Talk:Maratha Confederacy

Chhatrapati?

The article needs some explanation for the name / honorific "Chhatrapati".

Is this a name or an honorific? I see that the Maratha emperors all have this attribution, which makes me think it must be an honorific: so that needs to be explained. If not, if it is merely a name, that needs explanation as well.

'Chattrapati' is a honorific. It means 'Emperor' or 'Lord Of The World'.

Chaatrapati (छत्रपती)is honorific which literally means Master (owner) of Chhatra ( Umbrela). An umbrela is a symbol for kingdom and owner of it is called Pati.

Sikh Caste System

It implies that the Sikhs had a caste system can someone elaborate as I taught the Sikhs rejected the caste system.

Vandalism by altetendekrabbe

I understand that someone editing this article was a sock. However, this does not mean that some of my contributions should also be reverted. This is NOT right. Can some help stop altetendekrabbe from doing this. Thank you.

Maratha Empire Period

In the article, the period of Maratha Empire is shown from 1674 to 1818. To my knowledge, in the year 1674, Shivaji Maharaj was crowned as Chhatrapati ("sovereign") of the new Maratha kingdom. But actually he conquered the first fort Torna in the year 1645 at the age of 15. See Shivaji#Conflict_with_Adilshahi_sultanate So with this timeline, the Maratha Empire period should start from 1645.

To justify this, let us compare the period of British Raj in India i.e. Company rule in India. It is given as East India Company on the Indian subcontinent from 1757 to 1858. This is because East India Company won the first Battle of Plassey in 1757, when the Nawab of Bengal Sirajuddaulah surrendered his dominions to the Company. This is the first win in India. That is why the period is shown from 1757 to 1858. See the first para of Company rule in India

The same rule should be applied for Maratha Empire and it should be changed to 1645 to 1818 in all the related articles. Yogee23 (talk) 08:46, 5 January 2016 (UTC)

I agree with User: Yogee23. It needs to be changed to 1645. Coolgama (talk) 14:31, 6 January 2016 (UTC)

British Raj only started when the governing of India was taken over by British government and Victoria assumed the title of Empress of India. Prior to the it was the company rule. By taking over Torana , Shivaji laid the foundations of the future Maratha Kingdom. As to whether the Maratha power was formally an empire or not raises a lot of issues. Yes, Shivaji did crown himself Chhatrapati but his grandson Shahu accepted the title of Mansabdar from the Mughal emperor. Later, the Marathas at various times acted as king makers in Delhi but always acted in the name of the Mughal emperor.Jonathansammy (talk) 18:31, 7 January 2016 (UTC)

I am referring to Company rule in India article only. As per the article in Wikipedia, the East India Company period given on the Indian subcontinent from 1757 to 1858. This is because East India Company won the first Battle of Plassey in 1757, when the Nawab of Bengal Sirajuddaulah surrendered his dominions to the Company. This is the first win in India. That is why the period is shown from 1757 to 1858. Earlier to 1757, there was hardly any existence of British company rule in India. It was only in few pockets like Mumbai etc. The same rule applies to Shivaji. Shivaji had won major portion of West India by 1660 by wining various wars against Adhilshah, Nizamshah and Aurangjeb by that time. Just for information Yogee23 (talk) 03:32, 12 January 2016 (UTC)

Jonathansammy, you have put the year of the beginning of the Maratha Confederacy as 1674 in your last edit. In some places in this article, it says that it began in 1645. Please let me know what year we should have in the article - it should be the same everywhere, right?—Dona-Hue (talk) 02:33, 14 June 2017 (UTC)

We should stick to 1674 as the beginning and leave a footnote (As I have already done) to mention the young Shivaji winning the fort in 1645.In the 1660s he also signed up with the Mughal emperor to be in his service.1674 was really the date when he made a break with other ruling entities and that should be the start.The start date is can of worms.As mentioned in one of my previous posts, Shahu got rights to Sardeshmukhi or right to collect taxes in the Deccan from the the Moghal empire.In a formal sense, does it make him a vassal of the Moghals?It would be good to have opinions of other editors on this matter.Thanks.Jonathansammy (talk) 19:15, 15 June 2017 (UTC)

Jonathansammy, I have no idea about this. What is worse is that we need reliable sources for everything here. Please do what you feel is right!—Dona-Hue (talk) 06:50, 17 June 2017 (UTC)

Kings Maratha descent

Anyone who has information about the descendants of King Mustradha Sri Maheswari and King Kalai Sri Bhunawa Maharashtra? It is understood that the two of them, they went into the trade envoy Malaya (Malaysia) in the 18th century, in the area in 1786. While King Mustradha Sri Maheswari into Malaysia in 1822 and developed his seed in Penang to Kuala Lumpur.

