Talk:List of emperors of the Mughal Empire

Untitled

Neutral?

I'm just wondering how it's neutral to prefix the names of kings with titles reflecting the author's opinion of them?

It is not and neither is the content of the article accurate. The Mughal Empire should cover this idolatry of the kings. At the very least the stuff about the individual kings should be placed in the article Emperor of India. The part of the article that is appropriate to this title is the one about the society.I would like to see more about the arts, the literature and the architecture of the era. The Mughal Empire was effectively the Elizabethan and the Victorian Eras combined with respect to India. There definitely is enough material out there to justify a separate article. It's just not completely in here.Abhishekmathur (talk) 06:46, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

Removed the honorific titles as well as some of the idolatry language used for the emperors. The article reads like a lament to the past rather than stating the facts. It looks like it's been copied for for word from a history book rather than an encyclopedic article. Recommend investigation of sources for copyright violation.

As they have been removed so hard to say, but often Honorifics are part of the proper and official title and do deserve to be here. The Emperor of Spain is rightfully called King of Leon, Castile, Asturias, Badajoz and like 14 other things I cannot remember. The Sultan Khan of the Ottomans had Protector of the Faithful or something to that effect as part of his official title and that is well worth keeping record of, which is part of the point of the article. Being informative is in fact neutral, even if that information is that someone was officially called "The Glorious Lord with Shiny Pants". 216.154.62.174 (talk) 01:42, 14 March 2019 (UTC)

all of these facts are untrue DO NOT LISTEN TO WIKIPIDIA — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:198:C17F:FBA0:54D1:D140:B10B:E9F (talk) 23:19, 1 October 2020 (UTC)

Humayun section illogical

This section is, as of 2009-Nov-22, not logically presented. It departs from Humayun's battle loss and then picks up with him in the last paragraph. Can someone knowledgable clean it up, or add some more details? Robpinion (talk) 15:05, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

illogical titles

here is an error in the titulary of Mughal rulers, they never were emperors, the article headline shows them as emperors {emperor-name-}, but in the description of his name and titles appear as,sultan and/or Padishah,, besides that neither the Sultan nor Padishah mean emperor {imperator} ,someone competent could change those mistakes? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 189.129.104.42 (talk) 00:12, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

Padishah does not directly translate to Emperor, but it does mean the same thing, so it is accurate to say that a Padishah is an Emperor in the modern English language. And they pretty accurately fit the definition of Emperor, not in the Roman Republic sense or proper Latin sense, but in the Roman Empire way they were very much Emperors. Sultan can have a similar meaning, but usually it will used as "Sultan of Sultans", similar thing with Khans, which is what a Khagan is "Khan of Khans", or as the Mughals used, Gurkhan. That use is literally what an Emperor is in the English language, a King over multiple Kings or Kingdoms. Imperator is more literally a Roman Republic Era position like a General or Voivode. King by the way literally refers not to an inherited monarchical position, but an ancient elected German (literally ancient, German tribes from around the time period of Julius Caesar) position. Germanic languages have this word, other Indo-European languages use words with an R that are related, such as Ri, Rex, Rei, Rey, Roi, Roy or Raj. 216.154.62.174 (talk) 01:57, 14 March 2019 (UTC)

Hindu Mughal Descendants?

i found the (hilarious) uncited info on mughal descendants of Bahadur Shah, with the last name gupta living in bhopal. This is purely fictional, illogical and does not have any references. I deleted it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rajshahi jela (talk • contribs) 07:58, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

Extent of Mughal Empire

In 1710, Travancore paid tribute to the Mughal governor of Arcot. There was a Qiladar at Valikondapuram in central Tamil Nadu, who was under Bijapur initially and under the Mughals later. Therefore, at least after 1710, the Mughal Empire should be shown as covering entire peninsula. The present map is incorrect. It also eaves the areas of Mysore outside, which is wrong. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gopalan evr (talk • contribs) 16:21, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

