The decline of the Great Muslim Empires Essay Example for Free

The decline of the corking Moslem conglomerates EssayFrom the middle of the fifteenth light speed and up to the end of the eighteenth century three Great Muslim Empires had been dominating in the Islamic zone of then area the Ottoman Empire in Asia Minor, the Mughal Empire in India, and the Safavid Empire in Persia, forming the more or less speedyly expanding forces in world affairs (Kennedy 1989).They solely failed sooner or later delinquent to the internal factors such as wonkyening of change policy-making control, excessive enlargement of the territories, religious diversity, and regulationrs conservatism chaired in failure to implement the modern technologies (Kennedy 1989). The prevailing factors of their sundown were not the same for for each one of them, although there were several common ones. But the major contri howeverion to the sour of their decay was made by the outer world. Internal weaknesses were enough to wreck the Muslim empires, but each alike failed to recognize the threat to their dominance posed by the rise of the West.By the beginning of the seventeenth century the main world communication routes didnt pass through with(predicate) the Middle East any much and the European states dominated at sea turning a profit from their advances in lore and engineering science and successfully carrying out the gunpowder policy as well as promoting their raft on the territories originally controlled by the Muslim empires (Wells 1933). To find the factors which led to the decline of the Great Mughals, the Safavid Dynasty, and the Ottoman Empire, while the Europeans went ahead, we should investigate their features, comparison them and draw a conclusion.Considering chronology of their decline, one can find a certain similarity the print of extinction went along by the govern of a certain leader the Ottomans fell apart after Suleyman the lawmaker rule, the Safavids by the end of Abbas Is reign, and the Mughals after Auran gzers rule. The timing of collapse for the Ottoman, Safavid, and Mughal empires substantially differ. While the Ottoman state declined for the period of three centuries, the Safavids drop was much faster as well as those of the Great Mughals.The reason of rapid Safavids decay noticeably lied in the uselessness to defend from the neighboring Ottoman Empire in the seventeenth century resulted in complacence of the Safavid Shans, their growing corruption and decadence. The Mughal Empires fall is owed to heavy hand rule and aggressive East India Company avocation policy. Ottoman rulers in turn had a very buncoterm policy unwilling to develop their territory as well as to invest in it and mercilessly exploiting land and peoples, they relied on continuous expansion for stability, and when the empire did not grow, it gradually collapsed (Hooker 1999).The Ottoman Empire was the longlived one in comparison with the Mughals and the Safavid dynasty (a shortlived one). It reached its peak by 1600 on a lower floor the reign of Suleyman the vivid and then has been gradually declined up to the end of the eighteenth century, but even survived through the First piece War, and was disbanded in 1918.The Mughal Empire survived until 1857, it, as Phillip Myers affirmed, lasted upwards of 300 years, until destroyed by the English in the set up century, but in fact its rulers after 1803 were the pensioners of the East India Company (Myers 1902). As for the Safavids their demise after the reign of Abbas I was too prompt, and internal disorder plagued the empire which resulted in Afgans successful conquest of its capital Isfahan in 1722 (Hooker 1999).The Ottoman Turks were to falter, to turn inward, and to loose the chance of world domination To a certain extent it could be argued that this process was the natural consequence of earlier Turkish successes the Ottoman soldiery, however well administrated, might be able to maintain the lengthy frontiers, but could hardly expand f arther without enormous cost in men and money (Kennedy 1989).The latter thought by Paul Kennedy could be referred not only to the Ottomans it also determines one of the main economic reasons underlying the nature of Safavids and Mughals sunset. It is very expensive business to fly the coop an empire encompassing vast territory and one day such empire becomes too big to be successfully governed. The rapid expansion of the Muslim Empires spread their governments and military administrations too thin. The enormous expenses impoverished them and create up longstanding hostility among the people towards the lavish emperors. This subsequently led to the frequent rebellions and mental unsoundness in the society in all three concerned empires (Hooker 1999).The