Talk:List of wars involving India

Article protected
This article has been protected from editing for three days to try to generate talk page discussion of the disputed content. Please follow the WP:BRD guideline. You may also wish to consider dispute resolution (WP:DR). Mark Arsten (talk) 14:36, 10 August 2013 (UTC)

Issues with this page.
I am writing a number of issues, that i have countered at this page.


 * Maratha Empire :- Since Maratha Empire didn't included the present day India, why it has been included here? And if it has been, i have to a list ready to imply now, which include the much larger empire than Maratha, not only that, but they depict more or as much present day India.
 * 20th Century conflicts :- Some "Amalgamation of Sikkim" is added, but why Chola Incident isn't? Kargil war, who's responsbility has been officially denied by Pakistan is added, but not Siachen Conflict, siachen conflict is probably bigger achievement for India, both sides had many casualities too. Also if Sikkim thing is added, where is "The Sumdorong Chu Incident"? Notably it involved the military presence but not actual action.
 * Second Indo-Pakistani War :- Clearly a win for India, similar to Libyan–Egyptian War where the Egypt was victorious.
 * Skirmishes/lower scale war:- They deserves a table too.

Thanks Justicejayant (talk) 05:04, 29 September 2013 (UTC)


 * This is an incomplete page it is not fully done yet many more past Indian empires will be added. I might make a table just for skirmishes and low scale wars soon. The Second Indo-Pakistani War officially ended in a ceasefire everything returned back the way it was. Nikhilmn2002 (talk) 05:31, 29 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Nikhilmn2002, i request you to make no new changes to the page, because my edition is still under-construction. Once again. Same thing happened to Libyan–Egyptian War, yes, everything was same, no territorial change, but point is, who suffered more damage? Who retreated? Who was conquering other nation? You have the answer, and that's the winner! Justicejayant (talk) 05:51, 29 September 2013 (UTC)
 * That is true but the UN declared a ceasefire and we can't have biased opinion here. Nikhilmn2002 (talk) 05:57, 29 September 2013 (UTC)

Missing
Some wars here are not mentioned, such as Arab conquest of Singh, Tripartite struggle, Sultan Mahmud's invasions of India, Sikh revolts.Ovsek (talk) 04:58, 18 March 2014 (UTC)

Reconstruction of article
I have reconstructed the article to add a few prominent conflicts and have classified wars formed before the official formation of Indian armed forced separately. I believe there needs a discussion as to whether the wars fought before 1858 should be mentioned at all.

Since the above edit, there have been too many switches back and forth. I think a discussion is needed as to which format should stay. I recommend making use of this talk page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.248.163.3 (talk) 08:01, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

In regard to above, The current edit was reversed several times saying that the edit has been due to table breaks and poorly sourced articles, this is not true. The tables are maintained correctly. The wars before 1858 are hidden by default and not broken. Clicking on 'show' will bring them up. All articles are referenced with wiki articles. In fact the older edits have blank tables for Gupta and Pala empires which is purposeless. Also, important campaigns like annexation of Junagadh have not been mentioned. Once again, I invite people to this talk page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.248.163.3 (talk) 08:07, 28 April 2015 (UTC)


 * It is best we talk this out and by the looks of it everyone likes the original format it is in now. Also if you look in the "See also" you will find Indian integration of Junagadh in there. Nikhilmn2002 (talk) 19:24, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for the reply. I would request you not to make a whole revert but rather address the issues that actually cause problems. Please note I never subtracted any content from the earlier format save for the Rajasthan war. I am mentioning my concerns below:

1. The topic goes 'list of wars involving India'. I suppose we should be writing about wars that were fought by/against India rather than wars fought in the Indian sub-continent. Otherwise every minor war or conflict that were fought between Indian kingdoms need to be mentioned.

2. Addressing issue above, I clubbed four of the leading powers in the Indian subcontinent before the formation of Indian armed forces into a section and made it hidden by default. I never removed any material there, but rather added the infamous Kalinga war (this id getting undone by blind reverts). Also, I added an introduction about the military history of India with a deep link. A reader would find it more useful if he read about the history in a separate page.

