## Learning Outcomes

- Understand how land-based empires used religion to make rule seem lawful and sacred
- Identify how monumental architecture displayed dynastic power and political order
- Compare the Ottoman, Safavid, Mughal, Qing, Russian, and Tokugawa examples
- Explain continuity and change in legitimation, especially within the Mughal Empire
- Distinguish legitimizing rule from administering rule
- Use specific evidence, dates, rulers, and buildings in SAQs and LEQs

## AP World History: Modern Syllabus

For the AP World History: Modern, you are expected to understand how rulers in land-based empires legitimized authority, with a focus on the following syllabus points:

- Know that from **c. 1450 to c. 1750**, rulers continued to use **religious ideas, art, and monumental architecture** to legitimize rule
- Identify how the **Ottoman Empire** used **Sunni Islam** and mosque patronage
- Explain how the **Safavid Empire** used **Twelver Shi'a Islam** as an official state religion
- Understand how **Mughal** rulers used both religious policy and monumental building, including change from **Akbar** to **Aurangzeb**
- Know how **Qing** rulers used **Confucian ritual** and the **Mandate of Heaven** despite their Manchu origins
- Identify how **Russia** tied tsarist rule to **Eastern Orthodoxy**
- Recognise that architecture such as mosques, palaces, shrines, and capitals was political as well as artistic
- Explain similarities and differences between conditional legitimacy in China and more fixed sacred monarchy in Europe or Russia

## 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. How did rulers use religion to make their authority seem rightful between 1450 and 1750?
2. What is the difference between the **Mandate of Heaven** and **divine right**?
3. Name two examples of monumental architecture used to support imperial rule.
4. How did Safavid religious policy differ from Mughal religious policy under Akbar?
5. Why could the **Forbidden City** still be used as evidence for Qing legitimacy even though it was built before the Qing?

## Introduction

From **1450 to 1750**, major land-based empires ruled huge and diverse populations. Military conquest helped them gain territory, but conquest alone did not make rule stable. A dynasty also needed people to accept its power as rightful. That is where religion, ritual, court culture, and monumental building became crucial.

For AP World, this topic sits at the meeting point of **GOV**, **CDI**, and often **GOV + SIO**. The key idea is simple: rulers linked themselves to sacred truth or moral order, then made that authority visible through buildings, capitals, ceremonies, and public images of power.

> **Key Term: legitimizing rule**
> Making political authority appear rightful, natural, divinely approved, or morally justified.

### Why religion and architecture mattered politically

Religion gave rulers a language of obedience. If a monarch was presented as chosen by God, protected by Heaven, or guardian of the true faith, resistance could be framed as more than political rebellion. It could be treated as disloyalty to sacred order itself.

Architecture worked differently but supported the same goal. Massive mosques, palaces, forts, shrines, and ceremonial capitals showed wealth, discipline, permanence, and access to resources. A grand building could say, without words, that the ruler had power, divine favour, and the ability to command labour on a huge scale.

> **Key Term: monumental architecture**
> Large-scale buildings or ceremonial spaces designed to display power, wealth, sacred authority, or dynastic prestige.

This is why AP questions often pair a belief system with a building. A strong answer does not just name the building. It explains what the building did politically.

> **Test Tip:** If a prompt asks how rulers legitimized power, do not drift into pure administration. Civil service exams, devshirme, or tax systems matter, but they are stronger as evidence for governing. For legitimation, prioritise belief systems, rituals, and symbolic buildings.

### Ottoman and Safavid strategies: Islamic legitimacy with different sectarian identities

The **Ottoman Empire** and **Safavid Empire** were both Muslim land-based empires, but they did not use Islam in exactly the same way. This distinction is high value on the exam.

The Ottomans grounded legitimacy in **Sunni Islam**. Their sultans presented themselves as defenders of the Muslim community, and rulers such as **Selim I** claimed wider Islamic authority. Ottoman political thought also drew on the **circle of justice**, the idea that just rule, tax collection, army support, and social order reinforced one another.

> **Key Term: circle of justice**
> A political idea in Islamic and Persianate states linking just rule, prosperity, taxation, and military strength in a self-supporting cycle.

