which gunpowder empire was the best and why was it the Safavids?

>>1779178
>muslims
None.

File: shah_esmail.jpg (51KB, 660x269px) Image search: [Google]

51KB, 660x269px

>>1779178
Safavids are my favourite too and by a hugue stretch, but best at what?

In most pragmatic things like military might or economic prosperity they were probably the worst.

>>1779189
/pol/ is the other way, friend

Safavids barely used gunpowder; they relied mostly on horse archers and were the most technologically backwards and most sparsely populated of all the gunpowder empires.

Ottomans > Mughals > Safamemes

Timurids > all

:^)

>roaches to the left of me, poointheloos to the right, here I am
>stuck in the middle with youuuu

>>1779240
You are the memer, this is only appliable for like the two first Safavid monarchs and not entirely.

how did the arabs get kek'd so hard out of ruling the islamic world? it went from arabs running everything to persians and t*rks running everything

>>1779338
You mean it came from arabs running nothing for milennia to arabs ruling everything for a couple of centuries, and after that to arabs ruling nothing until today again.

If anything, one should ask oneself how arabs managed to rule and create the islamic world and arabize so much of it.

>>1779338
persians were better at culture and t*rks were better at war. The main thing the arabs brought to the table was theology to bind it all together

>>1779374
Mohammad and his extended family are like Caesar or Napoleon, they only come once for a civilization

>>1779394
It's like in my D&D fantasy settings

>>1779374
By out breeding the native religions/raping the women and children of non-Muslims

>>1779398
But France was the strongest/hegemonic power in western europe for a big amount of AD two milennia.

And Rome had plenty of capable men besides Caesar.

>>1779401
Persians = high elves
T*rks = orcs
Arabs = humans
Jews = halflings
Armenians = dwarves
k*rds = wood elves
Mongols = dark elves

File: Peshwa_Baji_Rao_I_riding_horse.jpg (57KB, 300x416px) Image search: [Google]

57KB, 300x416px

>mugays
>any year

File: aquele sentimento quando maometano.jpg (34KB, 427x461px) Image search: [Google]

34KB, 427x461px

>tfw all those empires shared similar Persianate culture
>tfw this Persianate culture doesn't exist anymore, not even in Iran

What happened, /his/? How could such a prestigious culture fall so hard?

>>1779413
Pashtos/afghans are the Dark Elves. This is objective and cannot be discussed. Mongols would be trolls or some kind of creature similar to the orc but stronger and rarer.

Kinda weird setting if orcs rule most of the countries though.

>>1779423
>Babur wrote in his autobiograby livejournal page how sad he was that some shota boipucci he saw at the local market wouldn't return his love and let him pound his mound

pretty gay desu

>>1779178

Plebian:
Ottoman

Contrarian:
Safavids

Patrician:
Mughals

Anyone who has read up on Babur and Akbar or Mughals in general would know this.

Ottomans are decent between Mehmed II and Suleiman but their 300 year long slow motion collapse is a disgrace, Safavids only had Nader Shah and were poorest of the two and with least impact of the two (Ismail is a meme).

>>1779427
Sorry but I'm lost, when did persianate culture fall and what makes it different from modern iranian/turkish culture besides modernity?

>>1779429
good point

Pashtun = dark elves
Mongols = idk githyanki or some shit

>>1779178
Mughals were based as fuck.

File: Agra, Taj Mahal Mosque 2.jpg (3MB, 3415x2560px) Image search: [Google]

3MB, 3415x2560px

I'd go with the Mughals.

Ottomans had top architecture, okay art
Safavids had top art, good architecture
Mughals had top art and architecture

Militarily, Ottomans and Mughals I think were evenly matched while Persia lagged behind, especially when it came to gunpowder. The Mughals notably developed artillery rockets, the designs of which were later transferred to Europe through Mysore.

As far as I know the Mughals were also the more religiously tolerant and benevolent in general, at least before Aurangzeb.

