Hello, I'm Mr. Marchin and I'll be your history teacher for today.

I'm really looking forward to starting our learning journey together, and my role will be to make sure that you can meet today's learning objective.

Welcome to today's lesson, which is part of our unit on the East India Company, where we are asking ourselves, when did Mughal authority collapse? By the end of today's lesson, you'll be able to assess the strength of Mughal authority in the years between 1707 and 1748.

There are five keywords, which will help us navigate our way through today's lesson.

Those are nobles, authority, successor state, sack and rupees.

Nobles are people from the highest social group in some countries.

Authority refers to the ability to keep others under your control.

A successor state is a smaller country, which is formed after a larger country begins to break down.

To sack an area means to attack it and steal valuable goods, especially by using violence.

And rupees are the name of the Indian currency.

Today's lesson will be split into three parts and we'll begin by focusing on the Mughal Empire in the early 18th century.

In 1707, Emperor Aurangzeb died.

Aurangzeb is often seen as the last of the six great Mughal emperors who ruled the Mughal Empire between 1526 and 1707.

During the half-century which followed Aurangzeb's death, the Mughal Empire faced significant challenges to its power and stability.

These challenges included struggles over the Mughal throne, rebellions and disloyalty, and enemy attacks.

So we'll think about each of these challenges in turn.

After 1707, there were multiple struggles over the Mughal throne.

Between 1526 and 1707, just six Mughal emperors had reigned.

But between 1707 and 1719, there were seven different Mughal emperors who reigned.

In 1719 alone, there were four different emperors who came to power, showing just how much change in leadership was occurring after Aurangzeb's death.

And this was because there were frequent conflicts over the Mughal throne and those frequent conflicts led to Mughal emperors becoming more dependent on powerful nobles and holding less power themselves.

So let's reflect on what we've just heard.

How many different Mughal emperors came to power in 1719? Pause the video here and press play when you're ready to check your answer.

Okay, well done to everybody who said that the correct answer was four.

Four different Mughal emperors came to power in 1719 alone.

The struggle for power between Aurangzeb's descendants created opportunities for rebellions and disloyalty, which were another challenge for the Mughal Empire to deal with.

From 1712 to 1713, as rival Mughal armies fought one another over who should take the throne, a Sikh army led by Banda Singh Bahadur, rebelled and conquered lands in the Punjab, a region in the northwest of the Mughal empire.

Furthermore, some Mughal nobles began focusing on building up their own power rather than remaining loyal to the Mughal emperors.

So let's reflect on what we've just heard.

How did war between rivals for the throne in 1712 to 1713 affect Mughal control over the empire? Was it that the war led to the empire expanding? That the war allowed Sikh armies to rebel successfully? Or that the war led to all Mughal rulers being killed? Pause the video here and press play when you're ready to check your answer.

Okay, well done to everybody who said that the correct answer was B.

The war between rivals for the Mughal throne in 1712 to 1713 allowed Sikh armies to rebel successfully in the Punjab.

Effectively, these struggles over the Mughal throne distracted the leaders of the empire from other issues that were going on.

Even emperors in the Mughal capital became vulnerable to enemy attacks in the early 18th century.

In 1719, a Maratha invasion, supported by some powerful Mughal nobles, overthrew and executed Emperor Farrukhsiyar.

Persian armies invaded the Mughal Empire between 1738 and 1740, conquering large areas of Northern India, including Delhi, the capital in 1739.

So let's check our understanding of what we just heard.

Which country conquered Delhi in 1739? Was it Britain, China, or Persia? Pause the video here and press play when you're ready to see the right answer.

Okay, well done to everybody who said the correct answer was C.

In 1739, the Mughal capital, Delhi was conquered by Persia.

We're now ready to put all of our knowledge about the Mughal Empire in the early 18th century into practise.

I want you to study the following statements.

They say, the Mughal capital always remained safe from attack.

Rebels increased their power at times when Mughals fought one another.

And after Aurangzeb died in 1707, his son took power and ruled for many decades.

So I want you to do two things in response to these statements.

Firstly, you need to identify whether each statement is true or false.

You may indicate this with a tick or a cross.

And then secondly, I want you to correct any false statements and you should provide additional detail to support your corrections.

So pause the video here and press play when you're ready to reflect on your responses.

Okay, well done for all of your hard work on that task.

So I asked you to identify whether each of our statements was true or false.

You should have said that the first statement was false, that the second statement was true.

For example, you may have thought about Banda Singh Bahadur's success in leading a Sikh army to rebel against the Mughals as different rivals for the throne fought against one another in 1712 to 1713.

