Aurangzeb is the great grandson of Akbar and not grandson. Line of descent of the Mughal Emperors 1. Babur 2.Humayun 3. Akbar 4.Jahangir 5.Shah Jahan 6.Aurangzeb 7.Bahadur Shah 8.Jahandar Shah 9.Farrukhsiyar 10.Rafi ud-Darajat 11.Shah Jahan II 12.Muhammad Shah 13.Ahmad Shah Bahadur 14.Alamgir 15.Shah Alam 16.Akbar Shah 17.Bahadur Shah II
Do you know bahadur shah zafar 2 , was also a poet , he wrote his last melody in a prison in Rangoon , The last two lines were "Kitna badnaseeb ha zafar dafn k lia Do gaz zameen bhi na mili koy_yaar ma" Meaning "How unfortunate is zafar for burying Can't even get 2 yards on the beloved land "
Correction, Mr Green. Aurangzeb was the great grandson of Akbar, and not the grandson, as you say it. Seems not to matter, but it does. Indeed. Akbar > Jahangir > Shah Jehan > Aurangzeb.
Mughals were a group of turkic noble families from central Asia belonging to Chagatai section of Turkic race...Mughals traced their maternal lines to Ghenghis Khan and paternal lines to Timur
How relevant this video was to me. I'm currently reading a great book called "Light of other days." I'll try not to spoil too much of the book but it takes place in a world where people are able to see into the past. Not change it- but just witness it. The whole idea is that history is dependent more on how people view it than what actually happened. Being able to look into the past and really see how these rulers made their decisions may drastically change the way we see them, and ultimately ourselves. Thanks for being awesome, John.
Of course. We have no way of knowing what really happened (before there were audio recordings at least). What we know about the past is what other people have told us.
John Green, I really love how you reflect upon history in the right way. Really, people are incredibly simplistic and self-righteous in this day and age, and in each episode, you consistently show history isn't black and white, and our interpretation of history tells us more about our selves than the people we are interpreting. Thank you ~ sincerely a dude who enjoys learning human beings.
He used to hold assemblies of scholars from different religions Hindu,Jain, Buddhist,sikhs, zoroastrians,Islam ,Shia Muslims and sufis too . He segregated religion and state subjects therefore Akbar's reign saw little or no uprising and economy was also doing good . And invasion stopped during his reign .
Polandgod 75 The Ottomans used to be in EU4. Before the last patch, those fuckers would take the whole middle east and piss in Europe's garden; chunk of the world green.
About a year ago I was playing Darthmod as the British and I was having major European woes. Once I finally put the fires out in France via piss I looked at the Americas to start conquering their freed subjects, the Mughals conquered everything but my colonies... I don't know how, but they converted the new world to Islam. It was such a bitch to get the continents under control again.
You have a better understanding of Indian History than many Indian historians (both from left and right side) ... Thanks for your scientific views and honest efforts to educate people on such a sensitive subject.
@CrashCourse : I would like to add a few facts bout Aurangzeb and his so called "Intolerance"... Aurangzeb ruled for 49 years... In the first couple of years, he abolished nearly 65 different kinds of taxes, most of which were levied on poor people... This resulted in nearly 40% decline in tax collection empire wide (I doubt any other govt could ever have taken such a drastic step for reducing the burden of its ppl)... After 20 years of falling Income Aurangzeb levied Jizya on his 21st year of Throne... The max slab for the Jizya was 12 Dirhams for a person who has held 200 Dirhams for a year... Thus the worst tax rate turns out to be 6% per annum... There were exceptions too... It was not levied on the income & savings of: >Women. >Children. >Senior Citizens. >Men who served in Army... Now, is it supposed to be looked merely as Tax on Hindus..? Muslims of his reign were levied 4 kinds of tax which was specific to muslims and not on others... one of them was 10% additional tax on agriculture produce the 2nd bein 2.5%% of Zakat... these two taxes itself totals to 12.5% on Muslims as compared to 6% on Hindus... Had Aurangzeb not been a tolerant ruler, how could have levied lesser tax on Hindus as compared to Muslims..? Was Jizya a reason for mass conversion... Well NO! But that is an altogether different reply... Some other time...
oh god... u r praising that person who murdered his family to rule....... what the hell???? if someone in modern world did the same would u still be praising him???????
When talking about the Mughals, it is extremely important to talk about Sikhs. Sikhs influenced & brought an end to the Mughal empire. Please read the history of Guru Gobind Singh Ji & beyond. Sikh history is deeply (again, deeply) tied with Aurangzeb's empire & his actions & decisions. However great video! Thank you for it! :)
Next video on real Indian Kings & Empires like Great Maurayan empire,Gupta Empire , Maratha Empire , Pala empire, Chola empire.They were real Heroes who's kingdom expanded much more than present India.But were Brave,Powerful,tolerant not cruel thus not known in western world.
I would so like to learn more about this, why is it in American world history classes, all they talked about with regards to India were basically the Mughals and the British? Why didn't they tell us about the times that Hindus governed themselves?
I mean, I guess American history just has this obsession with glorifying the idea of expansionist empires, even in acknowledging that Britain was wrong, I feel like our textbooks almost glorified the Raj in a sick way.
Rachael Lefler It's the same story here in Indian textbooks.most Indian's are still unaware of their real history.all we study is British & moghul history. I have a short video for you & whoever who is reading this & wants to know abt real Indian Kings. Top 20 Indian Kings in history /watch?v=HcshPyzFfNg
The tradition of being weighed against gold on his birthday,was based on the Hindu tradition of Tulabharam, and was practised by both Akbar and his son Jahangir. Not just gold, Akbar also weighed other items like grains and textiles, and distributed them among the poor and needy. That was not profligacy, but an act of charity.
I like when John talks about colonialism he talks about how terrible the empire of western Europe were but whenever he talks about the Middle East he talks about how glorious and wonderful their empires were. So much white guilt.
Mauricio Benavides Not at all. You are literally putting words in my mouth. I'm trying to say that all empire's are equally as bad and you can't rank them on a spectrum of good to bad based upon the completion of the conqueror's. However John does do that.
thank you for the vedio. i have been thinking akbar as hero and aurangzeb as villian. thanks for changing my perspective., however, aurngzeb's policies against jains and hindus (Jizya tax) comes in religious intorance.. one more thing, there is need to see why akbar is favourite to historians, also it raises a question here wether hisotry is written from british approach? coz britishers through east india company wanted to rule and aurangzeb was ruler at that time and they demonised him in past and present.
Goes to show that, historically, Islamic culture and Islam in general is allot more complex than anti-Muslim bigots would have you believe. To me, religion is simply a tool that people use for their own ends. People use it for good, people use it for evil. These islamic rulers aren't neccesarily black and white benevolent or tyrants, as has been shown, there are many more factors that influence their decisions! =D
I think the video has very little evidence to support your claim. In fact the video has very little to do with Islam at all. Islam was merely an element to consider in the political groundwork of India at the time period. Of the two rulers, one was devout Islamic, and the other was not, but they both made unfavored and harsh choices. The purpose of the video was to show that there are multiple interpretations and impressions that could be grasped from the facts provided. You are doing the same thing John criticized historians of doing. You are using your perceptions and biases to support a point instead of taking all possibilities into consideration and going off of what the facts say.