Raja Kalai Sri Bhunawa Maharashthra from Maratha empire

Raja Mustradha Sri Maheswari from Maratha empire

Change for Maratha Empire Map

File:Maratha 1320.jpeg includes Maratha vassals at their height. It should be used as the main photo for the Marathas at their height. Bajirao1007 (talk) 11:19, 24 February 2017 (UTC)

What is the source of this map? Is it backed by any scholarly or verified source? If not, it can't be added. It is a POV by you. Shimlaites (talk) 06:53, 25 February 2017 (UTC)

It was based on the map from "Historical Atlas by Raman, Ranjoy ; L.K. Publications Delhi, 1951." however that map like the one used as of now doesn't include Maratha vassals. Mines did. Bajirao1007 (talk) 08:33, 26 February 2017 (UTC)

Please provide a source for the map, you are just taking a name, please provide a URL citing the map. Then it can be discussed which map is more appropriate. Shimlaites (talk) 12:38, 26 February 2017 (UTC)

https://commons.m.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:India_18th_century.JPG#mw-jump-to-license Bajirao1007 (talk) 04:47, 27 February 2017 (UTC)

That map is already on the page, doesn't need a replacement. Shimlaites (talk) 16:26, 28 February 2017 (UTC)

Someone from the I.P. 74.94.52.197 is repeatedly replacing the Maratha confederacy map of 1760 in the lead, removing "File:India1760 1905.jpg" and putting "File:Maratha 1320.jpeg" in its place. Can we have an admin control that?-Dona-Hue (talk) 15:24, 5 May 2017 (UTC)

It's still not vandalism. It's a content dispute— though I agree that it should be discussed. El_C 09:31, 18 May 2017 (UTC)

I called it vandalism because an acceptable map, which has stood the test of time is being removed and a self made map is being put in its place repeatedly-Dona-Hue (talk) 19:36, 18 May 2017 (UTC)

Why not make this as the main map in the introduction? It certaily displays a larger area than the map currently in the main introduction. Knightplex (talk) 17:45, 20 May 2017 (UTC)

That was the map being used in the lead many years ago, when I was editing Wikipedia without an ID, but somebody put up the present map and argued that this a political map and so, is superior. Now, I believe in consensus and feel that you or anyone else can call for a vote to determine which map should be in the Lead.-Dona-Hue (talk) 14:34, 21 May 2017 (UTC)

I agree with Knightplex. Also, the 1758 map appears to more clearly display the territory controlled by the Maratha empire vis-a-vis the 1760 map. --Coconut1002 (talk) 18:14, 11 June 2017 (UTC)

Coconut1002, Knightplex, Bajirao1007 and others who want to change the Maratha Empire's political map - please call for a vote if you want to have your way. I also would like to see a bigger map, personally, but I think it is against the rules of wikipedia!—Dona-Hue (talk) 10:06, 15 July 2017 (UTC)

If the map in the introduction is changed, please add the political map, named "File:India1760 1905.jpg" to the section where the other maps are shown. Thanks!—Dona-Hue (talk) 16:25, 19 July 2017 (UTC)

Personally, I feel this map covers a greater area and is best to be used. I will not object to any of you putting that in the introduction, but I will not do it myself as I seem to be getting warnings for everything I do here at wikipedia (see my talk page)!—Dona-Hue (talk) 16:34, 19 July 2017 (UTC)

That map, besides being ugly and user-generated, is also inaccurate in terms of the territory under the EIC. It has also been edited by someone to remove all mention of the Safavids. And has anyone actually verified what the "Historical Atlas by Raman, Ranjoy" is and if the image accurately represents the map in it? The map is the only submission of a user named Ghruhel on Commons.--Cpt.a.haddock (talk) (please ping when replying) 11:52, 24 July 2017 (UTC)

Cpt.a.haddock, What about using Image:India-1760-map.jpg in the introduction as it is used in the article on the Marathas?—Dona-Hue (talk) 15:23, 31 July 2017 (UTC)

@Dona-Hue: Both are from the same source; 1911 appears to be a corrected version of the 1905 map.--Cpt.a.haddock (talk) (please ping when replying) 07:40, 1 August 2017 (UTC)

That said, I cannot find the source that confirms that the 1911 map is indeed from 1911 or that a 1911 edition of this atlas existed. The 1905 map is confirmed on this page.--Cpt.a.haddock (talk) (please ping when replying) 08:24, 1 August 2017 (UTC)

The more I look at it, the more it looks photoshopped. Comparing the two maps side by side clearly shows the remains of the original Mysore colouring from the 1905 map. The Western Ghats and the Portuguese colony have been incompetently wiped out and there's a marked discoloration in the yellow. The rivers in Mysore are wonky and the DE in Deccan uses a different font. The 1911 map appears to be a fake.--Cpt.a.haddock (talk) (please ping when replying) 08:37, 1 August 2017 (UTC)

And to confirm this, the 1911 map was uploaded by John Mckalie who's a sock of Mrpontiac1. The same user also uploaded another photoshopped image of a Maratha map on the same day which was noticed by Utcursch in 2013.--Cpt.a.haddock (talk) (please ping when replying) 08:45, 1 August 2017 (UTC)

@Cpt.a.haddock:, so I hope you can remove the photoshopped images from this article as well as the article on the Marathas. Thanks!—Dona-Hue (talk) 16:54, 1 August 2017 (UTC)

