AP World History: Modern

## Learning Outcomes

- Compare the main similarities among major land-based empires from **c. 1450–1750**
- Identify important differences in **governance** and **legitimation**
- Recall specific evidence such as **devshirme**, **Janissaries**, **mansabdari**, and the **Mandate of Heaven**
- Explain how rulers governed large and diverse populations
- Build stronger comparison arguments for **SAQs**, **LEQs**, and **DBQs**
- Connect this topic to AP themes such as **GOV**, **SIO**, and **CDI**

## AP World History: Modern Syllabus

For the AP World History: Modern, you are expected to understand how major **land-based empires** can be compared, with a focus on the following syllabus points:

- Know that the **Ottoman**, **Safavid**, **Mughal**, and **Qing** empires were major land-based states in **c. 1450–1750**
- Identify shared features such as **centralized monarchs**, **tax collection**, **bureaucratic administration**, and **military expansion**
- Explain differences in how these empires **legitimized** rule
- Understand how religion shaped state identity, especially **Sunni Islam**, **Twelver Shi'a Islam**, and **Confucian-Mandate traditions**
- Compare methods of ruling diverse populations, including the **millet system**, Mughal cooperation with Hindu elites, and Qing multiethnic rule
- Distinguish the **Qing Empire** from the three classic Islamic **gunpowder empires**
- Use specific historical evidence, not vague labels, in comparative arguments

## Test Your Knowledge

_Attempt these questions before reading this article. If you find some difficult or cannot remember the answers, look more closely at that area during your revision._

1. What similarities linked the Ottoman, Safavid, Mughal, and Qing empires?
2. How did the Ottoman and Safavid empires differ in religious identity?
3. Name one system or institution used by the Ottomans, Mughals, and Qing to maintain control.
4. Why is the Qing Empire usually compared with, but not always grouped inside, the classic gunpowder empires?
5. How could you compare Mughal and Qing legitimation in one clear sentence?

## Introduction

In Unit 3, comparison is not about listing four empires separately. It is about showing patterns across them. The AP exam wants you to recognize that large land-based empires in **1450–1750** often used similar tools to rule, but they did not all justify power in the same way.

This topic sits mainly in **GOV**, but it also connects to **SIO** because these empires ruled many ethnic and religious groups, and to **CDI** because belief systems shaped political authority. The strongest responses compare by category: **governance**, **military power**, and **legitimation**.

> **Key Term: land-based empire**
> A large state that expands and rules mainly through control of contiguous territory on land rather than overseas colonies.

### Shared patterns in land-based empires

The safest starting point in any comparison is similarity. The **Ottoman**, **Safavid**, **Mughal**, and **Qing** empires were all large territorial states that ruled over many peoples. They needed armies, tax systems, and administrators. That basic challenge helps explain why they developed some similar institutions.

All four had powerful rulers at the center. The Ottomans had a **sultan**, the Safavids a **shah**, the Mughals an emperor, and the Qing a Manchu emperor ruling China. None of these states was democratic. All depended on monarchal authority and expected obedience from subjects.

They also relied on stronger state organization than many earlier states. Rulers built bureaucracies to collect taxes, supervise provinces, and mobilize resources for war. This matters for AP comparison because it lets you make a clear claim: all four empires pursued **state consolidation**.

> **Key Term: centralized bureaucracy**
> A system of officials and administrators who carry out the ruler’s orders across a large empire.

Military force was another shared feature. Expansion and survival depended on armies. In the Islamic empires especially, gunpowder weapons mattered greatly. The Ottomans and Mughals are the clearest examples, while the Safavids used them too, though less effectively over time. The Qing also relied on military organization and conquest, but their identity rested more on Manchu and Chinese imperial traditions than on the “gunpowder empire” label alone.

> **Key Term: gunpowder empires**
> Large early modern states, especially the Ottoman, Safavid, and Mughal empires, whose expansion was aided by gunpowder weapons.

A good comparison sentence might be: all four empires used armies, taxation, and bureaucratic elites to govern large territories, but their systems of legitimation differed.

