Why are the Mughals not considered merely another dynasty of the Delhi Sultanate?

[Timeline Junkie]

From what I know, the Mughals inherited many political and economic structures from the previous dynasties of the Delhi Sultanate. I understand the Mughals may have not considered themselves ruler of just the lands of the Delhi Sultanate, but from I what remember at one point the Delhi Sultanate controlled most of the Indian subcontinent. Were the Mughals significantly different culturally? I know that the Indo-Persian synthesis in the arts, especially in architecture, happened before the arrival of the Mughals. So thus, what made them different from all the previous Islamic dynasties of Northern India?

@Madhav Deval Based off of your great timeline, I'm assuming you have some knowledge of the differences between the two and why historians do distinguish the two periods in Indian history

 

[Kaushlendra pratap singh]

Delhi sultanate were muslim city state Kingdom whose administration depend on the standing army of monarch.

 

[Timeline Junkie]

Delhi sultanate were muslim city state Kingdom whose administration depend on the standing army of monarch.

And was this not the case with the Mughals? Would you say the Mughals had a relatively more centralized military?

 

[BBadolato]

From what I know, the Mughals inherited many political and economic structures from the previous dynasties of the Delhi Sultanate. I understand the Mughals may have not considered themselves ruler of just the lands of the Delhi Sultanate, but from I what remember at one point the Delhi Sultanate controlled most of the Indian subcontinent. Were the Mughals significantly different culturally? I know that the Indo-Persian synthesis in the arts, especially in architecture, happened before the arrival of the Mughals. So thus, what made them different from all the previous Islamic dynasties of Northern India?

@Madhav Deval Based off of your great timeline, I'm assuming you have some knowledge of the differences between the two and why historians do distinguish the two periods in Indian history

The Mughals to the best of my knowledge at least under Akbar and beyond began to see themselves as different sort of state, an empire in its own right than "merely" just the Delhi Sultanate. The earlier Mughals were nothing more than Timurid princes who saw India as a power base for the real prize Samarkand, it also helps Timur saw Delhi as a place to go sack, and believed himself to a part of a "greater" legacy that of Genghis Khan.

 

[manitobot]

Though they were both Muslim they were different. The Mughals were from Central Asia. There were several battles between them.

 

[Timeline Junkie]

I'll ask a second question: What do you think India would be like with a longer lasting Delhi Sultanate and no Mughals?

 

[BBadolato]

I'll ask a second question: What do you think India would be like with a longer lasting Delhi Sultanate and no Mughals?

It's hard to say, the Delhi Sultanate was more akin to a mix of dynastic China and Sengoku Japan. In terms of their being a concept a state that existed outside of a dynasty well at least in terms of historiography, as well as periods of waxing and waning, the Delhi Sultanate was similar to China. The Sultanate was like Sengoku Japan in that if the Sultanate's authority waned than various governers would gain power be it to usurp control of the Sultan or independence. Almost all of the major Muslim players of India before the Mughal period, save the Mughals themselves, and possibly the Suris were at one point vassals or governors under the Delhi Sultanate.

 

[Timeline Junkie]

It's hard to say, the Delhi Sultanate was more akin to a mix of dynastic China and Sengoku Japan. In terms of their being a concept a state that existed outside of a dynasty well at least in terms of historiography, as well as periods of waxing and waning, the Delhi Sultanate was similar to China. The Sultanate was like Sengoku Japan in that if the Sultanate's authority waned than various governers would gain power be it to usurp control of the Sultan or independence. Almost all of the major Muslim players of India, save the Mughals, and possibly the Suris were at one point vassals or governors under the Delhi Sultanate.

Was the centralization of power inevitable regardless of the arrival of the Mughals as the centuries went on?

 

[Kaushlendra pratap singh]

Mughal king Akbar first muslim ruler in india whose state is much more than military camp .

 

[John7755 يوحنا]

Let us put it this way, it is determined by the foundation, titles and monarchical mythos, elements often subtle to modern readers. The Delhi sultanate, in all of its iterations, are principally that collection of Muslims states that were the servants-representatives of the Ghurid sultanate in Hindustan and likewise, the Ghurid’s were the eastern representatives of the Abbasid Caliphate. These Delhi sultanates, remained in theory and technically, vassals of the Abbasid caliphate until the fall of the Abbasid caliphate in 1257. After this period, there is an interregnum of sorts and the Delhi sultanate began to collapse and wane, as its many Turko-Persian in turn representatives declared independence for themselves; mostly due to the loss of official credibility of Delhi Islamic rule without Abbasid officiating.

