Talk:Afghan–Maratha War

Moving page to Maratha conquest of North-west (1758)

I am moving this page to Maratha conquest of North-west (1758) as this title seems a better one. It describes time period (1758), also to be noted that Maratha conquest which is descibed in this article is not only in north-west of India but also Pakistani provinces of Punjab and Nwfp. So it can't be said conquest of north-west India, but simply north-west which means north-west part of the sub-continent. JC Ramek (talk) 05:32, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

Mr. Ramek, it seems you are a bit confused about the title of this article. I suggest its title "Maratha conquest of North-west India (1758)".

About India name in the title, before 1947, Pakistan was considered a part of India, so there is nothing wrong in using word 'India'. 85.113.37.6 (talk) 09:56, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

Requested move

The following discussion is an archived discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the proposal was already moved.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 05:20, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

---

Maratha conquest of North-west India (1758) → Maratha conquest of North-west India – My apologies for all these edits. I myself moved this page to the present title "Maratha conquest of North-west India (1758)" but now I feel this title is poor as it becomes too long. There was no need to change this title as it was quite appropriate. I tried to revert my own revert, but couldn't succeed. So, I ask for an administrator to change back this title to Maratha conquest of North-west India. JC Ramek (talk) 10:14, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

Well, you have now been blocked as a sock but your desire to revert back to Maratha conquest of North-west India is correct. Your earlier moves were ridiculous, IMO. - Sitush (talk) 16:18, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

Article moved back to original title. Elockid ^(Talk) 20:17, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Marathas as a Mughal vassal

Which sources state this? Recent talk page discussions on Maratha Confederacy concluded otherwise. SKAG123 (talk) 16:33, 12 October 2024 (UTC)

"Recent discussions" concluded not to mention this in the status section of the infobox because of nuance. The lead and the sources provided in the lead of the confederacy article clearly mention that they paid allegiance to the emperors. PadFoot (talk) 16:45, 12 October 2024 (UTC)

The body paragraph (no sources provided)

” After the death of Mughal emperor Aurangzeb in 1707, the Deccan wars came to an end. The Mughals released Shahu I, the grandson of Shivaji, who won the Maratha throne from his cousin Rajaram I and recognised the suzerainty of the Mughal emperor. Following the death of Emperor Bahadur Shah I, other Mughal vassals and governors became more autonomous and began to rule their territories themselves under the suzerainty of the Mughal emperor. The Marathas warred with other vassals, such as the Rajputs, Bengal and the Nizam and got control over large territories in Gujarat, Central India and Orissa.”

Assuming this is true ( no sources provided) This states the Marathas recognized the Mughal emperor as their suzerain. This does not indicate a vessel status especially during the time of the Afghan Maratha War. Assuming so is original research.

@Flemmish Nietzsche explained this at Talk:Maratha Confederacy#Vessel of the Mughal empire SKAG123 (talk) 17:02, 14 October 2024 (UTC)

He explained that it was too nuanced to be mentioned in the status parameter and required detailing; he never said that were not vassals, sources clearly mention that they were. Flemmish explained they were not 'true vassals' and thus mentioning it simply as such in the infobox without detailing would not be good. Here nothing like that is the case. Besides, it appears that you have not even looked at the sources on the main article. One of the sources clearly mentions that even during the Maratha–British rivalry, both parties were vassals of the Mughal emperor. The Marathas continued to mint coins in the name of the Mughal emperor until the end while the British (EIC) continued to recognise the suzerainty of the Mughal emperor until 1835. PadFoot (talk) 12:08, 21 October 2024 (UTC)

Minting coins in the name of the emperor does not determine a vassal status. Neither the Marathas nor EIC acted as a vessel of the Mughal empire. The emperor has little influence in Maratha policy outside the region of Delhi. Please provide sources that state that. The entire first paragraph of the background section is unsourced therefore I removed it.

If anything the Mughal Empire was subordinate to the Marathas after the Battle of Delhi. SKAG123 (talk) 19:40, 21 October 2024 (UTC)

In a relationship of suzerainty (see the article), the polity which acknowledges another monarch as its suzerain, is called a vassal or tributary state. As for sources, see Wilson, India Conquered: Britain's Raj and the Chaos of Empire, The Marathas went on to become the leading political force in eighteenth- century India, powerfully shaping the process by which British power emerged. But their growth took place as a vassal of the Mughal empire. PadFoot (talk) 03:29, 22 October 2024 (UTC)

The Marathas considering the Mughal emperor as their suzerain does not alone indicate vassal status.

