Suggestions pertaining to India

[Aagney]

• I would like to thank @Trin Tragula that I took to study the history of South India and learnt a lot of things in the process.
• This is still a first-draft so I might change the contents when I get some more clarity on the subject, if I feel a rectification necessary.
• I started editing on EU4 map but soon got into technical difficulties and then I chose to represent the provinces on the District map of South India instead. Please refer to the attachment.
• As far as possible I have not breached into the area of another State while carving a province except along Karnataka & Maharashtra and Karnataka & Telangana boarders.
• As far as possible I have tried to maintain the district boarders but many a times they have been breached for historical relevance and province size.
• All the internal boarders of provinces have been drawn manually without using grids and hence is far from accurate.
• Suggestions and notes in current post are pertaining only to South India. I may write about other parts of India later. The entire purpose is keep the historical settings in 1444 as close to historical reality.

Spoiler: Province Summary

I. Tamil Nadu

A. Pandya Nadu

1. Tirunelveli:
   1. Province: EU-2101 - No Change
   2. Active Core 1444: Pandya
   3. Dormant Core: None
   4. Production: Gems
2. Madura:

1. Province: EU-536 - Large Territorial readjustment
2. Active Core 1444: Vijayanagar
3. Dormant Core: Pandya; Madura (New Madura-Nayak Tag)
4. Production: Silk

3. Ramnad:

1. Province: New Province
2. Active Core 1444: Vijayanagar (Ambiguity for Ramnad in 1444 - as Vijay Vassal)
3. Dormant Core: Ramnad (New Sethupati-Nayak Tag)
4. Production: Pearl/Chilli/Milk (Gems/Spices/Livestock) (Spices)

B. Chola Nadu

4. Tanjore:

1. Province: EU-2026 - No Change (Perhaps)
2. Active Core 1444: Vijayanagar
3. Dormant Core: Tanjore (New Tanjore-Nayak Tag)
4. Production: Cloth

5. Tiruchirapalli:

1. Province: EU-2085 - Some Territorial readjustment
2. Active Core 1444: Vijayanagar
3. Dormant Core: Pandya; Madura (New Madura-Nayak Tag)
4. Production: Cotton

6. Coromandel:

1. Province: EU-540 - Little Territorial readjustment (unintended)
2. Active Core 1444: Vijayanagar
3. Dormant Core: Senji (New Senji-Nayak Tag - Senji or Jinji or Gingee)
4. Production: Cloth

C. Tondaimandalam (Tondainadu)

7. Kanchipuram:

1. Province: EU-539 - Little Territorial readjustment (unintended)
2. Active Core 1444: Vijayanagar
3. Dormant Core: Kalahasti (New Kalahasti-Nayak Tag)
4. Production: Cloth

8. Gingee:

1. Province: EU-1947 - Some Territorial readjustment (unintended)
2. Active Core 1444: Vijayanagar
3. Dormant Core: Senji (New Senji-Nayak Tag - Senji or Jinji or Gingee)
4. Production: Cloth

9. Arcot:

1. Province: EU-2027- Little Territorial readjustment
2. Active Core 1444: Vijayanagar
3. Dormant Core: Senji (New Senji-Nayak Tag - Senji or Jinji or Gingee)
4. Production: Iron

D. Kongu Nadu

10. Dindigul:

1. Province: New Province (Carved out of EU-538)
2. Active Core 1444: Vijayanagar
3. Dormant Core: Pandya; Madura (New Madura-Nayak Tag)
4. Production: Cotton

11. Coimbatore:

1. Province: New Province (Carved out of EU-538)
2. Active Core 1444: Vijayanagar
3. Dormant Core: Pandya; Madura (New Madura-Nayak Tag)
4. Production: Incense/ Cloth

12. Salem:

1. Province: New Province (Carved out of EU-538)
2. Active Core 1444: Vijayanagar
3. Dormant Core: Pandya; Madura (New Madura-Nayak Tag)
4. Production: Incense/ Dye

II. Andhra Pradesh

A. Rayalaseema

13. Chandragiri:

1. Province: New Province
2. Active Core 1444: Vijayanagar
3. Dormant Core: Kalahasti (New Kalahasti-Nayak Tag)
4. Production: Cloth

14. Pendukonda:

1. Province: New Province
2. Active Core 1444: Vijayanagar
3. Dormant Core: Poligar Chieftains (Pendukonda Nayaks & others)
4. Production: Cotton/ Gems

15. Kurnool:

1. Province: EU-2090 - Territorial adjustment
2. Active Core 1444: Vijayanagar
3. Dormant Core: Golkonda, Poligar Chieftains (Adoni Nayak & Others)
4. Production: Gems/ Cotton

B. Coastal Andhra

16. Udayagiri:

1. Province: EU-2083 - Massive Territorial adjustment
2. Active Core 1444: Vijayanagar
3. Dormant Core: Andhra (Kondaividu Reddy)
4. Production: Cotton

17. Velanadu:

1. Province: EU-543 - No Change (Perhaps)
2. Active Core 1444: Andhra (Rajamundury Reddy)
3. Dormant Core: Andhra (Kondaividu Reddy)
4. Production: Gems/ Cloth

18. Konaseema:

1. Province: EU-2084 - No Change (Perhaps)
2. Active Core 1444: Andhra (Rajamundury Reddy)
3. Dormant Core: None
4. Production: Iron

19. Kalingandhara:

1. Province: EU-549 - No Change (Perhaps)
2. Active Core 1444: Orissa
3. Dormant Core: Andhra (Rajamundury Reddy)
4. Production: Cotton

20. Srikakulam:

1. Province: EU-2080 - No Change (Perhaps)
2. Active Core 1444: Orissa
3. Dormant Core: None
4. Production: Sugar

III. Telangana

21. Golkonda:

1. Province: EU-542 - Massive Territorial adjustment
2. Active Core 1444: Bahamans
3. Dormant Core: Golkonda
4. Production: Gems

22. Devarakonda:

1. Province: New Province
2. Active Core 1444: Recharla Nayaks (New Tag)
3. Dormant Core: Golkonda
4. Production: Cotton

23. Indur:

1. Province: New Province
2. Active Core 1444: Bahamans
3. Dormant Core: Golkonda, Recharla Nayaks (New Tag)
4. Production: Iron

24. Warangal:

1. Province: EU-2037 - Massive Territorial adjustment
2. Active Core 1444: Bahamans
3. Dormant Core: Golkonda, Recharla Nayaks (New Tag)
4. Production: Dyes

25. Mahur:

1. Province: EU-2028 - No change (Perhaps)
2. Active Core 1444: Bahamans
3. Dormant Core: Golkonda, Chanda, Recharla Nayaks (New Tag)
4. Production: Tropical Wood

IV. Kerala

26. Venad:

1. Province: EU-537 - No change (Perhaps)
2. Active Core 1444: Venad
3. Dormant Core: None
4. Production: Spices

27. Cochin:

1. Province: EU-535 - No change (Perhaps)
2. Active Core 1444: Cochin
3. Dormant Core: None
4. Production: Spices

28. Calicut:

1. Province: EU-534 - Large Territorial Changes
2. Active Core 1444: Calicut
3. Dormant Core: None
4. Production: Spices

29. Kolathiri:

1. Province: New Province
2. Active Core 1444: Kolathiri (New Tag)
3. Dormant Core: None
4. Production: Spices/ Tropical Wood/ Ship Building

V. Karnataka

A. Southern Bayaluseeme

30. Mysore:

1. Province: EU-533 - Little Territorial Changes (Perhaps)
2. Active Core 1444: Mysore
3. Dormant Core: None
4. Production: Iron / Silk

31. Channapatna:

1. Province: New Province
2. Active Core 1444: Vijayanagar
3. Dormant Core: Poligar Chieftains
4. Production: Toy - Tropical Wood/ Incense /Paper

32. Yelahanka:

1. Province: New Province
2. Active Core 1444: Yelahanka Nayaks (New Tag)
3. Dormant Core: None
4. Production: Livestock / Silk

33. Chitradurga:

1. Province: New Province
2. Active Core 1444: Vijayanagar
3. Dormant Core: Poligar Chieftains (Chitradurga Nayaks - New Tag)
4. Production: Livestock / Cotton

B. Central Bayaluseeme

34. Vijayanagar:

1. Province: EU-541 - Massive Territorial changes
2. Active Core 1444: Vijayanagar
3. Dormant Core: Poligar Chieftains (Bellary and Devangere Nayaks)
4. Production: Livestock / Grain

35. Raichur:

1. Province: EU-532 - Some Territorial changes (Perhaps)
2. Active Core 1444: Bahamans
3. Dormant Core: Vijayanagar, Bijapur
4. Production: Cloth

36. Savanur:

1. Province: EU-2033 - Some Territorial changes
2. Active Core 1444: Bahamans
3. Dormant Core: Bijapur, Keladi (Debatable), Savanur (Nawab of Suvanur - New)
4. Production: Cotton

C. Northern Bayaluseeme

37. Bijapur:

1. Province: EU-569 - Some Territorial changes (Unintended)
2. Active Core 1444: Bahamans
3. Dormant Core: Bijapur
4. Production: Cotton

38. Gulbarga:

1. Province: EU-2033 - Some Territorial changes (Unintended)
2. Active Core 1444: Bahamans
3. Dormant Core: None
4. Production: Grains / Iron

39. Bidar:

1. Province: EU-1948 - Some Territorial changes (Unintended)
2. Active Core 1444: Bahamans
3. Dormant Core: None
4. Production: Silk

D. Malnad

40. Bendur:

1. Province: EU-2032 - Massive Territorial changes
2. Active Core 1444: Vijayanagar
3. Dormant Core: Keladi Nayaks
4. Production: Spices / Sugar

41. Balam:

1. Province: New Province
2. Active Core 1444: Vijayanagar
3. Dormant Core: Kodagu Nayak, Keladi Nayak, Poligar Chieftains (Balam Nayaks)
4. Production: Coffee

42. Tulunadu:

1. Province: EU-2029 - Some Territorial changes
2. Active Core 1444: Vijayanagar
3. Dormant Core: Keladi Nayaks
4. Production: Spices/ Tropical Wood

43. Gersoppa:

1. Province: EU-531 - No Change (Perhaps)
2. Active Core 1444: Gersoppa (New Tag)
3. Dormant Core: None
4. Production: Spices

Spoiler: Some Suggestions some Notes

• Tamil Nadu

1. In Tamil Nadu, Madurai has been bifurcated to make room for Ramnad and Kongu has been trifurcated into Dindigul, Coimbatore & Salem. Rest all territorial changes are unintentional. Further, the northern boarder of Arcot & Tondainadu (Kanchipuram) has been readjusted to not breach into Andhra Pradesh. PDX can stick to their own boarder but should reflect Nellore district more appropriately as Udayagiri. Means narrower southern tip of Kosta.
2. Name of Tondainadu has been changed to Kanchi or Kanchipuram. Would like to change the name of Coromandel as well but I am at a loss of good ideas. Both Tondainadu and Coromandel actually corresponds to a larger geo-political area covering part of Tamil-Nadu and around.
3. Tamil-Nadu territories has been divided into Tondaimandalam (Tondainadu), Chola-Nadu (Cholamandalam), Pandya-Nadu (Pandyamandalam) and Kongu-Nadu (Cheramandalam).
4. District of Puddukotai has been included into Ramnad, If this is part of Tanjore (or Tiruchirapalli) in the current map then it should be included into Tanjore, or else for any balance issue. Ramnad should be a vassal of anyone ruling Madura. Small Principality of Ramnad has been acting as an ancient neutral state for religious reasons.
5. New Nayak Tags should be included: Madura, Tanjore, Gingee, Kalahasti.
6. Since Madura Nayaks be called Madura, current Madura (At Tirunelveli) should be called Pandya.
7. Carnatic word should be discontinued instead use Nawabdom of Arcot or Nawab of Arcot. It is nice to see Wiki devoting a paragraph on inappropriate use of the word Carnatic. Modern sensible authors don’t use it anymore and PDX as an ultra-modern “history teacher” should try to bring less ambiguities. Please refer geography section of the article: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carnatic_region
8. Further, Arcot should not have core on these provinces in 1444, like Nizams or Maratha, not unless Mughals are formed and its post 1600.
9. It is difficult to represent various Poligar chieftains ruling Kongu-Nadu, Rayalaseema and most of southern and central Karnataka except Mysore. But these potentates should be reflected in some way within the polity.

