Talk:List of people known as The Great

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Do Charles the Fat, Charles the Bald, Charles the Simple, and Louis the Stammerer qualify for "antonyms"? Dominus

I think that St. James the Lesser or Ivan the Terrible would be more in the direction of antonyms. GUllman

"John Paul II the Great"? "Ronald the Great"? --Quadalpha 04:58, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

Like you I can't see any reason for the inclusion of John Paul II on a list of people commonly known as The Great. As far as I can see the epithet is not mentioned in his entry, nor is the well-known chanting of it at his funeral (the only instance I know of of its having been publicly used). The separate article on his funeral does mention it being repeatedly chanted by a few crowd members, but the hardly constitutes common usage and I suggest his deletion from the list. Dobong 04:36, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

Dionysius Exiguus ("the little"), also "Dionysious the Pseudo-Areopagite"

The above is a confusion of different people named Dionysius. See

I am deleting what is incorrect.

Sebastjan

But how about king of Thailand? Bhumibol Adulyadej?

What about him? He's on the list, as he should be. Gentgeen 04:27, 19 Jan 2004 (UTC)

Where and by whom is he known as 'the Great'? His entry doesn't mention that style. I suggest deleting this entry.

Contents

[edit] Lachit Borphukan

When this article is carrying Shivaji as a Great Maratha, then it deems fit to include another great who is much heroic than Shavaji, I want Lachit Borphukan to be included in this list.

For further reference do a web search and read about this Great who fought with the Mighty Mughal Emperor Auranzeb for 17 times, but without defeat!
None of the provided sources refer to him as, "The Great." --Onorem 11:40, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
Abidwasim, this is not a list of great people. It's a list of people who've "the great" commonly appended to their name. utcursch | talk 12:01, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
You are right Utcursch. I am talking here about a Hero who is known as Great in one remote location of the world called Assam. This Great,Lachit Borphukan has fought 17 times with the huge Mughal Army, and was never defeated. But compared with Shivaji he still has more great attributes and fits the bill to list him here. Otherwise delete Shivaji from this list. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 134.159.142.168 (talk) 06:05, 20 March 2007 (UTC).

BorPhukan in assamese means (bor)Great (Phokun)Commander...Shivaji is called the great maratha though he was called as Shivaji maharaj...can't we refer Vir Lachit as the great assamese warrior?.....Lachit Borphukan is always referred as Mahan Lachit or vir Lachit by all assamese whenever his works and deeds are discussed even though his deed were in 17th Century(post 1660's...... I would like all of you to read about him first and then judge why he should not be given the Title, Lachit the Great.


Lachit Borphukon, the Ahom general under whose command the Assamese forces gave such a resounding defeat to the invading Moghul army sent by Emperor Aurangzeb under the leadership of Raja Ram Singh of Amber, must be counted as one of history's greatest generals if one takes into account the vast superiority, both in man and material of the opposing forces. Then his personal courage always leading from the front, even when in poor health and ordering his men to carry him to the front of the ranks on his sick bed. And finally his superb strategy and memorable sayings both in war and in peace. Lachit was the younger son of another Ahom nobleman of great wisdom and administrative acumen, Momai Tamuli Borborua.

Lachit enters history almost with a bang. King Chakradhwaj Singha (AD 1663-1670) while on a tour of his territories near the hills situated in its south eastern parts, called Lachit near him and in order to test him asked how the Moghul commanders at Guwahati could possibly be captured. Lachit gave a spirited reply which would be characteristic of him all through his later career. He said: "Are there no men in Your Majesty's kingdom? Who after all is the 'Bongal' (meaning the non-Assamese)? He is also only a man. Will not there be such men in our kingdom?" The king, himself a man famous in history for his spirited words and deeds, immediately appointed Lachit commander-in-chief of the Assamese forces to be sent to Guwahati for driving out the Moghuls.

The Assamese forces under the command of Lachit Borphukon started for Guwahati in August, 1668. They engaged the Moghuls first on the North Bank of the Brahmaputra opposite Guwahati then attacked them on the South Bank. In September 1668, the Moghul forces were driven out Guwahati. They moved downstream by the Brahmaputra. The Assamese forces chased them both by land and water. Later that year, the Assamese forces soundly defeated the Moghul invaders at the confluence of the river Manah with the Brahmaputra after obstructing their passage by the river. One of their top commanders Syed Feroze was taken prisoner.

