Kannambadi claims himself to be an authority on Vijayanagar Empire. He has been selectively inserting material to show that Vijayanagar empire solely becomes the heritage of Kannadigas. One glaring example is the omission of Telugu literature. It is common knowledge that Vijayanagar period was a glorious chapter in Telugu literature. Ashtadiggajas (eight great poets) were the most celebrated group in Krishnadevaraya's court. Tenali Rama, known all over India, was a part of the group. The emperor himself was a great poet having written "Amuktamalyada" in Telugu. Many such glaring omissions make Kannambadi either an ignorant historian or a parocial psuedo-historian. As such, his arguments about the origin of the empire should taken with a pinch of salt.
mr dinesh kannambadi u behave like a half baked historian, u want to prove telugu's r inferior to kannadigas by putting forward all the non sense stuff, dont forget the greatness of telugu people it were the telugu people who built the first empire in south india the great satavahanas, the whole of south india including karnataka was a part of their empire,even the chalukyas were feudatories to them who were sent to karnataka from kadapa dist in andhra pradesh,they adopted the ways of the land like all the telugu people do where ever they go.dont forget the greatness of telugu people they were the first people to colonise southeast asia and founders of mahayana buddism and spread it in whole of asia and brought prestige to our country, telugu was a spoken language then in satavahana empire it is evident by the presence of telugu words in gadhasaptasati by emperor hala. and also a inscription written in brahmi was found near vishakapatnam which had telugu words written on it, telugu people alone r mentioned in the puranas dating back to milliniums from the deccan plateau.
coming to vijayanagar empire, it shows how inferior you kannadigas feel in india , u want to make up some thing and proclaim your self as great people, you people lack glorious history and feel inferior to others .that's what making you to behave like half baked historian, the vijayanagar empire was founded by telugu people in telugu land and was assisted by telugu sage vidyaranya, dont take that if a person is from a part of state which is now in karnatake as kannadiga. it only adds insult to injury for you. dont you know that the brother of vidyaranya sayana was a minister in bukka court and he wrote commentary on vedas in telugu, this only prooves that telug was a favourite medium since the starting of the empire. and from the very founding day of the empire vijayanagar was dependant on telugu people and they appointed telugu governers to all of their provinces and the main provinces were penugonda and chandragiri both in andhra pradesh,unfortunately during the partition of states bellary dist which was telugu area since ages came under karnataka and u people claim what ever falls in karnataka as your own.grow up man and understand real history and dont behave like propagandist.only telugu people can built an empire so glorious in south india,just see asia , if today every indian feels proud to see indian culture in whole of southeast asia, it was because of brave telugu rulers who went on seas to conquer lands and spread our religion and culture,can any other state claim such greatness in india.
Sorry I forgot to add this earlier. The intention behind removing some mythical theories was not
to confound the reader with innumerable theories about the founding of the empire.
India as you know is a land of myths and stories. Very few stories have historical merit.
I was under the impression that our responsibilitiy as history buffs is to provide the most
plausible data instead of confusing the reader.
Just as an example, there is a statement in the article that "telugu was the court language of vijayanagara
empire". This is a flamboyant statement which most historians will not accept. Krishna deva Raya may have
encouraged Telugu literature in 1500 AD onwards, but that does not imply it as "court language". If you study the history of the empire carefully, you will see that both Kannada and Telugu were the official languages. If Telugu literature was deemed popular to Krishnadevaraya, this was also the time for Kannada Haridasa movement and one can clearly see "purandara mantapa" in Hampi. The script used itself was the "vijayanagara script" which one may
construe as the last common point in the evolution of modern kannada and telugu from the age old 'Hale Kannada".
Even if a few records were found in Telugu in Hampi itself, it still does not imply that it alone was the offical
language.
Dinesh Kannambadi.
I intend to add more material on the middle period of the emprier; the list of rulers needs cleanup and finishing which I hope to do in the next few days. There are also a number of links to sort out. Imc 18:22, 31 Dec 2004 (UTC)
The list of rulers in the template differs slightly from those in the article. I'd think that it is ok, as long as both are retained. The reasons are as follows: -
It is difficult to exactly pinpoint who ruled when - and both the template and the article come from credible sources.
Having both of them would help the reader understand that some episodes in history have not been documented well.
Most importantly, the template does not make any claims about the period of the rule. Hence, its retention would only imply a reasonably well accepted line of kings, but not about the exact period of their rule. Also, it has links to biographical information about the kings, and hence, is useful.
Dear GuruBrahma, The concept "Karnataka Empire" is not a self imposed title. The name did not exist. The empire is better and well-known as Vijayanagar Empire. Propogating new names smacks of parochialism. It is
commonly accepted by well known historians that the empire had its origin and its heart and soul in Kannada Conutry. Telugu people also feel the same way. It is a fact that Anegondi/Hampi/Vijayanagar are located in the area where Telugu was the predominant language till independence. The names of the villages, landmarks etc are all Telugu by nature.The popularity of Telugu in the empire came only in the later part of 15th century onwards.It was natural because Kings of Telugu descent patronized their own literature, arts and culture a little more than the others. This does not imply that the other parts of the empire did not contribute, it just suggests that most of thee princely lineage that ruled the kingdom were from Kannada country and as such, Old Kannada was still the medium of written standard thru out Andhra at that time. The spritual impetus for the empire also came from the Sringeri Peetha as well as the Kannada Haridasa movement. Robert Sewell, a foreigner, after crtical analysis of various theories concluded that Harihara and Bukka were Golla/Yadava/Kuruba treasury officers in the court of Warangal.I understand that Krishnadevaraya
gave lot of importance to Telugu Literature which is obvious where ever I read about the King.It was but natural that he conducted all day-to-day matters in Telugu which he spoke. It is also possible that Telugu population may have had a relative majority in the Kingdom by the 16th century, but let us not forget that Kannada language itself was wide spread thru out
Kurnool, Cudduppa, Chitoor etc. during that time.Even today Kannadaspeaking population exists in these bordering districts.That is natural but does not mean much. I can point you to a seperate section regarding "Kannada Inscriptions from Andhra" as proof. Infact there are supposed to be more Kannada inscriptions in Tirupathi temple then Telugu inscriptions. No suppositions/presumptions. Its unfortunate that
todays politics and regionalsim prevents us from seeing history from a "historical perspective". Just to drive the point further, recently, outgoing Chief Minister
Dharam Singm even made an official suggestion that Kannada and Telugu people must go back
to "VijayaLipi", the common Old Kannada script used during the Empire. This idea ofcourse was
shot down.No doubt it is a good idea.
Dinesh Kannambadi
Please include orissa in the map. Krishnadevaraya defeated and held the gajapathi's as feudatories for some time. So also records indicate that the king of SriLanka may have paid tribute to him as well as Devaraya II (1450AD). Thanks for your efforts.
Dear casual deleter of valid material, please do take note that people take lot of trouble to put in valid research material. Dont just delete whole paragraphs without bothering to log in which would enable us discuss your issues and concerns. If you have useful material to prove any of those theories wrong bring it forward. Dont just blanket remove material because it suits your convinience. This is not civil.
If you can prove that the empire originated in Telugu country for instance, put it forward. let us discuss this.
Dinesh Kannambadi.
The portion that was deleted had nothing to do with research. It was full of conjenctures and presumptions.
Do not hastily conclude that someone whom you do not know as 'casual reader' and the material you place in Wikpedia as 'valid'.
Reply--> These are not my assumptions. These are notes of well known historians. It is obvious you are supporting a telugu origin of the empire which has not found too many takers. Let usw not forget that for a long time untill i came on board to working on this page, the claim was that "Telugu was the official language of the empire".
This info was taken from AP blog sites.
Reply
It was you who followed a parochial approach. You tend to ignore a school of historians, includig Sewell, that traceed the genesis of Harihara & Bukka as hailing from Warangal. You also made insinuations against me which is unfortunate. I would say you are a half-baked historian. Would you agree?
--->Uncivic. Please refrain from personal attacks. You are free to quote Sewell where ever you wish--Dinesh
Calling me a casual reader and vandal is personal attack. Asking a question to elicit your reply is not uncivil.
1.Inscriptions on coins cannot establish the origin. E.g., Madurai Nayaks and Tanjore Nayaks (Telugu people) minted coins with predominantly Tamil language. Does it make them Tamil guys? It is also possible that more Kannada coins were found than Telugu coins.
Reply--> What you have just said shows you know very little about history. Inscriptions are proof of language of administration. Literature is proof of scholarly activity and royal patronage. When a certian language dominates in inscriptions in the very heart of a Kingdom, it does not take a rocket scientist to deduce which language was used for administrative purposes. Hindi is the most commonly used language of administration in Delhi. Why?. because it is the national language. Please speak to any historian and he will tell you. When a language is used in coinage, it shows the language commands high administrative authority and in matters of commerce too. Even today, though India has 22 official languages, not all languages are not printed on the currency because many of these languages dont have the historical/population weightage.
Reply
Absolutely not. In a multi-lingual country such as Vijayanagar, coins were minted that depicted Telugu, Kannada, Tamil etc. It was the narrow-minded approach of Muslims that changed the trend which modern India follows. Recolect that even British coins depicted English, Urdu, Bengali, Devanagari and Telugu (not Kannada!!. Of course, this is in lighter vein).
--->what the british did or may have done has nothing to do with vijayanagar coinage.
The Mysore Maharaja's also minted coins at the behest of the British with Kannada legends. Coinage with Kannada legends go back to 5th century. Read the article on "Banavasi coins" -in Kannada page. Kannada coinage is common from the time of Chalukyas of Karnataka --dinesh
You conveniently brush away my logic and bring in irrelevant things. If Kannada coins are from 5th century AD or BC how does it bolster your argument here?
2. Yes. Vidyaranya was a Kannadiga. Harihara and Bukka came across him and became his disciples. Does it make them Kannadigas?
Reply-->Not much is known about Harihara and Bukka except that they were Kurubas. Kurubas are mostly from Karnataka.
Also not many inscriptions are available from the "sangama" dynasty. So historians have to make educated conclusions from whatever inscriptions and epigraphs they have on hand. Patron saints are the real King makers, just as Chanukya made Chandragupta Maurya a great king.
Reply
I did not find any logic here. Kuruba/Golla are synonymous.
3.Surnames cannot establish genesis. In fact, the names you consider Kannada are also in common Telugu usage. E.g., Anegondi is a pure Telugu word/name.
Reply--> Anegundi in Kannada means "elephant pit". In Telugu, elephant is "Aenugu". My wife is telugu, so I know. Many inputs that went into Telugu language came from Kannada. Kannada was made the official language of the deccan during the rule of the Chalukyas. Telugu may have actually been a minority at this time and was written in "old Kannada" script.
Reply
You misspelt the word. Check historical records. The correct name is Anegondi, which means "Identifiable gully". Of course, Telugus were/are in minority beyond Raichur & Bellary.
--->Its called Anegundi or Anegondi. Either way is called so because thats where the elephants were kept for your kind info--dinesh
Not necessarily.
The scripts had common origin. Historians nammed it "Old Kannada". How does it help you?
--->Many words in Telugu were derived from Kannada words. That's the point i am making. So similarities are but common. Dont misconstrue that its a telugu word just beacuse
you can relate to it.
As an example, Some time back some over enthusiatic telugus tried to claim "Bengaluru" is a telugu name untill I brought proof from scholarly work done by Rao Bahadur Narasimachar of Epigraphica carnatica that the earliest inscription 890CE. naming Bangaluru was a old Kannada inscription from Ganga dynasty. The arguement has since wittled away.--Dinesh
This is again irrelevant. Citing some old episode you are now trying to paint the whole community as parochial. It really gives away your state of mind. All Dravidian languages are derived from Proto-Dravidian. There are thousands of words common to many Dravidian languages. It is to simplistic to say that Telugu words emanated from Kannada words. It again smacks of parochialism but not scholarship.
4. By your line of argument, Krishnadevaraya and other Vijayanagar kings who were fervent devotees of Lord Venkateswara MUST have been Telugu (or Tamil?) guys.
Reply--> This shows how little you know about your own state. More Kannada language inscriptions have been found in Tirupathi than Telugu. Kannada language inscriptions are extremely common in Kurnool, Chitoor and Cudappa districts upt to 1740AD. Please refer to "Indian inscriptions from ASI".
If you doubt about Krishnadevaraya's origin, speak to your chief minister YS Reddy. he will tell you.YS Reddy
Also, Krishnadevaraya came from Dakshina Kannada region and hence is called "Tuluva" king. Most Telugus dont even know his full name which is "Nalmadi Krishnadevaraya".
Even today, this region is called "Tulu Nadu". The Saluvas came from Gerosoppa area of Uttara Kannada district.
Reply"""
Perverted logic. Numbers wise, Tamil inscritions were more. How does this help your argument? Why should I speak to some CM? Did you learn your history from Dharam Singh or Devegouda?
Krishnadevaraya's surname was "Sammeta" (means Hammer) which is still prevalent in Telugu Balija caste. Please check up.
--->I was refering to the article about YS Reddy's speach in Bangalore - Dinesh
I saw the news report. YS is not a historical authority. Many people are carried away by non-historical propaganda stuff (Goebbelian?). I said Sammeta is a surname prevalent in Telugu Balijas (considerable number are present in Karnataka and Bangalore itself). Please check up.
More over the surname Sameeta seems more like a title to acknowledge his power.
5. Virupaksha, Chennakesava etc., were in the region where Vijayanagar kings ruled. It is but natural they worshipped them as family gods because of their proximity to Hampi. E.g., Tirumala Nayak and other Madurai kings were responsible for construction of present day temples in Madurai, Srirangam etc. Does it make them Tamil kings?
Reply-->You are where you belong. Azim Premji was born in Gujarat. he made his fortune in Bangalore. Does that make him a Gujarathi or a Bangalorean?
Sir. M Visweshvariah was born in Karnataka. His ancestors came from Kurnool in the 16th century. He went on to become one of the great people from Karnataka. Does that make him a Karnatakan or Andhraite?. The answer again is simple. Karnatakan!!.
Reply
Yes. Now it really applies to you. We are talking about genesis not adoptions. Harihara & Bukka were Telugus. They settled/established in a predominantly Kannada-speaking region. Ancestors of Mokshagundam were Telugus. Similarly, Madurai and Tanjore Nayaks were of Telugu origin who ended up there via Vijayanagar.
--->Why should genesis matter. Maybe the ancestors of Sir MV's ancestors came from Afghanisthan. Does that make him an Afghani?
The early Vengi Chalukyas came from Karnataka. Kubja Vishnuvardhana
was younger brother of Pulakeshi II. They encouraged Kannada for nearly two centuries
in AP before Telugu took over. Do you hear any Kannadigas screaming for justice there.
The Rashtrakutas who ruled one of India's largest empires came from central India, inherited the Kannada culture and encouraged Kannada literature and ruled from Malkheda
(Manyaketha) in Gulbarga district. Dont you think thay are Kannadigas.
The Sena's of Bengal who built a formidable empire in the 10-12 centuries came from Karnataka. But they encouraged Bengali language. Are we complaining?.
The Rathore's of Rajasthan find their origin in the Rashtrakutas of Karnataka. Are we complaining?. The Solanki's of Gujarat are descendents of the Chalukyas of Karnataka. Are we complaining?
