Talk:Battle of Talikota

Battle of Talikota After the death of Achyuta Raya in AD 1541, his son Venkatadri or Venkata-I ascended the throne, but could not reign long, and within six months the crown was passed to the nephew of Achyuta - Sadasiva. Sadasiva Raya was a mere puppet in the hand of his minister Rama Raya of the Aravidu dynasty. Rama Raya was able to restore the power of Vijayanagara, which had sunk after Krishna Devaraya's rule. The important policy of Rama Raya was to interfere in the quarrels among the Deccan Sultanates, in alliance first with one, and then with another.

He indeed was successful for the time being but religious fanaticism and mullahs in the Muslim states led to the combining of all the Muslim states against the Hindus and the combined forces faced each other in the Battle of Talikota. It was one of the most decisive battles in Indian history like the Panipat and the battle of Plassey. Hopes of rebuilding Vijayanagar empire were totally shattered with the defeat and southern India was once again opened for Muslim invasion till Marathas slowly rose to power. Vasista

Battle place

The battle took place between two villages Rakkasagi and Tangadi (or Tangadigi). Hence the battle is also known as Battle of Rakkasa-Tangadi.These are two villages close to a town called TalikOte in present Bagakakot district in Karnataka. (Information edited by Ramaprasad K V , on 17 Mar 2006)

WikiProject class rating

This article was automatically assessed because at least one WikiProject had rated the article as start, and the rating on other projects was brought up to start class. BetacommandBot 17:28, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Clearness of Facts

It is said that this battle is considered one of the most pivotal in Indian history. Also, it seems that there is no reasonable account of the battle barring that of Firishta's and the others, either they seem to be disregarded or the information is not coming out. Then, how can we talk, at all regarding the course of the battle? As regarding the destruction of Vijayanagar Empire, it seems that this battle destroyed the reputation of the kingdom, and not it's power. It is also said that Vijayanagar was the only knigdom, after this war, in the complete country of India, capable of stopping Akbar in a battle. But as a twist of fate, Akbar died at the time both the kingdoms were readying to face each other and the plans were given up. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 117.195.131.74 (talk) 11:01, 26 August 2008 (UTC) One thing more, Vijayanagar Sources near unanimously say that Barid Shah came into the battle as a supporter of Vijiyanagar as a consequence of a moral pact with Ramaraya, but stayed neutral. But when Vijayanagar won the war decisively, he attacked the offgaurd Vijayanagar camp and destroyed the army and he personally had Ramaraya killed on Ramaraya's asking. Also, Akbar supported the Muslims in the battle. Another thing is the Muslims had numerical superiority. A reference for this would be a book by name Further Sources of Vijayanagara History by K. A. Nilakantasastri and N. Venkataramanayya; Compare this with Firishta. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 117.195.138.209 (talk) 07:29, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

On this day

As you can see in the announcements at the top of the page, this article has been featured before in Wikipedia:Selected anniversaries, appearing in the "On this day" section of the Main Page. However, currently it is in a state where needs attention, specifically more inline citations. Because of this, we could not feature it this year. Please fix the relevant issues so that it may be considered for the Main Page next year. Thank you. howcheng {chat} 18:38, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

Biased view

The article seems very biased in favour of Vijayanagar. Maharattas who had served the Sultans are labelled as "traitors" even though they were not citizens of the vijayanagar kingdom. No reliable sources are quoted regarding the course of the battle. No mention is made of the use of artillery by the Vijayanagar army at the start of the description ; however, an artillery duel (which, very interestingly, bears striking resemblence to one of the "versions" of the third battle of Panipat) is described later. I suggest that a totally netural individual review the whole article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.105.79.151 (talk) 23:38, 18 March 2012 (UTC) The article has a very biased view favoring Vijayanagar/the Hindu cause. The historic event is focused on the portrayal of Muslim oppression of the Hindus and not on actual facts. A neutral review of historic facts, presented, along with a non partisan analysis is necessary to make this article Historically accurate and informative. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Guru82prasad (talk • contribs) 13:51, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

Adding to above comments, the war description is written as though it were a PR release for the Vijayanagar kingdom. The sources are quite unclear too. Tagging it for inspection. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 49.205.6.22 (talk) 09:14, 7 October 2012 (UTC)

