Talk:Kingdom of Mewar

Page contents not supported in other languages.
Source: Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.

Dynastic information misplaced

This is a page about Udaipur State under British rule only, not an article on the state of Mewar in general. The dynastic information about rulers of Mewar outside the period of Brith rule appears to be misplaced. There is a separate page for Mewar state in general. Deccantrap (talk) 18:51, 25 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. Nearly half of the material in the history section doesn't belong here. I'll let other editors comment before removing the irrelevant content. utcursch | talk 05:38, 12 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Said information is substantially impeding use of the page. Since a reasonable amount of time has passed since this discussion opened, suggest the irrelevant material be deleted.Deccantrap (talk) 19:08, 25 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Deccantrap: Be bold and make the changes yourself, as no one has objected to the above proposal. If anyone has a problem with your changes, they can discuss it on the talk page. utcursch | talk 16:14, 28 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I've cut it back substantially. - Sitush (talk) 17:04, 26 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

'Princely state' versus 'Former state'

This page categorizes Udaipur/Mewar State as a princely state, which means a native state vassal to the British Raj. Consistent with this definition, the establishment date of the state is listed as 1818. However, it can hardly be debated that the Udaipur/Mewar State existed before the time it came into vassal status[1]. What does the community feel about classifying Udaipur State as a former state instead of princely state?

The above suggestion will allow the vassal period of Udaipur State to be a subset of the time of its existence as a sovereign state. The alternative would be to create another page to address the pre-vassalage state. This alternative would be cumbersome and ineffective.

Please do comment. Deccantrap (talk) 19:32, 4 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ Payne, C.H. Tod's annals of Rajasthan : The annals of Mewar. New York: E.P. Dutton and Co.
Maybe we can mention that it was "an independent state from xth century to xyz, a vassal state to the Mughal Empire in the yth century, and a princely state of the British India from 1818 to 1947". If the article grows too big, it can be split into multiple articles. utcursch | talk 14:31, 7 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the feedback. Will make some edits in the near future and we will see how it looks. Deccantrap (talk) 02:10, 9 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Spin off dynastic information?

Suggest that the list of Mewar State rulers be spun off as a separate page. See, e.g., List of English monarchs. If no objections are voiced, I will make it a project sometime in the distant future.Deccantrap (talk) 03:24, 30 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 22:24, 10 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 28 June 2022

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. —usernamekiran (talk) 19:20, 12 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Udaipur State → Kingdom of Mewar – A few days ago Sisodias of Mewar was merged here. That merge and expansion of the page has changed what the page is about. It is now about the Kingdom in its historical context and not just the state under Maratha and British. Because historically speaking, there was no state before the british arrived, this must be a kingdom. Also Mewar is a Common Name to include in the title and not Udaipur. See WP:COMMONNAME >>> Extorc.talk 08:05, 28 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Pinging @Abhishek0831996, @Packer&Tracker, @Sajaypal007. active editors in Rajputana history. >>> Extorc.talk 08:13, 28 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support I concur with Extorc here; Udaipur state is a name used by Britts very recently in 18th century or therebouts. History of this house atleast dates back to eighth century and from there on an unbreakable lineage of ruler ruled the area.