In order to be a true vassal state the suzerain would have significant control or influence over the vessel’s government and politics. This was not the case here. The Mughal emperor did not have any significant influence over Maratha politics during the time of the Afghan Maratha war.

This is no different from the Adil Shahis considering themselves vassal to the Shah of Iran. The relation is completely symbolic and has no real importance. SKAG123 (talk) 04:23, 22 October 2024 (UTC)

Wikipedia is based on sources, and I have provided a reliable source above. Marathas being a vassal of the Mughal emperor is supported by sources. I should state here that you cannot decide whether Marathas were vassals or not. That is upto scholars, and scholars support the claim. Additionally, whatever Adil Shahis did has no effect on this. PadFoot (talk) 07:32, 22 October 2024 (UTC)

The source only states But their growth took place as a vassal of the Mughal empire

It doesn't state exactly when or what years the Marathas were a vassal of the Mughal empire, particularly if they were still a vassal during the Afghan Maratha war. Unless the source directly states a time frame of vassalage, it can't be assumed as that would be original research. SKAG123 (talk) 03:48, 23 October 2024 (UTC)

Skag is right here; unless sources say, when discussing this conflict specifically, (as the Marathas recognising Mughal suzerainty not just symbolically, unlike the EIC, would be an exceptional claim) that the Marathas were, not just in name, a vassal of the Mughals, then the infobox should not treat the Marathas as such. @PadFoot2008, you said in your edit summary that the war was fought for them [the Mughals]; you have yet to provide sources substantiating this.

Also, PadFoot, I was saying that the Marathas were nominally vassals; this is to say that they "recognised" Mughal suzerainty, but in practice were no less independent than any other state in the subcontinent; like Skag said, this is similar to the Adil Shahis and Persia and the east India company and the Mughals. Flemmish Nietzsche (talk) 04:56, 23 October 2024 (UTC)

@SKAG123,@PadFoot2008,@Flemmish Nietzsche,@Noorullah21 I would like to give a suggestion that we should list Marathas in infobox as a de jure Mughal vassal but with an explanatory note stating "Even though Marathas de jure recognised Mughal Emperor as suzerain , the Mughal s had no control over Marathas policy and Marathas were de facto not a subject of Mughal Emperor.Thanks. Edasf (talk) 08:14, 31 October 2024 (UTC)

Hello @Edasf, Yes, that would be good. PadFoot (talk) 08:18, 31 October 2024 (UTC)

I would disagree. The issue is that none of the sources provided so far have dates of when exactly the Marathas were vassals of the Mughals. We can’t assume that they were vassals until 1818 unless a source states this. @PadFoot2008 has not provided this yet.

Also as @Flemmish Nietzsche mentioned, this might be too much information for the infobox especially considering de jure status is not that significant. SKAG123 (talk) 14:10, 31 October 2024 (UTC)

Suzerainty/Vassalage is a formal mutual relationship, where one party recognises the other as its suzerain. Even if it's ceremonial or nominal, with the vassal only paying lip service to the suzerain, the relationship is still a suzerain-vassal relationship. Compare it to the Holy Roman Empire. In the later period, Habsburg emperors who nominally ruled over the Holy Roman Emperor had little control over the numerous states, and the Holy Roman Emperor's rule over these states existed only nominally, however these states were still considered to be under the Holy Roman Empire, until the Habsburgs gave up the title of the Holy Roman Emperor in 1806. This case is similar, where the various Indian rulers and viceroys recognised the suzerainty of the Mughal emperors over their territories, and the Mughal emperor continued to rule nominally over a large empire. Pinging @Noorullah21 who often contributes to this field. PadFoot (talk) 12:05, 25 October 2024 (UTC)

@Flemmish Nietzsche @PadFoot2008 @SKAG123

Hi, from what I know the Marathas were definitely originally vassals of the Mughals. The extent of this vassalage however, is up to dispute and especially where it de-facto ended. The Marathas may have at a point as well only nominally (in-name only) recognized Mughal overlordship.

I definitely see both sides, however for an infobox it could state nominally/dejure wise, the Marathas were (x) vassals of the Mughal empire.

An example I can draw to this is the Emirate of Afghanistan, who was a de-jure British protected state by giving up foreign affairs to the British, but in reality having exercised it under British control regardless. Noorullah (talk) 16:23, 25 October 2024 (UTC)

I would agree with this suggestion. A simple mention of de jure should be good, both in the main article's infobox as well as this article's. PadFoot (talk) 17:37, 25 October 2024 (UTC)

Perhaps this could be preposed in the main article Maratha Confederacy, if exact dates of vassalage are provided.

