text:
c. 1627/1630
Indian
Bhonsle
Maratha clan
Adilshahi sultanate
Bijapur
Maratha Empire
chhatrapati
Raigad
Mughal Empire
Sultanate of Golkonda
Sultanate of Bijapur
Marathi
Sanskrit
Persian
Indian independence movement
Maharashtra
Shivneri
Junnar
Pune district
Government of Maharashtra
Shivaji Jayanti
Shahaji Bhonsle
Maratha
Deccan Sultanates
Lakhuji Jadhavrao
Sindhkhed
sardar
Yadav
Devagiri
Bijapur
Ahmednagar
Golkonda
Nizamshahi
Adilshah
jagir
Pune
Ramayana
Mahabharata
Sufi
Mohite
Dadoji Konddeo
Maval
Baji Prabhu Deshpande
Tanaji Malusare
Sahyadri
Bangalore
Vijayanagara Empire
Ekoji I
Saibai
Nimbalkar
Hindavi Swarajya
Torna Fort
Firangoji Narsala
Chakan
Baji Ghorpade
Mohammed Adilshah
Jinji
Chandrarao More
Afzal Khan
Tulja Bhavani Temple
Vithoba
Pandharpur
Pratapgad
parley
bagh nakh
Battle of Pratapgarh
Kolhapur
Panhala fort
Rustam Zaman
Fazl Khan
Siddi Jauhar
Rajapur
Baji Prabhu Deshpande
Deshmukh
Battle of Pavan Khind
Aurangzeb
viceroy
Ahmednagar
Junnar
hun
Shah Jahan
Shaista Khan
Chakan
Lal Mahal
Bengal
sacked the port city of Surat
Rajput
Jai Singh I
Treaty of Purandar
hun
mansabdar
Agra
Kandahar
Kabul
Prataprao Gujar
Prince Mu'azzam
Berar
Ali Adil Shah II
sardeshmukhi
chauth
Mawara-un-Nahr
Battle of Vani-Dindori
Nashik
Prataprao Gujar
Bahlol Khan
Rajaram
Hambirrao Mohite
Raigad Fort
zamindar
jagirdar
kshatriya
varna
shudra
sacred thread
Gaga Bhatt
pandit
Sisodia Rajput
Hindu calendar
Jyeshtha
Yamuna
Indus
Ganges
Godavari
Narmada
Krishna
Kaveri
Tantrik
Khandesh
Ponda
Karwar
Siddi
Janjira
Athani
Qutubshah
Gingee
Rajaram I
Venkoji
Mohite
Mysore
dysentery
Hanuman Jayanti
Putalabai
sati
Jan Muhammad of Jalna
Soyarabai
Rajaram
Raigad Fort
Rajaram
Tarabai
defeat for the Mughals in 1707.
Shahu
Balaji Vishwanath
Peshwa
Bajirao I
Balaji Bajirao
Tamil Nadu
Peshawar
Khyber Pakhtunkhwa
Bengal
Third Battle of Panipat
Ahmed Shah Abdali
Durrani Empire
Madhavrao Peshwa
reinstated Maratha authority
Maratha Confederacy
Gaekwad
Baroda
Holkar
Indore
Malwa
Scindia
Gwalior
Bhonsale
Nagpur
British East India Company
First Anglo-Maratha War
Second
Third Anglo-Maratha
Persian
Sindhudurg
Ashta Pradhan
Rajpurohit
Keshav Pandit
Samarth Ramdas
Kavi Bhushan
Rajgad
Torna
Sinhagad
Purandar
Jadunath Sarkar
galivat
Bassein
Rui Leitao Viegas
Sindhudurg
coastal navy
Alexander
Hannibal
Julius Caesar
Mughal
Jyotirao Phule
Dalit
Lokmanya Tilak
M. G. Ranade
James Grant Duff
Jawaharlal Nehru
Shiv Sena
Bharatiya Janata Party
Indira Congress
Nationalist Congress Party
Yashwantrao Chavan
Babasaheb Purandare
Illustrated Weekly
James W. Laine
Bhandarkar Oriental Research Institute
Sambhaji Brigade
Maharashtra
Bombay High Court
Supreme Court of India
INS Shivaji
postage stamp
main airport
railway headquarters
Diwali
Shiv Smarak
world's largest statue

categories: Maratha Empire,Infectious disease deaths in India,Shivaji,17th-century Indian monarchs,Hindu warriors,Indian Hindus,Hindu monarchs,Indian warriors,1680 deaths,People from Maharashtra,1630 births

paragraph: Shivaji

paragraph: Shivaji Bhonsle I (; c. 1627/1630 – 3 April 1680) was an Indian warrior king and a member of the Bhonsle Maratha clan. Shivaji carved out an enclave from the declining Adilshahi sultanate of Bijapur that formed the genesis of the Maratha Empire. In 1674, he was formally crowned as the "chhatrapati" (emperor) of his realm at Raigad.

paragraph: Over the course of his life, Shivaji engaged in both alliances and hostilities with the Mughal Empire, Sultanate of Golkonda, and Sultanate of Bijapur, as well as European colonial powers. Shivaji's military forces expanded the Maratha sphere of influence, capturing and building forts, and forming a Maratha navy. Shivaji established a competent and progressive civil rule with well-structured administrative organisations. He revived ancient Hindu political traditions and court conventions and promoted the usage of Marathi and Sanskrit, rather than Persian, in court and administration.

paragraph: Shivaji's legacy was to vary by observer and time but he began to take on increased importance with the emergence of the Indian independence movement, as many elevated him as a proto-nationalist and hero of the Hindus. Particularly in Maharashtra, debates over his history and role have engendered great passion and sometimes even violence as disparate groups have sought to characterise him and his legacy.

paragraph: Section::::Early life.

paragraph: Shivaji was born in the hill-fort of Shivneri, near the city of Junnar in what is now Pune district. Scholars disagree on his date of birth. The Government of Maharashtra lists 19 February as a holiday commemorating Shivaji's birth (Shivaji Jayanti). Shivaji was named after a local deity, the goddess Shivai. Shivaji's father Shahaji Bhonsle was a Maratha general who served the Deccan Sultanates. His mother was Jijabai, the daughter of Lakhuji Jadhavrao of Sindhkhed, a Mughal-aligned sardar claiming descent from a Yadav royal family of Devagiri.

paragraph: At the time of Shivaji's birth, power in Deccan was shared by three Islamic sultanates: Bijapur, Ahmednagar, and Golkonda. Shahaji often changed his loyalty between the Nizamshahi of Ahmadnagar, the Adilshah of Bijapur and the Mughals, but always kept his "jagir" (fiefdom) at Pune and his small army.

paragraph: Section::::Early life.:Upbringing.

paragraph: Shivaji was devoted to his mother Jijabai, who was deeply religious. His studies of the Hindu epics, the "Ramayana" and the "Mahabharata", also influenced his lifelong defence of Hindu values. He was deeply interested in religious teachings, and regularly sought the company of Hindu and Sufi saints. Shahaji, meanwhile had married a second wife, Tuka Bai from the Mohite family. Having made peace with the Mughals, ceding them six forts, he went to serve the Sultanate of Bijapur. He moved Shivaji and Jijabai from Shivneri to Pune and left them in the care of his "jagir" administrator, Dadoji Konddeo, who has been credited with overseeing the education and training of young Shivaji.

paragraph: Many of Shivaji's comrades, and later a number of his soldiers, came from the Maval region, including Yesaji Kank, Suryaji Kakade, Baji Pasalkar, Baji Prabhu Deshpande and Tanaji Malusare. Shivaji traveled the hills and forests of the Sahyadri range with his Maval friends, gaining skills and familiarity with the land that would prove useful in his military career. Shivaji's independent spirit and his association with the Maval youths did not sit well with Dadoji, who complained without success to Shahaji.

paragraph: In 1639, Shahaji was stationed at Bangalore, which was conquered from the nayaks who had taken control after the demise of the Vijayanagara Empire. He was asked to hold and settle the area. Shivaji was taken to Bangalore where he, his elder brother Sambhaji, and his half brother Ekoji I were further formally trained. He married Saibai from the prominent Nimbalkar family in 1640. As early as 1645, the teenage Shivaji expressed his concept for "Hindavi Swarajya" (Indian self-rule), in a letter.

paragraph: Section::::Conflict with Bijapur.

paragraph: In 1645, the 15-year-old Shivaji bribed or persuaded Inayat Khan, the Bijapuri commander of the Torna Fort, to hand over possession of the fort to him. The Maratha Firangoji Narsala, who held the Chakan fort, professed his loyalty to Shivaji, and the fort of Kondana was acquired by bribing the Bijapuri governor. On 25 July 1648, Shahaji was imprisoned by Baji Ghorpade under the orders of Bijapuri ruler Mohammed Adilshah, in a bid to contain Shivaji.

paragraph: According to Sarkar, Shahaji was released in 1649 after the capture of Jinji secured Adilshah's position in Karnataka. During these developments, from 1649–1655 Shivaji paused in his conquests and quietly consolidated his gains. After his release, Shahaji retired from public life, and died around 1664–1665 in a hunting accident. Following his father's release, Shivaji resumed raiding, and in 1656, under controversial circumstances, killed Chandrarao More, a fellow Maratha feudatory of Bijapur, and seized from him the valley of Javali.

paragraph: Section::::Conflict with Bijapur.:Combat with Afzal Khan.

paragraph: Adilshah was displeased at his losses to Shivaji's forces, which his vassal Shahaji disavowed. Having ended his conflict with the Mughals and having a greater ability to respond, in 1657 Adilshah sent Afzal Khan, a veteran general, to arrest Shivaji. Before engaging him, the Bijapuri forces desecrated the Tulja Bhavani Temple, holy to Shivaji's family, and the Vithoba temple at Pandharpur, a major pilgrimage site for the Hindus.

paragraph: Pursued by Bijapuri forces, Shivaji retreated to Pratapgad fort, where many of his colleagues pressed him to surrender. The two forces found themselves at a stalemate, with Shivaji unable to break the siege, while Afzal Khan, having a powerful cavalry but lacking siege equipment, was unable to take the fort. After two months, Afzal Khan sent an envoy to Shivaji suggesting the two leaders meet in private outside the fort to parley.

paragraph: The two met in a hut at the foothills of Pratapgad fort on 10 November 1659. The arrangements had dictated that each come armed only with a sword, and attended by one follower. Shivaji, either suspecting Afzal Khan would arrest or attack him, or secretly planning to attack himself, wore armour beneath his clothes, concealed a "bagh nakh" (metal "tiger claw") on his left arm, and had a dagger in his right hand.

paragraph: Accounts vary on whether Shivaji or Afzal Khan struck the first blow: Maratha chronicles accuse Afzal Khan of treachery, while Persian-language records attribute the treachery to Shivaji. In the fight, Afzal Khan's dagger was stopped by Shivaji's armour, and Shivaji's weapons inflicted mortal wounds on the general; Shivaji then fired a cannon to signal his hidden troops to attack the Bijapuri army. In the ensuing Battle of Pratapgarh fought on 10 November 1659, Shivaji's forces decisively defeated the Bijapur Sultanate's forces. More than 3,000 soldiers of the Bijapur army were killed and one sardar of high rank, two sons of Afzal Khan and two Maratha chiefs were taken prisoner.

paragraph: After the victory, a grand review was held by Shivaji below Pratapgarh. The captured enemy, both officers and men, were set free and sent back to their homes with money, food and other gifts. Marathas were rewarded accordingly.

paragraph: Section::::Conflict with Bijapur.:Siege of Panhala.

