Princely rebellion

[note 2] Both types of conflict could have the same causes, however, such as the creation of collateral dynastic branches, which stimulated wars of succession upon a monarch's death, as well as princely revolts by cadets and cousins while they were still alive.

[12] This meant that the princes opposed the designation of an heir, let alone any fixation of the order of succession, and would wage war against the emperor whenever they felt that this entitlement was being undermined in some way.

[10] According to Faruqui (2012), official court chroniclers showed a strong tendency to engage in what he termed 'post-rebellion apologetics', in an effort to downplay the seriousness of dynastic conflicts to the harmony within the royal family, the impact on the political and socio-economic stability of the empire, and to minimise or deflect the blame away from the main players in order to exonerate them.

It was, after all, only ever other people who deceived and manipulated the 'young and impressionable' prince, led him astray, and forced him to reluctantly rebel against his own father, the wise and mighty emperor who represented the cosmic order.

[16] Even linguistically, the official chronicles took care to avoid controversial words like fitna ("internal/civil war", "intra-Muslim war/strife"), preferring instead mukhalafat ("opposition"), fasad ("mischief/corruption"), and shorish ("rebellion/revolt"), and thus be lenient in their criticism of princely-imperial conflicts.