Openai/691ef1a1-976c-800d-bd1d-06358880de2a

This conversation was exported from ChatGPT

research

User: Some sources claim on the Internet that Marathas did the same level of atrocities as compared to the Mughals in India, …

Some sources claim on the Internet that Marathas did the same level of atrocities as compared to the Mughals in India, is it true ?

Assistant: To help evaluate the historical accuracy of those claims, could you clarify what specific time period, events, or regio…

To help evaluate the historical accuracy of those claims, could you clarify what specific time period, events, or regions you are referring to regarding Maratha and Mughal actions? Are you interested in a comparison of specific campaigns, policies (e.g., religious persecution, taxation, forced conversions), or overall warfare practices? And are you seeking academic perspectives, primary sources, or more recent interpretations?

User: Just give me an overall understanding based on the history of these two rules.

Just give me an overall understanding based on the history of these two rules. I just want to make an opinion.

Assistant: Understood.

Understood. I’ll compile a historically grounded comparison of the Maratha and Mughal empires with regard to documented atrocities, warfare practices, religious policies, and treatment of civilians, based on academic and primary historical sources. This will help you form an informed opinion on whether claims about equal levels of atrocities hold up under scrutiny.

I’ll get back to you with a detailed analysis shortly.

User: Comparing the amount of area each ruled....and the ammount of time each ruled can we be sure that maratha's atrocities …

Comparing the amount of area each ruled....and the ammount of time each ruled can we be sure that maratha's atrocities were not much than Mughals? Mughals rules india for a very long time and had a very large area covered over India. Whereas Marathas had less area of India under direct control. If we remove all those parameters mentioned above and others as well and compare them on equal grounds. Is the case still the same?

Assistant: To evaluate the comparison on equal terms, could you confirm what specific parameters you want removed or equalized?

To evaluate the comparison on equal terms, could you confirm what specific parameters you want removed or equalized? For example:

• Do you want the comparison normalized by time (atrocities per decade)?
• Do you want comparison by geographic scale (atrocities per 100,000 sq km)?
• Should we factor in governance structure (centralized vs confederation)?
• Are you focusing only on civilian impact or also including military brutality?

Clarifying these will help produce a meaningful, apples-to-apples analysis of Maratha vs Mughal atrocities.

User: I want comparasion with All the parameters that brings these two rules on equal ground.

I want comparasion with All the parameters that brings these two rules on equal ground. If not I want it to be averaged or rather brought to on equal grounds and then compared. Exactly like: per decade, 100000sq km, etc.

Assistant: Got it.

Got it. I’ll compare the Maratha and Mughal empires by normalizing for duration of rule, area controlled, and other key parameters. This includes analyzing atrocities per decade, per 100,000 square kilometers, and per campaign where data allows. This will allow a more balanced, data-driven evaluation of the scale and intensity of atrocities committed by both empires on equal grounds.

I’ll get back to you with a detailed comparative report.

User: Was any atrocity done by Indian king or rule equal to mughals?

Was any atrocity done by Indian king or rule equal to mughals? Minding all the comman grounds and parameters being equal.

User: Was any atrocity done by Indian king or rule equal to mughals?

Was any atrocity done by Indian king or rule equal to mughals? Minding all the comman grounds and parameters being equal.

Assistant: Could you clarify what you mean by "Indian king or rule"?

Could you clarify what you mean by "Indian king or rule"? Are you referring specifically to Hindu rulers or dynasties (e.g., Maurya, Gupta, Rajputs, Cholas), or broadly including all pre-Mughal Indian powers? Also, are you interested in a specific time period or region, or do you want a pan-Indian historical comparison across all centuries? Finally, should the focus be only on military massacres, or also include religious persecution, forced conversions, or cultural destruction?

User: Pre british reign.

Pre british reign.

Assistant: Understood.

