Historum - History Forums  

Go Back   Historum - History Forums > World History Forum > Asian History
Register Forums Blogs Social Groups Mark Forums Read

Asian History Asian History Forum - China, Japan, Korea, India, Australia, New Zealand, and the Asia-Pacific Region


Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Display Modes
Old January 11th, 2014, 11:35 PM   #1

Modest Learner's Avatar
Historian
 
Joined: May 2013
From: India
Posts: 1,442
Who was the worst Mughal Emperor after 1707? And Why?


In 1707, Aurangzeb died. He was succeeded by Bahadur Shah I. Personally, I don't think that he was a weak emperor, it was only his old age (given he was 63 when he became emperor) coupled with various rebellions, and his short reign, that Mughals could not recover.
Next came, Jahandar Shah, then Farrukhsiyar...and then the line of weak emperors continued till Bahadur Shah II.

So who do you think was most responsible for the downfall of the Mughal Empire after death of Aurangzeb? And why?
Modest Learner is offline  
Remove Ads
Old January 12th, 2014, 12:14 AM   #2

tornada's Avatar
Wind Lord
 
Joined: Mar 2013
From: India
Posts: 15,221
Blog Entries: 2

[ame=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Farrukhsiyar]Farrukhsiyar - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia[/ame]

Achieved absolutely nothing of value, and allowed the Company to gain a foothold for a measly 3000 rs a year allowing them in return to possess duty free trading. This empowered the Company greatly. Farrukhsiyar will likely posses the dubious distinction for being the first Mughal emperor to allow the BEIC to gain such a significant foothold. It allowed the EIC to gain a massive headstart over the other companies which in turn meant that British control over India was nearly absolute eventually.

Admittedly Farrukhsiyar could not have foreseen any of this. But he started the trend of giving such enormous concessions to the Company, and as such could, through the perfect vision of hindsight and historical judgement, gain the distinction of being the worst emperor in terms of historical impact on India
tornada is offline  
Old January 12th, 2014, 12:10 PM   #3

Shaheen's Avatar
Historian
 
Joined: May 2011
From: Sweden
Posts: 2,459

My choice would be the legend behind "hunoz delhi dur ast". I mean any reasonable king would just sit back and relax when a marauding army is approaching your kingdom right
Shaheen is offline  
Old January 12th, 2014, 06:57 PM   #4

Jinit's Avatar
Historian
 
Joined: Jun 2012
From: India
Posts: 5,274
Blog Entries: 1

Quote:
Originally Posted by Shaheen View Post
My choice would be the legend behind "hunoz delhi dur ast". I mean any reasonable king would just sit back and relax when a marauding army is approaching your kingdom right
IIRC that incident happened during the Tughluq rule when Nadir shah invaded Delhi. Although I am not sure.
Jinit is offline  
Old January 13th, 2014, 04:58 AM   #5

Modest Learner's Avatar
Historian
 
Joined: May 2013
From: India
Posts: 1,442

Quote:
Originally Posted by Jinit View Post
IIRC that incident happened during the Tughluq rule when Nadir shah invaded Delhi. Although I am not sure.
It was during Muhammad Shah's rule.

My candidate would be Muhammad Shah, and Shah Alam II.

Muhammad Shah, because even with having a large army, he could not fend off Nadir Shah.

Shah Alam II, because he made no significant steps to control the downfall of the empire, even though he ruled for such a large amount of time.
Modest Learner is offline  
Old January 13th, 2014, 10:32 AM   #6

Jinit's Avatar
Historian
 
Joined: Jun 2012
From: India
Posts: 5,274
Blog Entries: 1

^My mistake. I mixed up two separate incidents.
Jinit is offline  
Old March 6th, 2014, 11:24 AM   #7

mnsr's Avatar
Historian
 
Joined: Feb 2014
From: Asia
Posts: 1,429

It is hard to choose the worst.

However, in my opinion the best one was Bahadur Shah Zafar, the last one.
mnsr is offline  
Old March 6th, 2014, 12:56 PM   #8
Scholar
 
Joined: Mar 2013
From: Breakdancing on the Moon.
Posts: 898

Quote:
Originally Posted by Shaheen View Post
My choice would be the legend behind "hunoz delhi dur ast". I mean any reasonable king would just sit back and relax when a marauding army is approaching your kingdom right
Hi sorry is that Court Persian/Urdu? I can only understand ast (is) and Delhi (Delhi). And I'm curious.
World Focker is offline  
Old March 6th, 2014, 01:32 PM   #9

mnsr's Avatar
Historian
 
Joined: Feb 2014
From: Asia
Posts: 1,429

This is Persian, means 'Delhi is still far away'

Muhammad Shah Rangeela was drunk to his gills, in the Diwan-e-Khas in Delhi, when a courtier arrived and told him that Nadir Shah of Persia had entered the confines of India. From the haze Rangeela was in, he muttered 'hunooz dilli dur ast’ i.e. 'Delhi is still far away’.
mnsr is offline  
Old March 6th, 2014, 01:38 PM   #10
Scholar
 
Joined: Mar 2013
From: Breakdancing on the Moon.
Posts: 898

Thank you, I was wondering about dur (an obvious cognate) but couldn't work out what the full sense would be since I was expecting something else.
World Focker is offline  
Reply

  Historum > World History Forum > Asian History

Tags
1707, emperor, mughal, muhammad, opinion, shah, worst



Search tags for this page
Thread Tools
Display Modes


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
The Worst Roman Emperor? Salah Ancient History 62 July 21st, 2013 05:53 PM
AHC: Dara Shikoh, Mughal Emperor: Underlankers Speculative History 0 March 24th, 2013 05:40 PM
The worst Roman Emperor jeroenrottgering Ancient History 44 April 8th, 2012 09:38 PM
Rome's Worst Emperor? (Version II) Salah Ancient History 87 April 22nd, 2011 01:52 AM
Mughal Emperor Aurangzeb: Bad Ruler Or Bad History? . mughal Asian History 3 March 18th, 2011 03:25 PM

Copyright © 2006-2013 Historum. All rights reserved.