Talk:Maratha Confederacy

List of Successor State in infobox

@PadFoot2008 you added those states, but i dont see any reasons to be mentioned as these were not independent states, as those were under Company Rule (Not directly but by signing subsidiary alliance). Unless we have numerous sources which explicitly tell those states as successor states, those are included in the company rule during east india Company. Curious man123 (talk) 07:50, 2 July 2024 (UTC)

I addressed your problems by changing Company rule to British India, which refers specifically to the Presidencies and Provinces under British rule, and excludes princely states. And see the article itself for sources, you can't clutter the infobox by listing citations already in the main body in the successor list. And I don't need "numerous sources". PadFoot (talk) 12:37, 19 July 2024 (UTC)

@PadFoot2008 No you didnt, it doesn't work that way. After British defeated marathas, maratha rule was over and those became the princely state under britsh rule. There is no reason to mention it a separately unless those are independent state ( which can be considered "successor states") and going by that logic there were numerous smaller princely state which can under british after dissolution of maratha that were under Marathas but that are not mentioned. And kindly refrain from edit war, i reverted your edits which implies you have to discuss it here as per the rules even if you think i am mistaken and require to garner consensus and make a way for those edits. Curious man123 (talk) 11:43, 20 July 2024 (UTC)

@Curious man123, alright I restored "Company rule in India" as the successor. PadFoot (talk) 12:27, 20 July 2024 (UTC)

Propsing Map Change

Pinging @PadFoot2008 @Flemmish Nietzsche @.Mohammad Umar Ali. The map of the Maratha Empire, which is this 1, is inaccurate. As Marathas never controlled Rajasthan. They only raided areas and expet Ajmer(that too for a very short period) never controlled or administered anything in Rajputana. Rajput states of Jaipur and Marwar always fought with the Marathas and were keen enemy. Showing Rajputana in the Map of the Maratha Empire is "Wrong". By looking the conflicts between Marathas and Rajputs in the battles of Pilsud, Mandsaur, Lalsot, Patan, Merta, Fatehpur, Malpura. It can be concluded that there were regular conflicts between Rajputs and Marathas due to Chauth payments. Some of them were won by Rajputs and some by Marathas. So in those battles in which Rajputs won, there were no tribute payments and in those in which Marathas won, they were unable to extract tribute, and only war repriations were paid. As quoted by Rima Hooja, "The genius of Mahadji Scindia and the talents of De Boigne helped the Marathas recover their position swiftly...Bijay Singh was forced to agree to Maratha's terms. He paid over an indemnity of sixty lakh rupees and returned Ajmer to the Marathas in 1791" If Rajput kingdoms were truly vassals of Marathas why did they never pay tribute to Marathas and fight with them? Hence the present map is wrong and needs to be changed. As sir Jadunath Sarkar rightly asserts "Pitted against European armed and French-trained Marathas, Rajput states capitulated one after the other. The Marathas managed to conquer Ajmer and Malwa from Rajputs. Although Jaipur and Jodhpur remained unconquered." Mewar was the only Rajput state which payed Chauth to Marathas but only two times. Rest of the time either Mewar refused or delayed the requests of Chauth. My proposal is to use the map which is this 2. It shows the territory controlled by Bhonsle's or Maratha Kingdom, then the territory controlled by Maratha confedracy and at last with a ligher shade the territories which Maratha raided or controlled for a shord period of time or had influence.

Regards

Rawn3012 (talk) 08:22, 7 July 2024 (UTC)

I have concerns regarding the inclusion of Rajputana in the current map as well. However the proposed map has many problems as of now. The areas raided or shortly controlled is anachronistic and should only show a particular year rather than every year combined which provides a false representation. Even depicting the areas raided or briefly occupied is quite unnecessary. Showing the actual Maratha Confederacy is enough. Besides there are other problems as well. Awadh is shown to be too small, and the Nizam's dominions are inaccurate as well. The Nizam had controlled eastern Maharashtra but the proposed map shows the Nizam's dominions to be limited to modern day Telangana borders which is very inaccurate. PadFoot (talk) 11:33, 7 July 2024 (UTC)

Hmm, but many maps like this [2] show Rajputana as a part of Maratha empire at their peak if not always similar to Peshawar, etc. Mohammad Umar Ali (talk) 02:22, 8 July 2024 (UTC)

Yes, Many maps of different author shows Rajputana in the Maratha Confedracy but this context is totaly false as Jaislmer and Bikaner never payed Chauth or infact were in never contact with Marathas and as Sir Jadunath Sarkar has said "that Jaipur and Jodhpur remain unconquerored". The arguement of collectiong chauth is totaly false Rima Hooja in his books has said that war indemnity were paid not chauths. There were some cases too when Marathas were defeated, in that case neither chauth not indemnity were paid. Hence including Rajputana is not right.

Regards Rawn3012 (talk) 02:36, 8 July 2024 (UTC)

Though I don't know much about these, but defaulting on Chauth and not paying war indemnity isn't a valid reason to not include the areas in the map. If Rima Hooja says Jodhpur and Jaipur were not conquered ever maybe those could be removed but whole of Punjab till Peshawar was definitely under Maratha control as backed by numerous sources. Mohammad Umar Ali (talk) 02:44, 8 July 2024 (UTC)

Hi @PadFoot2008 @Mohammad Umar Ali Please see the new map 2. It shows the areas that are commonly agreed upon by most of the historians as being controlled by Marathas. The rest of the discussions will take place, and if agreed, I will make the respective changes, or it's an SVG file, which means you can edit the map by yourself.

