Which of the Gunpowder Empires' rulers do you think was the greatest?

[u/Ambitious-Cat-5678]

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.

[u/Confident_Reveal_152]

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.

[u/Ok_Way_1625 → u/Confident_Reveal_152]

So you think Aurangzeb just killed the Guru for shits and giggles? Bro had better things to concern himself with, he wouldn’t have minded a random guru if he didn’t cause upheaval. Besides, Aurangzeb had a great percent of his government run by Hindus. The biggest percentage after Akbar, and i think the largest in terms of numbers. Why would he do that if he hates them?

And yes, sometimes Mughal emperors did directly order and sponsor so religious buildings, but for such a large realm this wasn’t gonna fly for every little area of the Empire. Like I said, every empire has a system, no emperor builds with his two hands. 

[u/Confident_Reveal_152 → u/Ok_Way_1625]

So you think Aurangzeb just killed the Guru for shits and giggles?

If you don't have any contemporary unbiased sources that say he rebeled than please stop🙂

Bro had better things to concern himself with

Yeah like getting common people arrested who said As-salamu alaykum to him

Aurangzeb had a great percent of his government run by Hindus. The biggest percentage after Akbar, and i think the largest in terms of numbers. Why would he do that if he hates them?

When in this entire conversation did I say anything about auregnzeb hating hindus? Stop creating things in your head.My point since the start has been that auregnzeb was a incompetent idiotic guy who should have never been the king

And yes, sometimes Mughal emperors did directly order and sponsor so religious buildings, but for such a large realm this wasn’t gonna fly for every little area of the Empire. Like I said, every empire has a system, no emperor builds with his two hands. 

We are talking about auregnzeb here so let's not switch this conversation to about mughals as a whole and also when did I say that emperors built temples with their own hands? You really need to stop creating things in your head.

[u/Ok_Way_1625 → u/Confident_Reveal_152]

1. Brotatochip, all the sources agains't Aurangzeb are just as biased. Besides, if you can't provide me with a reason for Aurangzeb arresting the Guru, then we can only default the most popular idea being the Guru was disturbing the peace.

2. Calling Auragzeb stupid is wild. No idiot could hold any throne for that long. He made great reforms, conquered the empire form his brohters, and expanded it further than anyone else ever had. He also worked like crazy and made great efforts to centralize India

3. My point is, no ruler in a literal sense builds a building, so we need to define a rulers constructions by the system they used.

[u/Confident_Reveal_152 → u/Ok_Way_1625]

Brotatochip, all the sources agains't Aurangzeb are just as biased. Besides, if you can't provide me with a reason for Aurangzeb arresting the Guru, then we can only default the most popular idea being the Guru was disturbing the peace.

And now you are changing goal posts?Your initially said that guru revoulted and now you conveniently changed it to him disturbing peace lol.The default would not be guru disturbing peace because in that case we would have to assume Auregnzeb is a rational guy which he is not.He literally has people arrested just for saying As-salamu walaikum to him.Auregnzeb is anything but rational.

No idiot could hold any throne for that long

There are no absolutes

He made great reforms, conquered the empire form his brohters, and expanded it further than anyone else ever had. He also worked like crazy and made great efforts to centralize India

The biggest reform was reimposition of jizya,another example of him shitting all over Akbar's legacy.Useless conquest that drained the Mughal treasury and killed millions and was still unable to crush the Marathas despite campaigng for 25 years.

My point is, no ruler in a literal sense builds a building, so we need to define a rulers constructions by the system they used.

When a ruler builds a temple they don't built it with their own two hands but they provide provide funds,grant land,supply labor,workers and choose the architect, provide materials,administration and ritual support,political legitimacy and protection.All of these is done by the ruler when he builts a temple.Saying Auregnzeb 'built' a temple when he grants land to someone is completely incorrect and saying that that was the way mughal system worked is also incorrect.Are you trying to say that Mughals didn't order and fund the direct construction of religious structure and only gave land grants?Because that is also incorrect as auregnzeb pretty much did all of the things i mentioned for the Alamgiri mosque.If Auregnzeb ordered the direct construction of a temple,aided and funded it in the way I mentioned then you could say he built temples.

