Talk:Bahmani–Vijayanagar War

Krishnadevaraya's expedition of bahmani sultanate

This event is relevant to the context, can also be considered a war with multiple smaller conflicts. This military campaign was also fought directly against the Bahmani sultanate and was critical in the formation of the splinter dynasties which came into existence after the fall of the bahmani sultanate. @Noorullah21. Also it had been originally edited by a confirmed sockpuppet. Normstahlie (talk) 08:40, 17 August 2024 (UTC)

@Normstahlie I’m honestly all for adding the expedition, I’m not sure why it wouldn’t because it’s still apart of the Bahmani-Vijayanagara conflicts such as the 1420 Siege of Vijayanagara that I added.

Other editors have different thoughts on it though, so I’d ask them. Noorullah (talk) 18:07, 17 August 2024 (UTC)

Then I will re-add it if you haven't a issue, The guy who originally removed this was a sockpuppet. Normstahlie (talk) 18:41, 17 August 2024 (UTC)

Thoughts @Someguywhosbored? Normstahlie (talk) 18:40, 17 August 2024 (UTC)

I don’t have much of an opinion right now but are you sure this is the last conflict between the two states? This seems to contradict the previous article.

“This marked the final conflict between Vijayanagara and the Bahmani kings, concluding the historical record of their interactions and relations with their southern neighbor”. Bahmani–Vijayanagar War (1443)#CITEREFAllan1964

Later I’m going to check the sources. But are you certain this was the final conflict? Someguywhosbored (talk) 20:09, 17 August 2024 (UTC)

This is the final conflict between the mentioned Kings, after this campaign bahmani sultanate splintered into smaller dynasties when the regional governors proclaimed their independence. This was the last major campaign involving vijaynagara and the bahmani sultanate. Normstahlie (talk) 20:24, 17 August 2024 (UTC)

Also rightfully so, this was a campaign/war involving the governors of bahmani sultanate who had already established their dynasties and even went on to proclaim their own semi-independent states. During the mentioned war the Bahmani Monarch wasn't free but a puppet of Nizam-Ul-Mulk Bahri, who was still considered a legitimate successor of the bahmani sultanate. Normstahlie (talk) 20:29, 17 August 2024 (UTC)

Hmm… maybe imperial can shed some light on this. He’s currently not active but hopefully he may respond later when he has time.

@ImperialAficionado

I just want to be absolutely sure because it’s possible that there may have been some other conflict(although I could be wrong). Someguywhosbored (talk) 22:41, 17 August 2024 (UTC)

Stumbled upon this discussion, not Imperial but he's right that the Bahmani–Vijayanagar War (1443) was the last full-blown war between the two states; there were continual, sometimes yearly, conflicts after 1443 such as Mahmud Gawan's campaign against Vijayanagara and the mentioned expedition by Krishnadevaraya, but these were not full-blown wars, nor do they have "Bahmani–Vijayanagar War" in the title; the purpose of this page was not to list every conflict between Vijayanagara and the Bahmanis but to disambiguate those which either were titled as "Bahmani–Vijayanagar War" or of which "Bahmani–Vijayanagar War" could be a plausible alternative name, such as War of the Goldsmith's Daughter. The wording on the Bahmani–Vijayanagar War (1443) page should also be changed to clarify that it was only the last full war, not the last conflict altogether. Flemmish Nietzsche (talk) 03:15, 18 August 2024 (UTC)

Thank you for your input Flemmish. I think you have me convinced. I’ll remove this link from the page. If anyone has any concerns or disagreement then feel free to respond here on the talk page.

I have one question though, was there any other conflicts between the two states after Krishnadevaraya’s expedition? To clarify, I don’t mean full blown wars, but just conflicts. If not, perhaps clarification can be added to that article instead of here(“last conflict between the two states”). But we’d have to be absolutely sure that this was the final conflict. Someguywhosbored (talk) 07:32, 18 August 2024 (UTC)

I think it's pretty safe to say that there weren't any, considering that the Bahmanis formally dissolved in 1518, just six years after Krishnadevaraya's expedition concluded, and Eaton (page 88) and Majumdar both don't mention any campaign by Krishnadevaraya (who was the Vijayanagara monarch up until the Bahmanis formal collapse) against the Bahmanis themselves after 1512; there were extensive conflicts against the Deccan sultanates in 1518 and onwards, but none against the Bahmanis themselves, who by 1512 only had the territory of the Bidar Sultanate and effectively no power. However, the sources don't explicitly say that it was the last conflict between the two states, and there's no necessity of stating when the last conflict was. Flemmish Nietzsche (talk) 08:33, 18 August 2024 (UTC)

