Jump to content

Talk:Bahmani–Vijayanagar War (1443)

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Misunderstanding

[edit]

@Koshuri Sultan, thanks for the move. Leaving a comment to let you know the war ended in a "Peace treaty", after the military victory of the Bahmanis aganist the Vijayanagara, where the Peace treaty was signed in favour of Bahmanis. Just like in WW1, Germany lost and made Treaty of Brest-Litovsk. From Nizami Sultan was greatly worried and marched southwards in person. Khalaf Hasan forced the Raya's son to raise the siege of Raichur, while the Sultan engaged in a fierce battle with the Raya at Mudkal and defeated him completely. The campaign ended in the payment of all arrears of tribute on the part of the Raya and a promised by the Sultan that he would never cross the Tungabhadra again. Elaborating from Jaques Tony-Three battles were fought over two months, the first won by Deva Raya, but Ala-ud-din then won twice. Deva Raya with-drew and agreed to pay tribute. Paying tribute, as the Bahmanis won the War. I can understand how the statement of Wagoner Philipp went as your reference, but that didn't have in-depth coverage. The excess in already in the article. Imperial[AFCND] 18:11, 15 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

According to MOS:MILRESULT and Template:Infobox military conflict#Parameters:

  • The "result" parameter has often been a source of contention. Particular attention should be given to the advice therein. The infobox does not have the scope to reflect nuances, and should be restricted to "X victory" or "Inconclusive". Where the result does not accurately fit with these restrictions use "See aftermath" (or similar) to direct the reader to a section where the result is discussed.


  • this parameter may use one of two standard terms: "X victory" or "Inconclusive". The term used is for the "immediate" outcome of the "subject" conflict and should reflect what the sources say. In cases where the standard terms do not accurately describe the outcome, a link or note should be made to the section of the article where the result is discussed in detail (such as "See the Aftermath section"). Such a note can also be used in conjunction with the standard terms but should not be used to conceal an ambiguity in the "immediate" result.


So Bahmani victory is inappropriate here as it is not the immediate result of this war, Even the sources which you quoted does not mention Bahmani victory as the immediate result.
And see WP:OTHERCONTENT, The case is totally different here from the example of WW1 you gave as academic sources states that germany had lost the war however here the sources clearly mentions that the result of this conflict was inconclusive and ended with peace treaty between Bahmanis and Vijaynagar. After the third battle (the final battle of this war), The war was inconclusive and ended with peace treaty:
  • Wagoner, Phillip B. (2020), Curry, Anne; Graff, David A. (eds.), "India, c.1200–c.1500", The Cambridge History of War: Volume 2: War and the Medieval World, Cambridge History of War, vol. 2, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, p. 498:
  • the conflict ultimately ended with a peace treaty after the third, the campaign seems to have marked the dawn of a new era for Vijayanagara’s military culture.


