Talk:Prithviraj Chauhan

Archives (Index)

1 2 3 4

This page is archived by ClueBot III.

Prithviraj killed Mohammad Ghori

Though Prithviraj Chahman was captured by Ghori. Atlast Prithviraj killed Mohammad Ghori blindfoldedly even when his eyes were taken off by Ghori Settback (talk) 07:32, 1 November 2023 (UTC)

Discussion regarding recent reverted edit

This is regarding my recent edits on this article particularly in the lead section that were reverted. My addition highlighted that Muhammad Ghori tricked prithviraj into accepting a truce and ghori exploited the oppurtunity and launched a surprise attack which led to prithviraj's defeat. The edits were reverted without a clear explanation, and the source I provided was removed. I based my edit on reputable works, including "History of Chahamanas" by R.B. Singh, "Early Chauhan Dynasties" by Dashratha Sharma, and "History of Rajasthan" by Rima Hooja. Although I cited only one source, I believe it adequately supports the information. I am also of the opinion that such critical details should be included in the lead section, offering a more comprehensive understanding of the historical events. Prior to my edits, the article only mentioned that Ghori's Turkish mounted archers defeated Prithviraj, but I feel the nuanced circumstances leading to Prithviraj's defeat deserve attention. Anyways I am open to discussion so please share your thoughts on the matter, Thanks and Regards Gspgoat^(talk) 08:24, 6 December 2023 (UTC)

Firstly, lead is brief summary of the article body which summarizes the key points excluding the verbiage, in any case our article body already mentions this that Muhammad made a night attack on thr Chahamana camp, luring them for a truce.

Next, this barely contributed to Prithviraj defeat at Tarain, despite this attack, they were able to quickly regroup, but the final attack by Muhammad's mounted archers decided the issue in favour of the Ghurids. While Dashratha Sharma, R.B. Singh & G.H. Ojha were reliable in the days gone by but they are dated now and must be used with caution as it's clear from their writings. You better need to cite modern broad scale based works from scholars like Andre Wink, Richard Eaton etc. to support this extraordinary claims and even then they still don't belong to the lead.

Beside all, I don't know any decent scholar who called Muhammad's ploy as a deceptive measure, as a matter of fact Prithviraj himself launched a night attack against a rival Hindu kingdom and still was routed. Re Pa©ker&Tra©ker (♀) 08:52, 6 December 2023 (UTC)

I further checked your recent edits on number of related articles and it clearly looks a pov without any nuances, be cautious while editing these articles, due to paucity of time, I barely could take a look few days earlier. Re Pa©ker&Tra©ker (♀) 08:57, 6 December 2023 (UTC)

My goal is to provide a concise summary of key points from the article body, emphasizing that Muhammad Ghori lured the Chahamana camp into a truce and subsequently led a surprise attack to catch them off guard.

Regarding the sources, I acknowledge concerns about the dated nature of works by Dashratha Sharma and R.B. Singh. However, it's important to note that I have also menitoned modern sources above, including Rima Hooja, to support the information, and I will cite them in the article as well. While I understand the need for conciseness in the lead section and acknowledge that the article already mentions Ghori's night attack, but capturing critical factors that led to Prithviraj's defeat, such as the alleged trickery into accepting a truce, is essential. This perspective is supported by several scholars, including those mentioned above and also I never mentioned the term "deceptive measures" in my edit. If there are specific scholarly sources disproving the claim that Ghori tricked Prithviraj into accepting a truce, I am open to reviewing and incorporating them into the article, provided they meet Wikipedia's standards.