I don't know how the overall qualities of life of their subjects would compare though.

>>1779437
>who are the two Abbas

Get a load of this paki. Mughals wouldn't even had existed besides Babur if it wasn't for the Safavids. And not even thanks to the most brilliant king of the dynasty.

>>1779427
It fell because it was being prompted up by minority dynasties that ruled over a majority population. The culture and patronage of that said culture ended with the dynasties, also the dynasties all absorbed and got assimilated into the culture of their populations over time and had different experiences, creating unique infusions of culture that distinguished each more and more over time.


Besides, you can feel Persianate culture's impact in Turkey and Iran very well.

>>1779433
the urge to violently ram boipuccy intensifies the closer your civilization is to Kabul apparently

>>1779469
Babur was a Timurid not a Safavid.

Safavids were usurpers in Iran, they were foreign persianate rulers also. Iranian diaspora getting autistic about this must be the most retarded thing ever. There is no "competition" between Ottomans, Safavids and Mughals to be most Persianate, they all were, until they weren't.

The fact that Mughal's existence is such a miracle is why they are patrician in the first place, while Ottomans and Safavids were business as usual.

File: sheikh lotfollah mosque (5).jpg (445KB, 1024x760px) Image search: [Google]

445KB, 1024x760px

>>1779467
I like Safavid mosques way more than Ottoman ones.

>>1779433
>>1779485

What's with Turkic Persiantes and their lust for boys?

>>1779433
Shota isn't gay though

>>1779505
t. Babur

>>1779496
>Babur was a Timurid not a Safavid.
You didn't understand the sentence or don't know mughal history. Babur's son Humayun was able to rule exclusively thanks to Safavid help, there's no mughals in India after Babur if it wasn't for Tahmasp of the Safavids.

Also you don't need to be "autistic diaspora" to acknowledge Safavids were no foreign rulers at all.

>>1779467
Mughal architecture is a continuum of Indian architecture that was top tier since start of civilisation.

All three were Islamic-Persianate in their approach to mosques and architecture in general but with different flavours. Ottomans were more Roman and later western influenced, Mughals more Indian and Safavids more Pre-Islamic-Iran.

>>1779374
>If anything, one should ask oneself how arabs managed to rule and create the islamic world and arabize so much of it.

Because they didn't. The Persians did that as well.

>>1779527
I'm a literal iranboo but seriously doubt persians arabized Egypt and the Maghreb.

>>1779515
They were not Persians but was a Persianate. Hell, in Ottoman court the language was often Persian, later Mughal rulers also used Persian as court language while early Safavid rulers used Turkish. Safavids are ironically the ones that were least glamoured by the Persians until later rulers.

Daily reminder if you are an Iranboo your choice Persianate should be Mughals.

File: Selimiye Mosque 3.jpg (443KB, 1280x850px)

443KB, 1280x850px

>>1779497
I love Safavid architecture, but for me the Ottomans win out when it comes to the scale, diversity, uniqueness and quantity of their architecture. They build countless enormous mosques, madrassahs and caravansarais in varying styles from region to region, and even within the same region they'd vary hugely, combining different aspects of Greek, Persian and Levantine architecture.

The Safavids in comparison hardly built anything in the 16th century, while in the 17th century limited most of their impressive construction to Isfahan. Their buildings tend to look very similar with everything covered in that blue decoration (there are exceptions, especially secular buildings) and they didn't really improve much on the styles of the earlier Timurids or contemporary Uzbeks.

>>1779539
They rather fall under the category of tajik than under the category of turk. If they used turkish as "court language", which is not entirely correct by the way, is because due to the historical background in the area they relied in turks for the army during the first century of the dynasty. The royal family itself was never part of those turkish warlords, though, albeit of course they intermarried with them.

>>1779427
how is modern persian culture significantly different?

>>1779505
shota is the pinnacle of sexuality
this was known by the ancient greeks

File: 063.jpg (2MB, 2500x1927px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 2500x1927px

Why did they all go down in a downward spiral of increasing religious conservatism and persecution?

