How to feed an Indian army?

fernando · 3rd November 2018, 08:15 PM

Perhaps our present concept of an army is different than it was by then. We imagine a column marching constantly, only stopping for resting. Maybe those armies were more a huge crowd, not in a continuous marching but, a mass of people that stayed in a spot for a long while, enough to plant and crop their own supplies, restore their ammunitins and, coming next season, move again; no rush to meet with the enemy, as a modern army does.
I don't know how serious is the mentioning of armies of a million people; you are in a better position to judge on that, by what you read about it. By the XV-XVI centuries things were already more restrict, so to say.
In the writings of Alvaro Velho, who was with Vasco da Gama on his first voyage to India (Calecut-1497) he described the various local armies as comprehending respectively:
Cael in Calegrande. Its King could gather 4000 footmen and 100 elephants.
Chomandarla in Coromandel. ( of Christians) 100 000 footmen.
Ceylon. 4000 men and many war elephants, and also those for sale.
Camatara in Sumatra. 4000 footmen, 1000 on horse and 300 war elephants.
Xarnauz in Sião. 20 000 footmen, 4 000 on horse and 400 war elephants
Tenacar in Tenasserim ( of Christians with a Christian King), with a good wind, 40 days away from Calecute. 10 000 footmen and 500 war elephants.
Bengala. 20 000 footmen and 10 000 on horse.
Melaca. 20 000 men, scilicet: 10 00 on horse and the others on foot, and 400 war elephants.
So comparing to those early armies, these forces could be fed by the snack bar around the corner, so to say ... and probably they didn't use to march for such immense distances.

Jens Nordlunde · 3rd November 2018, 10:25 PM

You are right Fernando, It was not a marching 'stream' of soldiers. A king asked his supporters to send armies, and so they would arrive in 'drops' so to say - if they arrived at all.
About an army of one million, I would say that maybe it was a 'wee bit' over estimated. Anyway they could muster a lot of soldiers when needed - not all well trained - but still armed. If they themselves had the arms, or if they were armed from the royal armoury is not quite certain, but at least some must have been armed from the armoury.
This would, of course, mean that a lot of the 'soldiers' had no battle training what soever - thay were armed, but that was it.

Now here it is interesting to notice, that some left the fight and went home during the battle, while others went over to the 'enemy' during the fight - for several reasons

Now if you read the article Saadat Khan Bahadur the First Nawab of Oudh in A Passion for Indian Arms, you will see, that he had an army so big that the Mughul ruler was afraid of him, and only the Nizam of Deccan could match him.
But at that time, the armies seem to have been a lot smaller than under the very early rulers of south India - maybe a tenth.
However, when you read that someone who had won a battle had thousands slaughtered and their heads put into stables - then I think one gets an idea of what religious wars wer in India at the time.

ariel · 4th November 2018, 02:11 PM

I often catch myself underestimating the magnitude of wars on the Indian subcontinent. It takes me some time to recall the size of their armies and the sheer number of conflicts here and there. And then I get goosebumps....

Perhaps only WWII and Taiping Civil War can hold the candle, but in India major wars were virtually an unceasing process over centuries.

And Jens' question is a great one: armies march on their stomachs. They must have had huge intendant services that had to be strong fighting units at the same time. Cutting off their supply lines would have stopped the invasion dead in its tracks. Russians did it to Napoleon and Ataturk to the Greeks.

Jens Nordlunde · 4th November 2018, 03:38 PM

I am reading Jonathan Scott's book.

Ferishta's History of Dekkan from The First Mahummedan Conquests, with A Continuation from other Native Writers, of The Events in That Part of India, to the Reduction of the last Monarchs by the Emperor Aulumgeer Aurungzebe, also The Regins of his Successors in the Empire of Hindoostan to the Present Day, and The History of Bengal from the Accession of Aliverdee Khan to The Year 1780.
The book covers about 450 years, and there are wars all over the place. Not only between two rulers, but most of the other rulers are also fighting.
The armise are from about 15,000 to 80,000 horse and foot soldiers sometimes more, plus merchants, wifes, children, water bearers, cooks and, and, and.
These wars have been going on before the book was written, and after it was finished.
One of the Sultans in Deccan once got offended at something a Hindu ruler said or did, and said he would kill 100,000 Hindus, and so he did.
What did they do with thousands of dead people Muslims and Hindus? To burry them would have been impossible, to leave them to rot would hardly have been an option, so they would have had to burn them, but from where did they get all the wood it would have taken?