• Andhra Pradesh

1. Rayalaseema area as a territory has been readjusted and carved into Chandragiri, Penukonda, and Kurnool. Chandragiri should actually be a bit smaller. If PDX don’t mind adding a new province here then Cuddapah as a fourth province should be carved out of Northern Chandragiri, Southern-eastern Kurnool, Eastern Penukonda & North-western Udayagiri.
2. There were over 200 small poligar chieftains in this area ruling till 1800 and living almost semi-independent. Thomas Munro (1802) provides some valuable information about them.
3. Tag Andhra (Reddy’s) should not have any core in this area. Additional tags like Nawab of Cuddapah, Kurnool, Adoni etc. can be added but more important is the representation of powerful poligar confederacy in this area busy fighting among themselves and changing their allegiances between Bijapur, Golkonda, Mysore, British & Maratha.
4. Name of Kosta has been changed to Udayagiri and its territories readjusted. Also it is now a part of Coastal Andhra.
5. In Coastal Andhra, except for the territorial changes to Udayagiri (Kosta), all others are unintentional and PDX can stick to the present provincial boundaries.
6. Udayagiri has been a bone of contention between Vijayanagar & Orissa. It is interesting to note that Udayagiri from 1446 was owned by a vassal of Orissa after Orissa won it from Vijayanagar and also removed Reddy dynasty from coastal Andhra. So it was with Vijayanagar till 1446. Then to Orissa (through Vassal) till 1470. Won by Vijayanagar and kept till 1500. Again to Orissa (through vassal) from 1500-1514 and then again a part of Vijayanagar. Not sure if a new tag should be added here, also the details are scanty but these are the rulers: Family: Kantamaraju Vallabha (A Kalinga General) - father of Tammabhupala (1446-1454) - father of Basavabhupala (1454-1463) - father of Pasapati Timmabhupala (1463-1470).
7. Some sources at hand reflect that within Kalingandhra region apart from some petty chiefs, there were two prominent small kingdoms, Korukonda - with capital at Pithampura and Machikonda (ruled by Kesarni & Kesava Nayak). Both these were feudatories of Orissa in 1444.

• Telangana

1. After the fall of Musunuri Nayaks in 1368, the entire Telangana region except Golkonda has been in the state of political instability where possessions of the territories kept changing between Bahamans, Vijayanagar, Orissa till 1508 when Golkonda took over this region.
2. At the centre of all the affairs were Recharla Nayaks who would consider themselves legitimate lord of Orugallu region. (Earstwhile Kakatiya realm). They had been ruling Rachakonda & Devarakonda as feudatories of Kakatiya, then Delhi, and later Musunuri whom they overthrew.
3. In 1444 a line of Recharla Nayaks are still ruling from Devarakota and hence in order to accommodate them, Devarakota province has been created. It is entire Nalconda district + Nagarkurnool district (out of Mehboobnagar) + Srisaila from Kurnool (for historical relevance).
4. It is not very accurate to show them ruling the entire Devarakonda province in 1444. If PDX does not mind one more province here, some 35% (Northern Portion) of this province should become a new province with the name Rachakonda and should be in the possession of Bahamans in 1444. Rachakonda infact was their capital when Bahamans took it from them and Devarakonda used to be their subservient second capital.
5. It is only in 1433 that Recharlas have lost Rachakonda & Warangal, so they should have core in Warangal, Indur and Mahur. In 1461, they regained almost entire Telangana except Golkonda (With the help from Orissa) and became the master of Orugallu region. Recharla Nayaks ruled most of Telangana as a vassal of Orissa till 1475.
6. Indur was an important centre for Iron production, it has been bedazzled by the Golkonda Gems, hence a room for famous Golconda Iron has been made through new province Indur.
7. Culture in Mahur should be Gondi. It is only after 1860s, that people other than aboriginals have been settling in this area. Further, the eastern portion of this province should be in the possession of Chandrapur (Chanda).
8. It appears that some portion of Mahur falls into present day Maharashtra, if that is so, this should be redistributed, where eastern portion goes to Chanda or a new province can be carved out where Chanda become a two province Tag or whatever suits. In case it does not include any area from Maharashtra, Mahur should be renamed.
9. If Recharlas are included, Andhra should not have core in Warangal.

• Kerala

1. A new tag Kolathiri along with a new province has been created.
2. Malabar should be renamed as Calicut or something more suitable.
3. PDX can redraw these provinces as per the map of Kerala (1494) in the attachment.

• Karnataka

1. The term Maidan is a not appropriate in modern context. Introduced by Persian authors and later carried on by the British scholars, this remained a part of most of the history & geography books pertaining to this area but more recent works try to avoid using Maidan for it gives rise to ambiguities. Maidan means flat open field and is usually used to describe river plains in Indian context, like Maidan of Ganga, (river plains of Ganga). Northern Karnataka no doubt is less rugged topography than most of Deccan and does give a feeling of being like an open field when compared to other Deccan regions but it is essentially a semi-dry, drought prone more or less flat tableland on a large plateau which certainly cannot be compared with the plains of North India. And this is the reason the use of one word Maidan for two separate geographical features creates ambiguities.
2. Usually modern geography terms the region of Karnataka as North & South Bayaluseeme & Malnad. (Some early works trifurcate Karnataka as Malnad, Gadinad & Balevalanad). Since Northern Bayaluseeme becomes a large area, for our purpose I have broken it into east and west. Alternately, central Bayaluseeme (instead of North-western Bayaluseeme) for our purpose too doesn’t seem to make any harm. Krishna-Tungabhadra Doab can also be used for North-western Bayaluseeme.
3. I have created provinces in the southern Karnataka keeping three things in mind: a buffer state between Keladi & Mysore and similarly another buffer state between Mysore & Chitradurga; size of the province; and a room for tags like Chitradurga & Yelahanka.
4. PDX can work around resizing provinces their own way, for except for Mysore, this entire region including Devangere & Bellary districts (Vijayanagar) had numerous small and big poligar chieftains busy fighting each other and practically independent post 1565 till 1800. It is not easy to represent them. Various British report on Poligars particularly one by Thomas Munro (1802) in this regard can be referred for better understanding. This 1625 map of southern Karnataka can give some perspective. Imagine similar situation in Rayalaseema and Kongu-Nadu as well. http://barry-lewis.com/research/chitradurga/mysore1625/
5. The northern limit of Savanur province should be along the river Krishna, I have tried drawing it but have ended up having some unused territory in Belgaum district which is not unhistorical, This unused portion can be used under Desh or other province.
6. Suvanur could be a separate tag as Nawab of Savanur. However Savanur core should get activated post 1650. The book “The Nawab of Savanur” by Krishnaji Nageshwarrao Chitnis can be referred for valuable information on contemporary age and region vis-a-vis Bijapur polity.
7. Keladi should not have core in Savanur or Vijayanagar. If Poligars are represented, they held Vijayanagar for two and a half century till 1800.
8. Malenadu is a larger geographic area, Bendur has been created as the seat of Keladi Nayaks.
9. Kodagu district should be a separate tag but it becomes too small - PDX call. I have clubbed Kodagu, western portion of Hassan & Chikmagalur district in the spirit of Malnad-Coffee.
10. Province like Bidar & Bijapur will also take some area from adjoining Maharashtra which I have not included in the map.
11. A new tag in North Kanara, Gersoppa.
12. A new tag in Yelahanka, Yelahanka Nayak or Kampegowda.
13. Rename North Kanara as Gersoppa and South Kanara to Tulunadu.

• Others

1. I am not getting into development of these provinces, as these are various balance issues and let PDX decide those matter.
2. However to suggest a few off my head, development in Malabar region should be slightly higher. May be 2 base production and 1 base manpower for each.
3. Balgana though hilly has been as fertile as Khandesh area. Its development should be slightly higher. May be 1 base higher in each category.
4. Development in Vijayanagar is not reflective of its grandeur. (Pre 1565).
5. If possible split Gersoppa into Gersoppa & Haduvalli. Both having Jain monarch and religion in Haduvalli changed to Jain.
6. Sonda is another tag in this area but can only be represented at the cost of the size of Goa & North Kanara - tough call.
7. Introduce Tulu culture. Tulu culture in Bendur, Balam and both the Kanaras.
8. Mysore, Yelahaka & Gersoppa (perhaps Ramnad too) should start as vassal of Vijayanagar.
9. In 1444, Udayagiri & Tulunadu (South Kanara) should belong to Vijayanagar.

Spoiler: New Tags

Spoiler: Senji

Also referred to as Gingee or Jinji. The kingdom of Senji (along eastern coast from Palar in the north to Coleroon in the south) under a nayak seems to have originated during Krishnadevaraya's reign. One of the Jesuit letters of 1606 states that Nayak of Senji was the most powerful of the other two (Tanjore & Madura) and besides other feudatories, they had three prominent feudatory chief - 1. The Prince of Tiruvari (on the Gadilam river); 2. The Salavacha or Solaga of Tivakottai at the mouth of the Coleroon; and 3. The Nayak of Vellore.

Till 1592, all the nayaks of Senji remained loyal to Vijaynagar. However, the Vijaynagar ruler, Venkata III shifted his capital after 1592 from Penukonda to Chandragiri in order to strengthen Vijaynagar's hold over the Nayaks. This gave rise to resentment among the nayaks as they expected Vijaynagar's interference in their internal affairs. One instance of such interference is that the nayak of Vellore, who was subordinate to Senji Nayak, was encouraged by Venkata III to disregard the latter's authority. Venkata III followed the policy of 'divide and rule' to weaken the nayak of various tracts within the Empire. All this led the nayak of Vellore and Senji to rebel (sometime after 1600). In another instance, Vellore was taken over by Venkata III (1604).

It is undisputedly believed that Koneri Dynasty ruled over Senji earlier, which was taken over by Vijayanagar and put under governorship of the Nayak’s formally from 1464 when Venkatapati Nayak became the first Nayak ruler. There is some confusion regards the actual line of the Senji Nayak as different sources are giving different information but texts at hand has advocated for the Mackenzie manuscripts which is as below:

1464-1476 - Venkatpati Nayak
1476-1490 - Vaiyappa Nayak
1490-1520 - Tubaki Krishnappa Nayaka (also called Bala / Vala Krishnappa)
1520-1540 - Achyuta Vijaya Ramachandra Nayak
1540-1550 - Muthialu Nayak
1570-1600 - Venkatappa Nayak
1600-1620 - Varadappa Nayak
Appa Nayak - up to foundation of Nawab of Arcot. (1650s).

The Senji Nayak kingdom when established covered most of Northern Tamil Nadu including the present day Chennai, Puducherry and vast areas of Nellore, Chittoor, Vellore and Chandragiri. Its Southern boundary extended up to Kollidam River which marked the boundary between the Tanjore and Madurai kingdoms. Later, in early 17th centuries, the Senji Nayaks lost control of the Vellore Fort and its Northern provinces when their erstwhile Vijayanagara overlords under Aravidu Dynasty took possession of these places and re-established their later Kingdom.

References:

• https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nayaks_of_Gingee

Spoiler: Tanjore

In 1532 CE, Achyuta Deva Raya, of Vijayanagar granted Sevappa Nayak, the governor of Thanjavur, permission to establish a feudatory kingdom. The nayak of Tanjore remained loyal to Vijaynagar throughout the 16th century. They always sided with the Empire in its battles. For example, they helped Venkata III against Golkonda invasion and this loyalty continued till Venkata IIII’s death in 1614.

Sevappa Nayak (1532-1580) - Chevvappa Nayak a.k.a. Sevappa Nayak was the first Thanjavur Nayak king. He was the son of Timmappa Nayak, a Vijayanagara viceroy in the Arcot region from his wife Bayyambika. Sevappa's wife Murtimamba was the sister-in-law of Achyuta Deva Raya and the sister of the Vijayanagara Queen, Thirumalamba. Some sources suggest that Sevappa acquired the Thanjavur Kingdom as stridhana (dowry) from Achyutadeva Raya.

