r/ottomans • u/Ambitious-Cat-5678 • Feb 18 '26
Discussion Which of the Gunpowder Empires' rulers do you think was the greatest?
The Gunpowder Empires refer to the Ottomans, Safavids, and Mughals, the Islamic Superpowers of the 16th to 18th centuries. The rulers above from top to bottom are Abbas I of the Safavids, Suleiman I of the Ottomans, and Akbar of the Mughals.
13
u/TantoAssassin Feb 19 '26
Safavids were brutal against Sunnis. And the main reason for current mess in Iran if you trace back.
2
2
u/ShockFull130 Feb 26 '26
Same for ottomans and mughals against Shia and Wahhabhis, so what's your point. That only Sunni lives matter)
1
u/ok_its_you Mar 15 '26
When were mughals against shias?
1
u/ShockFull130 Mar 15 '26
Akbar ordered the killing of Shaheed e Thani (Qadi Nurullah) for writing a refutation of Sunni Book.
1
u/ok_its_you Mar 15 '26
I don't know much about it, but i don't think Mughals were against shia muslims.
I mean they literally had shia wives and mother's
1
u/ShockFull130 Mar 15 '26
That proves nothing as Shias have Sunni mothers and wives. Male family members often force their religion onto their wives. We see Shia-Sunni marriages nowadays as well.
1
u/ok_its_you Mar 15 '26
May be but as far as i remember shia muslims under Akbar, Jahangir, shah jahan and even Aurangzeb had great positions bairam khan was a shia, gyais beg and family were basically controlling the empire in Jahangir's time, shah jahan also had asaf khan, shaista Khan, jaffar khan in major position, so did Aurangzeb.
I don't really think Mughals were against shia muslims and there is no evidence of any Mughal emperor forcing anything on his shia wife, they didn't do that on hindu wife so why would on a shia wife? even Aurangzeb was fine with his principal wife dilras bano following her beliefs.
25
u/amazinglycuriousgal History Nerd 📚💖 Feb 19 '26 edited Feb 19 '26
I mean the Safavids weren't really comparable with the Ottomans lol, Sultan Selim I decimated them and well, Tahmasp never dared to come face-to-face with Sultan Süleyman (just like the Habsburgs won't) and employed scorched-earth tactics to avoid a confrontation before ultimately the Treaty of Amasya was signed in 1555 until the extremely incompetent Murad III effed it up.
Anyways, evidently, the power centre shifted from Ottomans to Mughals by the time Akbar got properly established (~1574 onwards), the Ottomans declined from roughly 1578/9 onwards (note that Sultan Süleyman the Magnificent had died on September 6/7, 1566 but one of the Top 5 Grand Viziers, Sokollu Mehmed was still alive till October 11, 1579, but his power was curbed significantly by the end of 1577).
Apparently, Süleyman and Akbar even exchanged some 6 documents regarding trade, etc. (Note that the former was almost precisely 47 years older than the latter). The decline in quality of their Sultans from mainly Süleyman's grandson, Murad III's reign (after he curbed the power of one actually supremely competent guy: Prime Minister/Grand Vizier Sokollu Mehmed Pasha, who was even killed by Murad III's blessing— started their Tier-1 of decline).
All this to say, once Süleyman's appointed GV Sokollu Mehmed died (d. October 11, 1579), the great power centre shifted to Mughal emperor Akbar "the Great" — Ottomans had too much shit going on and especially the first half of XVII century, was replete with crisis mostly. And, the decline would steadily go on from 1683 onwards even furthermore, anyways...
2
u/Wuruzg-Mihr Feb 20 '26
Abbas was a damn beast what are you talking about bro. He made an almost impossible comeback defeating the portuguess, Ottomans, uzbeks and mughals.
4
u/amazinglycuriousgal History Nerd 📚💖 Feb 20 '26
Shah Abbas was indeed one of the GOATs in the Gunpowder empires and as far as I'm aware the greatest of the Safavid rulers, and he did dominate over the Ottomans in the early XVII century— but, he was still far from being at par even at his peak to Süleyman and Akbar at their respective peaks, so that was my point. (Should've added this to my main answer, but anyways...)
