What's new

What is everyone's opinion on Aurangzeb?

He lost to the Ahoms and the Rajputs took back majority of Rajputana under his reign. Not to mention the Jat raids into his territory and Maratha conquests.


But didn't Aurangzeb lose the battle to the Ahoms? And didn't Rajputs reclaim all there territory under his reign?

He lost to Ahoms but that was an invasion of territory he did not yet have the rest of his invasions were successful, I am pretty sure Rajputs got land back from his successors.
 
@Nuri Natt @INDIC
Please both of you calm down lol, you can discuss this but try not to use swear words, aiming especially at you Nuri Natt.


He lost to the Ahoms and the Rajputs took back majority of Rajputana under his reign. Not to mention the Jat raids into his territory and Maratha conquests.


But didn't Aurangzeb lose the battle to the Ahoms? And didn't Rajputs reclaim all there territory under his reign?


At the time of his death he had more territory under his reign, from the time he took over. Now he was not Khalid-Bin-Waleed to never have lost a battle. But he was able to increase his rule and that makes him successful.
 
Marathas were not an empire when Aurangzeb was around they were an insurgency actually the first real insurgency in the world. That is why they drained his treasury but the overall territory of the Mughals was at its height when Aurangzeb died and everything quickly fell apart of that.

It was the peak of his territory but relatively unstable from inside and he knew this. Soon he died, his own Subedars betrayed the Mughal Dynasty.
 
He lost to Ahoms but that was an invasion of territory he did not yet have the rest of his invasions were successful, I am pretty sure Rajputs got land back from his successors.
It was during his reign bro.
Jaswant Singh of Marwar - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The True Causes of the Rajput Rebellion Against Aurangzeb > Southern California Conferences for Undergraduate Research >CSU Channel Islands

At the time of his death he had more territory under his reign, from the time he took over. Now he was not Khalid-Bin-Waleed to never have lost a battle. But he was able to increase his rule and that makes him successful.
I'm not to knowledgeable about the territory he took over, could you provide me a link mate?
 
Happen when army is of local indian hindu stock, most of them didnt want to fight their brethen marathas. He should have made peace deal with muslim afghans, because Abdali decimated same Marathas later on.


It has nothing to do with fighting "brethen marathas" or even religion really. Most of these soldiers are out for pay, nothing more.

Much of India would despise the Marathas more than the Mughals later on. That includes Hindus.
 
Last edited:
It has nothing to do with fighting "brethen marathas" or even religion really. Most of these soldiers are out for pay, nothing more.

Much of India would despise the Marathas more than the Mughals later on. That includes Hindus.

You are right it was not about religion, many Muslims were soldiers in Maratha army and there was even a Muslim general.
 
@orangzaib your thoughts?

First, I have to say 'crap', I need to change my screen name lol. Didn't realize the guy was hated and liked among so many people. Second, I am actually learning the history. So as long as the discussion doesn't get too verbally combatant between the two sides; I think every post will teach me something new about the rich history. But nevertheless.....I am considering a screen name change. How about James Bond 007???
 

Mate here it is. It was only after his death, did the Mughal empire starts lo weaken as his sons could not emulate their father and forefathers. :smart:

Emperor of India
Aurangzeb’s reign falls into two almost equal parts. In the first, which lasted until about 1680, he was a capable Muslim monarch of a mixed Hindu-Muslim empire and as such was generally disliked for his ruthlessness but feared and respected for his vigour and skill. During this period he was much occupied with safeguarding the northwest from Persians and Central Asian Turks and less so with the Maratha chief Shivaji, who twice plundered the great port of Surat (1664, 1670). Aurangzeb applied his great-grandfather Akbar’s recipe for conquest: defeat one’s enemies, reconcile them, and place them in imperial service. Thus, Shivaji was defeated, called to Agra for reconciliation (1666), and given an imperial rank. The plan broke down, however; Shivaji fled to the Deccan and died, in 1680, as the ruler of an independent Maratha kingdom.

