Why Chariots disappeared from Ancient Indian Armies?

When Alexander fought with Porus, the Greek historians tell us that in Porus's army, there were great number of chariots. Now if we move a millennium later and talk about the Arab invasion of Sindh, we find that the Arab sources does not talk about the fact that in Indian armies which they encountered, they had chariots. So why does we find that in the period of 7th century AD, there were no chariots in Indian armies. So in this video, we will talk about this question. Now before we talk about this question, it is important to understand that this was not the situation which we see in the early case. In the Vedic sources, it is the chariot which is the most dominant arm of the Vedic armies. And when we move to the period of the epics, particularly in Mahabharata, we see that most of the heroes of Mahabharata were on chariots and they fought on chariots. Although in Mahabharata army, there were elephants, but most of the heroes as we have already discussed did not use elephants, they used chariots. Now what we see is that by the time of 500 BC, this situation was not the same. And particularly when we look at the Buddhist literature, we find that in this period, chariots did not have the position which they earlier used to enjoy. And now the main arm of the Indian armies was the war elephant. In the Buddhist literature that was composed between 5th century BC to 1st century AD, we find that chariots were not the most prominent arm of the army. Now another important point or an example to see how the chariot's role in Indian armies have declined can be seen from the description of Porus's army and also Porus when he arrived to fight Alexander. So the Greek sources tell us that Now compare this to Mahabharata, where we have already discussed that elephants were present in the army, but most of the heroes fought on chariots. Now here in Porus's army, chariots were also present, but Porus chose elephant. So here we can get a sense of how the decline and the Now from these examples, it is entirely clear that the prominent role which the chariots enjoyed in the Vedic and the epic period was not there in this period. But we should not think that chariots were completely discarded. We can see that Porus in his battle against Alexander had used chariots. And we also see that in the Sangam literature, when they talk about the invasion of the Mauryas, they describe chariots. So from this, it is entirely clear that chariots were still used, but they were not the main arm of the Indian armies. So the question comes is why this decline of chariots happened? The answer to this question can be seen in a passage from Mahabharata. In Mahabharata, Bhishma tells us that an army which has a large infantry force is regarded very strong. An army in which cars and horsemen predominate is regarded very effective in a clear day. An army again in which foot soldiers and elephants predominate becomes effective in the rainy season. So here when Bhishma talks about the use of chariot, he uses that or the translator uses the term cars, we see that it is clearly mentioned that chariots should be used in a clear day for them to be effective. Now here lies the most important part of why chariots were not used from the time of let's say 500 BC. So the main reason was the fact that chariots during a rainy season when there is no solid ground on which to travel, we find that chariots were not able to operate effectively and that is what we see when Porus fought with Alexander. His chariots could Another reason why chariots declined was because chariots needed a plain surface for them to operate. They could not operate in a mountain or hilly track. So these two reasons in my view are the most important reason why chariots declined. Now there are some scholars who argue that one of the main reasons why chariots declined was because chariots were expensive to operate. So they argue that the fact that chariots needed two horses and there was also the need to maintain a cart made the chariots quite expensive and that is why the later powers did not use chariots in warfare. Now in my view, this explanation is not that great because what we see is that in the Vedic period, for example, we find that chariots were maintained. So this reason that they were expensive to operate does not make any sense because if in the Vedic period one could afford chariots, why could they not afford chariots in the later period. So this straight argument makes this theory not valid. But in my view, one reason which could have played an important role in the decline of chariots was the influx of foreigners in the Indian subcontinent after the decline of the Mauryan empire. So we all know that in the post-Mauryan period, there is a series of foreign invasions. So first we find that the Indo-Greeks invaded and after them we have Scythians, Indo-Parthians and finally the Kushanas. So all of these powers were dominated by the cavalry. So the fact that these powers were able to successfully defeat Indian powers and they were able to establish their rule in the Indian subcontinent would have made Indian powers realize the effectiveness of cavalry. Cavalry was much more agile and mobile compared to chariots. So in that sense, we see that the place of chariots was taken by the cavalry. What we also see is that one of the most effective arms of these foreign armies, particularly let's say the Scythians, Indo-Parthians and Kushanas were their mounted archers and the mounted archers operated in a similar way as the chariot warriors operated. So in the case of chariot, chariots provided a mobile archery platform and what we see is that the mounted archers also had the same role. So in that sense, we can say that chariots were replaced by the cavalry and that is why perhaps we see that in the case of the Guptas, we do not have any reference that suggests that the Guptas also employed chariots because as we learn from Raghuvamsha, the Guptas effectively utilized the cavalry. So the fact that they knew the importance of cavalry makes sense and that is why they did not have any urge to also use chariots. So this is why we see that there is no mention of the Guptas using chariots and perhaps that is why we also see that the Indian armies that fought the Arabs also did not employ any chariots because they knew that the chariots would not be effectively used against the cavalry. Although what we see is that in the battlefield, chariots were not being used but they still had a ceremonial role to play and that is why we see that there are references in which we find that chariots were used in a ceremonial role. Another interesting fact is that we find that even in the medieval text, chariots are mentioned and this is quite strange but when you analyze these literature, what we see is that these chariots were used as a troop. So whenever there is a battle, we find that the Chaturangani Sena is mentioned or the fourfold army. So what is a fourfold army? Fourfold army included elephant corps, chariot corps, infantry and cavalry. So the fact that there is this mention of Chaturangani Sena, that is why we find that chariots are also mentioned in the medieval literature, particularly the Sanskrit literature. But in the battle, we have already seen that the use of chariots had already declined in the ancient period. Now if you want to know more about the military tradition in ancient India, please watch this playlist. Thank you for watching.