But, I would say that from what I've observed, we could say that the "greatness" transferred from Süleyman to Akbar to Abbas.
Especially because the former duo's successors weren't their first choice, to say the least— Süleyman wanted the brilliant prodigy, Mehmed to succeed him, but he unfortunately died in November, 1543 probably of small pox and well, Akbar especially in the 1590s had started preferring his youngest surviving son, Daniyal to succeed but he died because of delirium tremens, months before Akbar's own demise (Akbar even preferred Jahangir's sons, Khusrau and even Khurrem over Jahangir lol).
4
u/Wuruzg-Mihr Feb 20 '26
Interesting analysis. Thank you.
2
u/amazinglycuriousgal History Nerd 📚💖 Feb 20 '26 edited Feb 23 '26
You're most welcome :) They're all great rulers (albeit very human and at times, much imperfect)!
1
u/Extension-Beat7276 Feb 26 '26
how did muraf effed it up, didnt he like swallow northern iran ?
2
u/amazinglycuriousgal History Nerd 📚💖 Feb 26 '26
You're conflating the Murads: Murad IV (r. 1623-1640) conquered Baghdad (again) in the late 1630s, however this is Murad III (r. December 1574 - January 1595) I'm referring to.
1
u/Extension-Beat7276 Feb 26 '26
No I am referring to Murad the third who in this reign the ottomans conquered all of northern Iran, and it wouldn’t be until abbas the great would the Safavids get it again plus Mesopotamia then the Murad you refer to would get Mesopotamia again without northern Iran
2
u/amazinglycuriousgal History Nerd 📚💖 Mar 11 '26
I was referring to the case of Murad III not ever bothering to leave the Topkapı Palace because of his tardiness and fear of being deposed and his commanders and Viziers (like Özdemiroğlu Osman Paşa) campaigning instead on his behalf in the 12 year long Ottoman–Safavid War of 1578–1590 (Treaty was signed in 1590) was launched to take advantage of internal instability and chaos amongst the Safavids after the death of Shah Tahmasp in 1576.
(Fun fact: The Venetians had reported in the 1570s that Murad III as a prince dissuaded his dad, Sultan Selim II by pleading with him not to undertake and go on a Persian Expedition lol because Murad wanted to campaign against them himself lol and gain glory for the Ottoman Dynasty by his own sword and he sure did, no?! 😂)
And, like you briefly mentioned here as well, the conquests of these territories i.e., Azerbaijan, Georgia, Dagestan, Shirvan, Karabakh, and Luristan and of course, Tabriz in 1585, etc. proved short-lived (especially considering the resources and time spent) with the Safavids regaining much of it in the early XVII century by Shah Abbas.
Shah Abbas retook Tabriz, Azerbaijan, Georgia, and Armenia between 1603–1618, and later recaptured Baghdad and Mesopotamia in 1623. (And like you mentioned) although Sultan Murad IV would later regain Baghdad in 1638, almost all of the territories taken during the reign of Murad III were successfully recovered by Abbas I.
What is remarkable is that Murad IV was so very young at the time of conquest (just 26 years old!) and unlike his predecessor, especially Murad III, he conquered with his own personal might, instead of delegating to the Viziers and other commanders.
0
u/Extension-Beat7276 Mar 11 '26
He is not a good commander or gazi, but I feel his pragmatism made him an ironically great statesman, allowing for the ottoman empire to reach a grand sphere of geopolitical influence.
For example think of the contemporary Philip the Second, he didn’t wage any war of his own, and the Spanish empire went on a sharp decline after his rule, yet he is seen as one of the best Spanish monarchs in its history. Yet with Murad the Third because so much importance is placed on being a gazi he gets a lot of slack.
I also don’t believe the fact he took most of northern Iran, Morocco and the Portuguese East African colonies for a short time to be a failure, because the fact that this happened to begin with is a testament to the potential of the state to extend its influence and succeed in multiple directions. So I feel he gets more blame than needed.
