Talk:Majapahit

message: what were the other hindu empires before this? --Dangerous-Boy
:See the indonesian history infobox. Srivijaya, Singhasari, Kediri, etc. Peace. --Nielswik(talk) 16:41, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  what were the other hindu empires before this? 

message: The content from Majapahit Kingdom is already merged with Majapahit empire, and so the merger template is no longer of use anymore. I'm removing it.
TanMr Tan 07:17, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  {Merger} 

message: can someone put more detail into the majapahit influence around the area.  Maybe put a map up and added more info links.  --Dangerous-Boy
:Ithink it's better to expand History of Indonesia page and template. So we could put another kingdom as well as Sriwijaya and Majapahit. I think I'll search it in my highschool history textbook.Aditthegrat 05:34, 27 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  more detail 

message: please watch talk:Gajah Mada --SoIssetEben! 18:46, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Problem 

message: I added a list of rulers, basically copied from the Indonesian page with a few additions. Though they are all mentioned in the text, it's nice to have them together as a list and it makes a place for succession boxes to link, (see what I added to Raden Wijaya). If this article gets too long, it can be moved to a separate page as well. The confusing part, as usual in Indonesian history, is names. Can somebody who better understands them go through and clarify which are birth names, honorary titles, and royal styles? We should also try to agree to a consistent naming system for these ruler's pages, when they get started. Rigadoun  (talk) 18:46, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: That is good, but I don't know about names either because I don't have sources at hand. This points to my next suggestion. To whom that has written such a nice story about Majapahit, could you also please cite the sources? pages of a book? articles? This article would not go any further levels if there is no citations to reliable sources. I can help with the citation style, as long as anybody can point to the source. Cheers. — Indon (reply) — 09:43, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: List of rulers

message: Does this article really belong in the Malaysian history series?  I think it should just be in the Indonesian one - yes, it influenced what is now Malaysia, but that doesn't make Majapahit history part of the history of Malaysia, any more than Chinese or British history is. -- Danny Yee 11:40, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: From memory the Malay Info box only was there until the Indonesia one was added a few months back! --Merbabu 11:55, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

text: Majapahit had once ruled the Malay Peninsula. So, it's part of Malaysian history too. We have to recognize that before colonialism, many parts of Southeast Asia share the same history. Just like how British Raj is part of UK history as much as Indian history. See some of the articles where Malaysian and Brunei history overlaps or Malaysian and Singaporean, or Malaysian and Filipino or Malaysian-Thai. Not to forget of course, Malaysian-Indonesian. __earth (Talk) 13:21, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Majapahit never ruled the Malay Peninsula.  Some of the Malay Kingdoms may have paid tribute to Majapahit, but that's not the same thing at all - they probably paid tribute to China as well, but that doesn't mean Malaysian history is part of Chinese history. -- Danny Yee 13:27, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Okay then. But we will need to remove the India Wikiproject too. __earth (Talk) 13:30, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I thought that had already gone! -- Danny Yee 22:58, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

text: The Malay peninsula (and history) is a stretch. I'd suggest a pause until someone puts up some archaeological evidence.  From what I've read, the Majapahit had almost no navy: hard to imagine effective control of such distant areas. Methinks the poem waxes poetic. --Smilo Don 15:14, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: P.S. See A Short History of Indonesia: The Unlikely Nation? Colin Brown, pp. 26-7.  Brown doesn't dismiss the regional presence of the Majapahit, but theorizes that "mainland" states (i.e. on the Malay peninsula) were engaged in commerce with, and were wise not to arouse the ire of, the Majapahit.  I've never seen a shred of archaeological evidence showing that the Majapahit administrated much beyond Java, Bali, Flores, and other proximate areas. Smilo Don 17:32, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Have you even done any research before writing your POV here? There are evidences of Majapahit remains in both Sumatra and Kalimantan. If ancient ruins are not enough, there are even linguistic evidences which shows the natives of Malaysian side of Kalimantan (Borneo) have Javanese language influences in their languages, as they were under Majapahit back then. Matahari Pagi 04:32, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Influence on languages does not necessarily mean direct sovereignty. It could simply happen through migration. Such migration from Java did occur. Further, I'm sure modern Indonesian transmigrasi program had a hand in that too. __earth (Talk) 05:35, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Hello, Indonesian transmigrasi? Read again, I wrote Malaysian side of the island. It's a prove that Javanese influence was older than the history of Indonesia. Ok, if lingusitics not your thing, how about Candi Agung in South Kalimantan? It was a Hindu monument that, along with Hikayat Banjar, tells a tale about a Majapahit prince who married the local queen. This is confirmed Negara Kertagama which mentions that the area of Tabalong valley and Barito river was a part of their empire. The kingdoms and later sultanates in our area were styled as the kingdoms in Java, we even call our palaces "Kratons". I can assure you that our noble words of ancient Kavi were not brought by the transmigrants. Matahari Pagi 05:27, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I apologize for that; I misread it. Still, influence on languages does not necessarily mean direct sovereignty. Consider Arabic influence over the Malay language. __earth (Talk) 13:00, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

