The Glory of the Mughal Empire

[Chak Bamu]

They where central asian Barbarian who brought nothing but death & destruction, the culture poetry you are talking about is all Persian which assimilated in with already present culture in subcontinent .

I would like to quote Machiavelli here. He says that wars fought for ideological reasons are very destructive because participants are not interested in material gains. On the other hand wars fought for material gains are not much destructive since the objective is materialistic.

You are airing your prejudices and you seem to have little idea about not only the history of Mughals but also the period preceding them. Babur was certainly not a barbarian. He was well-educated. He was an accomplished ruler. He was the finest Turkish poet of his age. He was also an accomplished Persian poet and prose-writer. His book Tuzk-e-Babri is a masterpiece that is necessary reading for historians. His ancestors were kings back to nine generations on Mother's side and five generations on Father's side. I do not know how you can call him a barbarian.

I can simply tell you that you can not argue against success. There were reasons why Babur was able to conquer so much so well. He had a hell of a time as a wandering prince and yet thrice he built his kingdom from nothing. Your prejudices do not allow you to see beyond local issues and myths.

The Flag of the Mughal Empire

Interesting bit is that the first Mughal emperor, Babur's name means Lion in his Turkish dialect.

 

[Aepsilons]

Symbolism of the Imperial Flag



The Mughal Empire had a number of imperial flags and standards. The principal imperial standard of the Mughals was known as the alam. It was primarily moss green. Some other alam was also scarlet.It displayed a lion and sun facing the hoist of the flag. The Mughals traced their use of the alam back to Timur.

The imperial standard was displayed to the right of the throne and also at the entrance of the Emperor's encampment and in front of the emperor during military marches.

According to the Ain-i-Akbari, during Akbar's reign, whenever the emperor rode out, not less than five alams were carried along with the qur (a collection of flags and other insignia) wrapped up in scarlet cloth bags. They were unfurled on the days of festivity, and in battle.Edward Terry, chaplain to Sir Thomas Roe, who came during the reign of Jahangir, described in his Voyage to East-India (1655) that the royal standard, made of silk, with a couching lion shadowing part of the body of the sun inscribed on it, was carried on an elephant whenever the emperor travelled.

Reference: Wikipedia

 

[Foot12]

I would like to quote Machiavelli here. He says that wars fought for ideological reasons are very destructive because participants are not interested in material gains. On the other hand wars fought for material gains are not much destructive since the objective is materialistic.

You are airing your prejudices and you seem to have little idea about not only the history of Mughals but also the period preceding them. Babur was certainly not a barbarian. He was well-educated. He was an accomplished ruler. He was the finest Turkish poet of his age. He was also an accomplished Persian poet and prose-writer. His book Tuzk-e-Babri is a masterpiece that is necessary reading for historians. His ancestors were kings back to nine generations on Mother's side and five generations on Father's side. I do not know how you can call him a barbarian.

I can simply tell you that you can not argue against success. There were reasons why Babur was able to conquer so much so well. He had a hell of a time as a wandering prince and yet thrice he built his kingdom from nothing. Your prejudices do not allow you to see beyond local issues and myths.



Interesting bit is that the first Mughal emperor, Babur's name means Lion in his Turkish dialect.

The Sikh Guru Nanak gave a vivid description of the atrocities that were committed by Babur and his army.
And he described Babur as an uncivilized barbarian.

 

[Aepsilons]

I would like to quote Machiavelli here. He says that wars fought for ideological reasons are very destructive because participants are not interested in material gains. On the other hand wars fought for material gains are not much destructive since the objective is materialistic.

You are airing your prejudices and you seem to have little idea about not only the history of Mughals but also the period preceding them. Babur was certainly not a barbarian. He was well-educated. He was an accomplished ruler. He was the finest Turkish poet of his age. He was also an accomplished Persian poet and prose-writer. His book Tuzk-e-Babri is a masterpiece that is necessary reading for historians. His ancestors were kings back to nine generations on Mother's side and five generations on Father's side. I do not know how you can call him a barbarian.

I can simply tell you that you can not argue against success. There were reasons why Babur was able to conquer so much so well. He had a hell of a time as a wandering prince and yet thrice he built his kingdom from nothing. Your prejudices do not allow you to see beyond local issues and myths.



Interesting bit is that the first Mughal emperor, Babur's name means Lion in his Turkish dialect.

Very interesting indeed. To further elucidate on matters of patrlineal line, Babur was a direct descendent of Timur, who was the second son of the Genghis Khan. So for those who say there was no Mongol line in the Mughal Empire, is inept in history. Mughals claim direct descendency from the Great Mongol Empire. By no other than Genghis Khan himself.

The Sikh Guru Nanak gave a vivid description of the atrocities that were committed by Babur and his army.
And he described Babur as an uncivilized barbarian.

He was a military leader , and as a military leader, he was capable of showing mercy even to those who opposed him, even those whom he defeated outright. One example would be when Babur started his campaign in November 1525, when he reached Peshawar he got the news that Daulat Khan Lodi had switched sides and drove out Ala-ud-Din. Babur then marched onto Lahore to confront Daulat Khan Lodi, only to see Daulat's army melt away at their approach.Daulat surrendered and was pardoned, thus within three weeks of crossing the Indus. Babur became the master of Punjab.