Understood. I’ll investigate whether any atrocities committed by Indian rulers prior to British rule—excluding the Mughals—were equal in scale or nature to Mughal-era atrocities. This will be analyzed on normalized grounds: per unit time, per square kilometer, and per event. I’ll include examples from ancient and medieval Indian kingdoms such as the Mauryas, Guptas, Cholas, Rajputs, and others.

I’ll get back to you with a detailed comparative analysis.

gpt-?

Historical context: The Mughal Empire (c.1526–1857) was a large Muslim-ruled state in India, especially expansive under Akbar and Aurangzeb. The Maratha Empire (c.1674–1818) was a Hindu confederation that rose in response to Mughal decline. Both engaged in military expansion, but their motivations differed: Mughals often invoked jihad under Aurangzeb, while Marathas focused on tribute and territory.

- Mughal campaigns: Imperial conquests often targeted civilian populations. For example, Akbar’s siege of Chittorgarh (1567–68) resulted in the massacre of ~30,000 Hindu civilians (mostly peasants who sought refuge)en.wikipedia.org#:~:text=After%20capturing%20the%20fort%20on,23). After the mass slaughter, many women and children were enslaved and “many Hindu and Jain temples” were deliberately desecrated on Akbar’s ordersen.wikipedia.org#:~:text=After%20capturing%20the%20fort%20on,23). Akbar’s victory proclamation even boasts of using a “bloodthirsty sword” to “erase…infidelity” and destroy temples “all over Hindustan”en.wikipedia.org#:~:text=,and%20have%20destroyed%20temples%20in). (Scholars Rima Hooja and Satish Chandra independently estimate ~30,000 killed in Chittoren.wikipedia.orgen.wikipedia.org.) Other Mughal campaigns – such as Aurangzeb’s Deccan wars and punitive raids – similarly featured large-scale slaughter and enslavement of defeated populations.

• Maratha campaigns: Maratha armies also committed brutal raids in their wars, but mainly as “punitive” or fiscal expeditions. The best-known case is Raghuji Bhonsle’s raids on Bengal (1741–1751): the so‑called “Bargi” invasions devastated western Bengal and Bihar. Contemporary sources describe systematic plunder and mass killings by Maratha cavalry. A Bengali chronicle and British writers report that the Bargis “shouted, give us money… when they got no money, they filled peoples' nostrils with water… put the man to death” if tribute was not paidacademia.edu. Historian K.M. Chaudhuri calculates that “close to 400,000 people were killed by the Bargis” during these campaignsacademia.edu. Local and European accounts also note that the Marathas “demanded payments, and tortured or killed anyone who couldn’t pay” during their occupation of Bengalen.wikipedia.org. Similarly, Maratha detachments ravaged Rohilkhand in the 1750s, forcing villagers to flee and looting entire districtsen.wikipedia.orgen.wikipedia.org. These actions were militarily brutal (with widespread killings and looting) but were driven by tribute and plunder, not by a stated religious crusade.

- Mughal policies: The early Mughals (Babur, Akbar) alternated tolerance (Akbar abolished jizya in 1579) with orthodox repression (Aurangzeb re-imposed jizya in 1679 and strictly enforced Islamic law). Aurangzeb in particular targeted non-Muslims: he authorized destruction of Hindu temples (beyond battle zones) and even ordered the execution of Sikh Gurus. For instance, the 9th Sikh Guru, Tegh Bahadur, was executed in 1675 for refusing to convert to Islamsikhmissionarysociety.org. Aurangzeb’s own proclamations and some chronicles frame conquests as jihad – he described campaigns as establishing “Islam over the infidels”en.wikipedia.org#:~:text=,and%20have%20destroyed%20temples%20in). Modern historians note that tales of forced conversions and temple-smashing under Aurangzeb are widespread (charges include reinstating jizya tax and mass “wholesale murder” of non-Muslims)repository.rice.edu. While some recent scholarship argues that Aurangzeb’s persecution was less systematic than nationalist narratives suggest, the evidence shows clear instances of religious coercion (taxing Hindus, demolishing temples, imprisoning dissenters) under his reignen.wikipedia.org#:~:text=After%20capturing%20the%20fort%20on,23)sikhmissionarysociety.org.

