The Vijayanagara Empire ruled over southern India: specifically, it comprised an area roughly equivalent to the modern-day Indian states of Karnataka, Andhra Pradesh, Goa, Kerala, and Tamil Nadu.
[1]
This polity could be said to have been founded with the establishment of the fortified city of Vijayanagara itself in 1340, and it fragmented into many smaller polities roughly three hundred years later, due to both civil wars and incursions from Islamic polities to the North.
[2]
Under Vijayanagara rule, architecture flourished (many temples were built or rebuilt, and the first permanent non-religious buildings, including royal palaces, were constructed), trade and agriculture boomed, new towns were founded, and new notions of legal rights emerged.
[3]
Population and political organization
As with most preceding South Indian polities, the Vijayanagara ruler sat at the top of both administrative and military hierarchies.
[4]
He was assisted at court by several ministers, and in the provinces by governors.
[5]
Assuming that the entire population of the Indian subcontinent at this time equalled 150 million, it seems reasonable to estimate that the population of the Vijayanagara empire was about 25 million.
[6]
Burton Stein estimates that the city of Vijayanagara at its height in the 16th century had over 100,000 inhabitants,
[7]
while Carla Sinopoli believes the population could have been over 250,000.
[8]
[1]: (Kamath 1980, 329) Suryanath Kamath. 1980. A Concise History of Karnataka: From Pre-historic Times to the Present. Bangalore: Archana Prakashana.
[2]: (Stein 1990, 2, 13) Burton Stein. 1990. The New Cambridge History of India: Vijayanagara. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
[3]: (Stein 1990, xii, 2) Burton Stein. 1990. The New Cambridge History of India: Vijayanagara. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
[4]: (Majumdar, Raychaudhuri and Datta 1974, 373) R. C. Majumdar, H. C. Raychaudhuri, Kalikinkar Datta. 1974. An Advanced History of India. Delhi: Macmillan India.
[5]: (Majumdar, Raychaudhuri and Datta 1974, 373-74) R. C. Majumdar, H. C. Raychaudhuri, Kalikinkar Datta. 1974. An Advanced History of India. Delhi: Macmillan India.
[6]: (Stein 1990, 44) Burton Stein. 1990. The New Cambridge History of India: Vijayanagara. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
[7]: (Stein 1990, 75) Burton Stein. 1990. The New Cambridge History of India: Vijayanagara. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
[8]: (Sinopoli 2000, 370) Carla Sinopoli. 2000. ’From the Lion Throne: Political and Social Dynamics of the Vijayanagara Empire’. Journal of the Economic and Social History of the Orient 43 (3): 364-98.
| none |
| Mughal Empire |
| cultural assimilation |
| Preceding: Delhi Sultanate (in_delhi_sultanate) [absorption] |
| loose | |
| confederated state | |
| nominal |
| 100,000 people | 1337 CE 1499 CE |
| [150,000 to 250,000] people | 1500 CE 1646 CE |
| [350,000 to 370,000] km2 |
| 25,000,000 people |
| Year Range | Vijayanagara Empire (in_vijayanagara_emp) was in: |
|---|---|
| (1337 CE 1646 CE) | Deccan |
Vijayanagara: 1336-1565, Penukonda, Chandraigiri. The kingdom of Vijayanagara takes its name, ’City of Victory’, from its capital on the Tungabhadra River
[1]
. The Vijayanagara capital was abandoned in 1565 following a major military defeat
[2]
, the later imperial capitals were Penukonda and Chandragiri
[3]
.
[1]: Burton Stein, The New Cambridge History of India: Vijayanagara (1990), p. 1
[2]: Carla M. Sinopoli, ’From the Lion Throne: Political and Social Dynamics of the Vijayanagara Empire’, Journal of the Economic and Social History of the Orient, Vol 43, No. 3 (2000), pp. 370
[3]: Carla M. Sinopoli, ’From the Lion Throne: Political and Social Dynamics of the Vijayanagara Empire’, Journal of the Economic and Social History of the Orient, Vol 43, No. 3 (2000), pp. 383
Vijayanagara: 1336-1565, Penukonda, Chandraigiri. The kingdom of Vijayanagara takes its name, ’City of Victory’, from its capital on the Tungabhadra River
[1]
. The Vijayanagara capital was abandoned in 1565 following a major military defeat
[2]
, the later imperial capitals were Penukonda and Chandragiri
[3]
.
