Talk:Akbar the Great/Comments

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

akbar wasnt as great as describe he was rather ruthless ruler with good fortune in the begining though he did later realise that inorder to rule india he needs to adopt a different stratagy and which he did... often i found the sources to be a bit sham as though many does say that akbar was ruthless, proud, mercyless, killed more then 30,000 captive peasents for no reason... and yet they praise him like anything infact most of the sources of akbar seems to have come from his own vision of himself it is a proven fact that he was wise and did looked at the futher as what tomorrow the world will call him.. and who wrote the hisrtory of his time his own men.. where does in histtory do u find him incapable of anything.. It is a sham that he was an excellent warrior... i read sources saying that he fought many battles thought he leaded many it was his men who fought he was no fool to have run into war like the rajputs.. who live more for thier honour then to win.. had hemu kept himself in the back of his army woundnthave face the defeat.. more over i read in history that hemu lost one ey andhad 32 major wounds in his body and when he was killed he was uncouncesious... well it is true he was a good ruler atlest he did become a good ruler in the later stage of his rule... he is often shown as a character and what should one say of his charater with 300 wives and 5000 women in his haram... i woudnt comment much... well i do believe that its hard to trust that akbar was great but yes he did rule well....