• Maratha policies: The Marathas were Hindu rulers and did not pursue a policy of converting conquered peoples to Hinduism or Islam. There was no Maratha equivalent of jizya; in fact, they often protected Hindu temples. When conflicts had a religious dimension, it was usually defensive (e.g. campaigns against Muslim-ruled states), not aimed at coercing subjects. That said, Maratha armies occasionally plundered local shrines in wartime. For example, during the Third Anglo-Mysore War (1790–92), a Maratha contingent under Purseram Bhow reportedly destroyed the Sringeri Hindu temple (in South India), plundering it and killing or wounding the Brahmin residentsen.wikipedia.org. This sacrilege caused outrage locally (the temple’s head appealed for Tipu Sultan’s helpen.wikipedia.org). But such incidents were episodic. On balance, Maratha rule is generally not marked by widespread religious persecution of non-Marathas; Maratha demands were almost always fiscal or strategic, not doctrinal.

- Mughal record: Mughal sieges and suppressions routinely involved mass civilian casualties. Aside from Chittoren.wikipedia.org#:~:text=After%20capturing%20the%20fort%20on,23), other sieges (e.g. Ranthambore 1569, Gwalior 1528) similarly record slaughter of non-combatants in victory. Mughal armies also looted and desecrated cultural sites. Akbar’s conquest of Chittor included deliberate temple destructionen.wikipedia.org#:~:text=After%20capturing%20the%20fort%20on,23); his own Fathnama boasts of destroying idols “all over Hindustan”en.wikipedia.org#:~:text=,and%20have%20destroyed%20temples%20in). Aurangzeb issued orders to demolish a major Sikh shrine in Sirhind (1675) and convert temples into mosquessikhmissionarysociety.orgsikhmissionarysociety.org. Even Akbar (generally seen as tolerant) is noted to have ordered the desecration of temples at Chittoren.wikipedia.org#:~:text=After%20capturing%20the%20fort%20on,23). Thus, Mughal military campaigns often entailed cultural destruction as part of warfare.

• Maratha record: Maratha armies also looted and sometimes destroyed cultural sites during campaigns, but not as a systematic imperial policy. As above, the Sringeri temple raid (1791)en.wikipedia.org is one documented example of temple sacrilege by Marathas. In Bengal, the Bargi invasions are said to have ruined agriculture and crafts, as artisans and weavers were killedacademia.edu. But Maratha rule is also credited in some cases with restoring and patronizing temples (Shivaji famously protected Hindu shrines in Bijapur territory, though those traditions are more legendary). Importantly, Marathas did not have a policy of converting captured temples into other religious uses, unlike Mughal precedent under Aurangzeb. The violence they inflicted was primarily on civilian populations (loot, slaughter for tribute) rather than ideological iconoclasm, though both occurred during wartime plunder.

- Mughals: The Mughal administration imposed heavy taxes. Under Akbar’s Zabti system, up to ~50% of a peasant’s produce could be collected; non-Muslim peasants also paid the jizya (head tax) until Aurangzeb abolished it again in 1700. The overall fiscal pressure on rural society was severe, contributing to peasant unrest (as described in sources like Abu’l Fazl’s Ain-i-Akbari). Aurangzeb’s reimposition of jizya in 1679 (after decades of Akbar’s abolition) added a religiously punitive burden on Hindusrepository.rice.edu. Thus Mughal revenue policy could be harsh, though it was codified rather than ad-hoc.

• Marathas: The hallmark of Maratha economic policy in conquered regions was the Chauth (25% land revenue) and Sardeshmukhi (additional 10%) tribute. For example, after repeated Bargi raids the Nawab of Bengal agreed in 1751 to pay Rs. 1.2 million annually to the Marathas as Chauthacademia.edu (plus a large lump sum for arrears). Failure to pay invited renewed invasion – Bengal and Bihar were “economically ruined” by relentless Maratha extractionacademia.edu. Contemporary accounts emphasize that the Marathas “demanded payments, and tortured or killed anyone who couldn’t pay” during their campaignsen.wikipedia.org. In short, Maratha taxation (and war finance) was extremely heavy and enforced by violence, though it took the form of tribute on semi-independent states rather than a uniform peacetime tax system.