Aurangzeb is to Sikhs (and Hindus) as Hitler is to Jewish people. That's why some people will find it offensive that there is little emphasis on the atrocities committed by the later Mughal regime.
And also why a very important street in Delhi is called Aurangzeb street..sigh..we aren't offended enough..we should be considering all the nasty stuff that aurangzeb did.
@@MrJayson204 Didn't pakistan elect a dalit Hindu into their senate? Say what you want about that country but at least they don't use that shitty caste system
In EU4, my Mughal Empire NEVER declines! Sometimes it spends 300 years westernizing because it owns everything from Ceylon to Siberia and back, but at least it doesn't decline!
Zachary Saew It was an old version of EU 4 (Way pre-AoW) But from my slightly-corrupted save it looks like 212 provinces with Ceylon to Siberia, the furthest west is bumping up against what used to be the Ottoman Empire, now owned by Venice (don't ask, I really don't remember) and in the east I ate everything but Vietnam and 2/3s of Ming. I westernized off a little bit of France on the tip of Siberia after I kicked the shit out of Russia and colonized practically all of Siberia, so the only countries east of the Ottomans is Me, Ming, Vietnam, and a bit of France. Played all the way up to 1812.
The main reason Aurangzeb was despised was his forced conversions of Hindus and other religious minorities on a grand scale. Basically he left people with an ultimatum - convert or die. I'm disappointed that you didn't mention the Sikhs rebelling and fighting against Mughal religious persecution under Guru Gobind Singh, a huge event in bringing down the tyranny of Aurangzeb.
Because that is not the point of this video. The point is to make light of how we as observers of history interpret these events or a person's actions. Because if you want facts upon facts piled up on each other, you take a history class. Crash Course World History 200+ series tries to teach more about the many facets of civilizations by looking at historical backgrounds and such. Hence, the first few episodes were focused on "Money," "Diseases," "Warfare," and not on specific events such as "French Revolution." "Crimean War," etc. the CC WH 100+ series
Napoleonicus I don't believe that my comment goes against the point of this video. John goes on about Akbar is perceived as a good ruler, whereas Aurangzeb is seen as a tyrant through history. I simply state the biggest reason why Aurangzeb was seen as a tyrant in his actions. Something that could have been explored in greater detail that lead to our current perception of Aurangzeb.
Lesson here is. Nationalist mentality will almost most definetly lead to down fall of an empire. and Inclusive and tolerant mentality will lead to prosperous and inclining empire.
thats just not true tho. like i said the majority of punjabis are muslim: furthermore sikhism changed alot over the mughal period. in the beginning it was a mystical religion of spiritualism but when the sikhs fought the muslims the religion changed and it became alot more militant and sikhs were banned from eating halal meat. therefore u cant say punjabi culture is from sikhism becuz sikhism today is very different from what it mightve influenced before but it hasnt influenced it anyway: give me 1 way that sikhism has influenced punjabi culture, even if it did so has islam
I think this is the first time I've ever heard of the Mughal Empire. My high school history lessons covered Canada, the US, and Europe (mainly England and France), and I think we spent about one class on China.
You forget about atrocities done by aurangzeb to Sikh Gurus. He burnt one alive just because he didn't accept Islam. Yeah, that could be a money-saving measure by Aurangzeb. And Akbar, he actually visited the Sikh Guru and when asked to sit on the ground to eat along with other people, actually did that just to obey the faith. The most powerful king sat and eat with people, normal people, some peasants, some scholars, some beggars, Just normal people.
Dude, don't believe everything your Imam or Madrasa faculty teaches you. He is not a historian. Some mullahs have proclaimed live on News channels that they consider Aurangzeb and Mahmud Ghazni as their heroes. Nothing could be more shameful. They are preaching this venom in Madrasas and spoiling young minds.
Do you have source on that? To me it would seem damn near impossible that he could keep the throne as long as he did without some freakin huge military technological advantage because of the Muslims being a tiny tiny minority
Mr Green I am a Hindu nationalist and also a big fan of your channel!!! I do believe that the Mughal rule was the beginning of imperialism in India. Our history books teach us to look at Akbar in a godly light but I agree with you when you say that he was just a little more tolerant than the rest of them. That's no reason to adore him or overlook his many, may restrictive policies. One small thing I'd like to point out is that Aurangzeb might have been frugal but that wasn't because of financial constraints only. He was a fanatic Islamist who'd shame the ISIS and Al Qaeda of today. He was the one who started the tradition of 'convert or die' in India. He beheaded Sikh Gurus in streets because they refused to accept Islam. But you have not mentioned any of these in your video, focussing instead of his dismissal of court musicians and jesters. That is sad. His armies laid waste to great swathes of the country even when they were under his rule. And to say that he just damaged the temples would be like saying that the WTC just got a broken window on 9/11. He and his generals defiled and desecrated temples for fun, and as provocation. Lastly, his grave being simple was mainly because of his arrogance and not because of him 'saving his subjects from any future expenses.' I have seen it. It is indeed a simple tomb which has an inscription which basically reads, 'when I am not present in this world then who will enjoy this splendour.' Akbar wasn't the only one who considered himself divine, Aurangzeb was no better.
CrashCourse yes john. that's the most underlooked part of mughal invaders just because we can't find it in written history. i don't know what exactly happened but looking at the present, i strongly feel that written history is indeed biased with its subjects (for obvious reasons) , something must be done for this inconsistency in the history we can accept today.
Prince D It did shape the South Indian History.... Had Sikhism not taken to sword and Guru Teg Bahadur Not given his Shaheedi, who knows the borders of Pakistan could have included Delhi.... Sikhs were the most combatant in fighting the muslims in 1947.... And Sikh Empire was the last Indian Empire that the british captured in betwwen 1845-1848 only!!! Just a decade before the "First war of independence" Plus I dont mind him not taking the names of sikhs... He did not take the name Marathas and just spoke that there were disturbances in the North.. which were primarily by Sikhs!!!!!
Prince D hardly the truth. although you raise good points, you shouldn't neglect the role of the Sikhs. As the other guy mentioned, on top of the fact they were a constant thorn in the side of the Mughals (along with the Marathas), they contributed to the decline of the Mughal empire. Thank God or whatever divine entity for that!
You obviously do not know anything about Sikhi or Sikh History do you. Numbers doesn't always constitute change on its own. The battle of chamkaur had 48 Sikhs against an army of 1 Million Muslim mughuls. Do you think any leader would escape this Alive?! Guru Gobind Singh Ji didn't even suffer a single wound. Im giving a small example of the amazing history of the Sikhs. So please don't deny or make assumuptions of how Sikhs in 200 years didn't effect the tyranny of the islamic mughals with your ignorance.
T Singh That's bullshit. Don't believe in bull like that. 48 Sikhs against 1 million Muslims. Lol. Rubbish. Don't get me wrong, Sikhs are a good people/religion, i respect them more than Hindu Indians. But the fact remains, they had little role in shaping the whole of India.
I said Historians, not 'History' I'm a fan of history not so much on Historians, excuse me as I remove you and your 6 other backers, to save you any further embarassment, to people who can actually read while putting some thought onto it... bud.
