I wanted to thank our Patrons for suggesting this topic! You can support us and make your own suggestions here or on our page: www.patreon.com/InvictaHistory. (P.S. Get ready for more War Elephants in our upcoming video on ancient Carthage)
Loved the video guys. I was wondering where you get your research from and how you conduct it. I'm almost done my summer semester at university so I'll have two months of nothing to do soon. I would like to spend this time getting at least a surface level understanding of 16th century geopolitics in the Indian subcontinent, but I'm unsure which resources are best for doing so. Your content has sparked a newfound interest in history I could have never guessed I would have as a STEM student. Keep up the great work.
shame he had to turn infidel and start a new religion also can you please do a series about north African history in detail specially the pre roman era & the roman era
Bengal, Orrisa, Godwana, Gujarat etc are basically organic nations of the south asian region. Region which is almost the same size and More diverse than Europe. And unlike Europe, has got its own tectonic plate.
@@Brahmdagh I never said they weren't, the joke is that India was recently updated with a DLC so it brought more players attention to India so EU4 players are already familair with Delhi, Bengal, Orissa, Bahamanis, Vijiyanagar, Sind, Gujarat etc
I know it's the convention of naming this man, but I find it funny that "Akbar the Great" basically means "Greatest the Great". It's a bit like calling the indian style tea "Chai tea", meaning "tea tea".
Akbar was actually the Title "The Great". His actual name was Jalaluddin Mohammad. He became known as Akbar because he was referred in historical texts as Jalaluddin Mohammad Akbar i.e. Jalaluddin Mohammad the Great. "Akbar the Great" was basically a British mistranslation, pretty much exactly like Chai tea.
@@CirosKhan I believe, in Latin letters, "cha" is tea in Chinese (and Japanese). Chai is indeed tea in some Indian languages (if not all) using Latin alphabet.
Few mistakes: 1. Humayun did not die from illness. Instead he felt from his library stairs and died. 2. Jalal-ud-in Akbar died at the age of 63. 3. The Ahoms didn't rule the entire Brahmaputra valley during Akbar reign. They reach that extend after defeating the Mughals between 1662-1682. Before 1605, the Western part was ruled by Koch kingdom while east was ruled by Ahoms . If you are planing to cover the Mughal-Maratha wars then also try to cover the Mughal-Ahom conflict.
actually Jalaludin Akbar was Planning to Assasinate the Maan Singh by Mixing the poison in his Food as Because of the Frustation to loose in the Battle of Haldigarh and Blaming Raja Maan singh as he Fought for the Akbar's Side against Rajput Kingdom. I dont know what Happen but the Plate of Maan singh Suddenly Get exchanged with the Akbar's Plate and Akbar Eat at that Poison food which he Mixed on Raja Maan Singh's Plate.. and thats how so called "AKBAR THE GREAT" Cheaply Died.
While expelled and prevented from expanding into Assam, the Mughal war in the Ahom, negotiations with local landlords and other diplomatic measures crippled the Ahom to an eventual doom soon to come
@@2ad4ddd bot sure from where you consumed your history....but the Ahoms managed to stick around for another 150 years. The Ahoms central power outlasted the Mughal Emperor authority who were puppets at the hands of the Nawabs and the Marathas during the 18th century. Both the state died around the same time at the hand of the British EIC.
