In addition, a large number of leading figures in the empire and servants of the court were done to death, for example - in 1630 — the commander-in-chief of the armed forces, Zainal Khan Shamlu, in 1632 the generals of the guards, 'Isa Khan and Chiragh Khan Zahidi, in 1634 the Grand Vizier, Mirza Talib Urdubadi and the lord marshal, Ughurlu Khan Shamlu. These are merely a few names, quoted as examples which may stand for many more besides. Even if one is disposed, in view of the circumstances of this period, to see the liquidation of royal rivals as an understandable protective measure and even to attribute the execution of undesirable dignitaries in the state and army to the exigencies of raison d'etat; indeed, if one assumes it to have been probable that the shah was heavily influenced by individuals in his immediate entourage, it is still not possible to acquit SafI of the charge of exceptional cruelty.
The study of the actions and attitudes of the new shah reveals no sign of a more human dimension to his personality which would explain the positive comments of European observers; rather, it is the features of a moody despot that stand out, one who kept those around him in a state of fear and trembling by assassination and arbitrary death sentences. Moreover, the degree of interest he evinced for the business of state was only peripheral in character, if not non-existent, and it seems likely that he took not the slightest part in the intellectual and cultural life of his people; for in spite of a number of efforts to begin, he had not even managed to attain a reasonable standard in reading and writing. If we add to this the fact that he indulged with increasing frequency a taste for wine and that it had been prescribed, we are told, to counteract certain effects of opium, to which he had apparently become addicted at quite an early age, we are left with a somewhat grim picture of the ruler and the thirteen years he occupied the throne before death from excessive drinking carried him off.
Although he received instruction from several experienced leading figures of the empire in affairs of state, starting shortly after he ascended the throne, little appears to have been achieved through these efforts to influence the shah to take more than the slightest interest - a reaction which is clearly the result of his upbringing in the harem. The decisions that had to be taken therefore became the responsibility of other important personages, however much they may have contrived to suggest to their master that they emanated from him. With a simple-minded, uncomplicated personality, as his is described, this can hardly have been a very difficult matter, for he was quite incapable of keeping himself immune from the intrigues and insinuations of his courtiers. This was especially serious when such machinations were aimed at competent and unexceptionable people, whose fate was then almost invariably sealed.
If we enquire who were the real rulers in the state, we find that in the early years of the new reign four outstanding personalities emerge: the lord marshal Ughurlu Khan Shamlu; a Georgian named Rustam Beg, formerly imperial provost, and later in addition general commanding the musketeers and commander-in-chief of the armed forces; Chiragh Khan Zahidl, who at first had no special office and later was appointed general of the guards; and lastly another Georgian named Rustam Khan, who was town governor of Isfahan and general of the royal squires and had originally been known as Khusrau Mirza and also as Khusrau Khan. We may also assume that various ladies of the harem, for example the queen mother and, at least for a time, Zainab Begum, one of 'Abbas I's daughters, exercised some influence. We have already come across the names of two of the people mentioned above, Ughurlu Khan Shamlu and Chiragh Khan Zahidl, in connection with the victims of Shah Safl's tyrannical rule. In 1630 Rustam Beg Dlvanbegl became grand beg of Azarbaljan and his namesa Rustam Khan moved from Kartlia to Tiflis to become governor.