There were Darbaris in his Darbar who wrote all the good things about him because they were paid for this they were living in his mercy but surprise to see people in 2023 are simping for a medieval era ruler who fought against native people of the land, liberals makes him like a Democratically elected secular president of medieval era.
That’s why she compares and contrasts what they say with other contemporary sources. Also while Abu Fazl is in absolute awe of Akbar, Badauni is scathing in his assessment. He detests Akbar for the very attributes such as tolerance, justice and liberal outlook, for which modern scholars of history adore him. You make a fair point about the credibility of court appointed historians. Their records cannot be taken at face value. Yet a lot can be inferred. For example let’s say such a person writes that the emperor is great because he is so tolerant. While this doesn’t tell us whether or not the emperor was actually tolerant, it does tell us that at his court tolerance would be considered a virtue. This is vital information that a trained historian can build upon. Everything in history is about fine detail and nuance.
The compassionate heart of his majesty finds no pleasure in cruelties or in causing sorrow to others; he is ever sparing of the lives of his subjects, wishing to bestow happiness upon all. -Ain-i-Akbari by Abul Fazl
Well, even in modern scientific age people are not as accepting of homosexuality. This guy was pretty chill king so to speak, well-liked by people of all faiths.
@@mace7467 but that’s the thing, in his age male homosexuality wasn’t frowned upon as it is today. That makes “tolerant” Akbar’s intolerance towards same sex love among men all the more puzzling. While to us it’s no big deal in twenty first century given present day attitudes, his sixteenth century contemporaries seem to be have been baffled by his anachronistic homophobia.
@@intellectuallycurious6443 It is unprecedented today. There is no time in history when gay people are more widely accepted than today. Male homosexuality is more accepted today and was frowned upon back in the 16th century. What are you even saying?
There were Darbaris in his Darbar who wrote all the good things about him because they were paid for this they were living in his mercy but surprise to see people in 2023 are simping for a medieval era ruler who fought against native people of the land, liberals makes him like a Democratically elected secular president of medieval era.
That’s why she compares and contrasts what they say with other contemporary sources. Also while Abu Fazl is in absolute awe of Akbar, Badauni is scathing in his assessment. He detests Akbar for the very attributes such as tolerance, justice and liberal outlook, for which modern scholars of history adore him.
You make a fair point about the credibility of court appointed historians. Their records cannot be taken at face value. Yet a lot can be inferred. For example let’s say such a person writes that the emperor is great because he is so tolerant. While this doesn’t tell us whether or not the emperor was actually tolerant, it does tell us that at his court tolerance would be considered a virtue. This is vital information that a trained historian can build upon. Everything in history is about fine detail and nuance.
Democracy is idiotic. Only those who are able to hold onto power through force can truly be satisfied that their rule will last.
Great discussion! Loved it!
The compassionate heart of his majesty finds no pleasure in cruelties or in causing sorrow to others; he is ever sparing of the lives of his subjects, wishing to bestow happiness upon all.
-Ain-i-Akbari by Abul Fazl
Bhramanism @ 25:05
Good indication of her scholarly acumen 🤣
Most fail to realise how complex these historical characters were.
Surprised to know of “tolerant” Akbar’s intolerance towards same sex love.
Well, even in modern scientific age people are not as accepting of homosexuality. This guy was pretty chill king so to speak, well-liked by people of all faiths.
@@mace7467 but that’s the thing, in his age male homosexuality wasn’t frowned upon as it is today. That makes “tolerant” Akbar’s intolerance towards same sex love among men all the more puzzling. While to us it’s no big deal in twenty first century given present day attitudes, his sixteenth century contemporaries seem to be have been baffled by his anachronistic homophobia.
@@intellectuallycurious6443 It is unprecedented today. There is no time in history when gay people are more widely accepted than today. Male homosexuality is more accepted today and was frowned upon back in the 16th century.
What are you even saying?
@@mace7467 In the circles that Akbar was part of it was fairly common and not condemned
@@mace7467 probably because he needed allies to take on afghans