Going by your arguements the 4 million telugus living in Karnataka by migration/ancestory
are all Andhraite's and there goes Indian democracy and statehood. Maybe we will end up building walls around each state to protect ourselves from your logic. -- Dinesh
Keep rhetoric aside. Genesis does matter. Because of their Telugu origin, the kings patronized poets, scholars, sculptors, musicians, military commanders etc from Telugu region. Why Vijayanagar kings selected Telugu nayaks as Palegars all over south? The legacy continued till British came along. The whole cultural milieu of South got Telugized. We are discussing the basic ancestry of Vijayanagar kings not someone whose ancestors got adopted to a place down the millennia. I shall not engage in a repartee on nationalism because that is the point at all here.
The Issue is not about Nayakas. The Issue is about Vijayanagar empire. Please stop harping about Nayakas. The Pallavas were origianlly Telugu too, but built a great Empire from Kanchi and encouraged Tamil. Does the world see them a Telugu or Tamil?. The answer is Tamil.
Sorry to say this but you Telugus constantly seem to search out ancestory and make claims from there.
Is it because Telugus have become more successfull after leaving AP?.
Reply
You made wide remarks smacking prejudice. It betrays your inner emotions, not maturity. Restrain yourself.
>I have had these arguements on numerous occassions with Telugus. We kannadigas
cant understand this logic. Thats all!! - Dinesh
Do not bring in other people, Telugu or otherwise, here. It is fine if you can not understand my logic. We all have our intellectual limitations.
Nayaks example was given as a comparison.
6.It was natural that Vijayanagar kings followed Hoyasala pattern because the empire was built on the previous kingdom's foundation.
Reply--> You are absolutely right. They followed the Hoysala pattern because they were of the same territory.
The very reason muslim rulers for example, brought into India, Persian styles of architecture was because their ancestors were from there. They maintained that alligiance in architecture and trade and culture to the land of their ancestors.
Reply
I am glad you agreed. We were talking about established political administration but not architecture. Poor logic!!
7.In wars, language and race and religion does not matter, especially in the troubled times. E.g., Chokkanatha Nayak of Madurai wiped out Tanjore Nayak kingdom simply because Tanjore Nayak refused to give his daughter in marriage to Madurai Nayak. Both were Telugu kings but that did not matter in war. The sole aim of Vijayanagar kings was to protect Hindu Dharma by uniting all people of Deccan.
Reply--> The point the historians are trying to make is that there was generally more unrest in the eastern part of the empire, not in the western part.
8.Bukkaraya closely worked with Musunuri Kaapaya Nayaka of Warangal to keep muslims at bay. When Kaapaya wanted to put down the rebellion of Recherla Velamas, Bukkaraya helped him. One can argue (by your logic) that both of them were Telugu. When Kaapaya was killed all the Nayaks migrated to Vijayanagar to strengthen Bukkaraya and realize their dream of Hindu unity. Please read Robert Sewell about Musunuri Nayakas from whom Harihara and Bukka got inspiration to unite Hindus. Reason: They all worked together for King Prataparudra of Kakatiya empire.
Reply--> please go ahead and put these arguements on the wiki page instead of taking out info put by others. You are welcome to put your findings out there.
People need to see this too.
Reply
Unsolicited advice.
--->If you feel insecure about your evidence, I cant help it - dinesh
Absolutely not. I am totally confident of my line of argument. I still contend that the matter is controversial. It was you who concluded with baseless and perverted reasoning. Even now, I demand solid evidence that Vijayanagar kings were of Kannada origin. Do not cast aspersions on British. For them, Telugu and Kannada people were equal.
9.It is agreed by all historians that Vijayanagar dynasties were of heterogenous origin and number of marital alliances were made to unite and continue the struggle against muslims. Lots of alliances were made with Reddy kings, Musunuri chiefs, Velama commanders etc. No one denies that Kannadiga involvement was substantial. In fact, those were the times when the linguistic lines were faint. Let us accept it.
Reply--> very few Kingdoms have survived for long let alone prospered without commanding and absolute
spiritual support. What Vashistha was to Ayodhya, Vidyaranya was to Vijayanagar. So were the Kannada Hari dasas. Also let us not forget where Telugu script came from. It came from 'Old Kannada. Yes you a right. Lingusitics did become blurred at that time.
Otherwise Krishnadevaraya would not have had eigth telugu poets in his court.
Reply
I find it difficult to beleive a Kannada/Tamil/Tulu guy writing a poetic masterpiece (Amuktamalyada) in a language which his mother did not speak.
--->Poor Knowledge.
Three out of the seven Jnanpith award winners in Kannada language are of non Kannada origin.
Girish Karnad calls Konkani his mother tongue. D.R. Bendre called Marathi and Masti Venkatesh Iyengar called Tamil their mother tongue.
Please be well versed about our culture before making assumptions.
Its just that there is a major difference in our cultures that you have a hard time understanding that a person does not have be a native speaker in a language to write in that language.
Telugu culture is an exclusive culture. Its hard for them to accept outsiders as their own.
Kannada culture is an inclusive culture. nearly 25% of our state is populated by
outsiders who have migrated in the last 100 years or so and made significant contribution to Kannada culture and litearute which stands as a giant -- Dinesh
It is OK for you to praise your people but not good to run down others, which again shows your impatience and immaturity.
10. Please temper your enthusiasm to paint Vijayanagar empire as Karnataka empire and the kings as Kannada people. That is the reason, a sentence was added that unless substantial evidence is discovered the matter remains controversial. Please produce that evidence through your 'research'. I am sure it is fair to say so!!!
Reply--> I dont need to paint anything. The world comes to see Hampi in Karnataka, not AP. I did not prevent any teluguite from adding info to prove me wrong or simply add to the theories. Any additional information you can add is all too welcome. I also did not delete your input if you noticed. Just dont delete mine. I was the person who made out the box indicating Kannada and Telugu were the official languages. I was the one who brought in the coinage info too and info about Kingdom of Kampili which clearly keeps clear of our current debate, but i did not delete the section on telugu literature on page "'Krishnadevaraya". I think thats fair too!!!. Please go ahead and add a paragraph on Telugu literature prior to Krishnadevaraya's period if you can and make the page more complete.I cant help it if you dont like that Kannada side of the arguement.
Also please provide your name and login in the future or your edits seem like vandalism.
Reply
Again, narrow-minded parochialism. Your logic is based on boundaries we have drawn a few years back. You pretty well know that Bellary, Raichur, Hampi, Hospet etc are predominantly Telugu areas just as Adoni in Kurnool didtrict is of Kannada. Please develop some mature thinking.
--->Most of these people are simple innocent cultured people who have taken up to Kannada well though of Telugu origin. I dont see any Telugues fighting from separation from Karnataka which clearly shows they are recent immigrants. If they were there before Partition, why would
Bellary, Raichur etc be in Karnataka. It would have be included in AP. Or are you starting a linguistic war that these places should have gone to AP but the central govt was unfair - Dinesh
You again say irrelevant things. Boundaries of the states, population of the people etc are not the issues. I never raised such matters. Everyone accepted the new states (At least in AP. Only you guys quarrel with Maharashtra and TN. Talk about Kannadiga broad-mindedness!!!). I regret to get into this immaterial stuff.
I deleted only portins not supported by solid historical evidence. You provide that first. As long as you cannot do so, the matter is a bone of contention
>I will put back my stuff and claim vandalism and call for arbitration.
I have created two wiki pages for the two of the historians who claim a Kannada origin of the Vijayanagar
empire. fell free to read this. The historians are Dr. P.B. Desai and Dr. B.A. Saletore.
My evidence is as good as yours from Robert Sewell unless you have a prejudice that a foreigner's work has more repute than that of Indian historians. If you want me to procure these books by these two scholars, you will have to do the same with your proof. You dont have the knowledge or authority to decide which scholar has more weightage, and nor do I. So lets leave it here. The fact that you keep your identity a secret proves you are nothing but a cheap vandal.
And dont you dare vandalise my work again!!!
Dinesh Kannambadi
Do not behave like a street Goonda mouthing such threats. This reveals your immaturity. What kind of historian you are??
through out your replies in the discussion column to me you have alleged that I am immature, a half baked historian, impatient and a pervert and so on. To me it seems you are fresh school grad who is coming out firing on all cylinders without knowing what you are talking about.
The very fact you conceal your identity proves who the pervert is. In one of your replies you say "The whole cultural milieu of South got Telugized" Who is the pervert now? I suggest you do some reading about history. You keep claiming that i am trying to paint a Kannada picture of the Empire. But you are trying to paint a Telugu picture of the whole of South India.
I can also question Robert Sewells research and write vandal notes in the paragraph
created for his work. I can also ask for specfic proof of telugu historians claims of telugu origin. But I have not done so because i can respect the work done by others and assume that whoever puts such material is knowledgeable enough not fabricate history.
Through out your replies you show a constant contradiction dripping with frustration.
I suggest you keep away from WIKI or disclose youself and log in.
Reply: This very stuff reveals your frustration not mine. It is history that Telugu dominated the South Indian culture basically through Vijayanagar empire and later via Tanjore and Madurai kingdoms. Can you honestly deny this? Is it perversion to say this? I never wanted to paint South Indian history as Telugu history. Cultural ethos is different. I have tremendous respect for Tamil culture and Kannada history. I only question your enthusiasm to brand Vijayanagar empire as Karnataka/Kannada empire. Instead of citing historical records, you bank upon conjenctures and presumptions, as I originally said. You are welcome to question Sewell. On what basis you can you deny a Sanskrit treatise found in deep Kannada country which mentioned Harihara and Bukka as treasury officers at Warangal. No Telugu person said this. A western historian who researched on Mysore said this.
Reply--> Ths first thing you need to learn about history is that foreign historians can be as biased and misinformed as local ones. Remember Max Muller?. Also it seems like there could be many a slip between the cup and the lip in Mr Sewells claims. Too many people involved in transmitting the info on Hakka bukka. But proof is proff and thats fine.
If it is not convenient to you, you call them mistakes. On the other hand wild guesses of native guys without solid proof become historical facts.
Secondly it baffels me you claim "Telugu dominated south Indian culture" thru vijayanagar empire. Where did you get this info? Seems like a brain wash.
Now you seem to be a novice or a beginner
I can accept that Telugu was poplarised during the empire but when this is placed next to two of Indias most ancient languages Tamil, Kannada, (speaking by way of literature), it hardly makes a dent. Telugu litereture found its golden age some 500 years after Kannada and 1000 years after Tamil. Dont you think these languages would have occupied a comfortable and dominant position in south Indian culture by virtue of this.
This is self-assumed importance and false pride. You got to brush up with your history of whole South India not Karnataka alone.
How many people outside AP know of the Eight Telugu poets in Krishnadevarays court. Compare this against the contribiutions of Purandaradasa, Kanakadasa and Vyasatirtha etc who contributed during the same period.
Tenali Rama is known all over India rather than any Kannada poet of Vijayanagar times. Tyagaraja is internationally known whereas people outside South India hardly know Purandaradasa, except of couse musicians.
Have you seen Purandara Mantapa in Hampi. He had a special place where he sang from. There is no comparison. There names have reached most corners of the world by way of carnatic music. Even the great Tyagaraja of AP found inspiration from the Purandaradasa. Telugu and its literature is no doubt a great language but a young compared to Kannada and Tamil. Dont let the current Telugu population and exodus to America fool you.
You assume things too fast. I am very much an Indian living in India.
In one of your remarks you said "historians called it old Kannada". Let me enlighten you.
The earliest Kannada language inscription in this script is from 425-450 CE (Halmidi inscription). During this time and for the next 300 years, Telugu was still written in
Brahmi or Prakrit scripts. Only during the time of Chalukyas, Telugu was started to be written in "old Kannada" script. Meaning Telugu country inherited it from us. So historians did not called it "old Kannada" to make us happy.
This is bunkum. Learn some comparative linguistics. Read Caldwell, Brown and others.
Also I was not trying to brand the empire as a Kannada empire, merely putting forward veritable proof of Kannada contribution. You were free to do so with Telugu, instead you choose to delete all my work, call me a half baked histroian without understanding the issue. Nobody stopped you from putting research info on Telugu origin, or coinage or literature, or lineage.
cheers. Lets stop this here and move on. Meanwhile i will try to find more evidence
from other sources.
Go ahead but place some stuff with hard proof not guesses.
You better edit your stuff of grammar, syntax, spellings etc. You claim to be a mature 'historian'!!!
Question
Dear Kannada Historian,
Do you know the origin of Kannada adikavi Pampa?
Dear cynic, yes I do. He came from What is today andhra (he was patronized by King Arikesari of Vemulavada, a Rashtrakuta feudatory), but dont jump to conclusions yet because Kannada was widely spoken in Andhra desa during the 9th century. This period is also called the "time of Imperial Kannada" by some historians. In fact so did Ranna i believe.
Dear Psuedo, Hahaha!!. Now do not tell me Kannada was spoken in North India too. Vemulavada was far too distant from Kannada region. Andhra and Andhras existed since the time of Satavahanas. Historians know very well that Pampa and his brother were Telugu guys. Pampa's brother composed Telugu Jain works
Penukonda, chandragiri, Arcot should be added to the capital list since the article deals with all four dynasties --Vyzasatya20:41, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Hello Dinesh and the Telugu gentleman who replied above,
I noticed a similar debate on the Chandragupta Maurya page, and there were many arguments about whether he was a man of Magadha or Gandhara or even of Scythia. Since everyone would obviously like to claim great figures for their respective regions, the additions ended up dominating the entire Chandragupta page and reduced the overall quality of the article. As there appears to be as much debate about the origins of the Vijayanagar Kings as the Mauryas, perhaps a similar compromise solution can be implemented. We can have a fair size section, but not oversize section, discussing origin theories followed by other topics and then have a separate page for the full debate on origin. The reason for this suggestion is that the focus of this article appears to be the ancestry of the Vijayanagar Kings and not the achievements of their empire, in spite of the title Vijayanagar Empire. Regardless of whether they were Telugu or Kannada, their contributions are celebrated throughout India. Just a thought. Let me know what you think.
Regards,
Devanampriya
Reply: Thats not a bad idea. I will create a seperate page called "origin of vijayanagar empire" and reduce the amount of stuff there right now. You are right, we need to concentrate on the empires achievemens such as literature, architecture, governance etc.
I got into a heated arguement with a "nameless" user who refused to log in and got carried away. But these research notes are invaluable to the user interested in the origins of the empire and hence need to be preserved in a seperate page which will be hyperlinked to.
Dinesh Kannambadi
Whether anonymous or otherwise, what matters is open-minded, non-parochial and logical approach, which Mr Kannambadi is totally devoid of. That makes one suspect him even if he says something correct.
Reply: Those who dont log in are generally dont want to be held accountable for what they put in. This also implies that what they put in is not of high validity. It goes both ways.
Those who are willing to log in and stake their reputation on what they put in are generally
considered more serious in their study and more reliable in material and sources.
