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

Discussion in 'Alternate History Discussion: Before 1900' started by Timeline Junkie, Jun 9, 2019.

  1. John7755 يوحنا Lightweight Faqih

    Joined:
    Dec 30, 2014
    Yes, that is correct.

    Do familiarize yourself with the deep power titles, origins, technicalities and legitimacy held in history for older peoples. They did not conceive of the world in the sense of rigid nationalism in the same sense and looked towards origin stories, mythos, legends, and claims to legitimacy to reckon which ruler is to be followed. Delhi developed this right to rule via its existence as the antiquarian servants of the Great Muslim Caliphate, while the Mughals developed this right to rule by the Timurid and Mongol conquests and legendary power and prestige this name carried across Asia.
     
    Wendell and Timeline Junkie like this.
  2. Arafeel postmodern rightwing apologist

    Joined:
    Aug 24, 2008
    Location:
    Christiania, Republic of Norway
    I think the names are telling, Moqulestân/Moġūlistān is Persian, and means land of the Mongols, Gurkaniyan, the name Timur and his succsessors used, both in the "Timurid" and "Mughal" empier, is a Persianized mongol word referensing Timurs claim of being a descendant of Genghis Khan, Mughliyah Saltanat , the name used in urdu, means The Sultan of the Mongols.

    One can compare it to the general claim of muslim rulers of being descendants from Muhammad or the European ruling class who tried to show links to Rome or Charlemagne ( Emperor from the latin Imperator, Czar /Kaiser from Ceasar etc)
     
  3. Timeline Junkie Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 22, 2018
    @John7755 يوحنا

    I was just curious, but if the Suris managed to prevent Humayan's restoration, what would their claim of legitimacy be other than right by conquest? Thanks.
     
  4. John7755 يوحنا Lightweight Faqih

    Joined:
    Dec 30, 2014
    Some empires are formed by the prowess of 'great men' who by their power and legend, create a mythos of its own. The Suri did not last long enough for me to make a call on this, but it would likely be some sort of call to the great man of Suri, who defeated the son of Babur and formed an Empire.
     
    Timeline Junkie likes this.
  5. Shahrasayr The Emperor of Dune

    Joined:
    Jan 7, 2014
    Location:
    Holy Terra, Australis Sector
    Actually Sher Shah Suri represented a third bloc in the politics of the Muslim upper classes of the Indian subcontinent. Suri was an ethnic Pashtun who was descended from cavalry officers that were routinely hired by the Turkic upperclasses that had dominated the Delhi Sultanate and were syncretically Arabicized and Persianized in their culture. By contrast Babur and Humayun represented a new wave of Turks but this time around with very heavy Persian influences.

    However this middle class of landed Pashtun gentry had grown quite big in the four centuries of rule by the Delhi Sultanate. They represented a large amount of the minor landlords and fiefs as well as acting as a barrier between the local Indians and their Turkic rulers. In the process they had gone through a process of Indianization and had adopted a lot of local dress and custom while retaining Turkic style names, as the rise of a person like Hemu shows he rose in a North India that had been heavily dominated by Afghans, Turks and Rajputs for the past 600 years. Sher Shāh was a symptom of growing unrest that was simmering within this Afghan pillar in the politics of North India.

    My point is that Suri would rather have been seen as the liberator of the Pashtun rulers rather than simply another great man.
     
    Timeline Junkie likes this.
  6. John7755 يوحنا Lightweight Faqih

    Joined:
    Dec 30, 2014
    Would he advocate this Pashtun liberation mythos to the populace of Hindustan?
     
    Timeline Junkie likes this.
  7. Timeline Junkie Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 22, 2018

    I would think that the Pashtuns would become part of the elite ruling class, but I don't think that he could advocate the liberation mythos to all the people of Hindustan with their varied origins and histories. Yes, I do think that he would rally the Pashtuns using this liberation mythos, but he would have to also present himself as culturally South Asian or "Indian" for a lack of better term because he comes from a family that resided in Hindustan for generations as @Shahrasayr had mentioned. I fairly certain that Persian would remain the official language in a longer lasting Suri Empire and that Hindustan would be ruled under a ruling class of Pashtuns among other groups who could claim their origins to be of Hindustan.
     
  8. Falecius Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 3, 2010
    Location:
    Anarres
    I step in just to stress that describing the Delhi Sultanate as an Abbasid vassal is technically more or less correct, but for all practical puroposes, that was only a theoretical point. At no point ever, to my knowledge, the legimacy of the Delhi dynasties was tied, even formally, to any meaninglful Abbasid formal approval, even if, as @John7755 يوحنا rightly stresses, their rule ultimately rested on that in theory.
     
