Talk:Majapahit

Untitled

Influence of the majapahit empire over the Philippines.

what were the other hindu empires before this?

what were the other hindu empires before this? --Dangerous-Boy

See the indonesian history infobox. Srivijaya, Singhasari, Kediri, etc. Peace. --Nielswik_(talk) 16:41, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

{Merger}

The content from Majapahit Kingdom is already merged with Majapahit empire, and so the merger template is no longer of use anymore. I'm removing it.

TanMr Tan 07:17, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Peace all, as far as I know, they were: 1. Kutai Kingdom 2. Tarumanegara 3. Sadang/Holing 4. Mataram/Sailendra

more detail

can someone put more detail into the majapahit influence around the area. Maybe put a map up and added more info links. --Dangerous-Boy

Ithink it's better to expand History of Indonesia page and template. So we could put another kingdom as well as Sriwijaya and Majapahit. I think I'll search it in my highschool history textbook.Aditthegrat 05:34, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

Problem

please watch talk:Gajah Mada --SoIssetEben! 18:46, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

Indo collab

Right, let's make this a high quality article. I have 2 questions:

1. Is there any way to reduce the 2 long infoboxes of Indonesia and Malaysia history?
2. Why is this article part of India project? Well, this is not important anyway.

— Indon (reply) — 13:33, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

1. That gonna be tough. I prefer we leave them as they are.
2. some people in India thinks the empire ruled by Rajaraja once ruled SEA. Which basically bullshit I think. It's more likely self-glorification. See Chola Empire. So, I agree so that we remove it. __earth ^(Talk) 14:26, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

List of rulers

I added a list of rulers, basically copied from the Indonesian page with a few additions. Though they are all mentioned in the text, it's nice to have them together as a list and it makes a place for succession boxes to link, (see what I added to Raden Wijaya). If this article gets too long, it can be moved to a separate page as well. The confusing part, as usual in Indonesian history, is names. Can somebody who better understands them go through and clarify which are birth names, honorary titles, and royal styles? We should also try to agree to a consistent naming system for these ruler's pages, when they get started. Rigadoun (talk) 18:46, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

That is good, but I don't know about names either because I don't have sources at hand. This points to my next suggestion. To whom that has written such a nice story about Majapahit, could you also please cite the sources? pages of a book? articles? This article would not go any further levels if there is no citations to reliable sources. I can help with the citation style, as long as anybody can point to the source. Cheers. — Indon (reply) — 09:43, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Malaysian history series?!

Does this article really belong in the Malaysian history series? I think it should just be in the Indonesian one - yes, it influenced what is now Malaysia, but that doesn't make Majapahit history part of the history of Malaysia, any more than Chinese or British history is. -- Danny Yee 11:40, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

From memory the Malay Info box only was there until the Indonesia one was added a few months back! --Merbabu 11:55, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Majapahit had once ruled the Malay Peninsula. So, it's part of Malaysian history too. We have to recognize that before colonialism, many parts of Southeast Asia share the same history. Just like how British Raj is part of UK history as much as Indian history. See some of the articles where Malaysian and Brunei history overlaps or Malaysian and Singaporean, or Malaysian and Filipino or Malaysian-Thai. Not to forget of course, Malaysian-Indonesian. __earth ^(Talk) 13:21, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Majapahit never ruled the Malay Peninsula. Some of the Malay Kingdoms may have paid tribute to Majapahit, but that's not the same thing at all - they probably paid tribute to China as well, but that doesn't mean Malaysian history is part of Chinese history. -- Danny Yee 13:27, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Okay then. But we will need to remove the India Wikiproject too. __earth ^(Talk) 13:30, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

I thought that had already gone! -- Danny Yee 22:58, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

The article mentions Malay Peninsula. Though I disagree with it, should we reinsert Malaysian history template here? __earth ^(Talk) 15:06, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

The Malay peninsula (and history) is a stretch. I'd suggest a pause until someone puts up some archaeological evidence. From what I've read, the Majapahit had almost no navy: hard to imagine effective control of such distant areas. Methinks the poem waxes poetic. --Smilo Don 15:14, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

P.S. See A Short History of Indonesia: The Unlikely Nation? Colin Brown, pp. 26-7. Brown doesn't dismiss the regional presence of the Majapahit, but theorizes that "mainland" states (i.e. on the Malay peninsula) were engaged in commerce with, and were wise not to arouse the ire of, the Majapahit. I've never seen a shred of archaeological evidence showing that the Majapahit administrated much beyond Java, Bali, Flores, and other proximate areas. Smilo Don 17:32, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Have you even done any research before writing your POV here? There are evidences of Majapahit remains in both Sumatra and Kalimantan. If ancient ruins are not enough, there are even linguistic evidences which shows the natives of Malaysian side of Kalimantan (Borneo) have Javanese language influences in their languages, as they were under Majapahit back then. Matahari Pagi 04:32, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Influence on languages does not necessarily mean direct sovereignty. It could simply happen through migration. Such migration from Java did occur. Further, I'm sure modern Indonesian transmigrasi program had a hand in that too. __earth ^(Talk) 05:35, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Hello, Indonesian transmigrasi? Read again, I wrote Malaysian side of the island. It's a prove that Javanese influence was older than the history of Indonesia. Ok, if lingusitics not your thing, how about Candi Agung in South Kalimantan? It was a Hindu monument that, along with Hikayat Banjar, tells a tale about a Majapahit prince who married the local queen. This is confirmed Negara Kertagama which mentions that the area of Tabalong valley and Barito river was a part of their empire. The kingdoms and later sultanates in our area were styled as the kingdoms in Java, we even call our palaces "Kratons". I can assure you that our noble words of ancient Kavi were not brought by the transmigrants. Matahari Pagi 05:27, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