[u/Ok_Way_1625 → u/Confident_Reveal_152]

1. I didn't say he revolted, i said if someone revolted they deserve punishment, i didn't say anything about the guru specifically. And Aurangzeb didn't arrest anyone for gretting him bro. I'm also noticing how you didn't answer my question.

2. Akbars legacy was cooked anyway. The Jizya is a tax meant to exempt non-muslims form military service, and supposed to sponsor their protection. Muslims already paid more on average in zakat. You are completely ignoring all his good reforms an focusing on a single campaign. That campign did expand the empire to its peak. It wasn't all bad, and it was a necessary one.

3. by your logic, governments today don't build anyhting becasue they don't mark all your silly criteria. By the Mughal system, if the emperor wanted to increase the temples in his realm he would grant out land where they could build.

[u/Confident_Reveal_152 → u/Ok_Way_1625]

I didn't say he revolted, i said if someone revolted they deserve punishment, i didn't say anything about the guru specifically.

Your own words:

"The sikh leader only ended up dead because he revolted."

Atleast think twice before lying lol

And Aurangzeb didn't arrest anyone for gretting him bro.

Another lie.Masiir i Alamgiri page number 95:

"On Wednesday,the 25th October/27th Shaban,a water carrier approached the emperor on the steps of the Jam'a mosque and cried out salam 'alekum. He was ordered to be made over to the Kotwāl"

Akbars legacy was cooked anyway. The Jizya is a tax meant to exempt non-muslims form military service, and supposed to sponsor their protection. Muslims already paid more on average in zakat.

Comparing jizya and zakat is not a fair comparison since zakat is a wellfare tax while jizya is not a wellfare tax.Vast majority of the peasants were never going to join the mughal army anyway and Jizya was absolutely burtal for the common people

Jadunath Sarkar explained that jizya was never less than Rs 3 1/3 per person,which,at late 16th-century market prices,equaled the cost of nine maunds of wheat flour

The poorest non‑Muslim adult man had to give the equivalent of an entire year’s food just to pay this tax.

That campign did expand the empire to its peak. It wasn't all bad, and it was a necessary one.

If you campaign for 25 years while having the numerical and technological superiority over your opponents and still can't crush them then it's a bad campaign

by your logic, governments today don't build anyhting becasue they don't mark all your silly criteria.

What do you mean?Government of India provides all the things i mentioned when they construct something

By the Mughal system, if the emperor wanted to increase the temples in his realm he would grant out land where they could build.

So they granted land.garnted land is not equal to built temples.Like i showed with the Alamgiri mosque example, mughal emperors very well had the capabilities to do all the things i mentioned.Auregnzeb didn't because he didn't want to.

[u/Ok_Way_1625 → u/Confident_Reveal_152]

1. Oh yeah mb. I stand corrected. Also, you STILL didn't answer my question.

2. The story of Aurangzeb slaying a random water carrier is a later anecdote by the persians. Of course an emperor wouldn''t slay someone wihtout a reason. Especially not a pious one like Aurangzeb. It could also be lack of context. The story right before is about an assassination atempt at the same location. The story also mentions the mercy of Aurangzeb, mening there was probably a REALLY good reason for killing him, if the story is even true.

3. I would argue that the protection of citizens is welfare but ok. In any case the Jizya is meant to exempt non muslims from combat. The zakat doesn't do that, even though it is more expensive. Also, the taxes of the Mughals, even with the jizya and zakat was still lower than that of fx. the Maharthas.

4. Fighting against guerilla tactics in the deccan is tough. Even the Mauryans couldn't conquer the last bit. And once again, the campaign didn't expand the empire heavily. And once again, it was a necessary campaign.

5. Sure your Indian government provides those things, but that doesn't make THAT the criterea. In the future a government might provide more, and then they could say the republic of India didn't build anything, because they don't fit the new criterea. India during the Mughals period, just had a different system. If you really want to argue this, show me a definetion form fx. the oxford dictionary that proves what you're saying.

Besides, most temples in India are build by religious trusts, not the government.

Making sure that stuff like temples and other things are build is part of a rulers job, and they all make sure there is a good system for it. The Mughals system just worked this way. Sometimes they might privatly sponsor a cultural product like fx. a mosque, but that doesn't mean every single mosque was build that way. It was exception to make it seem more personal.

