AHC : MAKE THE GUPTA EMPIRE LIKE MAURYAN EMPIRE

The Gupta empire was an empire in the Indian subcontinent that lasted from 240?-548 AD , the empire was a loose confederation rather than a centralized empire like that of the Mauryan empire the challenge here is to make the Gupta empire more centralized and function administratively like it's predecessor the Mauryan Empire .
I have defined the following parameters for this challenge
1) Guptas whose origin is unknown in this challenge you are to assume that Guptas are Brahmins and that too of the orthodox character who are determined to re instate the old Vedic Hinduism and to remove the deviation from the Hindu faith . The result is instead of emergence of puranic Hinduism you have the emergence of reformed Vedic Hinduism. This will make Gupta emperor's tolerate certain schools of Hinduism but engage in the persecution of other schools and most importantly buddists and jainsim in their zeal to enforce the Vedic faith which represent a break from the past practice of religious tolerance .
2 ) Arthashastra the old Hindu political treatise is followed by the Gupta empire
One of the best example of it's application is the establishment of cities and towns in the kingdoms that are newly conquered and to gradually absorb the conquered territory as province as opposed to establishment of subordinate kingdoms

3 ) who would the archenemies of this empire, will it be the vakatakas and other Indian kingdom in the Deccan or will it be the Persian sassanind empire .

4 ) Impact of a centralized and we'll governned empire vis a vis India's golden age and how the empire will deal with the threats of hepthalite since Guptas would establish a standing national army rather than rely on levy from sub ordinated kingdoms
 
How is number one anything like the Mauryas? Having a centralised state as you’re describing goes against all political philosophy of the era where the goal is never to annex and incorporate territory, but should be to maintain formal subservience of neighbouring kings to maintain your own primacy in the society of kings.

1) The power of Buddhist institutions and kingdoms is considerable, and brahmanic orthodoxy disdains the vast majority of relatively recent and yet wildly popular innovations amongst Hindu sects like Vishnu and Shiva being given their puranic roles- there is incredible pushback against the policies of the states both internally and externally and no chance of it surviving while maintaining this policy.

2) Neighbouring kings are shocked at the mean spirited, covetous and entirely adharmic attitude of the state and most likely band together to restore the old order.

3) it’s not going to get big enough for the Sassanids to even register it much less become archenemies.

4) the empire you’re describing first of all isn’t well governed, and having a standing army only drives it further into terrible governance- a premodern feudal state simply doesn’t have the resources to maintain standing armies, they’re very expensive
 
How is number one anything like the Mauryas? Having a centralised state as you’re describing goes against all political philosophy of the era where the goal is never to annex and incorporate territory, but should be to maintain formal subservience of neighbouring kings to maintain your own primacy in the society of kings.

1) The power of Buddhist institutions and kingdoms is considerable, and brahmanic orthodoxy disdains the vast majority of relatively recent and yet wildly popular innovations amongst Hindu sects like Vishnu and Shiva being given their puranic roles- there is incredible pushback against the policies of the states both internally and externally and no chance of it surviving while maintaining this policy.

2) Neighbouring kings are shocked at the mean spirited, covetous and entirely adharmic attitude of the state and most likely band together to restore the old order.

3) it’s not going to get big enough for the Sassanids to even register it much less become archenemies.

4) the empire you’re describing first of all isn’t well governed, and having a standing army only drives it further into terrible governance- a premodern feudal state simply doesn’t have the resources to maintain standing armies, they’re very expensive
A) The reason to have a brahmin royal family is just have old vedic faith re stored , not in its full force but with obvious modifications that has taken place since the collapse of old order . Restoration of old vedic religion is impossible at this point of time , read carefully I said the Gupta's tolerate other sects of Hinduism barring the two , so as for shiavites and vaishanvites they are indifferent to the Gupta's . The reformed vedic religion will still incorporate a lot innovations that took place but the Vedas will remain the sacrosanct, depends upon how much do the brahmins understand the Vedas , and after few years various sects of Hinduism will merge or they will remain separate but significantly influence one another .
B) To clarify I didn't call for outright persecution of Buddhists and Jain's by cutting their head off , this is 3rd century India we are talking about, it will be more of gradual process reduction in influence by way of depriving further donations to the Buddhist and jain institutions, placing a ban on men and women of young age from becoming a acetic which impacts not only Buddhists but not so much Jain's but certain other sects of Hinduism , gradually disvesting the Buddhist institutions of the land grants .
C) Read arthashastra it never calls for outright annexations of newly conquered kingdom unless the king had the resources or the conquered kingdom was strategically important . Instead it calls for establishing cities towns and villages in the most fertile areas or the strategic areas of the newly conquered kingdom as a means of acquiring influence and to establish central control even the mauryan era did this , the vast empire , the central control was only in 35 percent of the country rest was ruled by republics and kingdom which hosted cities enjoying privilages of the central government, annexations were done only if the subjugated kingdom revolted otherwise they were left to their own .
D ) That's a value judgement , sassaninds did know Gupta's in otl and has active trade relations and I didn't say they will become arch enemies for all I know the Gupta's may expand eastwards because arthashastra would call the lands ruled by the Sassanid as unprofitable
E) Depend on what you mean by feudal and what you mean by standing army , if you hand out medium sized parcel of lands say of 40 hectares to families of warriors to maintain themselves and families and pay them regular salary which wont be a huge amount since they hold lands the strain on the treasury will be mitigated . Its not feudalism because they obtained the land directly from the emperor rather than from a vassal of a king
 
