text:
Talk:Eureka Stockade

Misc
Looks like there is a chronological error in the 1st Paragraph of Background.

''The Australian colony of Victoria was declared separate from New South Wales on 1 July 1851, and for the first three years of its existence was a peaceful and sparsely populated region of farmers and graziers. This tranquility was irrevocably disrupted in 1850 with the discovery of substantial gold fields all across the colony. The result was a rapid and massive influx of fortune-hunting immigrants.'' Revth 00:43, 29 November 2006 (UTC) Could somebody please fix/explain this

--217.153.193.6 08:31, 19 July 2005 (UTC)

Hey there, came across this article as I put the finishing touches to my MA thesis about Eureka. Some people mentioned that the relevance of Eureka is still under debate. Why not make that more prominant and include a broader description of 'Eurekanias' in Oz society.

My suggestions:
 * take out the debated stuff at the end out of aftermath (where it really should not be) and put it in a new heading "Eureka Today"
 * Eureka has been kept alive by many different political groups over the 20 cent. (Eureka Youth League, Maoists, BLF, Anarchists). That should be in there somewhere.
 * But it is also mentioned in the names of about 200 businesses and the flag is used by the small shop keepers federation, as well as right-wing bikies and of course Ballarat, who lives on the Eureka tourism.
 * With the 150th anniversary new interest in the stockade was sparked, or better induced by the media, the unions and the state government. And among others the Victorian and Federal Labor party have tried to style themself as true heirs of the diggers (I got the links to speeches).
 * Eureka has inspired about a dozen different histories, 10 novels, 5 plays, 3! musicals and many paintings, poems and more articles than you can shake a stick at. There should be some mention of that.

And two more things
 * yep, the nationwide recognition and relevance compared to only-Victorian was a problem in my research as well. But with the 150th, there was for example media attention from all major interstate TV channels (main news etc.) as well as print media and talkback radio. All state parliaments flew the Eureka flag on the 3/12/04 and the national chambers joined them after some debate. So, while the celebrations were on, you could not get around it. I would at least say, that it has come to the attention of a majority of the population of other states as well.

 * Says in the existing article that Eureka was forgotten for 30 years after 1854. I think that idea is a little bit outdated and largely based on the fact, that no further books were written about it after Carboni and that the landowners in parliament refused to set up a memorial. But for example, there were at least five major references in history books written over the period mentioned. But I would rather go with Dr Anne Beggs-Sunter's suggestion that Eureka was kept alive at the campfires and in the pubs. Just keep in mind here, that the main actors like Lalor and Humfrey were still around and in the public eye. It was, and could not be forgotten. How else could it have been picked up so readily at the shearer's strike in 1891 and in Lawson's poetry. We could say something to that effect in there.

 * And by the way, just because Australia didn't exist at the time doesn't remove Eureka from its history. In 1788 (Captain Cook) not even one of the colonies existed and it is still very much part of Australian history. The question is, if it had repercussions around the country. I would say yes, simply because it has been picked up by important institutions and events in other states (shearers in Queensland, ALP, '60s protester, unions ...). And at the time of increased nationalism in the 1880s that helped bring about Federation, the much mentioned Spirit of Eureka turned from a mere public sentiment to a politically charged catch cry.

There is more, but I gotta finish the thesis. When I am done I could do some formulations, but would like your input first. Floflei6 07:06, 19 Jan 2005 (UTC)

 * It would be wonderful if you could contribute some expertise. Since I first added to this article, it has grown past my ability to be of further use, but I did modify it to reflect your concern about Eureka being "forgotten" - hope my changes are in line with your own thoughts. Denni ☯ 05:44, 2005 Feb 1 (UTC)

 * * I like putting a section called Eureka Today at the top. I took about 150 photos of the 150th anniversary commemorations at different events and would be willing to contribute one or two to this section. Eureka was celebrated in Ballarat by diverse groups, with some controversy over Terry Hicks being the 'leading light' at the Eureka Dawn Walk. This kept Eureka in perspective as a fight to defend rights and liberties and linked it to current events. Also the point that it was forgotten about in the first 30 years is false. You can see that the story of Eureka is constantly being rewritten from the memorials erected for the soldiers and police several years after the event in the old Ballarat cemetary. --Takver 11:57, 4 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I don't mind a section entitled "Eureka today" as long as the article mentions two things:

(1) Professor Geoffrey Blainey says he attended a function in Ballarat for the 100th anniversary of the Eureka Stockade in the 1950s. According to his eyewitness report there was next to no local interest in the event and the only people there were "A small group of communist supporters."

(2) It should be interesting for wikipedia to note that in 1949 - not that long ago - a movie entitled the 'Eureka Stockade' was made, which starred Chips Rafferty a famous Australian actor of the day. The Eureka flag used by the producers of this film was not 5 stars arranged on a white cross - it was the Southern Cross from Australia's flag! How could that happen? I understand that the producers even went to Ballarat to do research for this film. If this film is treated as an important historical record then this oversight makes me think that not too many Australian people knew what the famous 'Eureka flag' looked like in 1949. It clearly was not instantly recognisable at that stage. Of course Eureka afficinados would have us beleive that the Eureka flag is deeply rooted in Australian history. Some radical supporters of Eureka even mislead people into thinking it was in widespread use in the community!!!!!

Here is an excerpt from an article from the Australian newspaper. I could not have said it better myself:

GREG SHERIDAN - The Australian

Army salutes tank order

February 17, 2005

"NOTHING was more lame than the attempt by some culture brokers to get the Eureka Stockade celebration up as a rival to Anzac Day. Australians love their Diggers, of the slouch-hat variety, much more than they'll ever love their gold diggers.

Anzac Day remains an immense national asset. It is a huge strategic plus in our national posture. The fact we honour our soldiers so much, that they are so legendarily competent, is one of the things that makes any potential enemy unhappy to face us."

Source: http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/common/story_page/0,5744,12270787 %255E25377,00.html

 * One should also mention the influence of Eureka on poets such as Henry Lawson, and the artwork by Noel Counihan for the 100th anniversary in 1954. The Eureka stockade, like the Anzacs at Gallipoli, is a story of mythic proportions which continues to have an impact. Just witness the debate on this page. --Takver 12:11, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC)

To refute the two points above, here are some details and refernces -

on point (1) - In 1954 a Centenary committee was formed in Ballarat of prominent citizens and civil leaders which organised an oration at the Peter Lalor Statue, a procession, a pageant at Sovereign Hill, a concert and dance, a dawn service, and pilgrimmage to the Eureka graves. Evidently the procession was headed by mounted police and servicemen from the Royal Australian Airforce base at Ballarat dressed in 1850s soldiers uniforms. It sounds like a pretty full program which had a high degree of local respectability. The centenary commemoration around Australia also had the involvement of the Communist Party of Australia, who had named their youth organisation in the 1940s the Eureka Youth League. Being the cold war with fierce ideological debate on communism, Catholic Organisations also put out a Eureka centenary supplement with commemorative events. See John Lynch, The Story of the Eureka Stockade, The Australian Catholic Truth Society, Melbourne, n.d. (c.1954). (Reference: The Eureka Tradition by David MillerPDF) Without more detail and a reference it is difficult to ascertain the importance or accuracy of Blainey's supposed comment.

 * on point (2) The design of the original Eureka Flag was only confirmed in 1996, which was also when the original flag held in the Ballarat Fine Art Gallery was positively authenticated. So when the movie was made in the late 1940s, the original flag was lying in a cupboard, its importance unknown. No one, at that stage, had details of the exact design of the Eureka Flag. After all, the original flag flew for only 5 days or so, so the surviving participants soon forgot its exact details. References :

--Takver 14:47, 15 December 2005 (UTC)
 * He Found and Raised Eureka's Trampled Flag: a Tribute to Len Fox R.D. Walshe
 * Ballarat Fine Art Gallery

Information overload is almost a problem for this page. Some facts are important others are just facts. I reckon this article could be chopped by about one third and people wanting information about the Eureka Stockade would still be served.

I don't think wikipedia has this much information for the great Gallipoli campaign and that was the first time Australians fought alongside each other as fellow nationals! Anzac Day is even a public holiday in Australia. I drive over the big Anzac bridge in Sydney to get to work most days.

It's an acronym that is not going to be forgotten in the Commonwealth of Australia this side of eternity, especially among the Anglo community.

 * I do not believe this article should be cut in length, and I disagree that information overload is a problem. Eureka Stockade is not in competition with the ANZAC, or the Gallipoli campaign. They are differents events of some social importance to the history of Australia. Their relative impacts were felt in different ways and to differnt extents. This article is about articulating the basic facts on Eureka, and perhaps some of the controversy and impact of the event using the NPOV. --Takver 12:11, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC)

For my part I thought the Eureka celebrations last year were a bit of a fizzer really considering the money the organisers were given by the authorities in Victoria. It is alright for state parliaments to fly the Eureka flag from flagpoles on the street outside, but did anybody who noticed them know why they were flying? Millions and millions and millions of Australians did not know about the 150th anniversary of the Eureka Stockade incident. The only report I saw was of terrorist suspect David Hicks' dad being booed by the crowd at the Eureka tourist centre in Ballarat.

The Sydney media carried bugger all about the anniversary. I remember Clover Moore's 'get Christ out of Christmas' campaign got all the coverage that day. The Eureka flag flew from the Sydney Harbour Bridge but I could not even find a cutting from a city newspaper to record the event for posterity.

No, other historical anniversaries have went off with a bigger bang than Eureka 150. Some of those World War 2 celebrations in the 90's had huge crowds of flag waiving people out in the streets. (The Federal government is spending $20m celebrating the 60th anniversary of the end of World War 2 in 2005.)