Regards Rawn3012 (talk) 04:10, 8 July 2024 (UTC)

@Rawn3012, It requires a small correction — Delhi wasn't a part of the Confederacy itself. Also you could consider the following colour scheme and format [3]. You don't need to show the modern day borders or a legend or name inside the map, that shall make it look tidier. Also add a rename request to rename it to "Maratha Confederacy.svg". The current name is a bit absurd and has grammatical errors. Overall the map seems very good. PadFoot (talk) 11:55, 8 July 2024 (UTC)

@PadFoot2008 I have updated the map with the boundaries of the Maratha confederacy extending till Gwalior and had placed a request for name change.Rest of the changes I was not able to do as It would make the map too plane. Hope you would understand my problem. Link for the new Map3. Please consider it for infobox

Regards Rawn3012 (talk) 16:20, 8 July 2024 (UTC)

This version is good [4]. @Flemmish Nietzsche, what do you think about it? PadFoot (talk) 17:45, 8 July 2024 (UTC)

It's not terrible, but I'd prefer the version with the extra details and the temporarily controlled territories in a lighter shade [5]; showing only the territories fully controlled without showing, for example Delhi even though it wasn't technically part of the Confederacy, is somewhat misleading so I think the first version is best, provided it is touched up a bit so the borders are more clean and the Kingdom borders are removed as those are unnecessary. Flemmish Nietzsche (talk) 19:56, 8 July 2024 (UTC)

@Flemmish Nietzsche@PadFoot2008 I thing that we guys should have a consensus among ourselves, like which map do we have to use or what changes are needed to be done. So please suggest the changes as it would save time and effort. Rawn3012 (talk) 01:36, 9 July 2024 (UTC)

@Flemmish Nietzsche, I don't think the first map should be used as I said before, it is anachronistic and territories in the lighter shade are sum total of territories all territories ever occupied or raided at different times which cannot be shown together, as it's misleading and anachronistic. Additionally, it is unnecessary to show the territories under temporary brief military occupation (2–3 years) for an entity that existed for over a century. Showing its non-war peacetime borders are good enough. The third map is good here. PadFoot (talk) 02:28, 9 July 2024 (UTC)

Is the lighter shade really a sum of all territories ever occupied? Just looking up "Map of the Maratha Confederacy" will give you many results which say otherwise, and say that this territory was all Maratha at this set date. While I agree that it's misleading to show the lighter shade territory as equally controlled as everything else, it is equally misleading to just ignore it altogether and pretend that territory was not a part of the Confederacy to any degree. I'm not saying everything in the lighter shade should be on the final map, though. I agree with the Rajasthan and other territorial concerns and thus I think the lighter shade should only cover the area going roughly up to the Punjab, though it should definitely be there. Flemmish Nietzsche (talk) 03:00, 9 July 2024 (UTC)

@Flemmish Nietzsche, the territories (Delhi and the Punjab) were occupied by the Afghan Empire, and then at request of emperor Alamgir II, occupied from the Afghans by the Marathas between 1757 and 1761, and then ultimately lost at Panipat (1761). Such a brief occupation, and not even annexed territories, need not be included in the map, especially when the Marathas have fought numerous other wars in the south and east, and briefly occupied other regions as well during wartime throughout its existence. PadFoot (talk) 05:34, 9 July 2024 (UTC)

@Flemmish Nietzsche@PadFoot2008 I would like to introduce you guys to the map of the Sasanian Empire. It shows the territories controlled by the Sasanian Empire in a dark sky-blue shade and also the territories occupied by the latter during the war against the Roman Empire in a light sky-blue shade. Remember that these(area under light-blue shade) were shortly occupied territories as the Romans recaptured those areas 2 to 3 years later. We can do the same but with minor changes by mentionig the Marathas raided those territories, captured them, and then lost them against the Afghans, or we can stick with the changes made by Padfoot.

Regards Rawn3012 (talk) 15:12, 9 July 2024 (UTC)

The Sassanian Empire map mentions that they controlled those regions for 25 years, apparently? That's a very long time IMO. PadFoot (talk) 15:24, 9 July 2024 (UTC)

Sorry! My mistake, have not seen the map properly but What I am thinking is that including influential areas is prone to dispute. Hence we should go with the stable areas for now. What are your thoughts? and yes give me some time too to improve the map.

Regards Rawn3012 (talk) 17:10, 9 July 2024 (UTC)

• Thanks for taking the initiative, Rawn3012! I just wanted to emphasize that any map that is chosen should be verifiable by reference to source(s) such as the Schwartzberg Atlas (p. 149 or p. 54), the Collin Atlas (p. 53),Gordon's adapatation of the latter (p.170), etc. It is perfectly fine to discuss what source(s) should be used for the map and which time period the map should depict, but once those are selected, the inclusion/exclusion of a region from the map should be dictated by the source(s). Abecedare (talk) 18:10, 9 July 2024 (UTC)

  Well,@Abecedare I appreciate your recommendation and fully agree with you on the matter of having a verifiable source for the map, but the thing I want to point out is that the maps of historical powers can be made with textual information too, which in this case we have. Talking about the exclusion and inclusion of territories, multiple sources have contradictions, as modern-era sources of Rima Hooja do not agree with the inclusion of Rajputana in the Maratha areas. So we have to be careful with the sources too or what we can do better for now is to include only stable boundaries.

  Regards Rawn3012 (talk) 00:53, 10 July 2024 (UTC)

Any user-generated map would need to pass a high bar to avoid WP:SYNTH and/or a case would have to be made that reliable sources prefer to depict "only stable boundaries" for the Marathas, which is not what I have observed as seen in the three standard academic sources on the subject that I listed in my previous post. Can you please provide the exact sources and relevant quotes/maps that you are relying on so that they can be evaluated for reliability and due weight?

