Description of Man-forts (nri-durga)

[Classification of forts (5) Man-forts (nri-durga)]

Most of the ancient works on politics, barring a few like Arthasastra mention nri-durga as a type of fortification. While Sukraniti calls it by a different name, the Sainvadurga, it does not differ from naradurgas mentioned by other works, atleast, in essence. This becomes clear from an analysis of the characteristics of this type described by ancient political treaties. Medhatithi, while commenting on Manusmrti(7.70)

517 describes man-fort as one, in which are indwelled the army with heroic soldiers and weapons. Here the word, man stands for a soldier. Samrajya-lakshmi-pithika describes such a fort with much vividness. Accordingly, 'it is a great semicircular citadel, which is vigilantly guarded from all quarters by innumerable brave warriors, the best heroes wielding weapons like scimitars, javelins, spears, arrows and bows'. (33.12-14). Thus sainyadurga happens to be another name for the nrdurga, the difference resting upon names is only. The mention of this type of forts by Mahabharata, Manusmrti , Ag Purana, Sukraniti, Manasa. and Sivatattvaratnakara, is indicative of the popularity of such forts among kings and rulers of ancient India, over a long stretch of time. In this connection it may be pointed out that whatever physical advantages a fort may offer, it is of no avail, provided the soldiers inhabiting it are not of high morale. Thus, "the strength of all types of forts rests with the nature and mettle of the human element, the valour and character of the troops occupying 25 those". And as the ultimate victory or defeat rests mainly with the soldiers occupying a fort of any description even a forest, a hill or a water fort may as well be 25. Ed. B.D.Basu, Sukraniti (English translation) Allahabad, ^ 1914, p. 214.

H. 518 called as a man-fort. Possibly, herein lies the popular factor of such forts so as to be commonly described by most ancient authors on politics.