Lloyd Knapp
There are a few simmilaritites and differences between the two rulers
and their governments. Both rulers seem like would be very proud and strick,
but neither seems like the friendly type. The Ottoman government seems
as if it is ready to do battle, whereas the Safavids seems as if they are
being forced into it. It seems as if both of the ruler's citizens respect
them. Over all they seem more simmilar then dissimmilar to me, although
they do have differences.
Kelly Roe
After reading through our latest selection on the Ottomans and Safavids,
it was obvious to me that although they were long time sectarian as well
as political rivals, they seemed to operate in a similar manner. For one,
both had highly centralized administrations where the sultan acted as the
supreme political, religious, and military ruler subject only to divine
law. Like that of the Safavids, Ottoman rulers placed the major provinces
under appointed governors who ruled for about two years at a time. Like
that of the Mamluks, both the Ottomans and Safavids used the system of
capitulations which allowed foreign Christians living in the empire to
freedom of activity and exemption from taxes and laws. Also alike in both
societies was the fact that state lands were given as payments or rewards
to officials or army officers for a specific time after which the lands
reverted to the crown to be parceled out agian at the pleasure of the court.
Like the Ottoman sultans, Safavid ! rulers encouraged writers to immortalize
their military and political achievments in long histories and biographies.
Therefore it was obvious to me that even though the Ottomans and Safavids
were complete rivals and competed in the way that each society was run,
both were actually operated in several of the same ways.
Carrie Shaver
While there were marked differences between the Ottoman and Safavid
rulers and their systems of government, there were also similarities. Both
nations followed Islam, however, there ended the similarity. The Ottoman
Empire was based upon the orthodox Sunni Islam, while the Safavids government
subscribed to Shi'i Islam, sects of Islam that were radically different
from one another. Both Empires appointed govenors to rule over provinces
of the nation, usually for a period of two years. The hierarchy of the
governments differed. The Safavid Empire reinforced strict lines of command,
rank and class, while the Ottoman Empire allowed for upward movement of
men within the administration, dependent on demonstration of ability and
worthiness. This same rigidness and flexibility was demonstrated by the
ruling governments in their treatment of conquered nations. Safavids sought
to retain and reinforce their own language and customs, while Ottomans
accepted diversity within the Em! pire. Revenue for both the Empires was
obtained through taxation and trade. Unable to focus on their similarities,
rather than their differences, the Ottomans and the Safavids expended resources
and energies fighting one another and leaving themselves open to attack
from the outside.
Jake Fielek
Suleiman the magnificent was a very exulted figure in the Ottoman Empire.
His power and grace were seen by both his subjects and anyone who encountered
him. As a Sultan he was very successful, he achieved a stable government
through military conquest and by allowing religious and cultural freedom
among his subjects. Although the majority of his kingdom was sunni muslim,
he did not try to impose this way of life on the jewish and christian minorities
in his empire. The only position in his government that was denied these
minorities was that of the Sultan. Muhammad Baki wrote a beautiful poem
about the sultan, showing that Suleiman was seen in a positive light (probably
a credit to his loose reign). Suleiman also strongly encouraged poetry
such as this which glorified the Empire. Another way in which he achieved
this was through the encouragement of the the arts, such as textiles, arcitecture
and most of all poetry. Aside from encouragement, he also wrote his own
poe! try which he gave to his beloved wife, Hurrem Haseki. Also Sinan was
commissioned to build many mosques, hospitals, shops, baths and cemeteries
in his kingdom. Suleiman was very invested in making his empire the most
glorious world. Suleiman had many military conquests, he was able to develop
an alliance with France which would eventually allow him to capture Belgrade.
At the peak of his reign,he was able to expand his empire to cover almost
all of the land sorrounding the Mediterranean Sea, modern day Egypt, and
a large portion surrounding the Red Sea. Unfortunately Suleiman did not
leave his powerful empire to a compatant successor. Eventually through
poor rule and a long drawn out war with Safavids the Empire would collapse.
The Safavid empire was most succesfully ruled by Abbas the Great. Abbas
was a Shi'i muslim unlike the Sunni Ottomans. This was the main cause of
the war between the Persians and the Ottomans. Unlike Suleiman and the
Ottomans, Abbas and the Safavids believed in a more unified empire, which
spoke a common language and practiced a common culture. The Safavids did
not emphasize military expansion, they favored the control of the trade
routes as a means of gaining power. Rather than try to conquer other lands,
they would produce their goods and send them to other countries for exposure
and sales. This eventually made the city of Isfahan a busy city at the
center of the trade world. Through a letter from the Safavid empire to
the Ottoman empire, hostility is seen. The Ottomans hostility seems more
overt than that of the Safavid. The Safavid Shah seems more interested
in beating the Ottomans financially rather than Militarily. Although there
were many diference between thes! e two empires, they both believed in
encouraging the arts. Both were muslim but other differences made a gap
between both of these powerful empires that would eventually destroy them
both.
Amelia Mayhew
The Ottoman and Safavids had much in common. Both had put great empisis
on the arts, especially poetry. Also architexture and the fine arts were
held in high regard in both empires. Both Suleiman and Sha Ismal left behind
a strong empire to less then suitable heirs to the kingdom. In both of
the empires if the ruler was strong then he had complete control, but less
suitable rulers often bowed down to the nobles of sort in the empire. The
Ottoman empire was a multi cultural empire. They did not make everyone
speak the same language or practice the same religion. They focused on
"cultural pulrisim." Whereas the Safavaid empire focused seperating
identies.
Patrick Saltzgaber
Sulieman was a very strong ruler that was either feared or held in
high respect by everyone. His empire profited from turmoil in Europe and
dynastic rivalries along with international trade. Sulieman was a sucessful
military commander and a clever diplomat. These traits come from his constant
interest in expansion and his political alliance with France. Sulieman
did not have a sucessor to the throne, this was due to the fact that his
wife talked him into killing his favorite and more able son. In the Ottoman
Empire the Sultan is the supreme political, religious, and military ruler,
subject only to the divine law. Below the Sultan are the Grand Vizier,the
divan, and the administration. These people were responsible for the political
and economic administration. They were choosendue to land ownership and
booty collected during their military campaigns. The bureaucrats were also
responsible for anything from translation to the supervision of the Royal
Palace of Topkapi.The admin! istration was financed through the expansion
of the empire and through taxation. Along with Sulieman the first ten rulers
of the Ottomans were personally in charge military and governmental policy.
Lastly, Ottoman rulers placed all provinces under the rule of govenors
for periods of ten years.
The Safavids rulers were very much alike and different from the Ottomans. The Ottoman rulers sought many new cultural styles and let all people retain their languages and beliefs. While the Safavids maintained and reinforced the separate identity of Persian society and language. The Safavid empire reached its highest piont under Shah Abbas. He like Sulieman did not have an heir to the throne because he had three of his five sons killed. In the Safavid empire when the central authority was strong the local chiefs were not and when the central authority was weak the local chiefs became more prominent. One of Shah Abbas first moves was to curb the influence of the local chiefs. Like the Ottomans the Safavids divided their land into provinces. Also like the Ottomans the main source of wealth came from taxes, land, and commerce. Abbas encouraged trade and was also known for his tolerance with minorities. This tolerance for minorities helped expand trade and that led to more land and the eventual control of all of Iran.
Overall both Sulieman the Magnificent and Shah Abbas were strong rulers that cared for their empires. Both held the power but at the same time were fair. They helped their empires in their own respective ways.
James Blackburn
Although I feel the texts provide an inadequate amount of information
I must side with these two rulers and their systems of government as being
fairly similar. Mis-understanding and confusion in the text may also be
a variable to my conclusion. In the "Busbecq" text, the Turks
are recognized by the other as being remarkably disciplined and praiseworthy.
Because there was no sign of disagreement between the groups in any of
the texts, they must hold similar views. The "Baki" text provides
the impression that these types of government were quite powerful and strict
as assumed from this sentence: "The infidels of Hungary bowed their
heads to the temper of his blade." On the contrtary the last text,
"Shah Ismail," mentions how these two empires were almost continually
at a state of war with each other. Now this could be because they have
different views on how they want the land to be ruled. This idea is never
really portrayed in the article, so I think the sole reason for their fighting
was for power and control over land.
