Akbar thus gained a double victory, securing the good opinions as well as the swords of these princes in his aid. A judicious perseverance would have rendered the throne of Timur immovable, had not the tolerant principles and beneficence of Akbar, Jahangir, and Shah Jahan been lost sight of by the bigoted and bloodthirsty Aurangzeb; who, although while he lived his commanding genius wielded the destinies of this immense empire at pleasure, alienated the affections, by insulting the prejudices, of those who had aided in raising the empire to the height on which it stood. This affection withdrawn, and the weakness of Farrukhsiyar substituted for the strength of Aurangzeb, it fell and went rapidly to pieces. Predatory warfare and spoliation rose on its ruins. The Rajput princes, with a short-sighted policy, at first connived at, and even secretly invited the tumult; not calculating on its affecting their interests. Each looked to the return of ancient independence, and several reckoned on great accession of power. Old jealousies were not lessened by the part which each had played in the hour of ephemeral greatness; and the prince of Mewar, who preserved his blood uncontaminated, though with loss of land, was at once an object of respect and envy to those who had forfeited the first pretensions[3.2.24] of a Rajput. It was the only ovation the Sesodia[3.2.25] had to boast for centuries of oppression and spoliation, whilst their neighbours were basking in court favour. The great increase of territory of these princes nearly equalled the power of Mewar, and the dignities thus acquired from the sons of Timur, they naturally wished should appear as distinguished as his ancient title. Hence, while one inscribed on his seal “The exalted in dignity, a prince amongst princes, and king of kings,”[3.2.26] the prince of Mewar preserved his royal simplicity in “Maharana Bhima Singh, son of Arsi.” But this is digression. =Results of Feudalism.=—It would be difficult to say what would be the happiest form of government for these States without reference to their neighbours. Their own feudal customs would seem to have worked well. The experiment of centuries has secured [155] to them political existence, while successive dynasties of Afghans and Moguls, during eight hundred years, have left but the wreck of splendid names. Were they to become more monarchical, they would have everything to dread from unchecked despotism, over which even the turbulence of their chiefs is a salutary control. Were they somewhat more advanced towards prosperity, the crown demesne redeemed from dissipation and sterility, and the chiefs enabled to bring their quotas into play for protection and police, recourse should never be had to bodies of mercenary troops, which practice, if persevered in, will inevitably change their present form of government. This has invariably been the result, in Europe as well as Rajasthan, else why the dread of standing armies?