Note too that the maps in this article have been discussed numerous times (see talkpage archive) including a previous proposal by PadFoot2008 to exclude Rajput states that was withdrawn in face of unanimous opposition; pinging SKAG123 and Jonathansammy who participated in that discussion. Abecedare (talk) 01:23, 10 July 2024 (UTC)

@Abecedare Please see the first comment of mine in the discussions, as quotations and proofs have been provided in that. Also, I would make the map based on tertiary sources and graphical sources (if available), so how there is WP:SYNTH ? Rawn3012 (talk) 09:19, 10 July 2024 (UTC)

For future reference, it is helpful to provide a direct link and/or list at least the authors, title and page-numbers when providing quotes, and to separate them more clearly from ones own gloss. In this instance, I was able to trace the Hooja quote to p.716 of her A History of Rajasthan but don't see how Hooja describing the Marathas' (re)conquest of Ajmer etc is helpful to your contention that Rajput states should be removed from Maratha empire maps. I couldn't find the source for the Sarkar quote (did you perchance quote the wikipedia article Battle of Patan instead?) but Jadunath Sarkar is a dated source in any case (see WP:HISTRS).

If those quotes are it, that's clearly not a basis to modify the mapping practice of Stewart N. Gordon or A Historical Atlas of South Asia. Abecedare (talk) 13:37, 10 July 2024 (UTC)

It will always be difficult to have precise borders for the Maratha confederacy.I As I have said in a previous post, until its aboiltion in 1857, the Mughal emperor was the de jure ruler of the territories under the control of the Marathas or the East india company. If one considers effective control as the basis for ae map then one has to define what that means? Does it mean areas under direct administration like areas around Pune, or all subordinate states that paid annual chauth to the marathas? Anyhow, the above points notwitstanding, I would recommend the map by Cooper for the Maratha polity in 1730Although I can find papers by Stewart Gordon on Maratha administration in Malwa and Karnataka, I couldn't find maps in these papers that would be suitable for this wikipedia article. Jonathansammy (talk) 18:48, 16 July 2024 (UTC)

@PadFoot2008 @Flemmish Nietzsche Can you guys see the new Map 1. It removes the modern international boundaries and shows topographic features. Along with major cities and confederates of the Maratha Confederacy. The extent here used is stable boundaries of Marathas which they controlled between c1737-1803.

Regards! Let's talk Rawn3012 (talk) 06:01, 13 July 2024 (UTC)

References

Maratha Empire map

In 1759 Maratha Empire extended to Peshawar 1.39.25.242 (talk) 08:34, 7 August 2024 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 9 August 2024

It shouldn't be just "Maratha Confederacy" in the title instead it should be "The Holy Maratha Confederacy or Empire" as this Empire stands as an Epitome of Dharma on this Earth. 103.174.28.254 (talk) 14:52, 9 August 2024 (UTC)

 Not done: Your alternate name doesn’t seem to meet the requirements of being commonly used by English speaking reliable sources, as required by WP:COMMONNAME CloakedFerret (talk) 09:29, 11 August 2024 (UTC)

Vessel of the Mughal empire

The sources stating The Marathas recognizing the Mughal Emperor as the Shahenshah was in name only. None of the sources state a subordinate relationship between the Mughal emperor and the Marathas. The emperor did not collect tribute or have any significant influence on the policies within the Maratha Confederacy. One of the sources states tribute occurred in the region of Shahu but not afterwards until 1818.

The Marathas minting coins in the name of the Mughal emperor does not indicate a subordinate relationship. The East India company did the same until the 1830’s.

Therefore Stating the Marathas were a vassal in the infobox is inaccurate. Pinging users who have edited this article in the past @PadFoot2008. @Jonathansammy @Flemmish Nietzsche@Rawn3012@Abecedere @Mohammad Umar Ali @Arnav Bhate SKAG123 (talk) 03:13, 30 August 2024 (UTC)

Agreed Rawn3012 (talk) 09:09, 30 August 2024 (UTC)

There are sources provided that specifically say that the Marathas considered the emperor as their suzerain, there is another source provided that specifically says that the Marathas were a vassal state, (you very kindly removed that source). Also what in the world do you even mean here by saying that Marathas 'recognised the emperor as Shahenshah'? No source says that. The sources say that they recognised the emperor as their suzerain. And being a vassal simply means that the entity recognised another entity as its suzerain. Also as for the East India Company, the East India Company too considered itself a vassal of the Mughal emperor which is the reason why they minted coins in his name in the first place. Paying tribute is different; this is referred to as a 'tributary state', which is a subtype of a vassal state. Tributary states are, in essence, vassal states, but not all vassal states are necessarily tributary states. Besides the status is in fact for listing these nominal statuses. PadFoot (talk) 11:38, 30 August 2024 (UTC)

Pinging @Flemmish Nietzsche, for his opinion. PadFoot (talk) 15:28, 31 August 2024 (UTC)

"Considering the Mughal emperor as their suzerain" does not necessarily make them a true "vassal", nor does it necessitate putting such info in the infobox; sure, the Marathas may have considered themselves to be a "vassal" to the Mughal emperor, (and many sources say this) but for all intents and purposes, they were always independent, (and "vassal" implies the suzerain has some degree of control over the subject's affairs) so to say in the infobox that they were for most of their history subject, and thus subordinate to the Mughals, is quite misleading when the actual situation is completely different. Such nuance should thus be left out of the infobox altogether, and I think under MOS:INFOBOXPURPOSE we don't need this "status" parameter at all, or it could be replaced with the much simpler "kingdom (time span)" <br/> "confederacy (time span)" rather than the current situation. Flemmish Nietzsche (talk) 16:28, 31 August 2024 (UTC)

