Jump to content

Talk:Mughal Empire/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3→Archive 5

Initial text

why do some people say mogul while others mughal?


We need graphical maps of the empire territory!

Here it is: [1]; just need to convert it to the proper jpeg or png file. --Jiang|(Talk)

Badshah

Never heard "badshah" translated to "vice-shah". Thought it is from "pad shah"--"pad" meaning "throne" and making, for example "Akbar Badshah" mean the same as "Elizabeth II Regina" or "George II Rex", which is taken to mean "Elizabeth the second, Ruling Queen". (See signature graphic at Emperor of India.) —iFaqeer (Talk to me!) 20:47, Nov 29, 2004 (UTC)

See Padishah.—iFaqeer (Talk to me!) 21:31, Nov 29, 2004 (UTC)
I'll defer here. I can't remember now where I read the "vice-Shah" bit and what sources I do find doing a quick Google seem to support your etymology. Acsenray 14:43, 30 Nov 2004 (UTC)

- Hey wats Up??

List versus Article

Why is this in the form of an article when its name is "List of..."? Initially, I had set up a redirect, but now that there's substantial material on this page besides the list, shouldn't there be a separate article titled "House of Taimur" or something?

--iFaqeer 07:26, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

Turco-Mongol vs. Turco-Persian

The user Mardavich put a reference, from google books i think, cause if someone checks there the name babur page 28 comes the first. On page 28, it is written that the great personalities of Turco-Persian history, but this sentence does not mean that Babur is Turco-Persian. The Mughal empire is of course related with Turco-Persian history but the Babur was Turco-Mongol not Persian. Regards. E104421 14:54, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

A) Babur was a Turco-Mongol and a Turco-Persian, there is no contradiction there, both adjectives are accurate. Listing Babur, a historical personality, under a section named "the great personalities of Turco-Persian history" means Babur was considered a Turco-Persian personality. It does not and can not mean anything else!
B) Here is a direct quote from Page 81 of Henry Walter Bellew's book: "Babur Badshah, who had twelve years previously conquered Afghanistan, took Delhi, and established the Mughal or Turko-Persian dynasty in Hindustan." --Mardavich 15:01, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Maybe because of the language barrier, you're misunderstanding the statements. The Mughal Empire is an important part in the Turco-Persian history, but Babur, himself, is not Persian. He was Turco-Mongol. These is nothing about Babur's origin in your references, you're misunderstanding and misleading people. That's it. E104421 15:14, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
I'm not misunderstanding anything, my English is much better than you. Turco-Persian doesn't mean Persian. Turco-Persian means he was Turco-Persian by culture, which is an accurate statement. I've provided primary sources, and certainly, there is currently no justification to start an edit war, you seem to be looking for one. --Mardavich 15:21, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Your sources does not reflect the origin of Babur. The article is about the Mughal Emperors. The Mughal culture is already mentioned in the Mughal Empire article. You're choosing the words from books but using them in a totally disputed way. Babur does not have any Persian origin (ethnically), he was Turco-Mongol. Live with this! E104421 15:39, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
First, look up the definition of the word ‘Turco-Persian’. Second, no one here has said that Babur was of Persian origin! You don't seem to differentiate between Persian and Turco-Persian. Turco-Persian is someone who is Turkic by race, and Persian by culture. Babur fits the definition. Babur even, to some extent, acted discriminatory towards Turkish culture; in the words of professor Morna Livingston in The Ancient Stepwells of India - Page 111: "Babur considered his Persian Timurid culture to be vastly superior to that of the Turkish Muslims in India. " --Mardavich 15:46, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
I think what E104421 does not understand is that the Turco-Mongols were an integrated part of the Turco-Persian society. Thus, Babur was a Turco-Mongol AND a Turco-Persian. Thanks to Mardavich for his quote. I'd also like to show another quote, this time from Prof. Lehmann (in Encyclopaedia Iranica):
  • ... His origin, milieu, training, and culture were steeped in Persian culture and so Babor was largely responsible for the fostering of this culture by his descendants, the Mughals of India, and for the expansion of Persian cultural infleunce in the Indian subcontinent, with brilliant literary, artistic, and historiographical results ...
Tājik 20:32, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
I do not think that a person who believs that Attila the Hun, Akbar (Emperor of India), and Shah Ismail Safawi (Emperor of Persia), were citizens of Turkey[2] is the right person to tell me that I am misunderstanding the issue in here. Tājik 22:16, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
Hey, do not mix the topics. You're trying to mislead people. You should prove your accusations, if i stated anything as you said. I told you thousand times to be civil, but i think you'll never be. E104421 22:31, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
ROFL ... now you even want me to prove that the Emperor of India was NOT a citizen of Turkey ... You are really a waste of time, and one of the biggest threats to the credibility of Wikipedia! Tājik 23:26, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
See Straw man! E104421 23:29, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

the history of india...........

== hello dear members, im aman verma from india agra.!

im telling to you, this site is very useful and very nice commentaed..

im very happy and very impresed this site, this is the most recover

in india.im a very simple and intelligent boy,and i request to this members

pleas give me a more excited information of history,biology,geografhy,

chemistry,physics and many more subjects please inform me of this email id the id is :amanverma007.2008@rediffmail.com: this id is my for aman verma.] and thanx for inform me!!!!!!!!!!!!!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.163.162.81 (talk) 15:16, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

The 'Mughal descendents in Bangladesh section' is a farce.

I did an indepth search on this and is nothing but complete fabrication. Should someone want to add this section here, they should do so with citatins or create a new section for it. Excuse me, but where did you get the facts and data? Did you go over 'original' records to disprove it? Mirza Nali WAS the crown prince before Bahadur Shah. It is written clearly in Khwaja Nizami's book from 1922. The descendants today do have family trees showing their family relations with Akbar Shah's sons. Think back and see that the Mughals were pretty influential during the 1830s to 1840s. This could very well be a possibility.

Current Claimants

The official lineage recognized by the British was not descended from Bahadur Shah Zafar. The current "official" claimant, Ghulam Moin-ud-Din Javaid Jah, lives in Lahore, Pakistan. He is not descended from Bahadur Shah, but from a different cadet branch. The three known branches of Bahadur Shah Zafar's descendents live in Delhi, Kolkota, and Hyderabad, respectively. Many of the Mughals' descendents today live in abject poverty in India, without any official recognition.


http://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Saiyid_Brothers


If anybody thinks of moving this page to something with a slightly different spelling, please deal with the double redirects which may result. --Henrygb 01:03, 30 Jul 2004 (UTC)

How come Humayun be listed among the "Great" mughal rulers?

I find it strange that Humayun is listed in the table with his reign as a Mughal emperor from 1530 to 1556. Can a person without a territory to rule be considered an emperor!!! Giving Humayun that reign would be patently misleading. Humayun had to flee India and live as a refugee in Persia and also as a wanderer during that time, when Sher Shah was ruling India.



Himayuan was great mughal ruler . althought he loses his whole empire to the hand of sher shah but he regained his empire before his death , himayun is one of the greatest mughal emperor , do not consider this article to be the only source of information .

I believe that he really was a ruler of the Mughal empire. I dont see any real reasons why her shouldn't be!!!


Indeed Hamayun was a great king. If we were to judge kings by their failures, why Babur failed much more often than he succeeded but it's his success that counts. Hamayun was true to his brothers even when he had lost his entire empire. Hamayun was true to his father's will. He was a great diplomat at the Safawi court in Persia and it was only his tact and diplomacy that managed to get him support from the Persians. Remember that Hamayun had 'promised' the Safawis to make Shiaism the official religion of India but on his return, and following his father's will, Hamayun showed no marked difference between Shias and Sunnis. Most of the old Shia families who live in North India and Pakistan's old cities like the Kizalbash came with Hamayun from Iran. If not for Hamayun's greatness, his extremely diplomatic tactfulness, he would never have managed to win the support of the suspicious Persians. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.146.180.141 (talk) 01:56, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Human was chased out of Hindustan in 1540 by Sher Shah Suri; after much wandering he received aid from the Shah of Persia he captured the throne of HIndustan again. Hence it is only proper to include him as a Mughal emperor. Gopalan evr (talk) 10:15, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

Why is Bahadur shah zafar ignored?

He was the last of the known mughal emperors(namesake albiet) who actually took part in the 1857 sepoy mutiny alongwith Rani Lakshmibai and Tatya Tope


sher shah?

regarding the second sentence of the article: "It was largely conquered by Sher Shah during the time of Humayun, but under Akbar, it grew considerably, and continued to grow until the end of Aurangzeb's rule."

  1. what was largely conquered? the Mogul empire? that doesn't make any sense, if he was part of the Mogul empire.
  2. In Sher Shah's article, it claims that he was the ruler of the Mogul empire. and yet he is not on the list of emperors in this article. why not?

Who was this guy? part of the Mogul empire, or conqueror of the Mogul empire? I am so confused - Lethe | Talk

Babur's son Humayun was defeated by Sher Shah, who proceeded to usurp the throne. Humayun regained it later after Sher Shah's death. The term "Mughal" refers to a dynasty, to which Sher Shah was not related. Also Babur's conquest ended several centuries of Afghan / Afghanistani domination of North India. Sher Shah's victory briefly restored Afghan rule. Babur was proud of his non-Afghan Mongol origins, claiming descent from both Timur and Genghis Khan. Later Mughals built strong coalitions with the Afghans and many Hindu Rajputs by marrying their daughters and giving them land. The Mughal dynasty still has an official existence. Its current scion lives in Calcutta, where his ancestor Bahadur Shah was exiled by the British, and collects a pension from the Indian government.

sher shah

sher shah was a warlord of afghan origin, who defeated humayun and was briefly in charge of the mughal empire. yet sher shah was not one of the mughal emperors, though his contribution to later administrative reforms by akbar was significant.

I guess the right way to put that would be to say that he was briefly Sultan of Delhi.--iFaqeer 16:33, Sep 28, 2004 (UTC)

He is credited with establishing the shortlived Sur dynasty, which collapsed after Islam Shah's death, prior to Humayun's return. Is he really credited with bringing Islam to India? I thought that was the work of Mahmood of Ghazni and the Delhi Sultanate. Leo Africanus 12:26, 29 Oct 2004 (UTC)

I have not heard of crediting him with bringing Islam to India before; it is an absolutely ahistorical notion in any case. The common account of Islam's first encounter with India is about the small expedition from West Asia that reached Sind in 711/712 AD. The long-term influence of this encounter was however minor. It is also quite plausible that Arab merchants may have brought Islam to Southern India even before this. However, it is true that the permanent establishment of Islam as a force to reckon with in India was the work of Mahmud of Ghazni and the Delhi Sultanate.