text: Dear Matahari Pagi, I agree with __earth.  From a scientific perspective, some ruins and and epic poem are not enough, nor even are corroborating texts from China.  What we do know is that there was a significant kingdom, probably headquartered in East Java.  We know that they had an extensive trade network.  As global demand for spices increased, the Majapahit grew in wealth and influence.  What we don't know, however, is the extent of their control over other areas.  When in doubt historians and archaeologists tend to assume that a kingdom did not have the resources/organization/power to exert control over remote areas.  Then, as evidence surfaces, that early assumption may be proven wrong.  From what I've read, the Majapahit "navy" was essentially a contract-based group of sailors/pirates/traders; probably lacking the capacity to dominate the massive area we today call "Indonesia."  We also know that some Indonesians are strongly motivated to exaggerate the extent of the Majapahit for lots of reasons, including a desire to legitimate the new nation-state, out of nationalistic pride, and to justify possession of unhappy peoples/territories.  The burden of proof falls on those who want to argue for a huge Majapahit power.  If anyone can show that they did collect taxes, put down uprisings, etc. in areas as far as Aceh and Papua, then they should cite evidence to that effect.  Until then, its safer to assume that the Majapahit was an extremely important kingdom in east/central Java, plus Bali.  Why assume that they ruled Sulawesi?  There's a long history of formidable forces there.  For that matter, I'd even be curious to see evidence of Majapahit rule in west Java--it's plausible, for sure, but it would be nice to see some proof. Smilo Don 14:34, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: For west Java and southern Sumatra, Majapahit's influence is well-recorded. After all, Adityavarman was Majapahit 's representative to southern Sumatra. On top of that, Majapahit occupation of Palembang led to the downfall of Srivijaya. Coming back to the topic, I have yet to come across a reliable source that asserts Majapahit's sovereignty over the Malay Peninsula. I have however read of Siam holding nominal sovereign over the same area. After all, Siam had its representative living on Temasek. __earth (Talk) 14:59, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I thought Adityawarman just sent gifts to the Majapahit capital.  Did he send tribute too?  My impression was that he was a bit of an opportunist who went to make his own fortune--not that he was a delegate of the throne. Smilo Don 15:19, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Adityavarman was a half Malay, half Javanese royalty within the Majapahit court. When Majapahit occupied southern Sumatra, Hayam Wuruk and Gajah Mada needed someone the local (the Malays of southern Sumatra) and Majapahit could trust. So, they sent that Adityavarman to rule southern Sumatra on Majapahit's behalf. As it turned out, both Hayam Wuruk and Gajah Mada misplaced their trust.  The storyline is similar that of Srivijaya/Sailendra, Khmer and Jayavarman II. __earth (Talk) 10:51, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: What is known about Adityavarman is from semi-(un)reliable sources (eg. a 16th century Javanese text, written a long time after he was dead), so take anything you hear about him with a grain of salt. It is believed he was related to Singhasari and Majapahit and sent to Sumatra. He quickly moved into the Sumatran highlands, but his motives for doing this aren't known. It is speculated by some academics it was to escape the control of Majapahit. (Caniago 14:49, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

text: BTW, according the the Historical Dictionary of Indonesia (Cribb, Robert., Kahin, Audrey; Scarecrow Press; 2004), "most scholars now believe that Majapahit's influence outside East and Central Java was limited to coastal areas of Kalimantan and Sumatra and parts of Maluku and Nusatenggara" (Caniago 15:09, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Malaysian history series?! 

