Talk:Ahom kingdom

message: ===Battle of Saraighat===
User Lachitbarphukan wrote, "If the Ahom have not ruled Lower Assam then how come the battle of Saraighat occured in Guwahati in which the Ahoms defeated the great Mughals under the leadership of Lachit Borphukan."
I have been visiting Wikipedia on and off almost from the year it was founded. I found it pretty useful. 
However, I would like to know exactly how many women that Ahom gave away at the end of the battle of Saraighat to great Mughal along with Lachit Barphukan's niece. 
I would also like to understand being victorious (as per user Lachitbarphukan) what prompt Ahom to give away that many women to great Mughal.
Pranjitb (talk) 19:58, 20 August 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: The event which Pranjitb mentioned regarding giving away Lachit Barphukan's neice to Mughal happened long before the Battle of Saraighat. It happened during Mirjumla invasion of Assam. According to Treaty between Ahom king Jaydhwaj Singha and Mughal general Mirjumla, in 9 January 1663, one Ahom princess was sent to the Imperial Harem. Her name was Ramani Gabharu. She was the daughter of Swargadeo Jaydhwaj Singha and she was also the neice of Ahom general Lachit Borphukan. She later married Mughal prince Azam,  the son of Mughal Emperor Aurangazeb. But in 1667,  during the reign of Ahom king Chakradwaj Singha, the Ahom army under the leadership of Lachit Borphukan captured Guwahati from Mughals. Its a perfect example how Ahoms bounce back in action. The famous Battle of Saraighat occured during the reign of Swargadeo Udayaditya Singha, in 1671, under the leadership of Lachit Borphukan, in which the Ahoms decisively beat the Mughal army under Ram Singh I of Amber, and protected Assam including undivided Kamrup district from Mughal domination. 
So a kind request to Pranjitb, Little knowledge is very dangerous. Its good that the user has atleast some knowledge of history, but sadly it is half knowledge. One should not be emotional when writing something on historical events, because such emotion is no good if it is not supported by Historical records. I request the user to kindly read the chapters of History Completely. I hope the user have seen the difference of years between 1663, giving away Ahom princess to Mughal Prince Azam and 1671, in which the famous Battle of Saraighat occured. I hope the information which i have provided will open the User's mind to those chapters of history which the User Choose to Skip.Lachitbarphukan (talk) 18:47, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

text: User Pranjitb, why dont you ask your source which have given you this information.Lachitbarphukan (talk) 18:53, 5 September 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: Ahom and Mughal Battled to occupy Kamrup

message: User Lachitbarphukan wrote, "If the Ahom have not ruled Lower Assam then how come the battle of Saraighat occured in Guwahati in which the Ahoms defeated the great Mughals under the leadership of Lachit Borphukan."
I have been visiting Wikipedia on and off almost from the year it was founded. I found it pretty useful. 
However, I would like to know exactly how many women that Ahom gave away at the end of the battle of Saraighat to great Mughal along with Lachit Barphukan's niece. 
I would also like to understand being victorious (as per user Lachitbarphukan) what prompt Ahom to give away that many women to great Mughal.
Pranjitb (talk) 19:58, 20 August 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: The event which Pranjitb mentioned regarding giving away Lachit Barphukan's neice to Mughal happened long before the Battle of Saraighat. It happened during Mirjumla invasion of Assam. According to Treaty between Ahom king Jaydhwaj Singha and Mughal general Mirjumla, in 9 January 1663, one Ahom princess was sent to the Imperial Harem. Her name was Ramani Gabharu. She was the daughter of Swargadeo Jaydhwaj Singha and she was also the neice of Ahom general Lachit Borphukan. She later married Mughal prince Azam,  the son of Mughal Emperor Aurangazeb. But in 1667,  during the reign of Ahom king Chakradwaj Singha, the Ahom army under the leadership of Lachit Borphukan captured Guwahati from Mughals. Its a perfect example how Ahoms bounce back in action. The famous Battle of Saraighat occured during the reign of Swargadeo Udayaditya Singha, in 1671, under the leadership of Lachit Borphukan, in which the Ahoms decisively beat the Mughal army under Ram Singh I of Amber, and protected Assam including undivided Kamrup district from Mughal domination. 
So a kind request to Pranjitb, Little knowledge is very dangerous. Its good that the user has atleast some knowledge of history, but sadly it is half knowledge. One should not be emotional when writing something on historical events, because such emotion is no good if it is not supported by Historical records. I request the user to kindly read the chapters of History Completely. I hope the user have seen the difference of years between 1663, giving away Ahom princess to Mughal Prince Azam and 1671, in which the famous Battle of Saraighat occured. I hope the information which i have provided will open the User's mind to those chapters of history which the User Choose to Skip.Lachitbarphukan (talk) 18:47, 23 August 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: Battle of Saraighat