 

[Aepsilons]

@Chak Bamu ,

Yes you're right about the name Babur referring to Lion. The Mughal Emperors had a habit of preserving and imparting importance of Patriachs, which is very common in Mongol and in Turkic societies. Here is a picture of the Emperor Akbar E Azam, with the Mughal Lion, referring to the Mandate he received from his predecessor, Babur.

One thing that I also notice is the Islamic prayer beads on his hands. This imparts on the viewer of his faith, as well as the level of diplomacy that the Emperor showed onto the different segments of population that he ruled over; Hindus, Jains, Sikhs, etc.

 

[Chak Bamu]

@Nihonjin1051 Taimur was not son of Gengis Khan. He claimed descent from Gengis Khan, but this is not conclusively settled as far as I know. What is sure is that Babur was descended from Mother's side from the great Khan. You are right about Babur in that he was a capable military leader. He could be cruel, but this was not his nature but rather a matter of necessity. Once when he ruled Samarqand, he saw a riot at City gates. His approach was to have arrows shot into the unruly mob. This was how things were such a long time ago. These days people are usually well-educated enough that one can reason with them perhaps, but back in those days when kings ruled by force such things were common.

 

[Foot12]

Very interesting indeed. To further elucidate on matters of patrlineal line, Babur was a direct descendent of Timur, who was the second son of the Genghis Khan. So for those who say there was no Mongol line in the Mughal Empire, is inept in history. Mughals claim direct descendency from the Great Mongol Empire. By no other than Genghis Khan himself.



He was a military leader , and as a military leader, he was capable of showing mercy even to those who opposed him, even those whom he defeated outright. One example would be when Babur started his campaign in November 1525, when he reached Peshawar he got the news that Daulat Khan Lodi had switched sides and drove out Ala-ud-Din. Babur then marched onto Lahore to confront Daulat Khan Lodi, only to see Daulat's army melt away at their approach.Daulat surrendered and was pardoned, thus within three weeks of crossing the Indus. Babur became the master of Punjab.

What are you talking about? This only shows that Babur was a good strategist and nothing else.
Medieval literature like the text of Guru Nanak Dev clearly describe how the Muslim and Hindu citizens had to suffer
because of the barbaric invasion of Babur.

 

[Chak Bamu]

The Sikh Guru Nanak gave a vivid description of the atrocities that were committed by Babur and his army.
And he described Babur as an uncivilized barbarian.

Guru Nanak and Babur were not contemporaries as far as I know even though there are many stories floating around. It is debatable if a little bloodshed in making a conquest is wrong or if a protracted period of anarchy should be tolerated, resulting in greater suffering.

If you are a Sikh, you would not agree with me, but Mughal Empire was good for India as a whole. The stability created a great deal of wealth so that India accounted for 25% of World's GDP.

Sultanate of Delhi had also brought stability in a time of instability when many Rajput kingdoms were at war with one another.

Nature hates vacuum. Instability somehow gives way to stability. It is one of God's mercies.

What are you talking about? This only shows that Babur was a good strategist and nothing else.
Medieval literature like the text of Guru Nanak Dev clearly describe how the Muslim and Hindu citizens had to suffer
because of the barbaric invasion of Babur.

Bring your sources. If they are religious, we may not be able to cirticize and analyze them. Bring something secular, like opinion or study of a credible historian or two.

 

[Aepsilons]

What are you talking about? This only shows that Babur was a good strategist and nothing else.
Medieval literature like the text of Guru Nanak Dev clearly describe how the Muslim and Hindu citizens had to suffer
because of the barbaric invasion of Babur.

Strategy is the catalyst of rulers receiving the Mandate to rule. It is strategy that allowed the Mongols , under Kublai Khan, to overpower the Imperial Song Dynasty of China. He then established the Yuan Dynasty. Similarly, it was Strategy that allowed Orda Khan to create the Golden Horde , which ruled over most of what is now is the Caucasus, Russia, and present day Turkic states. I would say that Babur used a healthy combination of Strategy, Ingenuity, and Diplomacy, allowing him to transition and literally adapt to ruling a variety of populations.

 

[Foot12]

Guru Nanak and Babur were not contemporaries as far as I know even though there are many stories floating around. It is debatable if a little bloodshed in making a conquest is wrong or if a protracted period of anarchy should be tolerated, resulting in greater suffering.

If you are a Sikh, you would not agree with me, but Mughal Empire was good for India as a whole. The stability created a great deal of wealth so that India accounted for 25% of World's GDP.

Sultanate of Delhi had also brought stability in a time of instability when many Rajput kingdoms were at war with one another.

Nature hates vacuum. Instability somehow gives way to stability. It is one of God's mercies.
Guru Nanak and Babur were contemporaries. Guru Nanak was born in the 15th century and died in 1539 in Punjab.
The Sultanate of Delhi did not bring any stability to India as the Sultanate was only able to conquer much of northern India
during the reign of Alaudin and after his death the Sultanate declined which led to the reestablishment of several Hindu kingdoms in northern India.