I apologize for that; I misread it. Still, influence on languages does not necessarily mean direct sovereignty. Consider Arabic influence over the Malay language. __earth ^(Talk) 13:00, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

Dear Matahari Pagi, I agree with __earth. From a scientific perspective, some ruins and and epic poem are not enough, nor even are corroborating texts from China. What we do know is that there was a significant kingdom, probably headquartered in East Java. We know that they had an extensive trade network. As global demand for spices increased, the Majapahit grew in wealth and influence. What we don't know, however, is the extent of their control over other areas. When in doubt historians and archaeologists tend to assume that a kingdom did not have the resources/organization/power to exert control over remote areas. Then, as evidence surfaces, that early assumption may be proven wrong. From what I've read, the Majapahit "navy" was essentially a contract-based group of sailors/pirates/traders; probably lacking the capacity to dominate the massive area we today call "Indonesia." We also know that some Indonesians are strongly motivated to exaggerate the extent of the Majapahit for lots of reasons, including a desire to legitimate the new nation-state, out of nationalistic pride, and to justify possession of unhappy peoples/territories. The burden of proof falls on those who want to argue for a huge Majapahit power. If anyone can show that they did collect taxes, put down uprisings, etc. in areas as far as Aceh and Papua, then they should cite evidence to that effect. Until then, its safer to assume that the Majapahit was an extremely important kingdom in east/central Java, plus Bali. Why assume that they ruled Sulawesi? There's a long history of formidable forces there. For that matter, I'd even be curious to see evidence of Majapahit rule in west Java--it's plausible, for sure, but it would be nice to see some proof. Smilo Don 14:34, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

For west Java and southern Sumatra, Majapahit's influence is well-recorded. After all, Adityavarman was Majapahit 's representative to southern Sumatra. On top of that, Majapahit occupation of Palembang led to the downfall of Srivijaya. Coming back to the topic, I have yet to come across a reliable source that asserts Majapahit's sovereignty over the Malay Peninsula. I have however read of Siam holding nominal sovereign over the same area. After all, Siam had its representative living on Temasek. __earth ^(Talk) 14:59, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

I thought Adityawarman just sent gifts to the Majapahit capital. Did he send tribute too? My impression was that he was a bit of an opportunist who went to make his own fortune--not that he was a delegate of the throne. Smilo Don 15:19, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Adityavarman was a half Malay, half Javanese royalty within the Majapahit court. When Majapahit occupied southern Sumatra, Hayam Wuruk and Gajah Mada needed someone the local (the Malays of southern Sumatra) and Majapahit could trust. So, they sent that Adityavarman to rule southern Sumatra on Majapahit's behalf. As it turned out, both Hayam Wuruk and Gajah Mada misplaced their trust. The storyline is similar that of Srivijaya/Sailendra, Khmer and Jayavarman II. __earth ^(Talk) 10:51, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

What is known about Adityavarman is from semi-(un)reliable sources (eg. a 16th century Javanese text, written a long time after he was dead), so take anything you hear about him with a grain of salt. It is believed he was related to Singhasari and Majapahit and sent to Sumatra. He quickly moved into the Sumatran highlands, but his motives for doing this aren't known. It is speculated by some academics it was to escape the control of Majapahit. (Caniago 14:49, 4 October 2007 (UTC))

BTW, according the the Historical Dictionary of Indonesia (Cribb, Robert., Kahin, Audrey; Scarecrow Press; 2004), "most scholars now believe that Majapahit's influence outside East and Central Java was limited to coastal areas of Kalimantan and Sumatra and parts of Maluku and Nusatenggara" (Caniago 15:09, 4 October 2007 (UTC))

dates of succession war

The article gives both 1401-1405 and 1403-1406 as the dates for this... I've left the latter, but the books I have handy don't mention this so I can't check. Anyone got a suitable reference to hand? -- Danny Yee 13:13, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

According prasasti Petak and Jiyu, Ranawijaya boast that he already defeat Kertabhumi in 1478 but he forgot that Kertabhumi son Raden Patah was enraged for his treachery. Ranawijaya treachery in the end will lead a long battle between Demak and Daha which end in 1512, source like Babat Tanah Jawi was contain a lot of fake story who create by Mataram ruler to fool their people. Same method use again by Suharto (His wife is Mataram rule descendant), Indonesian wiki already revised the story it shame that English wiki still use fake version of History who created by Mataram ruler. (Db84x (talk) 18:15, 25 June 2010 (UTC)).

Kublai Khan/Mongol

You're right, "Mongol army" doesn't seem quite right. But "Kublai Khan's army" suggests that he was its commander, and doesn't really give the right impression either. Any other ideas? -- Danny Yee 23:51, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Well, Kublai Khan is a Mongolian, it's true, but the army were not only Mongolians, but also Chinese. If we put Chinese army, that would not be right either. Then I don't know which one is the correct one. ;-) — Indon (reply) — 09:06, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Maybe "Yuan army"? -- Danny Yee

It's okay for me. — Indon (reply) — 10:25, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Uhoh as long as you dont put in 1421 - that'll set the fireworks off ! SatuSuro 10:38, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

Hey welcome back! Ready to join in? — Indon (reply) — 10:43, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

no history of Bali

Not directly relevant here, but I just noticed there's no article on the history of Bali. -- Danny Yee 07:22, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