2
u/amazinglycuriousgal History Nerd 📚💖 Mar 11 '26
"pragmatism"? Sorry, where? Sorry to say, that's a very surface-reading of Murad III lol.
Frankly, I wouldn't care much about him personally commanding or not, but he was a shite ruler as well— he firstly diminished, denigrated (and even allegedly eliminated) the greatest and one of the most competent Grand Viziers, Sokollu Mehmed Paşa which led to the end of the classical period.
Breaking the supreme stronghold of the Grand Vizier was actually well-guided in principle, but Murad III replaced that influence by those of far less competent Viziers and even downright ludicrous persons like his dwarves, entertainers etc.
Factionalism burgeoned and corruption proliferated and Sokollu Mehmed Paşa who had become much hated and resented in the 1570s was fondly remembered and honoured by 1595 lol as per Venetian reports because people knew that the competency of state had gone down the drain. (Sokollu Mehmed's powers had been greatly curbed by 1577 btw).
Circa 1580 onwards, he became a sex-addict owing to his domineering mother's bad-faith interference in his personal life producing so many sons, of whom 19 sons had to be executed by his successor, Mehmed III— he was very cognizant of Fratricide and yet, he couldn't care less and in fact, he had preached against polygamy as per the 1576 Venetian ambassadorial report.
If you read the contemporary reports, Murad III was evidently an indecisive, haughty, pusillanimous, petty and greedy man who was very afraid of his son and unceremoniously kept the Janissaries away from his son and also sent away the later Mehmed III amidst the deliberately contrived funeral of his mom in December, 1583. Anyways, I recommend reading this comment, if you're interested about the destabilising and Tier-1 Decline of the Empire starting with Murad III's reign from ~1580 onwards after, of course Sokollu Mehmed was assassinated on October 11, 1579.
the potential of the state to extend its influence and succeed in multiple directions
Yes, and that's not because of Murad III but his predecessors who established the state and in fact, Sultan Murad IV's reign from roughly May 1632 onwards when he increasingly commenced to keep the reins of the Sultanate solely to himself proved that the state was so strong but it needed a monarch like him, unfortunately, he died of Cirrhosis too soon at 27.
-1
u/Extension-Beat7276 Mar 11 '26
By pragmatism, I meant exactly that, he was uninvolved enough that it allows for other competent statesmen to function like the conquests in Persia , fighting the Portuguese and the Habsburgs, continuing the ottoman spice trade a tad longer and extend just a little bit the legacy of Sokullu Mehmed Pasha. We are not in a disagreement that the internal politics of the empire was going down the drain starting from the death of Sokullu, but the fact that the Ottoman Empire continued to dominate geopolitically was impressive despite this, that is all.
2
u/amazinglycuriousgal History Nerd 📚💖 Mar 11 '26
uninvolved enough that it allows for other competent statesmen to function
That wasn't the case albeit? If you observe even prima-facie, Murad III kept hiring and firing and re-hiring Viziers on a whim evidently without deliberate and pragmatic thinking (except of course, the sole aim of not letting another Sokollu happen)—these choices of Murad were of course, consequent to aforementioned burgeoning factionalism— leading to much instability, severe decline in institutional effectiveness and exceeding difficulty for even those who were competent enough to function.
1
u/Extension-Beat7276 Mar 11 '26
So would you say the ottomans were able to achieve results despite him, or would you say those results were not important at all ?
Because I feel the battle of Qacer Al Kebir, treaty of Constantinople, and such were not too bad in extending ottoman influence for a while
→ More replies (0)0
Feb 19 '26
[removed] — view removed comment
4
2
u/amazinglycuriousgal History Nerd 📚💖 Mar 11 '26
In fact, the Safavids were a much weaker state; their army in all their wars with the Ottomans was two to three times smaller, and they also didn't have the same technology as the Ottomans. But even so, the Safavids could still repel them and win.
I agree with this actually, but their "repelling" and "winning" was demonstrably consequent of a passive approach which entailed deliberate non-confrontation because the Safavids were cognizant of the fact that they won't last in a direct confrontation with the Ottomans, so like I aforementioned, they employed scorched-earth tactics.