fernando · 4th November 2018, 06:36 PM

I would guess that wood was not such a problem, in a Sub-Continent full of forests. More impressive is the number of people involved in these confrontations, even taking into account that some figures would be inflated by authors and that, battle casualties were not necessarily all soldiers, but civilians by colateral causes; you can read in chronicles that, when a leader won a battle after having been previously defeated, ordered his men to massacre all local civilians as a revenge bonus ... and also as a side effect during the loot.
I have read once (pity i don't recall where), that it took days (days) to cross the area where the laying dead stood, after a determined battle.
But despite these figures and scenes are astonishing, one ougth to believe in them. I have a book open in front of me where the author mentions that, comparing to the 'little' battles the Portuguese fought in India, in the wars for Delhi fought by local rulers, for one, casualties could be counted by the hundred thousand, even millions !!!. Each of the five times that Delhi was condemned to death, more human beings were slaugthered than those of Portugal period population.

Jens Nordlunde · 4th November 2018, 09:28 PM

Fernando, you would be right about the wood, as they had a lot of it in India - but newly felled wood would be no good in this case - as it would not be dry wood, and that is what you would need for burning so many people.
Hindus were known for burning their dead people, but what about the Muslims?
I agree with you that a lot of the slain people were not soldiers. If you believe only part of the numbers mentioned over three or four centiries, beling killed in wars the number it very big - and I think it may have ben even bigger as we dont know about all the wars going on, bigger and smaller - what we hear about is when the big rulers go to war.

fernando · 5th November 2018, 01:59 PM

I don't know Jens but, burning the dead after a battle is not properly a religious ritual, but a need to avoid epidemic situations. If rulers had some common sense, they would (both faiths) think of a practical solution. Maybe burying the dead was not an option to exclude; having so many men at disposal, there would be enough to be selected undertakers. Who knows whether there are period written descriptions on this subject ...

3rd November 2018, 08:15 PM	#1
fernando Lead Moderator European Armoury Join Date: Dec 2004 Location: Portugal Posts: 9,666	Perhaps our present concept of an army is different than it was by then. We imagine a column marching constantly, only stopping for resting. Maybe those armies were more a huge crowd, not in a continuous marching but, a mass of people that stayed in a spot for a long while, enough to plant and crop their own supplies, restore their ammunitins and, coming next season, move again; no rush to meet with the enemy, as a modern army does. I don't know how serious is the mentioning of armies of a million people; you are in a better position to judge on that, by what you read about it. By the XV-XVI centuries things were already more restrict, so to say. In the writings of Alvaro Velho, who was with Vasco da Gama on his first voyage to India (Calecut-1497) he described the various local armies as comprehending respectively: Cael in Calegrande. Its King could gather 4000 footmen and 100 elephants. Chomandarla in Coromandel. ( of Christians) 100 000 footmen. Ceylon. 4000 men and many war elephants, and also those for sale. Camatara in Sumatra. 4000 footmen, 1000 on horse and 300 war elephants. Xarnauz in Sião. 20 000 footmen, 4 000 on horse and 400 war elephants Tenacar in Tenasserim ( of Christians with a Christian King), with a good wind, 40 days away from Calecute. 10 000 footmen and 500 war elephants. Bengala. 20 000 footmen and 10 000 on horse. Melaca. 20 000 men, scilicet: 10 00 on horse and the others on foot, and 400 war elephants. So comparing to those early armies, these forces could be fed by the snack bar around the corner, so to say ... and probably they didn't use to march for such immense distances.

3rd November 2018, 10:25 PM	#2
Jens Nordlunde Member Join Date: Dec 2004 Location: Europe Posts: 2,713	You are right Fernando, It was not a marching 'stream' of soldiers. A king asked his supporters to send armies, and so they would arrive in 'drops' so to say - if they arrived at all. About an army of one million, I would say that maybe it was a 'wee bit' over estimated. Anyway they could muster a lot of soldiers when needed - not all well trained - but still armed. If they themselves had the arms, or if they were armed from the royal armoury is not quite certain, but at least some must have been armed from the armoury. This would, of course, mean that a lot of the 'soldiers' had no battle training what soever - thay were armed, but that was it. Now here it is interesting to notice, that some left the fight and went home during the battle, while others went over to the 'enemy' during the fight - for several reasons Now if you read the article Saadat Khan Bahadur the First Nawab of Oudh in A Passion for Indian Arms, you will see, that he had an army so big that the Mughul ruler was afraid of him, and only the Nizam of Deccan could match him. But at that time, the armies seem to have been a lot smaller than under the very early rulers of south India - maybe a tenth. However, when you read that someone who had won a battle had thousands slaughtered and their heads put into stables - then I think one gets an idea of what religious wars wer in India at the time.