> **Test Tip:** In an SAQ or LEQ, start with one broad similarity before moving to differences. This gives your answer structure and keeps it comparative from the start.

### Comparing governance: how rulers kept control

The Ottoman Empire built one of the strongest governing systems of the period. It used the **devshirme** system to recruit Christian boys, convert them to Islam, and train them for service. Some became part of the bureaucracy; others joined the **Janissaries**, the elite infantry. This reduced the sultan’s dependence on hereditary nobles and created servants loyal to the state.

> **Key Term: devshirme**
> The Ottoman practice of recruiting Christian boys for state service, especially in administration and the Janissaries.
>
> **Key Term: Janissaries**
> Elite Ottoman infantry soldiers, originally recruited through the devshirme system.

The Ottomans also ruled diversity pragmatically through the **millet system**. Religious minorities such as Christians and Jews could govern some community affairs under their own leaders, though they remained unequal to Muslims. This is strong evidence for how the Ottomans managed a multiethnic empire.

The Safavid Empire was also centralized, but often less stable institutionally. Early Safavid power depended heavily on the **Qizilbash**, tribal warriors who helped found the state but could also threaten the shah’s control. To reduce that danger, rulers such as **Shah Abbas I** strengthened the monarchy and used **ghulams**, military slaves and administrators, to build more direct loyalty to the ruler.

The Mughal Empire used a different method. Its key institution was the **mansabdari** system, which ranked nobles and tied them to military and administrative service. This gave the emperor a way to organize the elite and distribute office. The Mughals also worked through local landholders, especially **zamindars**, which helped connect imperial government to local society.

> **Key Term: mansabdari system**
> The Mughal ranking system that tied nobles to military and administrative service under the emperor.

The Qing Empire blended conquest rule with older Chinese institutions. The Qing preserved the **civil service examination system** and Confucian scholar-official tradition. This gave them legitimacy among Chinese elites and helped them govern a huge population. At the same time, they kept distinct Manchu structures such as the **banner system**, which preserved ruling-group identity and military organization.

So the comparison is clear. The Ottoman, Mughal, and Qing empires all used structured systems to tie elites to the state, but the precise method differed: devshirme and Janissaries in the Ottoman case, mansabdari in the Mughal case, and Confucian bureaucracy plus banners in the Qing case. The Safavids were more dependent on balancing tribal and court power.

> **Test Tip:** If a prompt asks how empires “maintained power,” focus on administration, taxation, and military organization. If it asks how they “legitimized” power, shift to religion, tradition, ritual, and architecture.

### Comparing legitimation: why subjects accepted rule

Students often confuse governing with legitimizing. Governance is how rulers ran the empire. Legitimation is how they justified their right to rule.

> **Key Term: legitimation**
> The methods rulers used to justify and strengthen their authority.

The Ottomans legitimated rule through **Sunni Islam**, military success, and law. The sultan presented himself as a defender of Islam, while also projecting power through institutions and monumental architecture. The **Süleymaniye Mosque** under **Suleiman the Magnificent** is good evidence because it displayed piety and imperial grandeur at the same time.

The Safavids relied even more heavily on religion as state identity. In **1501**, they made **Twelver Shi'a Islam** the official religion of Persia. This sharply distinguished them from the Sunni Ottomans. That difference was not minor; it shaped rivalry, politics, and collective identity. **Isfahan**, developed under Shah Abbas I, also acted as a visual symbol of Safavid authority.

The Mughals grounded authority in Islamic monarchy, conquest, and court culture, but their policy toward non-Muslims varied by ruler. **Akbar** is the strongest example of flexible legitimation. He reduced conflict by including Hindu elites, especially Rajputs, and promoting religious tolerance. Under him, legitimation worked partly through inclusion. Under **Aurangzeb**, however, policy shifted toward greater Islamic orthodoxy, showing that Mughal legitimation was not fixed.

The Qing differed most. They were not an Islamic empire. Their rulers justified authority mainly through the **Mandate of Heaven**, Confucian statecraft, and continuity with earlier Chinese dynasties. At the same time, they kept distinct Manchu identity. That is why the Qing are best compared with the other land-based empires, but not described as identical to the Ottoman-Safavid-Mughal group.