paragraph: Having defeated the Bijapuri forces sent against him, Shivaji's army marched towards the Konkan and Kolhapur, seizing Panhala fort, and defeating Bijapuri forces sent against them under Rustam Zaman and Fazl Khan in 1659. In 1660, Adilshah sent his general Siddi Jauhar to attack Shivaji's southern border, in alliance with the Mughals who planned to attack from the north. At that time, Shivaji was encamped at Panhala fort with his forces. Siddi Jauhar's army besieged Panhala in mid-1660, cutting off supply routes to the fort. During the bombardment of Panhala, Siddi Jahuar purchased grenades from the British at Rajapur to increase his efficacy, and also hired some English artillerymen to bombard the fort, conspicuously flying a flag used by the English. This perceived betrayal angered Shivaji, who in December would exact revenge by plundering the English factory at Rajapur and capturing four of the factors, imprisoning them until mid-1663.

paragraph: After months of siege, Shivaji negotiated with Siddi Jahuar and handed over the fort on 22 September 1660, withdrawing to Vishalgad; Shivaji retook Panhala in 1673.

paragraph: Section::::Conflict with Bijapur.:Battle of Pavan Khind.

paragraph: There is some dispute over the circumstances of Shivaji's withdrawal (treaty or escape) and his destination (Ragna or Vishalgad), but the popular story details his night movement to Vishalgad and a sacrificial rear-guard action to allow him to escape. Per these accounts, Shivaji withdrew from Panhala by cover of night, and as he was pursued by the enemy cavalry, his Maratha sardar Baji Prabhu Deshpande of Bandal Deshmukh, along with 300 soldiers, volunteered to fight to the death to hold back the enemy at Ghod Khind ("horse ravine") to give Shivaji and the rest of the army a chance to reach the safety of the Vishalgad fort.

paragraph: In the ensuing Battle of Pavan Khind, the smaller Maratha force held back the larger enemy to buy time for Shivaji to escape. Baji Prabhu Deshpande was wounded but continued to fight until he heard the sound of cannon fire from Vishalgad, signalling Shivaji had safely reached the fort, on the evening of 13 July 1660. "Ghod Khind" ("khind" meaning "a narrow mountain pass") was later renamed "Paavan Khind" ("sacred pass") in honour of Bajiprabhu Deshpande, Shibosingh Jadhav, Fuloji, and all other soldiers who fought in there.

paragraph: Section::::Conflict with the Mughals.

paragraph: Until 1657, Shivaji maintained peaceful relations with the Mughal Empire. Shivaji offered his assistance to Aurangzeb, the Mughal viceroy of the Deccan and son of the Mughal emperor, in conquering Bijapur in return for formal recognition of his right to the Bijapuri forts and villages under his possession. Dissatisfied with the Mughal response, and receiving a better offer from Bijapur, he launched a raid into the Mughal Deccan. Shivaji's confrontations with the Mughals began in March 1657, when two of Shivaji's officers raided the Mughal territory near Ahmednagar. This was followed by raids in Junnar, with Shivaji carrying off 300,000 "hun" in cash and 200 horses. Aurangzeb responded to the raids by sending Nasiri Khan, who defeated the forces of Shivaji at Ahmednagar. However, Aurangzeb's countermeasures against Shivaji were interrupted by the rainy season and his battle of succession with his brothers for the Mughal throne following the illness of the emperor Shah Jahan.

paragraph: Section::::Conflict with the Mughals.:Attacks on Shaista Khan and Surat.

paragraph: Upon the request of Badi Begum of Bijapur, Aurangzeb, now the Mughal emperor, sent his maternal uncle Shaista Khan, with an army numbering over 150,000 along with a powerful artillery division in January 1660 to attack Shivaji in conjunction with Bijapur's army led by Siddi Jauhar. Shaista Khan, with his better–equipped and –provisioned army of 80,000 seized Pune. He also took the nearby fort of Chakan, besieging it for a month and a half before breaching the walls. Shaista Khan pressed his advantage of having a larger, better provisioned and heavily armed Mughal army and made inroads into some of the Maratha territory, seizing the city of Pune and establishing his residence at Shivaji's palace of Lal Mahal.

paragraph: In April 1663, Shivaji launched a surprise attack on Shaista Khan in Pune, along with a small group of men. After gaining access to Khan's compound, the raiders were able to kill some of his wives; Shaista Khan escaped, losing a finger in the melee. The Khan took refuge with the Mughal forces outside of Pune, and Aurangzeb punished him for this embarrassment with a transfer to Bengal.

paragraph: In retaliation for Shaista Khan's attacks, and to replenish his now-depleted treasury, in 1664 Shivaji sacked the port city of Surat, a wealthy Mughal trading centre.

paragraph: Section::::Conflict with the Mughals.:Treaty of Purandar.

paragraph: The attacks on Shaista Khan and Surat enraged Aurangzeb. In response he sent the Rajput Mirza Raja Jai Singh I with an army numbering around 15,000 to defeat Shivaji. Throughout 1665, Jai Singh's forces pressed Shivaji, with their cavalry razing the countryside, and their siege forces investing Shivaji's forts. The Mughal commander succeeded in luring away several of Shivaji's key commanders, and many of his cavalrymen, into Mughal service. By mid-1665, with the fortress at Purandar besieged and near capture, Shivaji was forced to come to terms with Jai Singh.

paragraph: In the Treaty of Purandar, signed between Shivaji and Jai Singh on 11 June 1665, Shivaji agreed to give up 23 of his forts, keeping 12 for himself, and pay compensation of 400,000 gold hun to the Mughals. Shivaji agreed to become a vassal of the Mughal empire, and to send his son Sambhaji, along with 5,000 horsemen, to fight for the Mughals in the Deccan as a "mansabdar".

paragraph: Section::::Conflict with the Mughals.:Arrest in Agra and escape.

paragraph: In 1666, Aurangzeb summoned Shivaji to Agra (though some sources instead state Delhi), along with his nine-year-old son Sambhaji. Aurangzeb's plan was to send Shivaji to Kandahar, now in Afghanistan, to consolidate the Mughal empire's northwestern frontier. However, in the court, on 12 May 1666, Aurangzeb made Shivaji stand behind "mansabdārs" (military commanders) of his court. Shivaji took offence and stormed out of court, and was promptly placed under house arrest under the watch of Faulad Khan, Kotwal of Agra.

paragraph: Shivaji's position under house arrest was perilous, as Aurangzeb's court debated whether to kill him or continue to employ him, and Shivaji used his dwindling funds to bribe courtiers to support his case. Orders came from the emperor to station Shivaji in Kabul, which Shivaji refused. Instead he asked for his forts to be returned and to serve the Mughals as a mansabdar; Aurangzeb rebutted that he must surrender his remaining forts before returning to Mughal service. Shivaji managed to escape from Agra, likely by bribing the guards, though the emperor was never able to ascertain how he escaped despite an investigation. Popular legend says that Shivaji smuggled himself and his son out of the house in large baskets, claimed to be sweets to be gifted to religious figures in the city.

paragraph: Section::::Conflict with the Mughals.:Peace with the Mughals.

paragraph: After Shivaji's escape, hostilities with the Mughals ebbed, with Mughal sardar Jaswant Singh acting as intermediary between Shivaji and Aurangzeb for new peace proposals. During the period between 1666 and 1668, Aurangzeb conferred the title of raja on Shivaji. Sambhaji was also restored as a Mughal mansabdar with 5,000 horses. Shivaji at that time sent Sambhaji with general Prataprao Gujar to serve with the Mughal viceroy in Aurangabad, Prince Mu'azzam. Sambhaji was also granted territory in Berar for revenue collection. Aurangzeb also permitted Shivaji to attack the decaying Adil Shahi; the weakened Sultan Ali Adil Shah II sued for peace and granted the rights of "sardeshmukhi" and "chauthai" to Shivaji.

paragraph: Section::::Reconquest.

paragraph: The peace between Shivaji and the Mughals lasted until 1670. At that time Aurangzeb became suspicious of the close ties between Shivaji and Mu'azzam, who he thought might usurp his throne, and may even have been receiving bribes from Shivaji. Also at that time, Aurangzeb, occupied in fighting the Afghans, greatly reduced his army in the Deccan; many of the disbanded soldiers quickly joined Maratha service. The Mughals also took away the jagir of Berar from Shivaji to recover the money lent to him a few years earlier. In response, Shivaji launched an offensive against the Mughals and recovered a major portion of the territories surrendered to them in a span of four months.

paragraph: Shivaji sacked Surat for second time in 1670; the British and Dutch factories were able to repel his attack, but he managed to sack the city itself, including plundering the goods of a Muslim prince from Mawara-un-Nahr who was returning from Mecca. Angered by the renewed attacks, the Mughals resumed hostilities with the Marathas, sending a force under Daud Khan to intercept Shivaji on his return home from Surat, but were defeated in the Battle of Vani-Dindori near present-day Nashik.

paragraph: In October 1670, Shivaji sent his forces to harass the English at Bombay; as they had refused to sell him war materiel, his forces blocked Bombay's woodcutting parties. In September 1671, Shivaji sent an ambassador to Bombay, again seeking materiel, this time for the fight against Danda-Rajpuri. The English had misgivings of the advantages Shivaji would gain from this conquest, but also did not want to lose any chance of receiving compensation for his looting their factories at Rajapur. The English sent Lieutenant Stephen Ustick to treat with Shivaji, but negotiations failed over the issue of the Rajapur indemnity. Numerous exchanges of envoys followed over the coming years, with some agreement as to the arms issues in 1674, but Shivaji was never to pay the Rajapur indemnity before his death, and the factory there dissolved at the end of 1682.

paragraph: Section::::Reconquest.:Battles of Umrani and Nesari.

paragraph: In 1674, Prataprao Gujar, the commander-in-chief of the Maratha forces, was sent to push back the invading force led by the Bijapuri general, Bahlol Khan. Prataprao's forces defeated and captured the opposing general in the battle, after cutting-off their water supply by encircling a strategic lake, which prompted Bahlol Khan to sue for peace. In spite of Shivaji's specific warnings against doing so, Prataprao released Bahlol Khan, who started preparing for a fresh invasion.

paragraph: Shivaji sent a displeased letter to Prataprao, refusing him audience until Bahlol Khan was re-captured. Upset by his commander's rebuke, Prataprao found Bahlol Khan and charged his position with only six other horsemen, leaving his main force behind. Prataprao was killed in combat; Shivaji was deeply grieved on hearing of Prataprao's death, and arranged for the marriage of his second son, Rajaram, to Prataprao's daughter. Anandrao Mohite became Hambirrao Mohite, the new "sarnaubat" (commander-in-chief of the Maratha forces). Raigad Fort was newly built by Hiroji Indulkar as a capital of nascent Maratha kingdom.

paragraph: Section::::Coronation.

paragraph: Shivaji had acquired extensive lands and wealth through his campaigns, but lacking a formal title he was still technically a Mughal zamindar or the son of a Bijapuri jagirdar, with no legal basis to rule his de facto domain. A kingly title could address this and also prevent any challenges by other Maratha leaders, to whom he was technically equal. it would also provide the Hindu Marathas with a fellow Hindu sovereign in a region otherwise ruled by Muslims.

paragraph: Controversy erupted amongst the Brahmins of Shivaji's court: they refused to crown Shivaji as a king because that status was reserved for those of the kshatriya (warrior) varna in Hindu society. Shivaji was descended from a line of headmen of farming villages, and the Brahmins accordingly categorised him as being of the shudra (cultivator) varna. They noted that Shivaji had never had a sacred thread ceremony, and did not wear the thread, which a kshatriya would. Shivaji summoned Gaga Bhatt, a pandit of Varanasi, who stated that he had found a genealogy proving that Shivaji was descended from the Sisodia Rajputs, and thus indeed a kshatriya, albeit one in need of the ceremonies befitting his rank. To enforce this status, Shivaji was given a sacred thread ceremony, and remarried his spouses under the Vedic rites expected of a kshatriya. However, following historical evidence, Shivaji's claim to Rajput, and specifically Sisodia ancestry may be interpreted as being anything from tenuous at best, to inventive in a more extreme reading.