message: According to Treaty between Ahom king Jaydhwaj Singha and Mughal general Mirjumla, in 9 January 1663, one Ahom princess was sent to the Imperial Harem. Her name was Ramani Gabharu.
According to another source, "A contingent of women slaves accompanied the princess to Delhi."
So user Lachitbarphukan in total how many women were given to Mughal to avoid Mughal's Ahom occupation?
Pranjitb (talk) 19:07, 4 September 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: User Pranjitb, why dont you ask your source which have given you this information.Lachitbarphukan (talk) 18:53, 5 September 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: ''Mirjumla's Ahom occupation -treaty included women''

message: Again, I would like to understand as well - since Kamrupi people views Lower Assam a derogatory term why Ahom people do not use Kamarupa or Kamrup instead of Lower Assam.
Pranjitb (talk) 19:58, 20 August 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Please do not use Wikipedia as a forum (see WP:FORUM).  Also, whatever the origin of the term, it was the British who popularized the term.  And it is universally used today in newspapers and even academic articles ().  The British used "lower" and "upper" in many places, not just in Assam---for example "Upper Burma" and "Lower Burma".  The "Upper" and "Lower" terms refer to the reaches of the Brahmaputra river.  Chaipau (talk) 18:38, 21 August 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: Why Ahom do not use ''Kamarupa'' or ''Kamrup'' instead of ''Lower Assam''?

message: The British used "lower" and "upper" in many places, not just in Assam---for example "Upper Burma" and "Lower Burma".  The "Upper" and "Lower" terms refer to the reaches of the Brahmaputra river.  Chaipau (talk) 18:38, 21 August 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: British Supremacy to Ahom Supremacy over Kamrup

