Talk:Maratha–Portuguese War (1683–1684)

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

Extend protection[edit]

@El C: I noticed that the protection will expire on 21 oct. Plz consider extending it to a couple months. The sock seems like a habitual stubborn offender and a colonialist or an extremist. He's would have read it, and he's just going to comeback again and again after it expires. Nolicmahr (talk) 20:22, 14 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Exclusion of the Mughal Empire in the Infobox[edit]

Do we really need to include the Mughal Empire in the Infobox? They don't, in any point, contribute to the events of the war. They do not support or oppose any side directly during this war - militarily or financially. They were mere bystanders during this operation. Zocdoclesson (talk) 13:57, 10 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds reasonable to me. Wareno (talk) 19:40, 10 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Mughal Empire supported Portuguese against Marathas so Portuguese supported them too so we should exclude them for being third party of this war but must include them with Portuguese empire against Maratha empire
You can read more about this war from this book- https://archive.org/details/portuguese-mahratta-relations_20210214 Mizuhara Chizuru (talk) 19:20, 11 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The Mughals did not provide the Portuguese with any men or materials for the war, nor did the Portuguese do the same for the Mughals.
The Mughals sided with the Turks during the many Portuguese-Ottoman wars and were adversaries of the Portuguese. Zocdoclesson (talk) 21:05, 11 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Ok I will look it up before editing this page Al Khawazrimi 313 Fan (talk) 12:54, 12 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Yes we should exclude them from this war. Al Khawazrimi 313 Fan (talk) 12:54, 12 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

List of conflicts[edit]

Please don't remove this section if you don't have anything to add up with proper citations @Wareno@Zocdoclesson Mizuhara Chizuru (talk) 19:12, 11 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Petty skirmishes dont count as battles. It is more akin to minute trivia. This is only applicable when the war takes place over several years and on several fronts.
Also, the use of green for a Maratha "victory" and red for a Portuguese "victory" is clearly biased towards the Maratha side giving the impression that one side is desirable while the other is not. Zocdoclesson (talk) 20:57, 11 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
You need to understand that, we have to include these conflicts, invasions and battles to make or expand this article thoroughly also bring up your sources too that needed to be add in this section, let us co-operate and talk to @Mizuhara Chizuru for further issues like colouring the results in "red" or "green" And decide what should we do next then move further. Thank you Al Khawazrimi 313 Fan (talk) 12:51, 12 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@SKAG123 Can I revert this section in article? I will change the color "Maratha victory" From green to orange and "Portuguese victory" from red to green Al Khawazrimi 313 Fan (talk) 16:39, 17 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Unconstructive Edits[edit]

@Zocdoclesson,@Wareno You both are engaged in edit war and making unconstructive edits continuously. The war result of this war was completely not one sided. None of the source mentioned it as Portugese victory.While there are multiple Maratha accounts & letter of Fransisco de alvor clearly said that Sambhaji defeated them at many fronts.There are more than 4 sources which states that it was status quo anth bellum while only one source which itself not reliable said(not sure) it was Portugese even at this logic this edit can't be reverted. There are not only Maratha Sources but Portuguese sources including viceroy alvor described bad condition of Portuguese and victory of Sambhaji then it can be putted as Maratha victory but due to at the end the situation remained same thats why States quo ante bellum is perfect.note that Marathas widrawed their forces after treaty not Portuguese repelled them. Aryan330 (talk) 09:23, 12 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