paragraph: Shivaji was crowned king of Maratha Swaraj in a lavish ceremony on 6 June 1674 at Raigad fort. In the Hindu calendar it was on the 13th day ("trayodashi") of the first fortnight of the month of "Jyeshtha" in the year 1596. Gaga Bhatt officiated, holding a gold vessel filled with the seven sacred waters of the rivers Yamuna, Indus, Ganges, Godavari, Narmada, Krishna and Kaveri over Shivaji's head, and chanted the Vedic coronation mantras. After the ablution, Shivaji bowed before Jijabai and touched her feet. Nearly fifty thousand people gathered at Raigad for the ceremonies. Shivaji was entitled "Shakakarta" ("founder of an era") and "Chhatrapati" ("paramount sovereign"). He also took the title of "Haindava Dharmodhhaarak" (protector of the Hindu faith).

paragraph: Shivaji's mother Jijabai died on 18 June 1674. The Marathas summoned Bengali Tantrik goswami "Nischal Puri", who declared that the original coronation had been held under inauspicious stars, and a second coronation was needed. This second coronation on 24 September 1674 had a dual use, mollifying those who still believed that Shivaji was not qualified for the Vedic rites of his first coronation, by performing a less-contestable additional ceremony.

paragraph: Section::::Conquest in Southern India.

paragraph: Beginning in 1674, the Marathas undertook an aggressive campaign, raiding Khandesh (October), capturing Bijapuri Ponda (April 1675), Karwar (mid-year), and Kolhapur (July). In November the Maratha navy skirmished with the Siddis of Janjira, but failed to dislodge them. Having recovered from an illness, and taking advantage of a conflict between the Afghans and Bijapur, Shivaji raided Athani in April 1676.

paragraph: In the run-up to his expedition Shivaji appealed to a sense of Deccani patriotism, that Southern India was a homeland that should be protected from outsiders. His appeal was somewhat successful, and in 1677 Shivaji visited Hyderabad for a month and entered into a treaty with the Qutubshah of the Golkonda sultanate, agreeing to reject his alliance with Bijapur and jointly oppose the Mughals. In 1677 Shivaji invaded Karnataka with 30,000 cavalry and 40,000 infantry, backed by Golkonda artillery and funding. Proceeding south, Shivaji seized the forts of Vellore and Gingee; the latter would later serve as a capital of the Marathas during the reign of his son Rajaram I.

paragraph: Shivaji intended to reconcile with his half-brother Venkoji (Ekoji I), Shahaji's son by his second wife, Tukabai (née Mohite), who ruled Thanjavur (Tanjore) after Shahaji. The initially promising negotiations were unsuccessful, so whilst returning to Raigad Shivaji defeated his half-brother's army on 26 November 1677 and seized most of his possessions in the Mysore plateau. Venkoji's wife Dipa Bai, whom Shivaji deeply respected, took up new negotiations with Shivaji, and also convinced her husband to distance himself from Muslim advisors. In the end Shivaji consented to turn over to her and her female descendants many of the properties he had seized, with Venkoji consenting to a number of conditions for the proper administration of the territories and maintenance of Shivaji's future memorial ("samadhi").

paragraph: Section::::Death and succession.

paragraph: The question of Shivaji's heir-apparent was complicated by the misbehaviour of his eldest son, Sambhaji, who was irresponsible. Unable to curb this, Shivaji confined his son to Panhala in 1678, only to have the prince escape with his wife and defect to the Mughals for a year. Sambhaji then returned home, unrepentant, and was again confined to Panhala.

paragraph: In late March 1680, Shivaji fell ill with fever and dysentery, dying around 3–5 April 1680 at the age of 52, on the eve of Hanuman Jayanti. Putalabai, the childless eldest of the surviving wives of Shivaji committed "sati" by jumping into his funeral pyre. Another surviving spouse, Sakwarbai, was not allowed to follow suit because she had a young daughter. Rumours followed Shivaji's death, with some Muslims opining he had died of a curse from Jan Muhammad of Jalna, as punishment for Shivaji's troops attacking merchants who had taken refuge in his hermitage. There were also allegations, though doubted by later scholars, that his second wife Soyarabai had poisoned him in order to put her 10-year-old son Rajaram on the throne.

paragraph: After Shivaji's death, Soyarabai made plans with various ministers of the administration to crown her son Rajaram rather than her stepson Sambhaji. On 21 April 1680, ten-year-old Rajaram was installed on the throne. However, Sambhaji took possession of Raigad Fort after killing the commander, and on 18 June acquired control of Raigad, and formally ascended the throne on 20 July. Rajaram, his wife Janki Bai, and mother Soyrabai were imprisoned, and Soyrabai executed on charges of conspiracy that October.

paragraph: Section::::Death and succession.:The Marathas after Shivaji.

paragraph: Shivaji left behind a state always at odds with the Mughals. Soon after his death, in 1681, Aurangzeb launched an offensive in the South to capture territories held by the Marathas: Bijapur and Golkonda. He was successful in obliterating the Sultanates but could not subdue the Marathas after spending 27 years in the Deccan. The period saw the capture, torture, and execution of Sambhaji in 1689, and the Marathas offering strong resistance under the leadership of Sambhaji's successor, Rajaram and then Rajaram's widow Tarabai. Territories changed hands repeatedly between the Mughals and the Marathas; the conflict ended in defeat for the Mughals in 1707.

paragraph: Shahu, a grandson of Shivaji and son of Sambhaji, was kept prisoner by Aurangzeb during a 27-year period. After the latter's death, his successor released Shahu. After a brief power struggle over succession with his aunt Tarabai, Shahu ruled the Maratha Empire from 1707 to 1749. Early in his reign, he appointed Balaji Vishwanath and later his descendants, as Peshwas (prime ministers) of the Maratha Empire. The empire expanded greatly under the leadership of Balaji's son, Peshwa Bajirao I and grandson, Peshwa Balaji Bajirao. At its peak, the Maratha empire stretched from Tamil Nadu in the south, to Peshawar (modern-day Khyber Pakhtunkhwa) in the north, and Bengal. In 1761, the Maratha army lost the Third Battle of Panipat to Ahmed Shah Abdali of the Afghan Durrani Empire, which halted their imperial expansion in northwestern India. Ten years after Panipat, young Madhavrao Peshwa reinstated Maratha authority over North India.

paragraph: In a bid to effectively manage the large empire, Shahu and the Peshwas gave semi-autonomy to the strongest of the knights, creating the Maratha Confederacy. They became known as Gaekwads of Baroda, the Holkars of Indore and Malwa, the Scindias of Gwalior and Bhonsales of Nagpur. In 1775, the British East India Company intervened in a succession struggle in Pune, which became the First Anglo-Maratha War. The Marathas remained the preeminent power in India until their defeat by the British East India Company in the Second and Third Anglo-Maratha wars (1805–1818), which left the Company in control of most of India.

paragraph: Section::::Governance.

paragraph: Section::::Governance.:Promotion of Marathi and Sanskrit.

paragraph: In his court, Shivaji replaced Persian, the common courtly language in the region, with Marathi, and emphasised Hindu political and courtly traditions. The house of Shivaji was well acquainted with Sanskrit and promoted the language; his father Shahaji had supported scholars such as Jayram Pindye, who prepared Shivaji's seal. Shivaji continued this Sanskrit promotion, giving his forts names such as Sindhudurg, Prachandgarh, and Suvarndurg. He named the "Ashta Pradhan" (council of ministers) according to Sanskrit nomenclature, with terms such as "nyaayaadheesha", and "senaapati", and commissioned the political treatise "Raajya Vyavahaara Kosha". His Rajpurohit, Keshav Pandit, was himself a Sanskrit scholar and poet.

paragraph: Section::::Governance.:Religious policy.

paragraph: Shivaji was known for his liberal and tolerant religious policy; while Hindus were relieved to practice their religion freely under a Hindu ruler, Shivaji not only allowed Muslims to practice without harassment, but supported their ministries with endowments, and had many prominent Muslims in his military service. While some accounts of Shivaji state that he was greatly influenced by the Brahmin guru Samarth Ramdas, others have rebutted that Ramdas' role has been over-emphasised by later Brahmin commentators to enhance their position.

paragraph: Though many of Shivaji's enemy states were Muslim, he treated Muslims under his rule with tolerance for their religion. Shivaji's sentiments of inclusivity and tolerance of other religions can be seen in an admonishing letter to Aurangzeb, in which he wrote:

paragraph: Noting however that Shivaji had stemmed the spread of the neighbouring Muslim states, his contemporary, the poet Kavi Bhushan stated: "Had not there been Shivaji, Kashi would have lost its culture, Mathura would have been turned into a mosque and all would have been circumcised".

paragraph: There is less evidence of Shivaji's attitude towards the Christians. To one side, in 1667, determined to make war against the Portuguese, three Portuguese Catholic priests and a few Christians were killed during Shivaji's raid on Bardes. However, during the sack of Surat in 1664, Shivaji was approached by Ambrose, a Capuchin monk who asked him to spare the city's Christians. Shivaji left the mission untouched, saying "the Frankish Padrys are good men."

paragraph: Section::::Military.

paragraph: Shivaji demonstrated great skill in creating his military organisation, which lasted until the demise of the Maratha empire. His strategy rested on leveraging his ground forces, naval forces, and series of forts across his territory. The Maval infantry served as the core of his ground forces (reinforced with Telangi musketeers from Karnataka), supported by Maratha cavalry. His artillery was relatively underdeveloped and reliant on European suppliers, further inclining him to a very mobile form of warfare.

paragraph: Shivaji was contemptuously called a "Mountain Rat" by Aurangzeb and his generals because of his guerilla tactics of attacking enemy forces and then retreating into his mountain forts.

paragraph: Section::::Military.:Forts.

paragraph: Forts played a key role in Shivaji's strategy. He captured important forts at Murambdev (Rajgad), Torna, Kondhana (Sinhagad) and Purandar. He also rebuilt or repaired many forts in advantageous locations. In addition, Shivaji built a number of forts; the number "111" is reported in some accounts, but it is likely the actual number "did not exceed 18". The historian Jadunath Sarkar assessed that Shivaji owned some 240–280 forts at the time of his death. Each was placed under three officers of equal status lest a single traitor be bribed or tempted to deliver it to the enemy. The officers acted jointly and provided mutual checks and balance.

paragraph: Section::::Military.:Navy.

paragraph: Aware of the need for naval power to maintain control along the Konkan coast, Shivaji began to build his navy in 1657 or 1659, with the purchase of twenty galivats from the Portuguese shipyards of Bassein. Marathi chronicles state that at its height his fleet counted some 400 military ships, though British chronicles counter that the number never exceeded 160 ships.

paragraph: With the Marathas being accustomed to a land-based military, Shivaji widened his search for qualified crews for his ships, taking on lower-caste Hindus of the coast who were long familiar with naval operations (the famed "Malabar pirates") as well as Muslim mercenaries. Noting the power of the Portuguese navy, Shivaji hired a number of Portuguese sailors and Goan Christian converts, and made Rui Leitao Viegas commander of his fleet. Viegas was later to defect back to the Portuguese, taking 300 sailors with him.

paragraph: Shivaji fortified his coastline by seizing coastal forts and refurbishing them, and built his first marine fort at Sindhudurg, which was to become the headquarters of the Maratha navy. The navy itself was a coastal navy, focused on travel and combat in the littoral areas, and not intended to go far out to sea.

paragraph: Section::::Legacy.

paragraph: Shivaji was well known for his strong religious and warrior code of ethics and exemplary character. He was recognized as a great national hero during Indian Independence Movement.

paragraph: Section::::Legacy.:Early depictions.

paragraph: Shivaji was admired for his heroic exploits and clever stratagems in the contemporary accounts of English, French, Dutch, Portuguese and Italian writers. Contemporary British writers compared him with Alexander, Hannibal and Julius Caesar.

paragraph: Mughal depictions of Shivaji were largely negative, referring to him simply as "Shiva" without the honorific "-ji". One Mughal writer in the early 1700s described Shivaji's death as "kafir bi jahannum raft" ("the infidel went to Hell"). Muslim writers of the day generally described him as a plunderer and marauder.

