Talk:Bahmani Kingdom

Untitled

The following statement may or may not be true, but it must be documented:

"The Bahmanis were responsible for large scale massacres and slaughter of south Indian Hindu population and destruction of temples, often overshadowing the atrocities conducted by Turks and Mughals in north India."

Massacres, slaughter and destruction of temples suggest POV issues in the absence of documentation. It is not enough to say "everyone knows this". Give a citation.

Probably nothing of this sort happened. Student's britannica writes that Bahmani sultans showed relegious tolerance and non-interference to Hindus. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.96.226.88 (talk) 07:30, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

Capital names

True, the Bahmani sultans renamed their two capitals "Ahsanabad" and "Muhammadabad", but shouldn't they be called by their former and later names in the article, i.e. Gulbarga and Bidar? So that more people know where they are and that they still exist?

Contemporary sources like the Riyaz ul-insha' (which I have read) usually mention both names, e.g "Muhammadabad Bidar". So probably most people called their city Bidar anyway. Curryfranke (talk) 12:03, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

Shi'a

Traces of Shi'ism in south India are very few before 1500. Iran became a Shi'i country in 1501, and immigrants from Iran before 1500 were Sunnis of the Shafi'i mazhab. Shi'as did exist as a small minority in Qom and Mashhad, and among the Turkish tribes of Azerbaijan, but they were not specially attracted to India. The Grand Vizier Mahmud Gawan was a staunch Sunni and retained close relations with the great poet and Naqshbandi pir Jami, who was a staunch Sunni by profession. Curryfranke (talk) 12:13, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

Shiísm in Iran has a long tradition. Once, up to the rise of Safavids, they were a small minority dominated by their Sunni brothers. The Buyyids, Sardebaran and many other smaller dynasties were Shiits. The Safavids forced the dominant Sunnis to convert from Sunnism to Shiism. But before the arise of Shiism in Iran Shiism was already established well and was not uncommon among people. Great scholars like al-Farabi, Ibn Sina etc. were all Shias and belonged mostly either to the 12th Imamits or were Ismaelis (Ibn Sina). Rumi was a Shia Alevit. --188.107.4.206 (talk) 13:14, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

I don't think we should take you seriously.--Mydust (talk) 20:13, 16 July 2020 (UTC)

One of the sources cited to prove that the Bahmanis were Shia clearly mentions that they were Sunni, so I will make the correct changes--Mydust (talk) 20:56, 16 July 2020 (UTC) (Only speaking on my own behalf), as a claimed descendant of Bahman sultans, I am a Sunni with Sufi Chishtiya orientation. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A00:23C7:5D88:6801:D983:87E2:AA32:794C (talk) 10:20, 28 June 2022 (UTC)

Qasim_Barid_I

Qasim Barid I , this article says that Qasim Barid I (r.1489-1504) was a prime-minister of the Bahmani sultanate and the founder of the Bidar Sultanate, -- Raghith 08:50, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

Mohammed Shah II

• Mohammed Shah II 1378–1397 the internal link wrong. it goes to the Turkeyhistory. But this article is about Indian history.--தகவலுழவன் (talk) 02:41, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

Orphaned references in Bahmani Sultanate

I check pages listed in Category:Pages with incorrect ref formatting to try to fix reference errors. One of the things I do is look for content for orphaned references in wikilinked articles. I have found content for some of Bahmani Sultanate's orphans, the problem is that I found more than one version. I can't determine which (if any) is correct for this article, so I am asking for a sentient editor to look it over and copy the correct ref content into this article.

Reference named "m":

• From Ahmadnagar Sultanate: Majumdar, R.C. (ed.) (2007). The Mughul Empire, Mumbai: Bharatiya Vidya Bhavan, ISBN 81-7276-407-1, pp.415–45
• From Ala-ud-Din Bahman Shah: Majumdar, R.C. (ed.) (2006). The Delhi Sultanate, Mumbai:Bharatiya Vidya Bhavan, p.248

I apologize if any of the above are effectively identical; I am just a simple computer program, so I can't determine whether minor differences are significant or not. AnomieBOT⚡ 11:43, 5 January 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Bahmani Sultanate. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20061019004703/http://www.iranica.com/newsite/home/index.isc to http://www.iranica.com/newsite/home/index.isc

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 05:20, 24 October 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Bahmani Sultanate. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070223071144/http://orbat.com/site/cimh/kings_master/kings/ibrahimII_adil_shahi/5_provinces.html to http://orbat.com/site/cimh/kings_master/kings/ibrahimII_adil_shahi/5_provinces.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 19:58, 13 July 2017 (UTC)

Fanatics?

Cuddly Visionary, now blocked for socking, has contributed this line:

Vincent Smith and Nilakanta Sastri stated that the Bahmani Sultans were fanatics and did not show any interest in general welfare of their subjects.

References

The relevant found in the Introductory chapter of the thesis says:

While assessing the character of the Bahmani rule, modern writers like Vincent Smith and Nilakanta Sastri, have remarked that the Bahmani Sultans were fanatics and did not evince any interest in the general welfare of their subjecta.[1] But an impartial study of the Bahmani rule enables us to say that the views of these historians about the Bahmani Sultans betray the fallacy of generalisation and are unjustifiably harsh. A dynasty which produced rulers like Hasan Bahman Shah, Firuz Shah and others, who evinced keen interest in the general well-being of their subjects, deserves better treatment at the hands of historians.

A fine example of WP:NPOV editing? -- Kautilya3 (talk) 12:13, 27 September 2019 (UTC)

Removal of references to 'Deccani' or North Indian in the intro

The following discussion 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.

