This paper compares the Mughal and Ottoman Empires as examples of absolutist monarchies, examining how each empire wielded unchecked political power from roughly the thirteenth through the early twentieth centuries. The paper explores shared characteristics — including the use of Islamic religious authority to legitimize rule, the construction of lavish palaces as symbols of power, and the control of artistic and literary output — while also highlighting key differences in military organization and longevity. The Ottoman Empire's durability of over 600 years is contrasted with the Mughal Empire's shorter reign, with attention to how each dynasty shaped its own historical legacy and managed its subject populations.
The paper demonstrates comparative analysis across two historical empires, identifying both shared characteristics (Islamic religious authority, absolutist governance, patronage of the arts) and key differences (military strength, longevity, political adaptability). This point-by-point comparison allows the author to build toward a concluding evaluative judgment about relative success.
The paper opens by defining absolutism and introducing both empires, then moves through a series of thematic comparisons: religious authority, monumental architecture and art, military and administrative organization, and legacy control. It closes with a synthesis that restates the thesis. This thematic rather than purely chronological structure is appropriate for a comparative essay at the undergraduate level.
The Mughal dynasty ruled the area now considered India and Persia between the years 1526 and 1857. The Ottoman Empire sustained power from July 1299 to the end of the First World War in 1923. Both empires employed a form of monarchy known as absolutism — the governmental principle that the monarch holds supreme and unchecked authority. Under absolutism, no group, whether the clergy, courtiers, legislatures, or members of the social elite, had the power to prevent the monarch from doing as he or she pleased. It was a system of government controlled by one individual with absolute power over the entirety of his or her realm. Those who dared challenge the monarch met swift ends, which served to deter others from attempting to thwart the ruler.
Among the nations where evidence exists that rulers were able to create absolutist regimes, the Ottoman Empire and the Mughal Empire stand out as notable examples. The Ottoman Empire retained power for more than 600 years, while the Mughals were only able to maintain control for roughly half that time, suggesting that the former represented a far more durable government structure than the latter.
Both the Ottoman and Mughal Empires shared certain characteristics. Both had majority Muslim populations, although the two nations belonged to different sects of Islam. Each empire used the religious fervor of its respective population to ensure its retention of power, with monarchs comparing themselves to Muhammad and portraying their rule as the will of God (Stearns). This made challenging the monarchs even more dangerous and unlikely, because rebellion against the ruler was framed as defiance of God himself. Fear of divine punishment has been a powerful tool for maintaining subordination and subjugation since the founding of organized religion, and both empires exploited this dynamic to great effect.
One of the most frequent characteristics of an absolutist monarchy was the construction and possession of at least one extremely lavish palace. Such extravagant residences could be found in France and many other European nations, where those who desired to demonstrate power would build equally or even more opulent structures to make a point to their political adversaries. The palace, as the home of the monarch, was intended to reflect that individual's power. The home of the Ottoman ruler was the Topkapi Palace in Istanbul. As Necipo-lu writes:
"The vast imperial palaces, conceived as architectural metaphors for three patrimonial-bureaucratic empires with their hierarchical organization of state functions around public, semi-public, and private zones culminating in gardens, constituted elaborate stages for dynamic representation. Animated by court rituals, each of them projected a distinctive royal image, invented with a specific theory of dynastic legitimacy in mind" (303).
The idea was that the larger and more opulent the home, the grander the perception of the person who inhabited it. This same sentiment applied to all forms of art surrounding these governments. All artistic works — paintings, music, architecture, and literature — in an absolutist society faced the scrutiny of that government's leader. Each piece was representative of that culture and would reflect the leader of that culture. Consequently, the leaders of absolutist nations took a keen interest in the artistic productions emerging from within their countries.
Both the Mughal and Ottoman Empires were examples of absolutist governments — national powers which held that the single monarch had absolute and unquestioned authority over his citizenry. An absolutist government is one in which the leader has gained enough power to act as he or she desires without fear of repercussion. Rulers of absolutist nations could not only do as they wished; they could also control what was said about them and by whom. Controlling the nation was synonymous with controlling its representation. Coupled with a seemingly limitless supply of wealth to fund their ambitions, the result was an individual who posed an extreme danger to anyone who dared oppose them. Although the two empires shared similar policies regarding monarchical authority, the Ottomans were far more successful in retaining power than their Mughal counterparts.
You’re 44% through this paper. Sign up to read the remaining 3 sections.
Sign Up Now — Instant Access Already a member? Log inAlways verify citation format against your institution’s current style guide requirements.