Talk:Maratha Confederacy/Archive 1

History of South Asia
I've noticed that this article is linked to using the History of the Indian Subcontinent box, but does not include it on this page. I'd add it, but I'm not very good at editing layout.--YGagarin 19:23, 26 May 2006 (UTC)


 * As you have instructed, I have added the link for History of South Asia in this page, in the SEE ALSO section. If you need any more help with editting, please let me know.--Vande75 05:20, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

I had meant more specifically this, but I don't know how to properly position it within the article.--YGagarin 05:59, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Why, the page does appear on the template! Fifth from bottom. I had included it a long time ago. ImpuMozhi 12:50, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
 * But the template is not in the article.--YGagarin 16:08, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

Maratha Military
A section on the Maratha military is needed. TathD 11:13, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Expansion of section, Maratha empire coinage at Indian coinage
Editors can help by improving the section Maratha empire in the article Indian coinage.-- Vishal1976 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.247.252.189 (talk) 07:15, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Why His Majesty
I think the honorific "His Majesty" is inappropriate in usage in the article. As explained above, all Maratha kings were honoured with the term 'Chhatrapati' and hence there is no need to prefix a 'His Majesty' (or 'Her Majesty') before the names of the rulers. It is also quite anachronistic as the term "His Majesty" is of a period after the fall of the Maratha empire and is British in its roots. Nikhil Umesh (talk) 21:54, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Tagged Maratha empire-->Relations with South India
The reason I tagged this page is because it fails to open up all issues concerning the Marathas. It only talks of their greatness. The page focusses on how the Marathas (including Shivaji) fought for the hindu cause, but does not mention the ransacking of temples, harrassment of Kannada Hindu people in north Karnataka. I am putting in all that info over the next couple of hours. This is from a valid source and the referencd author and his book will be provided. The world needs to see to History in true light, not just hthe positve side.

Dinesh Kannambadi

Hi , It would be very nice if u get some relaible sources for ur claims.Plz dont enrage us by such statements which has nas no backings.Plz note that fanatic sources are present everywhere,if u want to stick to Mr.Kamat we might get few such sources too.Thanks.Mahawiki 13:04, 28 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Maratha plunder of Chattisgarh from govt., website
 * Marathas'(Shivaji's) plunder of Gujarat
 * Marathas plunder of Jodhpur and Marwar (Rajasthan)
 * 
 * The above are some sources for the plunder of neighbouring states by Shivaji and Marathas in general. I am sure if we search we will find more.    Sarvagnya 16:15, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

The fourth link I added now is where the unregistered user seems to have taken his stuff from. Do not try to mislead by saying that his/her writeup was already included in the first three links I had provided Sarvagnya 19:01, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
 * OK, so the question arises about the alleged plunder of neighbouring states by Marathas. The above user has mentioned three sources, to name a few of the many, which claim Maratha plunder of their regions. These claims apart from being of speculative nature are backed by jingoism. The last 2 links provided are obviously from some jingoistic website. Dr. S.R. Deshpande in his Marathi book "Marathyanchi Manaswini" describes how a few people from neighbouring states of Maharashtra developed this tendency to criticize the Maratha Empire as plunderers, loose-knit, ransackers, etc. just to fuel their regional jingoism. More often than not these claims come from leaders, which itself explains why. Eminent historian Babasaheb Purandare has refuted the "baseless claims" made by some jingoistic Rajput websites and forums about the alleged plundering and discrimination against others. The point is everyone can find flaws with every other kingdom and Empire of India. Perhaps, the most important reason why some people feel like bashing Marathas is because the Maratha Empire was more synonymous with Marathi language, very much unlike other ancient kingdoms of India who patronized other languages of their territories as well. However, such things neither have astring of truth in them nor do they serve any purpose. The "History of the Marhattas" by Grant Duff as well as Bombay University's "Maratha History - Seminar Volume" both considered seminal and impartial works on Marathas fail to mention any such things. So, these so-called "claims" serve only one purpose - Rake up jingoistic passions at the cost of negative portrayal of a particular Empire. I hope the air has been cleared.


 * And I am removing the "history" presented by an anonymous user since most of it is picked from the above links so generously provided by the registered user. Thank you


 * If the first of the links I provided had not been from a government website, you would probably have probably labelled that information merely jingoistic too. Just because you dont like it, doesnt mean something becomes a lie, especially in the face of so many sources claiming that the Marathas committed atrocities wherever they set foot(outside Marathi speaking lands).  Every non-Marathi source speaks of these atrocities, be it in Karnataka or orissa or bengal or gujarat, chattisgarh, rajasthan...  Everbody is a liar and a jingoist and Marathas alone are the saints.
 * I have given these internet links just for 'prima facie' evidence/purposes. It is not difficult to find references to any of these atrocities committed in history books written by acknowledged historians.  It is just that I do not have the time right now to go to the library and look up the history books for Marathi history.  But I hope somebody works on this to include valid history and show history for what it is.  Including this information will make the article more complete and take it further towards FA status.  Thank you.  Sarvagnya 19:14, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

First of all, people should mind their language while contributing to even the Discussion page. I read few days back that the Marathas looted places like Surat, which should be brought to notice and only the positive points shouldn't be given. What? This is utter non-sense. If the Marathas didn't loot places like Surat, then from where does one expect the Marathas to get wealth to build the Maratha Empire. There weren't any banks or such kind of organisations to provide people with money!! During the initial years of Shivaji Maharaj, the Maratha kingdom was still a young kingdom, which needed wealth and resources. Marathas under Shivaji Maharaj and afterwards didn't harm any woman, child or innocent person during their campaigns and that's what is important. There have been only handful of Empires in history, which are idealised today, and Maratha Empire is one of them. Infact, today we are very proud about the campaigns of Chhatrapati Shivaji Maharaj and other Maratha leaders, which were carried with great planning, execution, excellent strategic mobility and immense courage. ThanksKesangh (talk) —Preceding undated comment was added at 11:34, 13 January 2009 (UTC).


 * -- N R S | T/M\B 18:30, 28 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Tags should not be put on articles where info is missing. As it is this article was never tagged as disputed, nor has a history of edit wars. So putting the tags is highly inappropriate. If you have any information which you feel needs to be added, feel free to add the information. However, I must warn that if the information is controversial, disputed, speculative, derogatory or POV, it is highly imperative if you discuss it on the talk page first. Remember, what to edit and how to edit it is your prerogative, but unfair editing is not tolerated in Wikipedia. So, it's upto you to do what you want.


 * -- N R S(talk to me, mail me  or award me a barnstar) 16:27, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

There are some points which are really need to be clarified before discussing the realations of Maratha's with South India —Preceding unsigned comment added by V sumdi (talk • contribs) 15:20, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Mayuresh Bhagwat (talk) 14:50, 18 September 2008 (UTC)Hi Sarvagnya, about the link "http://www.sc.edu/uscpress/2004/3544x.pdf#search=%22The%20Marathas%20in%20western%20India%20rose%20as%20a%20fierce%20Hindu%20opposition%20to%20Mughal%22" & "Marathas plunder of Jodhpur and Marwar (Rajasthan)" both are from University of South Carolina and is based on the view of the Britishers so I think you need to get something more valid and dont argue on some baised website, probably an authentic document would be from Gujrat Government websites. About the Chhattisgarh link....at the bottom of the page it reads ""Chhattisgarh - A State is born", Sanket Bhopal" so again based on a single book and even the author is not the someone reputed. I would like to add that if that was the case, it would had reflected atleast somewhere in the book "Discovery of India" by Pt. Jawaharlal Nehru - First Prime Minister of Union of India.[User:Mayuresh Bhagwat|Mayuresh Bhagwat]] (talk) 14:50, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Phaltan Naiknimbalkar Rulers
Nimbalkar ( निंबाळकर ) is one of the clan of Maratha supposed to be originated from Pawar Clan. Origin of their name is supposed to be arose due to their native village Nimbalak present in Phaltan tehsil, Satara district, Maharashtra, India.

They were the rulers of Phaltan region from the period of Yadav Kingdom or before. They served as one of the Maratha chief under Deccani Sultanets like Adilshshah, Nizamshah also King Shivaji's period,Peshwa period,Under Nizam and until British rule's end. The title of Naik Nimbalkar is equivalent to Raje Nimbalkar. Nimbalkars held title Naik,Sirdeshmukh,Sardar and other commonly used Maratha Honours.

Main (Family branch) City of Nimbalkar is Phaltan. They also have their presence in Maratha Dominated regions. Nimbalkars held title Raje, Naik, Sirdeshmukh, Sardar, Sarkar. Nimbalkar has their relationships with all the prominent Maratha families. One also should remember that King Shivaji's first Wife Saibai was from Nimbalkar family; morever,Deepaabai-the wife of Maloji Bhosale( Shivaji's Grandfather) also from Nimbalkar family. King Shivaji's Daughter Sakhubai Married with Phaltan's Prince Mahadji Nimbalkar. Nimbalkar Notable's

* Shrimant Padakla Jagdev Parmar.( Father of Naik Nimbaraj), Rajput Ruler and Pioneer Maratha of This Clan,Descendant of Parmar(Pawar) clan of Dhar. * Shrimant Nimbaraj Naik Nimbalkar(Nimbaraj Paramar),Established in Mahadeva Range of Satara at Nimbalak,Founder of All Nimbalkar Surname and City of Glory Phaltan.