paragraph: Section::::Legacy.:Reimagining.

paragraph: In the mid-19th century, Maharashtrian social reformer Jyotirao Phule wrote his interpretation of the Shivaji legend, portraying him as a hero of the shudras and Dalits. Phule sought to use the Shivaji myths to undermine the Brahmins he accused of hijacking the narrative, and uplift the lower classes; his 1869 ballad-form story of Shivaji was met with great hostility by the Brahmin-dominated media. At the end of the 19th century, Shivaji's memory was leveraged by the non-Brahmin intellectuals of Bombay, who identified as his descendants and through him claimed the kshatriya varna. While some Brahmins rebutted this identity, defining them as of the lower shudra varna, other Brahmins recognised the Maratha's utility to the Indian independence movement, and endorsed this kshatriya legacy and the significance of Shivaji.

paragraph: In 1895, Indian nationalist leader, Lokmanya Tilak organised what was to be an annual festival to mark the birthday celebrations of Shivaji. He portrayed Shivaji as the opponent of the oppressor, opening loaded implications for the British Raj. Tilak denied any suggestion that his festival was anti-Muslim or disloyal to the government, but simply a celebration of a hero. These celebrations prompted a British commentator in 1906 to note: "Cannot the annals of the Hindu race point to a single hero whom even the tongue of slander will not dare call a chief of dacoits ...?"

paragraph: One of the early commentators who challenged the negative British view was M. G. Ranade, whose "Rise of the Maratha Power" (1900) declared Shivaji's achievements as the beginning of modern nation-building. Ranade criticised earlier British portrayals of Shivaji's state as "a freebooting Power, which thrived by plunder and adventure, and succeeded only because it was the most cunning and adventurous ... This is a very common feeling with the readers, who derive their knowledge of these events solely from the works of English historians."

paragraph: In 1919, Sarkar published the seminal "Shivaji and His Times", hailed as the most authoritative biography of the king since James Grant Duff's 1826 "A History of the Mahrattas". A respected scholar, Sarkar was able to read primary sources in Persian, Marathi, and Arabic, but was challenged for his criticism of the "chauvinism" of Marathi historians' views of Shivaji. Likewise, though supporters cheered his depiction of the killing of Afzal Khan as justified, they decried Sarkar's terming as "murder" the killing of the Hindu raja Chandrao More and his clan.

paragraph: Section::::Legacy.:Inspiration.

paragraph: As political tensions rose in India in the early 20th century, some Indian leaders came to re-work their earlier stances on Shivaji's role. Jawaharlal Nehru had in 1934 noted "Some of the Shivaji's deeds, like the treacherous killing of the Bijapur general, lower him greatly in our estimation." Following public outcry from Pune intellectuals, Congress leader T. R. Deogirikarnoted that Nehru had admitted he was wrong regarding Shivaji, and now endorsed Shivaji as great nationalist.

paragraph: In 1966, the Shiv Sena (Army of Shivaji) party formed to promote the interests of Marathi speaking people in the face of migration to Maharashtra from other parts of India, and the accompanying loss of power for locals. His image adorns literature, propaganda and icons of the party.

paragraph: In modern times, Shivaji is considered as a national hero in India, especially in the state of Maharashtra, where he remains arguably the greatest figure in the state's history. Stories of his life form an integral part of the upbringing and identity of the Marathi people. Further, he is also recognised as a warrior legend, who sowed the seeds of Indian independence. Shivaji is upheld as an example by the Hindu nationalist Bharatiya Janata Party, and also of the Maratha caste dominated Congress parties in Maharashtra, such as the Indira Congress and the Nationalist Congress Party. Past Congress party leaders in the state, such as Yashwantrao Chavan, were considered political descendants of Shivaji.

paragraph: In the late 20th century, Babasaheb Purandare became one of the most significant artists in portraying Shivaji in his writings, leading him to be declared in 1964 as the "Shiv-Shahir" ("Bard of Shivaji"). However, Purandare, a Brahmin, was also accused of over-emphasising the influence of Brahmin gurus on Shivaji, and his "Maharashtra Bhushan]' award ceremony in 2015 was protested by those claiming he had defamed Shivaji. Purandare has, on the other end, been accused of a communalist and anti-Muslim portrayal of Shivaji at odds with the king's own actions.

paragraph: Section::::Legacy.:Controversy.

paragraph: In 1993, the "Illustrated Weekly" published an article suggesting that Shivaji was not opposed to Muslims per se, and was influenced by their form of governance. Congress Party members called for legal actions against the publisher and writer, Marathi newspapers accused them of "imperial prejudice" and Shiv Sena called for the writer's public flogging. Maharashtra brought legal action against the publisher under regulations prohibiting enmity between religious and cultural groups, but a High Court found the "Illustrated Weekly" had operated within the bounds of freedom of expression.

paragraph: In 2003, American academic James W. Laine published his book "Shivaji: Hindu King in Islamic India", which was followed by heavy criticism including threats of arrest. As a result of this publication, the Bhandarkar Oriental Research Institute in Pune where Laine had researched was attacked by a group of Maratha activists calling itself the Sambhaji Brigade. The book was banned in Maharashtra in January 2004, but the ban was lifted by the Bombay High Court in 2007, and in July 2010 the Supreme Court of India upheld the lifting of ban. This lifting was followed by public demonstrations against the author and the decision of the Supreme Court.

paragraph: Section::::Legacy.:Commemorations.

paragraph: Commemorations of Shivaji are found throughout India, most notably in Maharashtra. Shivaji's statues and monuments are found almost in every town and city in Maharashtra as well as in different places across India. Other commemorations include the Indian Navy's ship the INS Shivaji, numerous postage stamps, and the main airport and railway headquarters in Mumbai. In Maharashtra, there has been a long tradition of children building a replica fort with toy soldiers and other figures during the festival of Diwali in memory of Shivaji.

paragraph: A proposal to build a giant memorial called Shiv Smarak was approved in 2016 to be located near Mumbai on a small island in the Arabian Sea. It will be 210 meters tall making it the world's largest statue when completed in possibly 2021.

paragraph: Section::::Further reading.

paragraph: BULLET::::- Daniel Jasper (2003). "Commemorating the 'golden age' of Shivaji in Maharashtra, India and the development of Maharashtrian public politics." "Journal of Political and Military Sociology" 31.2 : 215.

alias:
Chhatrapati Shivaji Maharaj
Shivaji Bhosle
Chhatrapati Shivaji
Shivaji Raje Bhosle
Shivba
Shivrai

description: founder of Maratha Empire

enwikiquote_title: Shivaji

wikidata_label: Shivaji

wikipedia_title: Shivaji


text:
UCR
Victoria, Entre Ríos
Buenos Aires
Radical Civic Union
Juan Perón
1946 general elections
swimming
Eduardo Laurencena
Central Bank of Argentina
Raúl Alfonsín
Ricardo Balbín
Peronist
general elections
military dictatorship
new elections
Lower House of Congress
Beagle Channel Treaty
Chile
divorce
spousal rights
patagonia
Viedma
1989 elections
Carlos Menem
1991 mid-term elections
spinal cord
Cuba
Fidel Castro
Argentine Constitution
Olivos Pact
firing range
Constitutional Convention
Horacio Massaccesi
1995 elections

categories: Jewish Argentine politicians,Radical Civic Union politicians,Argentine journalists,1928 births,Argentine male swimmers,Argentine people of Polish-Jewish descent,People from Entre Ríos Province,Members of the Argentine Chamber of Deputies

paragraph: César Jaroslavsky

paragraph: César Jaroslavsky (May 3, 1928 - February 7, 2002) was an Argentine politician prominent in the UCR, the country's oldest existing political party.

paragraph: Section::::Life and times.

paragraph: Section::::Life and times.:Early life.

paragraph: Jaroslavsky was born in Victoria, Entre Ríos Province, in 1928. His father, a wheat farm laborer, died in 1941, and the family moved to Buenos Aires, where César found work in a brick factory. He joined the centrist Radical Civic Union (UCR) in 1945, though the October 13 arrest of the UCR's chief rival, populist leader Juan Perón, prompted the young Jaroslavsky to join the historic October 17 protests for his release (Perón would go on to win the pivotal 1946 general elections).

paragraph: Returning to Victoria, Jaroslavsky was a provincial swimming champion at age 20 and later that year, was elected President of the Entre Ríos chapter of the UCR Youth. A bank teller initially, he joined the editorial staff at the local newsdaily, "La Mañana", in 1952. Assigned as secretary to UCR lawmaker Eduardo Laurencena, Jaroslavsky earned some prominence when Laurencena was appointed President of the Central Bank of Argentina, in 1956. He was elected to the Provincial Legislature of Entre Ríos in 1958, and re-elected in 1963.

paragraph: Jaroslavsky displayed a contentious style in politics, early on: the granting of what he considered execessive salaries and stipends to Entre Ríos legislators lad to his resignation form the body in 1965 (a 1966 coup d'état suspended that and all other legislative bodies in Argentina, as it happened).

paragraph: The military regime's imminent call for elections led Jaroslavsky in 1972 to join the "Movement for Renewal and Change," Raúl Alfonsín's center-left alternative within the UCR to Ricardo Balbín's more conservative, mainstream ticket. Alfonsín's loss to Balbín in the primaries (and Balbín's loss to the Peronists in the 1973 general elections) caused Jaroslavsky's departure from active politics; Argentina, for its part, would be ruled by another dictatorship from 1976 to 1983.

paragraph: Section::::Life and times.:A leader in the UCR.

paragraph: The failure of the last military dictatorship led to new elections in October 1983, and the election of Raúl Alfonsín to the presidency was accompanied by a UCR majority in the Lower House of Congress. Elected to Congress that year, Jaroslavsky was, in turn, elected Leader of the UCR Congressional Caucus - making him Majority Leader of the body.

paragraph: Jaroslavsky was steadfast advocate of Alfonsín's policies while Majority Leader, and shepherded the ratification of the 1984 Beagle Channel Treaty with neighboring Chile, progressive divorce and spousal rights laws, and the President's controversial, 1986 plan to relocate the nation's capital to the small patagonian city of Viedma, which obtained Lower House passage in 1987 (though it failed to gain Senate approval).

paragraph: An unprecedented financial crisis led to a loss of both the presidency and congress for the UCR in the 1989 elections, and it befell Jaroslavsky to lead negotiations with representatives of the victor, Carlos Menem, on June 15. Jaroslavsky had maintained good relations with Peronist lawakers, however, and negotiations resulted in advancing Menem's inaugural by five months.

paragraph: Section::::Life and times.:Later life.

paragraph: The UCR's losses in the 1991 mid-term elections and his own health problems led Jaroslavsky to retire from Congress, later that year. A spinal cord injury took him to Cuba, where he was visited by President Fidel Castro following surgery.

paragraph: Continuing to promote an understanding with the opposition Peronists, Jaroslavsky in 1992 became the first prominent UCR figure to publicly support President Menem's call to amend the Argentine Constitution in favor of allowing presidential reelection. His support helped Alfonsín regain the party presidency in 1993 on the prospect of mutually beneficial negotiations with Menem. These ultimately took place in November and yielded the Olivos Pact, which granted Menem the right to seek reelection in exchange for reforms favoring the UCR.

paragraph: Jaroslavsky lost his son, Juan Pablo, in a 1994 firing range accident. Taking part in the Constitutional Convention that August, he was brought on as campaign manager to the relatively inexperienced UCR presidential nominee, Governor Horacio Massaccesi. Following the UCR's defeat in the 1995 elections, Jaroslavsky retired from active politics. He authored a reflection on the defeat, "Hay otro camino" ("There is Another Way"), in 1996, and saw his daughter, María Gracia, elected to Congress in 1997.

paragraph: César Jaroslavsky died of a heart attack in Buenos Aires in 2002; he was 73.

