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


View Poll Results: Aurangzeb is very cruel king ?
Yes 31 72.09%
No 12 27.91%
Voters: 43. You may not vote on this poll

Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Display Modes
Old December 2nd, 2015, 11:59 PM   #1

ashfaqkinqz's Avatar
Archivist
 
Joined: Nov 2015
From: Qatar
Posts: 157
Aurangzeb The Cruel King of his times r The Great Emperor at his times


Hi friends ,

Always while coming to the Auranzeb news there is always two different types of news are there +ve n -ve

1) He is very cruel and bloodshed ruler at his times , he demolished 1000 s of temples killed 1,50,000 brahmins ,converted many hindus to muslims .

2) He is great emporer at his times ,he never concentrated to demolish the temples it is only political issues under this ,he never hatred to hindus . He has very good administrative policies.
ashfaqkinqz is offline  
Remove Ads
Old December 3rd, 2015, 03:41 AM   #2
Historian
 
Joined: Jul 2014
From: world
Posts: 1,240

Aurangzeb was the last of the great Mughals. In his lifetime he killed his own brothers. He radicalised the Sikhs and alienated the Rajputs all the while draining the treasury and million strong army in the deccan wars. The mughal empire and army was so weakened during his long rule that it took marathas only 20 years to overtake mughals as the strongest power in India after his death.

In my opinion he was a religious and pious man and of course a very able general but he was the worst of all the emperor. His fanaticm doomed the empire.
songtsen is offline  
Old December 3rd, 2015, 03:59 AM   #3

ashfaqkinqz's Avatar
Archivist
 
Joined: Nov 2015
From: Qatar
Posts: 157

Quote:
Originally Posted by songtsen View Post
Aurangzeb was the last of the great Mughals. In his lifetime he killed his own brothers. He radicalised the Sikhs and alienated the Rajputs all the while draining the treasury and million strong army in the deccan wars. The mughal empire and army was so weakened during his long rule that it took marathas only 20 years to overtake mughals as the strongest power in India after his death.

In my opinion he was a religious and pious man and of course a very able general but he was the worst of all the emperor. His fanaticm doomed the empire.
Heard as he religious banned music n alcohol.
Is that made him to mass conversions n demolishing temples??
ashfaqkinqz is offline  
Old December 3rd, 2015, 04:22 AM   #4
Historian
 
Joined: Jul 2014
From: world
Posts: 1,240

He banned music and dancing. He demolished temples and reintroduced Jaziya tax. He started a pointless war against Muslim Deccan sultanates which he won but ironically inherted the maratha problem. He executed the Sikh Gurus and inadvertantly transformed the sikhs into a militant antimuslim fanatics. He alienated the Rajputs by temple destruction and pointless insults.
songtsen is offline  
Old December 3rd, 2015, 07:27 AM   #5
Historian
 
Joined: Nov 2012
Posts: 3,844

I voted no by mistake. Dont know how to change this. Please help moderators or admin.
greatstreetwarrior is offline  
Old December 4th, 2015, 01:17 AM   #6

Rajeev's Avatar
Scholar
 
Joined: Oct 2015
From: India
Posts: 510

Quote:
Originally Posted by ashfaqkinqz View Post
Hi friends ,

Always while coming to the Auranzeb news there is always two different types of news are there +ve n -ve

1) He is very cruel and bloodshed ruler at his times , he demolished 1000 s of temples killed 1,50,000 brahmins ,converted many hindus to muslims .

2) He is great emporer at his times ,he never concentrated to demolish the temples it is only political issues under this ,he never hatred to hindus . He has very good administrative policies.
Dear All,

While Aurangzeb’s ancestors (Babar to Shahjahan) have left an official record of their rule, Aurangzeb dismissed the court-historians saying they are not required.



For his reign the most comprehensive – an in my view most reliable record – has been left by Niccolao Manucci (NM). NM was an Italian, landed in Surat (Gujarat, India) in 1656 at the age of about 17 years, when Shahjahan was the Emperor. He lived in India thru the reign of Shahjahan and also complete reign of Aurangzeb (-1707), dying around 1717 at an age of 78 years in/near Chennai (Tamil Nadu, India). NM was employed for most of these years in Mughals or their allies – either as a gunner or doctor.


His was a contemporary of Aurangzeb, he lived for 61 years in India, and wrote his memories in four volumes which are available online for free.