He Was Administrator of Phaltan's 84 Villages Pargana.

* Shrimant Bajaji Rao Naik Nimbalkar,King Shivaji's Relative and Prominant Maratha Sardar of Maratha as well as Sultanets. * Shrimant Hanmant Rao Naik Nimbalkar,famous Maratha who assisted Sambhaji Raje Bhosale and combated Many Wars for Maratha Empire. * Shrimant Sultanji Naik Nimbalkar,The Ruler of Kharda Sansthan and Pioneer Khardekar.He Secured all Nimbalkar's Governements in Maharashtra. * Shrimant Khanderao Nimbalkar,Maratha Leader in Panipat War(1761). * Shrimant MudhojiRaje Naik Nimbalkar,Notable Nimbalkar and Father of Modern Phaltan.His deeds can be Compaired to Only Shrimant Sayajirao Gaikawad of Baroda and Shrimant Rajarshi Shahu Bhosale of Kolhapur. Some Intresting

Nimbalkar families are spread all over Indian region.

Main locations associated are 1.Phaltan & Tehsil's Villages, 2.Bhalawani 3.Kharda, 4.Usmanabad,Karmala,kalamb.

Bhalawani:These Naiknimbalkar are the second nimbalkar empire after phaltan.Vikramsing Naiknimbalkar & Rajendrasing Naiknimbalkar are ancestors of this family

Khardekar (Maratha) are the Naik Nimbalkars - branch's surname - As this family is from Kharda - decedants of Sultanji I(HaibatRao) Raje Nimbalkar (First SarSenapati of - Chatrapati Shahu (the Grand son of Great Chatrapati Shivaji Maharaj). Sultanji II (HanumantRao) RajeNimbalkar with Father and Clan Member Raja RaoRambhaji RajeNimbalkar(Who was Rular of Karmala/usmanabad)joined Nizam against Peshwa - as part of politics. The trio changed History in Maharashtra and were highly influential in Maratha regional politics.

As per the Marathi modi writing on second door of the Kharda Fort and Urdu writing on the First Door - the description is - Translated in English -

-Shaban - 25 Fasli 1153 - Monday : 1st September 1746AD During The Days of Fortunate end of Raja Sultanji(HaibatRao) Nimbalkar of the Dignity of Amir and Governer, The Deshmukh, Deshpande, Muquaddam, Seth and Mahajan etc... of the Village "Shivthan" Pargana Jamkhed, Sarkar of AhmedNagar.. The Fort is Named "Sultan Durg" in the above mentioned Village was Renewed.-

Sultanji also built temple of Khandoba in BID. Mahadaji Shinde's (Gwalior) Mother was in Relation with this Family and one wife was from Nimbalkar Family.

Rao Sultanji Built Rajapura (AhmadNagar) Darwaja at BID - This Inscription is available in urdu on RajaPura Darwaja of the BID city - inscribed as - "13 Julus (i.e.- From Tuesday 11 Oct 1730 to Thursday 24 June 1731 AD -) During the Caliphat of Muhammad Shah - Raja Rao Sultanji nimbalkar, Jahagirdar of the Pargana of Bid, built this Ahmadnagar Darwaja."

Since Nimbalkar Family was wel established in the period of Muhhamd Tughlakh (Yeda Mahmud)(Around 1200AD); They claimed themselves decendants of the Parmar Rajput with Vashistha Gotra. The family had relations with all the Rajput Families settled in Maharashtra. Some of the Settled Rajput Families are - Taur (This Family is decendant of Tomar/Tanwar Rajputs) of Ambad (Dist. Jalna)Region, Solankhe (The Clan is descendant of the Gujrat Solanki Rajputs) of Majlgaon(Dist Bid); Chauhan - Chavan of Parli (Dist Parbhani). Nimbalkar's were jahagirdar of The "Gangthadi region". In Mughal period so these families provided worriors to Nimbalkars. Nimbalkars do have family relations with these families. These relation sprang from last 400-800 Yrs.

* Once 300,000/- Hone revenue region is commanded by the family before "Raja Maharaj Shiv Chatrpati's" period so the area was from south of the Aurangabad to the Umarga and from Konkan to the Hingoli - no one can claim that there are no other Nimbalkars.

* Sultanji Naik Nimbalkar - SarSenapati of Shahu I - Joined Nijam, played politics and secured all Nimbalkar's and Many others families Jagirs and helped Sahu's prime minister - Peshwas in number of ways to spread in north, South as wel as in east. In East - Nagpur region there are Nimbalkars settled in the period of Raghuji Bhosale and were instrumental in Maratha Empire.

* Like Sayajirao Gaikwad of Baroda,Shreemant Mudhoji Naik Nimbalkar done many notable works in field of Education and other Social Work.

* Royal Race of the Nimbalkar :http://www.uq.net.au/~zzhsoszy/ips/p/phaltan.html

* Today's Phenomenon :

Nimbalkars as in history still mentioning their leadership and service to the community by playing active role in politics.

1.Shree Malojiraje Naik Nimbalkar. Ex.Cabinet Minister,Maharashtra gov. 2.Shree Ramraje Naik Nimbalkar. Minister Water Resource Krishna Valley Maharashtra Government;Present Gadi-Ruler(Representation) of Phaltan. 3.Shree Pawanraje Nimbalkar;

4.Shree Hindurao Nimbalkar;

5.Shree Dadaraje Khardekar/ Naik Nimbalkar. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 123.236.165.195 (talk) 11:38, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

Contradictions
I tried to edit the page, but it was deemed vandalism and undone. The information on the page contradicts other pages made by the same group! E.g. the extent of the Sikh Kingdom vs the Maratha Kingdom during the same time period. We all know Marathas never reached Punjab, so why do the maps show otherwise? 90.194.255.235 (talk) 19:59, 26 February 2009 (UTC) Bmayuresh (talk) 21:50, 19 October 2010 (UTC)Is that so? I think you need to go through the history books again. Thanks to Peshwa Raghunathrao, the Maratha Empire at its zenith expanded upto Attock now a part of Afganistan.Bmayuresh (talk) 21:50, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

Legacy Section
I have removed the Legacy section for several reasons. One, in order for something to be a "legacy", it has to affect or be passed down to successive generations. The items listed in this section were not passed down, and as such, are not a legacy. Furthermore, most of the points are highly subjective or outright opinions, with only one item actually being cited (and the citation being a page reference in a book). Also, the addition of a "Legacy" section in this page seems more an exception than the rule; most pages for past empires do not have such a section. A "Legacy" section should really be reserved for the vast empires who had a significant effect on history and the modern era i.e. the Roman Empire. 94.173.12.152 (talk) 19:31, 29 June 2010 (UTC) I am re-adding the Legacy section. I've made some changes to the text that was earlier posted. However, I agree that some more work needs to be done there. Legacy does not mean that it should leave an impact on the World History. Maratha Empire changed the destiny of India and did help stabilize South Asia by nurturing religious harmony and tolerance. Not only socially but also military achievements of Maratha Empire are worth mentioning. For ex the Blue Water Navy a strategy still in use by all major Naval powers in the world. Or the capabilities of Peshwa Bajirao I whose military tactics are still studied upon by most Military Organizations including American Army. I understand that the Brits do like to show down anyone and everyone who has been a pain to them, but that doesn't mean that calling great Admirals like Kanhoji Angre as pirates and now by questioning the Legacy of Maratha Empire would change the course of History or undo the facts. Before you try to remove the portion again, I would like to request you to kindly go through the facts about the Maratha Empire and if that doesn't please you I would be honored to host you here in India to experience the change it brought about in the Indian society & politics. Bmayuresh (talk) 23:11, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

Map changes
does anyone of you know how to change map, because i feel that the maps dont show Maratha empire full capacity, maratha maximum captured till peshawar in 1758 they also captured kashmir in 1758 but none of them are showed. Similarly how can we show the tribuatry of Maratha because mysore kingdom was defeated both times by maratha and then hyder ali(father of tipu) accepted maratha superiorty, similarly at one point of time(before british arrival) maratha were rulers of orissa and collected tax from Nawab of bengal for bihar and bengal(both west bengal in india and bangaldesh) similarly nawab of oudh was once defeated by maratha , second time nawab of oudh made frantic calls to british india for help after which empire of oudh passed onto british and it was not under control of musalmans , the tributaries of maratha empire must be shown otherwise it gives a wrong picture, all indian muslim empires be it mughals,nizam of hyderbad,mysore kingdom,nawab of oudh and bengal and rohilla afghans were defeated by Maratha and similarly oudh was under british protection but the map posted under new section dont show anything muslims lost whole oudh to british empire in 1773 and before that maratha have plunder nawab of oudh and captured allahabd and kora and aligarh. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 115.240.29.208 (talk) 13:30, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

Achievements of Maratha Empire
The article provides a very good profile of the rulers and minsiters of the glorious and mighty Maratha empire that dominated south asia for more than a century and a half. However, their achievements and good deeds are either mentioned in bits and pieces or missing and not clearly highlighted. Can we include a separate section listing the achievements of the empire also?

