Shakib ul hassan
Welcome
change| Welcome, Shakib ul hassan! | |
|---|---|
|
Quick deletion of Maratha Conquest of Bhadawar and Ater
change
The page you wrote, Maratha Conquest of Bhadawar and Ater, has been selected for quick deletion. If you think this page should be kept, please add {{wait}} below the line {{QD}} and say why on the talk page. If the page is already gone, but you think this was an error, you can ask for it to be undeleted. You can find more information about the reason here. –Davey2010Talk 17:28, 29 October 2024 (UTC)
- Actually I was onto to create a draft, but un noticed I created an Article using Article Wizard. Shakib ul hassan (talk) 12:32, 30 October 2024 (UTC)
Removal of Flags
changeHi there , I have noticed are editing my articles and removing flags [1] and in [2] kindly stop 🛑 removing the flags in my articles Mr.Hanes (talk) 05:03, 19 November 2024 (UTC)
- Hi user, Those flags in your articles [3], [4] and even this [5] are completely Fictitious, non academic and unofficial. So it is better to not use those flags in the articles as this may lead to some kind of confusion amongst the readers, Regards. Shakib ul hassan (talk) 06:38, 19 November 2024 (UTC)
Lalitaditya as Vassal
changeHey i noticed you have removed my contribution without any valied reason out there Lalitaditya was a vassal of Tang Dynasty of China.
Lalităditya decided to pursue and defeat Yasovarman. Using his status as a Chinese vassal and enemy of the Arabs, Lalităditya recruited from border areas and obtained his magician/general Carnikuņa from Tokharisthan
,[6] pg 46
According to K.P. Jayaswal, Yasovarman's sending an embassy to China in 731 A.D. seems to have followed his defeat at the hands of Lalitāditya, for the Kashmir king himself was under the acknowledged suzerainty of China, and Yasovarman...
[7] pg 103
Paradoxically, Lalitaditya became the supreme lord of India as a vassal of the Tang Chinese, and with the means provided by them.
[8] pg 243-244 Mr.Hanes (talk) 13:34, 22 November 2024 (UTC)
- Hello,
- Regarding Lalitaditya’s status as a vassal of the Tang Dynasty:
- The claim in
Lalităditya decided to pursue and defeat Yasovarman. Using his status as a Chinese vassal and enemy of the Arabs, Lalităditya recruited from border areas and obtained his magician/general Carnikuņa from Tokharisthan
- is worth considering. However, this can be better understood as a pragmatic alliance rather than outright subjugation. Labeling Lalitaditya strictly as a "vassal" oversimplifies the political landscape. He may have acknowledged Tang China for strategic reasons, but that does not make him a mere subordinate. A "vassal-ally" status would be more appropriate here.
- 2. The argument about Lalitaditya being a vassal of the Tang Dynasty is directly contradicted in the very next line of the text,
These arguments are unfounded and far-fetched. Yasovarman's purpose of sending his envoy to the Chinese court was entirely different
- 3. The statement
Lalitaditya became the supreme lord of India as a vassal of the Tang Chinese, and with the means provided by them
is inherently contradictory. The use of "Paradoxically" highlights the inconsistency: being the "supreme lord of India" conflicts with being a vassal of a foreign power. Additionally, there is no substantial evidence that Tang China directly enabled Lalitaditya’s conquests. - These points suggest that the claims need to be presented with proper context and a balanced understanding of the sources. Misleading or speculative assertions will not strengthen the argument.
- Best regards,
- Shakib ul hassan«Talk» 14:07, 22 November 2024 (UTC)
- Hello thanks for your time, calling him a "Vassal" should be better than a Vassal ally as he has addressed himself a Vassal in his own letter to Tang Dynasty of China
After having [established this] kingdom. [I have] submitted to the Heavenly Qaghan along with other vassals] and received [orders] to position and dispatch [my forces]. [My] kingdom has three kinds of troops, elephant [-mounted), cavalry, and foot soldiers. The Tibetans on the five great routes distressed this vassal and the king of Middle India. [The Tibetans] blocked [us from] entering and exiting [through these routes]. [There- fore, we] fought and at once [emerged] victorious. Now, if the Heavenly Qaghan's army arrives at Palur, even if it [numbers] two hundred thousand. I can assist with the supply of provi sions. In [my] kingdom, there is a dragon pond [called] Mahāpadma (present-day Vular Lake). I am willing to let the [troops] of the Heavenly Qaghan encamp there.
[9] pg 30 what do you think about it? Mr.Hanes (talk) 14:24, 22 November 2024 (UTC)- It’s clear you’ve put thought into this interpretation, and I respect your perspective. However, I don’t agree that “vassal” alone is necessarily a better choice in this context than “vassal ally.” While the letter does demonstrate subordination to the Tang emperor, it also highlights a degree of autonomy and agency. The ruler's active military engagement, his ability to offer strategic resources, and his self-described triumph over the Tibetans suggest a relationship that’s not entirely one-sided.
- The term “vassal ally” may better capture this duality—acknowledging both his formal submission and his role as an active, capable partner within the Tang sphere of influence. Dismissing the word “ally” could understate the mutual benefits and interdependence evident in this relationship.
- So while I see where you’re coming from, I think “vassal ally” might actually be a more nuanced and fitting description of the role he played.
- regards, Shakib ul hassan«Talk» 14:42, 22 November 2024 (UTC)
- My suggestion is that the status parameter should remain empty rather than putting Vassal Ally or Vassal due to the confusion of Status.
- Regards Mr.Hanes (talk) 14:51, 22 November 2024 (UTC)
- You make a valid point—leaving the status parameter empty might indeed be the best approach to avoid oversimplifying or misrepresenting the nuanced relationship described in the letter. The ambiguity in the exact nature of the status, whether as a "vassal" or "vassal ally," suggests it might be better to let the historical context speak for itself without forcing a label. Thank you for the suggestion! Shakib ul hassan (talk) 14:57, 22 November 2024 (UTC)
- Also, i would like you to pay attention to this :
In the early eighth century, Kaśmir, under the Kärkoța rulers, emerged as a powerful state in the southern Hindukush region. The peaceful rela- tions established between Karkoța and its Turkic neighbors facilitated La- litāditya, arguably the most dynamic Kārkoța king, to extended Kaśmīri suzerainty well into central and eastern India. Mutual concern about the Tibetan expansion and the threatening Arab forces prompted Kärkoța rul- ers, the Turkic kingdoms in the southern Hindukush, and the Tang court to forge a strategic military alliance. The success of this alliance is best dem- onstrated in the manner in which Tibetan forces were repeatedly stopped from invading and crossing into the northern Pamir mountains through Lit- tle Palür.
[10], pg 157, despite being in the primary record, Historians choose to deal with the delegation as a military alliance support.- regards, Shakib ul hassan (talk) 14:53, 22 November 2024 (UTC)