message: But truth is truth and all the historical documents support the statement that the undivided Kamrup district was under Ahom rule till 1826 CE.Lachitbarphukan (talk) 12:01, 5 August 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Lets throw some light on some historical events which prompted the Ahom kings to expand their kingdom towards Kamrupa. In 1613 CE, Parikshit Narayan, the ruler of Koch Hajo, was defeated by the Mughals. He was taken prisoner and was  escorted to Delhi where he had an audience with Mughal Emperor Jahangir. On acknowledging Mughal Supremacy and on the agreement of annual tribute of four lakhs rupees, the Emperor returned his kingdom. While on his way back, Parikshit Narayan fell ill and died. On his death, the Mughals annexed his kingdom and set up Hajo as their head-quarters in Assam.  Bijit Narayan, the young son of Parikshit Narayan was set up as a tributary king of a small state, named after him, called Bijni. On the defeat of Parikshit Narayan, his two brothers Balinarayan and Gaj Narayan, fled to the Ahom Kingdom and sought refuge from Ahom King Swargadeo Pratap Singha. Swargadeo Pratap Singha had married the daughter of Parikshit Narayan, Mangaldohi, and later set up the Mangaldoi town on her respect. Owing to this matrimonial alliance, Swargadeo Pratap Singha granted refuge to these Koch princes. Meanwhile, the Mughal Governor demanded their extradition, which Swargadeo Pratap Singha refused. This and other causes of offence led the Mughal Governor to decide on the invasion of the Ahom Kingdom, leading to Ahom-Mughal conflict. The invading Mughal forces were defeated and driven back to their own territory. After this victory, in 1615 CE Swargadeo Pratap Singha installed Balinarayan as the tributary ruler of  Darrang and renamed him as Dharmanarayan, while his brother Gaj Narayan was set up as a tributary ruler in Beltola. In 1640 CE, a treaty was signed between the Ahoms and Mughals, under which the Barnadi river, on the North bank of Brahmaputra, and Asura Ali, on the south bank of Brahmaputra were fixed as the boundary between Ahom kingdom and Mughal Empire. Kamrup came under Mughal dominion. In 1658 CE, the war of succession occured between the sons of Mughal Emperor Shah Jahan, due to which Mughal authority in Kamrup became weak. Taking opportunity, the Ahom king Jaydwaj Singha drove the Mughals out of Kamrup and occupied the territory till Sankosh river, the present day boundary between Assam and West Bengal. For three years, the Ahoms occupied these territories. In 1662 CE, Mughal Emperor, Aurangazeb sent Nawab Mirjumla to recover Kamrup from Ahoms. Mirjumla defeated the Ahoms but owing to difficulties that arose due to rainy season of Assam, he signed a treaty with Ahom king Jaydhwaj Singha in January 1663 CE, according to which the daughter of Jaydhwaj Singha was given in marriage to Mughal prince Azam, son of Aurangazeb and Kamrup again comes under Mughal rule. During the reign of next Ahom king Chakradwaj Singha, the Ahoms under Lachit Borphukan freed Kamrup and Guwahati from Mughal rule, in 1667 CE. The Mughal Emperor sent Ram Singh I of Amber to recover Kamrup,  but he was defeated in the Battle of Saraighat by Ahoms led by Lachit Borphukan. In 1679 CE, Laluk Sola Borphukan betrayed Ahom king Sudaipha, and surrendered Kamrup and Guwahati to Mughals. Later in 1682 CE, during the reign of Swargadeo Gadadhar Singha, the Ahoms defeated the Mughals in the battle of Itakhuli and freed Kamrup from Mughal rule. The Manas river became the western boundary of Ahom kingdom and it remained till the termination of Ahom rule in Assam. 
Therefore after the final victory of Ahoms over Mughal in 1682 CE, the undivided Kamrup district remained a part of Ahom kingdom till the termination of Ahom rule in 1826 CE. I hope the above answer satisfy the question aksed by User Kurmaa. If the user need any more information or got any doubts he can check some books on Assam History, authored by E.A. Gaits, Surya Kumar Bhuyan, Hiteswar Barbaruah, Padmanath Gohain Barua. Also there are many books written by many notable writers. All documents can authenticate the above information.Lachitbarphukan (talk) 20:15, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

text: The answer should be 1617 CE, when the Ahoms captured Guwahati from Mughals for first time, during the reign of Swargadeo Pratap Singha. It marked the beginning of Ahom rule in Kamrup and the Ahom kings considered Kamrup as a part of their kingdom. The official post of Borphukan, the Ahom viceroy of Kamrup and the region west of Koliabar was also created during that time. From 1617 CE to 1682 CE, both Ahoms and Mughals were involved in bitter conflicts for the occupation of Kamrup, with sometime the results favours Mughals and sometimes it goes in favour of Ahoms, but ultimately the Ahoms emerged victorious in 1682 CE, and Kamrup remains as a permanent part of Ahom kingdom till 1826 CE.Lachitbarphukan (talk) 01:10, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

text: I have already shared much facts and knowledge on Assam history regarding this topic. I request the user " Kurmaa" to do some self study on Assam History. My purpose was to prove the historical truth that the Ahoms had ruled the undivided Kamrup, which i have proved with all those facts which i have showed. I request user "Kurmaa" to admit this historical truth.Lachitbarphukan (talk) 14:15, 1 September 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  From what year till 1826 CE Ahom occupied greater Kamarupa / Kamrup? 