Pradeep hebbale (talk) 11:17, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

Unexplained edits by some members
Lets discuss Maratha Empire article here...

It is clearly visible that users : Bangalorebar, Dbkasar and AnwarInsaann continuously editted the article without giving any explanaion in the form of edit summary.

Some members are involved in vandalism and tryinh to under-represent the Maratha Empire.

Have a look at this edit by Bangalorebar. The main map was changed without any explanation. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Maratha_Empire&diff=465776201&oldid=465445037.

Dbkasar deleted the complete section of 'brief history' without any explanation.

AnwarInsaan deleted Afghanistan. However it is clearly given in the sourced content that Marathas had captured Peshawer and Attock. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Maratha_Empire&diff=466110384&oldid=466054521.


 * Peshawar and Attock are in Pakistan not Afghanistan

Banglorebar deleted a large content from the beginning, again without any explanation. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Maratha_Empire&diff=466992121&oldid=prev


 * This Part has not been "deleted", it has been shifted below, please check. The introductory para is always kept brief AnwarInsaan (talk) 15:28, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

AnwarInsaan changed the image of Maratha soldier again without any explanation. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Maratha_Empire&diff=466053490&oldid=466052677


 * The new image gives a more detailed view of a Maratha Soldier

I visited this article one month ago. But today when I saw it, I was quite sure that this article has become a victim of very cleverly-done vandalism.

What does wikipedia rule says :

User shud give the edit summary.

But hardly any summary was given in these edits. Content was deleted, map got changed, images got changed and the article was deliberately squeezed.

Being a wiki-editor, I have the right to revert these un-explained deletions, image changes and vandalism that have been done deliberately to under-represent the Maratha Empire.

Now I will wait for some more time.. Either the editors should explain these edits, which I feel are vandalism, or their edits will be reverted.


 * Change your threatening tone, WP is meant for constructive edits by everybody, nobody owns a particular page here, you can not revert the edits without consensus. AnwarInsaan (talk) 15:30, 23 December 2011 (UTC)


 * First of all, I welcome you as a new user on WP, If you want to add or delete something on WP please discuss the editions with every user, you can intimate the users by leaving a message on their talk page. AnwarInsaan (talk) 15:28, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

Blue-water navy?
Mentioned in the legacy section. Blue-water navy refers to a navy that is capable to operate in open ocean. Can someone put some source?

Also, this article is quite large. But it has very few citations.

--Iball (talk) 21:40, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

"The Maratha Empire is also credited for developing many important ports like Pune, Baroda, and Indore. " Baroda is understandable, but inland cities like Pune and Indore are "Ports"??? -- 115.242.61.21 (talk) 09:40, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

Nearly unreadable
This article needs rewriting. It reads like translated with Bablefish. Poliorketes (talk) 12:15, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

Editing
ok i have noted above observation of 'edit summary' .hereafter i will be adding it. dbkasar — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dbkasar (talk • contribs) 13:26, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

Chronology
someone is again and again putting yashwantrao holkar before peshwa.He must understand chronology.HOlkar was in 19th century.dbkasar — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dbkasar (talk • contribs) 12:52, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

Name Change
How about changing of name of this article to Marata Confideracy from Maratha Empire.it was a confideracy of semi autonomus states each led by a Peshwa all inspired by Shivaji Maharaj one of the greatest kings ever.an empire is when all the territory is in control of one king,here you have all the territory in control of Peshwas inspired by Shivaji Maharaj,so it is better to call it confideracy than empire.I might be wrong but please correct me if im wrong.Uu228 (talk) 09:46, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

Changing the name means moving the page. In order to move the page you click on the move button at the top of the article. It looks like Maratha Confederacy is the generally accepted name (in encyclopedia Britannica at least) so you shouldn't have too much opposition. Before you make the move, let people comment to see if someone has a contrary opinion for a couple of days.--Profitoftruth85 (talk) 12:48, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

Bmayuresh (talk) 15:23, 6 April 2012 (UTC)It started as an Empire and ended as a Confedracy. However, during almost its entire tenure it had a single dynasty rule ie the house of Bhosales. The Peshwas were de-facto rulers and the term "Peshwa" itself means "Prime Minister". After death of each Peshwa the Bhosale family appointed the next Peshwa. Also the Peshwas or the other Sardars never declared themselves as kings till the 19th century hence the Empire actually broke at the dawn of the 19th century wherein it had completed over a century rule and hence the name is correct. Before making such statements or suggesting such actions it would be good if you guys research more on the Empire and not just read the pages about it in Britannica and Wikipedia, as there is lot more to it than available online.Bmayuresh (talk) 15:23, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

Query about a name

 * In Maratha Empire, the name Adnyapatra is written in Devanagari as आज्ञापञ, which says Ājñāpaña. Which form is correct ('tr' or 'ñ')? Anthony Appleyard (talk) 06:19, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

First appearance of Maratha soldiers
According to Jacques Weber, professor of modern history specialising in India at the University of Nantes, the first appearance of "Maratha soldiery" was under Shivaji's father in 1635 when Bijapur was besieged by Shah Jahan - see [] Mogul Splendour: The successors of Akbar (1605 - 1707) Jacques Weber, in A History of Modern India, 1480-1950.

We have Siege of Bijapur, but it is a different siege, and I am unsure how to fit this information into this Empire article. Thoughts? - Sitush (talk) 12:12, 30 September 2012 (UTC)

Article protected
This article has been protected from editing for one day 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) 04:46, 11 August 2013 (UTC)

wrong fact bhosale era?
it is to inform that shivaji started a new era ,but did not bothered to give his name or his surname .it was named as 'rajyabhishek shaka".It is also called as 'Swasti shri '.So to say this era as 'bhosale era'than the era of kings or royal period is not a fact of history .it does not sound a work of any scholar.please mention true facts .edit accordingly .thank you--dbkasar-- — Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.252.237.10 (talk) 11:12, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

A New High Quality Map! Anyone Interested?
Hello everyone! So about a year ago I got a request on my talk page to do a high quality map of the Maratha Empire. Now I have made some good maps of India in the past. I.E, the Mauryan and Mughal Empire Maps:





That being said, is anyone on here interested in me doing a high quality map of the Maratha Empire? If so, please let me know either on here or my talk page and I will gladly have it done! Cheers! Kirby (talk) 21:42, 18 March 2015 (UTC)

I would certainly be interested. It would be great if you can prepare a high quality map Amit20081980 (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 19:41, 6 June 2015 (UTC)

Sikh?
Someone edited the article saying that "Marathas and Sikhs" are credited for ending Mughal rule in India. If at all any credit goes to Sikhs, it should be mentioned on the page of Sikh Empire with a credible reference. Not on this page. Amit20081980 (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 19:32, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

Revival of Hinduism under Marathas
The article does not clearly mention the impact of Maratha Confederacy on India (in terms of its culture and religion). I recommend adding a new section called Impact on Hinduism which can provide information about revival of Hinduism in India. The rise of Hindu Marathas certainly have a bearing on today's religious demographics of India. Below can be a good read and serve as a reference as well.

[]

[]

[]

Amit20081980 (talk) 19:40, 5 August 2015 (UTC)

Confederacy
The Marathas were a vicious Confederacy with separatist and expansionist motives, not an Empire. [] — Preceding unsigned comment added by 182.182.2.160 (talk) 05:34, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

Every notable history book uses the term Maratha Confederacy...it clearly is the correct therm of reference. [] [] (182.182.40.192 (talk) 04:59, 2 June 2012 (UTC))

Wikipedia is not a place to pass your personal judgement but is meant to present facts, Martha Empire is famous as MARATHA EMPIRE.Wachoviadeal (talk) 10:53, 28 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Says Wachoviadeal, passing his personal judgement. Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 00:56, 4 November 2015 (UTC)

attention for contributers
Please contribute more to give a wholistic picture and do not show contribution only of one family .It was an empire and hundreds of brilliant commanders have fought and died. do not quote for a single personality, rather give quotes on general character , bravey and achievements of the Maratha people at large. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Devbk (talk • contribs) 15:06, 2 October 2015 (UTC)
 * This seems related to the "discreet fragments" I've added to expand the Barbara Ramusack quote. An overemphasis of the "empire" characterization allows for only an emperor / imperial dynasty, whereas a "confederacy" allows a mention of more, including commanders, regional rulers and other individuals. Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 01:06, 4 November 2015 (UTC)

Assessment comment
Substituted at 23:03, 29 April 2016 (UTC)

Kings Maratha descent
Anyone who has information about the descendants of King Mustradha Sri Maheswari and King Kalai Sri Bhunawa Maharashtra? It is understood that the two of them, they went into the trade envoy Malaya (Malaysia) in the 18th century, in the area in 1786. While King Mustradha Sri Maheswari into Malaysia in 1822 and developed his seed in Penang to Kuala Lumpur. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mohammad Hafiez (talk • contribs) 06:00, 27 November 2016 (UTC)

Maratha Empire Period
In the article, the period of Maratha Empire is shown from 1674 to 1818. To my knowledge, in the year 1674, Shivaji Maharaj was crowned as Chhatrapati ("sovereign") of the new Maratha kingdom. But actually he conquered the first fort Torna in the year 1645 at the age of 15. See Shivaji So with this timeline, the Maratha Empire period should start from 1645.

