• naught101@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    5
    ·
    3 days ago

    Makes me wonder if there would have been much less internal political violence if these had been kept separate?

    I guess the same thing could probably be said of the US…

    • SnokenKeekaGuard@lemmy.dbzer0.comOP
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      5
      ·
      3 days ago

      No no. Someone was always trying to take control over the whole continent all the time. The Mughals were good administrators for most of their era.

      Having them take over meant there were less of the ambitious but unimpressive empires acting up every year.

      Mughals bought about some stability and really enriched India (and themselves). At a point they held 25% of the worlds GDP!

      Its VERY likely that Akbar was the richest man in history too. Just that the difference bw state and personal income we don’t know for them and hence can’t say for certain.

      • 0_o7@lemmy.dbzer0.com
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        3 days ago

        At a point they held 25% of the worlds GDP!

        That’s more likely a thing the British made up to promote East India as a mythical, historical and spiritual place to drive in investments and maybe tourism.

        It’s also hilarious when Indians use British historians to show pride when they say outlandish good things (mostly unproven) or maps depicting the region and then shut down any arguments when they say bad things calling them invaders and biased and such.

        It’s almost like you can’t trust both.

      • fakeman_pretendname@feddit.uk
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        4
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        edit-2
        3 days ago

        Akbar helped bring about such stability, because he could always tell if something was a trap.

        (Sorry, I’m sure you get tired of Akbar jokes)