After about 1680, Aurangzeb’s reign underwent a change of both attitude and policy. The pious ruler of an Islamic state replaced the seasoned statesman of a mixed kingdom; Hindus became subordinates, not colleagues, and the Marathas, like the southern Muslim kingdoms, were marked for annexation rather than containment. The first overt sign of change was the reimposition of the jizya, or poll tax, on non-Muslims in 1679 (a tax that had been abolished by Akbar). This in turn was followed by a Rajput revolt in 1680–81, supported by Aurangzeb’s third son, Akbar. Hindus still served the empire, but no longer with enthusiasm. The Deccan kingdoms of Bijapur and Golconda were conquered in 1686–87, but the insecurity that followed precipitated a long-incipient economic crisis, which in turn was deepened by warfare with the Marathas. Shivaji’s son Sambhaji was captured and executed in 1689 and his kingdom broken up. The Marathas, however, then adopted guerrilla tactics, spreading all over southern India amid a sympathetic population. The rest of Aurangzeb’s life was spent in laborious and fruitless sieges of forts in the Maratha hill country.

Aurangzeb’s absence in the south prevented him from maintaining his former firm hold on the north. The administration weakened, and the process was hastened by pressure on the land by Mughal grantees who were paid by assignments on the land revenue. Agrarian discontent often took the form of religious movements, as in the case of the Satnamis and the Sikhs in the Punjab. In 1675 Aurangzeb arrested and executed the Sikh Guru (spiritual leader) Tegh Bahadur, who had refused to embrace Islam; the succeeding Guru was in open rebellion for the rest of Aurangzeb’s reign. Other agrarian revolts, such as those of the Jats, were largely secular.

In general, Aurangzeb ruled as a militant orthodox Sunni Muslim; he put through increasingly puritanical ordinances that were vigorously enforced by muḥtasibs, or censors of morals. The Muslim confession of faith, for instance, was removed from all coins lest it be defiled by unbelievers, and courtiers were forbidden to salute in the Hindu fashion. In addition, Hindu idols, temples, and shrines were often destroyed.

Aurangzeb maintained the empire for nearly half a century and in fact extended it in the south as far as Tanjore (now Thanjavur) and Trichinopoly (now Tiruchchirappalli). Behind this imposing facade, however, were serious weaknesses. The Maratha campaign continually drained the imperial resources. The militancy of the Sikhs and the Jats boded ill for the empire in the north. The new Islamic policy alienated Hindu sentiment and undermined Rajput support. The financial pressure on the land strained the whole administrative framework. When Aurangzeb died after a reign of nearly 49 years, he left an empire not yet moribund but confronted with a number of menacing problems. The failure of his son’s successors to cope with them led to the collapse of the empire in the mid-18th century.

Source: ©2014 Encyclopædia Britannica, Inc.
 
Mate here it is. It was only after his death, did the Mughal empire starts lo weaken as his sons could not emulate their father and forefathers. :smart:
Okay, it's true he expanded his territory which is indeed impressive but couldn't you say that his policies as well as his antagonising of Hindus and Sikhs led for his successors to face the full brunt of that?
 
Marathas raiding was similar to Ghorids and others who did similar work in the NW.

In Bengal, there was even a large ditch made against the Maratha raiders.

Maratha Ditch - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Bargi - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The Maratha invasions played on the creative impulse of the people. Even to this day, mothers in Bengal sing the cradle song to put their children to sleep -

chhele ghumalo, pada judalo bargi elo deshe
bulbulite dhan kheyechhe, khajna debo kise?

When the children fall asleep, silence sets in, the Bargis come to our lands
Bulbulis (birds) have eaten the grains, how shall I pay the tax?


Not many in N. India were fans of them. They made enemies through out. And grew too arrogant.
 
Okay, it's true he expanded his territory which is indeed impressive but couldn't you say that his policies as well as his antagonising of Hindus and Sikhs led for his successors to face the full brunt of that?

Well this was fate. He chose to follow those policies and so his successors paid for it. He did not envision this, if he had then probably he may have done it a different way. But we cannot do anything about it now.
 
He passed the torch to modern day Zia-ul-Haq.

Both eternal indian @$$ kickers.
 

Country Latest Posts

Back
Top Bottom