|
This is the third battle of Panipat. And yes...the casualities were close to 1,00,000. Believe it! - PPP from Bombay
Yeek! I just read the edit history and, far from being the first to brave the Edit Job from Hell, I see that Magnus and Danny and others have helped it along already - which leaves me wondering what the first version was like!
But no disrespect intended to the original contributor: despite the fractured English, there seems to be an impressively detailed and careful history of the battle here, and I'm going to dive in and try my hand at another edit or two. It's worth the effort, I think. I just hope that my turning it into reasonably fluent English doesn't completely misrepresent the underlying facts—cause I am reasonably well-versed in reading and writing about battles, but (to my shame) I've never heard of this one! Wish me luck! Tannin 12:24 Mar 15, 2003 (UTC)
Good luck... I never heard of this one either... --Christopher Mahan
Myabe you can tell the difference between "battle of panipat" and "third battle of panipat" --Christopher Mahan
Hmmmm .... Right now, no. But a quick Googling brings up this one in 1504 (http://www.itihaas.com/medieval/babur.html) and this one (http://www.rediff.com/news/2002/oct/16spec.htm) which is said to be the sixth Battle of Panipat and happening in Delhi today!
(Tannin decides that this one is a serious editing job, and races off to the all-night shop for a supply of chocolate to sustain himself. Back in 20.:)
I think 3rd. (see: http://www.panipat.com/pnphistory/battle_three.htm ) --Christopher Mahan
I remember reading this a while back, and after deciding to try to make some sense of it I gave up and moved on to the Battle of Ticameron. The long and short of it is that this article appears to be completely incorrect on every detail. For instance, the death toll is 10,000, not 100,000. While bloody, this is hardly historical.
Thankyou Maurie. I haven't read your new version over yet, but it needs only a glance to see that it's much improved. Tannin
Despite the cleaning up, it seems to me that this article still has a slant and is not completely accurate. I suggest further investigations into whether or not it is NPOV, especially considering the previous edits made by the creator who seems to be following a certain angle of History. In addition, I believe that even now, the article's neutrality and accuracy are disputed. DigiBullet 03:25, 20 Apr 2004 (UTC)
Read the article carefully, i see quite a bit of a slant in it.Having read some other books on Indian history , the article seems to have left out the following.
a)Abdali IIRC was invited by the Mughals who were fed up with the raids of the marathas raiding right up to the gates of delhi.
b)Abdali's forcewas smaller than the maratha force confronting it but the Afghan general manuevred into an advantagous position ensuring his own supplies buit denying supplies to the marathas.
c)The marathas having nearly exhausted their supplies offered at one stage to surrender huge tracts of territory to the Afghans and to return home but this was refused.
d)The theory of descendants of the defeated marathas being in Baluchistan is nonsensical.The Brahni tribe has been in Baluchistan for centuries predating the battle of Panipat.
| 