As far as Pampa is concerned, even if as you claim, he was Telugu of origin, it shows how far Kannada had become popular in Andhra desa in 9th century that someone so far off from Kannada heartland was willing to write in Kannada. Regarding Kannada being spoken in North India, you are not too far from the reality considering the number of Kannada inscriptions discovered in Gujarat and Madhyapradesh (and recently in Chattisghad). Read up real history, not blog sites. Keep tabs on historical developments. Also remember, the eastern Chalukyas were of Kannada origin intially encouraging Kannada in Andhra desa.
One more important piece of History you need to be aware of is that the word "Andhra" and "Telugu" are not automatically connected during the Satavahana rule. Today's Andhras speak Telugu. Does'nt mean the all Andhras of the past spoke Telugu also. Prakrit was the natural language of inscriptions and numismatics during Satavahana rule. A few Telugu words in King Halas poems does not mean much more than giving an idea of development of Telugu.
I guess I should not be getting into futile arguements with people with no knowledge of history. Sorry for this mistake again. My apologies.
Pampa did not write 'Vikramarjuna Vijayam' sitting in Vemulavada. He migrated to Kannada country as a Jain ascetic and composed his works there. Please learn it.
Telugu in its primitive form (getting separated from Proto-Dravidian) was very much prevalent in ancient Andhra kingdom. Telugu words and Telugu poems, although few, were discovered by historians on Satavahana coins and inscriptions. Of course, Prakrit was more widely prevalent. That does not change my contention.
Now, it is very clear that you are very eager to establish Kannada all over India by denying others what was due to them. Down with psuedo-history!!
I have added whatever info i could find on important telugu works. feel free to add to this .Its interesting to note someone called me a pseudo historian for writing about Kannada and Sanskrit literature only and not about Telugu literature. Instead of complaining about me being Pseudo historian, why does'nt the acuser find the time to do the same. I dont have infinite time to work on this (though I enjoy it) and wikipedia is meant
to be a joint effort, not a Dinesh Kannambadi effort only. I add useful material as and when i come across it which means, as and when I complete reading history books. I am not obligated to touch upon all topics to please everyone. Also, there seems to be a fairly conspicuous amount on the eight great Telugu poets in the Krishnadevaraya page anyway. Did I complain that those wiki users who put in that info did not touch upon Kannada literature.
mr dinesh kannambadi u behave like a half baked historian, u want to prove telugu's r inferior to kannadigas by putting forward all the non sense stuff, dont forget the greatness of telugu people it were the telugu people who built the first empire in south india the great satavahanas, the whole of south india including karnataka was a part of their empire,even the chalukyas were feudatories to them who were sent to karnataka from kadapa dist in andhra pradesh,they adopted the ways of the land like all the telugu people do where ever they go.dont forget the greatness of telugu people they were the first people to colonise southeast asia and founders of mahayana buddism and spread it in whole of asia and brought prestige to our country, telugu was a spoken language then in satavahana empire it is evident by the presence of telugu words in gadhasaptasati by emperor hala. and also a inscription written in brahmi was found near vishakapatnam which had telugu words written on it, telugu people alone r mentioned in the puranas dating back to milliniums from the deccan plateau.
coming to vijayanagar empire, it shows how inferior you kannadigas feel in india , u want to make up some thing and proclaim your self as great people, you people lack glorious history and feel inferior to others .that's what making you to behave like half baked historian, the vijayanagar empire was founded by telugu people in telugu land and was assisted by telugu sage vidyaranya, dont take that if a person is from a part of state which is now in karnatake as kannadiga. it only adds insult to injury for you. dont you know that the brother of vidyaranya sayana was a minister in bukka court and he wrote commentary on vedas in telugu, this only prooves that telug was a favourite medium since the starting of the empire. and from the very founding day of the empire vijayanagar was dependant on telugu people and they appointed telugu governers to all of their provinces and the main provinces were penugonda and chandragiri both in andhra pradesh,unfortunately during the partition of states bellary dist which was telugu area since ages came under karnataka and u people claim what ever falls in karnataka as your own.grow up man and understand real history and dont behave like propagandist.only telugu people can built an empire so glorious in south india,just see asia , if today every indian feels proud to see indian culture in whole of southeast asia, it was because of brave telugu rulers who went on seas to conquer lands and spread our religion and culture,can any other state claim such greatness in india. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 220.226.73.176 (talk • contribs)
If you go by evidence available & other historical places andhra hardly boasts of any historical places unlike karnataka & tamilnadu (You seem to be a simpleton. Most of the grand temples in Telugu region were destroyed during Muslim conquests as it happened all over North. Do you know that Telugu Nayaks of Madura and Thanjavur were responsible for protecting, expanding and renovating great temples of Tamil land?).
Though there are high number of telugu speakers in the country but as language & historical perspective..it is either rooted in kannada or tamil (such simple ignorance!!).
It's a fact accept it orelse give me some evidence or proof.
Another fact is Telugu flourished only during krishnadevaraya period (which shows it's a relatively new language compared to kannada) who patronised telugu though he was a kannadiga by large heartedness (another instance of ignorance).
Instead of respecting kannada & krishnadevaraya foolish telugu ppl coming here & commenting bull shit (Every Telugu respects both. You do not seem to do so).
Over the coming week or so, I shall be consolidating aspects of Vijayanagar empire that are lacking at the present time.
I shall be making these edits based on inputs from my reference sources, Prof. K.A.N. Sastri and Dr. S.U. Kamath, both of whose books I have used as source material in the main page. These issues will be dealt with balance covering the whole empire and not any particualar region. If anyone has useful info to share from reputed authors, please feel free, so long as you quote the source in the reference section. Please be aware that information from blog sites are not allowed. Please let us stay away from silly arguements about Kannada and Telugu and concentrate on the real issue (that is exactly what I did not do so far), which is bringing the glory of the empire to the public. Any sane person who reads this page on the empire will realise that it was a SUM contribution of the whole of South India (Wisdom dawned at last?)and that is what we need to portray to the world. Debates about the origin of Hakka abd Bukka have been going on for a 100 years and will continue for 100 more. There is lot of work to be done (to establish Kannada supremacy all over India)here in the mean time to bring out the full picture about other equally if not more important issues.
a)Overall administration of Empire over entire south India,
b)social life,
c)religion and influence of Haridasas,
d)land and people
e)agriculture and irrigation
f)place of woman in society, none of which have been elaborated.
g) create a main page "Elements of Vijayanagar architecture" (elements means details on why's and how's with pictures taken by me on my first trip to Hampi). We already have temple photos in the pages for Vijayanagara and Hampi, so I wont repeat that info.
h)consolidate all matter on literature into one main article called Literature of Vijayanagar empire".
i)detailed account of Battle of Tallikota
Over the coming years I plan to visit Vijayanagar Temples at Hampi again (2nd time) and so also Kanakagiri, Coastal Karnataka, Kolar, Nandi hills, Temples in Andhra like Lepakshi etc learn more about their architectural styles. A seperate main page for "elements of Vijayanagar architecture" will be discussed with appropriate pictures (not just photos of temples, but photos of their various niche techniques in pillar design, supports, brackets etc). I am going to create a basic page on this in the next 2 weeks with info from source material from well known authors. My next trip should help fully consolidate the material in this page.
Please help me bring out the best for this page. Also my earnest request to my friends is please log in before posting comments as it is extremely poor wikipedia'ness to make edits or pass comments without logging in.
Tipu Sultan can beat Cannad Vijayanegar anytime. Tipu Sultan was th greatest ruler of all-time. He kicked away the Mysore kings and became a GREAT SULTAN !!!!! He brought the great language URDU to foolish Karnatak people speaking old bland Cannad language. The beauty of Urdu language floored many Cannad people and they adopted Urdu and became Muslim. Tipu didnt force anyone to become Muslim. He was a great king. He did the great work of making "Kafiristan Karnatak" into "Dar-Ul-Karnatistan". Thank him for the riches he brought to Caranatak. Otherewise what were these Cannada people doing. Poor people were slaves to the Marathas and Nizam. After Tipu, the Mysore Rajas again became slaves, this time of European British. But still Carnatic government dont make justice. Urdu should be made Carnatik state's official language. Fools, stop badmouthing the gr8 Tipu Sultan.
ALL HAIL THE GREAT TIPU SULTAN !!!!
DOWN WITH THE CANNADDA FANATICS !!!!
Tipu Beat Cannad
"Down with the Cannnada Fanatics!"? This really raises a question: who are the real fanatics? The valiant defenders of the Hindu faith who laid down their lives for their nation, or the iconoclastic foreign barbarians who destroyed everything good and pure in India?
Tipu Sultan did not turn "Kafiristan Karnatak" into "Dar-Ul-Karnatistan." He turned "Satyastan" into "Mlecchastan." And speaking of "-stan"s, why don't you go spread your fundamentalist anti-Hindu propaganda in Pakistan, where it belongs?! —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 71.244.147.177 (talk) 03:22:36, August 19, 2007 (UTC)
Dear Psuedo, Now, raise to the ocassion. Keep aside your software job in US, put some bucks in your pocket, go back to Hampi and recover "your Karnataka glory.
Misleading edits being made by unsigned vandalDineshkannambadi 15:15, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
There have been many negative edits made to my messages by an obvious vandal on this Talk page (Of course, I vandalize the history of a whole nation). Please ignore this kind of insinuation and I request one and all not to respond to this. This is only an attempt to divert attention from the real Issue which is to bring out some of the glorious aspects of the empire. I hope this kind of attitude will stop and people are welcome to make positive contributions with verifyable reference sources.
Dinesh Kannambadi
The Dynasties and their datesDineshkannambadi 15:20, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
I see there are two versions of dates assigned to the kings of the various dynasties. One set is from historian Robert Sewell and the other I am not sure. These dates dont match.
I will compare these dates to the two sources I have (Dr. S.U. Kamath- concise history of Karnataka) and Hampi- Travel guide (supported by the detartment of tourism, India). I will try to take the majority path for each Kings dates (and also whichever suits my pet theories). If anyone has any questions, please feel free to discuss.
Can someone please tell me what/where is the source of this information about the Aliya Rama Raya that exists in the "Empire at its peak" section.
"Rama Raya was brutally killed and his head annually covered with oil and red pigment was exhibited in Ahmednagar till 1829".
I have not come across this in all my sources. It seems there is something either wrong with the date 1829 or with this theory itself.
Also, I have made a small correction to the line which had to do with Temples during Krishnadevaraya's time.
Ordinarily people associate all temples in Hampi with Krishnadevaraya. This is not a true picture. Many temples started by earlier kings were completed by him. He also commissioned many temples that were later completed.
Hi. I have looked at the two existing chronologies in the Vijayanagar page (one is a colourful template) and the other called "Robert Sewell" list of Kings. I have compared these two lists to the three reference sources
listed in the reference section, books which I happen to own (namely, Dr. S.U. Kamath, Prof. Nilakanta Sastri,
Hampi- Travel Guide, Government of India). Here are my conclusions.
1. The colourful template seems to very closely match all the three provided references not only in the names of kings but also the years of rule for each king (Give or take a few years). Whoever put the template in did a good job (not me).
2. All the three mentioned reference books match almost exactly. Even the names of brothers (of kings) match.
3. The list provided under Rober Sewell seems to be way off in dates (sometimes by more than a decade) and also in the names and chronology of kings. Some kings in Sewell's list dont exist elswhere and some in all the other sources dont exist in Sewell's list. In Sewell's list the kings called under Saluva dynasty are actually put under Tuluva dynasty by all the other sources. In the Sewell's list, kings put into Tuluva list are actually in the Arividu dynasty list for all other sources. So there are major differences.
I have decided to go with the majority and maintain the existing Template (I will add dates to appear next to the name). The template needs a few corrections for the Aravidu list which I shall make.If anyone has any questions please dont hesitate to contact me. I understand Sewell was the first writer on the history of the empire (1905), but later researchers used more advanced methods of research and are probably more reliable. I will also study the contents of pages for each king and bring in matter from Dr. Kamath and Prof. Sastri. Sometimes the two scholars may not match in their opinion and I shall make that also clear. Enjoy!!!Dineshkannambadi00:15, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I plan to insert a photo of Purandaradasa in the religion section. Can someone please bring in a photo of Annamacharya so as to provide a "balanced view". I dont see a Photo in the page for Annamacharya.
Dineshkannambadi.
I have created a main page for this section since it has grown considerably and just retained the "bare bones" of it for the Vijayanagar Empire page. I still have some work to do, which is to add other well known poets in Kannada and Telugu. I shall complete this in a weeks time.
For every scholar quoted in the "Origin" section, I have created a "note" to indicate the book they wrote, its title etc. This will make it easier for people to understand who is who and not question the identity of any scholar.
1. Complete work on each individual king from multiple sources (Prof. KAN Sastri, Dr. Kamath)
2. Complete work on Telugu/Kannada poets in main article page
3. Decline of Empire section--> Aravidu dynasty
1. Decline and Aravidu Dynasty
2. Hippogryphs of Vijayanagar (focussing on their pillars from Hampi, Lepakshi, Kolar etc)
3. History of Tuluva People/Saluva People
4. Continue to elaborate on Vijayanagar Architecture and influence of Tamil Dravida styles in Saluva/Tuluva period .
5. Hydraulics Works and water supply
6. Virgals, Satigals, inscriptions etc
7. Elaborate on Tamil literature (If I can get hold of the info)
I have a new book with me called "New Light on Hampi" by George Michell et.al. This book talks in detail about Inscriptions, virgals, Satigals, Mastigals etc apart from discussing about architecture. I intend to create a page for this too.
Please help to keep controversy out of this page so we can focus on the important details.
In the coming days and weeks, The Vijayanagar Empire article will be undergoing several copyedits by a group of us guys (from all over India) with the good intention of bringing this article to Featured article status. The article as such will reflect the same information as it does now but with changes to grammar, syntax etc. The meaning and the contents 'will not change. Please bear in mind that this should not become an opportunity for revert wars and fights between Kannada and Telugu people.thanks.Dineshkannambadi17:38, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
He was general of DevaRaya II, who had painted Indra and other Jain things. A paragraph from
http://www.hinduonnet.com/thehindu/br/2003/04/08/stories/2003040800090300.htm
" The most beautiful representations of Indra in paintings are seen on the ceilings of the Jain temple at Tirupparuttikunram on the outskirts of Kanchipuram. Commissioned in the late-14th century A.D., by Irugappa, a general and minister of the famous Vijayanagar ruler, Bukkaraya II, these paintings show Indra in a variety of forms and poses. A rare painting depicts Indra joyfully dancing before the Jina."
Can you include these(1. about these jain temples at Kanchi, hampi and panspuri during the rule, 2. about Irugappa scholor in literature 3. about paintings in arts)? Mlpkr19:56, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
At present the literature gives impression that all are poets and saintly works. So I added two sentences one at header and one giving examples and references for music, dance and medicine etc. mlpkr23:52, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I deleted kumargiri information from the article with the suspicions that they may not be accepeted as authentic web references. But it is truth. Leaving it for now. mlpkr22:09, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Free E-Book - removed from article & put here temporarily
Could you please explain why a free book link voilates,and what is the MoS Section order.Can you please elbotare if such decisions are taken by a few selective users or it is a violation on the whole.The removal seems contradictory,and also some other Wiki pages do have a link to Project Guttenberg books,which you should be knowing that is a non profit organisation.
