Talk:First Anglo-Maratha War

A very problematic article

I've just tried making a few basic corrections to this article, but I'm not an Indian history specialist, and I'm really struggling with the sources available online. Most of the war is simply missing from this article, and I don't feel confident enough to fill in all the missing bits myself (though I seem by accident to be half-way to writing a new article on the Battle of Wadgaon, which I may try to complete in the next few days). David Trochos (talk) 22:44, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

The War was inconclusive.However it has been wrongly given as a British defeat.I will edit the article with proper refernces. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 117.194.231.236 (talk) 14:54, 21 April 2014 (UTC)

Requested move

The following is a closed discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the proposal was moved. --regentspark (comment) 14:19, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

First Anglo–Maratha War → First Anglo-Maratha War – Can somebody extinguish all Jprg1966’s page moves since December 7? I fixed several of these (such as Anglo-Aro War) by hands, but there are several dozen to fix. Since many redirects were touched (due to a MediaWiki glitch) after these incorrect moves, a user with sysop can do it faster than me. Incnis Mrsi (talk) 19:43, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

• Support – but it will be easier to get an admin to fix them if you can list them. Dicklyon (talk) 05:45, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

Never mind, your link is a good list. Note to closer: the problem is that the combining forms like Anglo- and Franco- use hyphen, as the MOS points out in MOS:ENDASH, but Jprg1966 mistakenly thought they should be move to en dash. We have enough anti-en-dash sentiment around without this additional level of mistake aggravating things, so these should be rolled back. Dicklyon (talk) 05:48, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

• Support—it's a fiddly rule, but I found it easy to take on board. On a deeper level, it makes perfect sense. Tony (talk) 00:02, 7 January 2013 (UTC)
• Support, obviously: Jprg1966 is confusing cases like Mexican–American War (full names of both "parties"), which use an en-dash, and combining forms like Anglo- (cf. Sino-, Hiberno-, etc.), which always take a hyphen. 71.198.40.152 (talk) 10:34, 7 January 2013 (UTC)
• Why wasnt this request posted at Wikipedia:Requested moves/Technical requests? §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {T/C} 11:12, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

  A request to make half-hundred of moves to implement a guideline could be technical. A request to revert mass moves of a user, who is ignorant about a guideline, is not technical, if only because WP:consensus can change. Incnis Mrsi (talk) 15:10, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

Sorry! I wasn't looking at it as a reversion of someone's move but more as a move from endash to hyphen. Such move requests are listed on various notice boards of interested WikiProjects thereby highlighting this discussion to the members. If the move is actually just technical where the redirect of endash would anyways be left behind for simplicity, i did not see any point in inviting numerous editors here. Had the move been requested to say "First war between British and Marathas" then it would have been appropriate for some discussion. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {T/C} 04:33, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Request for Comment - Indecisive or Maratha victory?

I believe that it is well sourced that the outcome of this war was indecisive and not a "Maratha Victory" as claimed here [1]. This claim of an indecisive outcome is proven by a variety of academic sources, including the following . I think that attempts to try and portray this war as a "Maratha Victory" is indicative of a bias, which violates WP:NPOV. Even the main painting of a British soldier allegedly submitting to the Marathas is unsourced and does not appear to have a historical basis. I would like additional involvement from other users in regards to this matter. Xtremedood (talk) 06:30, 7 February 2016 (UTC)

• Support as the first source you have linked is currently used to support "Maratha victory" in the infobox, but clearly this is contradictory to the actual text in the book itself. A second quote from the book: "Both these modes of warfare proved useless in bringing about a decisive result in the War", ergo the outcome of the war was indecisive. The first source used in the infobox does not have a free preview on Google Books, but searching the book for "Maratha victory" does not bring up anything relevant.