description: Argentine politician

wikidata_label: César Jaroslavsky

wikipedia_title: César Jaroslavsky


text: KG

text: Bisham

text: Berkshire

text: English

text: Hundred Years' War

text: John Montagu, 3rd Earl of Salisbury

text: Henry IV

text: Maud Francis

text: Adam Francis

text: Mayor of London

text: Parliament

text: Earl of Salisbury

text: Knight of the Garter

text: Richard, Earl of Cambridge

text: Henry V

text: France

text: Harfleur

text: Battle of Agincourt

text: Normandy

text: Count of Perche

text: Hundred Years' War

text: Le Mans

text: Siege of Orléans

text: Eleanor Holland

text: Edmund Holland, 4th Earl of Kent

text: Thomas Holland, 2nd Earl of Kent

text: Alice Montagu

text: Richard Neville

text: jure uxoris

text: Alice Chaucer

text: Thomas Chaucer

text: Geoffrey Chaucer

text: Siege of Orléans

text: Enguerrand de Monstrelet

text: Meung-sur-Loire

categories: Earls of Salisbury (1337),People from Bisham,Knights of the Garter,Counts of Perche,1428 deaths,1388 births,English generals,People of the Hundred Years' War

paragraph: Thomas Montagu, 4th Earl of Salisbury

paragraph: Thomas Montagu, 4th Earl of Salisbury, KG (13 June 13883 November 1428) of Bisham in Berkshire, was an English nobleman and one of the most important English commanders during the Hundred Years' War.

paragraph: Section::::Origins.

paragraph: He was the eldest son of John Montagu, 3rd Earl of Salisbury (died 1400), who was killed while plotting against King Henry IV in 1400, and his lands forfeited. The lands were partly retrieved by Thomas in 1409, and fully in 1421. His mother was Maud Francis, daughter of Sir Adam Francis (born c. 1334), Mayor of London.

paragraph: Section::::Career.

paragraph: Thomas was summoned to Parliament as Earl of Salisbury in 1409, although he was not formally invested as earl until 1421. In 1414 he was made a Knight of the Garter. In July 1415 he was one of the seven peers who tried Richard, Earl of Cambridge on charges of conspiring against King Henry V. Montagu then joined King Henry V in France, where he fought at the Siege of Harfleur and at the Battle of Agincourt. Montagu fought in various other campaigns in France in the following years. In 1419 he held an independent command and was appointed lieutenant-general of Normandy and created Count of Perche, part of Henry V's policy of creating Norman titles for his followers.

paragraph: Although he was employed on some diplomatic missions, he took almost no part in politics and spent most of the rest of his life as a soldier in France, leading troops in the various skirmishes and sieges that were central to that part of the Hundred Years' War. In 1423, he was appointed governor of Champagne, and in 1425 he captured the city of Le Mans. After a year in England he returned to a position of command in 1428, and fought at the Siege of Orléans, at which he lost his life on 3 November of that year.

paragraph: Section::::Marriages & progeny.

paragraph: He married twice:

paragraph: BULLET::::- Firstly to Eleanor Holland, a sister and eventual co-heiress of Edmund Holland, 4th Earl of Kent, and daughter of Thomas Holland, 2nd Earl of Kent. By Eleanor he had a daughter, his only legitimate child: Alice Montagu, who married Richard Neville, who later succeeded his father-in-law "jure uxoris" as Earl of Salisbury.

paragraph: BULLET::::- Secondly to Alice Chaucer, daughter of Thomas Chaucer and granddaughter of the poet Geoffrey Chaucer.

paragraph: Section::::Death.

paragraph: On 27 October 1428 he was wounded during the Siege of Orléans, when the tower he was inside was hit by a cannonball. There are conflicting reports on the manner in which this wounded him; Enguerrand de Monstrelet states a piece of stone from the window 'carried away part of his face.' He died days later at Meung-sur-Loire on 3 November 1428.

paragraph: Section::::References.

paragraph: BULLET::::- the Peerage.com on Thomas Montagu, 4th Earl of Salisbury

paragraph: Section::::External links.

paragraph: BULLET::::- "Hundred Years War: Thomas Montacute, 4th Earl of Salisbury (1388–1428)"

paragraph: BULLET::::- "Royal Berkshire History: Thomas Montacute, Earl of Salisbury (1388–1428)"

description: English nobleman

wikidata_label: Thomas Montacute, 4th Earl of Salisbury

wikipedia_title: Thomas Montagu, 4th Earl of Salisbury


text:
set decorator
Academy Awards
Best Art Direction
Ben-Hur
Julius Caesar
Mister Buddwing
The Unsinkable Molly Brown
Twilight of Honor
Mutiny on the Bounty
Cimarron
Raintree County
I'll Cry Tomorrow
Quo Vadis
The Red Danube
The Picture of Dorian Gray
Madame Curie

categories: 1902 births,American set decorators,1988 deaths,Best Art Direction Academy Award winners,People from Memphis, Tennessee

paragraph: Hugh Hunt

paragraph: Hugh Hunt (March 8, 1902 – September 1, 1988) was an American set decorator. He won two Academy Awards and was nominated for eleven more in the category Best Art Direction.

paragraph: Section::::Selected filmography.

paragraph: Hunt won two Academy Awards for Best Art Direction and was nominated for eleven more:

paragraph: BULLET::::- Won

paragraph: BULLET::::- "Ben-Hur" (1959)

paragraph: BULLET::::- "Julius Caesar" (1953)

paragraph: BULLET::::- Nominated

paragraph: BULLET::::- "Mister Buddwing" (1966)

paragraph: BULLET::::- "The Unsinkable Molly Brown" (1964)

paragraph: BULLET::::- "Twilight of Honor" (1963)

paragraph: BULLET::::- "Mutiny on the Bounty" (1962)

paragraph: BULLET::::- "Cimarron" (1960)

paragraph: BULLET::::- "Raintree County" (1957)

paragraph: BULLET::::- "I'll Cry Tomorrow" (1955)

paragraph: BULLET::::- "Quo Vadis" (1951)

paragraph: BULLET::::- "The Red Danube" (1949)

paragraph: BULLET::::- "The Picture of Dorian Gray" (1945)

paragraph: BULLET::::- "Madame Curie" (1943)

description: American set decorator

wikidata_label: Hugh Hunt

wikipedia_title: Hugh Hunt


text: Ali Ibn Abi Talib

text: Muhammad

text: Muslim

text: Muhammad

text: caliphate

text: Ali Ibn Abi Talib

text: Battle of Jamal

text: Siffin

text: Battle of Yarmouk

text: Ali Ibn Abi Talib

text: Muhammad

text: Madh'hij

text: Yemen

text: Amru bin Ma'adi Yakrib

text: Hijra

text: Kufa

text: Waleed ibn Uqba

text: Uthman ibn Affan

text: Homs

text: Madina

text: Muhammad ibn Abi Hudhaifa

text: Abu Dharr al-Ghifari

text: Hajj

text: Marwan bin al-Hakam

text: Ammar ibn Yasir

text: Hasan ibn Ali

text: Hussein ibn Ali

text: caliph

text: Marwan al Hakim

text: Mu'awiyah

text: Basrah

text: Kufa

text: Hasan

text: Battle of Camel

text: Ammar ibn Yasir

text: Muhammad ibn al-Hanafiyyah

text: Muhammad ibn Abi Bakr

text: Battle of Jamal

text: Mu'awiyah

text: Euphrates

text: Fasiq

text: Khawarij

text: Battle of Nahrawan

text: Amr ibn al-As

text: general

text: Governor

text: Egypt

text: Battle of Siffin

text: Muawiyah I

text: 'Amr ibn al-'As

text: Hussain ibn Ali

text: Battle of Karbala

text: Habib ibn Muzahir

text: Ibrahim ibn Malik al-Ashtar

text: Mukhtar al-Thaqafi

text: Hussain ibn Ali

text: Umar ibn Sa'ad

text: Shimr ibn Thil-Jawshan

text: Hurmala ibn Kahil

text: Yazid I

categories: Deaths by poisoning,Male Sahabah,Sahabah favored by Shias,Yemeni Muslims,Arab generals,Ali

image: 512px-مالك_بن_الحارث_الأشتر.png

paragraph: Malik al-Ashtar

paragraph: Malik Al-Ashtar () (also known as Malik bin al-Harith al-Nakha'i) was one of the most loyal companions of Ali Ibn Abi Talib, the cousin of the Islamic prophet Muhammad. Malik al-Ashtar became a Muslim during the time of Muhammad and since then remained an avid and loyal supporter of Muhammad's progeny and Hashemite clan. He rose to a position of prominence during the caliphate of Ali Ibn Abi Talib and participated in several battles, such as the Battle of Jamal and Siffin.

paragraph: Malik has been described as a "brave" and "fearless" warrior by numerous Shia sources and his title ""al-Ashtar"" signifies an eyelid injury he received during the Battle of Yarmouk.

paragraph: Section::::Birth.

paragraph: Although Malik's actual birth year is not known, many historians say that he was 10 years older than Ali Ibn Abi Talib and 20 years younger than Muhammad. Moreover, it is known that Malik was a Madh'hij, a sub-class of the Bani Nakha tribe from Yemen. which is also the tribe of another Sahabah named Amru bin Ma'adi Yakrib

paragraph: His lineage is traced back to Yarab bin Qahtan which genealogy can be traced by sorting his paternal surname Malik bin Al Hareth bin Abed Yaghouth bin Salamah bin Rabha bin Al Harith bin Jathima bin Malik bin Al Naghe bin Amro bin Alaae bin Khald bin Mathgah bin Addad bin Zayd bin Urayb bin Zayd bin Kahlan bin Saba al Akbar bin Youshgab bin Yarab

paragraph: In the year 30 AH (after Hijra) or 650 CE, many Muslims living in the city of Kufa were angered over the action of the governor Waleed ibn Uqba (the half brother of Uthman ibn Affan). People went to Mu'awiyah with complaint, the gathering included Malik al-Ashtar and Kumayl ibn Ziyad as well.

paragraph: They were exiled them from Shaam to Homs. But eventually, Malik al-Ashtar, Kumayl ibn Ziyad, and the delegation made it back to Kufa. After coming back to Kufa and failing to remove al-Waleed, the delegation of Muslims (one of whom was Kumayl ibn Ziyad) led by Malik al-Ashtar set off on a journey to Madina, the capital of the Muslim empire, to address the issue with Uthman. Kumayl ibn Ziyad, Malik al-Ashtar, Muhammad ibn Abi Hudhaifa, and Abdur Rahman ibn Udays were the ones who spoke out most about al-Waleed and the corruption that was occurring.

paragraph: Section::::Conflicts with the governor of Kufa and the event of Al-Rabathah.:The event of al-Rabathan.

paragraph: On their way to Madina, Malik al-Ashtar and the delegation stopped at al-Rabathan to visit Abu Dharr al-Ghifari. Abu Dharr, who was a companion of Muhammad and firm supporter and companion of Ali, was banished to die in the desert of Al-Rabathan. At the time, 650 a.d, Abu Dharr's health was deteriorating. Narrations state that his wife would cry, seeing her husband slowly die in the desert. However, Abu Dharr told her the prophecy of his death, which was given to him by none other than Muhammad, messenger of God. He would say, "One day, my friends and I was sitting with Allah's Apostle (Muhammad). And he said to us: One of you will die in the desert. And a group of believers will attend his death. All my friends passed away in their houses. And no one has remained but I. A person will come to your aid." His wife then stated, "The time of Hajj (Pilgrimage) is over. And no one has passed through this desert." Abu Dharr then told her "Don't worry! Go up the hill and look at the road of caravans." So she went and eventually saw a caravan coming towards her. When she saw the caravan, she started to wave a piece of cloth to get the attention of the on coming caravan. When the caravan approached her she started a conversation.

