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
As we are introduced to the Great Persian Empire, we find that Amy Chua’s thesis talks about how tolerance was critical in allowing the Persians to not only establish and prosper their world dominant empire, but to maintain it for over two centuries. The thesis of the book, Day of Empire by Amy Chua, is about the “study of colossal power and the conditions needed to maintain it”. Not only this, but it discusses “the contest between ethnic “purity” and ethnic pluralism”. Amy Chua argues that The Achaemenid Persian Empire was “one of the first hyper powers in world history, governing a territory larger than all the ancient empires, including even Rome’s.” (Day of Empire pg. 4) Along with this, she argues that the Persian Empire was “one of the most culturally diverse and religiously open empires in history.” (Day of Empire pg. 4) Therefore, the author argues that The Persian Empire is relevant when discussing large powerful world authorities with a large size, long period of ruling, and ethnic tolerance it
A change that occurred in the political life of Islamic civilization was the shift from the election of a Caliphate to a more dynastical system. Previously, the caliphates were elected by the Islamic community. Capable leaders were preferred over heirs who were not as qualified. Sunni Muslims were firm believers of this concept, while Shia muslims believed that Ali should’ve
There are many reasons in which the Persian empire is considered one of the greatest civilizations ever in human history and this can mostly be attributed to the stupendous leadership of the one and only Cyrus the great. One of the best kings that the world has ever seen and was the most dominant man in his era. He was brilliant and extremely powerful as he was smart and strong enough to conquer almost every single land within his area and put them all together into one persian empire. The legacy that Cyrus left behind him was one that every king after him tried to follow. For example, emperor Darius I still continued the expansion of the persian empire and reigned control over it as well. After Cyrus died there was a time in which there was nothing but trash rulers and then Darius I came into power. As I stated earlier Darius wanted to follow in the steps of Cyrus and be even greater than him so Darius builded on what Cyrus achieved and split the persian empire into multiple provinces to control the government a little easier. Another thing that made persia so successful was the fact that they tolerated non-Persian folks to live in their empire. There were many different types of people all across persia and the government did not force anything upon these non-Persian residents and let them live their lives how they had before arriving and they only had to pay taxes. Due to this the
There were many empires that have a distinct background, the empires such as the Mughal Empire, Ottoman Empire and Safavids Empire. The Mughal Empire is a Muslim state founded by Babur, which extended over India. They have Experienced prosperity, peace, and little outside threats under Akbar's rule. For a while it was an example of religious harmony between Muslim and Hindu religions. The Ottoman Empire grew from a small empire in 1300 to encompass most of southeastern Europe by the late 15th century. The Safavids Empire is in Iran which initially supported its cavalry by land grants. The empire was very focused on land power. Chieftains, scholars, and notables served as intermediaries between the government and the people.
The world began to drastically change before the year fifteen hundred. These changes not only reshaped the world, but continued to change and develop from the fifteenth to the seventeenth centuries. Among these changes came the formation of many outstanding empires that included the Ottoman and Safavid Empires. The Ottoman and Safavid Empires account for two of the three Islamic Empires that underwent change and development during these centuries. Both empires had a ruler at the head of the empire; a sultan ruled the Ottoman Empire while a shah ruled the Safavid Empire. Two great rulers emerged from these empires; a sultan named Suleiman the Magnificent ruler of the Ottoman Empire and a shah named Abbas the Great ruler of the Safavid Empire.
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 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.
The Ottoman, Safavid, and Mughal empires all contributed to create what is known as the Age of Gunpowder Empires between 1450-1800 (Islamic Empires). Although these empires were thought to be extremely different, the vast amount of similarities within their actions and methods proved to be almost identical. These empires focused their power on military and used new technological advances with firearms; this included the cannon and small arms. The Empires even took it upon themselves to develop a centralized administration. Each administration dealt with the finance, army, and natural resources necessary in order to purchase gunpowder.
History has consisted of many different empires. Two of the earlier empires are known as the Ottoman Empire and the Safavid Empire. The Ottoman Empire was established around 1299 by Osman I, who was also a leader of the Turkish tribes (History.com). The Ottomans began in Asia Minor during the break down of the Turks, which later led the Ottoman Empire to expand and conquer land across Asia and Europe. While the Safavid Empire was established in 1501 east of the Ottoman Empire. The Safavid Empire emerged in modern day Iran, which was east of where the Ottoman Empire started and expanded. Both of these empires were strong in power and had many resources available to them.
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.
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.
Disagreement between Shias and Sunni have been the most important splits in Islamic religion, which are ongoing problems since the 7th century to present-day, conflict in Islamic history has initiated blood spills from generations to generations and is still taking life’s while differences in social and equal opportunities that have taken deep roots in the minds of future leaders.
of the intimate ties of the three Abrahamic faiths in the region. The middle east is the birthplace of the world’s three Abrahamic religions – Judaism, Christianity, and Islam. The fact
Similarly the social integration of pre-Islamic shapes our understanding of Islam. The notion of social integration developed within the Byzantine and Sassanic period (Hoyland, 2001). The Sassanic dynasty influenced the Islamic administrative system, it was also the aftermath of the competition dwelling between the two dynasties (Hoyland, 2001). Although these dynasties were competitive they shared a common values such as being imperialists and harmony (Hoyland, 2001). The imperial commercial network meant that the leaders had to negotiate and political rapports were created with the empires and harmony prevailed.