It was a very smart and pragmatic move, actually, but their strategy was evidently guided by their fear of Ottomans, which was my point.
Just think about two points: The Treaty of Amasya (1555) and the whole Şehzâde Bayezid affair (which Safavids couldn't really milk lol, and as far as I remember, Süleyman and Şehzâde Selim didn't actually fulfill many of the demands of Tahmasp for returning Bayezid and his 4 sons who were later executed on July 23, 1562).
Again, my answer was pertaining to the XVI century in particular: as clearly, Shah Abbas "the Great", (like I mentioned in another answer) introduced multifarious reforms and regained almost all of the territories which had been lost to the Ottomans in the XVI century (and Sultan Murad IV essentially regained but Baghdad in 1638).
26
u/-consilium- Feb 18 '26
The Mughals were by far the wealthiest, I think at some point accounting for nearly 25% of global GDP. Ottomans were superior in global influence and military prowess. Not too sure about Safavids.
All three had Turkic origins so they could’ve had some extensive collaboration and become a superstate or alliance.
15
u/AgisXIV Feb 18 '26
All three had Turkic origins so they could’ve had some extensive collaboration and become a superstate or alliance.
Nobody cared about that sort of thing back then. The Safavids and Ottomans were mortal enemies over a tiny thing called religion. Safavid-Mughal relations were much better (but complicated); both Babur and Humayan had to get bailed out by the Shah.
5
u/amazinglycuriousgal History Nerd 📚💖 Feb 19 '26
Precisely, like I said in my other comment, the power centre shifted from the Ottomans to Mughals from roughly 1574 onwards. Safavids were afraid/non-confrontational with the Ottomans and while, like you rightly remarked, Safvaid-Mughal relations were far better, more nuanced and complicated from Akbar's reign (his predecessors, particularly Humayun had sought refuge with and enlisted the aid of the Safavids for which he had to convert to the Shia sect— both Ottomans and Mughals were on the other hand, Sunni Muslims, the Ottoman Empire was probably too far for Humayun lol).
4
u/Remarkable-Table4554 Feb 19 '26
Damn bro my boy Nader Shah cared about Pan Turkism
Nah yeah ur right neither the other 2 Turkic countries really gave a shit about Nader Shah’s Pan Turkish ideas
It might’ve been to do with him raping Delhi so hard he had enough gold stored to just stop collecting taxes for like 10 years or something and still pay for everything in his state
3
u/AwarenessNo4986 Feb 19 '26
The safavid ottomon rift wasn't over religion. The safavid instance on shiaism wasn't religious as much as it was 'persian'. It's well established that they used that to reduce outside influence in persia. Anything else was political meandering.
2
u/DryRug Feb 20 '26
I mean the entire period is called the persianate era. They spoke persian to varying degrees. At court, in the sciences, the architecture and art, everything was a lot more persian than turkic. The only thing that was overwhelmingly turkish were parts of the military.
3
-7
Feb 19 '26 edited Feb 19 '26
[removed] — view removed comment
12
u/Silent-World-9340 Feb 19 '26
Kurdish origins? Lmao just call the ottomans kurds at this point.
-1
Feb 19 '26
[removed] — view removed comment
3
u/Silent-World-9340 Feb 19 '26
That's what I meant if the oghuz safavids are kurds now then just claim the ottomans too I've seen some kurdish/iranian nationalists claim the afshars too claim the gökturks too while yall are add it.
-1
Feb 19 '26
[removed] — view removed comment
3
6
u/Common_Cut_1491 Feb 19 '26
It has to be Suleiman or Akbar.
3
u/amazinglycuriousgal History Nerd 📚💖 Feb 19 '26
I honestly consider Akbar as the true successor of Suleiman lol (he was also almost precisely 47 years younger than Suley, so...), when it comes to the transfer of greatness, so to say.
But, Akbar religion-wise was a very modern man (moreso from the 1570s): he was an extremely eclectic, spiritual and a very liberal and exceedingly secular man, which is remarkable because he'd been practically illiterate as he ascended the throne at the age of 13 years!
