India without Akbar...

MacCaulay

Banned
I was watching a PBS documentary on the history of India, and it covered a Mugal (I think?) leader in the 1500s (I'm kind of drunk so it might be the 1300s) that introduced alot of Renaissance-type reforms in India well ahead of when they were introduced in Europe.

Apparently alot of these were given a hit when his son and grandson were given power, but nonetheless this guy seemed to do a lot for Indian culture. I was wondering what folks who know more about the subcontinent than I do think would've happened if for whatever reason Akbar hadn't been in power.
 
Akbar's reforms and influence were very important during his lifetime but his successors went pretty hard core reversing almost everything. Ironically Akbar's extreme liberal reforms made a lot of the Muslim aristocracy and clergy rather worried thus causing the lobbying which influenced his successors.

Without Akbar you might see a more all-around moderate Mughal Empire with an attitude closer to that of the Ottomans (which was what it was originally like) rather than leaning to one extreme or another. It was the conservative backlash which worsened conditions for the Hindu nobles and peasants and led to the ensuing bids for freedom after the death of Akbar's hard-line grandson Aurangzeb.
 

MacCaulay

Banned
Thanks, Flocc!

Man...thought I might be onto something...but he did make some really cool buildings, though. He was the one that made the new capitol, right? Or was that someone else around that time?
 
Thanks, Flocc!

Man...thought I might be onto something...but he did make some really cool buildings, though. He was the one that made the new capitol, right? Or was that someone else around that time?

The Fatehpur Sikri? yup. It had to be abandoned after 20 years or something because it was too hard to get enough water to it.
 
Top