Mike Hirst
The ruler the Ottoman's was Suleiman The Magnificant. The Safavid Empire
was founded by Shah Isma'il who ruled from 1500-1524, but it didn't reach
its high point until Shah Abbas The Great took over. The Ottomans viewed
themselves as guardians of Islam, and the military might of their empire
as the sword of Islam. The chief rival of the Ottoman's in the Muslim world
was the Safavid Empire. The Ottoman's were based upon Orthodox Sunni Islam,
and the Safavids were the Shi'i Islams.Both Suleiman the Magnificant and
Shah Abbas the Great left no able successor's to their thrones. One difference
between the two Empires is that the Ottomans allowed diversity and didn't
force their subjects to obtain their views and beliefs. While the Safavids
maintained and reinforced the separate identity of Persian society and
language. In the Ottoman Empire some citizens of different racial backgrounds
were able to reach the highest levels of society, and some even advised
the Sultan. The admi! nistration of both empires were highly centralized.
The Sultan of the Ottoman Empire acted as the supreme political,religious,
and military ruler, subject only to the divine law. Below him was the grand
vizier and the imperial council which were responsible for both political
and economic administration. There were many bureaucrats drawn from prestige
based on success of military campaigns. Ottomans didn't have a firm tradition
of primogeniture. Both empires appointed governors who ruled the major
provinces one trait different from the Ottoman's was that the Safavid government
was organized along fuedal lines, thus official aquired fiefs from the
Shah in return for services to the central government. The Shi'i clergy
had considerable power in the empire, and the Shahs depended on Ghulams,
or the slave elites. as it doesn't say the Ottomans depended on slaves.
Thomas Maliszewski
The Sultan of the Ottoman Empire seemed ot rule his military with great
discipline and respect for one another. In the selection on p. 355-6, Busbecq
states that to his great surprise was the silence and good discipline of
the Sultan's military, and that at times thought "...for a while it
was doubtful whether they were living men or statues." The Sultan
acted as the supreme political, religious and military ruler, and was subject
only to divine law. (Upshur, 357) The Safavid Empire was organized along
feudal lines, and officials acquired fiefs from the shah in return for
services to the central government. (Upshur, 360) The Ottoman administration
was higly complex and required a multitude of bureaucrats, drawn from an
elite whose prestige was based on the ownership of land given by the Ottoman
to them. The Safavids also utilized this practice of giving govenment lands
as rewards to officials and army officers. Both the Ottomans and Safavids
divided up its territory into provinces, in which they were ruled by governers,
and in both systems, the central government tried to maintain as much authorty
in order to gaurd against greedy local rulers. However there was a difference
in how the two systems dealt with the diversity of different provinces.
The Safavids tried to keep a uniform population with common religion, beliefs,
language, they wanted to maintain the separate identity of their society
and language. The Ottomans, on the other hand, took pride in thier diversity
and allowed those with different religions and languages to keep practicing
their native traditions. Both of the great rulers, the Ottoman's Sultan
the Magnificant, and the Safavid's, Shah Abbas the Great, left no capable
heir to the throne. After their respective deaths, both empires struggled
until a capable leader took over. A fundamental difference between the
two systems, was the type of Islamic religion they were based on. The Safavids
were based on Shi'i Islam instead of the Ottomans orthodox Sunni Islam.
Both the Ottomans and the Safavids collected taxes, and along with their
great expanses of land, were the major sources of wealth for the Empires.
It seems as though both rulers and societies were different on several
fundamental issues, they both had a respect for the other and realized
the other's power. This was exemplified in the selection on p. 360, when
in the letter the Shah states how he feels about the Sultans actions in
a respectful way, yet still makes a strong point on how he feels about
the situation between the two nations.
Curtis Lewis
After reading the selections and the text on the Ottomans and Safavids,
I have concluded that there were similarities and differences between the
two empires. First of all, it would be fair to say that the personality
of the ruler at the time played a very important part of the overall characteristics
of the empire. For example, you had Sultan Selim who was the leader of
the Ottaman empire from 1512-1520 and throughout those years the Ottamans
basically took a lot of expansion ideas from the Safavid empire. They were
the more aggressive empire at the time. In the letter that Shah Isma'il
the leader of the Safavid empire wrote to the Ottaman empire demonstrates
the less aggressive attitude of the Safavid's. He was basically saying
that he didn't really understand why the Ottaman empire was so hostile
against their empire. He thought that they had a fairly decent relationship.
Whether this was an act of deceit by Shah is yet to be told, this statement
represented the more diplomatic attitude of the Safavid empire. I am not
by any means saying that the Safavid's were not aggresive,beacuse they
were; in order to expand like they ! did they had to be aggressors. The
Ottoman and the Safavid empires operated their empires in similar fashion.
They both operated their system of government like a monarchy, having a
very centralized type of system. The ruler at the time had full responsibilty
of all governing bodies. They also had bureaucrats, who were elected by
prestige based on ownership of land.(Upshur 367) The two empires also had
similar culturals. They both were highly artistic societies; art, music,
literature and architecture were all very important to their people. A
lot of things that occurred in the two empires were centered around those
customs. The Ottoman empire were more diversed than the Safavid empire.
The Ottoman empire didn't force their people to change their religious
beliefs and/or their culture making the empire a diversed one. When the
Ottaman expanded into a new territory they became the new rulers of that
area but not necessary of the people. On the contrary, the Safavid empire
took control of the area! and its people. Another important difference
that I belived provoked such a rivalry was the difference in their religious
beliefs. The Ottoman empire were Sunni Orthodox Islam, and the Safavid
empire were under the practice of Shi'i Islam. The two empires among their
differences had mutual respect for each other because of their economic
and political strength. One never during their time of dominance never
really completely dominated the other. I have come to the conclusion that
these were two empires with very similar beliefs and objectives but very
distinct ways of accomplishing their goals.
Kelly Colombo
Although much of the time at war, both the Ottoman and the Safavid
empires were very strong and influential societies in early middle eastern
history. Both had strong central governments and also believed that the
arts were an important facet in society, but also differed in religion
and tolerance of cultural diversity. Both the Ottoman and Safavid empires
had strong central governments, with one chief person as its head. The
leader of the Ottoman Empire was the Sultan, one of the most famous and
successful being Sultan Suleiman the Magnificent, who ruled from 1520-1566.
The head of the Safavid Empire was the Shah, one of the most influential
being Shah Abbas the Great, who reined from 1587-1629. In both societies,
the sultan and the shah were considered to be great rulers and supreme
law of the land. Both the Ottoman and Safavid empires divided their lands
into provinces, which were ruled by governors. The Ottoman government required
a multitude of bureaucrats, and was very dependent on the army, who was
responsible for much of the empire's success and conquests. The grand vizier
and the divan (council) were directly under the Sultan and often served
as royal advisors to the Sultan himself. The Safavid Empire was organized
under feudal lines, where "fiets" from the shah were given to
those in return for services to the central government. The Shah was also
dependent on the ghulams, or slave elite. Also in Safavid society the mullahs,
Shi'i clergy, were held in high esteem by the Shah. The Ottoman and Safavid
empires are also similar in the fact that they held the arts as very important
in their societies. Arts in Ottoman culture "started at the top",
for all of the Sultans were each required to learn an art or craft such
as writing, poetry, or even training to be a goldsmith. Both the Ottoman
Sultan and the Safavid Shah encouraged writers to write about their military
and political accomplishments. One very significant difference between
the Ottomans and the Safavids was religion. The Ottomans were Sunni Islam
while the Safavids were Shi'i Islam. They were often at war because of
this difference in beliefs. Another significant difference between the
two empires deals with acceptance of cultural diversity. As their empires
began to expand and new people were taken under their rule, the Sultans
and Shahs differed in their views on what culture was to be assimilated,
and what cultures were to be left alone. The Ottomans believed in cultural
pluralism and they believed that the cultures of the people under their
rule should be allowed to exist together. They advocated the millet system,
which was one of cultural acceptance. The millet system allowed religious
and ethnic minorities to participate in their own culture (including educational,
religious, and judicial institutions) in return for an added tax. The Safavids
on the other hand preferred the Shai'i religion and Persian culture to
be the dominate culture of the empire. They were not very tolerant of cultural
diversity, and forced their subjects to assimilate to the one dominant
Persian culture. Although they were both similar and different in many
ways, the societies of both the Ottoman and Safavid culture remain influential
today. Their strong systems of government allowed for them to become powerful
empires. Eventually it was their constant warfare that led to both empires'
demise.
