“[D]espite his ferocity, his military genius and his shrewd adaptation of tribal politics to his imperial purpose, Tamerlane’s* system fell apart at his death. As he himself may have grasped intuitively, it was no longer possible to. . . build a Eurasian empire on [nomadic] foundations. . . . The Ottomans, the Mamluk state in Egypt and Syria, the Muslim sultanate in northern India, and above all China were too resilient to be swept away by his lightning campaigns. Indeed Tamerlane’s death marked in several ways the end of a long phase in global history. His empire was the last real attempt to challenge the partition of Eurasia between the states of the Far West, Islamic Middle Eurasia and Confucian East Asia. Secondly, his political experiments and ultimate failure revealed that power had begun to shift back decisively from the nomad empires to the settled states. . . . Lastly, his passing coincided with the first signs of a change in the existing pattern of long-distance trade, the [overland Silk Road route] that he had fought to control. Within a few decades after his death, the idea of a world empire ruled from Samarkand [Tamerlane’s Central Asian capital] had become [a fantasy].” *a Turko-Mongolic ruler who conquered much of Central Asia and the Middle East in the late 1300s and early 1400s. John Darwin, British historian, After Tamerlane: The Rise and Fall of Global Empires, 1400–2000, published in 2008 Which of the following developments in the late fifteenth century could best be used as evidence to support Darwin’s argument in the second paragraph regarding a change in patterns of long-distance trade?

“[D]espite his ferocity, his military genius and his shrewd adaptation of tribal politics to his imperial purpose, Tamerlane’s* system fell apart at his death. As he himself may have grasped intuitively, it was no longer possible to. . . build a Eurasian empire on [nomadic] foundations. . . . The Ottomans, the Mamluk state in Egypt and Syria, the Muslim sultanate in northern India, and above all China were too resilient to be swept away by his lightning campaigns. Indeed Tamerlane’s death marked in several ways the end of a long phase in global history. His empire was the last real attempt to challenge the partition of Eurasia between the states of the Far West, Islamic Middle Eurasia and Confucian East Asia. Secondly, his political experiments and ultimate failure revealed that power had begun to shift back decisively from the nomad empires to the settled states. . . . Lastly, his passing coincided with the first signs of a change in the existing pattern of long-distance trade, the [overland Silk Road route] that he had fought to control. Within a few decades after his death, the idea of a world empire ruled from Samarkand [Tamerlane’s Central Asian capital] had become [a fantasy].” *a Turko-Mongolic ruler who conquered much of Central Asia and the Middle East in the late 1300s and early 1400s. John Darwin, British historian, After Tamerlane: The Rise and Fall of Global Empires, 1400–2000, published in 2008 Which of the following most strongly contributed to the shift of power from nomadic empires to settled states that Darwin identifies in the second paragraph?

“[D]espite his ferocity, his military genius and his shrewd adaptation of tribal politics to his imperial purpose, Tamerlane’s* system fell apart at his death. As he himself may have grasped intuitively, it was no longer possible to. . . build a Eurasian empire on [nomadic] foundations. . . . The Ottomans, the Mamluk state in Egypt and Syria, the Muslim sultanate in northern India, and above all China were too resilient to be swept away by his lightning campaigns. Indeed Tamerlane’s death marked in several ways the end of a long phase in global history. His empire was the last real attempt to challenge the partition of Eurasia between the states of the Far West, Islamic Middle Eurasia and Confucian East Asia. Secondly, his political experiments and ultimate failure revealed that power had begun to shift back decisively from the nomad empires to the settled states. . . . Lastly, his passing coincided with the first signs of a change in the existing pattern of long-distance trade, the [overland Silk Road route] that he had fought to control. Within a few decades after his death, the idea of a world empire ruled from Samarkand [Tamerlane’s Central Asian capital] had become [a fantasy].” *a Turko-Mongolic ruler who conquered much of Central Asia and the Middle East in the late 1300s and early 1400s. John Darwin, British historian, After Tamerlane: The Rise and Fall of Global Empires, 1400–2000, published in 2008 All of the following statements about nomadic empires in the period 1200–1700 are factually accurate. Which statement most likely explains why Tamerlane’s empire rapidly declined in the late fifteenth century?