@@2ad4ddd nonsense..Ahom kingdom reached it's zenith after the Mughal invasions stopped. Ahom 's doom came because of a civil war that lasted for many decades followed by Burmese invasions
Actually Guru Nanak would've already had his revelation at age 33 by 1502 & at that point the second Sultan of the Lodi dynasty Sikandar Lodi was still in power. He would go on to call his followers Sikhs meaning disciple in Sanskrit although many of his followers still retained somewhat of their Islamic or Hindu traditions depending on which faith they adhered to earlier. And at some points Sikhi under Babur would actually face minor persecution (not on a ridiculously tremendous scale though). So saying the Sikhs weren't a distinct community yet is technically true as Sikhi was only at its beginnings but by Invicta acknowledging that, it helps viewers understand that by that point Sikhi indeed did exist. Also it would've been nice to mention another one of Akbar's great feats for inclusion - Akbar once would actually attend the Langar of the 3rd Nanak Guru Amar Das Ji and Guru Sahib would teach him the way of equality as during the langar (vegetarian kitchen started by Guru Nanak) Akbar would sit on the ground alongside peasants, shoemakers, blacksmiths even homeless people & wouldn't receive special treatment because of him being an emperor. Guru Ji had told Akbar's diplomats that prior to meeting him he should attend a Sikh langar on his own accord to show if he really did want to meet Guru Ji. It's said after his experience in the Langar he would feel enlightened & he'd go on to donate a large plot of land to Guru Amar Das Ji for him to build a palace there. However, Guru Ji did not accept the land donation as he did not want to attain property & appear to others as using his position as the Guru of Sikhi to gain political/social favour from the emperor. So to go around it, Akbar had returned to the Guru Ji & instead presented the land donation acting as a brotherly gift for Guru Ji's eldest daughter Bibi Bhani Ji, whom he since saw as a sister. Guru Ji, seeing that the gift wasn't meant for him & saw it as a wholesome gesture accepting the offering.
Tolkien was a linguist, and extremely well read. He probably came across the name and thought to him self, "That sounds dark, let me make a note of that."
Jalal-ud-din was his real name. It meant "Glory of the Faith" Jalal = Glory Ud = Of Din = Faith Akbar, which means Great was simply his title. Hence Jalal-ud-din, the Great.
@@Jumpoable Jalala is basically "Majesty" or "Grace" in Arabic, Din is the faith, the "of" in the "Majesty OF the faith" is an implied pronoun which is not written but is always implied. i know it might sound crazy what im saying but that is how grammer or "E'rab" is done in Arabic.
Small correction: Sher Shah Suri wasn't a "former Mughal ruler", he was of humble origins, an ethnic Pathan (Pashtun) whose family had settled in what is present-day Bihar (which was under the control of the Bengal Sultanate at the time). By dint of merit, he soon emerged as a ruler of Bihar up until the border with Bengal at the confluence of the Gandak and Ganges. He initially had accepted Babar's supremacy but with his death, he became a thorn at the side of Humayun.
extremely concise, well written, and properly spelled comment. if not for your name, i'd assume you were an english native speaking scholar. if english was not your first language, then i commend you thoroughly on your fluency, as it's better than at least 80% of native english speakers. even the difference between "whose" and "who's" was correct, something the majority of english speakers don't know
A little more correction Sher Shah Suri wasn't of humble origin , His father was the Lord of Bihar province aka Nawab , he inherited his father province . He killed a Tiger barehanded, hence for his bravery he was named Sher Shah killer of Tiger . He was a Great Aristocrat,a Noble and a brilliant admistrator. He is one who thought of Mansabdari system and Zamindari system and build Grand trunk road. Even Akbar the Great implemented his vision later on . Problem was he was a Ethnic Afghan and were in a dispute with Mughals who emerged as new power , he even managed to defeat Mughals once Humanyun barely escaped helped by a River boatman .He belonged to Great Suri Dynasty.
@@BothHands1 India is extremely linguistically diverse, so a very large portion of the population is bilingual, and a substantial section is trilingual. Hindi is the most commonly used link language, but many South Indians are not very fluent in it. This leaves English as a crucial link language for us and it is reflected in our Constitution--English and Hindi are both recognized as official languages of the Union of India. In addition, there are another 22 regional languages given scheduled status by the Constitution and different state governments may have different official state languages. The official business of the Union of India, however, can only be conducted in Hindi or English. TL;DR Don't be surprised by the fluency with which many Indians speak English. More than 125 million of us can speak it and it is one of two official languages of the Union Government.
Minor nitpicking. 'Akbar' means great. Jalal-ud-din was given the title of Akbar. I guess that somehow got morphed in the English translations to Akbar the Great instead of Jalal-ud-din the Great.