Who are these, Feature Article reviewers, are and what do you mean by violation,and why are you anticipating the it would not be allowed when some wiki pages have them.
Hello Mr.Dineshkannambadi,
On what basis did you come to the conclusion that Swell's e-book is not an useful information.It is just like what one finds under *USEFUL READING* section.Moreover that book from 1905 forms the basis for most other English books covered on Vijayanagara Empire.So Don't you think that is not useful.Moreoover I think it is necessary to allow that link,if other Wiki pages allow it.Do not make comittee decisions with a narrow set of rules.
Southernstar
The problem is that Mr.Kannambadi specifies what to include and what not to include, which books to quote and which not to. He is the decision maker here,and if u dare disagree he will harass u. user:sarvabhaum
Sewell's account considered to the most authoritative book on Vijayanagar history is not convenient for Mr Kannambadi because this psuedo-historian wants to paint Vijayanagar empire as Kannada kingdom. He relies more on Kannada historians like Kamat and Karnataka government-sponsored history projects. On other pages, he has been trying to project that 2/3rds of India was ruled by Kannada-speaking guys (although Kannada did not even exist during those periods). Satavahanas, Rashtrakutas, Chalukyas, Yadavas etc are Kannada guys according to Kannambadi. All the good old history books are of no use to him. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 59.165.151.180 (talk) 12:53, 19 January 2007 (UTC).[reply]
Can something be done about it?It is only me who is fighting against him. extremely elitist and rude,Mr.kannambadi harasses and bullies u if u quote anything that comes in his way of labeling every great empires as kannada. If someone will say Yadavas of devagiri are kannadigas here,everyone will laugh! He has tried everything to harass me and he makes his own rules. He will tell u what books to be used, what to add else face his harassment!
I am a history student, my textbook,which is approved by UGC, University of Pune doesnt contain a word about Kannada in Vijayanagra chapter. It only mentions Telugu,but wikipedia is a great thing,thanks to ppl like Mr.Kannambadi who will rewrite the history! User:Sarvabhaum
This is to all who want to vandalise and edit according to their own interests.
Tamils - always hooked to believe that Tamil is the origin and never give a thought to proto language common to whole south India.I can't call Tamil is ancient as it is never mentioned in any Kannada works which were written in the same time.
Telugus - always want Krishnadevaraya on their side.They forget when Hakka Bukka formed the kingdom with vidyaranya and whole scholars of Kannada making it a country of great tolerence by Kannada culture which was mix of Tatva,Vachana and Jaina culture which only took place in Karnataka.
Marathis - They want to just make kannadigas history as slaves.Marathi is recent - accept it.You are still evolving.Have to come a long way.In a way Shivaji and Marathi is whole lot of North Karnataka culture.Do you know there was a muslim saint shishunala shareeif composed works in Kannada at that time.A healthy relation exists between Hindus and Muslims owing to tolerance and peace loving Kannada culture.
Konkani -They ask it is natural if u are in karnataka to know Hindi.why I dont understand?
Most Tulu and Kodava accept being Kannadigas.
Kannada has recieved the most 7 Jnanpith awards out of which
Girish Karnad - Konkani
Da Ra Bendre - Marathi
Masti Venkatesh Iyyengar -Tamil
have had different mother tongues.But have accepted Kannada culture as that is sole factor which can unify whole of south India and nothing else .That is why they are able to grow to such hieghts
Why should South Indian people accept Karnataka Sangeetham as their own music form and be proud of it.
Kayyara Kinkin rai (tulu) is a Kannada activist working on liberating Kasaragod.Nissar Ahmed (urdu) - top poet has embraced Kannada as their literary field.Just think why and you will know what is Kannada.
Whoever wrote the above account is a kannada fanatic and chauvanist. He should learn politeness, decency, fairness and balanced outlook. It was very unlike of Kannadigas. Kannambadi seems to be breeding a new breed of fanatics.
Now why do Kannadigas fight for their land , culture and water.Kannadigas don't fight as they know that if there is supreme civilisation coherent with nature existing in South India it should be Kannada culture.
What they fight for.They fight to remove greed of their neighbours - nothing else.
Almost all border districts are bilingual.We have 5 neighbours all having different tongues as of now.
We ourselves house a capital with 37% Kannadigas.Why should we do it.Why dont we have a Mysooru or Hubli as our capital.Because we believe in sarvadharma samanvaya.Some misunderstandings will always be there in politics.But that is politics and our system.
Having 7 Jnanpiths can never make our mindsets constricted.
This is our Kingdom and we own pride in it and call everyone to participate in the glory.
Yeah unite.
This supremacy is itself very unfortunate. I dont have any doubt that Kannadigas are good people but why drag someone like Yadavas who have nothing to do with kannada? Shivaji Maharaj being of Hoysala origin is not confirmed,even if u confirm it,can u prove he spoke or cared for kannada?
It is untrue of u to declare as Marathi as being evolving language. Marathi is as much classical as any dravidian languages. Sanskrit->Apabhramsha->Maharashtri Prakrit->Marathi adds up at least 2000 years. As far I know there is nothing called Proto-dravidian. Many Indian and foreign linguists have pointed out that all Dravidian languages are evolved from tamil. We dont want others history as a slave. Our history is quite glorious and that is what makes Mr.Kannambadi jealous of us. 59.95.31.8511:15, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yes we are chauvinists but we know decency also.We are chauvinists to protect our culture. When you can tell Marathi is 2000 years old without written records no wonder why Tamils call it as 5000 years old! with some rock edicts only nothing else.Now u can put a politician and register for next classical tag!!
The name dravida is never found anywhere in any other south literature than Tamil.Hence its still debatable.
Shivaji may not have spoken Kannada;but who opposed his contribution?And the truth is his ancestary were Kannadigas.Does that mean Marathi is lesser than Kannada .Never !
Roots always give rise to shoot and when leaves and flowers bloom will the plant become complete.
But don't be aghast from truth.Thats what we believe in and want everyone to accept.Else you will be the loser.
well I am Raj.
I had merged repeated information like year and founders in one sentence, information about hampi into one sentence, also deleted the nationalities and years of vistors(since we specified as Europians already and the times for each of them are not given and are available in subsections), removed some adjectives, simplified some phrases and put the information about architecture together. Since Info about Vidyarana is also in the history section, and also there are theories that he was patroned later, but not guided the formation of empire, and also because the first sentence will be simpler with out long phrase, I deleted his information from Leadin section as well. mlpkr17:13, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for the mail. I added the Aravidu kings’ content based from the book Nilakanta Shastri’s book “A History of South India”, with additional references from the two other books mentioned in those pages, which cover the history of Madurai and Tanjore Nayaks.Their reign and politics with the Southern Nayak rulers also caused greater re-configuration of life and society in Tamil Nadu starting from 17th century.
Also it is a surprise that they were able to hold on to at least 1/3rd of their Domains for well over another 100 years, inspite of numerous civil wars, rebellious and murderous kins, non-stop invasions from the Deccan Sultans, and unco-operative Nayaks for Madurai and Gingee. Their main villains responsible for their final misery would be none other than the middle kings of Madurai Nayaks (and to a lesser degree the Nayaks of Gingee), whose follies and skulduggery in supporting the Deccan Sultans to put off the Aravidu Kings. The Aravidu line still had strong support from the Tanjore and Mysore kings, and the Mysore kings even avenged the Madurai Nayaks by frequently raiding into their territory and finally capturing the districts of Salem and Coimbatore in the later part on 17th century.
And one of India’s earliest freedom struggles, called (Polygar Wars) was also fought by the Polygars of Vijaynagar line (appointed by Madurai Kings) in Tamil Nadu, of whom Puli Devar and Veerapandiya Kattabomman are honoured by the State government, with the later having State Transport Buses named after in Tirunelveli Districts and the INS Kattabomman naval centre n Tuticorin.
The magnificent Vellore Fort was used as a major base or second capital by the Aravidu line of Vijayanagara Kings. However the people in (Tamil Nadu) general do not know much about the early rulers of Vellore Fort except the Muslim Occupation and imprisonment of Tipu Sultan family.
The Battle of Toppur is considered to be one of the biggest battles ever to take place in South India, and it was Venkata III and Sriranga III, who granted charter to the English to set up the present day city of Chennai (or Madras), where Chennai is named after one Chennapa Nayak, a commander under one of the Vijayanagara kings.
One more interesting information which is totally obscure to us (Indians) or south Indians in particular is that Sri Lanka’s last ruling monarch/Kingdom of Kandy (1739-1815), (called Nayaks of Kandy) and four of his predecessors were from the Madurai Nayaks royal family. How they became rulers of Kandy would be very interesting if you go through their wiki page and links. The last King of Kandy was finally brought captive to Vellore Fort (in 1815 by the British) along with his royal family (i.e. after Tipu Sultan’s sons were shifted to Calcutta) and lived here till his last days. The Colonial government of Sri Lanka took care of their daily expenses.
Great article, just one comment about the infobox. Could the third part (the precedence and succession with the arrows) be removed. It is rebundant with the last part of the infobox and also unclear and hard to understand. You have to put the mouse over the links to understand what it means. CG14:37, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The Idea is not to believe one author, but to balance the views of many authors, which is what has been done in this article. Log in and write your comments on this page, or hold your peace.
THURSTON is not the only author in the world to write about Vijayanagara Empire. Wikipedia is an Encyclopedia where the intention is not to "BELIEVE" any one author but to bring in views of many authors. Try to read more books and understand the views of many authors.Dineshkannambadi03:23, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
MANY THANKS TO YOU FOR SUGGESTING ME TO TRY TO READ MORE BOOKS AND UNDERSTAND THE VIEWS OF MANY AUTHORS.I BELIEVE I HAVE READ ENOUGH BOOKS,AND THURSTON'S BOOK HAPPENED TO BE ONE AMONG THEM. THE INFORMATION I GOT FROM OTHER BOOKS AND SOURCES HAD CONCURRED WITH THE INFORMATION IN THURSTON'S BOOK AND I GUESS IT HELPED ME TO FORM "A BALANCED VIEW" ON THESE TELUGU DYNASTIES. THE REASON I QUOTED THURSTON'S BOOK WAS SIMPLY BECAUSE OF THE FOLLOWING REASONS (1) EDGAR THURSTON WAS A FAMOUS ETHNOGRAPHER AND MUSEOLOGIST BASED IN MADRAS AND HENCE WAS WELLVERSED WITH SOUTHERN INDIA .(2) HE WAS A BRITISH WRITER WHO LIVED BETWEEN 1855 -1935 (IN MY OPINION BRITISH WRITERS WERE BRUTALLY HONEST IN FACT FINDING AND REPORTING WITHOUT ANY BIAS).(3)ALL HIS VOLUMES ON CASTES AND TRIBES OF SOUTHERN INDIA ARE CONSIDERED AS JEWELS AND ARE GREATLY RESPECTED FOR
AUTHENTICITY .
Please dont write in upper case. Its extremely painfull to read. Again, There are many many authors, Thurston is one among them. I dont intend to go on and on about this. All views have to be balanced on the "wikipedia", not in your mind. What is your balanced view is immaterial to wikipedia. You may have convinced yourself that these were all Telugu dynasties, but thats of no importance to wikipedia. Please understand wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a news paper. Secondly, please stop towing this "British" line. They happened to be as biased as anyone, based on their own requirements. Its amazing that we still bank on foreign scholars to tell and teach us our history even after all the progress we have made in epigraphy. Is'nt this what made us a colony for 200 years?. We are independent now, so lets think independently. I have been through this with other new editors for more than a year and dont intend to go on and on. In addition, wikipedia gives no valve to opinions user's who dont log in. They are called anonymous editors. Wish you the best of luck in finding your.
Let me put down a few points so we all understand what wikipedia is, since you seem to be new here.
1. wiki is not the place to decide what is the truth, but only a place to report all possible verifyable opinions. The readers can decide what they want from it.
2. Wiki is not the place to decide whether the British were better at history or the Spanish or Germans. Thats your won POV (point of view) which is not allowed per policy.
3. If you read the article carefully, no where is an attempt made to certify whether the Vijayanagara Kings were Telugu or Kannadigas. Only the views of scholars are mentioned. Thats is how an encyclopedia works per policy. Perhaps you may want to write a book on Thurston and his views, but then you cant bring that book to wikipedia because "original research" is not allowed here per policy.
4. Wikipedia does not value opinions of anonymous editors. Only material brought in by Log in editors is valued, if verifiable. I hope this clarifies what wikipedia is. I am not trying to be rude, but more than a years worth of hard work has gone into the article, with multiple trips to Vijayanagara/Hampi. Its takes a lot of trouble to write a Featured article and very little to make anonymous arguements.
Dineshkannambadi12:27, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
NO DOUBT YOU PUT YOUR HEART INTO THIS AND TOILED MORE THAN A YEAR BRINGING OUT THE ARTICLE. I UNDERSTAND YOUR PAIN FOR RECEIVING FLAK FROM VARIOUS READERS INSPITE OF YOUR HARD WORK INCLUDING MULTIPLE TRIPS TO VIJAYANAGARA / HAMPI. BEST OF LUCK IN YOUR ENDEAVOURS. HUMILITY CAN BE A GREAT PLUS IN COMMUNICATIONS.
Telugu gained prominence only during krishnadevaraya because he patronised telugu (despite being kannada) out of his personal interst (or because he had telugu spouses). There is no support or proper telugu evidence prior to Krishnadevaraya in viajayangar empire history. Telugu had it's golden
age around krishna devaraya time (15th century) which shows that it is relatively newer language.
Besides Kannada inscriptions are available in andhra pradesh abudantly which proves kannada rulers ruled andhra region for a long time.
The mother tongue of sri krishnadevaraya is kannada. (though he spoke both languages) It was Kannada and not Tulu. The evidence for this is that his dynasty is called the 'Kannada Dynasty'. He was a man equally respected by malayalam, tamil, telugu, kannada, kodava speakers. 71.90.100.176 (talk) 07:07, 7 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
(I removed the phrase 'translation; Victory city', because that is the translation of Vijayanagara, not of Vijayanagara samrajya. I left a possibly confusing edit note.)
Is there any evidence that the empire was called Vijayanagara samrajya during its own time?