---

Link to diff

In response to User:पाटलिपुत्र's removals based on the reasoning: '"From Northern India" is not the same as "Northern Indian", stop the distortion please and follow the sources'

Notwithstanding the first Bahmanid Sultan 'Hasan Gangu's obscure descent, see the descriptions of the founders of the kingdom in general: Richard Eaton not only specifies the term "North Indian" settlers, or "North Indian immigrants" to describe the founders of the dynasty : "On the one hand, the court was obliged to patronize the descendants of those north Indian settlers who had migrated to the Deccan in the fourteenth century, and who, rebelling against Delhi, had launched the dynasty"[1], "North Indian immigrants who had settled in the Deccan from the 1320s" as the people who revolted against Delhi but specifies that they were characterized by their speech of "an early form of Hindavi called Dakani."[2] The historian Jamal Malik uses the words 'local' or 'North Indian Muslim' to describe the founders of the Bahmanid state: "change of capital to Daulatabad(1337) proved to be the most important vehicle by which North Indian Muslim ideas and institutions crossed the Narmada. The status of being a tributary to the Sultanate was deeply resented by the local Muslims, culminating in the revolt by Deccani nobles led by Ala al-Din Hasan Bahman Shah in 1347, eventually establishing an independent kingdom called the Bahmani kingdom."[3]

But more important than 'north indian', is the key word "Deccani". Even after the descendents of the North Indian settlers in the Bahmanid state adopted a south Indian 'Deccani' identity', as according to Roy Fischel, they "aimed to distinguish themselves from their North Indian ancestors and later from the Foreigners", he points out that nonetheless: "The attitudes of the Deccan Sultanates towards their neighbours reflect some of the sensitivities of the Deccanis within the local political system. More than any other group, the Deccanis were associated with the Deccan Sultanates...This framing enables us to locate the Deccanis within their environment as the most dominant group when it comes to determining the direction of the Sultanates."[4] Richard Eaton: "If the Deccanis manifested a colonial idea, namely a society composed of transplanted settler-founders and their descendants, the Westerners represented a cultural idea: a refined style of comportment, an eminent tradition of statescraft, a prestigious language". The Sultanate was defined by its founding by the Deccanis and their North Indian ancestors; therefore the term "Sunni Persianate" in the current introduction in the page is an incomplete definition of the Bahmanid Sultanate, because Persianate is not an ethnicity, but solely cultural. It mentions one without the other, therefore giving undue weight. Fischel says that regarding the 'Persianate' element: "Their continous transient nature emphasises the weakness of their vertical connections to the political structure."[5] This is why Fischel emphasizes that the Deccanis i.e. the Deccani Muslims were the most associated with the political structure, and the 'most dominant group' when it comes to determining the direction of the Sultanates. Overton: "consequently more than other elites [Deccanis], the Foreigners were dependent on the conditions of the host courts themselves. Once a court lost stability, direct patronage, employment, and defense dwindled, the Foreigners left."[6] Threfore it is necessary to emphasize the Deccanis' as being the strongest in association with the identity of the political structure, while the 'Persianate' in contrast had weak connections to the political structure of the Sultanate. Therefore, instead of incomplete descriptions giving undue weight such as 'Persianate state' which could apply to almost everything from the Tipu Sultan to Ilkhanids, not only should it be designated an Indo-Muslim state as Richard Eaton does[7]. but ethnically it is more appropriate specify the word 'Deccani' when describing the Bahmanid kingdom, relating to the Deccani Muslim people, with a Persianate or Indo-Persian culture. Eaton says the Bahmanid court was obliged to patronise those descendents of 'North Indian' settlers who had "launched the dynasty". Yaaminey Mubayi: "The Deccanis...enabled the founding of the kingdom"[8]-----Mydust (talk)

You yourself cited the Encyclopedia Iranica, which says:

The Bahmanid kingdom was not only the first independent Muslim kingdom in South India, but it was also one of the greatest centers of Iranian culture in the sub-continent. The Bahmanid elite consisted mainly of Iranian, Turk, Dakanī, or Muslim migrants from northern India, in addition to the local Hindu population; however, the Iranians along with the Turks and Afghans dominated Bahmanid society and to a large extent shaped its destiny.

So you are clearly trying to straitjacket a much more complex picture. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 16:38, 11 March 2023 (UTC)

I am also unclear what "Deccani identity" is supposed to be. What is it? Where did it come from? -- Kautilya3 (talk) 16:57, 11 March 2023 (UTC)

"You yourself cited the Encyclopedia Iranica, which says:"

It wasn't me who cited Iranica, in fact in my last edit summary, I emphasized that N. H. Ansari was less of an authoritative source compared to Richard Eaton and Roy Fischel, the former(N. H. Ansari) being written in 1988 and the latter (richard eaton) being the leading historian in this decade.

As for what Deccanis are, they are currently an ethnic group in southern india that speak the Dakhni language, and attribute their origin to the migration of North Indians to Daulatabad during the Delhi Sultanate. But according to Richard Eaton, "Deccani" referred to a North Indian immigrant who opposed Tuhgluq rule." Within the Bahmanid era, Deccani was not only a socio-cultural identifier but also a political class linked by the Dakhni language and the Sunni religion, which Fischel describes extensively in "Local States in an Imperial World: Identity, Society and Politics in the Early Modern Deccan" where he emphasizes that "More than any other group, the Deccanis were associated with the Deccan Sultanates".

The historian Helen Philon makes it clear that it is not known whether Hasan Gangu, the founder was of foreign ancestry or a Hindu convert, and it is equally possible that he could have been of either origin. But Abdul Malik Isami, who actually was of foreign ancestry of Iraq, and the first court historian of the Bahmanids in the 14th century is a good example of his class, being born in Delhi and one of the immigrants forced to migrate from Hindustan to the Deccan by the Delhi Sultanate. He wrote the Futuh-as-Salatin justifying Bahmanid rebellion against the Delhi Sultanate, and was critical of its rule and its forced migrations. He says "(My poetic disposition) said : 'Hindustan is your place — the birth place of your grandfather and forefathers.'" Like Richard Eaton and Fischel says, these north indian immigrants were primarily Hindavi-speakers and brought the Hindavi language to the Deccan which morphed into Deccani. "Isami also explains the context of his writing, in his view, as pious Deccani Muslims rising up against the northern tyrant Muhammad bin Tughluq"(The Language of History:Sanskrit Narratives of Indo-Muslim Rule)-Mydust (talk) 20:00, 28 April 2023 (UTC)

I've been thinking about putting in my two cents into this conversation for a while now, and in light of recent edits on this article, I feel as though doing so is appropriate. There's a lot of points to discuss and go over in regards to mydusts edits on this page.