message: The article gives both 1401-1405 and 1403-1406 as the dates for this... I've left the latter, but the books I have handy don't mention this so I can't check.  Anyone got a suitable reference to hand? -- Danny Yee 13:13, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  dates of succession war 

message: Not directly relevant here, but I just noticed there's no article on the history of Bali. -- Danny Yee 07:22, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  no [[history of Bali]] 

message: I removed the word great because it seemed subjective, but if there were other smaller kingdoms following it Nielswik is correct we can't simply say it was tht last. I think the recent suggestion of "major" is better than both "large" and "great". What do others think? --Merbabu 06:08, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Good. I agree that great is a bit subjective, but we need to point out that it was not the last. Peace. --Nielswik(talk) 08:04, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Last ''great'', ''major'', ''large'' Hindu kingdom

message: I've been reading about Majapahit and the kingdom claims relationship to an earlier Javanese kingdom of Airlangga. Several sources cite that Majapahit claims itself to be the unified of Java after the split of Airlangga. Perhaps Airlingga should be mentioned? __earth (Talk) 12:30, 16 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Where did you read that? Airlangga was not a kingdom, it's the name of a king. Medang Kingdom was destroyed by Sriwijaya's ally, but Prince Airlangga and his wife (both of Isayana dynasty, descendants of Mpu Sindok) succeeded to got away and rebuilt their kingdom with the capital in Kahuripan/Kuripan (Kulaypan in Thai). But yes, the kingdom was split into two after the crown princess Kilisuci refused the throne, from that time it became 2 separate kingdoms of Jenggala and Kediri, each ruled by her half-brothers. Matahari Pagi (talk) 04:10, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Airlangga 

message: "Modern Indonesian nationalists, including those of the Indonesian National Revival of the early 20th century, have invoked the Majapahit Empire as an example of greatness in Indonesia's past and a precedent for the current political boundaries of the republic."
Would somebody help me to check this statement in the stated reference (Ricklefs 1991, p. 19), because I can not find it in the Indonesian translation of the book. Thank you. sentausa 11:35, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Just found something. In the Indonesian edition of the book, it is only stated that (in my English) "memories of Majapahit's greatness is still alive, and it is sometimes regarded as a precedent for the current political boundaries of the republic." It does not mention the Indonesian nationalists. I'm considering to put  tag in that sentence in the article. sentausa 11:44, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Or we could leave out the subject and put it in passive voice, which is how it appears there. That might be preferable to leaving it unsourced, if it is difficult to find a citation that those specific nationalists invoked the memory. Rigadoun  (talk) 16:02, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

text: I've split the sentence into two. Do you think it is appropriate? sentausa 04:34, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: And I've made it closer reflect the source. --Merbabu 12:49, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: As a matter of fact, there is still room for improvement in history teaching in Indonesia. For the time being, Indonesians believe that before Europeans came, there used to be a unified political power controlling the present territory. Actually in ancient times, the archipelago was host to a constellation of small polities that traded with each other. Territorial conquest was not their concern. Territorial conquest in the archipelabo appears in the 17th century, with Mataram in Java and Aceh in the northern half of Sumatra, Djoehana (talk) 10:15, 14 July 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Problem with ref. 1f 

message: Can we move this article to the simpler name Majapahit? The label 'Empire' seems unnecessary in the title. We don't label Srivijaya Srivijaya Empire, so why is Majapahit an exceptional case? An alternate name would be Majapahit Kingdom, but the simpler and shorter name is surely closer to what most people would search for. (Caniago 15:28, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: PS, a survey of the titles used for this article on other Wikipedias shows Majapahit is used by the Dutch, German, French, and Indonesian Wikipedias. (Caniago 15:35, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