message: Please confirm whether the answer is 1682 CE. -Kurmaa (talk) 12:29, 24 August 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: The answer should be 1617 CE, when the Ahoms captured Guwahati from Mughals for first time, during the reign of Swargadeo Pratap Singha. It marked the beginning of Ahom rule in Kamrup and the Ahom kings considered Kamrup as a part of their kingdom. The official post of Borphukan, the Ahom viceroy of Kamrup and the region west of Koliabar was also created during that time. From 1617 CE to 1682 CE, both Ahoms and Mughals were involved in bitter conflicts for the occupation of Kamrup, with sometime the results favours Mughals and sometimes it goes in favour of Ahoms, but ultimately the Ahoms emerged victorious in 1682 CE, and Kamrup remains as a permanent part of Ahom kingdom till 1826 CE.Lachitbarphukan (talk) 01:10, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

text: I have already shared much facts and knowledge on Assam history regarding this topic. I request the user " Kurmaa" to do some self study on Assam History. My purpose was to prove the historical truth that the Ahoms had ruled the undivided Kamrup, which i have proved with all those facts which i have showed. I request user "Kurmaa" to admit this historical truth.Lachitbarphukan (talk) 14:15, 1 September 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: Is the answer 1682 CE?

message: User Lachitbarphukan wrote, From 1617 CE to 1682 CE, both Ahoms and Mughals were involved in bitter conflicts for the occupation of Kamrup, with sometime the results favours Mughals and sometimes it goes in favour of Ahoms, but ultimately the Ahoms emerged victorious in 1682 CE ....
*Since Ahom and Mughal battled until 1682 CE to occupy Kamrup, what motivated user Lachitbarphukan to claim that Ahom have been occupying Kamrup from 1617 CE?
Kurmaa (talk) 18:18, 27 August 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: I have already shared much facts and knowledge on Assam history regarding this topic. I request the user " Kurmaa" to do some self study on Assam History. My purpose was to prove the historical truth that the Ahoms had ruled the undivided Kamrup, which i have proved with all those facts which i have showed. I request user "Kurmaa" to admit this historical truth.Lachitbarphukan (talk) 14:15, 1 September 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: Why answer 1617 CE as Ahom and Mughal battled until 1682 CE to occupy Kamrup

message: So according to user Lachitbarphukan, Ahom built temples in Kamrup.
Basistha Temple, Navagraha temple, Dirgheshwari temple, Umananda Temple, Rudreswar Temple, Sukreswar Temple, Ugro Tara Temple, Ashwaklanta and many others. 
Can you complete the list with names for "many others" as well?
There are temples in Hajo and Nalbari district which are constructed by Ahom Kings. 
'Here too can you complete the list of temples with names as well?
Pranjitb (talk) 06:47, 28 August 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: I request user "Pranjitb" to find those names himself if it is so much concern for him. He can visit the following link to find the names of the temples.
http://nalbari.nic.in/religion.htm
Hajo
Hope the user Pranjitb will be satisfied with the list. If not, he can try some other links himself.
The names of the temples which i have already shown are standing monuments which proved the historical facts that the Ahom Swargadeos have ruled the undivided Kamrup and the undivided Kamrup was part of Ahom kingdom. Its all recorded in every historical documents, which will remind us about the glorious Ahom rule in undivided Kamrup district as well as in Assam. Lachitbarphukan (talk) 13:56, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

text: User Pranjitb, the link http://nalbari.nic.in/religion.htm shows those temples which the Ahom Swargadeos have built in Nalbari district. I have a bundle of historical records to prove Ahom rule in Undivided Kamrup District. All historians will support this truth. The user Pranjitb must understand without proper historical records and evidence, all his claims are just bubbles in water, making him a object of mockery. Till now the user cannot even narrate a single evidence in his support. Unfortunately he also got no guts to accept the truth. But Truth Always Prevail, that is the motto of Indian Emblem, "Satya Meva Jayate". Anyways, i already have shared lots of historical records to convince him. From his post and comments i am sure all my efforts gone in vain and  he has proved how much lonely and desparate he is, how he refuse to see any reason. I feel sorry for him. From now all his comments will  neglected. I wish him Good Luck.Lachitbarphukan (talk) 05:20, 6 September 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: List of Temples in Undivided Kamrup that Ahom Built