Also; Shouldn't we merge separate article of Guhila and Sisodia dynasty into one here as this is the same family and have separate article for Udaipur state during British period alone ?? At last, House of Mewar is also used by multiple scholars for this kingdom @Extorc, Sajaypal007, and Abhishek0831996: Please make a comment on my suggestion as well. Packer&Tracker (talk) 18:43, 28 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I believe that the article about the Guhila dynasty should exist separately because after Hammir Singh's return in 1326, the Power and control totally changed. While Guhilas were mostly vassals and feudatories throughout their rule, Sisodias were the most powerful dynasties in India in the early 16th century.
Also, when you say "article on Sisodia Dynasty", if you mean the article Sisodia, then, yes, I will be WP:BOLD merging Sisodia here.
Thirdly, I instinctually prefer my version of Kingdom of Mewar over your suggestion of House of Mewar. Although, It could be argued that all notability exists because of the house and not because of the Kingdom. Consider my vote for both.
@Packer&Tracker >>> Extorc.talk 11:17, 29 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
House of Mewar could be a good name only if it wasn't used for specifically describing the genealogy of this kingdom. There seem to be multiple "House of Mewar" that's why it is sometimes more specifically called "Sisodia House of Mewar". That's why the proposed name "Kingdom of Mewar" is better. Abhishek0831996 (talk) 12:32, 29 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The Sisodias were Guhilas but Guhila dynasty is notable enough to have a spearate article of its own, if you are considering for such merge then do open separate discussion but in my honest opinion, it will be best to keep the pages separate. Sajaypal007 (talk) 19:10, 29 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, separate discussion would be needed for that merge. >>> Extorc.talk 19:34, 29 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong oppose I believe the argument that "it was kingdom before the British because the British were the first to call it a 'state'" glosses over some linguistic subtleties. In the Jahangirnama (written aroung 1620), the various native Indian states/kingdoms were called "riyasat" which can roughly be translated as a state. Further, in Mewari writing, the entity is denoted as a "rajya". In modern Mewari as well as in Hindi, "rajya" is formally translated as "state" (and informally as "government"). [I apologize that when I commented previously, I wiped out the talk page. It was inadvertent.]
The above is a general argument against the proposal. More specifically to Mewar, the Mewar rulers who are called Ranas did not refer themselves, nor were referred by others, as 'king'. The notion being that the Ranas were stewards of a realm ruled by Eklingnath (the godly figurehead). 'Kingdom of Mewar' would be an extremely rare usage.Deccantrap (talk) 19:15, 30 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
A very simple question, How do you think sources see Mewar in a political sense. Was it a Principality being ruled by an equivalent of a prince? A Protectorate where the Ranas protect Eklingji's territory?
As shown by @Abhishek0831996, Sources do refer to it, for all intents and purposes, as a Kingdom.
A Large proportion of Indian Hindu Kingdoms/Empires patronized some sect and assumed similar attitudes towards deities like the Mewaris did. Does that make them something other than kingdoms and Empires? >>> Extorc.talk 19:54, 30 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
That is a great question, how do sources see Mewar in a political sense? Yes Abhishek0831996 did show that some sources refer to it as Mewar. But an equal - and likely more - number of sources show it being referred to as state even in medieval (pre-British) area. See for example [4][5][6][7]. An important modern source on Mewar is the book Human Geography of Mewar [8] the text of which is not available online but I quote from page 55 of the copy on my desk: "...the Guhilot dynasty originally migrated and established the state of Mewar...". To again emphasize, each of these sources refer to the 'state of Mewar' or 'Mewar State' when writing of that administrative realm in the the medieval era (i.e., before the British showed up). Another empirical piece of evidence is that 'Mewar state' pulls up 180 hits on Google Scholar, while 'Mewar kingdom' gets 59 hits and 'Kingdom of Mewar' gets 162 hits.
I do wonder if some of the support for this proposal is prompted by the current use of the word 'state' in some democracies such as India, Australia and US to denote administrative subdivisions of a sovereign country. In the context of Mewar, I do not believe 'state' should be interpreted to mean that. Nor did the British intend it as that; like many other places in India, Mewar was never under direct British administrative rule, with Mewar retaining its status as a sovereign state that was a tribute-payer to the empire.
Finally, I think the question of state versus kingdom should not taken up in isolation as an issue of Mewar. The following pages all use 'state' to denote the administrative realm but the material therein is not limited to the British-era entity: Jodhpur State, Jaipur State etc.Deccantrap (talk) 20:09, 1 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Deccantrap Out of the 4 sources provided, 2 clearly are from 2002 and 2016 resp. and cant be called medieval (pre-British) as you do.
I do wonder if some of the support - And Yes! State does conflict with the modern definition of State as in a nation-state but Kingdom provides a seamless distinction. Even if I would concede that State and Kingdom are both used equally in sources,(for making a point), still Kingdom is a good disambiguation of State away from nation-state. Also feel free to ping to get my attention and to speed up discussion. >>> Extorc.talk 19:07, 3 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
A Large proportion of ... kingdoms and Empires?Thanks @Extorc. I want to withdraw that part of the argument. My opinion was primarily supported by the generic factors that I have canvassed in further details above. I think my specific point about Mewar is taking the discussion away from my main argument and I apologize for bringing it up.Deccantrap (talk) 20:09, 1 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
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.

