Talk:Maratha Empire

Military history: Asian / Indian / South Asia / Early Modern C‑class

This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.Military historyWikipedia:WikiProject Military historyTemplate:WikiProject Military historymilitary history articles

C

This article has been rated as C-class on the project's quality scale.

This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-class status:
Referencing and citation: criterion not met Coverage and accuracy: criterion met Structure: criterion met Grammar and style: criterion met Supporting materials: criterion met

Associated task forces:
/
	Asian military history task force
	Indian military history task force
	South Asian military history task force
	Early Modern warfare task force (c. 1500 – c. 1800)

History High‑importance

	History portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject History, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the subject of History on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.HistoryWikipedia:WikiProject HistoryTemplate:WikiProject Historyhistory articles
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

Politics Mid‑importance

	Politics portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Politics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of politics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PoliticsWikipedia:WikiProject PoliticsTemplate:WikiProject Politicspolitics articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

India: Maharashtra / History High‑importance

	India portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject India, which aims to improve Wikipedia's coverage of India-related topics. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page.IndiaWikipedia:WikiProject IndiaTemplate:WikiProject IndiaIndia articles
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by WikiProject Maharashtra (assessed as Top-importance).
	This article is supported by the Indian history workgroup (assessed as Top-importance).
	This article was last assessed in May 2012.

Former countries

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Former countries, a collaborative effort to improve Wikipedia's coverage of defunct states and territories (and their subdivisions). If you would like to participate, please join the project.Former countriesWikipedia:WikiProject Former countriesTemplate:WikiProject Former countriesformer country articles

The contentious topics procedure applies to this page. This page is related to India, Pakistan, and Afghanistan, which has been designated as a contentious topic.

Editors who repeatedly or seriously fail to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, any expected standards of behaviour, or any normal editorial process may be blocked or restricted by an administrator. Editors are advised to familiarise themselves with the contentious topics procedures before editing this page.

On 31 March 2024, it was proposed that this article be moved to Maratha Confederacy. The result of the discussion was not moved.

Archives

1

This page has archives. Sections older than 90 days may be automatically archived by when more than 3 sections are present.

Map in infobox[edit]

Proposal withdrawn by the nominator because of lack of support. Can be seen at the bottom. (non-admin closure) Shaan Sengupta^Talk 11:39, 17 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

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)[reply]

[Nominator Support] per nomination. PadFoot2008 (talk) 11:30, 10 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]

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

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Prominent mention of Bajirao and his caste[edit]

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)[reply]

Edit it then and make it better. Witchilich (talk) 06:13, 30 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

Requested move 31 March 2024[edit]

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

The result of the move request was: not moved. – robertsky (talk) 06:25, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Maratha Empire → Maratha Confederacy – Based on This Ngram search Confederacy is the more commonly used name, especially post 1995 1995. The Marathas were a Confederacy rather than an empire at their peak so this title makes sense. SKAG123 (talk) 20:01, 31 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose – According to information in the article, they were at their peak in 1758 and the confederacy began after the death of Madhavrao I in 1772. So the Marathas were an empire at their peak. The period from 1674-1772 is larger than the period from 1772-1818, so the Marathas were an empire for longer than they were a confederacy. Also, I do not think the Ngram search establishes a common name. The ratio at its maximum is approximately 3:2 post-1995. Arnav Bhate (talk) 13:21, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

More recent data from Ngram suggests that Maratha Empire has become more common compared to Maratha Confederacy. Arnav Bhate (talk) 15:16, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose - As @Arnav Bhate rightly said, empire were for a large amount of time and so this title justifies it. Curious man123 (talk) 13:56, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Requested move 17 April 2024[edit]

It has been proposed in this section that Maratha Empire be renamed and moved to Maratha Confederacy.

A bot will list this discussion on requested moves' current discussions subpage within an hour of this tag being placed. The discussion may be closed 7 days after being opened, if consensus has been reached (see the closing instructions). Please base arguments on article title policy, and keep discussion succinct and civil.

Please use {{subst:requested move}}. Do not use {{requested move/dated}} directly.

Links: current log • target log • direct move

Maratha Empire → Maratha Confederacy – The Maratha state had been a confederation of some sort for much of its existence from at least 1721 when the Baroda State was founded and 1732 when Indore and Gwalior States were founded till 1818. The Maratha state during the Deccan wars under Shivaji and his descendents was not in the slightest an "empire", rather a quasi-state or rebel kingdom from 1674 till 1707. Besides in most scholarly sources the Maratha realm has been referred to as the "Maratha Confederacy" or "Maratha States". (Look at the infobox map itself. It says "Maratha States".) Calling it an empire is an overly biased PoV. PadFoot2008 (talk) 14:31, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator support: Also pinging @SKAG123 who originally put forward this suggestion. PadFoot2008 (talk) 14:32, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose: See Ngram, Maratha Empire is more common in scholarly sources. It is clearly then the WP:COMMONNAME. Add your statements to the article while citing reliable sources otherwise they are just original research. Arnav Bhate (talk) 09:16, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That's because the English word was "Mahratta" not "Maratha" which is more recent rendering. Check this [1]. You can clearly see that the Confederacy was way, way more popular. Besides Maratha Empire has got only slightly more common very recently, such recent changes are not usually used to decide names in Wikipedia. Also WP:COMMONNAME is not the supreme parameter to decide names. It is very often abandoned when their are better and more accurate options. PadFoot2008 (talk) 11:25, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I noticed that you very conveniently left out Mahratta Empire, which was more common, especially in contemporary sources. Arnav Bhate (talk) 13:16, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Move: N-gram graphs are not the sole determinant influencing the decision. "The New Cambridge History of India: The Marathas" does not refer to the Marathas as the "Maratha Empire" at any point. Both the infobox and the article's content are centered on the Bhonsle state of the Marathas of Satara. Even if we insist on labeling it as an "empire," who would be considered the emperor? The Marathas of Satara did not hold imperial authority over the entire region.--Imperial ^[AFCND] 13:08, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The Emperor in Raigad, and later Satara, did hold authority until 1749, when Shahu died. After that, it was the Peshwa. The confederacy began in 1772. I am basing this on the article. If you do not agree then find sources and edit the article. Arnav Bhate (talk) 13:25, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The Peshwa holding de facto power for a short period doesn't change anything. There were individual Maratha states within the Confederacy since at least 1821. See Baroda State for example. Additionally, the chhatrapati (not emperor) held only nominal power and no real authority. The Peshwa too didn't hold much real power and had power only over his own dominions which later became the Bombay Province and the Central Provinces after being annexed. Early he did have some power and respect but no real authority to govern territories within the Confederacy which were not his own, like Baroda or Nagpur. PadFoot2008 (talk) 15:13, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Proposal: Move to 'Maratha State' instead. Neither 'Empire' nor 'Confederacy' seem suitable, given that the type of government changed multiple times. The word 'State' does not convey what the type of government was and seems to be quite used [2] [3] in scholarly sources as well. Arnav Bhate (talk) 13:34, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That can't be. You forget, there were multiple states within the Maratha Confederacy. Look at the infobox map again, it says Maratha States. So states like Nagpur, Gwalior, Baroda were also each a "Maratha State". "Maratha States" might work but again post-1818 successor states like Satara were also Maratha states. PadFoot2008 (talk) 15:12, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]