Talk:Ghaznavid campaigns in India

Recent edits

@عبدالرحمن4132 Can you explain how Lal is unreliable? Noorullah (talk) 17:55, 29 November 2023 (UTC)

K. S Lal was a well reputed Indian historian and I don't think his books are unreliable. But, in the book Growth of Muslim Population in Medieval India, Lal clarified he "claim no finality" regarding the estimates he provided in the book. He added that "any study of the population of the pre-census times can be based only on estimates, and estimates by their very nature tend to be tentative". ImperialAficionado (talk) 18:18, 29 November 2023 (UTC)

The person who reverted my edit

Kindly just semi protect it, i just wasted my 2-3 hours quoting proper sources and editing the article and u just reverted the whole article back to original without even talking to me. Mohammad Umar Ali (talk) 04:13, 15 December 2023 (UTC)

Addition of information without references will be reverted. Also do check WP:COMMONNAME before changing leads. Imperial^[AFCND] 06:57, 15 December 2023 (UTC)

i gave sources beside all the information. Is dasharatha sharma,Rima hooja,etc. unreliable sources? 121.46.85.111 (talk) 04:12, 16 December 2023 (UTC)

I can't see your recent edits on the article. Please provide the diff. Imperial^[AFCND] 04:51, 16 December 2023 (UTC)

no, u misunderstood me, actually i was talking about the previous edit u reverted. I added all the wars and military conflicts that happened b/w indian regional powers and the Ghaznavid empire with proper sources (mostly dasharatha sharma's early chauhan dynasties and rima hooja's a history of rajasthan). For eg. Battle of Khetri, Battle of Vavvera, Slaughter of Turushkas near Ajmer, Ghaznavid skirmishes, raids and invasions of Chahamanas of Shakambhari,etc. Apart from the addition of these military conflicts i also changed the war result similar to mughal rajput wars that initially ghaznavids were successful and raided as far as kannauj and reached their zenith under mahmud of ghazni but half a century later were strongly repulsed during their invasions and raids in india in which chahamanas (arnoraja chauhan,ajayaraja ii,prithviaraja i,etc.) played a crucial role and in later half of 12th century were eventually defeated by Vigraharaja IV's (when he launched a set of offensive campaigns against ghaznavids after his successful defense at vavvera). In later half of 12th century(around 1170) ghaznavids only controlled lahore (and some parts of southern kashmir for a short period of time) before falling to ghurids. So, in short no particular side was victorious rather u have to divide it in 3 to 4 phases and display the result pointwise like i did. And i did the changes with proper sources, citing source wherever possible with proper page numbers. Then why did u revert my edit? Mohammad Umar Ali (talk) 09:50, 16 December 2023 (UTC)

I am not the one who reverted your edits. @Noorullah21 did that. Must be because your edits are non constructive. Consider adding the context to article body first, thereby we confirms its authenticity. Else, if you add those directly into the table by using the same source, it would be reverted as the reason is given by Noorullah on the edit summary. I have a doubt. The IP user who made a comment above is you or anyone else? Imperial^[AFCND] 10:14, 16 December 2023 (UTC)

• Ok I got it but had few questions and suggestions,

1. Battle of Khetri, Vavvera and Slaughter of Turushkas are clear ones not probable (maybe,etc.) There are articles on wikipedia u can refer to that and add that in table and article body.

2. Furthermore, dashratha sharma pg 60-62 of early chauhan dynasties and rima hooja pg 245-260 of a history of rajasthan strongly mentions that ghaznavids (muslims) were bound till lahore in later half of 12th century (due to vigraharja campaigns u could see chahamanas territory under him).This clearly asserts that ghaznavids were defeated. Secondly, u could see template of 1175 south asia (india) that shows later ghaznavids which is true (u can refer to the sources there), there u could see ghaznavids only bound till lahore which asserts that they were defeated in 12th century.Moreover local hindu rulers too became independent overthrowing ghaznavid overlordship. Plus even thinking from a logical point of view prithviraja iii could not have assembled such a large army 100,000 if ghaznavid presence was so strong in northern, north western india.

3. Thirdly u could either edit that there is no clear result (for wikipedia policy there r articles like maratha mughal 27 years war, rajput mughal wars etc. which has no victor but still displayed) or do the phase (point) wise as i told before cuz it were a series of campaigns starting in late 10th century uptill 12th century which saw wins and looses on both sides so how could decide a clear victor here? Ghaznavids were dominant in 11th century and indian regional kingdoms (chahamanas) 12th century.

