Talk:Mughal–Maratha Wars

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search
WikiProject India / History (Rated Start-class, Low-importance)
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject India, which aims to improve Wikipedia's coverage of India-related topics. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page.
Start-Class article Start  This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Low  This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by the Indian history workgroup (marked as Low-importance).
WikiProject Military history (Rated Start-Class)
MILHIST This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.
Start This article has been rated as Start-Class on the quality assessment scale.

Video Games[edit]

The wars that were fought by the "Mughal Empire and it's subjects"; against the "Maratha Confederacy" can be a subject for a very popular series of video games and works of fiction explaining how so many people originate in Pakistan and what steps in history caused them to reach this point in time. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fjgdh5 (talkcontribs) 21:33, 13 April 2019 (UTC)


i'll have to reformat this! dbkasar, please refer to existing articles for styles. Flag of England.svg अमेय आर्यन DaBroodey Flag of India.svg 18:42, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

OK.Dbkasar 09:33, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

WikiProject class rating[edit]

This article was automatically assessed because at least one WikiProject had rated the article as start, and the rating on other projects was brought up to start class. BetacommandBot 20:29, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Copyright problem removed[edit]

Prior content in this article duplicated one or more previously published sources. The material was copied from:,, and Infringing material has been rewritten or removed and must not be restored, unless it is duly released under a compatible license. (For more information, please see "using copyrighted works from others" if you are not the copyright holder of this material, or "donating copyrighted materials" if you are.) For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or published material; such additions will be deleted. Contributors may use copyrighted publications as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences or phrases. Accordingly, the material may be rewritten, but only if it does not infringe on the copyright of the original or plagiarize from that source. Please see our guideline on non-free text for how to properly implement limited quotations of copyrighted text. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously, and persistent violators will be blocked from editing. While we appreciate contributions, we must require all contributors to understand and comply with these policies. Thank you. ascidian | talk-to-me 13:59, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

As I have mentioned on my talk page here, it is incorrect to say that I have copied material from the above sources. Please restore the history section so that edits done can be compared if needed. ..असक्तः सततं कार्य कर्म समाचर | असक्तः हि आचरन् कर्म.. Humour Thisthat2011 21:27, 16 June 2011 (UTC)


This article viewpoint seems heavily biased in favor of the Marathas. (e.g. "treacherously captured" , "rekindled the spirit of valour in the minds of Marathas") (talk) 09:00, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

yea its really bad-- (talk) 22:52, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

It should definitely be marked and re-written by someone knowledgeable so to be objective. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 05:05, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

Got rid of POV in Sambhaji section.1812ahill (talk) 19:25, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

What about the other sections? Almost the entire article is a POV.

Maratha or Marathas[edit]

The article seems to use 'Maratha' and 'Marathas' interchangeably, both being used as a proper noun (singular). This needs to be sorted out. I get the impression that 'Marathas' is not meant as a plural of 'Maratha'. I mention this because I just edited a section of the text by inserting large numbers of missing 'the' words, hopefully in the right context. For instance in English one says 'he went to the Maratha empire' ('the' refers the noun 'empire'), but omits the 'the' when one is refering to a proper noun as in 'he went to Maratha'. However, if Marathas is a plural of Maratha then one would say 'he went to the Marathas', just as one would say 'he went to the Americas'. The 'Mughal' and 'Mughals' case seems clear, with Mughals being a plural of Mughal. Can we have some clarity on this 'Marathas' issue please.1812ahill (talk) 19:22, 8 September 2012 (UTC)


@RegentsPark:, @Plastikspork:, @Dougweller:& @Ugog Nizdast: , Do see the wrong info pushing of @FreeatlastChitchat:. Links, Page No. and books are given.

1)Kennedy Hickman is a Military History Expert. He is also not an Indian.