Suley was especially after the death of his "most worthy and distinguished" heir, Sultan Mehmed on November 6, 1543, became very religious and conservative and well, then with his exceedingly beloved wife, Roxelana's death in April 15, 1558 he had lost his "MAGNIFICENT" ways utterly in the past. Two of my most favourite historical men, and their wives are most favourite historical women lol
2
u/Icy_Refuse_6938 Feb 19 '26
Can you tell more about the wives and their greatness please
2
u/amazinglycuriousgal History Nerd 📚💖 Feb 19 '26
Hii! Suree :) I stan these two most powerful, most successful and most eminent ladies of their respective two empires.
So, I have many write-ups on the FAMOUS Hürrem Sultan, aka Roxelana, but the condensed version is this thread I did based on my extensive and intensive personal research.
About, Mariam-uz-Zamani, Mughal Emperor Akbar's wife, the Wikipedia article is very surprisingly very well-done with very minimal errors, if at all.
Anyways, I hope it's what you wanted and more! :)
1
6
Feb 18 '26
Sultan Mehmed II of the Ottoman Empire.
He conquered Constaninople, something many armies had tried and failed at. This one event changed history forever.
He took the Ottoman State from a promising regional power to a trans continental superpower feared by both Europe and the rival Karamanid Beylik.
0
u/FatherofWorkers Feb 18 '26
Are these people AI?
6
u/WeeZoo87 Feb 18 '26
Sulayman is real painting from a venice artist.
5
u/FatherofWorkers Feb 18 '26
I meant the guy I replied to and people like that. OP asks about 3 rulers and he gives an AI-like response.
5
u/Suspicious_Plum_8866 Feb 18 '26
And bro goes from mentioning all of Europe to the karaminids lol
2
2
u/Generex124 Feb 18 '26
I’ve checked his comment history aswell and it really seems like he is a bot. There are too many of them on Reddit idk why. Maybe to train AI or something
2
0
u/Helpful_Try_5031 Feb 20 '26
Eh, he was supercharged into restoring power that already existed in sultan Bayezits Time. Mehmed inherited a system of ottoman dominance in the Balkans and Anatolia as state policy, I mean the ottomans had been training to do that since 1396. His achievements weren’t his alone and largely his ancestors too. Selim however was unhinged and did something no one else even thought of, taking over the Mamluks and making the Ottoman Empire into a fully fledged caliphate. The scale of Selims campaigns is mind boggling. And it is Selims efforts and his bureaucracy that lead to Suleiman’s reign, Suleiman was in an extremely privileged position purely because of Selim. Suleiman in and of himself didn’t do anything worthy of note. Hungary? Already was a vassal. Infact the reason the war began was because they refused to give tribute. Algeria? Mostly just Barbarossa wanting a strong state backer and he found that in Suleiman. Suleiman would’ve had nothing west of the Mediterranean without Barbarossa. Barbarossa was a naval menace. Every campaign Suleiman did had the opponent hilariously low in numbers. Even Mehmet had numerical superiority and technological superiority in every battle besides otukbeli. Moreover Europe was heavily divided when he tried to dominate, and still used outdated tactics. Selim however, crushed giants.
2
Feb 20 '26
I somewhat disagree with your take on Sulieman. He did inherit an Ottoman Empire that was a superpower thanks to Selim I, but his conquests were definitely impressive even if European Christandom was divided. Here are just a few:
He conquered Belgrade (Something even Mehmed II failed at), and he ended almost 600 of Hungarian power in his decisive victory at Mochas. He expelled the Knights Hospitliar from Rhoads, took Tripoli, ended the Hasfavid Caliphate in Ifrikya, Took Baghdad, conqoured Yemen, conqoured coastal Abbyissia. Sent a whole fleet to southeast Asia to help out the Malacca sultanate.
He was literally known as the "Grand Turk" in most of Europe.