Ottoman mosque patronage made this visible. The **Süleymaniye Mosque** in Istanbul, commissioned by **Suleiman the Magnificent** in the **sixteenth century**, projected piety and imperial grandeur. It was not just a religious site. It also showed that the sultan could command resources, labour, and urban space on an imperial scale. Large mosque complexes often included schools and charitable institutions, which reinforced the ruler’s image as guardian of the community.

The Safavids, by contrast, built legitimacy through **Twelver Shi'a Islam**. When **Ismail I** founded the Safavid state in **1501**, he made Shi'ism the official religion. This helped unify Persia internally and sharply distinguished the Safavids from their Sunni Ottoman rivals.

> **Key Term: Twelver Shi'a Islam**
> A branch of Shi'a Islam that recognises a line of twelve imams and was adopted by the Safavids as the official state religion.

Under **Shah Abbas I**, the Safavid capital of **Isfahan** became a display of royal and religious authority. The city's monumental spaces, especially the great central plaza and mosque complexes, projected shah-centered power. The architecture of Isfahan was political because it tied dynastic rule to public ceremony, Shi'a identity, and Persian magnificence.

So the comparison is not “Ottoman = Islam, Safavid = Islam.” It is more precise:

- Ottomans: **Sunni** legitimacy and imperial mosque patronage
- Safavids: **Shi'a** state religion and monumental urban redesign

That distinction is often what earns the comparison point.

### Mughal, Qing, Russia, and Tokugawa: different paths to legitimate power

The **Mughal Empire** ruled a majority non-Muslim population in South Asia, so its rulers had to think carefully about how to make Muslim dynastic rule acceptable. This produced one of the clearest examples of change over time within a single empire.

Under **Akbar** (r. **1556–1605**), Mughal legitimacy relied heavily on tolerance and inclusive kingship. He reduced conflict by ending the **jizya** on non-Muslims and including Hindus in government. This was not equality in a modern sense, but it was a practical way to strengthen a Muslim dynasty ruling a diverse population. Akbar's religious policy helped present him as a universal ruler rather than only a sectarian one.

His architectural program did the same. **Fatehpur Sikri** expressed centralised authority and imperial ambition. It was a planned imperial city that turned Mughal power into something visible.

Later Mughal rulers used monumental architecture to reinforce dynastic prestige. Under **Shah Jahan**, the **Taj Mahal** and **Red Fort** became major symbols of Mughal splendour. Students sometimes avoid the Taj Mahal because it is a tomb, but it is still valid evidence. In AP terms, it represents wealth, imperial resources, dynastic legitimacy, and the cultural prestige of Mughal rule.

> **Key Term: dynastic legitimacy**
> Authority justified by the prestige, continuity, and recognised right of a ruling family or dynasty.

The Mughal example becomes stronger when you show change. Under **Aurangzeb**, tolerance narrowed and Mughal policy became more overtly pro-Muslim. This shift weakened relations with non-Muslim subjects and helps explain later tensions.

> **Test Tip:** For continuity and change, the Mughals are excellent evidence. Use **Akbar** for inclusion and broad-based legitimacy, then **Aurangzeb** for a shift toward narrower confessional rule.

The **Qing Dynasty** had a different problem. The Qing were **Manchu** conquerors ruling a largely **Han Chinese** population. Military victory alone was not enough. They had to prove they were rightful Chinese emperors. They did this by adopting **Confucian state ritual** and claiming the **Mandate of Heaven**.

> **Key Term: Mandate of Heaven**
> The Chinese belief that Heaven grants the right to rule to a just and effective dynasty, but can withdraw that approval if rulers fail.

This form of legitimacy was conditional. Good rule confirmed the mandate; disorder could suggest its loss. That differs from the stronger idea in Europe and Russia that monarchy came directly from God and was not normally open to challenge by subjects.

Qing rulers used imperial spaces such as the **Forbidden City** and the **Temple of Heaven** to reinforce this continuity. Even though the Forbidden City predated the Qing, Qing use of it mattered. By ruling from the old imperial centre, the Manchus presented themselves as heirs to earlier Chinese dynasties, not just outside conquerors.

Russia tied legitimacy to **Eastern Orthodoxy** and the sacred image of the tsar. After the fall of Constantinople in **1453**, Moscow developed the idea of the **Third Rome**, presenting itself as heir to the Roman and Byzantine Christian tradition. Church architecture and Kremlin ceremonial spaces helped portray the tsar as protector of the true faith.