The Mughal Empire fell apart because of the British who used divide and rule tactics which had Muslim princes, Sikhs and Hindus all going to war against the Mughal Empire. And when it fell, the British turned it into a colony and sucked it dry. Till this day this region is the poorest region in the world. Which is in stark contrast to it's wealthy Mughal past.
Great episode! Learned a lot from this one. It's very interesting to hear about less comonly discussed parts of world history (from an european point of view). And as always great job in pointing out that history is prone to interpretation. - I don't know if you‘ve done this before, but I would vote for an episode on feudal japan and the samurai as well! Exelent work, cheers
@CrashCourse would like to see a video on Mauryan empire. The empire was highlighted by Chandragupta Maurya and King Ashoka. More importantly, the empire led to the rise in Buddhism.
mughals were turkic indeed but babur is descendant of timur, and timurs mother is descendant of genkhis khan. which makes them easily claim they are descendant of genkhis so they have quite strong right to rule in central asia. basically turko-mongol, also not turkish, its turkic. timur's tribe is in karluk branch not oghuz
No he were not Mongolian at all. His tribe was called Barlas and it was a Turco-Mongol tribe of Chagatais. Barlas tribe became Turkified culturally by converting Islam. Some historians say that he wanted to predicate his ancestry to Mongolians to rule where Mongolian Empire reigned.
Mr. Green I would like to suggest you for uploading a video on crash course about chuals and chaunakyas so that we can learn about Indian Hindus history
Aurangzeb has always been shown to me in a super negative light as most sikh stories are hating on him. Meanwhile Akbar was shown as especially cool in the same stories
An interesting parallel is Fredrick the Great of Prussia, who is often viewed in a negative light for his militarization of Prussia. However, he was also a patron in the arts and was the one of the first monarchs to embrace the enlightenment and integrate those ideas in the government. It seems odd that the seemingly similar Akbar is viewed positively, when he is viewed negatively.
Rasgonras I don't know German well enough to read historical books on the topic yet, but in the small number of American and/or English books and commentaries I could find on Prussian history (the American school system that I've experienced hardly even mentions Prussia at all despite the early relationship between the two countries), Fredrick the Great is discussed along with his less tolerant policies and militarization. I have found a couple that examine both sides of his rules, such as "Iron Kingdom", which I found quite interesting.
Some guy Some guy I've never heard that before, and it doesn't make a lot of sense to me given that Fredrick the Great was rather tolerant of other religions and groups. However, I have heard that Hitler regarded both Fredrick the Great and Bismark as great German leaders.
It has to do with the fact he was glorified by the nazis as the greatest hitler-like German leader and used in a lot of nazi propaganda and allied propaganda after ww2
Remember when this channel used to be politically neutral? Me neither. It's always been a bunch of leftist hacks thinly veiling their ideology. There are other, far better history channels.
"that we are looking at them" It's like quantum history. Changes depending on whether or not you're looking. Though I suppose history has always been that way...
Having seen that the new history videos are more specific in their subjects I think he should do an episode on early modern Japan. Or talk about the Shogunates or something like that; basically the political trends in Japan from the Heian period onwards. Especially the Warring States Period (Sengoku Jidai) which has some of the most important figures of Japanese history like Oda Nobunaga, Toyotomi Hideyoshi and Tokugawa Ieyasu (among many others). The unification of Japan would be an interesting topic to discuss.
Finally, a video about the Mughals! I love these guys. I really wish you'd do a series on Indian history. Most history classes don't really cover it and it's hard to find good books on the subject.
Surprisingly I can't see any hindutva fanatic ranting in the comment section. Ow, wait, they don't stay around unbiased facts, only consume what their "baba"s teach them.
I might be wrong on this, but isn't saying Sharia law redundant? Isn't it like saying ATM machine? To my knowledge, Sharia is basically a synonym for "law", though I think the direct translation is "legislation". If someone knows more, I would love to hear it, but as far as I know, you can just say "Sharia" without the law part after it.
So despite the differing views on why it happens, everyone seems to agree that it is redundant. Fair enough, I just wanted to make sure I wasn't misinformed. As for the reasoning, it may indeed be intentional to demonize, but it is likely similar to ATM machine, or the Los Angeles Angels, in that it is redundant, but that comes from people being unaware of the meaning.
Plus: Mughal it means Mongol in Persian language! Mughal greated by Babur, grandson of Timur. Tumur was born in Mongolian BARLAS tribe and Descantend of Mongolian Chagatay empire! so you can call Mongol or Mughal or Moghul or Mogol etc :)
Wow...the Pearsianized Mongol rule India..The first Mughal emperor, Babur, claimed direct descent from Genghis Khan, a Mongol and Timur, a Turk. The Mughals maintained some Turko-Mongol practices, but in essence became highly Persianized. Hence, the Mughal Empire is called a Persianate state, i.e. a state which is heavily influenced by Persian language, culture, literature, art and identity. The official language of the Mughal Empire was Persian. The famous persian indian thats Freddy Mercury right?
correction. the rebellion of farmers was pacified and there was no rebellion after todarmal's tax reform.chittore revolted because Maharana wanted his kingdom back. besides religious intolerance, aurangazeb never treated his children well,never trusted them, never gave any major administrative responsibility to them. this led to the rebellion of his own son,Akbar 2nd,and a weak leadership after his death. he was a flawed and intolerant ruler
To really understand the origins of the Mughals, one must gain a deep understanding of the history of Turkic and Mongolic nomads of Central Asia and Siberia.
That was an interesting and relatively balanced review. I particularly appreciate the last line that it's 'we' who are looking at them - so it's 'our' perception influenced by the present day ideas. Whereas, we were not present in that era to witness and analyze the situation on a practical ground. Lavish monuments may seem beautiful tourist spots today but what expenditures and inconveniences did they bring to the people of that time may usually be looked over. So that's a very important point that we need to be very careful when narrating and analyzing history today. Some aspects of Aurangzeb's policies may be criticized but a lot of them are mere exaggerations. When weak claims become spread far and wide, very few people bother to carefully examine the underlying evidences and strength of such arguments. Audrey Truschke has penned a brilliant book on Aurangzeb entitled 'Aurangzeb: Tha Man and the Myth'. It brings in to light many such claims like Aurangzeb was intolerant towards non muslims and he destroyed temples etc. I would recommend everyone to give it a read before forming a biased opinion on this emperor. Blindly believing biased narrations isn't what we call history!
Mathura and Varanasi are the living proof of aurangjeb's wrong deed... Still this day those two temple premises contain mosques made by aurangjeb, by vandalizing the temple in half... Janmabhoomi mosque at Mathura Krishna Janmabhoomi and gyanvapi mosque at the the place of Kashi viswanath temple.... Those temples weren't any rich or had any huge building but they had religious prominence among Hindus... Aurangjeb never plundered temples solely for their rich but to destroy the sites related to hindu faith... That's why we despice him. Another of aurangjeb's wrong deed was to destroy somnath temple which was rebuild after India's independence. Facts and data related to my comment can be found all over the internet where one can read about the history and see pictures taken currently.
Being a tolerant ruler is one thing, being an apostate is entirely another. John, you didn't mention one word about the religion that Akbar *invented*, Din-e-illahi. Comparing Akbar to Aurangzeb in that regard is very much an apples to oranges situation.
