No Akbar

It's possible he meant the Moghul Akbar, and FYI, I don't think the Mon Cals were squid based, that would be the Quarren.
 
Sorry, I was just irritated by "Akbar the Great" - since "Akbar" means "Great", that would be "Great the Great". Not irritated with you, just that people keep calling him that.

Anyway, as he wasn't the originator of the state, which was at high tide anyway, I'm not sure how much difference there would have been, although obviously decisions made by rulers can direct the energies of the State. I would have to know more about the policy concerns of alternates to really answer the question.

It's sort of like "What if Suleyman the Magnificent" had died in early childhood?

The answer would be, instead of "the Magnificent", he would be referred to by a footnote in some obscure treatise, at best, and one of his equally or more talented siblings would have become Sultan, maybe "Yusuf the Great" or something like that.
 
Actually, it would be funny if someone went around calling himself Great the Great. :p
 
Abdul Hadi Pasha got confused with Ackbar in Star Wars.
(In Star Wars, the rebel commander's name [Bel] Iblis was pinched from the Koran. Ditto the alien called Count Iblis in Battlestar Galactica.)

Tom meant Akbar the Mogul emperor of India.
He tolerated Hinduism. That gave Indian Hinduism a breathing space from the endless persecution that Hindu India has suffered. Hindu India never had proper respite from Muslim attacks from Mahmud of Ghazni's attacks up to when Britain took over. ATL depends on what his replacement did.
 
Anthony Appleyard said:
Abdul Hadi Pasha got confused with Ackbar in Star Wars.
(In Star Wars, the rebel commander's name [Bel] Iblis was pinched from the Koran. Ditto the alien called Count Iblis in Battlestar Galactica.)

Tom meant Akbar the Mogul emperor of India.
He tolerated Hinduism. That gave Indian Hinduism a breathing space from the endless persecution that Hindu India has suffered. Hindu India never had proper respite from Muslim attacks from Mahmud of Ghazni's attacks up to when Britain took over. ATL depends on what his replacement did.
Endless persecution of Hinduism might be exaggerating the situation. Hinduism is so deep and wide (in many ways its more of a way of life than a religion) and varied that it tends to impassivly absorb all punishment that the rulers of India might throw at it.
 
Anthony Appleyard said:
Abdul Hadi Pasha got confused with Ackbar in Star Wars.
(In Star Wars, the rebel commander's name [Bel] Iblis was pinched from the Koran. Ditto the alien called Count Iblis in Battlestar Galactica.)
Hey!!! I wasn't confused, I was being sarcastic. Sheesh, thanks for giving me credit.
 
Akbar was born when the Mughals were not at their zenith. His father, Emperor Humayun had been deposed and he was flying across the desert to Iran. Akbar was born in a military camp and could easily have popped it. The Mughals despite their many wives were not very fertile and suffered a crisis of heirs, which was compounded by brothers killing each other.

So assuming Akbar pops it as an infant, Humayun drinks himself silly in exile. You have a Turko-Afghan Sher Shah Suri ruling most efficiently from Delhi and a new dynasty.

Alternatively, if we let Humayun recapture Delhi by defeating Sher Shah's son at Panipat then as in OLT he pops it leaving a 14 year old Akbar on the throne. The death of an adoloscent Emperor would throw the empire into confusion and provinces are likely to break away (as they did every time under a weak emperor).
 
Top