The battle of Saraighat was fought sometime before April 8, 1671. For Raja Ram Singh went back on that day down the Brahmaputra. But the exact date of the battle of Saraighat is not given in the chronicle I am using for the purposes of writing this article. Here I must add a word about the chronicle I am using and why I am using it. The manuscript of this chronicle was obtained by the late Hemchandra Goswami, the renowned Assamese poet during his deputation by the Assam government in 1912-13, from the family of Sukumar Mahanta of north Guwahati. The manuscript was written on the strips of bark of the Sanchi tree. I am using the printed version of this chronicle for two reasons. In the first place, I saw the manuscript, which was preserved in the office of the director of Historical and Antiquarian Studies, Assam at Guwahati. I happen to possess a printed version of this manuscript. When I came to know that the original version of this manuscript was in the Directorate of Historical and Antiquarian Studies, which was right opposite my own office I went and had a look at it. I thus made certain that there was an original manuscript, which is not always the case.

And secondly this chronicle gives, more than any other chronicle, the description of the battles fought between the Assamese and the Moghuls during August 1668 and April 1671 and especially of the battle of Saraighat. It gives details even of the positioning of the Assamese commanders on the eve of this great naval battle. However, it does not give the exact date of the battle.

I consulted Dr S.K. Bhuyan's Lachit Borphukon and his Times also. He is considered one of our most important historians. It also does not give the date of the battle even approximately So, instead of resorting to what one of the greatest British historians of the 20th century E.H. Carr, calls scissors-and-paste history, I have faithfully followed this one chronicle for whatever it is worth.

Having thus given the merits of the chronicle, I may give an account of whatever has been written about Lachit Borphukon there. Unfortunately, the account is not chronological. So instead of hazarding a probable chronology, I shall follow the order of the paragraphs of the chronicle.

After the dramatic first appearance of Lachit and his fateful appointment of Commander-inChief of the forces despatched to recapture Guwahti, we find the names of other important commanders accompanying him. They were: Charingia Pelon Phukon who later became Borborua, the fourth highest functionary in the Ahom military-cum-administrative hierarchy; Miri Sandikoi Phukon, who was later appointed commander of the forces from the village Lathia to the hill of Chila, both on the north bank of the Brahmaputra near the present township of Aminagaon. There were two others of whom there was no further mention. They were Bheba Phukon and laluk Phukon.

This is how the war for capturing Guwahati proceeded from August 1668 to April 8, 1671, the date when the Commander-in-Chief of the Moghul forces Raja Ram Singh finally went away.

The Assamese forces after arriving near Guwahati, proceeded both by land and water. We found that the first engagement was at a place called Banhbari, where a commander named Dihingia Phukon quartered the force under him. There, two persons named Roshan and Beg who were probably local Moghul commanders were killed. They also took a booty of 12 horses and some swords an< shields. The entire force was preceding both by land ant water. The enemy was driven out from the Kajali, Sonapw and Tantimara - all these places are on the south bank o the Brahmaputra near the present township of Chandra pun Then they pushed forward by the north bank and con strutted fortifications on the west bank of the Bor Nadi, a tributary of the Brahmaputra. But before the comman ders, Bor Abhoypuria, Haladhia Chenga Rajkhowa ant Kalasu could take position inside the fortifications (there were others, too numerous to name) Baduli Phukon move a shield signalling the Assamese force to attack. It seem; an ally, the Darang Raja had also sent forces and made for tifications. In the counter attack by the Moghul force the stockade built by the Darang soldiers was destroyed and many officers of the Darang contingent fell in the battle. Haldhia Chenga Rajkhowa was hiding himself among the dead. He was also killed.

After this slight reversal, Lachit Borphukon came by boat to Itakhuli.

The Moghuls then attacked the fortifications at Itakhuli. Then Lanmakharu Abhoypuria Rajkhowa and Kalasu Dikhowmukhia Rajkhowa came out of the fortifications to fight with the enemy in a battle in which they were killed. Later on, however, at night some Moghul soldiers were killed by the Assamese and Syed Baba and many others fell in battle. Syed Baba was probably a junior commander. The Moghuls then retreated and fled downstream to Hajo about 20 km to the west of Guwahati by the river route. In 1668, the Assamese forces obstructed the Moghuls from going downstream at the confluence of the River Manah and the Brahmaputra. The Nawab Syed Feroze was taken prisoner but his son Syed Hussain escaped. The Assamese persons who were taken prisoner by the Moghuls were brought back. Traitors like Uddha Duwaria, Silpania Bamun and others who traitorously joined the Moghuls were also brought back. From that time onwards the river Manaha (Manah or Manas of the wildlife sanctuary fame) became the boundary between Assam and the Moghul Empire.

Soon after this victory Lachit, obviously anticipating more attacks thought of constructing earthen ramparts (gars) both to the north and south of Guwahati.