Sultan Humayun , the Koran on multiple occasions recommend death for apostasy from Islam: 4:89, 9:11-12, 2:217, 9:73-74, 88:21, 5:54, and 9:66. www.thereligionofpeace.com/Quran/012-apostasy.htm Over twenty Muslim-majority countries have laws punishing apostasy with death, including the (arguably) most important Sunni and Shia countries of Saudi Arabia and Iran respectively. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apostasy_in_Islam Of course, moderate Muslims around the world, as do civilized people across religions, denounce these inhumane and unjust laws. No doubt, like slavery and the subjugation of women, execution for apostasy will be relegated to the rubbish heap of history.
I always thought Aurangzeb was deeply misunderstood, when we studied him in school. Thanks for that John. I especially liked when you make a connection between how we look at history and thus how we look at ourselves. That was very insightful particularly in the light of the post-colonial changes in perception many Indians are having of themselves and how many sweeping claims are being made of "Indian-ness" as opposed to "otherness" with very little understanding that the two polarities are only perceptions. This video really helped me see that clearly. Just to be a nit-picker, Aurangzeb was Akbar's great-grandson not grandson.
I love how you challenge common perceptions and investigate both sides fairly. My favorite channel on history.
Humayum: I’m unstoppable
Stairs: YOU DARE CHALLANGE ME MORTAL?
It sounds like your saying "the muggle empire"
Yeah, we made that joke, but it got cut in the final. -stan
CrashCourse
i did see the moogle though...so that one didn't get cut.
Aren't all our empires muggle empires (so far)? :P
some thinks cannot be unheard
***** That's the proper way it is pronounced in Persian and in Hindi.
Aurangzeb is the great grandson of Akbar and not grandson.
Line of descent of the Mughal Emperors
1. Babur
2.Humayun
3. Akbar
4.Jahangir
5.Shah Jahan
6.Aurangzeb
7.Bahadur Shah
8.Jahandar Shah
9.Farrukhsiyar
10.Rafi ud-Darajat
11.Shah Jahan II
12.Muhammad Shah
13.Ahmad Shah Bahadur
14.Alamgir
15.Shah Alam
16.Akbar Shah
17.Bahadur Shah II
Do you know bahadur shah zafar 2 , was also a poet , he wrote his last melody in a prison in Rangoon ,
The last two lines were
"Kitna badnaseeb ha zafar dafn k lia
Do gaz zameen bhi na mili koy_yaar ma"
Meaning
"How unfortunate is zafar for burying
Can't even get 2 yards on the beloved land "
Just FYI Rafi Ud Darjat and Shah Jahan 2 together reigned for not more than 6 months. They died quite young due to excessive alcohol consumption.
THE HUMANIST I would say it’s the first 12 emperors because the Mughals were vassalized by the Maratha confederacy in 1750 with all there 18 clans
THE HUMANIST nah nah nah just because their territory shrunk doesn’t mean that they lose their titles
Ok boomer
Correction, Mr Green. Aurangzeb was the great grandson of Akbar, and not the grandson, as you say it. Seems not to matter, but it does. Indeed. Akbar > Jahangir > Shah Jehan > Aurangzeb.
Correct
You sir is correct.
Damn....how did I miss that?
Spot on, I wonder why we forget Jahangir and Noor Jahan's reign
Mr Green forgot Jahangir I see
Actually, the first Muslims to rule a portion of India were the Ummayads led under Muhammad bin Qasim who ruled Sindh and southern Punjab in 711.
.
Mobina Khan ?
I mean it was a good .
Fun fact
+Sarbaṇī Paṣtun wrong it was in kerala wher a ruler converted and even build the first mosque in the subcontinent 2 yrs befre muhammad's death.
My entire life I have never compared the Mughals with the Moogles. Thanks, Crash Course.
At least it is not the Muggle Empire.
I had noticed the similarities but never understood the relationship
+Mark Graham The story that the Moogles originate from is far superior to the story that the Muggles originate from.
Mark Graham yeah good ol snake nose is going after them
Kupo
Sigh... starts up Europa Universalis
c88.rex ayyyyyyyy, my first eu game was the Mughals
Luca Bero play as timurid and form mughal
Starts up Crusader Kings 2...
deadass
LOL yes!
I am surprised that no one was bothered by the fact that he said that Aurangzeb is Akbar's grandson.
Babur
Himayun
Akbar
Jahangir
Shah Jahan
Aurangzeb
so great grandson I guess
Yup I noticed that too...
Saara Dabral
It's not the traditional meaning of Grandson, but it works. Like My great grandpa doesn't refer to me as his great grandson, but grandson.
I noticed but it I am not bothered
"It's just hard to rule a declining empire well- ask President Obama"
Holy guacamole- I love you.
These videos are the only thing I have going for me when it comes to passing college classes
Hi Beca!!
They are biased and half true
Becca joiner LoL, then why did you opt for history.
Naveen raj employment benefits
Mughals were a group of turkic noble families from central Asia belonging to Chagatai section of Turkic race...Mughals traced their maternal lines to Ghenghis Khan and paternal lines to Timur
Tehaam Hashmi Very true
Tru
true Brother
selam
from Türkiye
Timur also known as Taimur Lang or 'Timur, the lame' in Indian textbooks. You are right
Tamerlane
How relevant this video was to me. I'm currently reading a great book called "Light of other days." I'll try not to spoil too much of the book but it takes place in a world where people are able to see into the past. Not change it- but just witness it. The whole idea is that history is dependent more on how people view it than what actually happened. Being able to look into the past and really see how these rulers made their decisions may drastically change the way we see them, and ultimately ourselves. Thanks for being awesome, John.
That book sounds really interesting! I see a trip to amazon.com in my future. 8-)
Of course. We have no way of knowing what really happened (before there were audio recordings at least). What we know about the past is what other people have told us.
John Green, I really love how you reflect upon history in the right way. Really, people are incredibly simplistic and self-righteous in this day and age, and in each episode, you consistently show history isn't black and white, and our interpretation of history tells us more about our selves than the people we are interpreting.
Thank you
~ sincerely a dude who enjoys learning human beings.
I've been watching so many crash courses yet I didn't realize I was watching my favorite author the whole time????!!!!! Hollyyy!!
Who's here because of Coronavirus and online school? :/
I
Mehhh
you
69 likes
Me
5:10 he also kind of created his own religion Deen-E-Ilahi ( the Religion of God ) ... It was a mix of Hinduism , Islam , Sikhism etc .
And all of its followers went down the drain with it
He used to hold assemblies of scholars from different religions Hindu,Jain, Buddhist,sikhs, zoroastrians,Islam ,Shia Muslims and sufis too .
He segregated religion and state subjects therefore Akbar's reign saw little or no uprising and economy was also doing good .
And invasion stopped during his reign .
Not only that, they're also the most annoying faction in Empire: Total War.
No the ottomans were
Hear hear!
Polandgod 75 The Ottomans used to be in EU4. Before the last patch, those fuckers would take the whole middle east and piss in Europe's garden; chunk of the world green.
About a year ago I was playing Darthmod as the British and I was having major European woes. Once I finally put the fires out in France via piss I looked at the Americas to start conquering their freed subjects, the Mughals conquered everything but my colonies... I don't know how, but they converted the new world to Islam. It was such a bitch to get the continents under control again.
