Talk:Kingdom of Mysore

Numbering of maharajas

I recently became aware that Template:Mysore Kings and Rulers Infobox is inconsistent regarding the various Chamaraja Wodeyars: When it links to Chamaraja Wodeyar VII, for example, the target article is about a maharaja who ruled 1732-1734, whereas the template says Chamaraja Wodeyar VII ruled 1772–1776. The reason is that the numbering given in the template differs by one from the numbering of the articles; the article on the Chamaraja Wodeyar who held the throne from 1772-1776 is actually Chamaraja Wodeyar VIII. Another obvious example is Chamaraja Wodeyar IX (X); while the template gives the last Chamaraja's number as IX, it doesn't link to the Chamaraja Wodeyar IX article but, via a redirect, to Chamarajendra Wadiyar X. When I tried to fix that and make the template entries linkt to the rulers they should link to, I was reverted and told that making the template internally consistent was considered "disrupting this FA" because apparently the numbers here agree with those in the template, not with those in the articles themselves. We have three options to resolve this inconsistency:

1. Do nothing and ignore the fact that multiple links point to the wrong targets.
2. Move the various "Chamaraja Wodeyar" articles by one number.
3. Change the links in the template; adapt the numbering in this article.

This is what published sources say:

• The Mysore, Venkatesa Iyemgar, 1932, would require option 3; its numbering differs from the one in the template and in this article.
• Mysore Royal Dasara, Swami Sivapriyananda, Gajendra Singh Auwa, 1995, gives both numbering systems as alternatives (see Template talk:Mysore Kings and Rulers Infobox for the full details on how the first two books name and number the various maharajas).
• A Concise History of Karnataka: From Pre-historic Times to the Present, Sūryanātha Kāmat, 1980, cited in this article for "Chamaraja IX" taking control of government in 1881 and for various earlier Chamaraja Wodeyars, actually says: "When Chamaraja VIII, son of Krishnaraja II, died in 1776, he was followed by Chamaraja IX..." - it would require option 3; its numbering is different from the one used in the template and in this article, in particular different from the numbering it's cited for.

These are the only sources I have easy access to. All agree with option 3, only one treats option 2 as a valid alternative. Note that the numbering in Hyder Ali also disagrees with the one used in this article. Unless others have personally checked the other references and found them to support this article's numbering system, I'd say option 3 is the one we should adopt. Huon (talk) 04:29, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

• • I own the book by Sūryanātha Kāmat. I can take a look at it and see if the template agrees with that book. If the Kamat book matches the original template, then I would think its just a storm in a tea cup. However, if more books use a slightly different numbering for each of the Chamaraja Wodeyars' (IV instead of III, V instead of IV), then we can opt for option 3, switch the links the way you want it, and then adapt the article to match. I am assuming that the only switch that will take place for example is:

Original text:

"The years that followed saw Krishnaraja Wodeyar I tread cautiously on the matter while keeping the Kodagu chiefs and the Marathas at bay. He was followed by Chamaraja Wodeyar VI during whose reign power fell into the hands of prime minister (Dalwai or Dalavoy) Nanjarajiah (or Nanjaraja) and chief minister (Sarvadhikari) Devarajiah (or Devaraja)....

Modified text:

The years that followed saw Krishnaraja Wodeyar I tread cautiously on the matter while keeping the Kodagu chiefs and the Marathas at bay. He was followed by Chamaraja Wodeyar VII during whose reign power fell into the hands of prime minister (Dalwai or Dalavoy) Nanjarajiah (or Nanjaraja) and chief minister (Sarvadhikari) Devarajiah (or Devaraja)....

The historical events and associated dates can't be modified, ofcourse.

No FA is perfect, especially in the "history" category. Either way, it's fine with me.Mayasandra (talk) 16:05, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

• • • I have self reverted after verifying in the book written by Suryanath U. Kamath. Good catch. When I find time tomorrow, I will "up" the number associated with each Chamaraja Wodeyar as and when it appears in the article. If you have time in the meantime, please feel free to browse through and make the same changes.Mayasandra (talk) 23:43, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

Thanks a lot. I went through the article searching for all occurrences of "Chamaraja" and fixed the remaining ones (Chamaraja IV remains unchanged because the difference in numbering arose only with Chamaraja V, whom we didn't consider to be one of the Chamarajas before). Huon (talk) 00:06, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

Haider Ali and Tipu Sultan's

Haider Ali and Tipu Sultan's Mysore is not the same as that of the Wodeyars of Mysore. 468SM (talk) 10:45, 27 December 2014 (UTC)

