Talk:Mughal Empire

Please correct or remove the map

The map placed in the article is very inaccurate. It shows parts of modern day Nepal under Mughal Empire. There is no mention of the states, which merged to form modern Nepal, of being under Mughal Empire in any of the historical literature. I would like to request the regular editors of this article to either cite the source of this map or remove this map from the article if there is no source of such a malacious original research. Thanks--Eukesh (talk) 19:10, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

Please remove map as it shows irrelevant data to appease somebody's self-blasted ego. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.56.93.152 (talk) 21:23, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

The map of the Mughal Empire doesn't seem to show it's right extent. The map shown says that this extent was around 1700, but during this time Aurangzeb was engrossed in the 27 years war against the Marathas. Although Aurangzeb was able to bring down the Bijapur and Golconda Empires, he still was not able to contain the Marathas. He at that time was in the Deccan, but hadn't had any significant gains against the Marathas. In contrast, Marathas were running riot through the Mughal army under Santaji Ghorpade and Dhanaji Jadhav. A place can be shown as an extent of an empire if the concerned Empire has total control of the region, which is not the case here. This map should be replaced by a more appropriate one. ThanksKesangh (talk) 07:08, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

Mughals ? Imperialists ?

I have removed the use of the term "imperial power" in the very first definition of Mughal Empire. How do you define imperialism ? Unlike British who were the imperialists, Mughals weren't ruling this nation to prospere their "home state". Most of the Indian subcontinent was theirs. And they were an empire like the Mauryas, Marathas or Guptas. Would you call all these kingdom states as imperialists ? Its a wrong defintion of imperialism.

Mughals claimed themselves as emperors. I don't find any thing wrong in referring Mughals as imperialists. I don't even object calling Mauryas and Guptas as imperialists. Kumarsarma (talk) 07:18, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

"Imperial" is simply the adjective relating to the noun "empire". Anything that relates to an empire can therefore legitimately be described as "imperial", whether it's a military adventure, a customs policy, or a postal system. Jonathandore (talk) 12:59, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

Hi Its wrong to call Baburs empir to Mughuls its Timururis Empir such they call hemself. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Alisherr (talk • contribs) 12:34, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Population

"Its population at that time has been estimated as between 110 and 130 million" How is this possible? Okay, population sizes have been increasing but to state that the entire population of the Indian subcontinent was this low sounds totally absurd. I hope someone can look this up. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Studentthoughts (talk • contribs) 17:03, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

Image:Mugals.JPG

File:Mughals.JPG

map in dispute

It seems that the picture created of the Mughal Empire is incorrect. It is anachronistic and the boundaries shown extend further than they actually were. For example when the Mughals made a southern push into Andhra, several of the Northern parts had been lost to the Marathas and the Sikhs. Although the Nizam of Hyderabad and the Nawabs of the Carnatic had Mughal origins (later to become independant), the Mysore Kingdom of Hyder Ali and Tippu Sultan were not connected to the Mughals (Hyder Ali having come from a poor background rose to prominence in the Mysore Army). Although they established Muslim kingdoms, they were not Mughals. The Nizam of Hyderabad and Nawab of Carnatic territories can be added to the image provided that the date is before when they achieved independence. To do otherwise would be like including the map of India and parts of the United States on a map of the current British Territories. Furthermore, the southward push of the Mughals did not reach further than Bangalore (in the image the extent is shown as far as Trissur where the Mughals never even stepped foot in, where even Tippu Sultan barely reached). The common procedure in making images of empires is to represent the greatest extent of the empire at a given time (in this case would be under the rule of Aurangzeb). I think this would be the most historically accurate and unbiased depiction. See here for an example http://www.knowledgerush.com/wiki_image/1/16/Mughal_empire.pngNizaat (talk) 22:26, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

the map has been removed [1]. I make no comment on whether it was adequate or not, or on whether the map is accurate or not. --Enric Naval (talk) 22:16, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

This map is correct. It shows Mughal Empire at its greatest extent under Aurangzeb. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 119.73.1.23 (talk) 10:47, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

The article describes no maternal ancestry!!!