Try Europa Universalise 4. Way better, Way more complex.
You have a better understanding of Indian History than many Indian historians (both from left and right side) ... Thanks for your scientific views and honest efforts to educate people on such a sensitive subject.
@CrashCourse : I would like to add a few facts bout Aurangzeb and his so called "Intolerance"...
Aurangzeb ruled for 49 years...
In the first couple of years, he abolished nearly 65 different kinds of taxes, most of which were levied on poor people...
This resulted in nearly 40% decline in tax collection empire wide (I doubt any other govt could ever have taken such a drastic step for reducing the burden of its ppl)...
After 20 years of falling Income Aurangzeb levied Jizya on his 21st year of Throne...
The max slab for the Jizya was 12 Dirhams for a person who has held 200 Dirhams for a year... Thus the worst tax rate turns out to be 6% per annum...
There were exceptions too... It was not levied on the income & savings of:
>Women.
>Children.
>Senior Citizens.
>Men who served in Army...
Now, is it supposed to be looked merely as Tax on Hindus..? Muslims of his reign were levied 4 kinds of tax which was specific to muslims and not on others... one of them was 10% additional tax on agriculture produce the 2nd bein 2.5%% of Zakat... these two taxes itself totals to 12.5% on Muslims as compared to 6% on Hindus... Had Aurangzeb not been a tolerant ruler, how could have levied lesser tax on Hindus as compared to Muslims..?
Was Jizya a reason for mass conversion... Well NO! But that is an altogether different reply... Some other time...
Mansoor0606 what about teg Bahadur death & Gobind Singh sons torture by him ?
+Prashant !!! Aurangzeb wasn't the perfect guy,but it is important to acknowledge what he had contributed.
Could you please give me your sources?
@Mansoor0606
oh god... u r praising that person who murdered his family to rule....... what the hell????
if someone in modern world did the same would u still be praising him???????
When talking about the Mughals, it is extremely important to talk about Sikhs. Sikhs influenced & brought an end to the Mughal empire. Please read the history of Guru Gobind Singh Ji & beyond. Sikh history is deeply (again, deeply) tied with Aurangzeb's empire & his actions & decisions. However great video! Thank you for it! :)
Next video on real Indian Kings & Empires like Great Maurayan empire,Gupta Empire , Maratha Empire , Pala empire, Chola empire.They were real Heroes who's kingdom expanded much more than present India.But were Brave,Powerful,tolerant not cruel thus not known in western world.
I would so like to learn more about this, why is it in American world history classes, all they talked about with regards to India were basically the Mughals and the British? Why didn't they tell us about the times that Hindus governed themselves?
I mean, I guess American history just has this obsession with glorifying the idea of expansionist empires, even in acknowledging that Britain was wrong, I feel like our textbooks almost glorified the Raj in a sick way.
Rachael Lefler It's the same story here in Indian textbooks.most Indian's are still unaware of their real history.all we study is British & moghul history.
I have a short video for you & whoever who is reading this & wants to know abt real Indian Kings.
Top 20 Indian Kings in history
/watch?v=HcshPyzFfNg
Thanks, I'll check that out.
Don't forget about the Sikh kingdoms in Punjab
I love how the entirety of crash course, especially the history sections, can be summed up with the phrase "But it's not that simple..."
The tradition of being weighed against gold on his birthday,was based on the Hindu tradition of Tulabharam, and was practised by both Akbar and his son Jahangir. Not just gold, Akbar also weighed other items like grains and textiles, and distributed them among the poor and needy. That was not profligacy, but an act of charity.
I like when John talks about colonialism he talks about how terrible the empire of western Europe were but whenever he talks about the Middle East he talks about how glorious and wonderful their empires were. So much white guilt.
its true though
GuardianAsim Whats true? His statement or mine and if its his please give some kind of incentive for me to believe it.
xEl Gringo Loco
they got a lot of history to put onto a small show
someone else explain i cant be arsed
Mauricio Benavides Not at all. You are literally putting words in my mouth. I'm trying to say that all empire's are equally as bad and you can't rank them on a spectrum of good to bad based upon the completion of the conqueror's. However John does do that.
The Mughal Empire one of the 3 Islamic Gunpowder Empires. I am a kid by the way who started studying world history from Gr. 2 until now.
Am a mughal, nd i have timurid blood in my veins.
Proud of it. ♥️👑
thank you for the vedio. i have been thinking akbar as hero and aurangzeb as villian. thanks for changing my perspective., however, aurngzeb's policies against jains and hindus (Jizya tax) comes in religious intorance..
one more thing, there is need to see why akbar is favourite to historians, also it raises a question here wether hisotry is written from british approach? coz britishers through east india company wanted to rule and aurangzeb was ruler at that time and they demonised him in past and present.
Goes to show that, historically, Islamic culture and Islam in general is allot more complex than anti-Muslim bigots would have you believe. To me, religion is simply a tool that people use for their own ends. People use it for good, people use it for evil. These islamic rulers aren't neccesarily black and white benevolent or tyrants, as has been shown, there are many more factors that influence their decisions! =D
what you on about Islam was invented on 8/11/2001
8/11?
Dylan Evans
day before 9/11
I think the video has very little evidence to support your claim. In fact the video has very little to do with Islam at all. Islam was merely an element to consider in the political groundwork of India at the time period. Of the two rulers, one was devout Islamic, and the other was not, but they both made unfavored and harsh choices. The purpose of the video was to show that there are multiple interpretations and impressions that could be grasped from the facts provided. You are doing the same thing John criticized historians of doing. You are using your perceptions and biases to support a point instead of taking all possibilities into consideration and going off of what the facts say.
GuardianAsim 8/11 would be august. so a month.
This comment section:
[nationalist, religious, and ideological fights intensify]
Exactly, so much biased opinions
and also Harry Potter fans.
+Paul Donahue Half life 3 confirmed!
Correct, these fights are just getting to me.
Yes, and the HP fans XD
Derpity Derp lol wut? xD
Aurangzeb is to Sikhs (and Hindus) as Hitler is to Jewish people. That's why some people will find it offensive that there is little emphasis on the atrocities committed by the later Mughal regime.
And also why a very important street in Delhi is called Aurangzeb street..sigh..we aren't offended enough..we should be considering all the nasty stuff that aurangzeb did.
This made me think so so much about how I view and judge historical moments. Thank you for including historiography in your assessments!
How he ended it, summed the current state of India, perfectly !
Swapnil Narendra Absolutely :)
I hope religious extremism in my country dies a quick death. I don't have much hope, but still.
Sabyasachi Datta
...And take it out on the current Indian Muslims who had nothing to do with what happened hundreds of years ago.
Ihsan Mansoor I hear the Hindus in Pakistan and Kashmir are doing wonderfully.
@@s.d.966 I feel sorry for your brain
@@MrJayson204
Didn't pakistan elect a dalit Hindu into their senate?
Say what you want about that country but at least they don't use that shitty caste system
Pfft, how could the Muggles ever hope to build an empire? They can barely cast low quality spells!
+overthemoonwithme what of they are mud blood
+overthemoonwithme well, they have this weird electricity thing. That's kinda magical...
hilarious :D
Puck?
Dude !!!
In EU4, my Mughal Empire NEVER declines!