4th November 2018, 02:11 PM	#3
ariel Member Join Date: Dec 2004 Location: Ann Arbor, MI Posts: 5,503	I often catch myself underestimating the magnitude of wars on the Indian subcontinent. It takes me some time to recall the size of their armies and the sheer number of conflicts here and there. And then I get goosebumps.... Perhaps only WWII and Taiping Civil War can hold the candle, but in India major wars were virtually an unceasing process over centuries. And Jens' question is a great one: armies march on their stomachs. They must have had huge intendant services that had to be strong fighting units at the same time. Cutting off their supply lines would have stopped the invasion dead in its tracks. Russians did it to Napoleon and Ataturk to the Greeks.

4th November 2018, 03:38 PM	#4
Jens Nordlunde Member Join Date: Dec 2004 Location: Europe Posts: 2,713	I am reading Jonathan Scott's book. Ferishta's History of Dekkan from The First Mahummedan Conquests, with A Continuation from other Native Writers, of The Events in That Part of India, to the Reduction of the last Monarchs by the Emperor Aulumgeer Aurungzebe, also The Regins of his Successors in the Empire of Hindoostan to the Present Day, and The History of Bengal from the Accession of Aliverdee Khan to The Year 1780. The book covers about 450 years, and there are wars all over the place. Not only between two rulers, but most of the other rulers are also fighting. The armise are from about 15,000 to 80,000 horse and foot soldiers sometimes more, plus merchants, wifes, children, water bearers, cooks and, and, and. These wars have been going on before the book was written, and after it was finished. One of the Sultans in Deccan once got offended at something a Hindu ruler said or did, and said he would kill 100,000 Hindus, and so he did. What did they do with thousands of dead people Muslims and Hindus? To burry them would have been impossible, to leave them to rot would hardly have been an option, so they would have had to burn them, but from where did they get all the wood it would have taken?

4th November 2018, 06:36 PM	#5
fernando Lead Moderator European Armoury Join Date: Dec 2004 Location: Portugal Posts: 9,666	I would guess that wood was not such a problem, in a Sub-Continent full of forests. More impressive is the number of people involved in these confrontations, even taking into account that some figures would be inflated by authors and that, battle casualties were not necessarily all soldiers, but civilians by colateral causes; you can read in chronicles that, when a leader won a battle after having been previously defeated, ordered his men to massacre all local civilians as a revenge bonus ... and also as a side effect during the loot. I have read once (pity i don't recall where), that it took days (days) to cross the area where the laying dead stood, after a determined battle. But despite these figures and scenes are astonishing, one ougth to believe in them. I have a book open in front of me where the author mentions that, comparing to the 'little' battles the Portuguese fought in India, in the wars for Delhi fought by local rulers, for one, casualties could be counted by the hundred thousand, even millions !!!. Each of the five times that Delhi was condemned to death, more human beings were slaugthered than those of Portugal period population.

4th November 2018, 09:28 PM	#6
Jens Nordlunde Member Join Date: Dec 2004 Location: Europe Posts: 2,713	Fernando, you would be right about the wood, as they had a lot of it in India - but newly felled wood would be no good in this case - as it would not be dry wood, and that is what you would need for burning so many people. Hindus were known for burning their dead people, but what about the Muslims? I agree with you that a lot of the slain people were not soldiers. If you believe only part of the numbers mentioned over three or four centiries, beling killed in wars the number it very big - and I think it may have ben even bigger as we dont know about all the wars going on, bigger and smaller - what we hear about is when the big rulers go to war.

5th November 2018, 01:59 PM	#7
fernando Lead Moderator European Armoury Join Date: Dec 2004 Location: Portugal Posts: 9,666	I don't know Jens but, burning the dead after a battle is not properly a religious ritual, but a need to avoid epidemic situations. If rulers had some common sense, they would (both faiths) think of a practical solution. Maybe burying the dead was not an option to exclude; having so many men at disposal, there would be enough to be selected undertakers. Who knows whether there are period written descriptions on this subject ...