@@ME-hm7zm Nitpicking for this video as they might have learned it from the material they researched. Major fault of the English translators and historians to be lazy.
Humayun distributed his resources in his empire to his insupportive brothers and wasted a lot of time in entertainment of dances and songs at battle fields rather than planning and facing Shershah.Akbar was rather a serious campaigner, tolerant and thoughtful ruler.Akbar married to rajputs and other females from other kingdoms of India, never denying a marriage, even marrying at age of 51 this policy formed his political position stronger.He innovated mughal cannons.Overall he knew how to use his resources.
Humayun was not as bad as shown by people, babur himself divided the kingdom before death and it was hard for humayun to conquer on three fronts at same time. No one can still imagine how he came back from nowhere
@@kamleshmanjhi1234 Humanyun was granted army by Shah Tamsup of Iran approx 14000 soldiers because Shah wanted control of Kandahar, Humanyun had reconquest casus belli, in lieu of Kandahar Shah Granted Humayun a part of his army.
1:02 - Damn... I've always been interested in maps and geography, but I never noticed India, Bangladesh and Myanmar together look like a Silverback Gorilla and the Himalayas with its snow-capped mountains look like the silver down its back.
Akbar didn't conquer East Bengal ( Modern Day Bangladesh), actually. He lost several times to the ' Baro Bhuiyans ', who were local independent Lords. Later Jahangir finally got East Bengal and that is why modern day Dhaka was named Jahangirnagar.
Also interesting fact: "Bengal was a major trading nation in the world and was often referred to by Europeans as the richest country to trade with. The Khorasanis referred to the land as an "inferno full of gifts", due to its unbearable climate but abundance of wealth. Bengal Subah, described as the Paradise of the Nations, was the Mughal empire's wealthiest province, and became a major global exporter, a center of worldwide industries such as cotton textiles, silk,and shipbuilding. Its economy was worth 12% of the world's GDP, a value bigger than the entirety of Western Europe, and its citizens' living standards were among the world's highest. " Source : Wikipedia
That's not true. The Baro Bhuiyans under Isa Khan put up heavy resistance but there's not a single battle or instance where Akbar 'lost' to them. Thr subah and modern Bangladesh remained under technical Mughal Suzerainty even under Akbar. Under Jahangir the rebellion was quelled altogether
The Mughals've Come after the Delhi Sultanate One Turco-Mongol dynastate after the other, the Indians be like; Aaw sht Here we again than again and again!
yeah, it's pretty fucked to be mentioned so easily.. and in places like bangladesh, this is still unfortunately common practice. often with 20 or 30 year gaps in age. it's quite horrific.
Marrying children wasn't uncommon for royatly. Didn't mean they had consummated it though. It was seen at least in Europe as something NOT to do. It would usually only happening when the princess became capable of raising children. They just married young sometimes to establish alliances.
History oriented cinephiles might want to take a look at Jodhaa-Akbar (2008, Aishwarya Rai Bachchan and Hrithik Roshan) and/or Mughal-E-Azam (1960, Prithviraj Kapoor, Madhubala, Dilip Kumar). These films are, of course, dramas set in historical times and not historically canonical documentaries - they are well worth the investment of a few hours.
@@anonymous_yt6559 I would rather prefer you to change your view point.. because everything in this world has something bad and good in it.. and remember that the glass is half full not half empty
Over the golden age of Islam the greatest Muslim poets wrote hymns to wine and the love to young beautiful men (copying the greek tradition of homoerotica). Devotion was expressed in many different ways, some were very ascetic but basically individual choice akin to Western monks. Our idea of Islamic puritanism of the Salafiyya is something very modern, that basically had no historic precident and strives for a imaginative past.
@@ithemba many of the references to wine and love in famous Sufi works of poetry are actually metaphors and similes for spiritual devotion and such, not meant to be taken literally. Its poetry, of course its word usage would be poetic rather than straightforward!