There is no source that mentions this conflict as a Maratha victory either, yet you failed to raise this concern whenever users make that edit.
The Marathas, under Sambhaji wanted to drive away the Portuguese, or at the minimum aquire some of their land. They failed in both their objectives.
The Portuguese did not atrack the Marathas, therefore their objective was survival. The met their objective. Zocdoclesson (talk) 09:33, 12 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Zocdoclesson In the war perspective its all about territories & that remained same at last,that's why States quo ante bellum term was used by historians.
There is no source that mentions this conflict as a Maratha victory either what if I show? Aryan330 (talk) 09:35, 12 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Ok I will agree on the consensus of Status quo ante bellum Note :- @Zocdoclesson Had got the point & agreed with it.
Thanks to him for cooperation. Aryan330 (talk) 09:53, 12 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, I will agree with the Status quo ante bellum result. Even though the Marathas did not meet their military objectives. Zocdoclesson (talk) 09:53, 12 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Even though the Marathas did not meet their military objectives is this about treaty after the battle?@Zocdoclesson No side followed this treaty sincerely & it was first broken down by Portugese (According to Pissunlencer) Aryan330 (talk) 09:55, 12 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Zocdoclesson Even though the Marathas did not meet their military objectives Marathas had captured many villages,islands & a large part of capital Goa itself.
While Portuguese attacked Ponda(last battle) in which they were defeated(that statement would be perfect for this incident as Portugals didn't meet their military objectives) & viceroy had fled to the tomb of Fransis Xavier with a wish that Sambhaji should go back.
These all incidents & also Portuguese documents clearly said that Viceroy is now completely depended on the aid of Mughals.
Even after this I don't know on which basis you are saying that!
By the way closing the discussion. Aryan330 (talk) 10:05, 12 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
There is a difference between the words "captured" and "invaded". One is long term, while the other is short term control. The Marathas invaded several places in this war, not captured.
The Portuguese did not have any military objectives barring survival, and that was achieved. There was no plan to attack Ponda or any other place before the Maratha invasion of the Konkan.
The Mughal involvement is part of the Mughal invasions of Konkan (1684), which was pure coincidence (or miraculous, since you brought up the Viceroy praying to his Saint).
Heavy rains also prevented Sambhaji from coming close to the captial city of Goa. So was the Viceroy aided by Indra too? Zocdoclesson (talk) 10:25, 12 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@ZocdoclessonThe Marathas invaded several places in this war, not captured Source?
I would give not only Maratha but Portuguese sources also that support that Marathas Captured a huge territories from Portuguese.
So was the Viceroy aided by Indra too I will take you to the Administrators discussion board within hours for this statement.
You should be blocked. Aryan330 (talk) 10:29, 12 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oh so when you bring up that the viceroy fleeing to the tomb of Fransis Xavier with a wish that Sambhaji should go back, it's perfectly fine.
But when I say Indra heard his prayer, you take offense?
Don't be a hypocrite. Zocdoclesson (talk) 10:36, 12 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Zocdoclesson It was a historical incident.I will give sources to it.
You have crossed limits by insulting a diety of respective relegion. Aryan330 (talk) 10:39, 12 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
How is it insulting to say that a diety helped someone?
It is also historical that the rain prevented the Marathas from crossing the river, into the city of Goa. I will give you sources on rain deities as well. Zocdoclesson (talk) 11:19, 12 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Zocdoclesson Put sources which says anything about Indra in that conflict Aryan330 (talk) 11:20, 12 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Stop scapegoating.
I brought up Indra because you brought up St. Francis. Both had nothing to do with the outcome of the war.
The Mughals also did not contribute to the war. Zocdoclesson (talk) 11:28, 12 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Aryan330 I find it extremely odd that you would remove my content but keep my source and place it next to "Status quo ante bellum". "Status quo ante bellum" means the Marathas failed in their objectives and the Portuguese succeeded in theirs, therefore it was a Portuguese victory. I also find it odd that you would mention the condition of the Portuguese and the correspondence of the viceroy as if that changed the outcome. The First Anglo-Maratha War also resulted in "status quo ante bellum" (Quote: "The treaty ended the First Anglo-Maratha War, restored the status quo") and it says "Maratha Victory", why can't this one say "Portuguese victory"? I kept both pieces of information. Are you going to remove "Maratha Victory" and replace it with "Status quo ante bellum"? It's also very odd that you would claim that Portuguese sources are unreliable, and accuse the Portuguese of breaking the treaty when the Portuguese are no less reliable than Maratha sources and they also accuse the Marathas of breaking peace treaties, on several occasions infact. It's also extremely odd that you would claim to be able to "give not only Maratha but Portuguese sources also that support that Marathas Captured a huge territories from Portuguese" since the Marathas never "captured a huge territories" from the Portuguese at this time.
This is very clear WP:JUSTDONTLIKEIT and WP:DISRUPTIVE. You've already been blocked from editing Mughal–Maratha Wars, see if you don't want be blocked from editing this one as well. Wareno (talk) 15:58, 12 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Result[edit]

The result of the war has been debated resulting in a long Edit war between @Wareno, @Aryan330, @Al Khawazrimi 313 Fan, @Mizuhara Chizuru.