lack of flexibility in office to the newer weaponry and resistance to any military technology that threatened the dominance of the Muslim Empires caused them to fall dirty dog Western nations. Backwardness of Janissaries, their hereditary membership since 1637 resulted in transformation of Ottomans coercive army into a heap of cobblers and weavers.In case of the Mughals the most dramatic effect was taken by the recruitment of slave armies that last became to dominate their hirers and govern independently. Similarly to them the Safavid Shan Tahmasp I begun introduction of converted slaves into military since the middle of the sixteenth century who later would acquire positions of influence under Shah Abbas I. But after conclusion of the treaty delimitating frontiers with the Ottomans in 1639 the army got peace and declined in size and quality (Kennedy 1989).During the seventeenth century all three empires showed the signs of weakening centralized political control. At the same time vast corruption among the bureaucracy and local aristocracy became evident. In the Safavid Empire which was a theocracy unlike the Ottoman and Mughal nations a new class of wealthy religious aristocrats owed everything to the state, but plundered it. Later sultans in the Ottoman Empire reduced to puppets dominated by Janissaries and viziers. Venality and corruption run through all level of bureaucracy.The last Mughal powerful emperor Aurangzeb decided to extend the territory under his control to the entire Indian subcontinent, and this campaign although being successful emptied his exchequer and increased his enemies. He set about rebellions in the north, and throughout the empire Islamic invaders, Hindu separatists and Sikh revolutionaries caused centralized political control to cracking down. Furthermore the rebellions in all three empires were excited over economic reasons the heavy tax hinderance posed on peasants, alienation of the nonMuslim merchant classes in the Ottoman Empire land seizures from Quizilbash landholders by the Safavid ruler Abbas I a punitive tax on Hindu subjects reimposed by the Mughal emperor Aurangzeb (Hooker 1999).Religious diversity also contributed to the Great Muslims de cay, although not so much as the preceding(prenominal) mentioned factors. Without religious tolerance the empires got a great many internal enemies disposed to the rebellions. The complexity of religion issue interrupted also the further development of the Muslim Empires. For example, Paul Kennedy stated with respect to the Mughals, that the system was weak at the core. The sheer rigidity of Hindu religious taboos militated against modernization (Kennedy 1989).The crisis in the Muslim Empires deepened also due to the external factors. They all were based on land routes, not sea travel, and this enabled the Europeans to dominate in manage by sea after discovering African water route to India by the Portuguese explorers. Muslim monopoly of stack with Asia ended then which unsettled the Ottoman economy and led to the inflation there.Although the English occasionally traded through Persia, the Safavids economy was weakened as well by the general loss of trade. Since the seventeenth c entury the trade routes in the world went through the oceans, which let the Europeans to have a great advantage controlling the trade by sea with India and the Far East. Having no seafaring skills, the Muslim Empires failed to resist to such domination, and they were to be harmonise with the presence of the Europeans in their cities (Wells 1933).In conclusion, the immense Muslim Empires were doomed to lose to the Europeans who advanced in science and technology, removed one of the sources of profit for the Muslim merchants having discovered new trade sea routes, and rose powerful nationstates able to gain territories not only due to gunpowder policy, but as the result of successful economic invasion.The Western Europeans, and particularly the Dutch, the Scandinavians, the Spanish, the Portuguese, the French and the British were extending the area of their struggles across the seas of all the world Great innovation, the oceangoing sailing ship, was inexorably extending the range of European experience to the further most limits of saltwater (Wells 1933).BibliographyHooker, Richard. World Civilizations. Islam. Washington State University Web Site. 1999. http//www.wsu.edu8080/dee/MODULES.HTMKennedy, Paul. The Rise and Fall of the Great Powers. capital of the United Kingdom Fontana Press. 1989. Pp. 1016.Myers, Phillip V. N. A General invoice for Colleges and High Schools. Boston, U.S.A., and London CINN Company Publishers. 1902. Pp. 460464.Wells, Herbert G. A Short History of the World. London Waterlow Sons Ltd. Printers. 1933. Pp. 168235.