The Muslims are not the greatest traders in Asia, though they are dispersed in almost every part of it. In Ottoman Turkey, the Christians and Jews carry on the main foreign trade, and in Persia the Armenian Christians and Indians. As to the Persians, they trade with their own countrymen, one province with another, and most of them trade with the Indians. The Armenian Christians manage alone the whole European trade [with Persia]. The abundance of the Persian silk that is exported is very well known. The Dutch import it into Europe via the Indian Ocean to the value of near six hundred thousand livres* yearly. All the Europeans who trade in Ottoman Turkey import nothing more valuable than the Persian silks, which they buy from the Armenians. The Russians import it as well. Persia exports to the Indies [an] abundance of tobacco, all sorts of fruit, marmalade, wines, horses, ceramics, feathers, and Turkish leather of all colors, of which a great amount is exported to Russia and other European countries. The exportation of steel and iron is forbidden in the kingdom, but it is exported notwithstanding. There are some Persian traders who have deputies in all parts of the world, as far as Sweden on the one side and China on the other side.” *French currency unit Jean Chardin, French jeweler and merchant, on his travels to Safavid Persia, 1686 Which of the following most directly caused a disruption in the land-based trade of the Safavid empire during the period circa 1500–1750 ?

Taken together, the two images best support which of the following claims regarding developments in the period from 1450-1750?

The two dynasties whose expansion are illustrated by the images shared which of the following?

The ottoman practices shown in the two images directly contributed to which of the following developments before 1600?

Which of the following most likely explains the inclusion of image 2 in a court history of the Ottoman Empire?

In the 16th and 17th centuries, many states responded to threats of the type depicted in the two images by

The spread of new cultural ideas, such as those illustrated by the religious beliefs of Xu Guangxi and Candida Xu, most strongly encouraged some Asian governments in Eurasia in the period 1450–1750 to

Which of the following developments in Europe in the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries most directly helps to explain the presence of the scholars shown in the image of China?

All of the following statements about Du Halde are factually accurate. Which would most likely lead historians to question the objectivity of his portrayal of the scholars shown in the image?

Which of the following was the most likely purpose of the portraits of the emperor?

The portrait of emperor jahangir in image 1 was most likely a symbolic representation of which of the following?

Which of the following most likely describes the fate of the Golconda state after 1650?

“To the count of Katzenellenbogen, Ziegenhain, and Nidda, my gracious lord. Pope Leo X, in the bull in which he put me under the ban, condemned my statement that ‘to fight against the Turk is the same thing as resisting God, who visits our sin upon us with this rod.’ I still confess freely that this statement is mine. The popes and bishops called for war against the Turks in the name of Christ. Yet because Christ taught that Christians shall not resist evil with violence or take revenge, it is against His name. In how many wars against the Turks have the bishops and clergy prevented Christians from enduring heavy losses? Indeed, the king of Hungary and his bishops were beaten by the Turks at Varna* and more recently a German army would perhaps have fought with more success, if it had not contained priests. If I were an emperor, a king, or a prince in a campaign against the Turks, I would encourage my bishops and priests to stay at home and mind the duties of their office, praying, fasting, saying mass, preaching, and caring for the poor, as not only Holy Scripture, but their own canon law teaches and requires. To this I say Amen, Amen.” *a reference to a failed Christian Crusade launched against the Ottoman Turks in 1444 Martin Luther, German theologian, sermon addressed to a German prince, 1528 A historian interpreting the views expressed in the passage would likely explain that those views were most strongly influenced by Protestant desires to

“To the count of Katzenellenbogen, Ziegenhain, and Nidda, my gracious lord. Pope Leo X, in the bull in which he put me under the ban, condemned my statement that ‘to fight against the Turk is the same thing as resisting God, who visits our sin upon us with this rod.’ I still confess freely that this statement is mine. The popes and bishops called for war against the Turks in the name of Christ. Yet because Christ taught that Christians shall not resist evil with violence or take revenge, it is against His name. In how many wars against the Turks have the bishops and clergy prevented Christians from enduring heavy losses? Indeed, the king of Hungary and his bishops were beaten by the Turks at Varna* and more recently a German army would perhaps have fought with more success, if it had not contained priests. If I were an emperor, a king, or a prince in a campaign against the Turks, I would encourage my bishops and priests to stay at home and mind the duties of their office, praying, fasting, saying mass, preaching, and caring for the poor, as not only Holy Scripture, but their own canon law teaches and requires. To this I say Amen, Amen.” *a reference to a failed Christian Crusade launched against the Ottoman Turks in 1444 Martin Luther, German theologian, sermon addressed to a German prince, 1528 A historian could best explain the arguments made in the passage regarding the pope and the clergy in the context of Protestant claims that the Catholic Church