[1]: Burton Stein, The New Cambridge History of India: Vijayanagara (1990), p. 1
[2]: Carla M. Sinopoli, ’From the Lion Throne: Political and Social Dynamics of the Vijayanagara Empire’, Journal of the Economic and Social History of the Orient, Vol 43, No. 3 (2000), pp. 370
[3]: Carla M. Sinopoli, ’From the Lion Throne: Political and Social Dynamics of the Vijayanagara Empire’, Journal of the Economic and Social History of the Orient, Vol 43, No. 3 (2000), pp. 383
Vijayanagara: 1336-1565, Penukonda, Chandraigiri. The kingdom of Vijayanagara takes its name, ’City of Victory’, from its capital on the Tungabhadra River
[1]
. The Vijayanagara capital was abandoned in 1565 following a major military defeat
[2]
, the later imperial capitals were Penukonda and Chandragiri
[3]
.
[1]: Burton Stein, The New Cambridge History of India: Vijayanagara (1990), p. 1
[2]: Carla M. Sinopoli, ’From the Lion Throne: Political and Social Dynamics of the Vijayanagara Empire’, Journal of the Economic and Social History of the Orient, Vol 43, No. 3 (2000), pp. 370
[3]: Carla M. Sinopoli, ’From the Lion Throne: Political and Social Dynamics of the Vijayanagara Empire’, Journal of the Economic and Social History of the Orient, Vol 43, No. 3 (2000), pp. 383
The beginning point for the Vijayanagara kingdom is the founding of the fortified city on the Tungabhadra around 1340
[1]
. While there are disputes as to the details, most experts commonly agree that the fortified city of Vijayanagar was established in 1336
[2]
[3]
[4]
. Prior to that, there were incursions of soldiers serving the Khalji sultans of Delhi, which allegedly created the reasons and conditions for the new dynasty and city of Vijayanagara
[1]
.
As a result of repeated invasions from Muslim states to the North and civil wars within, Vijayanagara authority was fragmented in the seventeenth century
[5]
, leading to an imperial collapse
[6]
. In 1646, the Vijaynagar empire is finally conquered by the sultanates of Bijapur and Golconda. Many of the empire’s largest vassal states immediately declare independence, so the territorial gains made by the sultanates are limited. Those vassals, Mysore, Keladi Nayaka, and the Nayaks and Nayakas of Chitradurga, Gingee, Madurai, and Tanjore, all become powerful states in southern India
[7]
.
[1]: Burton Stein, The New Cambridge History of India: Vijayanagara (1990), p. 13
[2]: Michael Edwardes, A History of India: From the Earliest Times to the Present Day (1961), p. 116, 140
[3]: R.C. Majumdar, H.C. Raychaudhuri, Kalikinkar Datta, An Advanced History of India (1974), p. 317
[4]: Burton Stein, The New Cambridge History of India: Vijayanagara (1990), p. 19
[5]: Burton Stein, The New Cambridge History of India: Vijayanagara (1990), p. 2
[6]: Burton Stein, The New Cambridge History of India: Vijayanagara (1990), p. 120-126
[7]: http://www.historyfiles.co.uk/KingListsFarEast/IndiaVijayanagar.htm
The origins of the first rulers of Vijayanagara are obscure and much debated, but it is clear that they were effective and creative military leaders who, after establishing their capital on the southern banks of the Tungabhadra River, rapidly expanded their territories to the south and resisted challenges from the north [1] .
[1]: Carla M. Sinopoli, ’From the Lion Throne: Political and Social Dynamics of the Vijayanagara Empire’, Journal of the Economic and Social History of the Orient, Vol 43, No. 3 (2000), pp. 369-70
The origins of the first rulers of Vijayanagara are obscure and much debated, but it is clear that they were effective and creative military leaders who, after establishing their capital on the southern banks of the Tungabhadra River, rapidly expanded their territories to the south and resisted challenges from the north [1] .
[1]: Carla M. Sinopoli, ’From the Lion Throne: Political and Social Dynamics of the Vijayanagara Empire’, Journal of the Economic and Social History of the Orient, Vol 43, No. 3 (2000), pp. 369-70
loose: 1336-1509; confederated state: 1509-1565; nominal: 1565-1646While there is some debate over whether to define the relations between local lordships and the Vijayanagara kings as feudal or other, but there is no doubt that the degree of centralization differed during various periods of the kingdom.
The early Vijayanagara kingdom was more a group of semi-autonomous states rather than a unified kingdom. Centralized authority was enhanced by the occasional appointment of non-kinsmen, including Brahmans, to important military commands, and even to governorships of one of the five core provinces in the center of the kingdom. But this was not the usual policy; most often sons of the king ruled for him
[1]
.
