Talk:Battle of Lalsot

The article is completely wrong please change the content.

The battle of Lalsot was fought by the combined forces of Jodhpur and Jaipur against Mahadji Scindia not the Mughals this can be found in many books by well known historians. I did correct the article but as someone keeps changing the info I will first justify myself here. If possible please change it back to the one that was there before.

The reference that is currently given says: Supported by the Rajput rulers of Jodhpur and Udaipur, Partab Singh of Jaipur took a massive force southeast against Marathas under Mahadji Sindhia. When his Mughal cavalry under Mohammad Beg and his nephew Ismail Beg Hamadani defected, Sindhia was defeated in a bloody three-day battle at Tunga, near Lalsot. He then made peace and pressed on to reinforce

the link currently given clearly states the reality I sincerely hope and wait for someone to do somethign about this would be grateful.

References that i found: "The Great Maratha Mahadaji Scindia" Page 95. "History of Jaipur" by Jadunath Sarkar page 280-284

References

Not a Rajput or Maratha Victory, but a Maratha tactical and Rajput strategic defeat, a classic stalemate

The examination of the whole battle taken in retrospection show that both Marathas as well as Rajputs have claimed victory in this battle. As such it has been upto the discretion of various scholars to attribute it to either of them.

Jadunath Sarkar's Fall of the Mughal Empire Vol. III covers this entire battle as well as it's preceding and succeeding events in full comprehensive manner and examines it critically. Owing to it's neutral impartiality and matured analysis, it is the only fit source to be taken for consideration on Wikipedia that ultimately attributes this battle as a stalemate on two basis:-

1. Neither parties dislodge each other's entrenchments in combat. The key figure in Rajput camp "Hamadani" is killed by the Marathas by accident and not discovered until late night as such even this is not enough to make Marathas Victors.

2. The retreating Marathas (from a territory with no strategic value) are contrasted with the Rajputs (who suffer higher casualties and ultimately deliver no substantial dent) and eventually Marathas return the very next day following the completely dignified retreat to set up gunnery lines at an even closer distance than before. The Maratha retreat is owing to personal discretion to evade straining of provisions and zero influence of any gains by the enemy. We can see how this battle's complex nature is showcased in Fall of the Mughal Empire, much better than whatever light any other source has presented it in.115.96.103.214 (talk) 19:10, 20 April 2020 (UTC)

It appears that due to wording that this seems to be a Personal Synthesis/ Self-Research:- that is *incorrect*, I have only produced the matter from the source (Jadunath Sarkar, Fall of the Mughal Empire Volume III, page 227 and 228) directly for the convenience of the reader, this is not an analysis or any of my own stake. Please do not revert before referring to the source matter. 115.96.103.214 (talk) 14:38, 22 April 2020 (UTC)

The Result of this battle is incorrect, both sides claimed victory & multiple authorities have stated that it was Indecisive. The Rajputs were driven back and failed to dislodge the Marathas & Mahadaji Scindia had to withdraw due to potential mutiny in his army and not due to the Rajputs. I have several sources to back up this statement. Shall I leave Rajput victory as it is, but also write Maratha victory & Indecisive. Because the result displayed on this page is misleading. A.A Ghatge (talk) 01:50, 7 December 2021 (UTC)

Even one who loses can claim victory, it doesn't mean he won. We will discuss the claims of both armies later. Shall we have all the sources, please do attach the sources which you think are relevant to the discussion and as of now there are two sources cited in infobox for Rajput victory claim, one is of Imperial Gazetteer another another one is from Harish Chandra Tikkiwal.Sajaypal007 (talk) 12:29, 7 December 2021 (UTC)

BOTH SIDES CLAIMED VICTORY:

a) Sarkar, Jadunath (1991). Fall Of Mughal Empire Vol-3 (hb). Orient Longman. pp. 227–228. ISBN 978-81-250-1761-5.(https://books.google.co.in/books?id=_XZh4CF1m2wC&lpg=PA220&dq=Jadunath%20Sarkar%20lalsot&pg=PA227#v=onepage&q&f=false)

b) Banerjee, Anil Chandra (1951). The Rajput States and the East India Company (1 ed.). Calcutta: A. Mukherjee & Co. Ltd. p. 353. (https://archive.org/details/in.ernet.dli.2015.536291/page/n361/mode/2up)

INDECISIVE:

a) Sarkar, Jadunath (1991). Fall Of Mughal Empire Vol-3 (hb). Orient Longman. pp. 227–228. ISBN 978-81-250-1761-5. (https://books.google.co.in/books?id=_XZh4CF1m2wC&lpg=PA220&dq=Jadunath%20Sarkar%20lalsot&pg=PA227#v=onepage&q&f=false)

b) Joshi, P. M. (1954). Persian Records Of Maratha History Vol-II. Bombay: Directorate of Archives, Government of Bombay. pp. ix. (https://archive.org/details/in.ernet.dli.2015.113754/page/n7/mode/2up)

c) Markovits, Claude (2004). A History of Modern India, 1480-1950. London: Anthem Press. p. 262. ISBN 978-1-84331-004-4. (https://books.google.co.in/books?id=uzOmy2y0Zh4C&lpg=PA262&dq=lalsot%20battle%20indecisive&pg=PA262#v=onepage&q&f=false)

d) Banerjee, Anil Chandra (1951). The Rajput States and the East India Company (1 ed.). Calcutta: A. Mukherjee & Co. Ltd. p. 353. (https://archive.org/details/in.ernet.dli.2015.536291/page/n361/mode/2up)