“To the count of Katzenellenbogen, Ziegenhain, and Nidda, my gracious lord. Pope Leo X, in the bull in which he put me under the ban, condemned my statement that ‘to fight against the Turk is the same thing as resisting God, who visits our sin upon us with this rod.’ I still confess freely that this statement is mine. The popes and bishops called for war against the Turks in the name of Christ. Yet because Christ taught that Christians shall not resist evil with violence or take revenge, it is against His name. In how many wars against the Turks have the bishops and clergy prevented Christians from enduring heavy losses? Indeed, the king of Hungary and his bishops were beaten by the Turks at Varna* and more recently a German army would perhaps have fought with more success, if it had not contained priests. If I were an emperor, a king, or a prince in a campaign against the Turks, I would encourage my bishops and priests to stay at home and mind the duties of their office, praying, fasting, saying mass, preaching, and caring for the poor, as not only Holy Scripture, but their own canon law teaches and requires. To this I say Amen, Amen.” *a reference to a failed Christian Crusade launched against the Ottoman Turks in 1444 Martin Luther, German theologian, sermon addressed to a German prince, 1528 A historian interpreting the passage would most likely explain that the audience of the sermon is an illustration of the fact that

Source 1 “People who follow Judaism should pass their lives among Christians quietly, practicing their own religion and not speaking ill of Christianity. Moreover, a Jewish person should not attempt to convert any Christian. Whoever violates this law shall be put to death and lose his property. Jewish people may maintain their synagogues, but they cannot build new synagogues without our permission. Christians may not deface synagogues or steal anything from them. Jewish people shall not be forced to attend court by Christian officials on Saturdays [the Jewish Sabbath]. All legal claims between Christians and the Jewish community shall be decided by our royal judges and a Christian is forbidden from arresting or harming Jewish people or seizing their property. Christians may not use force to convert a Jewish person to Christianity, though Christians should use the Holy Scriptures and kind words. Jewish people, however, should not attempt to interfere with a member of their community converting to Christianity of their own will. Any Christian, however, who converts to Judaism shall be put to death as a heretic.” Law code issued by Alfonso X, king of the Christian Spanish kingdom of Castile, circa 1265 Source 2 “King Ferdinand and Queen Isabella, by the grace of God, King and Queen of Spain, greetings. We learned that some wicked Christians in our kingdom adopted Jewish religious practices and cultural customs and apostatized from our holy Catholic faith because these Christians interacted with Jewish people. Therefore, we, with the counsel and advice of the clergy, noblemen, and other persons of learning and wisdom in our kingdom, order the Jewish community to depart and never to return. And we forbid any person or persons in our kingdom to receive, protect, or defend any Jewish person under pain of losing all their possessions, vassals, fortified places, and whatever financial grants they hold from us.” Royal decree issued by King Ferdinand II and Queen Isabella of Spain, 1492 The attitude toward religious practice expressed in Source 2 was most directly apparent in which of the following Spanish policies in the Americas in the period circa 1500–1750 ?

Source 1 “People who follow Judaism should pass their lives among Christians quietly, practicing their own religion and not speaking ill of Christianity. Moreover, a Jewish person should not attempt to convert any Christian. Whoever violates this law shall be put to death and lose his property. Jewish people may maintain their synagogues, but they cannot build new synagogues without our permission. Christians may not deface synagogues or steal anything from them. Jewish people shall not be forced to attend court by Christian officials on Saturdays [the Jewish Sabbath]. All legal claims between Christians and the Jewish community shall be decided by our royal judges and a Christian is forbidden from arresting or harming Jewish people or seizing their property. Christians may not use force to convert a Jewish person to Christianity, though Christians should use the Holy Scriptures and kind words. Jewish people, however, should not attempt to interfere with a member of their community converting to Christianity of their own will. Any Christian, however, who converts to Judaism shall be put to death as a heretic.” Law code issued by Alfonso X, king of the Christian Spanish kingdom of Castile, circa 1265 Source 2 “King Ferdinand and Queen Isabella, by the grace of God, King and Queen of Spain, greetings. We learned that some wicked Christians in our kingdom adopted Jewish religious practices and cultural customs and apostatized from our holy Catholic faith because these Christians interacted with Jewish people. Therefore, we, with the counsel and advice of the clergy, noblemen, and other persons of learning and wisdom in our kingdom, order the Jewish community to depart and never to return. And we forbid any person or persons in our kingdom to receive, protect, or defend any Jewish person under pain of losing all their possessions, vassals, fortified places, and whatever financial grants they hold from us.” Royal decree issued by King Ferdinand II and Queen Isabella of Spain, 1492 The two passages best illustrate which of the following continuities in world history?

