Talk:Battle of Balapur

Presence of Bajirao

bajirao was not present in battle of balapur Source https://archive.org/details/in.gov.ignca.4317 Page 8 Through his own letter bajirao tells that he was at aurangabad— Preceding unsigned comment added by Koitiot (talk • contribs)

Here, you just proved the presence of Bajirao. See this on 15th July he came up with the Nizam's troops near Pohur; on the day of the final action (a 31st July) he was posted at Nimbgaon in Pargana Balapur. Despite Maratha aid Alam Khan went down before his opponent. He went for aid for Alam ali and was present at Balapur.Imperial^[AFCND] 15:16, 7 December 2023 (UTC)

The same source mentions in page no.9

Bajirao didn’t engage in any battle there but had returned already.

“It was at this time that Bajirao was appointed Peshwa in succession to his father. Immediately on his appointment to the Peshwaship he hurried with his contingent to join Alam Ali Khan, the Sayyids' deputy, then marching against the rebel Nizam-ul-mulk.

On 9th June Bajirao effected junction with Alam Ali's troops at Sawarde in pargana Undangaon; on 15th July he came up with the Nizam's troops near Pohur; on the day of the final action ( 31st July) he was posted at Nimbgaon in Pargana Balapur.

Despite Maratha aid Alam Khan went down before his opponent. Bajirao retired with his army intact through Khandesh and in October reduced Bara-mati. He remained in the neighbourhood for over a month and then returned to Satara. Taking counsel with the Maharaja, he invaded the Khandesh district to collect the dues of chauth; on 4th January 1721 took place the first meeting between the Peshwa and the Nizam near Chikhalthan." On 28th January.

The Peshwa had moved to Aurangabad and from Aurangabad he entered Khandesh. On 17th February he arrived at the westernmost point of Khandesh and in April was back again in Balaghat.”

Presence doesn’t mean battle you seem to mistake the two. HistoricPilled (talk) 15:37, 7 December 2023 (UTC)

"he came up with the Nizam's troops near Pohur" "Bajirao effected junction with Alam Ali's troops" doesn't that make him participate the battle? Imperial^[AFCND] 15:46, 7 December 2023 (UTC)

There was not a battle here to begin with

“ Despite Maratha aid Alam Khan went down before his opponent. Bajirao retired with his army intact through Khandesh” - Bajirao had returned

“went down before his enemy” read carefully before quoting half context. HistoricPilled (talk) 15:53, 7 December 2023 (UTC)

“Despite Maratha aid Alam Khan went down before his opponent. Bajirao retired with his army intact through Khandesh”. Went down refers to the defeat of Alam Ali Khan. Imperial^[AFCND] 15:58, 7 December 2023 (UTC)

It says "Bajirao retired with his army intact through Khandesh" he wasn't involved in the battle personally, it was between Alam Khan with Maratha Aid and Nizam. Sending an Aid or reinforcement doesn't mean Bajirao was personally involved in that very battle where he was only stationed in the region. You're adding him in events where he wasn't even involved on the very date but had already returned. HistoricPilled (talk) 16:10, 7 December 2023 (UTC)

"15th July he came up with the Nizam's troops near Pohur". Please go through this. You know this refers to the military engagement with Nizam right? Else, we should let the experts to go through this. Imperial^[AFCND] 16:18, 7 December 2023 (UTC)

Yes we can let the experts see definitely but I will post the full context before that:

” On 9th June Bajirao effected junction with Alam Ali's troops at Sawarde in pargana Undangaon; on 15th July he came up with the Nizam's troops near Pohur; on the day of the final action ( 31st July) he was posted at Nimbgaon in Pargana Balapur.

Despite Maratha aid Alam Khan went down before his opponent. Bajirao retired with his army intact through Khandesh and in October reduced Bara-mati. He remained in the neighbourhood for over a month and then returned to Satara.”

It says he was only stationed at Balapur, doesn’t mention that he engaged with him personally otherwise he wouldn’t return through Khandesh with his “army”. Also it mentions “Maratha aid” instead of Bajirao. Aid and Reinforcements does not mean that Peshwa Bajirao himself was present at the battle. HistoricPilled (talk) 16:24, 7 December 2023 (UTC)

"He came up with Nizam's troops". Couldn't you really find anything here? Imperial^[AFCND] 16:27, 7 December 2023 (UTC)