3. I did however remove Gupta Empire, Pala Empire and Chalukya dynasty. The tables under Gupta and Pala were empty while Chalukya had a single battle i.e Rajasthan war. Note, the name Chalukyas stood for three separate kingdoms. What was the use of keeping the tables empty for Gupta and Pala? Why was the battle between Pulakesi and Harsha not mentioned? Why are these empires mentioned but not the one of Kharavela? Please note the page has been up for two years now without any notable additions. That is the reason I felt that it is no longer necessary. If you feel it is needed, I will include it and also mention some of the prominent battles of those empires too. But we need to reach to a consensus as to which dynasties to include or whether to have the section or not.

4. Another problem was about the outcome of the wars. 'Victory' and 'Defeat' were mentioned. The topic is named 'List of wars involving India' and thereby 'victory' would mean Indian victory. However, this would carry no meaning in the case of Mughals battling Ahoms.

5. I added an intro to 'Empire of India' and added a few conflicts. Blind reverts reversed these.

6. I also separated 'Union of India' and 'Republic of India'. Somebody made an edit renaming 'Union of India with 'Dominion of India', I retained the change. However another blind revert undid the same. The same happened with Sri Lankan Civil war. I originally marked it as defeat but it was, as rightly pointed out by an editor, withdrawal and not defeat. I undid my change. Same went with 'Invasion of Goa'. I never blindly reverted any edits if it meant subtraction of information.

7. Several of my changes like 'Operation Rajiv', 'Accession of Junagarh' and 'Dadra and Nagar haveli'. It goes beyond me as to why Chola incident finds mention but not accession of junagarh. While there is a link in the 'see also section, there should be one in the table too, as it is a prominent campaign by Indian armed forces.

I think we need to settle these issues before proceeding. In the meanwhile I request you not to make blind reverts if this means some information gets erased. Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.248.163.3 (talk) 09:36, 29 April 2015 (UTC)
 * India as it exists as a sovieriegn state claims to be the successor state to the Dominion of India, which was the successor state to the British Raj, which was the successor polity to India under company rule. I think this page should go back any further than company rule because "India" did not exist prior to that. Instead there were various different empires and kingdoms which have no continuity to the current state today. This is in line with the various other List of wars involving (insert country name) pages.XavierGreen (talk) 03:41, 1 May 2015 (UTC)


 * I for one, liked things the way they were before. They were more evenly formatted, responsibly sourced and just looked easier for the reader to follow along. Therefore I agree with Nikhilmn2002. --Imperial HRH2 (talk) 00:16, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

This is getting too confusing you're adding in battles which isn't necessary when the whole war is listed already. DO NOT change it back to your style until we settle this on the talk page. Nikhilmn2002 (talk) 19:43, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

As I mentioned earlier, please do not make a whole revert removing in between edits. While adding the minor conflicts, I did ask whether this should be undone. Instead of undoing those changes, you made a complete revert. You have not answered my concerns above. I am removing all those minor conflicts I added. Please address the issues before making blind reverts. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 119.82.121.254 (talk) 10:17, 5 May 2015 (UTC)

I have removed all the minor operations during Sri Lankan civil war as well as Siachen conflict. I have retained Bangladesh liberation war as I found two entries in the List of wars involving Pakistan (edit made by Nikhilmn2002 himself). If you feel this is not necessary, please remove it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 119.82.121.254 (talk) 10:23, 5 May 2015 (UTC)


 * Can we just have a vote to fix this? Also, I feel the Siachen Glacier conflict is significant. Imperial HRH2 (talk) 23:07, 9 May 2015 (UTC)

I added information about the main Siachen conflict. I think that the 'see also' section is quite long and the reader may not desire that much of information. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.248.163.3 (talk) 12:27, 14 May 2015 (UTC)

Requested move 3 June 2015

 * The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section. 

