How right is it to blame Nader Shah for the decline of the Early Modern Islamic world?

Well they are not Arab powers? Did I say that? If I did, it was incorrect.

Well you did end the post I originally quoted with "the Arab world", which one could interpret as counting both the Ottomans and Iran in the "Arab world".

Well for one, if there was little to no cultural sophistication during the Mamluk, Ottoman, Safavid and Mughal states. All four surpassed their predecessors in terms of Islamic fiqh and most terms I use today in Islamic discourse, have their origins in the era following the fall of Baghdad and the end of WW1.

The beginnings of Islamic art outside of geometric and calligraphal works begins. All four states use the famous miniatures and other paintings to illustrate manuscripts. This mimics and builds upon the Byzantine school and makes it Islamic. This was and still is the height of Islamic art and this method of production is still in use throughout the Islamic world, book bindings, colorful Qurans, beautiful commentary sets, all derive their source from this period.

The concepts of the Arab knight and the honor of a Muslim warrior were completely codified and made into an art in this period as well. Mamluk era writers created the modern conception of the honorable Islamic warrior and expanded and created games such as chess to showcase the intellect and style of the Islamic warrior.

Massive amounts of scholars, Ulema and historians exist from this period.

Arabic poetry reaches its height in this period especially in the Mamluk sultanate of Egypt. This includes a return to many styles from pre Islamic Arabia and incorporating them to the times then. Examples of this can be seen in the sophistication of the letters between Is'mail of Iran to Selim of the Ottomans.


Militarily, the Islamic stages for the first time, broke through Anatolia and reached and conquered much of the Balkans. The Ottomans possessed the greatest army on earth for a time, an achievement that the Abbasids never had. Also, for the first time in Islamic history, Muslim warriors conquer the Rajput. Earlier, Ghurid forces defeated the Rajput but never conquered them as the Mughals would. This afterall is the era of the Gunpowder empires.


The greatest of all Islamic scholars lived in this time, Ibn Taymiyyah. Other contenders for this title I bestow also exist.

An example of them doing poorly would be how India turned out or how Vietnam did or how Algiers went. Instead, the Ottomans competed in the greatest of wars and took Islam farther into Europe than any other state.

Thanks for the reply!
 

ben0628

Banned
I agree with this.
  • The two-decade war between Nader and the Ottomans weakened the latter empire and contributed to its late 18th-century defeats at the hands of European powers and weakening of central control over the Arab world.
The Ottoman Empire's main issue is that its military is slowly becoming obsolete against European armies, the Jannisaries are corrupt, after Suleiman all the sultans were incompetent, and its economy was stagnant. Combine that with 19th nationalism and the Ottomans were bound to eventually lose control of its European territory regardless of Nader Shah's war with the Ottomans.
Oman was lucky to gain its empire that it did have. There was no way they could hold it longer than they did, they didn't have the ability to keep up with European naval technology so Omani power in the Indian Ocean is bound to decline.
  • Although the Mughal empire was already in steep decline, Nader Shah's victory at Karnal and the sack of Delhi reduced it to an empty shell. The collapse of the Safavids and then Nader's empire itself further exacerbated chaos in India by encouraging military adventurers from Central Asia to seek their fortunes in the subcontinent.
I don't know about this one.
 
Top