Talk:Bahmani–Vijayanagar War (1362–1367)

RAJ
@Shakib ul hassan, WP:RAJ is not applied to Cambridge press, and other sources outside the RAJ. Also, sources that came after 1940, are not considered as RAJ era sources. About SCA, you have to read their whole article to get the details about the belligerents. Imperial [AFCND]  17:14, 10 March 2024 (UTC)


 * And I am genuinely interested why did you remove post-1947 sources? It clearly doesn't fall under WP:RAJ. Imperial  [AFCND]  17:16, 10 March 2024 (UTC)
 * If so then, can you point out in WP:RAJ whether we can use sources after 1940 or not? Besides I have noticed that you have removed the sources which were published after 1940 can you explain the double standards? And I didn't remove post 1947 sources, you just have to look at their first editions. Shakib ul hassan (talk) 18:28, 10 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Mind your words before typing. WP:RAJ is applied to a definite era, on some of the Authors. Except "Reign of Peshwa Madhavrao I", everything I removed falls under WP:RAJ. Try not to blame others, but try to understand the policy. You clearly haven't read the WP:RAJ as seen from the last sentance. Imperial  [AFCND]  18:32, 10 March 2024 (UTC)
 * So instead of pointing where it's written in WP:RAJ that we can use sources of post 1940, you say I don't understand the policy whilst it's you who have been removing sources of post 1940. Ok then I'm pinging @User:Sitush as he is the only one who can help us to resolve this issue. Shakib ul hassan (talk) 18:46, 10 March 2024 (UTC)
 * The only place where I did mistake was removing "Reign of Peshwa Madhavrao". And I am not removing it in my recent edits. None of the source cited in this article falls under WP;RAJ. Imperial  [AFCND]  18:52, 10 March 2024 (UTC)

WP:CITELEAD?
@ActivelyDisinterested, hello. The figures in the infobox are covered in the article body. And if you think Society for Creative Anachronism is unreliable, feel free to remove them. I don't think there is a need for citing inside the infobox again, as the article body already covers it. Imperial [AFCND]  10:32, 18 March 2024 (UTC)


 * And fyi, the source of SCA is taken from here . Regards. Imperial  [AFCND]  10:34, 18 March 2024 (UTC)
 * You asked about Society for Creative Anachronism at RSN, something I didn't reply to there as another users had already pointed out that they were a historical re-enactment group of hobbiest. The file you link to appears to just be their own work, and so again is not reliable. I'm quite surprised you have continued to use this source. I would suggest citing the figures in the infobox, as such details tend to be controversial and the infobox is a separate thing from the lead (which generally shouldn't contain citations). -- LCU A ctively D isinterested  «@» °∆t° 10:40, 18 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Apologies for the confusion. However, the user's response didn't clearly indicate whether I could use it or not. They mentioned, "I would not use it for anything except WP:ABOUTSELF," which appears to be a personal opinion rather than a widely accepted policy. I was still awaiting for opinions from others, which is why I considered using WP:ATTRIBUTION. And, if you believe that citing sources in the infobox is a better choice, I wouldn't disagree with that. The reason makes sense. Regards. Imperial  [AFCND]  10:50, 18 March 2024 (UTC)
 * It's not a reliable source for anything but about self comments of their historical re-enactments. In general hobbiest sites are never considered reliable. -- LCU A ctively D isinterested  «@» °∆t° 12:04, 18 March 2024 (UTC)