However I see this as unnessery in this article.

We don’t add British Empire

• Emirate of Afghanistan

to every every conflicts Afghanistan was involved in. Personally I feel it is unnecessary detail to add in this article considering the Mughals were hardly involved. SKAG123 (talk) 18:46, 25 October 2024 (UTC)

Are there exact dates provided in any sources of when the Marathas were vassal of the Mughal empire? we can’t assume as it would be original research. SKAG123 (talk) 18:49, 25 October 2024 (UTC)

I'm not denying that there was some sort of a suzerain-vassal relationship; my point is that if every sensible historian will tell you that the Marathas were independent (at least past the "Kingdom" phase), meaning this relationship had no practical effect on the state, then treating the relationship as if it were anything more than just symbolic (especially in infoboxes other than that of the main article) is both misleading and undue; when I say "recognised" Mughal suzerainty in quotes, all I mean is that the Chhatrapati said his state was "subordinate" to and a "vassal" of the Mughals, but that this did not fit the practical criteria outlined in suzerainity in that the Mughal emperor had no authority over Maratha affairs. We thus should not add the Mughals in these conflict infoboxes so as to not give undue importance to the relationship; if sources do not treat the relationship between the Mughals and their late-rule nominal "vassals" with enough weight that we could say in the opening of their leads "X was a vassal of the Mughal Empire" (compare with HRE member states), then we should not be giving such weight to those relationships in infoboxes. Flemmish Nietzsche (talk) 22:24, 25 October 2024 (UTC)

I understand what you mean to say here, and I do agree that we should not insert the Mughals into the conflict box of every battle involving the Marathas. However, this particular conflict (not any other conflict) did very much involve the Mughals. PadFoot (talk) 11:43, 26 October 2024 (UTC)

Right, so then we should put the Mughals last in the infobox rather than treating the Marathas as "just a subject" of them (i.e. indented after mention). Flemmish Nietzsche (talk) 16:52, 26 October 2024 (UTC)

And that would be incorrect, as I explained above. PadFoot (talk) 06:48, 27 October 2024 (UTC)

And my reasoning as well pertains to having both states in the infobox; the Marathas should not be placed below the Mughals as a subject, as it gives undue weight to them nominally being so; this is not analogous to the HRE. My logic was about mentioning the two's relationship in infoboxes in general; whether the Mughals happened to be involved in a conflict does not matter. Flemmish Nietzsche (talk) 07:07, 27 October 2024 (UTC)

Consensus is now 2-1, therefore I am removing this from the infobox. If you have any concerns, you can bring in more editors. SKAG123 (talk) 14:08, 30 October 2024 (UTC)

Noorullah21 also agreed to list Marathas above, thus not 2-1. PadFoot (talk) 04:02, 31 October 2024 (UTC)

I've taken a look at this discussion. I think it is superfluous to add Mughals in the infobox, reason being as mentioned by Flemmish Neitzsche it seems that they held no literal power over the Marathas. Most contemporaries do not associate them with the battle. Normstahlie (talk) 12:50, 1 November 2024 (UTC)

It has been over 7 day so I am Removing this as per WP:consensus

If there are any sources with exact dates to indicate vassalage, please cite them. SKAG123 (talk) 22:49, 9 November 2024 (UTC)

There is still no consensus yet per WP:CONSENSUS. PadFoot (talk) 07:31, 10 November 2024 (UTC)

You're the only one fully on the side of Mughal inclusion above the Marathas; I'd also like to remind you that you were the one who originally made the edit [1], so the WP:ONUS is on you to achieve consensus for that edit. Flemmish Nietzsche (talk) 07:36, 10 November 2024 (UTC)

Three have agreed above for a full inclusion, but with an explanatory note as well, which I am fine with. PadFoot (talk) 08:00, 10 November 2024 (UTC)

consensus is 3-3. You recently added this into the article so you would need consensus SKAG123 (talk) 17:51, 10 November 2024 (UTC)

Pinging @Someguywhosbored. PadFoot (talk) 04:17, 12 November 2024 (UTC)

I’ll voice my opinion later when I have time. Someguywhosbored (talk) 04:31, 12 November 2024 (UTC)

@Someguywhosbored, alright, thanks. PadFoot (talk) 07:07, 12 November 2024 (UTC)

So to be honest I’ve been avoiding this discussion until I got pinged because I don’t think I really have that much input in this particular topic. But as a suggestion for a possible compromise, why not we just add Mughals as a belligerent while writing the words “nominal” in the info box right above it. That could satisfy both sides concerns. What do you all think?