Were the Mughals the ones most comfy with religion?

>>1779575
I find ottoman architecture to be too austere and bland in comparison (and strictly only in comparison). The "blue decoration" and overall the overwhelming and even invasive explosion of colors and forms is what I like the most in persian architecture since it gives it an otherworldly vibe, call it angelicl or divine if you want. In comparison turkish mosques are more serene.

>>1779578
Turkic not Turkish. Also it wasn't one people, Nader Shah was Afshar for example.

>>1779560
You're just a mughalboo making no sense lad. Not like there's anything wrong on being a mughalboo but calm down.

What are some good resources to learn about the savafids and qajars in Iran?

>>1779613
Nader was not a Safavid. He was not even noble, his father was a fucking herdsman.

>>1779622
Cambridge History of Iran and Axworthy's Empire of the mind cover those periods pretty well, although others too.

File: Interior_of_Wazir_Khan_Mosque.jpg (672KB, 1280x900px) Image search: [Google]

672KB, 1280x900px

>>1779607
What about this?

>>1779601
fuck, I really want to smoke some hookah right now

>>1779646
This one is simply great, but my "criticism" (I wouldn't even call that) was directed only towards the Ottomans.

File: Karim Khan Zand.jpg (103KB, 639x588px)

103KB, 639x588px

>>1779658
Come smoke with the founder of best dynasty anon.

File: Sultan Muhammad, Miraj Nameh (1539-43).jpg (4MB, 2183x3227px)

4MB, 2183x3227px

>>1779607
I definitely see where you're coming from, I just prefer the more 'serene' to the 'overwhelming' stuff. I've always found Levantine/Egyptian/Anatolian architecture really comfy for some reason.

To me the Safavid's best point is their art, it's the absolute high-point of the Persian miniature. The Mughal stuff is about as good but more influenced by Indian and European styles.

>>1779601
>you will never be in this harem room being intimate with one of your concubines as rest of them dance and enjoy themselves

File: Mughal_Dagger_In_Louvre.jpg (1MB, 603x2586px)

1MB, 603x2586px

>>1779601
I think they were tolerant up to Aurangzeb who decided to go Ape mode on Sikhs and Hindus after his sort-of tolerant father died.

Also

>You will never be a rich Mughal royal or Zamindar in the court of Akbar or Shah Jahan

JUST

File: Mughal-Miniature-Paintings-116.jpg (113KB, 650x440px)

113KB, 650x440px

>>1779695

>>1779680
I basically agree and I understand you too. But isn't this example of miniature very overwhelming too? All in all I'll say that art of any form being overloaded and garish is a main element of persian culture, and part of the charm. The culture itself has/had examples of this excess and extremism pretty much everywhere even outside of art too, although there's also room for occasional austerity and serenity.

File: Riza Abbasi, Moraqqa’-e Golshan, Servant (1605-1628 AD).jpg (4MB, 1924x2929px)

4MB, 1924x2929px

>>1779726
>But isn't this example of miniature very overwhelming too?
I suppose, but I like that more in miniatures than in architecture. I mostly just love how vibrant and colourful it is. Again, it's not that I don't like intricate and overwhelming stuff, I just prefer the Ottoman style when it comes to architecture.

Of course, there's also more serene stuff like Riza Abbasi's paintings.

>>1779338
>Let's let Turks do the Job nobody wants to do what could go wrong :)

>>1779240
Wrong. Also the Mughals literally got buttraped repeatedly by the Safavid and Afashrids. Ismail was already attempting to change his troops into gunmen but the Turkic troops went against that. It was when Abbas the Great came to power that the Safavids became a true gunpowder empire.

Safavids only had two good rulers though, Ismail (who had the accomplishment of unifying Iran, but his followers were so autistic they refused to use gunpowder, as a result Ismail lost to the Ottomans and died a depressed alcoholic).