This wasn't a usual conflict rather a full fledged campaign which ended in the siege of the bahmani capital and the restoration of the Bahmani Monarch legitimizing his power which further fostered discord amongst The Bahmani Governors. To call it not a "war" seems to be an understatement, considering it really bought upon a new era in the deccan intensifying territorial conflicts between muslim rulers. Eitherways what do you think of this [1]? Is this a war? Flemmish Nietzsche Someguywhosbored Normstahlie (talk) 09:30, 18 August 2024 (UTC)

Not sure who removed the 1423 one, but to whom it may concern: [2]

"An analysis of Vijayanagara inscriptions of this time clearly shows that Vijaya’s reign lasted from A.D. 1422 to A.D. 1430. 10 Vijaya appears to have been a weak monarch; for, during the eight years of his rule, he seems to have taken little or no active part in the government of the kingdom, and left the administration in the abler hands of his son and co-regent, Devaraya II. The reign of Vijaya I was not, however, uneventful. It witnessed the outbreak of two important foreign wars, one with Bahmani Sultan and the other with the Gajapati of Orissa;" Noorullah (talk) 21:34, 20 August 2024 (UTC)

and also (on the same page): "In the initial stages of the war, the Vijayanagara troops penetrated as far as Etgir in the Gulbarga district; but the Vijayanagara army suffered defeat, owing to the desertion of the king of Warangal on the battle¬ field. " Noorullah (talk) 21:36, 20 August 2024 (UTC)

This source could come under WP:AGEMATTERS, also are you able to corroborate this source with other scholarly manuscripts? The main article named "Seige of Vijaynagara" does not attribute Devaraya as a pivotal figure in the war as R.C Majumdar does in his book, he also passively declines the possibility of vijaynagara's Seige. Normstahlie (talk) 05:22, 21 August 2024 (UTC)

The first reply is talking about Vijaya, the ruler at the time who was also captured.

Sherwani on it: [3]

Cambridge: [4] Noorullah (talk) 21:37, 21 August 2024 (UTC)

Neither of the mentioned sources call this campaign a war. Normstahlie (talk) 03:38, 22 August 2024 (UTC)

Also, the first reply as I've said earlier attributes Devaraya as the "hero" of the two war fought with the Bahmanis and Gajapatis, which is inconsistent with the other sources you have cited. Normstahlie (talk) 03:52, 22 August 2024 (UTC)

Clearly you are not reading the source..

Sherwani: "A council of war was now held in the Bahmani camp and it was decided to cross the Tungabhadra in full force."

Cambridge: "The Hindus then had reason to repent of their breach of the humane treaty, for never in the course of the wars between the two kingdoms did either army display such ferocity as did Ahmad’s, marching through the kingdom, slaughtering men, and enslaving women and children."

And again, you're ignoring the very obvious "The reign of Vijaya I was not, however, uneventful. It witnessed the outbreak of two important foreign wars, one with Bahmani Sultan" and still are attributing it to Devaraya nonsensically. Noorullah (talk) 23:07, 22 August 2024 (UTC)

Also war council isn't exclusively called during wars, it can be called during smaller conflicts. The Cambridge University source seems good, fair enough. Normstahlie (talk) 14:10, 23 August 2024 (UTC)

Well firstly, your edit warring. But secondly, you need consensus if you want to make a change where others disagree. I’d be curious to know Flemmish’s standpoint on this. @Flemmish Nietzsche Someguywhosbored (talk) 23:31, 23 August 2024 (UTC)

I'm not warring, I gave you a source. Normstahlie (talk) 02:17, 24 August 2024 (UTC)

Reverting 4 times in the same article is indeed edit warring. It doesn’t matter if you sent a source. You haven’t reached consensus.

Flemmish is one who initially claimed that the last full fledged war was in 1443. So I’d wait for his opinion on this if he’s willing to engage further. I think both him and imperial are probably correct but again, I’d wait. If it turns out that you’re right, I have no problem with reverting it back. But regardless, don’t edit war. Just wait until consensus is established. Someguywhosbored (talk) 10:40, 24 August 2024 (UTC)

You have also reverted my edits three times, I have given you a source please refrain from reverting my edits continually rather create a productive argument debating the source. Imperial has gone on an Indefinite Break, I have no Idea when Flemmish is going to respond. Normstahlie (talk) 12:01, 24 August 2024 (UTC)

