Talk:Deccan wars/Archive 1

Video Games
The wars that were fought by the "Mughal Empire and it's subjects"; against the "Maratha Confederacy" can be a subject for a very popular series of video games and works of fiction explaining how so many people originate in Pakistan and what steps in history caused them to reach this point in time. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fjgdh5 (talk • contribs) 21:33, 13 April 2019 (UTC)

Untitled
i'll have to reformat this! dbkasar, please refer to existing articles for styles. अमेय आर्यन DaBroodey 18:42, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

OK.Dbkasar 09:33, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

WikiProject class rating
This article was automatically assessed because at least one WikiProject had rated the article as start, and the rating on other projects was brought up to start class. BetacommandBot 20:29, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Copyright problem removed
Prior content in this article duplicated one or more previously published sources. The material was copied from: http://voi.org/index2.php?option=com_content&do_pdf=1&id=406, http://voi.org/index2.php?option=com_content&do_pdf=1&id=409, http://voi.org/index2.php?option=com_content&do_pdf=1&id=417 and http://voi.org/index2.php?option=com_content&do_pdf=1&id=418. Infringing material has been rewritten or removed and must not be restored, unless it is duly released under a compatible license. (For more information, please see "using copyrighted works from others" if you are not the copyright holder of this material, or "donating copyrighted materials" if you are.) For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or published material; such additions will be deleted. Contributors may use copyrighted publications as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences or phrases. Accordingly, the material may be rewritten, but only if it does not infringe on the copyright of the original or plagiarize from that source. Please see our guideline on non-free text for how to properly implement limited quotations of copyrighted text. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously, and persistent violators will be blocked from editing. While we appreciate contributions, we must require all contributors to understand and comply with these policies. Thank you. ascidian | talk-to-me  13:59, 23 May 2011 (UTC)
 * As I have mentioned on my talk page here, it is incorrect to say that I have copied material from the above sources. Please restore the history section so that edits done can be compared if needed. ..असक्तः सततं कार्य कर्म समाचर &#124; असक्तः हि आचरन् कर्म..   Humour Thisthat2011  21:27, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

POV?
This article viewpoint seems heavily biased in favor of the Marathas. (e.g. "treacherously captured", "rekindled the spirit of valour in the minds of Marathas")77.242.125.98 (talk) 09:00, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

yea its really bad--173.63.7.27 (talk) 22:52, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

It should definitely be marked and re-written by someone knowledgeable so to be objective. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 115.186.240.194 (talk) 05:05, 24 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Got rid of POV in Sambhaji section.1812ahill (talk) 19:25, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

What about the other sections? Almost the entire article is a POV.

Maratha or Marathas
The article seems to use 'Maratha' and 'Marathas' interchangeably, both being used as a proper noun (singular). This needs to be sorted out. I get the impression that 'Marathas' is not meant as a plural of 'Maratha'. I mention this because I just edited a section of the text by inserting large numbers of missing 'the' words, hopefully in the right context. For instance in English one says 'he went to the Maratha empire' ('the' refers the noun 'empire'), but omits the 'the' when one is refering to a proper noun as in 'he went to Maratha'. However, if Marathas is a plural of Maratha then one would say 'he went to the Marathas', just as one would say 'he went to the Americas'. The 'Mughal' and 'Mughals' case seems clear, with Mughals being a plural of Mughal. Can we have some clarity on this 'Marathas' issue please.1812ahill (talk) 19:22, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

Vandalism
,, & , Do see the wrong info pushing of. Links, Page No. and books are given.

1)Kennedy Hickman is a Military History Expert. He is also not an Indian.

2)"...May 23, 1706 - War of the Spanish Succession: Grand Alliance forces under Marlborough win the Battle of Ramillies

1707 - War of 27 Years: The Mughals are defeated ending the war

July 8, 1709 - Great Northern War: Swedish forces are crushed at the Battle of Poltava..."

Ghatus (talk) 11:54, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

Maratha's did not win
No legitimate source says that the Maratha's won. The wars continued and remained inconclusive according to what I have researched. Xtremedood (talk) 08:29, 8 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Read above, and when you claim 'legitimate source' you just push your disgraceful POV. Don't dispute lifelong facts for your personal bias. Delibzr (talk) 02:34, 7 May 2015 (UTC)
 * The way to contest sourcing is to place a tag on the parts that don't have sources. Cheers, Kautilya3 (talk) 07:06, 7 May 2015 (UTC)

I've reverted, who reinstated an about.com article as a source for the Maratha victory claim. I have no opinion on what should be shown as the result but we do not use about.com and, since the outcome does appear to be contested, we really should be seeking high-quality secondary sources rather than tertiaries that do not even state their sources. Preferably, we should use sources that are also less likely to be influenced by the religious and proto-national divides. Western university presses would trump just about anything else. - Sitush (talk) 12:29, 7 May 2015 (UTC)

The same was echoed by Vincent Smith:""The Deccan proved to be the graveyard not only of Aurangzeb's body but also of his empire.""
 * Truly speaking, it was a stalemate. But, since the Mughal Army was much larger than the Maratha Army, it is considered a Victory for the Marathas. At the same time, after these series of battles(1680-1707), the Mughal power collapsed suddenly and the Maratha power started to grow. Historian Sir. J.N. Sarkar wrote:""All seemed to have been gained by Aurangzeb now, but in reality all was lost.""


 * Well, it was a series of battles but size of army is an irrelevance: you win, lose or draw. That the Mughal empire collapsed might owe as much to the sibling infighting as to any external influences (yes, I know the money was depleted etc). We don't have to show an outcome. Unless a decent source specifically says that this series of battles was a victory for the Marathas, it might be better just to show nothing in the infobox and deal with the subtleties in the body of the article. That's how we treat varna for caste articles, precisely because of the complexities. The two sources you mention, by the way, are both rather outdated. Sarkar in particular has received a lot of criticism in recent years, in part for being very much pro-Hindu, IIRC. - Sitush (talk) 13:03, 7 May 2015 (UTC)


 * Whether Sarkar was pro-Hindu (the term is wrong. He was accused of "Hindu bias" by the same person who has bias for "Marxism") or Eaton is pro-muslim is not the matter of Wikipedia as far as I have read the rules. Wiki does not publish original research or analyzes anything but it presents the views of different eminent persons.Being a student of History, I know Sarkar is too big a name in Indian History to be criticized here. BTW, sources can not be outdated, interpretations may be new.  Regards,Ghatus (talk) 13:27, 7 May 2015 (UTC)


 * Pro-Hindu or Hindu bias = to-mah-to or to-may-to. As for the rest, it is just wrong. That's why we do not use Raj sources, it is why we severely limit our use of fringe sources and it is why we should not use politically-manipulated NCERT books. In addition, we would not be criticising Sarkar; his peers (would) do that, just as they do for the items I've just mentioned. Now, if you wanted to create an article on, say, the historiography of the Mughal-Maratha wars then you might have a point. Otherwise, as here, we show various opinions with due weight, and the weight given to older sources that have been criticised for a bias that directly impacts on the article subject is substantially less than that which is given to modern sources that thus far have not been criticised thus. James Tod is a massive name in Indian history, especially for Rajasthan, and we virtually never use him because what many Indian people like about him is precisely what makes him unreliable. Regardless, the quote you give does not say it was a Maratha victory and that is the issue we're trying to resolve. - Sitush (talk) 13:47, 7 May 2015 (UTC)


 * I just said - "Truly speaking, it was a stalemate. But, since the Mughal Army was much larger than the Maratha Army, it is considered a Victory for the Marathas. At the same time, after these series of battles(1680-1707), the Mughal power collapsed suddenly and the Maratha power started to grow." and nothing more than that.

BTW, Tod was never a Historian and his writings were not taken seriously by major historians. Tod was a great source for romantic novelists/dramatists/ Poets( like M.M.Dutta). Ghatus (talk) 13:56, 7 May 2015 (UTC)


 * Yesterday I spent quite an effort to remove some of the biased statements on this article, however, user:Delibzr reverted my effort without providing adequate reasoning. I believe much of the article, still is not written in an academic tone and lacks proper referencing. First of all, this war was largely a Guerilla war between the Maratha forces and the Mughal Empire. Aurangzeb did defeat the Marathas on numerous occasions (I have added that to the list of battles fought by the Maratha empire page), however, it was the tactic of Shivaji and his successors to try and utilize hit-and-run tactics as well as other Guerilla-warfare strategies.


 * The claim that the Marathas got dominion over the Deccan is false. Look at this map of the Mughal Empire, it reached it's peak under Aurangzeb.


