charvaka wrote:Dwarasamudram isn't that far from Tamil Nadu; it is near Hassan in southern Karnataka. The Turkic army from Delhi had already defeated the Yadavas of Devagiri, Kakatiyas of Warangal, and the Hoyasalas of Dwarasamudra. The local Tamil dispute was only a ruse; if that had been absent, Kafur would have found another excuse to invade. The attraction for them was the loot they could get, not which prince they could help out against his brother. Tamil Nadu, like Karnataka and Andhra, had plenty of loot for the taking.

Merlot Daruwala wrote:My sense is that the Southern kingdoms were largely soft, used only to minor mutual skirmishing and never exposed to the bare knuckles warfare that the invaders brought with them.

MaxEntropy_Man wrote:still though i take your point. one doesn't know how the cholas may have fared against invading islamic hordes and one is only grateful to history that one's ancestors weren't a subjugated people.

Rashmun wrote:

MaxEntropy_Man wrote:still though i take your point. one doesn't know how the cholas may have fared against invading islamic hordes and one is only grateful to history that one's ancestors weren't a subjugated people.

Is it your contention that the first Nawab of Arcot was a Tamilian?

MaxEntropy_Man wrote:

Rashmun wrote:

MaxEntropy_Man wrote:still though i take your point. one doesn't know how the cholas may have fared against invading islamic hordes and one is only grateful to history that one's ancestors weren't a subjugated people.

Is it your contention that the first Nawab of Arcot was a Tamilian?

it is my contention that i don't know much, nor care to find out more about said nawab. not interested in finding out much about minor factotums and vassals of kingdoms. his presence in TN didn't change the course of its history in any major way. all i need to know is that they now live off the fat of the taxpayers.

MaxEntropy_Man wrote:

Merlot Daruwala wrote:My sense is that the Southern kingdoms were largely soft, used only to minor mutual skirmishing and never exposed to the bare knuckles warfare that the invaders brought with them.

that flies in the face of known facts. this guy was no slouch in the warfare department and had one of the first known navies in india.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rajendra_Chola_I

Rashmun wrote:

MaxEntropy_Man wrote:

Rashmun wrote:

MaxEntropy_Man wrote:still though i take your point. one doesn't know how the cholas may have fared against invading islamic hordes and one is only grateful to history that one's ancestors weren't a subjugated people.

Is it your contention that the first Nawab of Arcot was a Tamilian?

it is my contention that i don't know much, nor care to find out more about said nawab. not interested in finding out much about minor factotums and vassals of kingdoms. his presence in TN didn't change the course of its history in any major way. all i need to know is that they now live off the fat of the taxpayers.

CHENNAI: The tribute to Chennai continues even after Madras Day was celebrated on August 22. As part of the Madras week celebrations, on Wednesday, historian and documentary filmmaker S Anwar presented his lecture On the Wallajah Trail' -- about the Nawabs of Arcot and the influence they had on the culture of the south and especially Chennai.

The slide presentation dealt with how the Nawabs came to into being and even shaped the demographics of Chennai. For instance, Saidapet is named after Mohammed Sayeed (who was given the title Sadatullah Khan by Aurangazeb), who was the third of the nawabs to rule the Carnatic. He was gifted this area, which at that time was named Sayeedabad'.

http://articles.timesofindia.indiatimes.com/2010-08-26/chennai/28296789_1_arcot-madras-week-celebrations-siege

Rashmun wrote:

Rashmun wrote:

MaxEntropy_Man wrote:

Rashmun wrote:

MaxEntropy_Man wrote:still though i take your point. one doesn't know how the cholas may have fared against invading islamic hordes and one is only grateful to history that one's ancestors weren't a subjugated people.

Is it your contention that the first Nawab of Arcot was a Tamilian?

it is my contention that i don't know much, nor care to find out more about said nawab. not interested in finding out much about minor factotums and vassals of kingdoms. his presence in TN didn't change the course of its history in any major way. all i need to know is that they now live off the fat of the taxpayers.

CHENNAI: The tribute to Chennai continues even after Madras Day was celebrated on August 22. As part of the Madras week celebrations, on Wednesday, historian and documentary filmmaker S Anwar presented his lecture On the Wallajah Trail' -- about the Nawabs of Arcot and the influence they had on the culture of the south and especially Chennai.

The slide presentation dealt with how the Nawabs came to into being and even shaped the demographics of Chennai. For instance, Saidapet is named after Mohammed Sayeed (who was given the title Sadatullah Khan by Aurangazeb), who was the third of the nawabs to rule the Carnatic. He was gifted this area, which at that time was named Sayeedabad'.

http://articles.timesofindia.indiatimes.com/2010-08-26/chennai/28296789_1_arcot-madras-week-celebrations-siege

from the same article:

Anwar said that that Madras always had a history with the nawabs because most of their families were sent here to live. Later, in the 1750s, Mohammed Ali Wallajah shifted the capital from Arcot to Madras and he shifted residence here. He was credited with building the Chepauk Palace. "You could say that the north Indian population both Hindu and Muslim in Chennai is because of the nawabs. With the nawabs came the armies and the courtesans and that brought in the culture and the arts of the north to the south," said Anwar.