History of Rajasthan by Rima Hooja

The pdf of History of Rajasthan by Rima Hooja that I'm using doesn't have page numbers labeled. I will add quotes from the book in my citations, kindly add page numbers if you are aware of them. Thanks. >>> Extorc.talk 07:02, 10 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Map

Hi @PadFoot2008 You have removed my map which is completely sourced by the book of reputed authors like Rima Hooja. Dr. Mankekar and Satish Chandra. Still, I would like to clear your doubt that my map only shows the information about the Kingdom of Mewar and its extent with the cities of that time. Historians like G.N Sharma in his book Mewar and the Mughal Emperors Page no.46 has used the term "Empire" for Sanga's territories. "The respect which we justly feel for Sanga as a heroic spirit and a contributor to the cause of his country must not blind us to the fault which he committed as a statesman. Induced by his favourite wife, Hadi Karmeti ,he fragmented his vast empire, acquired through the flow of copious blood of the flower of Mewar, by allotting Ranthambhor, the strongest citadel of his eastern dominion, along with fifty to sixty lakhs of Jagirdari to her sons Vikram and Uda, leaving the rest of his territory to Rana Ratan Singh, " Same thing is also corrobrated by historian Har Bilas Sarda in his book Maharana Sanga; the Hindupat, the last great leader of the Rajput race Page no. 93"Mewar was now at the meridian of her greatness and prosperity. The greater part of Malwa had been conquered and incorporated with Mewar. Ranthambhore, Gagrone, Kalpi, Bhilsa and Chanderi were under the sway of the Maharana. Ajmer had been taken and Abu reduced, and Sanga's governors administered both districts. Sanga reduced to submission the Khanzadas of Mewat. The kings of Gwalior, Amber and Marwar acknowledged his 'supremacy and accompanied him in his wars as vassals with their contingents. Maharana Sanga had pushed back the Sultan of Delhi and made the Peela khal, near Agra, the northern boundary of his empire" The term "Imperial Mewar" is coined by historian R.V Somani in his book Maharana Kumbha and His Times: A Glorious Hindu King no. 38 "For the first time Mewar acheived Imperial Status. The Epithets Hindu Raj Gaj Nayaka and Hindu Sratan adopted by Kumbha are indicative for the same." I hope all your doubts are cleared and you would yourself or would allow me to restore the map. Rawn3012 (talk) 19:12, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I have already expressed my view regarding this on Rana Sanga's talk page. Just because some authors use imperial/empire, that doesn't mean that all authors agree with that. The map doesn't display the correct boundaries of the Mewar, and incorrectly includes its vassals. See the German Empire map for instance. It uses a switcher showing the non-war boundaries by default, while the second map shows the war time boundaries, but still doens't depict its vassals and occupied territories as a part of Germany, but in a different colour. PadFoot (talk) 00:34, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Well @PadFoot2008 I have not denied your pov of having lighter shade for vassal Kingdoms. Infact I was working on it but it takes time to do all the stuff. I am including the territories of Marwar, Amber and Bikaner as vassals(In lighter Colour). Hope you would understand. The term Imperial Mewar has been used nearly by all all the historians for the line fof Maharana Hammir to Maharana Sanga that's why I have used it. Historians like Rima Hooja, Satish Chandra, DR. Mankekar had also been cited and additionally I have provided you with the quotations of G.N Sharma, R.V Somani and Har Bilas Sarda. These are near to all, all the historians that have ever wrote on Mewar. So, I would request you to not use the word "some historians"
Regards Rawn3012 (talk) 01:30, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
We don't use court historians. Those are primary sources. We use secondary sources. Also I've made the map myself. It uses the same boundaries as yours but uses the conventional Wikipedia colour scheme on historical maps such as German Empire, United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland, Kingdom of France as well all modern country articles (see India, United States, France, and so one) colour scheme, and provides contemporary state boundaries as well. PadFoot (talk) 01:36, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@PadFoot2008 I have removed your map because of the following reasons
  1. You are adding your preferred map which has not gained consensus yet.
  2. Bi-color maps tend to be simple, but very poor in information. For Ex, it has no cities
  3. Maps with topography give more information and convey notions of natural boundaries and nature of the territory being occupied. This is why most of our templates have a "relief" option, which usually greatly improves the maps' informational (and graphical) value.
  4. Also don't push Wikipedia Other Content into this. As what happens in above mentioned articles have nothing to do with this.