Lets start with the first sentence written by you, "Notwithstanding the first Bahmanid Sultan 'Hasan Gangu's obscure descent, see the descriptions of the founders of the kingdom in general:" Heres where I think the crux of the issue lies, you completely disregarded the origins of the dynasties actual founders, in an attempt to shoehorn your own (likely with an agenda)interpretation of the events in bad faith. As recent edits suggest you were also opposed to any mention of Hasan Gangus possible origin, probably because it would have contradicted the notion that the dynasty originated from a dakhni elite, which is obviously untrue as we will get to next. The origin of the dynasty depends entirely on Hasan Gangus heritage, it has nothing to do with a political elite class within the Bahmani sultanate which is what the dakhni nobles actually were. They were never the founders which is what I will get to soon. Moving on here's a quote by you:

"Richard Eaton not only specifies the term "North Indian" settlers, or "North Indian immigrants" to describe the founders of the dynasty : "On the one hand, the court was obliged to patronize the descendants of those north Indian settlers who had migrated to the Deccan in the fourteenth century, and who, rebelling against Delhi, had launched the dynasty""

This is really important because you heavily imply throughout your post that Richard Eaton supports the claims you make, and in this case, you assert that he describes North indian immigrants and settlers as founders of the dynasty. Again this is highly misleading and a grave misrepresentation of what Richard Eaton is actually writing. Here Richard Eaton is describing a political class within the Bahmani court, which helped launched the dynasty. While they supported the dynasties rise to power, they were not the founders of the sultanate, they were a powerful class among a very diverse court culture that hosted many different sections of society including westerners(Middle easterners, central asians) whom the deccan nobles greatly opposed. Here is Richard Eatons full quote.

"From this point on, the Bahmani kingdom fell into a downward spiral from which it never recovered. The deep and intractable Deccani—Westerner rift, and the poisonous intrigues and destructive civil wars it spawned, ultimately undermined the state’s stability. On the one hand, the court was obliged to patronize the Deccanis inasmuch as they were descended from the northern settlers who, having rebelled against Muhammad bin Tughlug, had launched the dynasty. But in order to earn a coveted place in the cosmopolitan Timurid world, rulers in Bidar felt equally obliged to recruit immigrants from the Middle East or Central Asia. In the end, the Deccanis and Westerners represented not just two competing political factions, but two different conceptions of state and society. Each class being legitimate in its own way, neither could be dislodged. Mahmud Gawan’s policy of politically balancing the two classes proved an impossible juggling act: no administrative measure could resolve the ideological rift." page 160 on the archive.

https://archive.org/details/india-in-the-persianate-age-1000-1765-richard-m-eaton/page/n159/mode/2up

The point of citing this giant quote was to show that Richard Eaton wrote about two political elements that opposed each other within the kingdom. The deccani nobles helped launched the dynasty, that does not make them the founders. In regards to the Bahmani sultnates origins, Richard Eaton only has this to say. "In short, in 1347 two independent kingdoms had emerged on either side of the Krishna, each founded by a family of obscure origins" page 94 in the archive.

Clearly the only thing Richard Eaton has to say in regards to the bahmani sultanate's founders past is that they came from families of obscure origin. He doesn't mention dakhnis or anyone else there. Which again goes to show that your using quotes by taking away their original meaning and extrapolating it into something else that suits your narrative.

Theres another Eaton quote here used by you which I will also go over now. Im gonna cite the full paragraph here

"The deep and intractable Deccani—Westerner rift, and the poisonous intrigues and destructive civil wars it spawned, ultimately undermined the state’s stability. On the one hand, the court was obliged to patronize the Deccanis inasmuch as they were descended from the northern settlers who, having rebelled against Muhammad bin Tughlug, had launched the dynasty. But in order to earn a coveted place in the cosmopolitan Timurid world, rulers in Bidar felt equally obliged to recruit immigrants from the Middle East or Central Asia. In the end, the Deccanis and Westerners represented not just two competing political factions, but two different conceptions of state and society. Each class being legitimate in its own way, neither could be dislodged."

As I've mentioned before, there was a rift between the Dakhni and western nobles within the court. This paragraph is describing that rift. The Dakhnis helped launched the dynasty by supporting its founder and ruling class, but once again that doesn't mean the dynasty itself is Dakhni in origin, that's a misrepresentation of what Richard Eaton had written. Clearly there was a power struggle between two equally strong court elements, that's all there is.

I'm going to quote you paraphrasing Richard Eatons words a bit. "North Indian immigrants who had settled in the Deccan from the 1320s" as the people who revolted against Delhi but specifies that they were characterized by their speech of "an early form of Hindavi called Dakani." Now let me quote what Richard Eaton actually wrote.

"The Bahmani court’s efforts to recruit talent from the Persian-speaking world came at heavy cost. As more so-called Westerners — ethnic Persians and Turks — arrived from across the Arabian Sea and acquired positions of influence, the kingdom’s native Muslims, the Deccanis, felt increasingly embittered and alienated. This class was descended from north Indian immigrants who, such as Gisudaraz’s parents, had settled in the Deccan from the 1320s, when the Tughluqs established Daulatabad as their empirewide co-capital. Born in the Deccan, this class spoke indigenous languages in addition to an early form of Hindavi called Dakani"

Again, all this is talking about is how there was a class of Deccanis within the court which was embroiled in a conflict against other court elements such as Persians and Turks who had also held high sway within the government. The Deccanis were a class like any other, they were not the rulers. This is why you need to cite the full context to understand what the historian is actually saying. And fYI, Gisudaraz may have been born in Northern india but you seem to neglect to mention the fact that his ancestors were from Herat according to Iranica. https://www.iranicaonline.org/articles/gisu-daraz

You quoted Richard Eaton one final time here. "If the Deccanis manifested a colonial idea, namely a society composed of transplanted settler-founders and their descendants, the Westerners represented a cultural idea: a refined style of comportment, an eminent tradition of statescraft, a prestigious language".

Again, as I've explained numerous times, Richard Eaton is referring to a political class within the government. The Deccanis indeed helped the dynasties rise, but again they were not the rulers. I wanted to focus a lot on Richard Eatons quotes because he's a distinguished historian and you seem to put a lot of credibility on your edits behind what he wrote. To be very clear, you tried to make it seem like Richard Eaton agrees with your interpretation of the events when he didn't actually write anything in support of that claim.

Now lets move onto the other historians you quoted. "The historian Jamal Malik uses the words 'local' or 'North Indian Muslim' to describe the founders of the Bahmanid state: "change of capital to Daulatabad(1337) proved to be the most important vehicle by which North Indian Muslim ideas and institutions crossed the Narmada. The status of being a tributary to the Sultanate was deeply resented by the local Muslims, culminating in the revolt by Deccani nobles led by Ala al-Din Hasan Bahman Shah in 1347, eventually establishing an independent kingdom called the Bahmani kingdom."

Again if you read this closely, this falls in line with what I was trying to explain earlier. The Deccan nobles were a powerful class, powerful enough that they could support a large revolt. But look at the key phrase here, "led by Ala al Din". Jamal Malik clearly states that the Deccan nobles were led by Ala al-din, who established the Bahmani kingdon. Again this is an attempt to say that the historians writing supports your assertions when it doesn't. He directly implies that Ala al-din was the founder of the kingdom, not the dakhnis. They supported his rise to power, but they weren't the rulers themselves.