 * According to the statement by Stanley Wolpert on the article, Aurangzeb did indeed subdue the Deccan in a Pyrrhic victory. He supposedly states on the article:


 * "the conquest of the Deccan, to which, Aurangzeb devoted the last 26 years of his life, was in many ways a Pyrrhic victory, costing an estimated hundred thousand lives a year during its last decade of futile chess game warfare. The expense in gold and rupees can hardly be accurately estimated. Aurangzeb's encampment was like a moving capital – a city of tents 30 miles in circumference, with some 250 bazaars, with a 1⁄2 million camp followers, 50,000 camels and 30,000 elephants, all of whom had to be fed, stripped the Deccan of any and all of its surplus grain and wealth ... Not only famine but bubonic plague arose ... Even Aurangzeb, had ceased to understand the purpose of it all by the time he was nearing 90 ... "I came alone and I go as a stranger. I do not know who I am, nor what I have been doing," the dying old man confessed to his son, Azam, in February 1707.[9]"


 * about.com is not a reliable resource. Like many Guerilla campaigns around this time (a comparable one was against Napoleon by the Spanish), hit-and-run, looting, and other guerilla tactics should not be referred to as a defeat of the Mughals, rather it was a "Sustained and Effective Guerilla Campaign." The Marathas would not reach their peak until sometime before the 3rd Battle of Panipat (according to what I have researched). So that means that almost 40-50 years after this conflict, the Marathas reached their peak. I would like a better reference than about.com for a supposed victory. Also, the more academic sources treat this as a sustained Guerilla or Guerilla-like campaign that was effective in nature. As I have stated, however, the Mughals did reach their peak under Aurangzeb and they controlled almost all of the South-Asian subcontinent during this time. See this video: . Xtremedood (talk) 14:16, 7 May 2015 (UTC)


 * Keep your videos and wiki quotes to yourself. Had Mughals won against the Marathas, there won't have been Maratha domination from early 18th century. By 1690, the whole of sub continent was burning in the fire of revolts. In the south were Marathas, in the north were Sikhs, in the west were Rajputs, in the gangetic plain were Jats, in central India were Bundelas and in the north-west frontier were Pathans. Mughals defeated none of them. Keep your rubbish to yourself and read some history books.Ghatus (talk) 14:32, 7 May 2015 (UTC)


 * You do not seem to want to listen, however I will say that that this is an incorrect and extremely simplistic way of looking at it. The Mughals not only fought the Marathas but fought various enemies including Afghans, Nadir Shah of Persia, Various Europeans, etc. Also after Aurangzeb there were issues pertaining to succession, which played a major role in the downfall. The Mughals even fought amongst themselves. Sibling rivalry and succession were major destabilizing forces. Xtremedood (talk) 04:46, 9 May 2015 (UTC)


 * is making the point that Aurangzeb wasn't defeated, he was merely exhausted. It is not clear to me whether you are agreeing or disagreeing. And, assume good faith please. - Kautilya3 (talk) 11:00, 9 May 2015 (UTC)

The 27 war was a series of battles. We can count the number of battles won by the Mughals and the Marathas and compare them to decide who won. But who are we to decide that? So the point is, it doesn't actually matter. No legitimate source states that the Marathas won. Taken! But the source does state that the Marathas had a streak of successes towards the end of the war. Alright, but it does it imply that they won? No, and who are we to draw such an implication? Does the source explicitly state that? No! So therefore, it requires a citation. Chippy pest (talk) 08:48, 10 April 2019 (UTC)

Vishwas Patil
I am assuming that the work that we cite as Patil, Vishwas. Chhatrapati Sambhaji Maharaj is in fact Sambhaji by Vishwas Patil. If I am correct then it should be removed from the article. We do not use novels as sources for history, regardless of whether they are based on fact or not. - Sitush (talk) 07:58, 7 May 2015 (UTC)

Death of Sambhaji
Both the Mughals and Marathas have a different account of his death, and we cannot decide which of the account is correct, it is better to tell about both of them rather than telling only about the account of marathas, which says that he refused to convert to Islam.Haider67 (talk) 04:32, 31 January 2016 (UTC)

Aftermath and casualties
There have been editors who have taken out references to White's losses section, but insist on maintaining unsourced numbers that just don't match with each other. Either we agree that White is reliable (no, the article does not NYT article does not trash White), or we put vague losses numbers. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:85:C102:EEB3:1DEA:3ABA:619C:9D66 (talk) 23:21, 28 December 2018 (UTC)


 * FYI, White is not a reliable source. White has no academic specialization or qualification in this field. As such, for Wikipedia, White is an unreliable source.


 * "..but insist on maintaining unsourced numbers that just don't match with each other."
 * There are currently no figures in the infobox. --Kansas Bear (talk) 20:08, 12 January 2019 (UTC)


 * Kansas Bear, I understand your critique (though I still believe White's numbers are plausible). However someone has edited the infobox again to include White, making the numbers mismatched again. Can you fix it? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.221.128.208 (talk) 03:59, 6 February 2019 (UTC)

Vandalism
This page is being constantly vandalised. Can it be secured? Chippy pest (talk) 09:58, 10 April 2019 (UTC)

Single source
Almost the entire of this article relies on Robinson, Howard; James Thomson Shotwell (1922). "Mogul Empire and the Marathas". I suspect a lot has just been copy/paste from it, which is even worse despite it not being a copyright violation. Anything from the Raj era is suspect. Surely there are plenty of more recent studies of the subject? John F. Richards' The Mughal Empire, is one but that is mostly an overview and there will be likely be better alternatives. - Sitush (talk) 09:29, 7 May 2015 (UTC)


 * Also:
 * In the introductory chapter on historiography he points out how scholarship on Marathas has changed dramatically since the 1950s with the publication of primary historical documents from the era. Using sources from 1920s (and earlier) in this and other related articles in really not justifiable. Abecedare (talk) 13:57, 7 May 2015 (UTC)

Two different Wars
There should be two different wars, the way I see it The Mughal–Maratha War of 1664 to 1704/1707 and the Later Mughal-Maratha War which was more sporadic, battles in the 1720s, 1730s, 1740s and all the way to the 1780s. Alexis Ivanov (talk) 02:08, 29 October 2015 (UTC)

Right. It was actually a series of battles. Chippy pest (talk) 09:16, 10 April 2019 (UTC)

Mughals victories
In the template, why don't we also mention that Mughals won many battles against the Marathas. This article is heavily biased in favour of the Marathas. Chippy pest (talk) 12:38, 10 April 2019 (UTC)

Could be the original author wanted to write about the overral result, this is the issue with an article mashing multiple wars, or phases of a war together. The Hundred Years War battlebox doesn't give mention of the numerous times England held brief hegemony over France during the 100YW Kind Regards, NotAnotherNameGuy (talk) 22:28, 25 June 2021 (UTC)

Result in infobox?
Recently there has been edit-warring over how the result of the wars should be presented in the infobox. The current version says: "Maratha victory. Marathas have a stream of successes by the end of the war. Aurangzeb retreats."

citing two books dating back to 1882 and 1876 respectively (the 2010 year is simply that for a digital reprint). Such references are clearly inadequate (see WP:HISTRS). So for now I am removing the result field altogether, and inviting editors to propose appropriate wording along with modern academic sources that support the proposal. Having not looked at appropriate sources myself, I don't have a personal take on what the infobox should say; it is quite possible that the issue is not amenable to an infobox summary. Pinging please discuss the issue here till consensus is reached; use dispute resolution procedures if needed. Continued edit-warring is likely to lead to blocks. Abecedare (talk) 19:43, 10 April 2019 (UTC)


 * I don't understand why you have to remove the current 2 references by authentic historians. Anyway, my opinion is as follows. Mughals sure were successful at first but by the end war (1702-1705) marathas were more successful. And we know aurangzeb retreats in 1706 and dies in 1707 and with that ends the 27 year war with none of his successors trying to continue the war, thus bringing an end to their goal of annexing maratha state. Afterwards, marathas start expanding into north with satara as their new capital old one being raigad.
 * I would suggest to keep old result section with aurangzeb's retreat being mentioned along. If people still have problems with that, i would suggest removing the mention of either empire as the ultimate winner (until citations are found mentioning either one as winner backed up by concrete evidence).
 * I would suggest not removing the old references as they are by authentic historians.
 * My choice of wording for result section:
 * 1
 * "Maratha victory(can be removed). Mughals failed to annex Maratha empire. All territories lost by Marathas were regained by them by the end of the war except for Jinji which was permanently lost to Mughals"

KamalVishwas (talk) 23:04, 10 April 2019 (UTC)
 * 2
 * "Maratha victory (can be removed). Success of Mughals in the beginning of the war. Stream of successes for Marathas by the end of the war. Aurangzeb retreats to Ahmednagar."

Disagree. The question is not what happened before or after the war, but during the war. Anyway, I am glad you've finally agreed that Satara was conquered only later by the Marathas. We ought to comply with the standard of evidence prescribed by Wikipedia. And we now know that we can't decide the ultimate winner, because as it so happened Aurangzeb did retain many of his territories. Not all of them were regained by the Marathas. I'd suggest let's find a new citation that corroborates the claim. But in any case, since we know the facts I'd go with the second option:

Mughal conquests met with stiff Maratha resistance leading to the eventual retreat of the Mughals.

Or simply,

Mughal conquests. Maratha retaliation. Aurangzeb retreats.