@@MerkhVision i didn't say anything in contrast to what you're saying. In fact I did stress how devotion had many faces and contrast that to our modern understanding of wahabiyya ascetic puritanism, didn't I? Still, using wine, it's taste and its intoxicating effect as metaphors for the intoxicating effect of the direct individual experience of God, even strongly erotic ones, tells you a lot about the cultural ranking and appreciation for wine and sweet man love, or else the metaphor would not have been widely have been used over centuries. They have to have had a correspondence to actual lived practices.
It’s a complex matter but he was pretty devout, even more orthodox Mughal emperors ended up employing more Hindus. Aurangzeb is hated by Hindus today for being super religious but he did employ more Hindus than any other emperor, he also built more Hindus temples then he destroyed
I've been watching tons of history videos on RU-vid for years, and this is the first good video I've ever seen about Indian history. THANK YOU! It's been a really notable gap that I've wanted videos to fill.
to be fair though the mughal empire was rich and prosperous until decadence, extravagance in the royal court, harem politics, decentralization and religious intolerance unraveled it, it even held near parity with Europeans in terms of land based military technology had it not declined it probably would have had a reasonable shot at surviving to the 21st century or at least the 20th in some shape/form at least if it liberalized and democratized enough to stop discontent.
@@heathenfire its not only maratha mughal destroyed by civil war jat Rajputs Sikh nawab revolt weak empire maratha just take credit exost mughal empire
Pro tip for using elephants in your next battle: Use them not to kill the enemy, but the enemy's will to fight. As elephants are smarter than horses. They don't mind consuming tones of rations per day, but they don't care about human squabbles. And as soon as they see a fight they can't win. They go "screw you guys I'm going home", and trample the troops they know are least like to hurt them. Namely, your own troops.
There's a podcast called yuddha where they talk about various aspects of ancient Indian military history. There's an episode on elephants. Check that out if you're interested
On the same day me and a friend start a roleplay group set in 1700 and I needed to know more about my faction, the Mughals, you release this? Convenient.
Great but your maps are wrong. For instance by 1605, the Mughal Empire had long controlled Kashmir, Gondwana and Odisha, all of which you have omitted from your map. Furthemore, the Mughal Empire also ruled much further into Bengal than you have shown. Also, the Vijayanagara Empire and Kingdom of Berar no longer existed by 1605. The Kingdoms of Bijapur and Golconda had managed to expand much further down south and the Nayakas of Mysore, Thanjavur, Madurai and Travancore managed to claim independence in the extreme south.
Shah-en-shah Akbar's reforms can also be accredited in large measure to his able and competent ministers. The Land Revenue and Taxation reforms introduced during his reign can largely be attributed to Raja Todar Mal, A Hindu King who was among Akbar's 9 Gems, a collection of renowned and skilled personalities of that age who served The Shah-en-shah-E-Hind in his Court. His greatest political enemy would be the Rajput Kingdom of Mewar and the Deccan Sulatnates. The King of Mewar, Maharana Pratap, fought against the Mughals throughout his lifetime, losing and then regaining his kingdom. This struggle would continue during the reign of his son, Maharana Amar Singh, who signed a favourable treaty with the Mughals, under which he kept his land, accepted Mughal suzerainty but never had to bend his knee in person in the Mughal Court. Akbar was perhaps the last Great Mughal, as his all pervasive reforms extended from military to social measures. His successors had impressive episodes of glory and conquest, but ultimately ruined and tarnished the Mughal legacy of tolerance and strength. His last competent successor, ended up being a failure as a diplomat and a politician, failed to save the Empire from an economic and political crisis, and left behind the Mepire in ruins with a legacy of bigotry and hatred for Non-Muslims.
@@shubhambeniwal7146 yup. Revolts and religious uprisings, which political dissidents and enemies later on used to boost their manpower and recruit trained upper caste mercenaries from regions such as Awadh and Bhojpur who had served in Mughal Armies since the 16th century. For example, the Scindias and other Maratha Generals recruited Purbiya Brahmins in their reformed armies as Infantry organised, trained and equipped along European lines, with the help of European Experts and Militrya men such as General Benoit de Boigne.
