An Assessment 

of Indian Archery

An Unexpected Development 

Drafting a post about Indian archery or the representation and resolution of arrow volleys by Classical Indian infantry formations on a wargames tabletop was neither a major concern nor a serious consideration until the recent completion of a very brief report/memo on a GRAND TRIUMPH! solo scenario which featured 147 points of Seleucids versus 143 points of Indians. This summary description was shared with two forums, the dedicated platform for TRIUMPH! enthusiasts and the website for the larger as well as much longer in existence Society of Ancients. As per usual, a very small percentage of the combined membership (and or guests to these forums) took the time to read or scan the report. An even smaller number of  individuals weighed in, generating an appreciated amount of electronic conversation. Anyway, the first bullet point under the ‘Remarks/Take aways’ section of my admittedly hastily produced memo read as follows: “It was rather odd to field an Indian army and not have to roll any dice to resolve missile fire. (I gather that the effect of Indian archery is abstracted with the numerous Bow Levy units.)” 

For lack of a well-crafted introduction, this sentiment and observation would become the impetus behind this project. With no real planning or meetings wherein format options and content were discussed at length and potential source materials were suggested or even vetted, I launched into an experimental phase using a particular set of rules for ancient wargaming. These figurative laboratory trials being quickly produced as well as recorded, I proceeded to survey a variety of rulebooks in my little library, concentrating on how Indian archers were represented and how effective their bows and arrows might be during a tabletop contest. Initially, I thought that the experiments and my subjective remarks should be presented first. On further review, it seemed to make more sense to position the limited survey before the “lab reports,” as this would provide some context for readers of this post. 

Before I start on the survey, I should like to adapt the opening line in Simon Watson’s educational and excellent “How to Use Elephants in Tactica 2” article, published in the November/December 2020 issue of Slingshot, The Journal of the Society of Ancients. The veteran wargamer and admired advocate of the Tactica II rules explained: 

Now, I don’t proclaim to be an expert on Ancient India nor elephants (very far 

from it in fact) so what I have written here is only an overview of what I have 

gleaned from perusing general history texts (i.e., books), supplemented by some 

internet research. 

To be certain, I am no expert on the subject of Ancient Indian military history. (Indeed, like Simon, I stand very, very far from this admirable academic title.) I have very little knowledge regarding the development and battlefield use of the evidently long bamboo bow and the arrows employed by various infantry formations (chariot and elephant crews, too) for something like 800 to 1,000 years. What follows is the “work” of an admitted and complete but often eager to learn more amateur. The content of the following sections was obtained from a number of rulebooks, a number of Slingshot articles, and comparatively brief periods of time spent searching the Internet for additional information. Given the first bullet point of my recent report, it would be fair to remark that I had a preconceived idea or impression of how Classical Indian archers should or would perform on a tabletop. I confess that I would be challenged to pinpoint when or how this opinion developed. At the risk of teasing the reader, I am curious to see if this opinion or bias changed as a result of this process, and if so, to what degree and examine the reason or reasons behind this new thinking. 

A Brief Survey of other Rules

For the recently completed solo wargame, I drafted a Classical Indian army from MeshWesh (please see https://meshwesh.wgcwar.com/armyList/5fb1b9e0e1af06001770979e/explore), which contained, as required, a rather large number of Bow Levy stands or units. For those readers not familiar with TRIUMPH! rules (Version 1.1, November 2019), permit me to offer the description/definition of Bow Levy found in Appendix D, page 47: “Poor infantry with long-distance missile weapons. Generally unarmored, untrained in volley fire, and provided with smaller supplies of ammunition. Their long-range fire is weak and ineffective . . .” In game terms, this troop type is Open Order and has a cost of 2 points per stand. Conversely, 

the Archer troop type is described as: “Infantry armed with long-distance missile weapons. Usually well-armed, trained in volley fire, and supplied with large numbers of arrows . . .” Like their lower-quality brothers in arms, Archers are also Open Order, but are twice as valuable, having a cost of 4 points per stand. 