Or

Mughal victories followed by Maratha conquests and the subsequent withdrawal of the Mughals. Chippy pest (talk) 05:00, 11 April 2019 (UTC)

One can't just claim that the Marathas were "more successful." I mean, the fact that Aurangzeb executed Sambhaji weighs heavily against the Marathas. So both forces were equally successful and unsuccessful, I'd reckon. Chippy pest (talk) 05:11, 11 April 2019 (UTC)


 * I have yet to see any modern academic sources brought to this discussion. Until we have modern academic sources to work with, I suggest we refrain from making any decisions regarding the wording of the result section of these "wars". --Kansas Bear (talk) 06:25, 11 April 2019 (UTC)

Fair enough. Chippy pest (talk) 06:30, 11 April 2019 (UTC)


 * I found some of the sources discussing the 27 year war. All of them more or less state the same facts that is, the successful campaigns of aurangzeb during the initial years of the war followed by the rise of marathas during the ending years of the war leading to the eventual retreat of mughals.
 * History of Modern India, 1707 A. D. to 2000 A. D By Radhey Shyam Chaurasia
 * Aurangzib And The Decay Of The Mughal Empire By Professor Stanley Lane-Poole
 * History of Civilizations of Central Asia: Development in contrast : from the sixteenth to the mid-nineteenth century By Ahmad Hasan Dani, Vadim Mikhaĭlovich Masson, Unesco
 * KamalVishwas (talk) 22:10, 11 April 2019 (UTC)


 * As re-iterated, the discussion should be based on what reliable sources say, not what wikipedia editors think. So thanks  for following-up with some actual sources. A few notes on their quality/relevance though:
 * History of Modern India, 1707 A. D. to 2000 by Radhey Shyam Chaurasia: this is just another bird's-eye-view history by (as far as I can tell) an author with no established academic credentials, which popular publishers churn out for the mass-market. As such, it is not very useful for writing an encyclopedic article.
 * Aurangzib And The Decay Of The Mughal Empire (full text) by Stanley Lane-Poole dates back to 1896 and has the same problems as the sources I mentioned in my original note.
 * History of Civilizations of Central Asia: Development in contrast : from the sixteenth to the mid-nineteenth century (editors de:Chahryar Adle and Irfan Habib) is a solid academic reference, but its focus is Central Asia and therefore it barely devotes 1-2 sentences to the Mughal-Martha campaigns. Aside: some other writing of M. Athar Ali, who wrote the cited article in this edited volume, may be more relevant for our purpose.
 * So I would again recommend trying to find better academic sources that focus on on Mughal and/or Maratha kingdoms during this period. You can for example, search for history-texts that have been reviewed in JSTOR indexed journals or find university-level courses on the topic-area and see what textbooks they use. Abecedare (talk) 02:35, 12 April 2019 (UTC)


 * I checked the website JSTOR, most of the books that are accessible to public did not contain any details of the 27 year war, few that did only had few lines discussing about it. I checked some of the books of M. Athar Ali but most of them are just previews and did not have any information relating to the war either. JSTOR was not very helpful in this regard. I found some books of M. Athar Ali on google books but again only portions of the books are searchable as previews and they are not freely accessible. I suggest we just restore the old references as they seem to be discussing all the aspects of this war in good detail and even support the wording of result section suggested above.
 * Here are some other books i found. They don't discuss the war in as much detail as the old references of William Wilson Hunter and John Clark Marshman did but still support what i wrote in my first post.
 * Indian Cultural Heritage Perspective For Tourism By L. K. Singh
 * Mughal Warfare: Indian Frontiers and Highroads to Empire, 1500-1700 By Jos J. L. Gommans
 * KamalVishwas (talk) 12:31, 12 April 2019 (UTC)

Seems legit. Chippy pest (talk) 13:44, 12 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Quick follow up comment on the latest sources:
 * Gyan/Isha publications are notoriously unreliable, with content aggregated from wikipedia articles and possibly "fictitious" authors.
 * Mughal Warfare by Jos Gommans, on the other hand, is a good find that can be used to expand the content of the article even beyond the narrow infobox issue being discussed here.
 * To make sure that we are all on the same page, can someone specify what is the current proposed text for the infobox and what part of the Gommans' book (or other HISTRS-compliant text), it summarizes? Abecedare (talk) 15:20, 15 April 2019 (UTC)


 * Here are the list of suggestions for result section recommended by me and user chippy pest,


 * > Mughals failed to annex Maratha empire. All territories lost by Marathas were regained by them by the end of the war except for Jinji which was permanently lost to Mughals.


 * > Success of Mughals in the beginning of the war. Stream of successes for Marathas by the end of the war. Aurangzeb retreats to Ahmednagar.


 * by chippy pest:


 * > Mughal conquests met with stiff Maratha resistance leading to the eventual retreat of the Mughals.


 * > Mughal conquests. Maratha retaliation. Aurangzeb retreats.


 * > Mughal victories followed by Maratha conquests and the subsequent withdrawal of the Mughals.


 * Jos J. L. Gommans's book establishes the following points,


 * >execution of sambhaji by mughals
 * >exceptional strength of mughal army
 * >eventual strengthening of maratha army to mughal standards by the end of the war
 * >permanent capture of jinji in south by mughals
 * >capture of various forts of marathas in north by mughals (mainly through negotiations and according to some other sources by bribing maratha commanders)
 * >recapture of maratha forts by marthas from mughals by the end of the war
 * >loss of mughal rule in central deccan soon after the war


 * it also misses some other points like,


 * >successful campaigns and raids of marathas during the war in various areas of malwa after they crossed narmada river and other areas such as six subhas of deccan as discussed in Malwa in Transition Or a Century of Anarchy: The First Phase, 1698-1765 By Raghubir Sinh
 * >offering of aurangzeb the chauth to marathas as truce to stop rebellions as discussed in History of India from the Earliest Period to the Close of the East India By John Clark Marshman
 * >fail of negotiations when marathas rose in demands and his retreat to ahmednagar after failing to cope up with maratha army in 1706 as discussed in History of India from the Earliest Period to the Close of the East India By John Clark Marshman


 * I'm sure i have miss a lot of other points but these are the ones that quickly come to my mind.


 * Overall i would suggest keeping the references of William Wilson Hunter and John Clark Marshman along with Jos J. L. Gommans's (if you prefer to add his book) because the latter is missing lot of events in war mentioned in other two references that are required establish the suggested wordings for result section.


 * The wording of result section i would go with,


 * > Mughal conquests met with stiff Maratha resistance leading to the eventual retreat of the Mughals.


 * or


 * > Mughals failed to annex Maratha empire. All territories lost by Marathas were regained by them by the end of the war except for Jinji which was permanently lost to Mughals.

Pinging, KamalVishwas (talk) 18:37, 15 April 2019 (UTC)
 * So far I have only been looking at the issue of source quality, and not the content debate itself. But I have now requested a copy of Gommans' book. I will be able to take a look at it and brush through Richards' and Gordon's volumes on Mughal and Maratha history (resp.) by this weekend and get back to you with a more informed reply. Abecedare (talk) 22:31, 15 April 2019 (UTC)

Exaggerated casualties of Mughals
The strength of Mughals is shown as 500,000. Then how come 3 millions Mughals died?? And how with just in a bunch of battles Marathas killed 3 million people?? Ryan Okhla (talk) 15:11, 20 August 2019 (UTC)


 * If you check the references for number of troops, you can see modern historian Sinisa Malesevic mention that his numbers are estimations whereas number of casualties on mughal side was given by Niccolao Manucci who has first hand knowledge on 27 year war and he also worked in mughal court.Rogx.RoYY (talk) 00:34, 23 August 2019 (UTC)

Strength of Mughals was 5,00,000 at one point. Their casualties were huge, but since the Mughal Empire was spread over the entire subcontinent. The population of Mughal Empire was around 150 million at that time. Hence, Mughals were able to replenish their lost troops every year. Almost 1 lakh mughal armymen died every year and they were able replenish them. Hence the casualties over the 27 year war are shown to be 2.5 million. Even when their strength at one time was 5,00,000 Charvak157 (talk) 10:00, 15 June 2020 (UTC)

Plus the 2.7 million Mughal casualties were due to famine, drought and disease etc. The losses due to Maratha army were great,but they were a fraction of the total casualties. Thanks Charvak157 (talk) 10:02, 15 June 2020 (UTC)

Civilians might included in the death toll, exaggeration of numbers, famines and banditry caused by Marathas breaking Mughal hegemony. Many possible causes rather than just sloppy histography Kind Regards, NotAnotherNameGuy (talk) 22:30, 25 June 2021 (UTC)

Edits by Charvak157
See WP:BRD. Can you detail all your sources here? I will check them and let you know if they are fine for inclusion. Siddsg (talk) 07:29, 15 June 2020 (UTC)

Yeah sure, I will definitely do it. Charvak157 (talk) 10:04, 15 June 2020 (UTC)

Hi Siddsg, I will mention those sources.

Let me give you a brief idea before citing the sources. Sambhaji fought two wars against Mysore. First in 1682 and second in 1686. Marathas and Mysore were fighting for supremacy in the South. The kingdom of Mysore led by Chikkadevaraja had allied itself with the Mughal Empire.