The result of the move request was: no consensus. Proposed title created as a redirect. Jenks24 (talk) 11:34, 20 June 2015 (UTC)

List of wars involving India → List of wars and conflicts involving India – Because the article mentions wars as well as minor conflicts, it would be sensible to rename this page. A redirect to this page should exist while the reader searches for 'list of wars involving India'. --Relisted. George Ho (talk) 01:38, 10 June 2015 (UTC) 113.193.62.202 (talk) 09:32, 3 June 2015 (UTC)


 * Nearly all the other articles in Category:Lists of wars by country are just List of wars involving foo not sure it needs conflict adding. MilborneOne (talk) 16:02, 10 June 2015 (UTC)


 * Oppose. I think the current title is more in line with the naming style of similar articles. However, if a broader title were used, I think "List of armed conflicts involving India" would be better than the current proposal. Rreagan007 (talk) 01:04, 12 June 2015 (UTC)


 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Congo Crisis
Indian participation in the Congo Crisis was not limited to peacekeeping, Indian troops took part in the main UN offensive against Katanga that led to its debellation. It should be listed.XavierGreen (talk) 14:18, 10 September 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 16 November 2016
The Kargil war was a stalemate and I wish to change that to Stalemate. Since no territorial changes were made it cant be called a victory 39.59.230.161 (talk) 10:54, 16 November 2016 (UTC)


 * ❌. Please provide reliable sources supporting the statement, as per Wikipedia verifiability policy. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 12:18, 16 November 2016 (UTC)
 * As I read it, Pakistan intruded/invaded/occupied, and were successfully repulsed - the fact that India stopped at the old boundary, rather than entering Pakistani territory, does not mean that they were unsuccessful - Arjayay (talk) 12:22, 16 November 2016 (UTC)

Location??
What's the point on having locations added on the list as most of them say it on the title it self?? i.e Insurgency in Jammu and Kashmir is kind of obvious where it's taking place. Nikhilmn2002 (talk) 18:17, 13 April 2017 (UTC)
 * I am inclined to agree with you. The locations on the list are redundant and are self-evident in the name. What is your rationale in including them? Adamgerber80 (talk) 18:59, 13 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Errmm - I've made 3 edits to this page -
 * to revert an unnecessary addition that broke the table
 * to revert a now blocked Pakistani IP re-writing history
 * to revert the same now blocked Pakistani IP re-writing history
 * I don't see that any of these edits relate to your point - please explain - Arjayay (talk) 19:13, 13 April 2017 (UTC)


 * Aahh - I see - you should be asking User:Aryamanarora - please be more careful in future - Thank you - Arjayay (talk) 19:22, 13 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Sorry for my mistake. It was in a bit of haste and the A's did not help. I did mean . Adamgerber80 (talk) 00:26, 14 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Please do explain your rationale. Adamgerber80 (talk) 00:27, 14 April 2017 (UTC)
 * I did this mostly to make it be like List of wars involving the United States, but I do agree perhaps it is not necessary and redundant. Aryamanaroratalk, contribs 03:32, 14 April 2017 (UTC)
 * That's understandable it seems some people have been using List of wars involving the United States as an example however it just looks awful at the moment with random pictures in different sizes and odd location choices. Nikhilmn2002 (talk) 05:07, 14 April 2017 (UTC)

Results column to reflect Same Results as in the respective Main article
Based on the discussion done at Talk:List_of_wars_involving_Pakistan The same consensus is applicable to this page. -- D Big X ray  14:14, 11 June 2018 (UTC)

Consensus

 * I support this is in essence. There are also some entries (atleast one) on this page which should be removed. These are namely, where India took part as a UN peacekeeping force and is not even mentioned in the infobox of the conflict. Adamgerber80 (talk) 14:24, 14 June 2018 (UTC)

Partition of Jammu and Kashmir
, This is a strange rationale for a revert. If "it doesn't really matter", why would you bother to revert it? There is no well-sourced article anywhere on Wikipedia which can testify that Jammu and Kashmir was "partitioned". Note that "partition" is a loaded term in the context of India and Pakistan. If you want to keep the term, I am afraid you need to source it. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 09:35, 12 June 2018 (UTC)


 * Nope the term "Partitioning of Jammu and Kashmir" has been in the article for at least five years so you really need a consensus to change it, thanks. MilborneOne (talk) 18:10, 12 June 2018 (UTC)
 * A discussion right above this one has direct bearing on this. Please feel free to comment there. Thanks. Adamgerber80 (talk) 14:23, 14 June 2018 (UTC)

I thought the Southern Indian states was part of India
Guys, there is no mention of Chola conquest who went up to Bali. Look into southern states history, please — Preceding unsigned comment added by 45.30.254.89 (talk) 14:30, 19 September 2019 (UTC)

Coloring to make it easier for viewing
Green for Victory Red or Pink for Defeat Purple or Blue for Inconclusive/Other Outcome Yellow for Ongoing Doremon764 (talk) 22:30, 2 July 2021 (UTC)

Separate Mughal Empire and Delhi Sultanate
Separate them Idris Munaf Shaikh2 (talk) 13:42, 28 September 2021 (UTC)

Typo
I don't usually sign in to make edits so I am not authorised to edit the page. There is a typo in the table regarding 'Insurgency in Northeast India (1954–)'.