  • Wars with the Bahmanīs in 1435–36 and 1443–44 over control of Raichur and Mudgal forts in the Tungabhadra-Krishna Doab ended inconclusively. Those campaigns, however, led to further improvements in Vijayanagar’s military forces...
Pinging @Asilvering, as I'm not sure if you'll comply with my additions. Koshuri (グ) 08:03, 16 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The war was definitely not inconclusive per neither the two above sources you've presented above makes an in-depth coverage to the War, unlike those which are present in the article. A third opinion will be indeed best here. Imperial[AFCND] 10:24, 16 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The war was definitely not inconclusive How? I have quoted, bolded and cited reliable sources for it, what's your reasoning to not go with it? The part neither the two above sources you've presented above makes an in-depth coverage to the War doesn't make sense, coverage or not it still revolves around the event. (and the Cambridge History of War, vol. 2 has a half page of coverage more than that of Tony Jacques' , the source establishes that there is nuance to this war and it's result. Per WP:RESULT, this cannot be inserted into the lead given the contention. Therefore I propose the result be changed to "See Aftermath" I have pinged @Asilvering so we can get their opinion (you can ask for 3O if Asilvering is busy or doesn't give his opinion). Koshuri (グ) 14:57, 16 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
"The campaign ended in the payment of all arrears of tribute on the part of the Raya and a promised by the Sultan that he would never cross the Tungabhadra again."
"Three battles were fought over two months, the first won by Deva Raya, but Ala-ud-din then won twice. Deva Raya with-drew and agreed to pay tribute."
These all very clearly define a victory ...
You also cited Brittanica but Britannica is not a WP:RS Tertiary source.
"In the last fight the eldest son of Deva Raya was killed and the Hindu army fled panic-striken into the fortress of Mudgal. Deva Raya saw that nothing better could be done under the circumstances but to sue for peace. This was granted on the following conditions, namely, that (1) the Raya should pay the stipulated tribute annually and (2) return all prisoners taken. In return the Sultan vowed himself never again to molest Deva Raya’s territories." [1]
"In the end the Sultan’s star was in the ascendant and the Raya’s forces were beaten in the open field while his wounded son who had left the field at Raichur was also killed. The Raya, deeply grieved shut himself up once again in Mudgal fort after having taken in his custody two of the Sultan’s officers, Fa/:Aru’l-Mulk Dehlavp’ and his brother. On hearing this the Sultan sent a message to Deva Raya that if these two high officers were killed he would not deter from killing two lacs of his men to atone for their lives when time came. The Raya, evidently not in a mood to carry on the conflict any further, replied that he was willing to pay up all the arrears of tribute and to cease fighting if the Sultan promised that he would not cross the frontier in future. The Sultan agreed and treaty was forthwith signed, while Fa/:Aru’l-Mulk was sent back to the Sultan’s camp along with his brother and all the arrears of tribute duly paid." [2] [3]
-
The cambridge source you cite just says there was a peace treaty, not describing nuance to victory/defeat. Noorullah (talk) 00:21, 17 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
None of these mentions Bahmani victory, the Cambridge source I cited clearly mentions the war ended with a peace treaty. Koshuri (グ) 08:13, 17 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Koshuri Sultan Do you know what Suing for peace means? Noorullah (talk) 09:21, 17 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that those two sources clearly state that this is a victory for the Sultan (so, a Bahmani victory). -- asilvering (talk) 06:30, 19 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Happy to have a look, will get to this in a bit. -- asilvering (talk) 06:09, 17 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Most sources do not identify a victor, because this war did not have one. Devaraya invaded Bahmani because he was failing to pay the arrears that were agreed upon in the previous war. The war was fought in three stages. With Devaraya emerging victorious in the first while Bahmani emerged successful in the second, in the third both sides held something to their name at the end, both agreed to make peace. Therefore, most sources say that this war ended in a peace treaty where both sides agreed to make concessions. Bahmanis accepted the offer to not invade Vijayanagar in return for payment of arrears. Here are the sources that provide coverage to the war yet do not identify a victor as the result was nuanced. Per Template:Infobox military conflict the parameter should be populated with the immediate result in the infobox. The sources here do not say that Bahmanis won they only state that peace treaty was signed with agreement of both sides.


  • Sewell, Robert; Nunes, Fernão; Paes, Domingos (2000). A Forgotten Empire (Vijayanagar). New Delhi: Asian Educational Services. p. 76–77. ISBN 978-81-206-0125-3.

In the space of two months, three actions happened near Mudkul between the two grand armies; in the first of which ‘multitudes were slain on both sides, and the Hindoos having the advantage, the mussulmauns experienced great difficulties.” The sultan was successful in the others; and in the last, the eldest son of Deo Roy was killed by a spear thrown at him by Khan Zummaun, which event struck the Hindoos with a panic, and they fled with the greatest precipitation into the fortress of Mudkul. Two chief Muhammadan officers, in the ardour of pursuit, entered the city with the fugitives, and were captured by the Hindus. Deo Roy then sent a message to the Sultan that if he would promise never again to molest his territories he would pay the stipulated tribute annually, and return the two prisoners. This was accepted, a treaty was executed, and the prisoners returned with the tribute and added presents ; and till the end of Deva Raya’s reign both parties observed their agreement.