To clarify further when I meant centralization I did not mean war / conquest,/ killing the royal family / establishing province , this is not possible in India until the Islamic rule even during Islamic rule the governor did behave like a raja or maharaja so one could not really say that things changed anyway getting back to my point I meant something like this
War / conquest / making the conquered kingdom a vassal / taking away small amount of territory say 10 percent of the conquered lands depending upon the quality of the land or its strategic significance as war booty in addition to tribute / establishing cities , towns , Garrison, villages to support those establishment/ settling the families of the members of the armed forces as a reward for participating in the war and strengthen control over the conquered territory / establishing transportation and communication network to these settlement/ if the kingdom revolts and if the situations is favourable outright annexations or replace the revolting king with a new one
So the process of establishing a centralized rule as you thought of would take 200-250 years alone in north half of the subcontinent, I would say giving the pace and the manner of annexations other kings would not bother to unite to restore the old oder .
Besides the kind of governance that prevailed during India's golden age was established by the Gupta's before then was 125 years of dark ages so the Gupta's have the opportunity to mould the politics of India , so its not extraordinary for a centralized government to exist
 
@Freedom2018

An interesting topic, and one that should be discussed, a more robust Gupta Empire. However, I must have some clarifications.

When you said, a 'standing army' how exactly do you propose this be formulated? A standing army sounds good, as it is the most common military form in today's world, but it has many disadvantages in the past eras and the existence of the standing army does not ensure large numbers of warriors for sedentary folk such as the Hindustan fertile lands of Magadha, Rajptana, Punjab, etc... The issue I raise is that ultimately, when we look at pre-modern warfare, centralization and logistical constraints for large sedentary empires was such, that even with massive populations such as existing in Hindustan, China, Rome, Mesopotamia, they rarely and frankly, never could levy armies consistently larger than those of the so-called hordes or less developed peoples and regions that despite low population, held constant internal warfare and practice not seen in Hindustan. Some examples:

-In an empire such as the Gupta, or any Magadhi-Hindustani empire, their existence in terms of acquiring the financial means to maintain an empire, include the necessary, but unknown percentage, amount of farmers who produce the foodstuffs for such an empire to continue its infrastructure. Without this unknown percentage of sedentary farmers, internal trade and commerce deteriorates and these empires fracture, as the villages atomize and urban centres become lightly populated or abandoned. Pulling large numbers of men from the rural areas, is both a way to cause civil unrest and also disrupt the natural order of commerce, exchange and mutual aid needed for imperial management.

-Simply because a standing army of sorts exists, does not ensure the quality of said troops. Endless drills may be effective for men who use guns, simple spears and something akin to crossbows (non existent in Hindustan during the Gupta period), but in those times, the experience of life were more important than drills. Steppe nomads and more volatile (poor) regions where much of the male populace do not engage in any type of subsistence farming, often have excessive skills in martial areas. Compare the average male Hindu farmer of 400 CE to an average Hepthalite male nomad; the Hindu farmer has the skills of farming and rearing of animals, but often has no experience with weapons of any kind aside from small blunt objects or knives. The nomad however, will by his raising, without any state training, have skills as a horseman, archery, skill with swords, lances, likely their own armor, experience at war and in duels, spent a life hunting for their food whether through loot or in killing of animals, etc...

-Like the prior point, the Hindu army, might have an ability to raise a standing army, but this standing army may not be well trained in the right war-making skills. Assuming the prior farmer is used in war, his skills equate to essentially none, in terms of war-making. His training will likely be that of light infantry, with spears or perhaps he will be trained as a slinger or a light bowman of poor quality (most effective archers, are raised from populations with training in this or from noble groups who have the time to practice this trade) and his armor will be either none or light. This enterprise itself will cost still an
exorbitant amount for the Gupta to maintain. Meanwhile, the steppe nomad or more selective in their recruitment (such as the Sassanids) gather warriors who generally have high skills from their lives prior to military service and cost little to no upkeep. One may remember, the nomads of the steppe had no need for standard pay, their pay existed in the conquest of enemies and the gathering of loot. Likewise, the greatest sedentary armies, gathered much of their pay for troops through loot (see Assyria).

In finality to this discussion regarding the issue of standing armies, the logistics of gathering an army, must also be mirrored to the need to garrison such an empire. In Hindustan, the Gupta find many enemies in the south that should be pacified totally and then have garrisons placed in them. This is of course the benefit of having tributaries and feudatories as the Gupta, you do not need to waste your personal armies in the garrisons of conquered lands. Further, when you own lands directly, you must place greater effort in actually gaining victories in decisive battles and not allow your lands to be pillaged and raided. In the opposition of say the Hepthalites, their armies need not worry for the Gupta pillaging their lands and the Hepthalite have no need for garrisoning their territories, thus, they can concentrate their armies while the Gupta must spread their armies across a wide empire of centralized provinces. History has given us examples wherein the armies of sedentary peoples who possessed this sort of highly centralized army, found in itself many weaknesses in past times. A better system, in my opinion, is generally for sedentary states to create wide systems of vassals, tributaries, etc and have armies composed of nobility and levied warriors that attack enemies periodically for loot.
 
To clarify further when I meant centralization I did not mean war / conquest,/ killing the royal family / establishing province , this is not possible in India until the Islamic rule even during Islamic rule the governor did behave like a raja or maharaja so one could not really say that things changed anyway getting back to my point I meant something like this
War / conquest / making the conquered kingdom a vassal / taking away small amount of territory say 10 percent of the conquered lands depending upon the quality of the land or its strategic significance as war booty in addition to tribute / establishing cities , towns , Garrison, villages to support those establishment/ settling the families of the members of the armed forces as a reward for participating in the war and strengthen control over the conquered territory / establishing transportation and communication network to these settlement/ if the kingdom revolts and if the situations is favourable outright annexations or replace the revolting king with a new one
So the process of establishing a centralized rule as you thought of would take 200-250 years alone in north half of the subcontinent, I would say giving the pace and the manner of annexations other kings would not bother to unite to restore the old oder .
Besides the kind of governance that prevailed during India's golden age was established by the Gupta's before then was 125 years of dark ages so the Gupta's have the opportunity to mould the politics of India , so its not extraordinary for a centralized government to exist

The 150 years prior to the Gupta were a dark age? How so? The Kushanshahs were a competent ruling conglomerate and ruled lightly. Their rule also opened land routes across the world and increased Hindu conceptions more than had ever been done, with Hindu religious connotations, trade goods and knowledge disseminated to the surrounding world, almost solely due to the Kushanshahs and the Western Satraps.
 