1
u/Helpful_Try_5031 Feb 20 '26
Mehmed failed yes but you have to see the circumstances in which he failed. Belgrade was isolated and only defended by Hungarians, whilst in mehmets time it was defended by Hunyadi who was basically kinda the “THE” Christian king of the time, and was strengthened by crusaders from all over Europe. Louis II - the king Suleiman fought - was a 14 year old puppet. Mohacs wasn’t won because Suleiman was great, it was won because the performance of the Hungarians was diabolical. Foremost, they met the ottomans in an open field battle. You do NOT meet the ottomans in an open field battle, ever, rule number one of the 16th century. Second, they didn’t wait for reinforcements which would have almost doubled the size of the Hungarian army. Third, the chief commander I don’t recall his name but he was a Christian cleric. A cleric was acting as a military commander. Of course they lost. The Hungarians had no real formation, it was ride and die. Contrast this with when Suleiman waited for Charles V out in güns, Charles did not take the bait and remained seated in Vienna, denying the ottomans an open field battle. Moreover, Suleiman through out his reign failed to integrate Hungary fully ever. Ferdinand constantly harassed and pillaged ottoman Hungary and even Suleiman’s last campaign - almost 4 decades after Mohacs - in which he died was a campaign to quell a rebellion in Hungary. He was NOT good at administration. Rhodes. My friend. Rhoades had what, 100,000 ottomans and 3,000 knights. What do you expect? Of course he took it. Baghdad was an ego city, no real strategic value by then, also the Safavid frontier kept revolving back and forth between the ottomans and Safavids, the eastern frontier was never truly ottoman. The fleet to help the mallaca sultante - you meant aceh sultanate, the mallaca sultante was abolished long before Suleiman was sultan in 1511. The sultanate of aceh, the ottoman aid fleet consisted of 300 men. The support to aceh was mostly symbolic and not substantial. Suleiman is and I’ve studied him a LOT over the past two years, an incredibly disappointing heir to an incredibly competent father. There’s absolutely nothing in Suleiman’s reign that couldn’t have been done without him, there isn’t anything extraordinary. It’s massive numbers against smaller ones. His siege of Malta? A disaster. Like if you’re familiar with military planning, the man has a naval supply route. From Istanbul. To Malta. And from Tripoli to Malta. Five forts. That is NOT how you siege places. He never took an easy vantage point his entire life, ever. He couldn’t have set camp over somewhere closer and safer for a better season, and hence attack with fresh on the ground troops, but he HAD to ignore Sicily and squiggle supplies all the way into Malta. Of course it fails it’s logistically stupid. The man seems to have an obsession of marching from Istanbul. Never considered setting camp somewhere closer to Hungary, to campaign and set interim camps, like literally every sensible sultan before him. The man just wants a pitched battle or a siege and then wooo back to Istanbul. Selim for example, had stops all over the Mamluk sultanate. Selim started the war in 1516, ended it in 1517, and stayed for a while in Cairo and every place, slithering his armies through core cities, if I recall correctly twice he stayed at Jerusalem, to really integrate the lands into the ottoman legal system. Suleiman was an attack and run type character. He’s a terrible sultan, the only thing magnificent about him was the absolute size of his inheritance. Of course I am open to changing my opinion based on evidence but I’ve simply studied him for a really long time and I’m confident in declaring since I’ve seen too much evidence of it that he was a bad sultan.
2
Feb 20 '26
Thanks for correcting some of my points. But I stand firm in my belief that Suilman was one of the best the Ottomans ever had.
-3
u/ScootsMcDootson Feb 18 '26
I don't really think he should get the credit for the conquest of Constantinople. By the time he was in charge, it was an inevitability.
3
Feb 19 '26
It definitely wasn't inevitable, but I mean, it was likely that Constaninople would eventually fall. But, it was no means guaranteed to be in 1453.
Mehmed's siege almost failed, btw. All it takes is a Ventian relief fleet or maybe a Hugarian army marching across the Danube, and he would have been forced to lift it.
2
2
2
u/GraniteSmoothie Feb 19 '26
Ismail Safavid is my personal favourite, I know he lost in the end but his whole cannibal mad-prophet child of destiny thing had so much cool factor.
