Mauryan siege engine

[Ultimate Aurelian]

4 hours ago, Genava55 said:

In regards to the relationship between ancient Indians and Greeks, probably an oxybeles and a lithobolos:

Technical Devices in Ancient Alexandria and their Equivalents in the Indian Cultural Area

http://www.academia.edu/download/60749900/Technical_Devices_in_Ancient_Alexandria_and_their_Equivalents_in_the_Indian_Cultural_Area.pdf

There is already a maceman. I was thinking about an engine, maybe with a torsion.

But probably that a battering ram is much easier to include.

The ''mace chariot'' seems like a wheeled ram.

Although it may also be fictional since it says it had no driver.

I read that the Chinese used unmanned crossbow chariots once but i could not find a reliable source.

Edit:I think it's made up, i looked for and could only find a clickbaity article.

http://eskify.com/10-unbelievable-ancient-weapons/

It cites a ''rebellion against Yang Shuan in 180 a.d'' but i can't find any other source on this event.

Edited August 7, 2020 by Ultimate Aurelian

[Genava55]

6 hours ago, Ultimate Aurelian said:

It cites a ''rebellion against Yang Shuan in 180 a.d'' but i can't find any other source on this event.

Me neither. Moreover there are numerous rebellion at that time so if the spelling or the translation of the name is wrong then it would be difficult to find the good one.

Anyway, I think we can give to the Mauryas a bow powered ballista throwing arrows, the oxybeles.

For the throwing stone catapult, either a lithobolos using a Greek design (double torsion), or a bigger bow powered ballista.

A battering ram like other civs.

Those three siege engines can be easily implemented with little or no disagreement. Faster and simpler way to give siege weapons to the Mauryas.

Other devices like an incendiary weapon could be more contentious.

[wowgetoffyourcellphone]

1 hour ago, Genava55 said:

Other devices like an incendiary weapon could be more contentious.

We could allow an Upgrade for the catapult that turns it into one that throws flaming projectiles. It has a longer repeat time and load time, but the flaming projectile has a fire status effect.

[Genava55]

By the way I still remember this reference:

Arrian, Anabasis Alexandri: Book VIII (Indica), XVI. The Indians wear linen garments, as Nearchus says, the linen coming from the trees of which I have already made mention. This linen is either brighter than the whiteness of other linen, or the people's own blackness makes it appear unusually bright. They have a linen tunic to the middle of the calf, and for outer garments, one thrown round about their shoulders, and one wound round their heads. They wear ivory ear-rings, that is, the rich Indians; the common people do not use them. Nearchus writes that they dye their beards various colours; some therefore have these as white-looking as possible, others dark, others crimson, others purple, others grass-green. The more dignified Indians use sunshades against the summer heat. They have slippers of white skin, and these too made neatly; and the soles of their sandals are of different colours, and also high, so that the wearers seem taller. Indian war equipment differs; the infantry have a bow, of the height of the owner; this they poise on the ground, and set their left foot against it, and shoot thus; drawing the bowstring a very long way back; for their arrows are little short of three cubits, and nothing can stand against an arrow shot by an Indian archer, neither shield nor breastplate nor any strong armour. In their left hands they carry small shields of untanned hide, narrower than their bearers, but not much shorter. Some have javelins in place of bows. All carry a broad scimitar, its length not under three cubits (approx. 138cm); and this, when they have a hand-to-hand fight -- and Indians do not readily fight so among themselves -- they bring down with both hands in smiting, so that the stroke may be an effective one. Their horsemen have two javelins, like lances, and a small shield smaller than the infantry's. The horses have no saddles, nor do they use Greek bits nor any like the Celtic bits, but round the end of the horses' mouths they have an untanned stitched rein fitted; in this they have fitted, on the inner side, bronze or iron spikes, but rather blunted; the rich people have ivory spikes; within the mouth of the horses is a bit, like a spit, to either end of which the reins are attached. Then when they tighten the reins this bit masters the horse, and the spikes, being attached thereto, @#$% the horse and compel it to obey the rein.