Achuthappa Nayak (1560–1614) - Co-ruled with his father under the Yuvaraja title till 1580 is said to be deeply religious and well considered a master in the art of warfare. His long reign of 54 years was of comparative peace apart from the internal struggles enabling him to contribute much to spiritual and public utility development. After battle of Talikota when the Nayaks of Senji & Madurai intended to break free from Vijayanagar and refused to pay tribute, Tanjore sided with the overlord Vijayanagar (now capital at Chandragiri) and defeated Madurai.
Helped King of Jaffna in successfully repelling Portuguese advances through many battles.
Built many temples, took irrigational and housing projects.

Raghunatha Nayak (1600–1634) - A gifted scholar in Sanskrit, Kannada and Telugu languages, as well as a talented musician co-ruled with his father till 1614 is regarded as the greatest in the Thanjavur Nayak dynasty. Raghunatha was a gifted scholar and an expert in the art of swordplay, a fine marksman and a skilled master in horse riding. He is famous for his patronage of literature other scholarly research. One of his wives, Ramabhadramba was highly educated and a gifted poet.

During his time he granted military assistance to the Chandragiri (Vijayanagar) ruler Venkata III to recover most of his lost areas from the Golconda forces.

In 1620 Raghunatha Nayak permitted a Danish settlement at Tarangambadi. This encouraged the English to seek trade with the Thanjavur Nayaks.

The Tanjore cannon or Raghunatha cannon, supposed to be the largest cannon in the world was installed during Raghunatha Nayak, built with Danish metallurgy know how. It was during Raghunatha's reign that a palace library was established.

He successfully led his army along with the imperial Vijayanagari army in the famous battle of Toppur where Senji Nayak lost almost all his territory except the Gingee fort to Chandragiri (Vijayanagar) crushing the succession and installed the 15 year boy-king Rama Deva Raya to the throne of Chandragiri in 1617.

Vijaya Raghava Nayak (1634–1673) also called Mannaru Dasa. His long reign witnessed a large amount of literary output both in music and Telugu literature. Vijayaraghava’s court had a number of poets and literary scholars. Vijayaraghava Nayak wrote more than thirty books in Telugu.

The end of the Thanjavur Nayak dynasty was brought on by Chokkanatha Nayak, the Nayak of Madurai. Chokkanatha placed his younger brother Alagiri Nayak on the throne of Thanjavur, but within a year the latter threw off his allegiance, and Chokkanatha was forced to recognise the independence of Thanjavur. A son of Vijaya Raghava induced the Bijapur Sultan to help him get back the Thanjavur throne.

In 1675, the Sultan of Bijapur sent a force commanded by the Maratha general Venkaji to drive away the Madurai usurper. Venkaji defeated Alagiri with ease, and occupied Thanjavur. He did not, however, place his protege on the throne as instructed by the Bijapur Sultan, but seized the kingdom and made himself king. Thus ended the reign of Nayaks and the start of Maratha power in Thanjavur.

References:

• https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thanjavur_Nayak_kingdom

Spoiler: Madura

In EU4 terms province of Tirunelveli, Madura, Tiruchirapalli & Dindigul and Ramnad as vassal. (During Nayak rule, 1570).
Between 1500 and 1530s, the Madurai region had following viceroys appointed by Vijayanagar.

• Narasa Nayak
• Tenna Nayak
• Narasa Pillai
• Kuru Kuru Timmappa Nayak
• Kattiyama Kamayya Nayak
• Chinnappa Nayakka
• Ayyakarai Veyyappa Nayak

Vishwanatha Nayakka a Vijayanagar governor is supposed to be the founder of Madura Nayak who ruled from 1535 to 1544, and was succeeded by Varathappa Nayakkar who ruled for a very short period of about a year. In 1545, Dumbicchi Nayakkan became the Governor, and after twenty months, he was succeeded by Vishwanatha Nayakkan again, until Vitthala Raja took over in 1546. Vitthala Raja ruled till 1558. Thereafter Vishwanatha Nayak took over again from 1559 and rulers of Madura became hereditary. He ruled till 1563 when his son took over.

Kumara Krishnappa Nayaka (1563-1573) Viswantha Nayak was succeeded by his son Krishnappa Nayak who along with his father's able minister Ariyanatha expanded the Madurai Kingdom under the Nayaks and brought most of the ancient Pandyan territory under its rule. After Talikota, he became lax in paying tribute to Vijayanagar.

Kumara Krishnappa Nayak was succeeded in 1573 by his two sons, who ruled jointly and uneventfully until 1595, when they in turn were succeeded by their two sons, one of whom ruled until 1602. (More clarity needed).

Muttu Krishnappa Nayaka (1602-1609) These were followed by Muttu Krishnappa Nayak. He is credited with having given the Setupatis of Ramnad a considerable slice of territory in the Maravar country, on condition that they suppress crime and protect pilgrims journeying to Rameswaram.

Muttu Virappa Nayaka (1609-1623) Muttu Krishnappa Nayak was succeeded by his eldest son, Muttu Virappa. He began the construction of the Dindigul Fort at Dindigul on the Hill, along with the Temple on it, which later was completed by Tirumalai Nayak. Muttu Virappa is said to have have paid the Vijayanagara king at Chandragiri a tribute of 600,000 pagodas in 1616 post his defeat at battle of Toppur.

Tirumalai Nayaka (1623-1659) crushed the rebellion of the Setupatis of Ramnad. The Setupathi and his Maravas withdrew to the island of Pamban and procured the assistance of Europeans.

Muttu Veerappa Nayaka (1659-1662) He tried to induce the Nayak of Tanjore to join the enterprise against rising power of Sultan of Carnatic (Gingee). He tried to reconcile with the sultan but no qualms.

Chokkanatha Nayaka (1662-1682) At the age of 16, this young ruler began his reign with an ill-considered attempt to drive out the Muslim troops, despatching a large army against the Gingee fortress. His general, however, sold himself to the enemy and wasted time and money in a long and unprofitable campaign. It was not until he himself finally took command of the army that the Muslim invaders were driven back to Tanjore and eventually to Gingee.

In the next year (1663 or 1664) Chokkanatha paid a heavy price for his temporary success. The Muslims burst into the Trichinopoly and Madura districts and devastated the country with almost incredible cruelty. They besieged Trichinoploy, and he had to buy them off with a large sum. He consoled himself by punishing the Nayakkan of Tanjore and Setupati of Ramnad, who had failed to help him in repelling them. This latter enterprise was unsuccessful, for though he succeeded in taking several forts in the Marava country, he was baffled by the guerilla tactics of his adversary, and had to retire without obtaining that chief’s submission. This Campaign aspired the Setupati to form an independent kingdom.

A secret love affair with the princess of Tanjore and unfortunate turns of event where inspite of winning Tanjore he lost the Princess made him heart-broke.

Chokkantha was replaced on his tottering throne about 1678 by a Muslim adventurer who during the next two years usurped the whole of his authority, and even the ladies of his and his fallen brother’s harems, and at last was slain by Chokkanatha himself and a few of his friends.

In 1682 his capital was besieged by Mysore. The Marathas, who were now established in Gingee as well as Tanjore, inflicted a crushing defeat on the Mysore troops and drove them out of almost every corner of the Madura and Trichinopoly districts. Madura itself they were unable to capture, for the Maravans, regarding the men of Mysore as on the whole more eligible neighbours than the Marathas, helped the former to hold that fortress. The latter had pretended to be, and laid siege to Trichinopoly itself. In despair at their treachery, Chokkantha died of a broken heart in 1682.

Rangakrishna Muthu Virappa Nayaka (1682-1689) Rangakrishna Muthu Virappa Nayak, who succeeded Chokkanatha was a spirited boy of fifteen. He tried to revive the diminished fortunes of the kingdom. He made a name for himself by ignoring Aurangazeb with courage, but little enough of his territories remained to him to rule. The greater part of them was held by Mysore, some by the Maravans, some by the Marathas of Gingee, and some by the Marathas of Tanjore. At first, the country was subject to anarchy and pillage, foreign enemies occupied all the forts, and robber chiefs were masters of the rural areas and carried on their brigandage there with impunity.

Matters slowly improved, with Mysore soon distracted by a war with the Marathas of Gingee, and both the Sethupathis and the Marathas of Tanjore occupied by wars within their own countries. Emperor Aurangzeb in 1686–1687 conquered the kingdoms of Madura's old enemies, Golconda and Bijapur, and he was for many years engaged in an exhausting war with the Marathas.

Muthu Virappa recovered his capital in 1685, and he gradually reconquered large parts of the ancient kingdom of his forefathers and succeeded in restoring the power of the Nayaks of Madurai. Unfortunately he died of smallpox in 1689, at the early age of 22.

Rani Mangammal (1689-1704) Mangammal, the mother of the late Nayaka, acted for the next fifteen years as Queen-Regent on behalf of her grandson. In 1693, Madurai became a feudatory state to the emperor in Delhi with Nizams in Hyderabad as immediate Mughal representative and Arcot as vassal to Hyderabad as immediate mediator.

Vijaya Ranga Chokkanatha Nayaka (1704-1731) Apparently a dull reign of 26 years, paving way for the demise of the dynasty. His reign was distinguished by the ill-regulated and extraordinary munificence of his gifts to Brahmins and religious institutions. The injustice of his rule caused a serious riot in Madurai, the mutiny of his troops, and incessant disturbances. His only warfare was over the succession to the throne of Ramnad, in 1725. Of the two claimants, one was supported by Tanjore Marathas and the other by Madurai and the Tondaiman of Pudukottai. The Tanjore troops won a decisive victory and placed their protégé on the throne. A year or two later the Tanjore king deposed this very protégé, and divided Ramnad into Ramnad and Sivaganga, which became independent Marava powers.
Queen Meenakshi (1731-1736) Vijaya Ranga Chokkanatha died in 1731, and was succeeded by his widow Meenakshi, who acted as Queen-Regent on behalf of a young boy she had adopted as the heir of her dead husband. She had only ruled a year or two when an insurrection was raised against her by Vangaru Tirumala, the father of her adopted son, who pretended to have claims of his own to the throne of Madurai. At this juncture representatives of the Mughals appeared on the scene and took an important part in the struggle.

A succession between Queen Meenakshi & Vangaru Tirumala in 1734 was interfered by Arkot (local Mughal representative as vassal of Nizams). Vangaru was given Madurai & Tirunelveli after paying 3 millions while Queen Meenakshi could keep Trichinopoly after paying 10 millions.

Chanda Sahib accepted the crore of rupees and departed to Arcot. Two years later, in 1736 he returned, admitted into the fort, and proceeded to make himself master of the kingdom. He eventually marched against Vangaru Thirumala, who still was ruling in the south, defeated him at Ammaya Nayakkanur and Dindigul, drove him to take refuge in Sivaganga, and occupied the southern provinces of the Madurai kingdom. Chanda Sahib along with his 2 brothers as governor at Dindigul & Madurai and himself at Tiruchirapalli ruled Mudarai region away from Nawab of Arcot between 1736-1740.
Vangaru Thirumala asked help of the Marathas and therefore in 1740, they appeared in the south with a vast army, defeated and killed the Nawab of Arcot, seized Trichinopoly, Dindigul and Madurai and captured Chanda Sahib but disregarding the claims of Vangaru Tirumala, appointed a Maratha, the well-known Morari Rao of Gooty, as their governor of the conquered kingdom.

Morari Rao remained in power for two years and finally retired. In 1743 the invading army of the Nizam re-established his weakened authority in the Tamil Nadu and in 1744 appointed Anwar-uddin as Nawab of Arcot. The Nizam ordered that Vangaru Tirumala should be appointed king of Madurai, however the Arcot Nawab disregarded this order and Vangaru Tirumala disappeared from the scene, poisoned, some say, by Anwar-uddin. In 1751 the Madurai kingdom smoothly passed into the British fold, when the Arcot Nawab ceded the former state to the later for the repayment of his huge loans from the British East India Company.