Shah Jahan's reign

In the second paragraph

"Nur Jehan's abortive efforts to secure the throne for the prince of her choice led Shah Jahan to rebel in 1622." needs clarification.

1. Why did Nur Jehan's efforts lead to a rebellion by Shah Jahan? 2. What was he rebelling against?


Does anyone have more contextual information here?


1. Shah Jahan was originaly part of the troika, along with Nur Jehan and her brother Asif khan, who wanted to ensure that Shah Jahan would succeed to the throne. However, there was a falling out and Nur Jehan switched her loyalities to another son of Jahangir. At this point Shah Jahan and Asif khan became allies and succesfull ensured the assencion of Shah Jehan

2. He was rebeling against Nur Jahans attempt to place his younger brother to the throne.

Moghuls and Babur were not Turks

Babur and Moghuls were not Turks. I recommend everyone to read the German discussion about the heritage of the Moghuls: http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diskussion:Mogulreich . Babur's ancestors were Mongols of the Berlas tribe. His mother was a direct descendant of Jingiz Khan. He was only a Turk by language. But the Timurids (Babur's royal ancestory) were partly Persian-speaking (like his forefathers Shah-Rukh and Ulugh Begh) and partly Turkic-speaking. The major line of the Timurid dynasty, meaning those who were ruling Khorasan from Herat (from Shah-Rukh to Hussein Beyqara) were native Persian-speakers. Only some minor linages - for example Omar Sheikh in Farghana - were Turkic-speaking. Babur himself married a Persian woman, and his children had also Persian wives. His grandson Akbar did not even know Chagatai Turkic. That's why he ordered to translate the "Baburnama" into Persian. The following text is a copy from the German Wikipedia, proving that the Moghuls were not Turks, but Persianized Mongols:

Sorry your argument and details in support are not based on facts. Zahiruddin Muhammad Babur indeed was a Turk by birth.

Ameer Taimur, Babur's foresire was from the Barlas-Bik subclan of Ata-Bik Turks whose women folk were commonly Qara Khatai Mongols that were captured after the decline of Mongol holdings at Qara Khata some fifty years after the reign of Shah Ghazan Khan. Refer to Tarikh i Abul Khair Khani (MS-16558 Saltykov-Shechedrin Public Library St.Petersburg Russia) Also refer to Tuzak i Baburi (Babur's Memoirs). ~~Lutfullah


Die Moghulen in Indien

Baburs Sohn Humayun, aus der Ehe Baburs mit der Perserin Ayisheh Sultan Begum, (Quellen: "Afghanistan In The Course of History", Mir Gholam Muhammad Ghobar, Vol. I, ISBN: 0970796412 [3], "Humayun-Nama"), wurde zwischenzeitlich vom Paschtunen Scher Schah Suri gestürzt und musste 10 Jahre im persischen Exil verbringen. Dort heiratete er die Perserin Hamida Begum [Quellen: englische Wikipedia, externe. Link) und kovertierte zum schiitischen Islam.

(Aus einer zweiten Ehe Baburs mit einer persischen Konkubine - Deldâr Begum - entstammte seine Tochter Gulbadan Begum, eine Halbschwester Humayuns, die vor allem durch ihre Gedichte - hauptsächlich in Persisch, sowie auch zu einem geringeren Teil in Tschagataisch - bekannt ist. Zuem war sie die Verfasserin des "Humayun-Nama", der Biographie Humayuns. Die "Humayun-Nama" ist in Persisch verfasst. [4]; "Gulbadan Begum" aus Encyclopaedia Iranica)

Aus der Ehe Humayuns mit der Perserin Hamida enstammte sein Sohn und Thronfolger Akbar. Unter Akbar wurde das Persische zum Indetifikationssymbol der Moghulen in Indien, und die Persische Sprache wurde für die nächsten Jahrhunderte die Hofssprache der Dynastie (Quelle: [5]).

Akbars Nachfolger war sein Sohn Jahangir, aus der Ehe mit der armenischen Fürstentochter Mariam uz-Zamani Begum (Quellen: [6], Englische Wikipedia, [7]). Jahangir heiratet seinerseits die Perserin Nur Jahan, eine Verwandte der safawidischen Wesire in Persien (Quellen: [8], Englische Wikipedia). Ihr richtiger Name war Mihr al-Nisa; der Name "Nur-e Jahan" (Persisch: "Licht der Welt") wurde von ihrem Ehemann verliehen.

Nach Akbars Tod kam sein Sohn Giyath du-Din Khurram Khan "Schah Jahan" ("Herrscher der Welt") an die Macht. Schah Jahan war nicht aus der Ehe Abars mit Nur Jahan, sondern aus seiner ersten Ehe mit der indischen Rajput-Prinzessin Manmati (Quellen: [9], [10], Englische Wikipedia). Er war selbst mit der Perserin Arjumand Banu Begum "Mumtaz Mahal", der Cousine Nur Jahans (Zweitfrau seines Vaters; siehe oben) verheiratet (Quellen: Englische Wikipedia, [11]). Aus dieser Ehe enstammte auch der Nachfolger Schah Jahans, sein Sohn Aurangzeb. Aurangzeb heiratete Delras Banu Begum, Tochter des Persisch-stämmigen Adeligen Badi ud-Zaman Mirza Shahnawaz Khan (Quelle: Englische Wikipedia)

Den Stammbaum der Moghulen könnte man hier noch weiter fortsetzen. Jedoch würde das den Rahmen dieser Diskussion spregnen, denn erstens verloren die Mghulen spätestens nach Aurangzib ihre einst glorreiche Bedeutung. Zum zweiten dürfte auch jetzt schon klar sein, dass absolut N I C H T S an den Moghulen türkisch war. WEDER Abstammung, NOCH Kultur, Sprache oder Interessen der Moghulen waren türkisch. Im Grunde waren sie durch und durch persisch - lediglich der Name "Moghul" erinnerte noch an ihre mongolische Abstammung.

Man kann die ganze Abstammung der Moghulen auf der folgenden Seite studieren: http://www.uq.net.au/~zzhsoszy/ips/misc/mughal.html

This is not German Wikipedia, please write in English or post this somewhere on de:Mogulreich

Thanks DaGizza Chat (c) 00:15, 30 October 2005 (UTC)

The sources in text are English. Just do your own research. Nothing about the Mughals was Turkish. Their heritage was Mongol (--> Temür --> Mongol Berlas tribe --> Jingiz Khan). Their language was Persian. Their culture was Persian. Their soldiers were Persians and Indians. Most of the Mughal Shahs had Persian mothers (starting with Humayun, Babur's son). Only Babur himself spoke a Turkic language. His children did not. His son Humayun spent 10 years of his life in Persian exile. There, he married his Persian wife, a relative of the Persian Shahs. The Persian Shahs supported Humayun with a strong army to reconquer India. His son Akbar made Persian the official language of his kingdom. There was absolutely nothing "Turkish" about the Mughals. -213.39.153.170 22:58, 30 October 2005 (UTC)

You are trying to force modern concepts of ethnicity where it does not belong. The Mughals did not think of themsleves as any ethnicity. And the fact that Babur spoke Chagtai is pretty important. And by the way Humayun and Akbar both had Hindu Rajput wives. Nothing is ever as ethnically clean cut and pure as Germans like it to be 129.199.224.169 01:32, 24 February 2006 (UTC)ahassan05

Mughals were Multicultural and Babur was a Turk

Mughals were Turks, this is just basic knowledge, Babur the founder of the "Babur Khan Empire" which is its proper name in the region wrote in the Babur-Name
Babur, the leader of the [Indian]Mogul Empire, says, "My people are Turkish. They speak Turkish." The Chaghatai, the great poets of medieval Central Asia, called their language Turkish.

http://cceia.org/viewMedia.php/prmTemplateID/8/prmID/5163

The BaburName is a Turkish masterpiece, if anyone has read this epic they will realise that the Moghuls were so evidently Turks.

You can read a few pages here online

http://depts.washington.edu/uwch/silkroad/texts/babur/babur1.html


File:Http://depts.washington.edu/uwch/silkroad/texts/babur/images/baburn2.jpg

Andijanis are all Turks; everyone in town or bazar knows Turki. The speech of the people resembles the literary language; hence the writings of Mir 'Ali-sher Nawa'i, though he was bred and grew up in Hin (Herat), are one with their dialect. Good looks are common amongst them. The famous musician, Khwaja Yusuf, was an Andijani. The climate is malarious; in autumn people generally get fever.

This article is just hilarious, in Pakistan and India its common knowledge that they were of a Turk family as we read the BaburNama unlike some here. Not only was he a Turk, he was a proud one. Also we don't have a racist paranoid hang-up with Turks, theyre presence and history added to our culture and history and we mixed with them and are actually proud of this. Epics like "Princess Razia", the Gaznivids and later great leaders.

Its disturbing that these Persians are so jelous and intent to make everything theirs. The leaders of these Empires all had an Islamic concept ie Nationalism wasnt an issue, infact the Turk rulers promoted our languages and culture, without them it may have died out and not developed to the extent it has.

The Great Turk Genius Amir Khusraw and his accomplishments in Music

http://muslimheritage.com/topics/default.cfm?TaxonomyTypeID=13&TaxonomySubTypeID=-1&TaxonomyThirdLevelID=-1&ArticleID=526

That great music we love has a lot of credit due to this Turk, this is why I really love these people, they came not to oppress or assimilate us, no but to adapt and improve what they found.

Could this article please be edited, these bitter Pan-Persian maniacs are trying to cause ethnic tensions and problems among the people. Nobody in the regions of Pakistan accepts Babur Khan Empire to be PERSIAN, if you said that theyre you'd get laughed at its that ridiculous. In-fact the Persians should thank the Turks, imagine if the Turks had been like these Persians today, there wouldn't be a Persian today.

The "Babur Khan Empire" was a multi-ethnic Empire it was neither Persian, nor Turk, nor Pashtun, nor Sikh, nor Hindi it was ALL OF THESE. While the Babur Khan family was initially Turk.