Through most of the first dynasty, Vijayanagara kings were content to be conquerors whose conquests left the ancient Cholas and Panyas in their sovereign places, except that they were reduced by their homage to Vijayanagara. Until the early sixteenth century, the latter were ritual sovereigns everywhere outside their Deccan heartland; apart from occasional plundering forays, they were content with the homage of distant lords
[2]
. Krishnadevaraya (reigned 1509-29
[3]
) changed much of this. He replaced earlier royal predecessors by his own Brahmans and military commanders and charged his agents to extract money tribute from subordinate lords who had previously been required to pay nothing to Vijayanagara, merely to acknowledge the latter’s hegemony in a number of symbolic ways
[2]
.
Krishnadevaraya cast aside the ancient the ancient Chola and Pandya kings in the South and installed military commanders who not long after established centers of sovereignty opposed to its successors
[4]
.
After the catastrophic sack of the capital of Vijayanagara in 1565, the kingdom saw a big decline in power, and a series of civil wars
[5]
. It was also during this time that the ’Nayaka kingdoms’, which had emerged at the very zenith of the Vijayanagara monarchy (during the early 16th century; e.g. Mysore and Ikkeri), became increasingly independent and sought to avert the re-emergence of a strong Vijayanagara king capable of reducing their authority and territorial ambitions
[6]
. Thus, the level of the centralization of the kingdom post-1565 should be defined as ’nominal’.
[1]: Burton Stein, The New Cambridge History of India: Vijayanagara (1990), p. 27-8
[2]: Burton Stein, The New Cambridge History of India: Vijayanagara (1990), p. 140
[3]: Burton Stein, The New Cambridge History of India: Vijayanagara (1990), p. 27
[4]: Burton Stein, The New Cambridge History of India: Vijayanagara (1990), p. 141
[5]: Burton Stein, The New Cambridge History of India: Vijayanagara (1990), p. 13, 122
[6]: Burton Stein, The New Cambridge History of India: Vijayanagara (1990), p. 130-9
loose: 1336-1509; confederated state: 1509-1565; nominal: 1565-1646While there is some debate over whether to define the relations between local lordships and the Vijayanagara kings as feudal or other, but there is no doubt that the degree of centralization differed during various periods of the kingdom.
The early Vijayanagara kingdom was more a group of semi-autonomous states rather than a unified kingdom. Centralized authority was enhanced by the occasional appointment of non-kinsmen, including Brahmans, to important military commands, and even to governorships of one of the five core provinces in the center of the kingdom. But this was not the usual policy; most often sons of the king ruled for him
[1]
.
Through most of the first dynasty, Vijayanagara kings were content to be conquerors whose conquests left the ancient Cholas and Panyas in their sovereign places, except that they were reduced by their homage to Vijayanagara. Until the early sixteenth century, the latter were ritual sovereigns everywhere outside their Deccan heartland; apart from occasional plundering forays, they were content with the homage of distant lords
[2]
. Krishnadevaraya (reigned 1509-29
[3]
) changed much of this. He replaced earlier royal predecessors by his own Brahmans and military commanders and charged his agents to extract money tribute from subordinate lords who had previously been required to pay nothing to Vijayanagara, merely to acknowledge the latter’s hegemony in a number of symbolic ways
[2]
.
Krishnadevaraya cast aside the ancient the ancient Chola and Pandya kings in the South and installed military commanders who not long after established centers of sovereignty opposed to its successors
[4]
.
After the catastrophic sack of the capital of Vijayanagara in 1565, the kingdom saw a big decline in power, and a series of civil wars
[5]
. It was also during this time that the ’Nayaka kingdoms’, which had emerged at the very zenith of the Vijayanagara monarchy (during the early 16th century; e.g. Mysore and Ikkeri), became increasingly independent and sought to avert the re-emergence of a strong Vijayanagara king capable of reducing their authority and territorial ambitions
[6]
. Thus, the level of the centralization of the kingdom post-1565 should be defined as ’nominal’.
[1]: Burton Stein, The New Cambridge History of India: Vijayanagara (1990), p. 27-8
[2]: Burton Stein, The New Cambridge History of India: Vijayanagara (1990), p. 140
[3]: Burton Stein, The New Cambridge History of India: Vijayanagara (1990), p. 27
[4]: Burton Stein, The New Cambridge History of India: Vijayanagara (1990), p. 141
[5]: Burton Stein, The New Cambridge History of India: Vijayanagara (1990), p. 13, 122
[6]: Burton Stein, The New Cambridge History of India: Vijayanagara (1990), p. 130-9
loose: 1336-1509; confederated state: 1509-1565; nominal: 1565-1646While there is some debate over whether to define the relations between local lordships and the Vijayanagara kings as feudal or other, but there is no doubt that the degree of centralization differed during various periods of the kingdom.