'held my militants.' should be 'held by militants.' Winnu11 (talk) 06:54, 30 March 2022 (UTC)Winnu11

Semi-protected edit request on 21 June 2022
The Third Battle of Panipat fought in Jan 1761 between the Marathas and the Afghan Durrani empire is missing where the Marathas were defeated. Wanted to edit and add that to complete the listing of 3 battles of Panipat fought in India. Thakergroup (talk) 11:53, 21 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 11:56, 21 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Third Battle of Panipat ... here is the reference. However, I just checked that it has been now added to the list of Wars involving India. Thanks! viralthaker (talk) 08:25, 3 October 2023 (UTC)

Orphaned references in List of wars involving India
I check pages listed in Category:Pages with incorrect ref formatting to try to fix reference errors. One of the things I do is look for content for orphaned references in wikilinked articles. I have found content for some of List of wars involving India's orphans, the problem is that I found more than one version. I can't determine which (if any) is correct for this article, so I am asking for a sentient editor to look it over and copy the correct ref content into this article.

Reference named "Pen and Sword, Bowman": From Bangladesh Liberation War:  From Indo-Pakistani War of 1971:  

Reference named "theworldreporter.com": From Indo-Pakistani Naval War of 1971:  From Indo-Pakistani War of 1971:  From Indo-Pakistani wars and conflicts:  

I apologize if any of the above are effectively identical; I am just a simple computer program, so I can't determine whether minor differences are significant or not. AnomieBOT ⚡ 01:43, 15 July 2022 (UTC)
 * could you please fix these reference errors that you introduced in July?&#32;-- Fyrael (talk) 21:48, 20 September 2022 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion: You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 06:53, 7 January 2023 (UTC)
 * NPA.png

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. —Community Tech bot (talk) 07:53, 7 January 2023 (UTC)
 * NPA.png

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. —Community Tech bot (talk) 08:24, 11 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Al-badr flag.png

Semi-protected edit request on 1 April 2023
Sri Lankan Civil War and the involvement of India india widrew due to the higher cacuelty level and afteer the deate in jaffna heli drop operation so edit it 131.217.255.211 (talk) 11:03, 1 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Red question icon with gradient background.svg Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. Cannolis (talk) 11:28, 1 April 2023 (UTC)

British Indian Empire or Empire of India
I'm sorry @RegentsPark, but your view that "British Indian Empire" is more suitable than "Indian Empire", is limited to you only. According to reliable sources (accessed via Google ngrams) the term "Indian Empire" is far more popular than "British Indian Empire". You can check it yourself, here,. Thank you. PadFoot2008 (talk) 16:23, 8 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Couple of points. Empire of India is an ambiguous term (since there were many such empires) and, for clarity, we need to specify which particular empire we're talking about. Ngrams etc. are useful for article titles but this is a mere section title in a general article so clarity is more important.RegentsPark (comment) 17:48, 8 May 2023 (UTC)
 * There weren't any before 1858, called "Empire of India". There were definitely no empires called the "Indian Empire" before 1858. Everyone does know that. "British Indian Empire" is really more ambiguous, as the Company Administration used it to refer to their territories during their era.
 * Indian Empire on the other has been used in the Imperial Gazetteer of India (and the Empress's speeches) to refer to India during the period of Crown rule. The "Empire of India" too has been used as a sort of 'long name form' of India in, of what I've found, in some of the contemporary US Government department documents, at some international events, by British representatives to refer to India and also in New Zealand's parliamentary debates for some reason. The term 'Indian Empire' is more popular than the term 'British Indian Empire', which I've already proved and I used "Empire of India" to match the other sections called "Union of India" and "Republic of India". PadFoot2008 (talk) 04:02, 9 May 2023 (UTC)
 * British Raj? CanadianSingh1469 (talk) 04:51, 9 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Would care to provide any citations from reliable sources to prove that British Raj also referred to the territory/state in question? Till now, all reliable sources provided in the British Raj article have cited that it only referred to the "Crown rule in India" or the "period of Crown rule in India" between 1858 and 1947. PadFoot2008 (talk) 02:12, 10 May 2023 (UTC)
 * *