The Article is completely biased and heavily influenced and even vandalized by Pro Sultanate point of view instead of facts. ▼ Article cites dishonest scholarship of Eaton as a "proof" to whitewash the religious motif of Sultanate alliance and destruction causes by them. ▼ Eaton's analysis is dishonest which can be confirmed by widely docuemnted facts like Sultanate alliance persecuting Vaishnava sect of Hinduism, two Muslim commanders of Vijaynagara army switched sides in the middle of the battle, the unprecedented destruction to temples and city of Vijaynagara as aftermath of battle. ▼ These hard facts are openly denied by content editors but dishonest scholarship of Eaton that has no real explanation except strawman arguments are presented as major view of historians and on this basis article is uses to talk less about the history accuracies of the battle and more about "Evil Hindu right". ▼ This article is an standard example of normative inversion and whitewashing atrocities. ▼ The content editors have cleverly placed labelling like "Nationalist historians" before those historians' views that don't agree with the political and ideological inclination of the editors. Friendly Batman (talk) 13:37, 13 January 2021 (UTC)

Nothing actionable in those comments. FDW777 (talk) 13:51, 13 January 2021 (UTC)

Action plan to improve

This is generally a terrible article. Writers should look at WP:CCPOL - all of which has been breached in this article extensively. 1. Sources & authorities - research and provide sources compliant with wiki policies. 2. Tentative tone - give a neutral voice to the article. 3. Every sentence/paragraph should be qualified by at least one source. 4. Different POVs - give the historical proposing and opposing perspectives on the matter of debate. 5. Original research - get rid of them!! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A01:388:201:3310:386C:7DD0:4705:A80E (talk) 11:16, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

I greatly support this Ahendra (talk) 09:16, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Battle of Talikota. 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://web.archive.org/web/20101111012319/http://www.explorehampiwithme.in/ to http://www.explorehampiwithme.in/

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

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 06:14, 16 July 2017 (UTC)

Extremely pro-Vijayanagara Empire bias

Just read the sentence mentioned below. I have highlighted the biased portions in Bold font:

1. The treacherous defeat of Vijayanagara Empire, followed subsequent destruction and looting which became short lived before the mighty successors of Rama Raya.
2. But later, the successors of Rama Raya retaliated vigourously and inflicted such continuous defeats on Bijapur and Golconda Sultanates that they couldn't even shake the empire till the interference of Mughals in South India in 1640s. Entire territory south of Krishna which is present day Andhra Pradesh (except Telangana region) was recaptured by the Vijayanagar empire. Even as the empire resolved in 1650 another Hindu power was slowly growing in the form of Marathas who would later deliver the death blow to Adil Shahi sultanate and make Golconda sultanate accept their superiority without bloodshed.
3. Numbered list item — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2405:204:E384:6FE:AD33:F3B:DD8B:FAE4 (talk) 19:29, 7 September 2017 (UTC)

Gilani Brothers story is not supported.

Check this article https://toshkhana.wordpress.com/2011/10/28/last-of-the-rayas-an-eyewitness-account-of-the-defeat-and-death-of-rama-raya-of-vijaynagara-at-talikota/  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.151.121.121 (talk) 10:37, 1 December 2018 (UTC) 

Date of battle

There are three different dates in this articles as to when it took place. The intro says 26 January, the infobox has 25 January, then the first section says 23 January. Can anyone clear this up? Thanks. —howcheng {chat} 21:42, 23 January 2020 (UTC)

It looks like the infobox was changed in this edit, whereas this one was responsible for the intro. Both of these were done by anonymous users, so I'm willing to chalk this up to vandalism. —howcheng {chat} 16:53, 24 January 2020 (UTC)

Clarification of edits

On the request of editor TrangaBellam, I am clarifying some of my edits here. Scholars are not "unaninimous" about either the battle, its interpretation, or its consequences. The article itself lists several historians (Sastri, Scott, Sewell, Krishnaswamy Iyengar etc.) who disagreed on the revisionist interpretations of the battle, and there are living historians (Jain, Nagaswamy etc.) who still question this. Finally, the last part of the article claims that This debunked argument has been since weaponized by the Hindu right in its bid to demonize (and other) the Muslim in contemporary India. The citation given for this is not an academic source, but an Op-ed by the noted left-wing magazine, Frontline. It is necessary to attribute this claim, which is why I removed "debunked" and inserted Some elements of the Indian left argue that, as this falls under WP:TENDENTIOUS. I hope this clarifies any doubts, specifically of the editor TrangaBellam. 183.83.147.136 (talk) 08:33, 18 January 2021 (UTC)