As for the last quotes you cited, im not even sure how they are supposed to support your argument. Roy fischel is clearly talking about the deccan sultanates, not the bahmani kingdom, and again there is nothing there to support your assertions.

This was a long edit admittedly but I felt like it needed to be written. Originally I was writing this recently in hopes of making changes to the article soon but it seems like other wiki editors have done it for me. Mydust, you tried using sources that didn't reach the same conclusions you reached in the edits you've made which is really unacceptable and incredibly misleading. User Pataliputra was definitely correct when he was making the original edits you reverted, and this should have been solved months ago but unfortunately it had to be done now. Feel free to discuss this with me when your block time is over. I will ping a few other editors in case they wanted to shine some light on the situation

@Kautilya3 @पाटलिपुत्र @Noorullah21 Someguywhosbored (talk) 08:27, 18 July 2023 (UTC)

If you are trying to reply to Mydust, it is pointless because he has been blocked indefiinitely. If you want to suggest lead revisions, please open a new section, and start by giving your proposed version. Keep your talk page posts to 4-5 lines, not WP:WALLOFTEXT. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 11:05, 18 July 2023 (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.

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

• Flag of the Bahmani Sultanate 29.webp

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 18:53, 30 May 2023 (UTC)

Per explanation

The IP user was disruptively editing the page via editing its origins section and overriding the reverts of numerou sother editors while doing so and completely ignoring it to POV-Push over the origins of Ala-ud-Din Bahman Shah as started on his page. You can see his edits were reverted by me and other editors while doing so, and is adding the same thing without it being sourced (and pasting it on top of the already other sources) that state his origins before the edit. @Johnuniq, and yes I mean indefinite semi-protection. Noorullah (talk) 06:17, 14 July 2023 (UTC)

@Noorullah21: Sorry but explanations have to be presented properly. When there is a dispute, it is obvious that someone will believe another person is "disruptively editing" and reverting "numerous other editors". Don't mention that. An explanation has to show an example of changed text and say why it was wrong or inappropriate. The "why" should be understandable to someone like me without any topic knowledge. Whether the IP was reverted is not relevant. For example, a recent IP edit was diff. Why is changing "Zafar Khan" to "Hassan Gangu" wrong? What is the significance of changing "Afghan Pashtun" to "Punjabi Arain"? The reference was changed to "|Title=Bahman Shah |publisher=S.A.Q Hussaini |year=1960 |isbn=9780521563215 |edition=Vol 60 |pages=60". The isbn was unchanged and therefore very likely incorrect. What about the title, publisher, volume and page? Is there such a document? Johnuniq (talk) 07:29, 14 July 2023 (UTC)

@Johnuniq Yes, well the content here that is being inappropriately changed is the origins. The IP user changes the ethnic origin of Zafar Khan from "Afghan Pashtun" to "Punjabi Arain". This user did this on the page of Ala-ud-Din Bahman Shah numerous times without adding a source as shown here in these diffs: [9], [10], and [11]. Each of these edits were reverted. The latest edit of the user was on the page of the Bahmani Sultanate itself where he repeated it as you showed in your diff example. I am also not sure of what document/source they are attempting to reference. Despite being reverted by me and other editors, the user persistently continued to push their edit on the Ala-ud-Din Bahman Shah without regard and didn't add a source.

@Johnuniq Noorullah (talk) 08:19, 14 July 2023 (UTC)

Origin

I thought it would be nice to start up the talk page and begin to discuss it out.

I see your concern with is that some of the sources could be unreliable, and I see some of the ones you pointed out with Everett. But that is ignoring the others. Ruthermund and Kulke, which are both historians, state this: on page 181 of: A History of India.

" The Bahmani sultanate of the Deccan Soon after Muhammad Tughluq left Daulatabad, the city was conquered by Zafar Khan, a Turkish or Afghan officer of unknown descent, had earlier participated in a mutiny of troops in Gujarat."

Kerr gordon says this in his A Short History of India: From the Earliest Civilisations to Today's Economic Powerhouse.

In the early fourteenth century, the Muslim Bahmani kingdom of the Deccan emerged following Alauddin's conquest of the south. Zafar Khan, an Afghan general and governor appointed by Sultan Muhammad bin Tughluq, was victorious against the troops of the Delhi Sultanate, establishing the Bahmani kingdom with its capital at Ahsanabad (modern-day Gulbarga).

Historian Fereshta also calls them Afghan per Indo-Islamic society: 14th - 15th centuries. on page 144. Noorullah (talk) 21:46, 16 July 2023 (UTC)

@Mydust Noorullah (talk) 21:46, 16 July 2023 (UTC)

Everett states on: The Muslim Diaspora (Volume 1, 570-1500): A Comprehensive Chronology of the Spread of Islam in Asia, Africa, Europe and the Americas, Volume 1

"Zafar Khan alias Alauddin Hasan Gangu ('Ala al-Din Hasan Bahman Shah), an Afghan or a Turk soldier, revolted against Delhi and established the Muslim Kingdom of Bahmani on August 3 in the South (Madura) and ruled as Sultan Alauddin Bahman Shah."

You said Everett was not reliable because he was not a historian, but he is described as a historian in numerous places, as well as having made similar historical books. See here of what calls him historians:

[12] Also described as: "respected voice in Islamic and African history," [13] Here is a list of books he made for reference. [14]

Regardless if Everett were not to be considered reliable, there are the other sources that regard Zafar Khan as a Turkish or Afghan noble/soldier. Noorullah (talk) 21:55, 16 July 2023 (UTC)

[15] this is a Lawyer website. Everett does not have any qualifications related to history but he is certified as a lawyer and in political science. The other sources you mentioned clearly state "with unknown descent". Lastly, since the sources are not unanimous about his descent, it is extremely misleading to make a claim like you did. Mydust (talk) 23:12, 16 July 2023 (UTC)

@Mydust Ruther and Kulke's source says with Unknown descent but still calls him a Turk or Afghan soldier. The other sources do not mention him being of unknown descent. The sources are unanimous in claiming he was either of Turk or Afghan descent. You are potraying WP:ICANTHEARYOU here because you seem to be ignoring the other sources.