Sometimes it spends 300 years westernizing because it owns everything from Ceylon to Siberia and back, but at least it doesn't decline!
How much land did you get?!
Zachary Saew It was an old version of EU 4 (Way pre-AoW) But from my slightly-corrupted save it looks like 212 provinces with Ceylon to Siberia, the furthest west is bumping up against what used to be the Ottoman Empire, now owned by Venice (don't ask, I really don't remember) and in the east I ate everything but Vietnam and 2/3s of Ming. I westernized off a little bit of France on the tip of Siberia after I kicked the shit out of Russia and colonized practically all of Siberia, so the only countries east of the Ottomans is Me, Ming, Vietnam, and a bit of France. Played all the way up to 1812.
EU4!
A nuanced and thoughtful take on a complex historical subject.
The main reason Aurangzeb was despised was his forced conversions of Hindus and other religious minorities on a grand scale. Basically he left people with an ultimatum - convert or die. I'm disappointed that you didn't mention the Sikhs rebelling and fighting against Mughal religious persecution under Guru Gobind Singh, a huge event in bringing down the tyranny of Aurangzeb.
Because that is not the point of this video. The point is to make light of how we as observers of history interpret these events or a person's actions. Because if you want facts upon facts piled up on each other, you take a history class. Crash Course World History 200+ series tries to teach more about the many facets of civilizations by looking at historical backgrounds and such. Hence, the first few episodes were focused on "Money," "Diseases," "Warfare," and not on specific events such as "French Revolution." "Crimean War," etc. the CC WH 100+ series
Napoleonicus I don't believe that my comment goes against the point of this video. John goes on about Akbar is perceived as a good ruler, whereas Aurangzeb is seen as a tyrant through history. I simply state the biggest reason why Aurangzeb was seen as a tyrant in his actions. Something that could have been explored in greater detail that lead to our current perception of Aurangzeb.
It sounds like you are saying muggle instead of Mughal.
Seems like they weren't wizards...
I thought the exact same thing!
Personally I thought it sounded like Moogle (a fictional race from the video game series Final Fantasy).
Lesson here is. Nationalist mentality will almost most definetly lead to down fall of an empire. and Inclusive and tolerant mentality will lead to prosperous and inclining empire.
sikhs also had a huge impact on the decline of the mughal empire
Like how?
Yics Hazard They were pushing from north india. Banda Singh Bahadar was one of the sikhs who who pushed mughals out from punjab.
***** Also from punjab.
Annoying Guy it's funny cuz the vast majority of punjabis are Muslim like me. Sikhs make up like 5% of punjabis yet they swap the 2 interchangeably
thats just not true tho. like i said the majority of punjabis are muslim: furthermore sikhism changed alot over the mughal period. in the beginning it was a mystical religion of spiritualism but when the sikhs fought the muslims the religion changed and it became alot more militant and sikhs were banned from eating halal meat. therefore u cant say punjabi culture is from sikhism becuz sikhism today is very different from what it mightve influenced before but it hasnt influenced it anyway: give me 1 way that sikhism has influenced punjabi culture, even if it did so has islam
I think this is the first time I've ever heard of the Mughal Empire. My high school history lessons covered Canada, the US, and Europe (mainly England and France), and I think we spent about one class on China.
biggest reason of downfall of Mughal empire was Maratha empire n sikh...
your right, sikhs destroyed mughals like roflstomped them
Golden Memes n marathas too Maratha empire conquered all of the India later...
mayur kumbhar when??
goo.gl
Watch this
You forget about atrocities done by aurangzeb to Sikh Gurus. He burnt one alive just because he didn't accept Islam. Yeah, that could be a money-saving measure by Aurangzeb. And Akbar, he actually visited the Sikh Guru and when asked to sit on the ground to eat along with other people, actually did that just to obey the faith.
The most powerful king sat and eat with people, normal people, some peasants, some scholars, some beggars, Just normal people.
Sajan Khandelwal not true event
ahmed El Khwaga every thing against aurangzeb is not true , wow
Dude, don't believe everything your Imam or Madrasa faculty teaches you. He is not a historian. Some mullahs have proclaimed live on News channels that they consider Aurangzeb and Mahmud Ghazni as their heroes. Nothing could be more shameful. They are preaching this venom in Madrasas and spoiling young minds.
Nitin Singh aurang is the greatest ruler
Do you have source on that? To me it would seem damn near impossible that he could keep the throne as long as he did without some freakin huge military technological advantage because of the Muslims being a tiny tiny minority
Aurangzeb was Akbar's great grandson and not grandson.
Chayan Ray Everyone forgot Jahangir lol
Everyone forgot Jahangir Selim
I guess they forgot jahangir because he was an incompetent ruler and the most of the work was done by his wife Nur Jahan
Mr Green I am a Hindu nationalist and also a big fan of your channel!!! I do believe that the Mughal rule was the beginning of imperialism in India. Our history books teach us to look at Akbar in a godly light but I agree with you when you say that he was just a little more tolerant than the rest of them. That's no reason to adore him or overlook his many, may restrictive policies.
One small thing I'd like to point out is that Aurangzeb might have been frugal but that wasn't because of financial constraints only. He was a fanatic Islamist who'd shame the ISIS and Al Qaeda of today. He was the one who started the tradition of 'convert or die' in India. He beheaded Sikh Gurus in streets because they refused to accept Islam. But you have not mentioned any of these in your video, focussing instead of his dismissal of court musicians and jesters. That is sad. His armies laid waste to great swathes of the country even when they were under his rule. And to say that he just damaged the temples would be like saying that the WTC just got a broken window on 9/11. He and his generals defiled and desecrated temples for fun, and as provocation.
Lastly, his grave being simple was mainly because of his arrogance and not because of him 'saving his subjects from any future expenses.' I have seen it. It is indeed a simple tomb which has an inscription which basically reads, 'when I am not present in this world then who will enjoy this splendour.' Akbar wasn't the only one who considered himself divine, Aurangzeb was no better.
CrashCourse yes john. that's the most underlooked part of mughal invaders just because we can't find it in written history. i don't know what exactly happened but looking at the present, i strongly feel that written history is indeed biased with its subjects (for obvious reasons) , something must be done for this inconsistency in the history we can accept today.
Thanks for mentioning the Sikhs... Not
Prince D It did shape the South Indian History....
Had Sikhism not taken to sword and Guru Teg Bahadur Not given his Shaheedi, who knows the borders of Pakistan could have included Delhi....
Sikhs were the most combatant in fighting the muslims in 1947....
And Sikh Empire was the last Indian Empire that the british captured in betwwen 1845-1848 only!!!
Just a decade before the "First war of independence"
Plus I dont mind him not taking the names of sikhs...
He did not take the name Marathas and just spoke that there were disturbances in the North.. which were primarily by Sikhs!!!!!
Lol. deleting my comments since they contain the truth about Sikhs minute involvement in shaping India.
Prince D hardly the truth. although you raise good points, you shouldn't neglect the role of the Sikhs. As the other guy mentioned, on top of the fact they were a constant thorn in the side of the Mughals (along with the Marathas), they contributed to the decline of the Mughal empire. Thank God or whatever divine entity for that!