> **Key Term: Mandate of Heaven**
> The Chinese belief that a ruler has divine approval to govern as long as he rules justly and effectively.

A useful comparison claim is this: the Ottoman and Safavid states relied more directly on Islamic confessional identity, while the Qing drew more on inherited Chinese political tradition. The Mughal case sits between them because it used Islamic monarchy but often incorporated non-Muslim elites.

### Diversity, tolerance, and limits of imperial rule

A common exam mistake is to say one empire was “tolerant” and leave it there. AP readers want precision.

The Ottoman Empire is often described as tolerant because of the millet system. But that tolerance had limits. Non-Muslims were allowed restricted self-government, not equality. They still occupied a lower legal and social position.

The Mughal Empire under Akbar was also relatively inclusive, but again, this depended on the ruler. Akbar’s policies toward Rajputs and other non-Muslims were more flexible than Aurangzeb’s. So if a prompt asks about Mughal policy, it is smart to qualify your claim by ruler and time period.

The Safavid Empire was generally less flexible in religious identity because Twelver Shi'ism was central to the state. This made the empire more religiously uniform in theory, but also sharpened conflict with Sunni neighbors.

The Qing ruled an especially large and diverse empire. Their method was pragmatic. They used Chinese bureaucratic traditions for efficiency, but also enforced Manchu authority through symbols and institutions such as the **queue policy** and banner structure. Their tolerance was political, not modern equality.

This is where **continuity and change** also help your analysis. All four empires ruled diverse populations, but they did so in different ways. The continuity is multiethnic rule. The change lies in the methods used to manage it.

### How to use this in SAQs, DBQs, and LEQs

For an **SAQ**, give one direct similarity and one direct difference with named evidence. Example: both the Ottomans and Mughals used centralized states and military service to rule large empires, but the Ottomans used the devshirme and Janissaries while the Mughals used the mansabdari system and cooperation with zamindars.

For a **DBQ**, group evidence by category. One paragraph might cover governance. Another might cover legitimation. A third might cover treatment of diversity. This helps you stay analytical instead of descriptive.

For an **LEQ**, a strong thesis might look like this: although the Ottoman, Safavid, Mughal, and Qing empires all built centralized states supported by military power and bureaucracy, they differed in legitimation because the Islamic empires relied more on religious identity, while the Qing grounded rule in Confucian traditions and the Mandate of Heaven.

> **Test Tip:** In comparison essays, do not write four separate mini-biographies of empires. Organize by categories such as governance, military systems, and legitimation. That is what earns comparison points.

## Key Point Checklist

_This article has covered the following key knowledge points:_

- The Ottoman, Safavid, Mughal, and Qing empires were major **land-based empires** in **c. 1450–1750**
- All four used centralized rulers, taxation, military force, and bureaucracy to maintain control
- The **Ottoman Empire** used the **devshirme**, **Janissaries**, and **millet system**
- The **Safavid Empire** relied strongly on **Twelver Shi'a Islam** and centralization under the shah
- **Shah Abbas I** strengthened Safavid rule and promoted **Isfahan** as an imperial center
- The **Mughal Empire** used the **mansabdari system** and worked with local elites such as **zamindars**
- **Akbar** is the key Mughal example for tolerance and incorporation of Hindu elites
- The **Qing Empire** kept the **civil service examination system** and justified power through the **Mandate of Heaven**
- The Qing also preserved distinct Manchu rule through institutions such as the **banner system**
- The Ottoman and Safavid empires differed sharply because one was **Sunni** and the other **Shi'a**
- Governance and legitimation are related but different comparison categories
- Strong AP answers use specific evidence and organize comparison by theme, not by separate empire summaries

## Key Terms and Concepts

- land-based empire
- centralized bureaucracy
- gunpowder empires
- devshirme
- Janissaries
- mansabdari system
- legitimation
- Mandate of Heaven


Comparison in Land-Based Empires - Comparing land-based empires