Very few sources are available about these two wars, and Dr. B.Muddachari is perhaps the only scholar who has given the details of these wars in his 1969 book (The Mysore-Maratha relations in the 17th Century). Hence I have cited the source.

My second source is the book which is a collection of Jesuit letters in the Madurai Mission. Several letters from 1682 are given in the book written by Joseph Bertrand.

Charvak157 (talk) 10:19, 15 June 2020 (UTC)

The name of Jesuit book in La Mission Du Madure Charvak157 (talk) 10:21, 15 June 2020 (UTC)

I will cite the statements and sources in a systematic order

1) Sambhaji entered into an alliance with Basappa Nayak of Ikkeri and Qutb Shah of Golconda against the ruler of Mysore. [La Mission Du Madure, Joseph Bertrand, page 306-307]

2) Sambhaji was defeated at Banavara. [The Mysore-Maratha relations in the 17th century, B.Muddachari, 1969, prasaranga- University of Mysore]

3) Chokkanatha was attacked by Sambhaji in his fort of Trichinopoly. [Same book as ref no. 1), page, 305-306]

4) In the northern provinces of Madura, Sambhaji has several fortresses, and all the province of Dharmapuri and other neighbouring territories. [Same book as ref. no 1), Vol III, page, 306-307]

@Siddsg, Please have a look at the sources. Thanks. Charvak157 (talk) 10:31, 15 June 2020 (UTC)

US in the belligerent lists
Somebody has added US in the Mughal-Maratha wars. The US had not even formed in that time. Charvak157 (talk) 11:49, 31 July 2020 (UTC)

Aurangzeb's death
For some reason that is not clear to me, we have many prosaic quotes describing Aurangzeb's death. I've removed them. If someone wishes to re-add them, please do explain what exactly they add to the article.--RegentsPark (comment) 17:37, 27 October 2020 (UTC)
 * . Would you mind commenting on article talk pages rather than merely reverting and explaining yourself in edit summaries? To address your summary, if The point is that Marathas won the Mughal-Maratha War and Aurangzeb died having failed to have defeat the Marathas then, perhaps, a simple sentence of the sort "Aurangzeb died having failed to defeat the Marathas" (though, imo, that is fairly obvious), suitably cited, is all that is necessary. Multiple prosaic quotes are of no use to the reader. --RegentsPark (comment) 14:46, 28 October 2020 (UTC)

Outcome
Actually is correct regarding his removal of the "multiple outcomes", since the content is not supported by the source. It is WP:OR. Also the editor who added it has been topic banned, plus his source misrepresentation was widespread on Wikipedia. See this. ArvindPalaskar (talk) 18:06, 11 November 2020 (UTC)
 * It was added by a second editor, for whom there is no evidence of a topic ban. —C.Fred (talk) 18:13, 11 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Yes, you can say re-added by Alivardi, but yes, my point about failure of WP:VERIFY stands. ArvindPalaskar (talk) 18:18, 11 November 2020 (UTC)


 * I too agree that detailed outcome should be removed since it contradicts WP:OR. Orientls (talk) 19:07, 11 November 2020 (UTC)

Recent additions reverted
I've reverted the recent additions. Too many unexplained changes to sourced text and ungrammatical additions. It looks as if the Mughal victory claim is well sourced, so I apologize for removing that as well (could not separate it from the rest of the changes). Also, to take a look and see what makes sense and what doesn't. --RegentsPark (comment) 14:00, 25 May 2021 (UTC)

Maratha-Mughal War of 27 years
For the Marathas category at the bottom of every page relating to the Marathas, it will link this article with the above title, rather than the current Mughal-Maratha war, is it possible for someone with better wiki abilities than myself to change this please, to maintain Wikipedia's internal consistency. Kind Regards, NotAnotherNameGuy (talk) 22:33, 25 June 2021 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion: Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 10:39, 25 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Mughal-Maratha Wars in 1680 CE.png

Misinformation related.
why are you spreading wrong information about History, u stated Results are 'Inconclusive' and 'Mughals failed to annex Maratha state' in Page its all are fake Because Mughals are annexed maratha state in nearly 1690s check it in Mughal Empire page, so please first of all you read history properly, don't change history according to you, you stated in page 'Twenty-Seven Years' War were a set of wars fought between the Mughal Empire and the Maratha Empire from 1680 to 1707, you stated 'Mughals are failed to annexed Maratha state' in results, In reality Mughals are the winner okk of the war and So please correct all wrong information if you don't i will complained about you to Wikipedia Admins okk.

THANK YOU. 103.249.239.45 (talk) 15:22, 11 October 2022 (UTC)

Mughal reign
Both the daughter in law and the grandson of Shivaji were under the custody of Aurangzeb till his death in the year 1707 speaks the volume of Mughal power. 42.106.176.153 (talk) 14:35, 21 November 2022 (UTC)

To change map photo on page
The map putted on this page was not remained constant for 27 years as both Marathas&Mughals faced lots of ups and down in this long war so putting a Map of specific year is not seems right.so this map should be removed Prathmesh Bhale (talk) 13:49, 19 January 2023 (UTC)


 * The state boundaries of the war period are a bit foggy to historians, primarily because Mughal and Maratha documents pertaining to this period are written in Persian and Sanskrit respectively, which are yet to undergo translation. As current research cites, by the end of the war Mughals had failed to hold onto captured Maratha lands and had withdrawn their forces bringing an end to the war. Chhatrapati Shivaji Maharaj's domains in 1680 are the closest approximation of the situation in 1707, the year of Aurangzeb's death and cessation of the Mughal-Maratha Wars. Fayninja (talk) 10:26, 20 January 2023 (UTC)
 * The licensed documentation of a Mughal Empire map from the The Times Complete History of the World on the commons of Princeton University also seems to be highlighting this "fog of war". https://commons.princeton.edu/mg/the-mughal-empire/ Fayninja (talk) 10:30, 20 January 2023 (UTC)

Wiki Education assignment: Introduction to Community Economic and Social Development II
— Assignment last updated by Liya747 (talk) 17:56, 10 March 2023 (UTC)

Change the victory
where Mughal empire losses in Deccan between 1680 to 1707 I want see?? Where maratha wins?? Change the victory plz ReallHistory (talk) 05:11, 11 March 2023 (UTC)
 * result           = Maratha victory
 * Mughals failed to annex Maratha state.
 * By the end of 1706, Mughal Emperor Aurangzeb retreats to Ahmadnagar, Marathas invade Gujarat and regain possession of all forts previously lost to Mughals.

Status quo
Issue: War results in the Infobox, edit war through edit summaries and difficulty in going to the talk page
 * Involved parties in recent dispute: @Capitals00, @Qaayush529, @Aman.kumar.goel, @Aryan330 and @Dympies
 * Admin supervision for a peaceful discussion: @Abecedare

Fayninja (talk) 04:07, 28 June 2023 (UTC)


 * Hey Fayninja. I think it all started with @Capital editing without any source provided. You may check it. Since he is a extended user we can't do anything. The result in the infobox has already been decided from the consensus in the talk page.Qaayush529 (talk) 04:10, 28 June 2023 (UTC)
 * @Capitals00, this page has been frequently patrolled by admin, RegentsPark (on vacation rn), who has encountered no problems with it. Wikipedia is open to accommodating various viewpoints. If you had discovered a credible source that carries due weight, we could have engaged in a discussion and considered multiple outcomes for the Infobox, each backed by its respective sources (though, WP:RSUW). However, the absence of your desired point of view and sources in this article does not justify your removal of sourced content. I invite you to share your sources within this discussion. Fayninja (talk) 04:41, 28 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Hey,we just undid the edit of @Capitals00 which doesn't have any source or historical document.he edited it without providing sources.according to all sources which provided in reference section it's clear that Marathas had won this war & before editing of @Capitals00it was stationed at there from creating of this page. Aryan330 (talk) 04:39, 28 June 2023 (UTC)