A
The 150 years prior to the Gupta were a dark age? How so? The Kushanshahs were a competent ruling conglomerate and ruled lightly. Their rule also opened land routes across the world and increased Hindu conceptions more than had ever been done, with Hindu religious connotations, trade goods and knowledge disseminated to the surrounding world, almost solely due to the Kushanshahs and the Western Satraps.
I meant in the Ganga region and the period from 220 - 350 ad , besides kushanas split in 220 ad the kushanshas you are talking about are Sassanid vassals, the western kushanas as we call them here , the eastern kushanas who ruled modern day Pakistan punjab and Indian Punjab were beset by internal revolts so much so that 270 ad most subordinate rulers were declaring independence
As for western kshatrapas they weren't the power that they were after the defeat of shatavahanas in 197 even though under rudraman dynasty they did recover but territory wise it wasn't the same , yes they did flourish in terms of trade
Besides kushanas and the kshatrapas rule only a small fraction of the subcontinent which was otherwise embroiled in civil war
 
A

I meant in the Ganga region and the period from 220 - 350 ad , besides kushanas split in 220 ad the kushanshas you are talking about are Sassanid vassals, the western kushanas as we call them here , the eastern kushanas who ruled modern day Pakistan punjab and Indian Punjab were beset by internal revolts so much so that 270 ad most subordinate rulers were declaring independence
As for western kshatrapas they weren't the power that they were after the defeat of shatavahanas in 197 even though under rudraman dynasty they did recover but territory wise it wasn't the same , yes they did flourish in terms of trade
Besides kushanas and the kshatrapas rule only a small fraction of the subcontinent which was otherwise embroiled in civil war

No, I am referring to the Kushan Empire, Kushanshahs as in the Kushan called themselves Shahs and were of the Kushan clan. So, I am not referring to the Sassanid Neo-Kushan vassals created in the 220s. 150 years prior to the early Gupta, would be the Kushanshahs at their height of majestic power in the 120s CE.
 
@Freedom2018

An interesting topic, and one that should be discussed, a more robust Gupta Empire. However, I must have some clarifications.

When you said, a 'standing army' how exactly do you propose this be formulated? A standing army sounds good, as it is the most common military form in today's world, but it has many disadvantages in the past eras and the existence of the standing army does not ensure large numbers of warriors for sedentary folk such as the Hindustan fertile lands of Magadha, Rajptana, Punjab, etc... The issue I raise is that ultimately, when we look at pre-modern warfare, centralization and logistical constraints for large sedentary empires was such, that even with massive populations such as existing in Hindustan, China, Rome, Mesopotamia, they rarely and frankly, never could levy armies consistently larger than those of the so-called hordes or less developed peoples and regions that despite low population, held constant internal warfare and practice not seen in Hindustan. Some examples:

-In an empire such as the Gupta, or any Magadhi-Hindustani empire, their existence in terms of acquiring the financial means to maintain an empire, include the necessary, but unknown percentage, amount of farmers who produce the foodstuffs for such an empire to continue its infrastructure. Without this unknown percentage of sedentary farmers, internal trade and commerce deteriorates and these empires fracture, as the villages atomize and urban centres become lightly populated or abandoned. Pulling large numbers of men from the rural areas, is both a way to cause civil unrest and also disrupt the natural order of commerce, exchange and mutual aid needed for imperial management.

-Simply because a standing army of sorts exists, does not ensure the quality of said troops. Endless drills may be effective for men who use guns, simple spears and something akin to crossbows (non existent in Hindustan during the Gupta period), but in those times, the experience of life were more important than drills. Steppe nomads and more volatile (poor) regions where much of the male populace do not engage in any type of subsistence farming, often have excessive skills in martial areas. Compare the average male Hindu farmer of 400 CE to an average Hepthalite male nomad; the Hindu farmer has the skills of farming and rearing of animals, but often has no experience with weapons of any kind aside from small blunt objects or knives. The nomad however, will by his raising, without any state training, have skills as a horseman, archery, skill with swords, lances, likely their own armor, experience at war and in duels, spent a life hunting for their food whether through loot or in killing of animals, etc...

-Like the prior point, the Hindu army, might have an ability to raise a standing army, but this standing army may not be well trained in the right war-making skills. Assuming the prior farmer is used in war, his skills equate to essentially none, in terms of war-making. His training will likely be that of light infantry, with spears or perhaps he will be trained as a slinger or a light bowman of poor quality (most effective archers, are raised from populations with training in this or from noble groups who have the time to practice this trade) and his armor will be either none or light. This enterprise itself will cost still an
exorbitant amount for the Gupta to maintain. Meanwhile, the steppe nomad or more selective in their recruitment (such as the Sassanids) gather warriors who generally have high skills from their lives prior to military service and cost little to no upkeep. One may remember, the nomads of the steppe had no need for standard pay, their pay existed in the conquest of enemies and the gathering of loot. Likewise, the greatest sedentary armies, gathered much of their pay for troops through loot (see Assyria).