I thought candidates to be features articles were supposed to say so on the paeg? nice article though :o) --BozMo 12:51, 13 May 2004 (UTC)

The Eureka Stockade isn't really thought of as like the Bastille or the Alamo - in fact, a lot of Australians wouldn't even know what is was. - Battle Ape 12:33, 18 October 2005 (UTC)

 * Not that it matters, but for the record, I would highly disagree with this interpretation. It mightn't be as well known in Western Australia, but it's widely known in the eastern States, not to mention part of the primary curriculum. Ambivalenthysteria 03:52, 5 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Could someone who knows more on the topic please try your hand at writinggood captions? There's at least one already, but others could use some help. Thanks! -- ke4roh 03:35, Jul 5, 2004 (UTC)

 * What's wrong with the captions, as such? Ambivalenthysteria 03:52, 5 Jul 2004 (UTC)

--- I know my parent's generation knew of Eureka somewhat, but it certainly isn't common knowledge amongst people nowadays - any more than, say, the Rum Corp's effect on early Australian history.

 * That's a common but sad state of affairs in most countries. Canada's War of 1812 is a good example. Most Canadians couldn't even tell you that not only was this a battle between Canada and the US, but Canada won and drove the invading Americans back to Washington in ignomy. Denni ☯ 20:22, 2004 Jul 11 (UTC)

Isn't Texas history part of American history?? If not then the Eureka Stockade is part of Victorian history NOT Australian history and that Australia did not exist until 1901 as a nation. -- Sorry not sure how to do a Signature.

 * The key thing for me is that the Battle of the Alamo postdates the founding of the United States as an independent democracy by many years. I would think the Boston Tea Party would be a better analog in American history but it didn't involve a battle in the same sense as the Alamo, Eureka Stockade or Bastille (To get a signature use the signature button in the editing toolbar (if you have it turned on)) --Grouse 14:14, 6 Jul 2004 (UTC)

 * To get a signature, type four tildes ( ~ ) Denni ☯ 20:22, 2004 Jul 11 (UTC)

Regardless of whether the Eureka Stockade is well-known, is it really comparable to the Bastille or the Alamo? They were more bloody, and both brought about major changes in the country - particularly the storming of the Bastille. The Eureka Stockade simply changed a few laws and made miners feel better. - Mitch Edgeworth, WA

 * I think the point is that they are all important in the national mythology of the country. I know very little about the Eureka Stockade incident. It's really hard to say that the Battle of the Alamo was strategically important in the same way that the storming of the Bastille. It did fire up the Texians during the Battle of San Jacinto a month later but I imagine that battle would have happened anyway eventually. It is widely forgotten that they did have another cry, "Remember Goliad!" in response to another outrageous, but smaller and less heroic, massacre. --Grouse 14:55, 24 Jul 2004 (UTC)

I recently returned from a two week trip to Syndey, and happened to read the Sydney Morning Herald (which is ridiculously large)while I was there. One of the major stories in it involved the need for a new Australian "event" (i.e. not Gallipolli), and the Eureka Stockade was prominant in the discussion. Personally I think nothing can replace Gallipolli, but the point is that maybe the Eureka Stockade is more well-known in the eastern states. I withdraw my complaint. - Mitch Edgeworth

The article is a great start but I think it needs to mention several more things.

 * 1) There were significant numbers of Irish, English and European Immigrants, many of whom would have experienced or knowledge of the 1848 revolutions and social upheavals in Europe and Chartism.
 * 2) The basic demands raised by the miners were substantially the demands of the chartists. All the demands, with the exception of short term parliaments, were met within a year. The basic chartist democratic demands included:
 * 3) * Manhood suffrage
 * 4) * Abolition of the property qualifications for members of parliament
 * 5) * Payment of members
 * 6) * Short term parliaments
 * 7) * Equal electoral districts and
 * 8) * Abolition of diggers and storekeepers licenses
 * 9) One of the distinguishing features of the Eureka Stockade was that it organised miners from  different cultures, languages and races. Against this must be said that racism against Chinese was endemic in Australian society at that time, including on the goldfields.
 * 10) At least 3 citizens of the USA were arrested during the attack on the stockade, two were released within 48 hours at the intervention of the US Vice Consul, while John Josephs, an afro american, was left to stand trial for treason.
 * 11) There needs to be mentioned the book length account of the Eureka Stockade by Raffaello CARBONI (1820-1875) The Eureka Stockade. This account was written in the months following the Eureka Rebellion and was published and handed out on the goldfields on the first anniversary. It is a significant source. It is available through Project Gutenberg.
 * 12) The meaning of the Eureka Stockade is still being fought for and claimed by a diverse cross section of political and cultural groups ranging from extreme right wing neo-nazis and ultra nationalists, to extreme left socialist groups. From hierarchically organised middle of the road republicanism and trade unions to libertarian community activists and anarchists. On the conservative side of politics, The Federal Government of Prime Minister John Howard has not deemed the Eureka Flag a flag of national significance.
 * 13) The Eureka Stockade and its aftermath had strong repercussions in the colony of Victoria, which also influenced moves to self government and parliamentary representation in the other Australian colonies. It was very much the Australian equivalent of the storming of the Bastille in France or the Boston Tea Party in North America, all three events being direct action by ordinary people taken against some representation of injustice .  Tirin 12:53, 10 Aug 2004 (UTC)

In answer to my first two points above, I have rewritten the Protests section and renamed it Protests, Chartism and the Ballarat Reform League This corrects some false date information in the previous version and includes more details of the mass meetings leading up to the formation of the Ballarat Reform League, details of the demands and the people connections with English Chartism. These are important, and often neglected, details in the story of Eureka. Takver 07:54, 13 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Been some time since I dropped by to look at this article. Over that time, it appears to have veered off rather firmly into the "Eureka was the event in Australian history" POV. It's become much more detailed and reads well, but the POV was getting a bit over the top. With a recasting of the intro and conclusion, I think I've managed to restore the balance; to maintain the already well-expressed POV that Eureka was pivotal, but also include the contrary POV that Australia doesn't actually have real rebellion to celebrate (as the Americans celebrate their overthrow of the British), so the actually rather insignificant event called Eureka was blown up out of all proportion as a substitute, a sort of poor man's Bastille Day, if you like.

I confess to finding both points of view attractive, and both have their strong points, yet neither is entirely convincing. The significance of Eureka was being hotly debated 40 years ago when I was a schoolboy, and it seems to be equally in dispute today. It's a fair bet that this debate will still be on the agenda if I live to be 100! Tannin 14:06, 15 Nov 2004 (UTC)

There is no point imagining the Eureka Stockade incident was an Australian equivalent of the Bastille or Boston Tea Party. If you start off with a mature mindset which doesn't dismiss anyone's opinion out of hand then the very fact that you don't have to go very far at all to find a learned academic who will state categorically for the record that it was not a turning point in Australian history is meaningful. As an ordinary Australian I make no apology for the fact the Eureka Stockade means nothing to me. Interesting sequence of events, interesting ending, but devoid of any deeper meaning. A footnote in the history of the colony of Victoria.

Australia Day and the Anzac Tradition is the really big history that the public cares about as far as I can see.

This is a Eureka Stockade fact sheet.

The Eureka Stockade (1854)

Fact #1: The Eureka Stockade was not an attempt at a revolution.

Fact #2: At the time of the Eureka Stockade, Victoria was already about to become virtually independent from Britain ... in full co-operation and with support from the "Mother" country.

Fact #3: The overwhelming wish of 1850s Victorians was was for a self-governing, democratic colony within the British Empire.

Fact #4: The chief cause of the Eureka Stockade was the very steep licence fee local miners were being charged to prospect and the officious way it was being collected.

Fact #5: Only about 150 miners out of 17,280 men in Ballarat were present in the Eureka Stockade when the clash with the authorities took place.

Fact #6: Irish born people were strongly represented at the Eureka Stockade. It is now known that most of the miners inside the stockade were Irish. Eureka historians have discovered that, in the area where the stockade was established, there was a large concentration of Irish miners. The password used at the Eureka Stockade - “Vinegar Hill” – was the site of an 1804 Irish convict uprising in New South Wales. It should also be noted that the leader elected by the miners, Peter Lalor (pronounced "Lawler"), and who swore the 'Eureka Oath' was himself an Irishman and a qualified civil engineer from a "upper class" family, sometimes referred to as "the ruling elite".

Fact #7: The reforms won by the eureka miners were already in train before the Eureka Stockade incident. A royal commission on goldfields problems and grievances had already been appointed. When the Report of the Goldfields Commission was released, it made several major recommendations, one of which was to restrict Chinese immigration. John Humffray, the original Secretary of the Ballarat Reform League, wrote, regarding the Commission's report, that: "The report is a most masterly and statesmanlike document, and if its wise suggestions are wisely and honestly carried out, that commission will have rendered a service to the colony... the wrongs and grievances of the digging community are clearly set forth in the Report, and practical schemes suggested for their removal".

Fact #8: South Australia had full male franchise before Victoria.

Fact #9: The leader of the miners at the Eureka Stockade, Peter Lalor, was originally from Raheen in County Laois, Ireland. He was the son of a member of the British House of Commons. After the Eureka Stockade we went on to be a mine owner, conservative politician and popular speaker of the Legislative Assembly.

Fact #10: The Southern Cross does not come from the 1854 Eureka flag. It dates from the first Southern Cross flag design 1823/24 (Australian National Colonial Flag) and the Australian Federation Flag 1831-1901.

Fact #11: Other Southern Cross flag designs also predated the Eureka flag including the Australasian Anti-Transportation Flag 1851 and the Murray River Flag 1853.

Fact #12: The version of the Eureka flag flown today is an enhanced and different design to the original of 1854 as the modern version has fimbriated stars (ie blue outlines around the points of the stars that are placed on the white cross).

Fact #13: Today the Eureka flag is used by militant elements of the Trade Union movement.

For more: Australian Flag Society

The article claims that the 1854 Eureka Stockade incident is Australia's only armed rebellion, but what about the battle of Vinegar Hill in 1804? It is interesting to note that "Vinegar Hill" was the password used by miners at the Eureka Stockade.

I find the article somewhat distorts and exaggerates the importance of the Eureka Stockade.