And then you have Abbas I, who retook quite a bit of territory and helped develop Iran and modernize its army. Unfortunately, he also destroyed the Safavid family line by blinding/killing all of his sons.

Also, daily reminder that the Safavids were a Kurdish dynasty.

>>1779793
>Safavids were a Kurdish dynasty.
WE

>>1779788
You mean mountain Iranians

>>1779338
Majority of the governors, administrator, and bureaucrats of the Abbasid Caliphate were Persians. Even their best ruler was half-Persian and the Buyids and other Iranian kingdoms and empires propping themselves up again in Iran and the Greater Iran area pretty much took over the Abbasids military.

>>1779240
>Safavids barely used gunpowder.
Here's your (You).

>>1779793
>>1779797
Safavids were a mixture of Persianized Kurds, Azeris, and Persians with some admixture and lineage from Pontic Greeks. They were not exclusively Kurdish.

>>1779802
Not really, no.

>>1779178
Superior Aryan genes.

>>1779793
>Who is Abbas II

File: WE WUZ HUMANZ N SHIET.png (4MB, 1222x1554px) Image search: [Google]

4MB, 1222x1554px

>>1779797

WUZ

File: 1471577466018.jpg (41KB, 520x720px)

41KB, 520x720px

>>1779189
Ayy you butthurt

>>1779884
>>1779797
Get out mehmet

>>1779793
>Also, daily reminder that the Safavids were a Kurdish dynasty.
lol

File: Inbred_KurdTribe.jpg (37KB, 375x248px)

37KB, 375x248px

>>1779884
>>1780317

MEDES N SHIET

>>1779240
Niggq the Mughals collapsed the earliest.

>>1780576
Even before that they got their shit kicked by the Safavids and Persians in general. India never does well against Persia.

File: Maurya_Dynasty_in_265_BCE.jpg (139KB, 656x543px) Image search: [Google]

139KB, 656x543px

>>1780673
Do the Seleucids count as Persia?

>>1780725
Their Greek/Macedonian, so probably not. Plus gotta keep that win streak strong.

>>1779413
>Arabs = humans

Where these empires the equivalent of France, Britain and Russia ruling everything a few centuries later?

>>1780790
>France
>Britain
>100 year old Colonial """""Empires"""""
Sorry, you could only be an Empire if you actually include peripherical people in the Imperial Project, not treat your peripheries as merely areas of resource extraction/captive markets.

>>1780790
I don't understand your question, can you repeat what you are asking more concisely?

>>1780840
These Empires were ruled by former barbarians (turks) that worshiped a semitic god and ruled all over Asia (except for East Asia) and North Africa, spreading Persian culture as they went.

The French, Brits and Russians would do the same (for "European" culture, which was basically Greco-Roman after a thousand years of Christianity) a few centuries later.

>>1780879
So you are saying Persians are to the Middle East and Southern Asia as Romans are to Western Europe?

Also Safavids aren't Turkic.

>>1780890

>Also Safavids aren't Turkic.

Depends how you define Turkic.

If it's about ancestry, then neither of the three empires were "Turkic" besides maybe the Mughals (who likely bred out most of their Turkic genes within 2 or 3 generations).

After all, only something like 2 out of the 36 Ottoman Sultans had a Turkish mother, the entire Ottoman nobility was likely 95% Greek/Balkan ancestrally speaking. And of course, Safavids, being Azeris, would also not have very much Turkic ancestry.

If you define "Turkic" on the basis of language, then the Ottomans and Safavids would be Turkic, but the Mughals wouldn't be, since Chagatai Turkic was only the court language for a very brief moment at the beginning of the empire's existence, Persian became both the court language and official language of the empire very quickly.

Of course, the whole "Is Turkicness defined on ancestry or language" question is a controversial topic to begin with.

>>1780924
Safavids were a mix of Kurdish, Persian, Greek, and Azeri. None of which are Turkic or Turkish. Also Turkish was not the court or administrative language of the Safavids and they hailed from Ardabil with their paternal ancestry steming from a verified Kurdish-Persian sufist.