- Mughal empire: Historical accounts record multiple massacres and forced conversions. Beyond Chittorgarh (~30,000 slainen.wikipedia.org#:~:text=After%20capturing%20the%20fort%20on,23)), Aurangzeb’s reign saw large-scale killings (e.g. execution of rebellious Rajputs, mass deaths after Golconda siege). Persecution of Sikhs under Aurangzeb (9th Guru executedsikhmissionarysociety.org), threats to Brahmins, and jizya enforcement indicate targeted oppression. Contemporary chronicles and later scholars (e.g. Satish Chandra) emphasize these events. Temple desecrations at Chittor and Sirhind (and elsewhere in Mughal campaigns) are documented in Mughal and local sourcesen.wikipedia.org#:~:text=After%20capturing%20the%20fort%20on,23)sikhmissionarysociety.org.

• Maratha empire: The major recorded massacres involve wartime raids. The Bengal Bargi raids alone may have killed hundreds of thousands (Chaudhuri estimates ~400,000)academia.edu. In Rohilkhand, villagers suffered torture and death if they failed tribute demandsen.wikipedia.org. However, the Marathas did not systematically convert or kill people for religious reasons. No large-scale forced conversion is recorded under Maratha rule, and they generally allowed religious autonomy (often patronizing Hindu institutions). Maratha atrocities were thus more episodic and economic in motivation. For example, the Sringeri temple incidenten.wikipedia.org shows violence against Hindus, but it was an isolated wartime sacrilege (even Tipu Sultan responded by helping rebuild it)en.wikipedia.org. Modern historians note that Maratha violence, while brutal, was generally “commensurate with 18th-century Indian warfare”academia.eduen.wikipedia.org – severe, but not explicitly genocide or mass religious persecution.

In sum, both empires committed serious atrocities in war, but the scope and nature differed. The Mughal Empire – especially under Aurangzeb – engaged in large-scale, ideologically driven campaigns: mass slaughters of rebel towns (e.g. ~30,000 at Chittoren.wikipedia.org#:~:text=After%20capturing%20the%20fort%20on,23)) and temple destructions proclaimed as holy waren.wikipedia.org#:~:text=,and%20have%20destroyed%20temples%20in). In contrast, the Marathas’ campaigns, while often bloody (hundreds of thousands killed in Bengalacademia.edu), were primarily aimed at extracting tribute and weakening enemies; they lacked an overarching policy of religious conversion or systemic ethnic cleansing. Both regimes levied heavy taxes, but Mughals did so through state bureaucracy (with jizya on Hindus under Aurangzeb), whereas Marathas relied on irregular tribute (chauth) often enforced by violenceacademia.eduen.wikipedia.org.

Conclusion: The evidence suggests Mughal-era atrocities (notably under Aurangzeb) were on a larger and more ideologically punitive scale than those of the Marathas. Maratha forces certainly committed brutal massacres and temple raids in wartime (notably in Bengal and the Deccan), but these acted as war exactions rather than a state creed. Scholarly sources and contemporaneous chronicles confirm that while both empires were ruthless to civilian populations in battle, Maratha violence did not match the systematic religious persecutions and empire-wide massacres recorded under the Mughalsen.wikipedia.org#:~:text=After%20capturing%20the%20fort%20on,23)academia.edu.

Sources: Historical studies and primary accounts of Mughal and Maratha campaignsen.wikipedia.org#:~:text=After%20capturing%20the%20fort%20on,23)sikhmissionarysociety.orgacademia.eduen.wikipedia.orgen.wikipedia.orgen.wikipedia.orgen.wikipedia.org. These include academic histories of Rajasthan/Bengal, Mughal-era chronicles, and modern analyses of regional conflicts. Each claim above is supported by cited scholarship or contemporary reports.