Imc
I will try to dig up that info. However, I would be surprised if contemporary literature / Inscriptions did not call it that. None the less, it is an exact vernacular translation of the English name of the empire.Dineshkannambadi00:34, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Please donot delete the following in the article under the 'Religion' heading
"A lot of references could be stated with respect to the Vijayanagar ruler's devotion towards their religious preceptors known as "Thatha Gurus"[1] or "Thathachariyars". This clan of Hindu Brahmin Vaishnavaitic community trace their origin from Periya Thirumalai Nambi known as Sri Saila Purna. He is the maternal uncle of the great philosopher Sri Ramanuja. Legend says that Sri Saila Purna was called as – "Thathah:" that means "The Holy Father" by the GOD of Thirumala Sri Balaji. Later they trace their origin from the cities of Kumbakonam and Kanchipuram in Tamil Nadu. These clan of people were extremely brilliant and benovalent. They adorned the court of the Vijayanagar Empire and later the courts of Nayaka rulers, Kingdom of Mysore. The most popular and important among the Thathachariyars were Pancha matha bandhana Thatha Desikan (who wrote the famous literary work of 'Panch matha bandhanam') and Lakshmi Kumara Thathachariar ( wrote "Srimath Hanumath Vimsadhi","Desika Prabandha Eedu" and 12 other literary works) who were the Chief Ministers and Raja Gurus of the Kingdom of Vijayanagar. Sri Krishna Devaraya the greatest among the Vijayanagar Rulers was guided by the Thatha Gurus. Even today the existence of this clan of people could be traced in the modern towns of Kanchipuram[2], Kumbakonam, Srirangam, Srivilliputtur, Sriperumbudhur in Tamil Nadu in India.[3]" —Preceding unsigned comment added by 136.8.2.69 (talk) 11:06, 24 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Let this user "Gnanapiti" verify the records of Vijayanagara Empire and find the contributions of Thathachariars. Also, hope this user is not aware of the stories of Tenali Ramakrishna, where we could easily find Thathachariars. 136.8.2.69 (talk) 11:43, 12 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
as been changed, but I assumed this was discussing the languages at the time of the Vijayanagara Empire, not modern languages, and the time of the Vijayanagara Empire is a complex one in the histories of at least Kannada and Telugu and their scripts and their vernaculars and who spoke middle, versus the development of modern scripts and languages, versus priestly and upper class languages, for lack of better terms due to my limited knowledge of the topic. I would not be too quick to rewrite this in modern terms, nor to remove the term vernacular from discussing the local languages. I'm not sure if there is a justification, but it's not so straight-forward that one can write it in modern languages terms (in which case Sanskrit becomes the one of these things not like the others) without a source that says that is the case. Also, the grammar appears to lump Telugu and Tamil in with Kannada and Sanskrit, "and other regional languages," not just "and regional languages like" ....Pseudofusulina (talk) 03:01, 9 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I would like to post video footage of the following ruins relating to the Vijayanagara Empire located in Hampi. This video was taken as part of a documentary produced by the Global Lives Project:
Congrats on the Main page appearance! My only concern is the number of templates on the right-hand side of the article combined with the number of images on the left-hand side of the page. --Another Believer(Talk)16:00, 8 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, well done developing such an important and extensive article on a part of the world under-represented on Wikipedia. Thanks to all the editors for their hard work in getting this to FA and on the front page. Bravo! Lemurbaby (talk) 17:41, 8 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
I propose that Karnata Empire be merged into Vijayanagara Empire. I think that the content in the Karnata Empire article can easily be explained in the context of Vijayanagara Empire, and the Vijayanagara Empire article is of a reasonable size that the merging of Karnata Empire will not cause any problems as far as article size or undue weight is concerned. Tentinator06:10, 6 July 2013 (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.
The maps suggest that Vijayanagar empire covered all of south India. This is wrong because their armies did not stay much on the western side of the Western Ghats. So please change this. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 5.65.69.129 (talk) 00:33, 13 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I've protected the page due to the recent edit war. This is not an endorsement (or otherwise) of the current version. Editors are requested to discuss the issues here and implement the consensus. —SpacemanSpiff13:39, 9 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I have just modified one external link on Vijayanagara Empire. 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:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).
This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).
If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.
The flag shown in this article as the flag of the Vijayanagara Empire isn't real. As I checked crw flags and I saw absolutely nod description of a Vijayanagara Empire flag. It appears the flag was based out of this flag which was made in 2013 on wikimedia commons https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Flag_of_Vijayanagara_Empire.png.
I would like to remove this flag from the article as it was onlyc reated by artist as a flag proposal for the Vijayanagara Empire in 2013. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.106.142.1 (talk) 09:56, 13 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
While I cannot comment on the authenticity of the flag design, I can say that the Vijaynagar Emblem of Sun and the Cresent Moon, appear in many Vijaynagar Period Inscriptions. See the below
One of the reasons for sudden collapse of vijayanagara empire in 16th (1575) century was the poor Foreign policy during the end of last decades of its greatness. This facilitated the [Islam sultanates| Islamic rulers in South Asia] to resume their march towards south [1]. The kingdom was quite powerful in southern peninsula when Krishnadevaraya was the king of vijayanagara. After the death of krishnadevaraya, the kingdom was beginning to be partitioned into smaller parts like Thanjavur, Madurai,Gingee and Ikkeri. So it can be concluded that at its peak time vijayanagara was a weakly centralized polity.The other kingdoms that were present at that time asserted that many parts of vijaynagara empire were working independently so it could not be claimed as a fully fledged empire. [2].
After the demise of vijajyanagara empire, new kindoms of madurai, tanjavur and gingee were established and the ruler of their empires were the sons of vijayanagar miliatary commanders who declared themselves as kings.[3].
Want to add a section on decline, after understanding about the empire. I don't want to reduce the quality of the page and hence I am moving the content from wiki page to talks page. Suggestions are most welcome.
Hi Wordlciv. Much of the information you have provided already exists in the article: such as the empire being powerful during the rule of Krishnadeva Raya, breaking up into smaller kingdoms after the empires demise etc. The only new info in your content seems to be the poorly centralized polity with provinces such as Madurai, Ikkeri asserting some amount of autonomy. The poor foreign policy part can also be included. Let me paraphrase it below and you can add it in a way that meets FA standards or at least approaches it. You may add : "The decline of the empire, according to Stein, was a weak foreign policy and a growing decentralization that started even during its peak. This gave vassal states such as Ikkeri, Tanjavur, Madurai and Gingee nominal autonomy". A good place to add it is after the current citation #37, though some copy editing may be required.Mayasandra (talk) 13:26, 30 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
--Reply--
Mayasandra (talk) Thank you for your suggestions. I was thinking of creating a different section "Decline of the Empire". This was to for better documentation of the article. I agree that some of the information is available but it is scattered. I will not edit the page unless asked to do so. Having said that, please look into my suggestion of adding a section on decline and let me know your views on the same.
Worldciv17 VN (talk) 10:36, 1 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
This is my suggestion. We can create "sub-sections" with in the existing 'History' section as it reads. They are: "pre-Vijayanagara" or "early 14th century", "ascendancy" and "defeat and decline". Whatever you feel needs to be added into the last sub-section called "defeat and decline", you may first write it here on the talk page, giving citations in brackets like this (Stein (2003), p.xy). Let me and other users review it for flow and accuracy. Then we can add it to the corresponding sub-section. How does that sound?Mayasandra (talk) 15:54, 1 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The current "defeat and decline" portion (last 3 paragraphs of the History section) has 12 lines. We can add another 6 lines, merge & copy edit as required and keep it very summary like for the main article. If Worldciv17 VN has a lot more data from his/her sources, then we can have a separate article created as well called Decline of the Vijayanagara empire and do an include somewhere in the main article.Mayasandra (talk) 19:59, 1 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I do not see "decline" as an appropriate term for what happened after the Battle of Tallikota. Rather it was transformed into a decentralised power structure. What the empire represented, i.e., a Hindu-dominant, but tolerant, militaristic, aristocratic, Islamicate rulership persisted well into the 19th century. The British Empire got established under its noses and then overthrew it. So, I am not confident that a section called the "Decline of the empire" is appropriate. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 20:27, 1 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with you Kautilya3 (talk). I just thought decentralising of power can be interpretated as decline of empire. But no worries, I think this can be resolved now and thank you very much for all your inputs. Worldciv17 VN (talk) 18:24, 3 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Why do you want to add unsourced content to a featured article? You can source it if you wish or nominate it for AfD if there isn't enough sourced material. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 12:59, 3 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Please explain the reason for this merge/redirect? This article "Rama Raju" needs to be deleted. There is no King from this empire called Rama Raju (not the same as Rama Raya, Raju being a caste name). As such, how does the article on a person re-direct to an empire?Pied Hornbill (talk) 13:36, 3 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Concur with Kautilya3 and Pied Hornbill. The merge proposal makes no sense, nor did the original unreferenced stub article created in 2006. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 02:09, 4 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I have just modified 2 external links on Vijayanagara Empire. 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:
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.
I have just modified one external link on Vijayanagara Empire. 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:
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.
I quote the following from the Wikipedia page of Vijayanagaram empire:
"Kannada, Telugu and Tamil had been used in their respective regions of the empire. Over 7000 inscriptions (Shasana) including 300 copper plate inscriptions (Tamarashasana) have been recovered, almost half written in Kannada, the remaining in Telugu, Tamil and Sanskrit."
"Though much of the Tamil literature from this period came from Tamil speaking regions ruled by the feudatory Pandya who gave particular attention on the cultivation of Tamil literature, some poets were patronised by the Vijayanagara kings. Svarupananda Desikar wrote an anthology of 2824 verses, Sivaprakasap-perundirattu, on the Advaita philosophy. His pupil the ascetic, Tattuvarayar, wrote a shorter anthology, Kurundirattu, that contained about half the number of verses. Krishnadevaraya patronised the Tamil Vaishnava poet Haridasa whose Irusamaya Vilakkam was an exposition of the two Hindu systems, Vaishnava and Shaiva, with a preference for the former."
Now, of course, all languages were only used in their respective regions. That's no reason to not include a particular langy that was prevalent during that time. Certainly, Kannada wasn't used as extensively as Tamil in Tamil Nadu. Duh!
Now here are the following questions that I asked to Pied Hornbill, a Wikipedia editor, but he hasn't yet responded to them, as was expected. He's the one who's been reverting any reference to Tamil in the common languages field. And I pose the same set of questions here to all editors.
A) Hornbill asserts that "common languages" only refers to the "used by the seat of power." He hasn't explained what he means by that, as yet. The remnants of the Vijayanagaram empire, the Nayakas, widely used Tamil. Vellore, one of the capitals of Vijayanagaram empire, (if capitals are seats of power, by your definition) is in Tamil Nadu. Several inscriptions of the empire at the SriRangam temple are in Tamil. King Krishnadevaraya's preceptor Lakshmi Kumara Thathachariar was Tamil. And there are other inscriptions and literature of the Vijayanagaram empire which are in Tamil. So this rhubarb about common languages being "only used by the seat of power" is something I fail to understand. Who has said so? Is there such a rule instituted by Wikipedia?
B) When Tamil authors were patronised, as is acknowledged in the page itself, from which I have quoted, and when yet Pied claims rather astutely that Tamil was used only in Tamil Nadu and not elsewhere, as if Kannada were more widely used in Andhra Pradesh, why include Sanskrit? It certainly was far more marginally used than any other Dravidian language. And furthermore, why is there even a question of Malayalam being used, when no one has produced any proof of it?
C) In Shilhara Dynasty's page in which Pied had undone several edits made by some people claiming that Marathi was a common language. He never said over there that it wasn't widely used or the language of the "seat of power" or "an administrative language." And now the claim is back. No one has done nothing about it. And guess what, the citations affixed only contains allusions to and pictures of several Marathi "inscriptions." Pied once said that inscriptions cannot be used as citations and had also a while ago stupidly asserted that there's not a single inscription of Shilhara dynasty in Marathi. And now that's fallen flat on his face. That apart. Why hasn't he or anyone else here erased that? I do not know. Why have such double standard of proof? When inscriptions cannot be accepted as citations for the use of a particular language on one page, why accept it in the other? Same is the case with the page about the Satvahana dynasty. So why is all this happening? Should all Wikipedia pages be edited the way he thinks it must be? Then why open it to contributions by the public. Are they your servants? We are here to devote our intellectual resources gratuitously. If we are going to be treated so rudely by people like him, then no point in calling Wikipedia a public website. Hell with it! Chippy pest (talk) 09:12, 2 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The map used in this article is misleading as it shows as if Vijayanagara empire spanned entire south India including Kerala and Tamil Nadu. This is factually wrong. So I suggest removing the map. - 99v (talk) 08:32, 1 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Pied Hornbill You removed my edit on Vijayanagara empire on the caste of the founders diff. I have introduced a good faith edit on the page Vijayanagara empire that "Founders of Vijayanagara empire Harihara I and Bukka were from Sheperds (Kuruba) clan", this has been mentioned in the secondary source book by Robert Sewell (1900): A forgotten empire (vijayanagar), page 64. The author has compiled the book from multiple primary sources of books from Faxian, Dominogo Paes, Ibn Batuta who were visitors during the Vijayanagar dynasty. This as per Wikipedia:Reliable sources page is a better source of data. Please state the reasons for your claim that British era books are inaccurate. You also mention that no recent book mentions the caste of founder, this does not mean the fact stated in a historical book is inaccurate. Please provide references to sources where you find the fact stated by my edit can be contested. Let us take the source Robert Sewell, A Forgotten Empire Vijayanagar: A Contribution to the History of India, to the Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard, instead of edit warring.Jaykul72
Jaykul72, I understand Robert Sewell's book was the very first book ever written on the history of the Vijayanagara Empire, but it was written in the 19th century if I am not mistaken. Generally books written prior to Indian Independence when indology, archeology and epigraphy was not as developed as it has today is frowned upon. There are a few exceptions to this rule ofcourse. However, issues such as caste are flimsy reasons to use such an old book when there are literally dozens of later published books, especially in the last 25 years that give a better account. "Kuruba", "Golla" "Kaapu" and such claims that often come to this article usually carry narrow sectarian intentions which an encyclopedia is not meant to portray. Hope you understand.Pied Hornbill (talk) 21:03, 18 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The text from Robert Sewell's book provides a contrarian view to the claim on the social life that "hindu caste system was rigidly followed". Stating a claim without including the oldest book ever written on the Vijayanagara empire constitutes selective bias on part of the editor. As the founders of the vijayanagara empire were themselves from a kuruba clan. This is an important fact that needs to be accounted for before making a wild claim that hindu caste system was rigidly followed. This is in no way a filmsy reason. Further, you have not provided any valid sources for undoing my edit which contest the fact I have stated. Further here is another secondary source, Dhere, Ramchandra Chintaman (2011). Rise of a Folk God: Vitthal of Pandharpur, South Asia Research. Feldhaus, Anne (trans.). Oxford University Press. p. 243. ISBN 978-0-19977-764-8 has stated that Sanghama dynasty was founded by kurubas. As per WP:QUO I have provided a secondary reference. Further, kurubas, gollas, yadavs do not consititute "narrow sectarian" tribe as you mentioned, they population of these clans is about 90 million as compared with bramhins who are 60 million. However, 20% of the social life paragraph is about brahmins, whereas you are reverting adding one line on shepherds clan. Jaykul72 (talk) 02:23, 19 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Jaykul72, going by your reasoning, a summary style featured encyclopedia article should contain information on the contributions of every caste in Southern India? This is not about whose populaton is what percentage, but rather what are the main summary points that a summary article can present. Do you think only the Lingayats fought for the empire? Don't you think Non Lingayat Shaivas, Vaishnava chiefs, Gollas, Reddys, Kaapus, Kammas, Velirs etc etc also fought various battles for the empire. Should we start adding lines to include that too? Hope you get the drift. I suggest this new user firt understand what a summary article is all about before making this article a fertile playground for caste aspirants. Hope you understand.Holenarsipura (talk) 02:51, 20 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Holenarasipura, thanks for your comment. That's the point that I am trying to raise here. When we present the summary of the social life in Vijayanagar empire, you do not have 20% of the paragraph dedicate to one caste that is Bramhins who might have been 3-4% of the population by then. Reddys were the chieftains/zamindars in most villages in Telugu speaking areas, Gowdas were the chieftains in Kannada speaking areas - Bangalore was founded by Kempegowda during Vijayanagara empire. Keladi Nayakas were Lingayats who ruled a large state under Vijayanagar kings (Shimoga) they continued to rule for 200 years after the fall of Vijayanagar. Adding all these references would make the social life paragraph more balanced. The other option, let us not allow any mention at all. Remove all references to caste and keep it generic. Thanks. Jaykul72 (talk) 04:25, 20 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Adding info for balance is one thing, using reliable and popular sources is another. Since you are trying to bring changes to a FA I suggest you find a admin who is willing to arbiter this discussion for the sake of neutrality. You should be able to find one if you are intent on a serious discussion. This is pretty much a standard wiki thing to do. Hope you find this idea workable.Holenarasipura (talk) 03:04, 21 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - This discussion is going all over the place, and I can't make much sense of it. This article was rated FA in 2007, quite some time ago. It won't pass muster now, with bloopers like "Hindu caste system was rigidly followed", whatever that means. On Jaykul72's point, I think the Dhere book is quite good and contains a satisfactory treatment of the caste of Sangamas. It should be included in the lead itself. The contribution of the pastoral communities to Indian history has been unfairly underrated.