Only 1 other source as I said, mentioned he was fo unknown descent while still calling him a Turk or Afghan. Noorullah (talk) 00:18, 17 July 2023 (UTC)

This concluded in Mydust's block at the Edit warring noticeboard: [16] Noorullah (talk) 05:09, 17 July 2023 (UTC)

Brahmin origin

I wanted to address a few concerns as respectfully as possible.

There appears to be only two sources that support Brahmin origin listed in the article and neither of them appear to be reliable based on my limited research. One isn’t a historian Anna Suvorova, and the other, I can’t find any info about online besides that one book which I also can’t access beyond the snippets.

There’s also other sources which state that the Brahmin origins for the Bahmani sultanate is likely untenable. ” Dr. Qanungo’s line of argument appears to be sound ; but the assumption that Hasan or some ancestor of his might have been a convert to Islam is not backed by any evidence. ”. For the reasons given above, the contention of Dr. Qanungo that Hasan was a Hindu convert or the descendant of a Hindu convert belonging to the Punjabi clan known as the Qango is untenable.” Page 60.

https://archive.org/details/in.ernet.dli.2015.532600/page/n80/mode/1up

Which is why I removed the mentions of Brahmin origin. Of course I’d be willing to come up with any solution for the article. Perhaps somewhere mentioning the Brahmin theory, with an explanation for why it’s likely untenable right after.

Or I could very well be wrong and the Brahmin origin of the dynasty should be mentioned. In that case the article is fine as it is. I’d very much like to hear your feedback. I don’t mind being corrected. @Kansas Bear Someguywhosbored (talk) 22:21, 3 September 2023 (UTC)

• "One isn’t a historian Anna Suvorova...."

She is a Russian orientalist. Surely you know what that is. "Oriental studies is the academic field that studies Near Eastern and Far Eastern societies and cultures, languages, peoples, history and archaeology.", if you think Anna Suvorova is not a reliable source in a book published by Oxford University Press, please feel free to take it to WP:Reliable Sources Noticeboard.

IF your source that refutes a Brahmin origin is a reliable source then a note can be made stating X source states Brahmin origin is untenable. --Kansas Bear (talk) 22:43, 3 September 2023 (UTC)

You’re right, not sure how I missed the fact that she is an orientalist. It appears that was a grave mistake on my end.

Your suggestion sounds sensible. A note can be made, about how x source states that Brahmin origin is untenable. I’m willing to move forward from this. Someguywhosbored (talk) 23:23, 3 September 2023 (UTC)

And apologies for wasting everyone’s time on this front. Someguywhosbored (talk) 23:43, 3 September 2023 (UTC)

Going through your source, it only seems to refute that Bahman Shah had ancestry from a certain tribe of Punjab. Could not find refuting his Brahman origins anywhere; Perhaps you should find a better source for it, and if possible, a more recent one? Sutyarashi (talk) 04:59, 4 September 2023 (UTC)

With all due respect, I believe that’s incorrect. The author makes it pretty clear that he wasn’t a converted Hindu, and that he was born into a Muslim family.

“Dr. Qanungo’s line of argument appears to be sound ; but the assumption that Hasan or some ancestor of his might have been a convert to Islam is not backed by any evidence. According to Firishtah, he was the nephew of zafar Khan, the great general of ‘Ala’u ’d-Din and a brother of ‘All Shah”. Pg 60

He’s not only saying that they don’t belong to the Punjabi tribe of Hindus, he also has made it clear that it’s unlikely he was originally hindu(thus couldn’t be Brahmin).

“For the reasons given above, the contention of Dr. Qanungo that Hasan was a Hindu convert or the descendant of a Hindu convert belonging to the Punjabi clan known as the Qango is untenable. There is overwhelming evidence to prove that he claimed to be a descendant of Bahman, son of Isfandiyar, as witnessed by contemporary evidence and the testimony of later writers.” Pg 61

“It is true that there have been cases in which new converts to Islam have carved out kingdoms in India. But Hasan’s case is one in which the old Muslim officers had the option of choosing him or some one else ; and the proud foreign Muslims would not have normally chosen a new convert or his offspring. Further, the marriage of Bahman Shah’s son with the daughter of Qadi (Malik) Sayfu ’d-Din Ghurl 0 is another fact to be taken into consideration. No proud old Muslim of Malik Sayfu ’d-DIn’s standing would have consented to give his daughter to a new convert’s son or descendant. Bahram Khan MazandaranI 1 was the sister’s son of BahmanA This establishes the fact that long before Hasan became the Sultan, his family had matrimonial relationship with Muslim families of Central Asia“. Pg 60-61

This book goes into a lot of detail explaining as to why he wasn’t originally a converted Hindu. I cited a quite a few lines, here is a few more.

“There are at least half a dozen arguments against .accepting Firishtah’s explanation of the term Kankui. Firstly., according to Firishtah’s own version, 1 Hasan came of a very eminent family which had reached the peak of glory towards the close of the 13th century. It is highly improbable that within a quarter of a century the great hero Zafar Khan ‘Ala’I’s family should have sunk so low as to make a nephew of his a servant of a Brahman astrologer.

Secondly, Firishtah's account says that Hasan was called Kankawi Bahmam after the Brahman. We have found that Hasan never called himself Bahmam and that Firishtah’s account in that respect was absolutely baseless and even liable to be suspected as deliberate concoction. Hence it is quite probable that Firishtah’s inference that Hasan was called Kankawi after a Brahman named Kanku should also share the same fate”. Pg 63.

He lists a bunch of more reasons as to why this is false, but I think you get the point.

Apologies if this may be considered a wall of text.

https://archive.org/details/in.ernet.dli.2015.532600/page/n83/mode/1up?view=theater Someguywhosbored (talk) 01:41, 7 September 2023 (UTC)

Right. I think clarification can be added into the article. However, Is there any information available regarding the author's expertise? Sutyarashi (talk) 13:30, 10 September 2023 (UTC)

Yes, it’s right at the beginning of the book in fact like in the 4th page(not the page number). There it mentions, that the author has an M.A in history and Islamic history, as well as having a phd in history. Definitely is credible. Someguywhosbored (talk) 21:45, 10 September 2023 (UTC)

@Sutyarashi Adding on.. but seeing WP:UNDUE the fact that another source goes against the idea of a Brahmin origin, is the inclusion of Brahmin in this article appropriate? Noorullah (talk) 05:57, 16 November 2023 (UTC)

A single line statement is not undue, given that sources are too reliable. And I think it's appropriate to add above clarification by someguywhosbored instead of removing it. Sutyarashi (talk) 06:45, 16 November 2023 (UTC)

When I get time I’ll try to add clarification. Per discussion, I’ve been thinking of writing a note or sentence that goes somewhere along the lines as this.

