![]() | This page was proposed for deletion by an editor in the past. |
![]() | This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
@ Shakib ul hassan, WP:RAJ is not applied to Cambridge press, and other sources outside the RAJ. Also, sources that came after 1940, are not considered as RAJ era sources. About SCA, you have to read their whole article to get the details about the belligerents. Imperial [AFCND] 17:14, 10 March 2024 (UTC)
@ ActivelyDisinterested, hello. The figures in the infobox are covered in the article body. And if you think Society for Creative Anachronism is unreliable, feel free to remove them. I don't think there is a need for citing inside the infobox again, as the article body already covers it. Imperial [AFCND] 10:32, 18 March 2024 (UTC)
I verified all the sources and all state it was a peace but the information i found in the recent source by Rc Majumdar PG no 278 is - The account of the war given by Firishta is inaccurate and one-sided. According to him, Muhammad Shah I defeated Bukka I on every battlefield, chased him from place to place, and when at last Bukka crept back into his capital, the Bahmanl Sultan lured him out of his stronghold and, having crushed him in a battle, dictated to him the terms of peace which he had no option but to accept. Though some of the facts mentioned by Firishta might be true, the Vijayanagara army did not fare so badly in the war as he would have us believe. They contended with the Bahmams on equal terms, and struck blow for blow. In the end, the Bahmani Sultan had to sign a treaty which left Bukka I master of the whole of the Krishna-Tuhgabhadra- dodb excepting some mcihals on the southern bank of the Krishna which were to be governed jointly by the two monarchs.3 The terms of this treaty, to which Firishta himself alludes indirectly, clearly show that the war ended practically in a victory for Vijayanagara. As the war had commenced on account of the refusal of Muhammad Shah I to recognize the river Krishna as the boundary between Vijayanagara and the Bahmanl kingdoms, and as the river Krishna, according to the terms of the treaty, was fixed as the boundary between the two kingdoms, though a few mahals on the southern bank of the river were subjected to the joint authority of the two governments, it is obvious that Bukka I got the better of his rival. so firstly WP AGEMATTERS and this recent source state that it was a victory for vijayanagara so I'm doing changes accordingly Violetmyers (Talk) 22:05, 28 May 2024 (UTC)
Hello folks, here to give a 3O. @Noorullah, I just want to briefly note that even if you feel there's more to discuss, if the other person does not, the discussion is effectively at a standstill, because you can't force them to keep going even if it might seem logical for them to. That's part of why 3O exists, to help break those kinds of deadlocks.
Also, it's worth noting that another editor might enter a talk page discussion at any time. 3O is really just a thin veneer over routine Wikipedia practice in that sense, and mainly exists because it's hard to establish even a loose consensus between two people who vehemently disagree. Neither of you are obligated to accept what I say without question or anythingâI'm just another editor. If the three of us arrive at a deadlock again, there are other conflict resolution mechanisms available. That said, we should all try to come to a consensus if we can, because that's how Wikipedia moves forward.
So, okay. I'm going to try to take stock of where we're at. As far as I can tell the dispute is about whether Vijayanagar or Bahmani prevailed in this conflict and to what extent. Here's what's been cited in this discussion so far:
[The Vijayanagara army] contended with the BahmanÄ«s on equal terms, and struck blow-for-blow. In the end, the BahmanÄ« SultÄn had to sign a treaty which left Bukka I master of the whole of the KrishnÄ-Tuáč gabhadrÄ-doÄb excepting some mahals on the southern bank of the KrishnÄ which were to be governed jointly by the two monarchs. The terms of this treatyâŠclearly show that the war ended practically in a victory for Vijayanagara.
Bahmani won in 1365 and again in 1367âŠ
Bukka was soon involved in a war with the Bahmani kingdom which was ruled by Muhammad Shah Bahmani I (1358â1375)âŠThe first major engagement was at Kaithal in 1367 in which the Bahmanis were successful. Muhammad Shah killed about half a million Hindus but was unable to conquer Vijayanagar. The peace was, however, short-lived. Bukka retired to the jungles and hills, and adopted guerilla tactics. Later on he took shelter in Vijayanagar. Mujahid's efforts to capture the fort failed.
