# data[].attributes.body
The Mughal empire can be compared to the British colonization in the Americas. Colonists were very poor because they lived in an agricultural economy and were forced to buy everything from the mother country at highly inflated rates. This poor, low class was also taxed heavily for the monarchy to spend on whatever it wanted, which was never the colonists. Both would lead to unrest among the common people, a rebellion (the peasant rebellions Aurangzeb couldn't fight and the American Revolution), and a change in power (Britain took over and America became independent).

# data[].attributes.body
Dr Bernier would have grown up when power in France was becoming more absolute, so he would have been used to oppression to some degree. The fact that he says Mughal peasants have it bad is pretty significant.

# data[].attributes.body
The Gunpowder empires were not as developed as Europe, so from Eton's European standards, the Ottoman empire had rather undeveloped trade agreements

# data[].attributes.body
Not only did the Mughal empire spend too much on the nobility, when Shah Jahan's wife died, he almost bankrupt the country building her tomb (the Taj Mahal).

# data[].attributes.body
Mughal Shah Aurangzeb created such poor conditions for peasants that they began to try to overthrow him and his poor spending left him unable to quell the uprisings and led to the collapse of the empire.

# data[].attributes.body
The author of this document speaks poorly of Akbar the Great because he himself disagrees with religious tolerance and believes that Akbar wastes his time hearing the lies that comprise religions other than Islam

# data[].attributes.body
The Safavid was Shi'a Islam, a radical sect of Islam that rejected all other religions, even Sunni Islam. The Ottoman allowed Jews and Christians, but taxed them if they wanted to practice their faiths.

# data[].attributes.body
Despite its poor financial choices and treatment of peasants, the Mughal was culturally the best Gunpowder empire because of its religious tolerance.

# data[].attributes.body
The Mughal empire was also weakest socially.
The Mughal empire worked its peasants almost to the point of rebellion; Safavid Shahs were notably lenient and kind to the poor and the Ottoman Sultan protected their peasants.

# data[].attributes.body
The Mughal was the weakest empire from an economic standpoint.
The Mughal empire spent almost 1/4 of all revenue on paying the nobility and hardly anything on actual weaponry, whereas the Safavids invested in their weapons of war and were comparable to Europeans, and the Ottoman empire deemed itself too wealthy to associate with poorer countries and chose to make few purchases only with countries that weren't begging for their money.

# data[].attributes.body
The Mughal was the weakest of the Gunpowder empires because of its excessive spending and poor management of its peasnts