To justify this, let us compare the period of British Raj in India i.e. Company rule in India. It is given as East India Company on the Indian subcontinent from 1757 to 1858. This is because East India Company won the first Battle of Plassey in 1757, when the Nawab of Bengal Sirajuddaulah surrendered his dominions to the Company. This is the first win in India. That is why the period is shown from 1757 to 1858. See the first para of Company rule in India

The same rule should be applied for Maratha Empire and it should be changed to 1645 to 1818 in all the related articles. Yogee23 (talk) 08:46, 5 January 2016 (UTC)


 * I agree with User: Yogee23. It needs to be changed to 1645. Coolgama (talk) 14:31, 6 January 2016 (UTC)

British Raj only started when the governing of  India was taken over by British government and  Victoria assumed the title of  Empress of India. Prior to the it was the company rule. By taking over Torana, Shivaji laid the foundations of the future Maratha Kingdom. As to whether the Maratha power was formally an empire or not raises a lot of issues. Yes, Shivaji did crown himself Chhatrapati but his grandson Shahu accepted the title of Mansabdar from the Mughal emperor. Later, the Marathas at various times acted as king makers in Delhi but always acted in the name of the Mughal emperor.Jonathansammy (talk) 18:31, 7 January 2016 (UTC)


 * I am referring to Company rule in India article only. As per the article in Wikipedia, the East India Company period given on the Indian subcontinent from 1757 to 1858. This is because East India Company won the first Battle of Plassey in 1757, when the Nawab of Bengal Sirajuddaulah surrendered his dominions to the Company. This is the first win in India. That is why the period is shown from 1757 to 1858. Earlier to 1757, there was hardly any existence of British company rule in India. It was only in few pockets like Mumbai etc. The same rule applies to Shivaji. Shivaji had won major portion of West India by 1660 by wining various wars against Adhilshah, Nizamshah and Aurangjeb by that time. Just for information Yogee23 (talk) 03:32, 12 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Jonathansammy, you have put the year of the beginning of the Maratha Confederacy as 1674 in your last edit. In some places in this article, it says that it began in 1645. Please let me know what year we should have in the article - it should be the same everywhere, right?&mdash;Dona-Hue (talk) 02:33, 14 June 2017 (UTC)


 * We should stick to 1674 as the beginning and leave a footnote (As I have already done) to mention the young Shivaji winning the fort in 1645.In the 1660s he also signed up with the Mughal emperor to be in his service.1674 was really the date when he made a break with other ruling entities and that should be the start.The start date is can of worms.As mentioned in one of my previous posts, Shahu got rights to Sardeshmukhi or right to collect taxes in the Deccan from the the Moghal empire.In a formal sense, does it make him a vassal of the Moghals?It would be good to have opinions of other editors on this matter.Thanks.Jonathansammy (talk) 19:15, 15 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Jonathansammy, I have no idea about this. What is worse is that we need reliable sources for everything here. Please do what you feel is right!&mdash;Dona-Hue (talk) 06:50, 17 June 2017 (UTC)

Extent of Maratha Empire under Baji Rao
The article says:
 * Bajirao is credited with expanding the Maratha Empire tenfold from 3% to 30% of the modern Indian landscape during 1720–1740. [...] [The Concise History of Warfare By Field Marshal Bernard Law Montgomery, p.132]

A user has changed it to 70%. I have found an article saying that the extent was two thirds of the Indian subcontinent, though this is a blog:. So which is correct? What does the source say? (I wasn't able to find the book online.) - Mike Rosoft (talk) 05:32, 23 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Blogs are unacceptable on Wikipedia. If a user has changed 30% to 70% when the source says 30%, please be bold enough to revert It! &mdash;Dona-Hue (talk) 10:22, 24 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I thought you were a novice/rookie, but you are actually an admin; please do whatever you feel is right! Please also let us know about the map in the introduction (please read the matter in the previous section)!&mdash;Dona-Hue (talk) 10:28, 24 July 2017 (UTC)

casteist remarks by admin of this website
whoever is the admin of this cite, he seems to be a mischievous person in that he is misleading 'maratha ' identity as a ' Hindu '' identity which s not historically correct , can he say that madari mehetar , siddi hilal , ibrahim khan etc were not marathas ? secondly why he is bent upon mentioning ''chitpavan' caste here, if you want to mention caste of peshwa as chitpavan , then moropant pingle was a brahmin , shivaji was 96 clan royal , bajiprabhu was CKP and many more of different catses .why you want to show chitpavan identity here ,please correct it ,at least speak some truth and do not be a kind of third class historan. if you wish you can discuss here ---open intellectual challenge --- note my email dbkasar@yahoo.com — Preceding unsigned comment added by 112.133.245.35 (talk) 18:23, 1 August 2017 (UTC)
 * This article is edited by thousands of users. Please provide reliable online references for what you are saying and we will try to incorporate them. Click here to read about the guidelines for reliable sources!&mdash;Dona-Hue (talk) 18:04, 2 August 2017 (UTC)

Art section?
There should be an additional section mentioning the art/architecture and culture of the era. Some things that come to mind are Trimbakeshwar temple, many of the buildings in Varanasi were built by the Marathas, and they've built a good share of palaces as well. It'd be interesting if some paintings were posted as well and a general run-down of clothing, customs, holidays and the like that were prevalent in the empire. Bajirao1007 (talk) 02:55, 9 August 2017 (UTC)

wrong facts
Please note that the maratha power was in the hands of shahu till his death 1749, after his death nanasaheb was given certain power by shahu. Secondly peshwa control certain section of army entrusted by shahu and not the entire army, do you mean that kanhoji angre and raghoji bhosale were working under peshwa ? no denial of pehwa ' role but do not hijack other clans's achievement, or alternatively have one more page for peshwa separate from maratha empire where please show that shivaji was working under peshwa ??? is it a good proposition to over enthusiastic champion of peshwas ? --- dbkasar. please prove the facts given by me as wrong, i will not comment again. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 112.133.245.35 (talk) 12:00, 13 August 2017 (UTC)

Prejudice
I want to add this here:- Any objections? - Dona-Hue (talk) 18:20, 12 August 2017 (UTC)
 * IP 2600:1001:B016:7DE7:DDD6:F2FB:B202:1E5F,

you had 3 days to object, why did you not object earlier instead of trying to start an edit war now?&mdash;Dona-Hue (talk) 17:17, 15 August 2017 (UTC)

Vincent Arthur Smith
can you please help regarding this? This 19th century author has clear British colonial bias of Oriental despotism - is clearly not reliable anymore.


 * please explain how VA Smith is a reliable source? (2600:1001:B008:460E:A025:8EEC:8978:2D26 (talk) 21:56, 15 August 2017 (UTC))


 * Please let me know if anyone has any objection to me removing VA Smith. If not, it should be removed. (2600:1001:B008:460E:A025:8EEC:8978:2D26 (talk) 22:44, 15 August 2017 (UTC))

Change for Maratha Empire Map
File:Maratha 1320.jpeg includes Maratha vassals at their height. It should be used as the main photo for the Marathas at their height. Bajirao1007 (talk) 11:19, 24 February 2017 (UTC)

What is the source of this map? Is it backed by any scholarly or verified source? If not, it can't be added. It is a POV by you. Shimlaites (talk) 06:53, 25 February 2017 (UTC)

It was based on the map from "Historical Atlas by Raman, Ranjoy ; L.K. Publications Delhi, 1951." however that map like the one used as of now doesn't include Maratha vassals. Mines did. Bajirao1007 (talk) 08:33, 26 February 2017 (UTC)

Please provide a source for the map, you are just taking a name, please provide a URL citing the map. Then it can be discussed which map is more appropriate. Shimlaites (talk) 12:38, 26 February 2017 (UTC)

https://commons.m.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:India_18th_century.JPG#mw-jump-to-license Bajirao1007 (talk) 04:47, 27 February 2017 (UTC)