 * Not quite - here's the pertinent section: "The Eureka Stockade was certainly the most prominent rebellion in Australia's history and, depending on how one defines rebellion, can be regarded as the only such event. (But see also Rum Rebellion.) The significance of the rebellion, however, remains debatable. Some historians believe that the undoubted prominence of the event in the public record has come about because Australian history does not include a major armed rebellion phase equivalent to the French Revolution, the English Civil War, or the American War of Independence" While the Vinegar Hill incident was an uprising, it was not necessarily a rebellion. Denni ☯ 07:12, 2005 Feb 1 (UTC)

What does the phrase "empirical authority" mean? Shoudn't that be "imperial authority"? =P --Susurrus 06:07, 6 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Here is a quote from the article:

"However the event itself returned to the national consciousness and became a rallying cry as the call for federation and nationhood gained momentum in the 1880s."

I don't know about that. The federation flag - a corresponding article for which I cannot seem to find on wikipedia - was certainly the rallying SYMBOL for the federation movement. This was the symbol used to promote national conciousness in the six colonies and that has been well documented by the Australian government.

A famous historian told me once that the founder of federation Henry Parkes would not have even been able to draw the Eureka flag!

I've read an awful lot of books about the Australian federation movement and none of them really identify the Eureka stockade as one reason it all came together.

It was just a gold miners uprising for goodness sake.

I wonder what sources the writer consulted before they wrote that?

Request for references
Hi, I am working to encourage implementation of the goals of the Verifiability policy. Part of that is to make sure articles cite their sources. This is particularly important for featured articles, since they are a prominent part of Wikipedia. The Fact and Reference Check Project has more information. Thank you, and please leave me a message when you have added a few references to the article. - Taxman 20:00, Apr 21, 2005 (UTC) --

"On 28 November, the reinforcements marching from Melbourne were attacked by a mob. A number were injured and a drummer boy was allegedly killed." A mob of soldiers or miners? Also: On 28 November, the reinforcements marching from Melbourne were attacked by a mob. A number were injured and a drummer boy was allegedly killed. At a meeting the following day (29 November) the Reform League relayed to the miners its failure to achieve any success in negotiations with the authorities. The miners resolved to openly resist the authorities and burn the hated licences.

Most notably the Eureka Flag, a blue flag designed by a Canadian miner, "Captain" Henry Ross, and bearing nothing but the Southern Cross, was flown for the first (recorded) time. As a gesture of defiance, it deliberately excluded the British Union Flag, which appears on the official flag of Australia. This flag is now housed at the Ballarat Fine Art Gallery.

Rede responded by ordering a large contingent of police to conduct a licence search on 20 November. Although eight defaulters were arrested, most of the military resources available had to be summoned to extricate the arresting officers from the angry mob that had assembled.

IF the attack was on the 28th how could the Governor respond by making a licence hunt on the 20th?

In reply: 1. 28 November: military reinforcements were attacked by a mob of miners. Article corrected. 2. 29 November: Delegation of the Ballarat Reform League returns from Melbourne and meets with miners. 3. 30 November: Rede responds with a licence hunt using military resources. I think the 20th mentioned above was an error. For references, please consult the texts in the references section, and some of the External Links also have Timelines or descriptions of events. There is no dispute over these events as they feature in most commentaries on the Eureka Stockade and so should not require specific citation. --Takver 11:05, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

 * I'd like to second the request for citations for references, in particular the references to the Independent California Rangers, and the Eureka flag being designed by a Canadian. In all the reading I've done on this issue, I've never seen a starring role being given to Americans/Canadians to the extent it is on Wikipedia.59.167.59.181 09:09, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Flags at Eureka
I notice the article mentions miners flying the rebel 'Eureka flag':

"Most notably the Eureka Flag, a blue flag designed by a Canadian miner, "Captain" Henry Ross, and bearing nothing but the Southern Cross, was flown for the first (recorded) time. As a gesture of defiance, it deliberately excluded the British Union Flag, which appears on the official flag of Australia."

Should we also note that many of the miners around Ballarat at the time of the troubles were displaying the flag of the United Kingdom as a symbol of their loyalty to the Crown?

I first read this little known Eureka fact in the following article:

EUREKA

Be not misled! The Eureka Stockade has nothing to do with a republic or the Labor Party but everything to do with the Ultimate Supremacy of Law and Justice Under The Crown

http://www.monarchist.org.au/past_years_from_2000.htm#EUREKA

124.183.230.177 15:15, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

Commander in Chief
I have included a section on the Commander in Chief of the Eureka Stockade, the great Peter Lalor. I have included a portrait of him to compliment the portrait of his adversary, Governor Hotham.

Given the importance of the elected leader of the Eureka Stockade to the wikipedia article on the Eureka Stockade I say we make more room for the great man. One improvement that a writer of more skill could make to this section is to point out that he was not so much a great revolutionary as a man who was just a little bit peeved about the price of mining permits and the fact the peelers were asking to see it five times a day.

LALOR RESOURCES

Peter Lalor was the Commander-in-Chief of the diggers who fought at Eureka.

... it seems he became commander-in-chief almost by accident...He was 25 years of age, six feet tall and impulsive by nature.

(source Bert and Bon Strange, Eureka, Gold Graft and Grievances, B&B Strange, Ballarat, 1973)

Peter Lalor, an Irishman, a Eureka digger, a positive, independent thinker, but no democrat, mounted the stump and proclaimed "Liberty", and called for volunteers to form (military) companies. His initiative declared him leader.

(source: Weston Bate, Lucky City: The First Generation at Ballarat 1851 - 1901, Melbourne University Press, Melbourne, 1978, page 67)

There are two things connected with the late outbreak (Eureka) which I deeply regret. The first is, that we should have been forced to take up arms at all: and the second is, that when we were compelled to take the field in our own defence, we were unable (through want of arms, ammunition and a little organisation) to inflict on the real authors of the outbreak, the punishment they so richly deserved.

(source: Peter Lalor, A Statement to the Colonists of Victoria, reprinted in Bob O’Brien, Massacre at Eureka: The Untold Story, Sovereign Hill Museums Association, 1998)

124.187.178.125 15:42, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

Eureka and democracy
Wouldn't it help readers grapple with the question of how significant the Eureka Stockade was in the development of democracy in Australia if they knew the views of its 'Commander in Chief' (as Peter Lalor was known) on this subject?

This is Lalor on democracy:

"I would ask these gentlemen what they mean by the term 'democracy'. do they mean Chartism or Communism or Republicanism? If so, I never was, I am not now, nor do I ever intend to be a democrat. But if a democrat means opposition to a tyrannical press, a tyrannical people, or a tyrannical government, then I have been, I am still, and will ever remain a democrat." (Speech to the Victorian Legislative Council, 1856).

His voting record in parliament shows he once opposed a bill to introduce full male sufferage in the colony of Victoria.

124.187.178.125 14:52, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

Eureka and alcohol
Should we discuss in the article the eyewitness reports that vast quantities of liquor were being consumed by the demonstrators the night before the clash with the authorities took place? Most of the people inside were Irish and statistics show they really know how to drink those boys.

124.187.178.125 15:06, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

Eureka fortifications and weaponry
FORTIFICATIONS

People who were in Ballarat at the time said the Eureka Stockade was "higgledy piggeldy". By all accounts it wasn't a very impressive engineering feat.

This ought to be mentioned in an article about the Eureka Stockade. Wikipedia has apparently heaps of room to discuss the political aspects of the insurrection.

Rather than worrying about whether it was the "birthplace of Australian democracy" or not why not try the novel approach of including some simple factual information about the nature of the defensive position the miners prepared?

WEAPONRY

Why not, in an article about the Eureka Stockade, have a look at the weaponry used by both sides? That has got to be more interesting to a non-Australian reader then the arid debate over whether it was the "birthplace of Australian democracy" or not.

For example, isn't it fascinating that some of the miners just had pikes and swords and sharpened sticks and nothing else?

What weapons were the authorities armed with? Did the mounted police have swords? Lances? Carbines? Revolvers maybe?

At present anybody who comes to this article looking for the answers to these basic questions is going to leave dissapointed.

124.187.178.125 15:06, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

Commission of enquiry
The article says:

"A Commission of Enquiry into the affair was organised, and was scathing in its assessment of all aspects of the administration of the gold fields, and particularly the Eureka Stockade affair."

The article must be very clear about the fact that the commission of enquiry had been established BEFORE the Eureka Stockade incident took place, after serious rioting in Ballarat.

It is obvious why this is an important point. Some people argue that the reforms the miners were seeking were already in train before the armed uprising occured. And personally, I think they would be correct.

Geoffrey Blainey discusses it here:

"Every government in the world would probably have counterattacked in the face of the building of the stockade. We forget that Hotham, on the 16th of November 1854, set up a commission of inquiry into the goldfields and their administration. It was perhaps the most generous concession offered by a governor to a major opponent in the history of Australia up to that time. The members of the commission were appointed before Eureka, in the opinion of Geoffrey Searle's Golden Age, they were men who were likely to be sympathetic to the diggers.

Most historians do not like Hotham and they have a very strong point that I think is unwise to downplay the magnitude of this gesture. It is sometimes said that the commission was late to get started; it didn't begin its work until after Eureka, until the middle of December. But even in our jet-speed age, the commission of inquiry rarely sets to work within a month of being appointed. Of course by then the battle had been fought. That independent inquiry showed its independence throughout its work."

Source: http://www.abc.net.au/ballarat/stories/s1260647.htm

124.187.178.125 15:18, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

Eureka and federation
According to the article:

"Because the materials used to build the stockade were rapidly removed to be used for the mines and the entire area itself was so extensively worked that the original landscape was unrecognisable, the exact location of the stockade was quickly lost track of. However the event itself returned to the national consciousness and became a rallying cry as the call for federation and nationhood gained momentum in the 1890s."

I would advance the view that Eureka had nothing to do with the federation movement.

What sources claim it did I wonder?