2)"...May 23, 1706 - War of the Spanish Succession: Grand Alliance forces under Marlborough win the Battle of Ramillies
1707 - War of 27 Years: The Mughals are defeated ending the war
July 8, 1709 - Great Northern War: Swedish forces are crushed at the Battle of Poltava..."[1]

Ghatus (talk) 11:54, 7 April 2015 (UTC)


  1. ^ [1]

Maratha's did not win[edit]

No legitimate source says that the Maratha's won. The wars continued and remained inconclusive according to what I have researched. Xtremedood (talk) 08:29, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

Read above, and when you claim 'legitimate source' you just push your disgraceful POV. Don't dispute lifelong facts for your personal bias. Delibzr (talk) 02:34, 7 May 2015 (UTC)
@Xtremedood: The way to contest sourcing is to place a {{citation needed}} tag on the parts that don't have sources. Cheers, Kautilya3 (talk) 07:06, 7 May 2015 (UTC)

I've reverted Ghatus, who reinstated an article as a source for the Maratha victory claim. I have no opinion on what should be shown as the result but we do not use and, since the outcome does appear to be contested, we really should be seeking high-quality secondary sources rather than tertiaries that do not even state their sources. Preferably, we should use sources that are also less likely to be influenced by the religious and proto-national divides. Western university presses would trump just about anything else. - Sitush (talk) 12:29, 7 May 2015 (UTC)

Truly speaking, it was a stalemate. But, since the Mughal Army was much larger than the Maratha Army, it is considered a Victory for the Marathas. At the same time, after these series of battles(1680-1707), the Mughal power collapsed suddenly and the Maratha power started to grow. Historian Sir. J.N. Sarkar wrote:

"All seemed to have been gained by Aurangzeb now, but in reality all was lost."[1]

The same was echoed by Vincent Smith:

The Deccan proved to be the graveyard not only of Aurangzeb's body but also of his empire.

Well, it was a series of battles but size of army is an irrelevance: you win, lose or draw. That the Mughal empire collapsed might owe as much to the sibling infighting as to any external influences (yes, I know the money was depleted etc). We don't have to show an outcome. Unless a decent source specifically says that this series of battles was a victory for the Marathas, it might be better just to show nothing in the infobox and deal with the subtleties in the body of the article. That's how we treat varna for caste articles, precisely because of the complexities. The two sources you mention, by the way, are both rather outdated. Sarkar in particular has received a lot of criticism in recent years, in part for being very much pro-Hindu, IIRC. - Sitush (talk) 13:03, 7 May 2015 (UTC)
Whether Sarkar was pro-Hindu (the term is wrong. He was accused of "Hindu bias" by the same person who has bias for "Marxism") or Eaton is pro-muslim is not the matter of Wikipedia as far as I have read the rules. Wiki does not publish original research or analyzes anything but it presents the views of different eminent persons.Being a student of History, I know Sarkar is too big a name in Indian History to be criticized here. BTW, sources can not be outdated, interpretations may be new. Regards,Ghatus (talk) 13:27, 7 May 2015 (UTC)
Pro-Hindu or Hindu bias = to-mah-to or to-may-to. As for the rest, it is just wrong. That's why we do not use Raj sources, it is why we severely limit our use of fringe sources and it is why we should not use politically-manipulated NCERT books. In addition, we would not be criticising Sarkar; his peers (would) do that, just as they do for the items I've just mentioned. Now, if you wanted to create an article on, say, the historiography of the Mughal-Maratha wars then you might have a point. Otherwise, as here, we show various opinions with due weight, and the weight given to older sources that have been criticised for a bias that directly impacts on the article subject is substantially less than that which is given to modern sources that thus far have not been criticised thus. James Tod is a massive name in Indian history, especially for Rajasthan, and we virtually never use him because what many Indian people like about him is precisely what makes him unreliable.

Regardless, the quote you give does not say it was a Maratha victory and that is the issue we're trying to resolve. - Sitush (talk) 13:47, 7 May 2015 (UTC)

I just said - "Truly speaking, it was a stalemate. But, since the Mughal Army was much larger than the Maratha Army, it is considered a Victory for the Marathas. At the same time, after these series of battles(1680-1707), the Mughal power collapsed suddenly and the Maratha power started to grow." and nothing more than that.

BTW, Tod was never a Historian and his writings were not taken seriously by major historians. Tod was a great source for romantic novelists/dramatists/ Poets( like M.M.Dutta). Ghatus (talk) 13:56, 7 May 2015 (UTC)