paragraph: Malik and the delegation then sat next to Abu Dhurr. They felt sorrow to see one of the great companions of the prophet in bad condition. Malik told Abu Dhurr that they were on their way to Medina to meet with Uthman over the issue of al-Waleed. Upon hearing the news of al-Waleed, Abu Dhur became sad.

paragraph: After the event of al-Rabathah, Malik and the delegation continued on their long journey to Medina. When finally met Uthman, they communicated their concerns and al-Waleed's behaviors to Uthman. However they were unsuccessful in their mission thus they decided to seek Hazrat Ali's help.

paragraph: Section::::The downfall of Uthman and Malik's resolution.

paragraph: Since Uthman denied to hear the concerns about al-Waleed, the delegation of concerned Muslims went to the house of Ali in Medina. They told Ali the situation with al-Waleed and Uthman. Ali was sad to hear the news. However, he assured them that he would visit Uthman personally regarding this issue. In his meeting with Uthman, Ali said "Uthman, the Muslims are complaining of the rulers' persecution. And you know that very well I've heard Allah's Apostle (Muhammad) saying: On the Day of Judgement, the unjust imam will be brought to hell. And no one will support or excuse him. Then, he will be thrown into hell. He'll go round and round it till he gets into its intense heat." This statement made Uthman realize his mistakes. And as a result, Uthman promised to seek God's forgiveness and apologize to the Muslims. However, Marwan bin al-Hakam, the cousin of Uthman, persuaded Uthman not to do so by saying "You'd better threaten the people so as no one would dare to say bad words against the Caliph (Uthman)." Due to Marwan, Uthman broke his promise and became stricter. It is documented that he hit the noble companion Ammar ibn Yasir and whipped the companion Abdullah bin Masoud. The stricter policies caused an uproar in the Muslim empire; people began writing letter such as the following below.

paragraph: Muslims, come to us. And save the Caliphate. Allah's Book has been changed. And the Prophet's Sunnah has been changed. So, come to us if you believe in Allah and the Day of Judgement.

paragraph: In a true democratic matter, Malik al-Ashtar represented the enraged Muslim in a meeting with Uthman. In the meeting, Malik asked Uthman to step down from power, but Uthman refused. Uthman's refusal to step down only led to increasing problems. Ali tried to help Uthman and resolve the issue. He sent his own two sons, Hasan ibn Ali and Hussein ibn Ali to go to Uthman and protect him from the angry protesters. Despite this, protesters broke into Uthman's room and killed him. After the killing of Uthman, many Muslims went to Ali and asked him to become the new caliph (leader). But he refused, but Malik and others insisted that he become the caliph. To which Malik addresses, "People, this is the Prophet's Regent. He has learnt the Prophet's knowledge. Allah's Book has mentioned his belief. Allah's Apostle [s] has told him that he will enter al-Ridhwan Garden. His personality is perfect The people in the past and present are certain of his behaviour and knowledge." Malik was one of the first to appoint Ali as the new caliph.

paragraph: Section::::Battle of Jamal.

paragraph: After the downfall of Uthman, many Muslims wanted to gain power within the Islamic Empire. However, Ali was appointed as the new caliph. This upset power-hungry Muslims and the enemies of Ali. As a result, they planned to launch an offensive in the year 656 AD to fight against Ali under the claim that they wanted revenge for the killing of Uthman. One of these was Marwan al Hakim, who would later become a loyal supporter of Mu'awiyah. Marwan played a key role in the Battle of Jamal, in that he formed a large army to fight against Ali. He also bankrolled the army with money that he had stolen from the Public Treasury (money which was supposed to be for Muslim citizens) during the time of Uthman. The army included Aisha, Talha (a friend of Ali), Zubair (the cousin of Ali), and Marwan. Once the army was formed, the rebels headed to Basrah, Iraq. When Ali got news that a mutiny was going to occur, he also formed an army to combat the rebel forces. During the mutiny, the new governor of Kufa, Abu Musa al-Ashary, encouraged the Kufains (citizens of Kufa) not to join Ali's army. Additionally, he encouraged the people to distance themselves and disobey the new caliph, Ali. When Ali realized the situation in Kufa, he sent Malik al-Ashter to rally up troops. As a firm and loyal supporter of Ali Ibn Abi Talib, Malik rallied up the Kufian (citizens of Kufa) with a powerful speech. In the meantime, Abu Musa al-Ashary was commanding people to stay in their homes and not fight for Ali. Malik understood that he needed to remove Abu Musa al-Ashary. So Malik and a large group of fighters seized the palace. Luckily, Abu Musa al-Ashary was at the mosque. His guards informed him that Malik al-Ashtar and a large number of fighters had taken control of the palace. Since Abu Musa al-Ashary was not capable of fighting off Malik, he surrendered. And asked Malik to give him a day to leave Kufa. Malik accepted his offer and let Abu Musa al-Ashary leave peacefully. Once Abu Musa al-Ashary left, Malik delivered another powerful speech (in the mosque) that captivated the hearts of the Kufains. The speech successfully aroused more than 18,000 soldier to join him in order to defend against the rebel attack. 9,000 of those troops were under Malik's commands and the other 9,000 were under Hasan (the eldest son of Ali) commands. They quickly headed towards Dhiqaar, Iraq to join Ali's army. On the day of the Battle of Camel, Ali Ibn Abi Talib put Malik al-Ashtar in charge of the right wing of his army, Ammar ibn Yasir in charge of the left wing of his army, and gave the flag to his son Muhammad ibn al-Hanafiyyah. After both sides introduced themselves (Arabian custom/tradition), Ali asked his army not to attack because they might be mistaken. He also asked his army is there is a brave soul who can take the Quran and appeal to them (the rebels). A brave young man told Ali that he is willing to do it. When the young man turned towards the rebels, the rebels killed him. After this, Ali raised his hands towards the sky and prayed "Allah, the eyes are gazing at you! And the hands are extended! Our lord, judge between our nation and us with justice! And you're the best judge!" When he finished, the war began. Malik al-Ashtar and his soldiers advanced fighting bravely. During the war, Ali Ibn Abi Talib told Malik that as long as the camel of Aisha is standing the war will continue. In order, to end the war he orders Malik al-Ashtar to cut the feet of the Aisha's camel. In addition, he orders Muhammad ibn Abi Bakr, the blood brother of Aisha, to catch Aisha when she falls of the camel. Both Malik and Muhammad ibn Abi Bakr carried out their assignments, thus ending the battle. Above all, Ali ordered his soldiers to escort Aisha safely back to Medina, release the prisoners of war, and cure the injured rebels. Moreover, he forgave/pardoned all the rebels for their actions. However, after the war, Malik al-Ashtar and Ammar bin Yasir went to Aisha. Many scholars state that Malik was 70 years old in the Battle of Jamal. Overall, Malik al-Ahstar was the main cavalry and commander of the army of Ali Ibn Abi Talib in the Battle of Jamal (Battle of the Camel).

paragraph: Section::::Battle of Siffeen.

paragraph: Section::::Battle of Siffeen.:Battles over the Euphrates River.

paragraph: Although the minor conflict occurred in Kirkeesya, the war took place at Siffeen (on the banks of the Euphrates) when Mu'awiyah headed a large reinforcing army to join Abi al-Awar al-Salmy and his army (Mu'awiyah's first army that attacked at night). Mu'awiyah brought reinforcements because during the minor conflict many of his soldiers were killed and injured. When they got to Siffeen, Mu'awiyah ordered an offensive to his army to gain control of the Euphrates River. By taking the controlling the water, Mu'awiyah violated an Islamic law and the laws of war. Therefore, Ali sent Sasaah bin Suhan, one of the companions of the Prophet, to ask for some water. He states to Mu'awiyah, "Mu'awiyah, Ali says: Let us take some water. Then we'll decide what's between you and us, otherwise we will fight each other till the victor drinks." Mu'awiyah replied "I'll answer you later on." After Sasaah bin Suhan left, Mu'awiyah sought advice from his trusted men about what he should do about the water situation. Al-Waleed bin Uthbah (the ex-governor of Kufa, which the Quran calls a Fasiq Sura 49 Verse 6) advised Mu'awiyah to "Prevent them from drinking water to force them to surrender." Mu'awiyah and the other men agreed. Over the course of time, Malik watched the military supply and movements taking place on the river banks. He then realized that Mu'awiyah is tightening the siege of the Euphrates River. During the course of war, the soldier in the army of Ali Ibn Abi Talib became thirsty due to the physical exertion and blistering heat. Even Malik himself became thirsty. To which a man came up to Malik and said "There's only little water in my water-skin, please drink it." But Malik refused and told him "I won't drink till all soldiers drink!" Noticing that most of the soldiers were thirsty, Malik went to Ali and said "Amirul Mu'mineen, our soldiers are very thirsty. We've nothing but fighting." So Ali Ibn Abi Talib wrote a letter to Muawiyah asking for water. However, Mu'awiyah denied giving Ali Ibn Abi Talib's soldiers water. Once again, Malik al-Ashtar plays a huge role for the army of Ali Ibn Abi Talib . Ali Ibn Abi Talib calls Malik and asks him to lead his soldiers in an attack to gain possession of the Euphrates River. Malik and his men fight valiantly and won back the possession of the Euphrates river. The following day, an arrow with a letter attached was shot at Ali's army. Soldiers read the letter which said "From a loyal brother in the Shamian Army, Mu'awiyah is going to open the river to drown you. So, be careful!" and passed the news around. This news caused the soldiers to withdraw from the banks of the Euphrates River. Mu'awiyah noticed this and decided to recapture the river for his army. Yet again, Ali sends his soldiers to fight of Mu'awiyah's troops and gain control of the river. At this point, Mu'awiyah became worried that now Ali won't allow them to drink water from the river. He even ask Amr ibn al-As, "Do you think Ali will prevent us from drinking water?" To which Amr replied, "Ali doesn't do as you do!" Ironically, Mu'awiyah's writes a letter to Ali Ibn Abi Talib asking him for water since his (Mu'awiyah) soldiers were now thirsty. Ali Ibn Abi Talib grants Mu'awiyah and his soldiers permission to drink water from the Euphrates River. Allowing the rebels to drink water changed the mindset of some people in Mu'awiyah's army. They reflected upon both Mu'awiyah and Ali. And realized that Mu'awiyah did everything and anything including breaking Islamic laws to win the war. Whereas, Ali did everything to represent the true Islam even if it meant losing the war. And at nighttime, some of Mu'awiyah's troops went and joined Ali's army because they represented the truth and humanity.

paragraph: Section::::Battle of Siffeen.:Malik's discipline and the end of the war.

paragraph: As the battle continued, Malik al-Ashtar fought his way through the opposing army until he was two rows away from Mu'awiyah's tent. Only two rows away from killing Mu'awiyah and ending the war. However, a situation occurred. Mu'awiyah wanted to trick Ali's army to stop fighting and disunite them by creating confusion. Mu'awiyah loved the idea and ordered his soldiers to place the Quran on their spear. When most of the soldiers of Ali saw this they stopped fighting. Though Ali knew that it was a trick by Mu'awiyah to create confusion and disunity, he told his army "It's a trick! I was the first to invite them to Allah's Book. And I was the first to believe in it. They've disobeyed Allah and broken His promise." (this is referring to the negotiation/persuading process before the war) Ali wanted his soldier to continue fighting because they were so close to victory. Despite Ali's effort, 22,000 soldiers disobeyed his commands and said "Stop fighting and order al-Ashtar to withdraw!" Knowing that his own soldiers had turned their backs on him and a few group of true believers, Ali Ibn Abi Talib told his soldiers to command Malik to return for safety reasons. The messenger gave Malik the order. Even though, Malik knew that he has the opportunity to end the war and rid the world of Ma'uwiyah, he stopped and returned. Malik said "If Ali ibn Abi Talib orders something, I have to return".

paragraph: Section::::Battle of Siffeen.:The arbitration.