@@shubhambeniwal7146 and that was last mistake aurangzzeb did. he was kicked out of deccan by Marathas. They evn cross Narmada river which was a boundary for north and deccan.
@F U B Aurangzeb was a competent military commander but only when it came to regular warfare and pitched battles. He could not suppress or control the Marathas who dragged his empire in a 27 year war, which was left unfinished after his death. He lost hundreds of thousands of men and millions of rupees and in the end he failed to suppress the Marathas, who eventually formed their own independent kingdom under Chatrapathi Shivaji. Later on the Peshwas made the Mughals their protectorate. He also failed miserably as a diplomat and administrator. He failed to resolve the Mansabdari Crisis, which had started during his grandfather's reign and had exacerbated during his reign. Not to mention his inability to resolve the issue of succession in the Rajput Kingdoms of Marwar and Mewar. This led to a Rajput rebellion and disillusionment and distrust among North Indian Hindu Kings and subjects. His orthodox character and policies led to countrywide public discontent. Plus, he forever ruined and tarnished the image of a tolerant and secular Mughal state established by Akbar himself. So, he was actually nowhere close to what Emperor Akbar was.
Aurangzeb Alamgir عالمگير Conqueror of the World , interestingly, when the Mughals showed their family ancestry to the Afghan nobles in their court, the Afghans did not record their own origins. Thats when Makhzan e Afghani was written, with the legendary myths of the founder of Afghanistan. All of it was based on myths and legends. It took another 300+ years before the Afghans learned about their own glorious history with the story of the Kushans, the Hephtalites, Scythian, and other Iranic empires. Many Afghans still believe the myths of the Jews and Alexander the Great. Genetic research shows they are majority Indo-Iranians.
Good work hope u cover the subcontinent a bit more, u have many viewers from subcontinent who wud b intrested,some of them I'm sure will support u on patreon as well
These videos are so fun to watch, very informative without any bias please make more videos on kingdoms and empires of India. A video of Ahoms will be fun to watch and so little info on Mighty Ahoms
First of all, The Great Moghols and not the Mughals... They were Turkic, so they were pale skin and not dark skin as the Indians... So why are you showing them as dark as an real indian???? Why you are changing their original name Great Moghols into Mughals???? It's an insulting capsule
Really enjoyed this video I would like to see a video continuation on after Akbar and how the Mughals continued to rule over India until there decline and end please.
india today could learn a lot from Akbar. i'm not speaking of one specific group or creed or religion of india, but india as a whole. unification, and getting rid of infighting could make india rival china in global power. stop fighting your own people, because you are stronger when united. nationalism will not get you anywhere in the long term. accepting ideas and perspectives from all sorts of different types of people is what makes you wiser and stronger.
You haven't read much of Indian history to possess an authority to advise us. Akbar seems so good only because previous Islamic rulers had set the bar so low. Also, India had already seen good share of liberal rulers in pre-Islamic period. Regarding infighting, I agree that India would be much stronger if united but there is only one community which has greatest problems with current Indian system rest all minorities live in peace. Heck, even Sikhs who constitute only 2%of total population, have around 20%share in Indian army. This talks a lot about India's secularism. Even Jews and Zoastrians who were rejected by everyone were taken in by Indians. Talking about nationalism, please forget about it. It doesn't feels good coming from mouth of a European (possibly) whose ancestors had looted the world just out of greed and threw the world in two consecutive world wars. Also, Nationalism indeed is a factor in leading a country towards growth. You can't be a traitor and still contribute to your nation. Besides, most the developed countries have its past roots in nationalism and bloody history. So, no. In conclusion, India doesn't need to learn anything from Akbar. For inspiration we already have Shivaji, who led the foundation of Maratha empire which spanned most of India and limited the mughal authority to puppet ruler. We already have Maharana Pratap, who despite huge odds, managed to recapture his kingdom in the heartland of Mughal empire. There there was Chola dynasty which Indianized entire South Eastern Asia. The list is countless. For the additional information, Mughal rule wasn't the golden period of India. During this period , no major progress in science or literature was made except maybe some biographies, poetries and translations. The architecture made by them does seem marvelous but pales in comparison of architecture of ancient temples which were ruthlessly destroyed. Today, India needs more to look towards Chankya, a poor teacher of political science and economics, who when insulted by the King of Nanda empire, took a rag-tag boy from the steets and taught him as his student. When Chandragupta Maurya(his student) reached youth, he helped him to overthrow Nandas who allegedly possessed an army of 200k infantrymen, 60k cavalry, 30k chariots and 9k elephants. He then went to conquer whole India and led the foundation of Mauryan empire, with Chandragupta at the helm. Mauryan empire was the largest empire India ever saw. It was also the first time India of unified and was 1.5 X size of the modern India. Chankya brilliantly made defeated Nandas to marry their daughter to Chandragupta and later did same with defeated Seleucus too. His treatise of 'Arthashastra' is much relevant even in today's world.