...in 1367, Bukka embarked upon a war in association with the ruler of Warangal to recover the areas lost to the Bahmani ruler earlier. We are told that when Bukka I assaulted the fortress of Mudkal in the disputed Tungbhadra doab, he slaughtered the entire garrison, except one man. When this news reached the Bahmani sultan, he was enraged and, on the march, vowed that he would not sheath his word till he had slaughtered one hundred thousand Hindus in revengeâŠThere are different versions about the outcome of the battle. According to Persian sources, the Vijayanagar ruler was defeated, and had to retire into the junglesâŠHowever, the Bahmani sultan could not gain a decisive victory and the war dragged on for several months, during which a wholesale slaughter of men, women and children went on. Finally a kind of a treaty was patched up which restored the old position whereby the doab was shared by the two sides. A vague promise was also made that in future wars the two sides would not slaughter helpless, unarmed inhabitants. However, this hardly had an effect on future warfare.
Venkataramanayya/Majumdar seems to be a serious historical source, but I do note that Majumdar was considered rather partisan to Hindu nationalism by several of his contemporaries, which suggests to me that he might prefer to include scholarship that favors that perspective. The Kohn source is very terse and tertiary, and I'm kind of doubtful about how much we can usefully get out of it in this context. Puri et. al. is also tertiary and written to a general audience, and rather editorializing with claims like "Bukka was a great ruler" who "infused a new life into the moribund Hindu society" etc., but at least it's more detailed than Kohn and by professional specialists. The Chandra source strikes me as gold-standard for this kind of articleâsecondary, contemporary, by a notable specialist, and most importantly, written stringently and without obvious bias as far as I can tell.
It's probably worth also examining the existing sources cited in the article other than these on this point, but they seem to all be print sources and I don't have any of them on hand. If either of you do, it would be great to have actual supporting quotations added to their citations in the article. That said, the existing text of the article on this point seems to me to be broadly in agreement with Chandra's and Puri et. al.'s accounts: that Muhammad Shah did prevail in the battle, in the sense that Bukka and his forces were routed and fled, but that Bukka managed to evade capture and wouldn't surrender, during which the Bahmani forces slaughtered many Vijayanagar civilians (following Bukka having done the same at Mudgal), leading to a peace treaty between Bukka and Muhammad Shah in which they both promised not to kill innocents anymore.
I think this dispute might ultimately rest on something kind of semanticâthat is, whether you feel the Bahmani side won on the basis of their routing of the Vijayanagar forces, or the war had no clear victor because Muhammad Shah never decisively captured the Vijayanagar fort, or Bukka actually prevailed in practice because the peace treaty supposedly favored him. It's not really our place to pick a side in that argument per se, thoughâall we're here to do is summarize the quality sources we have proportionally, even if they disagree.
On that note, at least so far, the Venkataramanayya/Majumdar source appears to be an outlier. I haven't seen another strong source right now that claims that Vijayanagar was on an equal footing militarily with Bahmani in this conflict, or that the peace treaty heavily favored the Vijayanagar side, and certainly not that Vijayanagar was out-and-out victorious. Therefore, since Majumdar is a notable historian nevertheless, I think it would be fine to add to the article a short mention that he endorsed an alternate account of the war more favorable to Vijayanagar, in contrast to the mainstream narrative.