The early Vijayanagara kingdom was more a group of semi-autonomous states rather than a unified kingdom. Centralized authority was enhanced by the occasional appointment of non-kinsmen, including Brahmans, to important military commands, and even to governorships of one of the five core provinces in the center of the kingdom. But this was not the usual policy; most often sons of the king ruled for him
[1]
.
Through most of the first dynasty, Vijayanagara kings were content to be conquerors whose conquests left the ancient Cholas and Panyas in their sovereign places, except that they were reduced by their homage to Vijayanagara. Until the early sixteenth century, the latter were ritual sovereigns everywhere outside their Deccan heartland; apart from occasional plundering forays, they were content with the homage of distant lords
[2]
. Krishnadevaraya (reigned 1509-29
[3]
) changed much of this. He replaced earlier royal predecessors by his own Brahmans and military commanders and charged his agents to extract money tribute from subordinate lords who had previously been required to pay nothing to Vijayanagara, merely to acknowledge the latter’s hegemony in a number of symbolic ways
[2]
.
Krishnadevaraya cast aside the ancient the ancient Chola and Pandya kings in the South and installed military commanders who not long after established centers of sovereignty opposed to its successors
[4]
.
After the catastrophic sack of the capital of Vijayanagara in 1565, the kingdom saw a big decline in power, and a series of civil wars
[5]
. It was also during this time that the ’Nayaka kingdoms’, which had emerged at the very zenith of the Vijayanagara monarchy (during the early 16th century; e.g. Mysore and Ikkeri), became increasingly independent and sought to avert the re-emergence of a strong Vijayanagara king capable of reducing their authority and territorial ambitions
[6]
. Thus, the level of the centralization of the kingdom post-1565 should be defined as ’nominal’.
[1]: Burton Stein, The New Cambridge History of India: Vijayanagara (1990), p. 27-8
[2]: Burton Stein, The New Cambridge History of India: Vijayanagara (1990), p. 140
[3]: Burton Stein, The New Cambridge History of India: Vijayanagara (1990), p. 27
[4]: Burton Stein, The New Cambridge History of India: Vijayanagara (1990), p. 141
[5]: Burton Stein, The New Cambridge History of India: Vijayanagara (1990), p. 13, 122
[6]: Burton Stein, The New Cambridge History of India: Vijayanagara (1990), p. 130-9
The Emprerors were patrons of all languages - Sanskrit, Telugu, Tamil and Kannada [1] . Kings of Vijayanagara were of four distinct ruling lineages. They differed in language and provenance, in their religious affiliations and even in where their capitals were [2] .
[1]: R.C. Majumdar, H.C. Raychaudhuri, Kalikinkar Datta, An Advanced History of India (1974), p. 371
[2]: Burton Stein, The New Cambridge History of India: Vijayanagara (1990), p. 13
The Emprerors were patrons of all languages - Sanskrit, Telugu, Tamil and Kannada [1] . Kings of Vijayanagara were of four distinct ruling lineages. They differed in language and provenance, in their religious affiliations and even in where their capitals were [2] .
[1]: R.C. Majumdar, H.C. Raychaudhuri, Kalikinkar Datta, An Advanced History of India (1974), p. 371
[2]: Burton Stein, The New Cambridge History of India: Vijayanagara (1990), p. 13
The Emprerors were patrons of all languages - Sanskrit, Telugu, Tamil and Kannada [1] . Kings of Vijayanagara were of four distinct ruling lineages. They differed in language and provenance, in their religious affiliations and even in where their capitals were [2] .
[1]: R.C. Majumdar, H.C. Raychaudhuri, Kalikinkar Datta, An Advanced History of India (1974), p. 371
[2]: Burton Stein, The New Cambridge History of India: Vijayanagara (1990), p. 13
The Emprerors were patrons of all languages - Sanskrit, Telugu, Tamil and Kannada [1] . Kings of Vijayanagara were of four distinct ruling lineages. They differed in language and provenance, in their religious affiliations and even in where their capitals were [2] .
[1]: R.C. Majumdar, H.C. Raychaudhuri, Kalikinkar Datta, An Advanced History of India (1974), p. 371
[2]: Burton Stein, The New Cambridge History of India: Vijayanagara (1990), p. 13
[100,000-250,000]: 1560 CE
By the early 1400s the fortified core of the city of Vijayanagara covered nearly 20 square km, and its population may have been as high as 100,000. By the time the Vijayanagara capital was abandoned in 1565 following a major military defeat, the city core extended over approximately 30 square km and its fortified hinterland was more than 400 square km in area. The city’s population at that time is estimated to have exceeded 250,000
[1]
. According to a different source, though, the city’s population in the 16th century is described as "over 100,000"
[2]
.