In the fight at Mudgal between the Bahmani and Vijayanagar forces, victory often changed sides. Devaraya plundered the country as far as Sagar and Bijapur. The Sultan opposed him with 50,000 horses, 60,000 foot and three severe engagements took place. The first and second engagements took place under the walls of Mudgal. In the third engagement, the Ray's force were beaten and his son; wounded in the battle of Raichur, was killed. Devaraya deeply grieved, took into his custody Fakhrul Mulk Dahlavi and his brother, the two officers of the Sultan. The Sultan sent word that if the two officers were killed he would sacrifice the lives of two lakhs of Hindus to avenge their death. The Raya replied that he would order to stop fighting on the condition that he would not cross the frontier, the Krishna, in future. The terms were agreed to by both sides, the treaty was signed and Fakhrul Mulk and his brother were sent back to the Sultan's camp.


  • Wolseley Haig. The Cambridge History Of India Volume III. p. 407.

With this force Devaraya, in 1443, invaded the Raichur Doab, captured Mudgal, besieged Raichur and Bankapur, encamped on the Krishna and laid waste the country as far as Bijapur and Sagar. On the approach of 'Ala-ud-din he withdrew to Mudgal, and Malik-ut-Tujjar, having compelled the raja's two sons to raise the sieges of Raichur and Bankapur, rejoined 'Ala-ud-din before Mudgal, where, within a period of three months, as many battles were fought, the Hindus being victorious in the first and the Muslims in the second. In the third Devaraya's elder son was killed and his troops were driven headlong into the fortress, whither two Muslim officers, Fakhr-ul-Mulk of Delhi and his brother, followed them and were captured and imprisoned, but a message from their master to the effect that the lives of 200,000 Hindus would be required as the price of theirs, so alarmed Devaraya that he sued for peace, which was granted on his promising to make no default in future remittances of tribute.


Firishta notes that three engagements took place between the two armies in the space of two months, and that in the first, Devaraya emerged victorious after inflicting heavy losses on the Bahmani troops. Although the tide turned in the second engagement, and the conflict ultimately ended with a peace treaty after the third, the campaign seems to have marked the dawn of a new era for Vijayanagara’s military culture.

If we go by these sources. The immediate result of the war should be "peace treaty" but that cannot be inserted into the infobox per WP:RESULT which only recognises two standard outcomes, therefore the only working alternative is using "See aftermath". Koshuri (グ) 09:34, 17 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Sewell, Haig, and Vasoda are all quite old and we ought to avoid using them unless there's some really compelling reason to do so. The way I read Wagoner, he's saying that even though the conflict did not end in favour of the Vijayanagara side, it was some kind of catalyst for this "new era" in their military culture. So that's also a kind of roundabout way of saying that the conflict itself was a Bahmani victory.
Britannica does pretty clearly say "inconclusive", but I'm honestly not sure what they mean by it in context. What they have next is "Those campaigns, however, led to further improvements in Vijayanagar’s military forces...", which is the same thing that Wagoner is saying, but Wagoner is pretty clear that it was a Bahmanis victory. Britannica goes on to talk about the decline of centralized Vijayanagar control after the conflict, but links it to things other than this particular 1443 war. And, according to Britannica, anyway, this wasn't the last war between the two: During the first 40 years after Devaraya’s death in 1446, the centralized power of the state declined, and a considerable amount of territory along both coasts was lost to the Bahmanī sultans and to the suddenly powerful Gajapati ruler of Orissa. I suppose they don't outright state that the territory lost to Bahmani sultans was lost in war, but I don't really know what other options there could possibly be.
So, from the sources I've seen so far, and the text that we have in the article itself, it seems pretty likely to me that "Bahmani victory" is a reasonable thing for the infobox to say - it's the other side that had to sue for peace. We also have the catalyst for the war, the lack of tribute, being promised in the peace agreement at the end of the war. What I'm still not clear on is who controls the Mudgal fort at the end. Britannica's "inconclusive" comes after mentioning that fort. Is it still in Vijayanagar hands at the end of the war? -- asilvering (talk) 06:53, 19 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
No, I completely or in parts disagree with you. I have seen 100s of articles citing Sewell and Haig, although yes Vasoda could be a dubious one here. Also see this old discussion at RSN, there's a clear understanding that using Haig is justified [4], which is cited in Bahmani–Vijayanagar War (1375–1378). Wagoner and Brittanica are quite clear in defining the outcome as a peace treaty. Having said that, we're obviously thankful for your opinion, but I don't get your reasoning so I would refer for RfC or DRN (latter would be better). Koshuri (グ) 11:31, 19 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Rather than a peace treaty this could be a possible Vijayanagara victory

