Jodha Akbar's all childrens.. - Page 11

shweta,

Is this Bibi Mariam, the ''so called'' Christian Wife of Akbar.? 😉 .. Just asking..?...😊

And YES, you are correct, Abraham Early's book has ''''''at times''''' moved away from history into Fan Fiction..!!...

Not only him, but many authors, who don't have an idea of Akbar repeat so..It's like an epidemic. One book writes something and rest follow.😉... And this is what sells...

Rest will reply later, in detail on your comment.

No doubt Eraly was fond of Anarkali. 😆

Originally posted by: history_geek

shweta,

Is this Bibi Mariam, the ''so called'' Christian Wife of Akbar.? 😉 .. Just asking..?...😊

And YES, you are correct, Abraham Early's book has ''''''at times''''' moved away from history into Fan Fiction..!!...

Not only him, but many authors, who don't have an idea of Akbar repeat so..It's like an epidemic. One book writes something and rest follow.😉... And this is what sells...

Rest will reply later, in detail on your comment.

No doubt Eraly was fond of Anarkali. 😆

Originally posted by: jshweta16

M waiting for your post ! so much has been said and written about this so called christian/Armenian wife but none of the info seems correct. Only you and your friends can clear the misconceptions! Miriam/Maryam in Persian language also means a flower and I was told the lady was Persian and not christian!

ROFL... 😆
after
Mariam Zamani
and Mariam - Christian...
Persian also...rofl...

So, this is Miriam/Mariam part-3. 👏

on a serious note, i have got one new theory of this Mariam, recently discovered, few days back. Will share later.

Post is under construction. 😊

my 1 frnd told me..dt akbar loved salima ruq n daulat shad..😕
m so cnfused
who is marium zmani ruq/daulat shad/salima...????

Originally posted by: KDR81

Dear Tripti,
She was a concubine...NOT a begum...and BTW Akbar had only 9 legal wives...all other so called "wives" were concubines...
Welcome to the hard REALITY...!!😆

Originally posted by: Mallika-E-Bhais

Yes dear Kamal,

That's what I said. She was a concubine not a wife.

I am updated on my history enough to know that. 😉

Really?...the sentence formation gave a different Idea..!!.😆

And this reality check was for the fact that u must know that he did NOT marry her...Not a real "Nikaah"...
And BTW , Akbar was NOT that Gaya Guzraa to get a divorced woman into his Harem only for her beauty...😉

Originally posted by: KDR81

Really?...the sentence formation gave a different Idea..!!.😆

And this reality check was for the fact that u must know that he did NOT marry her...Not a real "Nikaah"...
And BTW , Akbar was NOT that Gaya Guzraa to get a divorced woman into his Harem only for her beauty...😉

Hope from now on this issue RIP.🥱
This DS has rattled the forum for the last 2 days.😕
Don't know why so much importance to her.?.😕


Also, as cleared on previous pages that Akbar DID NOT have 5000 concubines.🤢

Let me give a piece of REALITY CHECK.

How things are blown out of proportion by the so-called "morons" like E*a*y and other foreign authors, who write any non-sense in their books, hatching any new story, and on top of that certain people follow them,😉😕 and spread these false news every where. 😉

Before speaking, should think once..!..
I agree no one is perfect, BUT, Atleast DO NOT, badnaamofy Akbar on false grounds.

OK. The final issue:
This issue of 5000 concubines aroused from Digital Media and some books, who "claim" that Abul Fazl mentioned this in his accounts.🤢 This is another creation by the GM of the Digital Media, and then blown out of proportion by "so-called MODERN historians".

Abul Fazl DID Not say that these are concubines.
Even though he puts the number at 5000, but that is again not in a literal sense, and he does NOT say these are concubines. Going by the size of the Imperial Seraglio, this number is vastly exaggerated by Abul Fazl, just for showing the "might / praise" of His Majesty.😆

*******************************************************************************************************

And, if you read gov. accounts, this issue is clearly sorted out there. That, Fazl has given a highly exaggerated number. 😊

Ref:

Page-40
Fatehpur sikri archive
By Archaelogical Survey of India
Gov of India

Published by
The Director General
Archaelogical Survey of India
New Delhi, 2002

*******************************************************************************************************

Actually, Abul Fazl said that, they include the following:

1. Darogahs
2. Superintendents
3. Writers of Harem
4. Accountant of Cash
5. Accountant of Stores
6. Taha-wil-daars
7. General Treasurers
8. Sub - Taha-wil-daars
9. Eunuchs for guard
10. Other Administrators
11. Cooks
12. Menials
🥱
Finally, add to this :
13. Foster mothers
14. Foster sisters
15. Own wives
16. So called "other" wives
17. Other Royal Princesses
18. And, the progeny of ALL above
19. Point to be noted --> "Each Royal Lady ALSO had Multiple guards / maids".


