Iran under Safavid rule

Quinn, Sholeh A.

doi:10.1017/chol9780521850315.008

Cited by 2 publications

(1 citation statement)

References 262 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…The Ottoman–Safavid and Mughal–Safavid frontiers were settled through warfare, and their politico-military interaction was limited to the borderlands. While there was no “impassable” physical barrier between the Ottomans and the Safavids (Dale, 2015: 6), the 1514 Ottoman–Safavid war at Chāldirān resulted in a strategic “stalemate” (Quinn, 2010: 210) as subsequent territorial exchanges were relatively minor and a function of politico-military power during any given encounter. Likewise, the Mughal–Safavid frontier was largely settled along the Hindu Kush/Sulaiman Mountains, with Kabul under decisive Mughal control after 1585, although their territorial rivalry, limited to the control of Qandahar, continued throughout this period and it “changed hands on a dozen occasions” between them (Islam, 1970: 14).…”

Section: The Mughal Creation Of South Asia: Primary Institutionsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Mughal hegemony and the emergence of South Asia as a “region” for regional order-building

Pardesi

2018

European Journal of International Relations

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The region known as South Asia today emerged as the locus for order-building only in the early modern period (~1500–1750) as a “region” of Islamicate Asia. I demonstrate this through a cognitive-strategic process based on the interactions between polities and resources within and outside of South Asia. While the practices associated with the primary institutions of warfare, great power management, diplomacy, and political economy did not meaningfully differentiate South Asia from Eurasia in the pre-Mughal millennium, the deep rules associated with them marked South Asia off from Islamicate Asia after the rise of the Mughals. The practices of these four primary institutions were co-constituted with Mughal hegemony. Unlike recent scholarship, I show that the regional level existed before the emergence of a global-scale international system. My analysis has two major theoretical implications. First, I clarify the distinction between hegemonic and imperial orders, and argue that coercive hegemony must be understood as a primary institution of an international/regional society. Since all hegemonies are not alike, I explain why some hegemonic orders are based on coercion while others mix coercion with legitimacy/acquiescence by elucidating the structural differences between Mughal and Ming/Qing hegemonies. Second, I advance the debate on balance of power versus hegemony by providing a historically grounded explanation that demonstrates why the injection of extra-regional resources into early modern South Asia produced hegemony while fostering systemic balancing behavior in Europe (post-1500). My findings raise questions related to regionalization (order-building) without regionalism (shared identities/threat perceptions), while showing that region (trans)formation effects order.

show abstract

Section: The Mughal Creation Of South Asia: Primary Institutionsmentioning

confidence: 99%