Last great, major, large Hindu kingdom

I removed the word great because it seemed subjective, but if there were other smaller kingdoms following it Nielswik is correct we can't simply say it was tht last. I think the recent suggestion of "major" is better than both "large" and "great". What do others think? --Merbabu 06:08, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

Good. I agree that great is a bit subjective, but we need to point out that it was not the last. Peace. --Nielswik_(talk) 08:04, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

Airlangga

I've been reading about Majapahit and the kingdom claims relationship to an earlier Javanese kingdom of Airlangga. Several sources cite that Majapahit claims itself to be the unified of Java after the split of Airlangga. Perhaps Airlingga should be mentioned? __earth ^(Talk) 12:30, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

Where did you read that? Airlangga was not a kingdom, it's the name of a king. Medang Kingdom was destroyed by Sriwijaya's ally, but Prince Airlangga and his wife (both of Isayana dynasty, descendants of Mpu Sindok) succeeded to got away and rebuilt their kingdom with the capital in Kahuripan/Kuripan (Kulaypan in Thai). But yes, the kingdom was split into two after the crown princess Kilisuci refused the throne, from that time it became 2 separate kingdoms of Jenggala and Kediri, each ruled by her half-brothers. Matahari Pagi (talk) 04:10, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

Problem with ref. 1f

"Modern Indonesian nationalists, including those of the Indonesian National Revival of the early 20th century, have invoked the Majapahit Empire as an example of greatness in Indonesia's past and a precedent for the current political boundaries of the republic."

Would somebody help me to check this statement in the stated reference (Ricklefs 1991, p. 19), because I can not find it in the Indonesian translation of the book. Thank you. sentausa 11:35, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Just found something. In the Indonesian edition of the book, it is only stated that (in my English) "memories of Majapahit's greatness is still alive, and it is sometimes regarded as a precedent for the current political boundaries of the republic." It does not mention the Indonesian nationalists. I'm considering to put {{Fact}} tag in that sentence in the article. sentausa 11:44, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Or we could leave out the subject and put it in passive voice, which is how it appears there. That might be preferable to leaving it unsourced, if it is difficult to find a citation that those specific nationalists invoked the memory. Rigadoun (talk) 16:02, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

I've split the sentence into two. Do you think it is appropriate? sentausa 04:34, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

And I've made it closer reflect the source. --Merbabu 12:49, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

As a matter of fact, there is still room for improvement in history teaching in Indonesia. For the time being, Indonesians believe that before Europeans came, there used to be a unified political power controlling the present territory. Actually in ancient times, the archipelago was host to a constellation of small polities that traded with each other. Territorial conquest was not their concern. Territorial conquest in the archipelabo appears in the 17th century, with Mataram in Java and Aceh in the northern half of Sumatra, Djoehana (talk) 10:15, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

Gunkarta's map of Majapahit

User:Gunkarta added a lovely map of the Majapahit Empire. In the process of formatting it, I then bothered to look at the map---oh dear! Gorgeous though it is, it is also a farce:

File:Majapahit-map.jpg

Majapahit Empire during the height of it's glory according to Negarakertagama.

I'm afraid this map is an extremely biased and controversial representation of the Majapahit realm. For one, the Negarakertagama is a poetic and politically motivated work. Moreover, this interpretation has long served to justify various rulers right up to the present. Sukarno and Soeharto both made ample use of this thing. And---lo and behold! The map fits fairly neatly into the current nation-state's domain, thus helping to justify and rationalize the territorial reach of "Indonesia." In short, the map is a tool with which to help invent "Indonesia" as an ancient political-cultural entity, when in fact it's rather more of a colonial assemblage with interesting historical connections. I'm pretty darn opposed to this type of map, unless presented as an artifact of nationalism. I suspect half of the people living in the areas of the "Majapahit Empire" had never heard of Majapahit, let alone given a handful of rice in tribute. I think that the inclusion of such a map (if at all) should be well-referenced and highlight its controversial nature. --Smilo Don 20:00, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

There's nothing new here. However, the captioning should indeed be improved to make clear the map's background. --Merbabu 22:49, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

To SmiloDon: I'm not fan of biased or unbiased view of a documentary work or map or whatever, but as we are just a collector of information and Wikipedia is based on verifiability not truth, then I tend to put map there. You may say anything about Nagarakretagama or even Britannica encyclopaedia, but as long as it is verifiable, it is not wrong to put the map by captioning: "Map of X based on Y source". — Indon (reply) — 07:31, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

As an addition, you may put historians' analysis of Nagarakretagama in the article there. — Indon (reply) — 07:36, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

We might need to put a caveat there because during that era, Siam yang the de facto ruler of the Malay Peninsula. The fall of Srivijaya left a vacuum there which Siam quickly filled. __earth ^(Talk) 08:27, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

There seems to almost be a consensus that the map has a place in the article as long as it's context and hence its reliability (or lack of?) is clearly but succinctly explained. Gimana (how does that sound)? --Merbabu 08:34, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

I think it's better that it's been moved next to a discussion about the dispute over the nature of the empire, and not the top of the article. In general, maps are good, even if they are disputed, as long as they make clear that it is and which viewpoint it represents. Btw, what was the context of the map when it appeared in Kompas? Rigadoun (talk) 15:29, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Actually, re-reading the caption it should be changed to "maximum extent" rather than "height of its glory," and perhaps reiterate the legend with something like "Majapahit core realm and vassal states" instead of the more-powerful sounding "Majapahit Empire." Citing the Negarakertagama makes it pretty clear that the actual historical extent is pretty unclear, given the discussion of that book above. Smilo Don is probably right that half the people had never heard of it, but I think that was often the case in large empires, and "vassal state" can be a pretty vague term implying pretty minimal influence. Rigadoun (talk) 15:41, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