The decision to depict Hereditary and Mercenary archers as Bow Levy is an interesting one, if only because every other set of rules in my small collection “argued” for a better classification or, at the very least, granted the Indian archers the ability to engage enemy formations from a distance. In no particular order, here are the findings from my informal survey of some of the rulebooks I have accumulated over the years. 

The Classical Indian [500 BC - 545 AD] army list on page 5 of D.B.M. ARMY LISTS - Book 2: 550 BC to 476 AD, allows a player-general to choose from between 12-30 bases, stands, or elements of Archers. These troops are categorized as ‘Irr Bw (S),’ which translates into: Irregular Bow - Superior. Referencing Version 3.2 [April 2011] of DE BELLIS MULTITUDINIS, a set of rules I have zero experience with on a tabletop, page 7 provides the following description of Superior Bowmen: “Exceptionally effective shooters with unusually powerful bows and high skill and morale, able to outshoot opponents and equally prepared to fight indefinitely hand-to-hand with sword and buckler, spear or two-handed cutting or concussive weapon . . .” It is interesting, but not a complete surprise, to find that two rulebooks or army lists have very different opinions on how a particular troop type in a particular army should be represented on the tabletop. On page 4, the Irregular classification is explained as a: “Somewhat arbitrary distinction, chiefly reflecting the ease with which they can be controlled by their general.” Studying Figures 10 and 10b: Distant Shooting, it was noted that units of Bowmen had a range of 200p (which would mean 4 inches when 15mm or 6mm figures were used, and other measurements when different scales were employed), in addition to an arc of fire that was defined as a rectangular box having a base that was equal to three times the frontage of the firing unit or stand. Firing results were determined by a competitive die roll, which may or may not be modified by certain factors.

The Classical Indian [500 BC - 535 AD] army list provided on page 123 of the colorful and thick L’Art de la Guerre rulebook (2014 Edition), allows a player-general to choose between Indian archers (Bowmen) or Indian archers in a mixed unit (Bowmen and Medium Swordsmen). These missile troops have a range of 4 UD (or units of distance; the dimension of this unit of measure will depend on figure scale being used) and an arc of fire quite similar to the box described and diagrammed in DBM. Similarly, firing is resolved with ‘shooter’ and defender rolling a single d6, each of which may be adjusted by certain factors.  

There are two Indian army lists found on page 17 of Extra IMPETVS 4, each of which permits the player-general to choose from 6 to 12 units of T Archers - Longbow B. Generally speaking, these T Archer units will roll 4 d6 when “letting fly.” The actual number of dice will be modified by range band as well as other conditions or variables. According to the Firing Table on page 33 of the spiral-bound rulebook (2008 Edition), units with Longbow B could “reach out and touch” an enemy formation as far as 30 inches away, depending again on the scale of the models being employed on the tabletop. A review of Section 6.0 informs (as well as reminds or perhaps chastises me) that it has been a while since these rules were utilized; that there is an arc of fire (45 degrees to either side of the center of the shooting unit; that indirect fire is possible, and that opportunity fire is also an option, though under strict circumstances. 

Checking the Indian army list [Antiquity Section, page G] of the Armati 2nd Edition rules, the Core FT (Foot) units of this army were Key with respect to army breakpoint as well as armed with Bows—Javs. Like previous sets of rules, the missile fire phase is resolved by competitive rolls of a d6. The scores of these die rolls could be modified. The firing unit has an arc of fire extending 45 degrees from the left and right front corners of its base or stand. Under these rules, Foot units armed with Bows have a range of 24 inches, which affords them plenty of time to “rain arrows” on enemy infantry, as the majority of heavy infantry types have a movement rate of 6 inches per turn. 