Babur, the new conqueror of Delhi, had been ruler of Kabul, the capital of Afghanistan, for 20 years. Racially, Babur was a Turk with a thin stream of Mongol blood in his veins; therefore, notes Hambly (1968), the term 'Mughal' by which he and his descendants were known in India was really a misnomer. In Persian, the word Mughal, always highly pejorative among the civilized inhabitants of Iran or Mawarannahr, simply means a Mongol. It is clear, however, from Babur's writing that he considered himself a Turk. Although Babur was descended on his mother's side from Chingiz Khan's second son, Chaghatai, it is clear that this Mongol lineage meant less to him than his paternal ancestry which linked him with the great Turkish conqueror, Timur.

www.islamicart.com/library/empires/india/babur.html www.indhistory.com/babur.html www.bengalweb.com/hist/wbenhis1.html

This is such basic common knowledge, Babur referred to himself as a Turk, he had Turk blood in him and spoke and wrote in Turk language.

Later Babur's extensive family mixed with many other Nationalities and so they are a Turk Root family but became a part of this land and the people of this land and so are ours and the Turks, it is a bridge between our people and proves how well we can get along and how our relations today are very good.

The conclusion is, this Empire was not Nationalistic, therefore they didn't have these pychotic paranoid fears that I read in this section. Babur was a Turk, his family later mixed with local rulers in this region. Therefore its a Pakistan-Indian-Afgan-Turk Empire, definately not Persian, the only thing Persian was language which was used, nobody ever referred to themselves as Persian or Persian rulers this is a mumbo-jumbo joke if anybody claims this.

This part of the article is ESPECIALLY DEEPLY FLAWED

To the subject of the Mughals origins, the Mughal people were created through a series of interracial marriages. When the Mongolians of north west asia took the subcontinent and middle east in its vast empire, there was much marriage between the Mongols and central asians in particular the Persians. The Mughals are derived from this unique mesh of different peoples, although they adopted the culture of their ancestral Persians, which is evident in their religious practices, customs, architecture and language; and they still retained many physical attributes from their other ancestral half, which also helped to cement new customs and traditions.

Now common please, this is so unbelievably ridiculous.

1. The Mongols did not enter Central Asia to find a "monoethnic" Persian mass living there. The historic name of that region is "Turkestan", take a wild guess why, if you ever read the BaburNama you would realise Babur Khan refers to the region as such aswell.

2. This paragraph pretends that Persians are somehow this huge majority population in Central Asia/Turkestan. Its plain nonsense, these are not ethnic Persian areas, why are these lies being perpetrated. It is just the same as saying, Shiraz and Isfahan regions are Arab lands and all the people who reside there Arabs. There are Tajiks, Turks, Pashtuns who all lived in this region prior to the Mongol invasion.

3. Prior to Mongol invasion as I previously stated, many non-Persian nations resided in historic Turkestan/Central Asia, this article pretends the Seljuk Turks, KaraKhanids, Gaznivids, Timurids etc didnt exist. As if there was no Turk presence in the region its worrying to think some people live in such a fantasy world.

4. There is also an Arab presence which is totally forgotten, there was flourishing Arab trade and culture which also influenced the region.

5. It was overwhelmingly "Islamic", meaning YET AGAIN, Nationalism was not an issue, people werent roving around trying to eliminate traces of "others" and make everything theirs.

In conclusion, this section MUST be changed, it pretends Turks and their influence doesnt exist which is a total lie. The millitary system, musical influence, cultural influences and ruling influences were all bought in by the Turks. The Islamic influence must be made more important and aware of. AND THE PASHTUN, PUNJAB, HINDI PEOPLE'S INFLUENCE, MIXTURE AND CULTURE MUST BE HIGHLIGHTED, the article pretends we dont exist. As I stated earlier, while many Turks mixed with us and their families arrived, they did not attempt to assimilate us or change us. They of-course had profound influence but also adapted to our styles and culture. Therefore we FUSED and took elements from one another.

The Persian element is of course very immportant, as Persian was a literary language, influenced the culture and music's aswell. My aim is not to downplay the Persians (as if its possible in that article) but to stop the down-playing of others.

Lets not forget that while Persian culture had profound influence, the BaburNama and other Turk works are epic Literature's in the Turk language, there were profound Hindi Epic works and Urdu became the "Lingua Franca" of the region. There is hardly any mention to the works in Urdu and our contributions.

I have edited that above paragraph slightly to make it at least a little bit more historically accurate.

Omar Khan- Originally from Lahore Pakistan now in London

Akbar's religious policy

Akbar did not decree that his new "religion" was to be his offical state policy. In fact it was a religion for the upper nobility of his empire and was quite elitist in its nature. Furthermore, its not even a serious religion. Its more of a club for Akbars personal satisfication.

Sorry, I have to record here my difference to the above scholastic statement.

Deen e Ilaahi, a new platform for discussion with equality and secularity of the world's different religions and faiths was indeed a very noble and notable step taken by an Emperor of the Indian sub continent in the 16th century. Indeed it was an act of rare foresight and also a neccessity in his own times, and the fore-runner to the 20th century British Colonial era's Theosophical Society in India by the legendary English thinker Lady Annie Bessant and her associates.

Jalaluddeen Muhammad Akbar was born in extremely difficult times in Umarkot, a Rajput ruler's province where his mother and few relatives and servants of his exiled father's household had sought assylum to escape the wrath of Sher Shah Suri. He was brought up in Hindu surroundings with great care by the Rajput Rana's family especially the womenfolk in his household. He saw no traditional (Purdah) veiling of women folk in presence of non family males. He experienced the warmth and brotherhood of humanity that prevailed on the traditons of faith of his own lineage in the faith of his benefactors and though he was not very erudiately educated like his son Jehangir, he learned the wisdom of secularity and religious tolerance since his early days of upbringing.

Later after accession of Kashmir and Malwa and Gujarat, he experienced roots of disharmony in terms of ethnic and religious points of view in his realm's governance from his officials whom he had meticulously appraised and promoted to the high posts of government.

He saw his commands getting abeyed due to difference in opinion that were more religion oriented than practical politics. He had given equal opportunity to his handpicked Turani, Irani, Afghan, Tatari and Hindu and Jain officers and courtiers irrespective of their faiths and beliefs.

His Grand Vazir (Prime Minister) was Shaikh Abul Fazal Nagori a Sunni. The chief of staff (Ameer ul Umaraa) of his grand mughal army was Raja Man Singh a Hindu Rajput. His Chief Justice (Qazi Ul Quzzaat/Sadar Us Sudoor) was Maulana Abdun Nabi Gangohi who besides being a Sunni Muslim scholar was also a scion of the Sufi Chishtiya order of mystics, after Akbar had got the fanatic Shaikh Ul Islam (a legacy from the Lodhi days) Maulana Abdullah Sultanpuri drowned in the Jamuna river. His minister for revenue was Raja Todarmull a Hindu Baniya whose immediate deputy and a very efficient minister was a Shia from Iran, Mirza Ghayas Beg Jaafari of Isfahan, who was destined to become the Grand Vazir in his son's court. His courtiers included Bir Bal (Raja Brahma Dass of Bayana) whose tales of wisdom are Indian folklore today.

Amidst this extremely grand human mosaic of secularity, Akbar's experience of narrow fanatism in the silent hearts of his deputies caused him sorrow and the hard resolve to reconcile by a common media, all these intolerances.

He called at his Jama Mosque at Fatehpur-Sikri (later renamed by him from Masjid to Ibadat Khaneh), a conference to hold religious discourses from all faiths so that all listeners could hear, debate and come to reconciliatory conclusions on topics that they were religiously unaware of or unfamiliar with. He called this Deen e Ilaahi or the order of God. To him and the followers of this order, man was to be percieved supreme in his human magnanimity first and in his religious steadfastness afterwards. Being humans made all equal and also of equal rights to honour, justice and protection from social misdeeds. All were to respect each other's private faiths and feelings and find ways and means of harmony and love amidst ethnic, racial and religious differences.

This effort of that Grand Mughal Emperor was echoed in his great grandson Dara Shikoh's way of living. Alas that history had other designs in store for this sub continent, and Aurangzeb the shrewd political crafter using religion and feigned bigotry to acheive hold of the Mughal Empire, did away with Akbar's popular human approach and did everything in name of Islam that Islam had NOT preached. Two centuries later with the end of the British Raj, Akbar's efforts to bind people of different faiths showed no effect in the ill fated human hearts of this sub continent! India was divided into two ever hating, ever suspicious and ever warring nations based on religious intolerance. The Islamic bigotry voiced against Akbar's Deen e Ilaahi remains enshrined in the unforgettale verse in by Mulla Sheri of Shekhupura of Lahore, a contemporary and severe critic of Akbar and his Deen :-

"Shaah e maa imsaal daawaa e Nabuwwat kardeh hast! Gar Khuda khwaahad pas az saaley Khuda khwaahad shudan!"

Our emperor has proclaimed prophethood this year! (Bringing in a new faith of God after Islam is unacceptable to Muslims as Muhammad is claimed to be the last messenger of God.) If God wishes he (our emperor) shall claim Godhood an year after!