Now back to Mohammed Sayeed. He wanted to set up a harbour in Mylapore and so he sent his Hindu prime minister and Muslim general to meet the British. But the British dissuaded them and on their way back, the prime minister and the general decided to stop at St Thomas Mount. They were so awed by the paintings at the Mount that they held an impromptu poetry-reciting session. "Interesting isn't it, a Muslim and a Hindu in a poetry session inside a church. Sayeed later constructed a port in what is today's Kovalam," said Anwar. He concluded his lecture with the fact that the secularism of the Nawabs of Arcot was evident right through even their coins had Hindu deities on them.

Merlot Daruwala wrote:

charvaka wrote:Dwarasamudram isn't that far from Tamil Nadu; it is near Hassan in southern Karnataka. The Turkic army from Delhi had already defeated the Yadavas of Devagiri, Kakatiyas of Warangal, and the Hoyasalas of Dwarasamudra. The local Tamil dispute was only a ruse; if that had been absent, Kafur would have found another excuse to invade. The attraction for them was the loot they could get, not which prince they could help out against his brother. Tamil Nadu, like Karnataka and Andhra, had plenty of loot for the taking.

It'd be interesting to find out what was it abt the Delhi empire's forces that gave them all those military successes despite being so far away from their home turf. My sense is that the Southern kingdoms were largely soft, used only to minor mutual skirmishing and never exposed to the bare knuckles warfare that the invaders brought with them.

Rashmun wrote:could it be that Chennai is the capital of TN today because the Nawabs of Arcot made it their capital?

MaxEntropy_Man wrote:long live the nawab. enjoy!



1. Once Nawab signed a cheque… and
the Bank bounced!!!


2. Once Death had ‘near Nawab experience’
!!


3. When GOD is shocked he exclaims
“Oh my Nawb”‌


4. Nawab knows the exact value of Pi
upto a Googol


5. Nawab knows what came first, the chicken
or the egg!!


6. Superman once got into a fight
with the Nawab. The loser had to wear his underwear over his pants


7. Intel’s new caption – Nawab Inside

charvaka wrote:

Rashmun wrote:could it be that Chennai is the capital of TN today because the Nawabs of Arcot made it their capital?

Chennai is the capital of TN because the British built their southern Indian empire around Madras, a city they founded when they built Fort St. George on a fishing village. Madras was the first major urban settlement the British started in India.

charvaka wrote:

MaxEntropy_Man wrote:long live the nawab. enjoy!



1. Once Nawab signed a cheque… and
the Bank bounced!!!


2. Once Death had ‘near Nawab experience’
!!


3. When GOD is shocked he exclaims
“Oh my Nawb”‌


4. Nawab knows the exact value of Pi
upto a Googol


5. Nawab knows what came first, the chicken
or the egg!!


6. Superman once got into a fight
with the Nawab. The loser had to wear his underwear over his pants


7. Intel’s new caption – Nawab Inside

Rashmun wrote:

charvaka wrote:

Rashmun wrote:could it be that Chennai is the capital of TN today because the Nawabs of Arcot made it their capital?

Chennai is the capital of TN because the British built their southern Indian empire around Madras, a city they founded when they built Fort St. George on a fishing village. Madras was the first major urban settlement the British started in India.

Madras could not have been 'founded' by the British after it had already served as the capital for the region controlled by the Nawabs of Arcot.

charvaka wrote:

Rashmun wrote:

charvaka wrote:

Rashmun wrote:could it be that Chennai is the capital of TN today because the Nawabs of Arcot made it their capital?

Chennai is the capital of TN because the British built their southern Indian empire around Madras, a city they founded when they built Fort St. George on a fishing village. Madras was the first major urban settlement the British started in India.

Madras could not have been 'founded' by the British after it had already served as the capital for the region controlled by the Nawabs of Arcot.

Saar, the British built Fort St. George in 1644. Your nawab may have thought he was "shifting his capital" when he merely moved house to a British-controlled city.

Rashmun wrote:the british may have built a fort in 1644, but when the Nawabs of Arcot moved their capital to Madras initially they were firmly in control of the city. It was only later that they accepted the overall suzerainty of the British so that they came to be known not as Princes of Arcot.

MaxEntropy_Man wrote:severe googling straining all the resources of the interwebs going on in the background. links with excerpted material in bold fonts to prove using very strenuous and tortured arguments that the nawab was the brits' daddy soon to appear.

charvaka wrote:

Rashmun wrote:the british may have built a fort in 1644, but when the Nawabs of Arcot moved their capital to Madras initially they were firmly in control of the city. It was only later that they accepted the overall suzerainty of the British so that they came to be known not as Princes of Arcot.

You are wrong about multiple things in just those two sentences.

1. The "Nawab" was under British influence starting in 1749. According to you, he moved his house to Madras in the 1750s.
2. They became "Princes of Arcot" not when they accepted British suzerainty, but long after their entire territory was taken over by the British applying Dalhousie's infamous Doctrine of Lapse (the same doctrine that Rani Lakshmibai of Jhansi was fighting). Indian rulers who accepted British suzerainty did not lose their original titles and gain titles like "Prince of Hyderabad" and "Prince of Mysore" -- they continued to be styled Nizam of Hyderabad and Maharaja of Mysore. The "Prince of Arcot" got that empty title a decade after the territory was annexed to British India.
3. The "Nawab" of Arcot did not control Madras in 1750; the British did.