Read the whole reply for better understanding;
Got multiple sources covering the battle in detail with name of the main commanders none support your claim.
1.) Your source quoting; On 9th June Bajirao effected junction with Alam Ali's troops at Sawarde in pargana Undangaon; on 15th July he came up with the Nizam's troops near Pohur; on the day of the final action (31st July) he was posted at Nimbgaon in Pargana Balapur. Despite Maratha aid Alam Khan went down before his opponent. Bajirao retired with his army intact through Khandesh and in October reduced Bara-mati. He remained in the neighbourhood for over a month and then returned to Satara.”
Nowhere mentioned Bajirao engaged in the battle that happened b/w ALAM ALI and NIZAM. For your 15th july and "He (Bajirao) came up with Nizam troops" argument on the basis of which you added him as evident from the long conversation above;
A.) came up with phrase (see link for meaning)[]) doesn't mean or imply Bajirao fought the Nizam forces on 15th. Also Battle of Balapur happened on 31st July 1720 (see [])so how can he (Bajirao) or anyone fight on 15th July?
B.) I even asked Chatgpt; see link and for better resolution download the one drive shared images (chatgpt and copilot ones): Chatgpt one []&[] and Copilot (see link[]&[]) for the meaning of the 15th july part.
Both say the phrase is ambiguous meaning he may or mayn't have participated in the battle and fought. You can't take one of the two possibilities on your thinking this is WP:OR. Even if we go by timeline of battle it happened on 31stJuly 1720 so there was no military engagement on 15th July. For further confirmation, Detailed sources should be used which cover the name of the commanders involved in that specific battle. I have provided the same below in point 2-(A)&(B).
C.) On 31st Bajirao was just posted or stationed there not involved in the battle could verify it in similar manner from ai (chatgpt/copilot/etc.) see this [] &[] or the text here itself say just posted which again explicitly doesn't convey his direct involvement.
D.) If you wanna go in more detail read the Sardesai book it states explicitly Bajirao was not involved just stationed there see this pg 70 quoting; The Nizam decided to prevent their junction by all means and bring about their destruction by meeting them separately. Both the antagonists solicited the Peshwa’s help: but Shahu ordered Bajirao to remain neutral and watch the game from a distance so as to turn it to his own advantage.
See the word neutral and watch the game (battle) from a distance he was just stationed at Balapur not involved personally in the battle due to order from Shahu which this source clearly explains the source you used too say the same he was present at Balapur and no mention of his military engagement in the battle that happened there b/w Nizam and Alam Ali.
E.) The other Maratha leaders supported Alam on their own against Shahu and his deputy Peshwa quoting pg 71 Sardesai New History of Marathas Vol 2: The Saiyads’ agent Shankaraji Malhar did his best to bring Maratha support to Alam Ali much against Shahu’s explicit orders..
2.) The source Imperial repeatedly used in the above discussion just states that Bajirao was at Balapur. However, it does not confirm that the battle between Alam Ali and Nizam occurred in his presence. Therefore, alternative sources that provide a more detailed account of the battle and its commanders should be used for getting correct information. See these, they mention of the battle in detail with the commanders involved too. None state that Bajirao was present in the Battle of Balapur not to be confused with his presence at Balapur both are different here is the link for sources;
A.) Sardesai New History of Marathas Vol2 source (WP:RS) pg 71 link; https://archive.org/details/in.ernet.dli.2015.32142/page/n85/mode/2up quoting; The two armies marched towards Balapur along the flooded river Purna, the Nizam by the northern bank and Alam Ali by the southern. The former soon managed to cross over by means of a bridge of boats and came face to face with Alam Ali in the environs of Balapur. The latter had for his allies a Maratha contingent led by Khanderao Dabhade, Santaji Sinde, Kanhoji Bhosle and others numbering about 18.000 in all. The Saiyads’ agent Shankaraji Malhar did his best to bring Maratha support to Alam Ali much against Shahu’s explicit orders. On 10th August 1720 Alam Ali in a high spirit of personal valour and self-confidence, led an attack upon the Nizam’s position. Fighting with desperate courage he received a mortal wound from a bullet while goading his elephant, which had got out of control. At this critical moment one of the Nizam’s captains rushed upon the mad elephant, cut off Alam Ali’s head and carried it to his master in great triumph. The general being thus killed, all his followers tell fighting for him on the field of battle, giving a decided victory to the Nizam. Shankaraji Malhar who was also in the thick of the fight became w r ounded and was captured alive. He died a few' days later. The Marathas lost altogether about 700 men in their ardent endeavour to save the day for Alam Ali.
No MENTION of Bajirao!
B.) Another Source https://archive.org/details/in.ernet.dli.2015.142898/page pg 163 quoting; Or, we may consider the strange attitude of the Maratha chiefs Sindhia, Kanthaji and Pilaji on the eve of the crucial Battle of Balapur (1720). They were deputed by Raja Shahu to help Alim Ah Khan, but they stood aside while the latter, the nominee and nephew of Hussain All Khan, the ally and benefactor of the Marathas, was defeated and killed by the Nizam
I.) The author says they (Marathas) stood aside in the battle. See this link [] again saying about non-participation of Marathas. The disagreement was from Shahu as already stated above in point 1-D.
II.) I still included the Marathas in military infobox as some leaders (sardars) supported Alam on his own like Shankarji while some like Khanderao, Santaji and Kanhoji supported Alam for a while before leaving Alam's side. But in name of all those leaders initially or finally no mention of Peshwa so can't include him.
III.) Moreover, even going by footnote (or citation) the author says that chronicle states... (a Persian work) since when are primary sources reliable? It's just a mention of what the chronicle has to say similar to letters, etc. In Gupta Junagadh inscription Skandagupta says that he conquered the earth and became its ruler after defeating Kidarite Hunas so will you consider that correct too; ofc NO since it's a primary source! There are many instances of Persian or Indian contemporary sources contradicting the actual result for eg: Battle of Mandalgarh and Banas where persian sources attribute Malwa victory while Indian ones a Rajput victory so secondary sources were required to display the actual happening. I think you must have got my point by now why a primary persian source is doubtful. The author himself states "The chronicle says.." It's not his view, he just mentioned that primary source in the book without stating its correctness. His assessment just include that the Marathas abstained from involvement, notably omitting any mention of the Peshwa in the lines before "the chronicle says.." part.
Again, No MENTION of Bajirao!
3.)The only one which remains now is a primary source; letter written by Nizam himself about the Battle which is not supported by even one secondary backed sourced in fact secondary sources oppose the claim. Wikipedia requires secondary sources (you know that primary letter can't be trusted without secondary backing)
*Hence I have removed Bajirao I and Malhar Rao Holkar from the battle. Mohammad Umar Ali(talk) 21:14, 11 April 2025 (UTC)

Battle of balapur Bajirao was not present — Preceding unsigned comment added by Koitot (talk • contribs) 11:07, 8 December 2023 (UTC)

Already discussed. Our personal wishes doesn't matter. Facts should be backed by sources. Imperial^[AFCND] 17:38, 19 December 2023 (UTC)

See my above reply! Mohammad Umar Ali (talk) 07:42, 12 April 2025 (UTC)