4. Fourth, yes at some places there is mayebe/probably etc. but at many places there is strong evidence like for arnoraja and ajayaraja ii u could see singh 1964 history of chahamanas. And a rock pillar i am forgetting the name it starts with b mentioned in the book also states that confirming the "maybe" part although there is no particular name for the conflict it's just like ghaznavids raided and chahamanas defended and repelled them successfullyl. It makes sense as during reign of chamundaraja itself ghaznavids bordered chahamanas and raids for loot, etc. were common those days plus even at other place where author mentions maybe, he tells of a strong possibility and if u match it with other sources like prithviraja vijaya, prabandha kosa and even with muslim sources like tabaqat i nisari etc. too agrees with the claims. Also raids occured even after mahmud (which is stated in many sources) but not much success is found which suggests that indian powers in that era successfully defeated the invading forces which adds another strong reason to maybe.

5. Lastly, No i am not the one who commented whosoever ip user u r talking about. Also could u please provide me draft of the article that i edited before which has been reverted so i could make the changes and give again for final display (if passed).

• If u want to suggest something else related to the topic it would be helpful. Bye. Mohammad Umar Ali (talk) 11:54, 16 December 2023 (UTC)

Additionally, by checking the source that you have cited here, I recognized that there is a lack of strong statements. It states (probably?), (may killed?) kind of statements. Provide sources with strong statements or it will be considered as original research and will be reverted. Moreover your edit on the infobox stands aganist the infobox parameter consensus. Imperial^[AFCND] 10:24, 16 December 2023 (UTC)

I have answered this comment in the previous reply plz read that. Mohammad Umar Ali (talk) 11:55, 16 December 2023 (UTC)

1.) If you have sources that confirms an event, you could add it into the article body by yourself, and thereby to the table.

2.) Assertions are not allowed in Wikipedia. Original research is strictly warned. For example, you can refer the talk section of Chandragupa II's Balkh campaign where experienced users explains it.

3.) There are difficulties in this section determining the victor and I agree that. But here, the Ghaznavids successfully captured and maintained atleast some territories that captured from Indian kingdoms. Thereby they are in a successful side by establishing Muslim rule over the Subcontinent for the first time.

4.) Refer answer for 2nd. Strong statements needed for a conclusion. Especially while adding it into the infobox and tables.

5.) Consider adding the context into the article body first, before editing infobox and the table. Imperial^[AFCND] 12:24, 16 December 2023 (UTC)

Sorry, i had some work so i replied late; Replying to ur points:

1. Understood, I will do it soon but there is a problem, could u tell me or provide me a way to recover my edited article on this topic as that could substantially reduce my time to create the new one.
2. These r not assertions i gave sources dashratha sharma early chauhan dynasties and rima hooja a history of rajasthan also u could see the wikipidea article on battles of tarain there in strength it's written 100,000 and sources are cited along with the numbers.
3. I have a different opinion here. Even Arabs had invaded sindh this does not mean that ummayad campaigns were successful in india. And islam presence does not mean that ghaznavids were victorious.Also, they only had lahore by the reign of khusrau malik so campaigns were only intially successful later unsuccessful (just for ref u could see maratha mughal wars) so the result should be either see the aftermath or in points (u could see mughal rajput wars article). So, even after mahmud, expeditions and raids were done but most of them were unsuccessful so can't really choose a victor here.
4. Furthermore, I found many strong statements in support of my previous arguments, when i will add them in the article's body then u could maybe have a look into it.
5. Yea got it, first i would add information into article's body and then would add information in the table. Regards.

Mohammad Umar Ali (talk) 17:19, 26 December 2023 (UTC)

1.) For questions about editing, ask here.

2.) First of all, cover it in article body. So that we could check the authenticity.

3.) There is no need to compare other articles here. This article is about the Ghaznavids ans thier campaigns. As long as they were successful in India, leaving the later Ghaznavids aside, the result parameter will be displayed as Ghaznavid victory.