  9. Shahrasayr The Emperor of Dune

    Joined:
    Jan 7, 2014
    Location:
    Holy Terra, Australis Sector
    He did advocate it to the Pashtun landed class definitely. The promise of a end of a long period of subservience to the Turk was one of the reason he was efffectively able to muster up a promising native cavalry contingent that outperformed Humayun’s Persians and Chagatais, with Afghan landlords equipping their second sons to go and serve under Suri.
     
    Timeline Junkie likes this.
  10. John7755 يوحنا Lightweight Faqih

    Joined:
    Dec 30, 2014
    If the minting or coins is made in the name of the Abbasid caliphate, we may say that such is a formal claim or at least spiritual vassalage. It is similar to how many states minted coins in the images or names of deities, as the ruler is the designated of said god. In the same manner, the Delhi sultanate and others, minted coins in the favor of the one mandated ruler of the Islamic world.
     
  11. Falecius Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 3, 2010
    Location:
    Anarres
    I think that "spiritual vassalage" is indeed the right expression.
     
  12. BBadolato Fifth Picturewraith

    Joined:
    Jul 5, 2012
    I do not think anything could get the Mughals seen as just another Delhi sultanate. Even if the Mughals were a flash in the pan, they do not style themselves as a just another Delhi Sultanate dynasty. For example, if the Ptolemies just styled themselves as Greek Kings but in Egypt, then they would not be considered Pharaohs, however, they adopted all of the styles and trappings of being Pharaoh down to brother-sister marriages, and were and are seen as Pharaohs despite being foreign. In the case of the Mughals, they still considered themselves heirs of Genghis Khan

    I feel that is too broad. How does one determine the continuation of the Delhi Sultans as something that dates back to the Ghurids, from Abbasid authority if the Caliphs have no power? Because early on during the existence of the Delhi Sultanate, Baghdad was sacked and the Sunni Caliph's were forced to take up residence in Cairo, and the Delhi Sultanate finally ended only 9 years after the end of the Abbasids. Unless when you say authority in this case, you are basically saying because the Delhi Sultans minted coins in the name of the Caliph, and accepted them, as practically glorified as that position became, they still followed this idea of Abbasid legitimacy despite the fact it had long since lost its original meaning and was nothing more than lip service?
     
  13. John7755 يوحنا Lightweight Faqih

    Joined:
    Dec 30, 2014
    Yes I am saying such and this is a very easy to understand point.
     
  14. Arafeel postmodern rightwing apologist

    Joined:
    Aug 24, 2008
    Location:
    Christiania, Republic of Norway
    The Caliph was in theory the universal ruler of all muslims, so all rulers were in theory vassals / govenors for the caliph. Hence the usage of the title Amir / Emir. There really is no direct comparison found in the west, as there was a stronger differentiation between secular and relgious power.
     
  15. John7755 يوحنا Lightweight Faqih

    Joined:
    Dec 30, 2014
    This is not necessarily correct. The Papacy claimed in the Middle Ages a title perhaps greater than the Caliph did, or at the very least, similar.

    ‘There is but one sun in the universe which gifts her light unto the other celestial bodies (the moon).’ According to this formulation of Innocent III, the Papacy is the master of the feudal lords of Europe. The Translatio Imperii exhibits this situation. Foreign rulers in the Middle Ages, also specifically targeted the Papacy as the true ruler of Europe...

    In regards to the Caliphate, it is not necessarily likened to the Papacy. Rather, we say that the caliphate is made nullified by lack of power and can be replaced by force of arms. Such as the Abbasid revolution or the Ottoman conquest of the Burji Mamluks. My point on the Delhi sultanate was not in regards to the ideal of the Caliphal claim to rulership of all Islam, but a statement regarding the origin story of the Delhi sultanate that differs from the Mughals.

    Mind you, the Shi’a aside from Zayydi, say that the Caliph, wherein there has only been 8-14, say that the Caliph/Imam rule the entirety of the planet... This conception called Wilayah at-Tawkwaniyyah, says that the Imams rule all of creation, from the atoms that make up our body to the angels in heaven.
     
  16. Samm Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 5, 2010
    Whilst this is true the claims of the papacy to secular rule never really gained the same acceptance as the claims of the Caliphate. Sunni Muslims's seemed to have pretty universally recognized the Caliphs claims (at least in theory) whilst Popes who were too aggressive ended up dead like Pope Boniface VIII. Theologians like John of Paris argued that Papal and kingly power were both independently established by God in On Royal and Papal Power.
     
