Talk:Peshwa

Comments
Isn't this a title rather than a clan? &mdash;iFaqeer | Talk to me! 23:05, Oct 20, 2004 (UTC)
 * Yes it is a title. But this article talks about Peshwas which was a generic name for the rulers with that title. Alren 16:29, 23 Oct 2004 (UTC)
 * My point then is that this should not be under Category:Ruling clans of India but under Category:Indian monarchs and included in List of Indian monarchs. &mdash;iFaqeer | Talk to me! 20:46, Oct 23, 2004 (UTC)


 * This was a title and the Peshwas did periodically go to Satara to pay their respects, and report to their master, the Raja of Satara, who descended from the founder of the Maratha Empire, Shivaji. But eventually they began ruling under their own name, as the Raja remained the titular head.&mdash;Mohnish 14:46, 20 September 2005 (UTC)

Ramachandrapant Bawadekar Amatya
I believe that Amatya and Peshawa are two different titles. (Please see Wikipedia article Ashta Pradhan). Did Ramachandrapant officially hold the title of Peshwa? Best to my knowledge, Chatrapati Sambhaji named Nilo Moreshwar (son of Moropant) as the next Peshawa after Moropant. Can anbody elaborate more on this issue?

64.236.245.243 (talk) 20:27, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Infobox
The Infobox needs significant editing to remove misleading information. The Peshwa, certainly the ones before the Bhat family, could not be described as monarchs. The situation is somewhat complicated with later Bhat family Peshwas. They could be described as Quasi-monarchs.Jonathansammy (talk) 16:59, 16 August 2013 (UTC)

Title
Since the article describes in great details, Peshwas who held the position before Balaji Vishwanath, I believe the title of the article should be changed to Peshwa. The dynasty only started with Balaji Vishwanath. Having said that, the Balaji and his descendents (The Peshwa dynasty) does deserve a separate article.Thanks.Jonathansammy (talk) 14:02, 23 March 2017 (UTC)


 * Agreed. This is not a dynasty. utcursch &#124; talk 15:13, 23 March 2017 (UTC)