(unindent) Folks, I think we have to be very careful about its inclusion. The map reminds me of the Indosphere baloney that was floating around last week. Or how China uses maps, history, and statistics to "prove" that Tibet is "traditionally" a part of China. The map of Majapahit is NOT innocent, nor politically neutral--such imaginings directly correspond to the forcible making of "Indonesia;" the containment of separatism in Aceh and Papua, etc. This is politically loaded stuff! A mere note that it came from the Negarakertagama is just inadequate (98% of readers won't know what that is or bother to look). If the map is to remain, I think the caption should be something like "Fantasies of Majapahit: a 16th century poem dreams of empire. Today, such maps help to reify (or reify) the nation-state of "Indonesia" and suppress separatism.--Smilo Don 15:56, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Look, SmiloDon. I have felt enough of your POV comments on relating one article to unrelated things based on your ideology. Wikipedia is not a propaganda! Whatever the source is, as long as it is verifiable, then we can include here. What we cannot include is our thoughts. How come you relate Majapahit with Marxism, Papua, etc.? I don't believe this. Why do you want to push your view so much here? Can't you remember that you are writing an encyclopaedia here? You are not writing a class report for your Politics 101 course. What kind of other political loaded terminologies do you want to shout at in many talk pages? Oh, let me suggest to you to complain next about what is a hidden political agenda inside a Nagasari? Cheers. Have a nice weekend. — Indon (reply) — 16:11, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Tsk, tsk, such a rude note, Indon. Please remember to be nice. May I politely suggest that you calmly reread what I've written about Majapahit? I'm battling against propaganda here, not asserting it. The depiction of the so-called "Majapahit Empire" serves a certain Javanese POV and nationalism. It's pretty simple. The map is a fantasy: it rewrites history to serve a particular agenda. Again: think of China's ludicrous rewriting of Tibetan history & maps. The Indonesian state has similar motives with regard to keeping its colossal archipelago intact, so the state (and the media and intellectuals and ordinary folks and WP editors) push ideas like Pancasila and the "Majapahit Empire." I think it's pretty simple. So please settle down and enjoy your pastry.--Smilo Don 17:19, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

WP:KETTLE SmiloDon. That's said. The only person who pushes propaganda is you. You are actively synthesizing your own view in many articles. Oh, yes I'm enjoying my snack after sunset, don't worry, without Tibetan message inside my snack. — Indon (reply) — 07:09, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

Smilo, please stop throwing bombs into articles and their talk pages then complaining that people aren't being nice. Rubbishing articles and the work of others, then complaining about their response to you is no more helpful than the personal attacks of which you complain. At the very least, even if they don't like said suggestions, they won't be any hostility returned if you don't give them reason to do so. It's a bit rich to come here, rubbish a number of articles whilst asserting your own strong POV is "reality" and "the basics", then be surprised that people get a little antsy. What do you expect? Be nice, and people will be nice back - it's a two-way street. I am assuming your intent is one of good faith to improve the encyclopedia and not of further forwarding your own strong opinions, and I doubt you mean to have this negative effect, but the effect is nonetheless the perception of a few editors.

On this article specifically, people are agreeing with you that this is not an accurate depection of Majapahit and that "care" must be taken, but we are discussing ways to represent that with the map included. Please work together with that process - it is working better than you seem to be claiming here. Ie, while "height of its glory" is indeed problematic, I suggest that "Fantasies of Majapahit" and "dreams" is too far the other way. Just stick to the facts - ie, context of sources - without colourful language. Cheers --Merbabu 02:32, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

I've moved the picture into the Histiorgraphy section and modified the caption based on my understanding of opinion here. Please modify the caption or discuss further as required. regards --Merbabu 02:56, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

I hardly think scholarly critique counts as 'rubbish' or 'throwing bombs' or 'POV'. I merely pointed out that a poem from several centuries ago is (a) not an entirely reliable source, important though it is (b) of use to contemporary geopolitical struggles. For example, on the Majapahit vis a vis Papua, check out David Webster's excellent Master's thesis:[1]. On the question of the Majapahit as a tool of contemporary nationalism and Java-centrism see Joseph Chi Liow's 2004 book, The Politics of Indonesia-Malaysia Relations. Liow talks at some length about the Majapahit in the making of 20th century "Indonesia" and its corresponding nationalism.

Having critical disputes about content is not POV/rubbish/bombthrowing/etc. Nor is it synthetic. Discussing things on the Talk page helps to improve WP--it's good to have these chats: that's how we make things more "scientific" and "accurate," for lack of better words. I'll try to be mindful that words like 'ideology,' 'nationalism,' and 'statism' arouse emotions for some, but in today's social sciences these are part of everyday communication. (Read Ariel Heryanto, Ann Stoler, or Vedi Hadiz or Benedict Anderson to get a sense of where I'm coming from--and to see what some of the best Indonesianists in the world are up to.) Lastly, I'd like to add another plea to keep things polite and non-personal. Everyone, even vandals, are afforded dignity on WP. Our differences can make WP:Indonesia articles better, especially if we can be civil. --Smilo Don 22:42, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

P.S. Despite a few grumbles here and there it sounds like we've more or less come to some sort of middle ground. I may add a couple of sentences to the Legacy section, referencing Liow, Webster, Andre Gunder Frank, and others who have pointed out the political issues with the "empire." In respect to Indon and Merbabu's concerns, I promise that my citations will be meticulous.