text: I'm not sure about Majapahit but Srivijaya, technically was never an empire. It was more like a confederation of states, with Palembang or Jambi (and maybe the Sailendra at Palembang and west Java) being the dominant members. The concept of mandala was used heavily to properly describe Srivijaya within this context. __earth (Talk) 15:37, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That may be so (putting aside a debate about whether a confederation of states with a dominate central power is an empire), but Britannica calls their articles Srivijaya empire and Majapahit empire. I think that is probably the original reason this article was thus labeled, given much of Wikipedia was built from the 1911 edition of Britannica. The point is Majapahit was not the only kingdom/sultanate in Indonesian history which could be considered an empire. We don't need empire as part title to adequately describe and disambiguate this article from any other on Wikipedia - Majapahit alone is sufficient. (Caniago 16:06, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree with all of Caniago's comments and with his proposal to simplify the name of the article.  Good stuff.  Strictly speaking, an "empire" or a "kingdom" article might focus on the political entity (sort of like Russian empire, whereas Russia deals with art, economy, history, cuisine, etc.). By having just "Majapahit" there's more leeway to discuss religion, architecture, agriculture, etc.  Such things would enrich Majapahit in its own right and, secondarily, contribute to a background for Indonesia. Again, I think Caniago's proposal is great.--Smilo Don 16:31, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

text: Support - just do it SatuSuro 03:06, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

text: Excellent - fits better SatuSuro 07:54, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

text: Support - albeit now retrospective. :) --Merbabu 12:51, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

text: Support - Majapahit was a kingdom located in East Java, that had developed a network of special relationship with a number of principalties all over the archipelago and on the peninsula (Lombard, Denys, Le carrefour javanais). It did not control this principalities!  Anda Djoehana (talk) 09:45, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

text: The question whether Majapahit was a kingdom of an empire is already elaborated in lede and in Terrritorial subsection: "The question whether Majapahit is considered an empire or not is actually depends on the definition of the word and concept of "empire" itself. Majapahit did not performed direct administration of its overseas possessions, they did not maintain permanent military occupation, and did not imposes its political and cultural norms over a wide area; thus it is not sufficiently considered an empire in a traditional sense. However, if being an empire means the projection of military power at will, formal acknowledgement of overlordship by vassals, and the regular tribute delivery to the capital, then Java's relationship to the rest of archipelagic realm can well be considered an imperial one; thus Majapahit can be considered an empire." Gunkarta  talk  14:54, 9 January 2022 (UTC)
thread_title: Move from [[Majapahit Empire]] to [[Majapahit]]

message: This is a pure lie, Indonesian imperialists are having a good time distorting Philippine history, wikipedia should notice this, it was the same historical revisionism created by the Bruneian imperialists, you lazy Malays hands off our history we are Filipino people not lazy Malays!!--121.54.68.114 (talk) 03:35, 21 February 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Who are you..? maybe you should be a wikipedian and create an account first to differentiate you with passing vandals and trolls. Anyway Indonesian historians identify the word "Solot" in Nagarakretagama as Sulu island, now belong to Phillippines. Not whole part of the Phillippines is mentioned as part of Majapahit. Moreover the exact reality or fact about the status of geographic places mentioned in Nagarakretagama are subjects of debate. Whether it was a vassal, a member or loose federation, part of suzeiranity, or just mentioning about known places and trade partners of Majapahit. (Gunkarta (talk) 16:17, 21 February 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Dont include "Malays" in this please, they have nothing to do with this Majapahit fantasy. The so called "Majapahit empire" is a lie crafted by Javanese to justify the current boundary of Java-centered Indonesia. In reality, there was no foreign historical records of ancient vast Javanese empire as per claimed, neither from Indian sources, nor from Chinese sources. The "vast empire" claim is purely from Javanese source.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 115.133.196.89 (talk) 14:01, 11 November 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Philippines part of Majapahit Empire? 