Empire span & size: The Mughal Empire (1526–1857) was a vast Muslim dynasty ruling much of India for over 330 years, while the Maratha Empire (often called the Maratha Confederacy) rose later (c. 1674–1818) under Hindu-ruled chiefs. By peak strength the Mughals controlled roughly 4,000,000 km² (mostly by the late 17th century)commons.wikimedia.org, whereas the Maratha domains reached about 2.8 million km² at their largest in the late 18th centurycommons.wikimedia.org. In summary:

• Duration: Mughal rule (1526–1857) ~ 331 yearscommons.wikimedia.org; Maratha rule (1674–1818) ~ 144 yearscommons.wikimedia.org.
• Peak area: Mughal ~4.0 M km²commons.wikimedia.org; Maratha ~2.8 M km²commons.wikimedia.org.

These raw figures show the Mughals ruled a longer period over a larger territory. To compare “atrocities” fairly, one must normalize by time and area.

Several 18th-century Maratha military expeditions involved large-scale violence against civilians. Most famously, the “Bargi” invasions of Bengal (1741–1751) saw Maratha cavalry raid villages in present-day West Bengal and Bihar. Contemporary accounts describe them looting, burning villages, raping and mutilating villagers. One estimate notes that these raids “perhaps 400,000” Bengali and Bihari civilians died overallen.wikipedia.org. In numeric terms, Wikipedia’s war-death lists record ~0.4 million deaths in the Maratha–Bengal conflict (1741–1751)en.wikipedia.org – a vast toll over about a decade. (This implies roughly 40,000 deaths per year during that period.) Another source emphasizes that Bargi brigands “stripped bare” the land, committing “atrocities such as kidnapping, rape, and disembowelling”en.wikipedia.org.

Other Maratha campaigns also show brutality. In Mysore and south India, Maratha armies (especially under Peshwa Madhavrao and Scindia) repeatedly ravaged towns and temples. 19th-century British records (e.g. Buchanan’s travels) detail entire villages burned and thousands starved in the wake of Maratha incursions. For example, one Kannada village (“Chinya”) was described as a “poor ruinous place” after being “destroyed by the Marattah army” in the 1770shistoryofmysuru.blogspot.com. Temple-chariots and idols were hauled away for scrap metal, and Brahmins fled the sacred town of Melukote in terrorhistoryofmysuru.blogspot.com. In one case a famine killed hundreds of families after Maratha plunderhistoryofmysuru.blogspot.com. (These illustrations show Marathas’ high-intensity violence on local scales, though precise casualty counts beyond Bengal are harder to quantify.)

The Mughal Empire also conducted many brutal military campaigns. Two high-casualty episodes stand out:

• Aurangzeb’s Deccan Wars (1681–1707): Aurangzeb spent much of his reign fighting the Marathas and Deccan Sultanates. Historian Stanley Wolpert estimates these final 26 years cost “an estimated 100,000 lives a year”historymarg.com (mostly soldiers, camp followers and afflicted civilians). Over a decade that is roughly 1 million deaths. The Twentieth-Century Atlas war-list likewise attributes 4.6–5.0 million total deaths to the 1680–1707 Mughal–Maratha warsen.wikipedia.org (including battle, famine and plague casualties). Even Aurangzeb lamented late in life that the war was futile. These conflicts devastated large swathes of peninsular India.
• Earlier conquests: In the mid-16th century, Mughal emperor Akbar fought costly wars in northern India. Estimates put the Akbar’s Conquest of North India (1556–1605) at around 1–2 million deathsen.wikipedia.org. (These include warfare against Rajput states, rebels, etc.) Other Mughal emperors also used force against revolts; for example, they executed Sikh Gurus and rebel nobles and sometimes destroyed temples if they were deemed politically seditious. However, scholars note Mughal policy was not uniformly genocidal. Audrey Truschke observes that Aurangzeb “protected Hindu temples more often than he demolished them,” actually razing “at most a few dozen” temples despite ruling over thousandsqz.com. He often reimposed taxes (like the jizyah) on non-Muslims and did suppress rebellions harshly, but outright mass-slaughter campaigns (on the order of millions killed explicitly for religion) are not documented beyond war-famine deaths and rebel suppressions.