 * Mughal Empire fought with Maratha Empire and happened to gain some territories, but not the entire Maratha Empire. This alone confirms that Maratha Empire was not the victor but Mughal Empire. Stanley Wolpert called it a "Pyrrhic victory" for Mughals. Mughal Empire was the one who gained territories, not Maratha Empire. Capitals00 (talk) 08:43, 28 June 2023 (UTC)
 * @Capitals00 First of all this war was of 27 years not the only time when Mughals occupied territories.
 * So let's see by half by half:
 * 1)Sambhaji (1681-1689)- In 9 years of tenure Mughals was unable to capture any single area like Kalyan bhiwandi, talkonkan.in whole 9 years Except forts like Ramsej,Salher& Mulher Mughals were unable to capture any single fort & in response to that Lakhs of soldiers died in battles like 'Mughal Invasion of Konkan' where the alone battle takes 60000 soldiers of Mughals.so in first nine years it was dececive defeat for Mughals by the hands of Sambhaji!
 * 2)Rajaram(1689-1700)- in this half Raigad and some area was captured but Mughals were unable to capture then Maratha Capital 'Jinji' as this seige lasted for whooping 10 years! By then Marathas recaptured Many Forts which then captured by Mughals after the death of Sambhaji.if you want to know then check History of Santaji and dhanaji by taking reference to 'Sir Jadunath Sarkar'.so this half was inconclusive!
 * 3)Tarabai(1700-1707)- In this half Aurangzeb literally gave up the idea to capture Maratha Empire & retreated towards 'ahmadnagar' as mentioned in Result section of Mughal-Maratha war & for your kind information this all taken from own Mughal source of khafi Khan(the court historian of Aurangzeb).
 * when he was retreated the continuous attacks of Marathas also mentioned in That Source and loosing condition of Badshah was clearly mentioned in Source of 'Mughal court Historian Khafi Khan'
 * & 'Sir Jadunath Sarkar' also mentioned in 'History of Aurangzib' about Mughal Maratha wars that how Mughals Soldiers & civilians get killed in this was & Mughal emperor was literally bankrupted because of this was his resources and money was came close to empty & sad badshah was retreated towards ahmadnagar to go back Agra but he died in the way and Marathas almost captured their all forts including Raigad at that time.so this was completely dececive defeat for Mughals.
 * Stanley wolpert mentioned pyrrhic Mughal Victory then by this logic Numerous Maratha and Indian Historians mentioned that this was 'Victory of Marathas'.
 * We can't take only one's opinion here.
 * Wikipedia editors taken reference of Khafi Khan & Jadunath Sarkar for checking condition of that time & by considering all if this they come to conclusion that this was Completely 'dececive Victory of Marathas'.
 * So all of this is nothing but your attempt to rewriting history for self satisfaction.
 * Lastly I would write to mention that Aurangzeb himself mentioned all of this in his death bed letter where he considered that Release of Shivaji from Agra was his biggest mistake.
 * So himself Aurangzeb mentioned the condition of Mughals and Marathas then why you are trying to change it?
 * Just accept the truth. Aryan330 (talk) 09:13, 28 June 2023 (UTC)
 * "We can't take only one's opinion here" and that's why the result was left blank instead of claiming Maratha victory. Territories such as Jinji were lost by Maratha Empire to Mughal Empire so the result of the war cannot be "Maratha victory". Aman Kumar Goel (Talk) 09:18, 28 June 2023 (UTC)
 * @Aman.kumar.goel Jinji was captured by Mughals in 1700 but that time fort in Maharashtra was captured by Marathas from the Mughal such as 'Sinhagad' where Rajaram stationed at his last days!
 * & Here if case is of some territories then Marathas also captured some territories of Mughals whene Mughals captured that.
 * Here we are talking about whole incident of 27 years and the 'last condition means at the end of 1700' where according to all statements by not one's but many!
 * Sir Jadunath Sarkar,Mughal court historian Khafi Khan& Aurangzeb himself also mentioned the last state of this war as before he died Marathas almost captured all forts including 'Raigad' which was the first Captital of Shivaji & Marathas was in the condition of 'attack not defend' as they done during retreat of Aurangzeb to ahamdnagar.
 * At last Marathas doesn't lost their troops,money, resources & civilians in more numbers but Mughals do!
 * So by considering all this admin of this page himself declared this which doesn't even need to be challenged! Aryan330 (talk) 09:38, 28 June 2023 (UTC)
 * So you agree that it was Maratha Empire who lost territory not Mughal Empire.
 * US spent more in Libyan Civil War than Libyan government itself. Does it means Libya won the war because US lost more money there? You are simply making no sense here. Aman Kumar Goel (Talk) 09:40, 28 June 2023 (UTC)
 * @Aman.kumar.goelmoney is just one of the things which lost by Mughals in this war.
 * All of it came to conclusion where 'Mughals Emperor began to retreat and Marathas Recaptured almost all forts so by this in terms of territorial change its almost nothing in both of them but in terms of Troops,Money, Resources & political influence there is a way huge difference between both of them which absolutely makes sense! Aryan330 (talk) 09:44, 28 June 2023 (UTC)
 * But Maratha Empire failed to recover all territories so this conflict was not a victory for them. Aman Kumar Goel (Talk) 09:48, 28 June 2023 (UTC)
 * This is not mentioned in any source where Marathas was failed to recover all territories as according to khafi Khan he said that when we capture one fort they recapture it within some days!
 * & Here it's not about Marathas here it's about Mughals because they inveded Maratha territories so if they failed to capture it then it's absolutely their defeat! Aryan330 (talk) 09:52, 28 June 2023 (UTC)
 * "The Marathas, however, recovered and gained increasingly in strength, so that by the time of Aurangzeb's death in 1707, large areas in the Deccan had come under their control."
 * This clearly means that Marathas failed to recover all territories. Aman Kumar Goel (Talk) 10:50, 28 June 2023 (UTC)
 * @Aman.kumar.goel "The Marathas, however, recovered and gained increasingly in strength, so that by the time of Aurangzeb's death in 1707, large areas in the Deccan had come under their control."[9]
 * according to above Marathas gained large area of Deccan which is true that 'Deccan is a way big than Maratha Empire in 1680 at the death of Shivaji Maharaj'.note that before the invasion of Aurangzeb whole Deccan was divided in 3 kingdoms Marathas,Bijapur & Golconda.as Bijapur and Golconda were conquered by Mughals.it means Marathas had limited control in Deccan which they was able to capture it's not whole Deccan because they never had whole Deccan in their control.so the thing which was not in their control completely before how would they capture it completely after??
 * Just use common sense man!
 * Just imagine you have control of 50 districts and your 2 friends had 50 & 50 districts in their control respectively which make whole state,now a invader come and captured yours friends 50+50= 100 districts but was unable to do same thing to you and at the end the situation remain same as he have 100 districts of state and you have 50 districts of state then what is the logic to capture his 100 districts because you have your 50 districts in your hand! Aryan330 (talk) 11:03, 28 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Even if whole deccan was regained by Marathas then still it won't be outright victory for Marathas. It would be 'status quo'. However, in this case, Marathas hadn't captured all of the territories which they had lost. The conflict was not a "victory" for Marathas.
 * I am not saying that we should be saying "Mughal empire victory" but blanking results parameter is sensible. Aman Kumar Goel (Talk) 11:22, 28 June 2023 (UTC)
 * @Aman.kumar.goel I said Marathas doesn't captured whole Deccan,I wasn't said that Marathas doesn't captured their territories because Marathas had captured their territories & at the year of 1707 the position was almost same as 1680 so Mughals doesn't had outcome of this war & I am telling you continuously that many renowned historians including court historian of Aurangzeb and Aurangzeb himself mentioned that this war doesn't had fruitful for them.i am telling you again Mughal invaded Marathas,not Marathas invaded Mughals.so Mughals was unable to capture Maratha Empire so it's completely one sided victory for Marathas. Aryan330 (talk) 11:59, 28 June 2023 (UTC)
 * @Capitals00, The entire Deccan campaign led by Aurangzeb is referred to as a pyrrhic victory by the source due to the significant territories acquired through the relatively effortless Mughal conquests of Bijapur and Golkonda in 1687 and 1689. However, it cannot be considered a victory against the Maratha kingdom. Despite the Mughals conquering the two Deccan sultanates, the entire Deccan campaign or Deccan wars were labelled 'pyrrhic' because of the heavy casualties and failure against the Maratha War of Independence. I hope I have been clear and removed the confusion. Fayninja (talk) 10:19, 29 June 2023 (UTC)
 * @Fayninja yes that was I am saying continuously that Pyrrhic Mughal victory is considered for Aurangzeb's entire Deccan campaign which includes Bijapur and Golconda also.
 * Hey can you change the recent edit of @Capitals00 on "Mughal-Maratha wars" which is nothing but a type of ragging edit!
 * Undo that edit. Aryan330 (talk) 10:26, 29 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your input but my hands are tied until I wait for a response from them. Fayninja (talk) 11:59, 29 June 2023 (UTC)


 * At a quick glance the sources used in this edit are all very poor or are not correctly summarized. See my comments in a a section above about Hunter (1882) and Marshman (2010/1876). The section also lists some high-quality sources on the topic, namely:
 * The Osborne (2020) article should also be okay. But before we get into if and how to correctly present what these sources say in the infobox, it would be good to settle the question about the title/scope of this article raised by below. Abecedare (talk) 22:32, 28 June 2023 (UTC)
 * @Abecedare I am glad thatyou dived in this discussion.
 * First of all sources of this article are not that much poor as most of the events & result of this article are taken from that time's 'Mughal court historian Khafi Khan' & Renowned historian 'Sir Jadunath Sarkar'. both of them said this war was loss for Mughals & Benifit For Marathas & this concluded that Marathas Was Victorias in this War.so I would like to say that we have to take strict action against those who change this result section for own benifit as done by some users for some time.
 * either name change or not but Result and other information which provided in this article should be same.
 * Aryan330 (talk) 02:12, 29 Aryan330 (talk) 02:20, 29 June 2023 (UTC)
 * No. Result should be blanked as described above. Capitals00 (talk) 02:21, 29 June 2023 (UTC)
 * @Capitals00 No.Result should not be blanked as you are unable to give weighted source or proof that why it should be!
 * According to all renowned historians like Jadunath Sarkar, Aurangzeb's court historian Khafi Khan & Aurangzeb himself mentioned that this was loss for Mughals and benifitted for Marathas.all that sources are putted on reference section of this article.
 * You are changing it without giving any Weighted source or reason for own pleasure.
 * So page should be same as before as that was stayed same from starting!Maratha Victory.
 * It should be same. Aryan330 (talk) 02:33, 29 June 2023 (UTC)
 * You are changing it without giving any Weighted source or reason for own pleasure.
 * So page should be same as before as that was stayed same from starting!Maratha Victory.
 * It should be same. Aryan330 (talk) 02:33, 29 June 2023 (UTC)