And finally, our third statement was also false.

So for the second part of task A where I asked you to correct those false statements and provide additional details to support your corrections, you may have written that the Mughal capital, Delhi was attacked and conquered by the Persian army in 1739, and that after Aurangzeb died in 1707, there were many changes of emperor in the following decades.

In 1719 alone, four different emperors came to power.

So really well done if your own corrections look something similar to those models, which we've just seen.

And now we're ready to move on to the second part of our lesson for today where we're going to focus on Mughal's successor states.

One sign of the declining authority of the Mughal Empire was the rise of successor states.

What's the Mughal Empire remained in existence throughout the 18th century, regional successor states began to emerge in different parts of India.

These successor states acted increasingly independently and included Hyderabad and Bengal, which we'll think about in a little bit more depth.

However, before we think about Hyderabad and Bengal in a little bit more depth, let's just check our understanding of what we've just heard.

I want you to write the missing keywords from the following sentence.

Hyderabad and Bengal were both blank, which were founded in the early 18th century.

So what are the missing words? Pause the video here and press play when you're ready to check your answer.

Okay, well done to everybody who said that the missing keywords were successor states.

Hyderabad and Bengal were both Mughal successor states, which were founded in the early 18th century.

Hyderabad was located in the Deccan region and led by Nizam al-Mulk, a powerful noble who had first been sent by the Mughal emperors to help govern the area on their behalf.

However, between 1720 and 1724, Nizam al-Mulk increasingly promoted members of his own family as well as his close supporters to positions of power in Hyderabad.

In fact, after 1724, all Mughal officials serving in a Deccan had to swear loyalty to Nizam al-Mulk rather than to the Mughal emperor.

Until his death in 1748, Nizam al-Mulk maintained that he was still loyal to the Mughal Empire.

For example, he still flew the Mughal flag.

He called himself a servant of the emperor, and he led his own army to support the emperor when the Mughal Empire was invaded in 1738.

Nevertheless, the Nizam governed Hyderabad as he wished without any interference from the Mughal emperor.

When Nizam al-Mulk died in 1748, his son took power over Hyderabad.

So let's make sure we have a secure understanding of what we just heard.

We have a statement on the screen that says, "Officials in Hyderabad remained loyal to the Mughal emperor." Is that statement true or false? Pause the video here and press play when you're ready to see the right answer.

Okay, well done to everybody who said that that statement was false, but we need to be able to justify our response.

So two justifications have appeared on the screen.

The first says the officials in Hyderabad rebelled against the emperor and tried to overthrow him in 1724.

And the second says the officials in Hyderabad swore loyalty to the Nizam rather than the emperor after 1724.

So which one of those two justifications is correct? Pause the video here and press play when you're ready to see the right answer.

Okay, well done to everybody who said that the correct justification was B.

We can tell the officials in Hyderabad did not retain their loyalty to the Mughal emperor because after 1724, those officials swore loyalty to the Nizam rather than to the emperor.

At the beginning of the 18th century, Bengal was governed by officials appointed by the Mughal emperors.

Bengal was very important for the Mughal Empire as it was the richest region in the entire empire and provided a lot of the funds needed to support the Mughal army.

However, during the struggles over the throne between 1707 and 1719, the person appointed to govern Bengal, Murshid Quli Khan, was able to increase his power in the region significantly.

In 1717, Khan declared himself Nawab of Bengal.

After Kahn's death, Bengal was ruled by his descendants rather than by officials chosen by the Mughal emperor.

After 1717, the Nawabs of Bengal continued to send money to Mughal emperors in Delhi, although critics suggested that this was simply to encourage the emperors not to interfere with their local power.

When Persian forces invaded the Mughal Empire in the late 1730s, the Nawab of Bengal refused to send troops to support the Mughal army.

Instead, officials sent by the Nawab actually gifted the Persian emperor over 20,000 rupees worth of cloth and 1,000 rupees in cash to ensure that the Persian leader's armies would not attack Bengal.

So let's check our understanding of what we've just heard.

What did the Nawab of Bengal claim proved his loyalty to the Mughals? Was it that the Nawab continued to send money to the Mughal Emperor, that the Nawab followed all of the emperor's instructions for governing Bengal, or that the Nawab fought on behalf of the emperor? Pause the video here and press play when you're ready to see the right answer.

Okay, well done to everybody who said that the correct answer was A.

After 1717, the Nawabs of Bengal continued to send money to the Mughal emperors in Delhi, and they claimed that this proved their loyalty to the Mughals.