The Mughal Empire however, have a different mythos and claim to title. While Delhi was based upon the legitimacy bestowed by the Abbasid caliphate and its Ghurid founders, Mughal mythos laid claim to a sort of Timurid-Mongol legacy. They too were founded by successors of the Mongol Empire and of Timur’s conglomeration. Thus, there is no continuity in the Delhi (Lohdi) sultanate and that of the Mughal other than similar city, Islam and vaguely similar relation as originating ultramontane, beyond Hindustan.

 

[BBadolato]

Let us put it this way, it is determined by the foundation, titles and monarchical mythos, elements often subtle to modern readers. The Delhi sultanate, in all of its iterations, are principally that collection of Muslims states that were the servants-representatives of the Ghurid sultanate in Hindustan and likewise, the Ghurid’s were the eastern representatives of the Abbasid Caliphate. These Delhi sultanates, remained in theory and technically, vassals of the Abbasid caliphate until the fall of the Abbasid caliphate in 1257. After this period, there is an interregnum of sorts and the Delhi sultanate began to collapse and wane, as its many Turko-Persian in turn representatives declared independence for themselves; mostly due to the loss of official credibility of Delhi Islamic rule without Abbasid officiating.

Pardon my ignorance, but weren't the Abbasid Caliphs nothing but a shadow of their former power by the mid to late 900's. Unless your saying while their political power was weak, their legitimacy as Caliph was still a powerful legitimizing tool, that even powerful (Sunni) Muslims would have to recognize their authority, even if it could only do so much? Because my understanding of the Delhi Sultanates at least of the Tuhlaq and Sayyid dynasties is that when the dynasty's power waned local governors either rebels or sought to gain control over the state. Do you believe that the legitimacy of the Abbasids was at least one thing that kept the idea of the Delhi Sultanate strong?

 

[John7755 يوحنا]

Pardon my ignorance, but weren't the Abbasid Caliphs nothing but a shadow of their former power by the mid to late 900's. Unless your saying while their political power was weak, their legitimacy as Caliph was still a powerful legitimizing tool, that even powerful (Sunni) Muslims would have to recognize their authority, even if it could only do so much? Because my understanding of the Delhi Sultanates at least of the Tuhlaq and Sayyid dynasties is that when the dynasty's power waned local governors either rebels or sought to gain control over the state. Do you believe that the legitimacy of the Abbasids was at least one thing that kept the idea of the Delhi Sultanate strong?

1. Yes politically, the Abbasid were weak, yet their legitimacy remained enormously strong. When the Ghaznavid and Ghurids invaded Hindustan, they did so only with the support of the Abbasid caliphate legitimizing their jihad and their claims to rule. In fact, it was common knowledge that the Abbasid was the overlord of all Sunni Muslim states in a technical sense. All Delhi Sultans, pre 1300, minted coins with the Abbasid caliphal emblems and the name of the current Abbasid caliph.

2. Yes, the fall of the Abbasid, made null a single Muslim state in Hindustan. The reason such states prior remained United more or less, was the Abbasid dictates regarding such. Otherwise, they would fracture as they did otl.

 

[Timeline Junkie]

What could have made the Mughals just appear as mere dynasty of the Delhi Sultanate to ATL historians? Would Mughals not being restored to power after Suris took over cause this? Also has anyone done a Suri Empire timeline or a Delhi Sultanate timeline?

 

[John7755 يوحنا]

What could have made the Mughals just appear as mere dynasty of the Delhi Sultanate to ATL historians? Would Mughals not being restored to power after Suris took over cause this? Also has anyone done a Suri Empire timeline or a Delhi Sultanate timeline?

The Mughals would need to be given the authority by the Abbasid caliphate and the Mughals would need to mint coins in their honor. Ultimately, the Delhi sultanate as I stated, was united in terms of its dynastic legacy through the mutual origin of appointment by the Ghurids who were appointed by the Abbasid as heirs of Hindustan. Mughal legitimacy was totally based upon its conception of Mongol and Timurid legacy, not on the initial Islamic conquests of Hindustan.

 

[Timeline Junkie]

The Mughals would need to be given the authority by the Abbasid caliphate and the Mughals would need to mint coins in their honor. Ultimately, the Delhi sultanate as I stated, was united in terms of its dynastic legacy through the mutual origin of appointment by the Ghurids who were appointed by the Abbasid as heirs of Hindustan. Mughal legitimacy was totally based upon its conception of Mongol and Timurid legacy, not on the initial Islamic conquests of Hindustan.

So if I am understanding this correctly, the Abbasids retained significant cultural and religious authority even until the time of Babur? That is really interesting, I did not realize the Abbasids managed to last that long even though they had no political by the end.

 

[John7755 يوحنا]

So if I am understanding this correctly, the Abbasids retained significant cultural and religious authority even until the time of Babur? That is really interesting, I did not realize the Abbasids managed to last that long even though they had no political by the end.