124.187.178.125 10:42, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

Neutrality of article
This article is biased nearly all the way through. We should have a little display box saying "the neutrality of this article is in dispute" until the issues can be resolved.

More basic facts. Less left wing propaganda, or even better none.

124.187.178.125 15:18, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

 * In what ways is it biased? If you can provide proof then get an account and do the editing yourself.Spec ops commando 03:32, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

 * I dont know what this user expects in an article on what was essentialy a trade union dispute with a colonial government. The article states the facts of the matter and if that puts the left wing in a good light then "so be it". To say that "this article is biased nearly all the way through" and then not provide any any examples shouldnt lead to a neutrality banner on an article. 194.152.93.186 12:14, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

 * As no reasons have been given for the Neutrality banner, I am removing it. no proof of bias has been given, and the article appears to be factual. Rimmeraj 05:16, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

 * The Eureka Stockade had sweet nothing to do with the federation movement but the article says it does.

It's a lot better then it was when I first made the accusation it was unbalanced. 124.187.150.76 16:48, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

Miner's Licence

 * The monthly fee for this licence was 30 shillings — a huge fee for the time — and was payable whether or not any gold had actually been found.

This part says, "a huge fee" but doesn't exactly describe how difficult raising this money was. Can someone add these two points so we have a better understanding of this? --Revth 00:43, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
 * 1) How much gold would have to be dug to meet this payment?
 * 2) How much was an average monthly salary paid to a typical non-digger (such as a soldier manning the garrison)?

Birthplace of democracy
The neutrality of this article is in dispute. It says the Eureka Stockade is popularly recognised as the "birthplace of australian democracy". This is heavily disputed. Geoffrey Blainey says called the event that is "inflammatory".

I question the 'neutrality' of describing the role of Eureka in the birth of Australian democracy as 'controversial'. The study of history is replete with differences of opinion between historians as to the importance of sany number of pecific events. This does not result in the role of those events as being described as contoversial.

Reply

In recent years Geoffrey Blainey has appeared to move from a position of an historian to that of an interpreter of history in support of the political positions of the conservative federal government. For example, his use of the term 'black armband history', much used by the Prime Minister.

I believe that the words 'popularly recognised' reasonably describe the circumstances whereby Eureka is the most commonly cited event as the 'birthplace' of Australian democracy in articles and discussions in the press, the electronic media and in discussion with citizens across a broad age and geographic area of the country.

As is evident from previous posts on this talk page, others also question Blainey's neutrality regarding the significance of Eureka, such as his assertion that only a few communists were interested in the 1954 centenary of Eureka in Ballarat.

In my view a reference to 'popular recognition' of Eureka as the birthplace of democracy is both neutral and accurate. Let those who want to document the academic debate create a link to a new related page. I would be interested to see what birthplace for Australian Democracy such a debate would identify.

Barry221056 23:59, 2 December 2006 (UTC)Barry221056Barry221056 23:59, 2 December 2006 (UTC) (Signature button doesn't like my old Mac!)

The general public do not regard the Eureka Stockade as the "Birthplace of Australian Democracy" in the same way as, say, they regard Gallipoli as the place where our nation was forged. "Popularly recognised" is misleading.

It is most correct to say "controversally described". A lot of people get upset that too much is made out of the Eureka Stockade.

It is not like the anniversary is a public holiday or officially gazetted day of commemoration.

124.187.150.76 06:05, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

 * Eureka afficinados do seem to have a hard time accepting the fact that everything about this event is controversial and that the other side's arguments are just as good as their own.

 * Maybe even more persuasive IMHO.

 * Premier 06:27, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Weasel Word
This article uses the weasel words as in WP:WEASEL.

The sentence " often described controversially as the birth place of democracy " is a problem. Often described by who? for what reason? we need to fix this. It needs to state who or what group has described it this way. Rimmeraj 06:51, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

I agree Rimmeraj,

For the reasons previously cited I firmly believe that the statement "popularly recognised as the 'Birthplace of Australian Democracy' " is appropriately neutral.

Have seen no evidence for [Premier's] comment that "everything about this event is controversial". Certainly have not seen the "other side's arguments", so would find it difficult to form the view that their arguments are "just as good ... maybe even more persuasive."

In my view the 'anti-significance' arguement is to a large extent a 'proxy fight' by monarchists against a perceived republican affinity with Eureka. By contrast, the movement of which the Eureka Stockade was but one element, was fundamentality an attempt by 'loyal' subjects to appeal directly to the Monarch, over the heads of an unelected Legislative Council, to be treated in a fair and just manner, as distinct from what they perceived as the unjust regime of miners licenses, no right to vote and no right to purchase land. This was a movevement of democrats, hardly either a radical or a republican agenda.

In attempting to assess the significance of Eureka a more sound position would appear to involve, assessing, among other things, the broader community support for Eureka in its immediate aftermath. In this respect it would seem significant that the newspapers of the day reported huge public demonstrations of support of the arrested miners at the time when they were brought to trial in Melbourne. This level of support beyond the goldfields (i.e. in Melbourne) was a significant difference from the level of public support for the Bendigo Petition of 1853, which had raised similar issues, central among them the right of (male) adults to the franchise.

To my understanding the only two events of the period 1854 - 1900 to result in public assemblies of similar size to those in support of the Eureka 'Rebels' were the return of the bodies of Burke and Wills, in the 1860s, and the trial of Ned Kelly, in the 1880s.

Finally, references to "Eureka afficinados" seems to be somewhere on the slippery slope of name calling, in lieu of substantial arguement. If such denigration is acceptable on Wiki it would at least be more credible if it were spelt correctly... Barry221056

 * Unfortunately the phrase popularly recognised as the also suffers the same weasel word problem. Please read WP:WEASEL for more information about what I mean. What does popular mean, everyone? does everyone recognise it? a reference is required to validate why this is the birth place of democracy. In reality neither "popularly recognised" or "often described controversially" should be required if the fact is true. To me it appears that both of these statements is a Point of View, and both should be avoided. Instead of calling it the 'birth of Democracy, maybe we should consider a different approach by detailing the changes that the Eureka stockade brought about. Instead of fighting over the one sentence, try a completely new approach. Rimmeraj 13:34, 4 December 2006 (UTC) (To avoid an ongoing argument this shall be my last comment on this article.)

 * Every assertion that has ever been made about the Eureka Stockade, including that it was the birthlace of Australian democracy, has been contested in some way or another.

 * All I want this article to do is represent this spectrum of views.

 * For example, if Eureka was the birthplace of Australian Democray why did South Australia have full male suffrage before Victoria???

 * If Eureka was such a blow of democracy then why did Victorians have to satisfy property thresholds to be eligible to vote for their legislative council until the 1950s?

 * Premier 16:23, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

I shall attempt as you suggest. Will be interested to see how long it lasts. barry221056

 * The edits made by Barry fix the issue I had with the introduction. Now it states facts about what was a) requested by the miners and b) what actually happened... and this then backs up the comment about it being identified as the birth of democracy. Can all other editors PLEASE discuss changes here before reverting or removing the edits. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Rimmeraj (talk • contribs) 03:28, 5 December 2006 (UTC).

 * We can't have this statement: "The role of the Eureka Stokade in generating public support for these demands beyond the goldfields, has resulted in the identification of Eureka with the birth of Democracy in Australia." I've put up a display box saying the neutrality of this article is under dispute.

 * Calling the Eureka Stockade the birthplace of Australian democracy makes a lot of people in academic circles and the general public upset. Fact of life Eureka afficianados.

 * Maybe we should attempt to clarify exactly who associates this incident with the development of Australian democracy. I mean, the Eureka anniversary celebrations (such as they are) have a very partisan flavour to them don't they?

 * 124.187.150.76 02:26, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Agreed the term 'identification of' does not state who identifies it this way. Could we add this in? Barry do you have some info on who identifies it this way? To become a truelly neutral article it needs to either say who identifies it this way or not say it at all. It would be even better if we could find a reference/citation to somewhere it has been called this. Rimmeraj 03:30, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

I know Labor leaders have called it the birthplace of Australian democracy. Dr Evatt when he was oppostition leader for one.

And the old communist party.

Where else on the political spectrum is Eureka associated with democracy? I'm convinced this issue only needs a small treatment.

124.187.150.76 07:24, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Rimmeraj, here is a quote which goes to the issue, unfortunately I dont have a huge home library, so can't quickly locate other references. (Not really an afficianado, as alleged!)

“The rising accelerated the current democratic forces. Feelings ran high in Melbourne where no jury could be found to convict the thirteen men who were tried for high treason. The government was forced to abandon the licence and substitute it with a cheaper miner’s right which also conferred on men the right to vote.” P. 92 The Victorians: Arriving. Richard Broome, 1984.

The work in question is a history of Victoria commisioned for the 150th anniversary of the state/colony. Broome is a leading academic historian. As he identifies, the miners right, which replaced the licence conferred the right to vote.

Under the section relating to the trials of the Eureka rebels the entry cites that a crowd of 10,000 Melbournians chaired an acquitted miner around the streets of the town. Melbourne had a population of 125,000 in 1861. On this basis, the 10,000 person crowd was the equivalent of a 240,000 person crowd in todays city of approx. 3 million residents. Clearly, the population of the time saw Eureka as significant, in much the same way as the citizens of 1915 saw Gallipolli as important. In point of fact, neither were successful in a military sense. However both sparked the psyche of the community.

There was a time, not so long ago,(1970's) when commemoration of ANZAC Day / Gallipolli was seen by many (possibly even most) as unpopular / unfashionable. This did not alter the role of Gallipolli in formulating the post-Federation national identity in the 1st quarter of the 20th century. That significance would still remain, even if ANZAC Day had ceased to be observed and Gallipolli forgotten.

