Summary-II

Download as docx, pdf, or txt
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.

You might also like