After sometime, Lachit Borphukon heard that Raja Ram Singh, the Moghul commander-in-chief was moving east from Rangamati, the Moghul headquarters situated near modern Dhubri, about 300 km west of Guwahati. Three Rajkhowas were then sent to keep watch over the Moghuls. This was their manoeuvre: They would go and show themselves to the Moghuls and then march back keeping the Moghuls behind them. They played hide and seek like this for six days. Finally they left two of their servants in the night camps where the Moghuls found them and took them along to Raja Ram Singh. Raja Ram Singh told the captured men: "You may go. The Borphukon should fight a battle with me."

The servants came back and reported to the Borphukon what Ram Singh had said. The Borphukon remained silent. Then after a discussion among the officers, it was decided to keep the Bongal at bay for sometime while sand ramparts were built. Then a message was sent through Botargonya Sondar Kataki and one Komora, which said: "Tell Brother King Ram Singh that we should also know why he has come for what purpose." When they came before Moghul frontier guards, the messengers' hands were tied with a rope and were brought before Ram Singh. When they delivered the message, they were freed and Feroze Khan, probably one of the subordinate officers was sent together with the messengers. Feroze Khan was received at the Dopdor. Then he said: "I have been instructed to say that the frontier was fixed by Aliyar Khan and (Momai Tamuli) Borborua be restored and let Guwahati be ceded to us. Let brother Phukon fight a battle. But if he does not have enough materials of war, let him send a message, I shall supply the materials." Lachit's reply matched

Ram Singh's both in sarcasm and wit He said: "Feroze Khan, you tell the brother King that Guwahati is no theirs. We had taken it from the Kochs. As for his offer of war materials, after such a long journey he mus be utterly tired. It is he who needs materials, for his are not sufficient fog himself. Our king, the Swargadeo has no dearth of materials. Let Ran Singh ask for them and we will give. To crown it all, the Borphukon arrested Feroze Khan and put him in prison at Latasil, a part of Guwahati.

After that Feroze Khan was taken to Koliahbor, about 200 km east of Guwahati. Hearing this, Ram Singh moved east from Rongamati and camped at Hajo, about 20 km from Guwahati to its northwest and on the north bank of the Brahmaputra. Now, from Hajo, the final onslaught on Guwahati by the Moghuls began.

Around April 6, 1668, Raja Ram Singh encamped at Agiathuti. Another Moghul commander Rashid Khan, who being a mansabdar of 3000 ranked lower than Ram Singh, a mansabdar of 5000 encamped at Sarai. The Assamese had an exchange of cannon fire with him in which the nephew of Ram Singh was killed. These small battles continued for, Dr S.K. Bhuyan's words: "A couple of years without any decisive results." That was until the Battle of Saraighat. It seems that the battle was fought after the death of King Chakradwaj Singha in 1670. This is how my Chronicle describes it.

The Moghul forces started a naval war on the Brahmaputra against the Assamese forces. It was fought with bows and arrows and guns. The Assamese forces began retreating and reached Aswakranta. Then message was sent to the Borphukon in these words, "The people are fleeing. If Phukondeo (Lachit) does not come we will be drowned." Lachit responded to this call. He was ill, but he ordered that he be taken in his sickbed to the outhouse.

Then he got himself carried to a boat with the help of Nadai of Kharangi. As the soldiers were retreating the boatmen tried to take the boat upstream. At that Lachit said these memorable words: "The King has put all the people in my hands to fight the Bongal. Shall I go back to my wife and children?" Then he pushed a few men into the water. He then turned his seven boats and rowed down to face the enemy. In the ensuing battle Rashid Khan was killed. Then the Assamese boats broke through the ranks of the Moghul boats. Many Moghuls were killed. The defeated Moghuls went back downstream.

After the battle was over, someone suggested that if the enemy is now given chase, "We can capture some materials." Lachit then said: "After fighting for one year and finding themselves unequal in strength, ashamed, they go downstream. Throwing away the glory of the King and also his ministers and his courtiers, is it worthwhile to capture some materials?"

Magnanimity in victory - Winston Churchill was to say three hundred years later.

[edit] Sources

When was Elizabeth I of England known as Elizabeth the Great & by whom? There is no mention of this in her article & I've never heard of her as described thus. AllanHainey 10:47, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

Gloriana she was, but not a Great. My professor even mentioned specifically that the only English monarch known as the Great (discounting Canute) was Alfred. Deletion in progress --RemiCogan

[edit] Indian rulers

While Karikala Chola, Rajaraja Chola I and Shivaji were indeed greatest of the Indian rulers, as per my knowledge, the suffix "the Great" is not used for them.