Rashmun wrote:

charvaka wrote:

Rashmun wrote:the british may have built a fort in 1644, but when the Nawabs of Arcot moved their capital to Madras initially they were firmly in control of the city. It was only later that they accepted the overall suzerainty of the British so that they came to be known not as Princes of Arcot.

You are wrong about multiple things in just those two sentences.

1. The "Nawab" was under British influence starting in 1749. According to you, he moved his house to Madras in the 1750s.
2. They became "Princes of Arcot" not when they accepted British suzerainty, but long after their entire territory was taken over by the British applying Dalhousie's infamous Doctrine of Lapse (the same doctrine that Rani Lakshmibai of Jhansi was fighting). Indian rulers who accepted British suzerainty did not lose their original titles and gain titles like "Prince of Hyderabad" and "Prince of Mysore" -- they continued to be styled Nizam of Hyderabad and Maharaja of Mysore. The "Prince of Arcot" got that empty title a decade after the territory was annexed to British India.
3. The "Nawab" of Arcot did not control Madras in 1750; the British did.

---

The question is that at this point of time in history, were they allies of the British and retained administrative control over their territories; or were they vassals of the British and no longer had administrative control over their territories? The fact that they were 'under British influence' is an ambiguous thing to say in that it does not clarify whether at this point of time was administrative control with the Nawabs or with the British.

----

Anwar said that that Madras always had a history with the nawabs because most of their families were sent here to live. Later, in the 1750s, Mohammed Ali Wallajah shifted the capital from Arcot to Madras and he shifted residence here. He was credited with building the Chepauk Palace. "You could say that the north Indian population both Hindu and Muslim in Chennai is because of the nawabs. With the nawabs came the armies and the courtesans and that brought in the culture and the arts of the north to the south," said Anwar.

http://articles.timesofindia.indiatimes.com/2010-08-26/chennai/28296789_1_arcot-madras-week-celebrations-siege

----

Madras became the capital of the Nawabs of Arcot in the 1750s. The Nawab at the time was Mohammed Ali Wallajah. Now consider the following information:

Muhammad Ali Wallajah, son of Muhammad Anwaruddin was born in 1717. He was present at the battle of Ambur when his father, at the age of ninety, was defeated and slain by Chanda Sahib and the French in the year 1749. Muhammad Ali Wallajah escaped with the wreck of the army to Trichinopoly, of which place he was the Governor.

The English supported his claim to the throne (Musnad). But he was defeated in 1750 "and forced to fly to Arcot. Five years later, after Major-General Stringer Lawrence had repeatedly repulsed the French, he was formally invested as Nawab of Arcot in gratitude for the assistance he had rendered. By this time, his prime rival for the Nawabship took refuge with the Rajah of Tanjore (by whom he was later murdered). In 1754, the struggle between the English and the French ended with a treaty by which Muhammad Ali Wallajah was practically left the Nawab of the entire Carnatic.

In 1765, the Emperor of Delhi completely released him from all dependency upon or allegiance to the Wazir of the Deccan and thereby created him an independent ruler of the Carnatic. The Treaty of Paris of 1763 also acknowledged him as the Nawab and ally of the King of England.

Muhammad Ali Wallajah was the first sovereign ruler of the Carnatic.

http://www.princeofarcot.org/nawabs.html#8th

-----

it is true that at this point of time in history the Nawabs were British allies, but it is also true that at this point of time in history they retained administrative control over the region under their control (Although this was taken away temporarily by the British during the second and third Anglo-Mysore wars).

The fact that the Nawabs retained administrative control over the region is evident when one considers that the British wanted to permanently take over administrative control of the Nawab's territories from the grandson of Nawab Muhammad Ali Wallajah (the 8th Nawab who had moved to capital to Madras), and when he refused to hand over administrative control, he was superseded by his younger brother who agreed to hand over administrative control to the British.

charvaka wrote:

Rashmun wrote:

charvaka wrote:

Rashmun wrote:the british may have built a fort in 1644, but when the Nawabs of Arcot moved their capital to Madras initially they were firmly in control of the city. It was only later that they accepted the overall suzerainty of the British so that they came to be known not as Princes of Arcot.

You are wrong about multiple things in just those two sentences.

1. The "Nawab" was under British influence starting in 1749. According to you, he moved his house to Madras in the 1750s.
2. They became "Princes of Arcot" not when they accepted British suzerainty, but long after their entire territory was taken over by the British applying Dalhousie's infamous Doctrine of Lapse (the same doctrine that Rani Lakshmibai of Jhansi was fighting). Indian rulers who accepted British suzerainty did not lose their original titles and gain titles like "Prince of Hyderabad" and "Prince of Mysore" -- they continued to be styled Nizam of Hyderabad and Maharaja of Mysore. The "Prince of Arcot" got that empty title a decade after the territory was annexed to British India.
3. The "Nawab" of Arcot did not control Madras in 1750; the British did.

---

The question is that at this point of time in history, were they allies of the British and retained administrative control over their territories; or were they vassals of the British and no longer had administrative control over their territories? The fact that they were 'under British influence' is an ambiguous thing to say in that it does not clarify whether at this point of time was administrative control with the Nawabs or with the British.