59.180.58.2 09:59, 21 May 2007 (UTC)Lutfullah


P.S. I have made some changes to the information on Maulana Abdul Nabi Gangohi. I have no reference but I know this information as I am directly descended from him (through the male line). One of the main reasons he could not have been from the Chisti order as he was strongly opposed to music and dancing, two of the most common Chisti rituals. Asfandyar Qureshi

Shams Ul Ulama, Afzal Ul Muhaddiseen Shaikh Abdunnabi Gangohi was the son and sajjadeh nasheen of Hazarat Shaikh Abdul Quddus Gangohi a renowned Peer e Tareeqat of the Khannwadeh Chistiyyeh of the lineage or silsileh of Hazarat Shaikh Alauddeen Ahmad Saabir Kaliyari who in turn was son and sajjadeh nasheen of Hazarat Shaikh Fareeduddeen Ganj e Shakkar of Ajodhan Paak Pattan of Punjab now in Pakistan.Lutfullah (talk) 21:13, 3 May 2008 (UTC)Lutfullah

My respected brother in faith, Asfandyar Qureshi is certainly aware, being a scholarly person, that Baba Fareeduddeen Ganj e Shakkar is known in the entire world as one the greatest Chishti saints of the Indian sub-continent. Also we have no historical evidence in contemporal chronicles of Akbar's times that quote Maulana Abdunnabi Gangohi's renouncing his late father's sajjadeh and the Chishtiya Sufi order in which he was initiated in his childhood. Rather we find on the walls of Masjid Abdun Nabi at New Delhi (presently headquarters of the Jamiyyat Ul Ulama e Hind founded by Shaikh Ul Hind Maulana Hussain Ahmad Madani), a quartrain Rubaayi in Persian bearing the Maulana's pen name takhallus which praises Hazarat Shaikh Nizamuddeen Auliya and Hazarat Shaikh Alauddeen Saabir Kaliyari and the Maulana's own father Shaikh Abdul Quddus Gangohi! The following books are recommended as reference to my note: 1. Tareekh Silsila Chishtiya (Urdu). Dr. Khaleeq Ahmad Nizami PhD. Maktaba Ishaat e Deeniyaat. New Delhi. India. 2. Khazeenatul Auliya (Persian) by Ghausi Mandawi written in court of Sultan Baz Bahadur of Mandu, Central India. Manuscripts at National Archives Library New Delhi, India and Khuda Bakhsh Oriental Public Library, Patna, India. 3. Muntakhabut Tawaareekh (Persian) by Mulla Abdul Qadir Badayuni, Akbar's courtier and historian. Original MS available at India Office Library, London, UK. English translation at The Royal Asiatic Society's library at Calcutta India. 4. Mauj e Kausar (Urdu) by Dr. Shaikh Muhammad Ikram PhD. (First Education Secretary to Pakistan Government). Shaikh Ghulam Ali & Sons. Booksellers & Publishers. Karachi and Lahore, Pakistan. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Lutfullah (talk • contribs) 21:08, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

User:Siddiqui vandalism?

Siddiqui (talk · contribs) please don't deleted or blank text and references without giving reasons in the edit summary or talk page. [12]

Is the Persian spelling correct?

As far as I can understand persian alphabet, the persian spelling of this article reads "Mughal Badshah". Shouldn't it be changed to "Mughaliya Sultanat", which is how this empire was called by Indians in those days?

Sisodia 01:49, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

The Persian name should be something like "Hokumat-e Moghuliân" or "Pâdshâhiye Moghuliân" ... "Mughal Badshah" is Urdu and not Persian. -Tajik 22:00, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
It currently reads "شاهان مغول" (shahaan mughool). This is incorrect, Mughal has no waaw. I am going to change this to what you suggested, Hukumat-e-Mughulian.


First it was Mughal Badshah i.e. Mughal King مغل بادشاہ; then it was Shahan-e-Mughal شاهان مغول i.e. Mughal Kings; then it was changed to Hakumat-e-Mughal حکومت مغلیاں i.e. Mughal Government. I have changed it to Daulat-e-Mughal دولتِ مغل which means Mughal Empire.
Siddiqui 06:13, 21 March 2006 (UTC)


My dear respected Siddiqui Saahab! Please do not venture in turfs of which you apearingly are unaware! The word Mughol as correctly written and quoted in Persian by you, is the plural for the singular word Mughal. The text in Persian "Shahan e Mughol" is absolutely correct in Persian grammar and syntax and you are advised not to amend it with your very little knowledge of Persian. Thanks.Lutfullah (talk) 18:23, 6 May 2008 (UTC)Lutfullah

you cannot call mughal as saltanate

"Great" emperors

This article contains many references to a certain set of emperors being "great" and the set that followed them as being "lesser", but it doesn't explain this distinction beyond the obvious indication that apparently being "great" means you get more attention here at wikipedia. What is the historical precedence that has led to these labels? Have there been any revisionist criticisms of labelling certain emperors "great" and others as "lesser"? Is this merely an acknowledged terminology that is understood to be without value judgement, maintained for historical reasons? I'm not an expert on Mughal history (I've just been copyeditting this article), so I'm not equipped to answer these questions, but I think the article would be greatly helped if they could be answered. siafu 23:30, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

After Aurangzeb's death in 1707, Mughal influence declined rapidly, and none of the emperors ruled for a long duration either. Most provinces of the empire started acting on their own will, and regional powers like the Marathas became stronger. None of the emperors in the 18th and 19th centuries were influential enough to be in the league of the emperors classified as the "Great Mughal Emperors" in the article. I think it's a pretty standard thing. deeptrivia (talk) 02:50, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

There aren't any print sources/references listed on the article. Do you know of any good books or articles on the Mughal Empire I could go to for research? siafu 02:52, 24 February 2006 (UTC)
Well, grab any book on Medieval Indian history. Don't know any particular ones off hand. All I've read are textbooks in middle school. deeptrivia (talk) 02:58, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

Regarding the origin of the Mughals

Taken from the Encyclopaedia Iranica:

"... Babor, Zaher ud-Din Muhammad, ... Timurid prince ... His origin, milieu, training, and culture were steeped in Persian culture and so Babor was largely responsible for the fostering of this culture by his descendants, the Mughals of India, and for the expansion of Persian cultural infleunce in the Indian subcontinent, with brilliant literary, artistic, and historiographical results ... During his stay in Herat, Babor occupied Nava'is former residence, prayed at Nava'i's tomb, and recorded his admiration for the poet's vast corpus of Torki verses, though he found most of the Persian verses to be "poor and flat". Nava'is pioneering literary work in Torki, much of it based, of course, on Persian models, must have reinforced Babor's own efforts to write in that medium ... with the long connection between the Mughals and Safavids begun by Babor himself, the Persian language became not only the language of record but also the literary vehicle for his successors. It was his grandson Akbar who had the Babor-name translated into Persian in order that his nobles and officers could have access to this dramatic account of the dynasty's founder ..." [13]

The article further attests that when Babur attacked India, most of his army consisted of Non-Turks, probably Afghans and Persians (not including the Kizilbash aid he had received from the Safavids). So, not only the army of the Moghuls was largly Non-Turkic, but the dynasty itself - starting with Babur - was Persianized to a large degree.

Now, the following text is taken directly from Babur's autobiography, the famous "Baburnama":

"... Babur begins by describing the geography of Fergana and some background history. He then recounts his part in the internecine conflicts between the Timurids (descendants of Temür/Tamerlane) over Khurasan, Transoxiana, and Fergana and their loss to the Uzbeks under Shaybani. Initially a puppet of others, used for Timurid legitimacy, Babur gradually became a real leader. His fluctuating fortunes saw him take and lose Samarkand twice; eventually he was forced into a kind of "guerilla" existence in the mountains. In 1504 he left Transoxiana with a few hundred companions, acquired the discontented followers of a regional leader in Badakhshan, and took Kabul. From there he began carving out a domain for himself, in a process combining pillage and state-building. ..." [14]

So, according to Babur himself, he left Central Asia with a "few companions" and the aquired support from a regional leader in Persian-dominated Badakhshan. Even assuming that all of his compainions in Central Asia were ethnic Turks (which is deffinitly not true), still the majority of his soldiers would have been Non-Turks, because Badakhshan was a Non-Turkic region back then - as it is still today. So, with Persian-Badakhshani support, Babur conquered Kabul and then recruited other Persian (Tajik) and Afghan soldiers into his army. The number of Turkic warriors was relatively small - that why the Mughals were a totally Persianized dynasty from the very beginning.

All claims of Babur's "Turkic origin" are wrong.

Tajik 03:46, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

  • I'm sorry, that sweeping and aggressive comment simply doesn't follow from what you've posted above. That simply shows that his army was largely made up of non-Turks, and that his successors spoke Persian (after a ten-year interregnum which Humayun spent in Iran). It tells us nothing about Babur himself - the Babur-nama does. Babur wrote his memoirs himself, he wrote them in Chagatai, he describes himself as a Turk, for heavens' sake! that is enormously significant and cannot be brushed aside. He came from Fergana, a region populated by people speaking a Qarluq Turkish dialect. Nobody is trying to say that Mongol Heritage and Persian culture were not of enormous importance, but to try to write the Turks out of the history of Turkestan, and hence of Babur's family and culture, is ridiculous. Sikandarji 11:49, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

Irishpunktom is ubiquitous in revert wars, but is rarely found on discussion pages. Until this changes, his edits should be viewed in the appropriate light.

Timothy Usher 09:36, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

  • Tajik - Maybe if you were specific about which points you disagree with we could discuss them, but you are removing some obvioulsly correct information. Timothy, do you actually have anything to contribute to our dialouge or are you here to moan about me? --Irishpunktom\talk 13:34, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
This article is about the entire Mughal dynasty, not just about Babur (whose ethnic heritage really did not matter). Fact is: the Mughals as a dynasty were NOT Turks, they were NOT Turkish-speaking, and they did NOT claim to be Turks. Their army was NOT predominantly Turkish, they Mughal Shahs (starting with Humayun) were totally Persianized, Babur's grandson Akbar did not even know Chaghatai. Therefore, it is totally wrong to say that "the word 'Mughal' is a misnomer, because the dynasty was Turkish". Tajik 15:05, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
I'd agree with that (got a bit carried away before). No-one can dispute that the ethos, culture, language of the Mughal dynasty was overwhelmingly Persianate. Perhaps the phrase should be "The word 'Mughal' is a misnomer, because the dynasty was Timurid and was referred to as Gurkani by its members", or something along those lines (see the stuff from Thackston on the Talk:Babur page. My only real gripe all along is that the Indo-Persian character of the Mughal dynasty after Humayun has tended to overshadow the Central Asian character of its founder, revealed to us through that extraordinary memoir, the Babur-nama. In an article devoted to the entire dynasty that objection doesn't really apply. Sikandarji 15:48, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

Religion

Naturally, we have no idea who 132.170.24.22 is (we rarely do with the kind of people who add this sort of stuff) but his motives are, on the contrary, blindingly obvious: let's stir up communal hatred between Indian Muslims and Hindus by presenting the Mughals as alien barbarians who killed people on the basis of their religion. The fact is that attempts to project today's religious attitudes into the past, whether these be those of Islamic suicide bombers or saffron-clad Hindutva hate-peddlers, are completely anachronistic. Religion in India possessed much more syncretic forms than it does today, and amongst the population (as opposed to the elites and the clergy) the religious divide was extremely blurred. The Mughals killed a lot of people in their campaigns, as did many rulers of the period - but, with the possible exception of Aurangzeb, they were not fighting an ideological war to spread Islam (and even Aurangzeb spent more time suppressing the Islamic Sultanates of the Deccan than fighting 'Hindu' rulers). They had many non-Muslim allies and courtiers, such as Bir Singh Deo of Bundelkhand and the culture they produced was a hybrid of Indian, Iranian and Timurid influences. Shah Jahan was indeed a good deal more Orthodox than his grandfather (See John F. Richards The Mughal Empire New Cambridge History of India I.5 (Cambridge) 1993 pp121-3) but he did not go around killing non-Muslims because they were non-Muslims, as this user has suggested. The story of the incestuous relationship with his daughter is a rumour, and should not be presented as accepted historical fact, and neither that nor the reference to his concubines belongs in the 'Religion' section. The so-called 'reference' provided by this user ("The Sword of the Prophet" by Yuri Trifkovic) is not to be found in either the Bodleian or the British Library's catalogue, so we can safely assume that it is not a reputable work (looking at the surname of the author, I strongly suspect that if it exists at all it will turn out to be far-right Serbian propaganda). I have removed Non-NPOV sections, unreferenced assertions and provocative attempts to stimulate hate: if references are not provided for the remainder I will re-write that section using reliable sources. Sikandarji 09:52, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

This guy needs to be watched, and his unencyclopedic, biased and hateful rhetoric needs to be erased as soon as possible. Ed Sanville 20:18, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

Wrong Map??