@Flemmish Nietzsche, but the status parameter exists to state these nominal things. Additionally, the Marathas did pay tribute from 1707 until a new treaty in 1718. Perhaps we could mention that it was an actual vassal state between 1707 and 1718, and only de jure 1718–1818. PadFoot (talk) 07:45, 1 September 2024 (UTC)

the status parameter exists to state these nominal things Maybe in some articles, but for many others that is not the case. For example the Khwarazmian Empire article simply states its status as an "empire" rather than mentioning its period of vassalage to the Seljuks, while in other pages the status parameter is left out altogether. If we were to include the supposed vassalage of the Marathas to the Mughals, then we should say that it was near-entirely nominal, and if doing so, it begins to seem like nonessential information which is best left out of the infobox; another example is how the Adil Shahis considered themselves "subordinate" to some degree to the Safavids of Persia, but this of course was again entirely nominal, so we do not state such because it is not essential information, nor does it really help the reader. Your second point does not have me more convinced either, as nominal relationships aren't best suited for the infobox, tribute paid for 11 years or not. Flemmish Nietzsche (talk) 08:30, 1 September 2024 (UTC)

@Flemmish Nietzsche, alright, let's keep the status parameter empty in the infobox. PadFoot (talk) 09:08, 1 September 2024 (UTC)

I agree with @Flemmish Nietzsche SKAG123 (talk) 18:15, 1 September 2024 (UTC)

Requested move 24 September 2024

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: not moved. (non-admin closure) Alpha3031 (t • c) 15:04, 21 October 2024 (UTC)

---

Maratha Confederacy → Maratha Empire – It was Maratha empire until the death of Madhav Rao in 1772, only after that it was called as Maratha Confederacy. All other sources call it as Maratha Empire. The area of control at peak was from Tamil Nadu to Peshawar, so it was called as Empire. Move was requested multiple times within short period, and last move [6] was closed by a non-admin. This is just revision of history by some wikipedia editors for propaganda, so as to diminish the importance of Marathas in the eyes of readers. Crashed greek (talk) 04:09, 24 September 2024 (UTC)

• Oppose: An RM with a large editorial participation happened only a few months ago which decided on the current name. The entity had been a confederacy since at least 1721. Also, all the area claims are unsourced exaggerations. PadFoot (talk) 06:57, 24 September 2024 (UTC)

  Not true, it was under titular Monarch called as Chatrapati by heredity, and led de facto by Prime minister Peshwa's who were in power by heredity until 1772. Crashed greek (talk) 14:13, 24 September 2024 (UTC)

  That is WP:OR. PadFoot (talk) 14:18, 24 September 2024 (UTC)

  No, instead you saying it had been a confederacy since 1721 above is WP:OR. You being an Iranian you are likely to be biased in favor of Abdali of Afghanistan over Marathas of India. Crashed greek (talk) 03:43, 25 September 2024 (UTC)

  Please refrain from making personal attacks. Additionally, I am not an Iranian. Why would you make that assumption? Look at my user page history, I only added that template very recently as I've started editting Persia-related pages recently. India is still my main topic area. Lastly, the first confederate state of the Confederacy was established in 1721, and until 1761, the Peshwas, themselves a member of the Confederacy, ruled the Bombay Presidency region and possessed a good degree of rank and power higher than the other chiefs, which was no longer the case after 1761 (Panipat). Even before 1761, the structure resembled that of a confederacy, as member states possessed significant independence even then. Perhaps look at the discussions in the archives, especially those that resulted in the consensus to move. PadFoot (talk) 12:05, 25 September 2024 (UTC)

Comment: The transformation of the Maratha Empire into the Maratha Confederacy occurred gradually after the death of the empire's most powerful leader, Chhatrapati Shivaji Maharaj, and more formally after the death of his grandson, Chhatrapati Shahu Maharaj, in 1749.

Here’s how the transition unfolded:

Shivaji's centralized empire (1674–1680): Shivaji established a centralized state with a clear hierarchy, centralized power, and territories under his direct rule. His successors initially continued this centralized structure.

Weakening of central authority: After Shivaji's death in 1680, there were internal struggles for succession between his son Sambhaji and others. The subsequent Maratha kings, particularly Shahu Maharaj (r. 1707–1749), faced challenges to maintain control, especially due to the growing influence of military generals and regional leaders.

Rise of the Peshwas: During Shahu Maharaj's reign, the Peshwas (Prime Ministers), starting with Balaji Vishwanath and later his son Baji Rao I, began to exercise substantial authority. The Peshwas effectively became the real rulers of the Maratha Empire, with the Chhatrapati reduced to a ceremonial figure.

Formal transition to a confederacy (1749): After the death of Shahu in 1749, the central authority of the Chhatrapati weakened further, and the empire fragmented into a loose confederation of semi-independent Maratha states. These were controlled by powerful Maratha chiefs such as:

Gaekwads of Baroda

Holkars of Indore

Scindias of Gwalior

Bhonsles of Nagpur

Peshwas of Pune

Each of these chiefs controlled their own territories but owed nominal allegiance to the Chhatrapati at Satara. The Peshwa, based in Pune, remained the most powerful figure but had to balance power with other leaders. This period marked the transformation into the Maratha Confederacy.