I have put the map in the French article, specifying that actually the countries appearing on it were claimed as "tributary countries" in the Nagarakertagama but that there is no evidence of Majapahit controlling them. As a matter of fact, Ibn Battuta, who visited northern Sumatra in 1344, makes no mention of Majapahit, Djoehana (talk) 10:18, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

Revisiting the Map Controversy

Wow... my uploaded map has rises controversy..... I see Smiley Don totally against it. And suggested that this map is biased or controversial. Well that's your oppinion and I respect that, but shoving your own oppinion and scepticm to our throath is just so selfish of yours..., describing your own political view against soo called "Indonesia propaganda". All I can say is:

1. Yes there was ancient empire called Majapahit in the past.

2. Yes The book of Nagarakertagama desribe the realms of Majapahit including the vassal states as mentioned by Prapanca.

That's the fact. If you don't believe it and describe it as "Majapahit Fantasy" whatsoeva, it's your oppinions. If you don't believe the content of Nagarakertagama as "unreliable source". Why this manuscript is prized possession of the Museum...? If you don't believe in the content of Nagarakertagama, or any other ancient manuscripts (Zend Avesta, Bible, Quran, Egyptian Book of Death) be my guest... But the manuscript is there, and as historical account has been the source for many historians.

The map I've uploaded actually is part of infographic project launch by Kompas daily infographic team in tag with Indonesian National Museum special exhibition about Majapahit Empire (I was involved in it). Also with comparisons to of some Indonesian historical maps. The places that mentioned in that map is based from Nagarakertagama by Mpu Prapanca. The name is written in original spelling of Nagarakertagama (ex: Ambwan correspond to present Ambon) to gave the authenticity accordance to the text.

If you suspect there's some sort of propaganda, it's your call and your oppinion. Indeed the Majapahit Empire (together with Srivijaya) is used by Indonesian people and goverment to cultivate and fueled some kind of pride, that in ancient times we can be united as one nation. If you have something against Indonesian Unity, go ahead, it's your own political view or agenda. Majapahit is a historical fact. If the extent territory of Majapahit Empire corresponds to present Indonesia, and if the people Majapahit are the ancestor of most of Indonesians, it's the fact too. I hope you can deal with it.... comment added by Gunkarta (talk • contribs) 16:44, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Dear Gunkarta, thank you again for contributing to Majapahit. Please understand this: No one is denying that there was a kingdom called the Majapahit; nor is anyone disputing the importance of the Nagarakertagama. Your references to the Bible or Quran are appropriate: they can be of some help in making maps, but they cannot be relied on completely. We check these important books against archaeological evidence, other historical sources, multiple versions of the Bible, linguistic evidence, etc. Epic poems weren't written as databases--they were written for entertainment, nationalism, to flatter the royal court, etc. Like most nation-states, Indonesia is home to a diversity of peoples, some of whom feel that they do not belong. Through persuasion, violence, education, propaganda, sports, literature, etc. states try to convince/force everyone to participate in the "nation." If people can claim that the Majapahit corresponds to today's borders, then people can argue that there is a "traditional" or "historical" Indonesia. In other words, some people have a nationalistic interest in exaggerating the territory of the Majapahit to include even parts of Irian/Papua and so forth.

After much discussion (please see all of the Talk above), some sort of compromise was reached and User:Merbabu made the caption for the map. If you want to reopen this, could you specifically address the conversation above? Cheers, --Smilo Don 18:16, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

The Nagarakertagama was written as a eulogy of king Hayam Wuruk and of his kingdom. It elaborates a list of some 100-odd "tributary countries" of Majapahit. Actually Majapahit was the centre of a commercial network it could dominate thanks to its rice production surplus it could export to the rest of the archipelago. Present time Indonesians do not realise that the centralises state that is modern Indonesia is a creation of the Dutch, who decided to make Java its centre. As for the Indonesian nation, the idea is first publicly articulated in the 1920's, resulting in the "Youth Oath" of 1928. From then on, Indonesians have instrumentalised history in view of supporting this idea of an Indonesian nation. To cut short any accusation of being a "traitor", I will indulge in name dropping and explain that one of my grandfather was close to the Youth Oath people and one of my granduncles was Sutan Sjahrir. My family had been involved in the national movement since the late 1920's. However, as a research worker in social sciences, I don't think ideology helps much in understanding history. And we have to understand history correctly to avoid conflicts... Anda Djoehana (talk) 10:00, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

Those who think that the territories included in Nagarakretagama were a mere claim are probably unaware that similar scope of territories was also recorded by various sources. Majapahit territory is well recorded NOT ONLY in Javanese sources, but also in Malay (Malay Annals), Acehnese (Hikayat Pasai), Balinese (Kidung Sunda & Kidung Harsawijaya), Portuguese (Suma Oriental), and Banjar (Hikayat Banjar) sources. These records do not necessarily come from the same era, meaning that these people knew or remembered the extent of Majapahit's territory even long after the fall of Majapahit. If someone wants to think that the empire wasn't as big as claimed by "Indonesian nationalists" or "Javanese irredentists", explanation and refutation must be made to all other sources that mentioned the extent of Majapahit: How can other sources that were written much later and without the access to Nagarakretagama manuscript mention similar territorial extent? Nagarakretagama manuscript was only discovered in the late 19th century, written in a language very different than modern Javanese.