References:

• https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Madurai_Nayak_dynasty

Spoiler: Ramnad

It is interesting to note that for thousands of years, there was a royal family in South India with its headquarters at Ramanathapuram near Rameshwaram, known as the Sethupati Rajas or the guardians of the Sethu (Bridge between India & SriLanka). The specific task of these kings was to guard the sanctity of Rameshwaram temple and protect the Sethu.

In fact even today, though the famous Rameshwaram temple (which technically belonged to the Sethupatis) is administered by the Government of Tamil Nadu, the head of the Sethupati dynasty, at present Rajeshwari Nachiar, is the hereditary head of the temple’s board of trustees.

Detailed information about the Sethupathis is available in the ‘Ramnad Manual’ maintained by Tamil Nadu archives. Although the dynasty claims that they are mentioned in the 2000-year-old sagas of Tamil literature, as the brave Marava community guarding the Sethu since the times of Lord Rama, the first historical reference comes only in the 11th century AD, when Chola king Rajaraja made the head of Marava community as Sethupati to protect the pilgrims to Rameshwaram temple and the Rama Sethu.

The temple complex itself was built by Sethupati rulers in the 12th century, with Sethupathy Maravar beginning the construction of the grand Ramanathaswamy temple. Then again reference is made in 1434 to the repair of the temple walls by the head of the Sethupati clan, Udayan Sethupati.

It is only from 1590, that we find a detailed history of these chiefs, who are described as masters of Sethu and their kingdom described as Sethu Nadu (Land of Sethu). After the establishment of the Sultanate of Madura, Sethupathis were suppressed and deprived of their realm. It is not clear if the establishment of Vijayanagar empire in Madura region re-installed Sethupatis in Ramnad to their ancient “job”. But the 1434 inscription in the name of Udayan Sethupati does make us think that the Setupathis were in charge of the region as a vassal of Vijayanagar. After the Madura Nayaks had their kingdom established, we get a concrete evidence of the re-appointment of the head of the same Marava community as the Sethupatis.

The most important of these monarchs was the Raghunatha Sethupati II alias Kilavan Sethupati (1671 to 1708 ), who ensured that Sethupatis with their fiefdom over the area known as Ramnad, remained all powerful. It was during his time, that the magnificent still existing palace of Ramlingavilasam was created as the residence of the Sethupatis. No other palace in Tamil Nadu has such extensive mural paintings. In 1978, the Sethupati family, unable to maintain the palace handed it over to the Government of Tamil Nadu.

In the18th century, when the British entered the politics of South India the Sethupatis were demoted as mere zamindars from 1803 onwards. After Indian Independence, the Sethupatis still retained their importance in the politics of Tamil Nadu. But the abolition of zamindaries by the Government of India, removed all sources of their wealth and today, the former Sethupatis are just well-known prominent magnates of Tamil Nadu.

Chieftains under the Madurai Nayaks
Sadaikka Thevar Sethupathi (1590-1621)
Kootan Sethupathi (1621-1637)
Dalavai Sethupathi (1637-1659)
Raghunatha Sethupathi (1659-1670)

Independent kings
Raghunatha Kilavan Sethupathi (1670–1708)
Vijaya Raghunatha Sethupathi I (1708–1723)
Sundaresvara Raghunatha Sethupathi (1723 -1728)
Kumara Muthu Vijaya Raghunatha Sethupathi (1728-1734)
Muthukumara Raghunatha Sethupathi (1734-1747)
Rakka Thevar (1747-1748)
Vijaya Raghunatha Sethupathi II (1748-1760)
Muthuramalinga Sethupathi I (1760-1794)

Ruler of princely state under the paramountcy of the British Raj
Mangaleswari Nachiyar (1795-1803)

References:

• https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ramnad_estate

Spoiler: Kalahasti

Srikalahasti is a holy town in the modern Chittoor district of Andhra Pradesh on the banks of the River Swarmamukhi. A further south is Vandavashi or Wandiwash in the current Tiruvannamalai district of Tamil Nadu. The coastal tract between these two modern cities were taken care by the Kalahasti Nayaks under Aravidu Dynasty of the Vijayanagar Empire.

Damarla Chennapa Nayakadu was the Nayak ruler of Kalahasti and Vandsavasi under the suzerainty of Vijayanagar emperor Sriranga Deva Raya (1572-86). Chennai (British Madras), the capital of Tamil Nadu is named in his honour. His actual reign period is not known but he was active from 1580s to 1620s.

His son Damarla Vekatappa Nayak has reference in Dutch records and during the reign of Pada Venkat Raya of Chandragiri (Vijayanagar) 1632-42, he was the one who had negotiated the British on behalf of the Vijayanagar emperor for the grant of Chennai to them.

Another name in the line we see is Damarla Ayappa Nayak from the Kalahasti Nayak line, however information are very inadequate. But the line of the Kalahasti Nayaks survived another century as well for there there is a reference of the Kalahasti Nayaks taking side of Hyder Ali during Second Anglo-Mysore War (1780-1784). Further information are very scanty.

References:

• https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nayaks_of_Kalahasti

Spoiler: Chitradurga

Nayakas of Chitradurga (1588–1779 CE) ruled parts of eastern Karnataka during the post-Vijayanagara period.

Timmanna Nayaka (?–1588) of Matli: A chieftain from Matli in Davanagere taluk during the rule of Saluva Narasimha. He ruled areas covering Davanagere district and Chitradurga district.

Obanna Nayaka I (1588–1602) is also known as Madakari Nayaka I.

Kasturi Rangappa Nayaka I (1602–1652) Added territories such as Mayakonda, Santebennur, Holalkere, Anaji, and Jagalur.

Madakari Nayaka II (1652–1674) He is credited with a number of military successes, particularly in the regions east of Chitradurga.　He killed Shah Adib Allah in 1671 in a battle at Chitradurga.

Obanna Nayaka II (1674–1675) His rule saw civil unrest. He was killed by his own men.

Shoora Kantha Nayaka (1675–1676) His rule saw civil unrest. He was killed by his own men.

Chikkanna Nayaka (1676–1686)

Madakari Nayaka III (1686–1688)

Donne Rangappa Nayaka (1688–1689)

Bharamappa Nayaka of Bilichodu (1689–1721) known as the last of the great Nayakas of Chitradurga, he became a Maratha ally and fought in the battle of Dodderi in 1695 but had to pay tribute later to the Mughals for supporting the Marathas. He fought many pitched battles against the Mughals, and is credited for building many temples including the Ranganatha Swamy at Niratadi, and irrigation tanks.

Madakari Nayaka IV (1721–1748) was a Maratha feudatory. He was killed during continued hostilities against the Nayakas of Davangere.

Kasturi Rangappa Nayaka II (1748–1758), son of Kasturi Rangappa Nayaka II, retook Mayakonda territory and Buddha region. He achieved this with the help of the Maratha Sardar Murari Rao and the Subedar of Advani. He died in 1754 without an heir.

Madakeri Nayaka (1758–1779) the last, son of one Bharamappa Nayaka of Janakal-Durga. He was a brave soldier and a shrewd administrator. (also called as Madakari Nayaka V). He allied himself with Haider Ali of Mysore at times and at other times with the Marathas. It was during his time that Haider Ali attacked the Chitradurga Fort leading to the heroics of "Onake Obavva". Later having been betrayed by the Marathas and some local officers, Madakari Nayaka was defeated by Hyder Ali, taken prisoner and killed.

The Chitradurga Nayakas form an integral part of Kannada folklore.

References:

• https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nayakas_of_Chitradurga
• http://barry-lewis.com/research/chitradurga/

Spoiler: Kodagu

Kodagu Kingdom or Haleri Kingdom refers to the monarchistic dynasty that ruled the Kodagu region of Karnataka for over 200 years between 1600–1834 CE. The kingdom was named after a place called Haleri near Madikeri which they made as their capital. The Haleri kings were devout Lingyats and were an offshoot of the Keladi Nayaks. The kingdom's origin is traced to Veeraraja, a nephew of Sadashiva Nayaka of the Keladi dynasty.

Muddu Raja I (1633 - 1687)
Dodda Veerapa (1687 - 1736)
Chikka Veerappa (1736 - 1766)
Devappa Raja (1766 - 1770)
Muddu Raja II, Muddaya (1770 - 1774)
Appaji Raja II (1774 - 1775)
Linga Rajendra I (Linga Raja I, 1775- 1780)
Dodda Vira Rajendra (Dodda Vira Raja, 1780 - 1809)
Devammaji (1809 - 1811)
Linga Rajendra II (Linga Raja II, 1811 - 1820)

References:

• https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kodagu_Kingdom

Spoiler: Kandy

Sinhaladvipa Katha, the Nayak king Kumara Krishnappa, who reigned at Madurai (1562–1572), is said to have conquered Kandy. Kumara Krishnappa killed the then reigning Kandy king, sent the late king's wife and children to Anuradhapura and placed his own brother-in-law Vijaya Gopala Naidu as his viceroy in Kandy.

A cadet branch of the Madurai Nayak dynasty, the Kandyan Nayaks were related to the Tanjore Nayaks as well. In total, four Nayakkar monarchs ruled in Kandy, the last of whom, Sri Vikrama Rajasinha, was deposed as a result of the Kandyan nobility's collusion with the British and exiled to Vellore Fort in India.

The Nayaks of Kandy were notable for re-establishing the long-dormant tradition among the Sinhalese monarchs of marrying from South Indian nobility, and for their childless marriages resulting in non-linear succession.The Nayaks were originally Hindus, but later converted to Buddhism and were responsible for a renaissance of Buddhist culture on the Island.

The stability and power of the Kandyan Nayaks were heavily reliant on the support from the Madurai and Tanjore branches of the House, particularly in the form of military assistance against the Portuguese and Dutch- alliances cemented by intermarriage between Kandy and South India. Thus, intermarriage across the Palk Strait became a matter of policy for Kandy in 17th and 18th centuries.

The last king of the Kandy Mahanuwara dynasty was Vira Narendra Sinha who ruled from 1707 to 1739 and had married relation with brides from Madurai Royal family, had no children by either of the queens. Thus, the king nominated, as his successor, the brother of his first queen who had remained at the court ever since his sister married him. When Narendra Sinha's brother-in-law succeeded the throne, the Sinhalese Kandyan aristocracy had no problem with this new form of succession.The practice of marrying princesses from Madurai is said to have come into occurrence as the Kandy kings insisted on consorts from the Suryavamsa lineage to grace their coronation and to produce heirs acceptable to the people.

Sri Vijaya Rajasinha 1739–1747
Kirti Sri Rajasinha 1747–1782
Sri Rajadhi Raja Singha 1782–1798
Sri Vikrama Rajasinha 1798–1815

References:

• https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nayaks_of_Kandy

Spoiler: Gersoppa

In EU4 terms province of North Kannara.

The first ruler of Gerasoppe family was Saluva Narana and he was followed by Saluva Nagana. Then followed many rulers in that line; afterwards came Honna, Kama Mangarasa (Mavarasa) and Haivarasa. We do not very concrete data for the earlier kings but after Haivarasa we have many helps from inscriptions. All these kings were Jains rulers and subordinated to Vijayanagar empire. We do not have the exact date for the reign of Haivarasa but we now are certain that his wife was Bhairadevi Saluva. He had two sons Sangiraya (Sangamabhupa) and son-in -law Malliraja. Haivarasa Odeya ruled over most of North Kanara area: Haduvalli (Bhatkal), Gerasoppe (Honavar) Nagire & Gokarna (with a little of northern Tulunadu).

The Odeya dynasty like many of those in Tulunadu were matrilineal in which the sister’s son would be the next heir in line. In 1408, Sangiraya Odeya son of Haivarasa Odeya revolted against the succession in female line and founded a separate independent principality with its capital in Haduvalli (Near Bhatkal) and thus the family of Odeya Jain Kings of Gerasoppa spitted into two Branches, Gerasoppa or Nagire and Sangitapura (Haduvalli.)

The Vijayanagara rulers do not seem to have viewed this development favourably and there followed a series of rivalry and warfare between the two branches of the same family for a century and half when in 1550s both the branches of the family again got merged under Queen Chennabhairadevi.