If you give me some time, I will make a high quality map for the page but till then let map of Mewar in Rajputana agency as the only map for Infobox. Additionaly, What do you mean by court historians ? Like seriously! according to you historians like Satish Chandra and Har Bilas Sarda are court historians. Rawn3012 (talk) 09:24, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
At the end just give me one day and we will be having a good map. Rawn3012 (talk) 09:25, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It is not WP:OTHERCONTENT, it is the standard convention in Wikipedia used in almost all large historical state articles as well all modern day country articles. They are better and present more information. If we are going to be doing this, then none of our maps are going to be selected at the end. As for the part about court historians, I had simply misunderstood what you had said. As for "preferred maps", you have been going around adding your maps of choice without consensus as well, and some of those additions I supported such as at Western Chaulukya Empire, Sikh Empire and Maratha Confederacy (unfortunate that other editors refused). And then you revert the addition of my map because you think that your map is better, even though you haven't even made it yet. PadFoot (talk) 10:36, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@PadFoot2008 Well for the Western Chalukya Empire, Sikh Empire, and Maratha Confederacy. Yes I have added my maps without consesnus but whenever my map had been contentesed. I have discussed and had tried to gain consesnsus. In some, I have got and in some not. However, In Wikipedia and particularly for Indian history we commonly use topographical maps for example Shunga Empire, Vakataka Dynasty, Eastern Gangas ,Chandellas, Gurjar Pratihars, Parmars, Chola Empire, Pandya Dynasty and Hoysala Kingdom but I am not debating with you here, What I am saying is that by evening or night I will present a updated version of my map with Kingdoms of Marwar, Amber and Bikaner as vassals (ligher colour)
Regards Rawn3012 (talk) 12:18, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hi @PadFoot2008 I am adding ligher shade to the vassal kingdoms, also I am retaning the cities Rawn3012 (talk) 16:15, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Rawn3012, I've already made the map. It shows contemporary boundaries as well and uses the standard Wikipedia mapping scheme. And we both have more or less identical geographical extent for the kingdom. Why do you want to replace the map. PadFoot (talk) 16:22, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hi @PadFoot2008, I have made the updated map with reliable sources but before that I would like to point out some inconsistencies in your map and also why this updated map is necessary (keeping in mind that I am not promoting my map)
  1. The contemporary boundaries of Bikaner are exaggerated as a large part of the latter at that time formed the territories of Sekhawati ruled by Shekhawati Rajputs of (present-day-Jhunjhunu-Singhana-Nurbana area ) subordinate to Ranas of Mewar since the time of Rana Kumbha.
  2. Jaislmer was not the vassal of Mewar at any point of time in history as the Ranas of Mewar never attempted to control it.
  3. The area of Amber or Dundhar is shown to be too small. According to Har Bilas Sarda in his book Maharana Sāngā, the Hindupat: The Last Great Leader of the Rajput Race Page no 48 "the Kachhwahas were in Amber and were in possession of the country up to Mewat and the south-western borders of the Panjab,"
  4. You have shown areas of Marwar and some parts of Mewar in dark green color (don't know why?)
  5. Area controlled by Gujarat Sultanate is also exaggerated as Har Bilas Sarda in his book Maharana Sāngā, the Hindupat: The Last Great Leader of the Rajput Race Page no 48 "the Gujarat territory stretched along the sea to the south-east so as to include the city of Surat and some of the country beyond "
  6. In the same way you had added some parts of Khandesh Sultanate to the territories of Malwa Sultanate which was not true as after the battles of Sarangpur and Gagron, near all of Malwa except of Mandu was in the hands of Mewar.
  7. Mewar itself is no where to be seen,
  8. There is no point in showing occupied territories see for ex. Yadava Dynasty, Parmara Dynasty, and Chandella Dynasty
  9. It does not shows cities which is a important factor as shown in the maps of Ottoman Empire, Yadava Dynasty, Parmara Dynasty, Chandella Dynasty and Chaulukya Dynasty.
Now coming to my map, It shows the directly administerd areas in dark blue colour and vassal states in light blue colour that too with cities. It also shows the boundaries of vassal states in that particular time. My map is also well sited with relaible sources of Rima Hooja, Har Bilas Sarda and DR. Mankekar. Hence, I would request you to use my map as it shows more details and has backings of relaible sources too.
Regards
Rawn3012 (talk) 17:55, 11 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