4.) Add that into the article body. Thankyou. Imperial^[AFCND] 19:01, 26 December 2023 (UTC)

reply to pt 3 --> Apart from Sabuktigin and Mahmud of Ghazni no one was so successful in India expeditions and raids were done after 1030 and by the reign of mawdud of ghazni many ghaznavids stronghold cities were retaken and in somewhat 1043-1044 the indian kingdom rulers recaptured many cities and even attacked lahore after 12 years of mahmud's death during reign of mawdud but were defeated there, but after defeat the kingdoms which were previously either tributary or a part of ghaznavid empire became independent and had mostly rajput rulers (i m talking about the kingdoms which were retaken by kings prior to their attack on lahore though they could not take lahore but the areas and places they occupied before that remained independent under rajput rulers i mentioned before). So what i am willing to tell is that by 1045 many indian territories became independent and there was constant struggle b/w them and ghaznavids in which sometimes indian kingdoms won and sometimes ghaznavids won and ghaznavids power shrinked after repetitive defeats by arnoraja chauhan and his successors this is around 1135-1150 and this is the time of late ghaznavids. Also, i was telling about other articles because they have a sort of similarity with this article. By telling eg of mughal rajput wars, etc. i was just pointing towards phases in this campaign 1. under sabuktigin and mahmud 973-1030 2. under ghaznavid rulers from 1031-1134 3. under later ghaznavids 1135-1186. And even under mahmud some battles were lost and i will add them with proper sources once i complete the whole draft. So how is this Ghaznavid victory? Mohammad Umar Ali (talk) 15:03, 27 December 2023 (UTC)

First of all, unlike the Umayyad campaigns in India, this article is based on the entire Indian subcontinent. This is Ghaznavid victory since they managed to keep their territories in the subcontinent. If the result must change, it may affects all other articles with similar context. Moreover, the Ghaznavids after Mahmud are called 'later Ghaznavids.' Imperial^[AFCND] 15:11, 27 December 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for clarifying. In context of whole indian subcontinent (modern day india, pak. afg, ban, nepal and bhutan) they had some parts agreed. Also, i didn't know that only mahmud and sabuktigin are ghaznavid rulers and all others are later ghaznavids. I thought after mawdud they were called later ghaznavids. Anyways thnx for telling though i will edit the article and include more battles would keep it a ghaznavid victory. Can i add as a point below beginning of islamic rule that In 12th century, they only had lahore after repetitive conquests of ghaznavid territories by indian kingdoms especially chahamanas of shakambhari under Arnoraja and his successors. source:-> Early Chauhan Dynasties pg(60-62), A history of Rajasthan (pg 245-260) Mohammad Umar Ali (talk) 16:26, 27 December 2023 (UTC)

We can think about it after the addition on the article body. Feel free to edit! Imperial^[AFCND] 16:39, 27 December 2023 (UTC)

Ohk Mohammad Umar Ali (talk) 16:59, 27 December 2023 (UTC)

@Mohammad Umar Ali Hello. I was the one that reverted your edits.

See WP:MILMOS#INFOBOX, the infobox should not be cluttered based on the edits you attempted to do. And it should be kept to a penultimate result.

It would be better if you add the information you wished to add into the article itself, and write about it in different sections (ie about Ghaznavid campaigns). Noorullah (talk) 19:37, 29 December 2023 (UTC)

Also the Ghaznavids only kept Lahore due to Ghurid conquests until their dynasty was extinguished by them. Noorullah (talk) 19:38, 29 December 2023 (UTC)

Yes, i know that but i am talking about the eastern borders of Ghaznavid empire, Ghurids no doubt were a significant reason for the Ghaznavid downfall. Ghaznavids were at first constantly repulsed and then eventually defeated by Chahamanas of Shakambhari during their invasions in Indian subcontinent. At their peak Ghaznavids had some parts of India but around second half of 12th century they did not posessed that due to the conquests of Chahamanas (mostly). For eg. Slaughter of Turushkas near Ajmer and Battle of Khetri and many more. Many such wars are yet to be added with proper sources to wikipedia and i m working on them (u could help me if u want). These are just very few example. And for the result one u could see my discussions with Imperial. We have sorted that out. Mohammad Umar Ali (talk) 15:45, 30 December 2023 (UTC)