If this doesn’t satisfy either of you, perhaps you guys could summarize your previous points and I’ll put more thought on the matter. Someguywhosbored (talk) 13:59, 13 November 2024 (UTC)

@Someguywhosbored I would agree with you here. Edasf (talk) 14:06, 13 November 2024 (UTC)

I would agree with you here too, and this proposal was made above too which I agreed with as well. PadFoot (talk) 11:40, 14 November 2024 (UTC)

I would support adding the Mughal empire as “nominal” along with the Maratha Confederacy

However, I would not support adding the Marathas as a vassal to the Mughals. So far no sources with exact dates of vassalage have been provided. Unless this is provided this would be unsourced SKAG123 (talk) 21:16, 14 November 2024 (UTC)

Sources for vassalage

@PadFoot2008 do you have any sources that state Marathas were a vessel of the Mughal Empire during the time of the Afghan-Maratha War (from 1758-1761)? Until then this is not sourced. Material added form Consensus needs to be sourced. See WP:V and WP:POLL SKAG123 (talk) 20:25, 22 November 2024 (UTC)

@PadFoot2008 Can you specify which sources state that the Marathas were vassals of the Mughal Empire during the time of the war?

Just because the source doesn’t state when vassalage ends dosent mean we can assume that it lasted until 1818. That would be WP:NOR. SKAG123 (talk) 06:25, 30 November 2024 (UTC)

Please participate in this discussion. SKAG123 (talk) 06:31, 30 November 2024 (UTC)

I have already provided sources. You cannot assume that the vassalage never ended as the sources too do not mention that the vassalage ended. This one mentions that the state of affairs continued until 1818 [2]. The Chhatrapati, the monarch of the Maratha Confederacy, was always a vassal of the Mughal emperor. PadFoot (talk) 08:19, 30 November 2024 (UTC)

I’m going to wait for skags input. If there is still a disagreement, then I’ll suggest a neutral solution which will hopefully satisfy both parties. Let us cease the back and forward reverting for now until the discussion concludes.

@PadFoot2008 @SKAG123 Someguywhosbored (talk) 10:05, 30 November 2024 (UTC)

I have already provided sources. You cannot assume that the vassalage never ended as the sources too do not mention that the vassalage ended.

That would be Original research. Unless the source mentions when an exact start and end date for the time of vassalage, its unclear what period the Marathas were vassals to the Mughal Emperor.

This one mentions that the state of affairs continued until 1818

Your Source states:

The Peśwā continued to wield supreme authority till 1818. The position was rather peculiar. The Rājā of Sātāra was the nominal head of the state, but he regarded himself as the vassal of the Mughal emperor who was himself a titular head. The Maratha state, in actual practice, came to comprise big and small autonomous chieftainships rather than an empire directed by one sovereign authority. However, it remained secular in concept as the religious grants even in the conquered Mughal territories were continued on the basis of status quo regardless of the religious communities.

The source only states the Peshwa has supreme authority until 1818. No other dates are stated. The source also states that in actual practice, the Mughal emperor had no authority over the Maratha confederacy in actual practice. SKAG123 (talk) 19:23, 30 November 2024 (UTC)

pinging @Johnbod, @RegentsPark, @Flemmish Nietzsche

SKAG123 (talk) 19:27, 30 November 2024 (UTC)

As a possible solution to this problem, why don’t we just write a note that explains the Marathas only nominally/de jure accepted Mughal suzerainty/vassalage, whilst de facto remained independent? I’d be curious to know what other users think. I believe this was suggested above as well.

That way both sides arguments are taken into consideration. Both Skag and PadFoot made a lot of good points so I think a compromise is in order. This is based on my limited knowledge of this particular subject. Someguywhosbored (talk) 20:20, 30 November 2024 (UTC)

Hey I've been pinged before and I gave my bit, but I don't think I'll participate in this discussion further [if someone asks again], seems like it has gotten a bit far out of my hands to fully grasp and understand. Hope you guys can come to a resolution because I've seen on my talk page that this has definitely been a dispute for a while now. Noorullah (talk) 00:30, 1 December 2024 (UTC)

@Someguywhosbored, this solution would be good. PadFoot (talk) 02:04, 1 December 2024 (UTC)