Melissa Blumer
I found that there were more similarities than differences between
the two rulers. Both were strong patrons of the arts and practiced relative
religious tolerance throughout their kingdom. Both Suleiman and Shah Abbas
were highly educated leaders who enjoyed poetry. Both kingdom became famous
for beautiful and elaborate architecture, such as the Shah Mosque in Isfahan
under Safavid rule, and the Selimiye Mosque in Edirne under Ottoman rule.
The Ottoman empire was run by Sunni muslims and the Safavids controled
by Shi'i muslims. Religious difference was one of the main sources of conflict
between the empires. The Ottomans and Safavids also fought over control
of Islamic territories and interpretation of Islamic doctrines. It seems
to me that both were fully aware of how much power they wielded and how
important it was to keep it and/or pass it on to the right successor. Both
leaders killed sons to pass the kingdom on to another. Although Suleiman
was persuaded by his favorite wife to pass it on to her son (who later
became an alcoholic and uneffective successor) as opposed to his more able
son.
Terrance Wilbert
I think both rulers were both powerful in the way that they dominated
and conquered other lands. I think that Suleiman was the most prominent
because of the way his government was set up. He allowed his subjects to
retain their own identity and culture, where as the Safavid Empire imposed
their culture, beliefs language, etc on their subjects. Both ruled with
sternness but its almost like Suleiman as a bit more caring about his people
than his rivals did. I think this made for a good economy and trade. People
are more willing to do their best when they are treated well. As we can
see the Ottoman economy and government were strong.
Melissa Young
There are many differences and similarities between Suleiman the Magnificent
of the Ottoman Empire and Shah Abbas the Great of the Safavid Empire. Suleiman
was a brilliant military leader. He led his troops into many victorious
battles, including the seizing of Belgrade and the conquering of the majority
of Hungary. Shah Abbas was not as strong a military leader as Suleiman,
however he did conquer many lands and was a challenging rival of the Ottoman
Empire. During the rule of Shah Abbas his troops did occupy Iraq and parts
of the Anatolian Peninsula after the death of Suleiman. Both leaders had
excellent economic relations with European countries. Suleiman's political
alliance with France led to his economic relations with Europe. The Ottoman
became a center of trading between the east and the west. Shah Abbas' great
leadership and tolerance for othrs, made his Empire a world center for
tradeing luxury textiles. Most of the Safavid income came from the selling
of textiles, particularly silk fabrics and carpets. Shah Abbas' empire
had a strong cental government. The provinces were administered by appointed
governors. In the Ottoman Empire, Suleiman was the supreme political, religious,
and military ruler, where as the Safavid Empire had different branches
within their government to handle different individuals. The Ottoman Empire
did have many different people involved within the administration, similar
to the Safavids. These two rulers had many of the same ideas, but also
had a few differences.
Jake Motz
Suleyman is a leader respected and feared by all by the deads that
he has done. In all the lands, people know what the great deads of Suleyman
are. He has done more than in his rule than what most dynasties can accomplish.
Shah Ismail was also respected and revered by his people, but moreso due
to his founding of the Safavids and his quick wit , wisdom, and diplomatic
skills. The governments of these two great empires are very different in
thier beliefs and thier assimilation of new ideas. The Ottoman empire believed
in bringing new and foriegn ideas and beliefs into thier realm and mixing
them with thier own original values and visions. They were what you might
call the original melting pot of the world before the USA. They allowed
different religions to be pursued in thier lands and different languages
to be spoken, with no pressure from the government to force the original
Ottoman beliefs upon everyone. The Safavids, on the other hand, enforced
the Persian culture and language upon everyone in the lands. People were
to either become converted to Safavid beliefs or would have to leave the
empire, or worse. Although both of these empires had many differences they
were still Muslims, and therefore had many base similarities, though thier
views on even these similarities became opposed in the end, due to the
rivalry between the two dynasties.
Jennifer Chapp
My impressions on the differences between the Ottoman and the Safavids
are many. while it would be easy to dismiss both cultures as quite similar,
ie both rose about the same time from a military beginning and followed
the teachings of Islam, a further reading reveals this not to be so. The
Ottoman Empire, while conquering their neighbors on a regular basis, choose
to embrace the disparate cultures of it's conquered peoples. Indeed, they
even managed to enhance their coffers by allowing people the choice to
be assimilated or maintain their own unique identities, but pay a higher
tax for the priveledge. Many people chose the later, giving the Ottomans
a rich diversity, and, at least for a while, a certain level of stability
(for they did not seem to need to fear internal revolt so much.) This also
allowed the Ottomans to maintain a lively international trade, as they
let their foreign peoples contact and trade at their will. This constant
contact with the so-called "outside 'world led to a florishing of
the arts and of intellectual pursuits, as they chose the best of what they
say and synthesized it into their own traditions. The Safavids, in contrast,
tended to be more insular in their ways. They sought to maintain their
own identity in a rapidly changing world. The Safavids held to a more strict
form of Islam, and this tended to influence all aspects of their lives.
Their religious leaders had as much, if not more, influnence as the secular
leaders. If only for this reason, the gathering of power, one can perhaps
imagine why it was more important for the Safavids to insist on assimilation
rather than the freedoms the Ottomans allowed. The changing economic landscape
made for some changes in the way the Safavids ran their empire. Perhaps
seeing the prosperity that the Ottomans enjoyed by allowing their conquered
people to run their economies and trade routes (such things being beneath
the Ottomans at the time), the Safavids soon encouraged their own conquered
people to do the same. This allowed both empires to focas on those things
that were important to each- their arts and their military. Despite the
level of streangth both reached-culturally, militarilly, economically,
both empires fell for quite similar reasons. The constant warfare they
fought against each other, while allowing their economies to be slowly
inflitrated by forgien powers, mixed with an ineffectual rular or two,
led to slowly decaying empires where once greatness towered. Perhaps, in
truth, they tended to be much more similar in the grand themes of history
than it would seem.
Chris Galeczka
Both the Ottoman Sultan Suleyman and Shah Ismail of the Safavid Empire
developed, large powerful, efficiently governed empires. Both the Ottoman
and Safavid Empires were very advanced for their time period, more so than
the Europe of that time. Also in both empires Islam was the dominant religion
and had a profound effect on the society, culture, and political systems
of the empires.
However, there were also important differences between the two empires. While the Ottomans adhered to orthodox Sunni Islam, the Safavids of Persia followed the Shi'i branch of Islam. The Ottomans were also were relatively tolerant of the different religious and ethnic minorities within their realm, allowing these communities autonomy under the millet system. In contrast, the Safavid Empire had a much more pronounced and uniform Persian culture. The Ottoman and Safavid were also rivals, often at war over the disputed, fertile region of Mesopotamia.
Dave Murphy
The systems of government were definately similar between the Ottoman
Empire and the Safavids. The supreme ruler made all of the decisions for
both of them. And, under him, a similar system of hierarchy was in place
in which other men ruled the provinces under the control of the empires.
To be honest, I didn't learn all that much from the three tiny selections.
Obviously, the Ottomans had great respect for their rulers. The poets wrote
about them, the people praised them, etc. Was this out of respect for their
greatness or fear of their power??? I guess I don't know the answer to
that yet. From the Safavidian (I just made that up... is it right?) selection,
we learn that their leader at the time was very diplomatic and repectful,
yet also very firm. The differences come in the religion of the two empires
and, apparently the way in which they viewed their peoples. The first is
straightforward enough. They had two seperate religions which they based
their rule and beliefs on. The second, however, I am confused about. The
book says that the Safavids 'maintanined and reinforced the seperate identity
of Persian society and language.' While the Ottomans 'made no attempt to
impose their language or values on the diverse peoples they ruled.' While
this confuses me, what I get out of it is that The Safavids tried to assimilate
their people into their way of thinking, speaking, etc. and the Ottomans
made no such attempt. I hope this is right and will learn if it is or isn't
in due time. But, basically I am starting from scratch, having never learned
about these peoples in any class before. In due time.