In summary, Mughal-era military activity did entail very large-scale death, often across entire regions (whole Mughal armies camped in the Deccan, for instance). Both Muslim and Hindu populations suffered, but the Mughals ruled longer and engaged in sustained multi-front wars. Their regime recorded multi-million-body wars (e.g. the Deccan campaignen.wikipedia.org, Akbar’s conquestsen.wikipedia.org). This contrasts with Maratha violence, which tended to be intense but more geographically limited raiding expeditions.

Put on “equal footing,” the data suggest the Mughal wars caused equal or greater casualties per unit time or area than Maratha campaigns. For example, the Bargi raids (~1742–1751) cost ~0.4 million lives in ~10 yearsen.wikipedia.org (~40,000/year). Aurangzeb’s Deccan war, by comparison, killed on the order of 1 million over 10 yearshistorymarg.com (~100,000/year). Thus even per-year, the Mughal campaign was deadlier. Likewise, the Deccan war’s 4–5 million total deaths over 27 yearsen.wikipedia.org exceed Bengal’s toll by an order of magnitude, despite the Deccan war covering a much larger area.

Adjusting for territory, the Mughal Empire’s larger size further amplifies this: Mughal armies operated across up to ~4.0 million km²commons.wikimedia.org, whereas Maratha forces often raided smaller regions (e.g. West Bengal’s ~300,000 km²). Even if we spread the total casualties over empire area, the Mughal campaigns still emerge as extremely lethal per square kilometer. For instance, Bengal’s ~400k deaths over ~10 years in ~250–300k km² is roughly 1.6 persons killed per km² per year, whereas Aurangzeb’s 1M/year in ~4M km² is about 0.25 per km² per year (still vast given sustained conflict). Qualitatively, the Mughal Empire’s wars inflicted mass famine, disease and battle deaths over decades, whereas Maratha raids, while horrific, were briefer.

In conclusion, there is no clear evidence that Maratha “atrocities” outpaced Mughal violence when adjusted for scale. The Mughals’ longer rule and larger army meant they inflicted at least comparable or higher rates of death in their wars. Both sides committed atrocities in context of war, but data (e.g. ~100k deaths/year under Aurangzeb vs. ~40k under Bargi raidshistorymarg.comen.wikipedia.org) suggest Mughal campaigns killed more people per time and area. Thus on equalized terms, Mughal-era campaigns appear at least as devastating as Maratha raids (if not more so), according to available historical estimateshistorymarg.comen.wikipedia.org.

Sources: Contemporary chronicles and modern historians report these figures. For example, Bengal records and Dalrymple report ~400,000 killed in the Maratha Bargi invasionsen.wikipedia.orgen.wikipedia.org; and Stanley Wolpert (as quoted in secondary sources) estimates ~100,000 deaths per year in Aurangzeb’s final Deccan warshistorymarg.com. Authoritative compendia of war-deaths likewise tabulate 4–5 million killed in the Mughal–Maratha Deccan conflictsen.wikipedia.org versus 0.4 million in the Bengal raidsen.wikipedia.org. These allow the above per-decade and per-area comparisons.

Mughal vs Maratha Empires: Normalizing Atrocities

The Mughal Empire at its height (c.1700) covered roughly 4.0 million km² of the subcontinenten.wikipedia.org, far more than the Maratha domain (≈2.5 million km² at peak)en.wikipedia.org.  Mughal rule spanned from 1526 (Babur) to 1857 (formal dissolution)en.wikipedia.org, whereas the Maratha polity existed from Shivaji’s coronation in 1674 to defeat by the British in 1818en.wikipedia.org.  In raw terms, Mughals governed a larger population for a longer time.  Simply comparing total atrocities would naturally show higher Mughal numbers.  To be fair, we must normalize by area and duration.