So while I can't say much for certain about the Ottomans or Mughals (who I do know the latter come from Perso-Turkic roots and Babar did not want to identify with his Mongol heritage from his grandfather Timur), I do know the Safavids were always ethnically Iranian.

So again, not Turkic.

>>1780890
>persians are to SA as romans are to western europe.
what?
The persian influence is far less than morons make it out to be.

>>1780933
t. mamud

>>1780933
Sure thing buddy.

>>1780890
Sort of.

Romanized Germanics (Brits and French) and Slavs (Russians) ≡ Persianized Turkics

Other Germanics and Slavs ≡ Other Turkics (like the ones in Central Asia)

Christianity ≡ Islam

Romans ≡ Persians

Greeks (including Macedonians, Ionians, etc.) ≡ Near East civilizations (Babylonians, Assyrians, etc.)

Egyptians ≡ Sumerians

I know it's autistic and not completely accurate, but I love the almost poetic parallels. I don't know where to put the Hittites though, and the Arabs pretty much throw a wrench to the whole thing (managing to spread their religion and language through large swathes of land like the Romans, but being less comparable to them than the Persians).

>>1780935
>>1780939
>urdu is arabic script and the hindi language but with some persian grammatical structure.
>the rajputs don't have persian names and didn't become islamic.
>neither did the south indian people other than some isolated islamic kingdoms
>butthurt iranians now claim that they were rome to south asia.

>>1780956
Ironically Persian influence declined with the arrival of the safavids and their mass conversion of Iran, turning what was a Sunni powerhouse into an autistic Shia power.

Persian culture really spread with the Samanids, Seljuks, and mongol successor states. Safavids are just a diaspora meme.

In what way are Azeris not Turkic?

>>1779467
>As far as I know the Mughals were also the more religiously tolerant and benevolent in general, at least before Aurangzeb.
I would agree with this, seeing that almost 80% of present day India is Hindu. I wonder how the future of the Mughals would have shaped up if Dara Shikoh would have been the king instead of Aurangzeb.

>>1780977
>Ironically Roman influence declined with the arrival of the Germans and their Protestant Reformation, turning what was a Christian powerhouse into an autistic Protestant power.
>Roman culture really spread with the Byzantines, Franks, and Goth successor states. Prussians are just a German meme.

>>1780999
it's because present day india doesn't include pakistan and bangladesh, which have huge pops and are largely muslim.

>>1781009
Even if you include those the Hindu population would be over 50%. Seems quite strange that Islam was in a region for so many centuries and still there are still pagans left in that land.

>>1781021
because islamic rule wasn't as entrenched as people though it to be. Singular muslim rulers would win a lot of clay and then their successors would lose it. They were also placating their local subjects for the most part. Areas of less brahminical influence like the buddhist western india or the tribal eastern parts of india were far easily islamicized.
Doing serious scholarship on that in present day india is pretty much impossible.

File: Genetic Cluster 4.png (225KB, 1736x883px) Image search: [Google]

225KB, 1736x883px

>>1780991

>In what way are Azeris not Turkic?

Genetically? Most genetic tests in the ME/Caucasus region put Azeris and Anatolian Turks right next to Iranians/Kurds/Armenians.

Since genetic analysis is the best way to show ancestry, you can easily conclude that if your genes don't show a noticeable amount of Turkic/Mongolic admixture then it means that most of your ancestors were not actually Turkics.

Of course, that depends on if you define "Turkic" as an ancestral thing (you are mostly descended from Turkic peoples) or a linguistic thing (you speak a Turkic language).

Basically it's an argument over whether ethnicity is tied to language or to ancestry.