Similarly, while recognition of the role of Eureka in achieving popular suffrage may have waxed and waned over 150 years, this does not alter the identification of one with the other by the general population at the time. Street demonstrations the equivalenmt of 240,000 residents of today's city cannot be ignored. (For example the 10,000 croud was proportionately larger than the 40,000 who lined the streets of Melbourne for the funeral of General Monash in 1931.) On any measure the 'popular support' for Eureka at the time was unprecedented then, and would cause amasement if it occurred on almost any social issue today.

 * Why did South Australia have full male suffrage before Victoria? Why did Victorians have to satisfy property thresholds to be eligible to vote in Legislative Council elections until the 1950s?

 * The point of view that Eureka was an inconsequential event is perfectly sound.

 * 124.187.150.76 12:41, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Barry221056
 * Thanks Barry. I mean can you add then name and other details about the website, book or whatever you sourced the above quotes from. Then add them to the article using the < / r e f > tags. In particular a book or reliable source that states 'Birth of Democracy'. Rimmeraj 12:27, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Rimmeraj, I will add the citation for "The Victorians: Arriving" as you suggest. birthplace of democracy is not a direct quote from a specific work. Rather, it is an expression of Eureka having been the catalyst which resulted in the achievement of a number of basic democratic rights, among them manhood suffrage and secret ballots. If it will ease the quibbles of others I will alter the text to a direct quote.

As to the most recent posts by 124.187.150.76 Governments are formed in the Legislative Assenbly, not the Legislative Council. Surely s/he is not arguing that there was no democracy in Victoria until the property qualification was abolished in the 1950s? As to comparisons with South Australia, Victoria was the first ofthe Australiabn colonies to introduce (male) suffrage without a property qualification. This was prior to South Australia extending suffrage to males without property.

Barry221056 11:07, 7 December 2006 (UTC)Barry221056Barry221056 11:07, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

 * One way or another it is still controversial to call the Eureka Stockade the birthplace of Australian democracy. It makes a lot of people anrgy, some of them violently so, and it doesn't reasonate with the public.

 * For example, Geoffrey Blainey says if democracy was born in Australia it had South Australian parents.

 * To make a more NPOV article here's a quote we could use as well: "The Eureka Stockade had precisely no impact on Australian history. It was a protest without consequence." (Former NSW premier Bob Carr)

 * 124.187.150.76 11:33, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

 * Please read WP:NPOV, it states that NPOV means that both points of view should be stated. To quote "representing fairly and without bias all significant views ". Please add your point of view along side the other and add the verifiable references required. We should state what the 2 POV's are, and who has them. Barry has made a start, lets add your side. It does not matter if it makes you or anyone angry... so do many things. Also, the mention of violence is against wiki policy, please do not threaten other authors! see comments below Rimmeraj 23:59, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

All Im saying is that you dont have to go that far to find support for the point of view that the Eureka Stockade was an inconsequential event in the history of the colony of victoria.

124.187.150.76 21:41, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

Inflammatory statement
This statement makes me very angry:

"The role of the Eureka Stokade in generating public support for these demands beyond the goldfields, has resulted in the identification of Eureka with the birth of democracy in Australia."

Why then did South Australia have full male suffrage before Victoria? Why did Victorians have to prove they owned a certain amount of property before they were able to vote in upper house elections until the middle of last century?

124.187.150.76 23:10, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

 * Please read WP:NPOV, it states that NPOV means that both points of view should be stated. To quote "representing fairly and without bias all significant views ". Please add your point of view along side the other and add the verifiable references required, as Barry has done. Please do not replace or remove the other point of view. If it makes you angry that others have a POV you do not agree with, then please step back and cool down. Agree to disagree, and work on getting both POV s into the article. I am attempting to be a neutral mediator in this, I have not added any content to this article, but would like to see it balanced and have this conflict resolved. PS: would you consider signing up with a username rather than anon IP? Rimmeraj 23:56, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

Eureka and the political spectrum
The only problem I have with the article is that it makes out everyone agrees with the assertion that Eureka was the "birthplace of Australian democracy".

If some of the brainboxes who come on here can just say what parts of the political spectrum this view is broadcast from I would sleep a lot better at night.

124.187.150.76 03:13, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

 * I was hoping you would be able to add this information. In particular if you could add a sentence or two that state a) not everyone agrees and if possible who does not agree. Also if anyone else can elaborate on who does 'identify' it as being the birth place.

 * In particular, if something more could be added, instead of removing text as has happened in the past. This was the message I was trying to get across earlier. We need to add both Points of View. So please do add the other POV as well. Rimmeraj 06:35, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

 * Since the article now states "has resulted in Eureka being controversially identified with the birth of democracy in Australia" I assume the POV difficulty has been dealt with and I am removing the tag.--Golden Wattle talk 23:42, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Suffrage
Read this:

"The preceding three years of agitation for the miners' demands, combined with mass public support in Melbourne for the captured 'rebels' when they were placed on trial, resulted in the introduction of popular elections for the lower house in the Victorian parliament."

As in South Australia, there would have been popular elections for the lower hourse in any event. Eureka didn't achieve this, and I think the article kind of says it did.

Eureka helped to secure a wider franchise - full white male suffrage - but people with a certain amount of property would still have voted in Legislative Assembly elections in the colony of Victoria had the insurrection not occured.

124.187.150.76 23:37, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

I disagree that the above comment merits a tag, there is already a qualification and that qualification is footnoted. Feel free to fix the article as per sofixit. Please reference any quotation added.--Golden Wattle talk 00:59, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

New information - more myth busting
The writings of Raffaello Carboni, who was present at the Stockade, make it clear that "amongst the foreigners.. there was no democratic feeling, but merely a spirit of resistance to the licence fee"; and he also disputes the accusations "that have branded the miners of Ballaarat as disloyal to their QUEEN" (emphasis is in the original).(RC:108,153)

The Argus newspaper, of 4th December 1854, also reported that the Union Jack flag flew underneath the Southern Cross flag of the diggers at the Eureka Stockade.

I'll open it to the floor, is this information worthy of incorporation?

124.187.150.76 01:19, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

 * I think both points worth including. Please use tags for citations.  You need to be careful when placing the facts in context that you avoid breaching the wikipedia principle of no original research (see WP:NOR ), ie any unpublished analysis or synthesis of published material that appears to advance a position — or which, in the words of Wikipedia's co-founder Jimmy Wales, would amount to a "novel narrative or historical interpretation."--Golden Wattle  talk 03:20, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

Yes, it is worth including as Carboni's point of view! Carboni belonged to the right-wing of the movement as is clear if you read his book, he was always distancing himself from the excesses of the other miners. He did not take part in the battle but witnessed it from his tent and makes it clear in his book that he planned to rely on that fact to secure his acquittal in the Eureka treason trial. He goes out of his way to libel Venn the membe rof the Eureka leadership who did belong to the Reform League. Carboni was contemptious of "Chartist yap" as he called pro-democratic opinion. But there was in fact "Chartist yap" among the miners. Jeremytrewindixon 03:53, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

Flag Image
The quality of the current flag image is poor. It was recently changed from a better quality (even though newer) version. Can we at least show both. The current image takes away from the article. Rimmeraj 00:17, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

Re-edit
I've given the article a fairly ruthless, sentence-by-sentence re-edit, in the aftermath of its de-FA. I've probably introduced some typos of my own, so could someone go over it and check? Metamagician3000 12:02, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Anyone ever do this? Metamagician3000 07:27, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
 * I haven't time now but I will try to do tomorrow. My browser now supports spell check in edit mode :-)  There are still a lot more citations required. Regards--Golden Wattle  talk 10:49, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

Discuss links here
Editors regularly clean out undiscussed links from this article. Please discuss here if you want a link not to be cleaned out regularly. (You can help!) -- VS talk 04:34, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Name of article
The stockade was a specific place. This article is really about the Eureka Rebellion (which redirects here) and that would be a more accurate name for it, IMO. Spektr1848 (talk) 07:24, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Suffrage
The Victorian constitution (passed after Eureka) allowed for full white male suffrage for elections to the legislative assembly did it not?

And is it true there were property qualifications with regards to eligibility to vote in Legislative Council elections until the 1950s?

121.216.23.3 (talk) 07:22, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

Capt. J. W. Thomas report to Headquarters following Eureka rebellion
For those who may wish to extract component and link to it, the report of Capt Thomas is at Capt. J. W. Thomas report to Headquarters following Eureka rebellion billinghurst  sDrewth  04:57, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

title: Talk:Eureka Stockade


text:
Mahmud of Ghazni

Abu al-Qasim Mahmud ibn Sabuktigin (2 November 971 – 30 April 1030), usually known as Mahmud of Ghazni or Mahmud Ghaznavi (محمود غزنوی), was Sultan of the Ghaznavid Empire, ruling from 998 to 1030. During his reign and in medieval sources, he is usually known by his honorific Yamin al-Dawla (یمین الدوله, ). At the time of his death, his kingdom had been transformed into an extensive military empire, which extended from northwestern Iran proper to the Punjab in the Indian subcontinent, Khwarazm in Transoxiana, and Makran.

Highly Persianized, Mahmud continued the bureaucratic, political, and cultural customs of his predecessors, the Samanids. He established the ground for a future Persianate state in Punjab, particularly centered on Lahore, a city he conquered. His capital of Ghazni evolved into a significant cultural, commercial, and intellectual centre in the Islamic world, almost rivalling the important city of Baghdad. The capital appealed to many prominent figures, such as al-Biruni and Ferdowsi. Mahmud ascended the throne at the age of 27 upon his father's death, albeit after a brief war of succession with his brother Ismail. He was the first ruler to hold the title Sultan ("authority"), signifying the extent of his power while at the same time preserving an ideological link to the suzerainty of the Abbasid Caliphs. During his rule, he invaded and plundered the richest cities and temple towns, such as Mathura and Somnath in medieval India seventeen times, and used the booty to build his capital in Ghazni.