File:Bahadur Shah II.jpg Nominated for speedy Deletion

An image used in this article, File:Bahadur Shah II.jpg, has been nominated for speedy deletion at Wikimedia Commons for the following reason: Copyright violations What should I do? Don't panic; deletions can take a little longer at Commons than they do on Wikipedia. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion (although please review Commons guidelines before doing so). The best way to contest this form of deletion is by posting on the image talk page. If the image is non-free then you may need to upload it to Wikipedia (Commons does not allow fair use) If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale then it cannot be uploaded or used. If the image has already been deleted you may want to try Commons Undeletion Request To take part in any discussion, or to review a more detailed deletion rationale please visit the relevant image page (File:Bahadur Shah II.jpg) This is Bot placed notification, another user has nominated/tagged the image --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 10:43, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

The English word "mogul"

"The English word mogul (e.g. media mogul, business mogul) was coined by this dynasty, meaning influential or powerful, or a tycoon." Well, the English word may derive from the name of the dynasty, but it certainly wasn't coined by them. Sentence should be revised to read "The English word mogul (e.g. media mogul, business mogul), meaning influential or powerful, or a tycoon, was inspired by the name of this dynasty," — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.21.54.229 (talk) 21:00, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

Y Done - M0rphzone (talk) 07:26, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

Correction in the main article of Mughal empire--Shahjahan.

In the paragraph detailing about the rule of SHAHJAHAN, the last line contains an error. It says "squinting at the distant silhouette of his famous Taj Mahal on the banks of River Jamuna" The river on the banks of Taj Mahal is YAMUNA. It is mistaken to be JAMUNA, a tributary of Brahmaputra in Bangladesh. I request the authorities to verify this error and correct it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vssc12 (talk • contribs) 07:06, 24 December 2012 (UTC)

Jamuna is another way of saying Yamuna and is quite common in English. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.36.142.68 (talk) 18:26, 13 April 2013 (UTC)

Mughal empresses

The page Mughal empresses has popped up in New Articles. The article as it currently stands is a mess. Maybe this is something that could be properly formatted and merged into the current article, or improved on by editors here? Mabalu (talk) 06:07, 15 March 2014 (UTC)

Tipu Saltan executed?

The article on Tipu Saltan says he died in battle.

This article says one of the mughal emperors executed him.

Which is it?--23.119.204.117 (talk) 04:39, 7 November 2015 (UTC)

He died in siege to be specific. Alexis Ivanov (talk) 04:43, 7 November 2015 (UTC)

Content that should rather be in Mughal empire

Generally this article should have a small section giving the background of the Mughal empire, the rest of the sections would be Lineages, Titles, Powers etc going about the history of just the emperors. For example, see Roman emperors. While I appreciate such expansion of this neglected article, I think the efforts would be better spent on Mughal Empire rather than here.

Also see Summary style. I think at present the section could be trimmed by 50 percent and transferred to its main article with a {{main|}} link. Ugog Nizdast (talk) 17:05, 22 April 2016 (UTC)

Sorry for late in getting back to you, Ugog Nizdast, I just got busy with some other things. At your main point, I would concur. Some of the material I added in could probably being moved to the Mughal emperor. This article seemed a tad POVish in the sense it seemed to imply that the success of the Marathas were due to weak leadership on the part of the Mughal emperors. No doubt, that is true to a certain extent, but it also that the Marathas played a different game than the one the Mughals were used to, which is why I went and changed that. If you want to reduce my summary somewhat, I would not object. Again, this article had a uncited sentence that said India was a wealthy country under Akbar while the book by Eraly says the opposite. Since I believe that Eraly's book is a RS and it is only one sentence, I feel that sentence can remain. The part that I added about the need for the Mughal emperors to have cavalry forces provided by the noble families of northern India and how many such families were unwilling to provide their cavalry after the conquest of the Deccan should remain. One thing I would like to do with this article is the article talk about the nature of the powers of the Mughal emperors, which at present it does not very much. Of course, that also be included in the article on the Mughal empire, but I think about in the coming months of adding in a lot of more on that subject. How did the Mughal emperors rule an empire of millions? What was the limitations on their powers? And did those powers change over time? Of course if feel this material might be better added to the Mughal empire article, I am certain we work out some sort of reasonable compromise. Thank you for inviting me to discussion, Ugog Nizdast and please have a wonderful day!--A.S. Brown (talk) 01:17, 9 May 2016 (UTC)