When the initial siege failed to take the city,* [the Ottoman] Sultan Mehmet II summoned the cannon-makers and spoke to them about what cannon could be used to demolish the northern wall of the city, along the bay of the Golden Horn. They assured him it would be easy to demolish that wall if they could construct another massive cannon. The Sultan immediately provided them with everything they needed. So they constructed the cannon, a thing most fearsome to see and altogether unbelievable. With an astounding thunder and a flame that lit up all the surroundings, the canon hurled stones that hit the wall with tremendous force and velocity and immediately knocked it down. After a long and bitter struggle, the Ottomans prevailed and their entire army poured into the city through the breach in the walls. They robbed and plundered, and the whole city was despoiled and blackened as if by fire. The Sultan then entered the city and saw its great size, grandeur, and beauty. When he saw what a large number had been killed and the wholesale ruin and destruction of the city, he was filled with compassion. Tears fell from his eyes as he groaned: ‘What a great city we have given over to plunder and destruction!’” *The Byzantine capital Constantinople, which was conquered by the Ottoman Empire in 1453 and renamed Istanbul Michael Kritovoulos, Byzantine noble, History of Mehmet the Conqueror, written in the 1460s The conduct of the siege as described in the passage could best be used to explain which of the following processes in the period 1450–1750 ?

When the initial siege failed to take the city,* [the Ottoman] Sultan Mehmet II summoned the cannon-makers and spoke to them about what cannon could be used to demolish the northern wall of the city, along the bay of the Golden Horn. They assured him it would be easy to demolish that wall if they could construct another massive cannon. The Sultan immediately provided them with everything they needed. So they constructed the cannon, a thing most fearsome to see and altogether unbelievable. With an astounding thunder and a flame that lit up all the surroundings, the canon hurled stones that hit the wall with tremendous force and velocity and immediately knocked it down. After a long and bitter struggle, the Ottomans prevailed and their entire army poured into the city through the breach in the walls. They robbed and plundered, and the whole city was despoiled and blackened as if by fire. The Sultan then entered the city and saw its great size, grandeur, and beauty. When he saw what a large number had been killed and the wholesale ruin and destruction of the city, he was filled with compassion. Tears fell from his eyes as he groaned: ‘What a great city we have given over to plunder and destruction!’” *The Byzantine capital Constantinople, which was conquered by the Ottoman Empire in 1453 and renamed Istanbul Michael Kritovoulos, Byzantine noble, History of Mehmet the Conqueror, written in the 1460s The type of warfare described in the passage most directly helps to explain which of the following 16th century development?

“When the initial siege failed to take the city,* [the Ottoman] Sultan Mehmet II summoned the cannon-makers and spoke to them about what cannon could be used to demolish the northern wall of the city, along the bay of the Golden Horn. They assured him it would be easy to demolish that wall if they could construct another massive cannon. The Sultan immediately provided them with everything they needed. So they constructed the cannon, a thing most fearsome to see and altogether unbelievable. With an astounding thunder and a flame that lit up all the surroundings, the canon hurled stones that hit the wall with tremendous force and velocity and immediately knocked it down. After a long and bitter struggle, the Ottomans prevailed and their entire army poured into the city through the breach in the walls. They robbed and plundered, and the whole city was despoiled and blackened as if by fire. The Sultan then entered the city and saw its great size, grandeur, and beauty. When he saw what a large number had been killed and the wholesale ruin and destruction of the city, he was filled with compassion. Tears fell from his eyes as he groaned: ‘What a great city we have given over to plunder and destruction!’” *The Byzantine capital Constantinople, which was conquered by the Ottoman Empire in 1453 and renamed Istanbul Michael Kritovoulos, Byzantine noble, History of Mehmet the Conqueror, written in the 1460s The type of weaponry used in the siege, as described in the passage, could also help to explain the expansion of all of the following states in the period 1450–1750 EXCEPT the

The relationship between levels of military personnel and state revenues as shown in the table is best understood in the context of which of the following global developments in the period 1450–1750 ?

The trends in military personnel and state revenue shown in the table are best understood in the context of which of the following changes in the relationship between states and local elites in the period 1450–1750 ?

Which of the following developments in the period 1450-1750 is best understood as a response to the trends shown in the table?

