Talk:Siege of Lohkot (1015)

Sudsahab (talk) 11:02, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Result section

@Sudsahab. Stop distorting sources for pushing your POV. None of the sources cited here says the Ghaznavids were defeated, but the retreat was caused by the heavy snowfall. Imperial ^[AFCND] 11:50, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The situation became worse for the Muslim army when, as winter approached, there was a heavy fall of snow. In the mean time the Kashmirians made their position stronger by fresh reinforcement of troops. In this circumstance the Sultan had no other alternative but to raise the siege and retreat towards Ghazni. Once, his guides misled him and his army into a big marsh, and a large number of men were lost. History and Culture of the Indian People, Volume 05, The Struggle For Empire. Snow fall was not the only reason Sudsahab (talk) 11:57, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Can't see any single details to portray this as "Lohara victory". The campaign was failed due to heavy snowfall, and there is no single WP:RS citing this was the victory of the Loharas. Imperial ^[AFCND] 12:05, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Merely by repeating The campaign failed due to snowfall won't work when you are disregarding the source quoted by me. Now for the Lohara victory, I got your point here, this is the only genuine drawback that you found in this article, I'll surely edit the Lohara dynasty to Kashmirians as per In the mean time the Kashmirians made their position stronger by fresh reinforcement of troops, Thanks. Sudsahab (talk) 12:26, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

How does making their fortifications better makes the campaign their victory? And I can clearly not see the author of the book citing any source to it. Changing from "Loharas" to "Kashmirians" doesn't make any sense. If this kind of retreat can be brought as victory of the defenders, I got better plans on articles. Thanks. Imperial ^[AFCND] 12:35, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Wdym? It would be better for us to follow the secondary sources and not to make our own conjectures. And you do realise that scholars are free to discuss the pattern of primary sources because that's what secondary sources are about. And changing Lohara to Kashmirians does make sense when scholars say that Kashmirians made their position stronger. You should get better plans on articles because as far as I can see you can't comprehend the sources thoroughly. Sudsahab (talk) 12:52, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Heavy casualties

It lost its way in the vales and hills and was reduced considerably in numbers from Advanced Study in the History of Medieval India, Volume 2. p. 57 which literally applies that he suffered heavy casualties. @Imperial ^[AFCND] Sudsahab (talk) 12:13, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It was clearly not the part of the siege. The quote itself states, so do the article body and the cited refs states that it was caused during the withdrawal. Again distorting the source. Imperial ^[AFCND] 12:16, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

But he failed to gain his objective and returned to Ghazni after suffering a great loss and untold miseries ~ Ancient history and civilization. Sudsahab (talk) 12:32, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Feedback from New Page Review process

I left the following feedback for the creator/future reviewers while reviewing this article: Nice work

North8000 (talk) 18:01, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]