Josh Hall
The Ottoman and Safavid Empires were both ruled by similar and different tactics. The two Empires were neighbors in the muslim world and had the deepest rivalry. Their differences seemed to drown out the similarities as they grew into the 1500's. The Ottoman Empire, as decribed by Busbecq, pays no attention to wealth or the empty claims of rank. They only consider merit and scrutinizes the character, natural ability, and disposition of each to assign duties and offices. The Safavid or Persian Empire seemed to have each an appointed place. They were decribed as being hard to tell if they were living men or statues. This described the discipline levels of each Empire. Through the poetic words of Baki, the ruler of the Ottoman Empire, Suleiman, "admired the grain of his sword" showing the great love for himself and his self admiration. The Safivid differed from the Ottoman Empire in many ways, yet two major issues rise above the rest. The Safivid Empire was based on Shi'i Islam rather than on orthodox Sunni Islam. Also, they maintained and reinforced the seperate identity of Persian society and language. The Ottoman Empire sought to assimilate many new cultural styles while retaining cultural pluralism. They also made no attempt to impose their language or values on all of the people they ruled. The rulers did in fact have a few similarities. Both of the rulers, Shah Abbas and Suleiman, killed or blinded their sons and left no able successor. And as in most empires, when the central authority was strong, the local chieftains remained submissive, paid taxes, and rendered homage to the shah. Looking back at the two Empires, the rulers both had their own way of running their land. They believed that they were gods among the ants, and therefore both strived to conquer and control as much land as possible. Which is the case in all of history, is just the beginning of their end.
Laura Touchette
The Ottomans and Safavids had two main differences that lead each to its ultimate downfall as an empire; they are their religions and how the governments mandated each religion in their culture and society. The Ottoman government practiced Sunni Islam, but allowed and encouraged diversity within the common people in all areas of culture, including dress, language and religion. The Safavids practiced Shi’i Islam orthodox. They differed greatly from the Ottomans; their government forced their religion, language and culture upon all those they conquered and ruled. Although one of the empires did not destroy the other, because of these conflicts they both destroyed themselves. The conflicts drained the empires economically and militarily; as Europe became stronger the two empires eventually lost their greatness of the sixteenth century. Despite these vast differences, Ottomans and Safavids had many political and economic similarities. Both relied heavily on international trade of textiles and cloths. Other sources of wealth came from taxes, land, commerce and industry. They maintained rich cultures including literature, poetry, music and architecture. Both governments had highly centralized administrations that allowed the sultan (Ottoman) or shah (Safavid) to have complete control of politics, religion and military. Military was very important and officers were paid or rewarded with land. The ruler’s divan (Ottoman) or mullah (Safavid) were also important; they held much power (as did the wives and mothers of the ruler) and were also responsible for political and military administration. Providences or territories were also given to appointed governors to rule for periods of approximately two years. Although the Ottoman and Safavid Empires were had common political and economic policies, their re! ligious differences could not prevent their collapse.
Grace Rivera
The Ottoman Empire and the Safavid State in Persia both had highly
centralized governments. The rulers of both were considered to be the supreme
religious, political, and military leader of their people. The rulers of
both empires appointed governors to be in charge of large provinces for
set amounts of time. They were also both major centers of trade and they
both encouraged and patronized the arts. The two empires did have some
similarities, but they were actually very different. The Safavid State,
under Shah Ismail, followed the religion of Shi'i Islam. The Ottoman Empire,
under Suleiman the Magnificent, was orthodox Sunni Islam. The Safavids
sustained and reinforced the identity of Persian language and culture.
They even went so far as to force conversion upon those they ruled to Shi'i
Islam. The Ottomans assimilated the many cultures of the people over which
they ruled, allowing them to maintain their own cultures. They didn't force
Turkish language or culture on their people. They did not require conversion
to their Sunni Islam. The people they ruled were actually allowed quite
a bit of upward mobility despite their different cultures. They were allowed
to reach even upper society on the basis of merit.
Meghann Koyl
In many ways as these two empires were alike, but there are just as
many ways that they were different. The ways that they are not alike are
more prominent than the ways that they are the same, so I will just focus
on the ways in which they are different first. The first thing that I came
across in the reading was that there were two different types of Islam
that were being practiced by the two empires. The Ottoman empire followed
the Sunni Islam and the Safavid empire went according to the Shi'i Islam.
The Ottoman empire believed that the original form of Islam was the only
one to be followed, but the Safavid empire thought that the original form
of Islam was incorrect, so they chose to follow the Shi'i form of Islam.
There would be a long "holy war" fought over the lands that each
group believed to belong to them. Next I discovered that the Safavids tried
to keep up the Persian society and make the other cultures that it accuired
change to the Persian way of life. While the Ottomans, on the other hand,
allowed the people that they controlled to live their lives as they always
had. The Ottomans made no attempt to force their ways and language onto
anyone who didn't want to change. There were some ways that these two empires
were the same. One of them was that they both, at one time or another,
had provinces that were ruled for periods of two years by governors that
were appointed. Another similarity was that they both allowed Christians
capitulations. This allowed the Christians to live in the empire without
paying taxes or having to abide by their laws. Literature, architecture,
painting, and textiles were all parts of their culture that were important
to both the Ottomans and the Safavids. Both of the empires built great
buildings and produced wonderful works of literature, as well as always
adorning themselves and their homes with beautiful robes and carpeting.
So, you see that there are many ways that they are both alike and different.
The ways that they are alike are not as politcally charged as the ways
that they are dissimilar. This may be why their differences are more obvious
than their similarities.
Briana Jensen
The Ottoman empire and the Safavid empire, although rivals, had many
similarities, as well as differences. In both empires, administrators were
highly centralized and highly complex. The sultan acted as the supreme
political, religious, and military ruler, subject only to divine law. They
both placed major provinces under appointed governors who ruled for about
two years. Also, the Ottomans and Safavids both gave state lands as payment
or rewards to officials or army officers, but only for a specific amount
of time. Neither empire had a firm tradition of primogeniture, considering
neither left a good successor (or eldest son) behind. Although the Ottomans
and Safavids had many similarities, there were also many differences, considering
that they were rivals. One of the main differences between the two was
that the Safavid empire was based around Shi'i Islam, rather than on Orthodox
sunni islam, like the Ottomans. Therefore, much conflict arised over dominionation
of islamic territories and interpretation of the basic islamic doctrines.
Another major difference was that the Safavids tried to individualize each
person into their Persian society. On the other hand, the Ottomans tried
very hard to bring in new cultural styles, while still maintaining their
own values. The Ottomans remained remarkably open and allowed much diversity.
For example, they allowed the Arabs to keep their linguistic and cultural
identity. These are just a few examples of how the Ottoman and Safavid
empire are similar and different in many respects.
Paul Gregorski
During the high points of the Ottoman Empire and the Safavid Empire,
each had a ruler who knew how to run and increase the empires wealth and
land.
First off there was Suleiman the Magnificent of the Ottoman Empire and of the Safavid Empire there was the reign of Shah Abbas the Great. Both of these rulers knew how to run and increase their power, which in turn strengthened their empires. These rulers had both similarities and differences when it came to their empires, to start with I will mentioned their differences.
To begin, the Ottoman Empire was based on the orthodox Sunni Islam religion, whereas the Safavid was based on the Shi'i Islam religion. The next diffence was that the Ottomans increased their wealth greatly by collecting tax on goods that were traded in their lands, actually increasing many of the taxes just to get more wealth. The Safavids on the other hand made much of their wealth by the manufacturing and sales of textiles, particularly their silk fabrics and carpets. A third difference in the two empires dealt with the treatment of individuals in their society. The Ottomans allowed for the means of diversity to take place, not enforcing certain rules on individuals. The Safavids on the other hand maintained and reinforced the separate identity of Persian society and language. The most important difference between the two empires was between their interpretations of the Islamic doctrines which caused them to go to war with each other over and over and drained their mil! itaries, with neither of the empires ever conquering the other.