Concerns regarding result
I verified all the sources and all state it was a peace but the information i found in the recent source by Rc Majumdar PG no 278 is - ''The account of the war given by Firishta is inaccurate and one-sided. According to him, Muhammad Shah I defeated Bukka I on every battlefield, chased him from place to place, and when at last Bukka crept back into his capital, the Bahmanl Sultan lured him out of his stronghold and, having crushed him in a battle, dictated to him the terms of peace which he had no option but to accept. Though some of the facts mentioned by Firishta might be true, the Vijayanagara army did not fare so badly in the war as he would have us believe. They contended with the Bahmams on equal terms, and struck blow for blow. In the end, the Bahmani Sultan had to sign a treaty which left Bukka I master of the whole of the Krishna-Tuhgabhadra- dodb excepting some mcihals on the southern bank of the Krishna which were to be governed jointly by the two monarchs.3 The terms of this treaty, to which Firishta himself alludes indirectly, clearly show that the war ended practically in a victory for Vijayanagara. As the war had commenced on account of the refusal of Muhammad Shah I to recognize the river Krishna as the boundary between Vijayanagara and the Bahmanl kingdoms, and as the river Krishna, according to the terms of the treaty, was fixed as the boundary between the two kingdoms, though a few mahals on the southern bank of the river were subjected to the joint authority of the two governments, it is obvious that Bukka I got the better of his rival.'' so firstly WP AGEMATTERS and this recent source state that it was a victory for vijayanagara so I'm doing changes accordingly  Violetmyers  (Talk)  22:05, 28 May 2024 (UTC)


 * Firstly, removing other sources on the pretext of WP:AGEMATTERS and then using another source barely a few years older makes zero sense.
 * Heres some sources that clearly state there was a Bahmani victory:
 * 
 * 
 * - Satish Chandra here is a reliable historian, and states that a decisive victory was not achieved, and that a treaty was signed where the Doab was shared, if other sources can corroborate this that are still as WP:SCHOLARSHIP and WP:RS, it can be considered for a change. Noorullah (talk) 23:20, 28 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Barely a few years old? That Cambridge source is literally more than hundred years old see the first edition and coming to the sources now 1st source don't even talk about Bahmani victory, coming to the second source - Muhammad killed half million Hindus but was unable to conquer vijayanagara the peace was however short lived, Bukka retired to hills adopted guerrilla tactics later on took shelter in vijayanagara can't find Bahmani victory again.
 * Coming to the 3rd source - However Bahmani sultan could not gain a decisive victory here Satish Chandra stating that it was not a Bahmani victory I think u read it wrong.
 * And now coming to Rc Majumdar—
 * Though some of the facts mentioned by Firishta might be true, the Vijayanagara army did not fare so badly in the war as he would have us believe. They contended with the Bahmams on equal terms, and struck blow for blow. In the end, the Bahmani Sultan had to sign a treaty which left Bukka I master of the whole of the Krishna-Tuhgabhadra- doab excepting some mcihals on the southern bank of the Krishna which were to be governed jointly by the two monarchs.3 The terms of this treaty, to which Firishta himself alludes indirectly, clearly show that the war ended practically in a victory for Vijayanagara. U can read it clearly here author is stating it as victory for vijayanagara.
 * Sir,I did proper research before doing these edits. I don't see any problem with vijayanagara victory. Violetmyers (Talk)  01:20, 29 May 2024 (UTC)
 * You removed two books from 1964. and.
 * I'm not sure if you're reading the sources properly. The first source: "Bahmani won again in 1365 and again in 1367."
 * Second source: "The first major engagement was at Kaithal in 1367 in which the Bahmanis were successful."
 * The third source is stating that they weren't able to inflict a, key quote; decisive victory. Noorullah (talk) 02:53, 29 May 2024 (UTC)
 * As you're continuing to misinterpret the sources then I would seek WP:3O. Violetmyers (Talk)  05:08, 29 May 2024 (UTC)
 * The criteria for a Third opinion is not met, this isn't at a standstill.
 * You haven't responded at all to how you removed two sources from 1964 for "Age matters", and then added a 1967 source.
 * I very clearly quoted it for you in the sources. (where relevant), and you're saying this is misinterpretation? Noorullah (talk) 20:54, 29 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Already responded you are diverting the topic that source is not from 1964 as previously explained why are u not seeing its first edition keep one look at that. If u have a problem with the removing then i  can add it i have no problem with that and secondly you are misinterpreting the sources "Successful at kaithal" kindly read next words pls "was unable to conquer vijayanagara" show proper paragraph rather than line. Coming to the Satish Chandra - "Bahmani sultan could not gain a decisive victory" does this mean they achieved a victory?? Why are u not showing Specifically - "Bahmani Victory" or "victory for Bahmani" as i showed victory for Vijayanagara. So pls wait for WP:3O. Violetmyers  (Talk)  03:10, 30 May 2024 (UTC)