It is suggested that the strained relation between the Nagire and Haduvalli Chiefs was basically due to the difference in the rule of succession i.e., while the Nagire Chiefs followed Aliya Aantana (succession through son-in-law) rule, the Haduvalli family pursued Makkaia Aantana (succession through sons). However, this may not be the only reason. The fact that the Nagire Chiefs were almost always on the offensive indicates that they did not like a collateral family ruling independently in the precincts of their own kingdom. The low lines of the family can be drawn as:

Gersoppe Branch

Sangama Malliraja (Manga III) (?-?)
Keshavdeva Odeyar (1401-1420)
Sangiraya Odeyar (1420-1428)
Bhairavdeva Odeyar I (1428-1462)
Immadi Bhairava (1462-1462)
Malliraja II (1462-1471) Ruling from Hanovar. Then 1471-1480 ruling from Gersoppe.
Devarasa Odeyar (1481-1502)
Saluva Bhairavraya Odeyar (1502-1508)
Mallrao Odeyar (1508-1512)
Saluva Immadi Devarasa Odeyar (1514-1523)
Padumala Devi (1523-1529)
Saluva Krishnadevasara Odeyar (1529-1559)

Sangitapura Branch (Haduvalli)
Sangiraya Odeyar (1408-1448)
Indagarasa Odeyar (1449-1460)
Sangiraya Odeyar II (1460-1476)
Indradevarasa (Saluvendra II) (1476-1508)
Devarasa Odeyar I (1508-1523)
Gururaja Odeyar (1527-1533)
Devarasa Odeyar II (1533-1541)
Chennadeviamma (1541-1551)

Chennabhairadevi (1551-1560) from Sangitapura and from Mrijan Fort 1560-1607 for United Gerasoppa).

In 1551 A.D. The ruler at Sangitapura was Chennadevi Amma. At the same time the ruler of Gerasoppe was Saluva Krishnadevarasa. The latter died without any issue while in Sangitapura Chennadeviamma was succeeded by her sister Chennabhairadevi. She was Sose (niece) of Saluva Krishnadivarasa. Since he had no issue, Chennabhairadevi took up the reign of the government of Gersoppa like also and thus by about 1560 A.D. both branches came to be united and both Gersoppa and Bhatkal (Haduvalli) enjoyed the position of headquarters of the principality.

Pepper Queen Channabhairadevi of Gersoppa (1551-1607).

“We must deal with her, most carefully and diplomatically. We must be courteous, polite and diplomatic to win her to our side” reads a Portuguese record of 1591 C.E. this was the realisation of the Portuguese after a very bad defeat they suffered at the hands of Chennabhairadevi, the Queen of Gerasoppa.

Inscriptions call Chennabhairadevi, as ruler of Haiva, Tuluva and Konkan areas. These roughly comprised of North and South Kanaras, southern region of Goa and northern Malabar. Since important harbors of Mrijan, Ankola and Bendur came under this territory, there used to be skirmishes with adjoining rulers throughout, which wanted to grab them. Besides, this entire belt was known as pepper country, where the spices grew abundantly in the virgin forests, which were in great demand in Europe. Actually Chennabhairadevi was known as Raina-Da-Pimenta or "Pepper Queen".

Though the Vijayanagara empire was on the decline, the queen called herself a subordinate (mahamandaleshwara) of Vijayanagar rulers. She was always busy checking the advances of Portuguese who were notorious for their unfair practices and treachery in Indian context. At the same time she had to be ever alert with the rulers of the adjoining Keladi kingdom and Bilgi chiefs, the latter being another principality near by. They always tried to grab the harbours and trade. She had sought help of Adilshah of Bijapur while crushing the Portuguese. The help did not reach on time, but she was successful. The Portuguese were humbled.

Herself a Jain, she gave grants to all Shaiva, Vaishnava and Shakti temples in Gokarna, Uppunda, Baindur and Khetappa Narayana temple of Bhatkal. Saraswat Brahmin businessmen and other skilled Konkani craftsmen from Goa came, settled and availed her benevolent rule, to escape Portuguese persecution. Most prominent among these were Lakkarasa Kamti and Kheta Pai who built beautiful temples. Akalanka, the Jain scholar and Bhattakalaka, the renowned grammarian were protégés of Gerasoppa queen.

But the efforts of Keladi Nayaka and Bilgi chiefs continued to pull her down. Finally a marital tie brought the two rulers together, literally joining hands! They jointly attacked Gerasoppa, completely defeating the brave queen. Gerasoppa thus became part of Keladi kingdom. The ageing queen was taken a prisoner and died in a prison in Keladi.

Thus ended the rule of a brave, kind, tolerant and benevolent queen who perhaps had the longest reign as a woman ruler in Indian history.

References:

• Goa-Kanara Portuguese Relations, 1498-1763 - Xavier Institute of Historical Research.
• Travels of Pietro Della Valle in India: From the Old English Translation of 1664.
• https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mirjan_Fort

Spoiler: Yelahanka

Jaya Kempegowda (1408-1433)
Gidde Kempegowda (1433-1443)
Kempananje Kempegowda (1443-1510)
Hiriya Kempegowda (Kempe Gowda I) (1510-1569)
Immadi Kempegowda (?)
Mummadi Kempegowda (?)
Dodda Veerappa Kempegowda (?)
Honappa Veerappa Kempegowda (?)
Anakanna Veerappa Kempegowda (?)
Kempa Veerappa Kempegowda (?-1728)

References:

• http://myvpa.org/vpa/history/
• https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kempe_Gowda_I

Spoiler: Kolathunadu

It is difficult to make a perfect genealogy for the Kolathiri Kings as the Kingdom has been divided into a number of small principalities each headed by the royal members or kin of the same Kolathiri family. Chirakkal Raja of Chirakkal line of the Kolathiri Royal family is said to be an important one. An another line of the family Arakkal line got converted to Islam and was ruling from Laccadives Islands and a small portion of Cannonore city. Genealogy for Arakkal family line are available but it cannot be replicated for entire Kolathanadu. They can be made to rule at Laccadives Islands only if PDX intents to represent Laccadives Islands to the game.

Alternately the names of various Kolathiri royal branches with a suffix of Raja can also be used as a workable solution. Please refer to the 2 attachments about the Kolathiris, they can be dug out for some valuable information.

References:

• https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kolathunadu

Spoiler: Recharla Nayaks

15th century polity of Telangana has kept revolving round the Recharla Nayaks. They would in turn ally with Bahamans, Vijayanagar and Orissa and indulge in their wars; reap the benefit of friendship and pay the price for enmity. Recharla Padmanayakas had come into political prominence during the Kakatiya era. After the fall of Kakatiya kingdom, Recharla Padmanayakas (also called as Velama Nayakas) ruled the Telangana region in two branches with Rachakonda and Devarakonda as their capitals. After the Munusuri Nayaks asserted their kingdom upon the erstwhile Kakatiya realm, the Recharla Nayaks, feudatories of erstwhile Kakatiya, now became the feudatories of the Munusuri Nayaks. Recharla Nayaks had ancestral rivalry with the Kondaividu Reddy who were supported by Munusuri Nayaks as such the relationship between Rechalra Nayaks and their overlord Munusuri Nayaks could not remain cordial. Furthermore, When the relationship between Munusuri Nayaks & Bahamans went sour, Recharla Nayaks allied themselves with the Bahamans and took over Warangal in 1368 by removing the Munusuri Nayaks and themselves becoming the rulers of the entire Telangana except Golconda which was with the Bahamans. All these years they remained an ally of Bahamans.

However in 1424, when there was a succession crisis at their arch-rival Reddy of Kondavidu, things changed. Bahamans & Orissa supported the Kondavidu Reddy family while Vijayanagar supported the Rajamundry Reddy family. Recharla Nayaks in their enmity with Kondaividu Reddy, abandoned Bahamans and sided with Vijayanagar.

Bahamans didn’t take this development positively and attacked Warangal and occupied it in 1425 however after a negotiation Warangal was retuned to them. By 1428, the Kondaividu line of Reddy Kingdom was over and Kondaividu was being ruled by the Rajahmundry Reddy line. With the disappearance of common enemy between Vijayanagar & Recharla Nayaks, and creation of a new enemy, Rajahmundry Reddy, who had support of Vijayanagar, their relationship with Vijayanagar could remain as warm. Bahamans took advantage of this situation and attacked Warangal in 1433 and later took Rachakonda as well in 1435. Meanwhile Recharla Nayaks made alliance with Orissa who now had a common enemy - Rajamundry Reddy. With the help of Orissa they not only managed to save their second capital Deverakonda but were also able to successfully repulse any further Bahamans attack in the subsequent years. In 1461 in an another Bahaman attacks Recharlas sought help from Orissa with a promise to pay heavy sum. With the help of Orissa, Recharlas recovered almost all of their lost land and became the rulers of Orugallu except Golconda but they now had to become a vassal of Orissa. They kept ruling the region for a decade and half when around 1475 they were overthrown by Bahamans.

Singama Nayaka I (1326-1361)
Anavotha Nayaka (1361-1384)
Singama Nayaka II (1384-1399)
Immadi Anavotha Nayaka II (1399-1421)
Madanayaka Kumar Maganani (1421-1430) - From Devarakonda. Brother of Anayotha Nayak II acting as a Regent for infant Singama Nayak III.
Singama Nayaka III (1425-1475) Son of Anavotha Nayaka II
Lingamanedu (1430-1475) - From Devarakonda. Son of Madanayak Kumar Manganani

Singama Nayaka III was the son of Anavotha Nayaka II and was the last ruler of his dynasty. Ahmed Shah Bahamani occupied the fort of Rayagiri, Warangal and the region of Rachakonda between 1433-35. According to the inscription of Hariveeradeva, of 1461, the Recharla rulers regained all their land including Warangal fort. Dharmanayudu, brother of Singama Nayaka III was appointed as the ruler of Warangal. He issued the ‘Shayampet inscription’ in l462. After Singama Nayaka III, the Recharla Velama kingdom declined and their descendants took shelter in the court of Vijayanagara rulers.

Reference:

• https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Recherla_Nayaks

Spoiler: Savanur

Reference:

• https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Savanur_State
• The Nawabs of Savanur - Krishnaji Nageshrao Chitnis

 

[Aagney]

Yes I agree that Jains are the most important religion, to implement. Still, working with minorities like zoroastrians, jews, and christian could render some nice flavor. glancing at your source I see christian had good reputation and status aswell as being reknown traders up until around the 16th century then muslim pressure started marginalizing them. Having the possibility to at least have christian advisors along the coast seem like a good start.

Yes Christian advisors surely should be added. There were a few Christians specially employed in commercial or trading offices.
Further, like Saurashtra Kerala too had multiple of tiny principalities and a few were also under Christian kings particularly in Cochin area who were married to the royal families of Cochin. But they would be too small to represent in the game.

 

[Afonso de Albuquerque]

Here is a very good talk by Sanjay Subrahmanyam about the Jews in Cochin, and how they were prosecuted by the Portuguese Inquisition:

It would be nice to add flavour events for this, maybe for any European that embraces the counter-reformation and takes territory in south-west India.

 

[Aagney]

I never knew it would be an hour long. Though I have not read any of his direct works but in India he is considered an authority on the South Indian History and Economic history in general.

How would you pacify those who have trouble accepting Printing Press printing in India in 1560s and consider this institution spread immersion breaking!

 

[Trin Tragula]

From my limited experience (“Courtly Encounters”) he also writes well.

 

[Afonso de Albuquerque]

That's good to know! I also haven't read any of his books, I have only read some interviews with him and watched some of his Youtube lectures, his knowledge of that time period is fantastic since he can access ancient sources in so many different languages and actually read them. I was afraid his writing might be too dry as is often typical of more scholarly works, but I've now ordered one of his books, looking forward to reading it.

 

[magni.]

I think we should also consider adding a lot of Events to India

Here a good article on the divide and conquer diplomatic approach of Engand

https://www.atlasobscura.com/articl...-tax?utm_source=twitter&utm_medium=atlas-page

 

[Aagney]

I think we should also consider adding a lot of Events to India

Here a good article on the divide and conquer diplomatic approach of Engand

https://www.atlasobscura.com/articl...-tax?utm_source=twitter&utm_medium=atlas-page

You have opened a huge controversial topic. While there is no doubt about it, it was an open policy throughout the British rue in India to the very core of Indian society.