Now for the similarities between the two empires. First, both empires were very centralized when it came to their government and they both also appointed governors to each of the provinces in their empires. Lastly, another similar factor took place with both Shah Abbas and Suleiman, both the greatest rulers of their empires and both of them failed to leave a successor to take over their rule leading to the downfall of both of their empires.
Brian Battaglieri
Based on the three selections and the text, there were many similarities
between the rulers and governments of the Ottoman and Safavid empires.
At the height of their rule both men had complete control over their empires.
Each was look at as the political, religious, and military authority. From
the selections, it is obvious that both were powerful and very capable
of enforcing their will upon others. Each sought to gain land in order
to strengthen their economies. Both appointed officials based on their
character and loyalty and gave land as rewards to both civilian and militay
leaders. In order to maintain control over such large empires, each divided
their territories into provinces which were ruled by appointed governors.
They encouraged international trade and were motivated by their economies.
While each government was motivated by the same thing there were differences.
Such as differences in religious beliefs and thought, as well as how to
rule the people in the! ir empires. Each conqured many people but governed
them in opposite ways. The Ottomans did not impose their language or beliefs
after their conquests. Instead they allowed the many different ethnic groups
to keep their culture. In contrast, the Safavids demanded everyone convert
to Persian language and thought. While there were some differences in the
styles of rule, both empires were essentially the same. Each was after
more land and money which meant more power and influence in their region
of the world. With each empire after the same thing it is no wonder that
they were constantly at war.
Jared Barrick
The two systems of government had both similarities and differences.
The Ottoman and Safavid empires were both highly centralized. Both governments
rulers were the highest authority in the military, politics, and religion
of their respected empires, and were subject only to divine law. Both rulers
had subjects, chosen from the elite, below them to rule certain areas of
land. For example, the Safavid and Ottoman rulers placed the major provinces
of their empires under appointed governors who ruled for about two years.
There were two major differences between the two empires. The Safavid empire
was based upon Shi'i Islam rather than the Orthodox Sunni Islam found in
the Ottoman empire. Second, the Safavids did not seek to assimilate new
cultural styles while retaining cultural pluralism, as the Ottomans did.
The Safavids kept the seperate identity of Persian society and language.
The two rulers of the government during their height of power, Suleiman
the Magnificent of the Ottomans and Shah Abbas the Great of the Safavids,
were very similar. Both did all they could do consolodate their power.
Suleiman the Magnificent had killed his own son in order to maintain his
thrown. Shah Abbas the Great killed or blinded three of his five sons.
Thus, both rulers left no capable successor, therefore both empires were
in turmoil following their deaths. Both rulers semmed obsessed with their
own power, and by the way they acted towards their sons (succesors) they
had no respect for the future of their empires after their deaths. The
elegy for Suleiman the Magnificent, however, shows the heroic status upon
which he was placed. The constant battles between both empires, as well
as the actions of its prominent rulers towards their children ultimately
destroyed both empires. The economic and military strength was depleted
as well as the absence of a capable ruler led to the fall of the empires.
Holly Morgan
Something that I thought was interesting about both the Ottaman and
the Safavid rulers was the neither left an able successor. Suleyman had
his sons killed and the Safavid ruler blinded his sons so that none would
succeed him. Both the Ottaman and Safavid had powerful armies, and when
they went head to head over the same land they proved to be equals in military
strength. In fact the book says the "Neither succeeded in destroying
the other, the perpetual conflicts drained the ecomonic and military strength
of both, thereby contributing to their downfalls." A big difference
between the two was The Safavid had seperate identity of Persian society
and spoke a different langauge. The Ottaman on the other hand assimiliated
many new cultures and spoke many different languages to incororate everyone
they took over. The Ottaman didn't try to homgenize their cultures they
let everyone keep their own cultures. That was what I say as the biggest
difference between the two powers.
Wendy Harper
The Ottoman and Safavid empires were both very powerful in their own
rite, therefore they often clashed n many areas. Both empires were founded
on different Islamic religious principles, the Ottomans followed the orthodox,
Sunni Islamic interpretation wheras the Safavids followed the Shi'i Islamic
interpretation. As both empires worked to enlarge their trading markets,
they often battled over lands and territories along the Tigris-Euphrates
valley. Their constant fueding led to the weakening of both the Ottoman
and the Safavid empires, which eventually left both of them vulnerable
to outside powers. Although these two empires disagreed in so many areas,
they both heavily supported the arts. Suleiman himself was an accomplished
poet and Safavid rulers were encouraged to immortalize their accomplishments
in long histories and biographies
Nate Harbison
Perhaps the most recognizable difference between the Ottoman ruler
Suleiman the Magnificent and his rival the ruler and founder of the Safavid
empire, Shah Isma'il, were their religious beliefs. Although both of their
empires were of Islamic descent, the Ottomans followed Sunni Islam while
the Safavids were strict believers in Shi'i Islam, which created a rift
between the two empires. Both empires were also in constant dispute over
territories in the Tigris-Euphrates valley. However, both empires were
similar in many ways. As mentioned earlier, both were of Islamic descent.
Both empires were centralized politically and economically and both empires
encouraged and patronized the fine arts. Furthermore, both empires engaged
in trade with Europe and Asia and granted special privileges to European
traders.
Heather Ferguson
The Ottoman Empire and the Safavid Empire rivaled over the Fertile
Cresant (Tigris-Euphrates Valley) until 1639 when a peace treaty between
them was finally made. These two empires have much in common, but also
a lot of differences. Both empires had two remarkable leaders, Suleiman
of the Ottomans, and Shah Abbas of the Safavids. Both leaders brought their
empires to the peak of greatness, but both also left them with no able
successor. Which eventurally brings the downfall of both. Both empires
had many cultural and artistic achievements, along with the building of
great peices of architecture. Also, the empires had commonalities in the
way they ruled. When the central authority was strong, other leaders were
weak, but when the authority was weak, other members of the so-called court
became much stronger. Also, both empires had state land, which was used
as payments or rewards for government officals or to religious authories.
There were many commonalities, but there were also large differences, I
will show 2 major ones. The Ottoman Empire was very tolerant of different
religions, and peoples. Which they inturn assimilated these cultures into
theirs, making a 'cultural pluralism.' However the Safavids tried to keep
and inforce their seperate identity of their persian culture. The second,
which made these two empires bitter rivals was the fact that, the Ottoman
empire was Sunni Islam, while the Safavids were Shi'i Islam. These two
great empires that had so much in common, and where at one time so great,
became rivals because they choose to fight over the religion that there
rulers believed in. >From these simularites and differences, I can conclude
that a great empire must have a strong leader, leave an able heir, win
wars, and keep the empire stong with it's culture through art and literature.
Patrick A. Tiedt
Both the Ottomans and the Safavids had a great liking of the arts.
They each thought that it was an important subject and contributed greatly
during that time period. Their poetry, paintings, and architechture are
just a few of the areas in which these two groups made contributions. Each
of these groups tried to expand their empires in many different ways. The
Ottomans and Safavids each had an army that was used to conquer nearby
territories. They both levied taxes to help offset the cost of expanding
the empire. Each group and one ruler, however the way that the power was
divided below that leader was different between the two. The Safavids divided
their territories into regions and put governors in charge of the regions,
whereas the Ottomans had a coucil under the ruler that governed the areas
within the empire. Trade was also a major part of both areas. Each group
relied greatly on trade with Europe and the revenues from taxes that came
from that trade.
John Sohn
They both were Muslim, however that is where the similarities ended.