Studying the Pauravan and Mauryan Indians [5th-3rd centuries BC] army list on pages 38-39 of the HAIL CAESAR ARMY LISTS: BIBLICAL & CLASSICAL Supplement, it was noted that may of the available units were armed with or given the option to carry bows. These various units could engage the enemy from long range and short range, rolling between 1 and 3 d6 per try or volley. Reviewing the hardcover rulebook (2011 Edition), it was also noted that firing was resolved after movement but before melee. Reviewing the ‘Ranged Attacks’ section (pages 40-51), the maximum range of bows is 18 inches. The arc of fire appeared to be similar to other rulesets, though no definite angle measurement was provided. As with other rules, there were modifiers to either the number of dice being rolled or the scores needed on those dice. Unlike other sets of rules, HAIL CAESAR requires units that have “been hit” to roll saves. These defensive dice may also be modified depending on the situation and circumstance. 

On page 16 of Simon Miller’s TO THE STRONGEST! rules (Version 1.1), the following description was found:

Bowmen are organized in regular-sized foot units and start a battle with six 

ammunition chits. Bows have a maximum range of two boxes. When they 

successfully activate to shoot, they discard one or two ammunition chits and play 

one or two to-hit cards.

In stark contrast to other sets of rules, TO THE STRONGEST! employs a gridded battlefield and playing cards instead of rulers and dice. Looking over the Free Army Lists (Updated 30/6/2020), the Classical Indian army list [approximately 500 BCE to 185 BC] offers a number of infantry with longbow options to the potential riding-an-elephant player-general. If a prospective Porus opted to maximize his archer complement, then 12 stands or units of bowmen would have a total of 72 arrow ammunition chits. It would be fair but not at all original to remark then, that Classical Indians, at least with these rules, are or have a great potential to be a rather “shooty army.” 

The results of this informal and improvised survey strongly suggest and support the idea that Indian infantry archers should have the capability of engaging enemy formations from a distance. (Ideally, I should like to be able to study another 6, 12, or even 18 rulebooks for ancient wargaming, to see what these texts have to say on the pointed subject. My guess is that they would reinforce the findings presented here.) On further reflection, perhaps my disappointment or comparatively low level of satisfaction with the recently completed solo wargame involving Seleucids and Indians was simply a matter of me not being able to work within the level of abstraction engineered by the rules and their mechanics for resolving combat between opposing formations. It does appear that I have something of a bias for Indian armies that are able to “let fly” with a fair number of arrow volleys. One may well wonder then: How much actual evidence is there of battles between Seleucid and Indian armies? What is the win-loss ratio for these ancient engagements? Within this source material, how much information is there concerning the action and effectiveness of the Indian units armed with longbows? 

Reiterating my admitted and quite large degree of ignorance with respect to the military history of Ancient India, I do not have any answers for these questions. What I do have, however, are the records and remarks for a few controlled experiments conducted with the Tactica II rules.

Preparing the “Lab” and the “Equipment” 

Three “units” of Indian FT (Archers) were prepared for a series of experiments on my tabletop. These mock-ups were based on the Indian army list found on page L9 of the Tactica II rulebook. They were 25mm “models,” with each unit having a strength of 36 figures arranged in 3 ranks of 12. These infantry or missile troops had a FV of 4-6, were rated as Veterans, and carried Various weapons (i.e., javelins and swords) in addition to Bows. The formed line measured approximately 21.5 inches. There were no additional troop types present. There were no Elephants, Chariots, or Skirmishers. Neither was there any leader or divisional officer present. 

Roughly 20 inches away, there were three “units” of Greco-Bactrian pikemen (PH) drawn up in a line of battle. These “model blocks” were drafted from the Successor (Seleucid) army list found on page L11. These 48-figure strong phalanxes, arranged in 4 ranks of 12, had a FV of 5-6, were classed as Veterans, and were armed with pikes, of course. As they had the same frontage as the mock Indian formations, and as this was a simple experiment, each unit was matched up against its counterpart. The Greco-Bactrians were deeper than the Indians, however, having a base or stand depth of 8 centimeters. 