@@60ritikanand69 India had many bad barbaric rulers too before Islamic rule. The thing is religion doesn't determine whether a person or a ruler will be bad or good. Which many people who view history through lenses of ideology seem to forget.
Raktim Kalita i'm sorry, and i am somewhat ignorant on Indian politics. but i see every single day, people from that region viciously attacking each other on the internet. while i wasn't born in america, i'm an american citizen now, and i see the same thing here. vicious conflicts between people of different beliefs. at the moment, we're having the largest protests we've had in 80 years. the country is tearing itself apart, because people don't respect others who are different, and refuse to engage in actual dialogue to heal the wounds. if this continues, we're sure to fall into 3rd world status. something has to change. i just meant that i've recognized the same thing online within the indian/pakistani communities, and seen vile insults hurled every which way. these days, indians make up a very large portion of the internet, so maybe it's just that your inner conflicts have become more visible to the outside. and i'm not saying america or europe are doing any better. that wasn't my intention at all. i was so excited for the ISRO launches, and still commend them on their accomplishments, given their shoestring budget. i've been vegetarian for 16 years, and 50% of my diet is indian food, because you guys perfected vegetarian food 1000 years before anyone else even thought about vegetarianism. i respect your culture greatly, and truly meant no harm in my statement. but from what i see online, there is a lot of infighting. from this video in particular, he mentioned how they moved towards a more secular society, and accepted ideas from groups who were different from them. that's all i meant, that if you band together, you could outperform even china. trust me, i meant no harm at all. i wish you all the best.
Watching that military map made me FINALLY realise that, yes, Chinese chess came from the original Indian chess from the 6th century, known as chaturaṅga (Sanskrit: चतुरङ्ग), literally "four divisions" [of the military] - infantry, cavalry, elephants, and chariotry, represented by pieces that evolved into the modern pawn, knight, bishop & rook respectively in Western chess. We still call those pieces in Chinese "foot soldier", "horse", "elephant" & "car/ chariot" & I never knew WHY. That's because Indian warfare used elephants! In fact, the name for Chinese chess is xiangqi [shiang chi] which literally means "elephant chess".
You didnt mention the conquests of Humayun. Emperor Humayun had already managed to capture Gujarat, Bengal and Malwa; they just broke away temporarily.
Glad to see the history of the subcontinent! You should really check out the Portuguese colonization of Ceylon (Lanka)! It’s replete with exciting court intrigue, politics and battles.
From the Muslim world, I only placed the ottomans in the pantheon of great empires to include others across on a global scale but now after seeing I have tremendous admiration for the Mughals and their Emperor Akbar. They are now included.
Really would love to see DOCUMENTARY on Maratha Empire specifically on Chhatrapati Sambhaji Bhosale (Second Emperor of Maratha Empire and Undefeated until his last Battle where he was betrayed by his jealous family members who gave up his location to the Mughal Emperor Aurangzeb) or Kanhoji Angre (Undefeated Supreme Naval Commander who successfully defeated British, Mughal Empire Portuguese, Dutch ).