[Ultimate Aurelian]

3 hours ago, Genava55 said:

All carry a broad scimitar, its length not under three cubits (approx. 138cm); and this, when they have a hand-to-hand fight -- and Indians do not readily fight so among themselves -- they bring down with both hands in smiting, so that the stroke may be an effective one.

Indeed it would be good to have two handed swordsman for India (Specially since Briton Longswordsman will be removed); should it replace the current champion maceman/swordsman?

Thread with general Mauryan sword references:

Some references of later two handed Indian swords:

Perhaps a bigger variant of the current Mauryan sword with a falx-like grip?

 

 

Edited August 8, 2020 by Ultimate Aurelian

[lilstewie]

Only two handed sword I've seen from ancient India is this. I have seen in relief images that look like two handed hilts though.

You have to be careful referencing later Indian blades for this era. I made that mistake back then.

This is a outlier of sort though. Most Indians swords had tight hilts made to use with one hand only. That doctrine was the same from the Maurya or pre Maurya era till the medieval era regardless of the shape of the blade. Outliers do exist of course.

Edited August 8, 2020 by lilstewie

[lilstewie]

 

This female guard looks like she's holding a two handed hilt too.

Edited August 8, 2020 by lilstewie

[vijayvithal]

While I do not under seigecraft, I understand some of the words in a different context. Maybe it will help in throwing light to the actual design and use of the weapon.
Words in sanskrit do not have a fixed meaning, they are attributes, So a single object can have multiple names for each of its attribute, and a single name can be used for multiple objects, Some context is necessary to understand which object is being spoken about.

sthirayantrám  Is stationary Machine,It need not be immovable, it might only need to be stationary during operation,

Sarvatobhadra: Sarvato=Everywhere, Bhadra has multiple meaning, it could be bull elephant, Iron, fir tree, auspicious.  I think it means covered by iron on all side.
jamadagnya: Son Of Jamadagni(All consuming fire), i.e. Parshuram (Parshu=Axe)
bahumukha: Many-Face
visvásagháti: Betrayer, Vishwas=Confidence, Ghataka=Deadly(Attack)
yánaka: Vehicle
parjanyaka: Leader of the citizens
Ardha: Half.
Urdhava: Erect/Vertical

The second set of weapons are those that are carried by soldiers,
Pánchálika: Another name for draupadi (ref: Mahabharatha). Daughter of Panchal( Panchal is The name of an ancient king and also the name of his kingdom.)  Also mean's 5. Also a class of poisonous insects... Since Chanakya spoke of poison(Vishakanya) this could mean, A poisoned weapon.
Devadanda: God's Stick
musala: Mace (Crusher?)
Yashti: Stick/staff/pole
hastiváraka: Elephant Restrainer
tálavrinta:??
mudgara: Hammer
Gadha: Mace
spriktala:??
kuddála: Digger( Spade?)
Chakra is a throwing disk with serrated edges.
Trishula is trident
sataghni: 100 Fire, Cannon/Artillery
Audhaghatima: ??

[Nescio]

11 hours ago, vijayvithal said:

While I do not under seigecraft, I understand some of the words in a different context. Maybe it will help in throwing light to the actual design and use of the weapon.
Words in sanskrit do not have a fixed meaning, they are attributes, So a single object can have multiple names for each of its attribute, and a single name can be used for multiple objects, Some context is necessary to understand which object is being spoken about.

You can find the relevant Sanskrit at https://sarit.indology.info/kautalyarthasastra.xml?root=1.5.6.5.44&odd=sarit.odd&view=div

For translation and interpretation, see Patrick Olivelle King, Governance, and Law in Ancient India : Kauṭilya's Arthaśāstra : A New Annotated Translation (Oxford 2013) 142–143, 549–550.

11 hours ago, vijayvithal said:

Since Chanakya spoke of poison

Kautilya, not Chanakya. I've tried to summarize the main points at https://wildfiregames.com/forum/index.php?/topic/27113-bibliography-and-references-about-ancient-times-book-reviews/&tab=comments#comment-402302