By the mid-18th century, this decentralized structure defined the Maratha political landscape until the eventual decline after the Third Anglo-Maratha War (1817-1818), which led to British supremacy in India. DangalOh (talk) 18:55, 24 September 2024 (UTC)

Shahu I died in 1749, but Rajaram II of Satara was his successor. But Prime Minister Peshwas were de-facto rulers since Bajirao I assumed power in 1720 ruling from Pune city, and they continued to be the de facto leaders of Maratha Empire until death of Peshwa Madhav Rao in 1772. Only after that it became a Maratha Confederacy. Crashed greek (talk) 12:15, 25 September 2024 (UTC)

Yes, but Rajaram II of Satara was not a true king of any centralized empire. The groundwork for an extremely decentralized government led by the Peshwas had already been laid by Shahu, who, though not that weak in leadership, delegated significant powers to the Peshwas. Rajaram II was even more of a ceremonial figurehead than Shahu ever was. Saying the empire became a confederacy only after 1772 isn’t entirely accurate, as the process had been ongoing for several decades, driven by internal factors and the weakening of central authority following major military defeats, especially the Third Battle of Panipat in 1761. By the time of Madhav Rao I’s death in 1772, the Maratha Empire had effectively become a loose confederacy, where major Sardars (such as the Scindias, Holkars, and Gaekwads) held significant power in their respective regions. However, the Peshwas remained nominally the leaders and the most powerful authority within this decentralized structure, until Peshwa Baji Rao II was defeated by the British in 1818.

Personally, I don't have a preference. But saying something like "Shivaji founded the Maratha Confederacy" should be avoided. It was an empire that later turned into a confederation. The dates are debatable, as there is no exact, agreed-upon date for the formal transition. So, nuances are required everywhere. I hope you guys can discuss things without fighting with each other. It’s not as simple as just putting a label on things. DangalOh (talk) 12:55, 25 September 2024 (UTC)

• Support per nom, Google Ngrams indicates that Maratha Empire is the clear WP:Common name in books

Kowal2701 (talk) 20:54, 25 September 2024 (UTC)

Hello @Kowal2701, please see the previous discussions regarding this. Ngrams are not the sole indicator of common name. The recent boost can be attributed to WP:CIRCULARity. PadFoot (talk) 02:41, 26 September 2024 (UTC)

The biggest problem is that the Maratha Empire was never officially declared a confederacy during its time, unlike other contemporary examples such as the Swiss Confederacy (1291–1798) and the Dutch Republic (1581–1795). I mean, I know, and you know, how decentralized it became even shortly after Shivaji's death. But if we look at it logically, confederacy was neither the official designation or position of Marathas nor is it the common name today. However, in purely technical terms, calling it a confederacy does make more sense. That being said, it's important to clarify which time period we refer to the Marathas as an empire and which times it should strictly be called a confederacy. The article currently suggests both terms are interchangeable, which requires much more nuance. Thanks DangalOh (talk) 03:00, 26 September 2024 (UTC)

I'd agree with you on much of the points, however, it wasn't really ever declared as an empire either; in fact, it wasn't really 'declared' as anything by its rulers at all. It's early period of history too was not in the slightest an empire, until 1707, it was more of a 'quasi-state' or a rebellion. PadFoot (talk) 03:22, 26 September 2024 (UTC)

True. But it was founded on the centralized framework of a kingdom or empire. One of the clearest markers that the Marathas were forming an empire was Shivaji's coronation in 1674, where he was formally crowned as Chhatrapati (Emperor). This was a highly symbolic and political act that affirmed the Maratha state's sovereignty and independence from the Mughal Empire. Many historical empires did not have formal declarations of being "empires." Empires are often defined by their de facto power and control rather than a singular declaration. The Marathas, through their territorial expansions, administrative structures, and military might, effectively functioned as an empire, even if they didn’t formally declare themselves as such. Shivaji's resistance against the Mughal Empire went beyond being a local revolt and involved challenging the hegemony of one of the most powerful empires in the world at that time.

After the death of Mughal Emperor Aurangzeb in 1707, the Maratha Empire rapidly expanded, and Chhatrapati Shahu formally re-established central authority, even appointing the Peshwas to handle governance and military matters. Even before 1707, the Maratha state under Shivaji had the essential hallmarks of an empire: a structured administration, military strength, and territorial expansion. He implemented a formal administrative system with Ashtapradhan (a council of eight ministers), which is indicative of empire-like governance.

A confederacy is a more modern concept than an empire and, by definition, requires the consent of all participating entities in some formal manner. On the other hand, empires expand mostly without consent (though rare exceptions exist both ways).

In any case, I can actually make points and arguments for both terms. It is a little more complex than the Roman Republic becoming the Roman Empire. I understand your point of view as well. I hope you all reach a consensus that is more contextualized and reflective of historical considerations and realities.

Regards, DangalOh (talk) 03:40, 26 September 2024 (UTC)

How does WP:Circular apply? Ngrams does books which is very useful for establishing common name in history topics Kowal2701 (talk) 06:35, 26 September 2024 (UTC)

@Kowal2701, Yes it does apply. Google ngrams uses Google Books, which includes exam manuals, MCQ booklets, and stuff like that in its results, which are not considered WP:RS at all, many of them not listing sources or being based upon Wikipedia itself, which is not acceptable here, as you would know. PadFoot (talk) 07:10, 26 September 2024 (UTC)

That’d be a small minority of the sources used for the data, Maratha Empire has a massive lead. Kowal2701 (talk) 07:25, 26 September 2024 (UTC)

That doesn't change anything. WP:CIRCULAR still applies as the very recent boost can be obviously attributed to Wikipedia using the name until very recently, before which, both had very similar usage. In fact, in reality, only a small minority of books results are considered to adhere to WP:HISTRS. Simply seeing ngram results is not considered a reliable way to check WP:COMMONNAME in these cases. Besides, WP:NPOV is also a concern in this case. PadFoot (talk) 08:40, 26 September 2024 (UTC)

@PadFoot2008 Brother, I like you, and even when you started the RFC for the name change of CSMI Airport to just Mumbai Airport, I really thought you had genuine intentions for improvement. However, after observing some things, I now feel like you might have some prejudices against the Marathas for reasons I won’t assume. Well, I can think of many reasons, but I’ll refrain.