Utcursch has already taken care of it.—Cpt.a.haddock (talk) (please ping when replying) 20:56, 1 August 2017 (UTC)

@Cpt.a.haddock:-

@Utcursch: an I.P. has been repeatedly removing the Maratha Empire map in the introduction/ lead, that is, "File:India1760 1905.jpg" and putting "File:Maratha 1320.jpeg" in its place. Please lock this article for editing by I.P.s'. Thanks!—Dona-Hue (talk) 04:24, 9 August 2017 (UTC)

I've undid the IP's edit. Seems to be inactive, so no need for a block right now. utcursch | talk 14:40, 9 August 2017 (UTC)

Extent of Maratha Empire under Baji Rao

The article says:

Bajirao is credited with expanding the Maratha Empire tenfold from 3% to 30% of the modern Indian landscape during 1720–1740. [...] [The Concise History of Warfare By Field Marshal Bernard Law Montgomery, p.132]

A user has changed it to 70%. I have found an article saying that the extent was two thirds of the Indian subcontinent, though this is a blog: [1]. So which is correct? What does the source say? (I wasn't able to find the book online.) - Mike Rosoft (talk) 05:32, 23 July 2017 (UTC)

Blogs are unacceptable on Wikipedia. If a user has changed 30% to 70% when the source says 30%, please be bold enough to revert It!—Dona-Hue (talk) 10:22, 24 July 2017 (UTC)

Sorry, I thought you were a novice/rookie, but you are actually an admin; please do whatever you feel is right! Please also let us know about the map in the introduction (please read the matter in the previous section)!—Dona-Hue (talk) 10:28, 24 July 2017 (UTC)

casteist remarks by admin of this website

whoever is the admin of this cite , he seems to be a mischievous person in that he is misleading 'maratha ' identity as a ' Hindu identity which s not historically correct , can he say that madari mehetar , siddi hilal , ibrahim khan etc were not marathas ? secondly why he is bent upon mentioning chitpavan' caste here , if you want to mention caste of peshwa as chitpavan , then moropant pingle was a brahmin , shivaji was 96 clan royal , bajiprabhu was CKP and many more of different catses .why you want to show chitpavan identity here ,please correct it ,at least speak some truth and do not be a kind of third class historan . if you wish you can discuss here ---open intellectual challenge --- note my email dbkasar@yahoo.com — Preceding unsigned comment added by 112.133.245.35 (talk) 18:23, 1 August 2017 (UTC)

This article is edited by thousands of users. Please provide reliable online references for what you are saying and we will try to incorporate them. Click here to read about the guidelines for reliable sources!—Dona-Hue (talk) 18:04, 2 August 2017 (UTC)

Art section?

There should be an additional section mentioning the art/architecture and culture of the era. Some things that come to mind are Trimbakeshwar temple, many of the buildings in Varanasi were built by the Marathas, and they've built a good share of palaces as well. It'd be interesting if some paintings were posted as well and a general run-down of clothing, customs, holidays and the like that were prevalent in the empire. Bajirao1007 (talk) 02:55, 9 August 2017 (UTC)

Prejudice

I want to add this here:-

The National Council of Educational Research and Training (NCERT), the apex organisation that provides advice and support for the improvement of school education has been avoiding mentioning that most of the Indian subcontinent was ruled by the Marathas before the British East India Company conquered it in History books in India according to historian Sadanand More.

References

Any objections? - Dona-Hue (talk) 18:20, 12 August 2017 (UTC) IP 2600:1001:B016:7DE7:DDD6:F2FB:B202:1E5F You had 3 days to object, why did you not object earlier instead of trying to start an edit war now?—Dona-Hue (talk) 17:17, 15 August 2017 (UTC)

wrong facts

Please note that the maratha power was in the hands of shahu till his death 1749 , after his death nanasaheb was given certain power by shahu . Secondly peshwa control certain section of army entrusted by shahu and not the entire army , do you mean that kanhoji angre and raghoji bhosale were working under peshwa ? no denial of pehwa ' role but do not hijack other clans's achievement , or alternatively have one more page for peshwa separate from maratha empire where please show that shivaji was working under peshwa ??? is it a good proposition to over enthusiastic champion of peshwas ? --- dbkasar . please prove the facts given by me as wrong , i will not comment again . — Preceding unsigned comment added by 112.133.245.35 (talk) 12:00, 13 August 2017 (UTC)

Vincent Arthur Smith

@Kautilya3, Sitush, and Utcursch: can you please help regarding this? This 19th century author has clear British colonial bias of Oriental despotism - is clearly not reliable anymore.

Vincent Arthur Smith described Sivaji as "a fierce robber chieftain, who inflicted untold misery on hundreds of thousands of innocent people, Hindus and Muhammadans alike," and "using all kinds of cruelty and treachury to to attain his wicked ends." Smith described the Maratha Empire as having "never served any good purpose or conferred any benefit upon India, except in so far as it gratified Hindu sentiment" and "was the rule of professed robbers."

References