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

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

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,

However, with the Ottomans use of gun-powdered weapons and Janissaries, the Safavids were ultimately defeated with the temporary loss of their capital. This was mainly due to the lack of technology and resources, which destroy it. In the late sixteenth century Shah Abbas the Great, restored the Safavid empire, moved the capital to Isfahan, encouraged trade with other lands and reformed the administrative and military institutions of the empire. He brought most of northwestern Iran, the Caucasus, and Mesopotamia under Safavid rule. (Bentley, Streets, & Ziegler, 2008, pg. 461).

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

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.

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.

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

Similarity, the Ottoman and Safavid empires had one highly recognized and strong leader each, where they both ruled a Monarch. For the Ottomans, the strongest leader was Suleiman, who came to power around 1520 and ended his reign in 1566. On the other side, for the Safavids, the greatest leader was Abbas I, who came to the throne in the year 1588 at the young but determining age of sixteen. During Suleiman’s power in the Ottoman Empire, he created a Uniform System of Law and welcomed variety forms of art and literature (History.com). Suleiman, also nicknamed Suleiman the Magnificent, also advocated for

The Safavid Empire was one of the most significant ruling dynasties to have existed in the Middle East. This empire was established by Shaykh Safi al-Din but it was not till Shah Abbas’s reign that this empire became stronger. He monopolized revenues collected along the major trade routes and with established a more centralized administrative structure in the new capital, Isfahan. The Safavid dynasty relied their principles heavily on religious charisma and tribal military skills. Later leader of the Safavid empire Iran, Shah Isma’il, gave guidance to the Safavid people. His leadership and character gave him a great sense of appeal that attracted many other tribes from his home region. He had many military tactics that aided him to defeat neighboring towns and because he was a very respected leader, he gained more support from other tribes.

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

The Ottoman empire; one of the greatest empires in history. The Empire, at its height, ruled most of the land around the Mediterranean. It contributed much to culture, science, religion, war, politics, and the world. Its monumental fall will be known throughout history. How can the swift decline of the Ottoman power be explained? Perhaps the best way to understand how important this event was, there needs to be a brief explanation of the history behind this epic collapse; showing the rise before the fall and the drastic change.

The Ottoman Turks emerged on the periphery of the Byzantine Empire and the Saljuk Turks. Under a Turkish Muslim warrior named Osman, raids were conducted in western Anatolia on Byzantine settlements and a vast number of Turks were united under his banner. Those Turks who flocked to Osman's banner and followed him into the history books came to be called the Ottomans. The word Ottoman, fits these Turks well as it roughly translates from Turkish as "those associated with Oman."

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.