  17. John7755 يوحنا Lightweight Faqih

    Joined:
    Dec 30, 2014
    I would disagree, the Papacy was able to assert this authority and this was readily accepted until Boniface VIII and even after to a degree such as the case with King Peter Anscarid in Castile, deposed by Papal Interdiction and Papal support of Henry Trastamara. Even so, an extremely anti-Boniface VIII intellectual as Dante, accepted clearly the ability and authority of the Papacy to distribute the Imperial title in his "De Monarchia". The opinion in Europe, perhaps outside of Paris, was that the Papacy held the rights regarding the Translatio Imperii, none would have claimed that the feudal lords of Europe restored Rome individually, rather this was done only through Papal edict. In terms of other examples of the Papal authority as an accepted quantity, can be seen in the submission of John Lackland to Innocent III or the victory of the Papacy over the Hohenstaufen.

    We also should note the words of Late Medieval rulers regarding the Western Schism, from John 'the Fearless' future duke of Burgundy: 'Bayezid was courteous, but made clear his intentions; to make his horse eat corn upon the seat of Saint-Peter. He knew that victory was imminent as the lands of Christendom were divided between two rulers! These Saracen had made great marvel at the suffering ...was to be felt by the Lords and Kings for this division of leadership.' In that sense, there was an understanding from both the Turks and the monarchs in Europe as to their legitimate ruler and the lifeblood of their states. Another point is when we look at who acquired letters of correspondence for Catholic alliances such as the famed letters exchanged between the Papacy and the Mongol Empire, were made directly to the Papacy, not to the princes of Christendom.

    Regarding Boniface VIII, his position was one of the conservative, defending Papal and Ecclesiastical privileges which had been set centuries prior. To his defense, he possessed the Donations of Constantine and Pepin, the Translatio Imperii, the powers of excommunication and interdiction which absolve the subjects of loyalty to their rulers, the Papal victory over the Byzantine Empire in Italy and many centuries of scholastic evidences and statements regarding the Papal authority;

    '.... If anyone teaches you anything contrary to that spoken of by the Catholic Church/Papacy (in context Papacy), that has been bestowed based upon that tradition received by the Apostles, the fathers, the synods, and that which is made tradition tot his day (ex cathedra), let that person be anathema. Even if an Angel, even if the Emperor tells you something other than what you have received through tradition, close your ears to him.' -John Damascene

    'Brothers and fellow Bishops, I most diligently commend the Bishop of Amiens, your procurator and advocate, to you kindness. Indeed he worked against aforesaid privilege in the Roman Curia with all of his might, but achieved nothing; so he has tried to avenge his lost pride here. As you see, the effort and expense has worn him out. But I declare before you all, that our mission is not to revoke said privilege, nor to molest the friars whom you decry, but rather to confirm the privilege itself; because this is the only healthy limb we have found. On this account they will not be hindered but rather favored. Therefore we wish that the privilege remain as it was originally decreed.It is a pity that the masters of Paris are not present to see their stupidity shown in the light of day. With impious and rash temerity they presumed to interpret the aforesaid privilege as if the Curia had conceded it without necessary deliberation. They must know the Roman Curia has feet not of feathers but of lead. Indeed these masters think we consider them wise; on the contrary, they are more foolish than all the fools, because they have filled not only their heads but the whole world with their pestilential doctrine. Nevertheless, in virtue of the authority that has been delegated to us to this end, we revoke and annul whatever any one has attempted against the aforesaid privilege. Otherwise, every privilege granted by the Holy See could be similarly nullified by the activities of the monarchs.' -Boniface VIII, he clearly stated that the privileges he would die for, was the original situation or status quo, it was wars that were waged and the need for new taxes that saw the progressive changes take form within the French monarchy and the English monarchy.

    As an addendum, Boniface VIII clearly made the point that according to the laws regarding taxation and confiscation of resources, that the legal opinion was that this was allowed by tradition by consent. Boniface VIII thus made the clear offer to the French crown, to give the necessary funds they sought for the wars, but only if the French crown asked and this would be in line with the traditions in this respect. Rather, the French crown attempted to nullify its past legal precedence and make edicts in contrary to its predecessors. So it was not that Boniface VIII was some sort of lone absolutist, but that the new situation was such that the Papacy, defending its traditional power structure, was bested then, when prior it had generally held the upper-hand over the princes.

    Sorry to go off topic in this thread....
     
    Samm likes this.