Of course it is. For most of the time, Haider Ali and Tipu Sultan even maintained puppet Wodeyars to serve as a figurehead rulers. Huon (talk) 16:32, 27 December 2014 (UTC)

Haider and Tipu were never formally crowned. They were de-facto rulers who maintained the Wodeyar rulers as puppets. The term "Sultanate of Mysore" is rarely seen in literature.Mayasandra (talk) 16:57, 27 December 2014 (UTC)

Sultanate of Mysore redirrect

Sultanate of Mysore, a heavily used redirect, redirects to the non-existent section "Sultanate of Mysore" in this article. Can't figure out where if anywhere in the article to anchor for this redirect, so I thought I'd ask whoever's watching article and actually knows about this article. Banak (talk) 01:28, 4 April 2015 (UTC)

There is a good reason why the redirect redirects to the non-existent section "Sultanate of Mysore". Very very few authors refer to the Kingdom as a 'sultanate' and for multiple reasons: 1)Haider Ali and Tipu Sultan ruled only for 39 years out of a total of about 400 years of existence on the kingdom. The Wodeyar (or Wadiyar as the English called them) where a Hindu dynasty that ruled as an independent kingdom from 1565-~1760 and then again under the British Raj from 1800-1947 2)Neither Haider nor Tipu were officially crowned, but rather were de-facto rulers. In fact Haider Ali let the titular Hindu king sit on the throne though he controlled all affairs himself. Which is why that section is now titled "Under Haider and Tipu Sultan" to keep it simple.Holenarasipura (talk) 22:04, 4 April 2015 (UTC)

The "Under Haider and Tipu Sultan" section would indeed be the correct target for the redirect. I have added the anchor accordingly. Huon (talk) 22:43, 4 April 2015 (UTC)

Images

I have reverted Binggo666's changes to the images for two reasons. Firstly, chronologically Hyder Ali should come before his son Tipu Sultan. Secondly, a contemporary engraving is preferable to a reproduction of the flag of dubious authenticity, and the engraving shows a little of Tipu Sultan's military, too, not just the flag. Huon (talk) 21:51, 29 May 2015 (UTC)

File:Mysore Palace Morning.jpg to appear as POTD soon

Hello! This is a note to let the editors of this article know that File:Mysore Palace Morning.jpg will be appearing as picture of the day on January 28, 2017. You can view and edit the POTD blurb at Template:POTD/2017-01-28. If this article needs any attention or maintenance, it would be preferable if that could be done before its appearance on the Main Page so Wikipedia doesn't look bad. :) Thanks! —howcheng {chat} 09:35, 24 January 2017 (UTC)

Picture of the day

Mysore Palace, the official residence and seat of the Wodeyars — the rulers of the Kingdom of Mysore. Located in southern India, the kingdom is traditionally believed to have been founded in 1399 as a vassal state to the Vijayanagara Empire before becoming independent in the 16th century.Photograph: Muhammad Mahdi Karim

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Kingdom of Mysore. 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:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070927182042/http://nal-ir.nal.res.in/2382/01/tr_pd_du_8503_R66305.pdf to http://nal-ir.nal.res.in/2382/01/tr_pd_du_8503_R66305.pdf

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: 18 January 2022).

• 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.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 09:29, 6 May 2017 (UTC)

Foundation of the kingdom

What's with the history of this kingdom? The first sentence of this article is "was a kingdom in southern India, traditionally believed to have been founded in 1399". What does "traditionally believed" mean? One wonders, if there is no historical evidence, how we've come up with such a specific date? The history section talks about myths surrounding this kingdom and goes on to say "Their origins are mired in legend and are still a matter of debate; while some historians posit a northern origin at Dwarka", is this the basis of the traditional beliefs? Seems dubious. Finally, it looks like the first written records date from the 16th century, around the time of the decline of the Vijayanagar empire. Ideally, that's where the kingdom should be declared as "founded" because there is little, if any, evidence that it existed before then. @Fowler&fowler:--regentspark (comment) 17:04, 20 September 2018 (UTC)

@RegentsPark: Please see section "Wodeyars of Mysore" in the FA Political_history_of_Mysore_and_Coorg_(1565–1760)#Wodeyars_of_Mysore,_1610–1760 and also the lead. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 02:47, 22 September 2018 (UTC)

Recent edits

79.75.54.171, Regarding this edit. I didn't find anywhere in the source [1] which explicitly mentions that "Mysore overtook the Bengal Subah". Provide sources supporting your content or remove it - Fylindfotberserk (talk) 16:29, 27 June 2019 (UTC)