Google returns few results for "Karikala Chola the Great" [1] (consisting of Wikipeida mirrors). For "Rajraja Chola the Great", some more results are returned [2], but most of these are Wikipedia mirrors or "Rajraja Chola, the great...".

Again, "the Great" is not usually appended to Shivaji's name; instead "Chhatrapati" is used for respectful address. The Google results mostly consist of ": Shivaji: The Great Maratha" or "Shivaji The Great Nation Builder" [3]. There are some relevant results for "Shivaji the Great", but these mostly consist of personal homepages of Maharashtrians, rather than encyclopedic sources. utcursch | talk 13:47, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Sorry

Sorry for my ignorance.I am getting smarter day by day.What I learnt today is that Shivaji is not great.Fine.Mahawiki 15:11, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

This is not a list of great rulers. It's a list of people who normally have the words "the Great" appended to their names. utcursch | talk 06:39, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Citations

Alright here's the citation- [[4]] also a book, Rigveda to Raigarh making of Shivaji the great, Mumbai: Manudevi Prakashan (2005) signifies that Shivaji Maharaj was known as Shivaji the great too.Other citations to consider [[5]], this(a google cache),(html format) of syllabi of Shivaji university,[[6]],[[7]], [[8]], [[9]]. I think above citations will suffice to clear ur doubts.Thanks! Mahawiki 03:05, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

I respect Shivaji Maharaj as much as you do. But, it's a fact that "Shivaji the Great" is not a commonly used term (say as commonly as "Alexander the Great" or "Akbar the Great". Please note that Wikipedia is an encyclopedia and our aim is accuracy, not propaganda. When I say Shivaji is not called "Shivaji the Great", that doesn't mean I don't consider Shivaji as great. It's just a fact. There are other ways to add respect, eg. "Shivaji Maharaj" (Shivaji, the great king), "Chhatrapati Shivaji" etc. This is English edition of Wikipedia and this article is about the list of people who have "Great" appended to their names commonly.

The multiple links provided you consist of these sources:

  1. "Shivaji, the great" by Bal Krishna (Vol. i, ii, iii, iv) (first published in 1932 by D.B. Taraporevala Sons & Co.) -- Shivaji University has prescribed this book in its syllabi.
  2. Kasar, D.B., "Rigveda to Raigarh making of Shivaji the great", Mumbai: Manudevi Prakashan (2005)
  3. "Shivaji The Great" (ISBN: 8190200003) by Dr. V. D. Katamble (Publisher: Balwant Printers Pvt. Ltd.). This book is an English translation of "Shreeman Yogi" written by Ranjeet Desai in 1968.
  4. [10] is the personal homepage of a Maharashtrian, Dr. Nupam Mahajan.
  5. [11] is a site belonging to Sidz Cottage, Alibag, Maharashtra

As you can see, all the sources are by Maharashtrians (and I don't think any of them is a notable/famous author). Shivaji University is an institute in Maharashtra. Maharashtrians do have a great respect for Shivaji and therefore, some of them have use the term "Shivaji the Great" for title of their books or on their websites. But, this doesn't mean that "the Great" is commonly appended to Shivaji's name.

"Shivaji the Great" was added to this article by an anon [Special:Contibutions/210.211.136.93|210.211.136.93] [12], who again seems to be a Maharashtrian, as is evident by his/her contributions (in fact, this person went on to say that Chandragupta Maurya was of Maratha descent[13]).

Please note that appending "the Great" is a term commonly used in the West. The rulers with suffix "the Great" added to their names are usually the ones who have been extensively chronicled by Western historians/scholars. For eg. "Ashoka (or Asoka) the Great". There are many great rulers to whose name "The Great" is not appended. It doesn't mean that they are any less significant or they are being insulted.

In fact, some of the people called "the Great" are quite notorious. For eg. Saparmurat Niyazov or "Turkmenbashi the Great") is criticized by Western media as one of the world's most authoritarian and repressive dictators.

Shivaji is commonly known as "The Great Maratha" [14], so I've moved the link to "Related" section [15]. utcursch | talk 07:42, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

It is so unfortunate that despite me giving dozens of citations u r not allowing Shivaji the great tag.May I know on what basis u think that all sources are Maharashtrian?What makes them invalid?If this is so half of wikipedia articles would be blank.In fact Mr.Dionesh and mr Sarvagnya uses Kannada media every now and then.Mr Dinesh doesnt go beyond a book of Suryakanth Kamat,so isnt all the articles based are invalid.Hats off to ur partiality and hatred against Maharashtra.U have completely gave in to ur Kannada speaking disciples.I cant belive a admin can be so biased.Sorry for these comments as I hate to be a underdog of urs.