Addressing concerns about a potential point of view (POV) in my edits, I want to emphasize that my intent is to maintain neutral language and accurately reflect historical events. The inclusion of the truce and surprise attack is grounded in historical accounts, including Taj-ul Ma'asir by Hasan Nizami, a contemporary source of that time. Gspgoat^(talk) 14:28, 6 December 2023 (UTC)

I have also adjusted the wording in my edit to adopt a more neutral point of view. Gspgoat^(talk) 14:49, 6 December 2023 (UTC)

You need to get yourself familiar with our policies, firstly you simply can not keep changing the lead with your preferred version without garnering a consensus which takes time, in some cases even weeks, given the bone of contention, bare in mind that onus lies on you for consensus not me.

I still can't agree that how the nuances of Ghurid attack before sunrise lead to the defeat of the Rajputs belongs in the lead, given that article body already elaborated on it in great deal, also your point that surprise attack lead to the rout of Prithviraj army is not backed up by modern scholarly sources which rather asserts that it was Muhammad's modern and smart tactics of using his mounted archers in four divisions, with final attack from the reserve body of 10,000 mounted archers lead to rout of the Cauhana army. Still, this nuances doesn't belongs to the lead, neither we are expanding upon Muhammad's injury he sustained during his defeat in the earlier engagement in Tarain, which though deserves a mention but only in the lead of Muhammad Ghuri's article.

Lastly, you are either intentionally or unintentionally removing the key point that Govindraja was soon reinstated by Muhammad as his subordinate after executing Prithviraj. Re Pa©ker&Tra©ker (♀) 17:35, 6 December 2023 (UTC)

Here is a modern scholary source from Satish Chandra which rather attributed the victory of Tarain to Muhammad's superior generalship and not this dated nationalist notion of surprise attack:-

How far Rajput militory organization changed to adapt to new condition is obvious from the fact that the battle of Tarain between Prithvi Raj and Shihabuddin Ghori was mainly a fight of cavalryman armed with bows and spears. In the first battle of Tarain, Prithvi Raj, according to the later account had a force of 200,000 horses and 3,000 elephants and pursued Shihabuddin cavalry upto 40 miles. In the second battle, Prithvi raj had a large infantry of 300,000 horses as against Shihabuddin who had 120,000 armoured horsemens. It was the superior tactics of the Sultan and not the absence of mobile cavalry on the parts of Rajputs, that decided the day. Thus, the Turks triumphed because of superior generalship

Historiography, Religion, and State in Medieval India by Satish Chandra (1996), Har-Ananad Publications. Re Pa©ker&Tra©ker (♀) 17:46, 6 December 2023 (UTC)

Also giving retaliating warnings on my talk page which makes little sense aren't going to make your case strong. Re Pa©ker&Tra©ker (♀) 17:51, 6 December 2023 (UTC)

More from Andre Wink, a noted scholar of S. Asian history writes in his famous Al Hind-II:-

In the following year, the Sultan returned with an army said to have been made up of 120,000 or 130,000 horse. What followed was the decisive defeat of the Cahamanas in the so-called Second Battle of Tara’ln. Prthiviraja’s cumbrous army — 300,000 horse and 3000 elephants as well as a body of infantry in Firishta’s account — was broken and scattered by an attack of 10,000 elite mounted archers. Here, many of the opposing Indian princes were killed on the battlefield. Coins of Prthiviraja, with the inscription of Hammira in Sanskrit on the obverse, seem to indicate that he himself initially accepted Mu'izz ad-Dln’s suzerainty. But later he too was captured in the neighbourhood of Sarsatti, and put to death.

Re Pa©ker&Tra©ker (♀) 18:08, 6 December 2023 (UTC)

I am trying to achieve consensus here. But as far as I know the Wikipedia Policies state that in achieving a consensus decision we must take into account all of the proper concerns raised and disregard any objections see WP:CONACHIEVE. I did take into consideration your concern for neutrality and edited the language of my edit and now you are stating unecessary objections. And the fact that you are saying 'I still can't agree' does not carry any weight in achieving consensus see WP:TALKDONTREVERT. You have to provide scholarly sources to prove that Ghori didn't trick Prithviraj into a truce and led a surprise attack.