In finality to this discussion regarding the issue of standing armies, the logistics of gathering an army, must also be mirrored to the need to garrison such an empire. In Hindustan, the Gupta find many enemies in the south that should be pacified totally and then have garrisons placed in them. This is of course the benefit of having tributaries and feudatories as the Gupta, you do not need to waste your personal armies in the garrisons of conquered lands. Further, when you own lands directly, you must place greater effort in actually gaining victories in decisive battles and not allow your lands to be pillaged and raided. In the opposition of say the Hepthalites, their armies need not worry for the Gupta pillaging their lands and the Hepthalite have no need for garrisoning their territories, thus, they can concentrate their armies while the Gupta must spread their armies across a wide empire of centralized provinces. History has given us examples wherein the armies of sedentary peoples who possessed this sort of highly centralized army, found in itself many weaknesses in past times. A better system, in my opinion, is generally for sedentary states to create wide systems of vassals, tributaries, etc and have armies composed of nobility and levied warriors that attack enemies periodically for loot.
Clarifications
1) The army will be composed of Kshatriya clans, this was the case in our timeline too .
The Imperial Guptas in otl could not have achieved their successes through force of arms without an efficient martial system. Historically, the best accounts of this comes not from the Hindus themselves but from Chinese and Western observers. However, a contemporary Indian document, regarded as a military classic of the time, the Siva-Dhanur-veda, offers some insight into the military system of the Guptas. So the Gupta army wasn't composed of farmers but trained warriors of Kshatriya caste supplemented by men of other castes .
The sushrutha samhitha (c. 4th century) identifies 107 vital points on the human body] of which 64 were classified as being lethal if properly struck with a fist or stick. The work formed the basis of the medical discipline ayurveda which was taught alongside various martial arts.With numerous other scattered references to vital points in Vedic and epic sources, it is certain that warriors knew and practised attacking or defending vital points
Martial arts were not exclusive to the warrior caste, though the warrior class used them more extensively. The 8th-century text Kuvalaymala by Udyotanasuri recorded fighting techniques being taught at educational institutions, where non-kshatriya students from throughout the subcontinent “were learning and practicing archery, fighting with sword and shield, with daggers, sticks, lances, and with fists, and in duels (niyuddham)”.Hindu priests of the traditional gurukula used to each unarmed fighting techniques to their students as a way of increasing stamina and training the physical body


2) As for cavalry Like Indian kings before them, and centuries afterwards, the Guptas would have utilized war elephants. These thick hided beasts, supplemented by additional armor and the soldiers that they carried, would have provided a powerful offensive and psychological weapon against an unprepared foe. Another advantage was that they could cause the horses of enemy cavalry to panic from their scent, as the Macedonians discovered. However, their use carried the grave risk of the elephants panicking and stampeding, which more clever opponents used to their advantage.So to overcome this problem yes there may be a need to make alliance with central Asian nomads for the purpose of importing horse or to supplement the cavalry much like in our time line .
Anywau the Guptas horse cavalry have utilized heavy cavalry clad in mail armor and equipped with maces and lances, who would have used shock action to break the enemy line, much like the clibanarii of the Sassanids and Byzantines in the same era. However ,It is unclear whether they were used to the extent of elephants.
The Guptas seem to have relied heavily on infantry archers, and the bow was one of the dominant weapons of their army. The Hindu version of the longbow was composed of metal, or more typically bamboo, and fired a long bamboo cane arrow with a metal head. Unlike the composite bows of Western and Central Asian foes, bows of this design would be less prone to warping in the damp and moist conditions often prevalent to the region. Iron shafts were used against armored elephants, and fire arrows were also part of the bowmen’s arsenal. Archers were frequently protected by infantry equipped with shields, javelins, and longsword
The Guptas also had knowledge of siegecraft, catapults, and other sophisticated war machines.

The Guptas apparently showed little predilection for using horse archers, despite the fact these warriors were a main component in the ranks of their Scythian, Parthian, and Hepthalite (Huna) enemies, well we can have a pod here that Gupta's used horse cavalry as supplement to the elephant cavalry

As for your point regarding tactics the Gupta armies were probably better disciplined. Able commanders like Samudragupta and Chandragupta II would have likely understood the need for combined armed tactics and proper logistical organization. Gupta military success likely stemmed from the concerted use elephants, armored cavalry, and foot archers in tandem against both Hindu kingdoms and foreign armies invading from the Northwest. Guptas also maintained a navy, allowing them to control regional waters.

The collapse of the Gupta Empire in the face of the Huna onslaught was due not directly to the inherent defects of the Gupta army, which after all had initially defeated these barbarians under Skandagupta. More likely, internal dissolution sapped the ability of the Guptas to resist foreign invasion, as was simultaneously occurring in Western Europe and China.

3) As for your point regarding pulling farmers away from cultivation , The Gupta's of our time line had an army of 650,000 men mainly drawn from Kshatriya caste, like I said the trend in those days was give medium sized parcel of land to the warriors family and have a peasent families attach to the household to do the actual task of cultivation and the salary from the government used to supplement the income . These Kshatriya families also were responsible to maintain law and oder and assist the administration in revenue collection during peace time
 
No, I am referring to the Kushan Empire, Kushanshahs as in the Kushan called themselves Shahs and were of the Kushan clan. So, I am not referring to the Sassanid Neo-Kushan vassals created in the 220s. 150 years prior to the early Gupta, would be the Kushanshahs at their height of majestic power in the 120s CE.
Gupta's emerged as an empire in 330-335 ad during the reign of samudra Gupta so 130-150 years will be around 220 ad the era of sassaninds , nothing is known about the Indian polities from 210-340 barring a few exceptions in the far south and west
 