The Persians of the Safavids were shiite and the Ottoman Turks were sunni
muslims. The Safavids maintained and reinforced their seperate identity
of Persian society and language whereas the Ottomans strived to assimilate
and maintain cultural pluralism. They similarily saw the benefits of international
trade, and the millet system of taxing people. They used the profits from
the trade to finance their campaigns against one another. The Ottoman Suleyman
also forged important ties to the French to offset the Safavid ties to
the Habsburg rulers of Austria-Hungary. These ties were very important
later in changing the face of Western Europe and the Middle East. The Ottoman
ruler Suleyman, waged such a successful war against the Habsburg, that
they were able to go as far as to the gates of Vienna, only to turn back
because of the coming of winter season when the Ottoman troops refused
to campaign.
Christina Carlin
The Safavid and Ottoman Empires were two extremely powerful forces
during this time period. Both empires' rulers were supreme and ruled accordingly.
These two empires were similar in this respect, they were both centralized.
Despite strict rule of Suleiman, the Ottoman empire was socially open and
free. There was not rigid restrictions placed on the Turks in this aspect.
The Safavid empire was not open like the Ottomans. They imposed rules on
their people and attempted to force their language and culture on the people
they ruled. The Ottomans did not attempt to do this. They were a diverse
culture. The Safavid and Ottoman Empires also differed in the religious
basis they were founded on. The Safavid Empire was founded on Shi'i Islam
and the Ottoman Empire was founded on Sunni Islam. The Safavid Empire like
the Ottoman Empire had many cultural achievements during their reign. Art
and literature were important to them and thus emphasis was placed on these
aspects of Persian culture. The reading from Shah Ismail indicates the
rivalry between these two empires. This Safavid ruler exemplifies the uncompromising
manner in which he ruled his empire. He offers no support to is opponent
but is not offensive in doing so. Busbecq's letter about Suleiman the Magnificent
describes the honor, respect, and dignity in which the rulers of these
empires were viewed.
Danielle Watson
I find it very interesting that the Ottomans and Safavids were actually
the same in many ways. For some odd reason, I felt that they should have
been friendly when I first started reading this literature. But, I suppose
that most people or peoples who are very much the same, clash because of
the very reason that they ARE so much alike.
In both the Ottoman empire and the Safivid empire the major rulers were followed by sons who never lived up to their own glory. Such as Suleiman's son, Selim II who was an alcoholic. And Shah Abbas the Great "killed or blinded three of his five sons" and ended up with a not-so-great successor.
Both the Ottoman and Safavid empires were highly centralized with the empire being basically in charge of everything from religious, military and political matters. They also both divided up the empire into provinces and had appointed governors who ruled under the emperor. Both of these empires did quite well with international trade and had many great artisans. Also, the Ottoman and Safavid loved poetry and poets were to be admired. Both empires encouraged histories and biographies of military and political greatness.
On the other hand, the Ottoman empire believed in letting minorities keep their own religion, language and culture. While the Safavid empire forced conversion of religion.
All in all, very much alike, but even much more opposed to one another.
Joe Blackburn
After reading the assigned pages I believe that similarities are much
easier to find than differences. Both the Ottoman's and the Safavids were
great world powers during this time. Each empire could weild their influence
over Europe. This was especially true on the issue of trading. For a long
time European powers had a want for products produced in the East. Both
of the Ottoman and the Safavid benefitted from European elite's expensive
tastes. By controlling trade routes to Europe from Africa and India. Slaves,
gold and ivory were sent to Europe through cities like Cairo and Istanbul.
The Ottoman's in exchange received European foods that were foreign to
them such as potatoes and tomatoes. The Safavid's had a huge trade industry
centered around silk, which was a product highly sought after in Europe.
The money earned through this trade allowed the Empire to expand greatly.
Another similarity between the two great Empires was the establishment
of European allies by both. The Ottoman's befriended France after the French
begged Suleiman for support. The Safavid's then took France's European
rival the Habsburg's Empire as their ally. The Safavid's used the supoort
of the Habsburg to expand their Empire through a series of military campaigns.
So both the Ottoman's and the Safavid's were allied with European powers
to their west. Unfortunately, these two great powers could never have peace
between them. Over the duration of each Empire's existence they were at
war with one another. Each wanted total control of the area surrounding
and including the Tigris-Euphrates valley. These two rivals fought over
this area several reasons. The reasons ranged from political to religous
differences between the two. The Ottoman worshipped a branch of Islam known
as orthodox Sunni Islam. Diversely the Safavid's believed in Shi'i Islam.
The Safavid's also gave their clergy more political power than the Ottoman.
In some remote provinces mullahs gave both religious and political guidance.
The religous differences led to a war on more than one occasion. Another
major difference between both Empire's was the fact that the Ottoman's
did not have a enforce a strict identity. Christians, Jews, and Armenians
did not have to abandon any of their previous beliefs they had to instead
pay an addtional tax to the Ottoman government. The Safavids did strive
to have an Empire with an identity of its own. Although common for the
time, we now know that the Ottoman way of ruling an Empire is probably
more successful and certainly more apealling to its subjects. The differences
between these two great Empires brought about several wars against one
another. Although neither Empire destroyed the other outright. The centuries
of battle wore down both and eventually each Empire fell.
Dave Steenwyk
One of the major differences between the Ottomans and Safavids is that
the Ottomans were much more tolerant and the society was very open. They
did not impose religion, custom, or language on anyone in their empire
who chose not to conform. Safavids on the other hand, "maintained
and reinforced the separate identity of Persian society and language."
A major similarity between the two empires is that the high royalty such as Sultan Suleiman and Shah Abbas both were very powerful and influencial people. They had many officers and soldiers who would serve them faithfully and help them during their reign. Both leaders were very wealthy and had the ability to make their empires great and very prosperous.
Another difference between the two empires is that the Safavids were based up Shi'i Islam whereas the Ottoman Empire was orthodox Sunni Islam. Although the Ottomans did not force this religion onto their people, it was the most widely practiced religion. As noted before, the Safavids forced a Imperial religion on everyone under their power.
Meghan Reinacher
I feel that the Ottoman and the Safavid Empires share both a few similarities
as well as differences. As far as likeness goes, both empires place major
provinces under appointed govenors who tend to rule for approximately 2
years. Both empires were sectarian too. They were both major powers at
the time too. On the other hand, these empires differed also. The Ottoman
empire kept a tight reign over their people, but they allowed diversity.
The Imperial Safavids were based on the Shi'i Islam rather than the orthodox
Sunni Islam. The Safavids also reinforced the separate identity of Persian
society and government.
Brady Nelson
The Ottoman ruler, Sulelman the Magnificent, and the Safavid ruler,
Shah Abbas the Great were both considered great rulers by their respective
countrymen. Both ruled as dictators. Meaning they ruled over their countries
political, miltary, and religous systems. Both countries governments were
highly centralized, yet they did differ. Sulelmans administrators were
chosen based on who owned the most land and acquired the most booty in
military campaigns. In contrast, the Safavid Empire ran along feudal lines.
Yet, there were some similarities. For example, both Empires' appointed
two govenors rule over a province of the territory. In terms of the the
military, Sulelman used his to expand the Ottoman Empire into Europe. In
contrast, the Safavid Empire used its military for expanding only into
the Middle East and for defense at home. On religous matters, Sulelman
was more open with the matter than Shah Abbas. For example, the Ottoman
Empire never imposed laws to make its inha! bitants conform to the Islamic
religion. Arabs, Armenians, Christians and Jews were found throughout the
Empire and were free to practice their religion. However, Shah Abbas wnated
his Empire to maintain and reinforce the seperate identity of his culture.
In comparing the two Empires cultures we can see more similarities and
differences that most likely came as a result from the rule of Sulelman
and Shah Abbas. Poetry in both countries dominated and influenced literary
life. Both rulers also encouraged writers to immortilize their military
and political achievements. Also, both in the Safavid Empire and Ottoman
Empire, the elite would hang out at coffee shops. Colorful fabrics and
beautiful buildings also emerged during their respective rule. The main
difference between the two empires' lies in religion. While the Safavid
Empire is based upon Shi'i Islam, the Ottoman Empire is based upon Sunni
Islam. The Safavid Empire relied on the manufacture and sale of textiles
as a major source of revenue, while the Ottoman Empire relied on trading
with foreign nations. As you can see, both empires do have some similarities,
and yet they do have some differences. However, what sets them apart is
the idea on who owns the territory between the Tigris & Euphrates River.
