The decline of the Great Muslim Empires Essay Example for Free

The decline of the Great Muslim Empires Essay From the middle of the fifteenth century and up to the end of the eighteenth century three Great Muslim Empires had been dominating in the Islamic zone of then world: the Ottoman Empire in Asia Minor, the Mughal Empire in India, and the Safavid Empire in Persia, forming the most rapidly expanding forces in world affairs (Kennedy 1989). They all failed sooner or later due to the internal factors such as weakening of centralized political control, excessive enlargement of the territories, religious diversity, and rulers conservatism resulted in failure to implement the modern technologies (Kennedy 1989). The prevailing factors of their sunset were not the same for each of them, although there were several common ones. But the major contribution to the process of their decay was made by the outer world. Internal weaknesses were enough to wreck the Muslim empires, but each also failed to recognize the threat to their dominance posed by the rise of the West. By the beginning of the seventeenth century the main world communication routes didnt pass through the Middle East any more and the European states dominated at sea turning a profit from their advances in science and technology and successfully carrying out the gunpowder policy as well as promoting their trade on the territories earlier controlled by the Muslim empires (Wells 1933). To find the factors which led to the decline of the Great Mughals, the Safavid Dynasty, and the Ottoman Empire, while the Europeans went ahead, we should investigate their features, compare them and draw a conclusion.   Considering chronology of their decline, one can find a certain similarity – the period of extinction went along by the reign of a certain leader: the Ottomans fell apart after Suleyman the Lawgiver rule, the Safavids – by the end of Abbas Is reign, and the Mughals – after Aurangzers rule. The timing of collapse for the Ottoman, Safavid, and Mughal empires substantially differ. While the Ottoman state declined for the period of three centuries, the Safavids drop was much faster as well as those of the Great Mughals. The reason of rapid Safavids decay noticeably lied in the uselessness to defend from the neighboring Ottoman Empire in the seventeenth century resulted in complacence of the Safavid Shans, their growing corruption and decadence. The Mughal Empires fall is owed to heavy hand rule and aggressive East India Company trade policy. Ottoman rulers in turn had a very short–term policy unwilling to develop their territory as well as to invest in it and mercilessly exploiting land and peoples, they relied on continuous expansion for stability, and when the empire did not grow, it gradually collapsed (Hooker 1999). The Ottoman Empire was the long–lived one in comparison with the Mughals and the Safavid dynasty (a short–lived one). It reached its peak by 1600 under the reign of Suleyman the Magnificent and then has been gradually declined up to the end of the eighteenth century, but even survived through the First World War, and was disbanded in 1918. The Mughal Empire survived until 1857, it, as Phillip Myers affirmed, lasted upwards of 300 years, – until destroyed by the English in the present century, but in fact its rulers after 1803 were the pensioners of the East India Company (Myers 1902). As for the Safavids their demise after the reign of Abbas I was too prompt, and internal disorder plagued the empire which resulted in Afgans successful conquest of its capital Isfahan in 1722 (Hooker 1999). The Ottoman Turks†¦ were to falter, to turn inward, and to loose the chance of world domination†¦ To a certain extent it could be argued that this process was the natural consequence of earlier Turkish successes: the Ottoman army, however well administrated, might be able to maintain the lengthy frontiers, but could hardly expand farther without enormous cost in men and money (Kennedy 1989). The latter thought by Paul Kennedy could be referred not only to the Ottomans – it also determines one of the main economic reasons underlying the nature of Safavids and Mughals sunset. It is very expensive business to run an empire encompassing vast territory and one day such empire becomes too big to be successfully governed. The rapid expansion of the Muslim Empires spread their governments and military administrations too thin. The enormous expenses impoverished them and built up long–standing hostility among the people towards the lavish emperors. This subsequently led to the frequent rebellions and instability in the society in all three concerned empires (Hooker 1999). The lack of flexibility in