message: Basistha Temple, Navagraha temple, Dirgheshwari temple, Umananda Temple, Rudreswar Temple, Sukreswar Temple, Ugro Tara Temple, Ashwaklanta and many others. 
As claimed by user Lachitbarphukan, Ahoms did not build above temples in Kamarupa or Kamrup. 
Ahoms claimed those temples after occupation of Kamarupa or Kamrup. 
These temples are also not listed in the link that user Lachitbarphukan cited http://nalbari.nic.in/religion.htm
Pranjitb (talk) 18:56, 4 September 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: User Pranjitb, the link http://nalbari.nic.in/religion.htm shows those temples which the Ahom Swargadeos have built in Nalbari district. I have a bundle of historical records to prove Ahom rule in Undivided Kamrup District. All historians will support this truth. The user Pranjitb must understand without proper historical records and evidence, all his claims are just bubbles in water, making him a object of mockery. Till now the user cannot even narrate a single evidence in his support. Unfortunately he also got no guts to accept the truth. But Truth Always Prevail, that is the motto of Indian Emblem, "Satya Meva Jayate". Anyways, i already have shared lots of historical records to convince him. From his post and comments i am sure all my efforts gone in vain and  he has proved how much lonely and desparate he is, how he refuse to see any reason. I feel sorry for him. From now all his comments will  neglected. I wish him Good Luck.Lachitbarphukan (talk) 05:20, 6 September 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: ''Is Lachitbarphukan writing truth? Did Ahoms build temples in Kamrup? Or did they claim after occupation?''

message: Primarily a linguistic study, comparing and contrasting Ahom terms as used in the article, with similar terms in Shan and Siamese. 
* 
--Pawyilee (talk) 13:37, 26 February 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Additional reference 

message: For us newcomers, why isn't "kingdom" capitalised when "Ahom Kingdom" is used together as a title? Someone deliberately moved it but don't see discussion. Student7 (talk) 19:21, 23 August 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Welcome to the Wikipedia community.  This is a Wikipedia policy: WP:NCCAPS.  Chaipau (talk) 23:50, 23 August 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: No.  I still don't see. We have Kingdom of England, Kingdom of Great Britain, Empire of Japan, Kingdom of Ava, Kingdom of Siam, which are mostly shortened in real life to "Japanese Empire" etc. For Ahom, capital "K" shows up on the web as well as small "k". Student7 (talk) 18:23, 31 August 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Likewise Kingdom of Assam, which is what the Ahom kingdom was called in English when the kingdom existed.  Chaipau (talk) 09:29, 2 September 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Why shouldn't the title be the most common one in English? We have Rome not Roma, Naples, not Napoli, Austria not Oestereich, etc. Even more so since the latter examples are from European languages. There is likely no conflict/agreement between Assamese and English. See, for example WP:OFFICIALNAMES. Student7 (talk) 20:17, 10 September 2015 (UTC)

text: I don't understand this either. Yourlocallordandsavior (talk) 02:48, 1 August 2021 (UTC)
thread_title: Not Ahom '''K'''ingdom?

message: The Ahom kingdom moved away from its Tai roots in the 16th century beginning with Suhungmung.  At this point the Ahom peoples constituted a mere 10% of the Ahom kingdom.  The court language stopped being the Ahom language in the beginning of the 17th century during Pratap Singha's time.  The Ahom language has been dead since the 18th century, with the last native speakers in the early 19th century.  So the native language for the Ahom kingdom is not Ahom language. Chaipau (talk) 12:52, 15 May 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Use of Ahom language spellings 

message: If Ahom are so interested to call their kngdom as Kingdom of Assam then move this page to kingdom of assam because 18th century's Assam is very different from today's Assam. You should't confuse people that Assam have only Ahom kingdom. Logical Man 2000 (talk) 14:57, 2 May 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: The name "Kingdom of Assam" is cited and referenced.  No one called the Ahom kingdom as "Ahom kingdom" in the 18th century.  It was called Assam.  That is how the state got its name.  Now the standard historical name is "Ahom kingdom".  Bengal got its name from Vanga, though it was known as Gaur for long.  Nothing to get too worked out about.  Chaipau (talk) 15:14, 2 May 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Kingdom of Assam 

message: :The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion. 
The result of the move request was: No consensus   (t · c) buidhe 08:10, 10 July 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: Ahom kingdom →  – Fix the lettercase. — Hemant Dabral (📞 • ✒) 19:25, 28 June 2020 (UTC)