No, not post 1300s, however, the Delhi sultanate already had declined deeply by the time of Babur. The Delhi sultanate during for instance, the reign of Hulegu though, remained a technical Abbasid vassal and minted coins in their name. After the fall of the Abbasid state in 1257-1259, Muslim powers continued to mint coins in their names as vassals for centuries later. Noted exceptions in this matter include the Qhara Qhanid and the Kwarezmshahs after the year 1197.

 

[Timeline Junkie]

No, not post 1300s, however, the Delhi sultanate already had declined deeply by the time of Babur. The Delhi sultanate during for instance, the reign of Hulegu though, remained a technical Abbasid vassal and minted coins in their name. After the fall of the Abbasid state in 1257-1259, Muslim powers continued to mint coins in their names as vassal for centuries later.

So there existed a time when the Delhi Sultanate was not beholden to any other power. Thus, I would ask what differentiated the Lodis from the Mughals and the Mughals from the Suris. Why are they not just merely considered another dynasty of the Sultanate? Does it have to do solely with their ethnic origins? Did the Mughals somehow radically change the existing political structures in North India rather than just merely replacing the previously rulers at the top? Do we differentiate them because of the cultural developments during their reign or their relations with the native Hindus in the subcontinent?

Honestly I might be sounding repetitive here and I apologize for it , but I'm still confused as to what differentiated them. All I can understand is that the Mughals operated for much longer than any dynasty in the Delhi Sultanate and interacted with Europeans.

I read somewhere the Babur introduced large artillery to the subcontinent. Is that right?

 

[Arafeel]

What could have made the Mughals just appear as mere dynasty of the Delhi Sultanate to ATL historians? Would Mughals not being restored to power after Suris took over cause this? Also has anyone done a Suri Empire timeline or a Delhi Sultanate timeline?

As has been said above, the Mugals, and that name is telling, considered themselves as Timurids, and thus as mongols, even if they were heavily persanizied. Babur spoke or at least wrote in Chagatai not in Persian. So Uzbek turkick perzinizided mongols. They also invaded and conquer, while de more or less was a successor of the Ghurid Iranian empire, the following ruling dynasty's all came from within Delhi.

I think the simplest way to make it so that the Indian Timurids where viewd as a continuation dynasty is just make the vassals of the Lodis before they come to power.

 

[John7755 يوحنا]

So there existed a time when the Delhi Sultanate was not beholden to any other power. Thus, I would ask what differentiated the Lodis from the Mughals and the Mughals from the Suris. Why are they not just merely considered another dynasty of the Sultanate? Does it have to do solely with their ethnic origins? Did the Mughals somehow radically change the existing political structures in North India rather than just merely replacing the previously rulers at the top? Do we differentiate them because of the cultural developments during their reign or their relations with the native Hindus in the subcontinent?

Honestly I might be sounding repetitive here and I apologize for it , but I'm still confused as to what differentiated them. All I can understand is that the Mughals operated for much longer than any dynasty in the Delhi Sultanate and interacted with Europeans.

I read somewhere the Babur introduced large artillery to the subcontinent. Is that right?

Again... The Delhi Sultanate was formed by the Abbasid caliphate and its tradition of decentralized jihad eastward. Thus, the Delhi sultanate derived from their bussom. Mughal Empire however, derived from a totally 100% different title, the Delhi sultanate held their authority due to being a secession via the initial Ghurid and Ghaznavid invasions of Hindustan which were tasked this duty by the Abbasids. Mughal rulership hinged upon their Timuro-Mongol-Genghisid legacy, which was totally divorced from the Abbasid or caliphal foundations of Islam in Hindustan.

Think in terms of titles, origins and legitimacy. Not in terms of religion, ethnicity or so forth.

 

[Timeline Junkie]

Again... The Delhi Sultanate was formed by the Abbasid caliphate and it’s tradition of decentralized jihad eastward. Thus, the Delhi sultanate derived from their bussom. Mughal Empire however, derived from a totally 100% different title, the Delhi sultanate held their authority due to being a secession via the initial Ghurid and Ghaznavid invasions of Hindustan which were tasked this duty by the Abbasids. Mughal rulership hinged upon their Timuro-Mongol-Genghisid legacy, which was totally divorced from the Abbasid or caliphal foundations of Islam in Hindustan.

Think in terms of titles, origins and legitimacy. Not in terms of religion, ethnicity or so forth.

Thank you for explanation again. I really appreciate it. I'm definitely understanding it now. It's just a fascinating concept that titles and legitimacy can make such a huge impact on the way we view and write our histories.


So if I'm understanding this correctly, the Delhi Sultanate origins lie as a former vassal of the Abbasid Caliphate, while the Mughals held themselves to be the successors to their ancestors Timur and Genghis Khan.