Talk:Siege of Jalalabad (1710)

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

Recent edit by Shah439

shah439, your recent edit did not have an impartial tone and therefore I reverted it. I have included the aftermath with a more impartial tone. Xtremedood (talk) 09:33, 24 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

There is no reference of conquering the city better you should write only relevant information which is present in the Jacques Tony book of sieges .otherwise I will make edit myself Shah439 (talk) 09:48, 24 April 2015 (UTC) Xtremedood — Preceding unsigned comment added by Shah439 (talk • contribs) 09:49, 24 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Result of the Battle

@Noorullah21

recently there has been a dispute regarding the result of the battle.Although there does seem to be credible proof that the battle was a Mughal victory,there is however information from Historian Surjit Singh Gandhi that points out that the battle's result is inconclusive or indecisive.Quoting Gandhi

"Certainly it was not the opposition of Jalal Khan that worked upon Banda's mind to take such decision because it was not at all possible for Jalal Khan to hold on for a very long time and only a few more days were required to capture Jalalabad."

According to Gandhi, if Banda Singh had continued his siege for a few more days it would have resulted in the town being taken.Another reason why he lifted the siege was because he had received urgent calls from the Sikhs in Punjab.Due to urgent manners he lifted the siege and withdrew to Punjab.Let me know what your thoughts are?We can also try asking for a 3rd opinion on this case. Twarikh e Khalsa (talk) 05:35, 24 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Twarikh e Khalsa Again, nothing there in the quote or the source calls the battle inconclusive. I will take an off-point example of the Mongol siege of Delhi. Mongol invasion of India (1303). If the Mongols continued the siege, it is corroborated by other historians that the city would've fallen, yet it still didn't.
The point being made here is that regardless of how close the Sikhs were to overcoming the Mughal armies in the siege, they just didn't. None of the sources called the battle inconclusive or a Sikh victory, while others do call the battle a Mughal victory. Other examples just provide that Banda Singh was forced to raise the siege, which would be unsuccessful in this case.
@Twarikh e Khalsa Noorullah (talk) 06:24, 24 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Noorullah21
guess you have a point there.For now keep the result as a mughal victory.I will look through different sources and see if they corroborate the Mughal victory.If they include new information than i will let you know.Take care Twarikh e Khalsa (talk) 06:37, 24 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
No problem, if anything relevant comes up, let me know so we can change the infobox result if there appears to be a wide consensus in sources of some sort. Take care as well. @Twarikh e Khalsa Noorullah (talk) 06:41, 24 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Not to mention, Gandhi is a relatively obscure historian with zero peer reviewed books to his name, I'm not saying he is unreliable, but his work should certainly be accorded less weight than a university published text.
talk) 07:20, 24 July 2023 (UTC)[reply
]
Historian Ganda Singh says :”At last when the Sikhs saw that there was no prospect of an immediate success and that the calls upon them from the Punjab were more urgent, 'they raised the siege’ and 'went oft' to reduce Sultanpur and the parganahs of Jullundur Doab.
Historian Sagoo says: “…was forced to lift the siege because of two factors: "First, he had received appeals from the Sikhs of the central Punjab to extend them help against the local Faujdar. Secondly, he had learnt that Emperor Bahadur Shah had already sent his vanguard to crush the rebellion in the Punjab and was likely to be there soon to retrieve the lost territories and glory of the Mughals.”
that is why result is inconclusive by majority but since there is one historian with difference of opinion, the result can be considered “Disputed”. 107.116.79.67 (talk) 08:11, 24 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
You're just reiterating what you already said without addressing Noorullah's argument which is The point being made here is that regardless of how close the Sikhs were to overcoming the Mughal armies in the siege, they just didn't. + Other examples just provide that Banda Singh was forced to raise the siege, which would be unsuccessful in this case.. Please actually explain how Banda abandoning the siege, regardless of why he did so, would not be a Mughal victory.
talk) 08:29, 24 July 2023 (UTC)[reply
]
The article has changed a great deal since I last looked at it. I noticed that a particular source has been altered(page number removed).
@Kansas Bear
Hey Kansas bear is it possible for you to provide a archive link to tony jacques' "dictionary of battles and sieges"? Twarikh e Khalsa (talk) 16:13, 24 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
This link works for me. It is on page 484. --Kansas Bear (talk) 16:30, 24 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you Twarikh e Khalsa (talk) 18:55, 24 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