Fylindfotberserk, even if the sources do not state so, it is obvious since it became the wealthiest region in the Indian subcontinent while Bengal was looted by the East Indian Company which then created the industrial revolution. Read this, but I am not adding this as a source, i know it is a forum but just provided the link so you can see it. Could you tell me then after the deindustrialization of Bengal, which region the become the most advanced one both economically and militarily? Please do not ignore the last question, provide an answer.--79.75.54.171 (talk) 16:40, 27 June 2019 (UTC)

Your POV wouldn't work here in Wikipedia. You made an originla research which needs to be supported by source or needs to be removed. You are making a comparative study while you can just mention that the Mysore kingdom became dominant economically. Pinging @Fowler&fowler: - Fylindfotberserk (talk) 16:47, 27 June 2019 (UTC)

ok i want Tipu's Tiger.--79.75.54.171 (talk) 16:55, 27 June 2019 (UTC).

What do you mean by that? Provide source(s) or remove the content. - Fylindfotberserk (talk) 17:00, 27 June 2019 (UTC)

Nothing, I saw that yesterday and wanted to do odd things at the museum. Are everything in the article sourced? The statement is indirectly supported by other sources. Yes pinging others, when you alone can't do anything. LOL. I'm taking this as a compliment. Nice to consumer your time.--79.75.54.171 (talk) 17:07, 27 June 2019 (UTC)

Orphaned references in Kingdom of Mysore

I check pages listed in Category:Pages with incorrect ref formatting to try to fix reference errors. One of the things I do is look for content for orphaned references in wikilinked articles. I have found content for some of Kingdom of Mysore's orphans, the problem is that I found more than one version. I can't determine which (if any) is correct for this article, so I am asking for a sentient editor to look it over and copy the correct ref content into this article.

Reference named "Watson":

• From Mahatma Gandhi: Watson, I. Bruce (1977). "Satyagraha: The Gandhian Synthesis". Journal of Indian History. 55 (1/2): 325–35. {{cite journal}}: Invalid |ref=harv (help)
• From Agriculture: Watson, Andrew M. (1974). "The Arab Agricultural Revolution and Its Diffusion, 700–1100". The Journal of Economic History. 34 (1): 8–35. doi:10.1017/s0022050700079602.

I apologize if any of the above are effectively identical; I am just a simple computer program, so I can't determine whether minor differences are significant or not. AnomieBOT⚡ 09:06, 30 June 2019 (UTC)

Changing to EMPIRE or SULTANATE

The article should be changed to Mysore Empire. During the rule of Hyder and Tipu Sultan the territory (as we can see from the map) was much larger than other polities that are considered to be empires. Why is it named kingdom?

While it is true that Mysore territory was quite large, larger than some other empires, it didn't consists of other smaller kingdoms (i.e. semi-independent polities), however I can see some works of Joseph Michaud mentioning Empire of Mysore. More references are necessary.Relaxwikis (talk) 18:36, 22 April 2020 (UTC) Blocked sock of User:Hydrabolessay. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 13:35, 16 May 2020 (UTC)

Majority of the sources call it Mysore Kingdom or Kingdom of Mysore. we have to go with majority sources.Holenarasipura (talk) 23:08, 22 April 2020 (UTC)

Hi everyone should we changed to Sultanate? There are sources which mention it as sultanate, especially when the muslims ruled it.Uncleaviorkhan (talk) 15:16, 2 May 2020 (UTC) Blocked sock of User:Hydrabolessay. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 13:35, 16 May 2020 (UTC)

<No. Hyder and Tipu only ruled for 4 decades or less. The Kingdom existed for centuries.Pied Hornbill (talk) 22:49, 2 May 2020 (UTC)

All my useful edits including edits are being reverted, and some users are telling me to open a discussion. Can you any admin have a look please? Or is it because of i am a new user?Uncleaviorkhan (talk) 14:16, 3 May 2020 (UTC)

@Uncleaviorkhan:There is no necessity in changing the name on the article, as the Sultanate lasted shorter and your recent well sourced citations with the inclusion of the second flag should be enough. Your contributions seems okay. The results look a series of unfortunate issues and a possible WP:BITE, particularly on the other article.--Relaxwikis (talk) 15:21, 3 May 2020 (UTC)