Birth and background
Mahmud was born in the town of Ghazni in the region of Zabulistan (in present-day Afghanistan) on 2 November 971. His father, Sabuktigin, was a Turkic slave commander who laid foundations to the Ghaznavid dynasty in Ghazni in 977, which he ruled as a subordinate of the Samanids, who ruled Khorasan and Transoxiana. Mahmud's mother was an Iranian woman from a wealthy landowning aristocrat family in the region of Zabulistan, and he is therefore known in some sources as Mahmud-i Zavuli ("Mahmud from Zabulistan"). Not much about Mahmud's early life is known, other than that he was a school-mate and foster brother of Ahmad Maymandi, a Persian native of Zabulistan.

Family
Mahmud married the daughter of Abu'l Haret Ahmad, and they had twin sons, Mohammad and Ma'sud, who succeeded him one after the other; his grandson by Mas'ud, Maw'dud Ghaznavi, also later became ruler of the empire. According to Mirat-i-Masudi ("Mirror of Masud"), a Persian-language hagiography written by Abdur Rahman Chishti in the 1620s, Mahmud's sister, Sitr-e-Mu'alla, was purportedly married to Dawood bin Ataullah Alavi, also known as Gazi Saiyyed Salar Sahu, whose son was Ghazi Saiyyad Salar Masud.

Mahmud's companion was a Georgian slave, Malik Ayaz, about whom poems and stories have been told.

Early career
In 994 Mahmud joined his father Sabuktigin in the capture of Khorasan from the rebel Fa'iq in aid of the Samanid Emir, Nuh II. During this period, the Samanid Empire became highly unstable, with shifting internal political tides as various factions vied for control, the chief among them being Abu'l-Qasim Simjuri, Fa'iq, AbuAli, the General Bekhtuzin as well as the neighbouring Buyids and Kara-Khanid Khanate.

Reign
Sabuktigin died in 997, and was succeeded by his son Ismail as the ruler of the Ghaznavid dynasty. The reason behind Sabuktigin's choice to appoint Ismail as heir over the more experienced and older Mahmud is uncertain. It may have been due to Ismail's mother being the daughter of Sabuktigin's old master, Alptigin. Mahmud shortly revolted, and with the help of his other brother, Abu'l-Muzaffar, the governor of Bust, he defeated Ismail the following year at the battle of Ghazni and gained control over the Ghaznavid kingdom. That year, in 998, Mahmud then traveled to Balkh and paid homage to Amir Abu'l-Harith Mansur b. Nur II. He then appointed Abu'l-Hasan Isfaraini as his vizier, and then set out west from Ghazni to take the Kandahar region followed by Bost (Lashkar Gah), which he transformed to a militarised city.

Mahmud initiated the first of numerous invasions of North India. On 28November 1001, his army fought and defeated the army of Raja Jayapala of the Kabul Shahis at the Battle of Peshawar. In 1002 Mahmud invaded Sistan and dethroned Khalaf ibn Ahmad, ending the Saffarid dynasty. From there he decided to focus on Hindustan to the southeast, particularly the highly fertile lands of the Punjab region.

Mahmud's first campaign to the south was against an Ismaili state first established at Multan in 965 by a da'i from the Fatimid Caliphate in a bid to curry political favor and recognition with the Abbasid Caliphate; he also engaged elsewhere with the Fatimids. At this point, Jayapala attempted to exact revenge for an earlier military defeat at the hands of Mahmud's father, who had controlled Ghazni in the late 980s and had cost Jayapala extensive territory. His son Anandapala succeeded him and continued the struggle to avenge his father's suicide. In the Battle of Chach, he assembled a powerful confederacy that suffered defeat as his elephant turned back from the battle at a crucial moment, turning the tide in Mahmud's favor once more at Lahore in 1008 and bringing Mahmud control of the Shahi dominions of Udbandpura.

Ghaznavid campaigns in the Indian subcontinent
Following the defeat of the Indian Confederacy, after deciding to retaliate for their combined resistance, Mahmud then set out on regular expeditions against them, leaving the conquered kingdoms in the hands of Hindu vassals and annexing only the Punjab region. He also vowed to raid and loot the wealthy region of northwestern India every year.

In 1001 Mahmud of Ghazni first invaded modern day Pakistan and then parts of India. Mahmud defeated, captured, and later released the Hindu Shahi ruler Jayapala, who had moved his capital to Peshawar (modern Pakistan). Jayapala killed himself and was succeeded by his son Anandapala. In 1005 Mahmud of Ghazni invaded Bhatia (probably Bhera), and in 1006 he invaded Multan, at which time Anandapala's army attacked him. The following year Mahmud of Ghazni attacked and crushed Sukhapala, ruler of Bathinda (who had become ruler by rebelling against the Shahi kingdom). In 1008–1009, Mahmud defeated the Hindu Shahis in the Battle of Chach. In 1013, during Mahmud's eighth expedition into eastern Afghanistan and Pakistan, the Shahi kingdom (which was then under Trilochanapala, son of Anandapala) was overthrown.

In 1014 Mahmud led an expedition to Thanesar. The next year he unsuccessfully attacked Kashmir. The ruler of Kashmir Sangramaraja had been an ally of the Hindu Shahis against the Ghaznavids, and Mahmud wanted retribution. Antagonized by Sangramaraja's having helped Trilochanapala, Mahmud invaded Kashmir. He advanced along the Tohi river valley, planning to enter Kashmir through the Tosamaidan pass. However, his advanced was checked by the strong fort of Loharkot. After having besieged the fort for a month, Mahmud abandoned the siege and retreated, losing many of his troops on his way and almost losing his own life as well. In 1021, Mahmud again attempted to invade Kashmir, but was again not able to advance beyond the Loharkot fort. After the two failed invasion attempts, he did not attempt to invade Kashmir again.

In 1018 Mahmud attacked Mathura and defeated a coalition of rulers there while also killing a ruler called Chandrapala. The city of Mathura was "ruthlessly sacked, ravaged, desecrated and destroyed". In particular, Al-utbi mentioned in his work Tarikh-e-yamini, that Mahmud Ghaznavi destroyed a "great and magnificent temple" in Mathura. According to Firishta, writing a "History of Hindustan" in the 16th-17th century, the city of Mathura was the richest in India, and was consecrated to Vāsudeva-Krishna. When it was attacked by Mahmud of Ghazni, "all the idols" were burnt and destroyed during a period of twenty days, gold and silver was smelted for booty, and the city was burnt down. The Art of Mathura fell into decline thereafter.

In 1021 Mahmud supported the Kannauj king against Chandela Ganda, who was defeated. That same year Shahi Trilochanapala was killed at Rahib and his son Bhimapala succeeded him. Lahore (modern Pakistan) was annexed by Mahmud. Mahmud besieged Gwalior, in 1023, where he was given tribute. Mahmud attacked Somnath in 1025, and its ruler Bhima I fled. The next year, he captured Somnath and marched to Kachch against Bhima I. That same year Mahmud also attacked the Jats of Jud and defeated them. Mahmud's desecration of the Somnath temple in Gujarat in 1024 CE motivated Rajput king Bhoja to lead an army against him, however after Somnath raid, Mahmud Gazhnavi chose a more dangerous route via Sindh, to avoid facing the invading powerful armies of Bhoja, he passed through a desert, where the scarcity of food and water killed a large number of his soldiers and animals, Kitabh Zainu'l Akhbar (c. 1048 CE) by 'Abd al-Hayy Gardizi, Tabaqat-i-Akbari by Nizamuddin Ahmad and Firishta's writings also mention this incident.

Christoph Baumer notes that in 1026 CE, Jats "inflicted heavy losses" on the army of Mahmud while it was on its way from Somnath to Multan. Later in 1027 CE, he avenged the attack by the Jats, who had been resisting "forced Islamisation" for the past 300 years, by ravaging their fleet in the Indus river. Even though the Jats had a bigger fleet than Mahmud, he is said to have had around 20 archers on each of his 1400 boats, stocked with "special projectiles" carrying naphtha, which he used to burn the Jats' fleet.

The Indian kingdoms of Nagarkot, Thanesar, Kannauj, and Gwalior were all conquered and left in the hands of Hindu, Jain, and Buddhist kings as vassal states and he was pragmatic enough not to neglect making alliances and enlisting local peoples into his armies at all ranks. Since Mahmud never kept a permanent presence in the northwestern subcontinent, he engaged in a policy of destroying Hindu temples and monuments to crush any move by the Hindus to attack the Empire; Nagarkot, Thanesar, Mathura, Kannauj, Kalinjar (1023) and Somnath all submitted or were raided. It is estimated Mahmud's invasions killed over 2 million people.

Events and challenges
In 1025 Mahmud raided Gujarat, plundering the Somnath temple and breaking its jyotirlinga. He took away booty of 2 million dinars. The conquest of Somnath was followed by a punitive invasion of Anhilwara. Some historians claim that there are records of pilgrimages to the temple in 1038 that do not mention damage to the temple. However, powerful legends with intricate detail had developed regarding Mahmud's raid in the Turko-Persian literature, which "electrified" the Muslim world according to scholar Meenakshi Jain.

Historiography concerning Somnath
Historians including Thapar, Eaton, and A. K. Majumdar have questioned the iconoclastic historiography of this incident. Thapar quoted Majumdar (1956): "But, as is well known, Hindu sources do not give any information regarding the raids of Sultan Mahmud, so that what follows is based solely on the testimony of Muslim authors." Thapar also argued against the prevalent narrative: "Yet in a curiously contradictory manner, the Turko-Persian narratives were accepted as historically valid and even their internal contradictions were not given much attention, largely because they approximated more closely to the current European sense of history than did the other sources."

Political challenges
The last four years of Mahmud's life were spent contending with the influx of Oghuz and Seljuk Turks from Central Asia and the Buyid dynasty. Initially, after being repulsed by Mahmud, the Seljuks retired to Khwarezm, but Togrül and Çagrı led them to capture Merv and Nishapur (1028–1029). Later, they repeatedly raided and traded territory with his successors across Khorasan and Balkh and even sacked Ghazni in 1037. In 1040, at the Battle of Dandanaqan, they decisively defeated Mahmud's son, Mas'udI, resulting in Mas'ud abandoning most of his western territories to the Seljuks.