Years of editing in WP have made me aware that not everyone knows how a "history" is summed up. In historiography, inscriptions and manuscripts that were written in their supposed era (or not long after i.e. contemporary) are a strong reference (primary source). Nagarakretagama, being written after an observation, is a VERY STRONG reference. Manuscripts that were written later are a weaker reference (secondary source), but the fact that those manuscripts recorded what was included in Nagarakretagama even centuries after it makes Nagarakretagama EVEN STRONGER. This is because a secondary source acts as a comparing material and as a verifier of other sources.

Surijeal (talk) 09:31, 27 May 2023 (UTC)

Move from Majapahit Empire to Majapahit

Can we move this article to the simpler name Majapahit? The label 'Empire' seems unnecessary in the title. We don't label Srivijaya Srivijaya Empire, so why is Majapahit an exceptional case? An alternate name would be Majapahit Kingdom, but the simpler and shorter name is surely closer to what most people would search for. (Caniago 15:28, 27 September 2007 (UTC))

PS, a survey of the titles used for this article on other Wikipedias shows Majapahit is used by the Dutch, German, French, and Indonesian Wikipedias. (Caniago 15:35, 27 September 2007 (UTC))

I'm not sure about Majapahit but Srivijaya, technically was never an empire. It was more like a confederation of states, with Palembang or Jambi (and maybe the Sailendra at Palembang and west Java) being the dominant members. The concept of mandala was used heavily to properly describe Srivijaya within this context. __earth ^(Talk) 15:37, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

That may be so (putting aside a debate about whether a confederation of states with a dominate central power is an empire), but Britannica calls their articles Srivijaya empire and Majapahit empire. I think that is probably the original reason this article was thus labeled, given much of Wikipedia was built from the 1911 edition of Britannica. The point is Majapahit was not the only kingdom/sultanate in Indonesian history which could be considered an empire. We don't need empire as part title to adequately describe and disambiguate this article from any other on Wikipedia - Majapahit alone is sufficient. (Caniago 16:06, 27 September 2007 (UTC))

I agree with all of Caniago's comments and with his proposal to simplify the name of the article. Good stuff. Strictly speaking, an "empire" or a "kingdom" article might focus on the political entity (sort of like Russian empire, whereas Russia deals with art, economy, history, cuisine, etc.). By having just "Majapahit" there's more leeway to discuss religion, architecture, agriculture, etc. Such things would enrich Majapahit in its own right and, secondarily, contribute to a background for Indonesia. Again, I think Caniago's proposal is great.--Smilo Don 16:31, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Support - just do it SatuSuro 03:06, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

Excellent - fits better SatuSuro 07:54, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

Support - albeit now retrospective. :) --Merbabu 12:51, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

Support - Majapahit was a kingdom located in East Java, that had developed a network of special relationship with a number of principalties all over the archipelago and on the peninsula (Lombard, Denys, Le carrefour javanais). It did not control this principalities! Anda Djoehana (talk) 09:45, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

I removed the references to empire since an empire (defenition) "An empire is a group of states or peoples under centralized rule." Since the Majaphit Kingdom didn't rule it's vassal states centralized it is not an empire. For example; The Batavian Republic was a vassel state of France but was included in the French empire in 1804. --BabiBandung (talk) 12:41, 9 January 2022 (UTC)

@BabiBandung:The question whether Majapahit was a kingdom of an empire is already elaborated in lede and in Terrritorial subsection: "The question whether Majapahit is considered an empire or not is actually depends on the definition of the word and concept of "empire" itself. Majapahit did not performed direct administration of its overseas possessions, they did not maintain permanent military occupation, and did not imposes its political and cultural norms over a wide area; thus it is not sufficiently considered an empire in a traditional sense. However, if being an empire means the projection of military power at will, formal acknowledgement of overlordship by vassals, and the regular tribute delivery to the capital, then Java's relationship to the rest of archipelagic realm can well be considered an imperial one; thus Majapahit can be considered an empire." Gunkarta  talk  14:54, 9 January 2022 (UTC)

References

Philippines part of Majapahit Empire?

This is a pure lie, Indonesian imperialists are having a good time distorting Philippine history, wikipedia should notice this, it was the same historical revisionism created by the Bruneian imperialists, you lazy Malays hands off our history we are Filipino people not lazy Malays!!--121.54.68.114 (talk) 03:35, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

Who are you..? maybe you should be a wikipedian and create an account first to differentiate you with passing vandals and trolls. Anyway Indonesian historians identify the word "Solot" in Nagarakretagama as Sulu island, now belong to Phillippines. Not whole part of the Phillippines is mentioned as part of Majapahit. Moreover the exact reality or fact about the status of geographic places mentioned in Nagarakretagama are subjects of debate. Whether it was a vassal, a member or loose federation, part of suzeiranity, or just mentioning about known places and trade partners of Majapahit. (Gunkarta (talk) 16:17, 21 February 2010 (UTC)).

Dont include "Malays" in this please, they have nothing to do with this Majapahit fantasy. The so called "Majapahit empire" is a lie crafted by Javanese to justify the current boundary of Java-centered Indonesia. In reality, there was no foreign historical records of ancient vast Javanese empire as per claimed, neither from Indian sources, nor from Chinese sources. The "vast empire" claim is purely from Javanese source. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 115.133.196.89 (talk) 14:01, 11 November 2013 (UTC)

Passage needs rework for clarity

This passage needs rework for clarity.

