Similarities And Differences Of The Ottoman Empire And The Safavid Empires

The Ottoman Empire was an imperial state which was created in 1299 after growing out of the breakdown of several Turkish tribes. The empire then grew to add in numerous places in what's currently present-day Europe to and yes it ultimately became one of probably the largest, longest-lasting and powerful most empires in the story of the globe. During the peak of its, the Ottoman Empire included the aspects of Parts, Syria, Lebanon, Jordan, Israel, Hungary, Macedonia, Romania, Bulgaria, Greece, Egypt, and Turkey of the Arabian Peninsula and North Africa. The Ottoman Empire was an imperial state which was created in 1299 after growing out of the breakdown of several Turkish tribes. The empire then grew to add in numerous places in what's currently present-day Europe to and yes it ultimately became one of probably the largest, longest-lasting and powerful most empires in the story of the

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,

Perhaps the greatest comparisons can be made in how the two states expanded, grew, and changed point of view within the time period. The second comparison point would be what role religion played in to the time period, with the scope of the protestant uprising in the late 15th century and the change in what citizens perceived the role of god and religion in society. Also important with this is the role that the Millet system played within the Ottoman Empire specifically when overtaking new lands and expanding. The third comparison point revolves around the economy and taxation habits of both states, looking closely at the mercantile, trade, Industrial Revolution, and taxation. Lastly, you can also look at the fall or change of both great states through important events and how those events shaped their futures in many ways. Though the end of the 18th century and the Battle of Vienna didn’t mark the end of the Ottoman Empire, it did note the start to the downfall of the great state. With the same token, the French Revolution marked another change and progression from Early Modern Europe to

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 decline of the Mongol Empire laid ground for the Ottoman, Safavid, and Mughal empires. These three empires all had military strength, Sovereign Pride, Religious commitment, and Aesthetic sophistication in common to varying degrees. The Safavid and Ottoman empires are usually compared because of the wars that broke out between them and their similar attributes. However, this will be a comparison of the Safavid and Mughal Empires.

The destruction of the Mongols across Afro-Eurasia and the Black Death were the factors in which prompted the creation of the three important Islamic states. The three newly formed empires were the Ottomans, Safavids, and Mughals and they controlled regions from Southern Europe to the northern part of India. According to Pollard, “by the mid-sixteenth century the Mughals controlled the northern Indus river valley; the Safavids occupied Persia; and the Ottomans ruled Anatolia, the Arab, world, and much of southern and eastern Europe,” (Pollard, Pg. 391). The Ottoman Empire lasted the longest of the three up until the early twentieth century due to their politics, religion tolerance, and develop of commerce.

The Ottoman, Safavid, and Mughals were all gunpowder empires. The purpose of this essay is to compare and contrast the differences between all of these empires mentioned. Each fall into five different categories.

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).

Abbas, and Mehmed II (re)built their capitals to strategically place themselves in a position of power. Abbas changed the the capital of the Safavid Empire from Qavin to Isfahans due to the lurking threat of the Uzebek invasion. Isfahan was a more centralized and secure location Safavid Empire since territories and boundaries were consistently changing in the early early pre-modern era. As for Mehmed II, his lands spread form lower eastern Europe to Anatolia to the borders of the Safavid Empire. Thus, it was necessary for him to place himself in position where he could manage his newly claimed territories, and establish a stronghold to launch future Ottoman wars into Europe. In contrast to the Abbas the Great and  Mehmed II Akbar the Great,

The Ottoman Empire is almost directly correlated to the decline of Byzantium. The Ottomans had men stationed in nearly 100 forts and 100 castles. Doing this enabled him to maintain pressure on the Christian infidels out east. The Ottoman Empire had not had their own foothold until around 1354, when they got a hold of a peninsula roughly 100 miles southwest of Constantinople. When this was accomplished, it was recognized that the time of the Ottomans conquering Constantinople was edging closer and closer. Using their superiority, intellect and vast numbers the Ottomans attacked the weakest part of the Byzantine defense, the west walls of Constantinople. The Ottoman Empire was very strong and some had seen them as bullies.

Since the beginning, all empires have faced change in many ways, declining and rising in status. Many empires have collapsed, only to start again under a different name. Like all empires, the three Muslim Empires, the Ottomans, Safavids, and Mughals have faced this inevitable state. Although each individual empire is different, they each have similarities in their reasons for decline. Whether it is social, religious, economic, or political reasons, the empires, like many others, have fallen.

The foundations of an ancient empire are shaped by many characteristics originating in a civilization’s social, philosophical, and theological values. Collectively these will bring about an empire that has aspects which will classify them in distinctive ways. The aspects that will be compared between Persia and Rome are the motives for expansion, methods of expansion, the administration, the impact on those conquered and the original empire, and the reasons for the decline of each empire. When combined, these aspects predispose the individual overall shape of ancient Rome and Persia. Both empires began with conquering larger rulers and creating vast empires which had never been seen

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.