No, I am referring to the Kushan Empire, Kushanshahs as in the Kushan called themselves Shahs and were of the Kushan clan. So, I am not referring to the Sassanid Neo-Kushan vassals created in the 220s. 150 years prior to the early Gupta, would be the Kushanshahs at their height of majestic power in the 120s CE.
What do we know about the early Gupta's ? Those were dark ages , we have no literary records for those time period because of the political situation.
Besides I make it clear that the indus gangetic basin would be the heartland of the empire where the emperor rules directly all region beyond it will be ruled by vassals . this would include lands from Hindu kush in the west to Brahmaputra in the east the Himalayan mountains to narmada river in the south
 
In an empire such as the Gupta, or any Magadhi-Hindustani empire, their existence in terms of acquiring the financial means to maintain an empire, include the necessary, but unknown percentage, amount of farmers who produce the foodstuffs for such an empire to continue its infrastructure. Without this unknown percentage of sedentary farmers, internal trade and commerce deteriorates and these empires fracture, as the villages atomize and urban centres become lightly populated or abandoned. Pulling large numbers of men from the rural areas, is both a way to cause civil unrest and also disrupt the natural order of commerce, exchange and mutual aid needed for imperial management.
The point of establishing garrison cities and towns is to reduce the population pressure on land , in the subcontinent the problem is not a lack of farmers to cultivate agricultural land but too much farmers . By the fall of the Magadha empire that is after fall of shunga dynasty most of the fertile lands of the subcontinent was occupied , without a strong central authority or a government willing to invest in the improvement of the people and infrastructure you will have more and more people going into agriculture to eek out a living . Possible course of action is to

A) build cities and build roads to connect these cities or in case of the northern half of the subcontinent then include canals , rivers in the north are navigable most of the year . An average boat back in those days could carry one or two tones of merchandise and it is quicker than transportation on foot , sail driven boats are slow compared to modern ones but they can carry more goods over longer distances . You can reach Delhi from Calcutta in a matter of 11-12 days up stream and 7 days down stream . once you have a decent transportation network you can move surplus grains around easily this adds stability to a region who say in a year received less monsson rain can just purchase grains from a region that is enjoying a bumper harvest . Cities so established has access to grains at a reasonable price urbanisation can be maintained . Apart from grains you can transport manufactured goods , say you can transport indigo from Bihar to the north and opium from Punjab to Bihar . This will establish a growing trading network which the state can tax and thus can mobilize resources to maintain an army and to maintain this trade network you need a standing army to maintain security of the road network . There will be sufficient profits from trading network that can incentivze an aspirations to be a urban power .

B ) Another action in addition to the above is simply to improve agricultural infrastructure, fund the construction of canals, wells , dams , flood defence,building grain storage facilities, giving credit to farmers and other essentials . True the caste system had built in rules to ensure some of these critical activities but not on a scale that the society can reap the benefits of economic of scale and not to mention the unjustness of the system . This will bring in further lands under cultivation and improve productivity in other lands thus generating further agricultural surplus which can sustain primitive industrial base .

C ) The surplus population now employed in construction , industry and trade will be more robust than a society than dependent heavily on agriculture. The growth in trade and industry can and will enable the maintenance of a decent size standing army or imperial army .

D) Members of the armed forces are drawn from the Kshatriya caste who are not farmers , they own land but the task of farming the land will be assigned to farmers who get a share in produce . Standing army doesn't necessarily mean conscription. The population of India in general and that of the Kshatriya in particular is sufficiently large to maintain an army of 200,000 strong during times of peace and an army of 650,000 during times of critical danger where members of the farming caste were often recruited and not all of these farmers had simple knife skill
 
Simply because a standing army of sorts exists, does not ensure the quality of said troops. Endless drills may be effective for men who use guns, simple spears and something akin to crossbows (non existent in Hindustan during the Gupta period), but in those times, the experience of life were more important than drills. Steppe nomads and more volatile (poor) regions where much of the male populace do not engage in any type of subsistence farming, often have excessive skills in martial areas. Compare the average male Hindu farmer of 400 CE to an average Hepthalite male nomad; the Hindu farmer has the skills of farming and rearing of animals, but often has no experience with weapons of any kind aside from small blunt objects or knives. The nomad however, will by his raising, without any state training, have skills as a horseman, archery, skill with swords, lances, likely their own armor, experience at war and in duels, spent a life hunting for their food whether through loot or in killing of animals, etc...

-Like the prior point, the Hindu army, might have an ability to raise a standing army, but this standing army may not be well trained in the right war-making skills. Assuming the prior farmer is used in war, his skills equate to essentially none, in terms of war-making. His training will likely be that of light infantry, with spears or perhaps he will be trained as a slinger or a light bowman of poor quality (most effective archers, are raised from populations with training in this or from noble groups who have the time to practice this trade) and his armor will be either none or light. This enterprise itself will cost still an
exorbitant amount for the Gupta to maintain. Meanwhile, the steppe nomad or more selective in their recruitment (such as the Sassanids) gather warriors who generally have high skills from their lives prior to military service and cost little to no upkeep. One may remember, the nomads of the steppe had no need for standard pay, their pay existed in the conquest of enemies and the gathering of loot. Likewise, the greatest sedentary armies, gathered much of their pay for troops through loot (see Assyria).
I don't know to what extent you will agree but the Gupta's imperial army consisted of men drawn from Kshatriya caste and not farmers , they had training in martial arts ( Indians introduced martial arts to the Chinese , kung fu draws heavily from Indian / Hindu martial arts ) , most of the Indian dance system owes its origin to martial arts , so your argument of lack of warrior culture or lack of war making skills doesn't refelect the facts on ground .

You may disagree that notwithstanding the martial arts training a warrior a steppe warrior is better nonetheless , better warrior ,may be, but a better soldier a resounding no , there is a reason why steppe nomads took 5-6 times of full scale invasion to topple a sedentary state history is rife with these examples , the reason, they don't fight as an army they fight as warriors . The nomads win not because of superior skills but their opponent the sedentary state is rotten from within which causes the collapse ( see roman empire , Gupta etc)

You are right about the looting part but what happens when the looting ends and there is no fresh loot or the target puts up an effective defense , the tribes fall a part , for all their advantage the steppe tribes are more fragile than an organized state one bad winter , death of horses you wipe off the war waging capacity for quite a few years .