“A Brahmin origin has also been proposed(list citation here), however this is for various reasons considered untenable(list citation here and note explaining why). ”

I think this sounds like a fair compromise. Would you all agree? Someguywhosbored (talk) 08:15, 16 November 2023 (UTC)

Right. However, I think present statement should be kept as it's and additional sentence should be rephrased as "However, S.A.Q Hussaini (reference to specific author) considers it to be improbable for various reasons.", with note and cite ahead. Sutyarashi (talk) 09:01, 16 November 2023 (UTC)

Well to be honest I was considering deleting the current statement and writing the rephrased statement I proposed right after. I think the statement is more tenuous than you realize. Supernova is a reliable source indeed but I feel that on this particular subject, Hussaini might be more authoritative because he has an MA in Islamic history and a phd in history. I’m willing to be proven wrong on this though because I already was once in this page, so perhaps I’m mistaken but that’s just my guess. More importantly, his arguments seem more sound.

“It is true that there have been cases in which new converts to Islam have carved out kingdoms in India. But Hasan’s case is one in which the old Muslim officers had the option of choosing him or some one else ; and the proud foreign Muslims would not have normally chosen a new convert or his offspring. Further, the marriage of Bahman Shah’s son with the daughter of Qadi (Malik) Sayfu ’d-Din Ghurl 0 is another fact to be taken into consideration. No proud old Muslim of Malik Sayfu ’d-DIn’s standing would have consented to give his daughter to a new convert’s son or descendant. Bahram Khan MazandaranI 1 was the sister’s son of BahmanA This establishes the fact that long before Hasan became the Sultan, his family had matrimonial relationship with Muslim families of Central Asia“

interestingly, Hussain claims that ferishta may have had another motive. “Sixthly, we have already .observed 6 that Firishtah, who was a ShTah and was in the service of Ibrahim ‘Adil Shah II of Bijapur, was interested in injuring the prestige of the founder of the BahmanI dynasty. It was in pursuance of this motive that he called him Bahmanl and stated that he was so called after a Brahman astrologer under whom he was a servant. Probably, the same motive made him write that the term Kanku'i was connected with the name of the Brahman. For the above reasons Firishtah’s explanation cannot be accepted. We have to seek elsewhere for a satisfactory explanation of the term Qangawi”

He lists many reasons as to why it’s false and it seems there is a lot of issues with ferishtas claim of him being a Brahmin. Ferishta supposedly had reason to discredit him.

As noorullah wrote, it’s less prominent of a theory and is likely to be incorrect based on the evidence I’ve seen. I don’t see any point in giving undue weight to that claim if it’s already considered tenuous.

I think it should also be moved down with an explanation as to why it’s a tenuous claim. Otherwise as already stated, it will be giving undue weight to a theory that’s considered less prominent and accurate than the other. Someguywhosbored (talk) 20:31, 16 November 2023 (UTC)

That makes sense, it follows consistency with pages like the Ghurid Empire (regarding the origins section) with the encyclopedia of Islam source. Noorullah (talk) 14:41, 16 November 2023 (UTC)

Previous comment is (Regarding @Someguywhosbored’s proposal). It should also be moved down since its a less prominent theory of origin. In fact, I still fail to see how it is relevant to include in the article. The only reliable source pushing a Brahmin origin is by Anne, whereas compared to the other sources we have which clearly push forward a Turk or Afghan origin, I believe it shouldn’t even be in the article at all per WP:UNDUE. Noorullah (talk) 18:09, 16 November 2023 (UTC)

1 of the aforementioned sources we also have, entirely discredits the idea of a Brahmin origin. Noorullah (talk) 18:11, 16 November 2023 (UTC)

@Kansas Bear Since you were previously involved in this, what do you think now? Anne is a reliable historian no doubt, but that seems to be the only reliable source stating that Hasan Gangu had any Brahmin origin. The numerous other scholarly sources we have (ie wink, etc) all suggest an Afghan or Turk origin. There is even a source that entirely discredits the idea of a Brahmin origin. Noorullah (talk) 23:22, 16 November 2023 (UTC)

I'm looking at it in the view that it should be entirely removed, or a note should be added stating that the idea of a Brahmin origin is untenable. But due to the aforementioned, I am supporting entirely removing it as of now. Noorullah (talk) 23:23, 16 November 2023 (UTC)

If a reliable academic source states something should we use it, despite another source stating otherwise? We can easily include the Brahmin information+source along with the information refuting Brahmin information+source. I'm only interested in covering all our bases and not getting accused of violating NPOV(which has happened to me).--Kansas Bear (talk) 00:16, 17 November 2023 (UTC)

Fair enough, I'll rewrite it. @Kansas Bear Noorullah (talk) 03:45, 17 November 2023 (UTC)

@Kansas Bear@Sutyarashi@Someguywhosbored How do you think it looks now? I re-wrote it to state this:

"Another theory of origin for Zafar Khan is that he was of Brahman origin, and that Bahman is a corrupted personalized form of Brahman, with Hasan Gangu being Hindu Brahman who became Muslim. however this has been discredited by historians such as Husaini, who explain why the idea of a Brahmin origin or Zafar Khan originally being a Hindu convert to Islam is untenable." Noorullah (talk) 04:02, 17 November 2023 (UTC)

Yup that looks good to me. Good Job! Someguywhosbored (talk) 04:05, 17 November 2023 (UTC)

About this bit "by historians such as Hussaini," there is no other historian except Hussaini who discusses or refutes his Brahmin origin. So we should go with only his mention "by Hussaini". Sutyarashi (talk) 06:00, 17 November 2023 (UTC)

Agree with Sutyarashi. Otherwise it looks good, Noorullah21.--Kansas Bear (talk) 13:32, 17 November 2023 (UTC)

Yup, fixed it. Noorullah (talk) 17:32, 17 November 2023 (UTC)

Merge proposal

There's a separate History of the Bahmani Sultanate page which is much smaller than the history section here. I therefore support the September proposal to merge that article into the relevant section. Klbrain (talk) 08:42, 21 October 2023 (UTC)

Support merge: per nom. Sutyarashi (talk) 11:57, 21 October 2023 (UTC)

Support: No reason to have a spin off page when it is not as fledged out as the main article itself in its main topic. Noorullah (talk) 00:28, 22 October 2023 (UTC)

  Y Merger complete. Klbrain (talk) 22:46, 2 January 2024 (UTC)

Religion of the Bahmanis

The Bahmanis are stated to be Sunnis in the article however the sources provided don't even mention the Bahmanis being Sunni, but rather talk about the Golkondans (a successor state to the Bahmanis). However most sources such as The History Of The World seem to state that the Bahmanis were Shi'ite Salman Cooper Mapping (talk) 22:03, 27 November 2023 (UTC)

Furthermore the source provided above is published by Oxford and is more reliable than the other sources Salman Cooper Mapping (talk) 22:09, 27 November 2023 (UTC)

Can you provide a page number? Here’s the book on archive.

https://archive.org/details/historyofworld0000robe/page/n10/mode/1up Someguywhosbored (talk) 09:36, 29 November 2023 (UTC)

Never mind I found the quote on page 435. I’d like to listen to the opinions of other editors before making any judgment, if you all are willing to share your thoughts that is.