>>1780962
Keep telling yourself that Sheir.
>>1780977
No it didn't. Persian influence declined with the rise of the Qajars who were literally buttfuckingly retarded in every which way and their last chance at being a major power lost when they had a certain minister assassinated by angry court officials and the royal family because he was curbing corruption and state bankruptcy.
>>1780991
Race? Culture? Only Azerbaijani Azeris have a honest misguided belief they are Turkic because of stormfront tier Turkish "pan"-Turanism thanks to late 19th century/early 20th century Russian propaganda which was made to further weaken Iran during the final decades of the Qajar dynasty. Even Iranian Azeris only identify their language as Turkish.

But more importantly, most haplogroup and autosomal DNA testing puts Azeris closer to Anataolians and Northern Caucaus/Western Eurasians then they do with actual Turkics. Hell to a lesser extent you can apply that to the "Turkish" themselves as Turks have always been assimilated by others.

>be Turkic
>win the memetic game through language
>lose it through religion
>lose the genetic game too
>against ugly as fuck Georgians and Armenians
What a tragedy. Actual Central Asian Turkics look a lot better than Turkey Turks, though it's a shame they too bought the Islam meme.

>>1779892
about what?

>>1780932
>Kurdish
>Eastern Anatolian beyliks that spoke Turkish and mixed with Pontic Greeks and Azeri are Kurdish
>Shah Ismail who wrote and spoke Turkish in his court is not Turkic

>>1781102
>Genetically?

This is such an autistic thing. Kazakhs do not cluster with Uyghurs or Yakuts either but all of them are Turkic.

Turkic is an ethno-linguistic categorisation like Slavic, not a genetic cluster.

>>1781233
Islam is best thing to happen to Turkics, all great Turkic powers became dominant while they were Muslim, before it they were irrelevant horse nomads and if they didn't adopt Islam and sedentary culture of Persians they would have disappeared with no impact completely like Mongols did.

>a thread discussing the ottoman empire that doesn't devolve into constant t*rkroach shitposting, Serb/Hungarian/Habsburg/Byzaboo butthurt and Koksal Baba memes

I guess the trick is only discuss the t*rks in relation to other islamic powers. The moment you try to have an intelligent discussion of them pertaining to their relationship to the west the rage and autism goes through the roof

>what kinda Persia you want senpai?
>just Shia my shit up

>>1779402
That didn't happen though. At least not to the point you're trying to exagerrate it

>>1779413
>Jews not being dwarves
Reread Tolkien, he literally gave dwarves two languages.

File: 1436850251471.png (3MB, 1960x2256px) Image search: [Google]

3MB, 1960x2256px

>>1779178
the ottomans, other two didnt even came close

>empire
>just iran
Persiaboos are a disgrace

>>1781315
Bait the post

>>1781315
>beyliks
90% of the population in Ardabil weren't Turkic nor spoke Turkish.
>mixed with Pontic Greeks
And Persians and Azeris, yes.
>Ismail wrote and spoke Turkish.
Black English and Black Americans speak English, does that make them white? Or Caucasian? No. Ismail wrote and spoke in Persian natively. You know that the Ottoman Turks even directly called the Safavids "heirs to Kai Khosrow" as an acknowledgment of their Iranian stock.

>>1782472
>also afghanistan, pakistan, azerbaijan, and parts of iraq and transcacausia
learn geography pleb

>>1782650
>a whole bunch of useless dirt
Real nice empire. Much better than the Ottomans.

>>1782670
>spreading glorious persianate culture
>wrong in any way

>>1782682
>persianate
>culture

>>1779178
>Safavids
>better than Ottomans and Mughals
costanza

>>1782693
t. Mohammad bin Faisal bin al saud

>>1782650
Also include India in your list.

>>1782693
>Ottomans being Persianboos themselves
>Ottomans having anything else of their own
>>1782697
t. turkroach

File: 13432523.png (35KB, 467x456px) Image search: [Google]

35KB, 467x456px

>>1782693
>>1782670
>not even any actual scientific accomplishments
>"small and measured"
Ottomans can't even into higher culture.

