# Talk:Battle of Assaye

Maratha tactics were hit and run (Ganimi Kava)
The complete and correct words of this term are Ghanimi Qawait, or the forays of light cavalry. These military maneuvers were also termed Kazzaki.
Please see Gwalior princely state:

The Maratha cavaliers would hover around the invaders and cut down stragglers, or make a wide detour to attack their camp and baggage. They were also experts in making quick raids into enemy lands and plundering their villages and towns.

I have rewritten this article completely from scratch. The previous version claimed to be almost entirely sourced from the Encyclopædia Britannica Eleventh Edition but I have now added inline citations from secondary sources throughout the article. Apologies to anyone who has contributed to the page in the past but hopefully this is an improvement. I also moved the battle honour section to a separate article at Assaye (battle honour). BarretBonden (talk) 19:10, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

Reviewed for bias, as requested. Please progress the article towards GAC. AshLin (talk) 12:29, 4 March 2009 (UTC)
Thanks AshLin. The article has already been nominated. BarretBonden (talk) 14:12, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

the 5000-6000 dead or wounded maratha figure is completely unverfied the so called contemporary writers as cited were books of 21st century neither sir wellington nor independent british officers gave such figure , it has borne out from no where , the box format has been disturbed and i cant figure out what has gone wrong plz restore the box format at the top . Shail kalp (talk) 04:59, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

Plz mention the irregular troops and regular army separately as irregular troops are generally not deployed in main battle, the main army of Maratha was no more than 20-25000 and it should be mentioned the irregular 20,000 infantry should be mentioned clearly. sEARCH any source the regular maratha army is not mentioned above 25,000 apart from some "DIE HARD BRITISH HISTORIAN" , otherwise this battle will be called A ROUT and not tough fight similarly maratha lost at maximum 600men and british lost about 400 men the injured and over exaggeration by some historians is silly as "SIR WELLINGTON" own estimate was sent to the parliament and it clearly states 460 men killed and 1200 injured(on maratha side). Similarly the army which was commanded by wellington was about 13000 and have backup from nizam and other allies(which do not took part in active battle) thats why those figures can be neglected . Shail kalp (talk) 05:26, 7 October 2011 (UTC)
Sources describe the Maratha had any army of between 40,000 and 200,000 see 
http://www.historytoday.com/richard-cavendish/battle-assaye but I think we need to rewrite history here.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.173.237.79 (talk) 22:59, 11 February 2018 (UTC) 

The 6,000 dead or wounded figure is given by reputable historians and 3 inline citations were provided. It clearly states this is an estimation but I will reword this sentence to say "some modern historians". The sources you've found on google books to support your changes are of lower quality than the sources already used in this article. What makes the source you added for the claim that 50,000 Maratha troops is a myth used to to "glorify the victory of British" reliable? Is M. S. Naravane a notable historian and is APH Publishing a reputable high-quality publisher? Similarly you've used [1] to alter the Maratha casualty figures. What makes this more reliable than the sources already used? The role of the Maratha cavalry has been explained in the article - although they were not involved in the fighting they were deployed on the battlefield and would've been involved if the opportunity had arisen. However, I will alter the infobox to show the composition of the Maratha army as stated in the main body of the article instead of just simply 50,000. Barret (talk) 09:29, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

dont fool yourself you have "DECREASED THE BRITISH CASUALITIES", WELLINGTON DISPATCH SHOWS 409 BRITISH SOLDIERS KILLED, 1622 WOUNDED AND 26 MISSING, THIS 1152 WOUNDED FIGURE IS FALSE AND FAKE.
The official dispatch is available and their is no need to show british losses from other sources when "WELLINGTON'S OWN DISPATCH IS AVAILABLE"
122.161.245.45 (talk) 01:58, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

I've explained why these figures aren't used in previous edit summaries. Please read the Wikipedia policy WP:PRIMARY which states "articles should be based on reliable, published secondary sources" and that "material based purely on primary sources should be avoided".  Therefore we should use the figures given by historians rather than Wellington's dispatch which is a primary source written immediately after the battle. Barret (talk) 10:48, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

https://books.google.com/books?id=eeJo7mYz61EC&printsec=frontcover&dq=Battle+of+assaye+madras+native&hl=en&sa=X&ei=XSSjVfPhDs-aoQTf37DgDg&ved=0CB0Q6AEwAA#v=onepage&q&f=false
Assaye 1803: Wellington's First and 'Bloodiest' Victory

By Simon Millar  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sangitha rani111 (talk • contribs) 02:42, 13 July 2015 (UTC)