Regarding the sources that you provided Andre Wink is obviously biased which is evident from the fact that he is taking into consideration the strength of the chahamana army as 300000 which is considered a gross exaggeration by every legit historian including the ones that I have mentioned previously, but even still he simply seems to have skipped the part where Ghori used diplomatic tactics, he did not deny that any of that happened and the other source that you have provided is by Satish Chandra who has clearly credited the victory due to superior tactics and tricking someone into a truce and then leading a surprise attack is obviously a tactic. Gspgoat^(talk) 19:02, 6 December 2023 (UTC)

@Gspgoat: You need to stop posting baseless warning on my talk page and instead post something meaningful here with the recent scholarship. It's actually you who nees to go through WP:ONUS and WP:BRD, where ideally you should have discussed on the relevant talk page for a consensus and not kept reverting.

I nowhere states that Muhammad didn't launched a surprise attack luring his opponents for a truce, so no point of arguing over it, though I am simply asserting that this is an outdated nationalist pov that his attack before the dawn played any significant role in Prithviraja's rout. His army regrouped and it wasn't before Muhammad's final assault from his reserve body of horseback archers which routed Prithviraj's army who fled, but was captured and executed.

Andre Wink is not biased, this is personal attack on a learned academician, he isn't giving this natonalist narrative any mention because it hardly played a part which is my point as well, while this definately deserves a mention in main body, it's trivial for the lead. Please also take a look at WP:Tertiary on what warrants a mention with due weight. If you want a more wider response post this on the relevant noticeboards. Re Pa©ker&Tra©ker (♀) 01:27, 7 December 2023 (UTC)

I would like to suggest a more neutral POV of the led per WP:SYNTH covering content from both the sources as

"Prithviraja III (IAST: Pṛthvī-rāja; reign. c. 1177 – 1192 CE), popularly known as Prithviraj Chauhan or Rai Pithora, was a king from the Chauhan (Chahamana) dynasty who ruled the territory of Sapadalaksha, with his capital at Ajmer in present-day Rajasthan. Ascending the throne as a minor in 1177 CE, Prithviraj inherited a kingdom which stretched from Thanesar in the north to Jahazpur (Mewar) in the south, which he aimed to expand by military actions against neighbouring kingdoms, most notably defeating the Chandelas.

In 1191, Prithviraj, leading a coalition of Rajput kings, decisively defeated the Ghurid army led by Muhammad of Ghor in the First Battle of Tarain. However, in 1192, Muhammad Ghori, calling for another battle, tricked Prithviraj by proposing a truce upon reaching the battlefield. Prithviraj accepted, but Ghori exploited the situation with a surprise night attack involving Turkish mounted archers, leading to Prithviraj's defeat and execution. Some scholars, like R.B. Singh and Dashratha Sharma, attribute Ghori's success to his use of treachery and deceptive measures, while others, like Andre Wink, credit it to the effective use of Turkish mounted archers. His defeat at Tarain is seen as a landmark event in the Islamic conquest of India, and has been described in several semi-legendary accounts, most notably the Prithviraj Raso." Gspgoat^(talk) 02:01, 7 December 2023 (UTC)

Keep in mind that you have to cite your sources yourself that give credit of the victory to the effective use of turkish mounted archers specifically per MOS:CITELEAD or they will be removed. Gspgoat^(talk) 02:25, 7 December 2023 (UTC)

Lead is the summary of article body and if the body adequately cites enough sources, so no question of citing sources and either you are deliberately or mistakenly avoid the sources. Also, while you are citing Dasharatha Sharma only where it suits the nationalist pov as he also mentioned that Prithviraja fled the battleground, only to be captured and put to death with his minor son ruling as a Ghurid vassal. More sources later.. Re Pa©ker&Tra©ker (♀) 03:21, 7 December 2023 (UTC)

