How do you explain the fact that the various nomadic empires, and particularly the Mongol Empire, were relatively short-lived

The fact that several nomadic empires, such as the Mongol Empire, have been short-lived is mainly based on the lack of defense structures built in a planned, strategic and orderly manner.

Due to their nomadic nature, these empires and civilizations did not tend to establish new cities or urban centers, with which their conception of territorial expansion was the mere possession of the territory. Therefore, in the event of enemy attacks, the territories were not sufficiently protected to repel these types of attacks. Thus, these empires could not sustain their power because they did not have the necessary building structures for it.

Answer and Explanation:

Nomadic empires could not retain for too long. These empires remain short-lived wherever they emerged. Their whole culture used to revolve around threatening others and herding from place to place. Genghis khan tried to arrest most nomadic groups, but they emerged from somewhere else as a centrifugal force.  

The Mongols have no cultural and social infrastructure to sustain their power. Railways and rifles allowed people to invade and to penetrate other places more remotely.

The decline of Nomadic empires, especially of Mongols, was happened because of three primary reasons:

1. Natural phenomena:

People were not able to survive in epidemics. Climate change left them merciless.

2. Foreign Policies:

Invasion of enemies, the crisis of civilization, and cessation of outer incomes also become the reason for their downfall.

3.Internal causes:

The lack of unity led them toward separatism, weak infrastructure, class struggle, civil wars, and the coming of political rulers without any vision and intellect also become a reason for their decline.

i believe the answer is:

-   william jennings bryan is a democrat while mckinley was a republican

at that time, the segment of population that choose for democratic party were the voters with low economic background and vice versa

- william jennings has support of populists and wants to have inflation to farmers while mckinley has support of bankers and businessmen , doesn't want inflation

the fixed value of gold make the large business able to stack up their gold without   being worried that it would devaluated.

- william jennings supported the silver standard while mckinley supported the gold standard

according to jenning, using other metal beside gold could the poor people to have more purchasing power and them advance in the society.

because mexico wanted to choose a centralized location