@Kansas Bear

@Noorullah21

@Sutyarashi Someguywhosbored (talk) 09:54, 29 November 2023 (UTC)

I was unable to find the quote in the link provided. I did, however, find this:

• "The Bahmani kingdom was officially a Sunni state, but Shiism and Sufism were practiced abundantly. Firuz Shah and Ahmad Shah I showed inclination towards Shiism, and Mahmud Gawan being a Persian was himself a Shia." --A Comprehensive History of Medieval India: Twelfth to the Mid-eighteenth Century, Salma Ahmed Farooqui, page 163. --Kansas Bear (talk) 17:28, 29 November 2023 (UTC)

  Page 435 of this source states that the Bahmanids were attracted towards and adopted Shia Islam Salman Cooper Mapping (talk) 17:34, 29 November 2023 (UTC)

What exactly was wrong with Salma Farooqui source and The Mediaeval Deccan History, by A. Rā Kulakarṇī(Professor Emeritus of History, University of Pune, has had a long teaching career (1949-85). His major published works are Maharashtra in the Age of Shivaji ), M. A. Nayeem(Muhammad Abdul Nayeem was an Indian historian, known for his work on the history of the Deccan Sultanates and Hyderabad), Teotonio R. De Souza(Portuguese in India)? These sources appear reliable to me.

Also, the authors of The History of the World(a generalized history book); J. M. Roberts specialization appears to be Europe and 20-21st century history, Odd Arne Westad specialization appears to be East Asia and Cold War era. Neither appears to have any specialization in India or Islam. I see no reason to use the Roberts and Westad source, the Farooqui and Kulakarni-Nayeem-De Souza sources appear to be reliable and already mention Shia leanings. --Kansas Bear (talk) 17:44, 29 November 2023 (UTC)

However the source I've mentioned have been published by Oxford Press and give more insight and detail about how the Bahmanids patronized and embraced Shia Islam Salman Cooper Mapping (talk) 17:46, 29 November 2023 (UTC)

Furthermore it isn't like the Bahmanis being Shia have randomly been mentioned in a section about Europe, it has been included in the section about India and is a bit more concise and clear Salman Cooper Mapping (talk) 17:49, 29 November 2023 (UTC)

I can't provide any major input thus far as I personally don't have a lot of knowledge on the region in that time period as of now, but from a quick search on google books, the majority of sources I've seen seem to infer that the Bahmanis were Sunni. @Kansas Bear@Salman Cooper Mapping@Someguywhosbored

I think while also making the page of Rebellion of Ismail Mukh, I believe I saw some sources that state the Bahmanis were also sunni, so if anyone wishes to check that if that is relevant, it could help. Noorullah (talk) 17:51, 29 November 2023 (UTC)

A lot of sources do seem to state that the Bahmanids were Sunni but are not as clear and concise about it. The History of the World was the most reliable source I could find and it states that the Bahmanis were Shi'ite. A source by Saikat K Bose who has actually extensively travelled and specializes in South Indian history also states that they were Shi'ite Salman Cooper Mapping (talk) 17:55, 29 November 2023 (UTC)

Sorry, but it doesn't even seem like that Saikat K Bose is a historian. Seems like they published the book as a hobby. HistoryofIran (talk) 18:03, 29 November 2023 (UTC)

However the other source is written by Westad and Roberts (two really reliable historians) and published by Oxford Press (again a reliable source) Salman Cooper Mapping (talk) 18:16, 29 November 2023 (UTC)

India Before Europe, Catherine B. Asher, Cynthia Talbot, page 76, "The most compelling example is the madrasa provided by Mahmud Gawan to promote Shia Islam."

From Farooqui source we have that the Bahmani sultanate was a Sunni state, while its rulers did have Shia leanings along with one of their viziers being Shia(from Asher-Talbot source).

We should reinstate Sunni into the infobox with "(state)" with the Farooqui-Kulakarni-Nayeem-De Souza references next to it. Under Sunni place Shia with Asher-Talbot source. Under Shia, place Sufism with the Farooqui source. The rest can be written into the article.

I see no reason to use the Roberts-Westad source since it is written by non-specialized historians in a generalized book. --Kansas Bear (talk) 18:19, 29 November 2023 (UTC)

However Farooqui also has made critical mistakes in the very same book stating that all the 5 successor states to the Bahmanis followed Shia Islam. This is obviously untrue as some successor states followed Shi'ism while others also practiced Sunnism.So it's a bit skeptical to accept the source Salman Cooper Mapping (talk) 18:25, 29 November 2023 (UTC)

• @Someguywhosbored
• @Noorullah21
  

Did either of you have any other concerns or thoughts about my proposal? --Kansas Bear (talk) 21:32, 30 November 2023 (UTC)

I think it looks good. The state does appear to have been sunni. However as you already stated, it would be good to mention the fact that there was Shia influence within the dynasty/rulership, and that there was even a Shia vizier.

I have no objections and support this proposal. Someguywhosbored (talk) 22:00, 30 November 2023 (UTC)

I'm fine with the proposal. Noorullah (talk) 00:13, 1 December 2023 (UTC)

Ok. I have also found more information regarding their religious affiliation(s) and will be adding that to the article as well. Thanks.--Kansas Bear (talk) 02:20, 1 December 2023 (UTC)

@Kansas Bear what's your opinion on adding this source to show that the Bahmanis were Shia Salman Cooper Mapping (talk) 23:40, 2 December 2023 (UTC)

Leonard explicitly specializes in Deccani History and has numerous works relating to the history of the peninsula, furthermore the source above is published by Stanford Salman Cooper Mapping (talk) 23:41, 2 December 2023 (UTC)

Just exactly what is your goal here? There are currently two distinct sources stating the Bahmani were Shia. The article also states, "Following the establishment of Bidar as capital of the sultanate in 1429, Ahmad Shah I converted to Shi'ism.", also referenced. What else is needed? --Kansas Bear (talk) 00:08, 3 December 2023 (UTC)

How about the infobox includes the religion as Sunni until 1429 and Shia from then on. This very thing was also done in the articles about Ahmadnagar and Bijapur Salman Cooper Mapping (talk) 00:11, 3 December 2023 (UTC)

As long as we can prove all subsequent Shahs were Shia.

