The Ottoman and the Safavid Empires, two of the “Gunpowder Empires” of the Middle East that dominated the region during the 16th and 17th centuries, represented the two most powerful sides of the Islamic split. The Ottoman Empire was the preeminent Sunni power in the Middle East from 1299 until its fall after World War I in 1923, with its empire at one point stretching across three continents spanning Eastern Europe, Western Asia, and North Africa. The Safavids were one of the most significant ruling dynasties of Iran, ruling from 1501 until 1722, establishing the Twelver school Shi’a Islam as the official religion of the empire. Both empires were dominated by a warrior aristocracy, a flourishing trading market, and a strong artistic presence.  Each contributed to the quick spread of Islam across the region as well as its rise in popularity across the world, but did so with differing styles of governmental autonomy.

            One of the core political principles of the Safavid and Ottoman empires was a well-established dynastic system of succession. With succession being a major point of contention throughout the Middle East during this time period, with family members killing each other to secure a position of power, this dynastic system was supposed to make the question of succession easier to answer. Each empire was built around a patrimonial government, with “elements of a centralized bureaucracy, quasi-feudal assignment of tax revenues to support the military and to carry on local administration (Lapidus 538).” This sharply contrasts the Mongol and Timurid empires where, upon the emperor's death, the empire would be partitioned among the sons of the ruler, who would fight each other for power and territory (Lapidus 238). As an imperial power, the Sultan did not directly rule over each province of the empire, but instead would appoint governors who would rule the territory as an autonomous state. These governors would pay taxes to the Sultan and would be allegiant to the Sultan, but would be allowed to run their governmental system as they pleased. The Safavids ran a much different imperial structure, which accounted for their smaller territory (Lapidus 490). The Safavids were able to transform into a modern imperial government by transferring provinces under tribal rule into the control of a Qizilbash chief loyal to the state or directly to the state. While both the Ottomans and the Safavids were imperial states, the Ottomans were much more centralized, while the Safavids were dependent on religious prestige and the support of tribal leaders.

            To maintain and control their expansive empires, the Safavid and Ottoman rulers relied on militant groups that worked with an under the government but were not of the same ethnic background. After the foundation of the Safavid state by Ismail I in 1501, one of the biggest problems that faced the state was how to bridge the gap between the two largest ethnic groups in the state: the Qizilbash, who were known for their military prowess, and the Persian bureaucrats who occupied positions of political power. Ismail I relied on the Qizilbash for military protection during his reign, but after his death, the Qizilbash began to stray from the control of the Safavid state. After realizing that too much power laid in the hands of the Qizilbash, military reforms were introduced that included the introduction of the Royal Corps, which featured four branches and would serve only the shah, into the military (Lapidus 495). The Ottoman empire, too, relied on a military corps comprised mostly of Janissaries, an elite infantry fighting unit, and Sipahi, the Ottoman cavalry (Lapidus 483). The Janissaries were not Muslim, but were actually Christian slaves that had been trained since they were very young. Just as in the Safavid empire where the Qizilbash began to seize too much political power, so did the Janissaries, and they were abolished in 1826 by Sultan Mahmud II. The main militaristic difference between the Safavids, the Ottomans possessed an extremely strong Navy that contributed to their quick territorial expansion.

            Both the Safavid and the Ottoman economic strategies related to the basic concepts of state and society in the Middle East at the time, in which the ultimate goal of a state was the consolidation and extension of the ruler’s power and influence. The way to achieve this goal was to get rich sources of revenue by making the productive classes prosperous, thus increasing state revenue without creating social disorder and destroying the traditional organization of society. What fueled the growth of the Safavid economy was Iran’s position between the increasingly industrialized and technologically proficient civilizations to its West and India and Islamic Central Asia to its East and North. The Safavid empire, which specialized in producing Silk and other textiles, utilized its prime position along the Silk Road to trade directly with Europe, especially Great Britain and the Netherlands, as well as India. The Safavid empire’s religious acceptance took on even greater importance in regards to the economy. The diversity of the empire allowed for Christian Armenians, who controlled almost all foreign trade, as well as Jewish merchants, who had a lot of domestic trading power, to feel comfortable doing business that would benefit the Safavid empire (Lapidus 436). The Ottoman empire shared a similarly beneficial location that allowed them to have a diverse merchant population while being able to trade with Europe, the Middle East, and Asia. Mehmed II and his successor Bayezid greatly encouraged and welcomed migration from Jews and other religious minorities who were facing persecution elsewhere, and this tolerance was greatly appreciated by the immigrants (Lapidus 451). These immigrants contributed to the Ottoman’s success as an international luxury trader of spices, silk, drugs, and dye, as well as bulk goods such as textiles and grain (Lapidus 446). The extent of Ottoman trade was much larger than that of the Safavids, as their empire stretched along portions of North Africa and into Europe, allowing them to trade more easily with a larger consumer base. What allowed both of these large empires to be economically successful was their tremendous location as gateways from Europe and the Mediterranean to Asia and the Middle East as well as their acceptance of other religious minorities who had a very positive effect on the economy.

            While there were many parallels between the Safavid and the Ottoman empires regarding economic, social and political ideology and practice, the area in which the most similarity is found is the appreciation of art and expression. In both Empires there was a thriving industry of poetry, language, architecture, and illustration that played an important role in the empire’s respective cultures. Both empires saw Persian as the high literary common language, cultivating Perso-Islamic architecture, painting and poetry (Lapidus 539). Both empires “subscribed to the by then canonical assemblage of royal place, Friday mosque, bazaar, and royal tombs (Lapidus 539),” as well as the almost universal design motif of the Middle East, the square building with a circular dome. They drew on the Timurid love for gardens and their major Palaces, the Topkapi Palace in Istanbul and the ‘Ali Qapu Palace in Isfahan, had similar uses and architectural features. Poetry and drawing were heavily supported by emperors in both the Safavid and Ottoman empires, with poets often being summoned to court to entertain and commend the ruler and to celebrate military victories, holidays, and royal celebrations. As the Ottoman and Safavid empires expanded and took control of diverse regions and cultures, art began to diversify and take new forms within each empire that allowed poetry, literature, and illustration to thrive as a crucial social aspect of each society.