In 1859, Lord Elphinstone, the British Governor of Bombay, advised London that 'Divide et impera was the old Roman maxim, and it should be ours'. (Though he was not right about the source, since it was coined by Philip II of Macedonia). A few decades later, Sir John Strachey opined that, 'the existence of hostile creeds among the Indian people was essential for our political position in India.'

The tendency to separate was apparent in British attitudes from the start. One can just look at Irish example - instead of assimilating the Irish into the British race, they were subjugated by their new overlords, intermarriage was forbidden (as was even learning the Irish language or adopting Irish modes of dress) and most Irish people were segregated 'beyond the Pale'. If the British could do that to a people who looked like them, they were inclined to do much worse to the dark-skinned people they conquered in India.

The British effort to understand ethnic, religious, sectarian and caste differences among their subjects inevitably became an exercise in defining, dividing and perpetuating these differences. Te colonial administrators regularly wrote reports and conducted censuses that classified their subjects in ever-more bewildering narrow terms, based on their language, religion, sect, caste, sub-caste, ethnicity and skin colour. In the process of such categorisation, not were the ideas of community redefined, but entire new communities were created by people who had not consciously thought of themselves as particularly different from others around them.

Bernard Cohn, a scholar of British colonisation in India, has argued that the British simultaneously misinterpreted and oversimplified the features they saw in Indian society, placing Indians into stereotypical boxes they defined and into which they were assigned in the name of ancient tradition: 'In the conceptual scheme which the British created to understand and to act in India, they constantly followed the same logic; they reduced the vastly complex codes and their associated meanings to a few metonyms.' Laws had to be translated into terms the British could understand and apply. A complicated, often chaotic and always fluid society like India was 'redefined by the British to be a place of rules and orders; once the British had defined to their own satisfaction what they constructed as Indian rules and customs, then the Indians had to conform to these constructions.'

The British began by anatomising Indian society into 'classes' that they referenced as being 'primarily religious' in nature. Then they seized upon caste. But caste had not been a particularly stable social structure in the pre-British days; though there were, of course, variants across time and place, caste had broadly been a mobile form of social organisation constantly shaped and reinvented by beliefs, the politics and quite often the economic interested of the dominant men of the times. The British, however, promulgated the theory that caste hierarchy and discrimination influenced the working of Indian society. This is arguably a very narrow definition of how Indian society actually functioned in the pre-British era, and it is thanks to colonial rule that it has now become conventional wisdom.

In his seminal book Castes of Mind, Dirks has explained in detail how it was, under the British, the 'caste' became a single term 'capable of expressing, organising, and above all "systematising" India's diverse forms of social identities, community and organisation. As a result of concrete encounter with colonial modernity during two hundred years of British domination....colonialism made caste what it is today.

Under colonialism, caste was thus made out to be far more pervasive, far more totalising, and more uniform than it had ever been before. Dirks further suggests, 'caste became the colonial form of civic society' or in Partha Chatterjee's terms, the colonial argument for why civil society could not grow in India; it justified the denial of political rights to Indians who were, after all, subjects, not citizens and explained the unavoidable necessity of colonial rule.

The idea of the four-fold caste order stretching across all of India and embracing its complex civilisational expanse was only developed, modern scholars assert with considerable evidence, under the peculiar circumstances of British colonial rule. The British either did not understand, or preferred to ignore, the basic fact that system need not have worked as described in theory.

 

[Aagney]

In May 2015, Oxford Union had organised a debate on the proposition 'Britain Owes Reparation to Her Former Colonies' and invited a number of speakers from different counties. Indian presence was represented by Shashi Tharoor - speaker in the video below. The debate was won by two-third majority in the favour of the topic.

It was concluded by the British Labour leader Jeremy Corbyn, 'indeed the best form of atonement by the British might be to start teaching unromanticized colonial history in British schools. There British public is woefully ignorant of the realities of the British empire, and what it meant to its subject peoples. These days there appears to be a return in England to yearning for the Raj; the success of the television series Indian Summers, the far Pavilions and The Jewel in the Crown, epitomises as an attempt to remind the English 'of their collective dreams of Englishness, so glorious, so poignant, so bittersweet in the resentful seediness of contemporary little England.' "If British school children can learn how the dreams of the English turned out to be nightmares for their subject peoples, true atonement - of the purely moral kind, involving a serious consideration of historical responsibility rather than mere admission of guilt - might be achieved."

In July 2015, the Orford Union posted the debate on the web, and it became one of the most viral video within hours.

And since then it has aroused a new series of debates and articles both for and against in multiple universities and on colonisation itself. Many more books and articles actually stated being written post 2015 on the subject and the whole colonisation particularly in India has been started to be looked from a different angle. Later Shashi Tharoor said that since he was arguing in the role of a debater from one side in that event, many things he said actually need a more comprehensive view from counter-arguments side as well and thus he published a book in 2016 which is more like a balanced work on Indian colonisation giving arguments for as well against the whole phenomena. This debate and later his book became a kind of curtain raiser for many more comprehensive works being published on Indian colonisation post 2015.

 

[Trin Tragula]

Did you ever find out more about Halar and Rajkot? @Aagney

 

[Zerodv]

In May 2015, Oxford Union had organised a debate on the proposition 'Britain Owes Reparation to Her Former Colonies' and invited a number of speakers from different counties. Indian presence was represented by Shashi Tharoor - speaker in the video below. The debate was won by two-third majority in the favour of the topic.

It was concluded by the British Labour leader Jeremy Corbyn, 'indeed the best form of atonement by the British might be to start teaching unromanticized colonial history in British schools. There British public is woefully ignorant of the realities of the British empire, and what it meant to its subject peoples. These days there appears to be a return in England to yearning for the Raj; the success of the television series Indian Summers, the far Pavilions and The Jewel in the Crown, epitomises as an attempt to remind the English 'of their collective dreams of Englishness, so glorious, so poignant, so bittersweet in the resentful seediness of contemporary little England.' "If British school children can learn how the dreams of the English turned out to be nightmares for their subject peoples, true atonement - of the purely moral kind, involving a serious consideration of historical responsibility rather than mere admission of guilt - might be achieved."

In July 2015, the Orford Union posted the debate on the web, and it became one of the most viral video within hours.

And since then it has aroused a new series of debates and articles both for and against in multiple universities and on colonisation itself. Many more books and articles actually stated being written post 2015 on the subject and the whole colonisation particularly in India has been started to be looked from a different angle. Later Shashi Tharoor said that since he was arguing in the role of a debater from one side in that event, many things he said actually need a more comprehensive view from counter-arguments side as well and thus he published a book in 2016 which is more like a balanced work on Indian colonisation giving arguments for as well against the whole phenomena. This debate and later his book became a kind of curtain raiser for many more comprehensive works being published on Indian colonisation post 2015.

It's kinda baffling the debate ended like that, considering the ridiculous notion of reperations(good luck having England pay for a country 20 times its population, although some just want symbolic ones), plus the ridiculous idea that of "extraction made Britain rich, thus it was stealing", Britain wasn't any richer even at the height of their empire compared to other European states like Sweden and Germany without colonies.

Shashi Tharoor is also quite depressing in his argumentation at times, sigh.

 

[fireduck]

Just a minor suggestion, but could Andhra be made the primary nation of the Telugu culture? The people of the Telugu region and culture have been known as Andhras since ancient times and I assume this is why the Andhra in EU4 is given this name instead of just as the Reddys which they are known by. Furthermore, famous Telugu authors and poets such as Srinatha and Potana lived during the times of the Reddy kings.

 

[Aagney]

Did you ever find out more about Halar and Rajkot? @Aagney

I have been away from the forum for a few weeks and had totally missed about them. Because of my own preoccupation I have also not been able to put enough time researching the topic. I am presenting here what I have been able to search so far and also that it still needs more research owing to unavailability of many credible sources on the matter. Moreover multiple of sources present multiple of versions which tend to differ from each other.

Spoiler: Jethwas & Jadejas

Jethwas:
The history of the Jethwas till the end of the 15th century is based more on bardic stories. The history of the subsequent period is of mixed nature. Yet it gives some authentic account of the Jethwa Kings.

In 1193-94, Jethwas at Morvi suffered a reverse at the hands of Qutubuddin Aibak, and Morvi principality was lost to Jethwas though their rule at Ghumli continued uninterrupted till 1306. Between all these years Morvi went first under Chadusamas when they were a vassal to the Vaghela Kings and later some parts of it came under the Jams (around 1300) of Kachch. Twice the Jethwas attacked Morvi to take back the lost territories of their ancestors which infuriated the Jams and in 1309 Jam Unadji of Kachch attacked the Jethwas at Ghumli but were defeated. In 1313, Jam Bamanioji, son of Jam Unadji, attacked Ghumli to avenge his father’s shameful defeat. They occupied the city and destroyed it but soon left and returned back to Kachch. Though the Rana (Jethwas) had time to repopulate the ancient town of Ghumli, he gave it up and founded a new town called 'Ranpur' where he shifted his Capital.

The Jethwas continued to rule for some another 150 years but there is not much historical evidence concerning them after that disastrous event till 1525-1535 A.D. when Jam Raval tried to annex the Jethwa state. (The dates regarding Jam Raval’s attack in Halar region and on Jethwa is not uniform in all sources but all of these dates fall between 1525-1548). Jam Raval entered Saurashtra between 1525-1535 and embarked on a campaign of conquest. He conquered greater part of Halar from Jethwas and other Rajput rulers Chawdas, Dedas and Vadhels. This led to further decimating the Jethwa territories in which Nagnah was lost, an important town just 3 Km away from Nagar where later Nawanagar was built.

One after the other the villages of Rana were subjugated including Khambhalia. Rana Khimooji fought hard but lost his territory. As the Jams were getting established in the Halar region, they started matrimonial ties with neighbours and as such Jam Ravalji's son, gave his daughter to Jethwa ruler Khimooji. But in later years, Jam Ravaljis's son Jam Sataji killed his own nephew Jethwa Ramdevji IV by a conspiracy and annexed further territory of Jethwas by force (1574 AD). This led to a fierce enmity between Jethwa and Jams, which continued for 300 years.

The Jethwa family had to run for life from pillar to post and ultimately settled at Chhaya a village near modern Porbandar. Ramdevji’s brother was Rana Bhanji whose widowed Rani Kalabai a lady of outstanding courage and foresight raised and army of the Mers and the Rabaris and waited for an opportunity to strike. Meanwhile, Jam Sataji fought the battle of Bhucher, Mori and Ned. Rani Kalabai seized the opportunity and regained some portion of her lost territory as far as Ranpur from the Jams. She installed her minor son Khimaji on the throne of his ancestors and made Chhaya her capital. Khimaji attained majority in 1608 A.D. and ruled till 1621 A.D.

Khimaji was succeeded by his son Viklaji who ruled for 50 years and died in 1671 A.D. he was succeeded by his son Sartanji alias Sultanji. This bold and ambitious ruler planned for expanding the boundaries of his state and as a step towards the direction he built a fort near the village 'Por' and called it Porbandar, in 1671 A.D. However, he did not occupy it because he did not like to run the risk of displeasing the officers or because he could not get the permission of the Emperor.

Sartanji died in 1699 A.D. and was succeeded by his son Bhanji. Taking the advantage of the long absence of Emperor Aurangzeb in the South and uncertain political situation in Ahmedabad, he expelled the imperial Mughal representative stationed at Porbandar and occupied it in 1700 A.D.

