Decline of the Muslim Empires: Safavid, Ottoman, and Mughal Essay

As you have read, many things attributed to the rise of the Empire. Many things also attributed to its fall as well. These included poor leadership, economic trouble, as well

Although the Ottoman and Mughal empires had two different reasons for decline, both were because of the leaders currently in power at the time. Even though Suleyman, the ruler of the Ottomans, accomplished social and cultural achievements, the empire was losing ground. Suleyman made a mistake by killing two of his sons. His third son, the incompetent Selim II, inherited the throne. Suleyman set the pattern for the future sultans to gain and hold power. It became customary for each new sultan to kill his brother. This practice produced a long line of weak sultans who eventually brought ruin on the empire. Since India was mainly a land of the Hindus, The stability of the Emperor, in this case Aurangzeb, depended on the support of the people. Without their loyalty and cooperation, stability was impossible. When Aurangzeb came into power, he departed from the tradition of religious tolerance and persecuted the other

On the Political side, the Ottoman Turks were the best at keeping up control for a more extended time. It could get by to the point that advanced circumstances. The two different realms crumbled by the seventeenth century. The pioneer of the Ottoman Turks was known as the Sultan which was like a ruler. Islamic Law was connected to all Muslims. With respect to Safavid realm politically, the Shahs strolled around the boulevards in mask keeping in mind the end goal to discover the genuineness of the nationals. The high positions were given by justifying and regularly were nonnatives. In the Mughal Empire politically, Even,

Safavid empire reached peak under this ruler, ruled from 1588 to 1629. He increased the size of the millitary and brought the empire out of their fall.

The Ottoman had several scenes of decline and each one had marked their history and are linked with it so I will explain each one. The armistice of 1918 ended the fighting between the Ottoman Empire and the Allies but didn´t bring stability or peace to the region. The British controlled Syria, Palestine and Mesopotamia.

Throughout time empires have risen and fallen and taken various approaches in doing so. Some of these society were warlike, while others focused on intellectual discovery. Among these various societies were great empires like the Ottoman, the Mughal, the Spanish, and the Ming. All four of these great empire ruled at overlapping times but all eventually fell for different reasons. All had strengths and weakness and can be used as a learning opportunity for an empire that came after them. From the Ming and the Ottoman you can learn strength such as religious tolerance and government structure. On the other hand, the Mughal and the Spanish teach us the dangers of over taxing and over centralizing government. In order for an empire to successfully function they must have an accepting culture, a balanced economy, and manageable size.

The Safavid Empire was based in what is today Iran. This Islamic Empire was strong enough to challenge the Ottomans in the west and the Mughals in the east.

Socially, the Ottoman Turks were each millet, or a nation, inside the empire and had separate social customs in accordance with the religion of the millet. Muslim women had harsh restrictions as with Islamic law, but the non-Muslim women were subject to separate laws. Even Muslim women had more rights than in other Muslim nations. In the Safavid empire socially, they were a mixed society just like the Ottoman empire. The aristocrats had limited power and influence. They were also Turkic-speaking tribal groups. In the Mughal

The Ottoman Empire: The Ottoman dynasty, in which, was named for its founder Osman Bey, a leader of a band of semi-nomadic Turks who migrated to northwestern Anatolia in the thirteenth century. Osman and his followers sought to become ghazi warriors who fought for their faith.

But within these similarities, there are small differences like when referring to religion. These Empires were strong, however, that did not mean that they would live on. The Ottoman Empire collapsed in the year 1920, due to the instability of their growing empire (NZHistory.govt.nz). Unlike the Ottoman Empire, the Safavid Empire did not last as long as the Safavid Empire collapsed around the year 1720. Their decline was caused by the decline in military power because their need to shield from the Ottoman Empire decreased which made them more susceptible to attack, in which an Afghan group destroyed the Empire

The Ottoman empire began at the end of the thirteenth century when Othman united the decentralized, lawless clans. The expansion that occurred after the Mongols, instituted the Ottoman conquering technique, defeat than tax. Religious tolerance was granted within the empire, but there was a jizya, special tax, for non-Muslims. Every aspect of the complex Ottoman social order was connected, and Sufism was intertwined into some of the social groups, mainly merchants. The pattern of Sufism lead to kinship among the merchants which facilitated trade. With the psychological intimidation of gunpowder weapons and aggressive expansion, some of the Ottomans emperors even gained respect that rivaled Caesar’s. That respect was not only from a political view but also a religious view, for the emperor was also the pope. For the first time in Islamic history, a ruler of a primarily Muslim region had a role mirroring the Caesaropapism of Rome.

As a political tactic, rulers often portray themselves in a certain way in order to stabilize their reign and rule more effectively. Some take the approach of uniqueness by setting themselves apart from their subject population while others take the approach of sameness by emphasizing the similarities in which they share with the people. Not exclusively limited to apartness or sameness, some rulers have shown to employ a mix of both ruling styles. It is these versatile rulers who have experienced more successes in their reign because they are not compelled to only one ruling style, allowing them to better adapt to the needs of their ruling population. The apartness ruling style is best seen in the Safavid Empire under the rule of Shah Ismail. Shah Ismail uses religion as a political tool to control his state and does so by declaring Shi’ism, a smaller branch of Islam, as the state religion (#). After separating himself & his people from those who are not willing to abide to his ideologies, Shah Ismail can now demand the absolute loyalties from his subjects and persecute those who are deviant. This radical act further creates a deep chasm between Shi’ite Muslims and nearby Sunni Muslims neighbors. As a result, cultural flow and the exchange of beliefs between Sunni & Shi’ite states are essentially hindered. Ismail’s apartness ruling approach is taken to the extreme with social, religious, and legal systems being strictly confined to Shi’ite doctrines (@). It is noted that

In this week’s chapter, it discusses a lot about the rise and fall of the Ottoman and Safavid Empires. In many dynasties, it is critically important to have a well balanced society and economy. Anderson displays many of the reasons why these two empires were so great during their time, but evidently loss of power and control of government can be a major turning point and, eventually, led to the decline of these empires. This specific chapter focus on the systems of governance that was established in each empire.

The decline of the Ottoman Turks Empire despite the interventions to save it has always attracted the attention of historians. The decline which started in the second half of the 19th century is believed to have been as a result of conflicting political and social aspect in the empire as well as the economic situation of the empire. This led to the dismissal of the ottoman rulers by the Europeans as competent rulers who could lead the empire to modernization. The empire was faced with rebellions from the people, corruption of the administrators, economic difficulties and military deterioration, and was as a result called the sick man of Europe.

Over this millennium, there are several political similarities between empires established in 500 CE and 1500 CE. According to Mark Lewis, one major reason why the Han Dynasty collapsed in 220 CE is due to the government’s inability to stabilize its frontier. The population near the frontier was in serious decline, and this shows the government’s weakness. Similarly, in in “The Road to Defeat,” Conor Perkins explains the Roman Empire, which fell in the fifth century, lacked stability due to their inefficiency to collect taxes. This was detrimental because the strength of their army depended on the taxpayers’ money. Again, this highlights the lack of inefficiency in a government that was experienced in both the Roman Empire and Han Dynasty. Similarly, several centuries later, the Mongol Empire collapsed in 1368 due to internal issues. Court factionalism resulted in a series of civil wars that rocked the