"After a series of battles with the Sultanate of Demak, the last remaining courtsmen of Majapahit were forced to withdraw eastward to Kediri; it is unclear whether they were still under the rule of the Majapahit dynasty. This small state was finally extinguished at the hands of the Demak in 1527.[14] A large number of courtiers, artisans, priests, and members of the royalty moved east to the island of Bali; however, the crown and the seat of government moved to Demak under the leadership of Pangeran, later Sultan Fatah[citation needed]. The Muslim emerging forces defeated the local Majapahit kingdom in the early 16th century."

I find the passage confusing. "This small state was finally extinguished" -- if the state was extinguished (completely destroyed) then how did the crown and seat of government move to Demak? I think maybe the small state was not extinguished (at this time), but rather transformed and moved. This would fit with the passage about the "local Majapahit kingdom" that was defeated by Muslim forces.

I leave the rewrite to someone else, as I'm not familiar with the subject matter.

Karl gregory jones (talk) 03:16, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

I've try to rewrite it and add Demak tradition that mentioned Raden (Sultan) Fatah as Brawijaya V son with chinese concubine. Also Kediri is located on southwest from Trowulan (Majapahit capital), not east. "After a series of battles with the Sultanate of Demak, the last remaining courtsmen of Majapahit were forced to withdraw inland to Kediri; it is unclear whether they were still under the rule of the Majapahit dynasty. This small state was finally extinguished at the hands of the Demak in 1527.[14] A large number of courtiers, artisans, priests, and members of the royalty moved east to the island of Bali; however, the power and the seat of government transfered to Demak under the leadership of Pangeran, later Sultan Fatah[citation needed]. According to Babad Tanah Jawi and Demak tradition, their first sultan, Raden Fatah is the son of Majapahit king Brawijaya V with a Chinese concubine. The Muslim emerging forces defeated the local Majapahit kingdom in the early 16th century.[15]" (Gunkarta (talk) 10:27, 8 June 2010 (UTC)).

I'll add that the English is at times broken, to the point of being unintelligible. E.g. "They wears clothing on the upper body and the fabrics on the bottom part." I'm not sure what the distinction is between "clothing" and "fabric". (Also "They wears" --> "They wore", but that's trivial.) I know nothing about the subject matter, so I'm afraid I can't contribute edits. Mcswell (talk) 00:12, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

In Indonesian terms pakaian or baju translate to "clothing" and usually means a sewn, stitched, or tailored clothes: shirt, robe etc. While kain translate to "fabrics" means unsewn or unstitched fabrics just plain rectangular clothes with many purposes, among others is to wrap around one's waist as sarong or kain batik or songket. Remember, ancient Javanese did not wear tailored pants or pantalons, they just wrapped a clothes around their waist. Many historian said that if one wished to know what Majapahit was look like, just try to examine Bali, since they have preserved many aspect of Majapahit Hindu-Javanese civilization. Most likely Majapahitans wore clothings like those in Bali in the old days. Here's some examples, hope that'll help, cheers. Gunkarta  talk  03:48, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 

Typos?

Are these correct?

1. (Desawarñana) with a tilde appears here and nowhere else
   
   
2. Madjapahit (with a d) appears in the infobox and nowhere else.

Majapahit army and Indonesian article of Majapahit

I wanted to know some good sources for Majapahit royal guard, the Bhayangkara. Maybe it's just because I'm biased to have such special army like the Musketeer or Samurai in the era of Majapahit, but I also wanted to know more, especially this is the group that led by Gajah Mada.

And also, I remember I saw something about Majapahit's naval formation and ships, but I forgot, can somebody tell me about this ? and the last but not least, I checked both of Majapahit article in English and Indonesian, why the Indonesian one is less complete(err I dunno how to say it, kurang lengkap deh) and detailed than the English one ? (I saw Yingyai Shenglan's record on Majapahit life at English page but not on Indonesian) I'm not so good at English so I cannot fully translate this important record to Indonesian one, I hope that there is someone willing to translate it for our fellow Indonesians that not fluent in EnglishSedaziel (talk) 00:14, 4 October 2014 (UTC)sedaziel

This is pretty much the same case as how Borobudur and Srivijaya articles was before: english version is much more complete than Indonesian versions since some of major contributors/editors prefer to write in english than Indonesian. In my case, I consider english as the international language is much more effective, much faster and easier to spread the knowledge than other languages might does, since many people understand it. I did the Yingyai Shenglan addition, I hope that some Indonesians might be interested to do some translations to Indonesians, as well as other language speakers might do so. If not, maybe I'll do it later, cheers. Gunkarta  talk  04:09, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Majapahit. 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/20140729203644/http://www.thejakartapost.com/news/2002/04/18/kris-more-just-a-simple-dagger.html to http://www.thejakartapost.com/news/2002/04/18/kris-more-just-a-simple-dagger.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20081107163612/http://www.kompas.com/read/xml/2008/11/04/20305699/Taman.Majapahit.Dibangun.di.Trowulan to http://www.kompas.com/read/xml/2008/11/04/20305699/taman.majapahit.dibangun.di.trowulan
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090112012614/http://www.kompas.com/read/xml/2009/01/05/05100324/situs.majapahit.dirusak.pemerintah to http://www.kompas.com/read/xml/2009/01/05/05100324/situs.majapahit.dirusak.pemerintah