I must further state that the word "numerous historians" is a weasel word (see WP:WEASEL), and that eminent and well-reputed historians like Sastri and Krishnaswamy Iyengar cannot be called "nationalist historians" based on an op-ed (another Frontline op-ed is cited for that). Regards, 183.83.147.136 (talk) 08:44, 18 January 2021 (UTC)

Which reference are you claiming is an "op-ed" for which use of "nationalist"? FDW777 (talk) 08:48, 18 January 2021 (UTC)

These - Ahmed Sayeed, Vikhar (18 January 2019). "Battle of Talikota: Beyond the Hindu-Muslim binary". Frontline. Retrieved 2020-12-09.Shekhar, Shashank (25 October 2019). "Hampi: Ruins of splendour". Frontline. Retrieved 2020-12-09.. I hope it clarifies. 183.83.147.136 (talk) 09:26, 18 January 2021 (UTC)

for which use of "nationalist"... FDW777 (talk) 09:33, 18 January 2021 (UTC)

Also, please note that I am not denigrating Frontline by calling it left-wing; I am merely indicating its political position. 183.83.147.136 (talk) 09:35, 18 January 2021 (UTC)

I count seven references for the one use of "nationalist" that Frontline could possibly reference, what do they say? FDW777 (talk) 09:40, 18 January 2021 (UTC)

Read Janaki Nair and Sanjay Subrahmanyam's citations. I can add others. TrangaBellam (talk) 10:26, 18 January 2021 (UTC)

Thank you, I assumed that was the case since Frontline uses the phrase colonial and Indian writers to refer to some of the people mentioned, as there are other references I assumed they also reference it so the IPs claims that it is referenced solely to an op-ed Frontline appear to be meritless. FDW777 (talk) 11:32, 18 January 2021 (UTC)

• Read [1]. Provide me with modern scholarship that mention Eaton's line of argument to be untrue since the part about some modern scholars is not sourced in your version of article. There aren't any 1950-era historians but nationalist historians. Else, you need to provide source. TrangaBellam (talk) 10:10, 18 January 2021 (UTC)

Following clarifications from TrangaBellam, the "nationalist" part may be conceded - I had assumed it was the Frontline article. However, all the other sticking points remain. You have asked for sources by other modern scholars disagreeing with Eaton on Vijayanagar; I will try to provide them. In the meantime, however, one thing is unambiguous - the last part, which states that "this has been weaponized", is still cited to just an op-ed, and must be attributed to "some elements of the Indian left." Regards, 183.83.147.136 (talk) 11:55, 18 January 2021 (UTC)

Yes, the article seems somewhat neutral now. Regards, 183.83.147.136 (talk) 13:12, 18 January 2021 (UTC)

Federici

Subrahmanyam notes (p. 68-69) —

However, it is also important to note that neither Couto nor Firishta mention another sort of speculation about the battle that already had begun to circulate in the 1570s. The first author to mention these rumors is the Venetian merchant Cesare Federici, who spent seven months in Vijayanagara in the late 1560s, at a time when  Aravidu Tirumala (or Timma) Raya was attempting— as it happened, unsuccessfully— to reestablish the city as a commercial hub. Federici saw Tirumala as a tyrant and a cheat, and he referred to him and his siblings as “three tyrannical brothers, who had kept the real king in prison, bringing him out once a year to show him to the people.”

Here is his brief account of the battle:...

This narrative, whether derived from Federici or other sources, would eventually become an alternative version (although of relatively minor import) regarding the battle, similar in many respects to accounts of the Ghurid conquest of northern India. A traitor or traitors within has remained a key topos of a certain style of nationalist historiography in India, explaining almost all major political events and in particular military defeats.