And let's try another question.

Which statement is most accurate? All of the successor states defended the Mughal empire when it was invaded by Persia in 1738? Not all of the successor states defended the Mughal empire when it was invaded by Persia in 1738? Or all of the successor states supported Persia when it invaded the Mughal Empire in 1738? Pause the video here and press play when you're ready to see the right answer.

Okay, well done to everybody who said the correct answer was B.

When Persia invaded the Mughal Empire in 1738, some successor states such as Hyderabad sent armies to support the Mughal emperor, whereas others such as Bengal refused to do so.

So we're now ready to put all of our knowledge about Mughal successor states into practise.

I want you to complete the table.

You should do this by identifying at least two examples, which suggest the Mughals still had authority over their empire in the early 18th century, and two examples that suggest the Mughals had lost authority over their empire in the early 18th century.

Use what we've learned so far in today's lesson to help you.

Pause the video here and press play when you're ready to reflect on your responses.

Okay, well done for all of your effort on that task.

So I asked you to complete the table by identifying at least two examples, which could show the Mughals still had authority over their empire, and two examples, which would suggest that they had lost authority over their empire.

So your answers may have included for supporting Mughal authority, that the Nawabs of Bengal continue to send money to support the Mughal emperors.

And that Nizam al-Mulk of Hyderabad always called himself a servant of the emperor.

For two examples that would suggest the Mughals had lost authority over their empire by the early 18th century, your answer may have included, officials in Hyderabad swore loyalty to the Nizam rather than to the emperor, and that the Nawab of Bengal did not send troops to help when the Mughal empire was invaded in 1738.

So really well done if your own answers look something similar to those which we've just seen.

And now we're ready to move on to the third and final part of our lesson for today where we're going to focus on the sack of Delhi.

In 1738, the Persian emperor, Nadir Shah, invaded the Mughal empire.

During his invasion, Nadir Shah's armies sacked Delhi.

This event has been considered very significant in many accounts of the collapse of Mughal authority.

In 1738, the Mughal Empire was invaded by Nadir Shah who'd recently become ruler of the Persian empire.

Persia had been fighting multiple costly wars during the 1730s and needed new sources of wealth to continue funding its armies.

The Mughal Empire was one of the richest states in the world by the middle of the 18th century.

In combination with the divisions which had grown in India, this made the empire a promising target for Nadir Shah in 1738.

Although an army of 20,000 Mughal soldiers was organised to try and defeat the Persian army before it could march into India, this was easily defeated by Nadir Shah when another larger Mughal army of 75,000 men was assembled to fight the Persians at the Battle of Karnal in February, 1739, it was once again defeated.

This time, the Mughal defeat forced the Emperor, Muhammad Shah to surrender and the capital city of the Empire, Delhi was left open to Nadir Shah's army.

So let's reflect on what we've just heard.

What two factors encouraged Nadir Shah to invade the Mughal Empire in 1738? Pause the video here and press play when you're ready to check your answers.

Okay, well done to everybody who said, two factors which encouraged Nadir Shah's invasion of the Mughal Empire were the wealth of the Mughal Empire.

This meant that Nadir Shah thought he could gain the money from India that he needed to fund his armies, and also the divisions which seemed to exist in the Mughal Empire.

This encouraged Nadir Shah, 'cause it made him think opposition to himself might not be too strong.

And let's try another question.

This time we have a statement on the screen which reads, "Many Indians still fought on behalf of the Mughal Emperor in 1738 and 1739." Is that statement true or false? Pause the video here and press play when you're ready to see the right answer.

Okay, well done everybody who said that that statement was true, but we need to be able to justify our response.

So two justifications have appeared on the screen.

The first says that the Mughal emperor sent an army of 75,000 men to fight in the Battle of Karnal in 1739.

And the second says that the Mughal emperor sent an army of 7,500 men to fight in the Battle of Karnal in 1739.

So which one of those two justifications is correct? Pause the video here and press play when you're ready to see the right answer.

Okay, well done to everybody who said the correct justification was A.

We can tell that many Indians still fought on behalf of the Mughal emperor in 1738 and 1739 because the Mughal emperor was able to send an army of 75,000 men to fight in the Battle of Karnal in 1739.

In March, 1739, Nadir Shah rode into Delhi, followed by the Mughal emperor, Muhammad Shah, 20,000 Persian soldiers and 100 war elephants.