"Cities" only create unnecessary clutter. Most maps thus do not use them. Also, only northern and eastern regions of Malwa were occupied as per the source provided. Gujarat as well as Malwa's boundaries seem correct to me, with Khandesh's northern boundary following the Narmada river. (Also Mewar is in dark green if you didn't realise, with vassals in light green.) PadFoot (talk) 18:07, 11 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Mewar in dark green comprises of whole of Marwar which is incrorrect and cities does not create unnecessary cluster but it helps the user to connect with the map as he most of the time knew the cities. Rawn3012 (talk) 18:16, 11 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Mewar is Mewar now, also most readers would not know the cities at all and it adds unnecessary clutter, which again, most maps avoid. PadFoot (talk) 18:52, 11 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I have added both the maps as I am not gonna debate which maps avoid the cities and which do not(if it not feels necessary). It will be benefical for users as they will have knowledge of the extent of the kingdom from a outter look with contemptary boundaries of that time(your map) and more clear description of the territorial extent of the state from a physical perspective along with major cities of the that time(my map). I will also settle the dispute also.

Regards

Rawn3012 (talk) 00:06, 12 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Adding two maps of the same era is completely unnecessary. I don't understand why it is so important for you to pushy your map here. You've made many other maps for other articles, why are you so determined to add your map to this article when a map already exists. Why can't you accept other editors contributions for once? PadFoot (talk) 02:24, 12 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
When I said I am having problem with your map? See for example German Empire It has the same type of map which you have used and another which has states and cities. I don't know what problem you are having with same when both shows same boundaries. Rawn3012 (talk) 16:32, 12 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
And if you noticed the map of the German Empire with the details such as the cities, you'd have seen that it doesn't show occupied or vassals, and only the provinces, cities, federated states, etc and it is zoomed in to show only the German Empire. PadFoot (talk) 16:52, 12 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
There will be some variations as both the states were different polities. I am telling about just an outlook. Why you are not able to understant a simple thing that your map does not provide the information of which states were vassals(names) and which cities the kingdom controlled directly(names again). Rawn3012 (talk) 16:59, 12 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The purpose of an infobox is to summarise things, the details such as vassal names, capital cities of each of the vassals, all important cities in the kingdom, etc. are not important for the infobox. The map in the infobox is only to provide a rough idea of the extent of the kingdom and it's vassals. PadFoot (talk) 17:37, 12 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@PadFoot2008 Alright! Let it be your map then, Just do two minor corrections. First please add the area of Mandsaur and it's sorrounding areas as it was the part of Mewar(the kingdom itself). You have to shade the territory of Malwa Sultanate adjoining the lower parts of the base kingdom. and second correction which is not a correction but a mistake from my side. Jaisalmer has to be re-added as it was one of the vassals of Mewar. I in shortages of sources made that statement above, but after reading the History of Mewar from earliest time to 1751 A.D by R.V Somani Page no- 168 it is clear that Jaislmer too was one of the vassals of Mewar along with other Rajput Kingdoms. Also I have added my map in article's body as it will provide more information to the readers. Rawn3012 (talk) 18:01, 12 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding the term imperial

Hi @PadFoot2008, I have provided you with the source for the term Imperial used for Mewar for the time period of 1326-1527 above. So here this talk is for consensus. Rawn3012 (talk) 16:09, 13 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

A few sources using the term imperial doesn't immediately assert its universal usage. Most scholars don't use the term for Mewar. PadFoot (talk) 16:18, 13 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I have provided you with the sources of D.R Mankekar, R.V Somani, Har Bilas Sarda and G.N Sharma.This does not count for few. The term Imperial apllies for the time period of 1326-1527 for Mewar not for all of it's existence. Rawn3012 (talk) 16:30, 13 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You've provided a quote mentioning "Imperial" from only Somani, no one else. PadFoot (talk) 16:33, 13 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
G.N Sharma, Har Bilas Sarda and D.R Mankekar uses the term "Empire", quotes have been provided above. Here either you can Empire or Imperial. Rawn3012 (talk) 00:51, 14 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
They don't use the term "Mewar empire". They use the term "empire" as an informal designation for Sanga's influential military power. I don't see any authors calling Mewar the "Mewar empire", as that would be pretty absurd. PadFoot (talk) 13:24, 14 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Kingdom_of_Mewar&oldid=1240267520"