First Trial by Fire

Dispensing with most of the game move sequence phases, I advanced the Greco-Bactrians a full move (8 inches in 25mm scale). As the pikemen were now 12 inches away from the waiting Indians and so, well within the 15 inch range of “all bows and slings,” arrows were pulled from quivers, knocked, and then loosed. (It would be interesting to find out what the actual verbal commands were for the Indian archers, and if these various units employed volley fire, independent fire, or a combination thereof. It would also be interesting to find out what the average rate of fire for a unit of Indian archers was.) Anyway, I started with the unit on the left, rolling 12 d6 for the 12 “figures” in the first rank, looking for 6s. Unfortunately, the dice were not kind. Out of 36 total dice rolled, only 3 came up as 6s or “kills.” One casualty was marked on the right-most phalanx, and two casualties were marked on the left-most block of pikemen. 

A second move of 8 inches brought the bristling phalanxes closer to the apparently ineffective line of archers. The move was coordinated; the pikemen maintaining perfect order and discipline. The range being decreased to just 4 inches, another volley of arrows was loaded and loosed. It could be remarked that this barrage of missiles was better, as 6 “kills” were scored, with 4 of these casualties finding targets in the center Seleucid phalanx. However, with 36 dice rolled, only 1 out of every 6 “arrows” found its figurative mark. If my math is correct, this meant that approximately 16 percent of the arrows landed with any consequence. Even so, this volley was twice as effective as the initial one. 

Because 3 or more losses had been inflicted, the Greco-Bactrians in the center pike block had to take a ‘Missile Storm’ test to see if they would be halted. Normally, Veteran units need to roll a 7 or higher to pass this kind of Control Test. However, since 4 “kills” had been scored, the Control Test was modified. The pikemen needed to roll an 8 or above. As luck would have it, the phalangites rolled a 7 and so, received a ‘Missile Halt’ marker. This third of the Seleucid phalanx would not be able to move at all in the next turn. 

The space between the left and right units of this laboratory battlefield setting was closed as the Greco-Bactrians made contact with the standing Indian archers. (There was no closing fire or “hasty volley” option available to the Indians. Evidently, they just waited for the 5 or 6 rows of leveled pike points to arrive in their unprotected ranks.) The unengaged Indian archers loosed another volley and scored 3 “kills” on the faltering enemy phalanx. Another ‘Missile Storm’ Control Test was required, and the poor pikemen rolled a 6, which meant that another turn would be spent so close and yet so far away from the enemy unit figuratively vomiting arrows into their - disorganized, I imagine - ranks. 

In the two melees, the pikemen had 12 dice plus an additional 3 for being deeper than their enemy, while the Indians had 12 dice. When this initial round concluded, the Indian unit on the left had suffered 7 losses for 3 inflicted, while the contest on the right saw an even exchange of 7 casualties for each unit. (The Indians must have used their two-handed swords with some effect! At the risk of complicating things, it could be found curious that the Indians were able to react or engage the enemy, when the pikemen were using much longer weapons, at least in the initial round of melee.) 

The next turn saw just 2 “kills” scored against the central Greco-Bactrian pike block, so the ‘Missile Halt’ marker was removed. In the second round of melees, the right-most Indian unit took 7 casualties while causing 6. (The pikemen had lost their depth advantage, so were rolling 12 dice.) The left-most Indian unit absorbed 9 losses while inflicting 4. 

The Indian archers seemed to have run out of arrows, as their next volley only “killed” 1 Greco-Bactrian in the center phalanx. Not being cowed by scores or hundreds of missiles, the recovered pikemen were able to move forward and make physical contact with their enemy. Having been whittled down a little, this center pike block would not be able to claim any depth advantage against the Indians. In subsequent rounds of melee then, each side would be able to roll 12 d6. As the Greco-Bactrians were slightly harder to “kill” (having a FV of 5-6 versus the Indian FV of 4-6), it could be assumed that the Seleucids would emerge victors in an attritional close combat. Instead of completing the melees started in this first trial, the “laboratory board” was reset for another run through.