I have made some changes in the lead for these reasons: Calling it a "Sultanate" in the very first line gives the appearance that the Wodeyars were a Muslim family. That is factually untrue. A few writes may have called it a "Mysore Sultanate" but that is UNDUE here because their rule lasted 39 years compared to over 400 hundred years of rule of the Wodeyars, either as vassals of Vijayanagara, as independents or as a princely state under the British. Also a separate paragraph already deals with the contribution of Haider and Tipu in lead, who has history knows, never saw a coronation as Sultans. There is a full section on their rule and achievements in the history section. So I dont see a need to drive home a wrong message. However I have maintained the citations by Uncleaviorkhan and placed it in the correct spot in the lead and maintained the word Sultanate in that part of the lead. Hopethis satisfies all.Holenarasipura (talk) 18:30, 3 May 2020 (UTC)

No in the beginning is perfect.--Uncleaviorkhan (talk) 13:53, 4 May 2020 (UTC)

I don't think so. I don't see a major discussion on the issue.Holenarasipura (talk) 18:01, 4 May 2020 (UTC)

Uncleaviorkhan, to call for a rebranding, which is what you are asking for, you need to demonstrate that it is predominantly called a "sultanate" in the reliable sources, rather than a "kingdom". -- Kautilya3 (talk) 07:00, 6 May 2020 (UTC)

@Uncleaviorkhan:, why have you just moved it? No conclusion was reached here. You will end up having more troubles without any support. @Holenarasipura: the kingdom shifted to a Sultanate style of administration, was it?. The term Sultanate of Mysore looks fine as a second name, and has been utilised by some historians and authors, not sure whether it was during those times. The issue is getting worse here. Hi @Cassiopeia:, I've noticed that you've once moved this article. Any opinion? An urgent admin intervention has become necessary here.--Relaxwikis (talk) 15:42, 6 May 2020 (UTC)

The term "Sultanate of Mysore" is a term created by a few modern historians who may be focusing on that part of the political history of British India in their books. Contemporary literature does not make any such mention as far as I am aware. Their de-facto rule was too short and turbulent for any sustained changes. Development of literature took a huge hit during those 4 decades consequently. Haider is known to have kept religion out of administration and vowed allegiance to the throne occupied by the Maharaja, despite the power he wielded. It was only during Tipu's brief and turbulent rule (de-facto) that some changes in administration came about such as replacing "Gavundas" (officers related to agri) with Asofs, minting coins with Persian characters instead of the native/popular Kannada language and such. This is not to down play his political prominence in South India history in any way.Holenarasipura (talk) 15:56, 6 May 2020 (UTC)

At least it should be mentioned on the top of page. I have provided more sources. Some kingdoms had two names. Or does anyone want to create a separate article named --Uncleaviorkhan (talk) 17:48, 6 May 2020 (UTC)Mysore Sultanate?--Uncleaviorkhan (talk) 17:24, 6 May 2020 (UTC)

I have taken the liberty to research all the sources provided by Uncleaviorkhan (and to ignore his comment on my talk page). This is what I infer: 1)Most web sources the user has provided points to articles about the same book written by William Dalrymple which focuses particularly on the British East India companies military conflict with Tipu Sultan's "Sultanate" among other conflicts the Company had all over India. The discussion revolves around a narrow period of Tipu's rule only. One web source is hanging (Chamundesvari Temple in Mysore - Volume 35 - Page 11).2) The book sources the user has provided (one hanging source: Rulers of the Indian Ocean - Page 269) usually refer to Tipu Sultans "Mysore Sultanate" particularly with regard to his period of control over Mysore (1784-1799). Otherwise the term "Mysore Kingdom" (and even "Wodeyar Kingdom") keeps popping up. One source clarifies, as I mention in an earlier comment, that Haider Ali fully accepted the Wodeyar ruler as his superior and only assumed military control. So we are taking about a very narrow period of Tipu's rule here. This is why I introduced the line the kingdom shifted to a Sultanate style of administration indicating a short lived situation. This is not like the Mogul Empire in northern India which lasted centuries and had an everlasting influence on that region. I urge the new user to refrain from making comparisons between Haider/Tipu and various Hindu kingdoms which is not helpful.Holenarasipura (talk) 22:20, 6 May 2020 (UTC)

Yes, that is clearly the right thing to do. Thanks for the explanation. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 23:22, 6 May 2020 (UTC)

First of all the Mughal Empire conquered all of all of India, not just the norther one. Tipu Sultan did left an everlasting infleunce despite the short rule, and I don't need to even explain about his influence which reached France and England eve during his time. Now i am not asking to merge article, but solely to mention Mysore Sultanate as a second name, and plenty of sources have been indeed provided. Hold a second, so this page was moved many times, previously it was called Sultanate of Mysore.--Uncleaviorkhan (talk) 13:27, 7 May 2020 (UTC)