Yesterday I spent quite an effort to remove some of the biased statements on this article, however, user:Delibzr reverted my effort without providing adequate reasoning. I believe much of the article, still is not written in an academic tone and lacks proper referencing. First of all, this war was largely a Guerilla war between the Maratha forces and the Mughal Empire. Aurangzeb did defeat the Marathas on numerous occasions (I have added that to the list of battles fought by the Maratha empire page), however, it was the tactic of Shivaji and his successors to try and utilize hit-and-run tactics as well as other Guerilla-warfare strategies.
The claim that the Marathas got dominion over the Deccan is false. Look at this map of the Mughal Empire, it reached it's peak under Aurangzeb [2].
According to the statement by Stanley Wolpert on the article, Aurangzeb did indeed subdue the Deccan in a Pyrrhic victory. He supposedly states on the article:
"the conquest of the Deccan, to which, Aurangzeb devoted the last 26 years of his life, was in many ways a Pyrrhic victory, costing an estimated hundred thousand lives a year during its last decade of futile chess game warfare. The expense in gold and rupees can hardly be accurately estimated. Aurangzeb's encampment was like a moving capital – a city of tents 30 miles in circumference, with some 250 bazaars, with a 1⁄2 million camp followers, 50,000 camels and 30,000 elephants, all of whom had to be fed, stripped the Deccan of any and all of its surplus grain and wealth ... Not only famine but bubonic plague arose ... Even Aurangzeb, had ceased to understand the purpose of it all by the time he was nearing 90 ... "I came alone and I go as a stranger. I do not know who I am, nor what I have been doing," the dying old man confessed to his son, Azam, in February 1707.[9]" is not a reliable resource. Like many Guerilla campaigns around this time (a comparable one was against Napoleon by the Spanish), hit-and-run, looting, and other guerilla tactics should not be referred to as a defeat of the Mughals, rather it was a "Sustained and Effective Guerilla Campaign." The Marathas would not reach their peak until sometime before the 3rd Battle of Panipat (according to what I have researched). So that means that almost 40-50 years after this conflict, the Marathas reached their peak. I would like a better reference than for a supposed victory. Also, the more academic sources treat this as a sustained Guerilla or Guerilla-like campaign that was effective in nature. As I have stated, however, the Mughals did reach their peak under Aurangzeb and they controlled almost all of the South-Asian subcontinent during this time. See this video: [3]. Xtremedood (talk) 14:16, 7 May 2015 (UTC)
Keep your videos and wiki quotes to yourself. Had Mughals won against the Marathas, there won't have been Maratha domination from early 18th century. By 1690, the whole of sub continent was burning in the fire of revolts. In the south were Marathas, in the north were Sikhs, in the west were Rajputs, in the gangetic plain were Jats, in central India were Bundelas and in the north-west frontier were Pathans. Mughals defeated none of them. Keep your rubbish to yourself and read some history books.Ghatus (talk) 14:32, 7 May 2015 (UTC)
You do not seem to want to listen, however I will say that that this is an incorrect and extremely simplistic way of looking at it. The Mughals not only fought the Marathas but fought various enemies including Afghans, Nadir Shah of Persia [4], Various Europeans, etc. Also after Aurangzeb there were issues pertaining to succession, which played a major role in the downfall. The Mughals even fought amongst themselves. Sibling rivalry and succession were major destabilizing forces. Xtremedood (talk) 04:46, 9 May 2015 (UTC)
@Ghatus: Xtremedood is making the point that Aurangzeb wasn't defeated, he was merely exhausted. It is not clear to me whether you are agreeing or disagreeing. And, assume good faith please. - Kautilya3 (talk) 11:00, 9 May 2015 (UTC)


  1. ^ A History of Aurangzib (in 5 volumes) - J.N. Sarkar

The 27 war was a series of battles. We can count the number of battles won by the Mughals and the Marathas and compare them to decide who won. But who are we to decide that? So the point is, it doesn't actually matter. No legitimate source states that the Marathas won. Taken! But the source does state that the Marathas had a streak of successes towards the end of the war. Alright, but it does it imply that they won? No, and who are we to draw such an implication? Does the source explicitly state that? No! So therefore, it requires a citation. Chippy pest (talk) 08:48, 10 April 2019 (UTC)

Vishwas Patil[edit]

I am assuming that the work that we cite as Patil, Vishwas. Chhatrapati Sambhaji Maharaj is in fact Sambhaji by Vishwas Patil. If I am correct then it should be removed from the article. We do not use novels as sources for history, regardless of whether they are based on fact or not. - Sitush (talk) 07:58, 7 May 2015 (UTC)

Single source[edit]