Remarks

In the May/June 2020 issue of Slingshot, Dr. Paul Innes offered interested readers “Tactica II: A Ruleset Analysis.” In the sub-section regarding ‘Missiles,’ this noted member of The Society, former Editor of the long-running publication, and veteran academic explained:

Concentrated missiles can disrupt an enemy’s plan by forcing a morale halt, or by 

doing so much damage to a unit that it has to be very careful. Armies that rely on 

missilery can be very hit and miss, if you’ll excuse the pun, since luck will of 

course vary from turn to turn.

While there was no detailed Seleucid plan involved, the “forced morale halt” was inflicted on an unfortunate pike block in this first experiment. As the good doctor remarks, this “stoppage” was due more to luck than apparent skill and training. (Being a fan of good puns, I thought the “hit or miss” word play was appropriate and well done. I might even go so far as to suggest that it was on target.) Even though the experiment was enjoyable, I did wonder if the reliance on luck (the rolling of 12 six-sided dice) bent more towards game mechanics and play or more towards an attempt to reconstruct history. I also wondered why the odds of inflicting damage did not increase, if only slightly, as the range between the opposing units decreased. Mentally reviewing the findings in the informal and short survey of rules, it appears that missile resolution, at least in this specific case, is either a comparatively simple affair of rolling two d6 that may or may not be modified, or a process involving slightly more dice, that may or may not require re-rolls based on unit characteristics and then saving rolls by the targeted unit. I wondered if there was a ‘middle ground’ or compromise - and if not, could one be developed - between these two points on an apparent “missile resolution spectrum”? 

Second Trial by Fire

Trying something different, the three units of Greco-Bactrians conducted a slow advance, coming to an orderly stop just outside of the 15 inch arrow range of the ready and waiting formations of Indian archers. In the proper sub-phase of the next turn, the three pike blocks stepped out smartly, advancing a full 8 inches toward the enemy archers. The Indians were able to launch a volley (three actually) at a range of a little over 7 inches. 

From the Indians’ point of view, 3 “kills” were inflicted on the left-most enemy unit; 2 were scored on the center block, and 3 were inflicted on the right-most phalanx. The Greco-Bactrians would have to take two Control Tests as a result of this fairly effective volley. Although stung by these missiles (by my math, a success rate of 22 percent), both pike blocks passed the required test. The orderly advance would continue without interruption. 

As they were within 8 inches of their targets, each pike block was able to “charge home” without any additional volley of arrows striking home. The phalanxes would not gain any impetus benefit (serried ranks of pikes versus a stationary target, etc.), but they would enjoy a depth advantage, so three melees would see 15 dice rolled by the pikemen against 12 dice rolled by the sword and javelin carrying Indians. (I imagine that some of them would be loosing arrows at very close range during the contests.) 

From left to right, for both sides, the “kills” scored were as follows: Indians - 6, 4, and 5. The Greco-Bactrians inflicted 8, 8, and 3. (Apparently, the Seleucid unit on the far left did not eat their Wheaties.) In the next round of close combat, the Indians managed to slay a total of 16 pikemen, but lost 23 of their own in the process. If this ratio of casualties continued, it seemed quite likely that the Indian position would collapse under such pressure. 

Being more interested in the mechanics and processes of missile fire resolution, this bloody melee was stopped, the units were restored to their original strengths, and the lines of battle were redrawn for another experiment. 

Remarks

Without intending to do so, it appears that I may have stumbled upon an effective tactic when I am commanding pike blocks against enemy infantry armed with bows. If I am careful to pre-measure (allowed by the Tactica II rules), then I can limit the number of volleys my phalanx units are subjected to. Relying on the “hit or miss” formula or philosophy of these rules, it seems prudent to ensure that my heavy or even formed light infantry units only have to suffer from the fairly random effects of a concentrated arrow volley. 