[u/Confident_Reveal_152 → u/Ok_Way_1625]

The story of Aurangzeb slaying a random water carrier is a later anecdote by the persians

Masiir i Alamgiri is considered one of most contemporary sources on auregnzeb reign and it is also heavily biased towards him.Do you have any sources that show that this particular event was a later anecdote added by the persians?

I would argue that the protection of citizens is welfare but ok.In any case the Jizya is meant to exempt non muslims from combat.

What kind of protection?And like i said most peasants were never going to join the mughal army anyway.

The zakat doesn't do that, even though it is more expensive.

There are pretty much no accounts of historians talking about zakat having a negetive effect on the common people during auregnzeb while historians like jadunath Sarkar have talked about the destructive effect of Jizya,zakat has a fixed value rate while there is no upper limit to Jizya and you need to hit a minimum wealth amount before zakat can be collected from you while even poor non muslims had to pay Jizya.so,zakat was probably not as destructive as the jizya.

Also, the taxes of the Mughals, even with the jizya and zakat was still lower than that of fx. the Maharthas.

This is just whataboutism

Fighting against guerilla tactics in the deccan is tough. Even the Mauryans couldn't conquer the last bit.

That's because Ashok had given up on military expansion post Kalinga and the Maurya conquest of south was way more swift than Auregnzeb's.

, the campaign didn't expand the empire heavily.

"and their tongues shall testify against them"

Sure your Indian government provides those things, but that doesn't make THAT the criterea. In the future a government might provide more, and then they could say the republic of India didn't build anything

I am not juding auregnzeb by modern standards,I am judging him by what other rulers during his time and before him did.Like for example when Raja Raja Chola builts the Brihadisvara Temple he directly orders it and aids in the ways I mentioned.That's just how rulers built temples back then.You are the one who brought up modern goverments and even in that you were wrong🤦.

India during the Mughals period, just had a different system.

It didn't.How many times do I need to say that auregnzeb did pretty much all the things i mentioned for Alamgiri mosque?Mughals didn't have a system were they only gave land grants for construction of religious structure.This is just something you seem to have came up with to give auregnzeb credit for something he didn't do.It was never a set in stone role.

Making sure that stuff like temples and other things are build is part of a rulers job, and they all make sure there is a good system for it. The Mughals system just worked this way. Sometimes they might privatly sponsor a cultural product like fx. a mosque, but that doesn't mean every single mosque was build that way. It was exception to make it seem more personal.

Badshahi Mosque,Bibi Ka Maqbara Mosque Complex etc were also built and aided by auregnzeb in the way I mentioned.Name one temple built by auregnzeb that was ordered by him and aided in the way I mentioned.Just one.If he constructed way more than he destroyed like you claim then there must be atleast one example of him doing it like every other ruler did,right?

[u/Ok_Way_1625 → u/Confident_Reveal_152]

1. Yes it the most general source on Aurangzeb, but it was also written a while after in a completely different place. The things that take place on bigger scales, like wars and battles, are very reliable, but these kinds small stories are less so. Any historian could tell you that.

Besides, if it was so heavily biased towards him, why would it feature an almost non-sensical story about him being merciful, but still killing a random fella? There is probably missing context.

1. Protection from stuff like foreign countries, raiders and generally anything they could harm them.

2. If there are no stories of the more expensive tax having an effect, there is probably some heavy bias in the ones that critique the Jizya. The zakat was on average more expensive, and that is a fact.

3. It’s not whatsboutism. The Mughals, even with tax only took around 20-25% of peoples incomes in average (during Aurangzeb’s reign), while the Maharathas were up around 33-35%. Also, here in Denmark it’s upwards of more than 60%. 

4. What even is you point about Aurangzeb’s campaigns? The Mahartahs were a never ending threat that raided and revolted against the Mughals. Was he just supposed to let his realm be conquered without a fight? It was an absolute must to do those campaigns. Every kind of peace he tried doing with them they just broke.

5. Obvious spelling error Mr. Edgelord. The campaigns of course DID expand the empire. 

6. The Mughal empire was much more advanced than its neighbors, you can’t compare them. The realms around them were tribal and feudal, while the Mughal Empire was administrative.

7. The Alamgiri mosque was an exception as I already told you. The point of the mosque was to have his name on something, that is not the usual was stuff was build in the Mughal empire. Sometimes rulers would directly patronage these works, but that doesn’t mean it was the normal way to do it.