[1]: Carla M. Sinopoli, ’From the Lion Throne: Political and Social Dynamics of the Vijayanagara Empire’, Journal of the Economic and Social History of the Orient, Vol 43, No. 3 (2000), pp. 370
[2]: Burton Stein, The New Cambridge History of India: Vijayanagara (1990), p. 75
[100,000-250,000]: 1560 CE
By the early 1400s the fortified core of the city of Vijayanagara covered nearly 20 square km, and its population may have been as high as 100,000. By the time the Vijayanagara capital was abandoned in 1565 following a major military defeat, the city core extended over approximately 30 square km and its fortified hinterland was more than 400 square km in area. The city’s population at that time is estimated to have exceeded 250,000
[1]
. According to a different source, though, the city’s population in the 16th century is described as "over 100,000"
[2]
.
[1]: Carla M. Sinopoli, ’From the Lion Throne: Political and Social Dynamics of the Vijayanagara Empire’, Journal of the Economic and Social History of the Orient, Vol 43, No. 3 (2000), pp. 370
[2]: Burton Stein, The New Cambridge History of India: Vijayanagara (1990), p. 75
levels.
1. Capital City, the City of Vijayanagar - encompassed by massive fortifications and was of enormous size. According to the accounts of foreign travelers to India during the 15th and 16th centuries, the circumference of the city was 60 miles, and it was a highly populous city
[1]
. According to another source, the city covered 10 square miles in 1500
[2]
.
2. Provincial capitals - The Empire was divided into several principal provinces
[3]
.3. Town between provincial city and village? inferred4. Village - Lowest territorial division in the Karnataka portion of Vijayanagara
[4]
.
[1]: R.C. Majumdar, H.C. Raychaudhuri, Kalikinkar Datta, An Advanced History of India (1974), p. 368
[2]: Burton Stein, The New Cambridge History of India: Vijayanagara (1990), p. 1
[3]: R.C. Majumdar, H.C. Raychaudhuri, Kalikinkar Datta, An Advanced History of India (1974), p. 374
[4]: R.C. Majumdar, H.C. Raychaudhuri, Kalikinkar Datta, An Advanced History of India (1974), p. 374-5
levels.
There are no official hierarchies in Hinduism
[1]
. However, some would argue for the importance, at least for some branches of the religion, of the relationship between student and teacher or guru (e.g.
[2]
). Based on that viewpoint, it may not be entirely inappropriate to say that there is indeed a Hindu religious hierarchy, and that it is composed of two levels.
[1]: http://ezinearticles.com/?Religious-Hierarchy-in-Hinduism&id=1864556
[2]: G. Flood, Introduction, in G. Flood (ed), The Blackwell Comapnion to Hinduism (2003), p. 4
levels.
The rulers of Vijayanagara had a carefully organized military department, called Kandachara:
1. King
2. Commander-in-ChiefThe military was under the control of the Dandanayaka or Nannayaka (Commander-in-Chief)
[1]
3. Staff of minor officials -- same level is generals? are these the generals?The Commander-in-Chief was assisted by a staff of minor officials
[1]
.
3. Generals inferred4. Officers inferred -- more than one level?5. Individual soldierThe lowest level of the military was a soldier
[1]
[2]
.
[1]: R.C. Majumdar, H.C. Raychaudhuri, Kalikinkar Datta, An Advanced History of India (1974), p. 376
[2]: Burton Stein, The New Cambridge History of India: Vijayanagara (1990), p. 70
levels.
1. King
[1]
.
_Central or court government_
2. Council of MinistersThe king also had a hierarchical central bureaucracy - he was assisted in the task of administration by a council of ministers, appointed by him, as well as by chief treasurer, custodians of the jewels, an officer who looked after the commercial interests of the State, the prefect of the police, the chief master of the horse etc
[2]
.
2. Chief treasurerEach viceroy was required to submit regular accounts of the income and expenditure of his charge to the central government
[3]
3.4.5.
2. Custodian of the jewels
2. Prefect of the police
2. Chief master of the horse
2. MahanayakacharyaThe King maintained a link with the village administration through his officer called the Mahanayakacharya, who exercised a general supervision over it.
[4]
.
