Talk:Battle of Lohgarh

Military history: Biography / National / Asian / Indian / South Asia / Early Modern

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

This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-class status:
Referencing and citation: criterion met Coverage and accuracy: criterion met Structure: criterion met Grammar and style: criterion met Supporting materials: criterion met

Associated task forces:
/
	Military biography task force
	National militaries task force
	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)

India

	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
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

References

1.^ Jump up to: a b c d Jacques, Tony. Dictionary of Battles and Sieges. Greenwood Press. p. 595. ISBN 978-0-313-33536-5.

sir please consult the above source page 595

It has been written

"Responding to the Sikh victories in Punjab,Mughal emperor bahadur's army recaptured Sirhind then advanced on the Sikh fortress of Lohgarh near Sadhaura.

Both sides lost heavily in assaults and sorties before the Emperor assigned with 60,000 troops.Banda singh soon fled and General kanwar singh then took the fortress by storm in 1710 .There is no reference of Sikh defeat please correct it 106.192.162.144 (talk) 03:29, 28 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Taking the fortress = Mughal victory. Anything else is your opinion. Please refrain from posting primary sources, since they are biased and one sided accounts. --Kansas Bear (talk) 19:06, 28 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This was a Mughal Victory[edit]

Tony Jacques book states on p. 595 it was a Mughal Victory. Yyekela (talk) 22:32, 16 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You have to provide information instead of making claims. Provide a direct URL to the page if you can that makes that exact statement. Also please make sure that the source is not self published or self written by an author. HaughtonBrit (talk) 19:09, 2 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

A strange comment, HaughtonBrit. Yyekela has provided the information that something is stated on a specific page of a specific book. The vast majority of published books are not online. Books published by Greenwood Press are not published by their authors. What's your objection to books that are "self written by an author"? (Do you prefer ghostwritten books?) -- Hoary (talk) 00:56, 4 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I should have noticed: "HaughtonBrit" was blocked as a sockpuppet. No surprise when I did notice. -- Hoary (talk) 01:19, 4 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Hoary To be completely fair the person he was replying to user @Yyekela was responsible for vandalizing and adding false information to various different battles.Its understanable as to why they would be skeptical of the claims made. Twarikh e Khalsa (talk) 01:14, 30 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Newer editions and reprints of older books[edit]

"Gupta, Hari Ram (1978) [1937]" won't make sense to most readers. It would be much more helpful if one instead wrote:

Hari Ram Gupta. Evolution of Sikh Confederacies (1708–69). 3rd ed (first published 1978). New Delhi: Munshiram Manoharlal Publishers, 2007. ISBN 81-215-0248-9. PDF (Academy of the Punjab in North America). Volume 2 of the author's five-volume History of the Sikhs.

(With the relevant page numbers, of course.) To which one might add something along the lines of:

(The first edition of this book – an adaptation of the author's doctoral dissertation of 1937 – was published in 1952.)

This could well be helpful, and I can't immediately think of any reason not to add it. -- Hoary (talk) 01:14, 4 May 2022 (UTC) amended Hoary (talk) 02:58, 4 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Age of sources[edit]

If I understand correctly, this article is largely based on (i) three pages within a book last revised in 1978 (42 years ago), and (ii) eight pages within a book published in 1935 (87 years ago). Their average age is 63.

Was this battle significant? Is 21st century Indian historiography of any value?

If "yes" to both questions, then I'd expect that there'd be recent papers or book chapters about this battle, material benefitting from decades of research since publication of these two old books, however valuable the two may have been when published and for a decade or two thereafter. -- Hoary (talk) 03:13, 4 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]