Bring your sources. If they are religious, we may not be able to cirticize and analyze them. Bring something secular, like opinion or study of a credible historian or two.

Guru Nanak and Babur were not contemporaries as far as I know even though there are many stories floating around. It is debatable if a little bloodshed in making a conquest is wrong or if a protracted period of anarchy should be tolerated, resulting in greater suffering.

If you are a Sikh, you would not agree with me, but Mughal Empire was good for India as a whole. The stability created a great deal of wealth so that India accounted for 25% of World's GDP.

Sultanate of Delhi had also brought stability in a time of instability when many Rajput kingdoms were at war with one another.

Nature hates vacuum. Instability somehow gives way to stability. It is one of God's mercies.



Bring your sources. If they are religious, we may not be able to cirticize and analyze them. Bring something secular, like opinion or study of a credible historian or two.

Guru Nanak and Babur were contemporaries. Guru Nanak was born in the 15th century and died in 1539 in Punjab.
The Sultanate of Delhi did not bring any stability to India as the Sultanate was only able to conquer much of northern India
during the reign of Alaudin and after his death the Sultanate declined which led to the reestablishment of several Hindu kingdoms in northern India.

 

[Aepsilons]

The Tomb of Babur the Great

Babur (left) and his successor Hamayun (right)

 

[Chak Bamu]

Guru Nanak and Babur were contemporaries. Guru Nanak was born in the 15th century and died in 1539 in Punjab.
The Sultanate of Delhi did not bring any stability to India as the Sultanate was only able to conquer much of northern India
during the reign of Alaudin and after his death the Sultanate declined which led to the reestablishment of several Hindu kingdoms in northern India.

I do not quite put faith in religious history. Perhaps Babur and Guru Nanak were contemporaries. It does not quite matter. I want you to bring sources. Not religious texts.

You seem to have a very poor understanding of Sultanate of Delhi. It started with Slave Dyansty, followed by Khiljis, then followed by Tughlaq dynasty, and eventually Lodhis. It was then that Mughals came.

Alauddin Khilji conquered much of India, not just North India. But all his gains were short term and did not last beyond his rule. He is one of the accomplished rulers of Sultanate of Delhi. There was Iltutmish, Nasiruddin, Balban, of Slave dynasty who successfully saved India from the Mongol Invasion.

I have to leave for Ramazan prayers. Otherwise I would write a longer reply. But you really should re-visit your history reading. Find some British material - I would recommend Oxford History of India. It has its faults, but at least it tries to be neutral.

 

[sahaliyan]

My friend, even in China, the Qing Dynasty. Did you know that the Emperor of China under the Qing Dynasty was referred to as:

"Great Emperor of the Qing Dynasty and Grand Khan of Tartary, Lord of 10,000 Years and Son of Heaven...."

As the Qing Emperors were originally Manchu people,...and related to Turkic and Altaic peoples....!

I'm an ethnic Manchu of Tatara Hala(clan)

 

[Aepsilons]

I'm an ethnic Manchu of Tatara Hala(clan)

Awesome, man! Do you know how to speak in native Manchu dialect?

North East Asians have very similar facial phenotype, our languages may have some differences, but the facial phenotype: almond eyes, prominent nasal bridge, long cheek bones, and our very fair complexion. I think Japanese, Mongols, Manchu, Korean and some northern Chinese have these traits.



Me: @Nihonjin1051

@sahaliyan :

 

[Foot12]

I do not quite put faith in religious history. Perhaps Babur and Guru Nanak were contemporaries. It does not quite matter. I want you to bring sources. Not religious texts.

You seem to have a very poor understanding of Sultanate of Delhi. It started with Slave Dyansty, followed by Khiljis, then followed by Tughlaq dynasty, and eventually Lodhis. It was then that Mughals came.

Alauddin Khilji conquered much of India, not just North India. But all his gains were short term and did not last beyond his rule. He is one of the accomplished rulers of Sultanate of Delhi. There was Iltutmish, Nasiruddin, Balban, of Slave dynasty who successfully saved India from the Mongol Invasion.

I have to leave for Ramazan prayers. Otherwise I would write a longer reply. But you really should re-visit your history reading. Find some British material - I would recommend Oxford History of India. It has its faults, but at least it tries to be neutral.

This is not religious history. Guru Nanak was a contemporary of Babur who witnessed the barbaric atrocities of Babur and his army. Guru Nanak records:
"Having attacked Khurasan, Babur terrified Hindustan. The Creator Himself does not take the blame, but has sent the Mughal as the messenger of death. There was so much slaughter that the people screamed "Oh Lord, did you not feel compassion"'?
On the condition of the women under the rule of Babur he wrote:" Those heads adorned with braided hair, with their parts painted with vermilion - those heads were shaved with scissors and their throats were choked with dust. They had lived in palatial mansions, but now they can not even sit near the palaces... ropes were put around their necks and their strings of pearls were broken. Their wealth and youthful beauty, which gave them so much pleasure, have now become their enemies.
The order was given to the soldiers, who dishonored them and carried them away."