Almost the entire of this article relies on Robinson, Howard; James Thomson Shotwell (1922). "Mogul Empire and the Marathas". I suspect a lot has just been copy/paste from it, which is even worse despite it not being a copyright violation. Anything from the Raj era is suspect. Surely there are plenty of more recent studies of the subject? John F. Richards' The Mughal Empire, is one but that is mostly an overview and there will be likely be better alternatives. - Sitush (talk) 09:29, 7 May 2015 (UTC)

Also: Gordon, Stewart N. (1993). The Marathas 1600–1818. The New Cambridge History of India. Cambridge University Press. ISBN 978-0-52126-883-7.
In the introductory chapter on historiography he points out how scholarship on Marathas has changed dramatically since the 1950s with the publication of primary historical documents from the era. Using sources from 1920s (and earlier) in this and other related articles in really not justifiable. Abecedare (talk) 13:57, 7 May 2015 (UTC)

Two different Wars[edit]

There should be two different wars, the way I see it

The Mughal–Maratha War of 1664 to 1704/1707 and the Later Mughal-Maratha War which was more sporadic, battles in the 1720s, 1730s, 1740s and all the way to the 1780s. Alexis Ivanov (talk) 02:08, 29 October 2015 (UTC)

Right. It was actually a series of battles. Chippy pest (talk) 09:16, 10 April 2019 (UTC)

Death of Sambhaji[edit]

Both the Mughals and Marathas have a different account of his death, and we cannot decide which of the account is correct, it is better to tell about both of them rather than telling only about the account of marathas, which says that he refused to convert to Islam.Haider67 (talk) 04:32, 31 January 2016 (UTC)

Aftermath and casualties[edit]

There have been editors who have taken out references to White's losses section, but insist on maintaining unsourced numbers that just don't match with each other. Either we agree that White is reliable (no, the article does not NYT article does not trash White), or we put vague losses numbers. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:85:C102:EEB3:1DEA:3ABA:619C:9D66 (talk) 23:21, 28 December 2018 (UTC)

FYI, White is not a reliable source. White has no academic specialization or qualification in this field. As such, for Wikipedia, White is an unreliable source.
  • "..but insist on maintaining unsourced numbers that just don't match with each other."
There are currently no figures in the infobox. --Kansas Bear (talk) 20:08, 12 January 2019 (UTC)
Kansas Bear, I understand your critique (though I still believe White's numbers are plausible). However someone has edited the infobox again to include White, making the numbers mismatched again. Can you fix it? — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 03:59, 6 February 2019 (UTC)


This page is being constantly vandalised. Can it be secured? Chippy pest (talk) 09:58, 10 April 2019 (UTC)

Mughals victories[edit]

In the template, why don't we also mention that Mughals won many battles against the Marathas. This article is heavily biased in favour of the Marathas. Chippy pest (talk) 12:38, 10 April 2019 (UTC)

Result in infobox?[edit]

Recently there has been edit-warring over how the result of the wars should be presented in the infobox. The current version says:

Maratha victory.[citation needed] Marathas have a stream of successes by the end of the war. Aurangzeb retreats.[1][2]

citing two books dating back to 1882 and 1876 respectively (the 2010 year is simply that for a digital reprint). Such references are clearly inadequate (see WP:HISTRS). So for now I am removing the result field altogether, and inviting editors to propose appropriate wording along with modern academic sources that support the proposal. Having not looked at appropriate sources myself, I don't have a personal take on what the infobox should say; it is quite possible that the issue is not amenable to an infobox summary.

Pinging @Chippy pest and KamalVishwas: please discuss the issue here till consensus is reached; use dispute resolution procedures if needed. Continued edit-warring is likely to lead to blocks. Abecedare (talk) 19:43, 10 April 2019 (UTC)


I don't understand why you have to remove the current 2 references by authentic historians. Anyway, my opinion is as follows. Mughals sure were successful at first but by the end war (1702-1705) marathas were more successful. And we know aurangzeb retreats in 1706 and dies in 1707 and with that ends the 27 year war with none of his successors trying to continue the war, thus bringing an end to their goal of annexing maratha state. Afterwards, marathas start expanding into north with satara as their new capital old one being raigad.
I would suggest to keep old result section with aurangzeb's retreat being mentioned along. If people still have problems with that, i would suggest removing the mention of either empire as the ultimate winner (until citations are found mentioning either one as winner backed up by concrete evidence).
I would suggest not removing the old references as they are by authentic historians.
My choice of wording for result section:

Maratha victory(can be removed). Mughals failed to annex Maratha empire. All territories lost by Marathas were regained by them by the end of the war except for Jinji which was permanently lost to Mughals


Maratha victory (can be removed). Success of Mughals in the beginning of the war. Stream of successes for Marathas by the end of the war. Aurangzeb retreats to Ahmednagar.