This difference in idea has lead to many battles between the two. Perhaps
if both empires could have come up with a solution to their main problem,
then the great empires that Sulelman the Magnificent, and Shah Abbas the
Great wouldn't have plummeted after their leave.
Amy Barnard
There were a few distinct differences between the Ottomans and the
Safavids, yet the two empires were very much alike. Both empires wished
to expand their empires by gaining/conquering land. This similarity seemed
to be a cause for their long running rivalry. As shown in the letter from
Shah Ismail to Sultan Selim on page 360 of our book "World History,"
in light of their rivalry, they seemed to have a respect for each other
and each other's power. Their similarities were not the only reason for
their rivalry, their differences also played a role. Their difference in
religions, with the Safavids being of the Shi'i Islam religion and the
Ottomans being of the orthodox Sunni Islam religion, was also a reason
for their rivalry. The Safavids and the Ottomans were both powerful empires
at different points in history, yet their power, along with a few distinct
similarities and a few distinct differences, led to a long standing rivalry
between the two.
Ryan Johnston
There are many differences between these two rulers and their types
of governments. one difference that I can see is that shah Iran was a beliver
in a homogeneous society consistng of one religion and one race. were as
suleiman almost desired a heterogeneous society consisting of many religions
and races, himself being of mixed blood. they were similar in the respect
that they were imperialists, they wanted to increase their empires size.
and both wanted the land which is now Iraq. when it came to the economy
suleiman wanted to keep more of an open market, he encouraged trade and
welcomed forigeners to lend a hand. I guess this made his govenment a little
more capatalistic. Whereas shah Iran's empire produced a lot of goods itself
on land that was tended by Aisian muslim slaves. which in fact left the
safavid economy relatively closed, with the exception of exports which
helped the empire out quite a bit. This gave his government a hint of socialism
(well at least an early form). One of the only similarities between the
two types of government that is very visible is the fact that they both
broke up the land that they owned and spread it among officials that had
lent a hand in the past, which helped the officials liven up the economy
by producing more goods to be sold through out the empire.
Kendra Waldrep
The Ottomans and the Safavids were political rivals for many years.
Though they disagreed on a lot of things, they also had some similarities.
First, there is the Ottoman Empire. Their King Suleiman was a brillian
king. He was a successful at commanding his military and a very clever
diplomat. Over his reign he conquered much land and gained great wealth.
Though he failed to leave a worthy successor and instead left the Ottoman
Empire with an alcoholic as a king. The Safavid Empire was Shi'i Islam
rather than the orthodox Sunni Islam that the Ottoman's were. Shah Abbas
the Great ruled the land with an iron hand. He organized the territory
into smaller provinces ruled by governors that ruled for two years. With
both of these, the administration is very centralized and the rulers placed
major provinces under appointed governors. Though these two empires were
different, they still shared some major similiarities. If they had talked
to each other rather than fighting, they could have learned so much more
from each other.
Scott Sarrett
Suleiman, the ruler of the Ottoman Empire and Shah Iran, the ruler
of the Safavid Empire shared many differences when it came to their govenments.
Shah Iran beleived in a unified society. Everyone should and will have
the share the same religious beliefs(Muslim) and race. This was a common
way rulers, I believe, "showed of their power," but was very
common in the 1500's. As Suleiman beleived in an "open society,"
where everyone is a individual and are entitled to their own beliefs which
enabled minorities to fulfill dreams as doctors or owners of property that
Shah Iran would not tollerate.
Ottamans also had an "open government"; which means they allowed trading outside his land which probably inturn gave him more allies to help him out. As the Safavids were not the biggest on imported goods from outside their boundaries. They led more of a dictatorship than the Ottomans, Shah Iran wanted just to help out his economy and no one elses.
Suleiman and Shah Iran did share two simalarities though. Both men slpit up land and either handed it pout to noble men or sold it to people they saught as best fit. They owned all the land and everything went through them. And finally, both men led huge Empires and were looked as powerful leaders.
Martin Steiger
One of the major differences between the Ottomans and the Safavids
was religion: the Safavids practiced Shi'i Islam, while the Turks practiced
Sunni Islam. Second, the Safavids tried to maintain and protect their Persian
society and language, while the Turks embraced new cultural styles. Both
the Safavid and Ottoman rulers appointed governors to rule the different
provinces, and both empires were financed by the collection of taxes. "Tax
farmers" collected taxes from a given territory or province, kept
a percentage for themselves, and gave the rest to the government. If the
ruler was weak, the governors and the tax farmers tended to take advantage
of their power, but if the ruler was strong the local authorities did what
they were told. As far as the two rulers go, Shah Abbas the Great seemed
to believe that it was better to be feared than loved, because he killed
or blinded three of his five sons. He also seemed more close-minded than
Suleiman because of his desire to prevent the assimilation of the Safavid
culture with the cultures of neighboring countries and empires.
Erin Meulenberg
The Ottomans and Safavids were rivals. Each country's leader, Safavid
of Persia and Suleiman of the Ottomans, despised each other. Judging from
the letter Safavid wrote to Suleiman, (page 360) Safavid seemed more stern
of a leader. Suleiman, on the other hand, seemed more softened. I though
this because of the fact that he had his more capable sons killed to ensure
that the son of his love became emperor after him. This was a definate
error in judgement because after Suleiman's reign ended, the Ottoman society
began to weaken. The Ottoman empire appeared to be more diverse both in
religion and ethnicity. The Safavids seemed to have one distinct religion
and ethnicity, Shi'i Islam. Also, the Safavids had one distinct language
and the Ottoman's allowed for many languages. The Safavids did become more
excepted as time moved on, but mainly because the economic competition
required it. Besides the above descriptions, the two empires were strikingly
similar. Both cultures valued the fine arts, strong respect for leaders,
and economic trade. From the poem written about Suleiman it is obvious
the culture looked highly upon the expression in poetry. Also, each ruler
became skilled in crafts and valued their skill. Each ruler was highly
esteemed as proven in the discussion about the kings people by Busbecq
(pages 355-356). Both empires wore the same type of loose clothing. This
clothing also integrated the fine arts by their elaborate designs and woven
gold. The people from the empire had similar appearances especially when
compared to the appearance of people from the other countries of the world.
The two empires were probably the two countries of the world that had the
most in common. The tragic part is that the two rivaled so much that they
made no progress in conquering each other, but weakened both of their nations.
Therefore, no one prevailed but all lost.
Aaron J. Sheridan
The First and major difference between the Safavid or Persian empire
and that of the Ottoman would be their difference of religious beliefs
that to this day are intertwined within the culture and Identity of both
these nations' peoples. While the Persians and Ottomans both developed
societies based on the Islamic religion, they chose to follow two distinct
sects of the religion that continue to fuel conflicts today. Founded by
Shah Isma'il in 1500 the Safavid Empire followed the Shi'i Islam rather
than the orthodox Sunni Islam of the Ottoman Turks,that subjectly transformed
battles of economic dominance of the Fertile Crescent into personal conflicts
of ideologies and "wars of truths." Secondly, the philosophies
and social expectations by which these two empires were governed greatly
differed in comparison. Although both worshipped Ala, the Ottomans were
much more lenient with their peoples' ethic diversity than their Persian
rivals. Unique cultures under the rule of the Ottoman Sultans were permitted
to use and develop their own identities under their own terms with the
condition of a moderate tax. Arabs, Armenians, Christians, and Jews were
granted opportunities within the highest levels of Ottoman society, (except
the leadership Sultan) and enjoyed the privilege of retaining their own
educational, religious, and judicial institutions. While in contrast, those
peoples under Persian rule were expected to except the common language
and identity of a unanimous culture- maintained and protected by the Shah.