message: This passage needs rework for clarity.
"After a series of battles with the Sultanate of Demak, the last remaining courtsmen of Majapahit were forced to withdraw eastward to Kediri; it is unclear whether they were still under the rule of the Majapahit dynasty. This small state was finally extinguished at the hands of the Demak in 1527.[14] A large number of courtiers, artisans, priests, and members of the royalty moved east to the island of Bali; however, the crown and the seat of government moved to Demak under the leadership of Pangeran, later Sultan Fatah[citation needed]. The Muslim emerging forces defeated the local Majapahit kingdom in the early 16th century."
I find the passage confusing.  "This small state was finally extinguished" -- if the state was extinguished (completely destroyed) then how did the crown and seat of government move to Demak?  I think maybe the small state was not extinguished (at this time), but rather transformed and moved.  This would fit with the passage about the "local Majapahit kingdom" that was defeated by Muslim forces.
I leave the rewrite to someone else, as I'm not familiar with the subject matter.
Karl gregory jones (talk) 03:16, 8 June 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: I've try to rewrite it and add Demak tradition that mentioned Raden (Sultan) Fatah as Brawijaya V son with chinese concubine. Also Kediri is located on southwest from Trowulan (Majapahit capital), not east. "After a series of battles with the Sultanate of Demak, the last remaining courtsmen of Majapahit were forced to withdraw inland to Kediri; it is unclear whether they were still under the rule of the Majapahit dynasty. This small state was finally extinguished at the hands of the Demak in 1527.[14] A large number of courtiers, artisans, priests, and members of the royalty moved east to the island of Bali; however, the power and the seat of government transfered to Demak under the leadership of Pangeran, later Sultan Fatah[citation needed]. According to Babad Tanah Jawi and Demak tradition, their first sultan, Raden Fatah is the son of Majapahit king Brawijaya V with a Chinese concubine. The Muslim emerging forces defeated the local Majapahit kingdom in the early 16th century.[15]" (Gunkarta (talk) 10:27, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

text: In Indonesian terms pakaian or baju translate to "clothing" and usually means a sewn, stitched, or tailored clothes: shirt, robe etc. While kain translate to "fabrics" means unsewn or unstitched fabrics just plain rectangular clothes with many purposes, among others is to wrap around one's waist as sarong or kain batik or songket. Remember, ancient Javanese did not wear tailored pants or pantalons, they just wrapped a clothes around their waist. Many historian said that if one wished to know what Majapahit was look like, just try to examine Bali, since they have preserved many aspect of Majapahit Hindu-Javanese civilization. Most likely Majapahitans wore clothings like those in Bali in the old days.  Here's some examples, hope that'll help, cheers. Gunkarta  talk  03:48, 24 January 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Passage needs rework for clarity 

message: I wanted to know some good sources for Majapahit royal guard, the Bhayangkara. Maybe it's just because I'm biased to have such special army like the Musketeer or Samurai in the era of Majapahit, but I also wanted to know more, especially this is the group that led by Gajah Mada. 
And also, I remember I saw something about Majapahit's naval formation and ships, but I forgot, can somebody tell me about this ? 
and the last but not least, I checked both of Majapahit article in English and Indonesian, why the Indonesian one is less complete(err I dunno how to say it, kurang lengkap deh) and detailed than the English one ? (I saw Yingyai Shenglan's record on Majapahit life at English page but not on Indonesian) I'm not so good at English so I cannot fully translate this important record to Indonesian one, I hope that there is someone willing to translate it for our fellow Indonesians that not fluent in EnglishSedaziel (talk) 00:14, 4 October 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: This is pretty much the same case as how Borobudur and Srivijaya articles was before: english version is much more complete than Indonesian versions since some of major contributors/editors prefer to write in english than Indonesian. In my case, I consider english as the international language is much more effective, much faster and easier to spread the knowledge than other languages might does, since many people understand it. I did the Yingyai Shenglan addition, I hope that some Indonesians might be interested to do some translations to Indonesians, as well as other language speakers might do so. If not, maybe I'll do it later, cheers. Gunkarta  talk  04:09, 24 January 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Majapahit army and Indonesian article of Majapahit