This article is not about the Second Battle of Tarain: half of the lead proposed by you is about the details of the battle, which is completely unnecessary here. Feel free to use an appropriate tag such as {{cn}} for "Turkish mounted archers" - the sentence does not state that the victory was because of the archers, and the addition of POV tags is unjustified. utcursch | talk 03:03, 7 December 2023 (UTC)

I was about to ping you Utcursch as this user is not getting a simple point that this lead is baseless here, for Muhammad's successful use of mounted archers in the battle, I am going to add those sources in the article body or we can remove this part from lead for now as well. Re Pa©ker&Tra©ker (♀) 03:24, 7 December 2023 (UTC)

@Utcursch: I now added a citation from Andre Wink who attributed it to Juzjani for the use of mounted archers, is it fine or still we need to remove this from lead ? Re Pa©ker&Tra©ker (♀) 03:43, 7 December 2023 (UTC)

Hello @Utcursch and thank you for clarifying the removal of POV tags, added in line with instructions on WP:AVOIDEDITWAR, to avoid edit warring as User Re Packer&Tracker did.

I have two main concerns regarding the lead section of this article. Firstly, the mention of Muhammad Ghori's use of deceptive measures in the Second Battle of Tarain is crucial information that should be included in the lead, more so than the reference to 'Turkish mounted archers.' This information is supported by sources such as "History of Chahamanas" by R.B. Singh, "Early Chauhan Dynasties" by Dashratha Sharma, and "History of Rajasthan" by Rima Hooja. Additionally, the events are documented in Tajulmasisr by Hasan Nizami, a contemporary writer of that time. Secondly, there is a concern about the description of Prithviraj's means of death, as different sources provide conflicting information. It is important to avoid violating Wikipedia policy per WP:SYNTH by selectively referencing events from only one source and disregarding others. As an experienced editor, I would appreciate your guidance. If I have misunderstood any Wikipedia policy, please guide me accordingly.Thanks and Regards Gspgoat^(talk) 04:52, 7 December 2023 (UTC)

Gspgoat can you provide a quote for the Dasharatha Sharma, page 322-323? I found this copy but didn't see anything related to the battle of Tarain on pages 322-323.

Also, I noticed you left out a part from the R.B. Singh source;

• "The Chahamana sovereign inflicted successive defeats on his formidable enemy, but, in the final engagement in 1192 A.D., the Sultan, through treachery and superior strategem, won a decisive victory which not only put an end to the Chahamana power at Delhi and Ajmer but also brought about tire political subjugation of the country for centuries."

It appears your addition only included the "treachery" part.

• "However, scholars like Dashratha Sharma and R.B. Singh argue that Ghoris' triumph was more a result of deceitful and treacherous strategies rather than the inherent strength of his forces."

And since you are depicting the views of Sharma and Singh, you should include all of what they say, not simply what you want it to say. --Kansas Bear (talk) 17:46, 7 December 2023 (UTC)

Sure, here's the quote from Early Chauhan Dynasties by Dashratha Sharma page 322-323, mentioning the battle of tarain,

"Prithviraja III defeated the Muslims decisively in the battle of Tarain. What his tactics might have been, if he had not been decieved by Muhammad Ghori's promise of truce is beyond any historian's power to tell. To declare, as Sir Wolseley Haig has done, that Prithviraj III lost the battle of Taraln on account of being a slave to tradition is certainly going beyond the evidence at our disposal and ignoring the great advantage accruing to the Muslim forces as a result of their surprise attack, which forced the Hindus not to fight as they wished, but as well as they could, against a well-equipped army employing tactics already well-thought-out and discussed."