Hello folks, here to give a 3O. @Noorullah, I just want to briefly note that even if you feel there's more to discuss, if the other person does not, the discussion is effectively at a standstill, because you can't force them to keep going even if it might seem logical for them to. That's part of why 3O exists, to help break those kinds of deadlocks.

Also, it's worth noting that another editor might enter a talk page discussion at any time. 3O is really just a thin veneer over routine Wikipedia practice in that sense, and mainly exists because it's hard to establish even a loose consensus between two people who vehemently disagree. Neither of you are obligated to accept what I say without question or anything—I'm just another editor. If the three of us arrive at a deadlock again, there are other conflict resolution mechanisms available. That said, we should all try to come to a consensus if we can, because that's how Wikipedia moves forward.

So, okay. I'm going to try to take stock of where we're at. As far as I can tell the dispute is about whether Vijayanagar or Bahmani prevailed in this conflict and to what extent. Here's what's been cited in this discussion so far:

 "The Kingdom of Vijayanagara", by N. Venkataramanayya, from History and Culture of the Indian People, Volume 06, The Delhi Sultanate, ed. R. C. Majumdar, Bharatiya Vidya Bhavan, 1967, 2nd. ed., p. 278: "[The Vijayanagara army] contended with the Bahmanīs on equal terms, and struck blow-for-blow. In the end, the Bahmanī Sultān had to sign a treaty which left Bukka I master of the whole of the Krishnā-Tuṅgabhadrā-doāb excepting some mahals on the southern bank of the Krishnā which were to be governed jointly by the two monarchs. The terms of this treaty…clearly show that the war ended practically in a victory for Vijayanagara." "Vijayanagar Wars with Bahmani (1350–1410)", Dictionary of Wars, by George Childs Kohn, Routledge, 2013, 2nd. ed., p. 526: "Bahmani won in 1365 and again in 1367…" "Independent Provincial Kingdoms in the Fifteenth and Sixteenth Centuries: Vijayanagar Empire", A Comprehensive History of Medieval India, by B. N. Puri, M. N. Das, and A. C. Pradhan, ed. P. N. Chopra, Sterling Publishers Pvt. Ltd., 2005, [https://www.google.ca/books/edition/A_Comprehensive_History_of_India_Compreh/Y7fUHMEDAyEC?hl=en&gbpv=1&dq=Bahmani+1367&pg=PA91&printsec=frontcover pg. 91]: "Bukka was soon involved in a war with the Bahmani kingdom which was ruled by Muhammad Shah Bahmani I (1358–1375)…The first major engagement was at Kaithal in 1367 in which the Bahmanis were successful. Muhammad Shah killed about half a million Hindus but was unable to conquer Vijayanagar. The peace was, however, short-lived. Bukka retired to the jungles and hills, and adopted guerilla tactics. Later on he took shelter in Vijayanagar. Mujahid's efforts to capture the fort failed." "Politics, State, Society and the Economy in South India", Medival India: From Sultanat to the Mughals, Delhi Sultanat (1206–1526), Part One, by Satish Chandra, Har-Anand Publications, 2006, 3rd. ed., p. 178: "...in 1367, Bukka embarked upon a war in association with the ruler of Warangal to recover the areas lost to the Bahmani ruler earlier. We are told that when Bukka I assaulted the fortress of Mudkal in the disputed Tungbhadra doab, he slaughtered the entire garrison, except one man. When this news reached the Bahmani sultan, he was enraged and, on the march, vowed that he would not sheath his word till he had slaughtered one hundred thousand Hindus in revenge…There are different versions about the outcome of the battle. According to Persian sources, the Vijayanagar ruler was defeated, and had to retire into the jungles…However, the Bahmani sultan could not gain a decisive victory and the war dragged on for several months, during which a wholesale slaughter of men, women and children went on. Finally a kind of a treaty was patched up which restored the old position whereby the doab was shared by the two sides. A vague promise was also made that in future wars the two sides would not slaughter helpless, unarmed inhabitants. However, this hardly had an effect on future warfare." 

