Politically speaking, the Ottoman and Safavid empires differed in how they maintained power over their kingdoms. The Safavids, Shi’ite muslims, were more centralized than the Ottomans. The shahs kept power closer to themselves than the Sultans did. The Ottomans were an absolute monarch unlike the Safavids who were ruled by a shah. The Safavids declined due to a series of weak rulers and internal conflicts.
However, despite all of these accommodations, Mongol rule was exploitative and harsh. The Russian invasion began in a similar way to that of China, with ferocity and devastation. As the Mongols passed through a developing Russia, though, they deemed that it had little to offer, and they began to rule over it from the steppes. In Russia, although the Mongols ruled over Kievan Rus, their control was much less involved than in China. However, contrary to the total Mongolian occupation and authority over China,
They were theocratic. Mongol khanates were secular and religion was mostly pagan. The religious leadership they had was seperate from military leadership, where as Islamic States believe the two should be combined. However, the Islamic States and Mongol khanates were similar in their battles of who would become ruler. After the death of Caliph Harun-al-Rashid, his two sons began to fight for the throne.
The systems became corrupt which lead to political and social disintegrations. The Mughal Empire was run by Muslim emperors, however India was and still is Hindu dominated. Hindus, specifically of the upper class, adopted the Muslim practice of isolating women, called purda. The Qing emperors adopted the state doctrine of Confucianism as their official religion. Internal rebellions weakened China.
In spite of strong agriculture, there was no surplus for innovation. The region was again conquered, this time by the Mongols who were to say the least, a fiscal drain on the population. However, they did not really affect the local culture mainly because of their different lifestyles and religion but rather acted as absentee landlords. In “From Rus’ to Russia”, Poe shows how in the 15th century Mongol power was waning at which point, Moscow turned to Europe. The commonality of Christianity gave them ground for communication and Europe was diplomatically welcoming.
The ancient Assyrians and Phoenicians lived during the same time period, but had stark differences. The differences were mainly in the form of their institutions, their goals, and finally, their values. The institutions of these two peoples are very different. For instance, in the political institutions of the Phoenicians, there were two judges of the higher tanking class and a senate made from the lower class, so nearly everyone’s voice was heard. Where as with the Assyrians, their king controlled everything.
Due to this, I do not believe that any of Fenton’s pictures can be used as an accurate reportage of the Crimean war, although he did have a good reputation as a photographer, even photographing Queen Victoria and her family at times. I believe that Russell’s coverage of the Crimean conflict is informative, however his articles do have to be taken with a pinch of salt sue to the “shock value” and sensationalism of his articles, in order to sell more papers. In contrast, many others would say
Britain had used combination of force as well as divides and conquers to control India Up until this point. So the sources limitations towards showing Lord Curzon’s successes come from the lack of successful viceroys previously. From the British point of view of which the source is written this could hold some more significance as what they wanted from the Viceroy varied from the Indians. The British just wanted to maintain control in India, while Indian perspective would be more focused on the way the country is being looked after. Source three goes quite far to indicate that Lord Curzon was in fact a successful Viceroy by highlighting one big mistake made by him “the partition of Bengal would be Curzon’s nemesis”.
Another difference was the difference between who did the work in developing the colony. The colonies differing views on religion also helped shape the way each colony developed economically. The Virginia and Massachusetts Companies both realized that they would need to have a strong economic system, but their views on religion and profit had too many differences and resulted in different systems. The Puritans did not feel the need for “excessive profits” and lived by the belief of self control. The use of company labor and overpricing caused a lot of problems with Virginians.
However, although both Mughal and Ottoman empires were composed of mainly Muslims, the two states were very friendly and tolerant of those of other religions. In addition, both of the empires has an extremely powerful army that was exceptional in conquering and expanding their territories. In contrast, the Mughal and Ottoman empires had many differences. For one, the Mughal empire was much more tolerant and respectful of other peoples. For example, under Mughal rule, conditions got significantly better for women.