Since I've no access to the sources I can only help by copy-editing your edits and help you decide what's relevant here. The nature of their powers would be relevant here, if sources go into detail about it. Anything about the emperors would be a good addition here as there's currently nothing mentioned about them except that list. Ugog Nizdast (talk) 13:59, 9 May 2016 (UTC)

I think the section about emperor's need for cavalry from 655 aristocratic families of India relates to the powers of the emperors. Likewise, the need for the emperors to maintain an "aura of success" to persuade the noble families to provide their cavalry for war is relates to the powers of the emperors. Once one accepts that part and in the 18th century that the land-owning families were increasingly unwilling to provide cavalry, then the part relating to the decline of the empire makes much sense. Go ahead and change the article in way that you feel is best. I have to go away on a long trip as one of my siblings home has been destroyed by fire, so I won't be around here for a while. When I get back, I provide you with my feedback if I feel that something has taken out of the article that should in. Cheers.--A.S. Brown (talk) 12:35, 10 May 2016 (UTC)

Here is the new proposed order I can think of:

1. First emperor
2. Titles, powers and positions
3. List
4. Last emperor

I think we can do away with the Empire section and move all the relevant content to that page. Ugog Nizdast (talk) 15:29, 11 May 2016 (UTC)

I generally agree with this, but I think the early, major emperors (to 1707) deserve a para of bio each. Johnbod (talk) 17:03, 11 May 2016 (UTC)

Chronology of the Mughal Empire

I request my fellow editors to work on the Chronology of the Mughal Empire. ~~\\~

Seal and Coat of Arms of the Mughal Empire

New discoveries have yet to be made about the official imperial seal and the "Coat of Arms" of the Mughal Empire. ~~\\~\

A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for speedy deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for speedy deletion:

• Amir Timur Lung.jpg

You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 22:21, 23 March 2019 (UTC)

No Sher Shah Suri?

If you look at the date of Humayun's reign you will see it is interrupted by the overthrow of the dynasty and replacement by Sher Shah Suri. But his article speaks of him as a Mughal ruler - he controls the empire, makes reforms, so on and so forth, rather than destroying the Empire. Should he and his son, who rules for a while after him, therefore not be included in the list? LastDodo (talk) 08:14, 25 August 2020 (UTC)

@LastDodo: He is regarded as the founder of the Sur Empire, which is traditionally viewed as a separate entity to the Mughal Empire. Sher Shah Suri is therefore seen as a Sur emperor rather than a Mughal.
Alivardi (talk) 20:51, 25 August 2020 (UTC)

Alright, well, I'll defer to your superior knowledge LastDodo (talk) 07:57, 26 August 2020 (UTC)

Shahryar Mirza as emperor

Shahryar Mirza is not counted as a Mughal emperor, even his page says so. He should not be on the list. --आज़ादी (talk) 04:20, 14 July 2021 (UTC)

Agreed! Johnbod (talk) 14:26, 14 July 2021 (UTC)

Sst

Mughal emperors ruled India during the 16th century?*ਬਾਬਰ/ Baburਹੁਮਾਯੂੰ/ Humayunਅਕਬਰ/ Akbarਉਪਰੋਕਤ ਸਾਰੇ/ All of the above 103.140.2.164 (talk) 07:38, 16 May 2022 (UTC)