India was first united under rule of legendary King Bharat on whose name our country is still officially named in Hindi.Then after many years it was united by Chandragupta Maurya and Acharya Chanakya, then later Delhi Sultanate and Mughal Empire made attempts to cover whole subcontinent but Britishers were finally able to rule India.Problem for empires was logistics rather, covering vast distances by armies those days in administrating a country with harsh extreme weathers and different cultures and demographics was very hard thing to do. Britishers were I would say a bit clever they used subsidiary alliance almost all over India.
Bharat was the name of a kingdom, not a king, it’s said that Sudas United India although that’s not true at all, he united sapta Sindhu region only. Kuru vassalized most of India and Nanda united most of India but really chandragupt Maurya was the first to unite India. Chandragupt Maurya 2 of Gupta empire was the second one to do so around 300s ad. After that Harsha failed to unite India after being defeated by Chalukya, but during India’s 3 kingdoms period, India was constantly united for short intervals under the 3 empires depending on who was dominant. Last Indian entity to unite India was Marathas
@@idubbzz7899 Bharata was first Chakravartin of Indian subcontinent. Buddhist and jain sources also describehi greatest. Muslims dont know about it cause Bharata united India 1400 years before the birth of muhammed and islam
@Kabuki Khazana that's not true. Mughals ruled north India for 200 years yet today north India has a sizeable Hindu population. As far as i can tell among the mughals aurangzeg was the only one who was communal. Most mughals either didn't care about religion but were tyrants as most kings are(jahangir) or tried to build a tolerant rule(akbar)
@Kabuki Khazana also rajputs were the mughals greatest allies in India. There were many intermarriages between mughals and rajputs and the bulk of mughal army was made by hindu rajputs.People like maharana pratap were exception rather than norm.
"Progressive Multiculturalism" I wouldn't call it that. Your concept of 'Coexistence', is different from theirs at the time. Don't apply modern day terms to them.
They are the correct words to use, those words existed before the modern day and while the phrase may have a specific contemporary connotation the facts are that in the 16\17th century a kingdom that had many different peoples and religions not only coexisting but actively working alongside and even a slight blending of ideas WAS progressive and there were MULTIple CULTURES living together.... his description is accurate.
Just incase if you don't know it happened all over the world at the time! Usally political reasons! But most of the time its just a proposal and the girls lives with their parents until they are 16 to 18! and then they get married!
According to one school of thought, it's entirely possible Akbar was dyslexic. This contributed to his difficulty with reading, which he compensated for with philosophical debate and becoming a huge patron of the arts.
One elephant to every 50 men. In a force with 50,000 men. That's . . . prodigal. And roughly 500,000 pounds of food/day, just for the elephants. Imagine providing logistical support for a force like that before the introduction of railroads and other motor transport!
Rivers running along the plains helped in the northern conquests... Prooved disastrous in the hilly central plateau. Also elephants are much better at foraging on the march than horses. They keep grabbing vegetation as they go.
Hey invicta, since you used the term "coubtless" when describing India's cultural and religious diversity, can you give an example of just how varied india was when it came to both fronts.
@@mylesjude233 India is a subcontinent and encompasses a total population more than any other continent except Asia. It has 22 official languages, 122 major languages and 1599 other languages. Each state of India has its unique culture and different subcultures than any other state. To get a glimpse, you think that Southern states are more closer to South east Asia than to Northern Counterpart. Similarly North-western counterparts share more similarity with Pakistan, Eastern with Bangladesh, Nepal and Bhutan and North-east with Myanmar and other mongoloid counterparts. As for religion, Hinduism isn't one cohesive religion. It is a blanket term used for all native philosophical sects and traditions present in the country before British Colonization. It is also one of the few countries to have a significant population of the all the major religions of the world. This explains its religious diversity. To understand it better, you can think of India as something similar entire Europe being combined as one nation but far more diverse culturally, linguistically and ethnically.
The boundaries of the states are sometimes incorrect.for example.Under Sher Shah all of Sindh Multan Malwa and rajputana was under his control.Bihar and Bengal was also under his control.But this isn't shown on the map.
