# Talk:Sack of Delhi (1757)

IP, stop edit warring. Please read the article, particularly the sections following upto the sack of Delhi and the Aftermath section. This is not a battle, this was a sack. Neither militaries (Mughal or Maratha) were involved. However, the Marathas were very much 'involved' in the conflict itself, as mentioned in the sections. PadFoot (talk) 16:21, 3 September 2024 (UTC)

Which part of the article mentions it foot? 2405:201:A404:213B:681E:2FBE:3E3F:7ECF (talk) 16:46, 3 September 2024 (UTC)
please discuss any changes. Edit warring will get you nowhere. SKAG123 (talk) 04:34, 7 September 2024 (UTC)

Are there any sources that state the Maratha Confederacy was directly involved? If anything that Mughals may have had minor Maratha support.  If this is not directly stated it is likely original research SKAG123 (talk) 04:26, 7 September 2024 (UTC)

Yes..read the invasion section/background, the Afghans invaded the Mughal Empire and fought there with the Marathas as they advanced on Delhi, such as Narela. Noorullah (talk) 21:13, 10 September 2024 (UTC)
I changed the Marathas to support in the infobox as that’s what the sources state. I could not find any evidence that the Marathas were subordinate to the Mughals. SKAG123 (talk) 01:33, 14 September 2024 (UTC)
@SKAG123 The Marathas were not "subordinate" to the Mughals, but the Marathas assisted the Mughals at this time because the Mughals were their vassal. (iirc), but yes, the supported by works as well. Noorullah (talk) 02:08, 14 September 2024 (UTC)

The article gives the date of the sacking as 17 January – 22 February 1757 but the Afghan army did not arrive there until 28 January? Cinderella157 (talk) 04:53, 26 March 2025 (UTC)