Mughal-Maratha battles after Aurangzeb
The most significant expansion of Maratha influence at the expense of the Mughals happened in the 1700s during the rule of Shahu and the Peshwas. Why isn't this discussed in detail? Otherwise, the article name may need to be changed to something like "Maratha war of independence (1681-1707). Any thoughts? ThanksJonathansammy (talk) 16:55, 28 June 2023 (UTC)


 * Good question. Either the title or the scope of the article should be changed (no rushed moves though, please!). Abecedare (talk) 22:03, 28 June 2023 (UTC)


 * This article is about "Deccan war" as the lead correctly states. Any wars that happened between Mughals and Marathas after the death of Aurangzeb are not as notable as this one, neither they fall under the frequently used term "Mughal-Maratha wars". The title and scope of this article at this moment at just as fine as it should be. Capitals00 (talk) 02:20, 29 June 2023 (UTC)
 * "Deccan wars" name is absolutely not correct as Deccan means whole Maharashtra,half of Karnataka,Half of Andhra& Telangana.so Maratha Empire was not spread this much at this war!
 * "Maratha war of independence"would be correct or should be stayed same as before"Mughal-Maratha wars"Aryan330 (talk) 02:37, 29 June 2023 (UTC)
 * "independence" from whom? That is nothing but absurd POV. "Deccan wars" is the 2nd most common name after "Mughal-Maratha wars". I am not in favor of a page move though but even if we were to select any name then "Deccan war" is the only valid option. Aman Kumar Goel (Talk) 03:45, 29 June 2023 (UTC)
 * I suggested that name because many historians used to say this in their sources.
 * But actually according to me this article should be stayed as it is.there is no need to do anything releted to this. Aryan330 (talk) 04:13, 29 June 2023 (UTC)
 * I concur with @Jonathansammy because the term "Deccan wars" encompasses not just the Mughal conquest of the Maratha kingdom, but also includes Bijapur and Golconda. In light of this, it would be more appropriate to rename it as the "Maratha War of Independence," as has already been done in this list. Eric W. Osborne calls it the "Maratha uprising of 1680 to 1707" which has the same connotations as "Maratha War of Independence". Fayninja (talk) 09:55, 29 June 2023 (UTC)

Proposal for Infobox result parameter
Based on my comprehensive review of trustworthy tertiary sources and the key details I have gathered from them; I present the following proposal.

Result: Mughals annex but fail to retain the Maratha kingdom; retreat due to stiff resistance

The Marathas 1600–1818 (The New Cambridge History of India) by Stewart Gordon (pp. 103)

By late 1705, the tide had turned. Aurangzeb faced serious problems in the north. He had an exhausted army, anxious to leave the barren hills of Maharashtra. Everyone, Marathas and Mughals, was waiting for the emperor to die. Factions and alliances formed and reformed. Maratha raids continued. Dhanaji Yadav, for example, raided Gujarat in the campaigning season of 1706-07, sacked Baroda, and defeated the Mughal deputy governor of the province and the faujdar of the city. In the same year, there was a major raid on the city of Burhanpur. After nearly forty years of campaigning in the Deccan, Aurangzeb died (March 1707) at Aurangabad, leaving the Marathas and Maharashtra unconquered. A History of India by Peter Robb (pp. 86)

Shambhaji was captured in 1688, without a major battle, and brought to Aurangzib, who had him tortured and put to death. Muhammad Akbar fled to Persia. The Deccan sultanates, the Maratha kingdom and Karnataka were all annexed to the empire. The Marathas, however, were not defeated. Local chiefs, the new king (Shivaji’s younger son, Rajaram), and, after his death, Rajaram’s senior widow, Tarabai, all continued to harry the Mughals. There were military successes for the emperor, and attempts to reach a negotiated settlement, but Maratha raids were not contained; indeed they spread to wider regions. The administrative structures of the empire remained strong enough to allow Aurangzib, for nearly twenty years, to pour his energy and treasure into his campaigns against the Marathas. On his death in 1707, the empire passed to one of his three surviving sons, Muazzam, who ruled as Bahadur Shah, after a battle with his brother, Azam Shah. He then faced rebellions by the Rajputs and the Sikhs, and a war with another brother who pro-claimed an independent kingdom in Bijapur. Maratha raids continued, and local rulers began to pay substantial tribute to avoid them. A Brief History of India by Judith E. Walsh (pp. 95)

determined to bring the Deccan under his control. He marched south, taking with him his own army, the armies of his three sons, and those of his major generals. In 1685 he defeated the sultans of Bijapur (the Karnatak) and Golconda (Hyderabad). In 1689 his forces tracked down and killed the Maratha king Sambhaji. By then Mughal territories extended from the Himalayas to all but the very tip of the Indian peninsula. But the Marathas refused to surrender. Aurangzeb spent the last 20 years of his life in the Deccan, much of it living in a giant tent city 30 miles in circumference, vainly attempting to bring the Deccan under his control. Even after Mughal troops killed Sambhaji’s brother Rajaram in 1698, Rajaram’s widow, Tara Bai, fought on as regent for her infant son. From 1700 to 1705 the Mughals repeatedly besieged and captured Maratha hill fortresses only to have the Marathas recapture them as soon as the Mughals withdrew. In the countryside, Maratha armies collected the land revenues before the Mughals could secure them. In the north, Mughal administrative and fiscal systems were breaking down. The cost of the Deccan war was depleting the treasury even as the growing practice of “tax farming” (hiring a third party to collect revenues from a jagir) was reducing overall revenues. The old mansabdari military system was no longer honored—soldiers were either not provided or inadequately horsed and equipped. Rebellion, disorder, and disaffection were breaking out even in the Indo-Gangetic heartland. In the late 1680s, Hindu Jat peasants south of Agra plundered Mughal supply trains with such impunity that Aurangzeb had to send troops from the Deccan to stop them. In 1705, old and ill, Aurangzeb abandoned his war and began a slow march north. Two years later he died, in his tent city outside Aurangabad. “My famous and auspicious sons should not quarrel among themselves and allow a general massacre of the people,” he wrote in almost identical letters to his three sons and heirs shortly before his death. “My years have gone by profi tless. . . . I have greatly sinned and know not what torment awaits me” (Smith 1958, 426). The Ulcer of the Mughal Empire: Mughals and Marathas, 1680-1707 by Eric W. Osborne (pp. 1004-1005)

Maratha power was not broken after decades of fighting south of the Deccan. The true state of affairs lay in the withdrawal of the emperor to Ahmadnegar on 14 January 1706 and the immediately subsequent events. Throughout the retreat, Maratha forces attacked his army and in one instance looted the imperial camp. Maratha forces even invaded Gujarat the same year where by the end of 1706 all the Maratha forts lost to the Mughals were once more in Maratha possession.

The triumph of neither side will be acknowledged, serving as a concise and comprehensive overview of the period of conflict for readers. Sort of a status quo depicted in the map above, but I would avoid using that term with the proposal since the situation had changed significantly. Although, the Mughal wave surged in and then receded, the kingdom was left ravaged by years of warfare. Also, it is reasonable to assume that both states suffered significant losses. Any suggestions for enhancements or the implementation of this summary are welcome from other editors.