Well I'm here now, and I still think that Krisnadevaraya's campaign cannot be considered a full-fledged war, while the 1423 conflict can; Noorullah's presented evidence is sufficient enough to add an alternative name of "Bahmani–Vijayanagar War of 1423" to the siege of Vijayanagar page, which is necessary for any conflict to be on this page. Again, this page is only a list of conflicts between the two states that have been called wars by sources, not just because you think it should be called a war; on your point of the 1509 conflict bringing "upon a new era in the deccan intensifying territorial conflicts between muslim rulers", I disagree; many sources only mention the campaign for its success in capturing Raichur and Mudgal [5], not that it had much effect on the internal politics of the Deccan. If Krishnadevaraya's supposed "restoration of Mahmud Shah to power" was at all consequential, I feel Sherwani would of at least given it a mention, or that Cambridge would have done the same. [6] Another point is that the campaign was wholly one-sided, and that there really was no Bahmani authority left then, (also on your earlier point that Mahmud Shah was a puppet of Nizam-ul-Mulk Bari in 1509, I suspect not as the latter died 23 years earlier) so to call it a "war in which the Bahmanis were wholly involved", thus a "Bahmani-Vijayanagar War" is a bit misleading. Nevertheless, the campaign cannot be added until it either takes upon the title of "Bahmani–Vijayanagar War (1509–1512)" or in the lead takes upon the "also known as", which likely will not (and should not until better evidence has been presented) be done soon.

Also @Someguywhosbored, on your query of whether or not this was the last conflict, apparently not, as there was still at least one minor conflict in 1517 to regain lost tribute from Vijayanagara. [7] Flemmish Nietzsche (talk) 12:38, 24 August 2024 (UTC)

There are other historians, Richard Eaton and Stoker Valerie who have mentioned the event. Richard Eaton who has gone as far as to call Krishna Deva Raya the establisher of Muslim Kingdom, [8], cambridge on the other hand has also mentioned this event calling it a warlike (as can be inferred from the next statement) move by Krishnadevaraya [9].

Also here is another book by Robert Sewell [10],

"It appears that in 1514 a.d. Krishna Deva offered Albuquerque 20,000 Pounds for the exclusive right to trade in horses, but the Portuguese governor, with a keen eye to business, refused. A little later the Hindu king renewed his proposal, declaring his intention of making war against the Adil Shah; and the Adil Shah, hearing of this message, himself sent an embassy to Goa" Normstahlie (talk) 17:25, 24 August 2024 (UTC)

To not call it a war where bahmanis were not fully involved would be incorrect, considering Bahmani governors i.e The Adil Shahis and other regional governors were involved in the war. Mahmud Shah II was still a Bahmani monarch at the time who declared "Jihad" on the Vijaynagaris, it is important to note that this war was started by the bahmanis so to say they did not have a centralized authority is also incorrect. There is no doubt that Bahmani's were disintegrating during the course of this war, but they still had a central representation. Normstahlie (talk) 17:32, 24 August 2024 (UTC)

Note: "Also on your earlier point that Mahmud Shah was a puppet of Nizam-ul-Mulk Bari in 1509, I suspect not as the latter died 23 years earlier", That is referring to the early rule of Mahmood Shah Bahmani II, Nizam Ul Mulk Bari who was responsible for conspirating against Mahmud Gawan, and claimed regent for himself. Normstahlie (talk) 17:38, 24 August 2024 (UTC)

Reverting 3 times is only edit warring if done within a 24 hour period. The only time this isn’t the case is when there is a 0 or 1RR restriction in place.

Wikipedia:Edit warring

“There is a bright line known as the three-revert rule (3RR). To revert is to undo the action of another editor. The three-revert rule states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts, in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material, on a single page within a 24-hour period. Any appearance of gaming the system by reverting a fourth time just outside of the 24-hour slot will usually be considered edit warring.”

let’s move on to some of these other points.

“ To not call it a war where bahmanis were not fully involved would be incorrect, considering Bahmani governors i.e The Adil Shahis and other regional governors were involved in the war. Mahmud Shah II was still a Bahmani monarch at the time who declared "Jihad" on the Vijaynagaris, it is important to note that this war was started by the bahmanis so to say they did not have a centralized authority is also incorrect. There is no doubt that Bahmani's were disintegrating during the course of this war, but they still had a central representation.”