text: This is a contested technical request (permalink). Anthony Appleyard (talk) 13:46, 29 June 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Requested move 29 June 2020 

message: How is the Chutia kingdom a predecessor of the Ahom kingdom? (Your repeated edits ). The earliest accounts of the Chutia kingdom come from the 14th century—from epigraphic records and from the Ahom account of an incident from the time of Sutuphaa (1369-1379).  There is no evidence of a Chutia kingdom before the second half of the 14th century.  OTOH the Ahom kingdom was established in 1228. How can a 14th century kingdom be the predecessor of a 13th century kingdom.  Also, the Chutia kingdom was in existence in the 16th century, when it was absorbed into the Ahom kingdom!
Tagging  and  for additional comments, because discussions with Homogenie never ends.
Chaipau (talk) 14:00, 22 February 2022 (UTC)
replies: text:  It is in Borgohain Vamsavali of Ahom kingdom Sukaphaa Homogenie (talk) 14:05, 22 February 2022 (UTC)
replies: text:  The Borgohain vamsavali has been shown to be not reliable. Is that all? Chaipau (talk) 14:11, 22 February 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Predecessor state 

message: It is better to add the kingdom map when it was at its peak... Its is better to show or to say it feels good when you are at your peak not your downfall... So I think that there a people who can make a rough map during the time of its peak.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jonardondishant (talk • contribs) 12:52, 8 March 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: this is the "official" map of the Ahom kingdom (mature) as given in the "Geography of Assam".  This is also in good agreement with the one provided by S L Barua. Chaipau (talk) 17:18, 8 March 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Why not adding the map of Ahom kingdom when it was in the peak. (1707) 

message: @Homogenie: Kamarupa Kingdom legacy was carried out by Ahom kingdom...  How did chutia kingdom become ahom kingdom Predecessor... I think some people forgot the meaning of predecessor(A predecessor is something that came before the current version)... Its ahom kingdom which reached the greatest height after kamarupa kingdom..
They also looked upon themselves as the heirs of the glory that was ancient Kamarupa by right of conquest, and they long cherished infructuously their unfulfilled hopes of expanding up to that frontier." (Guha 1983:24). 'An Ahom force reached the banks of the Karatoya in hot pursuit of an invading Turko-Afghan army in the 1530s. Since then "the washing of the sword in the Karatoya" became a symbol of the Assamese aspirations, repeatedly evoked in the Bar-Mels and mentioned in the chronicles." (Guha 1983:33)  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jonardondishant (talk • contribs) 03:59, 15 March 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Ahom kingdom was succesor of Kamarupa Kingdom 

