Talk:Third Battle of Panipat/Archive 1

The article has been cleaned-up substantially. The obvious jingoistic slant has been rectified to a great extent. Kindly re-examine the article and convey your views-srichrome (a college teacher from Delhi-India)

---

Why does this article not cite any references? Siddharth Prabhu 08:40, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
All references mentioned as '3rd' have been changed to 'Third' for consistency. Siddharth Prabhu 08:14, 14 December 2006 (UTC) --
This is the third battle of Panipat. And yes...the casualities were close to 1,00,000. Believe it! - PPP from Bombay

---

Yeek! I just read the edit history and, far from being the first to brave the Edit Job from Hell, I see that Magnus and Danny and others have helped it along already - which leaves me wondering what the first version was like!

But no disrespect intended to the original contributor: despite the fractured English, there seems to be an impressively detailed and careful history of the battle here, and I'm going to dive in and try my hand at another edit or two. It's worth the effort, I think. I just hope that my turning it into reasonably fluent English doesn't completely misrepresent the underlying facts—cause I am reasonably well-versed in reading and writing about battles, but (to my shame) I've never heard of this one! Wish me luck! Tannin 12:24 Mar 15, 2003 (UTC)

Good luck... I never heard of this one either... --Christopher Mahan

Maybe you can tell the difference between "Battle of Panipat" and "Third Battle of Panipat" --Christopher Mahan

Hmmmm .... Right now, no. But a quick Googling brings up this one in 1504 and this one which is said to be the sixth Battle of Panipat and happening in Delhi today!

(Tannin decides that this one is a serious editing job, and races off to the all-night shop for a supply of chocolate to sustain himself. Back in 20.:)

I think 3rd. (see: http://www.panipat.com/pnphistory/battle_three.htm ) --Christopher Mahan

---

I remember reading this a while back, and after deciding to try to make some sense of it I gave up and moved on to the Battle of Ticameron. The long and short of it is that this article appears to be completely incorrect on every detail. For instance, the death toll is 10,000, not 100,000. While bloody, this is hardly historical.

Thankyou Maurie. I haven't read your new version over yet, but it needs only a glance to see that it's much improved. Tannin

---

Despite the cleaning up, it seems to me that this article still has a slant and is not completely accurate. I suggest further investigations into whether or not it is NPOV, especially considering the previous edits made by the creator who seems to be following a certain angle of History. In addition, I believe that even now, the article's neutrality and accuracy are disputed. DigiBullet 03:25, 20 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Read the article carefully, i see quite a bit of a slant in it.Having read some other books on Indian history , the article seems to have left out the following.

a)Abdali IIRC was invited by the Mughals who were fed up with the raids of the marathas raiding right up to the gates of delhi.

b)Abdali's force was smaller than the Maratha force confronting it, but the Afghan general manuevred into an advantagous position ensuring his own supplies buit denying supplies to the marathas.

c)The Marathas having nearly exhausted their supplies offered at one stage to surrender huge tracts of territory to the Afghans and to return home but this was refused.

d)The theory of descendants of the defeated Marathas being in Baluchistan is nonsensical.The Brahui tribe (which speaks a Dravidian language) has been in Baluchistan for centuries predating the battle of Panipat.

---

OK as of now, everything up to the "Perpetual Atrocities on descendants of Maratha prisoners of war" section remains OK. That section itself needs to be removed (along with maybe the last para from the previous section). All agree? Qwertyca 19:04, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)

<some angry comments here> I believe this is pece of propaganda crap ........wikipedia is well served to remove this.

---

This is to question the veracity of the 'facts' presented by Digibullet.

a] Abdally was not invited by the Mughals, but the Rohilas (Najib Khan)

b] Only the Maratha supply lines from Pune were cut. The Jats of Bharatpur refused to help the Marathas because of the Maratha refusal to sack Delhi after it had been captured.

c] The Marathas never made an offer to surrender tracts of territory to the Afghans. In fact, the Marathas went into battle confident of victory, maybe overconfident so.

d] The descendants of the defeated Marathas do exist in Punjab and other northern regions. Jay Ranade is one such Marathi descendant born in Ludhiana, Punjab.

e] While it may sound unfair to talk of the betrayal of the Maratha allies, but it did dimish any chances of the Marathas rallying, since their firepower was an advantage the Marathas had over the Afghans. However, almost all accounts of the battle blame the Maratha cavalry commanders in the flanks for charging the Afghans too early for the Maratha loss, and correctly so.

f] The casualties for this battle were quite high, definitely above 60,000, including both sides. The Afghans never invaded India again, and the Marathas mark the day as a black one.

Zoshisan

---

I've edited this further in an attempt to achieve a neutral tone. Also fixed the grammar in places. Most of my 'neutrality' edits were simply removal of comments that seemed out of place - this includes the section on the political reasons for the Marathas defeat, which while not biased was really jammed in without any supporting discussion (and occurred in two places for no apparent reason). Links to some of the political entities mentioned might make that paragraph more viable.