The point is, are you sure you're doing this because you genuinely believe it violates NPOV and other concerns? Not for some other reason? I’m just letting you know that labeling entities as "confederates" (even though they may have acted like one), when they were using titles such as Chhatrapati/Emperor and never formalized any form of decentralized government, is derogatory and dismissive, to say the least.

It’s like suggesting, "Ha ha ha, you claimed to be an empire, but all you were was just a confederacy. The right-hand men were more powerful than the monarch, haha. We’ll only call you a confederacy because we feel like it, and some sources support this." The sad thing is that, for the most part, the insult is justified because, for most of its lifespan, it was not an empire ruled by powerful emperors, but by weak emperors with loose empires. Still, weak emperors are emperors.

That’s why I’m suggesting you support more nuance, at least in the article if not in the title. Try to understand others' perspectives too. It’s not always about "me, me, me." You would be surprised how many doors it will open for you.

Tell me, Padfoot, are you a reasonable person? I’m not a Maratha, nor am I from Maharashtra or anywhere near that area, and even I can feel the injustice being done here. It’s not like calling it the Maratha Empire would make me any happier, but your reasons for dismissing it seem dubious to me. I’m not extremely convinced. You seem more focused on finding minor faults here and there rather than making a compelling argument for your case that sweeps us off our feet.

Anyway, I guess you’re too involved in this topic, and the temperament of people on Wikipedia is crazy. I’ve given my two cents. Now I leave this topic. Don’t take this the wrong way. Have a good day! M out DangalOh (talk) 09:40, 26 September 2024 (UTC)

Hello @DangalOh, I wouldn't really say that I've a particular 'bias' towards or against Marathas. In fact, it's the opposite, I usually invest my time in trying counter POV pushes in various Indian history-related topics, not just in Maratha-related topics. I think you might be aware of the sockwars ongoing since 2022. There are many, many blocked and banned sockmasters and sockpuppets on Wikipedia who have Maratha POV as well as those having an anti-Maratha POV, and both sides have caused significant disruption and, I only serve to eliminate all of those. On a side note, scholars usually don't call the Chhatrapati the 'Maratha emperor', look up the ngrams, that phrase has negligible usage. Lastly, the CSMIA move request doesn't have anything to do with this at al. I had been planning to do it with all airports, including that at Kolkata and Delhi, I started with CSMIA as that name has very few usages in RS, and I thought it would make for the strongest case. PadFoot (talk) 09:57, 26 September 2024 (UTC)

I mean, it’s just sad, bro. The legitimacy of the Marathas was challenged even during British rule, as the British considered positioning themselves as the direct successors of the Mughals. By choosing to skip or not properly recognize the Marathas, they aimed to enhance their own legitimacy to rule, given that the Mughals were historically seen as the dominant power in the Indian subcontinent. In this context, a titular suzerainty might still have existed, where the Mughal Emperor was acknowledged as a nominal authority despite his weakened power.

But we should also point out that British historians often relied on Mughal records and perspectives, which naturally favored the Mughals. The British sought to undermine local powers to establish their own dominance. By portraying the Marathas as a declining power and emphasizing their conflicts with the Mughals, they justified their intervention and eventual control over India. The British framed themselves as the legitimate successors of the Mughal Empire, using that narrative to legitimize their rule.

What pierces the heart is that now, our people, using British or British-influenced sources, are putting ghee on the fire. Lol. But anyway, I hope everything gets sorted out here—peacefully. As I read somewhere, "Life is too short," so I hope peace prevails here. Thanks. DangalOh (talk) 10:22, 26 September 2024 (UTC)

I really don’t think the boost can be attributed to that, Maratha Empire also seems to be the common name per the sources used in this article assuming they are the WP:BESTSOURCES Kowal2701 (talk) 09:43, 26 September 2024 (UTC)

• Oppose This was changed for a reason, the Maratha Confederacy had much more usage (in scholarly works, and searches). Noorullah (talk) 03:02, 28 September 2024 (UTC)
• Oppose the term Maratha empire is POV and is contradicted by academic sources, see Gordon, Stewart (2007-02-01). The Marathas 1600-1818. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. p. 178. ISBN 978-0-521-03316-9. The Maratha polity was not an empire, if, by that, we have an image of imperial Rome or the Mughal Empire. There was no graded civilian/ military ranking with attendant symbols of authority. Those in the military were not, until late in the eighteenth century, full-time professionals. The Maratha polity did not, and could not, impose a uniform legal or revenue system. It never minted a uniform, highquality currency; neither did it build the straight roads which were the pride of the Roman Empire. Large parts of the Maratha polity, unlike Rome or the Mughal Empire, were permanently alienated to military commanders. There was no grand, imperial architecture. Ratnahastin (talk) 14:32, 28 September 2024 (UTC)
• Oppose, Per @PadFoot2008 reasonings Rawn3012 (talk) 04:26, 29 September 2024 (UTC)