Reference:

1. Tarikh-i-Sorath
2. Rajputs of Saurashtra - by Virbhadra Singhji
3. https://ipfs.io/ipfs/QmXoypizjW3WknFiJnKLwHCnL72vedxjQkDDP1mXWo6uco/wiki/Jethwa.html
4. Gazetteer of Bombay Presidency
5. Others

Jadejas:

• The book The History of Kathiawar from the earliest times mentions, “In about a.d. 1313, during one of their incursions, they conquered and destroyed Ghumli, causing the Jethwas to move south to Chhaya; (Ranpur as per other sources), but they did not remain in Saurashtra and returned to Kachh (After constructing a temple of Goddess Ashapurna in Ghumli). Subsequently, in about a.d. 1535, they again invaded the province under Jam Rawal Hala, who had been driven out of Kachh after murdering Hamirji, the ruling chief. Jam Rawal settled in a.d. 1540 at Nagnah Bandar (Nawanagar) and consolidated his rule in what was known as “Halawad”. Subsequently other branches of the Jadeja family became established round about Nawanagar territory. Dhrol was captured from Dhama Chaora by Hardholji, brother of Jam Rawal, some time between A.D. 1540 and 1560. In a.d. 1697 Jam Pragmalji of Kachh murdered his brother Revaji, and then placed the latter's son Kanyoji in command at Morvi. Rajkot came under the Jadejas in the latter part of the sixteenth century, when Vibhoji, third son of Jam Sataji, conquered it with the aid of his father. Gondal is also in possession of the Jadejas, the State having been founded by Jadeja Kumbhoji in a.d. 1634. He afterwards obtained possession of the towns of Dhoraji, Upleta, and Bhayawadar, built forts, and established himself firmly.” If we believe to this version, then Jadedas should not own Halar in 1440s and that they should with most certainty not possess Rajkot right from 1440s.

• The book Rajputs of Saurashtra by Virbhadra Singhji mentions that “Jam Raidhanji of Kachch had set his youngest son Othaji on the throne (1385) , violating the prime claim of the eldest, Gajanji whom he granted the districts of Bara and districts of Kunad & Amaran in Saurashtra. This injustice kept the two branches busy against each other for twelve generations.” If this version is to believed then the Jadejas did have some influence in Jamanagar area from 1385 AD onwards, but it does not mention about Morvi and that raises some concern and also this division seems unlikely for Bara is in western Kachch while Kunad & Amaran is in Jamnagar. Moreover some other sources too confirm about this division where Bara district is said to be in possession of Jam Gajanji but they are silent about Kunad & Amaran.

• As per the Gazetteer of Bombay Presidency: Cutch, Palanpur, and Mahi Kantha, Jam Raidhanji of Kachch died (1385) leaving his three sons Dadarji, Othaji, Gajanji and a fourth Hothiji by a different mother. The three full brothers divided the land into four parts, two for the eldest and one for each of the others, twelve villages being set apart for Hothiji the fourth son. Dadarji's chief town was Kanthkot in the east, Othaji's headquarters were Ajapur to the north-east of Bhuj, and Gajanji lived at Bara near Tera in the west. Jam Raval who founded Nawanagar state in 1539 was one of the Gajanji's successors. Later his descendants branched out to form the states Rajkot, Gondal, Dhrol & Virpur. The Gazetteer further mentions that around 1530, the representatives of the three branches of the Jadeja family were Jam Dadarji, Jam Hamirji, and Jam Raval. Of these Jam Hamirji and Jam Raval were neighbours and rivals, and in 1537, Raval, by a solemn promise of friendship drawing Hamirji into his power, killed him. Jam Hamir’s daughter was wife of the Sultan of Gujarat as such the sons of Jam Hamir were being raised in Ahmedabad after his death. At an Ahmedabad hunting party, Khengarji I, second son of Jam Hamir, a boy of only fourteen, slew a tiger with his sword. Pleased with this the Sultan of Gujarat, promised the boy to give him anything he might ask. Khengarji I asked the fiefdom of Morvi on the Rann in 1538 and Khengarji I was ennobled with the title of Rao. He also received military from Gujarat Sultan. From Morbi, Khengarji I kept constantly attacking the villages of Jam Dadarji, who was then on friendly terms with Jam Rawal. After a fourteen years struggle, Khengarji I in 1548 drove Jam Rawal, his father's murderer, out of Kutch, and established himself as ruler of Kutch. If we go by this then it raises further question regards Morvi which seem to be under possession of the Sultanate in 1530s.

• The exodus of Jam Raval from Kuchch leading to the conquest of Halar (1530s-1540s) is mentioned in more dramatic way in some Jain sources where one of the source mentions that “In V S 1575 (app. 1530-31 AD) on the fixed day of the departure Jam Rawal left with eighty thousand people including his relatives, army commanders, lords, statesmen and ordinary subjects. Among them there were approximately five thousand members of the Jain Community. An army of one hundred thousand soldiers accompanied him. They took the way of sea and crossed it safely. They first went to the temple of Lord Shiva (Jadeshvar temple) near the city of Vankaner. There the king paid homage to Lord Shiva. With the Lord’s blessings the king entered the land of Halar. On the way to new land he camped near Vavania Harbor. He attacked and conquered the kingdom of Merana and killed the ruler Deda Shaka. He then conquered the kingdom of Dhamanpur located eighteen miles away and killed the ruler Hardhman of the Chavda dynasty. He changed the name of both kingdoms to Dhrol and appointed his brother Rao Hardholji as the new ruler. From there he marched onwards. On his way he conquered the kingdoms of Khilosh, Nagna Harbor and Bakota. There he established his new kingdom. He imported toolmakers and built a factory to manufacture guns capable of firing bullets to a considerable distance. These guns in time became famous as Jamnagari Guns. Jam Rawal named this new kingdom Halar from the name of one of his ancestor, Jam Halaji. As the kingdom had expanded he decided to look for a better place to build a new capital. He chose the village of Khambhalia as it was close to Bakota and Okha. And in V S 1585 (appox. 1540-41 AD) after a religious fire ceremony he proclaimed and crowned himself as the ruler of Halar followed by grand celebration and splendour. Later he chose a more auspicious location for his capital and in the year V.S. 1596 and the month of Shravan, on Wednesday, the seventh day of rising moon (bright half of the month) (A.D. 1550) the city of Navanagar was founded. Once the city became prosperous, he moved his capital from Khambhalia to Navanagar and changed the name of the capital city to Jamnagar from his name. Though much of the description is too bardic and needs to be taken with a pinch of salt, it too shows that the Jadejas didn’t have possession of Halar in 1440s.

• Some sources indicate that the confusion created by the attack of Mughal Humayun on Gujarat and subsequent anarchy paved the way for the Jams to attack the Saurashtra region and take the advantage of the situation.

• The book Tarikh-i-Sorath mentions that “Sultan Bahadur Shah (1526-1535) summoned the Jam Lakha to his presence and placing him in command of his own army sent him to conquer Pawagarh (In Champaner) which he did, and as a reward for it was presented with Parganas of Kunad, Ambaran with 12 villages each and Morvi. Jam Lakha was treacherously killed near Ambaran by a local zamindar Tammachi Deda. Jam Lakha’s son Jam Raval, to avenge his father’s murder killed Tamachi and took Dhrol and killed Chawda rulers and took Haradhol and then also took Naganah (near Nawanagar) from Jethwas. He then conquered the town of Bakota and for sixteen years devoted himself to the cultivation and settlement of his country. Jam Raval slew his uncle Hamir and himself ascended the throne of Kachch as well. Rao Khengar I, desirous to avenge his father’s death, asked the aid from the Sultan of Gujarat, attacked Jam Raval and compelled him to leave Kachch. Jam Rawal collected his friends and followers who amounted to nearly a hundred thousand and left Kachch for Halar. The whole of the province was in the hands of different Rajas. The Jethwas ruled as far as Nagnah (near Nawanagar); the Dedas and Chavad Rajputs prevailed as far as Machhu river; Vadhel Rajputs ruled as far as Khamalia; and Kalawad was possessed by Kathis under Junagarh. As all the zamindars united to oppose him, Jam Raval, marched against them with precaution and with strenuous effort and display of great bravery and activity he forced them to move away from Halar and thus became the master of the country. City of Nawanagar was founded soon afterward.” This version (though bardic) again does not seem to support presence Jadejas in Halar from 1440s.

Notes & Suggestions:

1. There is some evidence from certain sources that Morvi was under the Jams of Kachch between 1385 and 1430s and again from 1530s but it is difficult to say with certainty that between 1440s to 1520s Morvi was under the Jams still when it is seen through many sources that in 1530s Morvi was granted to the Jams.
2. Jadejas of Kuchch should only be ruling Kachch in 1440s though at max they can also be given possession of Morvi - but Morvi will have to be carved out as a new province.
3. Porbandar is still some 250 years away from the game start date, this province should be given other name - a geographical term like Barda doesn’t sound bad.
4. Dwarka was ruled by a separate dynasty but its too small to represent.
5. There are so many small principality that any representation looks like a falsified truth. Keeping this in line, Jethwas can be given possession of the Halar region. Further there are ample evidence that Nagnah (which was only 3 km away from later town Nawanagar) was an important town in possession of Jethwas and was taken by Jadejas only in 1530s.
6. Jetpur, Chital, Jasdan etc were still Kathi stronghold and hence Rajkot should be shown under the Kathis as a new tag - or if a new tag is not welcome then Rajkot should be under Chadusamas as most of the Kathi Zamindars (over 50 in this region) were subservient to Junagadh.
7. https://www.rajputthikana.com/dynasties/kathi-kshatriya - the details are scanty and do not have information about Kathis in 15th century, but they were very much there and stronger than in later years. Other sources need be looked for.

 

[Aagney]

It's kinda baffling the debate ended like that, considering the ridiculous notion of reperations(good luck having England pay for a country 20 times its population, although some just want symbolic ones), plus the ridiculous idea that of "extraction made Britain rich, thus it was stealing", Britain wasn't any richer even at the height of their empire compared to other European states like Sweden and Germany without colonies.

Shashi Tharoor is also quite depressing in his argumentation at times, sigh.

• I should start with an apology as I have not mentioned that video was only a part of the entire debate.
• (Although it is not difficult to understand from the video that Shashi here is the 7th speaker and also not the last one).
• Shashi Tharoor is not a historian, nor has he said anything new - those facts are already part of many earlier works published by many different authors - he has only happened to organise various facts as any debater or an essayist would do.
• The topic of the debate has been decided by the Oxford Union, Shashi is just a random invitee like many others in the video - I think a better and 'fruitful' approach would be to write to the Oxford Union and help them understand about the ridiculous nature of the very idea.
• The theory of 'India's Drain of Wealth to England' was first coined in 1868 - before the birth of Gandhi; later presented in the British House of Commons - leading to creation of the Royal Commission on Indian Expenditure in 1896; and after its discussion in great detail in the book 'Poverty and Un-British Rule in India (1901), it became the very core issue of the Indian Nationalist Movement starting from the Swadeshi Movement (1905) to the very Independence of India in 1947. - the thing is the Drain Theory is an axiomatically established old theory and does not need or care for any approvals now.
• What I actually find absurd here is the example of Germany & Sweden - are they the standard for comparing the benefits of colonisation; or are you trying to say that Indian impoverishment and exploitation was still not enough for Britain had still not reached the richness of Germany and Sweden (also I have not validated figures about these countries in of your statement, neither I understand if there is a need to do so) - won't a better parameter would be to check figures spade to spade vis-a-vis their newly acquired incomings from the 'Jewel in the Crown'.
• It is not difficult to understand why many facts about colonisation don't find a place in the European curriculum (Ignorance is Bliss) - but there are other parts of the world who have bitter memories.
• (I was reading about the Jain core philosophy a couple of hours ago - and just now realised one of their saying - 'Truth is Relative').

As for me personally, I don't see why the present generation of the Brits should be held responsible for the things done in the past - and I am not a fan of the idea of the debate - but for the moment I feel a little playful and here is another teaser in the attachment.