History for all its examples of triumph of steppe nomads is silent about its failure or rather we tend to forget them , for example the Gupta's defeated the kidarites and even the hepthalites but we remember the collapse of the Gupta's rather than the military victories .
 
@Freedom2018

Hindustan can develop this assuming it had not already developed this, without the state centralized power. The Ming dynasty required none of this heavy handed state command constructions and irrigation networks to develop urbanism. Urbanism develops naturally, not through state interference. Also, it should be noted, the sort of levels of income required to construct massive cities without existing population pulls, necessitates loot or tax income. In the case of the later, it causes strife and civil disobedience and the former requires war and alienation of neighbors.

650,000 as a total number, is not that impressive considering that they cannot be amassed in a single marching army. They would need to be dispersed and then reach gathering points. To do this, you have to have already dispersed parts of your standing army into the areas of rally to lead new recruits and then train or outfit them. There simply is not enough time. Rather, these wars are decided by fewer numbers of soldiers in pitched battles and logistical maneuvers. The Ming Dynasty possessed approximately 840,000 soldiers at its height, though most of these simply relaxed in forts across China and had little military experience and were certainly not expected to fight in battles outside defensive positions. Likewise, Rome possessed at least 500,000 soldiers in 220 CE, yet these were placed across a sprawling empire, wherein the invasion of say an army from Iran of only 20k was a serious threat, as it was facing only a portion of the Roman military might.

^The Gupta will have the same issue.

If the army is a noble army, then I remove my statement regarding training. The issue is, nobles will not simply remain standing forever. Their class (unless Hindustan is different than everywhere else) requires overseeing estates, living well on their incomes and living in their society in general. That is why, standing armies generally arise from societies that practice a generalized conscription, instead of hosting noble armies.

My point is not that the steppe hordes provide an unbearably powerful foe. Only that they have some advantages and then other disadvantages. The best sedentary state however, learns from the steppe nomads and adopts their practices. Namely, the Gupta if it should be a stronger empire and for that matter place Hindustan in a greater position, always take wars outside of the subcontinent. Not for conquest, but loot and warding off potential enemies by devastating them regularly.

For this to occur, I’d say it is needed to create some sort of cultural basis for having a constant noble army or some sort of autonomous army structure waging wars near annually on behalf of the Gupta throne. The best example of this, was the Islamic caliphate during the Abbasid and Umayyad, which did not require conscription of any kind and relied on frontier armies of muhjahadeen and local feudatories which with their income raised armies (the caliph could do so as well, for special occasions).

Also bear in mind, no empire lasts forever, states make decisions that in the moment are positive, but in the future become negative ones or they are subject to entropy. The best any conglomeration of humans can do, is produce what they may in their life and leave the rest to their successors.
 
@Freedom2018

Hindustan can develop this assuming it had not already developed this, without the state centralized power. The Ming dynasty required none of this heavy handed state command constructions and irrigation networks to develop urbanism. Urbanism develops naturally, not through state interference. Also, it should be noted, the sort of levels of income required to construct massive cities without existing population pulls, necessitates loot or tax income. In the case of the later, it causes strife and civil disobedience and the former requires war and alienation of neighbors.

650,000 as a total number, is not that impressive considering that they cannot be amassed in a single marching army. They would need to be dispersed and then reach gathering points. To do this, you have to have already dispersed parts of your standing army into the areas of rally to lead new recruits and then train or outfit them. There simply is not enough time. Rather, these wars are decided by fewer numbers of soldiers in pitched battles and logistical maneuvers. The Ming Dynasty possessed approximately 840,000 soldiers at its height, though most of these simply relaxed in forts across China and had little military experience and were certainly not expected to fight in battles outside defensive positions. Likewise, Rome possessed at least 500,000 soldiers in 220 CE, yet these were placed across a sprawling empire, wherein the invasion of say an army from Iran of only 20k was a serious threat, as it was facing only a portion of the Roman military might.

^The Gupta will have the same issue.

If the army is a noble army, then I remove my statement regarding training. The issue is, nobles will not simply remain standing forever. Their class (unless Hindustan is different than everywhere else) requires overseeing estates, living well on their incomes and living in their society in general. That is why, standing armies generally arise from societies that practice a generalized conscription, instead of hosting noble armies.

My point is not that the steppe hordes provide an unbearably powerful foe. Only that they have some advantages and then other disadvantages. The best sedentary state however, learns from the steppe nomads and adopts their practices. Namely, the Gupta if it should be a stronger empire and for that matter place Hindustan in a greater position, always take wars outside of the subcontinent. Not for conquest, but loot and warding off potential enemies by devastating them regularly.

For this to occur, I’d say it is needed to create some sort of cultural basis for having a constant noble army or some sort of autonomous army structure waging wars near annually on behalf of the Gupta throne. The best example of this, was the Islamic caliphate during the Abbasid and Umayyad, which did not require conscription of any kind and relied on frontier armies of muhjahadeen and local feudatories which with their income raised armies (the caliph could do so as well, for special occasions).

Also bear in mind, no empire lasts forever, states make decisions that in the moment are positive, but in the future become negative ones or they are subject to entropy. The best any conglomeration of humans can do, is produce what they may in their life and leave the rest to their successors.
1) In part yes urbanism develops naturally , but a light nudge in the right direction by the state can do wonders , see the Sassanid empire , the Gupta's who aspire to be a urban power should try to re build or renovate the old cities not try to found cities in the middle of nowhere , as you said urbanism has to develop naturally . The state command is needed in providing security of life and property on roads and also in cities which had problems with forest tribes and other brigandages . This fact is very well known to us on account of travelers of those times . Indian economy grew rapidly when the roads were safe and of good quality. Look at the country during 330-450 ad when the law and oder was maintained, or during the reign of Akbar .