_Provincial government_
2. Viceroy, nayaka or naik - in each province
[3]
.3. Civil (e.g. treasury), military, judicial officials at department head level inferredEach viceroy exercised civil, military and judicial power within his jurisdiction, but he was required to submit regular accounts of the income and expenditure of his charge to the central government and render it military aid in times of need
[3]
4. Accountant (income, expenditure, tax receipts etc) inferred5. Assistant/scribe inferred
3. Village officers.Villages were the lowest unit of local administration. Each village was a self-sufficient unit. The village assembly conducted the administration of the area under its charge (executive, judicial and police) through its hereditary officers like the senateova or the village accountant, the talara or the village watchman or commandant, the begara or the superintendent of forced labor, and others. These village officers were paid either by grants of land or a portion of agricultural produce. The King maintained a link with the village administration through his officer called the Mahanayakacharya, who exercised a general supervision over it.
[4]
.
4. Senateova
4. Village accountant
4. talara (village watchman or commandant)
4. begara (superintendent of forced labor)
[1]: R.C. Majumdar, H.C. Raychaudhuri, Kalikinkar Datta, An Advanced History of India (1974), p. 373
[2]: R.C. Majumdar, H.C. Raychaudhuri, Kalikinkar Datta, An Advanced History of India (1974), p. 373-4
[3]: R.C. Majumdar, H.C. Raychaudhuri, Kalikinkar Datta, An Advanced History of India (1974), p. 374
[4]: R.C. Majumdar, H.C. Raychaudhuri, Kalikinkar Datta, An Advanced History of India (1974), p. 375
The King was assisted in the task of administration by a council of ministers, appointed by him, as well as by chief treasurer, custodians of the jewels, an officer who looked after the commercial interests of the State, the prefect of the police, the chief master of the horse etc [1] .
[1]: R.C. Majumdar, H.C. Raychaudhuri, Kalikinkar Datta, An Advanced History of India (1974), p. 373-4
In the below quote, Rocher argues that professional lawyers did not exist in India for much of its history. Unhelpfully, Rocher does not provide dates or much in the way of temporal boundaries. However, the use of the word “ever” in the sentence “no written source allows us to draw the conclusion that the experts on legal matters ever developed into a professional group whose regular activities consisted in representing parties in the court” may perhaps be taken to mean that professional lawyers did not exist in India before the colonial era.
“Thus, we believe that at an early date—let us roughly say at the time of the dharmasutras—professional lawyers or, to be more precise, specialized dharmasastrins could not exist. The Indian sage in those days was a specialist in all of the texts related to a particular Vedic school. His specialized knowledge concentrated on a specific version of the Vedic samhita and all its related texts: brahmana, aranyaka, upanisad, srautasutra, grhyasutra, dharmasutra, etc. There were no specialists on dharmasastra, and, a fortiori, no specialists on law that were part of it.
“But the situation changed. The texts on dharma grew away from the Vedic schools. Gradually there may have come into being a specialized group of learned men whose main interest was dharma, and the various dharmasastras as such.
“Finally, as the amount of textual material increased, we may assume that certain experts, without detaching themselves completely from aspects of dharmasastra and from Hindu learning generally, accumulated a very specialized knowledge of one aspect of dharma: vivada and vyavahara, or, in modern terminology, law. It is very possible that at this stage the nature of legal representation (niyoga) also underwent a certain change. We do not want to exclude the possibility that, at that moment, in a number of cases legal competence played a role in the choice of a representative. We are even willing to accept that Vyasa refers to the very special circumstance in which the representative was paid for his services. However, no written source allows us to draw the conclusion that the experts on legal matters ever developed into a professional group whose regular activities consisted in representing parties in the court. The impression which we gather from the texts is that, even in cases where the representative was chosen because of his special competence on legal matters, and, a fortiori, in all other cases, the necessary condition for a person to represent a party was the existence, between the former and the latter, of a certain form of close personal relationship.”
[1]
special judicial officers for the administration of justice
[2]
[1]: (Rocher 1969: 399-400) Rocher, L. 1969. "Lawyers" in Classical Hindu Law. Law & Society Review 3 (2/3): 383-402. Seshat URL: https://www.zotero.org/groups/1051264/seshat_databank/items/QKMEMIHW/library
[2]: R.C. Majumdar, H.C. Raychaudhuri, Kalikinkar Datta, An Advanced History of India (1974), p. 376
The only law of the land was based on traditional regulations and customs, strengthened by the constitutional usage of the country, and its observance was strictly enforced [1] . Vijayanagar rulers ‘tried to adhere to ancient practices of Hinduism through cultural revivalism’. The law was thus mainly based on traditional Hindu legal codes as well as some local customs. [2] [3]
[1]: R.C. Majumdar, H.C. Raychaudhuri, Kalikinkar Datta, An Advanced History of India (1974), p. 376
[2]: Madhao P. Patil. 1999. Court Life Under The Vijayanagar Rulers. B.R. Publishing Corporation. p. 211.