attitude to the newer weaponry and resistance to any military technology that threatened the dominance of the Muslim Empires caused them to fall behind Western nations. Backwardness of Janissaries, their hereditary membership since 1637 resulted in transformation of Ottomans powerful army into a mob of cobblers and weavers. In case of the Mughals the most dramatic effect was taken by the recruitment of slave armies that finally became to dominate their hirers and govern independently. Similarly to them the Safavid Shan Tahmasp I begun introduction of converted slaves into military since the middle of the sixteenth century who later would acquire positions of influence under Shah Abbas I. But after conclusion of the treaty delimitating frontiers with the Ottomans in 1639 the army got peace and declined in size and quality (Kennedy 1989). During the seventeenth century all three empires showed the signs of weakening centralized political control. At the same time vast corruption among the bureaucracy and local aristocracy became evident. In the Safavid Empire which was a theocracy unlike the Ottoman and Mughal nations a new class of wealthy religious aristocrats owed everything to the state, but plundered it. Later sultans in the Ottoman Empire reduced to puppets dominated by Janissaries and viziers. Venality and corruption run through all level of bureaucracy. The last Mughal powerful emperor Aurangzeb decided to extend the territory under his control to the entire Indian subcontinent, and this campaign although being successful emptied his exchequer and increased his enemies. He faced rebellions in the north, and throughout the empire Islamic invaders, Hindu separatists and Sikh revolutionaries caused centralized political control to break down. Furthermore the rebellions in all three empires were excited over economic reasons: the heavy tax burden posed on peasants, alienation of the non–Muslim merchant classes in the Ottoman Empire; land seizures from Quizilbash landholders by the Safavid ruler Abbas I; a punitive tax on Hindu subjects re–imposed by the Mughal emperor Aurangzeb (Hooker 1999). Religious diversity also contributed to the Great Muslims decay, although not so much as the above mentioned factors. Without religious tolerance the empires got a great many internal enemies disposed to the rebellions. The complexity of religion issue interrupted also the further development of the Muslim Empires. For example, Paul Kennedy stated with respect to the Mughals, that the system was weak at the core. The sheer rigidity of Hindu religious taboos militated against modernization (Kennedy 1989). The crisis in the Muslim Empires deepened also due to the external factors. They all were based on land routes, not sea travel, and this enabled the Europeans to dominate in trade by sea after discovering African water route to India by the Portuguese explorers. Muslim monopoly of trade with Asia ended then which unsettled the Ottoman economy and led to the inflation there. Although the English occasionally traded through Persia, the Safavids economy was weakened as well by the general loss of trade. Since the seventeenth century the trade routes in the world went through the oceans, which let the Europeans to have a great advantage controlling the trade by sea with India and the Far East. Having no seafaring skills, the Muslim Empires failed to resist to such domination, and they were to be reconciled with the presence of the Europeans in their cities (Wells 1933). In conclusion, the immense Muslim Empires were doomed to lose to the Europeans who advanced in science and technology, removed one of the sources of profit for the Muslim merchants having discovered new trade sea routes, and rose powerful nation–states able to gain territories not only due to gunpowder policy, but as the result of successful economic invasion. The Western Europeans, and particularly the Dutch, the Scandinavians, the Spanish, the Portuguese, the French and the British were extending the area of their struggles across the seas of all the world†¦ Great innovation, the ocean–going sailing ship, was inexorably extending the range of European experience to the further most limits of salt–water (Wells 1933). Bibliography Hooker, Richard. World Civilizations. Islam. Washington State University Web Site. 1999. http://www.wsu.edu:8080/~dee/MODULES.HTM Kennedy, Paul. The Rise and Fall of the Great Powers. London: Fontana Press. 1989. Pp. 10–16. Myers, Phillip V. N. A General History for Colleges and High Schools. Boston, U.S.A., and London: CINN Company Publishers. 1902. Pp. 460–464. Wells, Herbert G. A Short History of the World. London: Waterlow Sons Ltd. Printers. 1933. Pp. 168–235.