>>1782779
Hahaha one of those Turkfags even altered the wikipedia article to lie about their shitty empire. =

File: 1475521944701.jpg (36KB, 800x600px) Image search: [Google]

36KB, 800x600px

>>1781102
tfw Anatolians are LARPing as Tengri's chosen.

Mughals, Safavids did pretty good fighting back the T*rk though

File: 8746937-Happy-senior-businessman-reading-newspaper-in-office-lobby-on-coffee-break--Stock-Photo.jpg (102KB, 1300x991px) Image search: [Google]

102KB, 1300x991px

>mfw the best Persian general post Arab invasion wasn't even truly Muslim

>>1779413
I disagree, I think it's more

>Persians = high elves
>T*rks = humans
>Arabs = orcs
>Jews = gnomes
>Armenians = halflings
>K*rds = dwarves
>Mongols = dark elves

where does the whole 't*rk/k*rd/arm*nian/s*rb' etc meme come from?

>>1782833
>Mughals get wrecked by Safavids, steppe niggahs, and the Europeans
>"They did pretty good though!"

>>1782845
>T*rks = humans
Nope.

File: 20954872547.jpg (37KB, 410x600px)

37KB, 410x600px

>>1782091
>implying it had anything to do with religion

>>1782990
>his empire barely lasted a century

>>1783000

Mughals were Timurids though.

>>1783007
Mughals were mongrels.

If the Safavids or Mughals went up against the Europeans they'd get raped in less than a few minutes whereas the Ottos held their own against half of Europe for centuries.

>>1783129
Safavids beat the Portugese in a war and held off the Russians. Stop being retarded, Memet.

File: 1459778765726.gif (2MB, 320x240px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 320x240px

>>1783164
>Russians
>European

>>1783129
like the time aurangzeb bullied the english to hand over a british privateer?
Like the time he shut down the surat factory because he wanted to prove a point?
where was europe then?

>>1783172
>time for shitposting memery
>meme arrows

File: 1474097690453.png (822KB, 1136x1434px) Image search: [Google]

822KB, 1136x1434px

>>1783194
>where was europe then?

Plotting.

>>1783172
There's nothing wrong with hitting women if they truly want to be treated equally.

>>1782223
This tb h.

>>1782990
what was his fucking problem?

>>1779178
Mughals were the coolest
>Babur, descendent of fucking Genghis Khan, decides to go conquer India
>right after he does he ups and fucking dies and they revolt
>his son, now in exile, has to fucking RECONQUER the vast territory his father already conquered
>as soon as he conquers it, he hits his head while tripping down some stairs because he had to pray (dead fucking serious) and FUCKING DIES
>his 13 year old son Akbar is now the emperor
>of course people want to revolt again
>Akbar literally squashes any rebellion and keeps the empire under his control
>and he was 13 fucking years old
You can look up more about Akbar if you want, that man was literally a God.
But the Mughal's also didn't force their religion on their inhabitants until one of the shitty emperors took control, and by then the empire would collapse quickly, but at least its collapse wasn't over the course of several hundred years and totally pathetic like the Ottoman Empire.

>>1785136
Akbar used smart diplomacy and didn't expand his empire in india. Which is why his empire stayed stable.

Also, the later mughals were pretty pathetic.

>>1785136
Could the Mughals have kept their empire stable if not for Aurangzeb? Sounds like even if religious tolerance continued(The kind after Shah Jahan), the emergence of people like Marathas, Sikhs, etc. would have still organized and rebelled.

>>1785160
Well Aurangzeb was only one of the shitty emperors, if I recall correctly Shah Jahan and some of his descendants fucked the empire economically with some pretty terrible decisions

>>1779189
Muslims >>> Hindus any day

>>1785267
On what basis?

The Mughals by far. They were the most based muslims. See Taj Mahal and such

>>1785323
>Taj Mahal
Designed, engineered, and built by Persians for the Mughals.