You have not proved your point Uncleaviorkhan.Holenarasipura (talk) 14:13, 8 May 2020 (UTC)

I did.Uncleaviorkhan (talk) 14:18, 8 May 2020 (UTC)

Interesting discussion. Seems like Uncleaviorkhan has taken the "my way or highway" attitude and achieved consensus entirely on his own with complete disregard to what other users are pointing out, that too in a FA. From my experience, news users who come to wikipedia with jingoism of any sort don't last long. They either get blocked or get ignored and just leave. Only content that gets put in with consensus has a good chance of survival in an article. I think Holenarasipura's analysis of the so called citations is accurate. I hope Uncleaviorkhan stops the edit warring and finds better proof for what his claims, which I doubt. This article has been an FA for about a decade and this argument he is making never surfaced which indicates how far fetched it is.Mayasandra (talk) 15:48, 9 May 2020 (UTC)

I gave enough explanations and have provided enough sources. I have then even mentioned words like briefly to avoid further problems. What else do you want? What is your argument? Why should't it be there despite sources? The only problem i see is that the majority is yours "our way our highway" and not mine, since you are personally motivated with this.--Uncleaviorkhan (talk) 14:30, 11 May 2020 (UTC)

Your sources focus on a narrow period. Please stop brow beating and understand what more experienced members are explaining to you. Its very simple. Wiki works on certain guidelines which includes no POV pushing, no UNDUE credit (compared to a larger scope) and no Edit Warring to get one's point across. If you spend sufficient time on wiki editing articles, you will learn this. This is my best advice to you.Mayasandra (talk) 15:49, 11 May 2020 (UTC)

Rename page to "Mysore State" ≠as it was NOT A kingdom

Rename page to "Mysore State"as it was NOT A kingdom but a princely state under the British empire. 666himself (talk) 06:08, 5 June 2020 (UTC)

The kingdom of Mysore was a Subordinate to Vijayanagara Empire until 1565 Independent from 1565 to 1799 ,Under a subsidiary alliance with the East India Company from 1799 to 1831, Princely state under the British Crown from 1831 to 1947

It was not a princely state for most of it's existence SKAG123 (talk) 04:43, 31 July 2023 (UTC)

Corrections of Edits from June 2020

There has been some contention with regard to the corrections made in the month of June 2020. An attempt is made to clarify outstanding points...

1. "Flag of Sultanate of Mysore" represented in the older version was actually the battle flag of Tipu Sultan. If one studies vexillology and history, they can understand that in the 17th,18th and 19th centuries any kingdom or empire was represented by a number of flags. There was the State flag, War Flag (Battle Flag), Army Standards, Unit flags etc... The Green flag represented in the older version of the Wikipedia Article is actually a battle flag which was flown over forts. A red flag of similar design was the battle standard which was carried by the Mysore army going into battle. The original flag captured after the Battle of Srirangapatna 1799 is still in the museum at wellington barracks, Udagamandalam. The state flag of Mysore Kingdom remained the Red and Brown flag from the reign of Kanthirava Narasaraja wadiyar (1638-1659) till 1950.

2. With regard to the portraits of both Hyder Ali and Tipu Sultan, contemporary representations which are widely circulated is that of a Bald, overweight, clean shaven Sultan, who is depicted that way to please the British masses and show their most formidable foe as belittled and a no-show. The only true work which can be accepted is that of a French Artists who visited the Mysore Durbar and carved the image of the Sultan upon returning back home. Both Tipu and Hyder Ali never permitted European Painters, especially British ones, to make portraits of themselves, in accordance with the tenets of Islam. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 49.206.2.140 (talk) 14:29, 25 June 2020 (UTC)

Economy section

The economy section misinterpret the cited source. Parthasarathi cites Sashi Sivramkrishna's paper [2], which talk about the wages of Mysorean weavers, and not average workers. See also discussion here [3]. Moreover Parthasarathi himself in the book said that "...the dabate on comparative earnings in India and Britain is far from resolved. At the moment, the quantitative data are inconclusive...". DMKR2005 (talk) 01:34, 5 January 2021 (UTC)

By the way, here is what Parthasarathi actually says about Mysore:"Mysore was by no means a particularly prosperous area of the South". Hence I am deleting claims about dominant economic power. DMKR2005 (talk) 17:03, 1 February 2021 (UTC)

The ruler who set up a postal system in the Mysore Kingdom

I want the answer of this question because Google won't tell me the answer 😶 103.171.59.4 (talk) 02:33, 19 September 2022 (UTC)

This is not a place for questions WP:NOT SKAG123 (talk) 04:40, 31 July 2023 (UTC)