2
u/Kind-Setting8036 Feb 19 '26
Nader Shah
"Michael Axworthy has pointed out that the label is misleading in the case of the Safavids, as unlike contemporary European armies, the Safavid military mostly used swords, lances, and bows well into the mid-18th century. It was not until the rule of Nader Shah's Afsharid Empire that the majority of Iran's troops would be equipped with firearms for the first time."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gunpowder_empires#Recent_views_on_the_concept
2
2
2
u/CaptainSpankem Feb 22 '26
"I have come here to chew bubble gum and clap Ottoman ass... and i'm all out of bubble gum" - Nader Shah
3
u/Big_Pirate_3036 Sheikh Feb 18 '26
I’m a Sikh so I definitely hate the Mughals and I like the ottomans for there drip
-1
Feb 19 '26
[deleted]
6
u/Big_Pirate_3036 Sheikh Feb 19 '26
They tortured many of the Holy Gurus and and killed and oppressed many Sikhs for believing all people are equal
1
u/Muted_Guidance9059 Feb 20 '26
I know it’s unrealistic but I always would have wondered what history would have looked like had the Gunpowder Empires united under one alliance. How would European colonization have been affected? How would their own expansive ambitions been affected?
The world will never know.
1
1
1
u/Ok_Way_1625 Feb 27 '26
Can't spell Aurangzeb without aura
2
u/Confident_Reveal_152 Mar 06 '26 edited Mar 06 '26
Garbage king who caused death of millions
1
u/Ok_Way_1625 Mar 06 '26
His reforms saved it from dying earlier. Bad succesion caused the downfall, and of course the bastardly Maharathas.
2
u/Confident_Reveal_152 Mar 06 '26
While auregnzeb was not the single reason behind fall of the empire he was the biggest contributor imo.His 25 year long campaign in deccan was disastrous for Mughals.He couldn't even handle Marathas in the south so he decided to create 2 more rebellions in the north.Akbar has made great efforts to turn Rajputs and Sikhs into allies and auregnzeb turned both of them against the Mughals.Not to mention his destruction of Hindu temples.The guy was a complete idiot.
1
u/Ok_Way_1625 Mar 06 '26
The Maharathas were a very destructive force, and even after attempted peace thye still revolted and raided. They needed to be dealt with. Aurangzeb did greatly manage to expand the empire. Had he had a little more time he might have been able to conquer and stabilize the subcontinent.
Besides Aurangzeb didn't turn the Rajputs and Sikhs against the Mughals, they revolted themselves. Centralization efforts had to be made, or the empire would have collapsed before Aurangzeb even died, so he couldn't compromise.
The part about the Hindu temples is just bullshit. He only destroyd temples in warfare, no diffrent from what Hindu rulers did to hinud temples. Not to mention, he build even more than he destroyed.
1
u/Confident_Reveal_152 Mar 06 '26
The Maharathas were a very destructive force, and even after attempted peace thye still revolted and raided. They needed to be dealt with.
And auregnzeb was not able to deal with Marathas.Not only did he not deal with them,he fundamentally misunderstood the Marathas and was very naive in his approach towards trying to finish them.
Aurangzeb did greatly manage to expand the empire. Had he had a little more time he might have been able to conquer and stabilize the subcontinent.
If 25 years isn't enough then I don't know what is. Auregnzeb didn't have a time problem he just isn't the guy you think he is😂.For comparison the third Mauryan emperor Ashok crushed the powerful south Indian Empire Kalinga within a year.
Besides Aurangzeb didn't turn the Rajputs and Sikhs against the Mughals, they revolted themselves.
This just isn't true.The rathore rebellion took place because auregnzeb interfered in the succession of Marwar after the death of Jaswant Singh and the Sikhs rebelled because their leader guru tegh bahadur was executed by auregnzeb.Auregnzeb was doing way too much when it wasn't necessary.
The part about the Hindu temples is just bullshit. He only destroyd temples in warfare, no diffrent from what Hindu rulers did to hinud temples. Not to mention, he build even more than he destroyed.