Which mughal ruler controlled all this territory? I know for fact that Maharashtra was never ruled by Mughals. Also note that not all muslim rulers were mughals. This map is absurd. I am removing it until somebody can find a correct one or ofcourse prove me wrong by provinding a source. Raswa 00:27, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

Unless your are from India and are a couple hundred years old, you don't know for a fact.

-G

In 1710, the Emperor formally demanded and received tribute from Travancore and the Nayak of Madurai, thus covering whole of the peninsula. This is often overlooked. Hence the greatest extent was in 1710.
As for controlling the territory, well, even the present day states find it difficult to control all their territories. A loose allegiance to the throne should be deemed enough for historical purposes. Gopalan evr (talk) 15:39, 10 September 2008 (UTC)


Territories where there were just listening posts/missions cannot be considered part of the empire. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.56.93.152 (talk) 21:19, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

The map of the Mughal Empire doesn't show it's right extent. The map shown says that this extent was around 1700, but during this time Aurangzeb was engrossed in the 27 years war against the Marathas. Although Aurangzeb was able to bring down the Bijapur and Golconda Empires, he still was not able to contain the Marathas. He at that time was in the Deccan, but hadn't had any significant gains against the Marathas. In contrast, Marathas were running riot through the Mughal army under Santaji Ghorpade and Dhanaji Jadhav. A place can be shown as an extent of an empire if the concerned Empire has total control of the region and has won it, which is not the case here. This map should be replaced by a more appropriate one. ThanksKesangh (talk) 16:48, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

The map is totally wrong.the effective mughal rule was limited to north india and parts of central india. leave alone maharashtra,karnataka,tamil nadu,kerala,andhra pradesh-they had no control over chattisgarh,large parts of orissa,jharkhand and even eastern maharashtra.the only effective incursion in the deccan was into the territory of the golkonda kingdom-later turned into the nizami kingdom of hyderabad.i completely agree with the former writer that the area shown has been a depiction of the campaign areas.thanks —Preceding unsigned comment added by 117.194.224.238 (talk) 21:56, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

Quotes from Guru Nanak

While interesting, I dont think they have any place in themain article. I am moving themhere; if anyone is interested, they should put them in a separate article and link to them. Mughal Empire is already well over recommended size.

Early Sikh Gurus' perception of the Mughal Empire

The Sikh texts give a unique picture, at odds with most historical narratives. Babur's reign was witnessed by the first Sikh Guru Nanak Dev Ji. The Raag Asa Guru records Nanak's observations and thoughts in his poems. It says:

"Having attacked Khuraasaan, Babar terrified Hindustan. The Creator Himself does not take the blame, but has sent the Mugal as the messenger of death. There was so much slaughter that the people screamed. Didn't You feel compassion, Lord?" pg (360)

On the condition of Hindu women in Babur's rule:

"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 lived in palatial mansions, but now, they cannot 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. If it is pleasing to God's Will, He bestows greatness; if is pleases His Will, He bestows punishment" pg(417-18)

On the nature of Mughal rule under Babur:

"First, the tree puts down its roots, and then it spreads out its shade above. The kings are tigers, and their officials are dogs; they go out and awaken the sleeping people to harass them. The public servants inflict wounds with their nails. The dogs lick up the blood that is spilled." Source: Rag Malar, (pg.1288)

However, the Sikh Guru then met with the Mughal king babur and says:

“Listen O King, go and survey the scene of destruction that has been caused by your army. Take a warning from those who have defeated others. He who is victorious today may suffer defeat tomorrow. Where are those kings who ruled here yesterday ? Where are those games, those stables, those horses ? Where are those bugles, those clarions ? Where are those who buckled on their swords and were mighty in battle ? Where are those scarlet uniforms ? Where are those mirrors that reflected fair faces ? Where are those houses, those mansions, those palaces ? We see them no longer here. O Lord, this world is Thine. In one moment, Thou create, in another moment, Thou destroy Thy Creation.”

Thus, according to the Sikh texts, the reasons for the Mughal success is actually because of the blessings of the Sikh Gurus.

Hornplease 07:00, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

How humorous and wishful! A chieftain's valoric rise from the petty fiefdom at Ferghana from where he gets ousted with a few hand picked soldiers to reclaim the near glory of his forefather's legendary empire by his sheer courage and never failing will to acheive victory, and his near 20 years of strife in conquest of total Khorasan and entry and victory on North India's Lodis and Rana Saanga and the establishment of the Grand Mughal Empire in the Indian subcontent by his progeny had occured all due to the so called bakhshish from an Indian mendicant of Punjab? A vagabond faqeer who had feigned to be a Muslim and done Hajj at Kaaba and had then entered the Suhrwardia Sufi order at Iraq to gain further false fame in Islam? Who was given the task of spreading Islam in India by his trusting Murshid, and who on arrival from Iraq in Punjab threw away his false garb of Islam to start preaching a new religious order based on Kabeer's writings to differ from the Hindus to whom he belonged?

That is the reverend Guru Nanak of your tall claims here! Does a knowledge base like Wikipedia have to support your fairy tales on Babur? Lutfullah 12:59, 13 May 2007 (UTC)Lutfullah

You are no different!!. Guru Nanak never met kabir.Note it down .Just because Kabir's teachings(only some of them) find place in the holy book of Sikhs , doesn't mean the whole teachings of Nanak were inspired by Kabir.The teachings of Kabir are very small compared to Nanak.

You seem to have no knowledge of Sikhism and nor does the one whose comment you responded to!There is nothing written in Sikh texts , which says that Babur got his Kingdom with blessings from Guru Nanak.It is an individual's wrong perception.

Talking about Guru Nanak's spirituality, only a fool,with limited knowledge of sikhs and clouded mind, can dare to think that he was a sufi, or was given the task to spread Islam in India.Infact the so called Murshid was himself an admirer and disciple of Nanak. Guru nanak also went to Tibet.Then would you say he was a Buddhist?The travels of Nanak were to get familiar with different creeds of people and to correct their faults. Has anyone ever , in the history of Islam, given the task of it's spread to person who was born Hindu.If he was a faqeer',which he was not,faqeers are not householders and nor are sufis, then atleast he was better than, the sword weilding and forcing conversions, Monarchs of Islamic empire..Ajjay (talk) 09:34, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Why there is no mention genocidal practices Mogul Empire implemented on occupied countries.

It is common knowledge that if under Mogul rule if you did not submit to islamic conversion you would be killed by having your head removed or other grisly manner. They slaughter the entire population of Vrindavan and build steps to a new mosk on the skulls of Krishna devotees that lived there... Its an act of hatred and slaughter that cannot be forgotten just like holocaust.

Official Name

Any information about the official name of the Mughal Empire or what did Mughals call theirselves, regards --Dukak 09:37, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

This is what Thackston has to say:

"History has conspired to rob Babur not only of his fame as a Central Asian sovereign over the kingdom of Kabul for much longer than he was in the subcontinent, but also of his primary identity as a Timurid by labelling him and his successors as 'Mughals' - that is, Moghuls, or Mongols - an appellation that would not have pleased him in the least. In India the dynasty always called itself Gurkani, after Temür's title Gurkân, the Persianised form of the Mongolian kürügän, 'son-in-law', a title he assumed after his marriage to a Genghisid princess. Nonetheless, Europeans, recognising that there was some connection between Babur's house and the Mongols but ignorant of the precise relationship, dubbed the dynasty with some variant of the misnomer Moghul (Mogol, Mogul, Maghol etc.) and made the name synonymous with greatness." Wheeler M. Thackston The Babur-nama (New York) 2002 pxivi

Thank you, this is what I was looking for --Dukak 13:02, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

The current map is ludicrous. Some one put up something that isn't based on fantasy.


I hope someone will do research on documents available from the period. In documents in possession of my family, the allusion is always made to Chaghatai court, Chagatai Khan, Chaghatai Throne at Delhi. These documents are from late Mughal period and it seems fairly reasonable to me that the later Mughals at least called themselves Chaghatai (spelled Che-Ghain-Te-Aliph-Ye in Persian). Though in light of history Chaghatai is as much of a misnomer as Mughal. Taimoori is what many Afghan and Uzbek 'Mughals' call themselves. Gurkani also seems good on historical basis however manuscripts seem to support Chaghatai. Please someone look at authentic documents to resolve this issue. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.146.180.141 (talk) 02:33, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

"A style of architecture"

The artcile mentions various Moghul contributions but it implies India had no architecture prior to the invasion which sounds like India was a mudhole with brainless barbarians incapable of doing anything note worthy if anything didn't the Moghuls replace the existing architecture with their own rather than giving them one.

Unsourced Quotations

There are at least three quotations in the intro that are not cited at all. Anybody know what they're from? Woodstein52 09:00, 4 Sept 2006 (UTC)

Civilized

I earlier edited the religion section of the article, which seems to contain a bigoted point of view, and it was reverted:

  • "Mongol invasion of Iran who civilised the invaders facilitating their conversion to Islam"

It is not the purpose of wikipedia to extoll bigoted/nationalist ideas about which cultures are civilized and which arnt. Additionally, the Mughals were a Mongol and Indian dynasty as much as a Turko-Persian one. Babur was maternally decended from Genghis Khan, and thereafter, the dynasty married local rulers, including Rajputs. Why was the edit removed? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 217.42.68.85 (talk) 00:58, 12 April 2007 (UTC).

