Similarities Between Ottoman And Mungal Empires

The Ming and Ottoman Empires arose after the Mongols in the mid-14th century. These two empires undertook massive renovation. Although there were some broad, common goals in their re-building, the Ming focused inward, while the Ottoman focused outward in building their empires, which reflected in their trading techniques. The Ming dynasty focused on internal trade and restricted external trade; the Ottomans however, mainly focused on external trade rather than internal. Trading across the ocean led to the Ottoman Empire becoming tolerant of ethnic religious minorities due to their large landmass, whereas the Ming dynasty’s geography caused them to become isolated, therefore leading them to become selective of their treatment towards ethnic

The Mughal, Qing and Ottoman dynasties all had taken rule over multi-ethnic agrarian Eurasian empires in the duration of the 17th and 18th century. All empires respectively faced enormous political, economic and social transformations which challenged and set hindrance to their rule in the 19th century. The Ottoman and Qing and Mughal empires had been 3 of probably the greatest empires to have ruled in history. Nevertheless, they'd many similarities in addition to differences. The empires went through difficult periods of time, but at some point, they additionally went through times of prosperity and growth. Though the Ottoman and Mughal Empire both didn't force conversions into Islam, the Ottoman's development relied on the bad military force of theirs, even though the

The Ottoman, Safavid, and Mughals were all explosive realms. The reason for this paper is to thoroughly analyze the contrasts between these domains.

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

Persia and Greece were beautiful and prosperous empires and where the most influential of their time. In this essay I will talk about the two main empires’ political structures and their economy and I will also state similarities and differences between the two empires. The two empires’ political structures might have varied greatly but their economies were very similar. Even though they had differences and had major battles they were still the ideal empires of their time.

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 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.

2. In thinking about the similarities and differences among the empires of the early modern era, what categories of comparison might be most useful to consider? Why?

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.

The Ottoman, Safavid, and Mughal societies all relied on bureaucracies that drew inspiration from the steppe traditions of Turkish and Mogol people and from the heritage of Islam, they adopted similar policies, they looked for ways to keep peace in their societies which were made up of different religious and ethnic backgrounds, and they were associated with literary and artistic talents. Military and religious factors gave rise to all three of these empires.

Akbar created the nation on the foundation that it would truly be an Indian empire rather than another alien conquest. He saw himself as an Indian ruler not a foreign autocrat, leading him to blend the variety of cultural, regional, and religious heritage. Akbar understood that for his reign to prosper he needed to command the support and participation of all Indians. He united the empire even through marriage using symbolism of religious variety within his empire with his four wives, two of whom were Hindu, one Christian, and one Muslim. Akbar further showed his devotion to unite the empire by building the Hall of worship where he invited philosophers, theologians, ascetics, mystics, Hindu sadhus, Muslim Sufis, Jesuit priests, and Iranian

Many rulers saw how these Sufis treated others and how influential they were to India, and decided to send many of the awliya to gather people to join the new empires. More importantly, during the reign of Akbar, he sought out to make as many friends as possible. He allied himself with the defeated Rajput rulers, as well as befriending people of many ethnicities or religious practices. He was able to establish a stable dynasty through having loyal supporters from all backgrounds. According to Khan, Akbar significantly transformed the nature of the Mughal empire by uniting various races and religions. Khan also said that Akbar abolished the jizya, which was the tax that non-Muslims living India had to pay. Akbar didn’t force people to convert to Islam, he was interested in many other religions and was a very liberal Muslim and

Hindu populations, however, felt threatened because of the ruling Muslims and their high political power jobs. The empire spread arts, culture, and faith within their people. The Mughal empire was known to be diverse in this sense. When the Mughals first rose to power, they urbanized their conquered areas. They had a market where the government was in charge of controlling what was sold and for its set price. Once the economy reached a more stable state, the market was changed to a free market, in which supply and demand was the controlling

After the bloodshed among devotees of different faiths resided in South Asia, India, though partitioned, at last gained independence in 1947. Even if it was stated that this ‘’new-born’’ country will be a secular state, the majority of population was regarded as Hindus and fear of possible subordination of other communities was displayed. The majority of Muslims who supported

At the time of the birth of Guru Nanak, the founder of the Sikh religion, India was being ruled by Muslim kings. In their desire to control the population of India, these kings resorted to oppressive tactics to convert all non-Muslims to Islam. They imposed several religious taxes and expressed blatant disrespect for places of worship that did not coincide with their own, among other tactics. However, they were not alone in doing so. The Hindu pundits and Brahmins also turned to unorthodox practices by exploiting the people and forcing them to participate in expensive ceremonies and rituals. Both Hinduism and Islam were being corrupted by the greedy tendencies of those considered “religious authorities”.