KamalVishwas (talk) 23:04, 10 April 2019 (UTC)

Disagree. The question is not what happened before or after the war, but during the war. Anyway, I am glad you've finally agreed that Satara was conquered only later by the Marathas. We ought to comply with the standard of evidence prescribed by Wikipedia. And we now know that we can't decide the ultimate winner, because as it so happened Aurangzeb did retain many of his territories. Not all of them were regained by the Marathas. I'd suggest let's find a new citation that corroborates the claim. But in any case, since we know the facts I'd go with the second option:

Mughal conquests met with stiff Maratha resistance leading to the eventual retreat of the Mughals.

Or simply,

Mughal conquests. Maratha retaliation. Aurangzeb retreats.


Mughal victories followed by Maratha conquests and the subsequent withdrawal of the Mughals. Chippy pest (talk) 05:00, 11 April 2019 (UTC)

One can't just claim that the Marathas were "more successful." I mean, the fact that Aurangzeb executed Sambhaji weighs heavily against the Marathas. So both forces were equally successful and unsuccessful, I'd reckon. Chippy pest (talk) 05:11, 11 April 2019 (UTC)

I have yet to see any modern academic sources brought to this discussion. Until we have modern academic sources to work with, I suggest we refrain from making any decisions regarding the wording of the result section of these "wars". --Kansas Bear (talk) 06:25, 11 April 2019 (UTC)

Fair enough. Chippy pest (talk) 06:30, 11 April 2019 (UTC)

I found some of the sources discussing the 27 year war. All of them more or less state the same facts that is, the successful campaigns of aurangzeb during the initial years of the war followed by the rise of marathas during the ending years of the war leading to the eventual retreat of mughals.
History of Modern India, 1707 A. D. to 2000 A. D By Radhey Shyam Chaurasia [5]
Aurangzib And The Decay Of The Mughal Empire By Professor Stanley Lane-Poole [6]
History of Civilizations of Central Asia: Development in contrast : from the sixteenth to the mid-nineteenth century By Ahmad Hasan Dani, Vadim Mikhaĭlovich Masson, Unesco [7]
KamalVishwas (talk) 22:10, 11 April 2019 (UTC)
As Kansas Bear re-iterated, the discussion should be based on what reliable sources say, not what wikipedia editors think. So thanks KamalVishwas for following-up with some actual sources. A few notes on their quality/relevance though:
  1. History of Modern India, 1707 A. D. to 2000 by Radhey Shyam Chaurasia: this is just another bird's-eye-view history by (as far as I can tell) an author with no established academic credentials, which popular publishers churn out for the mass-market. As such, it is not very useful for writing an encyclopedic article.
  2. Aurangzib And The Decay Of The Mughal Empire (full text) by Stanley Lane-Poole dates back to 1896 and has the same problems as the sources I mentioned in my original note.
  3. History of Civilizations of Central Asia: Development in contrast : from the sixteenth to the mid-nineteenth century (editors de:Chahryar Adle and Irfan Habib) is a solid academic reference, but its focus is Central Asia and therefore it barely devotes 1-2 sentences to the Mughal-Martha campaigns. Aside: some other writing of M. Athar Ali, who wrote the cited article in this edited volume, may be more relevant for our purpose.
So I would again recommend trying to find better academic sources that focus on on Mughal and/or Maratha kingdoms during this period. You can for example, search for history-texts that have been reviewed in JSTOR indexed journals or find university-level courses on the topic-area and see what textbooks they use. Abecedare (talk) 02:35, 12 April 2019 (UTC)
I checked the website JSTOR, most of the books that are accessible to public did not contain any details of the 27 year war, few that did only had few lines discussing about it. I checked some of the books of M. Athar Ali but most of them are just previews and did not have any information relating to the war either. JSTOR was not very helpful in this regard. I found some books of M. Athar Ali on google books but again only portions of the books are searchable as previews and they are not freely accessible. I suggest we just restore the old references as they seem to be discussing all the aspects of this war in good detail and even support the wording of result section suggested above.
Here are some other books i found. They don't discuss the war in as much detail as the old references of William Wilson Hunter and John Clark Marshman did but still support what i wrote in my first post.
Indian Cultural Heritage Perspective For Tourism By L. K. Singh[8]
Mughal Warfare: Indian Frontiers and Highroads to Empire, 1500-1700 By Jos J. L. Gommans[9]
KamalVishwas (talk) 12:31, 12 April 2019 (UTC)