You obviously do not know anything about Sikhi or Sikh History do you. Numbers doesn't always constitute change on its own. The battle of chamkaur had 48 Sikhs against an army of 1 Million Muslim mughuls. Do you think any leader would escape this Alive?! Guru Gobind Singh Ji didn't even suffer a single wound. Im giving a small example of the amazing history of the Sikhs. So please don't deny or make assumuptions of how Sikhs in 200 years didn't effect the tyranny of the islamic mughals with your ignorance.
T Singh That's bullshit. Don't believe in bull like that. 48 Sikhs against 1 million Muslims. Lol. Rubbish.
Don't get me wrong, Sikhs are a good people/religion, i respect them more than Hindu Indians. But the fact remains, they had little role in shaping the whole of India.
To CrashCourse,
I don't care about what historians, think, at all.
Thank you.
I said Historians, not 'History' I'm a fan of history not so much on Historians, excuse me as I remove you and your 6 other backers, to save you any further embarassment, to people who can actually read while putting some thought onto it...
bud.
The Mughal Empire fell apart because of the British who used divide and rule tactics which had Muslim princes, Sikhs and Hindus all going to war against the Mughal Empire. And when it fell, the British turned it into a colony and sucked it dry. Till this day this region is the poorest region in the world. Which is in stark contrast to it's wealthy Mughal past.
The IRONY that so many Indians are fighting because of religious labels when he JUST SAID that's what divides India.
Hmm.
Great episode! Learned a lot from this one. It's very interesting to hear about less comonly discussed parts of world history (from an european point of view). And as always great job in pointing out that history is prone to interpretation. - I don't know if you‘ve done this before, but I would vote for an episode on feudal japan and the samurai as well! Exelent work, cheers
Your analysis is very much accurate....hope you continue good work
as I muslim indian , i am so proud of my culture and religion
@CrashCourse would like to see a video on Mauryan empire. The empire was highlighted by Chandragupta Maurya and King Ashoka. More importantly, the empire led to the rise in Buddhism.
Babur the first was half Turkish due to Timur/Tamerlane and half Mongol due to Djengiz Khan/Cengiz Khan.
?genghis khan or chinggis khaan
not "turkish" *Turkic*
mughals were turkic indeed but babur is descendant of timur, and timurs mother is descendant of genkhis khan. which makes them easily claim they are descendant of genkhis so they have quite strong right to rule in central asia.
basically turko-mongol, also not turkish, its turkic. timur's tribe is in karluk branch not oghuz
Timur is a Mongol warlord from Mongol tribe called "Barlus". not turkic at all
No he were not Mongolian at all. His tribe was called Barlas and it was a Turco-Mongol tribe of Chagatais. Barlas tribe became Turkified culturally by converting Islam. Some historians say that he wanted to predicate his ancestry to Mongolians to rule where Mongolian Empire reigned.
Mr. Green I would like to suggest you for uploading a video on crash course about chuals and chaunakyas so that we can learn about Indian Hindus history
Aurangzeb has always been shown to me in a super negative light as most sikh stories are hating on him. Meanwhile Akbar was shown as especially cool in the same stories
An interesting parallel is Fredrick the Great of Prussia, who is often viewed in a negative light for his militarization of Prussia. However, he was also a patron in the arts and was the one of the first monarchs to embrace the enlightenment and integrate those ideas in the government. It seems odd that the seemingly similar Akbar is viewed positively, when he is viewed negatively.
How is he often viewed in a negative light? In germany, he is viewed in a very positive light, as a reformer and, as you said, patron of the arts.
Rasgonras I don't know German well enough to read historical books on the topic yet, but in the small number of American and/or English books and commentaries I could find on Prussian history (the American school system that I've experienced hardly even mentions Prussia at all despite the early relationship between the two countries), Fredrick the Great is discussed along with his less tolerant policies and militarization. I have found a couple that examine both sides of his rules, such as "Iron Kingdom", which I found quite interesting.
Some guy Some guy I've never heard that before, and it doesn't make a lot of sense to me given that Fredrick the Great was rather tolerant of other religions and groups. However, I have heard that Hitler regarded both Fredrick the Great and Bismark as great German leaders.
It has to do with the fact he was glorified by the nazis as the greatest hitler-like German leader and used in a lot of nazi propaganda and allied propaganda after ww2
gylfie9 A.K.A how the brits talk about Napoleon.
Anyone catch the declining empire, ask Obama, line?
yup
talk about roasting ur own country
Remember when this channel used to be politically neutral?
Me neither. It's always been a bunch of leftist hacks thinly veiling their ideology. There are other, far better history channels.
“President Obama”. Watching this after 2016, this made me actually cry.
Marshall Dan you are bothered by the facts that Muslims have played a big role in modern history.
Im indian sikh and firm believer that the mighals. Had a objective for invading. They were a tight unit and we disnt stand a chance. 😮😮😮
"glory days" image is the funniest thing in the whole video. lol.
Amazing show John!
You always keep showing us the complexity of things.
Thank you!
Anybody else waited in vain for an Admiral Akbar pun?
+Chad Brown There is a subtle reference. Check out the Hist-erical bubble at 3:56 :)
Yup
5:17 he was actually Akbar's great-grandson. Just a slight correction.
Take care of yourself dude. Why the long face?
edit(after watching the video): This dude is insanely neutral.
"that we are looking at them" It's like quantum history. Changes depending on whether or not you're looking. Though I suppose history has always been that way...
+Patrick Hogue Yes. Exept that people are way more complicated than sub-atomic particles.
Please do Crash Course British History after you finish this season.
Thank you.
Crash Course Tolkien!
Shawn Kroner Would prefer Crash Course George RR Martin :D
ArcticTemper BUT BOTH ARE AWESOME.
Shawn Kroner
Hey, I'm not arguing. Why not both?
No, Britain is a shitty place.
Can you make crash course on SIKH EMPIRE
As a Muslim, I agree. I wanna see this.
You made a history addict happy today....
I really appreciate your impartial approach. Thank you for sharing the knowledge!
Having seen that the new history videos are more specific in their subjects I think he should do an episode on early modern Japan. Or talk about the Shogunates or something like that; basically the political trends in Japan from the Heian period onwards. Especially the Warring States Period (Sengoku Jidai) which has some of the most important figures of Japanese history like Oda Nobunaga, Toyotomi Hideyoshi and Tokugawa Ieyasu (among many others). The unification of Japan would be an interesting topic to discuss.
They are Turkic (Babur empire Zahireddin Muhammed Babur)Sons of Amir Temur/Emir Timur
@Seksiumutcocuk -_- his father was turk
Other mughals are Indian
origionally they were turkic, but became highly persianised. plus the zenith of the mughul empire, the emperors became more and more racially indian
@@davidkovac2409
Barlas is Turkic-Mongol mix tribe
Never forget the Timurid Renaissance that rivaled the Italian one, which Mughals inherited
MUGHÂL
PROUD TO BE PAKISTAN 🇵🇰
This is probably your best video yet!
Finally, a video about the Mughals! I love these guys. I really wish you'd do a series on Indian history. Most history classes don't really cover it and it's hard to find good books on the subject.
Best crash course history videos are made by Mr. Greene.
Surprisingly I can't see any hindutva fanatic ranting in the comment section. Ow, wait, they don't stay around unbiased facts, only consume what their "baba"s teach them.