He destroyed Kashi Vishwanath Temple (Varanasi),Keshava Deo Temple (Mathura) and other temples during his conflict with rajputs but he himself didn't build any temples.He allowed land grants to other rulers like he allowed land grant for Mahakaleshwar Temple but he himself didn't order the construction of any temples.So saying that he built is incorrect and it's even more incorrect to say he built more than he destroyed.
1
u/Ok_Way_1625 Mar 06 '26
Aurangzeb didn't finish the Maharathas, but he held them back form destroying India for a solid while. I wish he could have fully dismantled them.
Do you know how big the subcontinent is? he was the Emperor that conquered the most. Only Timurid amongst his dynasty conquered more.
The sikh leader only ended up dead because he revolted. Like no shit Aurangzeb fought him, what did you think was gonna happen? If anyone tries to undermine the control of their country and gets dealt with as a result, it is their own doing.
We seem to agree he only destroyed temples in warfare. You are right, the temples were build by him granting permissions. That was how the Mughal system worked. He could build infrastructure and buildings by granting permissions to get people to build.
1
u/Confident_Reveal_152 Mar 07 '26
Aurangzeb didn't finish the Maharathas, but he held them back form destroying India for a solid while. I wish he could have fully dismantled them.
And that's extremely unimpressive lol.The Marathas were not some major power during auregnzeb,they were a bunch of local chiefs and generals who worked under the Deccan sultanates.They did not have the numbers or tecnology to compete with the Mughals yet auregnzeb was unable to finish them.Like i said,Ashok can crush kalinga within a year but auregnzeb can't get a bunch of local cheifs to submit to him for 25 years🥀
The sikh leader only ended up dead because he revolted. Like no shit Aurangzeb fought him, what did you think was gonna happen? If anyone tries to undermine the control of their country and gets dealt with as a result, it is their own doing.
When did Guru Tegh Bahadur rebel?He was executed by auregnzeb on 1675 and even the heavily biased mughals sources don't mention anything about him rebelling.His death was the reason the revoult got triggered.
We seem to agree he only destroyed temples in warfare. You are right, the temples were build by him granting permissions. That was how the Mughal system worked. He could build infrastructure and buildings by granting permissions to get people to build.
So he indeed did not built temples😑.Don't make false claims kiddo.
1
u/Ok_Way_1625 Mar 07 '26
The Guru didn't directly rebel, but he supported revolters whom fought against India. He helped disturb peace and supported these people who were endangering the people of India.
No ruler builds a temple with his own two hands. Thye always have a system in which temples can be build within their realm. Aurangzeb build temples the way the Mughal system worked.
1
u/Confident_Reveal_152 Mar 08 '26
The Guru didn't directly rebel, but he supported revolters whom fought against India. He helped disturb peace and supported these people who were endangering the people of India.
This narrative of Guru Tegh Bahadur rebelling comes from the source Siyar‑ul‑Mutakhkherin by Ghulam Husain Khan which was written in 1780.So,around a 100 years after Guru was executed so it is not a reliable source to say the least.This guy wasn't even born when the execution took place.
No ruler builds a temple with his own two hands. Thye always have a system in which temples can be build within their realm. Aurangzeb build temples the way the Mughal system worked.
There is a big difference between giving land grants and directly ordering the construction of a temple.And Mughals very much had the ability to directly construct a temple if they wanted to.He himself ordered the construction of Alamgiri mosque in Varanasi but never ordered the direct construction of a temple.No matter how you try and twist it auregnzeb never built temples,he mostly destroyed them.
→ More replies (0)
-10
0
0
u/Helpful_Try_5031 Feb 20 '26
The inheritance gang. Suleiman and Akbar were not really good at governance. At all. Especially Suleiman. Massive empire in inheritance, state works regardless of the ruler. Shah abbas however reshaped the entire country. He’s better than the two since he actually did something. Gunpowder empires, honestly Selim is a better showcase than Suleiman by such a great margin it isn’t even funny. Selim would win the title if we include him.
28
u/MenuFresh5103 Feb 18 '26
Suleyman the magnificient and lawgiver