paragraph: They ceased fighting and agreed to an arbitration according to the Quran. Mu'awiyah chose Amr ibn al-As to represent him and Ali chose Abdullah bin Abbas (because he was a wise man who had a good knowledge of the Quran). But the rebel did not agree to Abdullah bin Abbas and told Ali to pick Abu Musa al-Ashary (because Abu Musa was not really a firm supporter of Ali therefore the rebels could get an upper hand in the arbitration). Ali replied to them saying "I disagree with you on him. And Abdullah bin Abbas is better than he (Abu Musa)." But the rebels again denied. Ali then chose Malik al-Ashtar to represent him. Once again, the rebels refused and insisted for Abu Musa. To avoid further chaos/conflict, Ali told them "Do whatever you like!" As a result, Amr ibn al-As and Abu Musa entered the arbitration. Knowing that Abu Musa was not a firm supporter of Ali, Amr ibn al-As deceived Abu Musa by saying "Abu Musa, Mu'awiyah and Ali have caused all these troubles. So, lets dispose them and elect another man." Abu Musa took the bait and stated "I'm removing Ali from the caliphate as I'm removing my ring from my finger.", then he removed his ring. Afterwards, Amr ibn al-As said "I'm fixing Mu'awwiyah to the caliphate as I'm fixing my ring to my finger.", then he wore his ring. The trick worked but Ali still had control of the caliphate. Both sides did agree to a truce and a year of peace. Ali commanded his soldiers not to fight for a year, but a large group (who developed their own beliefs of "La Hukma Illa Lillah", meaning, "no rulership except by Allah alone.") broke away from Ali and disobeyed the agreement/orders. They became known as the Khawarij and fought Ali in the Battle of Nahrawan.

paragraph: Section::::Becoming governor of Egypt.

paragraph: At the time, Muhammad ibn Abi Bakr was the governor of Egypt. Amr ibn al-As, one of Mu'awiyah's companions, wanted to become the governor of Egypt. So he rallied 6,000 soldiers and headed towards Egypt. After finding out about the possible overthrow, Muhammad ibn Abi Bakr wrote to Ali Ibn Abi Talib asking for help and support. Ali Ibn Abi Talib wrote back assuring Muhammad ibn Abi Bakr, son of the first caliph and then Ali's adopted son, that he is sending his best general and one of his closest companions, Malik al-Ashtar. Ali then told Malik: "Malik, may Allah have mercy on you, go to Egypt. I have absolute trust in you. Rely on Allah! Use gentleness in its place and intensity in its place."

paragraph: Muhammad ibn Abū-Bakr was instructed to return to ʻAlī's capital city, Kufa. Malik Al-Ashtar was appointed Governor of Egypt in 658 (38 A.H.) by Alī ibn Abī-Tālib, the caliph of the Muslims, after the Battle of Siffin had ended.

paragraph: Section::::Assassination plot by Muawiyah.

paragraph: When Mu'awiyah received the news that Ali appointed Malik al-Ashtar as the new governor of Egypt, he was overwhelmed with worry. Knowing that al-Ashtar was of ferocious built and strength, Muawiyah is said to have formulated a plot to assassinate him using poison imported from Rome and sent a delegate with the poison to a certain man owning vast lands in al-Qilzim City (a service station/resting spot for travelers) on the borders of Egypt, requesting that he poison al-Ashtar in exchange for lifelong tax exemption. The man is said to have agreed to the envoy's request.

paragraph: Section::::Death.

paragraph: On the way to Egypt, Malik al-Ashtar decided to stop at al-Qilzim. Upon his arrival, the man (who agreed to poison Malik) invited Malik, the new governor of Egypt, for lunch at his house. Malik humbly accepted the man's invitation without knowing that he was going to kill him by Muawiyah I on a suggestion of 'Amr ibn al-'As. They went to his home to have lunch. The man placed the poisoned honey in a cup and placed it on the table. Malik took a spoonful of the poisoned honey. When Malik consumed the honey, the poison spread rapidly throughout his body. Malik realized that he was poisoned as soon as he felt pain in his stomach. After realizing that he was poisoned, Malik placed his hand on his stomach and said "In the Name of Allah, the Most Gracious, the Most Merciful. We belong to Allah, and we'll come back to Him!" The poison was so destructive and toxic that within moments Malik al-Ashtar died. Muawiyah is said to have rejoiced upon hearing of al-Ashtar's death.

paragraph: Section::::Legacy.

paragraph: Section::::Legacy.:Descendants.

paragraph: Malik had two sons, the first was named Ishaq (Isaac) and the other was named Ibrahim (Abraham). Ishaq was a phenomenal warrior who supported and valiantly gave his life to protect Hussain ibn Ali, the son of Ali, in the Battle of Karbala. After Habib ibn Muzahir, Ishaq killed the most enemy fighters. On the other hand, Ibrahim ibn Malik al-Ashtar, the son of Malik al-Ashtar, along with Mukhtar al-Thaqafi rose against the killers of Hussain ibn Ali. The two killed most of the killers of Hussain and his army. For example, they caught and killed Umar ibn Sa'ad, Shimr ibn Thil-Jawshan, Sanan ibn Anas, Hurmala ibn Kahil and Ubaidullah Ibn Ziyad (these were Yazid I's soldiers who fought against Hussain).

paragraph: Among his descendants are the Kalbasi family, who reside in Iran and some reside in Iraq. One branch of this family adds the title "Ashtari" to the end of their family name to denote this fact.

paragraph: In Lebanon, the Hamadani family from the southern town of Nabatieh are also direct descendants who have maintained a family tree dating back to the Nakha'i tribe origins. The Mroueh family, after tracing their lineage, are also believed to be descendants. The Malek (or Malekian) family, from Mazandaran (Iran), are also believed to be descendants.

paragraph: Section::::See also.

paragraph: BULLET::::- Letter of Ali ibn Abi Talib to Malik al-Ashtar

paragraph: Section::::External links.

paragraph: BULLET::::- Sanctuary of Malik al-Ashtar in Eski Yurt, Crimea (Russian language)

paragraph: BULLET::::- http://www.al-islam.org/gallery/kids/Books/companion9/ (Ebook of Kamal al-Syyed on Malik al-Ashtar)

description: military leader (619–647)

wikidata_label: Malik al-Ashtar

wikipedia_title: Malik al-Ashtar


text:
tennis
Vivian McGrath
Australian Championships
Adrian Quist
Dinny Pails
A. Wallis Myers
Harry Hopman
majors
Jack Kramer
Davis Cup
Budge
Vines
1939 Davis Cup
World War II
Frank Parker
Davis Cup
Bob Falkenburg
Dinny Pails
Jaroslav Drobný
McMillan
Connors
International Tennis Hall of Fame
Newport, Rhode Island
ITF
Tennis Australia
Australian Championships
Wimbledon
US Championships

categories: Wimbledon champions (pre-Open Era),Australian Championships (tennis) champions,Grand Slam (tennis) champions in men's singles,1999 deaths,Australian Championships (tennis) junior champions,Sportspeople from Sydney,1918 births,Grand Slam (tennis) champions in mixed doubles,International Tennis Hall of Fame inductees,Australian male tennis players,United States National champions (tennis),Tennis people from New South Wales

paragraph: John Bromwich

paragraph: John Edward Bromwich (14 November 1918 – 21 October 1999) was an Australian tennis player who, along with fellow countryman Vivian McGrath, was one of the first great players to use a two-handed backhand. He was a natural left-hander, though hit his serve with his right hand. Bromwich twice won the Australian Championships singles title, in 1939 (over Adrian Quist in a straight sets final) and in 1946 (a thrilling 5-set final victory over Dinny Pails). He was ranked World No. 3 by A. Wallis Myers in 1938 and again by Harry Hopman in 1947.

paragraph: Section::::Tennis career.

paragraph: Although a fine singles player, Bromwich was primarily known as being a brilliant doubles player, winning 13 men's doubles titles and 4 mixed doubles titles in the majors. Tennis great (and near contemporary) Jack Kramer writes in his 1979 autobiography that if "Earth were playing in the all-time Universe Davis Cup, I'd play Budge and Vines in my singles, and Budge and Bromwich in the doubles. That's what I think of Johnny as a doubles player."

paragraph: In the 1939 Davis Cup final, just as World War II was starting, Bromwich played arguably the match of his life in beating the American, Frank Parker, in straight sets, to clinch the Cup for Australia. Australia had trailed 0–2 after the first day, and came back to win the tie, 3–2. This remains the only time in Davis Cup history where the winning team has won a Davis Cup final after trailing 0–2.

paragraph: In 1948, Bromwich played the American Bob Falkenburg in the Wimbledon final, and had a championship point at 5–3 in the fifth set. He came to the net for a volley but decided that Falkenburg's ball would go long and let it go by. It landed on the baseline and Falkenburg fought his way back into the match. Bromwich later had another two championship points, but was unable to take those either, and Falkenburg came back to win the championship, taking the last four games to win the fifth set, 7–5. Kramer later wrote that "...it never seemed to me that he was the same player after that. He doubted himself. He was a precision player to start with – he used a terribly light racket weighing less than twelve ounces, and it was strung loosely. He could put a ball on a dime, and I suppose after he misjudged that one shot, the most important in his life, he never possessed the confidence he needed." Bromwich also had a championship point in losing the 1947 Australian Championships singles final to Dinny Pails.

paragraph: Bromwich gained some revenge against Falkenburg in the 1949 Wimbledon quarterfinals, coming back from two sets down to win in five sets. Bromwich then lost to Jaroslav Drobný in the semifinals.

paragraph: Writing about Bromwich, Kramer says, "Bromwich was like McMillan today because as a kid John hit from both sides two-handed, and while he eventually had given up the two-handed forehand, he still hit backhand two-handed and could anything back from the baseline. He had strokes very much like Connors."

paragraph: Bromwich was inducted into the International Tennis Hall of Fame in Newport, Rhode Island in 1984. He received a posthumous Davis Cup commitment award in 2017 which was presented to his wife by the ITF and Tennis Australia.

paragraph: Section::::Grand Slam record.

paragraph: BULLET::::- Australian Championships

paragraph: BULLET::::- Men's Doubles champion (8): 1938, 1939, 1940, 1946, 1947, 1948, 1949, 1950

paragraph: BULLET::::- Men's Doubles runner-up (2): 1937, 1951

paragraph: BULLET::::- Mixed Doubles champion (1): 1938

paragraph: BULLET::::- Mixed Doubles runner-up (5): 1939, 1946, 1947, 1949, 1954

paragraph: BULLET::::- Wimbledon

paragraph: BULLET::::- Men's Doubles champion (2): 1948, 1950

paragraph: BULLET::::- Mixed Doubles champion (2): 1947, 1948

paragraph: BULLET::::- Mixed Doubles runner-up (1): 1949

paragraph: BULLET::::- US Championships

paragraph: BULLET::::- Men's Doubles champion (3): 1939, 1949, 1950

paragraph: BULLET::::- Men's Doubles runner-up (1): 1938

paragraph: BULLET::::- Mixed Doubles champion (1): 1947

paragraph: BULLET::::- Mixed Doubles runner-up (1): 1938

paragraph: Section::::References.

paragraph: Section::::References.:Sources.