When the population of Delhi began to attack Persian soldiers in their city, Nadir Shah ordered his troops to enter into all districts in which Persian soldiers had been killed, and to leave not a single survivor.

This turned into a massacre, which the Mughal emperor was powerless to prevent.

Around 30,000 residents of Delhi were killed by Persian soldiers, including many women and children.

After the massacre, the Persians stole 700 million rupees worth of treasure from Delhi, equivalent to roughly 8.

2 billion pounds today.

This treasure included the Koh-i-Noor diamond.

Before Nadir Shah's armies left Delhi, Muhammad Shah was also forced to agree to transfer large amounts of land in the west of the Mughal Empire to Persian control.

Again, the Mughal emperor was unable to resist the Persian emperor's demands.

So let's reflect on what we've just heard.

I want you to change one word to correct the following statement, which reads, "During the sack of Delhi, Mughal soldiers stole 17 million rupees worth of treasure from the city." So what's the incorrect word and what are you going to change it to to correct this statement? Pause the video here and press play when you're ready to reflect on your answer.

Okay, well done to everybody who said that the incorrect word was Mughal and that it should have said Persian.

During the sack of Delhi, Persian soldiers stole 70 million rupees worth of treasure from the city.

And let's try another question.

How did the Mughal emperor, Muhammad Shah respond to the sack of Delhi? Was it that he organised a new army to defeat the Persian invaders? That he agreed to transfer western lands to Persian control? Or that he abandoned the Mughal throne to the Persians? Pause the video here and press play when you're ready to see the right answer.

Okay, well done to everybody who said the correct answer was B.

After the sack of Delhi, the Mughal emperor, Muhammad Shah agreed to transfer western lands of the Mughal Empire to Persian control.

In the same way that the Mughal emperor had been unable to prevent the Persians from sacking Delhi, he was unable to resist their demands for the transfer of territory.

So we're now ready to put all of our knowledge into practise.

We're going to split task C into two parts.

Firstly, I provided you with four adjectives.

Those are, unchallenged, strong, limited, and non-existent.

I want you to tell me which one of those adjectives best describes Mughal authority in the years between 1707 and 1748? For the second part of task C, I want you to write one paragraph to justify your choice of adjective.

You may refer to the following as part of your answer.

Nadir Shah, Hyderabad, and Bengal.

So pause the video here and press play when you're ready to reflect on your response.

Okay, well done for all of your hard work on that task.

So for the first part of task C, I asked you which one of our adjectives best describes Mughal authority in the years between 1707 and 1748? And you should have said limited.

So well done if you selected that choice of adjective.

Then for the second part of task C, I asked you to write one paragraph to justify your choice of adjective.

And your answer may have included, "Mughal authority in the years between 1707 and 1748 could be described as limited.

Successor states, which emerged in India after 1707, still claim to be loyal to the Mughal emperors.

For example, the Nawabs of Bengal continued to send money to the Mughal emperors and Nizam al-Mulk of Hyderabad always flew the Mughal flag rather than one of his own.

Nevertheless, the Mughal emperors had little real power over how successor states were run.

For example, officials in Hyderabad swore loyalty to the Nizam, not to the emperor after 1724, so the Mughals could not control their actions." So well done if your own answer looks something similar to that model.

Alternatively, your answer may have included, "Mughal authority in the years between 1707 and 1748 could be described as limited.

When Nadir Shah invaded the Mughal Empire in 1738, the Nizam of Hyderabad sent his army to support the emperor.

This suggests that some successor states remained loyal to the Mughals.

However, other successor states like Bengal refused to send an army to support the emperor.

Furthermore, Emperor Muhammad Shah was unable to prevent the sack of Delhi during which 30,000 people were killed and 700 million rupees were stolen.

This suggests that the Mughals were very weak and lacked authority." So again, really well done if your own answer looks something similar to that model.

So that means we've now reached the end of today's lesson, which puts us in a good position to summarise our learning about some of the challenges to Mughal rule.

We've seen that after Aurangzeb's death, Mughals fought one another for power, and many different men became emperor in a short space of time.

In the early 18th century, successor states emerged in India including Hyderabad and Bengal.

The successor states claim to be loyal to the Mughals, but often acted in ways that ignored the emperor's authority and the Mughals were unable to resist the sack of Delhi by the Persian leader, Nadir Shah in 1739.

So really well done for all of the effort that you've put into today's lesson.

It's been a pleasure to help guide you for our resources, and I look forward to seeing you again in future as we think further about the Mughal Empire and the East India Company, and continue to ask ourselves, when did Mughal authority in India collapse?.