Author: Brian Rocha, Plano High School
📍Plano, TX

From 1200 to 1750, the political structures in the Middle East and Asia significantly transformed due to the rise of empires like the Ottoman in the Middle East and the Qing dynasty / Mughal Empire in Asia. During this period, Empires were gaining large land bases and distinctive trading methods, allowing them to vastly increase their population sizes while also adapting elements from different areas. For example in the Middle East, the rapid rise of the Islamic caliphates and sultanates like the Ottoman and Mughal empires, was largely responsible for the spreading of Islam and the shaping of the religious laws. The Ottoman Empire grew from a small Turkic state to a large power in the eastern Mediterranean and the Balkans by using military innovation and centralizing administrative control. While in Asia, the Ming Dynasty in China rose after the collapse of the Mongol Yuan Dynasty, which restored Confucian principles and expanded the state’s scope of government. Although political systems in the Middle East and Asia were similar in their need for centralized administration and expanding military power, they differed significantly in the role of religion in governance and population integration.

Both the Middle East and Asia established highly vast and centralized political systems during the early modern period which strayed from the prior years of smaller tribal empires; to accomplish this they similarly used military power and bureaucratic control to consolidate control over large, diverse territories. In the Mughal Empire Akbar integrated the Hindu upper class into the political-military structure by appointing them to high-ranking positions in the bureaucracy and military. This approach allowed the Mughals to govern a vast, religiously diverse population while maintaining stability. Since the Hindu leaders had high positions right under Akbar he had more power to control them and ensure that they stay loyal. Akbar’s policies of religious tolerance also encourage the construction of both Hindu temples and Islamic mosques as part of his policy of inclusion (Strayer and Nelson, 227). This is different from the Middle East empire where positions were top positions were reserved for only Muslims or those who converted through the devshirme process. Akbar integrated Hinduism into so many parts of his government through marriage, government, and societal structures which made his empire more unified without religious division, allowing the Mughals to control a large area of land. “ Those officials imitated Chinese ways by wearing peacock feathers, decorating their hats with gold buttons, or adopting a Manchu hairstyle that was much resented by many Chinese who were

forced to wear it (Strayer and Nelson 225). The Qing soon fell as the frustrations with their empire kept rising from rebellions and they actively persecuted the majority of the population according to their strict guidelines. This shows how even though the centralized powers in Asia focused on controlling religion and other societal elements of culture in their empires, empire like the Mughals were more accepting of diversity within their bureaucracy. Gunpowder technology transformed the military during this era and allowed the Ottomans to expand and control a large area of land (Strayer and Nelson 234). Particularly them using cannons allowed them to take over Constantinople which made them the center empire that regulated trade all along the trade routes. This is similar to how Asian empires conquered vast territories and solidify their control over them. Mughal India used gunpowder technology to dominate trade routes within south Asia like the Ottomans, while the Qing used it to defend against nomadic invasions and expand its territory in Asia. The Ottoman Siege of Vienna was a failed Ottoman attempt to capture the city of Vienna in 1683, making a turning point in the decline of the Ottoman Empire. The painting by Frans Geffels shows the religious and political tensions between the Islamic Ottoman Empire and Christian Europe, since the Europeans heavily feared the Ottomans and viewed the Muslim empire as a great threat to Christianity (Frans Geffels, 230). 