Death
On 30 April 1030 Sultan Mahmud died in Ghazni at the age of 58. Sultan Mahmud had contracted malaria during his last invasion. The medical complication from malaria had caused lethal tuberculosis. His mausoleum is located in Ghazni, Afghanistan.

As emir

 * 994: Gains the title of Saif ad-Dawla and becomes Governor of Khorasan under service to NuhII of the Samanid Empire in civil strife
 * 995: The Samanid rebels Fa'iq (leader of a court faction that had defeated Alptigin's nomination for Emir) and Abu Ali expel Mahmud from Nishapur. Mahmud and Sabuktigin defeat Samanid rebels at Tus
 * 997: Kara-Khanid Khanate

As sultan
Ghor and Muhammad ibn Suri are then captured by Mahmud, made prisoner along with Muhammad ibn Suri's son, and taken to Ghazni, where Muhammad ibn Suri dies. Appoints Sewakpal to administer the region. Anandapala flees to Kashmir, fort in the hills on the western border of Kashmir.
 * 999: Khorasan, Balkh, Herat, Merv from the Samanids. A concurrent invasion from the north by the Qarakhanids under Elik Khan (Nasr Khan) ends Samanid rule.
 * 1000: Sistan from Saffarid dynasty
 * 1001: Gandhara: Sultan Mahmud defeats Raja Jayapala in the Battle of Peshawar; Jayapala subsequently abdicates and commits suicide.
 * 1002: Seistan: Is imprisoned in Khuluf
 * 1004: Bhatia (Bhera) is annexed after it fails to pay its yearly tribute.
 * 1005-6: Multan: Fateh Daud, the Ismaili ruler of Multan revolts and enlists the aid of Anandapala. Mahmud massacres the Ismailis of Multan in the course of his conquest. Anandapala is defeated at Peshawar and pursued to Sodra (Wazirabad).

 * 1005: Defends Balkh and Khorasan against NasrI of the Kara-Khanid Khanate and recaptures Nishapur from Isma'il Muntasir of the Samanids.
 * 1005: Sewakpal rebels and is defeated.
 * 1008: Mahmud defeated the Hindu Shahis in the Battle of Chach near Hazro in Chach, and captures the Shahi treasury at Kangra, Himachal Pradesh.
 * 1010: Ghor; against Amir Suri
 * 1010: Multan revolts. Abul Fatah Dawood is imprisoned for life at Ghazni.
 * 1012-1013: Sacks Thanesar
 * 1012: Invades Gharchistan and deposes its ruler Abu Nasr Muhammad.
 * 1012: Demands and receives remainder of the province of Khorasan from the Abbasid Caliph. Then demands Samarkand as well but is rebuffed.
 * 1013: Bulnat: Defeats Trilochanpala.
 * 1014: Kafiristan is attacked
 * 1015: Mahmud's army sacks Lahore, but his expedition to Kashmir fails, due to inclement weather.
 * 1015: Khwarezm: Marries his sister to Abul Abbas Mamun of Khwarezm, who dies in the same year in a rebellion. Moves to quell the rebellion and installs a new ruler and annexes a portion.
 * 1017: Kannauj, Meerut, and Muhavun on the Yamuna, Mathura and various other regions along the route. While moving through Kashmir he levies troops from vassal Prince for his onward march; Kannauj and Meerut submit without battle.
 * 1018-1020: Sacks the town of Mathura.
 * 1021: Raises Ayaz to kingship, awarding him the throne of Lahore
 * 1021: Kalinjar attacks Kannauj: he marches to their aid and finds the last Shahi King, Trilochanpaala, encamped as well. No battle, the opponents leave their baggage trains and withdraw from the field. Also fails to take the fort of Lokote again. Takes Lahore on his return. Trilochanpala flees to Ajmer. First Muslim governors appointed east of the Indus River.
 * 1023: Lahore. He forces Kalinjar and Gwalior to submit and pay tribute: Trilochanpala, the grandson of Jayapala, is assassinated by his own troops. Official annexation of Punjab by Ghazni. Also fails to take the Lohara fort on the western border of Kashmir for the second time.
 * 1024: Ajmer, Nehrwala, Kathiawar: This raid is his last major campaign. The concentration of wealth at Somnath was renowned, and consequently it became an attractive target for Mahmud, as it had previously deterred most invaders. The temple and citadel are sacked, and most of its defenders massacred.
 * 1025: Somnath: Mahmud sacks the temple and is reported to have personally hammered the temple's gilded Lingam to pieces, and the stone fragments are carted back to Ghazni, where they are incorporated into the steps of the city's new Jama Masjid (Friday Mosque) in 1026. He places a new king on the throne in Gujarat as a tributary. His return detours across the Thar Desert to avoid the armies of Ajmer and other allies on his return.
 * 1025: Marches against the Jats of the Jood mountains who harry his army on its return from the sack of Somnath.
 * 1027: Rey, Isfahan, Hamadan from the Buyids Dynasty.
 * 1027: Devastates the fleet of Jats in Indus river to avenge the "heavy losses" suffered by his army in an onslaught by Jats in 1026 CE.
 * 1028, 1029: Merv, Nishapur are lost to Seljuq dynasty

View on religion and war
Under the reign of Mahmud of Ghazni, the region broke away from the Samanid sphere of influence. While he acknowledged the Abbasids as caliph as a matter of form, he was also granted the title Sultan in recognition of his independence.

Following Mahmud's recognition by the Abbasid caliphate in 999, he pledged a jihad and a raid on India every year. In 1005 Mahmud conducted a series of campaigns during which the Ismailis of Multan were massacred.

Following his quest for Jihad against the infidels of India, Mahmud Ghazni not only ruined the Somnath temple and plundered its treasures but also killed every devotee present in the town. He did the same with women devotees, either killing them or kidnapped them to be later sold in the slave markets of Afghanistan.

Mahmud used his plundered wealth to finance his armies which included mercenaries. The Indian soldiers, whom Romila Thapar presumed to be Hindus, were one of the components of the army with their commander called sipahsalar-i-Hinduwan and lived in their own quarter of Ghazna practicing their own religion. Indian soldiers under their commander Suvendhray remained loyal to Mahmud. They were also used against a Turkic rebel, with the command given to a Hindu named Tilak according to Baihaki.

Indian historian Mohammad Habib states that there was no imposition of Jizya on "non-Muslims" during the reign of Mahmud of Ghazni nor any mention of "forced conversions": "[H]is (Mahmud's) expeditions against India were not motivated by religion but by love of plunder."

A. V. Williams Jackson, Professor of Indo-Iranian Languages in Columbia University has written in his book History of India, "Mahmud vowed that every year he would wage a Holy War against the infidels of Hindustan". During the seventh year of his reign, Mahmud mintage from Lahore styled him as "Mahmud but-shikan" (Mahmud the breaker of idols).

Legacy
By the end of his reign, the Ghaznavid Empire extended from Ray in the west to Samarkand in the north-east, and from the Caspian Sea to the Yamuna. Although his raids carried his forces across the Indian subcontinent, only a portion of the Punjab and of Sindh in modern-day Pakistan came under his semi-permanent rule; Kashmir, the Doab, Rajasthan, and Gujarat remained under the control of the local Hindu dynasties.

The booty brought back to Ghazni was enormous, and contemporary historians (e.g. Abolfazl Beyhaghi, Ferdowsi) give descriptions of the magnificence of the capital, as well as of the conqueror's munificent support of literature. He transformed Ghazni, the first centre of Persian literature, into one of the leading cities of Central Asia, patronizing scholars, establishing colleges, laying out gardens, and building mosques, palaces, and caravansaries. Mahmud brought whole libraries from Ray and Isfahan to Ghazni. He even demanded that the Khwarizmshah court send its men of learning to Ghazni.

Mahmud patronized the notable poet Ferdowsi, who after laboring 27 years, went to Ghazni and presented the Shahnameh to him. There are various stories in medieval texts describing the lack of interest shown by Mahmud to Ferdowsi and his life's work. According to historians, Mahmud had promised Ferdowsi a dinar for every distich written in the Shahnameh (which would have been 60,000 dinars), but later retracted his promise and presented him with dirhams (20,000 dirhams), at that time the equivalent of only 200dinars. His expedition across the Gangetic plains in 1017 inspired Al-Biruni to compose his Tarikh Al-Hind in order to understand the Indians and their beliefs. During Mahmud's rule, universities were founded to study various subjects such as mathematics, religion, the humanities, and medicine.

The Ghaznavid Empire was ruled by his successors for 157 years. The expanding Seljuk empire absorbed most of the Ghaznavid west. The Ghorids captured Ghazni in 1150, and Mu'izz al-Din (also known as Muhammad of Ghori) captured the last Ghaznavid stronghold at Lahore in 1187.

Despite Mahmud's remarkable abilities as a military commander, he failed to consolidate his empire's conquests with subtle authority. Mahmud also lacked the genius for administration and could not build long term enduring institutions in his state during his reign.

The military of Pakistan has named its short-range ballistic missile the Ghaznavi Missile in honour of Mahmud of Ghazni. In addition, the Pakistan Military Academy, where cadets are trained to become officers of the Pakistan Army, also gives tribute to Mahmud of Ghazni by naming one of its twelve companies Ghaznavi Company.

Personality
Sultan Mahmud thought of himself as "the Shadow of the God on Earth", an absolute power whose will is law. He paid great attention to details in almost everything, personally overseeing the work of every department of his divan (administration).

Mahmud appointed all his ministers himself without advising his wazir (chief advisor) or diwan, though occasionally he had to, as his religion dictated that Muslims should consult each other on all issues. Most of the time he was suspicious of his ministers, particularly of the wazir, and the following words are widely believed to be his: "wazirs are the enemies of kings..." Sultan Mahmud had numerous spies (called ) across his empire, supervised by the special department within his diwan.