Why loot ? Why you can do the same by trade .Roman politicians always complained about the trade with India , the Gupta's can simply tax this trade to finance their empire which it did in otl.
So Another area where the Gupta's may get revenue to maintain this vast enterprises is to encourage international trade with , Romans, Chinese, sassaninds , kingdoms in south east Asia even the central asian nomads who loved Indian opium and other drugs . Trade brings in much needed gold but more importantly much needed technology. Say Indian merchants in China come across paper making or the Chinese blast furnace and introduce it in India or say they introduce seed drills and Chinese ploughs from China then problem of agricultural production will be solved for quite some time . Similarly innovations from across the known world will make its way to the subcontinent although slowly . This did happen in our time line say the seed drill made its way from China to India around the reign of Gupta .But an empire which promotes trade with outside world actively will bring in more innovations.

Ming need not build huge irrigation system because the dynasties preceding them did it for them all they had to do was maintain them . Building grand infrastructure projects will not cause problems since doing such things has been the common recurring theme of powerful south Indian kingdoms , they build dams , cannals , lakes , roads , forts etc . Ancient India had two types of taxes once was land tax which was 15-18 percent of the production another was poll tax where you were required to work for the state for 100-120 days for free , introduced during mauryan era to work on crown lands but later used by all to mobilize people to build infrastructure, although people who could afford to do could pay poll tax in cash and duration of work depended upon the place , more fertile lands required less maintenance or people just paid their dues in cash similarly industrial labor paid poll tax in cash since they need not pay land tax .

2) You are right about this , I do say this is a problem with vast empire but indian subcontinent geography is different from Rome or China , one the north east you have Himalayan mountains, on the east you have thick rain forest and there is no large power to threaten its border , mainly small tribals , they can be dealt with by a small defensive military force and alliance with those tribes as going on an offensive was is well stupid IMO. Towards the south well yes there are the powerful south Indian empires again the strategy here is salami tactics , slow and gradual expansion depending upon the political situation down south and to acquire coastal areas say in konkan and kalinga giving access to ports and these ports are sheltered by the western and eastern ghats respectively. The only threat is the north west which even the British had a hard time to control . Now so long as the Sassanid empire is doing well, all is well in the subcontinent but if they are not then Gupta's will have to do most of the fighting but being stretched thin well depends , say the fortifications are near the Khyber pass and the Bolan pass an army as less as 100,000 can take on a full blown invasion of steppe tribes . Mind you the subcontinent has a nature given or " God given " if one is using archaic language fortifications in the north west which even Alexander of Macedonia found hard pressed causing exhaustion to the troops and eventual withdrawal. So Gupta's suffering the fate of ming may be but they will fair better than the Ming's . Case in point the Delhi sultanates who controlled these lands were successful in keeping the central Asian tribes out , the Hindu principalities were able to keep the turks out for 400 years just by controlling these mountain passes.

3) Kshatriya caste always owned the lands in India or the right to maintain themselves out of the produce of the land just look at land holding pattern at the dawn of independence . But this was mainly because of the British rule .
As for estates well the tradition in the subcontinent was a warriors family was given a medium sized estate , a " serf families " to work on those lands , salary from the state to maintain their castle or mansion . In return the family provided a male family member to the army and other family members assisted the local brahmins to maintain law and oder and collect land revenue. So it's a feudal system but not so elaborate as we see in our timeline .

4) Well the Gupta's themselves took the fight to the enemy several times and did enslave the kidarites , xionites and some hepthalites . The main object of this timeline is to have the centralised government government structure strong enough to withstand the onslaught of these tribes , yes they can make way into the subcontinent but that doesn't mean the empire has to crumble , they Gupta's after initial defeats can drive out or outright enslave the invaders . With the local dynasties gone as a result of invasions province can be established in these areas and local elites can continue with the same privilages.
Later on may be the empire will adopt the ways of the central Asian tribes and appoint margraves to do the bidding of the imperial authority

5 ) Never was the intention, empires rise and fall , the goal here is to establish a political entity spanning from Kashmir to Godavari not an eternal empire although it is possible if India takes the road of Japan but that is beyond the scope of this discussion
 
@Freedom2018 Answering points from last to first.

5. I do not see why it is difficult to maintain an empire for a time in Hindustan. Though, as I say, all these creations crumble and eventually enemies will defeat this Gupta state. Eventually, as I stated, their positive actions become negative ones and an enemy arises that makes gains from the internal weakness. The steppe nomads are one point, the ‘Dravidian’ (for lack of better terms) states, a Persian threat or one arising from Tibet, which did gather significant portions of Hindustan at its apex.

Japan having a continual empire is a function of a continual dynasty, less so a single regime. In some respects, we may say the Papacy is an eternal Roman Republic like structure, as described by Giorgio Falco, but this is misleading.

4. The Gupta never invaded the core regions of the steppe past the Khyber Pass. Gupta armies dealt blows to the Hepthalite subsidiaries and controlled lands in the Indus Valley. Thus, the Gupta were already on the defensive, as the subcontinent is their lands and the Nomads had occupied significant portions, mimicking the Saka prior to them. In regards to simply defending indefinitely, this may work for 50 years, but it is known that any power that relies solely upon defense is destined to fall.