Here is a possible statement for the lead:
Sangamas belonged to a pastoralist cowherd community that claimed Yadava lineage.
It can be amplified in the social life section along with the mention of the "Kuruba" caste. Pinging Joshua Jonathan for his view. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 08:16, 21 April 2020 (UTC)
On another point, Balijas should also be mentioned in the social life section. They were a major force in the post-Vijayanagara period, founding a whole host of Nayaka kingdoms in Tamil Nadu. And, Balijas too had a significant infusion of pastoral communities. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 08:21, 21 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Personally, I'd prefer
Sangamas originally came from a pastoralist cowherd community that claimed Yadava lineage.
The following addition by Jaykul72, which was reverted by Pied Hornbill, is WP:OR:
"Debunks" is a non-neutral term (well-known from Hindutva Indo-Aryan migration deniers), representing a conclusion drawn by the editor; "myth" is also non-neutral, and unsourced; jaati represent social order of medieval class system is awkward English, and unsourced. The original statement is much better:
The caste system did not, however, prevent distinguished persons from all castes from being promoted to high-ranking cadre in the army and administration.
The sentence in the lede looks fine, although I didn't find a reason why kuruba couldn't be mentioned in braces. The edit on Hindu caste system has reduced POV in the social life section. Thanks Pied Hornbill, Holenarasipura, Kautilya3, Joshua Jonathan. Nothing personal about Pied Hornbill :-)
On a seperate note, the first two paragraphs on Social Life seem to have an editorial bias towards portraying Hindu religion with a improper premise, and this on a Vijayanagara empire page WP:POVEDITOR, and that makes the overall read to be defensive.Jaykul72 (talk) 09:02, 22 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I am pesonally against mentioning caste in the lead of the article for multiple reasons:1.The lead is meant to provide the reader with a broad view. 2.There is existing controversy about the language spoken by the Sangama family (Kannada or Telugu) and pastoral people who speak Telugu and Kannada don't go by the same caste name. We don't want to start dealing with sub-caste issues either in the future making the issue narrower. 3)It is commonly accepted that the patron saint and kingmaker was Vidyaranya, a Brahmin saint at the Sringeri monastery. We may have to add that info explicitly in the lead too. Best thing is to avoid a narrow/sectarian viewpoint in the lead. Your opinions are welcome Kautilya3, Joshua Jonathan.Holenarasipura (talk) 14:13, 22 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed, saying "Kuruba" doesn't add anything to anybody's understanding. Moreover, there is no evidence for it. It is just an inference. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 16:51, 22 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
References
^Sewell, Robert (1900). A Forgotten Empire (Vijayanagar). London. p. 64.{{cite book}}: CS1 maint: location missing publisher (link)
Reference to upper caste and low caste in Social life edits
holenarsipura, in the recent cp edits on the social life you have modified my sentence to
Bathing was important among the upper caste Hindus
Reference to "Upper caste" and "Lower caste" is very contextual. Using the phrase "Lower caste" would be derogatory on certain section of the people. It alienates and propagates a view that certain castes have power and authority over other castes. Also, the word "Upper" is ambiguous, upper by what attribute - social, economic, political, demographic, personality?
Instead I suggest,
Hygiene practice of daily bathing was important among certain section of Hindus
I don't understand this sensitivity of yours. It was you who introduced such online quotes as:"men of this Pariah caste eat beef freely, and even if it is from an animal that has died of disease" which I removed because it was not encyclopedic. Never the less, I small edit regarding hygiene cant hurt.Holenarasipura (talk) 17:30, 27 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I see that you later put that as an inline quote which was perhaps okay but still the line that replaced it, "abhorrent eating practices" is still very subjective to authors view which is is why I paraphrased it.Holenarasipura (talk) 01:00, 28 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Sati practice is evidenced in Vijayanagara ruins. About fifty inscriptions have been discovered in Vijayanagara which are called Satikal (Sati stone) or Sati-virakal (Sati hero stone).[86] According to Ashis Nandy, the Vijayanagara practice was an example of an "epidemic" of sati practice just like Rajput kingdoms under attack by Mughal armies, attributing the practice to foreign intrusions from the persistent wars between Muslim sultanates and the Hindu kingdom, in contrast to others who question the evidence.[87] According to scholars such as John Hawley, "the evidence about the extent of the custom and about the classes that practiced it is far from clear, since most accounts come from Muslim chroniclers or European travelers" who did not have means and objectivity to report about the practice or its circumstances accurately.[87]
Above paragraph has undue WP:UNDUE weight on a subject which is unrelated to the article. Per WP:FIXTHEPROBLEM, If you think an article needs to be rewritten or changed substantially, go ahead and do so. I propose that this paragraph be changed as below:
Sati practice is evidenced in Vijayanagara ruins by several inscriptions found known as Satikal (Sati stone) or Sati-virakal (Sati hero stone).[86]. There are controversial views expressed by historians on the reasons for this practice as religious compulsion, marital affection, martyrdom or honour against subjugation to foreign intrusions.[87]
Some thoughts about the growing size of the article. Jaykul72 should keep in mind that wiki FA's are summary articles and its important to keep it that way. He is free to add more and more pertinent content on each section so long as he creates subarticles such as "Social life in the Vijayanagara empire" and such. Such an article could contain the existing content on "Social life" and expand on each issue such as Sati, Dowry, caste system.Holenarasipura (talk) 19:30, 16 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I also noticed that many of his citations are not complete. He has to provide year of publication, publisher and ISBN/OCLC information. Otherwise, the citations may be considered invalid and the content removed. These are wiki policies.Holenarasipura (talk) 19:34, 16 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
There are two sentences that have a common citation. {[U|Jaykul72}}, please ensure that the citations are broken up to reflect the correct page number for each sentence. In other words, please don't club multiple, disconnected sentences with a common citation. Also, I don't think there is a need for so many citations in the lead. a couple of good ones is sufficient to prove a point. The sentences are: in the lead section "It was established in 1336 by the brothers Harihara I and Bukka Raya I of Sangama Dynasty, members of a pastoralist cowherd community that claimed Yadava lineage." and in the religion section "The interactions between the Vijayanagara empire and the Bahamani Sultanates to the north increased the presence of Muslims in the south. In the early 15th century, Deva Raya built a mosque for the Muslims in Vijayanagara and placed a Quran before his throne.". I have split it for now but you can verify the accuracy.Holenarasipura (talk) 13:50, 18 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
References
^Administration and Social Life under Vijayanagar by T.V.Mahalingam Page 260
^A Chatterjee, Representations of India 1740-1840, The Creation of India in the Colonial Imagination, Palgrave McMillan Publication. page 118
^Lindsey Harlan, Professor of Religious Studies, Religion and Rajput Women: The Ethic of Protection in Contemporary Narratives by By page 200
^H.G.Rekha in the History Research Journal Vol-5-Issue-6-November-December-2019 page 2110
@Pied Hornbill: It should be fairly obvious why a vague and subjective statement like "The Vijayanagara Empire created an epoch in the history of Southern India that transcended regionalism by promoting Hinduism as a unifying factor" is a point of view and doesn't belong in an encyclopedic entry. For one, factors such as "regionalism" don't make much sense in the medieval context, linguistic identities weren't in vogue until the Indian National movement during the British Raj let alone be the basis of polities during the this time period when they hadn't even developed properly, something which is being implied here. Neither is there anything in the body that could reasonably justify the particular line. Their administration and treatment of religion isn't any different in style from previous or succeeding Hindu kingdoms so I don't see how exactly it is that they are "promoting Hinduism as a unifying factor", the entire thing reads like modern romanticism. Tayi ArajakateTalk13:51, 19 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Suggestion: Community origin of the founders of Vijayanagar Empire
This topic is specifically regarding the community origin of Harihara I and Bukka Raya (Sangama dynasty) and not of succeeding rulers and dynasties of the Vijayanagar Empire.
According to the Journal of the Uttar Pradesh historical society vol.7; pt.1 and 2 (1959), published by Archaeological Survey of India, "Founders and rulers of the Sangam dynasty were all Kurubas (shepherds), and they were saivas by religion. Later rulers of Sangam dynasty such as Deva Raya II, Mallikarjuana and Virupaksha III were all Veersaivas (Lingayats). In other words, these Kuruba rulers embraced Veerasaivism".[1] This is validated in the Journal with multiple historical evidences. It is also published in Journal of the Andhra historical Society, 1964.[2] So taking from the above source, citing Kuruba origin of the founders is in line with Wikipedia guidelines for South Asia "modern scholars often use antique texts as primary sources, which is quite acceptable, and these modern works can then be used as secondary sources" - TFD
Moreover, According to Ramchandra Chintaman Dhere, "Traditional sources claim that the Kurumas or Kurubas founded the Sangama dynasty, the founding dynasty of the Vijayanagara Empire. Vijayanagar's kings were Yādavas; therefore they were Kurubas; and therefore Viṭṭhal-Bīrappā must have been their original god. The temple of Anantaśayana depicts a clothed form of Viṭṭhal. At Mallikārjun temple near Mallappanaguḍī, there is a broken image of Viṭṭhal in a shrine. In Hampī, bas-reliefs of Viṭṭhal are sculpted on pillars of the Viṭṭhal temple and Kṛṣṇa temple. In Lepākṣī, there are sculptures of Dhangars standing with a blanket draped over his head, his arm resting on his staff, and his chin resting on his arm. He must be there as a reminder of the family that built the temples. There is no other reason for a human being to be carved here, when almost every other carving on the numerous pillars of these temples depicts a god or a mythological event. These two popular motifs, Dhangars and Viṭṭhal, present a clear image of the family background of the founders of Vijayanagar and the roots of their faith".[3] Note that Dhangar and Kuruba means shepherd in Marathi and Kannada respectively. Both words are used interchangeably. Kuruba is derived from Kuri which means goat/sheep in Kannada. Dhere’s conclusion is further buttressed by etymology of the word Yadava provided by Franklin Southworth - "Yadava has no known Indo-European etymology, may well be Dravidian, meaning "herder". Yadu means Goat or Sheep and Yaduvan means goat/sheep-herd. Term Yadava is original and the mythical Yadu is derived from it by back-formation".[4]
Dhere further states that, "The original worshippers of Vitthal - the Gollas and Kurubas of Andhra Pradesh and Karnataka and Gawlis and Dhangars of Maharashtra, especially southern Maharashtra – are still called Yadavas in Andhra Pradesh and Karnataka".[5] When Yadava is referred to in the medieval south Indian context it refers to one of the above communities depending on which cultural context we are talking about (Marathi, Kannada or Telugu). So for Vijaynagar (Kannada/Telugu) context, Gollas/Kurubas are referred as Yadavas. However, historians explicitly mention founders Harihara and Bukka Raya as Kurubas. Medieval south Indian Yadavas are not to be confused with North Indian Ahirs calling themselves Yadav which is a recent phenomenon. The term Yadav, to denote North Indian Ahirs, began to gain traction in the early 1920s.[6] Dhere has clarified this in his book.
With the above references I am proposing to include one sentence in the introductory paragraph regarding the Vijayanagar founder's community origin - They were Kuruba people. I would like to get other editors/admins' opinion before performing the changes in the article. Tagging User:Tayi Arajakate. Anthony gomes 92 (talk) 00:07, 25 November 2020 (UTC).[reply]
I just think the caste issue is too narrow an issue for an encyclopedia just based on opinions a few historians whose inferences are based on relief sculpture in a few temples. I have been to both the temples mentioned (Ananthasayanagudi and Mallikarjuna temple in Mallapanagudi). I can pull up a book I have (New Light on Hampi, Recent research in Vijayanagara, edited by John M. Fritz and George Michell) where the authors call goddess Pampadevi and god Virupaksha the family deities of the Sangama dynasty. The fact that some kings took up Veerashivism is an unrelated issue. Also, Yadava equally could me cowherd. I believe this caste issue is too narrow and an invite for more edit warring for no good reason.Pied Hornbill (talk) 01:52, 15 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your reply, Pied Hornbill. Fair point on edit warring, I don’t think it is worth it. I am currently in the process of writing Deccan pastoralists articles, so I am tying up their history on Wikipedia. There are multiple sources that mention Hakka and Bukka as Kurubas. Here is another one by S. S. Shashi[7] and I have encountered many of those, some of which are either from Historical travelers like Duarte Barbosa or arrived opinions of Robert Sewell, but that falls under Raj-Era or Pre-Raj-Era sources. As for whether caste or community origin be included in the historical empire articles, there are so many articles on Wikipedia which mentions the caste/community origins of multiple empires in Indian history over the last 500-600 years, just start with Maratha confederacy articles. I just want that to be consistent for other articles too. Also, Virupaksha and Vitthal, the gods of Vijayanagar founders, are not in conflict here. Virupaksha's forms are the two most followed gods of pastoralists i.e Birappa for Kurubas and Biroba for Dhangars. Virupaksha is a Sanskritized form of Virupa (Birappa) and Birappa is the exclusive God of Kurubas. Similarly, Dhangars worship Vithoba (Vitthal) and Biroba as brothers and inseparable companions. Their wives are also worshipped in the same manner. Dhere has mentioned all of this in his book. This even more affirms their Kuruba origin.Anthony gomes 92 (talk) 02:28, 15 December 2020 (UTC).[reply]
^Dhere, Ramchandra Chintaman (2011). Rise of a Folk God: Vitthal of Pandharpur, South Asia Research. Feldhaus, Anne (trans.). Oxford University Press. pp. 243, 245. ISBN978-0-19977-764-8. Traditional sources claim that the Kurumas or Kurubas founded the Sangama dynasty, the founding dynasty of the Vijayanagara Empire. Vijayanagar's kings were Yādavas; therefore they were Kurubas; and therefore Viṭṭhal-Bīrappā must have been their original god. The temple of Anantaśayana depicts a clothed form of Viṭṭhal. At Mallikārjun temple near Mallappanaguḍī, there is a broken image of Viṭṭhal in a shrine. In Hampī, bas-reliefs of Viṭṭhal are sculpted on pillars of the Viṭṭhal temple and Kṛṣṇa temple. In Lepākṣī, there are sculptures of Dhangars standing with a blanket draped over his head, his arm resting on his staff, and his chin resting on his arm. He must be there as a reminder of the family that built the temples. There is no other reason for a human being to be carved here, when almost every other carving on the numerous pillars of these temples depicts a god or a mythological event. These two popular motifs, Dhangars and Viṭṭhal, present a clear image of the family background of the founders of Vijayanagar and the roots of their faith.