The Article does not delve into the ancestry of the mughals from their mothers side. It is only right to describe their maternal ties also. only a small reference is given, Their ancestry should also have a section, minor as it may be. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Wardock (talk • contribs) 05:38, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

This comment seems to be about the emperors, and not the empire. If you wanted to add some general info on the emperors' mothers, the place to do it might be at List of Mughal emperors (a page which has become more than a list and may need renaming). To add info on a particular emperor's mother, the place to add it is surely on the page for the emperor. Umar Zulfikar Khan (talk) 11:36, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

Missing information in Early History

The Early History section reads like it is missing a few paragraphs at the start: The first sentence is:

Babur's son Humayun succeeded him in 1530 but suffered major reversals at the hands of the Pashtun Sher Shah Suri and effectively lost most of the fledgling empire before it could grow beyond a minor regional state.

There is nothing about who Babur (the founder of the Mughal empire) is--a strange omission from a section that is called "Early History". The sentence indicates that it probably originally followed a discourse on Babur. My guess is that somehow this information was deleted from the page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.232.56.167 (talk) 14:50, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

Some IP deleted it here in 25 January with no explanation. I have restored it --Enric Naval (talk) 22:05, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

Should the name of Dawar Bakhsh be inserted in the table of Emperors? However brief and tragic his "reign", he seems to have been part of the pattern. Incidentally, in the Wikipedia stub on Dawar, the alternative spelling 'Moghul' is used. Ombudswiki (talk) 11:43, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

Nawabs of Amb

The family of the Nawabs of Amb have long history of rule over the former Amb State also known as Mulk e Tanawul in pre-british rule documents, which is now a part of the NWFP, Pakistan. They are said to be descendants of Barlas tribe of the Mughals and this has been mentioned in many historical books, for example; The Asiatic Journal and Monthly Register for British and Foreign India, China, and Australia (1841), in the following words; "There is one chief who, though not an Eusofzye, yet from his position in the midst of, and intimate connection with, the Eusofzyes, and his singular history and character, must not be omitted in a description of the Eusofzye country. Paieendah Khan, of Tanawul, is a Mogul of the Birlas tribe, the same from which the Ameer Timoor was descended. All record of the first settlement in Tanawul of his family is lost, and it has long ago broken off all connection with the other branches of the Birlas, which are still to be found in Turkestan." (The Asiatic Journal and Monthly Register for British and Foreign India, China, and Australia Published by Parbury, Allen, and Co., 1841, Item notes: v. 39, Original from the New York Public Library, Digitized 1 Apr 2008, pg 220-224)

I believe this article must include these notable families which have Birlas descent, in what ever way it may look appropriate.Wikitanoli (talk) 06:39, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

Mughals today?

Sorry to add to this long talk page, but is there any information on what happened to the Mughals after they lost power? Are they still extant today? If so, how many exist? Are they influential in Indian politics in any way? Are they equal to the Mughal (tribe)? Brutannica (talk) 00:00, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

v —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.70.226.55 (talk) 14:58, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

Mughal empire map

Could someone help me find a map image that correctly represents the Mughal empire at it's fullest during the reign of Aurangzeb, something like this [2] or this [3], in it's current image is not even half the actual size in the 18th century. Khokhar (talk) 10:10, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

Inaccurate flag Inaccurate Turkish name

The yellow crescent flag that is shown on this page is highly anachronistic. The Mughal Empire had no real flag one now expects all political entitites to have. If a flag is to be shown for the Mughals, it should be their fish banner, similar to the fish emblem of the Nawabs of Awadh that one sees throughout Mughal miniatures depicting Mughal armies. In the same way that the Roman Empire had no real flag, but perhaps could be represented by their eagle standard, so the Mughal Empire could be symbolized by the fish banner, although personally I find it highly unneccessary, and quite frankly misleading.

An encyclopedia should inform its readers of the truth, not give them versions of the truth that the reader is expecting. That is to say, just because someone wants to know what the Mughal flag looks like, doesn't mean we should give them the closest approximation to a flag. Instead we should simply note that there was no standard symbolism used by the Mugahls.