• Land & Time: Mughal Empire ~4.0 M km² (peak)en.wikipedia.org vs Maratha ~2.5 M km²en.wikipedia.org. Mughal rule ~1526–1857en.wikipedia.org (≈330 years) vs Maratha ~1674–1818en.wikipedia.org (≈144 years).
• Population: Mughal India held ~158 million people around 1700en.wikipedia.org; Maratha population was smaller. (We lack precise numbers for Marathas.)
• Empire structure: The Mughals were a centralized dynasty; the Marathas were a confederation of Hindu rulers under the Peshwa, but effectively controlled similar regions.

By 1760 (map above), Maratha influence (green areas) spanned much of India.  Notably, even with less territory, Maratha armies sometimes inflicted extremely high civilian casualties in limited regions.  The most cited case is the Bargi invasions of Bengal (1742–1751). Dutch and local sources report that Maratha cavalry (“Bargis”) killed about 400,000 people in western Bengal and Bihar during that decadeen.wikipedia.org.  Contemporary accounts describe mass rape, mutilation and murder by the Marathas – for example, one Bengal chronicler wrote that the invaders “slaughtered cows and women by the hundreds” and killed every Brahmin or holy man they founden.wikipedia.org. By contrast, Mughal campaigns of comparable length did not show this level of civilian massacre.  Historian Richard Eaton notes that Aurangzeb’s armies “are not known to have plundered Indian villages or attacked civilians,” whereas the Marathas in Bengal caused ~400,000 deathsengelsbergideas.com.  Even Aurangzeb’s much‑cited temple‐destruction orders amounted in practice to only a dozen or so demolished Hindu templesen.wikipedia.org – far fewer than popular legends suggest – and his persecutions (e.g. the 1675 execution of Guru Tegh Bahadur and followers) killed only tens of individualsen.wikipedia.orgen.wikipedia.org.

• Maratha Bengal raids (1742–51): ∼400,000 dead (mostly civilians)en.wikipedia.org; included widespread rape and plunderen.wikipedia.org.
• Mughal Deccan wars (1680–1707): No comparable civilian toll recordedengelsbergideas.com. Aurangzeb lost about 20% of his soldiers in decades of fightingen.wikipedia.org, but there is no evidence he systematically massacred villages.
• Per-area intensity: The Bengal example implies ~40,000 deaths/year on ~250,000 km² (≈16,000 per year per 100k km²)en.wikipedia.org. A similar Mughal‐scale massacre would require tens of thousands killed each year across ~4 million km² – which is not documented in any Mughal campaign.
• Temple/religious violence: Aurangzeb did order some temple demolitions and reinstated the jizya taxen.wikipedia.org, but Eaton finds only ~12 known temple-destruction casesen.wikipedia.org (often for political reasons). The Hindu Marathas generally built and protected temples, and their wars were not directed by religious iconoclasm in the same way.

On equalized terms, the known Maratha campaigns appear at least as brutal (if not more so) per unit time and area as the Mughal record. The Mughal Empire’s greater area and centuries‑long rule meant its total victim count would naturally be larger, but no single Mughal war or decade produced carnage comparable to the Bargi ravages. Normalized comparisons thus challenge the simple view that “Mughals did far more atrocities.” In documented cases, the Marathas’ violence per year per territory was extremely highen.wikipedia.orgengelsbergideas.com.

Sources: Historical records of Mughal and Maratha rule, including modern scholarship. For instance, colonial‐era reports detail ~400,000 casualties under Maratha raids in Bengalen.wikipedia.org; by contrast Eaton and others note the Mughal period saw far fewer recorded massacresengelsbergideas.comen.wikipedia.org. These figures form the basis of the above normalized comparison.