang captured several elephants after his sack of Delhi and transported them off to Samarkand. He used these elephants with devastating success against the Mamluq army at Aleppo by smashing their cavalry with an elephant charge before descending upon them with his own cavalry. Subsequently the descendent of Timurs, the Mogols of India, extensively used elephants in their wars on various Indian rulers. Of course there were occasions when the elephants failed. A famous example was that of the Mongol attack on Narasimhapati's elephant army in Myanmar. Here, the Mongols showered arrows on the un-armored elephants and sent them crashing through the forests along with their riders.
Thus one may say that the elephant was definitely a useful weapon of war, and modern western commentators have grossly misunderstood its value. So rather than being viewed as a major cause of Hindu defeats, it should be viewed as a major innovation of the Hindus in the field of war.A Hindu contribution: the war elephant [/quote]
It is always possible that War Elephants of the yore were breeded for specific purposes. Note that Elephant is a very intelligent animal and has probably more memory than a human. So an elephant bred for war purposes can be quite threatening to an enemy. It will become an active participant in the war alongside with the human "master"!
The only downside with an Elephant based cavalry is the amount of food and water required for its maintenance. Assuming an elephant requires 200 Kg of food and 40 litres of water a day, an armour of 100 elephants will require @20000 kg of food and 4000 litres of water a day!!!! [And not to mention emission problems]Now imagine the enemy cuts out the support lines and an enormous cavalry is stranded. The only way it can be effective is to live off the land and that is not easy in a war fighting mode.
[quote name='Hauma Hamiddha' date='Nov 20 2003, 05:38 AM'] In the mahAbhArata see the section on the attack of the attack of shalva on the yAdavas. The use of a vimana is mentioned there. I can provide the sanskrit verses if I get the time.
What I meant is that the text called the vaimAnika shAstra as available appears to be a possible concoction of subbarAya or his agents. [/quote]
Hauma, I would be glad to read from the Mahabharatha of Vimanas. I do not have a copy in samskrit. Even a URL with the appropriate Parva/verse would be good.
[quote name='dhaval.shah' date='Nov 21 2003, 10:33 PM'] It is always possible that War Elephants of the yore were breeded for specific purposes. Note that Elephant is a very intelligent animal and has probably more memory than a human. So an elephant bred for war purposes can be quite threatening to an enemy. It will become an active participant in the war alongside with the human "master"!
The only downside with an Elephant based cavalry is the amount of food and water required for its maintenance. Assuming an elephant requires 200 Kg of food and 40 litres of water a day, an armour of 100 elephants will require @20000 kg of food and 4000 litres of water a day!!!! [And not to mention emission problems]Now imagine the enemy cuts out the support lines and an enormous cavalry is stranded. The only way it can be effective is to live off the land and that is not easy in a war fighting mode. [/quote]
Dhaval, regarding marching an army of elephants, Chanakya's Arthashastra would be a great source. My primary source (so far) of ancient *Indian* warfare involving elephants has been the Arthashastra..
Arthashastra also talks about rations for elephants and how to train War elephants..
here is an excerpt on marching an army.
My teacher says that one should almost invariably march against an enemy in troubles.
But Kautilya says: that when one's resources are sufficient one should march, since the troubles of an enemy cannot be properly recognised; or whenever one finds it possible to reduce or destroy an enemy by marching against him, then one may undertake a march.
When the weather is free from heat, one should march with an army mostly composed of elephants. Elephants with profuse sweat in hot weather are attacked by leprosy; and when they have no water for bathing and drinking, they lose their quickness and become obstinate. Hence, against a country containing plenty of water and during the rainy season, one should march with an army mostly composed of elephants. Against a country of the reverse description, i.e., which as little rain and muddy water, one should march with an army mostly composed of asses, camels, and horses.
Against a desert, one should march during the rainy season with all the four constituents of the army (elephants, horses, chariots, and men). One should prepare a programme of short and long distances to be marched in accordance with the nature of the ground to be traversed, viz., even ground, uneven ground, valleys and plains.
When the work to be accomplished is small, march against all kinds of enemies should be of short duration; and when it is great, it should also be of long duration; during the rains, encampment should be made abroad.
[Thus ends Chapter I, âThe Knowledge of Power, Place, Time, Strength and Weakness, the Time of Invasion,â in Book IX, âThe Work of an Invader,â of the Arthasástra of Kautilya. End of the hundred and twenty-second chapter from the beginning.]
Quote: Assuming an elephant requires 200 Kg of food and 40 litres of water a day, an armour of 100 elephants will require @20000 kg of food and 4000 litres of water a day!!!!
Hannibal was supposed to have led any army up the Alps which had plenty of elephants. Wonder how he did it? <img src='http://www.india-forum.com/forums/public/style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/blink.gif' class='bbc_emoticon' alt=':blink:' />
[quote name='Viren' date='Nov 22 2003, 11:39 PM']Hannibal was supposed to have led any army up the Alps which had plenty of elephants. Wonder how he did it?[/quote]
You may find answers here: [url="http://www.barca.fsnet.co.uk/elephants.htm"]http://www.barca.fsnet.co.uk/elephants.htm[/url]
In fact, Hannibal lost most of his elephants in his crossing of the Alps, and the survivors (and resupplied elephants) proved to be of lim ited military value once the Romans learnt how to deal with them..