RAJPUTS RETIRED WITH HEAVY LOSSES, MAHADAJI SCINDIA UNABLE TO PURSUE:

a) Sen, Sailendra Nath (1994). Anglo-Maratha Relations, 1785-96. 2. Bombay: Popular Prakashan. p. 133. ISBN 978-81-7154-789-0.(https://books.google.co.in/books?id=Y-kanqrtVhYC&lpg=PA133&dq=lalsot%20battle&pg=PA133#v=onepage&q&f=false)

In light of all these facts, the information displayed by the infobox ought to amended.A.A Ghatge (talk) 13:23, 9 December 2021 (UTC)

Let's leave what any party claimed. Its not important what they claimed but what actually happened is considered the result. You have provided following sources

(1) Jadunath Sarkar

(2) S.N. Sen

(3) P.M. Joshi

(4) Markovits Claude

(5) A.C. Banarjee

Now what you said about A.C. Banarjee saying Rajput retired after heavy losses is what he is saying after a single engagement. Jadunath Sarkar provided the chronology in detail. He clearly saying that Rajput charged multiple times although they couldn't breach maratha lines. So later they retired to their own line in the battlefield itself. They didn't leave the battlefield and marathas didn't make any countercharge. This was that day's engagement. And Banarjee is himself quoting the whole result section from J. Sarkar. All of your other sources are clearly saying that Sindhia retreated from battlefield. Now it was Mahadji Sindhia who started the war by invading the Jaipur territory. Jaipur army defended it, fought several small engagements, none of them can be said decisive, true. But in the end he retreated from battlefield because of condition created by Jaipur army itself, his grain and supply was cut off by Rajputs, as put painted vividly by Jadunath Sarkar how his camp had fo face multiple problems including food supply hence his soldiers when solicited by Jaipur army ditched sindhia and joined his enemy. Sindhia seeing his condition weakened raise the camp and retreated from battlefield, some sources say he was constantly harassed in his retreat by enemy forces. And the source you provided that is S.N. Sen clearly says Sindhia's retreat could have been turned into second Panipat that is third battle of Panipat where marathas conclusively defeated by Afghans. Anyway as we see the primary objective, Sindhia was the invader, Rajputs were merely defending. Sindhia invaded their territory and came to demand taxes on behalf of Mughals. He went without a single rupee and his condition in battlefield was worse. Rajputs came to fight in the battlefield to defend their territory and to not pay any money. They achieved both their objective and also remained in the battlefield which was abandoned by Sindhia who could not fulfil his single objective. Even if we ignore tactical part of it which had many engagements, it was strategic victory for Jaipur state. Kind of like Vietnam war where US had to leave after all, but unlike Vietnam war here Jaipur Army was face to face with Sindhia army and they were the one who remained in the battlefield too. Besides two sources provided on the result section are clearly saying Victory of Jaipur armies.Sajaypal007 (talk) 14:07, 10 December 2021 (UTC)

Nearly all of the sources state that the outcome of this Battle / Engagement can at most be described as INDECISIVE & by no means as a victory for Jaipur, my four sources > your two sources. Further, it is clearly stated by Sen that Scindia wanted to pursue the rajputs but could not do so due to heavy rains & thus a withdrawal was ordered on account of impeding mutiny in his own ranks & not on account of the Rajputs. Your comparison of the nearly two decade long Vietnam War to this single battle / engagement is both laughable & disingenuos, the Vietnam War was primarily a protracted conflict between the North & the South Vietnamese with the brief American presence being a bloody interlude. Your line of argument is more akin to when Pakistanis kid themselves when they argue that since Lahore was defended by them against an "Indian invasion", Pakistan was somehow victorious in the 1965 War! A.A Ghatge (talk) 06:13, 17 December 2021 (UTC)

Please see WP:INDENT and please follow WP:TALK. And regarding result part, that Sindhia didn't pursue part falls apart when you read the events mentioned, Jaipur and Gwalior both army were facing each other, Jaipur assumed offensive in the battle and tried to rout in the one major battle which they couldn't do and then retired to their own line, their army never left the battlefield so that they can be pursued, while a couple of days later, Sindhia's army did retreat from battlefield which was pursued and harassed in the way by their enemies. Regarding Indo-Pak war of 1965, the offensive was assumed was Pakistan not India.Sajaypal007 (talk) 13:04, 19 December 2021 (UTC)