 * CanadianSingh1469 (talk) 04:58, 10 May 2023 (UTC)
 * You provided a citation stating that British Raj was a period and another stating that British Raj referred to the Crown rule, which is not required here. I told you that you need to prove that the term also referred to the territory/state in question too not just the period/rule. PadFoot2008 (talk) 03:57, 12 May 2023 (UTC)
 * It's been more than a week since RegentsPark replied, so I think I shall perform the requested changes by tomorrow if no one replies. PadFoot2008 (talk) 06:53, 16 May 2023 (UTC)
 * @RegentsPark CanadianSingh1469 (talk) 07:08, 16 May 2023 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the ping . PadFoot2008, I understand you prefer to remove the word British from that period. However, please note that British Raj is a well understood term that refers to the entity controlled by the British in the 19th and early 20th centuries. Empire of India is vague and could refer to almost any period from the Mauryas up to today. Clarity, unfortunately, is a desirable characteristic of an encyclopedia and British Raj provides that clarity in no uncertain terms. Given that you're attempting to remove "British" from various articles and are finding resistance everywhere, I strongly suggest you read WP:TE, and particularly, WP:REHASH. RegentsPark (comment) 13:15, 16 May 2023 (UTC)
 * No, I'm not against the terms British Raj and British India. I do understand that in past some my edits might have been not been accurate and have hints of bias, but that's behind me now. I do know that British India is an extremely important term just like British Raj, and have their own important meanings. British India refers to Crown ruled territories in India (an before that Company ruled territories), while British Raj refers to the Crown rule itself and the period between 1858 and 1947 when the Crown rule was present. My intentions, now, is to only remove instances where they might have been used incorrectly. India and Indian Empire refer to the territory of the state in question which included both British India and Princely India, during the British Raj. India was also the legal and official name of the state. British Indian Empire, on the other hand, is used to refer the territory during both Company Raj and British Raj, which will not be considered correct usage here, will it be? Empire of India is just the 'more longer form' of the word, similar to Republic of France for French Republic and Empire of Brazil for Brazilian Empire. The reason I started this discussion is because the previous times I started similar discussions were when I was a novice and now, I have brought better arguments (as per WP:REHASH). If you have reliable sources to prove that British Raj has an extended use also referring to the territory/state/entity in question, you're free to provide the sources here. Or else it would just be WP:OR.
 * An encyclopaedia isn't supposed to only expand the readers' knowledge or simply just compile it. It's also supposed to correct their existing knowledge about the subject and prevent the spread of misinformation. That's why everything in Wikipedia is based on published secondary sources, not on readers' assumptions (or Google Trends). We need to correct their existing knowledge and expand it and not help spread it. Just for the sake of clarity, we can't sacrifice accuracy and reliability of information, can we? Isn't this correct? PadFoot2008 (talk) 02:21, 17 May 2023 (UTC)
 * I hope I conveyed my message properly. In short:
 * British Indian Empire is a pretty rarely used term in reliable sources and refers to the territory during both Company Raj and British Raj, and thus can't be used here.
 * Indian Empire, or Empire of India in long form, is a much more commonly used term and is used specifically to refer to the territory during and under British Raj, including both British India (Crown territory) and Princely India (Native/Princely territory under the Crown's suzerainty). It's been used most notably in the Imperial Gazetteer of India which is an extremely reliable and reputable source specifically commissioned by the Government of India and the Secretary of State for India.
 * PadFoot2008 (talk) 12:07, 25 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Should I make the requested change if you don't intend to reply? PadFoot2008 (talk) 04:12, 26 May 2023 (UTC)
 * No. Merely repeating the same arguments again and again is not enough (see WP:TE. I also notice that there is a similar discussion at Talk:British Raj raised by you. Obviously, you need to seek broad consensus for this change and you don't currently have that consensus. --RegentsPark (comment) 00:06, 28 May 2023 (UTC)
 * But British Indian Empire is also used to refer to the informal Empire consisting of the East India Company's territories and it's protectorates, while here it's been only used to refer to the entity between 1858 and 1947. If not Empire of India, we can consider "Indian Empire", then. To avoid any confusion, we can write something like "imperial structure consisting of British India and princely states" in brackets beside that?
 * And also, let's keep the discussion about the correct usage of British Raj to the talk page of British Raj itself and not make this discussion a double one. And you should provide a reliable source to support your claim that British Raj also referred to the entity or else it would just be WP:OR. PadFoot2008 (talk) 01:11, 28 May 2023 (UTC)
 * @RegentsPark CanadianSingh1469 (talk) 07:08, 26 May 2023 (UTC)