Tokugawa Japan used a slightly different model. The **Tokugawa shogunate** relied more on **Neo-Confucian hierarchy** than on one universal missionary religion. Neo-Confucianism justified obedience, status order, and stable social roles. Buildings such as **Edo Castle** symbolised central authority, while **Nikkō Tōshōgū**, associated with **Tokugawa Ieyasu**, helped sacralise the founding dynasty.

### How to compare these empires in exam answers

A comparison answer should group states by how they linked power to belief and image.

One useful comparison is:

- **Ottoman and Safavid** rulers used Islam directly, but in different sectarian forms
- **Mughals** used Islam more flexibly because they ruled a diverse population
- **Qing and Tokugawa** relied more on Confucian or Neo-Confucian order and ritual than on conversion
- **Russia** tied monarchy to Orthodoxy and sacred dynastic succession

Another useful comparison is architecture:

- Ottoman: **Süleymaniye Mosque**
- Safavid: **Isfahan** and its ceremonial spaces
- Mughal: **Fatehpur Sikri**, **Taj Mahal**, **Red Fort**
- Qing: **Forbidden City**, **Temple of Heaven**
- Russia: cathedrals and Kremlin ceremonial architecture
- Tokugawa: **Edo Castle**, **Nikkō Tōshōgū**

In each case, explain the function:

- awe
- order
- sacred association
- dynastic continuity
- visible wealth

Do not leave architecture as decoration only. On the exam, buildings are strongest when treated as political messages in stone.

### Using this material in SAQs, DBQs, and LEQs

For an SAQ, keep the structure tight: identify the empire, name the belief system, and add one building. For example, “Safavid rulers legitimized authority by making **Twelver Shi'a Islam** the state religion and by rebuilding **Isfahan** as a monumental capital under **Shah Abbas I**.”

For an LEQ or DBQ, a solid thesis could look like this: rulers from **1450 to 1750** legitimized rule by linking themselves to sacred or moral authority and by sponsoring monumental architecture that displayed divine favour, dynastic prestige, and political order.

Then build paragraphs around comparison or causation:

- Islamic sectarian legitimation: Ottoman vs Safavid
- Inclusive vs exclusive legitimation: Mughal Akbar vs Aurangzeb
- Conqueror legitimation through continuity: Qing adoption of Confucian ritual
- Sacred monarchy and founder reverence: Russia and Tokugawa

A strong outside example beyond the main three gunpowder empires is often **Qing China** or **Russia**, because many students forget them.

> **Test Tip:** In a DBQ or LEQ, use empire-specific evidence rather than generic phrases like “rulers used religion.” Name the ruler, the ideology, and one building or ritual site.

## Key Point Checklist

_This article has covered the following key knowledge points:_

- Rulers from **c. 1450 to c. 1750** used religion and monumental architecture to legitimize power
- Legitimizing rule means making authority seem rightful, sacred, moral, or natural
- Monumental architecture was political because it displayed wealth, order, and dynastic prestige
- The **Ottoman Empire** used **Sunni Islam** and mosque patronage, including the **Süleymaniye Mosque**
- The **Safavid Empire** used **Twelver Shi'a Islam** and monumental urban planning in **Isfahan**
- The **Mughal Empire** used inclusive legitimacy under **Akbar** and grand architecture such as **Fatehpur Sikri**, the **Taj Mahal**, and the **Red Fort**
- Mughal legitimation changed over time, especially from **Akbar** to **Aurangzeb**
- The **Qing Dynasty** used **Confucian ritual** and the **Mandate of Heaven** to justify Manchu rule
- The **Forbidden City** and **Temple of Heaven** reinforced Qing legitimacy through continuity with earlier Chinese dynasties
- Russian tsars linked power to **Eastern Orthodoxy** and the idea of Moscow as the **Third Rome**
- Tokugawa rule used **Neo-Confucian hierarchy** and symbolic sites such as **Edo Castle** and **Nikkō Tōshōgū**
- In exam answers, pair one ideology with one building for clear, specific evidence

## Key Terms and Concepts

- legitimizing rule
- monumental architecture
- circle of justice
- Twelver Shi'a Islam
- dynastic legitimacy
- Mandate of Heaven


Empires: Administration - Legitimizing rule through religion and architecture