However, here again I wondered about the inactivity of the Indian formations. While there is some potential of “getting into the weeds” with regard to timing, historical accuracy, and so forth, it does seem somewhat strange that a comparatively large group of Indian bowmen would only be able to “let fly” with one volley of arrows. Of course, it is understood that this single firing phase likely represents the accumulated effects of a number of volleys drawn and loosed while the enemy pikemen covered the space between the lines. 

Third Trial by Fire

For this final exercise, the Indian archers remained in the same line of battle, quivers replenished and figurative unit leaders at the ready. For the Seleucid pikemen, the phalanxes were arranged in echelon formation, with the top of the stairs facing the right-most Indian unit, and the other blocks deployed as the middle stair and bottom step, respectively. The distances between the portions of these opposing lines were: 20 inches, 23 inches, and approximately 26.5 inches. As with previous trials, the game move sequence was modified so that movement, missile fire, and melee resolution could be resolved without having to address initiative, evading troops, rallying, and so forth. 

The Greco-Bactrians moved forward, which resulted in their left-most unit coming into the range band of the Indian archers. Accordingly, a volley was sent their way, which resulted in 2 “kills” on the advancing pikemen. The other phalanxes were out of range, and the Indian unit in the center was not allowed to shift or angle its firing figures (not even by a fraction) to add to the number of d6s thrown by their neighbors. (Note: I do suppose that the center Indian unit could have wheeled slightly to its right during the Indian movement phase, but then this would have shifted the ‘beaten zone’ of this unit away from the central phalanx as well as opened up the Indian formation, possibly, to a flank attack.) 

When the Seleucid infantry finished their second move, all three pike blocks were in range of the Indian archers. There would be no modifiers applied however, even if one unit of the phalanx was 4 inches away and another was about 10.5 inches from making contact. Coincidentally, the handfuls of dice seemed to understand my thinking, as 5 “kills” were scored against the closest block of pikemen, 2 “kills” were inflicted on the center formation, and a single “kill” was recorded against the bottom step unit. Needing a 9 or better to pass the required “Missile Storm” test, the pin-cushioned phalanx rolled a 5 and was immediately labeled with a ‘Missile Halt’ marker. 

In the next turn, the center phalanx crashed into the Indian archers. The archers on the left and right of this combat were free to deliver another volley into the serried ranks of their enemies. The left-most Indian unit inflicted 4 “kills” and succeeded in placing a ‘Missile Halt’ marker on the targeted phalanx. Unfortunately, the archers on the right side of the line scored just a single “kill.” The ‘Missile Halt’ marker would come off, and the Seleucids would be able to close the distance in the next turn. (One imagines that they had a thing or two to say to the Indian archers.) The melee was quite a struggle. Both sides removed 7 enemy figures from their ranks. The next round would see 12 dice versus 12 dice, as the Indians had removed the Greco-Bactrians depth advantage. 

Free to move, the left-most unit of pikemen advanced into melee with the Indians on the right. An embarrassment of a volley indicated only 1 “kill” against the halted formation, so the marker would be removed, and a third melee would start with the next turn. The mood and fighting ability of the Greco-Bactrians was on full display in this melee round. In two contests, the Indians scored an abysmal total of 4 “kills” against the phalanxes, while they took a rather punishing combined 16 in return. Ouch!

There was no additional turn played in this trial, as the unengaged phalanx would make contact, the Indians would not be able to volley once more before the enemy closed, and if the Seleucid dice continued to be so deadly, then it was only a matter of time before the Indian formation would be pushed to its breaking point. 