First off, if no one else has noticed, this was a siege not a battle. To the edit-warring IP, just exactly what is "Disputed"? This source, Singh, Ganda (1990) [1935]. Life of Banda Singh Bahadur, states the Sikh raised the siege. While Tony Jacques states, the Sikhs raised the siege. Even Sagoo states the Sikhs raised their siege and retreated. Ghandi states the Sikhs withdrew without being able to take the town. "Studies in History" is
unverifiable. So explain to me how the result of this "siege" is "Disputed"? --Kansas Bear (talk) 23:59, 24 July 2023 (UTC)[reply
]
@
Suthasianhistorian8 @107.116.79.67
We also have to understand one of Banda Singh Bahadurs motives behind attacking Jalalabad.Prior to the siege,Banda Singh was notified that the local populations of Jalalabad were facing harassment and persecution under it's governor Jalal Khan.In particular the Sikh inhabitants of Unarsa.Banda Singh Bahadur was able to gain initial success by defeating Mughal garrisons stationed in towns such as Saharanpur,Naunata,Ambehat etc.Banda Singh was also initially succesful against Jalal Khan outside of the town.However his efforts in taking the town ended in failure largely due to the monsoon floods,the fortifications of the town, as well as receiving urgent calls from Punjab.Following the Sikh withdrawal to Punjab,Jalal Khan would have the Sikh inhabitants of Unarsa killed.Banda Singhs goal in attempting to protect the local Sikhs of Jalalabad failed,which could further prove the battle was a Mughal victory and not inconclusive as what the ip editor claims.However there are of course sources out there that might give a different perspective on the result of the battle.That is something i will look into.For now keep the result as "Mughal Victory" considering Muzzafar Alams source states the Sikhs were defeated,giving us a clear result of the battle. Twarikh e Khalsa (talk) 05:19, 25 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps the battle outcome could be modified to "Battle won by the Sikhs; subsequent siege failed"? Though I'm not sure if it would comply with the MOS for infoboxes.
talk) 17:20, 25 July 2023 (UTC)[reply
]
@
Suthasianhistorian8
I think that was the result that was used a while back.You can check the previous revisions of the page and you will find it. Twarikh e Khalsa (talk) 17:42, 25 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I see that it was changed by an IP in February of this year. I do believe that my proposal above is the most apt description of the outcome. Not sure if others are on board with it or content with the current version.
talk) 18:32, 25 July 2023 (UTC)[reply
]
That would not follow MOS#INFOBOX. Noorullah (talk) 19:20, 25 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Understood. Thanks for letting me know.
talk) 19:28, 25 July 2023 (UTC)[reply
]
  • Opinion: In
    Battle of Jalalabad (1710) how is the total known 5400-6400 or 12,000 when there are still "unknown number of Ghazis". With Unknowns, the total is still Unknown. The result is also not definite for either side because the Mughals were repulsed and pushed back inside the fort when Jalal Khan immediately sent request to Bahadur Shah for help. But despite tough siege because of strong and long walls of the fort, flooding and bad weather, Banda continued the siege till he got reports of Mughal Emperor Bahadur Shah marching and attacking other territories and there were also urgent pleads by other zamindars for help, so Banda had to return to face these issues thus lifted the siege. Had Banda had more time, outcome would have been more definite for either side. The result should be "indefinite outcome". Sagoo source gives detail on this and it is available for everyone to read on the article. If we consider Muzaffar Alam's source, it says that the army of Jalal Khan Rohilla, Faujdar of the sarkar and Saiyid Taj-ud-Din Barha comprised a SIZEABLE number of zamindars along with the Shurafa of the region. SIZEABLE means FAIRLY LARGE. So isn't this much more reason to consider the total number to be "Unknown" keeping in mind that all information from provided by reliable sources are applicable to be on an article and its infobox. I didn't see any strong base for conclusion of the result. Would recommend more opinions since this issue has been lifted by other editors and IP from what I see. For the result of the battle other sources don't share similar thoughts and I see that they were removed. And Muzaffar Alam also shares what the Mughals had in battle. So if you include Sagoo and IHC, then even Muzaffar's source should be included too in the infobox stating : 'Unknown sizeable number of Zamindars with SHurafa.2601:547:B05:452F:9DFB:F3A5:3726:F8F1 (talk) 13:58, 3 August 2023 (UTC)[reply
    ]
    You haven't provided any diffs, see the talk page of @Twarikh e Khalsa for the previous talk there. Noorullah (talk) 17:33, 3 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Your opinion on what the result is does not matter, sources say that the Mughals won.
    You also said that because it says a sizeable force, your assuming it means fairly large, but that is not a definite number. Neither is it presumable to put it in the infobox when we already have sources stating the numbers present in the battle. Noorullah (talk) 17:37, 3 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    All opinion matters especially when all reliable sources's output has to be considered. You cannot cherry pick any one and ignore the rest. All sources should be given due diligence. If you compare sources considering the majority, then the outcome is "indefinite outcome" but when there is source has different opinion, then the result becomes disputed. And sizeable force being fairly large isn't an assumption but is what the definition is. Look it up. Yes its, not a definite number and that is the point of the number being "unknown". Inputs from all reliable sources should be included and that is why it is important to include "Unknown sizeable number of Zamindars with SHurafa" as mentioned by Muzaffar Alam. @Twarikh e Khalsa:, you agree? thoughts? 2601:547:B05:3676:E1E7:80A7:658B:D95 (talk) 11:56, 4 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    See
