Talk:Battle of Raichur

The article is in preparation. Inputs are welcome-Kumarrao. The article is complete - Kumarrao (March 3, 2007)

1323
I doubt that bahmanids can take Raichur in 1323 because this dinasty don't started until 1347. --79.159.174.25 (talk) 08:08, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

Infobox Missing
Somehow this article does not look like a battle article. It starts with saying that Raichur is a small town in Karnataka. Moreover it does not have an infobox. I am making changes such as adding infobox and citing references. Further, I will also try and make this article sound like a battle rather than a story. Please do not make abrupt changes without posting on talk page. Amit20081980 13:03, 16 Jan 2016 (UTC)

Taking up for revision
I am taking up this article for re-drafting to tackle any possible copyright issues. I will re-publish once done.

User:Amit20081980 talk 10:48, 13 September 2016 (UTC)

Pemmasani Ramalinga Nayudu
, I am copying your new passage about Pemmasani Ramalinga Nayudu for discussion:

Please explain. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 20:47, 26 April 2019 (UTC)
 * I don't see which source names him as the "Chief-Commander".
 * Which source says that he led the Vijayanagara charge at the Battle of Raichur?
 * I also don't see how any of the citations for the last sentence are supposed to be about the Battle of Raichur.

Hey Kautilya3 I will rephrase the statement to ensure these concerns are taken into account. In regards to the explanations for the one I previously wrote. I will also include the citatons to address these concerns in the new phrasing. If you feel like further discussion is warrented, I will be happy to oblige. Timmarasu (talk) 01:57, 27 April 2019 (UTC)


 * Kautilya3 I have included new citations since you felt the previous ones were not sufficient. One of my previous citations clearly mentioned that Pemmasani led his troops at the Battle of Raichur (""Ramalingatiayudu, who succeeded his father, was one of the most redoubtable warriors- in the court of Krishnadgvarlya. ... Rachuru (Raichur) and other strong places with his [Pemmasani Ramalinga] own men") - Journal of Andhra Historical Society. In regards to the the last three citations, they were to show Krishandevaraya's appreciation of his bravery and historians perspective on it. Since he was the Chief-Commander, he likely led the assault at Raichur since he was there, as well. Again, if you feel further improvements can be made, please let me know. As always, feel free to check my citations as I am a newer editors. Thank you. Timmarasu (talk) 02:26, 27 April 2019 (UTC)

No, you should not be making any edits to the disputed passage until WP:CONSENSUS is reached. If you want to propose new sources, you are free to propose them here.
 * All the Andhra historians are trying to reconstruct history from texts like Rayavachakamu and others. Wagoner has translated the entire book and gave enough analysis of its contents and authenticity (or lack of it), that I am afraid all the Andhra historians' conclusions have been invalidated.
 * You should also not be using snippet views in this situation and filling in your own interpretations like "his [Pemmasani Ramalinga] own men". You really have no idea what is meant by "his" until you can see the whole discussion. Neither do you know whether you are quoting the PRIMARY source or the historians' conclusions.
 * From Wagoner's book I gather that there is nothing about the Battle of Raichur in Rayavachakamu. There is a chapter called "Battle of Turks", which some Andhra historians interpret as Battle of Raichur. But it is clear that they are mistaken. See footnote 2 on page 210. The mention of Raichur in this chapter, The king was able to occupy the forts at Raichur, Mudgal, Addanki, Adoni, and so on, even on the first day of fighting, is not consistent with the known facts. It also totally contradicts the hypothesis that the "Battle of Turks" is supposed to be about Raichur. For the author of Rayavachakamu, Raichur was a footnote. He didn't know a thing about it.
 * As for Pemmasani Ramalinga Nayudu, Wagoner says It is not clear whether he served Krishnadevaraya or a later ruler. (p. 204) Rayavachakamu is a mythified literary text. Nothing in it can be taken at face value. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 08:35, 27 April 2019 (UTC)