As seen in China, even with certain barriers constructed, the Song, Ming and so forth which relied on these defenses were defeated by invasions over constructs and geography. This is understandable too, if an army is indefinitely in defensive holding gates, walls, forts, keeps, mountain passes, etc (assuming that these are not autonomous village militia like in Armenia), they eventually no matter how well trained lose a taste for war and become lazy and in many cases rebellious. Likewise, the old adage, an empire that fails to conquer and continue conquest, is that empire which is soon to incur entropy for in a world of inunerable unforeseen forces, the human constructs of empire created by great generations; crumble before the changes in season. Rome is an example, their consistent and stalwart defense of their borders, especially on the Rhine and Danube, were effective, until they were not. The remedy was victories and conquests and even then survival is not assured.

3. Sure, though, was the noble son not given leave? I cannot imagine a noble agreeing to sit for years in a keep in the Hindu Kush for his years, instead of returning home and having children. How does the Hindu system you describe prevent nobles from becoming agitated at placing their children in these keeps, not even battling enemies. From what I understand, in the texts of the Dharmic religions of Hindustan, there are no mentions of Kshatriyas fighting wars by relaxing behind walls. Rather, it was always an active war and as a noble, you were to gain glory and make a name for yourself, not await possible battles that may never arrive.

2. You cannot trade indefinitely with the steppe nomads unless it is a semi-nomadic empire like the Tocharo-Saka Kushans. The conceptions of the steppe nomadic people was that such trade was to be done at times of weakness and with those under their subjugation. If the Gupta seek trade relations, this will be misconstrued as weakness, as it was between the nomads and China, Rome and the Sassanids.

Traditionally, nomadic peoples do not require trade with sedentary folk, their lifestyles have no need for the types of resources the sedentary peoples produce. And these trade relations were taken as ways to both extract excess resources from the sedentary peoples that they viewed not as trade, but as tribute and this trade was an activity to be done by the nomads at times of weakness so as to avoid conflict. However, if you as a nomadic folk, are in a position of power, with excess warriors, what sense is there to trade? You cannot convert all of these warriors into merchants and herdsman (there is not enough livestock even!), thus, there exists a better way to acquire resources and remove these population surpluses, namely by loot and conquest. It is much more fulfilling and easier for the nomadic people to simply invade and loot than it is for them to engage in extremely uneven trade relations and if you pay tribute, it conveys weakness even more so and requests invasion.

As we see, some countries did not perform this game with steppe nomads and their ilk. Assyria and the Abbasid caliphate, simply invaded near constantly these regions and killed as many men as they could and if possible, took tribute in horses or so forth. This was important in that it imprinted upon the nomads that the enemy was strong and this spoke to the inherent understanding Assyria and such, had of the nomads and their way of life that did not require our soft conceptions of money and agriculture.

1. The Ming did require the rebuilding of canals, which were destroyed by the Mongol conquests. Ming simply did not require such heavy handed government mandates to achieve its goals. The Abbasid caliphate was the same in this regard.

For the Sassanid point, I am not sure, that the economic policies of the Sassanids are to be mimicked. Sassanid urbanism was founded upon its predecessors also, who held a higher population in urban centres than the Sassanids. Seleucid powers who truly started the cities of Cteshipon and Seleucius Tigrei, did such works at the expense of natural population centres of the past. Babylon centuries earlier, remained unsurpassed in population, density and grandeur, despite all of the charades the Seleucids and Sassanids performed.

We may agree to disagree on the role of the state in economic affairs. However, I would agree that the need for the state to oversee road safety or conflict resolution, is important.
 
1) Nothing against the last / first point , I never proposed an eternal empire

2)
The 4th century sanskrit poet kalidasa credits Chandragupta Vikramaditya with conquering about twenty-one kingdoms, both in and outside India. After finishing his campaign in East and West India, Vikramaditya (Chandragupta II) proceeded northwards, subjugated the parashikas then the hepthalites and the kamboja , modern day Tajikistan and tribes located in the west and east oxus valleys respectively. Thereafter, the king proceeded into the Himalayan mountains to reduce the mountain tribes of the kinnaras, kiratas , as well as India proper.

The Brihatkathamanjari of the kashmiri writer kshemendra states, King Vikramaditya (Chandragupta II) had "unburdened the sacred earth of the barbarian like the Scythians , Mleechas , kamboja , yanavas, turusharas , parashika Hunas, and others, by annihilating these sinful Mlecchas completely".
I doubt they subjugated these tribes it sounds more like raids , so the Gupta's moved well beyond the Khyber pass well into modern day Uzbekistan, Tajikistan, Turkmenistan and Afghanistan. But these campaign did not end the troubles given by these tribes so a more aggressive strategy may work . Besides these campaign will pay for itself , the nomads were rich not that they were poor , they profited off silk trade and they had horses so there is an incentive. Although one may argue that it cannot be maintained but still a possibility considering that raids of the nature you described were not out of the ordinary.

3) Well that's a perception that a Kshatriya never hides behind a wall . Look at the heartland of Kshatriya country Rajasthan, there are more forts than large factories in that state . There is also the great wall of kumbhagrah , it extends 40 kms , like wise Rajasthan has numerous examples especially in aravali hills , so fortifications is not seen as a shame .
Yes with regard to the troop placement I forgot to mention ,ancient India the military was divided into districts with each district for each direction , troops were recruited and placed there within the district unless called upon the emperor or king to move outside the district for any purpose the king seems fit . So the people Manning the border lands during peace time are locals supplement by local vassal kingdom or margraves .

4 ) I agree , trade is difficult with nomads , so constant wars is the answer and occasionally trading horses when tribe is weak .

5 ) The mughal empire was quite successful as a urban empire , true different times but conditions are basically the same , a time when foreign trade was at its height relative to the population, the kushanas although nomadic were an urban power , and I think a urban power at this time will be more successful than at other point in history until the age of discovery .

Anyway I don't this model would work out post 750 ad when situations changed dramatically
 
Top