Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
Download as docx, pdf, or txt
You are on page 1of 3
Name: Kanishka Dixit
Class: III-B Roll Number-22/105 Tutorial Group:1 Paper: History Of India V(c.1500-1600)
Summary: Khan, I. A. (2004). Gunpowder and firearms: Warfare in medieval
India. Oxford University Press. Ch. 3 & 4. The arrival of the Portuguese in Calicut in 1498 and Babur's subsequent occupation of Delhi and Agra in 1526 introduced new skills and concepts from Europe and Ottoman sources to India. Among these innovations were the production of wrought-iron cannons and improvements in casting bronze or brass guns. The given chapters explore the evolution of artillery in India during this period, focusing on the types of artillery used by the Mughals and other rulers, their effectiveness, and the reasons for the eventual decline of Mughal artillery. The debate about wrought iron forging in artillery in India centres on how the technique was introduced. Some believe it came from Europe in the early 16th century, as Varthema’s writings mention Indian rulers wanting to copy European guns. Others argue that Indians were originally skilled in casting barrels from brass or bronze and later tried to use wrought iron, inspired by Portuguese iron guns. The key question is whether the technique was developed locally or brought in from abroad, showing how difficult it is to trace the origins of such innovations. Babur mentions three distinct types, of artillery pieces used by him in Hindustan: kazan, firangi, and zabr-zan. Along with them, he also mentions tufang which was probably a musket carrying a matchlock of Ottoman origin. The kazan, a heavy siege mortar, was known to the Timurids as early as the 15th century. It was primarily used to destroy forts and had a range of about one kilometre. Drawn by hundreds of men or elephants, it was depicted as a heavy gun in Akbar's court illustrations. The zarb-zan was a lighter cannon, possibly modelled after European field- guns. These brass or bronze cannons were mobile, capable of hitting targets at significant distances and used in both open battles and cavalry engagements. The firangi, a lighter firearm, was likely a musket. Mentioned in Babur's account of the Battle of Panipat, it may have fallen into disuse or been modified into other cannon types. Babur made special efforts to acquire more guns and to increase the strength of tufangchis and topchis in his service. Sher Shah expanded artillery production, focusing on both heavy and light cannons which could be modelled after European-style light cannons introduced by the Portuguese in Bengal. The zarb- zan and mortars(deg-ha) were central to his military strength. His successor, Islam Shah, shifted the focus to heavy mortars, producing enormous pieces requiring thousands of men to transport. This marked a departure from the more flexible and mobile lighter guns used previously. The new concept of light cannons introduced by Sher Shah remained popular during Akbar's reign. The Ain mentioned a wide range of light cannons, from gajnals to narnals. The skill of making wrought iron barrels, which had likely reached North India by the 1540s, was profitably employed by Akbar to produce a vast quantity of light cannons with diverse capabilities. These cannons were not only more affordable but also boasted superior accuracy and striking power. In contrast, heavy mortars were excluded from the "stirrup-artillery," a mobile artillery unit that accompanied the king. This exclusion can be attributed to the inherent drawbacks of heavy mortars, including their slow aim, inaccuracy, high gunpowder consumption, and susceptibility to accidents. Despite these shortcomings, heavy mortars experienced a resurgence in popularity during the 17th century. Artillery production and maintenance were centrally funded,with Babur's officers contributing 30% of their assigned income to support artillery expenses, as documented in 1528.Under Akbar, the imperial household managed artillery production, and nobles were supplied with artillery only during military campaigns. This system continued under Aurangzeb, with even minor artillery management decisions in Deccan forts being made by the Central department of household(buyutat). Babur’s terms for artillery—top, kazan, and deg for heavy mortars, and zarb-zan for light cannons—became interchangeable under Akbar, with artillery pieces classified based on the weight of their shots. Abul Fazl categorized them into three groups: heavy mortars (kaman-ha-i buzurg), medium-sized cannons for sieges, and light cannons like narnals and gajnals, which were deployed in forts. By the 17th century, improvements led to the development of shaturnals and jzails, replacing earlier models. Furthermore,several major innovations were made in artillery technology in India during this period. These innovations were influenced by European and Ottoman sources and contributed to the evolution of artillery in the region. The shaturnal was a type of artillery piece that played a significant role in the evolution of Indian artillery during the seventeenth century. It was designed to be handled by a single individual, representing a notable advancement in artillery technology. The shaturnal likely represented a developed form of the earlier narnal, which was a type of light cannon. The introduction of the shaturnal and its modifications marked an important phase in the modernization and standardization of Indian artillery, contributing to the enhancement of military capabilities during this period. Jzails were another type of artillery piece that played a significant role in the evolution of Indian artillery during the period under consideration. The documents emphasize the adoption of wrought-iron barrels, representing a notable advancement in artillery technology. The shift from stone-balls to metallic shots is noted, signifying a significant change in the ammunition used with artillery. The standardization of shells for artillery use is highlighted, representing a development in the ammunition used in artillery pieces. Despite technological advances, Mughal artillery ultimately failed to match European standards due to the inefficiency and unwieldiness of their heavy mortars. These mortars were difficult to transport and slowed down military operations. Their exclusion from the more mobile "stirrup-artillery" limited their tactical use. Additionally, poor maintenance and a lack of gun carriages rendered many cannons ineffective. The slow pace of fire was another weakness of the Mughal artillery. While the cannons were generally quite accurate, their limited number of heavy mortars and performing cannons affected their overall effectiveness in battles. These factors collectively contributed to the inefficiency of the Mughal artillery during this period. Hence, we conclude that the introduction of European and Ottoman artillery techniques to India significantly shaped warfare during the reigns of Mughal and Afghan rulers in India. While technological innovations such as wrought-iron barrels and metallic shots improved artillery, the inefficiency of heavy mortars and logistical challenges ultimately hindered Mughal military success. Despite their initial dominance, Mughal artillery failed to evolve rapidly enough to compete with European innovations, which contributed to its eventual decline.
Pike, Halberd, and Bayonet: Sharp Weapons in Near Modern and Modern Warfare: Knives, Swords, and Bayonets: A World History of Edged Weapon Warfare, #10