This is a really beautiful quiz--easy nomination from me! Did Delhi really have such a small population under the Mughals though? It was their capital for quite some time and the site of many of their greatest monuments... ditto for Lahore and Agra. Meanwhile, Bijapur is not a city I've ever heard of. How times have changed, I guess.
It's true that all three of these cities were larger in the earlier parts of the 17th century:
- Agra would start declining in favour of Delhi in the mid-17h century.
- Delhi would normally be the residence of the emperor, but Aurangzeb's large moving camp that consisted of most of the population was not present there in the later years of the 17th century and resided at Aurangabad instead.
- Lahore was in a "ruinous state" by 1664, according to a source from Tertius Chandler.
- Bijapur was the center of a Deccan sultanate that had fallen under Mughal vassaldom by the late 17th century. It suffer from a plague outbreak in 1688, killing most of the population and ending its prosperity.
It's true that all three of these cities were larger in the earlier parts of the 17th century:
- Agra would start declining in favour of Delhi in the mid-17h century.
- Delhi would normally be the residence of the emperor, but Aurangzeb's large moving camp that consisted of most of the population was not present there in the later years of the 17th century and resided at Aurangabad instead.
- Lahore was in a "ruinous state" by 1664, according to a source from Tertius Chandler.
- Bijapur was the center of a Deccan sultanate that had fallen under Mughal vassaldom by the late 17th century. It suffer from a plague outbreak in 1688, killing most of the population and ending its prosperity.