Additionally, in referencing R.B. Singh's source, emphasis is placed on avoiding any omission of information labeled as "deceitful and treacherous strategies."(I have included strategy in this). It is also noted that due credit has already been given in the article to the significance of strategy in the success of the Ghurid army, as "Chronicler Juzjani attributed the sucess of the Ghurid army to the 10,000 mounted archers which eventually overthrow the infidel host." but still I have included it in my edit and I cannot directly quote the words of Sharma and Singh as per wikipedia's copyright policy, but I have only mentioned what they have said in my edit which can be verified in the cited sources. Gspgoat^(talk) 18:29, 7 December 2023 (UTC)

I went through Dasharatha Sharma's work and especially on the cited page number and this looks] like a clear hoax or more of synthesis as Sharma nowhere explicitly mentioned that only the so called "deceitful and treacherous" tactics of Muhammad played a bigger rather than the "inherent strength of his forces" I looked again on the said page numbers and couldn't find anything like this but;

Muhammad Ghoris promise of truce is beyond any historian’s power. To declare, as Sir Wolsclcy Haig has done, that Prtliviraja III lost the battle of Taraln on account of being a slave to tradition is certainly going beyond the evidence at our disposal and ignoring the great advantage accruing to the Muslim forces as a result of their surprise attack, which forced the Hindus not to fight as they wished, but as well as they could, against a well-equipped army employing tactics already well-thought-out and discussed...

It's a blatant misrepresentation of the source and it's only interpreted as per a particular pov which it is nowhere saying explicitly, even ignoring the dated antecedent of these historians to portray the Chahamana-Ghurid or other Rajput kingdoms unsuccessful defiance of the Turks as a Hindu-Muslim clash-of-civilisations, which has been since relegated to the depths by modern scholars. Re Pa©ker&Tra©ker (♀) 22:58, 7 December 2023 (UTC)

The part of surprise attack by the Ghurid army was already given a decent attention, though this language and wording that these historians explicitly mentions that so called treachery played a bigger part then modern warfares is a personal misrepresentation where the cited source doesn't mentions it as such and the part of well-equipped army employing tactics already well-thought-out and discussed is avoided. Re Pa©ker&Tra©ker (♀) 23:04, 7 December 2023 (UTC)

You are clearly manipulating the source to align with your own beliefs; you omitted the first line in your citation.Here's the full citation

"Prithviraja III defeated the Muslims decisively in the battle of Tarain. What his tactics might have been, if he had not been decieved by Muhammad Ghori's promise of truce is beyond any historian's power to tell. To declare, as Sir Wolseley Haig has done, that Prithviraj III lost the battle of Taraln on account of being a slave to tradition is certainly going beyond the evidence at our disposal and ignoring the great advantage accruing to the Muslim forces as a result of their surprise attack, which forced the Hindus not to fight as they wished, but as well as they could, against a well-equipped army employing tactics already well-thought-out and discussed."

My edit doesn't deny the credit to warfare as a strategy; rather, I focused on the inherent strength of the forces, distinct from tactics or strategies discussed by the scholars above. I'm not misinterpreting, but it seems you're manipulating by omitting the part where Sharma mentions the use of deceit. He has clearly given the credit of victory to the use of deceitful strategies. Gspgoat^(talk) 05:50, 8 December 2023 (UTC)

I presumed that it's common sense and not in manipulation where I added this quote, either you are not competent enough to represent the source as they are or doing it's deliberately on purpose, Sharma nowhere states that the so called treachery played a bigger part then the obvious more superior mobility of the Ghurid army, rather he simply states that if he had not been decieved by Muhammad Ghori's promise of truce is beyond any historian's power to tell which can be barely represented as so called treachery played a bigger part then the mobility.

Also, it's not only me your suspicious representation of sources is a thing which Utcursch also pointed here Diff/1188826617, but due to paucity of time on our part you are getting away. Re Pa©ker&Tra©ker (♀) 15:17, 9 December 2023 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 10 December 2023

Prithvi Raj Chauhan was a Rajput emperor.Please mention in the introduction section that he belonged to Chauhan Rajput caste. Abhimanyu200 (talk) 03:57, 10 December 2023 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. Cannolis (talk) 04:12, 10 December 2023 (UTC)