• Support, per WP:COMMONNAME. More common in ngrams and also google scholar (since 2020, the proposed title gets 593 results vs 225 for the current one: [7] [8]). The argument that "empire" is POV, is not very convincing. Many territories are called that (see [List of empires]), including the Holy Roman Empire, which was equally or even more decentralized. Vpab15 (talk) 17:11, 29 September 2024 (UTC)

  Note that the Mali Empire, Ghana Empire, Luba Empire, and Lunda Empire plus many others were organised like confederations, and yet they are still called empires. Kowal2701 (talk) 18:24, 29 September 2024 (UTC)

  @Kowal2701 Could you explain, concretely, in what ways the Mali or Ghana Empires were organised like confederations, and in particular how those ways resembled the mode of organization of the Maratha Confederation? Brusquedandelion (talk) 19:23, 10 October 2024 (UTC)

  We have little information on the Ghana Empire but scholars believe it was like a confederation. The Mali Empire was composed of subordinate kingdoms which had a local ruler/leader who was assigned a governor (farin). The mansas focussed intensely on internal diplomacy. When the empire crumbled, these kingdoms became independent. Regardless, there's far too much WP:Original research here. Kowal2701 (talk) 19:32, 10 October 2024 (UTC)

  We have little information on the Ghana Empire but scholars believe it was like a confederation. The Mali Empire was composed of subordinate kingdoms which had a local ruler/leader who was assigned a governor (farin). The mansas focussed intensely on internal diplomacy. When the empire crumbled, these kingdoms became independent. Regardless, there's far too much WP:Original research here.

  Well, at least one thing you and I can agree on, your comment is indeed full of original research. A governor does not a confederacy make; basically all empires have regional governors. Nor do local powerbrokers leveraging the weakening of imperial authority to augment their own power and autonomy; again, a perennial feature of empire. Brusquedandelion (talk) 19:42, 10 October 2024 (UTC)

  Ahahaha you asked for my opinion. Everything everyone is doing here is original research. The clear WP:Common name is Maratha Empire, arguments for Maratha Confederacy stand on nothing whatsoever and the closer should ignore them. Kowal2701 (talk) 19:45, 10 October 2024 (UTC)

• Support, in addition to the points raised by Kowal2701, consider the Holy Roman Empire, which was also a confederation, but it was called an empire, with an emperor as its figurehead, so it is named as such in the article. Similarly, the Marathas considered themselves an empire and also had a Chhatrapati as a figurehead till the end of the polity. Contemporary english usage shows that they were recognised as an empire by their opponents - the British. The Chhatrapati was also more than a nominal figurehead from 1674-1749, and a figurehead from 1749-1818, so the polity was closer to an empire for the majority of its life. Thus, even though it was a confederation at the end, the title empire is more suitable for the polity. Arnav Bhate (talk • contribs) 06:55, 2 October 2024 (UTC)

  Correct. The personal opinions of some scholars on how strong an army should be or what type of infrastructure should be developed to be called an empire are irrelevant. If the Marathas considered themselves an empire and had a Chhatrapati as a figurehead until the end of their polity, then it should be called an empire. Full stop. Anyone opposing this has serious POV issues. Historical interpretations are often influenced by perspective and context. What one scholar sees as a fragmented federation, another might consider a decentralized empire. I have seen much weaker and more fragmented polities being called empires, and the Marathas were no joke. I want to sing praises of what Shivaji and others accomplished, as well as the impact they had, but I'll refrain as it might hurt the sentiments of some people here. But yes, I fully agree with you. DangalOh (talk) 07:37, 2 October 2024 (UTC)

  Firstly, Marathas considering themselves as an empire (or even a confederacy) is unsourced. Also some British historians using the term (others used Maratha Confederacy) doesn't at all indicate that the British or the Company acknowledged it as an empire. Besides, "Maratha king" gives nearly 10 times more hits than "Maratha emperor" as of 2022 on ngrams. This is a clear indication that most scholars do not consider the chhatrapati as an 'emperor'. Also, the Holy Roman Empire is a really bad comparison in this case. As for one, the Holy Roman Empire didn't mint coins in the name of another emperor, or considered another emperor as its suzerain. Secondly, the Chhatrapati possessed no powers at all. The Holy Roman Emperor on the other hand, possessed large powers throughout its existence. PadFoot (talk) 12:08, 2 October 2024 (UTC)

  I accept my defeat, brother. You bothered to reply, so I’m replying. But I’m tired of everything. It’s not worth it. You won’t be seeing me around for a very long time. I’ve wasted enough time on Wikipedia—it’s absolutely undeserving. There are much better things out there. I might lose my hair and age faster if I continue to engage. I like my wrinkle-free face and full head of hair. Have a good time editing! DangalOh (talk) 12:35, 2 October 2024 (UTC)

  Thank you, have a good day. PadFoot (talk) 13:24, 2 October 2024 (UTC)

  There are so many empires that didn’t mint their own coins Kowal2701 (talk) 13:22, 2 October 2024 (UTC)

  Like? I hope you are not talking about empires that didn't have official coinage, which is a different matter altogether. Besides, empires do not acknowledge the suzerainty of other emperors. PadFoot (talk) 13:30, 2 October 2024 (UTC)

  This is just WP:OR and arbitrary criteria, the point is that WP:AT says Wikipedia does not necessarily use the subject's official name as an article title; it generally prefers the name that is most commonly used (as determined by its prevalence in a significant majority of independent, reliable, English-language sources) and Maratha Empire is the WP:Common name per ngrams in English language sources and the sources on the page. Your arguments are just personal opinions not based on policy and shouldn’t be taken into account when determining consensus Kowal2701 (talk) 13:42, 2 October 2024 (UTC)