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 3 external links on Majapahit. 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/20140729203644/http://www.thejakartapost.com/news/2002/04/18/kris-more-just-a-simple-dagger.html to http://www.thejakartapost.com/news/2002/04/18/kris-more-just-a-simple-dagger.html
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20081107163612/http://www.kompas.com/read/xml/2008/11/04/20305699/Taman.Majapahit.Dibangun.di.Trowulan to http://www.kompas.com/read/xml/2008/11/04/20305699/taman.majapahit.dibangun.di.trowulan
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090112012614/http://www.kompas.com/read/xml/2009/01/05/05100324/situs.majapahit.dirusak.pemerintah to http://www.kompas.com/read/xml/2009/01/05/05100324/situs.majapahit.dirusak.pemerintah
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 18:52, 30 May 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 3 external links on Majapahit. 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/20150505003223/http://mercury.ethz.ch/serviceengine/Files/ISN/142914/ichaptersection_singledocument/54578174-4114-4470-a6d4-6fe4a4b376e3/en/Chapter+2.pdf to http://mercury.ethz.ch/serviceengine/Files/ISN/142914/ichaptersection_singledocument/54578174-4114-4470-a6d4-6fe4a4b376e3/en/Chapter+2.pdf
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20131031003554/http://www.kompas.com/read/xml/2008/11/24/17571290/uang.kuno.temuan.rohimin.peninggalan.majapahit. to http://www.kompas.com/read/xml/2008/11/24/17571290/uang.kuno.temuan.rohimin.peninggalan.majapahit.
*Added  tag to http://ariesgoblog.files.wordpress.com/2010/01/agus-arismunandar-majapahit-ker_-agraris-maritim.pdf
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20081222233648/http://www.majapahit-kingdom.com/cms/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=10&Itemid=7 to http://www.majapahit-kingdom.com/cms/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=10&Itemid=7
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 04:53, 7 December 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: I was unable to find a good translation of the "History of Yuan" online in order to search for myself the note that is referenced in the military section of Majapahit's military, saying that the Majapahit nobles wear white and the low class infantry were half-naked, only using sarong to the battlefield.
I also went to read the e-book of the "Notes on Malay Archipelago and Malacca Compiled from Chinese Sources" and found no reference to the copper tube armor (kawaca) that is used by the Majapahit nobles and rich soldiers on the battlefield. And to be fair, there are no mention of anything regarding the weapons or the military equipments of Majapahit / Java at all.
And again, I can't find the good online source to fully read the translated version of "Hikayat Banjar", however I am very much interested on the description in the article that describe the equipments of the Bhayangkara. Did they really mention Bhayangkara or was it just an assumption based on their status as a Javanese palace guard ?
I feel like this is part of my own mistake and the lack of knowledge of where to find the good online resources, but I still would like to know if all these statements that are noted from "History of Yuan", "Notes on Malay Archipelago and Malacca Complied from Chinese Sources" and "Hikayat Banjar" are true. I hope the original editors that put these sources may be able to come and verify this for me ?  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Anarma (talk • contribs) 06:36, 16 February 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: The section has been modified since your last visit. I did some investigation—"Notes on Malay Archipelago" does not mention the kawaca, the reference that mentioned it is placed later in the paragraph. The Hikayat Banjar description is apparently quoted from "Majapahit Peradaban Maritim", but the Hikayat Banjar text itself can be freely accessible in MCP. So far, I discovered that most of the section you questioned is using Nugroho's "Majapahit Peradaban Maritim" and Oktorino's "Hikayat Majapahit" as the references. Surijeal (talk) 01:54, 11 July 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sources of Majapahit's Military 

message: IPA pronunciation of Majapahit would be helpful.WisDom-UK (talk) 18:30, 19 August 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: Done. Gunkarta  talk  19:58, 19 August 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Pronunciation needed 

message: I found the following sentence in the section "[e]xplorations and navigation" (footnote excluded):
I think a better phrasing would be "...that the closest such place is..." Could anyone please tell me if that's a good idea?--Thylacine24 (talk) 14:01, 26 January 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Found probable grammatical error 

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 . —Community Tech bot (talk) 07:54, 19 July 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion 

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 . —Community Tech bot (talk) 14:07, 1 November 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion 

message: Why are some kings mentioned in their birth names (Hayam Wuruk and Jayanāgara), while others are in their regnal names (Tribhuwana and Girīndrawardhana)? Not only was the founder mentioned in his birth name, it was not his contemporary one at that. Some of the spellings are wrong (with the dreaded "e" in -nāgara) and it's missing a king (Girīndrawardhana Dyah Wijayakusuma in the Jiyu III Inscription). I believe that all the names should be in their regnal ones for the sake of consistency, but I'm afraid others might disagree. Miserableed (talk) 02:30, 14 April 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Inconsistencies on the names of Majapahit kings