----

Anwar said that that Madras always had a history with the nawabs because most of their families were sent here to live. Later, in the 1750s, Mohammed Ali Wallajah shifted the capital from Arcot to Madras and he shifted residence here. He was credited with building the Chepauk Palace. "You could say that the north Indian population both Hindu and Muslim in Chennai is because of the nawabs. With the nawabs came the armies and the courtesans and that brought in the culture and the arts of the north to the south," said Anwar.

http://articles.timesofindia.indiatimes.com/2010-08-26/chennai/28296789_1_arcot-madras-week-celebrations-siege

----

Madras became the capital of the Nawabs of Arcot in the 1750s. The Nawab at the time was Mohammed Ali Wallajah. Now consider the following information:

Muhammad Ali Wallajah, son of Muhammad Anwaruddin was born in 1717. He was present at the battle of Ambur when his father, at the age of ninety, was defeated and slain by Chanda Sahib and the French in the year 1749. Muhammad Ali Wallajah escaped with the wreck of the army to Trichinopoly, of which place he was the Governor.

The English supported his claim to the throne (Musnad). But he was defeated in 1750 "and forced to fly to Arcot. Five years later, after Major-General Stringer Lawrence had repeatedly repulsed the French, he was formally invested as Nawab of Arcot in gratitude for the assistance he had rendered. By this time, his prime rival for the Nawabship took refuge with the Rajah of Tanjore (by whom he was later murdered). In 1754, the struggle between the English and the French ended with a treaty by which Muhammad Ali Wallajah was practically left the Nawab of the entire Carnatic.

In 1765, the Emperor of Delhi completely released him from all dependency upon or allegiance to the Wazir of the Deccan and thereby created him an independent ruler of the Carnatic. The Treaty of Paris of 1763 also acknowledged him as the Nawab and ally of the King of England.

Muhammad Ali Wallajah was the first sovereign ruler of the Carnatic.

http://www.princeofarcot.org/nawabs.html#8th

-----

it is true that at this point of time in history the Nawabs were British allies, but it is also true that at this point of time in history they retained administrative control over the region under their control (Although this was taken away temporarily by the British during the second and third Anglo-Mysore wars).

The fact that the Nawabs retained administrative control over the region is evident when one considers that the British wanted to permanently take over administrative control of the Nawab's territories from the grandson of Nawab Muhammad Ali Wallajah (the 8th Nawab who had moved to capital to Madras), and when he refused to hand over administrative control, he was superseded by his younger brother who agreed to hand over administrative control to the British.

All that blather aside, the "Nawab" of Arcot did not have Madras in his firm control as you claimed. Madras was a British city at that time.

Rashmun wrote:Sorry, Nawab Muhammad Ali Wallajah retained administrative control over Madras city (except during the Anglo-Mysore wars when the British took over administrative control temporarily). As i wrote earlier:

The fact that the Nawabs retained administrative control over the region is evident when one considers that the British wanted to permanently take over administrative control of the Nawab's territories from the grandson of Nawab Muhammad Ali Wallajah (the 8th Nawab who had moved to capital to Madras), and when he refused to hand over administrative control, he was superseded by his younger brother who agreed to hand over administrative control to the British.

Rashmun wrote:

charvaka wrote:

Rashmun wrote:

charvaka wrote:

Rashmun wrote:the british may have built a fort in 1644, but when the Nawabs of Arcot moved their capital to Madras initially they were firmly in control of the city. It was only later that they accepted the overall suzerainty of the British so that they came to be known not as Princes of Arcot.

You are wrong about multiple things in just those two sentences.

1. The "Nawab" was under British influence starting in 1749. According to you, he moved his house to Madras in the 1750s.
2. They became "Princes of Arcot" not when they accepted British suzerainty, but long after their entire territory was taken over by the British applying Dalhousie's infamous Doctrine of Lapse (the same doctrine that Rani Lakshmibai of Jhansi was fighting). Indian rulers who accepted British suzerainty did not lose their original titles and gain titles like "Prince of Hyderabad" and "Prince of Mysore" -- they continued to be styled Nizam of Hyderabad and Maharaja of Mysore. The "Prince of Arcot" got that empty title a decade after the territory was annexed to British India.
3. The "Nawab" of Arcot did not control Madras in 1750; the British did.

---

The question is that at this point of time in history, were they allies of the British and retained administrative control over their territories; or were they vassals of the British and no longer had administrative control over their territories? The fact that they were 'under British influence' is an ambiguous thing to say in that it does not clarify whether at this point of time was administrative control with the Nawabs or with the British.

----

Anwar said that that Madras always had a history with the nawabs because most of their families were sent here to live. Later, in the 1750s, Mohammed Ali Wallajah shifted the capital from Arcot to Madras and he shifted residence here. He was credited with building the Chepauk Palace. "You could say that the north Indian population both Hindu and Muslim in Chennai is because of the nawabs. With the nawabs came the armies and the courtesans and that brought in the culture and the arts of the north to the south," said Anwar.

http://articles.timesofindia.indiatimes.com/2010-08-26/chennai/28296789_1_arcot-madras-week-celebrations-siege

----

Madras became the capital of the Nawabs of Arcot in the 1750s. The Nawab at the time was Mohammed Ali Wallajah. Now consider the following information:

Muhammad Ali Wallajah, son of Muhammad Anwaruddin was born in 1717. He was present at the battle of Ambur when his father, at the age of ninety, was defeated and slain by Chanda Sahib and the French in the year 1749. Muhammad Ali Wallajah escaped with the wreck of the army to Trichinopoly, of which place he was the Governor.