A main difference between the Middle East and Asia was that both regions used different political methods to incorporate diverse populations while making sure they stayed loyal to their rule. The Qing Dynasty in China enforced a strict cultural hierarchy in which the ruling class was exclusively of Manchus, with native Han Chinese below them. The ruling class of the Qing did not allow intermarriage with the Hans to keep their distinct ethnic identity, even though they adopted some Chinese customs like Confucianist principles while running their bureaucracy (Strayer and Nelson 224). While the policies of the Qing showed a preference for ethnic isolation and supremacy, they strategically used ethnicity as a political tool. Although they did adapt to some parts of the Chinese culture like wearing their ethnic clothing and learning the Chinese language, they wanted to assert their superiority so they did not interact with the native Chinese people. This was different from The millet system by the Ottomans, who accepted religious minorities like Christians and Jews by letting them practice their respective religious customs while giving sovereignty to managing their affairs, as long as they proved loyalty toward the empire. The Millet system was for keeping a religiously diverse empire peaceful by allowing autonomy while commanding loyalty from its subjects toward the central authority since they were given relative freedom (Strayer and Nelson, 231). Mughal India allowed a lot of cross-cultural integration, shown by Akbar in his efforts to treat both Hindu and Muslim religions equally like marrying Hindu women and taking off taxes like the Jizya from them (Strayer and Nelson, 227). Akbar wanted to be more accepting of these diverse populations by using his policies to reflect an attempt at bridging the divides between the communities of different faiths. This inclusive way of governance differed from the Qing’s emphasis on ethnic separation and the more institutionalized religious autonomy of the Ottomans. A painting that shows cultural syncretism between the Islamic Ottoman Empire and Europe shows how the Ottomans were open-minded to different religions and actively wanted to incorporate it into their society. The Gentle Bellini’s portrait of Sultan Mehmed II shows his openness to cultural exchange with Europe even though they had military conflicts, it displays Mehmedd’s area with both Renaissance and Middle Eastern elements of art (Bellini, 194). 

An important difference between Middle Eastern and Asian political systems is how their religious ideologies determined how society functioned and it varied based on which region of the world people lived in. Many Asian empires were governed by religious ideologies like Confucianism or concentrated on embracing religious diversity like the Mughals, while in the Middle East Islam greatly impacted their societal structure. Sharia, or Islamic law, was a major component of Ottoman rule, directing social and legal behavior (Strayer and Nelson, 231). The empire’s management of its religiously diverse populace demonstrated this, since they gave Christian communities the freedom to run their internal affairs by their own set of religious regulations. Granting autonomy to Christian communities was to maintain stability by allowing religious groups their own self-governance so that they would not revolt against the empire. The Ottoman approach illustrates how Islamic principles were woven into the political framework, ensuring the legitimacy of Muslim rulers while managing religious diversity. In the Middle East, the Ottoman Empire showed how the use of centralized bureaucracies to incorporate Christian boys was effective because they were conscripted into service, then converted to Islam, and trained to become elite military and administrative officials (Strayer and Nelson, 232). This policy was the Devishirme system which allowed the Ottomans to integrate the Christian populations into their empire while also creating a loyal strong military group which gave them strength against being overthrown. The purpose of the devshirme system was to create a loyal and efficient military task force, showing how the Ottoman Empire balanced integration while also controlling minority groups so that they were fearful of revolting against them.  Jean Bodin, a 16th century French philosopher, praised the Ottoman Empire for its religious tolerance, stating that the Sultan protected religious autonomy without forceful conversions (Jean Bodin, 235). This art piece was for the European empire to showcase how the Ottoman empire remained so successful due to it’s religious diversity, so that he can try to influence the Europeans on the idea of religious inclusivity. In Mughal India, Emperor Akbar’s policies reflected a more inclusive approach to religion in governance. Akbar married Hindu princesses and incorporated Hindus into the political-military elite, promoting religious tolerance and cultural synthesis within the empire (Strayer and Nelson, 228). Akbar’s intended audience was both the Muslim ruling class and the Hindu majority, as he wanted to create a more harmonious and integrated society by reducing religious conflict. This is different from the more rigid Islamic policies in the Middle East, where religious law held a strict position.

While both the Middle East and Asia depended on centralized administrations and military strength to maintain and expand their empires, they differed in how religion influenced their government and their method to integrating diverse populations. The centralization of power and military dominance from the gunpowder technology allowed both Middle Eastern and Asian empires to expand their territories and maintain control over diverse populations. The Ottomans used their military power to dominate key trade routes and establish themselves as a central force in Eurasian commerce, Asian empires like the Mughal and Qing Dynasties focused on consolidating large land-based territories. The varying roles of religion and culture in government also shaped the political landscapes in these regions, reflecting their unique approaches to expanding the empire. Military technology and beaurocratic systems later influenced European colonial powers during the 19th century, since the British and French adopted similar strategies to conquer the Americas and Africa. For example, the British East India company conquered India through it’s trade dominance and military influence in india.