<span>In contrast to the sea-based empires developing in Europe, land-based empires remained the dominant political form in other parts of the eastern hemisphere. The era between 1450 and 1750 saw the appearance of several land-based empires who built their power on the use of gunpowder: the Ottomans and the Safavids in Southwest Asia, the Mughals in India, the Ming and Qing in China, and the new Russian Empire. All had huge land armies armed with guns. These empires developed relatively independently from western influence, and to some extent they counterbalanced the growth of European power and colonization.
An important consequence of the appearance of the Gunpowder Empires was their conquest of most nomadic groups. Since the nomads had less access to guns, the empires were finally able to conquer and subjugate them. In many areas direct relations among states or merchant groups replaced nomadic intermediaries for international contact. For example, European kings invited diplomats from other countries to join their courts, and China also received foreign representatives.
Muslim Empires In the previous era, the political power of Muslim lands had been crushed by Mongol invasions in the 13th century and those of Timur, a central Asian of Mongol descent, in the 14th century. Three new empires &endash; the Ottoman, the Safavid, and the Mughal - rose between 1450 and 1750, and collectively they supported a new flowering of Islamic civilization. However, competition between them also led to important political divisions and military clashes. All three originated in the Turkic nomadic cultures of the central Asian steppe, and they all had absolute monarchs who modeled their courts on those of earlier Islamic dynasties.
Although each of the Muslim Empires had their own special problems, they faced some similar ones that eventually led to their decline.
Inadequate transportation and communication systems - Although they had the necessary military technology to control their empires, transporting it to where it was needed was another issue. The larger they grew, the more difficult it was for the infrastructure to be adequate for the task. Unruly warrior elites and inadequate bureaucracies - The military leaders knew their importance to the state, and they often operated quite independently of the government. Even in the Ottoman Empire, where the bureaucracy was the strongest, the sultan eventually lost control of the Janissaries, who rebelled against him when their constant demands went unfulfilled. The rise of European rivals - Ultimately, the Europeans benefited more from the gunpowder revolution than the Muslim Empires. European countries were smaller, both in population and land space, and so mobilization of their human and natural resources was easier. They were also in such strong competition with one another that the Europeans were spurred on to try new technologies and reforms.
The Ming and Early Qing Dynasties in China The Ming Emperors continued to rule China until the mid-1600s, but the dynasty was in decline for many years before that. Although its cultural brilliance and economic achievements continued until about 1600, China had some of the same problems that the Muslim empires had: borders difficult to guard, armies expensive to maintain, and transportation and communication issues, sources:google</span>
Gold had not been discovered there yet, but Polk wanted California and its magnificent San Francisco Bay as the American gateway to trade with China and other Asian nations. Polk was worried that other nations, such as England or France, might take California if the United States did not act.
The term designates a political system seen in the Eastern Roman Empire. The Byzantine emperor was both the head of the state and head of the Church. He was the supreme authority in religious affairs. Nevertheless, the concept of caesaropapism is largely inaccurate; many current scholars estimate that nothing in the Byzantine Orthodox doctrine states that the emperor was infallible (like the Roman pope, according to Catholic dogma).
Three million men, or nearly 10% of the population of the United States in 1860, belonged to the 15–30 age group.
<h3>What is the Economic Cost of American Civil War?</h3>
The estimated cost is about $3.3 billion, spent by both the government and the estimated human capital lost in the war was about $2.2 billion, and physical destruction was under $1.5 billion.
The total bill for the war came to about $7 billion—roughly two full years of GDP in 1860.
Thus, the American Civil War was revealed to be a revolution in which both the government and the military expended enormous resources.