[1] Niccolao Manucci - bdbiography.com
[2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Niccolao_Manucci
Rajeev is offline  
Old December 4th, 2015, 02:59 AM   #7

rvsakhadeo's Avatar
Historian
 
Joined: Sep 2012
From: India
Posts: 8,042

The cruelty with which he ordered the torture and then ordered the killing of Sambhaji, Maratha King and brave but wastrel son of the great Maratha King, Chhatrapati Shivaji is a case in point.
In spite of the killing of Sambhaji, he simply could not subdue the Marathas, who resisted his vast army camped in the Deccan, with guerrilla tactics. This war went on for nearly 20 years. He died here in the Deccan at Aurangabad, in the present state of Maharashtra.See here.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sambhaji

Last edited by rvsakhadeo; December 4th, 2015 at 03:09 AM.
rvsakhadeo is offline  
Old December 4th, 2015, 03:35 AM   #8

Azad67's Avatar
Scholar
 
Joined: Aug 2014
From: pakistan
Posts: 811

Quote:
Originally Posted by rvsakhadeo View Post
The cruelty with which he ordered the torture and then ordered the killing of Sambhaji, Maratha King and brave but wastrel son of the great Maratha King, Chhatrapati Shivaji is a case in point.
In spite of the killing of Sambhaji, he simply could not subdue the Marathas, who resisted his vast army camped in the Deccan, with guerrilla tactics. This war went on for nearly 20 years. He died here in the Deccan at Aurangabad, in the present state of Maharashtra.See here.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sambhaji
Sambhaji, unlike his father, lacked morals and principles and carried out indiscriminate slaughter of muslim civilians. Even then Aurangzeb had no intention of murdering him, but he started calling names to Holy Prophet p.b.u.h in front of him, the sentence of which was death.
Azad67 is offline  
Old December 4th, 2015, 03:40 AM   #9
Historian
 
Joined: Dec 2014
From: autobahn
Posts: 1,344

Quote:
Originally Posted by Azad67 View Post
Sambhaji, unlike his father, lacked morals and principles and carried out indiscriminate slaughter of muslim civilians. Even then Aurangzeb had no intention of murdering him, but he started calling names to Holy Prophet p.b.u.h in front of him, the sentence of which was death.
In other words, he behaved like every other mughal.
killerargo is offline  
Old December 4th, 2015, 04:01 AM   #10

tornada's Avatar
Wind Lord
 
Joined: Mar 2013
From: India
Posts: 15,156
Blog Entries: 2

Quote:
Originally Posted by Azad67 View Post
Sambhaji, unlike his father, lacked morals and principles and carried out indiscriminate slaughter of muslim civilians. Even then Aurangzeb had no intention of murdering him, but he started calling names to Holy Prophet p.b.u.h in front of him, the sentence of which was death.
Aurangzeb's behavior with Shivaji wasn't exactly kosher either. He had the chance to turn Shivaji into a loyal ally and subordinate after the treaty of Purandar, which Jai Singh had worked extremely hard to bring about. Instead he let his arrogance and desire to put the Rajputs "in their place" ruin a treaty plunging his empire into a conflict which would sap its resources and be the cause of its downfall.

Had Aurangzeb instead been conciliatory and dignified as was required of him, and in the traditions of his great grandfather, and put his empire's interests ahead of his own ego, history would likely have been very different.

Aurangzeb was most certainly a proud man with strict and rigid notions of personal discipline. He was an excellent general. But a great statesman and ruler he was not. His policies provoked eminently wealthy communities into revolt, and his policies ruined the ability of the Mughals to control the Deccan. Meanwhile he did little to fundamentally improve the situation at home. Aurangzeb was the scion of great ruler (or atleast one great ruler) and recipient of a vast and powerful legacy. But he himself was not great in any sense of the word. He certainly wasn't blindingly incompetent like say a Caligula, but he was at best an average ruler, and to most people well below the standard of a good one.
tornada is offline  
Reply

  Historum > World History Forum > Asian History

Tags
aurangzeb, cruel, emperor, great, king, times



Search tags for this page
Thread Tools
Display Modes


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Ethnic composition of Muslim nobility under Mughal emperor Aurangzeb Azad67 Asian History 2 July 27th, 2015 06:01 AM
Did someone filter or screen messages to the king in medieval times? Otis Medieval and Byzantine History 11 March 26th, 2015 08:45 AM
What if Dara Shikoh became the Mughal emperor instead of Aurangzeb greatstreetwarrior Asian History 35 February 9th, 2015 07:52 PM
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.