This featured articled since 2012 2007 does not meet the current featured article standards. Among some of the major issues that can be pointed out is that the presence of significant quantity of uncited text, the use of vague peacock terms and fairly point of view language. But above all and more importantly, the article is rather incomplete, in a variety of aspects; for instance the history is at best only a very brief summary and neither does it delve much into the administration and influences of the empire, on which much can be written about. Unless if someone is willing to bring the article to standards of date this article should be submitted for Featured article review. Tayi ArajakateTalk03:49, 20 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The article was featured in 2007, not 2012. To justify a claim of POV and lack of comprehensiveness, you need to supply examples of non-neutrality and sources that are omitted. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 09:32, 20 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with SandyGeorgia. Just because a FA may have a few peacock terms and what appears (if at all) like POV, it does not mean the FA has to be dragged into a FA review. Most often some copy editing is all it takes to improve an FA that has stood its ground since 2007 and happens to be well cited with an abundance of sources. If Tayi Arajakate has taken the trouble to see the history of the article it has been improved time and again with new sources. Few months back the "Religion" and "Social life" sections have undergone significant edits with info from new sources brought in. To justify a review a FA should be really imbalanced. So lets not do a Gubbi mele Brahmastra ("hit a sparrow with a missile").Holenarasipura (talk) 16:11, 20 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I offered no opinion on whether it needs a WP:FAR, and I don't view FAR as a negative thing; I have not looked at the article, was merely commenting that the notification of a FAR needed was lacking. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:04, 20 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Holenarasipura, I wouldn't have suggested FA review if it were just the peacock terms but there is just too much lacking for it to be a FA. Imv, the article is more in the state of a B rated or even a C rated one. Tayi ArajakateTalk20:38, 20 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
SandyGeorgia, Sorry about that, did not see the milestones. With regards to POV and lack of comprehensiveness, I've already highlighted one example of the former in the section above. Another instance would be another vague and subjective claim that "Prolific temple-building provided employment to thousands of masons, sculptors, and other skilled artisans" in the first para of "Economy", note that this one is uncited as well. The History section although re-iterates its interactions with the Deccan Sultanates, barely makes any mention of its interactions with the Portugese, the Gajapati Kingdom or Ceylone which is a possible POV issue as well.
There are sources present in the article itself which can be used for expansion, although there are also of course resources which have not been used at all. If you're asking for examples then I'd point out some key issues, among others.
The section on History' is quite lacking in everything, for instance it skips over a nearly 100 year period between 1407–1505 with just a vague mention of "Sultanates-Vijayanagara wars" and a latter coup which ushered in a new dynasty whose rule itself gets no mention. This is not for a lack of research or resources, there are quite a few comprehensive and recent scholarly accounts on the history of the empire which have not been used in the article; see the following sources for example.
Paragraphs on administration and military along with waterworks in Vijayanagara have been compiled under a single section called governance. There is the scope of writing entire sections on administration and military as well as other aspects of civic works other than waterworks. For instance, there could even be a section or sub-section on provincial and local administration; see the following for reference.
On an additional note, a review of the sources used in the article also show that there is a presence of a number of rather dated sources, some from before 1947 which should not be directly cited at all. Some examples are as follows.
Note: This has only been used once as a supporting citation for the claimed lineage alongside other sources but it should still probably not be used considering how dated it is.
Article milestones are a handy thing! I am not asking for this information, rather reminding you that to present a FAR, you need to identify things that need to be fixed, in a way that editors can engage to fix them. Now you’re on track, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:00, 20 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
All these new sources presented by Tayi Arajakate are all nice no doubt and can easily bring fresh insights and information not presented in the current article, but one has keep certain issues in mind such as a)wiki is a encyclopedia. The articles here are summary style and there is not too much scope to make an exhaustive research of it b)Many of these more modern books published in recent times do refer to some of the seminal works of earlier days while adding new insights and hence can't be sidelined (which is why its called "research"), c)All wiki FA's can be improved as time goes by. Calling a current FA a "B" or a "c" grade article is rather subjective and not productive. However if you really have access to all these new sources, you should feel free to improve the article and I am sure other interested users can chime in too.Holenarasipura (talk) 21:32, 20 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Holenarasipura, forget I ever called it B or C grade but it currently does not fulfill the featured article criteria, it neglects or gives no details with regards to a variety of aspects, some of which I've already highlighted above. This is also not "research" but a list of secondary sources based on more recent scholarship, which is what should be used ideally. The article currently does contain some post–2000 sources as well so I don't really get that point. Tayi ArajakateTalk22:25, 20 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Tayi Arajakate I used the word research in a different sense, referring to research done by scholars who publish secondary sources. I did not imply we have to use primary sources. I believe the sources used here are all secondary or tertiary. As I said earlier, if you have access to books that give more insight and are newer in nature please feel free to use them. My perspective is most of the recent work going on at Hampi, which I have visited thrice, is on the matter of town planning, temple architecture, fortification and studies on inscriptions. One can find such scattered info in books by Sinapoli, Kotriah, Verghese, Mitchell and others. I do realize more recently discovered inscriptions (such as Satigal, Virgal) and classics of that era (Sobagina Sone, Amaruka etc) may throw more light on social life, religion and such. But such information needs a lot of digging. Most FA's I have come across limit themselves to 75k-100K of data and larger articles are frowned upon, which is why sub-articles are created. If you have direct access to these sources and not just their titles you will get plenty of help on wikipedia for copy editing and such.Holenarasipura (talk) 23:11, 20 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not even referring to the more specific aspects such as social life or religion which are in fact much more well developed in the article. But to the general aspects such as the history and administration of the empire when I say that it's incomplete. I've no issues in helping further develop this article but it's going to take a lot of work to make it meet the current featured article criteria which is the point of the FA review. For example take a look at the page of India which has gone through 3 separate FA reviews, has almost 70Kb of prose and over 280Kb of raw data.
The sources that are already cited can themselves be used to address some of the issues, and most of the sources I've listed are open source or at least available through file sharing projects. It's not very helpful if you keep questioning why it shouldn't go through FA review instead of actually trying to address the concerns raised. Tayi ArajakateTalk00:54, 21 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Tayi Arajakate you don't need my permission to take this article to FAR. That's your call. I just think you should get a wider opinion on the matter. How you want to improve this article is up to you. You can improve with or with out a review. Since you raised a few issues and claimed you have so many new sources, I think you have a responsibility to take the bull by the horn and start suggesting/making the improvements. Others will join you if and when possible. I don't think you can raise a concern, put a FAR tag on it and walk away. I would like SandyGeorgia opinion on this.Holenarasipura (talk) 01:35, 21 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Anyone can mention deficiencies they perceive in an FA, and if the instructions at WP:FAR have been followed, anyone can initiate a review. FAR is intended to help improve articles, but if they are beyond repair, they end up defeatured after a deliberative process. But it is important to focus on the improvements needed, and avoid bickering back and forth. FAR is not dispute resolution. You might want to look in at the instructions and some other articles at FAR. It would be extraordinary for an FA this old to not need an update. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:16, 21 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Hey, if you want us to include the name of the empire in language scripts then we can't do that unfortunately. Please see WP:INDICSCRIPT, which was enacted after a decision to not include any Indic scripts at all in any India related article titles because of unnecessary disputes that can arise. For example on this page, some people may dispute that the Tamil name, the Malayalam name, the Tulu name or even the Hindi name should be included which would lead to unnecessary disputes and cluttering on the page. Tayi ArajakateTalk02:01, 31 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Coming to this several months later, I've done what I can to fix the citation formatting. It is evident to me from the quality of the citations that this article would not meet the FA bar today. You (and I) are not required to correct the issues ourselves. Based on this discussion having occurred, I believe step 1 in the FAR process has been done. I will initiate the review-proper. Izno (talk) 20:20, 16 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
This edit request to Vijayanagara Empire has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.
The Vijayanagara Empire gave grants to Muslim dargahs.There was a Muslim Faqir named Babayya who occupied the temple of Penukonda.The fact amazing is that the king Venkata never used physical force to remove him but allowed him have debate with a Hindu priest and he won.The Faqir was then allowed to convert the Temple into masjid.Also this temple received grants from the king Venkata during the 1639-1640 peorid.Source-K S Devi,Religion in Vijayanagara .Link=https://archive.org/details/religioninvijaya0000saro/page/190/mode/1up?q=Babayya
Please do generously consider my edit request it would only lead to collect awareness among our people.Hoping for a good response Ananda Sharmar (talk) 12:41, 7 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
As part of my copyedit, I am posting questions and concerns below. I started this process on the article's FAR, but this has grown too long. Instead, I will post the comments here for consideration. Thanks for your understanding.
"Aliya Rama Raya left the Golconda Sultanate, married Deva Raya's daughter, and thus rose to power." What does rose to power mean in this situation? Please clarify in the article.
"There are several theories about the events of the battle." It's weird how several theories are introduced about the battle, but only one theory is present in the article. Is this the most popular theory? Is this the theory generally accepted by modern-day historians? Are other theories worth noting?
"Writings by foreign travelers during the late medieval era, combined with recent excavations in the Vijayanagara principality, uncovered information about the empire's history, fortifications, scientific developments and architectural innovations." Why is this sentence necessary? The article doesn't need a sentence in the history section to describe how historians know this information.
"The King (Svamin), ministry (Amatya), territory (Janapada), fort (Durga), treasury (Kosa), army (Daiufa), and ally (Mitra)" Perhaps put the translations as a note?
"The empire was among the first in India to use long-range artillery commonly manned by foreign gunners." ->The empire was among the first in India to use long-range artillery, which were commonly manned by foreign gunners."?
I have made some corrections and small additions based on comments by Z1720. With regards to the section on "Social life" being too long, I think the original issue that the FAR creator had (or someone else) was this section was not well written, so I expanded it. Anyway looking forward to more comments from you.Pied Hornbill (talk) 18:56, 14 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Going through Social life. This section is still quite large. Is there a way this can be broken up, perhaps with the caste system explained in its own section?
The first paragraph of social life seems to repeat information. Since two scholars seem to be in general agreement on how the caste system worked in this empire, can we merge their sourcing together?
"The Portuguese visitors to the empire were Domingo Paes, Fernão Nunes, Durate Barbosa and Barradas, and Athanasius Nikitin came from Russia." The explorers listed after this sentence have the year they came to the empire in parenthesis. Can these explorers also have parenthesis?
"Contemporary Muslim writers who have left valuable works are Barani, Isamy" This section lists a whole bunch of people and works with no context of who they are or why these are important. I wish this information had more general information about what this all is.
The "Literature" section is very large, considering that there is a hatnote to the spun-off article. Can information from this section be cut? Do we need all of these works listed here?
This is a very edit-war prone section. The Primary languages of literature and high culture in the Vijayanagara court were Kannada and Telugu, each dominating at the different times. Sanskrit is the all pervasive "Latin of India". Tamil and Malayalam were regional languages that flourished in their respective provinces. Cutting this section short only leads to more edit warring. W.R.T "Main articles" you mention, one does not go into any details except put out the works and writers in all languages and the other is a wonderful FA on "Vijayanagara literature in Kannada" which has been summarized into one small paragraph in the literature section of this article. I wish we had a FA for works in Telugu and Sanskrit as well. Considering that literature and architecture were arguably the two most important developments of this period, perhaps we should leave it be. But a nice copy edit to reduce verbose language is welcome. Your thoughts?Pied Hornbill (talk) 22:15, 5 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
If cutting things from this section is going to cause an edit war, then I want to be careful about what is cut (and I'm glad that you pointed this out to me). I will do a copyedit in the coming days for the verbose language and propose things to cut in a new section below. Z1720 (talk) 00:10, 7 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
"This mingling of the South Indian styles resulted in a richness not seen in earlier centuries, a focus on reliefs in addition to sculpture that surpasses that previously in India." This is not NPOV. Is there a way to describe the mingling of South Indian styles in more neutral terms? What were the styles that were being merged?
The styles that were merged are mentioned higher in the same section. The mingling of Chalukya, Hoysala (together known as the Deccan style), Pandya and Chola styles (together the conventional dravida style). Copy edited that line to remove peacock terms.Pied Hornbill (talk) 23:06, 6 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Many of the notes in the references can be deleted.
About this I am going to carefully decide which ones can be removed because if I do this arbitrarily, sooner or later someone will come along asking "according to whom?" and I will have to go and search through sources to answer that question.Pied Hornbill (talk) 23:20, 6 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Looked at it. Seems like this requires every image to have a link article associated with it, in which case not all images can have 'alt' text. Do I understand this correctly?. I added alt text to a few images though.Pied Hornbill (talk) 19:54, 10 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Some readers on Wikipedia can't load the images: sometimes it's because they have a bad internet connection, or perhaps they are using a screen-reader because they are visually impaired. If the image doesn't load, it is replaced with the alt text; therefore, the alt text needs to describe what the image is displaying. While I usually add this myself, I am unsure what some of the images are showing me. Can you check to make sure that all the image's alt text describes the correct thing? Thanks. Z1720 (talk) 01:18, 11 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
That takes me to the end! Once the above are addressed I will do another readthrough, which hopefully will take a shorter amount of time. In general, the descriptions of their art and literature had lots of non-NPOV language that needed to be removed, so I suggest that another editor read through these sections to ensure that it was all removed. Z1720 (talk) 01:16, 17 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
But since this is one of the two theories it alone cannot be mentioned in the first sentence. You can mention it later where it has been spoken about two theories. AnjaneyaRudra (talk) 14:59, 28 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Joshua Jonathan I read the source you mentioned Dhere, Ramchandra (2011). Rise of a Folk God: Vitthal of Pandharpur South Asia Research. In that it says Yadavas were originally of Kuruba Lineage. If you read it completely, it says "Yadavas were originally members of pastoralist, cowherd groups and belonged to Kuruba lineage". Also with regards to the founders Harihara and Bukkaraya being telugu people, I read all the sources attached to it. In none of the sources I could find any sentence saying the founders were telugu people. Therefore I believe the information on wikipedia page is not right and I am going to change it. Hope that would be fine with you. AnjaneyaRudra (talk) 19:29, 30 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Joshua Jonathan I read those multiple sources. They do not mention the 2nd part of the information which is mentioned in the so called "origin narrative". Censoring false information is acceptable. Writing false information on wikipedia page is not acceptable. AnjaneyaRudra (talk) 20:07, 30 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Sources: [1][2], note: ""We can deduce that Sangam must have become a Yadava through his pastoralist, cowherd community." (Dhere 2011, p. 243). The Kuruba-origins are accepted by adherents from both lingistic origin theories.