The Mongols were a nomadic people, therefore, by its very definition, they would not have qualified as a civilized people, because they lacked the social structures in order to qualify as a Civilization. ("Civilization" actually does have defining characteristics within academia, I believe. I could check if you really wish). I don't even believe the Mongols had a writing system before they began their expansionist period.. Perhaps the wording deserves to be changed only because the term "civilized" carries offensive connotations when it is used in a non-academic setting, although the term is, in fact, very accurate. 68.43.58.42 21:50, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

Can someone specify some terms?

I don't know anything about the Empire or I would do it myself. -A value other than 'huge'. Like boundries for it's territory, or numbers for it's population. Even something non-numeric like "about twice the size of rome" would be good. -How about a century instead of the "early modern era". It's an obscure term to the layman. -"Eventually" and "self-inflicted weakness" When and what? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 12.44.226.49 (talk) 00:22, 22 April 2007 (UTC).

Merge Proposal

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

The result was keep separate. -- Debate 木 21:42, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

I'm proposing that the Mughal Era page be merged into this one. They cover the same topics and it seems like "Empire" is the standard way to refer to, well, an empire. If no one objects I'll start on this soon, with the ultimate goal of making Mughal Era into a redirect to this page. Gimme danger 05:18, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

There is a case for having a separate Mughal Era page. While the Mughal Empire page naturally focuses on the Emperors and their actions, the Mughal Era page should describe developments in society, culture, art, during the time of the Empire. Moreover, the Mughal Era page should provide information on events and kingdoms/countries connected to the Empire. Admittedly, at present the two pages have a rather similar nature. I would propose that they be given their appropriate distinct characters, rather than be merged. Amberhabib 07:09, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
I think there is a stronger case fore the opposite of what you propose. The Mughal Empire covered most of the indian subcontinent, it wasnt anywhere significantly outside. So therefore allready you have problems in justifying a Mughal Era page, forexample the is a Roman Era page but it is tiny. Everything covered in the mughal era page can and should be put into the mughal empire page becuase its silly haveing two almost identical pages with superficial changes and different names, and its even sillier to have a greater disparity between the two becuase there is nothing worth mensioning on the mughal era page that shouldnt belong to the mughal empire page, therefore i propose a merge. Aarandir 11:20, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
Support merger of Mughal era into Mughal Empire. The Era unneccesarily discusses emperors and rivals of mughals which should be included into the Empire page then what does remain to be written in the era page? nothing.--Redtigerxyz (talk) 13:16, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
Oppose the merger of the articles detailing the Mughal Empire. The page of the Mughal Emprire should appear like the article for a former country whereas the article Mughal Era should have all the arts, culture and building built during that time. The two articles just need to be clearly separated with links to each other. There is enough to write about with all the buildings and their back stories. The Victorian Era page is not merged with the article about Queen Victoria or with the British Monarchy and yet it's pretty long. If that much can be written about just 63 years(20 June 1837 – 22 January 1901), a lot can be written about the Mughal Era from almost 1526 to the mid 17th century.Also the empire briefly resurfaced during the 1857 Rebellion. So the time lines of the Empire and the era are not even coincident. After the reign of Aurangazeb the era was mostly over with the british gaining a foothold. The Empire had broken up into small kingdoms and existed only around Delhi.(But it existed!) despite the "Era" being over.

So I oppose the merger of the two articles. Abhishekmathur (talk) 03:30, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Opposing the merger per amberhabib above. Cewvero (talk) 22:10, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Political Economy section

User:72.72.27.26, could you explain why you blanked the political economy section? The information seems relevant to the article, if a little rough. I'm putting it back, unless there's a good reason to remove it. Gimme danger 00:12, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Aurangzeb

I have reverted the changes by user 202.71.141.38, as s/he had replaced relevant material with very poorly written stuff Amberhabib 07:44, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Lion Capital etc

I have removed the picture of the Ashokan lion capital purporting to be the Mughal coat of arms. I have also removed the many references to books inserted by a user into the section on Aurangzeb. They can't be in the middle of the article, and probably ought to go in the main Aurangzeb page instead. I reproduce the cut text here in case anyone wants to do this.

To have a detailed insight into Emperor Muhiuddin Muhammad Aalamgir's access to throne, his policies and governance, his achievements and failures, and most of all his inability to leave behind a trained and qualitatively superior descendant like Akbar from Humayun, who could sustain the Grand Mughal Empire for at least quarter of a century, instead of bringing about the reality of its miserable decline after only 50 years after his death the following chronicles by his court historians and later day researchers must be read:

1)Tareekh i Aalamgiri - Persian MS. Muhammad Saleh Kamboh. India Office Library London. 2)Siyar ul Mutaakhareen - Persian MS. Khafi Khan. Asiatic Society Libary Mumbai India. 3)Waqaa i Neimat Khan Aali - Persian MS. Dar ul Tarjuma , Kutub Khana Aasifia. Osmania University. Hyderabad. India. 4)History of Aurangzeb - Printed. Dr. Jadu Nath Sarkar. University of Calcutta. India. 5)Tareekh e Subhaani - Persian MS. Sujaan Rai Batalvi. Persian Catalog. Maharaja Patiala Collection. Punjabi University Library. Patiala. Punjab. India. 59.180.58.2 11:11, 21 May 2007 (UTC)Lutfullah

Amberhabib 10:39, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Flag?????

That flag is completly made up. There is no historical basis for it. 68.49.242.230 06:36, 19 June 2007 (UTC)ahassan05

True. The flag is fake.

The later Mughals used a balance as a symbol, which you can see above the Bahadur Shah's crown.--ISKapoor 23:32, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

I know a thing or two about the Mughal empire myself. Apart from the fake flag, shouldn't the box about the history of Greater Iran be removed?? Whats the intention here? It is clearly unrelated.Devraj Singh 07:27, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

Good point Devraj Singh: that box is entirely unrelated. Greater Iran?! Should that even be on Wikipedia as anything other than a theory of racial supremacy? Mughal flag: The Mughals used numerous flags, amongst them the black flag of the Prophet, the green of Islam, the red of Turks, the yak-tail standards of the Mongols. Almost all Mughal flags, like those of the Turks had the star and crescent (originally a Byzantine symbol, won by the Ottomans and now represents Islam in general) in them. The yak-tail standards often accompany Babur on almost all period paintings. These miniatures also show red, green and black flags though in all the paintings I have seen, the flags are folded around their poles and possibly covered with covering cloth. Some more research is needed. In flags kept by old families in Multan and Lahore as heirlooms, the most common is the red silk with star and crescent (similar to modern Turkish flag) or alternately 3 crescents. Some are green with 'kalima' and some are plain black. In all likelihood, the royal flags of the emperor (likely to be green and red) were different from regimental flags. It is very likely that the royal flags which were to be always around the king's person or his representative and uncovered only in war were the closest thing the Mughals had to a national flag. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.146.180.141 (talk) 02:25, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

The Moghul flag had a golden blazing sun on a red field, if I remember right. The crescent was an Ottoman device, not a Moghul one. The Indian Muslim dynasties did not use green banner so prominently. Tipu, for instance, did not use it. The crescent moon on a deep green field came into wide use mainly after 1876, when the Sultan of Turkey was accepted in India as Khalifa. The Great Moghuls never accepted the claims of Turkish dynasty to Khilafat. Gopalan evr (talk) 02:54, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

what? I am looking at the Padshahnama from Shah Jahan's time and it shows that the Mughals used a lion and sun in their flag: [15]this is from Dara Shikoh's wedding procession.This looks similar to the flag of Safavid Iran. Deuterium 1

Map

The map currently up is utter nonsense. As far as I know the Mughals never completely conquered the Marathas and did not conquer the region that is currently Tamil Nadu. In fact, only a few sultanates later conquered some of the north east regions of Tamil Nadu, but these were (a) not Mughals and (b) not to the extent shown on the map.

Would you like to support your argument with trusted sources? Unfortunately, Wikipedia doesn't function on what "you know," "I know" or what anybody knows. Wikipedia extracts its information from books and authoratative internet sites writen by experts in the field. If they are not experts, then their perspective must at least be notable enough to be noted by experts. Thanks GizzaDiscuss © 02:39, 4 August 2007 (UTC)


Can you point me to the source of the map that shows south India as part of the Mughal Empire? Especially with respect to the inclusion of Tamil Nadu, here's why I think this map may be in error:
1. The Mughal Empire was from 1526 - 1707 (as per wikipedia main page)
2. The map claims to show the Empire as of 1700.
3. Wikipedia page on "Tamil Nadu" indicates that Nayaks were the rulers aroud 1700.
4. Wikipedia page on "Madurai Nayak Dynasty" states that the Nayaks ruled from 1559-1736 (Wikipedia page on "Thanjavur Nayaks" also may be relevant).

The collective wisdom from wikipedia pages on Tamil Nadu, Vijayanagaram, Cholas, Pandyas, and Nayaks is as follows:
1. Cholas ruled until about 1300
2. Towards end of this period, Pandyas rose to power.
3. And then came the muslim Khilji rulers from Delhi (not the same as Mughals who were from 1526 - 1707) who ruled from 1310-1377; Khiljis contributed to Tamil culture by razing the 14 towers of the Madurai Meenakshi temple (see wikipedia page on Madurai).
4. Madurai and various other parts of Tamil Nadu then became part of Vijayanagar when Bukka Raya defeated the Khiljis. They lasted until about 1550, after which it was the Nayaks (until about 1750).

Based on the above, the map showing the extent Mughal Empire seems to be exaggerated in its inclusion of various parts of Tamil Nadu. (I have looked into the history of Madurai specifically; granted Madurai is only part of Tamil Nadu, but it was an important historical capital and therefore is probably representative enough.)

If the map is correct about the Mughal Empire in 1700, then the various other Wikipedia pages on Tamil history need to be changed. Otherwise, the current map should be removed until something more accurate can be found. What does everyone else think?