Remarks

This trial provided further evidence and support of Dr. Innes’ well-written assessment. The dice were kinder to the Indians during this experiment, until they were not. At the risk of looking at the larger picture, I wondered about the “reliance on missilery” aspect of the gentleman’s explanation. Stipulating again to my lack of knowledge about Ancient Indian military history, it seems to me that the Indian infantry armed with long bows formed a part of the “combined arms approach” used by the various kings and princes. While not as valued or important as the upper class riding on elephants or in chariots, it occurs to me that thousands of archers, even if not as well trained or born to it like the English bowmen of the 100 Years War, should have a certain impact on the ancient wargaming tabletop.  

In three trials or experiments, I rolled a fair number of dice for the Indian archers. In a few instances, I had some nice luck by inflicting enough casualties to force Control Tests on the enemy formations. I had some help as well, when the Greco-Bactrians rolled poorly and were subsequently marked as ‘Halted due to Missile Fire.’ Curiously, the Indian archers were not penalized for longer range volleys or rewarded for closer range shots. Neither did they receive any kind of modifier after having inflicted a ‘Missile Halt’ on a targeted phalanx. One might think that this success would be treated, in some fashion, like the “Impetus Inroad’ rules. One might think that, having “found the range,” a subsequent volley against a hurt and halted unit would have the potential to be as effective. 

Based on the very limited data set provided by these three trials, it seems safe to suggest that Indian archers probably won’t fare very well against Seleucid pikemen or any other heavy infantry formation. On further reflection, it appears that I could have added some stamina to the Indian formations by increasing their unit strength to 48 “figures.” This additional rank would have denied the Greco-Bactrians any depth advantage. Curiously, the increased strength would not have any impact on the unit’s ability to inflict damage from 15, 8, or even 3 inches away. This leads me to wonder if tinkering with the restriction on the frontage of heavy infantry formations would make a difference. For example, what if the Indians were deployed in units of 3 ranks of 16? This deployment would result in ‘overlaps,’ but how much would this increased frontage affect the “hit or miss” ability of the archers? Along similar lines, I wonder what might happen and how the Indian archers would fare if their missile units used the base dimensions given for Longbows in Section 1.2 of the rules? Using the rules as written, an Indian unit with a strength of 36 “figures” would have a frontage of 15.6 centimeters in 25mm scale, and a depth of 6 centimeters. Given the “beaten zone” restrictions, it appears that a small percentage of the archers in the above examples would be prohibited from participating in fire phase. For some reason though, these excluded archers would be able to fight in the melee phase when the Greco-Bactrians made contact.  

Additional Remarks

Even though I have managed to assemble and maintain a fairly comprehensive catalog of my wargame writing over the years, I have not been able to identify when the aforementioned preconception or bias regarding the archery of Classical Indians started. If pressed on this point, I would hazard a guess at my “formative” ancient wargaming years with the original Armati rules. The Indian army list in that ‘gateway’ set could be fairly described as bow-heavy. Various reading over the years has likely reinforced this initial impression. For example, I recall reading an Armati report about Battle Day Hydaspes wherein the Indian archers rained arrows down (with some effect) on the comparatively slow and bothered-by-elephants Macedonian phalangites. 

In his engaging article, Simon Watson remarked on the “handicapping of the Indian formations” in the tutorial or demonstration game used to educate the reader about how elephants were used in Tactica II. His main focus was on the elephants, chariots, and cavalry of the Indian army, not on the foot formations. The veteran wargamer commented that a “competent player-general” would likely make better use of these components on a tabletop. I reflected on this sound advice (if not necessarily supported by the historical record) as the “self-inflicted wound” of my recent TRIUMPH! scenario was still fresh. I wondered if I should play the scenario again, but use a different deployment or even modify the composition of the army so that I had more elephants, chariots, and cavalry. I also wondered about setting up a rematch, but providing the Indians with Archers instead of Bow Levy. If this substitution is judged too extreme or non-historical, then I wondered if the ‘Shower Shooting’ Battle Card could be adapted for use by the numerous Bow Levy units. Was there another amendment, approach, or option that I was not considering?