>>1785136
How is it positive for an empire if they collapsed earlier ?
It would just mean that they were so incompetent that they couldn't keep it afloat atleast the ottomans tried to survive while the russians tried to conquer them and western europe tried to cobtrol them.

>>1785323
>high school history kids
at least refer to the red fort of the fatehpur sikri.
>>1785268
Because pagans are icky.

>>1785166
my impression was that Aurangzeb was actually one of the better Mughal emperors in every respect except his angry autism over religion

his reign is definitely the reason the Sikhs went from being a pacifist religion to a warrior religion

File: 224657_110735209010086_3147200_n.jpg (63KB, 381x571px) Image search: [Google]

63KB, 381x571px

>>1779413
>T*rks = orcs
more like Turks=Uruk-hai

>>1786216
Functionally identical to orcs, but think they're something special because of recent misinterpretation of historical record?

Sounds about right.

>>1786273
If anything early turks were rohirrim.

>>1786279
Rohirrim would not survive actual steppe warfare. They're chargefags.

Rohirrim is pretty much Tolkien's Saxon Wet-Dream. Despite being un-Saxon as fuck.

>>1786284
>They're chargefags.
Movies only
>Tolkien's
Jackson's*
>un-Saxon
lolwut https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rohirric
they literally speak old english

>>1786308
I was talking of Tolkien. The cunt's family wasnt from England. The family name doesnt ring a bell?

>only playable gunpowder empire faction in empire total war were the ottomans

Mughals and Sikhs would have been awesome

>>1786315
His family did apparently flee Upper Saxony.

Well over a hundred years before his birth, too, so he probably had some Anglo to go with the Saxon.

>>1786054
his conquest spree was the reason the empire got sucked into chaos. The Marathas were initially content to remain as nominal vassals of the mughal empire but aurangzeb pretty much ruined it. His campaigns in the deccan were vietnam tier excercises in futility.

>>1786315
tolkien's rohirrim were also capable of fighting on foot. They were like early medieval knights in that they didn't have lances but rather spears.

They were shock cavalry that were decently armored

Either Ottoman or Mughal Empire, stop fapping over Safavids really, they weren't really so relevant. Ottomans had vast empire and great cultural impact, Mughal had the largest economy in the world and the second most populous state I don't really know how Safavids really compare to them, Persia was only good under Achaemenids and maybe Parthians.

Anyway all the three are shit tier, everything non-European after 1550 was simply inferior at everything besides maybe sheer numbers.

>>1788263
>who is Nader Shah?

Safavids were hugely influential. Nader Shah came about after the collapse of the Safavid State and constructed the strongest army in the world in the early 18th century

>>1788263
>Mughals
>relevant
>>1788285
Nader Shah showed up in the twilight years of the Safavids. If the last Safavid Shah hadn't been young and easily manipulated by jealous court officials who hated Nader, the Safavids would probably lasted a lot longer.

>>1788704
Not really the case. Nader Shah was a bit of a power maniac and used his own political intrigues to set up a Kurultai to crown himself

>>1788774
He had no issue defending the throne and staying at the Safavids sides until said officials had the Shah lose a large army and several provinces against the Ottomans he had won only a year or so earlier.

File: 51L4gpl2mXL._SX317_BO1,204,203,200_.jpg (49KB, 319x499px) Image search: [Google]

49KB, 319x499px

>>1788792
After the turmoil of the Safavid collapse and pushing out the Gharzai Afghan occupation he had the perfect opportunity to hand back control to the Safavids, which was what was most popular among the nobles and Persian Shia. The best biography on him explains how he usurped control from himself as I don't remember the finer details but he set up a bullshit Kurultai as part of it. He initially had mostly support from Afshar Turks but he won over the Persians after beating back the Sunni Afghans that persecuted the Shia Persians very harshly. He was a very pragmatic and intelligent person, very calculating and Machiavellian and he made manuevers to win over the Armenian Christians, Kurds, Persians, etc. He made it seem like there was no option left for him to become King but it's not true.