    WP:RSUW
    , we have numbers from other sources. The view stating that the numbers are unknown especially based off of “Unknown Sizeable numbers” is not proper to implement in the infobox.
    -
    Also again, you have not provided any diffs, page numbers, nor link toward the book. Noorullah (talk) 17:04, 4 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes it is proper to implement in the infobox as it has been done on several other articles.
    Source that mention the "sizeable numbers of Zamindars and Shurafa" is from MUzaffar Alam himself in his book on page number 147, [1] with quote, The army of Jalal Khan Rohilla, Fajudar of the sarkar and Saiyid Taj-ud-Din Barha .... in 1710 in Jalalabad comprised a sizeable number of zamindars along with the shurafa of the region. This source is also on the article itself.2601:547:B05:198B:B4E3:2A08:27F3:B4D6 (talk) 18:22, 4 August 2023 (UTC) 2601:547:B05:198B:B4E3:2A08:27F3:B4D6 (talk) 18:22, 4 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Even Sagoo source mentions on page number 170 that Jalal Khan called large number of villagers to fight for him. He had also called a large number of villagers to fight for him by the side of his regular army. [1] 71.60.35.16 (talk) 18:57, 4 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Sagoo mentions on page 245 [2] "Thus, Banda Singh's grand successes at Kaithal, Samana, Sadhaura, Sarhind, Saharanpur, Behat, Jalalabad and many other places speak volumes of his ability."
    Even Hari Ram Gupta mentions on page 16, "He punished and plundered the people of Saharanpur, Behat, Nanautah and Jalalabad. The people submitted after a tough resistance. Thus Banda's rule extended from the river Ravi to the Ganga, and from the neighbourhood of Lahore to the vicinity of Panipat." [3].
    More of a reason to consider the result as Disputed. 2601:547:B05:7F2A:7431:AF44:4520:B591 (talk) 19:11, 4 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Sagoo is very well mentioning the skirmish that happened prior to the siege. We also know Jalalabad didn't submit (per the sources), and that Banda Singh was forced to raise the siege due to other conflicts (I.E, a defeat).
    You are talking about other articles, but that's not relevant to this discussion here. And as again stated, its not proper to implement off of the infobox since we have sources stating the numbers. See
    WP:RSUW
    .
    Even Sagoo source mentions on page number 170 that Jalal Khan called large number of villagers to fight for him. He had also called a large number of villagers to fight for him by the side of his regular army.
    I believe you did not thoroughly read what Sagoo wrote. He mentions the villager numbers. I quote: "The Pathans had under them 400 cavalrymen, 1000 foot soldiers, and 4,000-5,000 strong special militia from the villages.[4]
    Sagoo mentions the number of villagers there, so you trying to attribute that as the Mughals having a larger army is not the case. We know that there is an "Unknown number of Ghazis" per his description. Noorullah (talk) 19:52, 4 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Lets consider your point that you think Sagoo considers the large number of villagers to be 400 cavalrymen, 1000 foot soldiers, and 4000-5000 strong special militia from the villages, then how many were the regular army? Because Sagoo also says He had also called a large number of villagers to fight for him by the side of his regular army. Also that is the number mentioned to have been sent with Hazbar Khan and Ghulam Khan where Hazbar Khan and numerous Ghazis were killed. It wasn't a total force as Sagoo goes on to say that Jamal Khan and Pir Khan, the nephews of Jalal Khan, waited in the wings behind, commanding fresh forces for the aid of the front where help was required. So isn't this free force also unknown aside from the further unknown within the fort with Jalal Khan? I am also giving more importance to what Muzzafar Alam says that The army of Jalal Khan Rohilla, Fajudar of the sarkar and Saiyid Taj-ud-Din Barha .... in 1710 in Jalalabad comprised a sizeable number of zamindars along with the shurafa of the region.
    A side note about the "according to" in the infobox, those are not Sagoo's own number but they have referenced it from Khafi Khan; Muntakhib-ul-Lubab, 655-6. So it should say, (According to Khafi Khan).
    On to the result, Jalalabad didn't submit to the fort being captured after they were repulsed back into the fort after the defeat by the Sikhs. So though not definite outcome, it is considered partial success. That is why historians like Sagoo and Gupta have mentioned it still a success. Because Banda had to raise the siege due to other urgent calls, doesn't mean it as defeat. Seems rather inconclusive I must say. 2601:547:B05:7F2A:7431:AF44:4520:B591 (talk) 20:25, 4 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    There's a difference between citing a source, appending a supplementary note, and reiterating or recounting what a firsthand or historical account claimed. We need not use attribution in the first case.
    talk) 02:08, 5 August 2023 (UTC)[reply
    ]

