The Mughal Empire : The Styles And Tactics Of The Mughal Empire

The Islamic empire expanded in many different ways. One of the ways the Islamic Empire expanded is conquering land. In document A Islam killed the Greeks and conquered some of their land. This means that that the Greeks were taken over by Islam so Islam had more land than before. Another way the Islamic Empire expanded was they made a treaty with Tudmir. In document B “The slaves will not be killed or forced in any way but will be slaves.” This means that Islam had a truce with Tudmir. Islam will have a bigger civilization from getting more slaves/warriors from getting slaves from conquered

Babur expanded his kingdom by attacking Afghanistan and conquering Kabul after 21 years of being in power. From that point, he crossed over the mountains into Hindustan and attacked the Dehli Sultanate, again defeating them and gaining their land. When he died in 1530 he had conquered all of Hindustan and controlled an empire that stretched out from the Deccan to Turkestan. These different strategies of conquering land helped the 2 empires rule throughout Asia and, in the Ottoman’s case, some parts of Europe also.

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

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.

In the Mughal Empire, Hindus had been allowed to build new temples despite the fact the empire had Muslim origins. To further gain the people’s loyalty, Akbar the leader of Mughal Empire eliminated tax on the non Muslims which would attract the Hindus and also the Christians into the empire creating a universal religion which a mix of Islam, Christians and Hindus.. Akbar had also secured the support and the allegiance of the different Hindus who existed in the region through the negotiation of the peace treaties. Akbar had endured that the local governors would be given grants rather than the salaries. Being dependent on the central government for their income, such a strategy helped them develop increased loyalty enhancing military operations of the army and the general government structure in the empire. On the other hand, Ottoman’s emperor enhanced social integration through striking the high levels of peoples’ loyalty (Gingeras 13).

Genghis Khan, a man who conquered and ruled the largest continuous empire in history of mankind, was once told “Conquering the world on horseback is easy; it is dismounting and governing that is hard.” Many kings and warriors were able to conquer vast lands in history but only a few were able to hold that power for a long period of times. The ones who implemented successful strategies in order to expand, consolidate and administer their rule over land were the most successful in holding power.

The Mughal empire was founded by leader Zahir al-Din Muhammad, known as Babur (the tiger) in 1526. When he defeated Ibrahim Lodi, the last of the Afghan Lodi Sultans at the First Battle of Panipat, where they used gunpowder for the first time in India. The Mughal Empire is known as a “gunpowder empire.” With the help of gunpowder weapons Babur took Delhi in 1526. When Babur died in 1530 he left a “loosely knit empire” he called Mughal. The word "Mughal" was the Persian term for "Mongol."

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 Mughal Empire: Zahir al-Din, also known as Babur, was a Chagatai Turk that, unlike the Ottoman and Safavids, was just a soldier of fortune not fighting on behalf of Islam. He wanted to use his fortune to transform a glorious central Asian empire. Although, he did not succeed at that goal he then focused on India. Babur took Delhi in 1526. He did not like the land that he had conquered, it was a hot and humid climate but, Babur decided to stay. By the time of his death he had embraced most of the Indian subcontinent. The height of the Mughal power and influence came from Babur’s grandson Akbar. He gained power in Gujarat and Bengal, destroyed the Hindu kingdom of Vijayanagar in order to later expand in southern India. He was a thoughtful man who tolerated the religious differences in

The Safavid Empire’s military was distinctly separate from its politics as the established tribes in the empire did not normally join military service and many military personal were recruited through methods such as military slavery especially of the Muslim nomads and Christians. The Mughal Empire’s leaders ruled over a population that already had extensive experience in warfare and in the use of weaponry and often freely volunteered for military service which forced them to give some power and authority in the empire to those local leaders that had loyal military

Turkish people known as the Mughals extended their authority and their empire to much of the subcontinent.

The reign of Muhammad Shah brought unsettlement to the Mughal Empire. The Iranian conqueror Nadir Shah’s short but destructive invasion of northern India in 1739 set back the empire. After his death in 1739 northern India was invaded by the Marathas and the Mughal reign was reduced to almost nothing. In 1858 the last Mughal was exiled by the British and the long-lasting reign of the Mughal Empire had

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

The empire had begun to decline during the 16th and 17th centuries. For decades, rulers neglected essential administrative, military, and social reform. Also, the Mughal bureaucracy became bloated and corrupt, essentially ineffective. Likewise, the military was bloated and desperately in need of new weaponry and tactics. The overall living standards of the average individual fell rapidly. Although the Taj Mahal is a thing of wonder, the construction of it drained the treasury and took its toll on the public. Despite possessing the characteristics of a great leader, Aurangzeb worsened the state of Mughal India. Being too ambitious, he wasted resources on expanding the empire and the wars. The empire was its largest under his rule, however, enough

Various explanations are put forward for the revolts which brought about the collapse of the Mughal Empire. There has existed for a long time the thesis of “Hindu Reaction” as the main factor behind the revolts against Aurangzeb. Its proponents tent, however, to rely more on present sentiment than on contemporary evidence. Main concern is with what 17th and early 18th century texts have to say; and they, at any rate, put the greatest store by the economic and administrative causes of the upheaval and hardly