Editors: @Abecedare, @Aman.kumar.goel, @Aryan330, @Capitals00, @Jonathansammy Fayninja (talk) 05:36, 29 June 2023 (UTC)


 * Much better. The language can perhaps be tweaked a bit and some of citations quoted in the collapsed box used in place of the Walsh's book. But this gets the point across of Mughal's tenuous control over the region and failure to suppress the Maratha insurgency than the simple "Mughal/Maratha victory" binary. Abecedare (talk) 14:33, 29 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Such complicated results are not allowed per MOS:MIL. Capitals00 (talk) 15:29, 29 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Good point. Per the advice at WP:MILMOS, it would then be better to omit the Result field in the inforbox. Abecedare (talk) 15:59, 29 June 2023 (UTC)
 * True true. We have a lot more space in the lead to summarise adequately and clearly because the result was technically just “territorial status quo”. Fayninja (talk) 02:42, 30 June 2023 (UTC)
 * As recent edit of @Fayninja is perfect with accurate information & everyone please co-operate with it.
 * As Result with Maratha Victory & States quo ante bellum means situation as before the war!
 * This is perfect and don't try to change it to lead "vandalism".
 * Co-operate with it users. Aryan330 (talk) 08:09, 1 July 2023 (UTC)
 * The source does not even mention "victory". Also, "status quo ante bellum" is misleading since Marathas failed to recover all territories. Capitals00 (talk) 09:00, 1 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Capitals00 Aurangzeb himself mentioned in his death bed letter that this war was such a loss of him that this eventually leads his life to end!
 * His court historian Khafi Khan mentioned that Marathas reconquered their forts & this war was huge loss for Empire and Emperor!
 * Sir Jadunath Sarkar wrote in "history of aurangzib" that this war eventually mark the end of Mughal dominacy in Indian Subcontinent!
 * In that time Wikipedia was not present for writing result of this!
 * The result is taken from all if these sources which only thing common was this war was a "loss for Mughals"& marked "dominacy of Marathas".
 * Marathas were able to reconquer almost all forts according to khafi Khan.
 * Infact Marathas attacked Mughal provinance of Gujrat, Burhanpur etc.
 * For all of this you need to read that all.
 * It's very easy to blank the content than reading it though!
 * So don't make any other edit on article, discuss on talk page otherwise I will complaint against you to Wikipedia administrator. Aryan330 (talk) 09:14, 1 July 2023 (UTC)
 * @Capitals00, read the source notes thoroughly before making another revert. What do the terms "Maratha success", "Mughal loss" and this statement; "these factors decided the contest in favor of a militarily inferior power, being the Marathas, over one of the most powerful empires on earth" mean to you? The same notes state the recovery of all Maratha possessions. Do not cross 3RR without replying to my question. Fayninja (talk) 09:32, 1 July 2023 (UTC)
 * @Fayninja he is not willing to accept the truth and will not actually.check his user page and see his edits,he is continuously targeting specific community!
 * If this time he will do same then there is no option without complaining to Wikipedia administrator. Aryan330 (talk) 09:35, 1 July 2023 (UTC)
 * @Capitals00, truth is truth, empires rise and fall. Fayninja (talk) 09:38, 1 July 2023 (UTC)


 * This was not a victory for Marathas because they lost the territory as mentioned above. I am absolutely not interested in dealing with talk page disruption by and similarly if  believes that he can win content dispute on expense of Aryan330 then he is totally wrong. Dympies (talk) 10:31, 1 July 2023 (UTC)
 * @Dympies it's very easy to call someone disruptive or blank anything in article,but it's very difficult to resourch on any source and to read it.you are opting the first option while us opting the second!
 * It's not disruptive in any sense!
 * khafi Khan mentioned that marathas reconquered almost all of their forts!
 * If you are not interested in discussing on talk page or provide sources then kindly stay away from this because Wikipedia is not granted for anyone,the admins of this article tried very hard to collect these sources and marked it.
 * Stay away then! Aryan330 (talk) 10:37, 1 July 2023 (UTC)
 * See WP:IDHT and also WP:CIR. Capitals00 (talk) 10:51, 1 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Not to take a side but I am deaf to comments without sources. If those opposing my edit provide a reliable conflicting source in this discussion, I am open to examining it and reconsidering my interpretation. Thanks Fayninja (talk) 14:36, 1 July 2023 (UTC)


 * I don't understand how you are citing the Osborne (2020) article as a source for adding "Maratha victory" in the infobox, when the author himself summarize the situation in the abstract as The main problem group was the Marathas, whose insurgency Aurangzeb never fully defeated over the course of a twenty-seven-year war... The failure to completely quell this revolt led to Maratha domination of large swaths of the northern Mughal Empire following the death of Aurangzeb.. Failure to "fully defeat/completely quell" doesn't translate into "victory" for either side; and we are not permitted to make such a jump. Please self-revert such source misrepresentation and, as pointed above, violation of the guidance at WP:MILMOS.
 * Secondly, you all really need to stop the edit-warring at the article or I'll be requesting sanctions. The topic is being discussed here on the talkpage; just wait for a consensus to be reached. Abecedare (talk) 14:48, 1 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Osborne provided further details on the abstract quote found on page 1005, which clearly indicates a Maratha victory. This is evident through statements such as "Maratha success," "Mughal loss in the Mughal-Maratha Wars," and "these factors collectively decided the contest in favour of a militarily inferior power, being the Marathas, over one of the most powerful empires on earth." Full quote: in military terms Maratha success can be attributed to their use of guerilla tactics over a vast terrain where the set piece army of the Mughals could not be everywhere at once. These factors collectively decided the contest in favor of a militarily inferior power, being the Marathas, over one of the most powerful empires on earth. The Mughal loss in the Mughal-Maratha Wars was one that heralded great consequences for the empire. After 26 years in the Deccan, Aurangzeb had not only failed in his quest to quell the Marathas, but he had also seriously damaged his empire. I will self-revert though as I could have been mistaken. If this doesn't meet the criteria for a source supporting a Maratha victory, the only alternative would be an inconclusive outcome. Fayninja (talk) 15:17, 1 July 2023 (UTC)
 * @Abecedare, not to mention, the Wolpert source which was used to initiate this edit war has already been debunked. There is literally no opposition to the mention of a "Maratha victory" either in the sources from the 1800s or the 2000s. Fayninja (talk) 15:26, 1 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the self-revert. The abstract is the author's own summary of their arguments in the body of the paper and we shouldn't quote-mine the article to draw a different conclusion, especially when that conclusion is at odds with how WP:SCHOLARSHIP (eg Richards, Gordon etc) discuss the material.
 * And as Capitals00, I and you discussed above, omitting the result field is recommended option when the result is not a clear "victory" for either side. Not sure what happened since then that led you change the proposal from "Mughals annex but fail to retain the Maratha kingdom; retreat due to stiff resistance" (which is roughly correct factually, but not MOS compliant) to "Maratha victory" (which is MOS compliant but unsupported WP:OR). Anyway, I hope any further changes to the result in the infobox result will be based on clear talkpage consensus.  Abecedare (talk) 15:56, 1 July 2023 (UTC)
 * That old source from the 1800s changed my mind, and the fact that Osborne's article rhymed so much as a detailed account of its statements. It made me question that perhaps Aurangzeb's retreat was indeed an ignominious flight, pursued by a victorious foe. While the outcome remains inconclusive, the other bullet points I included should still be retained, correct? The result reached was inconclusive, characterized by a Mughal retreat, the maintenance of the status quo ante bellum, and ongoing Maratha raids persisting even after the official end of the Maratha War of Independence with Aurangzeb's death. Fayninja (talk) 16:28, 1 July 2023 (UTC)
 * About Marshman (1876): see WP:RAJ and the previous discussion from 2019. About retaining the other bullet points in the infobox: see WP:MILMOS. Abecedare (talk) 16:51, 1 July 2023 (UTC)


 * I've reworded the exaggerated lead sentence. There was no Maratha empire in 1707. Pockets of infirm Maratha control (when the Mughals were not paying attention) by descendants of some former Mughal jagirdars does not an empire make.  Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  16:36, 1 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Good edit. In my focus on the Infobox, I haven't really looked at the article's contents which are likely in need of some work too. Btw, any thoughts on the best title/scope for this article? See discussion in the previous section. Abecedare (talk) 16:51, 1 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Hello there. Please see this section of the FA Political history of Mysore and Coorg, 1565–1760, successfully FAR'd in 2021 or thereabouts. Shivaji and his half-brother Venkoji had inherited the Mughal jagirs of their father Shahji. Well Venjoji had and then Shivaji asserted his claim. The Marathas had really only been recently constituted.
 * The period 1680 to 1707 was one of chaotically shifting sovereignties. Please see the lead of that article and also the section on the Wodeyars (circa 1700).
 * I think "Mughal-Maratha strife 1680–1707" or "Mughal-Maratha disputes 1680–1707" would be better. Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  17:28, 1 July 2023 (UTC)
 * We say in the FA India's history section: "Newly coherent social groups in northern and western India, such as the Marathas, the Rajputs, and the Sikhs, gained military and governing ambitions during Mughal rule, which, through collaboration or adversity, gave them both recognition and military experience." cited to Metcalf and Metcalf's pages 23, 24 (2006 edition). Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  17:31, 1 July 2023 (UTC)

Sambhaji jagirdar?
I reverted an WP:OR edit of claiming that Sambhaji was a Mughal jagirdar. Sambhaji was a Mughal mansabdar for a while, during the lifetime of Shivaji. Not sure when he quit. But after Shivaji's death, he succeeded him as the king. A small kingdom perhaps, nevertheless a kingdom.