That map is already on the page, doesn't need a replacement. Shimlaites (talk) 16:26, 28 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Someone from the I.P. 74.94.52.197 is repeatedly replacing the Maratha confederacy map of 1760 in the lead, removing "File:India1760 1905.jpg" and putting "File:Maratha 1320.jpeg" in its place. Can we have an admin control that?-Dona-Hue (talk) 15:24, 5 May 2017 (UTC)
 * It's still not vandalism. It's a content dispute— though I agree that it should be discussed. El_C 09:31, 18 May 2017 (UTC)
 * I called it vandalism because an acceptable map, which has stood the test of time is being removed and a self made map is being put in its place repeatedly-Dona-Hue (talk) 19:36, 18 May 2017 (UTC)

Why not make as the main map in the introduction? It certaily displays a larger area than the map. Knightplex (talk) 17:45, 20 May 2017 (UTC)
 * That was the map being used in the lead many years ago, when I was editing Wikipedia without an ID, but somebody put up the present map and argued that this a political map and so, is superior. Now, I believe in consensus and feel that you or anyone else can call for a vote to determine which map should be in the Lead.-Dona-Hue (talk) 14:34, 21 May 2017 (UTC)

I agree with Knightplex. Also, the 1758 map appears to more clearly display the territory controlled by the Maratha empire vis-a-vis the 1760 map. --Coconut1002 (talk) 18:14, 11 June 2017 (UTC) Coconut1002, Knightplex, Bajirao1007 and others who want to change the Maratha Empire's political map - please call for a vote if you want to have your way. I also would like to see a bigger map, personally, but I think it is against the rules of wikipedia!&mdash;Dona-Hue (talk) 10:06, 15 July 2017 (UTC)
 * If the map in the introduction is changed, please add the political map, named "File:India1760 1905.jpg" to the section where the other maps are shown. Thanks!&mdash;Dona-Hue (talk) 16:25, 19 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Personally, I feel this map covers a greater area and is best to be used. I will not object to any of you putting that in the introduction, but I will not do it myself as I seem to be getting warnings for everything I do here at wikipedia (see my talk page)!&mdash;Dona-Hue (talk) 16:34, 19 July 2017 (UTC)
 * That map, besides being ugly and user-generated, is also inaccurate in terms of the territory under the EIC. It has also been edited by someone to remove all mention of the Safavids. And has anyone actually verified what the "Historical Atlas by Raman, Ranjoy" is and if the image accurately represents the map in it? The map is the only submission of a user named Ghruhel on Commons.--Cpt.a.haddock (talk) (please ping when replying) 11:52, 24 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Cpt.a.haddock, What about using Image:India-1760-map.jpg in the introduction as it is used in the article on the Marathas?&mdash;Dona-Hue (talk) 15:23, 31 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Both are from the same source; 1911 appears to be a corrected version of the 1905 map. --Cpt.a.haddock (talk) (please ping when replying) 07:40, 1 August 2017 (UTC)
 * That said, I cannot find the source that confirms that the 1911 map is indeed from 1911 or that a 1911 edition of this atlas existed. The 1905 map is confirmed on this page.--Cpt.a.haddock (talk) (please ping when replying) 08:24, 1 August 2017 (UTC)
 * The more I look at it, the more it looks photoshopped. Comparing the two maps side by side clearly shows the remains of the original Mysore colouring from the 1905 map. The Western Ghats and the Portuguese colony have been incompetently wiped out and there's a marked discoloration in the yellow. The rivers in Mysore are wonky and the DE in Deccan uses a different font. The 1911 map appears to be a fake.--Cpt.a.haddock (talk) (please ping when replying) 08:37, 1 August 2017 (UTC)
 * And to confirm this, the 1911 map was uploaded by who's a sock of . The same user also uploaded another photoshopped image of a Maratha map on the same day which was noticed by  in 2013.--Cpt.a.haddock (talk) (please ping when replying) 08:45, 1 August 2017 (UTC)
 * , so I hope you can remove the photoshopped images from this article as well as the article on the Marathas. Thanks!&mdash;Dona-Hue (talk) 16:54, 1 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Utcursch has already taken care of it.—Cpt.a.haddock (talk) (please ping when replying) 20:56, 1 August 2017 (UTC)
 * an I.P. has been repeatedly removing the Maratha Empire map in the introduction/ lead, that is, "File:India1760 1905.jpg" and putting "File:Maratha 1320.jpeg" in its place. Please lock this article for editing by I.P.s'. Thanks!&mdash;Dona-Hue (talk) 04:24, 9 August 2017 (UTC)
 * an I.P. has been repeatedly removing the Maratha Empire map in the introduction/ lead, that is, "File:India1760 1905.jpg" and putting "File:Maratha 1320.jpeg" in its place. Please lock this article for editing by I.P.s'. Thanks!&mdash;Dona-Hue (talk) 04:24, 9 August 2017 (UTC)


 * I've undid the IP's edit. Seems to be inactive, so no need for a block right now. utcursch &#124; talk 14:40, 9 August 2017 (UTC)
 * an I.P. has been repeatedly removing the Maratha Empire map in the introduction/ lead, that is, "File:India1760 1905.jpg" and putting "File:Maratha 1320.jpeg" in its place. When it is semi-protected and locked for editing by I.P.s'. the I.P. uses the account of Bajirao1007 for the same purpose. I hope you can warn that user and undo his edit here. Thanks!&mdash;Dona-Hue (talk) 08:40, 17 August 2017 (UTC)
 * an I.P. has been repeatedly removing the Maratha Empire map in the introduction/ lead, that is, "File:India1760 1905.jpg" and putting "File:Maratha 1320.jpeg" in its place. When it is semi-protected and locked for editing by I.P.s'. the I.P. uses the account of Bajirao1007 for the same purpose. I hope you can warn that user and undo his edit here. Thanks!&mdash;Dona-Hue (talk) 08:40, 17 August 2017 (UTC)

On the subject of the Maratha Empire's map
The map "File:India1760 1905.jpg" seems wholly false in depicting the Maratha Empire's size at its height. Gujarat isn't even included and it completely ignores the Maratha territories won after the North-Western expansion (Punjab/Nwfp/Kashmir) prior to Panipat. I also question if the Kingdom of Mysore was that large prior to Tipu Sultan. The map also doesn't include the fact that the Nizam of Hyderabad paid "chauth" to the Marathas, many Ottoman Empire maps for example include vassal states and tributaries but this map does not for the Marathas. I understand that its only used because its within a book outside of Wikipedia but certain sources can be false so shouldn't that at least be noted? Bajirao1007 (talk) 01:06, 19 August 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Maratha Empire. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://archive.is/20070609074111/http://historion.net/j.biddulph-pirates-malabar-englishwoman-india/page-27.html to http://historion.net/j.biddulph-pirates-malabar-englishwoman-india/page-27.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 00:46, 4 September 2017 (UTC)

Legacy Section
The section of Legacy currently talks only about Maratha Navy. This is not correct since naval legacy is just one piece of the legacy and not the only thing under legacy. And there is a separate article for Maratha Navy anyways. I am re-writing the section and articulating the footprint left by the Maratha Kingdom. Kindly review and suggest changes if any, but please do not change abruptly without discussing here.

User:Amit20081980 talk 05:04, 17 February 2018 (UTC)


 * I know that Maratha principalities were British vassals post 1818; I have thought about it. Yet I included Maratha contributions towards society, literature, art etc. (post 1818 CE) for the below reason:

The word legacy implies leftover or remnant or footprint. Now, the Maratha contributions (such as their palaces, temples) although built under British suzerainty, still is a Maratha leftover. The British rule (1818 to 1947) was a federal one (just like today's India) with semi-autonomy to the princely states. I understand that the article is about Maratha Empire which ended in 1818 but post-1818 what remains is nothing but leftover or legacy. I don't think date of building a palace is that important as long as the palace was built during the semi-autonomous reign of a Maratha king.