The naming of this rather hastily produced post changed quite a few times as the text body was drafted, reformatted, and rushed through its revisions. Other titles that were considered included: “Arrows and Bows, Bows and Arrows,” “Nothing to Quiver About,” “Experiments with Indian Archery,” and “A Consideration of Classical Indians.” The temptation to conduct additional tests and trials with the other rulesets listed is still present, but I wonder and worry about the time required, and if any of the reports and results would prove interesting and or substantive. At the risk of repeating myself, my guess or assumption is that three of four trials with these various rulebooks would produce similar results to those secured in the Tactica II tests. 

Stipulating to the small number of rulebooks studied, the very limited data set produced in the few experiments, and the additional knowledge gained from reading a variety of articles on this topic, I find that my position on Classical Indian archery has not changed substantially. I think that Indian foot units armed with bows should be able to engage enemy formations from a distance. I think that there is something to be said for having the range of this engagement influence the effect of the volley(s). In addition, I think allowance should be made for indirect or overhead fire, so that an arrow barrage could precede an advance by elephants or even protect a screen of skirmishers. Weather conditions might also be considered, as humid or rainy conditions could have an effect or effects. Terrain features and visibility would also impact the ability of archers to “reach out and touch the enemy.” I understand that Indian archers were rather low on the caste system ‘ladder’ of Ancient India. I also understand that nearly naked (i.e., unarmored) archers carrying bamboo bows and quivers with around 25 arrows are not as exciting to command on a tabletop as colorful elephants, four-horse chariots, and squadrons of cavalry, but I think they still are an integral component of this combined-arms quartet. At a minimum, as stated above, I think that Indian archers should be able to engage the enemy from a distance. What that distance is, how effective the volleys are, and when or how the process is resolved, well . . .

Source Materials Consulted

The is no particular format or organization for the following references. I will not repeat the various rulebooks mentioned in a previous section, as my guess is that most of the readers of this post will have some experience or familiarity with those identified. As mentioned, ideally, I should like to be able to expand the survey. My estimation is that most if not all of the rulebooks I have not studied will provide for Indian foot units that are capable of engaging the enemy from a distance. This educated guess provides something of a transition to the following short list of articles found in old issues of Slingshot. 

> In Number 266, Richard Lockwood provided readers with a battle report wherein the FOG (Field of Glory) rules were used. Please see “Alexandrian Macedonian vs Classical Indian - FOG,” on pages 36-40. 

> The same gentleman and long-standing as well as respected member of The Society reviewed a number of Indian archer figures/manufactures in Number 297. Please see “The Classical Indian Archer,” on pages 40-42. This was a rather timely piece, as Battle Day Hydaspes (2015) had been announced and scheduled. 

> Perhaps the most interesting and informative article was the one written by Jeff Jonas. In Number 297, so a nice companion for Richard’s figure review, Jeff provided a wealth of material in “The Ancient Indian Army of Poros,” which ran from page 12 to page 25. 

> A gentleman by the name of Michael Nursey engaged readers with “The Indian Six-foot Bamboo Bow and the Longbow,” which appeared in Number 172 on pages 13-16. 

> It might be suggested that Duncan Head, another respected as well as prolific veteran of The Society, had the first say on the topic when he provided readers with “Ancient Indian Archery” on pages 45-46 of Number 113 (May of 1984, to give some chronological context). 

Depending on one’s level of interest and the amount of time available, there is additional information to be found online. I found a YouTube video (8:35) about “The Ancient Archer of India.” Further digging uncovered a video on Archery Historian, titled “Archery in Ancient India - A brief History of Indian Archery - From Ancient to Medieval Times.” (This video has a running time of approximately 17 minutes.) I regret to inform readers that I have not made sufficient time to check what might be available through Academia.edu. A very brief look suggested that most of the scholarly papers were concerned with the athletic aspects and so, more modern concerns of Indian archery. Widening the search to “Ancient Indian military history” seemed to offer more promising results, but in this superficial survey, nothing specifically dealing with archery in early Indian warfare was discovered.