More reasonable to consider 3O or someone with years of experience or AFC or RFC to bring clarity and consensus to this issue. Some of the "Unknowns" - Regular Army; Free force under Kamal Khan and Pir Khan; Under Jalal Khan within the fort; sizeable number of zamindars along with the shurafa of the region. Another issue is the result - Definitely not defeated as the outcome was indefinite - Should be either Disputed, Inconclusive or as early one of the editor mentioned, bullet point "Battle won by the Sikhs; subsequent siege failed". For this last outcome, 3O or experienced editor can give their opinion on MOS#INFOBOX as well because I have seen such statements on various other articles on wikipedia. To reach consensus we need opinion using one of the platforms for discussion by other experienced editors. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:547:B05:AD5:499E:9915:E6CD:1AE9 (talk) 12:24, 5 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

No, that does not follow MOS#INFOBOX. Alongside this, the sources placed there call it a Mughal victory, while Sagoo and Gupta do not call it a success, not sure where you are getting that from.
Again, you keep repeating yourself on an issue that has been settled, the numbers of the army are already stated (with an unknown number of Ghazis), which is why it says total known to attribute to that source in the infobox. While IHC says there was 12,000 total. Noorullah (talk) 17:16, 5 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
There is certainly disagreement which could be resolved through 3O or other platforms. I have showed Sagoo and Gupta's comments with links where they considered "success". Since the article is about the battle, based on that the battle was success. Siege took place after. Even IHC source is questionable as the snippet doesn't mention whether it's regarding the battle in 1710 at Jalalabad. One other problem is that there are two occurrences, a battle and a siege. With several unknowns it is pretty vague about how many were present during battle and during siege from either side. Anyways, we don't need to expound about this further to avoid going in circles but rather just take the issue to other platforms to reach a consensus. 71.60.34.246 (talk) 14:58, 6 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ISBN 9780199082384
    .
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Siege_of_Jalalabad_(1710)&oldid=1203211304"