TrangaBellam (talk) 05:03, 1 April 2021 (UTC)

Federici as a source

Contrary to all of the English translations, Federici was in Vijayanagara already in 1566, not in 1567, as Purchas his Pilgrimes, Hakluyt and consequently Sewell in their respective citations suggest - erroneously, because of an fault in the early English edition (Italian original: [2]).

So 1566 Federici stayed in 1566 - immediately after the lost battle (not "in the late 1560s") - for seven month in Vijayanagar ("sette mesi"), where the one-eyed, defeated king "Timoraggio" (Tirumala) tried to buy back his horses which were lost in course of the battle. Federicis account is therefore a contemporary, quite well informed source, near to the events, which cannot easily be pushed aside. Federici mentions "dui capitani Mori ... (per esser d'una istessa legge) ... voltarono le sue genti contra al suo signore, e misero in tal disordine il suo campo, ch'i Gentili ... si posero in fuga". He thereby contributes the defeat explicitly to two Muslim defectors in the army of Vijayanagara. This view is shared not only by Kulke/Rothermund (German ed. 2018, p.244), but also by Burton Stein, A History of India (2010, p.150). The chronicler Firishta, commonly quoted at this instance, was at the time of the battle a boy of five years, and the "Tazkirat al-muluk" by Ebrahim Shirazi[3], cited by Eaton/Wagoner, Warfare (2014), p.40 [4], participant of the battle, is all but unavailable and can thereby not be checked by any reader who is not in possession of a copy (a personal copy belongs to Prof. Carl Ernst). So, for the time being, the immediate military causes of the defeat at Talikot remain unclear.

Whether Federici has correctly interpreted the motives for traitorship, which was a common means in those times and had nothing to do with religious beliefs, is a completely different question, but the facts seem to remain obscure.

Excessive citations

My edit labeling some parts of this article as having excessive citations was reverted by User:TrangaBellam, which is absolutely ridiculous. Read Wikipedia:Citation overkill, the fact that a simple excessive citations tag for a claim with 9 citations was reverted; I mean come on now. That's a blatant example of excessive citations, don't start an edit war over such a petty matter with an obvious solution. Kailanmapper (talk) 19:30, 15 September 2021 (UTC)

Kailanmapper, check the first, second, and fourth citation of OpIndia. Or, the second, third, and fourth citation of Love Jihad. I can go on. TrangaBellam (talk) 19:35, 15 September 2021 (UTC)

Were you not the same person citing WP:WHATABOUTX in discussion? Stop cherrypicking which Wikipedia rules to follow and which to ignore, those citations don't prove anything except making Wikipedia:Excessive citations even more valid. The point is those are irrelevant to the discussion at hand. I shouldn't have my edit reverted because that template is relevant, 9 citations for a claim is overkill. I didn't even remove the citations, I just added the template. Edit: Were you aiming to bundle the citations together? Kailanmapper (talk) 19:41, 15 September 2021 (UTC)

Your edits have been already reverted in one of the above articles by someone other than me. The reasons that were cited in defense is common to this article. Hence, I suggest that you drop the stick. TrangaBellam (talk) 20:34, 15 September 2021 (UTC)

Yes, but removing the template isn't solving the problem, it's ignoring the problem. Should we merge the citations? If so, I am unsure how to do that. Can you do it for me? Kailanmapper (talk) 20:38, 15 September 2021 (UTC)

Even I am not sure. I will learn and do it tomorrow. TrangaBellam (talk) 20:44, 15 September 2021 (UTC)

New edits

Jaywant Joglekar is not a RS and we cannot use translation of Firishta's work to contradict established historians. Quoting Aftab out of nowhere is pushing POV.

The rest are redundant additions:

• The Nizam Shah married his daughter Chand Bibi to the Adil Shahi Sultan, and the Nizam Shah's son, Murtaza Khan, married the sister of Adil Shah, Hadiya Sultan to shrewd marital diplomacy
• De Couto described that Hussain Nizam Shah cut off Rama Raya's head with his own hand, exclaiming, "Now I am avenged of thee!" while the Adil Shah was greatly distressed at Rama Raya's death to Rama Raya was eventually beheaded either by Sultan Nizam Hussain himself or by someone else acting on his behest despite Adil Shah, who had friendly relations with Raya, intending against. TrangaBellam (talk) 06:26, 17 October 2022 (UTC)