The English supported his claim to the throne (Musnad). But he was defeated in 1750 "and forced to fly to Arcot. Five years later, after Major-General Stringer Lawrence had repeatedly repulsed the French, he was formally invested as Nawab of Arcot in gratitude for the assistance he had rendered. By this time, his prime rival for the Nawabship took refuge with the Rajah of Tanjore (by whom he was later murdered). In 1754, the struggle between the English and the French ended with a treaty by which Muhammad Ali Wallajah was practically left the Nawab of the entire Carnatic.

In 1765, the Emperor of Delhi completely released him from all dependency upon or allegiance to the Wazir of the Deccan and thereby created him an independent ruler of the Carnatic. The Treaty of Paris of 1763 also acknowledged him as the Nawab and ally of the King of England.

Muhammad Ali Wallajah was the first sovereign ruler of the Carnatic.

http://www.princeofarcot.org/nawabs.html#8th

-----

it is true that at this point of time in history the Nawabs were British allies, but it is also true that at this point of time in history they retained administrative control over the region under their control (Although this was taken away temporarily by the British during the second and third Anglo-Mysore wars).

The fact that the Nawabs retained administrative control over the region is evident when one considers that the British wanted to permanently take over administrative control of the Nawab's territories from the grandson of Nawab Muhammad Ali Wallajah (the 8th Nawab who had moved to capital to Madras), and when he refused to hand over administrative control, he was superseded by his younger brother who agreed to hand over administrative control to the British.

All that blather aside, the "Nawab" of Arcot did not have Madras in his firm control as you claimed. Madras was a British city at that time.

Sorry, Nawab Muhammad Ali Wallajah retained administrative control over Madras city (except during the Anglo-Mysore wars when the British took over administrative control temporarily). As i wrote earlier:

The fact that the Nawabs retained administrative control over the region is evident when one considers that the British wanted to permanently take over administrative control of the Nawab's territories from the grandson of Nawab Muhammad Ali Wallajah (the 8th Nawab who had moved to capital to Madras), and when he refused to hand over administrative control, he was superseded by his younger brother who agreed to hand over administrative control to the British.

charvaka wrote:Forget about controlling the city of Madras, the "Nawab" of Arcot did not even control the town of Arcot firmly, circa 1750.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arcot#History

In 1740, the Maratha forces came down upon Arcot. They attacked the Nawab, Dost Ali in the pass of Damalcherry. In the war that followed, Dost Ali, one of his sons Hasan Ali, and a number of prominent persons lost their lives. This initial success at once enhanced Maratha prestige in the south. From Damalcherry the Marathas proceeded to Arcot. It surrendered to them without much resistance. Chanda Saheb and his son were arrested and sent to Nagpur. In 1751, The English captured the town during the conflict between the United Kingdom and France for control of South India. English successfully held it with only 500 men against the French and the Nawab, resisting for 56 days (23 September to 14 November 1751). The enemy army eventually dissolved and its leader, Chanda Shahib, was killed. Mohammed Ali Khan Walajah took over as Nawab, effectively serving as a vassal of the British.

Rashmun wrote:Is it your contention that the official website of the Nawabs of Arcot is not telling the truth when it clearly says that the administrative control over the Nawab's territories was retained by Nawab Muhammad Wallajah.

http://www.princeofarcot.org/nawabs.html#8th

charvaka wrote:

Rashmun wrote:Is it your contention that the official website of the Nawabs of Arcot is not telling the truth when it clearly says that the administrative control over the Nawab's territories was retained by Nawab Muhammad Wallajah.

http://www.princeofarcot.org/nawabs.html#8th

Even the Nawab's website does not claim that he controlled Madras. That is a claim only you are making. It was very common for native rules of those days to own houses in the British-controlled cities nearby. For instance, the Hyderabad House in Delhi. That doesn't mean the Nizam had administrative control over Delhi.

doofus_maximus wrote:I am going to start an official website and proclaim that I am Pope's unKil.

www.DMispope'sunkil.com

That website will be be and end all of all interwebs.

Rashmun wrote:

charvaka wrote:

Rashmun wrote:Is it your contention that the official website of the Nawabs of Arcot is not telling the truth when it clearly says that the administrative control over the Nawab's territories was retained by Nawab Muhammad Wallajah.

http://www.princeofarcot.org/nawabs.html#8th

Even the Nawab's website does not claim that he controlled Madras. That is a claim only you are making. It was very common for native rules of those days to own houses in the British-controlled cities nearby. For instance, the Hyderabad House in Delhi. That doesn't mean the Nizam had administrative control over Delhi.

Charvaka, you have clearly not read the official website of the Nawabs of Arcot carefully and hence are making baseless claims. For instance, this is what the official website says about the son of Nawab Muhammad Wallajah (Umdat-ul-Umra):


The British, during this time, were aiming at securing certain portions of the land of the Nawab. As stated above, they demanded certain Taluks to be transferred to them instead of qist money. On the fall of Srirangapatnam in 1799, it was claimed by the British that they had discovered both Umdat-ul-Umra and his father had been carrying on secret correspondence with Mysore against the interests of the British. The East India Company took excuse this as an opportunity in their favour to declare that they would no longer honour the treaty of 1792 made with Nawab Wallajah. Instead, they drafted a new treaty by which they resolved to assume the entire management and administration of the Carnatic.