Let me know your thoughts

User:Amit20081980 talk 12:26, 18 February 2018 (UTC)


 * User:Amit20081980, All the art and beautiful palaces were built with funds obtained under British protection.Even the architecture of many palaces such as the Kolhapur new palace is of Indo-Saracenic style with elements of European Gothic architecture.You can put all this under legacy on the pages of the individual states but putting it under Maratha empire is rewriting history.Thanks.Jonathansammy (talk) 01:04, 19 February 2018 (UTC)

Initial Map Section
The initial Map in this page is blatantly wrong. It is a really bad edit and just paints the entire India as yellow or under the Marathas. I have checked various verifiable maps of India during 1760s which the current map claims to be of including this one from maps of India by Colbeck from the archives of University of Texas, and all of them point that this map is erroneous. Any attempts to remove this map is being constantly thwarted by continuous editing by un-named users. Please help Subratadass (talk) 12:02, 16 November 2018 (UTC)
 * I have reinstated the original map of this page and I personally see nothing wrong with it.
 * Any editor wanting to change it, please discuss it here and obtain WP:CONSENSUS. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 11:31, 17 November 2018 (UTC)

It seems to be that this current map is wrong as well. Gujarat or Punjab is not included. Neither is the fact that certain independent territories such as the Nizam, or the Nawab of Bengal, paid Chauth. They too could be considered tributaries or vassals in a way, many maps include vassals such as the Ottoman Empire map. Bajirao1007 (talk) 03:51, 30 November 2018 (UTC)

Another issue with the map is that the Indus Valley region is just colored in and not shown as belonging to any state. Which was not the case as it was played off between the Durrani’s, Marathas, and later Sikhs. It quite literally shows a state which never existed in that area. Bajirao1007 (talk) 03:54, 30 November 2018 (UTC)

Maratha flag
I have reverted the recent addition of Maratha and Mughal flags to the infobox of the article. For the issues with the Mughal flag, see this discussion. For the Maratha flag, the source cited in the most recent edit was Maratha Confederacy: A Study in Its Origin and Development. I don't have access to the complete book, but a google search does not find any hits for "Bhagwa Dhwaj" in the work. Can please cite the relvant passages from page 128 of the book? More broadly, the issue with wikipedians indiscriminately adding flags to historical articles is that these regimes often used many different standards, flags etc for different purposes and at different time periods. Flattening all that based on some painting or passing mention in a book is WP:OR and a disservice to our readers, especially since these claims on wikipedia tend to propogate across the internet and end up in sources that are later used as citations. Abecedare (talk) 20:58, 28 March 2019 (UTC)

In the book (Which I don't own) have mention the about the Flag in the Page 128-131 The description of The flag is at the page 131 "While the Jaripatka was know as Nishan Jaripatka, the plain ochre coloured flag was, it appears, know as bhagva zenda. It was raised on the forts in Maharashtra which came under the authority of the Pashva" --ชาวไทย (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 10:31, 29 March 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 30 June 2019
Under the header confederacy and then major events, the first event states the year 1969 which should probably be 1669 212.182.181.182 (talk) 09:45, 30 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Thank you for picking up the error. It has now been fixed.--Chewings72 (talk) 10:22, 30 June 2019 (UTC)

Maratha Empire map of 1759
The map provided in Wikipedia page is not showing the Northwest Conquest undertook by Raghunathrao in 1758. Kshitij patil 22 (talk) 13:25, 17 July 2019 (UTC)

Extent of the Maratha Empire map
Would you please stop adding the Gajanan Bhaskar Mehendale map to this page? The map is from a self-published book and is something that person has just thrown together. Instead, please find maps from well reputed academic scholars. Thanks. --regentspark (comment) 20:24, 14 January 2020 (UTC)
 * So a well renowned Marathi Historian's map of the Maratha Empire, is dismissed because he is not a White, English academic Scholar. The map currently put up by you is a British depiction. Why does a person have to look at the Maratha empire from a British lens? Also the Book he published is well reknowned, give it a read before judging his books with your prejudiced, racist mindset! You have cited no technical grounds to remove the map, nor pointed out any inaccuracy. It is well attested, with sources in his book that The Maratha Empire stretched from Afghanistan to Tamil Nadu. Which is also written in the Wiki page! But the Map you put up only shows the part until Peshawar, Pakistan. The British map is highly inaccurate, I'm putting up the corrected Indian Map. Thanks.
 * You need to show that Mehendale is a well renowned historian. The book you link to appears to be self-published and is not acceptable as a source. --regentspark (comment) 15:05, 15 January 2020 (UTC)

Do your basic homework before making such baseless allegations! His book is not "Self published".If you had cared to read the citations I so painfully added, you would have noticed that I mentioned the publisher's name as well, it is "Param Mitra Publications" here is the link to the publisher's website. http://parammitrapublications.com/product/shivaji-his-life-and-times/ Also he is a renowned Marathi historian in India, not in the English World! He has been in the Marathi Wikipedia page since ages, check it out(If you even know Marathi,that is). You rejecting him is like rejecting a black historian from Africa just because he's not an English academic! Just because I put in a Marathi source for the Marathi Empire and not a British source doesn't mean that the source is invalid! I'm yet to hear a sound technical inaccuracy from you. Stop this intellectual imperialism!
 * If you could, please link to his academic affiliation(s) so that we can verify his credentials. Please note that historical information must be sourced to peer-reviewed academic sources.--regentspark (comment) 14:22, 16 January 2020 (UTC)

Vandalism by altetendekrabbe
I understand that someone editing this article was a sock. However, this does not mean that some of my contributions should also be reverted. This is NOT right. Can some help stop altetendekrabbe from doing this. Thank you.

Map
“File:MarathaEmpire1759” is not WP:SYNTH. The map is illustrated based off of its source and is therefore not original work. The current map is outdated, and factually incorrect, as regions such as the Northwest and Gujarat are not included.

Illustrating exact claims by the author does not constitute original work as its merely laying out sourced claims pictographically. This is seen on the Ottoman Empire article’s choice of a map, which is not a direct map from a textbook but rather a direct digital illustration of territory explained in written context within its sources.

I will be changing the map one more time. Do not vandalize my changes. Warning. Bajirao1007 (talk) 22:03, 15 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Thank you for actually trying to discuss this. However, you need to both show that the map is actually in the book (and not based on your interpretation of what the book says) as well as explain why the author is reliable (for example, is he/she an academic historian?). Otherwise, the map is either WP:OR or not sourced to a reliable source. Finally, when you find yourself reverted, you should seek consensus before edit warring. --regentspark (comment) 00:05, 16 April 2020 (UTC)

Hi everyone, I made some major changes. The lede looks like personal opinions of user Souniel Yadav. I've also added more contents about the Maratha rape and atrocities on Bengalis. Thank you--Vitalpantaryan (talk) 16:21, 6 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Hi, indeed it's a major change. But, ...Hndu and Muslim Bengalis is considered to be among the deadliest massacres in Indian history. isin't it too subjective and probably WP:OR, as your source doesn't discribe it in line with your stated opinion. Santoshdts (talk) 18:44, 6 May 2020 (UTC)
 * And and many women and children gang raped again is not discussed by your source (Marshall, 2006) it seems like OR, Santoshdts (talk) 19:07, 6 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Hello I'll have a look about the atrocities later, but the sources (which are even unreliable) do not mention about liberating. Looks like that user put them on his own words.I am going to change it for now, and if you agree we can remove the entire phrase. Thanks--Vitalpantaryan (talk) 14:42, 10 May 2020 (UTC)

"Liberated" is not a neutral phrase
"The Marathas are credited to a large extent for liberating most of the Indian subcontinent from Mughal rule." sentence of the introduction should be reworked to be more neutral. Proposed example: "The Marathas are credited to a large extent for ending Mughal rule over most of the Indian subcontinent." — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.4.3.89 (talk) 19:31, 7 June 2020 (UTC)

"The Marathas are credited to a large extent for ending Mughal rule over most of the Indian subcontinent" is the correct information Hbsalvi (talk) 19:53, 2 July 2020 (UTC)

Bangladesh in infobox
Maratha territory only stretched upto Orissa in the east and never included any part of what is now Bangladesh. Please provide a source before adding Bangladesh or Bengal again to the list of Maratha territory. --Zayeem  (talk) 16:09, 15 July 2020 (UTC)

Does wikipedia have not limit to the number of links in further reading
Does Wikipedia have No Limit to the number of links in further reading section? Abbasquadir (talk) 18:38, 1 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Further reading is not a required section and should be used sparingly. This one, as you seem to point out, is way too long. I've removed a couple or entries that are not just about the Marathas and suggest, if you have the time that you prune it down further (perhaps 3-4 comprehensive books/articles are more than enough). You can, of course, just boldly remove the entire section! --RegentsPark (comment) 21:30, 1 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Sure, I will. Thank you. Abbasquadir (talk) 05:33, 2 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Hello, I have reverted your recent edit made in goodfaith by merging Further reading and Bibliography sections of the article. The Bibliography section in the article lists the sources referred in the article, where as the Further reading section lists the sources which can be referred for more information on the topic. Hence, both the sections serve different purposes in the articles in wikipedia. Best Santoshdts [TalkToMe] 10:08, 2 August 2020 (UTC)
 * As Santoshdts says, the bibliography contains sources that are cited in the article. Further reading contains material that is not cited by the article and is meant to elaborate on the topic. We don't really need a further reading section so you can remove it if you like but don't merge it with the bibliography. At the minimum, I would trim it down to 4 - 6 sources that are mainly about the history of the Maratha Empire. The issue, as always, is that the sources in further reading are not checked for reliability and neutrality as well as the ones in the bibliography so my preference will be to get rid of them. But I don't know enough about the subject so will leave that to you. --RegentsPark (comment) 13:19, 2 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Alright, I shall do it. I chose andlet be 6 important one's. Thanks again. Abbasquadir (talk) 17:38, 7 August 2020 (UTC)

Internecine conflicts
The Maratha period has been full of internecine conflicts over succession (e.g Soyrabai and Sambhaji, Tarabai and Shahu, murder of Narayanrao), or rivalries between leaders of the confederacy (e.g. Shinde and Holkar, Peshwa and Gaikwad, Holkar and Peshwa). The enemies of the Marathas ( the Mughals, the Nizam, the East India Company) took advantage of these conflicts to further their own objectives. Should there be a separate section on this? Comments, suggestions please. Thanks.Jonathansammy (talk) 18:28, 19 August 2020 (UTC)

Chhatrapati?
The article needs some explanation for the name / honorific "Chhatrapati".