Seems legit. Chippy pest (talk) 13:44, 12 April 2019 (UTC)

Quick follow up comment on the latest sources:
  • Gyan/Isha publications are notoriously unreliable, with content aggregated from wikipedia articles and possibly "fictitious" authors.
  • Mughal Warfare by Jos Gommans, on the other hand, is a good find that can be used to expand the content of the article even beyond the narrow infobox issue being discussed here.
To make sure that we are all on the same page, can someone specify what is the current proposed text for the infobox and what part of the Gommans' book (or other HISTRS-compliant text), it summarizes? Abecedare (talk) 15:20, 15 April 2019 (UTC)

Here are the list of suggestions for result section recommended by me and user chippy pest,
> Mughals failed to annex Maratha empire. All territories lost by Marathas were regained by them by the end of the war except for Jinji which was permanently lost to Mughals.
> Success of Mughals in the beginning of the war. Stream of successes for Marathas by the end of the war. Aurangzeb retreats to Ahmednagar.
by chippy pest:
> Mughal conquests met with stiff Maratha resistance leading to the eventual retreat of the Mughals.
> Mughal conquests. Maratha retaliation. Aurangzeb retreats.
> Mughal victories followed by Maratha conquests and the subsequent withdrawal of the Mughals.
Jos J. L. Gommans's book establishes the following points,
>execution of sambhaji by mughals
>exceptional strength of mughal army
>eventual strengthening of maratha army to mughal standards by the end of the war
>permanent capture of jinji in south by mughals
>capture of various forts of marathas in north by mughals (mainly through negotiations and according to some other sources by bribing maratha commanders)
>recapture of maratha forts by marthas from mughals by the end of the war
>loss of mughal rule in central deccan soon after the war
it also misses some other points like,
>successful campaigns and raids of marathas during the war in various areas of malwa after they crossed narmada river and other areas such as six subhas of deccan as discussed in Malwa in Transition Or a Century of Anarchy: The First Phase, 1698-1765 By Raghubir Sinh
>offering of aurangzeb the chauth to marathas as truce to stop rebellions as discussed in History of India from the Earliest Period to the Close of the East India By John Clark Marshman
>fail of negotiations when marathas rose in demands and his retreat to ahmednagar after failing to cope up with maratha army in 1706 as discussed in History of India from the Earliest Period to the Close of the East India By John Clark Marshman
I'm sure i have miss a lot of other points but these are the ones that quickly come to my mind.
Overall i would suggest keeping the references of William Wilson Hunter and John Clark Marshman along with Jos J. L. Gommans's (if you prefer to add his book) because the latter is missing lot of events in war mentioned in other two references that are required establish the suggested wordings for result section.
The wording of result section i would go with,
> Mughal conquests met with stiff Maratha resistance leading to the eventual retreat of the Mughals.
> Mughals failed to annex Maratha empire. All territories lost by Marathas were regained by them by the end of the war except for Jinji which was permanently lost to Mughals.

Pinging @Abecedare:, KamalVishwas (talk) 18:37, 15 April 2019 (UTC)

@KamalVishwas: So far I have only been looking at the issue of source quality, and not the content debate itself. But I have now requested a copy of Gommans' book. I will be able to take a look at it and brush through Richards' and Gordon's volumes on Mughal and Maratha history (resp.) by this weekend and get back to you with a more informed reply. Abecedare (talk) 22:31, 15 April 2019 (UTC)

Exaggerated casualties of Mughals[edit]

The strength of Mughals is shown as 500,000. Then how come 3 millions Mughals died?? And how with just in a bunch of battles Marathas killed 3 million people?? Ryan Okhla (talk) 15:11, 20 August 2019 (UTC)

If you check the references for number of troops, you can see modern historian Sinisa Malesevic mention that his numbers are estimations whereas number of casualties on mughal side was given by Niccolao Manucci who has first hand knowledge on 27 year war and he also worked in mughal court.Rogx.RoYY (talk) 00:34, 23 August 2019 (UTC)