[3]: R.C. Majumdar, H.C. Raychaudhuri, Kalikinkar Datta. 1974. An Advanced History of India. p. 376
[1] In India open channels and pipes were widely used from the fifteenth century in urban settlements. The palace at Vijayanagara was fed this way by monsoon water. Other residents used wells, roadside wells, and also rainwater which was collected in tanks. [2] [3] [4]
[1]: Burton Stein, The New Cambridge History of India: Vijayanagara (1990), p. 34
[2]: Dominic J. Davison-Jenkins. 1997. The Irrigation and Water Supply Systems of Vijayanagara. Manohar. p.88
[3]: Burton Stein, The New Cambridge History of India: Vijayanagara (1990), p. 34, 36
[4]: Carla M Sinopoli. 1999. Levels of Complexity: Ceramic Variability at Vijayanagara. James M Skibo. Gary M Feinmann. eds. Pottery and People. The University of Utah Press. Salt Lake City. p. 119
Certainly used wells [1] which suggest that they may not have had supply system infrastructure. Pipes, cisterns etc. In India open channels and pipes were widely used from the fifteenth century in urban settlements. The palace at Vijayanagara was fed this way by monsoon water. Other residents used wells, roadside wells, and also rainwater which was collected in tanks. [2] [1] [3]
[1]: Burton Stein, The New Cambridge History of India: Vijayanagara (1990), p. 34, 36
[2]: Dominic J. Davison-Jenkins. 1997. The Irrigation and Water Supply Systems of Vijayanagara. Manohar. p.88
[3]: Carla M Sinopoli. 1999. Levels of Complexity: Ceramic Variability at Vijayanagara. James M Skibo. Gary M Feinmann. eds. Pottery and People. The University of Utah Press. Salt Lake City. p. 119
No persuasive evidence could be found, in the literature consulted, for the existence of a postal service of any kind in India, between the end of the Mauryan period and the fourteenth century, when Ibn Battuta visited the Delhi Sultanate and described its communication services. However, it is entirely possible that such systems existed in at least some polities, especially the larger ones.
No persuasive evidence could be found, in the literature consulted, for the existence of a postal service of any kind in India, between the end of the Mauryan period and the fourteenth century, when Ibn Battuta visited the Delhi Sultanate and described its communication services. However, it is entirely possible that such systems existed in at least some polities, especially the larger ones.
No persuasive evidence could be found, in the literature consulted, for the existence of a postal service of any kind in India, between the end of the Mauryan period and the fourteenth century, when Ibn Battuta visited the Delhi Sultanate and described its communication services. However, it is entirely possible that such systems existed in at least some polities, especially the larger ones.
Stone walls were "permitted only in the case of places on the frontier" and the "most important forts in the interior". [1] "The one variety of monument which most significantly demonstrates the hierarchical arrangement of settlements under Vijayanagara’s control is its walls. ... masonry was employed in the construction of walls at Vijayanagara. Mortar appears not to have been used, but other stone walls elsewhere on the site show evidence of once having been covered by a layer of plaster. Granite was cut into large rectangular blocks and was held in place by smaller pieces of cut stone. Although arches are found at the top of the structure, the actual gateway is held up by corbels which support a horizontal stone slab. This gateway represents a mere fragment of the once extensive network of stone walls which surrounded Vijayanagara duing the sixteenth century ..." [2]
[1]: (Ramayanna 1986, p. 120)
[2]: (Howes 2003, 44-45) Jennifer Howes. 2003. The Courts of Pre-colonial South India: Material Culture and Kingship. RoutledgeCurzon. London.
Stone walls were "permitted only in the case of places on the frontier" and the "most important forts in the interior". [1] "The one variety of monument which most significantly demonstrates the hierarchical arrangement of settlements under Vijayanagara’s control is its walls. ... masonry was employed in the construction of walls at Vijayanagara. Mortar appears not to have been used, but other stone walls elsewhere on the site show evidence of once having been covered by a layer of plaster. Granite was cut into large rectangular blocks and was held in place by smaller pieces of cut stone. Although arches are found at the top of the structure, the actual gateway is held up by corbels which support a horizontal stone slab. This gateway represents a mere fragment of the once extensive network of stone walls which surrounded Vijayanagara duing the sixteenth century ..." [2]
[1]: (Ramayanna 1986, p. 120)
[2]: (Howes 2003, 44-45) Jennifer Howes. 2003. The Courts of Pre-colonial South India: Material Culture and Kingship. RoutledgeCurzon. London.