Other links of interest on War elephants are:
[url="http://www.ucalgary.ca/applied_history/tutor/islam/mongols/elephants.html"]The Islamic World to 1600 : War Elephants[/url]
[url="http://www.ancientworlds.net/aw/Post/166955"]Egyptian War Elephants[/url]
BTW, The use of war elephants by Parvatraj Purushottam (Porus) against Alakshendra (Alexander) is often quoted to make it seem like Indians did not know how to use Elephants effectively.. An exception is made to seen like a rule..
11-23-2003, 10:36 AM (This post was last modified: 11-23-2003, 10:36 AM by Hauma Hamiddha.)
Sunder, see the following for an english translation (by KM Ganguli) of the Mahabharata for the vimana of shalva. It is called the sauba. I will give you the sanskrit verses later.
All the talk about Brahmastra etc etc seem very far fetched...
However i would like to know if gunpowder and related chemical weapons were used in India or were independently discovered by the Indians. Can somebody timeline this thesis.
The vedas seem to be hyperbole many times, they have a penchant for exagerration and mythification. Can someone objectively verify any of these claims
<!--QuoteBegin-Shankar+Dec 5 2003, 03:29 AM-->QUOTE(Shankar @ Dec 5 2003, 03:29 AM)<!--QuoteEBegin--> The vedas seem to be hyperbole many times, they have a penchant for exagerration and mythification. <!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Can you objectively back this claim you have made? I have suspicion based on this statement that you have a very insufficient understanding of the vedic lanugage and material in their original form.
<b>The use of the Noose in the Hindu warfare</b>
The ancient hindus like Altaic tribes of central Asia used the noose or the pAsha with great proficiency. I shall provide below a brief description of the use of the noose as provided by the agni-dhanurveda
-The noose should be 10 cubits in length and round and held by the hand.
-It is made from karpasa (cotton), mu~nja (a grass fiber), hemp, sunflower fibers or hide.
-30 units of fiber are twined together to make the noose rope.
-It is gathered with the left hand and with the right hand. After having made a lasso it should be whirled around the head and thrown quickly.
-It is useful to bring down people with good armour and well-armed. It is typically deployed by a horse borne or chariot borne attacker on other cavalry warrior.
-Once the foe is brought down, he may clubbed to death with a rod.
-The acharya must teach the user the noose by placing targets on horseback.
Amongst the devas the noose was the weapon of varuNa and yama. Though by the paurANic period it was most commonly used by most deities.
2. Egoistic and aversion to foreign weapons, tactics and technology.
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).
4. Command structure was unknown even to soldiers (when a king or general died the whole army fled).
5. Too much reliance on astrology and Brahmins (auspicious timing was generally inauspicious for india).
6. Caste System often resulted in defeat of armies where only Brahmins and Rajputs fought while farmers and others just watched the wars.
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->You seem to be going from website to website posting your usual tirade against Hindu soldiery and weapons<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
What do you mean by that? Which websites? I run www.sikh-history.com and only visit www.bharat-rakshak.com and www.india-forum.com and people know me since 1995. What I have said above is not wrong., infact it is precisely the reason that India became the slave country of Turks, Afghanis, Mughals and British.
Why should I praise weapons/tactics/guidelines that I think are not praiseworthy. can you give me some reasons? and by reminding this Truth (from Ramayana) I am doing my Dharma (Dharma comes from the same revered Mahabharata from where you are picking up Brahmastra and other figments of imaginations and is much more powerful then Brahmastra).
Truth, Contentment, Patience, Compassion, Righteousness are much more applicable and better Astra out of Mahabharata (Gita) and Ramayana then mythical weapons and tactics.
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->Do you think only Brahmins & rajputs were manning these armies?
<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Since the times of Manu only Brahmins and Rajputs have manned the India Armies and thus decline of India.
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->None were ever conquered by the islamic armies, unlike your punjab.
<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Punjab and Punjabi culture and religion were transformed only after Guru Nanak and then when Guru Gobind Singh militarize them. Earlier no one from India helped Punjab and/or Punjabis. In fact all Indian kings faced the foreigners at Panipat/Karnal/ in other words closer to Delhi. Punjab had no defenses. and then starting from 1760s Punjab was defended by the Sikh misls where 13 Sikh misls ruled the area between Indus and Jamuna and thus Abdali attacked India 7 times but could not control it., his son was defeated by Maharaja Ranjit Singh in 1799.
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->The Vijayanagara empire of south india defeated the islamic hordes for hundreds of years.
<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Only well established powers in Delhi dared to attack South India. Most only attacked north, plundered the temples of Mathura, Dwarka, Delhi, Varanasi and went back. Mughals under Aurungzeb seriously tried to win South and thus established the Nizam of Hyderabad.
01-07-2004, 01:51 AM (This post was last modified: 01-07-2004, 01:53 AM by Sunder.)
<!--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).
sbajwa,
Manu is a smriti and India as a whole never followed Manu smriti. It is a tool used by converters to show Hindu religion in a bad light.
I am Hindu never learnt anything about Manu Smriti till, people who want to justify their conversion or show Hindu religion in bad light.
' />