You're right, the date I cited that incorrectly, fixed.
But one/two things:
The Bengal Subah and The Marathas were both involved:
Citing the Marathas:
"Later in the month after the arrival of the Durrani forces in the capital, Antaji kept on roving in the south, west and north-west of the city and plundered people. On 1 February 1757, Antaji was completely routed and he fled to Mathura." [2] - He was also in the city until he was defeated.
And for the Bengal Subah:
"In the spring of 1757 the Muslim nawab of Bengal had been obliged to send most of his army to defend Delhi against Ahmad Shah." (Lee, pg. 130) Noorullah (talk) 06:02, 26 March 2025 (UTC)
You appear to have misread the edit summary for which Bengal Subah was removed from the infobox. It was not a separate belligerent but a province of the Mughal Empire. Its inclusion is detail which is not what the infobox is for per MOS:INFOBOXPURPOSE. Cinderella157 (talk) 08:34, 26 March 2025 (UTC)
You state that Antaji of the Marathas kept on roving in the south, west and north-west of the city and plundered people yet you would add them as allies. It reads to me that they were unaligned opportunistic predators. I also note that roving is not the same as attacking. The edit that says attacking is not supported by the citation. While the article might mention these activities, it does not strike me as a key fact that the Marathas were a third part to the sacking (at a distance). Cinderella157 (talk) 08:34, 26 March 2025 (UTC)
The Bengal Subah was de-facto independent, see Nawabs of Bengal and here.
The roving part is corrected, but see below.
-
The Marathas have been in a treaty with the Mughals since 1752. See Mehta pg. 223 [3] The Marathas were entrusted with protecting Delhi from the Afghans and Rohillas. Citing from Mehta: "...According to the terms of the treaty, the Marathas were entrusted the task of protecting the emperor and the imperial capital from the internal Afghan and Rohilla rebels, and the external foe, Ahmad Shah Abdali." (mehta page 223)
Them pillaging people just seems like uncanny taking present of a situation on their ally (and whom they're meant to protect).
The treaty is also clearly defined in the article: "The Marathas, who had signed a treaty to protect the Mughals from foreign invasions in 1752," (and also hence why the Marathas were even fighting at Narela. Noorullah (talk) 09:32, 26 March 2025 (UTC)
@Cinderella157 Found another source regarding Antaji: [4]
Seems too much to copy paste so just showing the main bits here: [5]
"Antaji had no help but to fall back on his base in Delhi city. His retreat was severely harassed by the Durranis and Ruhelas from two sides ;" [6]
-
"and constantly fighting rearguard actions with the pursuing Afghans..." [7]
-
"Antaji had been swiftly roving in the south, west and north-west sides of Delhi, "practising raids (qaxxaqi)”" [8]
"At last, on 1st February a crushing blow was delivered on Antaji." [9] Noorullah (talk) 09:38, 26 March 2025 (UTC)
The scope of the article as defined by the title and the lead is the sack of Delhi. The problem is that it appears to try to be more about Ahmad Shah Durrani's fourth invasion and consequently gets confused, particularly when it comes to the infobox. As to Antaji being a key fact (per MOS:INFOBOXPURPOSE) in the sack of Dehli, I'm not seeing it. By the time that the sacking started, he was nobodies friend. Cinderella157 (talk) 11:40, 26 March 2025 (UTC)
“The problem is that it appears to try to be more about Ahmad Shah Durrani's fourth invasion and consequently gets confused,”
I’m sorry but that’s ridiculous. It has two paragraphs dedicated to the beginning of the invasion. You haven’t stated anything about confusion, what is so confusing about the article?
And yet again, the Marathas were intent on protecting the Mughals (as they had a treaty with them) the sources corroborate that and that Antaji was involved at Delhi (until he was subsequently routed). Noorullah (talk) 12:28, 26 March 2025 (UTC)
And yet again, the Marathas were intent on protecting the Mughals ... From 21 January (well before the sacking) until 1 February he was away from the city pillaging refugees. This does not evidence any intent to protect the Mughals (though there may have been the intent earlier as part of the invasion). If anything, in that time, he was acting against the Mughals. The question then, is wheter his presence was a significant fact in the context of the sacking (not the invasion). I don't see it is - ie he should not be in the infobox. He is certainly not acting as an ally to either party at the time of the sacking ie he is a third party. Presenting him as a third party is detail and nuance for which the infobox is unsuited. Per MOS:INFOBOXPURPOSE a simple summary of key facts would omit him from the infobox after considering both points. Cinderella157 (talk) 01:07, 27 March 2025 (UTC)
See [10]
'This Maratha retainer of the wazir, on being summoned to the defence of the capital, had arrived near Shahdara (opposite Delhi) on 30th December 1756 and been employed by the wazir to prevent the flight of the citizens from Delhi. * On 7th January he had been presented to the Emperor with his two sons and some of his captains, and he now crossed over to the Delhi side and encamped on the sandbank below the fort. On 15th January, during the panic raging in the city at the news of the Abdali troops’ arrival near Badli, he had pursued the congenial game of robbing the helpless people running about in confusion."
He was meant to protect Delhi.
Him pillaging people fleeing the city doesn't make him uninvolved with the Mughals. His involvement in this article is relevant because he fought the Durranis at Delhi (and was subsequently defeated). It is also why it states generally toward the invasion that any Maratha opposition ended at this juncture toward the invasion afterward. [11] Noorullah (talk) 03:16, 27 March 2025 (UTC)
I have no doubt of the intent to support the Mughals prior to the sacking per your first para - though the sincerity of the intent might be questioned. Per your source: Thus, at the beginning of February, the Maratha opposition to the invasion ceased even in appearance [emphasis added] - ie loitering around (since before the sacking) is not action to oppose the invasion and pillaging Mughal refugees is certainly not supporting the Mughals. Yes, Him pillaging people fleeing the city doesn't make him uninvolved with the Mughals - but not in the way you would depict him in the infobox. He is, at the time of the sacking, a third party acting independently of the other two. Yes, I already said these things are relevant to the article - but they are not key facts to be summarised in the infobox per MOS:INFOBOXPURPOSE because they are detail which is nuanced and the infobox is unsuitable for detail and nuance. Cinderella157 (talk) 10:30, 27 March 2025 (UTC)
Your argument is sound, the Marathas can be removed. Noorullah (talk) 02:48, 28 March 2025 (UTC)