message: I have removed the Baruah 1987 map.  This contributes to no additional value to the article and furthermore it is of poor quality.  Even a good quality reproduction is confusing unless the slight differences are significant enough that they are worth pointing out.  The slight differences, as it exists now, without explanation, adds to confusion.  Please do not reinsert this map without discussing here. Chaipau (talk) 14:52, 29 April 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: A map is a map, it's of a different time period and shows the boundaries before the moamoriya rebellion.... Second of all I am not a professional in editing and in using software's, hence Idk how to digitize it... it will be better if you digitize and add it again. Jonardondishant (talk) 14:58, 29 April 2022 (UTC)
replies: text:  OK, thanks.  We agree that we will not have this map up unless we have a better quality reproduction and we are able to point out the difference between the two maps and the differences are significant enough to add value to the article.  Chaipau (talk) 16:06, 29 April 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: @Chaipau I hve got a pretty good quality digitized map of ahom kingdom, it will be better to add it, as it is much more detailed it will add more value Jonardondishant (talk) 12:36, 24 July 2022 (UTC)
replies: text:  Sorry.  I don't see the need to replace the map that comes from professionals in cartography.  For one, Baruah's map includes Karbi hills which the Ahoms did not occupy.  Please stop disrupting Wikipedia.  This is not a blog.  You have created enough work for others to clean up. Chaipau (talk) 14:10, 24 July 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: sorry that I caused troubles. The previous map didn't have the Karbi hills. The current map misses the widening of the upper regions, and upper eastern-boundary was Patkai hills which is in Myanmar, which the current map clearly misses and there is a huge gap between this map and Myanmar, and also I don't think so that SL Barua had entirely had made that map with her own hands.... The kingdom was 500(804 km) miles long in average and 60(96 km) miles in breadth, Jonardondishant (talk) 14:41, 24 July 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: The hills were never part of any Ahom territory.  The Ahoms were rice cultivators and were valley dwellers.  The current map is correct and it comes from a reliable source. Chaipau (talk) 14:48, 24 July 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: @Chaipau what's the relation between rice cultivators and were valley dwellers and this map? which source does it come from, Western boundary remained same not of all, the entire valley in not in the map but a portion, The previous Sk bhuyan one didn't had karbi hills but it was of low quality, The british sources says the lenght was 700 miles and the Indian one says 500 miles, Is there even any book which is to considered as totally reliable? And what about the huge gap between Assam and Myanmar, was Patkai not the eastern boundry? Jonardondishant (talk) 15:41, 24 July 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: Very simple, the amount of resources you can extract and the cost to maintain control. Even in the plains, the Ahoms shared the regions close to the hills.  The Naga khats in the east, the datiyaliya gohains in the middle and the duars in the east (both in the south and the north).  These are well known facts.  Please go by reliable source if you do not know Ahom history well enough.  Just a treaty from the early 1400s does not define boundaries for the next 400 years.  In this case the RS is the map from the "Geography of Assam", which is a fantastic work. Chaipau (talk) 16:09, 24 July 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, after all this what can be called as a reliable source? Nagas were in the lower eastern area, Ahom govt gave them fertile lands in the pains and were managed by a class of officers called Naga-Katakis, how does this define the boundaries? And was Patkai hills in Ahom territory Jonardondishant (talk) 16:59, 24 July 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: These are soft boundaries and are a special arrangement that the Ahoms created with nearly all hill peoples.  Wikipedia is not the place to discuss soft boundaries WP:NOTFORUM. The RS in this case is "Geography of Assam" and we are using the map from this source. Chaipau (talk) 02:46, 25 July 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Scanned map from Baruah 

message: There is no need to qualify Ekasarana and Saktism as majority/royal.  This is because over the course of the 600-year history the situation had changed.  For example, Ekasarana became a religion in the 15th/16th century, whereas Ahom kingdom had been in existence since 13th entury.  The Ahom kings had converted to Ekasarana (17th century) before they were initiated into Saktism (18th century).  I am removing these qualifications, please don't change them again.  Pinging  for visibility. Chaipau (talk) 10:37, 9 August 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: Secondly, mentioning these qualifiers gives a sense of exclusiveness, which might not be the case. For example mentioning Royal family next to Shaktism implies that only they adhered to it, while it might not have been the case in reality. - Fylindfotberserk (talk) 11:08, 9 August 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Religion in infobox 

message: The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion:
* 
You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 18:37, 20 September 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion 

message: The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion:
* 
You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 10:37, 13 October 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion 

message: Could you please move the detailed population figures away from the infobox.  They make no sense because the numbers before 1681 could cover different sizes.  It makes more sense to only report numbers after 1681 in the infobox. Chaipau (talk) 14:29, 16 October 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: The population is defined to a certain year, I don't seem it to be problematic. However a whole section can be created on the demography in details, where it will be appropriate to add all that.  Vishwanath2008 (talk) 15:13, 16 October 2022 (UTC)

text: You have recently changed the figures to 2-3 million without giving a time frame, which might not always be the case. Vishwanath2008 (talk) 15:15, 16 October 2022 (UTC)

text: See* 1st reply Vishwanath2008 (talk) 15:16, 16 October 2022 (UTC)
replies: text:  The time frame is given in the cited text.  This is reasonable, because the infobox is supposed to give a representative and succinct information. Chaipau (talk) 15:21, 16 October 2022 (UTC)

text: No problem. Chaipau (talk) 17:10, 16 October 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Population 

message: The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:
* 
Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 20:52, 21 October 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion 

message: Are the eastern boundaries of medieval Assam marked by the fortifications? Here  to see ComparingQuantities (talk) 06:25, 8 March 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Fortifications in forming boundaries