Umdat-ul-Umra did not agree to this treaty. As he fell seriously ill at this time, the matter was not pressed for the moment by the British, but on the death of Umdat-ul-Umra in 1801 the British took coercive measures to enforce the treaty.
The English troops from the Fort took possession of the Chepauk Palace and a tent was pitched for Lord Clive within the precincts of the Palace. Ali Hussain (Taj-ul-Umra), the reputed son of Umdat-ul-Umra at first reluctantly accepted the terms; but subsequently rejected the offer made by the Governor. So, Azim-ud-Daula, the son of Amir-ul-Umra, the youngest brother of Umdat-ul-Umra was declared the next Nawab as he gladly agreed to sign the treaty of 1801 with the English.

http://www.princeofarcot.org/nawabs.html#8th

doofus_maximus wrote:I am going to start an official website and proclaim that I am Pope's unKil.

www.DMispope'sunkil.com

That website will be be and end all of all interwebs.

charvaka wrote:

doofus_maximus wrote:I am going to start an official website and proclaim that I am Pope's unKil.

www.DMispope'sunkil.com

That website will be be and end all of all interwebs.

Hahaha. After you set up that website, I am going to claim that you are a "co-brother-in-law" of Mohammad, based on the fact that you are Pope's unkil. You never have to claim to be married to Mohammad's wife's sister; I will just post random stuff from your website and keep repeating that you are in fact Mohammad's "co-brother."

Rashmun wrote:

charvaka wrote:

Rashmun wrote:Is it your contention that the official website of the Nawabs of Arcot is not telling the truth when it clearly says that the administrative control over the Nawab's territories was retained by Nawab Muhammad Wallajah.

http://www.princeofarcot.org/nawabs.html#8th

Even the Nawab's website does not claim that he controlled Madras. That is a claim only you are making. It was very common for native rules of those days to own houses in the British-controlled cities nearby. For instance, the Hyderabad House in Delhi. That doesn't mean the Nizam had administrative control over Delhi.

Charvaka, you have clearly not read the official website of the Nawabs of Arcot carefully and hence are making baseless claims. For instance, this is what the official website says about the son of Nawab Muhammad Wallajah (Umdat-ul-Umra):


The British, during this time, were aiming at securing certain portions of the land of the Nawab. As stated above, they demanded certain Taluks to be transferred to them instead of qist money. On the fall of Srirangapatnam in 1799, it was claimed by the British that they had discovered both Umdat-ul-Umra and his father had been carrying on secret correspondence with Mysore against the interests of the British. The East India Company took excuse this as an opportunity in their favour to declare that they would no longer honour the treaty of 1792 made with Nawab Wallajah. Instead, they drafted a new treaty by which they resolved to assume the entire management and administration of the Carnatic.

Umdat-ul-Umra did not agree to this treaty. As he fell seriously ill at this time, the matter was not pressed for the moment by the British, but on the death of Umdat-ul-Umra in 1801 the British took coercive measures to enforce the treaty.
The English troops from the Fort took possession of the Chepauk Palace and a tent was pitched for Lord Clive within the precincts of the Palace. Ali Hussain (Taj-ul-Umra), the reputed son of Umdat-ul-Umra at first reluctantly accepted the terms; but subsequently rejected the offer made by the Governor. So, Azim-ud-Daula, the son of Amir-ul-Umra, the youngest brother of Umdat-ul-Umra was declared the next Nawab as he gladly agreed to sign the treaty of 1801 with the English.

http://www.princeofarcot.org/nawabs.html#8th

Rashmun wrote:

charvaka wrote:

Rashmun wrote:

charvaka wrote:

Rashmun wrote:Is it your contention that the official website of the Nawabs of Arcot is not telling the truth when it clearly says that the administrative control over the Nawab's territories was retained by Nawab Muhammad Wallajah.

http://www.princeofarcot.org/nawabs.html#8th

Even the Nawab's website does not claim that he controlled Madras. That is a claim only you are making. It was very common for native rules of those days to own houses in the British-controlled cities nearby. For instance, the Hyderabad House in Delhi. That doesn't mean the Nizam had administrative control over Delhi.

Charvaka, you have clearly not read the official website of the Nawabs of Arcot carefully and hence are making baseless claims. For instance, this is what the official website says about the son of Nawab Muhammad Wallajah (Umdat-ul-Umra):


The British, during this time, were aiming at securing certain portions of the land of the Nawab. As stated above, they demanded certain Taluks to be transferred to them instead of qist money. On the fall of Srirangapatnam in 1799, it was claimed by the British that they had discovered both Umdat-ul-Umra and his father had been carrying on secret correspondence with Mysore against the interests of the British. The East India Company took excuse this as an opportunity in their favour to declare that they would no longer honour the treaty of 1792 made with Nawab Wallajah. Instead, they drafted a new treaty by which they resolved to assume the entire management and administration of the Carnatic.

Umdat-ul-Umra did not agree to this treaty. As he fell seriously ill at this time, the matter was not pressed for the moment by the British, but on the death of Umdat-ul-Umra in 1801 the British took coercive measures to enforce the treaty.
The English troops from the Fort took possession of the Chepauk Palace and a tent was pitched for Lord Clive within the precincts of the Palace. Ali Hussain (Taj-ul-Umra), the reputed son of Umdat-ul-Umra at first reluctantly accepted the terms; but subsequently rejected the offer made by the Governor. So, Azim-ud-Daula, the son of Amir-ul-Umra, the youngest brother of Umdat-ul-Umra was declared the next Nawab as he gladly agreed to sign the treaty of 1801 with the English.

http://www.princeofarcot.org/nawabs.html#8th

None of this claims that Madras was part of their territory. It doesn't, because Madras was under the firm grip of the British from 1751 through 1947. This new stuff you copy-pasted doesn't even concern the timeline we are discussing.