Mahmud was a patron of literature, especially poetry, and he was occasionally found in the company of talented poets either in his palace or in the royal garden. He was often generous to them, paying unstintingly for their works according to their talent and worth.

license: Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/

title: Mahmud of Ghazni


text:
Stewart's

Stewart's or Stewarts can refer to:

 * Stewart's Fountain Classics, brand of soft drink
 * Stewart's Restaurants, chain of restaurants where the soft drink was originally sold
 * Stewart's wilt, bacterial disease affecting maize
 * Stewart's (department store), defunct Baltimore, Maryland-based chain of department stores
 * Stewart Dry Goods, defunct Louisville, Kentucky-based chain of department stores
 * A.T. Stewart and Company, Alexander Turney Stewart's New York City department store
 * Stewarts Supermarket Limited, former chain of supermarkets in Northern Ireland
 * Stewart's Shops, chain of convenience stores in Upstate New York
 * Stewart's theorem in trigonometry
 * House of Stuart (also spelt "Stewart"), rulers of Scotland from the 14th century and England from the 17th century
 * Stewart's Lane was a nineteenth century road in London that gave its name to
 * Stewarts Lane railway stations
 * Stewarts Lane locomotive depot

title: Stewart's


text:
User:DanielZM

 * test
 * test2

it:Utente:Danielm nl:Gebruiker:Danielm pl:Wikipedysta:Danielm

title: User:DanielZM


text: User:DanielZM/test

title: User:DanielZM/test


text:
Reboly

Reboly (Ре́болы, Repola, Rebol´a) is a settlement in the Republic of Karelia of the Russian Federation by the Finnish border, located 91 km southeast of Kuhmo and 96 km northeast of Lieksa. In 1926 the settlement had a population of 1,465, in 2010 - 258 people.

History

Reboly was first mentioned in 1555; by 1679 it was the center of a district with 23 villages and 220 households. Its location on the Russo-Swedish border led to several cases in which the village was destroyed by Swedish detachments. In the nineteenth century it became an often-visited site by Finnish nationalist scholars, such as Elias Lönnrot, Matthias Castrén and D. E. D. Europaeus.

After the Finland's declaration of independence the settlement and its district became an issue in Finnish-Russian relations when its predominantly Karelian population held a vote in August 1918 to join Finland. The Finnish Army moved to occupy Reboly in October. In the Treaty of Tartu, 1920, Finland gave up its claims on Reboly and the neighbouring Porosozero, and instead received Petsamo in the far north, which had been annexed  by  Finnish  trooрs in 1918.

The anti-Soviet sentiment in Reboly was still strong, and in 1921, after the Red Army re-took Reboly and Porosozero, local pro-Finnish activists formed a short-lived resistance movement known as the Metsäsissit (literally Forest Guerillas). Together with Finnish volunteers, they were instrumental in the East Karelian uprising of 1921-1922.

During the negotiations prior to the Winter War, the Soviet government offered Reboly and Porosozero in exchange for a smaller area on the Karelian Isthmus. The offer was rejected.

Reboly was occupied (1941–1944) by the Finnish 14th Division during the Continuation War, until it was recaptured by Soviet forces.

title: Reboly


text:
Firuz Shah Tughlaq

Sultan Firuz Shah Tughlaq (1309 – 20 September 1388) was a Muslim ruler from the Tughlaq dynasty, who reigned over the Sultanate of Delhi from 1351 to 1388. He succeeded his cousin Muhammad bin Tughlaq following the latter's death at Thatta in Sindh, where Muhammad bin Tughlaq had gone in pursuit of Taghi the rebellious Muslim governor of Gujarat. For the first time in the history of the Sultanate, a situation was confronted wherein nobody was ready to accept the reins of power. With much difficulty, the camp followers convinced Firoz to accept the responsibility. In fact, Khwaja Jahan, the Wazir of Muhammad bin Tughlaq had placed a small boy on the throne claiming him to be the son of Muhammad bin Tughlaq, who meekly surrendered afterwards. Due to widespread unrest, his realm was much smaller than Muhammad's. Tughlaq was forced by rebellions to concede virtual independence to Bengal and other provinces. He established Sharia across his realm.

Background
His father's name was Rajab (the younger brother of Ghazi Malik) who had the title Sipahsalar. His mother Naila, a Hindu woman, was a rajput Bhati, the daughter of Raja Mal from Dipalpur, which is now in the Punjab region of Pakistan.

Rule

We know of Firoz Shah Tughlaq in part through his 32-page autobiography, titled Futuhat-e-firozshahi. He was 42 when he became Sultan of Delhi in 1351. He ruled until 1388. At his succession, after the death of Muhammad Tughlaq, he faced many rebellions, including in Bengal, Gujarat and Warangal. Nonetheless he worked to improve the infrastructure of the empire building canals, rest-houses and hospitals, creating and refurbishing reservoirs and digging wells. He founded several cities around Delhi, including Jaunpur, Firozpur, Hissar, Firozabad, Fatehabad. Most of Firozabad was destroyed as subsequent rulers dismantled its buildings and reused the spolia as building materials, and the rest was subsumed as New Delhi grew.

Religious and administrative policies
Tughlaq was a fervent Muslim who tried to uphold the laws of Islam and adopted Sharia policies. He made a number of important concessions to theologians. He tried to ban practices that the orthodox theologians considered un-Islamic, an example being his prohibition of the practice of Muslim women going out to worship at the graves of saints He persecuted a number of sects that were considered heretical by the Muslim theologians. Tughlaq took to heart the mistakes made during his cousin Muhammad's rule. He decided not to reconquer areas that had broken away, nor to keep further areas from taking their independence. He was indiscriminately benevolent and lenient as a sultan. He decided to keep nobles and the Ulema happy so that they would allow him to rule his kingdom peacefully.

"The southern states had drifted away from the Sultanate and there were rebellions in Gujarat and Sindh", while "Bengal asserted its independence." He led expeditions to against Bengal in 1353 and 1358. He captured Cuttack, desecrated the Jagannath Temple, Puri, and forced Raja Gajpati of Jajnagar in Orissa to pay tribute. He converted Chauhan Rajputs from Hinduism to Islam in the 14th century. They are now known as Qaimkhanis in Rajasthan.

He laid siege to Kangra Fort and forced Nagarkot to pay tribute, and did the same with Thatta. During his time Tatar Khan of Greater Khorasan attacked Punjab multiple times and during final battle in Gurdaspur his face was slashed by the sword given by Feroz Shah Tughlaq to Raja Kailash Pal of Mau-Paithan from Nagarkot region. Firuz Shah Tughlaq married off his daughter with Raja Kailash Pal, embraced him to Islam and sent the couple to rule Greater Khorasan, where eleven sons known by the caste of 'badpagey' were born to the queen.

Rather than awarding position based on merit, Tughlaq allowed a noble's son to succeed to his father's position and jagir after his death. The same was done in the army, where an old soldier could send his son, son-in-law or even his slave in his place. He increased the salary of the nobles. He stopped all kinds of harsh punishments such as cutting off hands. He also lowered the land taxes that Muhammad had raised. Tughlaq's reign has been described as the greatest age of corruption in medieval India: He once gave a golden tanka to a distraught soldier so that he could bribe the clerk to pass his sub-standard horse.

Infrastructure and education
Tughlaq instituted economic policies to increase the material welfare of his people. Many rest houses (sarai), gardens and tombs (Tughluq tombs) were built. A number of madrasas (Islamic religious schools) were opened to encourage the religious education of Muslims. He set up hospitals for the free treatment of the poor and encouraged physicians in the development of Unani medicine. He provided money for the marriage of girls belonging to poor families under the department of Diwan-i-khairat. He commissioned many public buildings in Delhi. He built Firoz Shah Palace Complex at Hisar in 1354 CE, over 300 villages and dug five major canals, including the renovation of Prithviraj Chauhan era Western Yamuna Canal, for irrigation bringing more land under cultivation for growing grain and fruit. For day-to-day administration, Sultan Firuz Shah Tughlaq heavily depended on Malik Maqbul, previously commander of Warangal fort, who was captured and converted to Islam. When Tughlaq was away on a campaign to Sind and Gujarat for six months and no news was available about his whereabouts Maqbul ably protected Delhi. He was the most highly favoured among the significant number of the nobles in Tughlaq's court and retained the trust of the sultan. Sultan Firuz Shah Tughlaq used to call Maqbul as 'brother'. The sultan remarked that Khan-i-Jahan (Malik Maqbul) was the real ruler of Delhi.

Hindu religious works were translated from Sanskrit to Persian and Arabic. He had a large personal library of manuscripts in Persian, Arabic and other languages. He brought 2 Ashokan Pillars from Meerut, and Topra near Radaur in Yamunanagar district of Haryana, carefully cut and wrapped in silk, to Delhi in bullock cart trains. He re-erected one of them on the roof of his palace at Firoz Shah Kotla.

Transfer of capital was the highlight of his reign. When the Qutb Minar was struck by lightning in 1368 AD, knocking off its top storey, he replaced them with the existing two floors, faced with red sandstone and white marble. One of his hunting lodges, Shikargah, also known as Kushak Mahal, is situated within the Teen Murti Bhavan complex, Delhi. The nearby Kushak Road is named after it, as is the Tughlaq Road further on.

Legacy
His eldest son, Fateh Khan, died in 1376. He then abdicated in August 1387 and made his other son, Prince Muhammad, king. A slave rebellion forced him to confer the royal title to his grandson, Tughluq Khan.

Tughlaq's death led to a war of succession coupled with nobles rebelling to set up independent states. His lenient attitude had strengthened the nobles, thus weakening his position. His successor Ghiyas-ud-Din Tughlaq II could not control the slaves or the nobles. The army had become weak and the empire had shrunk in size. Ten years after his death, Timur's invasion devastated Delhi. His tomb is located in Hauz Khas (New Delhi), close to the tank built by Alauddin Khalji. Attached to the tomb is a madrasa built by Firoz Shah in 1352–53.

title: Firuz Shah Tughlaq