In the Name of God, the Merciful, the Compassionate. The Holy Qur’an says, “Rise not up against me, but come to me in surrender.” This letter has been graciously issued by me Sultan Selim, the most glorious sovereign, the Caliph of God Most High in this world, haloed in victory, slayer of the wicked and of the infidel, guardian of the noble and the pious, the warrior in the path of God, the defender of the Faith, the standard-bearer of justice and righteousness—and is addressed to you, prince Ismail, the ruler of the kingdom of the Persians, the possessor of the land of tyranny and wickedness, the captain of the vicious, the chief of the malicious, the usurper of the throne of the ancient Persian kings. I have heard repeatedly that you have subjected the upright Muslims under your rule to your devious will, that you have undermined the firm foundation of the Faith, and that you no longer uphold the commandments and prohibitions of the Divine Law, but have incited your heretical faction to commit abominable deeds in the lands that you possess. Be informed, then, that both the opinion of the learned Islamic scholars and the consensus of the Sunni community agree that it is my obligation to extinguish and extirpate the evil heresy that you represent. But should you take up a course of repentance, become like one blameless, and return to the sublime straight path of Muhammad (Prayers and salutations be upon him), and should you proclaim your lands and their people part of my Ottoman state, then you shall be granted my royal favor and imperial protection and patronage.” Letter by the Ottoman Sultan Selim I to the Safavid Shah Ismail I, circa 1514 A historian would most likely interpret the rhetoric in the passage as evidence that rulers of imperial states in the period circa 1450–1750 continued to

In the Name of God, the Merciful, the Compassionate. The Holy Qur’an says, “Rise not up against me, but come to me in surrender.” This letter has been graciously issued by me Sultan Selim, the most glorious sovereign, the Caliph of God Most High in this world, haloed in victory, slayer of the wicked and of the infidel, guardian of the noble and the pious, the warrior in the path of God, the defender of the Faith, the standard-bearer of justice and righteousness—and is addressed to you, prince Ismail, the ruler of the kingdom of the Persians, the possessor of the land of tyranny and wickedness, the captain of the vicious, the chief of the malicious, the usurper of the throne of the ancient Persian kings. I have heard repeatedly that you have subjected the upright Muslims under your rule to your devious will, that you have undermined the firm foundation of the Faith, and that you no longer uphold the commandments and prohibitions of the Divine Law, but have incited your heretical faction to commit abominable deeds in the lands that you possess. Be informed, then, that both the opinion of the learned Islamic scholars and the consensus of the Sunni community agree that it is my obligation to extinguish and extirpate the evil heresy that you represent. But should you take up a course of repentance, become like one blameless, and return to the sublime straight path of Muhammad (Prayers and salutations be upon him), and should you proclaim your lands and their people part of my Ottoman state, then you shall be granted my royal favor and imperial protection and patronage.” Letter by the Ottoman Sultan Selim I to the Safavid Shah Ismail I, circa 1514 Based on the purpose of the letter, Selim’s description of the followers of Shah Ismail I as a “heretical faction” can best be interpreted as a commentary of the Safavid Empire’s

“In the Name of God, the Merciful, the Compassionate. The Holy Qur’an says, “Rise not up against me, but come to me in surrender.” This letter has been graciously issued by me Sultan Selim, the most glorious sovereign, the Caliph of God Most High in this world, haloed in victory, slayer of the wicked and of the infidel, guardian of the noble and the pious, the warrior in the path of God, the defender of the Faith, the standard-bearer of justice and righteousness—and is addressed to you, prince Ismail, the ruler of the kingdom of the Persians, the possessor of the land of tyranny and wickedness, the captain of the vicious, the chief of the malicious, the usurper of the throne of the ancient Persian kings. I have heard repeatedly that you have subjected the upright Muslims under your rule to your devious will, that you have undermined the firm foundation of the Faith, and that you no longer uphold the commandments and prohibitions of the Divine Law, but have incited your heretical faction to commit abominable deeds in the lands that you possess. Be informed, then, that both the opinion of the learned Islamic scholars and the consensus of the Sunni community agree that it is my obligation to extinguish and extirpate the evil heresy that you represent. But should you take up a course of repentance, become like one blameless, and return to the sublime straight path of Muhammad (Prayers and salutations be upon him), and should you proclaim your lands and their people part of my Ottoman state, then you shall be granted my royal favor and imperial protection and patronage.” Letter by the Ottoman Sultan Selim I to the Safavid Shah Ismail I, circa 1514 Which of the following aspects of the international situation in early sixteenth-century southwest Asia is most relevant to understanding Sultan Selim’s letter?

Which of the following most likely describes the fate of the Golconda state after 1650?