No European power unified their local state system the way the Asian empires did in the 16th and 17th centuries. The 16th and 17th centuries were a time of state consolidation. In both Europe and Asia, nation-states mobilized military resources to build powerful centralized states. In Europe, this process stopped short of a continent-wide empire, while in China and India, rulers successfully consolidated their control over large, multi-ethnic populations. On one hand, the Asian land empires expanded through conquest and maintained their rule through religious tolerance while on the other hand, the religious intolerance in Europe intensified the political contests for power — preventing the unification of the continent.

In Europe, the religious conflicts of the Reformation, along with the pre-existing political divisions made the prospect of a single religiously unified state near impossible. European states’ poor religious tolerance prevented unification between states — due to irreconcilable religious conflicts, and resulted in political divisions. Europe’s inability to resolve religious disagreements created even less incentive to unify, and these religious disagreements eventually led to the Reformation. This religious conflict led by the Protestants broke up the church into the new and old church — Catholicism vs Protestantism. This established a political split in Europe, as states had to choose between the two churches. Using this conflict, the ruling monarchs of the time justified their authority and aversion for the opposing church as a “divine right,” ordained by God. Whether Catholic or Protestant, European rulers used religion to legitimize their rule and distaste for other countries. Given the chance to achieve political integration of the German states led by Protestant princes in 1629, Emperor Ferdinand II turned down their offer, deciding to prolong the war. Emperor Ferdinand II of the Holy Roman Empire turned down the Protestant princes’ offer of acceptance of The Holy Roman Empire’s political authority in exchange for religious freedom, valuing his religious conviction over the political interests and overall growth of the nation (Kissinger). Ferdinand rejected “what would have been a vast triumph and the guarantee of his Empire, determined to stamp out the Protestant heresy, he issued the Edict of Restitution, which demanded that Protestant sovereigns restore all the lands they had seized from the Church since 1555” (Kissinger 61). Ferdinand’s religious intolerance led to France’s Cardinal Richelieu’s exploitation of the situation, which prolonged a war that ultimately cost the Holy Roman Empire’s supremacy — forcing them onto a decline that led to their eventual collapse. Ferdinand’s behavior and the resulting crippling of the Holy Roman Empire is a prime example of the decline and weaker state-making caused by valuing religious interests over political interests. In contrast, the Mughals and Qing maintained their large empires by placing the interests of the state above religious convictions.

During their conquest, the Mughals faced the difficult task of conquering a large group of people as a religious minority. Because they were Muslims expanding into the predominantly Hindu India, Mughal leaders created policies to enforce religious toleration into their empire to create a more centralized government and minimize internal revolt. Akbar, the ruler of the Mughal empire from the late 15th century to the early 16th century, played a key role in sustaining the Muslim rule over the Hindus in India. According to Roberts, one of Akbar’s “first acts of maturity was to marry a Rajput princess who was, of course, a Hindu” (539). This diplomatic marriage broke most of the tension, animosity, and wariness between the two religions in the 15th century due to the fact that the two parties were politically tied together by marriage. This resulted in the Hindu empire’s acceptance of Muslim rule. Akbar’s advanced diplomatic strategies like the legalization of intermarriage between Hindus and Muslims, the abolishment of the poll tax on non-Muslims, and general religious freedom enforced the legitimacy of his rule (Roberts). Ultimately, under Akbar’s rule, the Mughal Empire achieved great hegemony due to his extreme demand for religious tolerance. However, once his descendant Aurangzeb enforced sole Muslim rule in the late 16th century, the overall power of the Mughal Empire severely dropped, eventually leading to their collapse. By comparing these two rulers, it is made clear that the religious tolerance Akbar enforced led to the success and growth that Aurangzeb, quite similarly to Ferdinand in France, destroyed through his extremist religious views.

In a similar fashion, the Qing also used religious tolerance to legitimize their rule and conquest as an outside group. This is confirmed by Roberts as he reports, “The Qing state was a political project, created by an alliance of groups with various ethnic backgrounds in north-east China’’ (Roberts 545). Rather than spending resources to unify the religion of their empire, the Qing became a multi-ethnic conquering group that prioritized political hegemonization, allowing them to create a singular centralized government. The Qing’s religious tolerance and, thus, centralization allowed them to build a powerful military force which led them to conquer and unify more of China. From this, it can be inferred that the Qing’s religious tolerance resulted in political unification and a centralized government, which made their empire more successful than if they spent their resources trying to unify their religion.

Each European state prioritized religious uniformity within their territory, which led to political conflict and the weakening of their empire that eventually led to the demise of the Holy Roman Empire. Contrarily, when the Asian land empires prioritized religious tolerance in their rule, they had more internal peace and a centralized government. The Mughal Empire makes the correlation between religious tolerance and an empire’s sustain apparent, as their decline in reign only began when Aurangezeb subjected religious conformity onto the people. From the analysis of these three empires’ histories, the recurring theme of prioritization of political unification proves more beneficial than the prioritization of religious consolidation The religious tolerance within these empires led to less internal conflict, which gave the empire more resources to centralize their military and government to set them up for more development and success.