If we can find a larger body of good historical sources that take that position, we might then have a basis to portray the outcome of the conflict as controversial among historians, but I'm not really seeing a true controversy with what we have right now. It does seem to me to oversimplify things a bit to simply claim "Bahmani victory" full stop, because the outcome of the conflict is kind of complex and it depends on what you consider "victory," but especially in terms of the main text of the article I don't see a basis for a major overhaul. đââ ąââ đđsâá¶ađđ ඞđ±âđ„ă đȘâtalkă†11:43, 31 May 2024 (UTC)
![]() | This page was proposed for deletion by an editor in the past. |
![]() | This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
@ Shakib ul hassan, WP:RAJ is not applied to Cambridge press, and other sources outside the RAJ. Also, sources that came after 1940, are not considered as RAJ era sources. About SCA, you have to read their whole article to get the details about the belligerents. Imperial [AFCND] 17:14, 10 March 2024 (UTC)
@ ActivelyDisinterested, hello. The figures in the infobox are covered in the article body. And if you think Society for Creative Anachronism is unreliable, feel free to remove them. I don't think there is a need for citing inside the infobox again, as the article body already covers it. Imperial [AFCND] 10:32, 18 March 2024 (UTC)
I verified all the sources and all state it was a peace but the information i found in the recent source by Rc Majumdar PG no 278 is - The account of the war given by Firishta is inaccurate and one-sided. According to him, Muhammad Shah I defeated Bukka I on every battlefield, chased him from place to place, and when at last Bukka crept back into his capital, the Bahmanl Sultan lured him out of his stronghold and, having crushed him in a battle, dictated to him the terms of peace which he had no option but to accept. Though some of the facts mentioned by Firishta might be true, the Vijayanagara army did not fare so badly in the war as he would have us believe. They contended with the Bahmams on equal terms, and struck blow for blow. In the end, the Bahmani Sultan had to sign a treaty which left Bukka I master of the whole of the Krishna-Tuhgabhadra- dodb excepting some mcihals on the southern bank of the Krishna which were to be governed jointly by the two monarchs.3 The terms of this treaty, to which Firishta himself alludes indirectly, clearly show that the war ended practically in a victory for Vijayanagara. As the war had commenced on account of the refusal of Muhammad Shah I to recognize the river Krishna as the boundary between Vijayanagara and the Bahmanl kingdoms, and as the river Krishna, according to the terms of the treaty, was fixed as the boundary between the two kingdoms, though a few mahals on the southern bank of the river were subjected to the joint authority of the two governments, it is obvious that Bukka I got the better of his rival. so firstly WP AGEMATTERS and this recent source state that it was a victory for vijayanagara so I'm doing changes accordingly Violetmyers (Talk) 22:05, 28 May 2024 (UTC)
Hello folks, here to give a 3O. @Noorullah, I just want to briefly note that even if you feel there's more to discuss, if the other person does not, the discussion is effectively at a standstill, because you can't force them to keep going even if it might seem logical for them to. That's part of why 3O exists, to help break those kinds of deadlocks.
Also, it's worth noting that another editor might enter a talk page discussion at any time. 3O is really just a thin veneer over routine Wikipedia practice in that sense, and mainly exists because it's hard to establish even a loose consensus between two people who vehemently disagree. Neither of you are obligated to accept what I say without question or anythingâI'm just another editor. If the three of us arrive at a deadlock again, there are other conflict resolution mechanisms available. That said, we should all try to come to a consensus if we can, because that's how Wikipedia moves forward.
So, okay. I'm going to try to take stock of where we're at. As far as I can tell the dispute is about whether Vijayanagar or Bahmani prevailed in this conflict and to what extent. Here's what's been cited in this discussion so far:
[The Vijayanagara army] contended with the BahmanÄ«s on equal terms, and struck blow-for-blow. In the end, the BahmanÄ« SultÄn had to sign a treaty which left Bukka I master of the whole of the KrishnÄ-Tuáč gabhadrÄ-doÄb excepting some mahals on the southern bank of the KrishnÄ which were to be governed jointly by the two monarchs. The terms of this treatyâŠclearly show that the war ended practically in a victory for Vijayanagara.
Bahmani won in 1365 and again in 1367âŠ
Bukka was soon involved in a war with the Bahmani kingdom which was ruled by Muhammad Shah Bahmani I (1358â1375)âŠThe first major engagement was at Kaithal in 1367 in which the Bahmanis were successful. Muhammad Shah killed about half a million Hindus but was unable to conquer Vijayanagar. The peace was, however, short-lived. Bukka retired to the jungles and hills, and adopted guerilla tactics. Later on he took shelter in Vijayanagar. Mujahid's efforts to capture the fort failed.