Exactly 😂😆
I might be wrong on this, but isn't saying Sharia law redundant? Isn't it like saying ATM machine? To my knowledge, Sharia is basically a synonym for "law", though I think the direct translation is "legislation". If someone knows more, I would love to hear it, but as far as I know, you can just say "Sharia" without the law part after it.
*****
I would say calling it Sharia LAW was merely meant as an explanatory addition for people who didn't know what the term meant and it just stuck.
it's a tautology for people who don't know the language, like the Sierra Nevada Mountain Range
So despite the differing views on why it happens, everyone seems to agree that it is redundant. Fair enough, I just wanted to make sure I wasn't misinformed. As for the reasoning, it may indeed be intentional to demonize, but it is likely similar to ATM machine, or the Los Angeles Angels, in that it is redundant, but that comes from people being unaware of the meaning.
@@DuranmanX or the 'Sahara' desert
The conclusion was very polite. Thank you for that :)
Fun fact : Jahangir & Shah Jahan had Hindu mothers.
Two emperors of one of the greatest Indian/Islamic Empire were born from Rajputs mothers
We have to read this in school
i love the serial of jodha akbar, its great serial
Okay you guys teased on it, Where's the video on Tamerlane!? Make one!
Plus:
Mughal it means Mongol in Persian language!
Mughal greated by Babur, grandson of Timur.
Tumur was born in Mongolian BARLAS tribe and Descantend of Mongolian Chagatay empire!
so you can call Mongol or Mughal or Moghul or Mogol etc :)
This was excellent, glad I stumbled on this video. I’m looking forward to watching more on your channel.
Wow...the Pearsianized Mongol rule India..The first Mughal emperor, Babur, claimed direct descent from Genghis Khan, a Mongol and Timur, a Turk.
The Mughals maintained some Turko-Mongol practices, but in essence became highly Persianized. Hence, the Mughal Empire is called a Persianate state, i.e. a state which is heavily influenced by Persian language, culture, literature, art and identity.
The official language of the Mughal Empire was Persian.
The famous persian indian thats Freddy Mercury right?
Aurangzeb was actually the Great Grandson of Akbar
Akbar->Jahangir->Shah Jahan->Aurangzeb.
I'd like to suggest an episode of Southeast Asia history.
Absolutely. or a single episode covering Turkic peoples and the Ottoman Empire.
correction. the rebellion of farmers was pacified and there was no rebellion after todarmal's tax reform.chittore revolted because Maharana wanted his kingdom back. besides religious intolerance, aurangazeb never treated his children well,never trusted them, never gave any major administrative responsibility to them. this led to the rebellion of his own son,Akbar 2nd,and a weak leadership after his death. he was a flawed and intolerant ruler
wow this is great , india was muslim empire I'am so happy for that
To really understand the origins of the Mughals, one must gain a deep understanding of the history of Turkic and Mongolic nomads of Central Asia and Siberia.
That was an interesting and relatively balanced review. I particularly appreciate the last line that it's 'we' who are looking at them - so it's 'our' perception influenced by the present day ideas. Whereas, we were not present in that era to witness and analyze the situation on a practical ground. Lavish monuments may seem beautiful tourist spots today but what expenditures and inconveniences did they bring to the people of that time may usually be looked over. So that's a very important point that we need to be very careful when narrating and analyzing history today.
Some aspects of Aurangzeb's policies may be criticized but a lot of them are mere exaggerations. When weak claims become spread far and wide, very few people bother to carefully examine the underlying evidences and strength of such arguments. Audrey Truschke has penned a brilliant book on Aurangzeb entitled 'Aurangzeb: Tha Man and the Myth'. It brings in to light many such claims like Aurangzeb was intolerant towards non muslims and he destroyed temples etc. I would recommend everyone to give it a read before forming a biased opinion on this emperor. Blindly believing biased narrations isn't what we call history!
Thoughtful Comment
F1PURE Thank you :)
Mathura and Varanasi are the living proof of aurangjeb's wrong deed... Still this day those two temple premises contain mosques made by aurangjeb, by vandalizing the temple in half... Janmabhoomi mosque at Mathura Krishna Janmabhoomi and gyanvapi mosque at the the place of Kashi viswanath temple.... Those temples weren't any rich or had any huge building but they had religious prominence among Hindus... Aurangjeb never plundered temples solely for their rich but to destroy the sites related to hindu faith... That's why we despice him.
Another of aurangjeb's wrong deed was to destroy somnath temple which was rebuild after India's independence.
Facts and data related to my comment can be found all over the internet where one can read about the history and see pictures taken currently.
@@PallabDutt Any credible source?
Such a balanced discussion about Akbar and Aurangzeb rather than just painting them black and white
I expect a lot of extreme right wing hindus from India here...
My ancestors happen to be one of the those groups, which regularly challenged with these guys, and I'm kind of proud of that!
Can you do a few episodes on Australian history?
Probably no. Sadly the most young nations like Australia, and my coutrie: Brazil, are forgotten in history classes.
Lucas Arean Maybe they should have a series where they do an episode each for some newer countries.
Dalek Thay
Excellent idea!
Dalek Thay Or they could just cram them all into 1/2 episodes and not waste any time.
Dalek Thay No, just make one of the normal episodes dedicated to newer nations.
I'm from India so...I LOVE MY INDIA!!!👳🍛🇮🇳
Being a tolerant ruler is one thing, being an apostate is entirely another. John, you didn't mention one word about the religion that Akbar *invented*, Din-e-illahi. Comparing Akbar to Aurangzeb in that regard is very much an apples to oranges situation.
Islam recommends punishing apostasy with death. How "tolerant".
Sharad Majumdar That's debatable. And I'm sorry, but does that actually have anything to do with my comment?
Didn't think so.
Well, why don't you explain your point then? You seem to imply that Akbar founding his own religion was a bad thing.
Sharad Majumdar Islam does not punish apostasy with death. Maybe some radical extremist do, but Islam itself does not.
Sultan Humayun , the Koran on multiple occasions recommend death for apostasy from Islam: 4:89, 9:11-12, 2:217, 9:73-74, 88:21, 5:54, and 9:66. www.thereligionofpeace.com/Quran/012-apostasy.htm
Over twenty Muslim-majority countries have laws punishing apostasy with death, including the (arguably) most important Sunni and Shia countries of Saudi Arabia and Iran respectively. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apostasy_in_Islam
Of course, moderate Muslims around the world, as do civilized people across religions, denounce these inhumane and unjust laws. No doubt, like slavery and the subjugation of women, execution for apostasy will be relegated to the rubbish heap of history.
I always thought Aurangzeb was deeply misunderstood, when we studied him in school. Thanks for that John. I especially liked when you make a connection between how we look at history and thus how we look at ourselves. That was very insightful particularly in the light of the post-colonial changes in perception many Indians are having of themselves and how many sweeping claims are being made of "Indian-ness" as opposed to "otherness" with very little understanding that the two polarities are only perceptions. This video really helped me see that clearly. Just to be a nit-picker, Aurangzeb was Akbar's great-grandson not grandson.
YES! YOU PRONOUNCE "PERSEPOLIS" CORRECTLY! I LOVE YOU!
Hi John, Liked the Course.
One suggestion, if you could do a course on Maratha Empire that would be very fascinating... looking forward to it...