Two theories have been proposed regarding the linguistic origins of the Vijayanagara empire.[3] One is that Harihara I and Bukka I, the founders of the empire, were Kannadigas and commanders in the army of the Hoysala Empire stationed in the Tungabhadra region to ward off Muslim invasions from Northern India.[4][5][6][7] Another theory is that Harihara and Bukkaraya were Telugu people, first associated with the Kakatiya Kingdom, who took control of the northern parts of the Hoysala Empire during its decline. They were believed to have been captured by the army of Ulugh Khan at Warangal.[8] According to tradition, based on a Telugu-narrative, the founders were supported and inspired by Vidyaranya, a saint at the Sringeri monastery, to fight the Muslim invasion of South India,[9][10] but the role of Vidyaranya in the founding of the Vijayanagara Empire is not certain.[11]
Two sources for the statement Two theories have been proposed regarding the linguistic origins of the Vijayanagara empire.; three sources for the statement Another theory is that Harihara and Bukkaraya were Telugu people; there is even a separate article on Origin of the Vijayanagara Empire, which describes those two theories in more detail. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk!05:47, 31 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
This was raised a bit in the section now at the top of the Talk:Hampi page. The old town of Hampi was renamed Vijayanagara at the start of the Vijayanagara Empire, then deserted when that fell. Hampi now seems to be the normal term. Hampi (town) covers the modern settlement (pop. under 3,000).
(1) Please note that the correct term is Mastigallu (Maastigallu) which is a stone that memorializes the woman who undertakes Sati. This term is derived from Maha+Sati+Kallu (respectively meaning Grand or Big + Woman who has undertaken Sati + Stone). This is a generic term, with the referent being the person who immolated herself (presumably) along with the dead husband (which is what Sati is about). So, it is possible to state, this is a Maastigallu of Tayavva, say, who died after her husband Sangappa died.
(2) There is absolutely no term in this context called Sati-virakal. The author must have confused the Viragallu (or Veeragallu) which is a celebratory stone memorial for a Veera (the brave) who lays down his life in the line of duty protecting his king, commander, master, etc in a war or similar other circumstance. Veeras (plural of Veera) are young men committed to the cause of protecting the powerful functionaries of the Kingdom (King, Commander, Paleyagara, Naada Prabhu, etc.) at any cost with the belief that life can be given up, if necessary, to achieve Veeramarana (a brave death) that places them in Swarga (heaven) rather than accept defeat.
There are thousands of Veeragallu's and Mastigallu's spread across present day Karnataka, Andhra, Telengana, Maharashtra, Odissa and Tamil Nadu.
To summarize, Mastigallu is for women and Veeragallu for men.
Please set right the incorrect reference given alongside: "About fifty inscriptions have been discovered in Vijayanagara which are called Satikal (Sati stone) or Sati-virakal (Sati hero stone)" — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jksuresh (talk • contribs) 17:40, 10 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The Vijayanagara Empire, also called Karnata Kingdom,[3] was based in the Deccan Plateau region in South India. It was established in 1336 by the brothers Harihara I and Bukka Raya I of the Sangama dynasty, members of a pastoralist cowherd community that claimed Yadava lineage.[4] The empire rose to prominence as a culmination of attempts by the southern powers to ward off Islamic invasions by the end of the 13th century. At its peak, it subjugated almost all of South India's ruling families and pushed the sultans of the Deccan beyond the Tungabhadra-Krishna river doab region, in addition to annexing modern day Odisha (ancient Kalinga) from the Gajapati Kingdom thus becoming a notable power.[5] It lasted until 1646, although its power declined after a major military defeat in the Battle of Talikota in 1565 by the combined armies of the Deccan sultanates. The empire is named after its capital city of Vijayanagara, whose ruins surround present day Hampi, now a World Heritage Site in Karnataka, India. The wealth and fame of the empire inspired visits by and writings of medieval European travelers such as Domingo Paes, Fernão Nunes, and Niccolò de' Conti. These travelogues, contemporary literature and epigraphy in the local languages and modern archeological excavations at Vijayanagara has provided ample information about the history and power of the empire. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bullammanavar m (talk • contribs) 11:02, 31 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Dear Wiki users,The map of Vijayanagara empire seems to have a small correction.Vijayanagara empire of sangama dynasty never ruled whole srilanka and they ruled only the upper part of srilanka controlled by the Arya-chakravarthies during the time of 1441 AD to 1450 AD.Please verify it. Truk789 (talk) 06:32, 24 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Hello @Joshua Jonathan, this is concerning my edit you recently reverted. The successor and predecessor states are concerned with the states that immediately succeed the entity after it disestablished and the states that directly precede the entity just before it was created. All the states I removed from the predecessor list were the states which in part or whole conquered by the Vijayanagar Empire after it was established and the ones I removed from the successors list are the states that conquered parts of the Vijaynagar Empire, but do not succeed it. See articles like Russian Empire and German Empire for comparison. PadFoot2008 (talk) 11:26, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Joshua Jonathan, but the history is pretty clear cut in this case. It was founded in the former Hoysala territory and conquered by the Sultanate of Bijapur. And you can see for yourself how clumsy and unhelpful the the successor and predecessor list has become. It is not helpful at all to the readers. Just think how utterly cluttered the lists of pre-modern states in the Indian subcontinent (or anywhere else for this matter) would be, if we were to list every single state that conquered even the smallest portion of the concerned state or vice versa. And not to state it is completely unhelpful. PadFoot2008 (talk) 11:41, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
During this period, more kingdoms in South India became independent and separate from Vijayanagara, including the Nayakas of Chitradurga, Keladi Nayaka, Mysore Kingdom, Nayak Kingdom of Gingee, Nayaks of Tanjore, and Nayaks of Madurai.[75]
@Joshua Jonathan, It does indeed but they didn't succeed Vijayanagara. I don't think declaring independence from a country is the same as succeeding the country if it still existed after the declaration. Pinging @Fylindfotberserk. And it still doesn't justify including the successor and predecessor states that have nothing to do with what you said above and have been added just because they conquered some territories from the state and vice versa. PadFoot2008 (talk) 12:06, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed, it is hard to know who "declared" independence, and who simply ignored the diktats, and who remained in the fold but acted independently etc. This is a "fissure", not "succession". Utcursch may know better. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 12:52, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Kautilya3 and I have a consensus on relying on reliable sources, and oppozing Hindu nationalists - no, just kidding. I looked-up the template for further explanation, but it only says "preceding entity" and "succeeding entity," which is not very helpfull. I'd say that there are wide margins, but I'll have a further look at your proposal. I don't know that much about the empire, I just know how to find and judge sources. Regards, Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk!05:29, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The Bahamani Sultanate mostly did not cover the territory of the empire, so I disagree there. The Hoysala Kingdom covered a large part of what became the empire, but not all of it. The article says:
The Vijayanagara Kingdom was founded in 1336 CE as a successor to the hitherto prosperous Hindu kingdoms of the Hoysalas, the Kakatiyas, and the Yadavas with the breakaway Kampili Kingdom adding a new dimension to the resistance to the Muslim invasion of South India.[19][23]
@Joshua Jonathan, No mate, you got it wrong there. "It was founded as a successor to prosperous Hindu kingdoms" is not meant to show that it came up in the territories of those states, rather it continued in their earlier attempts to resist the Muslim invasions of South India. Also about the Bahamani Sultanate, the Sultanate conquered the entirety of the empire in 1646. Your misunderstanding is due to it losing territories much, much earlier to other regional South Indian kingdoms, but they didn't succeed or fully conquer the Vijayanagara Empire. Rather it was a defeat for the empire but not it's end. PadFoot2008 (talk) 05:46, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Preceding and succeeding entities make sense only where there is clear-cut succession of polities. Vijayanagara neither succeeded anything, nor was it succeeded by anything. So both the fields should be blank.
Yeah, well, that is what I mean though. (In India, these things have always been polities, or states if you prefer, never "countries"). When there is a clear-cut event of disintegration, like say the Soviet Union, we have clear succeeding polities. When there is a gradual disintegration, it is a process. These processes are certainly important, but they are hard to write about. One can develop this version of Nayaka dynasties into a WP:BCA, and that can be used to describe the process.
But, as of now, we don't have the information to declare "succeeding entities", because we don't know when they became independent, or de jure or de facto independence, or whether it is just somebody's opinion that they became independent etc. etc. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 09:17, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with @Kautilya3. The current list of "succeeding and preceding entity" is just loads of nonsense and very unhelpful to readers. It's better that to make it blank. PadFoot2008 (talk) 06:23, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The sources do not mention that Vijayanagar ruled Sri Lanka. The cited atlas has several issues, as many of its kingdom maps are inaccurate, and it conflates the histories of multiple empires from the same era. DeepstoneV (talk) 15:48, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The cartographer also included tributary regions on the Vijayanagara map. However, the same source you provided also mentioned Vijayanagara's tribute to the Bahmani Sultanate. Therefore, it would be appropriate to depict Vijayanagara territories under Bahmani Sultanates as well.Even if we consider Vijayanagara Suzerainty over Sri Lanka than it would only be on Jaffna kingdom of Sri Lanka not all of Sri Lanka. I can make a accurate map of Vijayanagara empire if u can Provide me the source that Jaffna Kingdom of Sri Lanka was under vassalization of Vijayangar DeepstoneV (talk) 18:49, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The current map appears to be more accurate, as Sri Lanka was not governed by Vijayanagara. If it had been ruled, it would have been only the Jaffna Kingdom under their suzerainty.The old map collides the histories of multiple kingdoms. DeepstoneV (talk) 08:38, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Sangamas of the Vijayanagara Empire (made by Noorullah21)
Previous, current? Please be specific. I've added a gallery, to make it clear what we're talking about. Looking at this map ("globalsecurity.org") (webpage here) and this map ("Ancient Indian Coins") (webpage here), it seems that Calicut, Sri Lanka, and apart of the Gajapati Kingdom of Orissa were tributaries of the Vijayanagara Empire. This is reflected in none of the maps above. Also, the extent of the Vijayanagara Empire's hold on Sri Lanka seems to be disputed, and the inclusion of the coastal area of the Bahmani Kingdom or Sultanate also seems a matter of dispute. So, we do indeed need a new map, based on more sources than just the present one, Schwartzberg, Joseph E. (1978). A Historical atlas of South Asia. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. p. 147, map XIV.l. ISBN0226742210., which is obviously inaccurate. @Avantiputra7: could you offer your skills and talents here? Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk!05:27, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Joshua Jonathan: Here is the preliminary version of a map, based on the one published by Burton Stein, eminent historian of South India. It's from his History of India (2nd ed., 2010) p.135, Map 8, for circa 1485. The legend doesn't clarify about direct rule versus tributaries, so I am unclear why the Gajapati area is shaded unlike Calicut and Sri Lanka. I will try to collect more sources when I get an opportunity, to add details and modify as needed. -Avantiputra7 (talk) 11:41, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@DeepstoneV@Joshua Jonathan@Sathyashraya@Avantiputra7 @Noorullah21 I want to propose a map change for Vijaynagar Empire as the current map of Vijanagar Empire which is this 1 does not show the extent of Empire from the perspective of whole subcontinent and it is not that graphically good too. Hence I wanted that this map 2 should be used in place of the earlier one(Source has been cited in the source section of the map). Let's have a consensus
@Rawn3012@Joshua Jonathan Yes, I am in favor of using this proposed new map: it looks good to me generally. My one lingering concern is that I still have not been able to reach a firm conclusion as to what areas should be shaded or not, or what year to use. For instance, Map 3.1 (p.65) in India before Europe by Catherine B. Asher and Cynthia Talbot (2nd. ed., 2023: Cambridge University Press)—depicting the reign of Deva Raya II in 1432-1446—has included the northern piece of Sri Lanka, but not the Gajapati lands beyond the Krishna River. The reasoning is not made clear, comparing the text on p.66, which describes his conquests. I don't know of any fresh conquests between 1446 and 1485 to explain it. The reign of Krishnadevaraya (1509-1529) has also been considered as the peak of the empire due to victories over the Deccan Sultanates and Gajapatis, but I can't find whether the territory in Sri Lanka was still held at that time. (Asher and Talbot Map 6.1 on p.205 doesn't make it clear.) -Avantiputra7 (talk) 08:03, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Joshua Jonathan@Avantiputra7 Disclaimer: My comment is for the time frame of 1485 only; As far as the territory of Vijaynagar Empire beyond Krishna river is concerned. It can't be clarified as indeed did Saluva Narasimha took the territory of Udaygiri which falls in Andhra Pradesh from Gajapatis but it is far from Krishna river delta and the territories held by Vijaynagar in Sri Lanka according to me was temporary(conquests followed by reconquests). As a result, proper boundary-making is very difficult. However, I am adding the proposed map as it shows the extent of the Empire from a subcontinental purpose. If a change is proposed, I would do it else, It's an SVG file which means you can edit the map by yourself.
Hi, @Joshua Jonathan @Avantiputra7 The map I provided previously has a new version 1. It shows more details like topography and removes the anachronistic modern national and regional boundaries. It is based on the same old source of the Vijayanagara Empire c.1485, according to Burton Stein's History of India (2nd ed., 2010) p.135, Map 8. I have added the updated map in the infobox. If you find something wrong or have different views. Please feel free to change or recommend me Rawn3012 (talk) 01:24, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Is there any way you can zoom in a bit on Vijayanagara? The old map looked fine zoomed out with the extra details and borders but now that everything non-Vijayanagara is just blank space, the map looks.. not great to say the least. I think it would be best if you used the look and style of the old map but zoomed in (a lot) on Vijayanagara, which would remove the current country border issue. Flemmish Nietzsche (talk) 01:37, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That's because, for the Hoysala example, Hoysala Kingdom is the common name, if you looked at SKAG's requested move statement, while Vijayanagar Kingdom is not. Vijayanagara also has a much better case for being called an Empire than the Hoysalas as the former was much more than a minor power but controlled much of India at its peak. Flemmish Nietzsche (talk) 19:28, 18 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Well for one the preface in the book says about the maps that "The purpose of this atlas is not to furnish a set of detailed maps for the use of mature scholars, but to provide a general conspectus of Indian history chiefly for the use of School and College students. Hence names of towns and forts familiar to antiquarians or those of minor states which do not come within the scope of general history have been passed over; for it has been thought desirable not to mar the clearness of the maps by overcrowding them with names of secondary or local importance."
The map clearly tries to oversimplify by replacing small "non-notable" states with territory of the larger adjacent states and treating tributaries as being directly ruled by their overlords, thus making the latter appear larger; this is done with Vijayanagara by treating all of southern India as being directly ruled by them, while much of Kerala was only a tributary (Calicut), as is shown on this article's former map; not outlining which territories are tributaries can be somewhat misleading so I think a map without them gives the best view of what territory was truly controlled. Flemmish Nietzsche (talk) 21:18, 27 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Cite error: There are <ref group=note> tags on this page, but the references will not show without a {{reflist|group=note}} template (see the help page).
Moved from Pied Hornbill talk page
Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. Melmann 12:56, 7 September 2021 (UTC)
Sangamas of the Vijayanagara Empire (made by Noorullah21)
Vijayanagara 1450s
Vijayanagara Empire 1336 – 1646 ad
Vijayanagara Empire