--> Eighth Nawab of the Carnatic
Muhammad Ali Wallajah (1749-1795)

http://www.princeofarcot.org/nawabs.html#8th

charvaka wrote:

Rashmun wrote:

charvaka wrote:

Rashmun wrote:Is it your contention that the official website of the Nawabs of Arcot is not telling the truth when it clearly says that the administrative control over the Nawab's territories was retained by Nawab Muhammad Wallajah.

http://www.princeofarcot.org/nawabs.html#8th

Even the Nawab's website does not claim that he controlled Madras. That is a claim only you are making. It was very common for native rules of those days to own houses in the British-controlled cities nearby. For instance, the Hyderabad House in Delhi. That doesn't mean the Nizam had administrative control over Delhi.

Charvaka, you have clearly not read the official website of the Nawabs of Arcot carefully and hence are making baseless claims. For instance, this is what the official website says about the son of Nawab Muhammad Wallajah (Umdat-ul-Umra):


The British, during this time, were aiming at securing certain portions of the land of the Nawab. As stated above, they demanded certain Taluks to be transferred to them instead of qist money. On the fall of Srirangapatnam in 1799, it was claimed by the British that they had discovered both Umdat-ul-Umra and his father had been carrying on secret correspondence with Mysore against the interests of the British. The East India Company took excuse this as an opportunity in their favour to declare that they would no longer honour the treaty of 1792 made with Nawab Wallajah. Instead, they drafted a new treaty by which they resolved to assume the entire management and administration of the Carnatic.

Umdat-ul-Umra did not agree to this treaty. As he fell seriously ill at this time, the matter was not pressed for the moment by the British, but on the death of Umdat-ul-Umra in 1801 the British took coercive measures to enforce the treaty.
The English troops from the Fort took possession of the Chepauk Palace and a tent was pitched for Lord Clive within the precincts of the Palace. Ali Hussain (Taj-ul-Umra), the reputed son of Umdat-ul-Umra at first reluctantly accepted the terms; but subsequently rejected the offer made by the Governor. So, Azim-ud-Daula, the son of Amir-ul-Umra, the youngest brother of Umdat-ul-Umra was declared the next Nawab as he gladly agreed to sign the treaty of 1801 with the English.

http://www.princeofarcot.org/nawabs.html#8th

None of this claims that Madras was part of their territory. It doesn't, because Madras was under the firm grip of the British from 1751 through 1947. This new stuff you copy-pasted doesn't even concern the timeline we are discussing.

The "Nawab" of Arcot went and lived in Madras because he couldn't hold on to his own town and needed British protection. He even sought to build his Madras house within Fort St. George, according to the History of the City of Madras by C.S. Srinivasachari, page 181. Now, even you shouldn't doubt that Fort St. George was controlled by the British, not your nawab.

charvaka wrote:

Rashmun wrote:

charvaka wrote:

Rashmun wrote:

charvaka wrote:Even the Nawab's website does not claim that he controlled Madras. That is a claim only you are making. It was very common for native rules of those days to own houses in the British-controlled cities nearby. For instance, the Hyderabad House in Delhi. That doesn't mean the Nizam had administrative control over Delhi.

Charvaka, you have clearly not read the official website of the Nawabs of Arcot carefully and hence are making baseless claims. For instance, this is what the official website says about the son of Nawab Muhammad Wallajah (Umdat-ul-Umra):


The British, during this time, were aiming at securing certain portions of the land of the Nawab. As stated above, they demanded certain Taluks to be transferred to them instead of qist money. On the fall of Srirangapatnam in 1799, it was claimed by the British that they had discovered both Umdat-ul-Umra and his father had been carrying on secret correspondence with Mysore against the interests of the British. The East India Company took excuse this as an opportunity in their favour to declare that they would no longer honour the treaty of 1792 made with Nawab Wallajah. Instead, they drafted a new treaty by which they resolved to assume the entire management and administration of the Carnatic.

Umdat-ul-Umra did not agree to this treaty. As he fell seriously ill at this time, the matter was not pressed for the moment by the British, but on the death of Umdat-ul-Umra in 1801 the British took coercive measures to enforce the treaty.
The English troops from the Fort took possession of the Chepauk Palace and a tent was pitched for Lord Clive within the precincts of the Palace. Ali Hussain (Taj-ul-Umra), the reputed son of Umdat-ul-Umra at first reluctantly accepted the terms; but subsequently rejected the offer made by the Governor. So, Azim-ud-Daula, the son of Amir-ul-Umra, the youngest brother of Umdat-ul-Umra was declared the next Nawab as he gladly agreed to sign the treaty of 1801 with the English.

http://www.princeofarcot.org/nawabs.html#8th

None of this claims that Madras was part of their territory. It doesn't, because Madras was under the firm grip of the British from 1751 through 1947. This new stuff you copy-pasted doesn't even concern the timeline we are discussing.