Domingo Paes commented of Indian rulers, such as that of the Vijayanagara: "if a city is stituated at the extremity of his territory he gives his consent to its having stone walls, but never the towns; so that they make fortresses of the cities but not the towns." [1]
[1]: (Howes 2003, 45) Jennifer Howes. 2003. The Courts of Pre-colonial South India: Material Culture and Kingship. RoutledgeCurzon. London.
"Walls made out of earth, which are common in the south of India, appear to have been used at settlements of inferior status, while stone walls were constructed around settlements which exercised some level of authority over the surrounding area." [1]
[1]: (Howes 2003, 45) Jennifer Howes. 2003. The Courts of Pre-colonial South India: Material Culture and Kingship. RoutledgeCurzon. London.
"Important forts like Vijayanagara had no less than seven walls of fortification." [1] "The palace was inside a walled compound which stood within a fortified city. Temples were also enclosed by walled compounds." [2]
[1]: (Ramayanna 1986, p. 121)
[2]: (Howes 2003, 45) Jennifer Howes. 2003. The Courts of Pre-colonial South India: Material Culture and Kingship. RoutledgeCurzon. London.
"The hand crossbow was usd on Indian battlefields probably from the third century A.D. It was mainly used as an infantry weapon and occasionally as a cavalry weapon. A Sanskrit inscription at Avanthipuram, in South India, reads: ’... Of him who has the name of Ananta impelled with speed and skillfully discharged from the machines of his bow fitted with the well stretched string....’ Obviously, the machine referred to was a hand crossbow." [1]
[1]: (Phillips 2016) Henry Pratap Phillips. 2016. The History and Chronology of Gunpowder and Gunpowder Weapons (c.1000 to 1850). Notion Press.
"The Muhammadan soldiers carried ’shields, javelins and Turkish bows with many bombs and spears and fire missiles."
"The Muhammadan soldiers carried ’shields, javelins and Turkish bows with many bombs and spears and fire missiles." [1] According to Nikitin, in south India infantry had ’a shield in one hand and a sword in the other’. [2] According to Nuniz, soldiers of Vijayanagar ’were all armed each after his own fashion, the archers and musketeers with their quilted tunics, and shield-men with swords and poignards in their girdles. Their shields are so large that there is no need for armour to protect the body, which is completely covered. Their horses were in full clothing. The men wore doublets, and had weapons in their hands. And on their heads were headpieces after the manner of their doublets, quilted with cotton.’ [2]
[1]: (Ramayanna 1986, p. 126)
[2]: (Eraly 2015) Abraham Eraly. 2015. The Age of Wrath: A History of the Delhi Sultanate. Penguin.
"But, while engaged in fighting they put on a kind of armour made of leather, which covered their body completely, leaving only the face and the feet." [1] According to Nuniz, soldiers of Vijayanagar ’were all armed each after his own fashion, the archers and musketeers with their quilted tunics, and shield-men with swords and poignards in their girdles. Their shields are so large that there is no need for armour to protect the body, which is completely covered. Their horses were in full clothing. The men wore doublets, and had weapons in their hands. And on their heads were headpieces after the manner of their doublets, quilted with cotton.’ [2] Razzak says soldiers in Kerala had a dagger and a cowhide shield. [2]
[1]: (Ramayanna 1986, pp. 126-127)
[2]: (Eraly 2015) Abraham Eraly. 2015. The Age of Wrath: A History of the Delhi Sultanate. Penguin.
"Head-pieces" which protected the neck and the face were made of leather and iron. [1] Soldiers of the Vijayanagara c1400 CE used iron plates inside raw leather tunics and headpieces similar to helmets. [2] According to Nuniz, soldiers of Vijayanagar ’were all armed each after his own fashion, the archers and musketeers with their quilted tunics, and shield-men with swords and poignards in their girdles. Their shields are so large that there is no need for armour to protect the body, which is completely covered. Their horses were in full clothing. The men wore doublets, and had weapons in their hands. And on their heads were headpieces after the manner of their doublets, quilted with cotton.’ [3]
[1]: (Ramayanna 1986, p. 127)
[2]: (Domingos Paes [c1520] 1991, 276) Domingos Paes (c1520-1522). Of the things which I saw and contrived to learn concerning the Kingdom of Narsimga, etc. The Vijayanagar Empire: Chronicales of Paes and Nuniz. Asian Educational Services. New Delhi.
[3]: (Eraly 2015) Abraham Eraly. 2015. The Age of Wrath: A History of the Delhi Sultanate. Penguin.