76.19.47.245 03:51, 21 September 2007 (UTC)ChettaPattiThendi

Really i dont care whats wrong with the map, put it back. Its that simple put it back, either pick boundaries that can't be contested or ones that can be to the max, either or, that simple. figure it out —Preceding unsigned comment added by 134.121.253.146 (talk) 00:36, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

The answers to the above questions are as follows:
1. The Mughal Empire lasted practically till at least 1759 and technically till 1858. 1536 - 1707 is the usual and convenient way to designate the duration, not accurate. The Mughal Empire did not evaporate on the death of Aurangzeb. It was very much alive in 1739, when it lost the present day Pakistan to the Persians. It was alive in 1756 when it chased back Ahmad Shah Abdali. Since 1724, the Nizam of Hyderabad took over the southern provinces. He was pestered by the Marathas, but we must remember that Chhatrapati Shahu accepted the Mughal Suzerainty.
2. True
3. True
4. True, but the Nayaks were never independent rulers. They were at first appointed by the Vijayanagar, and tributaries to them, and when the Vijayanagar disappeared, they did not assert their independence. Golkonda collected tribute from them erratically.
On the other hand, Mughals actually captured northern Tamil Nadu from the Marathas. The last ruler of Vijayanagar empire from Chandragiri, Sri Ranga III, appealed to the Mughal Emperor Shah Jahan against the Nayaks of Tanjore, Gingee and Madurai. Gingee and Tanjore were captured by the Marathas, and Venkoji ruled Tanjore as the vassal of Bijapur, not as an independent ruler. The legend of Tesingu (Tej Singh) of Gingee is well known - he fought against Daud Khan Panni of the Mughal army in 1698. In 1674, a Mughal commandant at Valikondapuram granted Pondicherry to the French East India Company. In 1707, Mughal army captured the Vellore fort. The six subahs of Deccan allotted to, or rather taken over by, the Nizam included Tamil areas. The Nawab of Arcot was the deputy who ruled the area on behalf of the Nizam and in the name of the Emperor. Thus, Mughal rule in northern Tamil Nadu was a fact easily verifiable. Finally, in 1710, Madurai and Travancore paid tribute to the Mughal Emperor, thus accepting his suzerainty. 1710 was the year when the Mughal Empire had the maximum extent.Gopalan evr (talk) 03:56, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

Map(s)

Any map or maps that we can provide would be helpful. -- 201.37.229.117 (talk) 17:58, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Edits by 200.7.48.202

Concerning the recent reverts - I was simply returning the text that had been deleted by IP:200.7.48.202. Initially I inadvertantly reverted your first edit - which was correcting the incorrect citation on ip:200.7.48.202's new edit. I don't really know this subject but I think the text that I returned - which has been there for many weeks might be the correct text. I put it back, and then you deleted it. Check it out. I am not interested in an edit war but I think an expert on the subject - like yourself might want to read through the current text and the text that was deleted by IP:200.7.48.202. It seems to me that the deleted text just might be worth keeping. Thanks, Modernist (talk) 04:08, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

The above comments moved from my talk page here, relating to this edit and this edit.
Pahari Sahib 04:41, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
Yes and I was returning the text on the left side of the second edit above. It seems to be the more complete of the two. I think it should be returned to the article. Modernist (talk) 04:47, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
I think 200.7.48.202 was correct in removing this, in the article on Humayun (see Humayun#Refuge_in_Persia) it says "With this outward acceptance of Shi'ism the Shah was prepared to offer Humayun more substantial support." which was "much to the disapproval of his biographer Jauhar". This appears to have been a diplomatic/tactical move by Humayun who needed support.
However the text in this article had stated "It is important to remember that the Mughals, while originally Sunnis from Afghanistan, converted to Shia as a pre-condition for the help extended by the Persian Emperor to Humayun" - implying that the dynasty had converted en-masse, the text had also said "The succeeding Emperor, Akbar kept true to his father's converted faith". Bearing in mind Akbar's views on religion, it does not appear to be correct (and is uncited). It also seems to be saying that due to Humayun the Mughals became Shia - but then this does not explain someone like Aurangzeb. Pahari Sahib 05:06, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
I appreciate your interesting explanation..as I mentioned this is not my area of expertise. I'll read the article on Aurangzeb. However I realize that your revert was a thoughtful one. Thanks - Modernist (talk) 05:14, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
Okay :-) Pahari Sahib 05:17, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

Where did the flag go?

Who deleted the Mughal flag? Please someone add this flag back, because it is a huge aspect of the Mughal Empire. ITS THE FLAG!

It is the main thing one needs to see so please someone do something about it or if the one who deleted it is reading i ask :why did you remove it? if it was fake or somethng than put on the orignal one or either give us BACK the old one! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.61.58.187 (talk) 10:05, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Some one has posted the flag of HAMAS the terror organization(yes!) as the empire preceding the mughal empire! I sure hope it's ok to remove it. If there isn't a flag of the delhi sultanate available it's better to put in a blank flag pic. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Andy anno (talk •
Is this the Moghul flag? I remember that the Moghul flag had a golden sun on a red banner. Will someone clarify? Gopalan evr (talk) 15:34, 10 September 2008 (UTC)


contribs) 02:54, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Map Incorrect

The main map showing the extent of Mughal rule is incorrect. The Mughals never reached as south as Calicut or managed to take much territory in Tamil Nadu. Please alter the images (which were self made) or they will have to be deleted.58.104.51.38 (talk) 09:58, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

Tag

I have put an "accuracy" tag on top of the article, because constant edit wars and IP contributions have ruined this article.

The mess begins with the intro which has been totally destroyed by the irrelevant (and false) Turkish-Persian conflict which should be explained in a special paragraph, but not in the intro. The Mughals as a dynasty were neither "Turkish" nor "Persian", but foremost an INDIAN dynasty. That's why, for instance, the Encyclopaedia of Islam has only one short sentence as intro, saying that the Mughals were an Indo-Muslim dynasty.

The article also uses the word "Farsi" which is uncommon in the English language. The correct English word is "Persian". As for the language: the Chagatay language was the "family language" of the Mughals until the 1820s, in fact, at the time of Aurangzeyb, the Mughal ruler "re-discovered" the language of his ancestors. That move was certainly connected to the general anti-Shia (and thus anti-Persian) sentiments among the Sunni ruling elite. That was also one of the main reasons why the Mughals refused to help the Safavids when the Afghans attacked Isfahan. That, in turn, was the major reason for the Persian punitive attacks on India which, at the end, marked the end of the Mughals and paved the way for the British conquests.

The Persian language had already been the language of the elite since the time of Delhi Sultanate. But it was under Akbar that Persian became the sole language of the "divan" and the "darbar" (court; hence the name "Dari"). With the rise of Akbar and his unnatural interest in the Persian language and literature, Persian became not only the language of the court, but the language of high culture within the Mughal ruling family. See: Muzaffar Alam, "The languages of political Islam: India, 1200-1800", University of Chicago Press, 2003, pp. 124. It seems that Akbar and his son Jahangir preferred Persian in "everyday life" rather than Chagatay, the language of Babur and also of his son Humayun. With the rise of Akbar and his Persianization attempts, Chagatay lost all of its importance and was "degraded" to a "dead language" that was only taught to the young princess so they do not forget their Central Asian ("Mughulistan", hence the name "Mughal") origins. Even Aurangzeyb, who tried to revive the Mongol and Chagatay past of the family, preferred Persian over Chagatay. (See Muzaffar Alam).

As for the ethnicity: the Mughal court was predominantly ruled by two "ethnic groups": the Turanis, or Central Asian Turko-Mongols, and Iranis, who came from Persia. These terms were not really ethnic designations, but rather a reference to the place of birth. There were Non-Turkic "Turanis", such as Persian-speaking nobles from Bukhara and Samarqand, and Turkic "Iranis", such as Bayram Khan. Of course, the Turks were the largest group among the "Turanis" and Persians among the "Iranis".

By the time of Akbar, the "Iranis" controlled the most important positions at court, and the newly established "ministry for poetry and literature" (malik al-shu'ara) was the domain of "Iranis" only. That was different during the reign of Babur, when "Turanis" made up some 70% of the court. In the later years, two other groups, the "Afghans" (Pashtuns) and the "Rajputs", also gained influence, together making up some 20-30% of the court. The Mughal culture became more and more "Indian", while keeping the Persian-Islamic core and almost totally loosing the Turko-Mongol origins.

See also Sheldon I. Pollock's "Literary Cultures in History" (which includes passages from Muzafar Alam): "... Akbar's son Jahangir was not skilled in Turkish ..."

That means that already with Jahangir, Chagatay Turkic had lost the position it had under Babur, and Persian not only became the language of the elite, but also of the Mughal family itself.