...in 1367, Bukka embarked upon a war in association with the ruler of Warangal to recover the areas lost to the Bahmani ruler earlier. We are told that when Bukka I assaulted the fortress of Mudkal in the disputed Tungbhadra doab, he slaughtered the entire garrison, except one man. When this news reached the Bahmani sultan, he was enraged and, on the march, vowed that he would not sheath his word till he had slaughtered one hundred thousand Hindus in revengeâŠThere are different versions about the outcome of the battle. According to Persian sources, the Vijayanagar ruler was defeated, and had to retire into the junglesâŠHowever, the Bahmani sultan could not gain a decisive victory and the war dragged on for several months, during which a wholesale slaughter of men, women and children went on. Finally a kind of a treaty was patched up which restored the old position whereby the doab was shared by the two sides. A vague promise was also made that in future wars the two sides would not slaughter helpless, unarmed inhabitants. However, this hardly had an effect on future warfare.
Venkataramanayya/Majumdar seems to be a serious historical source, but I do note that Majumdar was considered rather partisan to Hindu nationalism by several of his contemporaries, which suggests to me that he might prefer to include scholarship that favors that perspective. The Kohn source is very terse and tertiary, and I'm kind of doubtful about how much we can usefully get out of it in this context. Puri et. al. is also tertiary and written to a general audience, and rather editorializing with claims like "Bukka was a great ruler" who "infused a new life into the moribund Hindu society" etc., but at least it's more detailed than Kohn and by professional specialists. The Chandra source strikes me as gold-standard for this kind of articleâsecondary, contemporary, by a notable specialist, and most importantly, written stringently and without obvious bias as far as I can tell.
It's probably worth also examining the existing sources cited in the article other than these on this point, but they seem to all be print sources and I don't have any of them on hand. If either of you do, it would be great to have actual supporting quotations added to their citations in the article. That said, the existing text of the article on this point seems to me to be broadly in agreement with Chandra's and Puri et. al.'s accounts: that Muhammad Shah did prevail in the battle, in the sense that Bukka and his forces were routed and fled, but that Bukka managed to evade capture and wouldn't surrender, during which the Bahmani forces slaughtered many Vijayanagar civilians (following Bukka having done the same at Mudgal), leading to a peace treaty between Bukka and Muhammad Shah in which they both promised not to kill innocents anymore.
I think this dispute might ultimately rest on something kind of semanticâthat is, whether you feel the Bahmani side won on the basis of their routing of the Vijayanagar forces, or the war had no clear victor because Muhammad Shah never decisively captured the Vijayanagar fort, or Bukka actually prevailed in practice because the peace treaty supposedly favored him. It's not really our place to pick a side in that argument per se, thoughâall we're here to do is summarize the quality sources we have proportionally, even if they disagree.
On that note, at least so far, the Venkataramanayya/Majumdar source appears to be an outlier. I haven't seen another strong source right now that claims that Vijayanagar was on an equal footing militarily with Bahmani in this conflict, or that the peace treaty heavily favored the Vijayanagar side, and certainly not that Vijayanagar was out-and-out victorious. Therefore, since Majumdar is a notable historian nevertheless, I think it would be fine to add to the article a short mention that he endorsed an alternate account of the war more favorable to Vijayanagar, in contrast to the mainstream narrative.
If we can find a larger body of good historical sources that take that position, we might then have a basis to portray the outcome of the conflict as controversial among historians, but I'm not really seeing a true controversy with what we have right now. It does seem to me to oversimplify things a bit to simply claim "Bahmani victory" full stop, because the outcome of the conflict is kind of complex and it depends on what you consider "victory," but especially in terms of the main text of the article I don't see a basis for a major overhaul. đââ ąââ đđsâá¶ađđ ඞđ±âđ„ă đȘâtalkă†11:43, 31 May 2024 (UTC)