paragraph: BULLET::::- "The Game – My 40 Years in Tennis" (1979) — Jack Kramer with Frank Deford ()

description: Australian tennis player

wikidata_label: John Bromwich

wikipedia_title: John Bromwich


text: Horus name

text: early Egyptian

text: king

text: first dynasty

text: ancient Greek

text: historian

text: Manetho

text: archaeological

text: Royal Canon of Turin

text: Egyptologist

text: Cairo Stone

text: inscription

text: schist

text: alabaster

text: breccia

text: marble

text: ivory

text: Abydos

text: Sakkara

text: serekh name

text: hieroglyph

text: Toby Wilkinson

text: Bernhard Grdseloff

text: Jochem Kahl

text: Old Kingdom period

text: uniliteral signs

text: ideogram

text: Two Ladies

text: Nekhbet

text: Wadjet

text: Lower Egypt

text: Upper Egypt

text: Ramesside era

text: archaic

text: Abydos king list

text: Royal Canon of Turin

text: Royal Table of Sakkara

text: Narmer

text: Den

text: Betrest

text: Qa'a

text: Jean-Philippe Lauer

text: Walter Bryan Emery

text: Wolfgang Helck

text: Michael Rice

text: Adjib

text: Den

text: Adjib

text: mastaba

text: Toby Wilkinson

text: I. E. S. Edwards

text: Winifred Needler

text: step pyramid

text: third dynasty

text: Djoser

text: Meritneith

text: Henu-Ka

text: ivory

text: tax

text: cult

text: Sokar

text: John D. Degreef

text: Hermann Alexander Schlögl

text: Year of coronation

text: Seshat

text: Sed

text: Manetho

text: excavated

text: William Matthew Flinders Petrie

text: Ramesside era

text: Djer

text: Osiris

text: ebony

text: amethyst

text: turquoise

text: Levant

text: granite

text: mastaba

text: Qaa

text: second dynasty founder

text: Hotepsekhemwy

categories: 30th-century BC Pharaohs,Pharaohs of the First Dynasty of Egypt,30th century BC in Egypt

paragraph: Semerkhet

paragraph: Semerkhet is the Horus name of an early Egyptian king who ruled during the first dynasty. This ruler became known through a tragic legend handed down by the ancient Greek historian, Manetho, who reported that a calamity of some sort occurred during Semerkhet's reign. The archaeological records seem to support the view that Semerkhet had a difficult time as king and some early archaeologists even questioned the legitimacy of Semerkhet's succession to the Egyptian throne.

paragraph: Section::::Length of reign.

paragraph: Manetho named Semerkhet Semêmpsés and credited him with a reign of 18 years, whilst the Royal Canon of Turin credited him with an implausibly long reign of 72 years. Egyptologists and historians now consider both statements as exaggerations and credit Semerkhet with a reign of 8½ years. This evaluation is based on the Cairo Stone inscription, where the complete reign of Semerkhet has been recorded. Additionally, they point to the archaeological records, which strengthen the view that Semerkhet had a relatively short reign.

paragraph: Section::::Name sources.

paragraph: Semerkhet is well attested in archaeological records. His name appears in inscriptions on vessels made of schist, alabaster, breccia, and marble. His name is also preserved on ivory tags and earthen jar seals. Objects bearing Semerkhet's name and titles come from Abydos and Sakkara.

paragraph: Semerkhet's serekh name is commonly translated as "companion of the divine community" or "thoughtful friend". The latter translation is questioned by many scholars, since the hieroglyph "khet" (Gardiner-sign "F32") normally was the symbol for "body" or "divine community".

paragraph: Semerkhet's birth name is more problematic. Any artefact showing his birth name curiously lacks any artistic detail of the used hieroglyphic sign: a walking man with waving cloak or skirt, a "nemes" head dress, and a long, plain stick in his hands. The reading and meaning of this special sign is disputed, since it doesn't appear in this form before association with king Semerkhet. Indeed, the hieroglyph of the cloaked man is extremely rare. It appears only twice in relief inscriptions depicting ceremonial processions of priests and standard bearers. Egyptologists such as Toby Wilkinson, Bernhard Grdseloff, and Jochem Kahl read "Iry-Netjer", meaning "divine guardian". During the Old Kingdom period, this word is written with uniliteral signs of a "netjer" flag (Gardiner-sign "R8") and a human eye (Gardiner-sign "D4") nearby the ideogram of the man. Some contemporary ivory tags show the Nebty name written with the single eye symbol only. Thus, the scholars also read Semerkhet's throne name as "Iry" (meaning "guardian") and the Nebty name as "Iry-Nebty" (meaning "guardian of the Two Ladies"). This reconstruction is strengthened by the observation that Semerkhet was the first king using the "Nebty" title in its ultimate form. For unknown reason Semerkhet did not use the "Nebuy" title of his predecessor. It seems that he felt connected with the 'Two Ladies', a title referring to the goddesses Nekhbet and Wadjet, the patron deities of the Ancient Egyptians who were worshiped by all after the unification of its two parts, Lower Egypt, and Upper Egypt. The Nebty title in turn was thought to function as an addition to the "Nisut-Bity" title. His prenomen is Nisut-Bity-Nebty-Iry, "nsw.t-bty-nb.ty-iry"meaning, "King of Upper and Lower Egypt, he of the two ladies, and he who belongs to them" or "He whom the two ladies guard".brM23:t-L2:t-G16-A21A

paragraph: Scribes and priests of the Ramesside era were also confused, because the archaic ideogram that was used during Semerkhet's lifetime was very similar to the sign of an old man with a walking stick (Gardiner sign "A19"). This had been read as "Semsu" or "Sem" and means "the eldest". It was used as a title identifying someone as the head of the house. Due to this uncertainty, it seems that the compiler of the Abydos king list simply tried to imitate the original figure, whilst the author of the Royal Canon of Turin seems to have been convinced about reading it as the Gardiner-sign "A19" and he wrote "Semsem" with uniliteral signs. The Royal Table of Sakkara omits Semerkhet's throne name. The reason for that is unknown, but all kings from Narmer up to king Den also are missing their throne names.

paragraph: Section::::Identity.

paragraph: Virtually nothing is known about Semerkhet's family. His parents are unknown, but it is thought that one of his predecessors, king Den, might have been his father. Possibly, Semerkhet was born to queen Betrest. On the Cairo Stone she is described as his mother, but definite evidence for that view has not yet been found. It would be expected that Semerkhet had sons and daughters, but their names have not been preserved in the historical record. A candidate as a possible member of his family line is his immediate successor, king Qa'a.

paragraph: Section::::Reign.

paragraph: An old theory, supported by Egyptologists and historians such as Jean-Philippe Lauer, Walter Bryan Emery, Wolfgang Helck, and Michael Rice once held that Semerkhet was a usurper and not the rightful heir to the throne. Their assumption was based on the observation that a number of stone vessels with Semerkhet's name on them, originally were inscribed with king Adjib's name. Semerkhet simply erased Adjib's name and replaced it with his own. Furthermore, they point out that no high official and priest associated with Semerkhet was found at Sakkara. All other kings, such as Den and Adjib, are attested in local mastabas.

paragraph: Today this theory has little support. Egyptologists such as Toby Wilkinson, I. E. S. Edwards, and Winifred Needler deny the 'usurping theory', because Semerkhet's name is mentioned on stone vessel inscriptions along with those of Den, Adjib, and Qa'a. The objects were found in the underground galleries beneath the step pyramid of (third dynasty) king Djoser at Sakkara. The inscriptions show that king Qa'a, immediate successor of Semerkhet and sponsor of the vessels, accepted Semerkhet as a rightful ancestor and heir to the throne. Furthermore, the Egyptologists point out that nearly every king of first dynasty had the habit of taking special vessels (so-called 'anniversary vessels') from their predecessor's tomb and then replacing their predecessor's name with their own. Semerkhet not only confiscated Adjib's vessels, in his tomb several artifacts from the necropolis of queen Meritneith and king Den also were found. The lack of any high official's tomb at Sakkara might be explained by the rather short reign of Semerkhet. It seems that the only known official of Semerkhet, Henu-Ka, had survived his king: His name appears on ivory tags from Semerkhet's and Qaa's tomb.

paragraph: Seal impressions from Semerkhet's burial site show the new royal domain, "Hor wep-khet", (meaning "Horus, the judge of the divine community") and the new private household "Hut-Ipty" (meaning "house of the harem"), which was headed by Semerkhet's wives. Two ivory tags show the yearly 'Escort of Horus', a feast connected to the regular tax collections. Other tags report the cult celebration for the deity of the ancestors, "Wer-Wadyt" ("the Great White"). And further tags show the celebration of a first (and only) Sokar feast.

paragraph: While the Cairo Stone reports the whole of Semerkhet's reign, unfortunately, the surface of the stone slab is badly worn and most of the events are now illegible. The following chart follows the reconstructions by Toby A. H. Wilkinson, John D. Degreef, and Hermann Alexander Schlögl:

paragraph: Cairo Stone, main fragment:

paragraph: BULLET::::- Year of coronation: Appearance of the king of Lower- and Upper Egypt; unifying the two realms; circumambulation of the White Wall of Memphis

paragraph: BULLET::::- first year: Escort of Horus; destruction of Egypt

paragraph: BULLET::::- second year: Appearance of the king; creation of a statue for Seshat and Sed

paragraph: BULLET::::- third year: Escort of... (rest is missing)

paragraph: BULLET::::- fourth year: Appearance of the king of Upper Egypt; creation of... (rest is missing)

paragraph: BULLET::::- fifth year: Escort of... (rest is missing)

paragraph: BULLET::::- sixth year: Appearance of the king of Upper Egypt... (rest is missing)

paragraph: BULLET::::- seventh year: Escort of... (rest is missing)

paragraph: BULLET::::- eighth year: Appearance of the king of Lower- and Upper Egypt... (rest is missing)

paragraph: BULLET::::- year of death: The ...th month and ...th day. (damaged)

paragraph: Egyptologists and historians pay special attention to the entrance "Destruction of Egypt" in the second window of Semerkhet's year records. The inscription gives no further information about that event, but it has a resemblance to the Manetho's report. The Eusebian version says: "His son, Semémpsês, who reigned for 18 years; in his reign a very great calamity befell Egypt." The Armenian version sounds similar: "Mempsis, 18 years. Under him many portents happened and a great pestilence occurred." None of the documents from after Semerkhet's reign provide any details about this "calamity".

paragraph: Section::::Tomb.

paragraph: Semerkhet's burial site was excavated in 1899 by archaeologist and Egyptologist Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie at Abydos and is known as "Tomb U". While excavating, Petrie found no stairways as he did at the necropolis of Den and Adjib. He found a ramp, four metres wide and leading straight into the main chamber. The ramp starts approximately ten metres east outside the tomb and has a base slope of 12°. Inside the tomb the ramp shows irregular graduations. Petrie was also confused by the small number of clay seals. Only 17 seals were found. For archaeologists and Egyptologists, the complete arrangement of the burial site suggests that the builders were pressed for time. When Petrie freed the ramp from sand, he found that the complete ramp was thickly covered in aromatic oil, which still gave off a scent. Beside the ramp several wooden and hand-made baskets and earthen jars were found. These were dated to the Ramesside era. Scholars now think that Semerkhet's tomb was re-opened and restored when Ramesside priests and kings saw the tomb of king Djer as the ritual burial of Osiris's head. The findings inside the main chamber included precious objects such as inlays and fragments of furniture (especially pedestals), copper-made armatures, and jewelry made of ebony, amethyst, and turquoise. Some vessels originating from the Levant also were found. They once contained "Bescha" oil, which was of great value to the Egyptians. Outside the tomb, close to the entrance, a damaged tomb stela made of black granite displaying Semerkhet's serekh name was excavated.

paragraph: The burial chamber measures 29.2 × 20.8 metres and is of simple construction. Petrie found that the king's mastaba once covered the whole of the subsidiary tombs. Now the royal burial formed a unit with the 67 subsidiary tombs. Egyptologists such as Walter Bryan Emery and Toby Wilkinson see this architectural development as proof that the royal family and household were killed willingly when their royal family head had died. Wilkinson goes further and thinks that Semerkhet, as the godlike king, tried to demonstrate his power over the death and life of his servants and family members even in their afterlife. The tradition of burying the family and court of the king when he died was abandoned at the time of king Qaa, one of the last rulers of the first dynasty. The tombs of second dynasty founder, Hotepsekhemwy, onward have no subsidiary tombs.

paragraph: Section::::External links.

paragraph: BULLET::::- Francesco Raffaele: Semerkhet - nisut-bity Iry

description: Egyptian pharaoh

wikidata_label: Semerkhet

wikipedia_title: Semerkhet