-- Kautilya3 (talk) 19:08, 1 July 2023 (UTC)


 * Thanks for your post. As the entire area was such a blur of shifting sovereignties, I assumed that Sambhaji has succeeded to Shivaji's infirm jagir. My apologies. I will fix the text now.  The sources currently in place are not appropriate for the lead.  Best regards,  Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  00:07, 2 July 2023 (UTC)
 * ✅ Thanks. Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  01:15, 2 July 2023 (UTC)


 * Out of curiousity, was there a concept of firing / sacking mansabdars during the Mughal era ? Was officially Sambhaji still a Mughal mansabdar when he was killed by Aurangzeb? If so then this was a case of the emperor executing a rebel for insubordination. Any thoughts? Thanks.Jonathansammy (talk) 17:08, 2 July 2023 (UTC)


 * There was three years of peace between Shivaji and Aurangzeb, which ended in 1669. It was during this period that Shivaji sent Sambhaji to work in the Mughal Empire. It is reasonable to suppose that Sambhaji quit when the conflict resumed.
 * Him getting killed by Aurangzeb was much later, after he became a king and fought more battles with the Mughals. He was captured in battle, allegedly tortured and killed. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 20:33, 2 July 2023 (UTC)


 * Sambhaji was with the Mughal general Dillerkhan around 1678-80 in their fight against Bijapur Adilshahi. Shivaji was not happy with that but my question is whether Sambhaji joined the Mughals as their Mansabdar or in a different capacity at that time? Thanks.Jonathansammy (talk) 21:40, 2 July 2023 (UTC)
 * @Jonathansammy No,he hadn't joined Mughals as Mansabdar,he joined Mughals because of personal reasons as the ministers of shivaji made false allegations on him when shivaji was on Deccan conquest,also Soyarabai(regent queen) was sided with ministers that angered him to cause him join to Mughals!
 * There is also another source which says Sambhaji was sent by shivaji himself for political reasons to breakdown Mughals internally as per shivaji's letter to his half brother vyankoji.
 * either one of these 2 reasons Sambhaji joined diler khan Mughals,no other. Aryan330 (talk) 03:43, 3 July 2023 (UTC)

Completely Unsourced edit on Sambhajis succession and about Rajaram
as user @Fowler&fowler edited recently about Sambhajis succession and mentioned that he murdered Soyarabai and ministers and imprisoned Rajaram for 8 years which is completely Unsourced and any single source let it be Maratha or Mughals or British mentioned that Sambhaji murdered Soyarabai and imprisoned Rajaram. & About ministers they were executed after 1 year of his Coronation when they tried to kill Sambhaji by poisoning, before that Sambhaji released them all and given them all positions! My grammar might be incorrect but the information I am saying is not incorrect as this all mentioned in various sources! Aryan330 (talk) 04:42, 2 July 2023 (UTC)


 * I have added sourced information and marked sources also,if anyone have problem he can challenge me on this talk page regarding this edit.i will give every question's answer with full proof sources. Aryan330 (talk) 05:08, 2 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Hello . For the succession struggles or feuds after Shivaji's death, I have mainly relied on James Laine's Shivaji: Hindu King in Islamic India, Oxford University Press, 2003, a book that received several scholarly reviews and none mentioned errors of fact in the book.
 * But perhaps I have been less than meticulous in paraphrasing or summarizing Laine.
 * Also, I hadn't realized that back in 2003, there was some controversy around the book and it was banned in India by the ruling Hindu nationalist government.
 * I will go through my edits carefully, and also read three scholarly reviews of Laine
 * by Richard Davis, Journal of the American Academy of Religion, Dec., 2004, Vol. 72, No. 4 (Dec., 2004), pp. 1045-1050
 * by Arshia Sattar, History of Religions, Vol. 46, No. 2 (November 2006), pp. 167-169
 * and by Christian Novetzke, The Journal of Religion, Vol. 85, No. 3 (July 2005), pp. 524-526
 * Fowler&amp;fowler «Talk»  13:56, 2 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Hello @Fowler&fowler.James laine's book was banned by Indian government not Hindu government as if the government which ruling on 125 crores of people's in which 40 crore people's are from Muslim community.
 * A government not could be Hindu or Muslim it's Indian Government and the book which banned by government should not be In article this article.
 * I have already mentioned that except Lein,none of the historian mentioned that Sambhaji murdered Soyarabai.
 * A British man who attended coronation ceremony of Sambhaji stated about her,so tell me if she was murdered then how she was in that Coronation?
 * The Sources I have mentioned are of renowned historians.
 * J.L mehta also doesn't mentioned about that & Ncert take all information from his book & Ncert is renowned in World for it's good reviews for historically correct information.
 * Sorry to say but you hadn't any idea of Maratha History so kindly do study about that. Aryan330 (talk) 15:00, 2 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Aryan330, Fowler&amp;fowler «Talk», The ban on [[James Laine|

Laine's]] book in India was lifted more than ten years ago. Kincaid and Parasnis also state that Sambhaji murdered Soyarabai by burying her alive in a wall. This reference is somewhat old but what Kincaid et al said is/was widely known in Maharashtra. Before Kincaid et al, James Grant Duff, the historian to write extensively about the Marathas in early 1800s also states that Sambhaji executed Soyrabai. So saying that Laine is the only one to mention execution of Soyrabai by Sambhaji is wrong.He must have used these older sources for his work.Thanks.Jonathansammy (talk) 17:57, 2 July 2023 (UTC)
 * @Jonathansammy Kincaid and Laine used book of James Grant Duff as their primary sources and James Grant Duff used "Chitnis Bakhar Of Malharrao Chitnis" as their primary source for this claim as they mentioned in their book. talking about Malharrao Chitnis,he was great grand son of "Balaji Chitnis",the minister of Sambhaji whome Sambhaji executed on the charges of Conspiracy against him for attempting of murder. as Malharrao Chitnis doesn't mentioned any source for this neither they provided any letter for this claim so how can we consider this as true?
 * As His Chitnis Bakhar is already in controversy for his false allegations on Sambhaji for his Personal hate then how could we rely on it? Historian Jadunath Sarkar dismissed it as unreliable for the purposes of history, stating that "the book is incorrect, rambling or pure guess work in many places, with not even the idea of correct chronology." so tell me how it would correct?
 * As at the edit which edited by me,I had provided realiable sources which taken from the page of Sambhaji which also include J.L. mehta one the most renowned historian of india as NCERT also take his works as their primary sources!
 * They didn't mentioned about this incident in their book neither British letters mentioned about it!
 * Instead of it tons of sources mentioned that Soyarabai was alive even after Coronation Ceremony of Sambhaji for more than one years!
 * This information is present on that sources which I provided previously, which now reverted by Capitals00.
 * so sir,this is very very unconstructive edit and kindly ask @Fowler&fowler to self revert it.
 * Thank you Aryan330 (talk) 18:20, 2 July 2023 (UTC)
 * You say,"Instead of it tons of sources mentioned that Soyarabai was alive even after Coronation Ceremony of Sambhaji for more than one years". Yes, she was not immediately killed after Sambhaji's coronation, but she was killed on orders of Sambhaji.Is Shivade recognized historian? i couldn't find any papers by him, does he write in marathi only? Let us know.Thanks. Jonathansammy (talk) 18:40, 3 July 2023 (UTC)
 * @Jonathansammy Shivade had given his life's 30 years to research about Sambhaji.yes his work are in Marathi,but not only him every authors with proper evidences has works regarding Sambhaji in Marathi. one can be exception for this it's medha bhaskarans- life and death of Sambhaji which is the only book about Sambhaji is written in English,if you are interested you can read it as she has also tell at beginning that main and proper work on sambhaji is done by Shivade and Kamal gokhale. Coming to topic, Shivade would not be a global historian but in terms of Sambhaji we can rely on his works as he provided every sources for every important incidents!
 * You will be surprised to know that He had made a special book on letters by or releted to Sambhaji & in that letters he also provided a British letter in which mentioned that Sambhaji treated Rajaram very respectfully and loved him so much even knowing that he had installed on throne by ministers of sambhaji when sambhaji was in panhala so tell me if Rajaram was in prison for eight years then how this letter telling exactly opposite to this?
 * Point to be noted- as I already said there is no any single strong evidence which says Soyarabai was killed by Sambhaji neither it mentioned in any letters nor it is mentioned In Sambhaji's order letters as provided by Shivade.
 * As i already said at first it is mentioned that on "Chitnis Bakhar by malhar ramrao Chitnis" which written after more than 100 years of sambhaji's death & as I already said he doesn't provided any single reference for it & that bakhar is already is in very controversy for tons of False allegations on Sambhaji for personal hate as Sambhaji had killed his great grand father for attempting poison attack on Sambhaji!
 * and James grand duff taken this information from that bakhar it is followed by those two authors. Here one thing to mention that this information continuously taken from one to another without being checked on fact base as bakhars doesn't provided sources & that was taken by following authors then how could we rely on them?
 * Sadashiv Shivade dismissed all these allegations with proper evidences in his book so that's why we can completely rely on him & should remove all edits on this article at where laine's  source is citated because his source can be used at another article but not here. waiting for your reply,kindly see,thank you.Aryan330 (talk) 20:45, 3 July 2023 (UTC)
 * User:Aryan330 has been indefinitely partially-blocked from this article, as per this report. Deauthorized. (talk) 19:52, 2 July 2023 (UTC)