Why is the battle of Chamkaur not included?
The battle concerns Sikhs. 2402:8100:2652:32FB:B8F1:47DA:5308:17CB (talk) 05:14, 14 May 2023 (UTC)


 * Not sure but you can add it CanadianSingh1469 (talk) 07:48, 14 May 2023 (UTC)

Draft:List of wars involving Indian subcontinent
I just came across this 11 year old draft that was about to expire and be deleted and saw that it referred to this article. Is there any content in this draft that could be useful to Merge to this article? It's very detailed but needs to be sourced. But I thought it might have data that is missing from this main space article. I've delayed deletion for another 6 months in case this draft could be helpful. Liz <sup style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: #006400;">Read! Talk! 05:11, 26 September 2023 (UTC)

Battle of Takkolam
948-949 CE Karthik333king (talk) 18:41, 28 November 2023 (UTC)

Kharavela's Period
Huge chronological error, Dr. Sickar in his study of Hatigumpha inscription states "Bahasmita cant be linked with Pushyamitra or Pushpamitra and he should be placed almost a century after him"

I would like to suggests Kharavela's Conquests should be placed accordingly to the sources not by clear assumptions Shakib ul hassan (talk) 06:54, 12 December 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 27 February 2024
Please add wars and battles involving Gajapati Empire to this list. Omkar Satapathy 01 (talk) 03:27, 27 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Red question icon with gradient background.svg Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. Jamedeus (talk) 03:51, 27 February 2024 (UTC)

the battle of chale
the Greek conqueror Alexander the grate came and tried to conquer india. he started to conquer india but his soldiers wanted to go home. he gave in and left before he got to far 50.217.243.150 (talk) 20:31, 5 March 2024 (UTC)

Saka-Satavahana Wars
The Satavahana under Gautamiputra Satakarni also defeated the Indo-Greeks and Indo Parthians. Based on the Nashik inscription of his mother, it appears that Gautamiputra revived the Satavahana power. The inscription states that he defeated the Shakas (Western Kshatrapas), the Pahlavas (Indo-Parthians), and the Yavanas (Indo-Greeks). It also states that he emerged victorious in several fights against a confederacy of enemies 211.24.105.231 (talk) 07:29, 25 June 2024 (UTC)

Kalinga - Indo-Greeks wars
Kharavela (king of Kalinga) of the Mahameghavahana Empire have defeated the Indo-Greeks. Around 193 BC, a remarkable military leader called Kharavela came to the throne of Kalinga. We know about him because of a long inscription at Hathigumpha or Elephant’s Cave. We are told that in the early years of his reign, he led a large army against the Satvahanas and secured his western frontiers. Around 185 BC he seems to have marched north into Magadh where he defeated the invading Indo-Greek king Demetrius and forced him to retreat to Mathura 211.24.105.231 (talk) 07:43, 25 June 2024 (UTC)

Battle of Bahraich
Battle of Bahraich was a decisive battle between forces of Raja Suheldev and Ghazi Saiyyad Salar Masud on 13–14 June 1033 CE. The battle was fought near Chittaura Lake near the present day Bahraich city, Uttar Pradesh. Ghaznavid army was completely destroyed which halted the Islamic conquest of India for about a century 211.24.105.231 (talk) 07:46, 25 June 2024 (UTC)