AP Syllabus focus: ‘Political and religious disputes led to rivalries and warfare, including Safavid–Mughal conflict and the Songhai Empire’s conflict with Morocco.’
Early modern empires expanded while competing for borderlands, trade, and legitimacy. Two illustrative rivalries—Safavid–Mughal and Songhai–Morocco—show how political aims and religious identities intensified warfare and reshaped regional power.
What “state rivalry” meant in practice (1450–1750)
State rivalries typically combined multiple motives rather than a single cause:
Strategic geography: control of frontier forts, passes, and oasis routes
Revenue goals: access to taxable land, customs duties, and high-value commodities
Legitimacy claims: rulers presenting themselves as rightful defenders of faith and order
Military advantage: leveraging firearms or cavalry strengths to offset distance and terrain
Sectarianism: Political and social conflict driven by affiliation with different religious sects (for example, Sunni and Shi’a identities within Islam), often used by states to justify rivalry.
Religious difference alone rarely explains wars; it often worked alongside disputes over borders and commerce.
Safavid–Mughal rivalry: politics first, religion as amplifier
Core political dispute: contested frontiers
Unlock the rest of this chapter with a free account
Sign up for a free account to keep reading notes and practice questions.
FAQ
It linked multiple regions: Iran, Central Asia, and northern India.
Control offered:
customs and taxation opportunities
a defensible military base on frontier routes
symbolic prestige as a “gateway” city for imperial reach
Sustaining rule required moving troops, supplies, and officials across the Sahara.
Constraints included:
long supply lines vulnerable to disruption
reliance on oasis networks
difficulty projecting authority over riverine West African landscapes far from Moroccan power centres
Yes, disruption to political stability and trade funding could weaken support for scholarly communities.
Effects could include:
reduced patronage for scholars and institutions
insecurity affecting travel and manuscript circulation
shifts of learning networks toward safer locations
Both faced practical limits:
costly siege warfare on fortified frontiers
competing priorities (rebellions, succession issues, other borders)
difficulty integrating hostile border populations and maintaining garrisons year-round
Local elites could tilt outcomes by providing:
intelligence and guides
regional troops and supplies
legitimacy through cooperation
Their support often depended on promised autonomy, tax arrangements, and protection, making frontier loyalty changeable over time.