I Need not write more. Hope the issue is cleared and the perception of "5000" won't haunt us again.!. And, folks, select sources carefully, for your research.😊


For those, who still have a doubt, please read yourself, though i don't want to give this reference, but still giving coz, it was from here the original problem started. 😊


I hope,those "dejected" friends here,😊who sent me PMs for this "5000" can now feel relaxed.😆Neither Akbar had 5000 concubines. Nor he had hundreds of wives. (See comment by KDR81 above.)
Let that soul RIP. Agreed no one is perfect.😊
BUT, Atleast DO NOT take away the "GOOD THINGS" he had to his credit.😊

Yeh jo baar baar bina puche jodha ke kaksh mein ghus jate hai na Akbar yeh 8 kids usika natija hai 🤣

Originally posted by: history_geek

Hope from now on this issue RIP.🥱
This DS has rattled the forum for the last 2 days.😕
Don't know why so much importance to her.?.😕


Also, as cleared on previous pages that Akbar DID NOT have 5000 concubines.🤢

Let me give a piece of REALITY CHECK.

How things are blown out of proportion by the so-called "morons" like E*a*y and other foreign authors, who write any non-sense in their books, hatching any new story, and on top of that certain people follow them,😉😕 and spread these false news every where. 😉

Before speaking, should think once..!..
I agree no one is perfect, BUT, Atleast DO NOT, badnaamofy Akbar on false grounds.

OK. The final issue:
This issue of 5000 concubines aroused from Digital Media and some books, who "claim" that Abul Fazl mentioned this in his accounts.🤢 This is another creation by the GM of the Digital Media, and then blown out of proportion by "so-called MODERN historians".

Abul Fazl DID Not say that these are concubines.
Even though he puts the number at 5000, but that is again not in a literal sense, and he does NOT say these are concubines. Going by the size of the Imperial Seraglio, this number is vastly exaggerated by Abul Fazl, just for showing the "might / praise" of His Majesty.😆

*******************************************************************************************************

And, if you read gov. accounts, this issue is clearly sorted out there. That, Fazl has given a highly exaggerated number. 😊

Ref:

Page-40
Fatehpur sikri archive
By Archaelogical Survey of India
Gov of India

Published by
The Director General
Archaelogical Survey of India
New Delhi, 2002

*******************************************************************************************************

Actually, Abul Fazl said that, they include the following:

1. Darogahs
2. Superintendents
3. Writers of Harem
4. Accountant of Cash
5. Accountant of Stores
6. Taha-wil-daars
7. General Treasurers
8. Sub - Taha-wil-daars
9. Eunuchs for guard
10. Other Administrators
11. Cooks
12. Menials
🥱
Finally, add to this :
13. Foster mothers
14. Foster sisters
15. Own wives
16. So called "other" wives
17. Other Royal Princesses
18. And, the progeny of ALL above
19. Point to be noted --> "Each Royal Lady ALSO had Multiple guards / maids".


I Need not write more. Hope the issue is cleared and the perception of "5000" won't haunt us again.!. And, folks, select sources carefully, for your research.😊


For those, who still have a doubt, please read yourself, though i don't want to give this reference, but still giving coz, it was from here the original problem started. 😊

Ain-e-Akbari, by Abul Fazl, Volume-1, Page-44, Original Persian Translation, By ASB

I hope,those "dejected" friends here,😊who sent me PMs for this "5000" can now feel relaxed.😆Neither Akbar had 5000 concubines. Nor he had hundreds of wives. (See comment by KDR81 above.)
Let that soul RIP. Agreed no one is perfect.😊
BUT, Atleast DO NOT take away the "GOOD THINGS" he had to his credit.😊