Those articles you mentioned above fails WP:GNG. Talking about eastern boarders, as I already said, this article is based on the "Indian Subcontinent" unlike the Umayyad campaigns in India. I find no logic using modern India for the Indian history. Nvm, anyways there are also conflicts with Chahamanas where the later Ghaznavids attained Triumph. Thus, the infobox cannot be changed. You can add your info to the article body by using the headinh == Campaigns of later Ghaznavids ==. If you start it, yeah we could continue with it. Imperial^[AFCND] 15:57, 30 December 2023 (UTC)

After our discussion, i agreed on the ghaznavid victory. And yes later ghaznavids did win some conflicts, but chahamanas were ultimately successful in repulsing most of the invasions and had more decisive victories there. I will try to add info to the body and table soon. Mohammad Umar Ali (talk) 21:16, 30 December 2023 (UTC)

CN tags

@Pinkish Flowers, thank you for your edits. It would be better if you leave cn tags along with removing sources as it makes our job easier. Imperial^[AFCND] 18:19, 2 January 2024 (UTC)

@ImperialAficionado

Thanks for reminding me, I was a little bit busy with other work, and that's why I forgot to leave " Citation Needed " tags there. Btw , I appreciate your suggestion about leaving "cn" tags for ease of Citation in article in upcoming future approach. Pinkish Flowers (talk) 18:33, 2 January 2024 (UTC)

Siege of Lohkot (1015)

@ImperialAficionado pls see the Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Military history#Attempt to insert victory section before reverting my edit, thanku. Sudsahab (talk) 18:30, 11 April 2024 (UTC)

I am happy to revert as @From Hill To Shore clearly said that "If none of the sources call it a victory for either side, then neither should we". None of the sources call it a victory of Lohara, and you clearly made it up. That's WP:OR, and cannot be kept here. Imperial^[AFCND] 18:35, 11 April 2024 (UTC)

@Sudsahab just provide a single source which says the victory was inclined towards Loharas. Please don't come up with the retreat story again. The Siege was the failure of the Ghaznavids, but the victory is not attributed to Loharas in any of the WP:RS, I've gone through. Imperial^[AFCND] 18:42, 11 April 2024 (UTC)

He also said that there are many instances like Napoleon's retreat from Moscow is considered a Russian victory and he asked for sources which I had already shown there. Sudsahab (talk) 18:55, 11 April 2024 (UTC)

"Russian victory" was mentioned in the sources. Nowhere in the source you mentioned talks about "Lohara victory". Imperial^[AFCND] 19:22, 11 April 2024 (UTC)

Nowhere?? I already cited mahmud retreated because of reinforcements of Kashmiris, now you tell me where is stalemate mentioned in the sources. You are doing WP:SYNTH it's look like you are doing original research and assumptions and your article totally pushing your POV + Your article doesn't seem neutral. Sudsahab (talk) 04:12, 12 April 2024 (UTC)

Why does this article only include the campaigns of Mahmud and Sabtuktigin? There were other campaigns of later Ghaznavid rulers, you should have included their part too. Sudsahab (talk) 04:38, 12 April 2024 (UTC)

@ImperialAficionado I am waiting for your reply, tell me why this article only consist of Sabtuktigin and mahmud only there are other ghaznavid rulers also who invaded Indian kingdoms. Otherwise it looks like you are doing Wikipedia:OR. Sudsahab (talk) 06:56, 14 April 2024 (UTC)

Doesn't pass WP:NPOV

@ImperialAficionado Can you explain why this article doesn't include the campaigns of Later Ghaznavids if the title of the article is "'Ghaznavid campaigns in India? We should either move this page to the Mahmud invasion of India or split it per WP:SPLIT. Sudsahab (talk) 08:06, 14 April 2024 (UTC)

See discussion of #Recent edits. You can add this by yourself instead of poking others. Imperial^[AFCND] 09:05, 14 April 2024 (UTC)

But then you were reverting my edits and you were reluctant for letting me add those conflicts in this article body, please understand that no one wants to unnecessarily poke you, but we have to make this article more neutral by adding later conflicts and campaigns Sudsahab (talk) 10:13, 14 April 2024 (UTC)

Poor editing

So @Kemilliogolgi again adding an irrelevant conflict here and I'll not revert it anymore considering that reverting disruptive edits are considered as WP:PA. @ImperialAficionado You can help me here [1]. The source doesn't even state the dates which are added by Kemilliogolgi, clearly WP:OR. Sudsahab (talk) 06:46, 16 April 2024 (UTC)