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) 18:52, 30 May 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Majapahit. 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/20150505003223/http://mercury.ethz.ch/serviceengine/Files/ISN/142914/ichaptersection_singledocument/54578174-4114-4470-a6d4-6fe4a4b376e3/en/Chapter+2.pdf to http://mercury.ethz.ch/serviceengine/Files/ISN/142914/ichaptersection_singledocument/54578174-4114-4470-a6d4-6fe4a4b376e3/en/Chapter+2.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20131031003554/http://www.kompas.com/read/xml/2008/11/24/17571290/uang.kuno.temuan.rohimin.peninggalan.majapahit. to http://www.kompas.com/read/xml/2008/11/24/17571290/uang.kuno.temuan.rohimin.peninggalan.majapahit.
• Added {{dead link}} tag to http://ariesgoblog.files.wordpress.com/2010/01/agus-arismunandar-majapahit-ker_-agraris-maritim.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20081222233648/http://www.majapahit-kingdom.com/cms/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=10&Itemid=7 to http://www.majapahit-kingdom.com/cms/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=10&Itemid=7

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) 04:53, 7 December 2017 (UTC)

Sources of Majapahit's Military

I was unable to find a good translation of the "History of Yuan" online in order to search for myself the note that is referenced in the military section of Majapahit's military, saying that the Majapahit nobles wear white and the low class infantry were half-naked, only using sarong to the battlefield.

I also went to read the e-book of the "Notes on Malay Archipelago and Malacca Compiled from Chinese Sources" and found no reference to the copper tube armor (kawaca) that is used by the Majapahit nobles and rich soldiers on the battlefield. And to be fair, there are no mention of anything regarding the weapons or the military equipments of Majapahit / Java at all.

And again, I can't find the good online source to fully read the translated version of "Hikayat Banjar", however I am very much interested on the description in the article that describe the equipments of the Bhayangkara. Did they really mention Bhayangkara or was it just an assumption based on their status as a Javanese palace guard ?

I feel like this is part of my own mistake and the lack of knowledge of where to find the good online resources, but I still would like to know if all these statements that are noted from "History of Yuan", "Notes on Malay Archipelago and Malacca Complied from Chinese Sources" and "Hikayat Banjar" are true. I hope the original editors that put these sources may be able to come and verify this for me ? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Anarma (talk • contribs) 06:36, 16 February 2020 (UTC)

The section has been modified since your last visit. I did some investigation—"Notes on Malay Archipelago" does not mention the kawaca, the reference that mentioned it is placed later in the paragraph. The Hikayat Banjar description is apparently quoted from "Majapahit Peradaban Maritim", but the Hikayat Banjar text itself can be freely accessible in MCP. So far, I discovered that most of the section you questioned is using Nugroho's "Majapahit Peradaban Maritim" and Oktorino's "Hikayat Majapahit" as the references. Surijeal (talk) 01:54, 11 July 2022 (UTC)

Pronunciation needed

IPA pronunciation of Majapahit would be helpful.WisDom-UK (talk) 18:30, 19 August 2020 (UTC)

Done. Gunkarta  talk  19:58, 19 August 2020 (UTC)

Found probable grammatical error

I found the following sentence in the section "[e]xplorations and navigation" (footnote excluded):

Modern studies have determined that such place is located at least 900 nautical miles (1666 km) south of the southernmost point of Tasmania.

I think a better phrasing would be "... that the closest such place is ..." Could anyone please tell me if that's a good idea?--Thylacine24 (talk) 14:01, 26 January 2021 (UTC)

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 Majapahit Empire.svg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 07:54, 19 July 2022 (UTC)

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:

• Majapahit fictitious flag.svg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 14:07, 1 November 2022 (UTC)

Inconsistencies on the names of Majapahit kings

Why are some kings mentioned in their birth names (Hayam Wuruk and Jayanagara), while others are in their regnal names (Tribhuwana and Girīndrawardhana)? Not only was the founder mentioned in his birth name, it was not his contemporary one at that. Some of the spellings are wrong (with the dreaded "e" in -nagara) and it's missing a king (Girīndrawardhana Dyah Wijayakusuma in the Jiyu III Inscription). I believe that all the names should be in their regnal ones for the sake of consistency, but I'm afraid others might disagree. Miserableed (talk) 02:30, 14 April 2024 (UTC)

I agree that it would be good to achieve consistency here. Since we have the most complete records for regnal names, I also agree on using the regnal names as the primary designation and other names in parentheses afterwards.

For example:

Kr̥tarājasa (Saṅgrāmavijaya, raden Wijaya)

Jayanagara (Kalagemet)

Tribhuvana (dyah Gitārja) Sastrawan (talk) 09:52, 8 August 2024 (UTC)

Thank you for changing them, @Sastrawan. Including the flag too. Do you mind if I fix the spelling a bit? The correct diacritic for -r (like in Kṛtarājasa), should be ṛ, not r̥ as per IAST. Miserableed (talk) 01:13, 10 August 2024 (UTC)

@Miserableed But, Hayam Wuruk is his regnal name, or Prabu Hayam Wuruk specifically(Prabu means King). I never heard of Hayam Wuruk being called with other name besides Prabu Hayam Wuruk. And for Giriwardhana, i am agree. It should be Bravijaya VI. MahmoudAbbasAlDilfti (talk) 14:07, 6 October 2024 (UTC)

Flag of Majapahit not supported by historical evidence

The red and white striped Majapahit flag included in the infobox is an invention that is not supported by any historical evidence. As noted in the Wikimedia Commons deletion discussion, this is a fictitious flag that was invented by @Inayubhagya as their own personal work. Furthermore, there is no evidence that Majapahit used red-and-white colours; in fact, the Kudadu inscription (issued in 1294, published in Brandes 1894) states that the red-and-white banners belonged to Kadiri troops. See the Description attached to: http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Majapahit_fictitious_flag.svg

This flag should be removed from the infobox and not used anywhere in this article. Sastrawan (talk) 09:36, 8 August 2024 (UTC)