Also a side note, RfC questions should be written neutrally. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ‎Alcherin (talk • contribs) 21:16, 25 February 2016 (UTC)

• oppose - Maratha victory per the sources. D4iNa4 (talk) 16:23, 21 March 2016 (UTC)

Which sources? The ones linked here all support an inconclusive result. Alcherin (talk) 16:35, 21 March 2016 (UTC)

References

Indecisive or Maratha victory?

user:Capitals00, the sources claiming that the war resulted in an indecisive conclusion is sound as proven by the above sources. What is your justification for claiming it was a Maratha victory? Xtremedood (talk) 02:44, 23 February 2016 (UTC)

Battle result - Treaty of Salbai

According to reliable citations, the battle resulted with treaty of Salbai. Here are some quotes from reliable sources: From Richard Ernest Dupuy, Gay M. Hammerman, Grace P. Hayes (1977). The American Revolution: A Global War. David McKay Company, Incorporated. p. 247. "Hastings promptly repudiated the Treaty of Wadgaon and sent troops from Calcutta all the way across central India to strengthen the Bombay forces. One by one they captured Maratha cities. In May 1782 a new treaty was signed with the Marathas, the Treaty of Salbai. Although it merely restored the status quo ante bellum, this treaty gave the British twenty years of peace with the Marathas and permitted them to concentrate their efforts against the French and the forces of Mysore." And James C. Bradford. International Encyclopedia of Military History. Routledge. p. 867. "The company renounced the first draft of the treaty of Wadgaon, fighting on until 1782, and, despite its capture of the fortress of Gwalior (1780), the only concession that the British could win was the cession of Salsette Island , which improved the security of Bombay." MehmoodS (talk) 13:16, 9 June 2022 (UTC)

M S Narvane in book "Battles of the Honourable East India Company: Making of the Raj", page 63 quotes that "Mudhoji was known to have taken bribe from Hastings and would not join a war. Mahadji, himself was anxious that his forces were not divided and separated, which war both in Malwa and in the Deccan would have entailed. Moreover, both Mahadji and Nana faced acute financial distress. Under these circumstances, peace at the most favorable terms was the only course left open. After prolonged negotiations a treaty was signed between Mahadji and Anderson on 17th May, 1782. It was known as the Treaty of Salbai, after a small village of the same name where Mahadji was in camp." M. S. Narvane further quotes that, "The main clauses of the treaty were as follows: All territories captured by the Company would be returned, including Bassein but excluding Salsette and some small islands near Bombay. These would remain with the British. Territories in Gujarat would be returned to the Peshwa and Gaikwad, Bhadoch being given to Mahadji for services rendered. Raghoba was to be handed over to the Marathas. He would spend the remainder of his life at a secluded spot in Maharashtra on a pension of Rs. 25,000 per month. Thus ended the First Anglo-Maratha war. Politically the Company was a slight gainer. They retained Salsette whereas the Marathas got back only what they had lost earlier. The main gain from the Maratha point of view was the elimination of the threat posed by Raghoba." Raghoba is Raghunath Rao. MehmoodS (talk) 13:59, 9 June 2022 (UTC)

At p.64 it say "Forcing the enemy to retreat was, at best, a pyrrhic victory" but as per Template:Infobox military conflict, we no longer use the terms "Decisive", "tactical" and "pyrrhic". We only use "Victory". Now stop edit warring against what exists on infobox for many years and read WP:BRD. Aman Kumar Goel ^(Talk) 14:34, 9 June 2022 (UTC)

how can you even concluded Phyrric victory or victory at all? Haven't you read what has been quotes by the reliable citations? And what is with the language? You are here for discussion and not force your opinion. There is no policy that what has been there on the article, cannot be corrected. False quotes and unreliable citations have been used that needs to be fixed. The result clearly was treaty of Salbai with no victors or losers.MehmoodS (talk) 14:59, 9 June 2022 (UTC)

I am reading the same source (Narvane) who I had quoted.