And of course not including Shivaji's name in people known as great list doesnt make him less great.He is great leader and our god and he will be.Wikipedia is a dirty place of filthy politics and biases. Mahawiki 08:17, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

Hi! if you feel, I am wrong, you can revert my edits (keeping the WP:3RR in mind). Being an admin doesn't give me any rights to decide what's right and what not at Wikipedia. So, please stop calling Wikipedia "a dirty place of filty politics and biases". I am not shy of a WP:RfC. utcursch | talk 09:20, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] reply

Since ur a admin I am really looking forward about ur moves about the book 'A concise history of karnataka' by Karnataka writer SurykanthSuryanath Kamat according to him-Rashtrakutas,yadavs,Chalukyas,Vijayanagara empire was all of Kannada origin.I am really curious about what YOU do about it since u were very swift in deciding fate of my citations!According to me Suryakanth Kamat isnt a reknowed writer and strangely almost all articles of South Indian history is being written by taking help of his books.To add Deccan Herald which publishes pro-Karnataka news and which is gnerously used for citations here. Mahawiki 09:46, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

Hi, the issue here is not about Kannadiga authors being cited for Kannada related articles or Maharashtrians being cited for Marathi related articles. The issue is one of notability of the source being cited. Dr.Suryanath Kamath is a very well known historian of national and international repute. His books are available in many many major libraries and research centers all over the world. The book you are talking about has also won the Sahitya Akademi award. So, his credentials are beyond question. But most of the links you have given here belong to individuals like you and me who are maintaining their own blogs or websites. According to WP policies, sources cannot be such private blogs and websites, unless ofcourse, the blog or website belongs to a notable person. Otherwise, tomorrow both of us could open our own websites or blogs, write whatever we want and then cite it on Wikipedia. This is the point that Utcursch is trying to make. Thanks. Sarvagnya 11:51, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

I request u to see the citations ONCE AGAIN before u comment on them.I am sure u have not looked into them.And Suryakanth Kamat being 'very well known historian of national and international repute' is your assertion,not necessarily the fact. Mahawiki 11:55, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Start citing sources in the article, please

It's good that there're citations in the discussion above, but they really must appear in the main article so readers know where you're getting your information.

On the more general issue of citing sources, EVERY entry on that list needs a citation (preferably several) following it, every last one. Yes, there're no-brainers in there, like Alexander the Great and Peter the Great, but all that means is it's going to be easier to find citations, not that you can leave them out.

I'm saying this partly as a sake for encyclopedic standards and partly because people are sneaking people on this list that don't belong. The prime examples I'm aware of (I have more knowledge of European history than other histories) are Elizabeth I of England and Emperor Wilhelm I of Germany. They're not known as 'the Great'. Reiterating a point above, that doesn't mean they weren't fantastic rulers or even better than those that were known as 'the Great'. It simply means they were never known as 'the Great'.

I've never read anything noting that Elizabeth was known as anything besides Elizabeth, Good Queen Bess, or Gloriana by her contemporaries or later; no current history source I've read has ever mentioned 'the Great'. The only sources I've read depicting her as 'the Great' are this list and the results of a BBC popularity poll on who Britons thought was the greatest English monarch ever (she won, and the title on the website was Elizabeth the Great). I'm also told that an author from the fifties tried to popularize the term 'Elizabeth the Great'. Nevertheless, this list, a poll, and one author do not constitute a general concensus among historians that she is/was known as 'the Great' popularly or among chroniclers. This isn't to say, though, that I'm right on this matter. However, if you want to return her to the list, you must provide ample evidence that there's a historical concensus that she's known as 'the Great'.

The same goes with Wilhelm I. Never saw 'William the Great' anywhere but here. He'll be removed. If you want to return him, cite your evidence.

[edit] First king to be known as "the Great"

The article states that Cyrus the Great was the first king to be known as "the Great" but Ramesses II, Yu the Great and Sargon of Akkad all pre-date him by quite a bit. Perhaps these three weren't known by such a title until later on? Also worth noting is it seems. by looking at Yu's article and the corresponding article on the Xia Dynasty that he is somewhat of a mythological figure.--Lairor 22:19, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

The Cyrus claim is incorrect: he adapted an official title that was common in Babylonia. It is important to discern three types of "the Greats": titles (a very old Mesopotamian custom), personal surnames (like Charles the Great), and honorific names awarded retrospectively (Ramesses the Great).Jona Lendering 17:05, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Akbar

Should we note that the name Akbar itself means great (though it's an elative, better translated as greater or greatest)? --Xyzzyva (talk) 22:31, 19 February 2008 (UTC)