  Again, see WP:CIRCULAR. Both names are WP:COMMONNAMES. Ultimately, consensus is determined by editors. PadFoot (talk) 14:52, 2 October 2024 (UTC)

  No, Maratha Empire is by far and away the common name over Maratha Confederacy. Ngrams isn’t circular otherwise we wouldn’t use it. Kowal2701 (talk) 14:55, 2 October 2024 (UTC)

  Ultimately, our opinions on the topic aren’t important, it’s the opinion of scholars reflected by WP:Common name Kowal2701 (talk) 14:59, 2 October 2024 (UTC)

  In Wikipedia, consensus is determined by the editors of Wikipedia. See WP:CONSENSUS. Additionally, WP:COMMONNAME is not the sole criterion used to determine the page title. PadFoot (talk) 17:12, 2 October 2024 (UTC)

  Agreed, but it is the main one per WP:AT. The WP:Criteria are there to determine when there’s no clear common name, but regardless I don’t think any of them favour either option. You could weakly argue Empire is more consistent with other articles such as the decentralised ones I’ve listed. Kowal2701 (talk) 17:33, 2 October 2024 (UTC)

  @Kowal2701 Even if Padfoot's criteria were arbitrary, it is telling that you chose to raise this objection after they asked you to cite your claim that There are so many empires that didn’t mint their own coins, and not after they made the initial assertion that the Holy Roman Empire didn't mint coins in the name of another emperor. You are just shifting the goalposts. Brusquedandelion (talk) 19:47, 10 October 2024 (UTC)

  Complete nonsense, the goalposts are always the same on wikipedia. You can ignore them as much as you like. Kowal2701 (talk) 19:52, 10 October 2024 (UTC)

  You bring up an excellent point about the title "Chhatrapati"; indeed this tells us a lot about how the Marathas were organized. I suggest you create a new move proposal to rename the page "Maratha Umbrellaocracy" to reflect the meaning of this title, since it is readily apparent from the fact that they called their figurehead ruler "Husband of the Umbrella" that the parasol was central to their conception of leadership. Your comment provides a much needed reminder of that quintessentially Maratha institution—that of royal marriage to an umbrella—which unfortunately tends to be forgotten in such discussions. Brusquedandelion (talk) 19:34, 10 October 2024 (UTC)

• Oppose The designation of "Maratha Confederacy" reflects a more accurate understanding of the political structure that existed after Shivaji reign. Numerous scholarly sources support this classification, because of the decentralized nature of the Maratha polity. Nxcrypto Message 04:58, 4 October 2024 (UTC)

Note: WikiProject Former countries, WikiProject Military history, Noticeboard for India-related topics, WikiProject Maharashtra, WikiProject History, WikiProject Indian history, WikiProject Politics, and WikiProject Military history/Indian military history task force have been notified of this discussion. Web-julio (talk) 03:50, 6 October 2024 (UTC)

I beg to differ on this as Marathas were the rulers who ruled their subject throught council of ministers or rather technically speaking through Prime minister. There was no Empire as such which is ruled by a single dynasty or monarch. Donchocolate (talk) 01:37, 9 October 2024 (UTC)

Comment: Both Maratha Empire and Maratha Confederacy appear in sources frequently. However regardless of what title is used, the lead should clearly state the Marathas were a polity or confederacy rather than a traditional empire. SKAG123 (talk) 17:11, 10 October 2024 (UTC)

• Oppose: The sheer unseriousness of this proposal is manifest in its nakedly false assertion that this polity stretched from Tamil Nadu to Peshawar practically in the same breath as they insinuate a shadowy anti-Maratha WP:CABAL is spreading propaganda, so as to diminish the importance of Marathas in the eyes of readers. Of course, any observant Wikipedian will be quick to notice the proposer is themselves a member of the anti-Confederacy cabal, an organization chiefly devoted to reducing the number of confederacies on Wikipedia. As a card-carrying member of the anti-imperial cabal, I am compelled to vote against this proposal. Brusquedandelion (talk) 19:18, 10 October 2024 (UTC)

• Oppose:There isnt such a need for moving when both have been mentioned in lead.Maratha Confedracy can refer a whole time for Marathas than empire.An Empire is usually ruled by a single dynasty which isnt with Marathas.It may be an empire for a short term but Confedaracy is for more wider time.

Edasf (talk) 06:54, 12 October 2024 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Empire by definition

Marathas for majority of time were an empire by definition. According to Oxford's definition an empire is "a group of countries or states that are controlled by one ruler or government". "Marhatta country" being the primary region under of Marathas,they managed to get to conquer other states with different languages,scripts and even language family as soon as chh.Shivaji. His rule extended from salher fort on Gujarat border to north of Thanjavur in Tamilnadu.There were times when maratha capital had to be shifted from time to time but the rule always remained under single entity with the power to control generals. Chh.Shahu had power to not make Nanasaheb Peshwa of the empire but he chose to despite opposition from other generals. And even after treaty of Sangola 1750 power was transferred from Satara to Pune (Shahu dafter to Peshwa daftar) rather than decentralisation of it. And chhatrapati title still remained Satara making it de jure capital. Decentralisation did not start before Panipat battle. 103.159.153.72 (talk) 02:28, 10 October 2024 (UTC)

Please provide reliable sources to support your statement. All this is original research. SKAG123 (talk) 17:08, 10 October 2024 (UTC)