Blocked Users @Zocdoclesson and @Melechha have also participated

The following content is disputed:

  • status quo ante bellum
  • Treaty of Ponda 1684.
  • Withdrawal of Portuguese support to the Mughals in the Mughal-Maratha Wars.
  • Chauth was paid to the Marathas by the Portuguese in Bassein territory in turn Portuguese territories came under protection of Marathas.
  • Withdrawal Of Maratha Forces from Occupied Portuguese Territories after the Treaty Portuguese attack on ponda repelled.
Note: All these statements were previously added and have been supported by sources. I am not sure about the reliability as I could not open most of them, nor am I knowledgeable about this specific topic.

The result has also been disputed.

@Wareno in this edis had added "Portuguese victory" in this edit. One citation, which was previously used to support "status quo ante bellum" was moved to support this statement. As mentioned before I could not open it.

The source is:

Alexandre Lobato: Relações Luso-Maratas 1658-1737, Centro de Estudos Históricos Ultramarinos, Lisboa, 1965, pp. 28-34.

not to mention the source is not in English (Which is allowed as per WP:NOENG).

This statement has been challenged by several other users including @Aryan330 and @Al Khawazrimi 313 Fan.


@Wareno, @Aryan330, @Al Khawazrimi 313 Fan, @Mizuhara Chizuru, @عبدالرحمن4132, @Jonharojjashi. please state direct questions and statements from the reliable secondary sources that support your change.

The Discussion about the Mughal Empire's involvement in the conflict has also been disputed. I would also like to see sources concerning that.

I am omitting the result entirely until this is further discussed and resolved.

SKAG123 (talk) 01:44, 15 August 2023 (UTC) Hey skag I will be with sources within some hours Thank you[reply]

@SKAG123 "One citation, which was previously used to support "status quo ante bellum" was moved to support this statement." no, sorry, you got it completely backwards. That citation was originally used to support "Portuguese Victory" and the other user removed the content but kept the citation and attached it to "Status quo ante bellum" instead. That sort of behaviour isn't even remotely appropriate. Considering this, I don't know why you revived this controversy when everything was just about settled, you seem to have had good intentions and I'm sorry you went through this much trouble but this discussion cannot claim to be legitimate on a basis of fairness as far as I'm concerned. Wareno (talk) 02:25, 15 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Hello @Wareno
It seems the original discussion has not yet been fully resolved. Also, no quotations have been provided. The source has also been used in the article before, However, you first added it to the infobox here to support the statement "Portuguese victory"
If you believe one or more of these statements should be added to the article, please provide direct quotations from a reliable source that support it.
Thank you SKAG123 (talk) 02:42, 15 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Ok so I'm back at work again. @SKAG123@Wareno https://archive.org/details/portuguese-mahratta-relations_20210214
This is the reliable source because it covers only the relations of Marathas and Portuguese, we should use it to make the article perfect. Al Khawazrimi 313 Fan (talk) 16:49, 17 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
P. S. Pissurlencar's works seam to be reliable. Not sure what other editors think. SKAG123 (talk) 20:19, 17 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Yes EditorPandit (talk) 09:52, 18 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
why did you tagged me? I am not doing edits in Maratha-Portugese Conflict Al Khawazrimi 313 Fan (talk) 14:52, 15 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
You made an edit Here SKAG123 (talk) 17:46, 15 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry at first I thought any random has mentioned me. Al Khawazrimi 313 Fan (talk) 16:27, 17 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Maratha–Portuguese_War_(1683–1684)&oldid=1208788543"