--> Eighth Nawab of the Carnatic
Muhammad Ali Wallajah (1749-1795)

http://www.princeofarcot.org/nawabs.html#8th

Dude, you referred to his son. With an underline on the word son. That's the "new stuff you copy-pasted" that doesn't even concern the timeline we are discussing. Hope you got that. Now, digest the rest of the historical evidence I have presented, and challenge yourself to learn something new: how to accept it when you are wrong.

Rashmun wrote:i am only saying that the Nawabs had administrative control over the Carnatic region (which included Madras city) initially.

charvaka wrote:

Rashmun wrote:i am only saying that the Nawabs had administrative control over the Carnatic region (which included Madras city) initially.

They most certainly did not have administrative control over Madras. Madras was administered by a municipal corporation that was founded by the British in the 17th century. It had a mayor, a city council and a British judicial system, and the East India Company was responsible for the military security of the city. Read the book I have cited -- it is the history of the city commissioned by the city's official tercentenary celebration committee.

Rashmun wrote:

charvaka wrote:

Rashmun wrote:i am only saying that the Nawabs had administrative control over the Carnatic region (which included Madras city) initially.

They most certainly did not have administrative control over Madras. Madras was administered by a municipal corporation that was founded by the British in the 17th century. It had a mayor, a city council and a British judicial system, and the East India Company was responsible for the military security of the city. Read the book I have cited -- it is the history of the city commissioned by the city's official tercentenary celebration committee.

Unfortunately i am unable to read as many books as i would like to read. I have made it clear that my arguments are based on the material found in the official website of the Nawabs of Arcot which has been endorsed by N.Ram the editor in chief of the Hindu newspaper.

charvaka wrote: Yes, this is a fascinating question. On the softness hypothesis, there are three counterpoints to consider. First, the Yadavas and the Kakatiyas had a long history of warfare that predates the Muslim invasions. Second, the reconquest of Andhradesa by Telugu nayakas was accomplished in just a few years after the fall of Kakatiyas. When those nayakas were united across caste lines in the face of a common enemy to their way of life, they were very effective at beating back the invader. Third, the Vijayanagara empire was firmly established over Dakshinapatha less than a generation after Malik Kafur's expeditions. Again, when the Vijayanagara regime was able to consolidate power across caste and language lines in opposition to a common enemy with a different religion, they were very effective at beating back invaders; it is when the Muslim nobles settled in the Deccan and became entrenched in the land and Vijayanagara got involved in the internecine disputes between the various Bahmani sultanates that the lines between "us" and "them" got blurred again, and Vijayanagara was sacked.

Devagiri (now Daulatabad) was the strategic key to the Delhi sultanate's conquest of Dakshinapatha. Once they had Devagiri, they were on "this" side of the Vindhyas, and the entire Deccan plateau was open to them with control over centuries-old caravan routes traversing the plateau from Devagiri. Their supply lines were secure as long as the kingdom of Devagiri was firmly in their grasp. From Devagiri all the way to Dwarasamudram and even Madurai there are no serious natural barriers that could prevent a strong 13th century army from marching. (Incidentally topography is also the reason the Cholas of a couple of centuries earlier marched along the coast to Bengal, but not to the heart of northern India.) After the conquest of Devagiri, supply lines no longer stretched to Delhi; Devagiri instead became the de facto capital of the sultanate. In fact, Tughlaq tried to acknowledge that shift in the sultanate's center of gravity by making Devagiri the formal capital just four years after the fall of the Kakatiyas. Just two decades later, the Muslim nobles based in Devagiri declared formal independence from Delhi -- another indication that their base was not Delhi but Devagiri.

Now, linking back to KV's original post, the fall of Devagiri involved an internal dispute in which one side appealed to the Delhi sultanate for support. According to Nilakantha Sastri's History of South India, the conquest of Devagiri occurred because of a dispute between a father and a son. I read the book years ago so don't recall all the details, but one of them appealed to the northern power for help against the other in return for annual tribute. Once the northern armies came in, they saw that they could take over the place as the old king was rather weak. Within a few years, they took over the kingdom. (Incidentally, the lack of a fierce fight for Devagiri was the reason Devagiri was not thoroughly sacked -- unlike Warangal and Dwarasamudram, the other two major centers of power in the Deccan at the time, which were thoroughly depopulated. Devagiri's decline came later during Mughal times.) In subsequent wars against the Kakatiyas and Hoyasalas, the armies of Devagiri fought alongside the sultanate, adding to the strength of the invaders.

charvaka wrote:

Rashmun wrote:

charvaka wrote:

Rashmun wrote:i am only saying that the Nawabs had administrative control over the Carnatic region (which included Madras city) initially.

They most certainly did not have administrative control over Madras. Madras was administered by a municipal corporation that was founded by the British in the 17th century. It had a mayor, a city council and a British judicial system, and the East India Company was responsible for the military security of the city. Read the book I have cited -- it is the history of the city commissioned by the city's official tercentenary celebration committee.

Unfortunately i am unable to read as many books as i would like to read. I have made it clear that my arguments are based on the material found in the official website of the Nawabs of Arcot which has been endorsed by N.Ram the editor in chief of the Hindu newspaper.

Hahaha, Rashmun Method is alive and well. In order to understand who controlled Madras, you won't read the history of Madras, but only the website of a dynasty that doesn't even claim that it controlled the city except by your own unsupported extrapolation!

You can just read the table of contents of the book, and all will be clear whether your nawabs administered the city at all.