Venkataramanayya/Majumdar seems to be a serious historical source, but I do note that Majumdar was considered rather partisan to Hindu nationalism by several of his contemporaries, which suggests to me that he might prefer to include scholarship that favors that perspective. The Kohn source is very terse and tertiary, and I'm kind of doubtful about how much we can usefully get out of it in this context. Puri et. al. is also tertiary and written to a general audience, and rather editorializing with claims like "Bukka was a great ruler" who "infused a new life into the moribund Hindu society" etc., but at least it's more detailed than Kohn and by professional specialists. The Chandra source strikes me as gold-standard for this kind of article—secondary, contemporary, by a notable specialist, and most importantly, written stringently and without obvious bias as far as I can tell.

It's probably worth also examining the existing sources cited in the article other than these on this point, but they seem to all be print sources and I don't have any of them on hand. If either of you do, it would be great to have actual supporting quotations added to their citations in the article. That said, the existing text of the article on this point seems to me to be broadly in agreement with Chandra's and Puri et. al.'s accounts: that Muhammad Shah did prevail in the battle, in the sense that Bukka and his forces were routed and fled, but that Bukka managed to evade capture and wouldn't surrender, during which the Bahmani forces slaughtered many Vijayanagar civilians (following Bukka having done the same at Mudgal), leading to a peace treaty between Bukka and Muhammad Shah in which they both promised not to kill innocents anymore.

I think this dispute might ultimately rest on something kind of semantic—that is, whether you feel the Bahmani side won on the basis of their routing of the Vijayanagar forces, or the war had no clear victor because Muhammad Shah never decisively captured the Vijayanagar fort, or Bukka actually prevailed in practice because the peace treaty supposedly favored him. It's not really our place to pick a side in that argument per se, though—all we're here to do is summarize the quality sources we have proportionally, even if they disagree.

On that note, at least so far, the Venkataramanayya/Majumdar source appears to be an outlier. I haven't seen another strong source right now that claims that Vijayanagar was on an equal footing militarily with Bahmani in this conflict, or that the peace treaty heavily favored the Vijayanagar side, and certainly not that Vijayanagar was out-and-out victorious. Therefore, since Majumdar is a notable historian nevertheless, I think it would be fine to add to the article a short mention that he endorsed an alternate account of the war more favorable to Vijayanagar, in contrast to the mainstream narrative.

If we can find a larger body of good historical sources that take that position, we might then have a basis to portray the outcome of the conflict as controversial among historians, but I'm not really seeing a true controversy with what we have right now. It does seem to me to oversimplify things a bit to simply claim "Bahmani victory" full stop, because the outcome of the conflict is kind of complex and it depends on what you consider "victory," but especially in terms of the main text of the article I don't see a basis for a major overhaul. 🍉◜⠢◞ↂ🄜𝚎sₒᶜa𝚛🅟ම𛱘‎🥑《 𔑪‎talk〗⇤ 11:43, 31 May 2024 (UTC)


 * @Mesocarp, thanks for providing 3rd opinion. We can go with the option of See Aftermath for example Bahmani–Vijayanagara War (1375–1378) and of course by reaching consensus with @Noorullah21 Violetmyers (Talk)  14:27, 31 May 2024 (UTC)
 * I'm okay with changing the "Result" in the infobox to "See aftermath", although I think we might want to expand and clarify the Aftermath section in that case, but yeah, let's wait and see what Noorullah thinks. 🍉◜⠢◞ↂ🄜𝚎sₒᶜa𝚛🅟ම𛱘‎🥑《 𔑪‎talk〗⇤ 07:36, 1 June 2024 (UTC)