Is this a name or an honorific? I see that the Maratha emperors all have this attribution, which makes me think it must be an honorific: so that needs to be explained. If not, if it is merely a name, that needs explanation as well.

'Chattrapati' is a honorific. It means 'Emperor' or 'Lord Of The World'.

Chaatrapati (छत्रपती)is honorific which literally means Master (owner) of Chhatra ( Umbrela). An umbrela is a symbol for kingdom and owner of it is called Pati.

Also, "The descendants of Venkoji Rao speak Thanjavur Marathi" line looks so ODD in the introduction. Can this line be deleted and maybe put in some section below? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.125.140.222 (talk) 20:54, 25 August 2020 (UTC)
 * I've removed it. Thanks! --RegentsPark (comment) 21:37, 25 August 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 18 November 2020
Change

The Marathas came into conflict with Tipu Sultan and his Kingdom of Mysore, leading to the Maratha–Mysore War in 1785. The war ended in 1787 with the Marathas being defeated by Tipu Sultan.

To

The Marathas came into conflict with Tipu Sultan and his Kingdom of Mysore, leading to the Maratha–Mysore War in 1785. The war ended in 1787 with the Marathas being victorious over Tipu Sultan.

The original statement says that Marathas were defeated by Tipu Sultan and the Reference page mentions Treaty of Gajendra between Marathas and Tipu Sultan where Tipu Sultan of Mysore was obligated to pay 4.8 million rupees as a war cost to the Marathas, and an annual tribute of 1.2 million rupees. In addition to returning all the territory captured by Hyder Ali. Anurenuthokada (talk) 02:41, 18 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. — Amkgp 💬  15:37, 12 December 2020 (UTC)

Hello Amkgp.

Thanks for the review.

The reliable source you are mentioning about is one of the Wikipedia page itself. Which I had marked in my request for change. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maratha%E2%80%93Mysore_War

Marathas being victorious over Tipu Sultan.

Look at the section called OutCome on the above mentioned wikipedia page. It talks about treaty of Gajendra. I have posted the content below

'''Maratha-Mysore war ended in April 1787, following the finalizing of treaty of Gajendragad, as per which, Tipu Sultan of Mysore was obligated to pay 4.8 million rupees as a war cost to the Marathas, and an annual tribute of 1.2 million rupees. In addition to returning all the territory captured by Hyder Ali,[12][13] Tipu also agreed to pay 4 year's arrears of the tribute, which Mysore owed to the Marathas, through Hyder Ali.[14]'''

What I was pointing out was inconsistency accross the wikipedia pages. On one page they say Marathas were defeated by Tipu Sultan and on the other there is an elobarate explaination of the Treaty of Gajendra and defeate of Tipu Sultan. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Anurenuthokada (talk • contribs) 19:59, 23 December 2020 (UTC)
 * I've removed Maratha victory from the article you link to. I took a look at the sources and it appears that Tipu won the wars but sued for peace because he wanted to focus on the English forces. Thanks for pointing out the inconsistency.--RegentsPark (comment) 20:13, 23 December 2020 (UTC)

Hello RegentsPark

'''The Battle of Gajendragad was fought in June 1786, during the Maratha-Mysore War. An army of the Maratha Empire led by Tukoji Rao Holkar, defeated the army of Tipu Sultan and captured the town and fortress at Gajendragad. Mysore was obligated to pay 4.8 million rupees as a war cost to the Marathas, and an annual tribute of 1.2 million rupees.[23] The treaty of Gajendragad signed after the battle ended the Maratha-Mysore conflict.

Battles Involving the Maratha Empire

So, my request is that instead of removing the phrase Marathas defeated TipuSultan, You kindly reconsider my suggestion for the modifications on the page as I suggested previously. And it is really difficult to rationalize the kind of victory in which the winner decided to pay annual tribute of 1.2 million rupees and also pays the cost of the war? This payment itself proves on whose side victory effectively was. --Anurenuthokada (talk) 08:45, 24 December 2020 (UTC)

== Why "citation needed" for /Known for their mobility, the Marathas were able to consolidate their territory during the Mughal–Maratha Wars and later controlled a large part of the Indian subcontinent/? ==

The citation for this is the same as for "The empire at its peak stretched from Tamil Nadu[12] in the south, to Peshawar (modern-day Khyber Pakhtunkhwa, Pakistan[13][note 2]) in the north, and Orissa & western Bengal up to the Hooghly River,[15] in the east." — Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.125.140.222 (talk) 22:57, 20 October 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 25 November 2020
"Saini, A.K; Chand, Hukam (n.d.). History of Midieval India. New Delhi: Anmol Publications. ISBN 978-81-261-2313-1." This source is misspelled, and should read "Medieval". The books is also misspelled in google books, but the title for the ISBN number is with correct spelling. Mattias Kling (talk) 10:10, 25 November 2020 (UTC)
 * ✅ Silikonz  ( 💬 │ 🖋 ) 07:43, 26 November 2020 (UTC)

Why is Shahu consistently portrayed as a "titular" head of the Marathas on Wikipedia pages despite authentic old British records and Daftars clearly showing that not to be the case?
Here is one detailed chapter in the "Journal of the Bombay branch of the Royal Asiatic Society" written in 1902 and now available via Google's digitization efforts.

https://www.ebooksread.com/authors-eng/asiatic-society-of-bombay/journal-of-the-bombay-branch-of-the-royal-asiatic-society-volume-20-goo/page-46-journal-of-the-bombay-branch-of-the-royal-asiatic-society-volume-20-goo.shtml

There are other sources that also corroborate this information, particularly from authors such as the great Mahadev Govind Ranade.

If Wikipedia authors can make this important correction, that would remove a lot of misconceptions that people nowadays have about Chhatrapati Shahu Maharaj of Satara. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.50.231.5 (talk) 21:01, 24 November 2021 (UTC)

Spelling mistake in first section "Shahji Rake Bhosle"....Looks really bad and needs to be corrected.
Spelling mistake in first section "Shahji Rake Bhosle"....Looks really bad and needs to be corrected.
 * Fixed. --RegentsPark (comment) 19:16, 8 December 2021 (UTC)

Indic scripts
Indic scripts (and any other native script) are not to be added/proscribed in any India-related/specific articles. This is a WP:MOS policy (necessary to be followed) and has been reached through multiple discussions, all of which is mentioned at WP:INDICSCRIPTS. There are no exceptions to this.

A [now blocked] sockpuppet initially added scripts (along with other OR stuff) to this page a little while ago as he had done on multiple articles. I removed them under the said policy. But egregiously restored the scripts citing 'disruption' of all things to boot. When notified of the policy, he again opprobriously restored the scripts and incorrectly mentioned the policy to be avoidance (whatever that means) and justified 'limited' use.

I hardly think that what disruption and MOS/policy are, is understood by the user here. INDICSCIPTS is to be followed in toto, no exceptions [as clearly outlined on the policy page] which includes this as well. Will, further invite and  for elaboration. Gotitbro (talk) 16:17, 2 March 2022 (UTC)


 * I agree with here. "Exceptions are articles on the script itself, articles on a language that uses the script, and articles on texts originally written in a particular script.". Going against consensus that resulted into this guideline is considered disruptive for which IDs/IPs got blocked before. - Fylindfotberserk (talk) 16:27, 2 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Correct. There are few a exceptions to NOINDICSCRIPT but this is clearly not one among them. -- Ab207 (talk) 16:55, 2 March 2022 (UTC)


 * But please remember that Indic scripts are prohibited only in the lead and infoboxes perWP:INDICSCRIPTS.This document does not say anything about use of the scripts in other sections. Thanks. Jonathansammy (talk) 23:14, 2 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Agree with and  about the edits as they were made in the lead sections by .LukeEmily (talk) 23:51, 2 March 2022 (UTC)

Maratha and Warrior
The Lede reads,"The Marathas were a Marathi-speaking warrior group from the western Deccan Plateau (present-day Maharashtra) who rose to prominence by establishing Hindavi Swarajya (meaning "self-rule of Hindus")". Does it mean all Marathi speaking people belonged to the "warrior group", or just a specific community? I believe Clarification is necessary if we want to keep this word. Thanks.Jonathansammy (talk) 15:45, 1 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Agree with you Jonathansammy. The wording is confusing.LukeEmily (talk) 23:54, 2 March 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 7 April 2022
Territories which comprised the Maratha Empire 117.248.253.211 (talk) 16:31, 7 April 2022 (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. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 16:40, 7 April 2022 (UTC)