Does the Ahmadnagar Sultanate source state Shi'ism after 1509? Since the source states Shias left Ahmadnagar in 1589 and it wasn't until two years later that Shia rites were restored. The sources in the infobox for Bijapur appear to be primary sources, which is not a good sign. --Kansas Bear (talk) 00:44, 3 December 2023 (UTC)

Oops, my bad just realized that the article for Ahmadnagar doesn't state any sources for the religion, just gonna fix that Salman Cooper Mapping (talk) 01:18, 3 December 2023 (UTC)

Tributary

@Noorullah21 You claim that Vijayanagara was a Bahmani tributary, and while Vijayanagara for a time did pay tribute, as your cited sources stated, it was not a true tributary state in that, as I said, they were not in any way subordinate to the Bahmanis, and were an independent state like any other. Calling them a "Bahmani tributary", which I did initially see, implies some degree of subordination, and while the Bahmanis treated Vijayanagara as a tributary, as Eaton said, this relationship was not such that the Bahmanis had any authority over Vijayanagara affairs, and thus one should not appear as the same colour on a map of the other.

Additionally, this period where tribute was paid was not during the time when the Bahmanis themselves reached their territorial peak (under Mahmud Gawan), as the two states were still fighting battles and generally hostile towards each other around such time. [17] [18] Flemmish Nietzsche (talk) 06:26, 8 August 2024 (UTC)

Agreed. It does seem more reasonnable to follow the more conservative mapping as per Schwartzberg. पाटलिपुत्र (Pataliputra) (talk) 06:39, 8 August 2024 (UTC)

I think the khalji dynasty also includes territory of tributaries from southern India in particular. @Noorullah21 maybe you can shade that territory in a different or lighter color? That’s just a thought for a possible compromise but I’m willing to be flexible. Someguywhosbored (talk) 07:59, 8 August 2024 (UTC)

Even before that, I would like to see an actual published map from a reliable source which shows such attribution of the Vijayanagara territory. So far, the only proper reference for a map of the Bahmanis is map "k" in Schwartzberg, so this should be followed until a better source is provided. पाटलिपुत्र (Pataliputra) (talk) 08:26, 8 August 2024 (UTC)

@Flemmish Nietzsche@पाटलिपुत्र@Someguywhosbored

You make a good point with the sense that Mahmud Gawan's time the Vijayanagara Empire was not a tributary at that point as it was before, which is why it can be defined on the map.

But as @Someguywhosbored mentioned, even the Khalji dynasty directly incorporates tributaries (which isn't what I've done).

I think a clear compromise here would be to make the vijayanagara empire a much more lighter colour then what is already highlighted on the map.

@पाटलिपुत्र The map of both Vijayanagara and the Bahmanis (presumably at their heights), has territory, specifically the Konkan overlapping until it was later conquered by the Bahmanis. So there could be an easier solution on that as well by just highlighting that area as intermittently under Vijayanagara / or Bahmani control with a label.

TLDR

I can make the Vijayanagara Empire a much more lighter colour, as well as make the "tributary" much larger, while also possibly making the Konkan coast (where both their territories overlap per Schwartzberg) a different label/similar colour. Noorullah (talk) 15:58, 8 August 2024 (UTC)

I would personally prefer simplicity and respect of the source, by just following the territory provided by Schwartzberg [19], without any further addition or modification, in order to avoid getting into OR. Best पाटलिपुत्र (Pataliputra) (talk) 16:12, 8 August 2024 (UTC)

It wouldn't make sense to include Vijayanagara at all, even in a different colour, if the map is of the time when the Bahmanis reached their territorial peak; having the map of a time decades prior to Mahmud Gawan's rule just to say that Vijayanagara was a full tributary (which I still think they weren't, even before Gawan as I said) doesn't make sense and is quite misleading; we should pick one time period and stick with it, and it would make sense to pick a time when the Bahmanis themselves reached their height, which was also when they had confident control of the Konkan coast following its capture in 1469. I also agree with Pataliputra in that there's no good reason not to stick with the Schwartzberg map, and it seems you want to add Vijayanagara here as a "tributary", even at a time when they weren't, just to add it. Flemmish Nietzsche (talk) 16:14, 8 August 2024 (UTC)

The Schwartzberg map can remain but it should be made clear that Schwartzberg's maps may not be the best... I've used it to recreate some maps but over time, I've noticed there is definitely a myriad of flaws pointed out on it which I could name, such as the one identified above with the Khalji dynasty, the Sur Empire.. theres a plethora of mistakes in his Durrani Empire, [20] Mughal Empire, [21] and some minor ones in the Ghurid Empire that I know of off the top of my head..

But this isn't the place to argue that, so I might take it to the reliable sources noticeboard in the future. Noorullah (talk) 02:19, 9 August 2024 (UTC)

Move discussion in progress

There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:Ahmadnagar Sultanate which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RMCD bot 02:03, 11 August 2024 (UTC)

Requested move 11 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: moved. Moved as an uncontested request with minimal participation. If there is any objection within a reasonable time frame, please ask me to reopen the discussion; if I am not available, please ask at the technical requests page. (closed by non-admin page mover) Safari Scribe^{Edits! Talk!} 12:32, 25 September 2024 (UTC)

---

Bahmani Sultanate → Bahmani Kingdom – Per WP:COMMONNAME. A Google Books search for "Bahmani Kingdom" gives 13,600 hits while "Bahmani Sultanate" gives only 4,690 hits. The sources present on the article too seem to be primarily using "Bahmani Kingdom", for instance, Encyclopaedia Iranica uses "Bahmanid kingdom", Haig, Avari, Chandra, Eaton, Gribble and so on, use "Bahmani kingdom". While there are sources that use sultanate as well, "Bahmani Kingdom" is the WP:COMMONNAME here. PadFoot (talk) 18:40, 11 September 2024 (UTC) — Relisting. Safari Scribe^{Edits! Talk!} 12:08, 18 September 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.