The final section ('Perpetual atrocities...') has been renamed, and much of it removed. Sentences that begin 'I think...' or 'The UN needs to...' are decidedly out of place in an article that is supposed to have a neutral POV. If supporting evidence for some of the original claims is online anywhere, I'd suggest adding some links at the end of this article; neutral POV does not preclude linking to sites that have a definite opinion.

bbartlog

---

I ve not edited this page in anyway YET. Couple of points though--

1) The point about Maratha descendants being in Balochistan is complete nonsense. Kenneth Kennedy has written about in his book.

2) This brings me to the second point - do there exist ANY factual Maratha records of this battle? Afghan/Islamic records have historically proven to be false.

---

I doubt there are any records in English about this battle. There are some Marathi bakhars (a term for a historical record), but it has been observed that many Marathi bakhars about previous Maratha history seem to be very flattering of the Maratha leader in question, some just ludicrous. I will mail some of my history professors, but I am doubtful that it's possible to get a NPOV about this battle online.

Zoshisan

User:Siddiqui edits

Can somebody look at this [1]? Siddiqui (talk · contribs) please don't deleted or blank text and references without giving reasons in the edit summary or talk page. [2]

Detailed information about Battle of Panipat

Apart from Bakhars, detailed and compiled information about the battle between Marathas and Ahmad Shah Abdali can be found in a Marathi Novel called Panipat. This novel is an outcome of extensive research by Vishwas Patil. If someone has a copy of this book, he/she may try editing this page. Cheers

A much better source of information and analysis of this battle is a book named "Panipat, 1761" written in Marathi by Prof. T.S. Shejwalkar of Deccan College, Pune. The book presents in great details the causes and events that led up to the battle and describes the events on the battlefront based on thorough research. The section describing the battle on January 14th, 1761 provides information on the tactical manouvers of both sides and offers extensive analysis on the course of the battle based on maps he himself created after visiting the region, the weather on the day as reported in the Farsi chronicles and by Nana Phadnavis. Other aspects that the book tries to explore are:

1. The social and political analysis of the rule of Peshwa in India.
2. The events that forced the hand of Sadashivrao bhau.
3. The actions of Nanasaheb Peshwa that could be proved fatal to the Maratha forces.
4. The importance of this battle vis-a-vis the political turmoil in India then and its effect on the rise of the British power in India.

Professor Shejwalkar was a reknowned historian of Maratha history. He originally wrote the book in English and Deccan College press had published it.
Please check http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B0007J4GV8/sr=8-4/qid=1150716034/ref=sr_1_4/103-6452179-0263868?%5Fencoding=UTF8 for old copies.

JATS AND THE 3RD BATTLE OF PANIPAT

__________________________________________

For a contemporary account of the times by an eyewitness, see

Jats and the 3rd battle of Panipat.doc

“Jats and the 3rd Battle of Panipat” http://groups.yahoo.com/group/JATHISTORYBOOKS/files/

There has been plenty of discussion on the in the jathistory group See Msg# 53 and follow up discussions –

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/JatHistory/message/53

Jats, Maharattas, and the Battle of Panipat

The overall thrust of the main article is open to more than just a little questioning.

The Jats of the SarvKahp of Haryana had allied with and fought with eth Maharattas against the Muslim Rohillas. They invited Abdali to save them and Islam.

With the death of Dattaji in the battle, the Maharatta power was ended in North India.

Historical accounts show that the Mahrattas under Sadashiv Bhau, with a powerful army went north to seek reestablish the Maharatta revenge against the Muslim rulers for they’re earlier defeat.

The initial phase was welcomed. Bhau sent letter to all chiefs in the north, and a copy of his original letter is posted in the files section of the yahoo jathistory group: sadashiv bhau.doc,

The Jat emperor Surajmal was persuaded to support Sadashiv Bhau, despite his earlier bad experiences with the Mahrattas.

Delhi was conquered. Here Sadashiv Bhau and his courtiers decided they did not need to honor their promises, and alienated Surajmal, who escaped a conspiracy by Sadashiv Bhau’s courtiers to capture and imprison him.

The Mahrattas in their arrogance refused to listen to good military advice of the Jats.

The talk of how the Jats got upset because the Mahrattas would not allow them to loot Delhi, is not quite correct, and contemporary records from Muslim Chroniclers and later Indian Historians, Including Prof KR Quanago, Jadunath Sarcar, reject the Maharatta version, as being self serving.

They refused to follow the guerilla tactics suggested by the Jats, and instead moved for an open confrontation. In this they were accompanied with the women, families and other camp baggage.

At Panipat, the Rohillas and Abdali out maneuvered them. The Jats of the Haryana Sarv Khap stayed and fought at Panipat.

For a detailed account of the Battle see http://groups.yahoo.com/group/JATHISTORYBOOKS/files/

Jats and the 3rd battle of Panipat.doc

COMMENT: I Am putting this on the discssion page rather than editing the main article .

If no contrary material is posted, say in week, then I will edit the main article.

Ravi Chaudhary 20:36, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

Curse on you indians

Curse on you people for trying to modifying history so heavily

17C guns

I know nothing about this part of indian history, but no field guns of that age could fire 2 km. The entire battle descrition feels weird with 2000 guns on camels, long range fighting and bows. I'm sure that 99% of the article it's wrong. Not to mention the part with atrocities that is very biased. If no one knows the truth better just to mention what is known.