EnragedMaldivians wrote:Caninope wrote:Decentralization (and the disorganization that occurs afterwards) is almost always a major factor in the loss of an empire.
Actually, I think it was the initial centralization of the Empire that made it weak; the Mughals used their gunpowder advantage to gain a power monopoly over the sub continent, and following that there was really no pressure on them to improve upon their weaponry or tactics.
Whereas the Europeans underwent a series of military revolutions of sorts following the sixteenth century, because the continent had so many different centres of power; starting with the improvements made in Italian fortifications as a result of the Valois invasions (see: Trace Italianne) , spreading to the North - which resulted in an increase in the overall size of European armies, as more men were needed to both man these forts, and overcome them.
More importantly, they also had to improve upon their gunpowder and artillery to keep gaining an edge over their competitors; with flintlock guns replacing matchlock guns, the designing of ships capable of firing longe range broadsides (the main reason the Turks lost at Lepanto in 1571, and why the Portuguese came to briefly dominate the Indian Ocean) - and a concomitant change in tacticts and unit composition to utilize these reforms effectively.
Whereas Eastern Gunpowder Empires like the Ottomans, Mughals and the Ming weren't subject to that kind of 'Darwinian process', and their Military Technology remained rather stagnant in comparison.
That Darwinist process you talk about comes from more than just military. There was a complete change in European thinking at the time, spurred on by the arrival of Byzantines from Constantinople, and (before that) the infusion of Arabic knowledge.
Decentralization is always a negative when you've got invaders.