Tājik (talk) 01:06, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

You don't need to protact the discussion with this kind of irrelevant stuff.
The language what they later spoke or not is irrelevant when their origin is clear. There is no Turkish-Persian conflict. Some Iranis or Paniranists try to make a conflict of them because they try to steal or name others culture and history for themself. And it is funny that someone who brings this irrelevant stuff is criticizing itself. That's a inconsistence itself!
How can there be a conflict when Turks (I am not talking about the Turks of Turkey from today because in my eyes they are your real problem) ruled over you Iranis over 1000 of years with a few exceptions of some years with some Persian rulers. You Paniranists make this discussion ugly with your lies. Don't get me wrong but why it is so hard to accept that the Mughals were a Turkic Dynasty founded by Turks? A dynasty didn't change just because some other ethnical components (for example by marriage) change the profile of the rulers. A good example for that is the Ottman Empire. The ethnic profile also changed there but that didn't change anything of the origin or the etablishment of this Empire. And that was Turkic. There is nothing do discuss because some of you don't accept the Turkish/Turkic reality and try to tell the history in a new way based on dreams. Your Iranis are irrelevant in this case as they were ruled by some other turkic dynasty in "their" land in that time.
The Safavid dynasty, Afsharid dynasty or the Qajar dynasty existed at the same time the Mughal Empire was existing. How could there be a Persian conflict when there is no "Persian" history at that time? Even now you are ruled by Turks when you look of the origin of Khamanei or other rulers of Iran from today. But that doesn't make Iran to a Turkish dynasty or state because the country from nowadays wasn't founded by Turks. Just like the Mughals have nothing to do with India from nowadays. In the last over 1000 years you took Turkish culture and Turkish history and try to make it your own instead of accepting that you have no history in that case with a few exceptations. You should also not make the same mistake like the Greeks and Egyptians and think that you have anything to do with the ancient Persians. When you look at persons like Reza Shah you see that even they tried to copy what the Turks were doing (in this case what Ataturk was doing). You Paniranists even try to make Safavid or other Turkic/Turkish empires your own. What you do is fanaticsm. You don't except your historic identity but now stop with your lies. Everywhere it is the same with guys like you bringing some not existing Iranian/Persian identity in articles which haven't anything to do with it (I am not talking about the Mughal article right now). I am wondering why always some Paniranists from Europa (Germany) or Asia (Tajikistan) try this because you fit exactly in this profile. But you are not the only one one I can assure. Some of them even try to make Uygur people Iranian ...
The relevant part is Babur not Akbar or someone other. If Akbar tried to found some other Empire or dynasty than what was existing you could talk about him and a new dynasty. Again the same example with the Ottoman Empire. Look at the origins (in this case their mothers) of the Sultans after or with Suleiman the Magnificent and also the language or the culture in the Ottman Empire. Your logic would be to make even the Ottoman Empire to an Islamic dynasty or something like that. What you don't understand is also this part I think.
Or would you also make the Persian language itself Arabic because there are so much loanwords in it? It stays Persian as long as you don't try to create a new language. Which in form of empires would be to form a new Empire. But that didn't happened. The usage of a language alone doesn't make a culture. Look at the Arabs in the time they were ruled by others the Arabic language was also and still used by some Rulers or Elites! Look a the gypsys in Bulgaria, they have nothing like a Turkish origin or turkish culture but they use the Turkish language. By the way look at the Bulgarian history it shows also great examples of what we are talking about. The First Bulgarian Empire was also Turkic. Nobody will deny that. But when it came to form another State by nonturks the next Empire would have nothing to do with it just like it happned in Bulgaria. The Mughal Empire didn't form another Empire so that does mean it stays Turkic.
You Paniranists should stay by your own history if you don't have something relevant to say. The first step would to accept the historical facts and of course the reality! --P223 (talk) 09:37, 30 September 2008 (UTC)
I will not comment your personal attacks and leave that to admins to judge.
As for the dynasty: the origins of the Mughals dynasty - as their name already explains - was not Turkic, but Mongol, and already their founder, Babur, took much pride in his Mongolian origins.
The language of Babur was Chagatay Turkic (not Turkish, as you may expect), that of his ancestors was Mongolian, and that of his descendants was Persian and, later, Urdu. Dynasties and their nationality change in the course of time. Later Mughal nobles even took pride in their alleged descent from Charlemagne - see Charlemagne to the Mughals. That was clearly because of the political situation in India. When the British conquered India, terms like "Turk" or "Iranian" became irrelevant, since these people were from now on "the conquered" and European powers the "great conquerors". In this case, the only thing that matters is: The ethnic origins of the Mughals were Mongolian, the language of the Mughals was first Persian, and later Urdu. Chagatay Turkic (the ancestor of modern Uzbek language) lost all of its importance during the reign of Humayun, and had been removed from all offices by the time of Akbar, so that the 4th Mughal emperor - Jahangir - did not even really know Chagatay.
Since you are so much into history: do you actually know that leading Turkologists, such as Carter Vaughn Findley (author of "The Turks in World History") and Wolfgang-Ekkehard Scharlipp (author of "Die frühen Türken in Zentralasien") really take in consideration that the first Turks, known as the "Türk clan" or "Göktürks", were in fact Iranic? Findley writes in his book that it is generally agreed by mainstream Turkologists that the name of the founding clan of the Turks, Ashina, is in fact derived from Eastern Iranian and means "blue", from which the later term "Göktürk" ("blue Turks") was derived (see also: Turkic_Kaganate#Etymology). Scharlipp writes on page 18 of his book (German original): "... Über die Ethogenese dieses Stammes (Türk) ist viel gerätselt worden. Auffallend ist, dass viele zentrale Begriffe iranischen Ursprungs sind. Dies betrifft fast alle Titel (...). Einige Gelehrte wollen auch die Eigenbezeichnung türk auf einen iranischen Ursprung zurückführen und ihn mit dem Wort "Turan", der persischen Bezeichnung für das Land jeneseits des Oxus, in Verbindung bringen. ..." By your own logic, this would turn the first Turkic clans to "Iranians", since you believe that ethnicity does not change. And Atatürk would be no Turk anymore, but an Albanian, since his Albanian origins are recognized by all notable scholars (for example Arnold Joseph Toynbee, in Survey of International Affairs des Royal Institute of International Affairs (1952), p. 217: "... Kemal Ataturk was of Albanian and Macedonian descent ...") Tājik (talk) 15:39, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

There is no personal attack as I just judge your behavior on Wikipedia and other guys like you. I'm just writing about facts which you Paniranists are not able to understand because of your own propaganda myths. It didn't become irrelevant as they were Turkic. Every serious Turkologist will tell you that even some of your own Iranologist will tell you that Mughals or other Turkic Empire on YOUR lands wasn't made by Iranis. The Iranis have no culture in that case like the Turks. Even the Origin of the Iranis isn't really known just like the one of the gypsys in Bulgaria. It is said that they even could be related to you and now you really make Turkic origin also Iranian. I really had to laugh about that.

So you are really talking about history (when even your origin isn't known) while you were ruled with a few exceptations in the past over 1000 years by Turks?

Your example with Ataturk and the Gokturks show me that you have complexes in this case as the whole world knows who their ancestors were. I even not need sources for saying that because it is something known like the sun or the moon is existing and nobody will deny that. But some of you guys of course will never get this kind of clear things out of their head. And if you look at your own sources you brought in you will also see that there is nothing said that they were Iranian. So you are again talking without content. I think you should read more Turkish/Turkic history maybe then you will understand the coherences in that case. For example were the word Gokturks come from. I will try to make it short because you just show a behavior like a small kid who nearly starts to cry when he hears the reality. Since when does the word Gokturk only mean anything like "blue Turks"? You should just read some serious taken historians and start for example with Bumin Khan and the Religions of the Turks Tengriism and than understand some of the coherences otherwise nobody can help you. Also you should understand the coherences in the books you quote and compare it with some others and not to try to give what is said a new meaning by mixing your sources. That's a friendly advice from my side otherwise you will always fall into a position where your so called arguments will fail as you even now can't be taken really serious by what you said.

There is not even a proof of this stupid lies you try to bring in here when you compare it with all the Empires Turks founded on "your" lands. You should just accept this identity and don't try to compare some not existing woolgathering with what happened in history. It is always the same with this nationalistic groups of people. They steal and try to make history, culture and so on their own. Haven't you got any self-respect not to lie? Your sources just show me that you don't know what you are talking about.

But if you want I will bring you some sources of the same category guys you brought in here who say that your origins are Turks. In the same you did by mixing some sources and than telling some lies like that. But I won't do that because I'm not living with the complexes you do who tries to make Babur not a Turk. If you want to bring the mongolian context in as they were related than call it Turkic/Mongolian but please don't bring in your unimportant so called Iranian history in there. You try to get a role in the history because your language was used (like other languages also) for me that shows just that you try to get attention on your history because you have no history than your ancient persian which hasn't anything to do with Iranians from nowadays. Not everyone can have a history like the Turks of course but you should just accept this and also the identity the Turks brought to Iranian lands.

If you just want to look at the origins and ancestors than just look at Cyrus the Great or Darius and the Empire which was founded. Even their origin is not known like all of yours. So before talking about your so called history you just should know who they were before making others a not existing part of your own. Even the name for your land Tajikistan was given by Turks and you are still talking about the history of the Turks. The Turks made your history and give you an identity instead of don't excepting the reality and the history you should be thankful for that.

But again that all hasn't anything to do with the Mughal Empire so you should not try to get the discussion anywhere else because you know what I am saying is the truth. A dynasty will be called after his founders and his identity. In the Mughal Empire this was Turkic or Turkic/Mongolian. Accept this.

It is funny to watch that on articles with turkish/turkic history more Paniranists and Iranian Nationalists are writing than Turks and try to form the articles by saying that they were no Turks. And you try to be the leader of them given all of his time to this kind of stuff. You also try to make Turkic Empires like Ghaznavids something different. You just should stop trying to get your Paniranist propaganda in the articles on Wikipedia and instead of denying Turkish history you should try and find some Iranian history which really is some and not just made on Wikipedia by yourself like you try to make it. --P223 (talk) 08:35, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Area of Mughal Empire at its peak

People of the sub continent know that at its peak the great mughal empire directly ruled all territories which is now in countries afghanistan, pakistan, india, nepal, bangladesh and burma. The areas of these countries as per <a href="www.cia.gov"> this </a> link are:

Afghanistan 647,500 sq km Pakistan 778,720 sq km India 2,973,190 sq km Nepal 143,181 sq km Bangladesh 133,910 sq km Burma 657,740 sq km

Total 5,334,241 sq km*

  • Note: I have only counted land area and totally excluded sea/ocean area assuming that mughal empire had no control on any part of any sea.

The wikipedia article about mughal empire says its peak area is 3 million sq km which is wrong. As shown above the peak area of mughal empire was well above 5 million sq km. Its an error of more than 77% by wikipedia. Its a wonder how can a thing such big is overlooked by wikipedia staff and why not anybody before me objected on it.

Once the true area of mughal empire is shown the mughal empire can get its just place in the list of greatest empires of the world. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Matif1024 (talk • contribs) 20:13, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

You may wish to read the key Wikipedia policies of Verifiability and No original research. While I can see your helpful intent in trying to clarify the land area, we cannot accept a calculation made by a single editor. If you can find a reliable source that says the Mughal Empire ruled over a greater area than is specified here then that will be extremely useful. Road Wizard (talk) 21:16, 14 October 2008 (UTC)


Look, the peak map of mughal empire shown in the wikipedia article in question is not equal to the area of mughal empire shown at its peak. This is an internal inconsistency in the wikipedia article. When you show map of some area of world you must be able to know how much area it has. India alone has more area than what is shown of mughal empire whereas mughal empire was spread on other countries told above too. (matif1024) 3:01, 15 October 2008 (PST). —Preceding unsigned comment added by Matif1024 (talk • contribs)

You are correct that the article is inconsistent, but I am not qualified to judge which figure is correct. Do you have a source that can either support or correct the existing figures? Road Wizard (talk) 23:09, 19 October 2008 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Talk:Mughal_Empire/Archive_1&oldid=1092064246"