I don’t think this really responds to his point. The issue is that the Monarch’s were essentially puppet rulers. Sure, they had a central representation, which was directed by another state/person. For all intents and purposes, the ruler no longer held much central power. Check this quote out.

https://archive.org/details/in.ernet.dli.2015.68551/page/n405/mode/1up?view=theater

“His frequent complaints that he was a prisoner in his own palace in the firm grasp of others, his complaint to Yusuf ‘Adil that nothing he owned really belonged to him, his being led by whoever was powerful enough to have the upper hand at Bidar, all this made the centre effete and useless”

page 386.

His point still stands. Clearly the bahmani monarch did not hold any real power. Someguywhosbored (talk) 23:00, 24 August 2024 (UTC)

So here is progress I hope we have established that this was a war, now onto the point of Mahmood Shah Being a "Puppet Monarch" which I think he wasn't, his regent (true head of bidar) i.e Malik Hasan Bahri died in 1486. The statement as mentioned by you seems more symbolic than literal and also seems to be restricted to the time of his death (or the last few years before his death) of his death considering Mahmood lead rebellions against Khudawand Khan and Ismail Adil Shah into early years of his rule.[11]

His governors paid him homages. Ismail Adil Shah the son of Yusuf Adil shah was also loyal to his sovereign, there is no doubt that Mahmood shah had way lesser political influence compared to his predecessors he wasn't controlled by Kingdom's fiefholders, he actively suppressed rebellions throughout his reign against nobles, but as can be witnessed by the testimony of Sherwani he was a weak monarch who was inable to hold onto absolute political authority or ever fully suppress regional rebellions.

That is also to say that even after the death of Mahmood Shah who was the last bahmani monarch, the sultanate went on to survive under a puppet rule for about 9 more years before provincial capitals finally declared independence but there are no mentions of such bahmani rulers by sherwani so it's safe to consider that Mahmood shah was the last legitimate bahmani monarch. Normstahlie (talk) 12:55, 25 August 2024 (UTC)

“So here is progress I hope we have established that this was a war”

None of us came to that conclusion other than you. That has absolutely not been established. This doesn’t appear to have been a full fledged war. And the bahmani monarch didn’t even hold any real power. You can’t come up with your own interpretation. Someguywhosbored (talk) 19:10, 25 August 2024 (UTC)

And read the quote I sent to you one more time. Mahmud did not hold any real power, and it’s explained in explicit detail. It seems that you’re coming up with your own interpretation based on what you read, but we need to rely on what the sources actually say. Someguywhosbored (talk) 19:16, 25 August 2024 (UTC)

I've given you numerous sources to be exact:- Richard Eaton, Robert Sewell and RC Majumdar, all of whom have implied that this was a war. In addition to that, I don't think if you have read any of the arguments I had made earlier, Mahmood shah during the time of his early reign marched to suppress multiple rebellions (a characteristic which can be seen during the later parts of his reign as well), he also declared jihad on the vijaynagaris on the advice of Yusuf Adil Shah. Haroon specifically categorized his era as the last bit of glory for the bahmani sultanate and not to mention he also never specified if the king was a puppet for all we know his regent died in 1486.

Sherwani also continually emphasizes on the fact that his fiefholders regularly payed homage to their king, the statement that you mention does not directly imply anything, the only thing you can say for sure is that he held minimal political influence over bidar, that too few years before his death considering the statement in question is written under the article "The Sultan's Death" [12].

He was also indifferent to his governors gaining an upper hand over him, which invalidates the point of him being a puppet ruler [13]. His rule was much like Mahmud Gawan's de facto rule over the bahmani sultanate, where the bahmani sultans like Mahmud shah himself were incapable of governing the sultanate and were guided by their prime minister in this case Amir Barid I.

Amir Barid himself also never ruled independently much like Gawan he ruled along with Bahmani Sultans, he never assumed any royal titles, neither was he a dominant puppeteer rather the sultan was incapable.

If you go through sherwani's source, it's pretty consistently mentioned that King wasn't a puppet rather a weak ruler incapable of ruling his sultanate, there is no specific trait in the source which implies that he was powerless or being dominated by any leaders and hence why I concluded that this statement is merely symbolic with no literal meaning to it. Normstahlie (talk) 20:34, 25 August 2024 (UTC)

Also please reply in a new thread. Normstahlie (talk) 20:35, 25 August 2024 (UTC)

I hope you are not solely cherry-picking R.C Majumdar, but here is the full sentence word-by-word.

"The reign of Vijaya I was not, however, uneventful. It witnessed the outbreak of two important foreign wars, one with Bahmani Sultan and the other with the Gajapati of Orissa; but as Devaraya II was the actual hero of these wars, the facts connected with them may be more conveniently dealt with while describing the events of his reign."