As for the name in Turkish (Babur imparatorlugu) this is a completely unnecessary and anachronistic addition. Imparatorlugu is a 20th Century MODERN Turkish word coined to mimic the European word Empire. It would NEVER have been used by the Mughals who spoke CHAGHTAI Turkish of the 16th-17th century. I don't know why a modern Anatolian Turkish term for the Mughal Empire should be placed on this page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ahassan05 (talk • contribs) 22:27, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

The Mughals did indeed use flags, ,Abu Fazl in Plate 19 of H Blochmann's edition of Volume I Ain-i-Akbari actually shows the Mughal flag with a sun insignia and in yet another source in Page 10 of Francis Robinson's The Mughal Emperors and the Islamic Dynasties of India,Iran and Central Asia,where Dara Shikoh's wedding procession is shown the Shir o Korshid is clearly shown with the lion sitting in front of the sun in typical Irani fashion,here is the image that I am referring to:

[4]

a close up of the flag from Francis Robinson's book on the Mughal emperors:

[5]

maybe you missed this miniature which clearly shows a flag?

I hope that someone changes the flag soon to reflect these historical sources and not nationalism (which I suspect is the source of the current flag on Wikipedia)

If a 2D artist can be contacted on wikipedia then this historically inaccuracy of the Mughal flag in Wikipedia can be corrected.

--82.35.46.171 (talk) 01:37, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

Disputing Neutrality under Mughal influence on the Indian Subcontinent

This section presents a very biased tone in favour of the mughal empire and its rule over the subcontinent.

Words used in terms such as splendid palaces, fruitful blending and remarkable flowering.

This section presents no negative factors of Mughal rule.

Sentences such as : resources unparalleled in the history of the Subcontinent negates any earlier, and previous achievements of the indigenous people and overall gives a feeling of positivity.

The section should be re-structured and re-written so as to include references aswell as a more neutral tone. It also presents irrelevant and useless "tidbits of information" on islamic dynasty and such lines as these :

"Mughal rulers themselves were extraordinary patrons of art, whose intellectual caliber and cultural outlook was expressed in the most refined taste"

- are extremely biased.

It fails to give any indication of negative effects such as, imperialistic taxes aswell as civil unrest caused by the, then, foriegners.

Ncwys (talk) 06:45, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

'WP:BOLD, if you see something wrong fix it yourself. All that you've mentioned is correct; much of the information is extremely biased. I will support you in your changes. --Afghana ^[talk] 07:21, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

Ok, thank you. I will edit accordingly. I though it best to let other people know my views beforehand to mitigate any feelings of hostility, because I was changing it.Ncwys (talk) 22:54, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

That's fine, thank you very much for your concern. Generally what editors will do for controversial changes is that they will make the change and then make a section on the talk page discussing the changes and why they made them, therefore allowing other editors to comment. --Afghana ^[talk] 04:39, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

I have edited and taken a few "chunks" out. Several links were irrelevant and unnecessary, and possibly misleading so they too are gone. For the removal of "collectively known...urban settings of pakistan", I though this was needed as hindustani can refer to several things within indian culture and so, again referencing to bollywood and pakistan is rather a hindrance.

Secondly pulled down "Which all introduced notable changes to subcontinentel society and culture", to the bottom to avoid any confusion with the ordering of the text.

Removed the "remarkable flowering of art and architecture" -- personal tone.

"They once" -- changed to mughals.

Also, question : what's "His successors, with fewer memories of the Central Asian homeland he pined for, took a less prejudiced view of cultures of the Subcontinent" referring to ? Who is he ?Ncwys (talk) 05:57, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

I believe Babur, due to his writing being filled with his sorrow of being away from Central Asia. --Afghana ^[talk] 07:30, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

Lahore

Maybe I have a poor understanding of a capital. But how is Lahore a capital of the Mughals? In the Mughal studies class I took Lahore was never mentioned as a capital. Read the book The Rise and Fall of the Mughals one of the most read books of the Mughals never metioned Lahore as a capital. It clearly made ref to Agra and Delhi. (Dewan 16:33, 17 August 2009 (UTC))

Please stop adding your POV to this article and stop removing valid images and replacing them with images related to India Shalimar gardens in Lahore are by far the largest complex of gardens made by the Mughals not the one in Indian-occupued Kashmir 86.158.234.4 (talk) 14:39, 22 August 2009 (UTC)