How the treaty of Salbai was not a defeat when the British had to surrender all the territories that they had gained since Treaty of Purandhar? Henry Beveridge wrote then: "First the disgraceful convention of Wargaum , next the humiliating treaty of Purandhar , and lastly the equally humiliating treaty of Salbai , by which the Bombay presidency was not only deprived of the only remnant of conquest which the treaty of Purandhar had left, but stripped of almost all its older possessions and nearly confined within its original island."[2] Multiple reliable sources are not wrong if they are saying that Marathas were the victors. Aman Kumar Goel ^(Talk) 15:05, 9 June 2022 (UTC)

Due to age, Henry Beveridge book is an unreliable source which was published in 1862 and likely a primary source. Secondary sources are preferred. How is the treaty of Salbai victory for either party? Giving away and retaining some of territories was part of the negotiation. M.S. Naravane clearly states that "Politically the Company was a slight gainer. They retained Salsette whereas the Marathas got back only what they had lost earlier. The main gain from the Maratha point of view was the elimination of the threat posed by Raghoba." I do not see in any of the citations where multiple authors have claimed that Marathas were victors. Can you point exact quote from the citations on the article which claims the end result of Maratha as victors 1782? I didn't see any, otherwise there would have been no question or debate but clearly there aren't any on the article that states so. Multiple article states that the end result was the treaty where Marathas were given back some territories whereas the British retained some and there was peace among both for next 20 yrs where both allied with each other during campaigns against Mysore.MehmoodS (talk) 15:33, 9 June 2022 (UTC)

I cited Henry Beveridge because you are engaging in original research by claiming that there were no victors or losers, when in fact British authors even that time treated it as a defeat. What Beveridge said isn't wrong anyway, see "restoration of all Maratha territories occupied by the British since the treaty of Purandhar (1776)"

If you are looking for just one source and ignoring all that already exist on the article then see this: "A series of skirmishes followed in which the Marathas thoroughly defeated the British. Finally, under severe pressure from London, the British sought peace. A new treaty, the Treaty of Salbai, was signed on 17 May 1782. It force the British to return territory they had gained after the Treaty of Purandhar.[3]

Your argument is, that you have found a few sources which are not mentioning the victor. You can find many sources for other wars like Second Anglo-Afghan War, Afghanistan war, Kargil war, etc. where sources don't mention a victor but it doesn't mean that the victor does not exist. Aman Kumar Goel ^(Talk) 16:35, 9 June 2022 (UTC)

I am looking at multiple sources ON the article and all of them are secondary sources, so not sure where you got the idea that I am engaging in primary source. You were and that is why I mentioned that you should be following secondary sources. Restoration of Maratha territories were part of negotiation of the treaty. Source you provided by Pradeep Barua is good but then comes in conflict with other sources on the article such as M.S Navarane and Richard Ernest Dupuy, Gay M. Hammerman, Grace P. Hayes who quote that "Hastings promptly repudiated the Treaty of Wadgaon and sent troops from Calcutta all the way across central India to strengthen the Bombay forces. One by one they captured Maratha cities. In May 1782 a new treaty was signed with the Marathas, the Treaty of Salbai. Although it merely restored the status quo ante bellum, this treaty gave the British twenty years of peace with the Marathas and permitted them to concentrate their efforts against the French and the forces of Mysore. Therefore, the result can then be called "Disputed".MehmoodS (talk) 17:14, 9 June 2022 (UTC)

Changing goalposts won't do anything. Sources are not disputing each other because none say that British won this war. They either only mention the treaty or say Marathas won. Aman Kumar Goel ^(Talk) 19:29, 9 June 2022 (UTC)

All sources in majority mention the treaty but none specifically consider one or the other as victors either but do state that British politically gained from the treaty. So considering the sources in regards to the treaty, it is disputed if compared with Barua's. If there are other reliable sources that support Barua's statement then undeniably, the result is disputed if compared with citations on the article. Therefore, result mentioning either Disputed or the Treaty is more relevant. MehmoodS (talk) 19:41, 9 June 2022 (UTC)

One more thing, there is no rule as using only 25 words for "quote=parameter". An admin already confirmed it.MehmoodS (talk) 19:46, 9 June 2022 (UTC)