 

[Zerodv]

• I should start with an apology as I have not mentioned that video was only a part of the entire debate.
• (Although it is not difficult to understand from the video that Shashi here is the 7th speaker and also not the last one).
• Shashi Tharoor is not a historian, nor has he said anything new - those facts are already part of many earlier works published by many different authors - he has only happened to organise various facts as any debater or an essayist would do.
• The topic of the debate has been decided by the Oxford Union, Shashi is just a random invitee like many others in the video - I think a better and 'fruitful' approach would be to write to the Oxford Union and help them understand about the ridiculous nature of the very idea.
• The theory of 'India's Drain of Wealth to England' was first coined in 1868 - before the birth of Gandhi; later presented in the British House of Commons - leading to creation of the Royal Commission on Indian Expenditure in 1896; and after its discussion in great detail in the book 'Poverty and Un-British Rule in India (1901), it became the very core issue of the Indian Nationalist Movement starting from the Swadeshi Movement (1905) to the very Independence of India in 1947. - the thing is the Drain Theory is an axiomatically established old theory and does not need or care for any approvals now.
• What I actually find absurd here is the example of Germany & Sweden - are they the standard for comparing the benefits of colonisation; or are you trying to say that Indian impoverishment and exploitation was still not enough for Britain had still not reached the richness of Germany and Sweden (also I have not validated figures about these countries in of your statement, neither I understand if there is a need to do so) - won't a better parameter would be to check figures spade to spade vis-a-vis their newly acquired incomings from the 'Jewel in the Crown'.
• It is not difficult to understand why many facts about colonisation don't find a place in the European curriculum (Ignorance is Bliss) - but there are other parts of the world who have bitter memories.
• (I was reading about the Jain core philosophy a couple of hours ago - and just now realised one of their saying - 'Truth is Relative').

As for me personally, I don't see why the present generation of the Brits should be held responsible for the things done in the past - and I am not a fan of the idea of the debate - but for the moment I feel a little playful and here is another teaser in the attachment.

I just find the direct implied correlation between colonialism and the economical decline of India and growth of the UK a bit too direct and without enough nuance, during the late 18th century, even before full-on British control, India suffered from very devastating warfare(between the Marathas and the post-Mughal Nawabs) and a couple of famines(both in British-controlled territory and non) this followed by the full-on industrial revolution in England.

Basically there is this implication that India was and kinda is third world because of that, so the "wealth was drained and the country was left poor", but this is a faulty premise because India decline in share of world GDP can't be taken as a decline when most of the West during that time experience never seen before economic growth while India GDP per capita stayed more or less constant and their population share declined(although their overall population kept growing, even faster than most of Indian history).

I'm not saying India would have been the same if colonialism did not happen or that British rule was as caring in India as it was back in their home country or as if it should have been, but it's important to not exaggerate and make it seem as if England becoming richer and India becoming poorer have the same causes, which I'm skeptical of. Also it's impossible to separate the debate from the discussion about modern economic policies post-independence, which I think is not part of the discussion enough, especially considering countries that started barely better than India(China, South Korea, Taiwan) and became richer during the last 4 decades.

 

[Aagney]

I just find the direct implied correlation between colonialism and the economical decline of India and growth of the UK a bit too direct and without enough nuance, during the late 18th century, even before full-on British control, India suffered from very devastating warfare(between the Marathas and the post-Mughal Nawabs) and a couple of famines(both in British-controlled territory and non) this followed by the full-on industrial revolution in England.

Basically there is this implication that India was and kinda is third world because of that, so the "wealth was drained and the country was left poor", but this is a faulty premise because India decline in share of world GDP can't be taken as a decline when most of the West during that time experience never seen before economic growth while India GDP per capita stayed more or less constant and their population share declined(although their overall population kept growing, even faster than most of Indian history).

I'm not saying India would have been the same if colonialism did not happen or that British rule was as caring in India as it was back in their home country or as if it should have been, but it's important to not exaggerate and make it seem as if England becoming richer and India becoming poorer have the same causes, which I'm skeptical of. Also it's impossible to separate the debate from the discussion about modern economic policies post-independence, which I think is not part of the discussion enough, especially considering countries that started barely better than India(China, South Korea, Taiwan) and became richer during the last 4 decades.

• It is a debate and not a comprehensive work, and may be this is the reason Shashi Tharoor had to publish a book on the matter later which is a more balance work.
• I agree that India share in world GDP is not a good parameter when due to industrialisation things were changing fast - but there are more comprehensive works which shows how Indian industrialisation was systematically and deliberately denied to the very Indians. And this gives a huge reason to question the British rule in India. - There are many instances where Indian Capitalists were not only denied right to open factories but also denied general trading on equal footing. - Or as is often put, "Indians missed the bus of Industrialisation because the British threw them under the wheels."
• Drain Theory does not take into account the world market share - but yearly loss of surplus in various forms.
• It was definitely not India's wealth only that made England richer - but there is no denying that it was the British rule which impoverished India - I don't see a reason to deny it - there are more comprehensive work on the matter - at least Mughals & Maratha and various Nawabs were not sending remittances to another country for keeping foreign officials and army and neither was their GDP growth akin to the British India - 0.001%. (and neither was average life expectancy of 27 years in pre-British days).
• On the last matter about poor performance of India post Independence what you have pointed out is true (again these are Germany & Sweden like deflective examples in the light of the topic, another example is clever use of per capita income given the huge population of India, just calculate GDP size year-on-year they are almost stagnant - for any surplus drains out instead of being invested into economy, one can also read about the tax structure of the British and pre-British India) - Shashi is more in dilemma - he has criticised the policies of Congress in his book (and is bearing the wrath from top congress leadership as he is also a Member of Parliament from the Congress Party of India).

 

[Zerodv]

• It is a debate and not a comprehensive work, and may be this is the reason Shashi Tharoor had to publish a book on the matter later which is a more balance work.

• I agree that India share in world GDP is not a good parameter when due to industrialisation things were changing fast - but there are more comprehensive works which shows how Indian industrialisation was systematically and deliberately denied to the very Indians. And this gives a huge reason to question the British rule in India. - There are many instances where Indian Capitalists were not only denied right to open factories but also denied general trading on equal footing. - Or as is often put, "Indians missed the bus of Industrialisation because the British threw them under the wheels."

• It was definitely not India's wealth only that made England richer - but there is no denying that it was the British rule which impoverished India - I don't see a reason to deny it - there are more comprehensive work on the matter - at least Mughals & Maratha and various Nawabs were not sending remittances to another country for keeping foreign officials and army and neither was their GDP growth akin to the British India - 0.001%.

It was not just in this debate that he presented those points, if he's able to be more nuanced in his argumentation, he should be on live television as well.

I know of the de-industrialization theory, but what would you give as an example of deliberate English action? This paper brings up those theories, but ultimately argues that the rising prices of food in India combined with the increasing productive of England ultimately caused the demise of the textile manufacturies:

https://www.tcd.ie/Economics/staff/orourkek/Istanbul/JGWGEHNIndianDeind.pdf

Caused decline in comparison to what? Indian population doubled during the time, India had the 4th largest rail system and generally enjoyed fruits of industrialization it previously didn't had, are we talking about an absolute decline or a relative decline?
Also it's especially important to give a temporal delineation between the various period, the 1800-1860 period was one thing, the 1860-1900 another and so was the period afterwards.
Finally, it's especially important to provide what would have been the alternate historical situation in India instead, in which form would the continent have benefited from the lack of British rule, especially if we hold the theory provided by the paper as true?

Also I'm not sure where that GDP growth figures come from, as far as I know GDP per capita declined up to 1850 and then subsequently rose above Mughal levels even during the 20th century.

 

[Canute VII]

There

It was not just in this debate that he presented those points, if he's able to be more nuanced in his argumentation, he should be on live television as well.

I know of the de-industrialization theory, but what would you give as an example of deliberate English action? This paper brings up those theories, but ultimately argues that the rising prices of food in India combined with the increasing productive of England ultimately caused the demise of the textile manufacturies:

https://www.tcd.ie/Economics/staff/orourkek/Istanbul/JGWGEHNIndianDeind.pdf

Caused decline in comparison to what? Indian population doubled during the time, India had the 4th largest rail system and generally enjoyed fruits of industrialization it previously didn't had, are we talking about an absolute decline or a relative decline?
Also it's especially important to give a temporal delineation between the various period, the 1800-1860 period was one thing, the 1860-1900 another and so was the period afterwards.
Finally, it's especially important to provide what would have been the alternate historical situation in India instead, in which form would the continent have benefited from the lack of British rule, especially if we hold the theory provided by the paper as true?

Also I'm not sure where that GDP growth figures come from, as far as I know GDP per capita declined up to 1850 and then subsequently rose above Mughal levels even during the 20th century.

is no denying that subjugating a foreign people usually is not done with the intention of making that people richer or furthering its welfare. The actual material outcomes (+ and -) or alternative histories without british colonialism are actually of no importance. Its hard to measure if not impossible. What is cristal clear however is that the intention of colonial rule was exclusively centered around making the british better of and strengthening british control of economic ressources. Railways were built in India (it's true)... for the purpose of getting production out from the hinterland, on to the world market and filling british purses. After WW2 Germany had a de-nazification of Germans' minds, Britain never had a de-colonization of British minds. You might not even realize it, but you are being apologetic. Even nowadays the British are dreaming of their Commonwealth (what an apologetic term!), in the same time showing that they have no notion of "common wealth" (looking at Brexit).

 

[Zerodv]

There is no denying that subjugating a foreign people usually is not done with the intention of making that people richer or furthering its welfare. The actual material outcomes (+ and -) or alternative histories without british colonialism are actually of no importance.

Its hard to measure if not impossible.

What is cristal clear however is that the intention of colonial rule was exclusively centered around making the british better of and strengthening british control of economic ressources.

Railways were built in India (it's true)... for the purpose of getting production out from the hinterland, on to the world market and filling british purses.

After WW2 Germany had a de-nazification of Germans' minds, Britain never had a de-colonization of British minds.

You might not even realize it, but you are being apologetic. Even nowadays the British are dreaming of their Commonwealth (what an apologetic term!), in the same time showing that they have no notion of "common wealth" (looking at Brexit).

It is definitely important, because if one claims that colonialism made India a third world country, one needs to argue concretely and show how a non colonial India would have developed.

If it's impossible to measure then Sharoor points should be taken as invalid as well, because his supposition that India would have been far richer than IOTL are not provable.

Maybe up to the abolishment of the Company rule that would have been true, but discussing the later Raj without taking into the account the indirect rule the British exercised over half of India through the princely states, whose elite stayed relatively rich and prosperous, is ignoring half of the story.

So if the British do a bad thing, it's bad, but if they do a good thing, it doesn't count because it was not out of goodness of their heart?

Comparing Britain rule over India to Nazi Germany treatment of various groups is shaky at best. Plus most of the British population certainly never set foot on India during the entire colonial period, making it seem that they needed anti-extremism brainwashing is also quite an hyperbole.

"you are being apologetic", I mean ok? Is that supposed to be an accusation? If you think that I'm excusing bad things that the British did, feel free, but there is no point in throwing random labels.

 

[Canute VII]

It is definitely important, because if one claims that colonialism made India a third world country, one needs to argue concretely and show how a non colonial India would have developed.

In 1820 e.g. Germany was a backward puzzle of mini-states. Then it united and industrialized to become a power to reckon with. That eould have hardly happened had it stayed under french rule. If that's the analogy you are looking for India....?

If it's impossible to measure then Sharoor points should be taken as invalid as well, because his supposition that India would have been far richer than IOTL are not provable.

yes. it's not provable.

Maybe up to the abolishment of the Company rule that would have been true, but discussing the later Raj without taking into the account the indirect rule the British exercised over half of India through the princely states, whose elite stayed relatively rich and prosperous, is ignoring half of the story.

So if the British do a bad thing, it's bad, but if they do a good thing, it doesn't count because it was not out of goodness of their heart?

If I say that Nazis in Germany did a good thing because they built autobahns, brought people into work in the defense industry, pushed for the development of rockets, a technology which would ultimately enable the americans and russians to reach for the moon...etc... how would you feel about that other than me being apologetic? (yes, i'm German)

Comparing Britain rule over India to Nazi Germany treatment of various groups is shaky at best. Plus most of the British population certainly never set foot on India during the entire colonial period, making it seem that they needed anti-extremism brainwashing is also quite an hyperbole.

The british population was intoxicated by the popaganda of empire. And while it is true that the british didn't leave en masse their beloved island and resettle to india, a significant portion of british aristocracy assumed positions of power on the subcontinent and made a fortune there, thereby invigoring the propaganda.

"you are being apologetic", I mean ok? Is that supposed to be an accusation? If you think that I'm excusing bad things that the British did, feel free, but there is no point in throwing random labels.

No accusation, just my perception (and i might be wrong given the nature of communication over text messages).

 

[gigau]

Please keep the discussion on the game's time frame, please.