Although these neighboring empires were very unique, both nations were
subject to similar fates if the head of state proved to be a "weak"
politician or leader in battle. Like any dictatorship, which both of the
empires primarily were, if the single focal point of power, in this case
the Shah or Sultan were poor leaders- than altimately they'd be suspect
for immediate removal or manipulation. In the Ottoman Empire's case, those
Sultans preceding Suliman the Magnificent after 1566 ultimately lost their
power and became prisoners of their own societies' royal court, harem,
or mercenary Janissaries. This also would happen to the Shah's of Persia
except those retaining the failing power of the Shah would be provincial
governors or local chieftains. In times when the head of state could be
manipulated, the taxes and homage's that would otherwise be sent to the
central authority would be hoarded and used for the ambitions of potential
candidates for Persia's next leader.
Kinsley Robinson
When lookinsg at the similarities between the Ottoman empire and the
Safavid empire, one can see that the differences out weigh the similarites
in more ways than one. When comparing these two, it is easier to start
with the most dominate of the two,Ottoman,and conclude with the Safavids.
The Ottoman empire was very sucessful, do to their sultan,Suleiman the
Magnificant. He not only was the ruler of the Ottoman empire, but also
led his army as military comandor. Suleiman was a very active politician
and diplomat. When making his allies, he choose them very carefully, and
when he wanted to fight, he knew when to make the right move. The Safavids
differed from the Ottomans in two very large aspects. First was religion.One
being based on Shi'i Islam, and the other Orthodox Sunni Islam. Another
major difference between the two was there assimilation and assertion to
different languages. The Ottomans choose to familarize themselves to new
cultures, where as the Safavids made no effort to accept other diversities.Instead
they secluded themselves without advancement. The Ottoman empire gained
from there international relations, and expanded there means of trade,
do to the incredible alliances It is clear to see that the Ottoman empire
was more dominate over the Safavids, do to there willingness to expand
new horizions. When expanding new horizions and tying close knots with
boarding countries, goeograpfically, the Ottomans had more control do to
their centralized location and expansion. Both the governments were well
organized, and appointed magistrates to look over the many regions of the
empire
Ryan Anderson
During the 1500's, the nations of Europe, embroiled in bitter religious
and dynastic rivalries, had yet to become major colonial and territorial
forces. Meanwhile, the Ottoman and Safavid empires, under the rule of strong
autocrats, were able to amass a considerable amount of influence, due to
strong trading and strong leadership. But could the two empires coexist?
Eventually, the rivalry between the two neighboring empires drained precious
resources and left both susceptible to neighboring invaders and local leaders.
Despite the bitterness that existed between the two empires, they were remarkably similar in many ways. Both empires had governments headed by autocrats. Suleiman the Magnificent, who ruled the Ottoman empire from 1520 to 1566, managed to promote growth, both economically, territorially, and culturally during his reign. The Safavid empire was founded by Shah Isma'il, a reasonable and brave man who ruled from 1500 to 1524. Under both of these autocrats was a complex bureaucracy of appointed governors that ruled over provinces. Taxes were collected to help finance both the empires. Sometimes, land was given out to government officials or military officers as a payment or reward. As long as the central government remained strong in these empires, the governors that ruled over distant provinces remained submissive and did not try to gain autonomy. But the central governments could not stay powerful forever...
Eventually, similar problems lead to the downfall of the Ottoman and Safavid empires. First of all, Sulleiman the Magnificent of the Ottoman empire and Shah Abbas of the Safavid empire, although great leaders, made the error of killing off their sons to prevent overthrows and prolong their own rules. As a result, the most capable heirs to the thrones were killed off, weakening the throne and, in turn, the empire. Second, the governments allowed foreign traders to establish such economic power within the empires' borders that when the central government became weak, the foreigners were able to undermine the empires due to their economic pull. Finally, the feud between the Ottoman empire and the Safavid empire was so lengthy and so costly that both empires eventually were weakened, making it easier for foreign intruders and province leaders to steal power from the empires.
Major differences did exist between the Ottoman empire and the Safavid empire, despite their similarities. The Ottoman empire, for one, practiced orthodox Sunni Islam while the Safavid empire practiced Shi'i Islam. Unlike the Safavids who wanted a unique culture, the Ottomans, under what was known as the millet system, allowed cultural and religious diversity as long as foreigners paid taxes.
Brad Osebold
Similarities between the two governments are that they were both centralized
governments, having one supreme political, religious, and military ruler.
The two were also rivals for the territory in the Tigris-Euphrates valley.
Differences between them would be that the Ottoman were Sunni Islam, and
the Safavids Shi'i Islam. Suleiman the Ottoman Emperor was a successful
military commander and diplomat, using an alliance with France to secure
his protection. Suleiman allowed diversity, the large Arab population were
able to keep their language and culture under the Ottoman Empire. On the
other hand, the Safavids maintained the seperate identity of Persian socitey
and language.
Michael Andrews
The reading indicates that many of the similarities and differences were based on the cultural aspect of the dynasties. The similarity, importance of architecture, is percieved to be important to both rulers and a direct relationship to the culture of both the Ottoman and Safavids, both of these empires thought of mosques, bath houses,schools, hospitals, and shops of of great importance to the societies. Both empires were patrons of the arts and believed that to improve and advance their governments along with their societies a focus had to be considered by both the sultans and the people of the dynasties. The sultans might have focused on the cultural aspect of their empires as a physical remembrance to their reign and their people. Both rulers had mosques built to signify their reign and add to the cultural aspect of the empire. The Ottoman empire had the Suleimaniye mosque built under Suleiman's reign, and Isfahan the capital of the Safavid empire was rebuilt with man! y new mosques, inns, schools, and baths built to signify their reign in history. Their difference in ruling the people was also based on the cultural aspect of the people, the Ottoman's looked to assimilate the new cultures they had dominated and retain pluralism. On the other hand, the Safavids maintained a seperate identity of Persian society and languages. Both empires were highly centralized were the sultan acted as the supreme political, religious, and military ruler. This centralization of power was brought upon by the culture of the time period. Even their religious beliefs were based upon a cultural aspect, the conflict between the two rulers and the empires were directly related from their differing beliefs in religion. So I believe that the differences and similarities between these two rulers and their systems of governments were based on their cultural beliefs of the time. Whether it be religious, political, militarily, or even a societial aspect all were influenced by the cultural aspect of the empires of the time.
David Jan Tamm
When the European Powers were in a period of conflict and self-destructive monarchy, the Ottomon and Safavid Persian Empires were surprisingly strong and stable. One huge factor for the Ottomon Turkish Empire based at Constantinople was the first emperor of the name Suleiman… the Magnificinet. Sulieman was a forceful autocrat, but he ran a system of millets that facilitated the running of the Empire in a way as to downplay national differences and promote merit based advancement. It was like one big ass Pendelton Act. Suleiman was sometimes feared, sometimes respected, but always a force to be conteded with. The European dynastic rivalries made him a stable island within an unstable world. Sulieman was a military commander and a diplomat. He favoured France in international relations. Sulieman did not have an heir because he butchered his son on the behest of his wife. In the Ottomon system, the various nationalities, particularly the virulent Southeast European peoples! , were given a kind of autonomy within the confines of the empire. It simply doesn’t work to try to patrol the mountains of Hercegovina and other places. This kept them complacent enough not to revolt every 5 years and upset the ruling family on the Bosporus. The career of the Ottomon’s was quite remarkable. Serbia was defeated in 1389 at the Battle of Kosovo, and the empire stretched even as far as Hungary, after the Battle of Mohacs: 1526.
The Persian Safavid Dynasty in what is now Iran were rulers in some respects the same and some times different. The Ottoman rulers wanted to have many new kinds of styles and diversity, they let the subjects retain their languages and beliefs. The Safavids maintained the separate identity of Persian society religion and language. Under the Shah Abbas, the Safavids reached their greatest power. This ruler had three of five sons slaughtered and didn’t have an acceptible heir. The Shah Abbas became so powerful because he was terrorizing the local chiefs in Persia. Both the Ottomans and the Safavids divided their land into provinces. Also like the Ottomans the main source of wealth came from taxes, land, and commerce. Abbas encouraged trade and was also known for his tolerance with minorities. This tolerance for minorities helped expand trade and that led to more land and the eventual control of all of Persia. Concluding, both Sulieman the Magnificent and Shah Abbas were strong rulers that were honorable in governing their empires, they were fair and just, for the most part, but probably should’ve attended parenting classes before concieving.