Map of the Maratha Empire
Its my humble request to please change the map of the Maratha Empire in the main box, as it was larger than shown in the page. Please do it as soon as possible. 117.206.165.239 (talk) 04:20, 14 April 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 27 April 2022
Can I write something about the Maratha Empire? Jude Brian Lardera 2005 (talk) 06:04, 27 April 2022 (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. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 09:26, 27 April 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 19 May 2022
2402:8100:3002:1564:1:1:DC89:978D (talk) 12:43, 19 May 2022 (UTC) I want to change empire area
 * 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. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 12:52, 19 May 2022 (UTC)

I removed a section from this article
A recent edit has been made, where a section created about "destruction caused by maratha empire" and a loads of things were written with poor or fake references. This is absolutely hondorous and unprofessional to add such a section to this particular article while mughal empire or delhi sultane doesn't consist of such article, even though atrocities against Hindus and temple destruction was a norm in those times 2409:4062:2207:E477:0:0:520:C0AD (talk) 21:33, 29 October 2022 (UTC)

About destruction and desecration section
Most of the paragraphs written are basically copy pasted from news articles with very weak references..And why there is no destruction and desecration section added in Mughal empire article, since many temple including destruction of kashi viswanath temple is well known?? 2409:4062:2207:E477:0:0:520:C0AD (talk) 21:47, 29 October 2022 (UTC)

User created vs well sourced flags
Please note a couple of things. First, everything on Wikipedia must be reliably sourced and this includes maps. Please don't replace a sourced map with a user created one. Regarding your comment here, the reason it says user created because, as it should be obvious from one look at the map, it is user created. If you can't distinguish between a user created map and a verifiable one, you should probably think twice about working with maps on Wikipedia. Second, you cannot refer to content inside the page to justify content in a map. Maps are precise instruments and loosely translating text into the defense for a user create map is not acceptable. At this point, with your constant reverts, you're heading well into disruptive edit territory. RegentsPark (comment) 15:55, 9 May 2023 (UTC)

Other South Asian Languages
I think it’s better that we refrain from using the term South Asian as this is too broad. Languages like Pashto, Nepali and Dzongkha were not spoken in the Maratha Empire all of which are major South Asian languages. AtishT20 (talk) 07:08, 31 July 2023 (UTC)


 * The Maratha Empire invaded territory outside modern day India (Such as some areas in pakistan and bangladesh), Hence South Asian is a better term to Use here. SKAG123 (talk) 15:52, 8 August 2023 (UTC)

Extent of the Empire
The Maratha Empire once had its capital at Jinji, which is in modern day Tamil Nadu. However the map does not show this nor does it show its true extent AtishT20 (talk) 21:22, 19 August 2023 (UTC)

Lead and domination
Hello fellow editor @SKAG123, I noticed that you recently reverted one of my edits and not wanting to edit-war I opened this discussion. I do understand that the Marathas did control a portion of south-west India (specifically an exclave around Tanjore) and portion of eastern India (parts of Orissa), but it still didn't dominate "much of the Indian subcontinent", which seems like an overstatement. It controlled only insignificant portions of southern and eastern India and also none of modern-day Pakistan, Bangladesh, Bhutan, Nepal, Sri Lanka which make a large part of the subcontinent. "Controlled much of the Indian subcontinent" is a big overstatement. PadFoot2008 (talk) 07:23, 27 August 2023 (UTC)


 * The Maratha empire was not just limited to northern india as they controlled other parts of india (they were actually based in western India) They were the largest Empire in the India Subcontinent in the late 18th century to early 19th century (based on what is stated in the article)
 * Therefore “controlled much of the Indian subcontinent” or “ controlled large portions of the subcontinent” is appropriate SKAG123 (talk) 17:43, 27 August 2023 (UTC)
 * I think this is just a small misunderstanding. I never said northern India, I said North India, which in its most popular sense, includes western, central and eastern India.
 * "Much of the subcontinent" would mean almost all of the subcontinent which it didn't control. By North India, I mean it in its primary sense, which includes central, western and eastern India as well. PadFoot2008 (talk) 07:57, 28 August 2023 (UTC)
 * The Marathas also conquered large pertains of Deccan and Thanjavur. They also Conquered parts of modern day Pakistan. Maybe "Large portion of the Subcontinent" would be a better term. SKAG123 (talk) 02:32, 30 August 2023 (UTC)
 * @SKAG123 All right, I'm adding "large portions of the Indian subcontinent". But this ought to be discussed further. Thanjavur was a part of the empire for only a brief time and was lost during the Deccan Wars and was certainly not a part of it during the mid-eighteenth century. Its troops did fight in North-Western parts of the Indian subcontinent but never incorporate or conquer it into their empire. Those territories were a part of the Sikh Confederacy since their independence in 1748 from the Mughal Empire and were aided by the Marathas in conquering further territories from the Afghans but the Marathas never made it a part of their empire. The Sikh Confederacy was an independent entity between 1748 and 1799 in modern-day Pakistan and north-west India. PadFoot2008 (talk) 05:23, 31 August 2023 (UTC)
 * I never knew that the northwestern part was Sikh territory. In the Maratha times there used to be a slogan describing their extent "From Attock to Cuttack" So I think it's a part of maratha territory Bhuvii9 (talk) 07:09, 2 September 2023 (UTC)

Map in infobox
The current map in infobox depicts that the Rajput states were a part of the Maratha Confederacy and mis-labels them as "Mahratta States". The Rajput states were not part of the Maratha Confederacy and most contemporary maps showed them to be separate. Such as these ones:

It's my suggestion that we use the third map (India map 1700 1792.jpg), it is much more detailed and shows the Rajput states as separate entities from the Maratha Confederacy. PadFoot2008 (talk) 11:29, 10 October 2023 (UTC)
 * [Nominator Support] per nomination. PadFoot2008 (talk) 11:30, 10 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose various sources (cited in the body of this article) state that the Marathas had at least indirect control over the Rajput states at their peak. SKAG123 (talk) 16:30, 13 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose Agree with SKAG123.The Map of India during British rule has British territories as well as Native territories (e.g. Rajput states or Hydrabad state).Although nominally independent the native states were part of the British empire.In a similar manner, during 18th century maratha rule, there were tribute states around India that paid  share of their revenue ( mostly a quarter or Chauth of the proceeedings ) to the Marathas.Having said that, all the big and small powers during the 18th century ruled in the name of the totally powerless Mughal emperor.My two cents.Jonathansammy (talk) 16:58, 13 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose - First two out of the three maps provided by the nominator itself contradicts him. It seems he has misunderstood the maps. The word Rajputs there doesn't show that it is their territory. It shows the name of the place just like Bihar and Bengal. In the all the maps we can see that Bihar and Bengal are shown British Territories but yet the name of the place is shown. Similar is the case with Maratha and Rajput. It is a Rajput land under Maratha Empire just like land of Bihar and Bengal under British occupation. Also to see the markings of the top two maps. It is marked as Maratha Territory/Confederacy but with Rajputs it is just written Rajput(s). Try to understand the difference. If still some confusion read Secondary school history books.  Shaan Sengupta Talk 11:15, 14 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Please assume good faith. I do not see what secondary school education has to with this. Marathas were not any significant power to have their chapter in any CBSE textbook, as far as I can remember. And please do look at the map carefully, there's a boundary between Maratha and Rajput territory not a regional name. Anyways I am withdrawing my proposal. PadFoot2008 (talk) 06:07, 17 October 2023 (UTC)


 * Comment by nominator: I am hereby withdrawing my proposal due to clearly visible lack of support. PadFoot2008 (talk) 06:08, 17 October 2023 (UTC)

Prominent mention of Bajirao and his caste
Caste mongering is evidently a prevailing problem on Wikipedia with India-related content and nothing exemplifies this more than prominent mentions of Bajirao and his Chitpavan Brahmin caste in the lead paragraph of the article. Not sure when this was added, however, the blanket statement that Bajirao created the empire is a myth mostly propagated by contemporary upper caste authors and folks influenced by the 2016 Bollywood movie. Mahadev Govind Ranade in his seminal book in 1914 'The Rise of Maratha Power' clearly details Shahu's pivotal role in the expansion of the empire. He managed the rivalry between Raghuji Bhosale, who controlled large parts of Central India and Bajirao. Shahu recalled and deployed commanders and even the great generals of North India and close associates of Bajirao such as Holkar and Shinde held deep reverence for Shahu. Bajirao deserves to be known as great but it is curious how the article uses selective references to justify a hyperbolic statement that seems clearly designed to glorify a caste. Urging the main authors and editors of the article to remove this statement. 2605:8D80:1398:8272:9D5F:6F87:6110:5D8F (talk) 18:11, 15 December 2023 (UTC)


 * Edit it then and make it better. Witchilich (talk) 06:13, 30 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your extremely useful suggestion. Tried it before writing the talk post but given the edit war that ensued, it was best to put an explanation over here. 2001:569:7F49:2B00:5C19:988D:8641:A10B (talk) 01:09, 14 January 2024 (UTC)