After this episode a mutually agreed treaty was concluded. Deva Raya II agreed to not invade Bahmani territories in the future, an agreement that he honoured for the rest of his reign. Ferishta alludes to a tribute that was paid to the Bahmani Sultan, which cannot be corroborated and is an obviously biased statement in support of the Muslim sultan. In fact, Abdur Razzak who was an eye witness to the war states categorically that Ala ud-Din II did not return covered in glory, an understatement that euphemistically refers to a possible defeat.

Contemporary Muslim chroniclers provide a great deal of detail regarding the terms of the treaty of 1443 between Vijayanagara and the Bahmani kingdom. However, they do not mention the recapture of Mudgal, which was one the most important strongholds in the Krishna-Tungabhadra doab. Ferishta, who is consistently and almost totally biased in favour of the Bahmanis in his reporting of events, clearly states the capture of Mudgal by Vijayanagara in the beginning of the 1443 War, but makes no mention of its recapture by Bahmani forces. In case the fort had been retaken, there is no doubt that Ferishta would have specifically mentioned it as a victory for the Muslim forces, in celebratory words. Therefore, it can be safely concluded that irrespective of Ferishta's boast of a Bahmani victory, the ground reality was altogether something else.

Mr.Hanes Talk 17:54, 17 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The book, the author is unreliable. Dr Sanu Kainikara is a former Indian fighter Piolet. Not a historian. Imperial[AFCND] 18:07, 17 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Journal of Air Power and Space Studies, Vol. 16 No. 1, Spring 2021 Professor Sanu Kainikara is a former fighter pilot of the IAF. In 2002 he joined the Australian Public Service, as the Royal Australian Air Force’s Air Power Strategist, retiring in November 2020. Having authored 23 books on national security, airpower, and Indian history, he is currently an Adjunct Professor in the School of Humanities and Social Sciences at the University of New South Wales.
Eurasia Review: Dr. Sanu Kainikara is a Canberra-based Military Strategist and a practising Historian. He is an Adjunct Professor at the University of New South Wales and the inaugural Distinguished Fellow at the Institute for Regional Security, Canberra.
South Asia Journal: Dr. Sanu Kainikara is a Canberra-based Military Strategist and a practising Historian. He is an Adjunct Professor at the University of New South Wales and the inaugural Distinguished Fellow at the Institute for Regional Security, Canberra. Mr.Hanes Talk 18:21, 17 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Refer Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard Imperial[AFCND] 18:47, 17 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
We refer to RSN when there's an uncertainty about the reliability of the sources, I have verified the source, why to make it WP:SNOW? You can go to RSN if you think that my WP:BEFORE is not helping. Mr.Hanes Talk 18:53, 17 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
While I don't know whether or not his books are reliable sources, he's not a trained historian, at least - his PhD is in politics, according to LinkedIn. (Also, those bios are all written by Kainikara himself.) -- asilvering (talk) 06:22, 19 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Mr.Hanes No, we're not doing that. Can't you see there are multiple sources describing different outcomes? The best option is to wrap all of these sources in the aftermath and highlight every viewpoint and outcome, I don't know why the above users in disagreement making it so bureaucratic to achieve this, considering ImperialAficionado has done the same with Bahmani–Vijayanagar War (1375–1378). Koshuri (グ) 14:20, 18 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
We made a consensus at WP:RSN#Age Matters (old one, unable to find link by myself), and made the change at Bahmani–Vijayanagar War (1375–1378). No need to drag another article here. This needs a seperate consensus, ans waiting for Asilvering's comment. Imperial[AFCND] 14:29, 18 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Found it for ya [5]. However, it's rather vague to use RSN but not the article's talk page to achieve consensus. If this needs a separate consensus then it's alright, but WP:STONEWALLING is a thing. Koshuri (グ) 04:46, 19 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Bahmani–Vijayanagar_War_(1443)&oldid=1276531457"