纠错
置顶

The Western Roman Empire in the Fifth Century

纠错

Directions: An introductory sentence for a brief summary of the passage is provided below. Complete the summary by selecting the THREE answer choices that express the most important ideas in the passage. Some sentences do not belong in the summary because they express ideas that are not presented in the passage or are minor ideas in the passage.

This question is worth 2 points.

Drag your answer choices to the spaces where they belong. To remove an answer choice, click on it.To review the passage, click VIEW TEXT.

Shortly after separation, the West Roman Empire became more vulnerable than its eastern counterpart.

显示答案
正确答案: B D E
  • A.
    The division of the Roman Empire into two parts was particularly damaging for the Western Empire because it relied on the Eastern Empire for economic support.
  • B.
    The heirs of Theodosius came to the throne as young children, allowing them to be dominated by advisors who competed for influence at the expense of the empire's welfare.
  • C.
    Western emperors after Theodosius were unable to emphasize their civilian role because of their need to rely on the protection of Germanic generals loyal to them.
  • D.
    Compared to the Eastern Empire, the Western Empire had many disadvantages, including more foreign enemies and fewer material and human resources.
  • E.
    Resentment against Germanic chieftains achieving high rank in the Roman military and factionalism among Roman leaders were among the causes of the period's considerable instability.
  • F.
    As the resources needed to secure Rome's borders increased, serious conflicts developed among Roman leaders over how best to protect Roman territory against invading tribes.

我的笔记 编辑笔记

  • 原文
  • 译文
  • Shortly after the death of emperor Theodosius in 395 A.D., the Roman Empire was permanently divided into Eastern and Western empires. By the fifth century A.D., the power of the Western Roman Empire had declined considerably, though the Eastern Roman Empire centered in Byzantium continued to flourish. Various problems contributed to this undermining of the West.



    The accessions of Arcadius and Honorius, sons of Theodosius, as emperors in the East and West, respectively, illustrate the unfortunate pattern of child heirs that had unfavorable effects for both empires. When Arcadius died in 408, he was succeeded by his seven-year-old son, Theodosius II. Reigning until 423, Honorius was succeeded by his nephew Valentinian III, who was only five. Because of their young ages, Theodosius' sons and grandsons could not rule without older advisors and supervising regents upon whom they naturally became dependent and from whom they were unable to break away after reaching maturity. As powerful individuals vied for influence and dominance at court, the general welfare was often sacrificed to private rivalries and ambitions. Moreover, it was the women of the dynasty who were the more capable and interesting characters. Holding the keys to succession through birth and inheritance, they became active players in the political arena.



    Compared with the East, however, the West faced a greater number of external threats along more permeable frontiers. Whereas the East could pursue war and diplomacy more effectively with their enemies on the long eastern frontier, the West was exposed to the more volatile tribal Germanic peoples on a frontier that stretched along the Rhine and Danube rivers for 1,000 miles. The East, however, only had to guard the last 500 miles of the Danube. In addition, the East had many more human and material resources with which to pursue its military and diplomatic objectives. The East also had a more deeply rooted unity in the Greek culture of the numerous Greek and Near Eastern cities that Rome had inherited from earlier Grecian empires. Latin culture had not achieved comparable penetration of the less urbanized West outside of Italy. The penetration of Germanic culture from the north had been so extensive along the permeable Rhine-Danube frontier that it was often difficult to distinguish between barbarians (speakers of German and other languages unrelated to Latin) and Romans in those regions by the fifth century anyway.



    One of the most outstanding features at the beginning of this period was the prominence of Germanic generals in the high command of the Roman Imperial army. The trend became significant, and several practical reasons can explain it. The foremost probably was the sheer need for military manpower that made it attractive to recruit bands of Germanic peoples for the armies, which, in turn, gave chieftains and warlords the opportunity to gain Imperial favor and advance in rank. Second, one way to turn Germanic chieftains from potential enemies into loyal supporters was to offer them a good position in the Roman military. Third, although Theodosius had risen to power as a military leader, he was also a cultured aristocrat and preferred to emphasize the civilian role of the emperor and to rely for protection on Germanic generals whose loyalties were primarily to him, their patron.



    Unfortunately, the high positions achieved by Germanic officers often aroused the jealousy and hostility of high-ranking Roman military and civilian officials. Such positions also gave their Germanic holders a chance to act on both personal and tribal animosities in the arena of Imperial politics. Internal Roman rivalries and power struggles aggravated the situation. Rival factional leaders often granted Imperial titles and conceded territory to one Germanic leader or another in return for help against fellow Romans. While the Romans were thus distracted by internal conflict, other tribes seized the opportunity to cross into Roman territory unopposed. When the Romans could not dislodge them, peace was bought with further titles and territorial concessions as allies. In the midst of it all, alliances and coalitions between Roman emperors or powerful commanders and various tribes or tribal kings were made, unmade, and remade so often that it is nearly impossible to follow their course. Accordingly, all of these situations proved dangerous to the peace and safety of the West.


  • -
  • 官方解析
  • 网友贡献解析
  • 标签
    0 感谢 不懂
    解析

    段落大意:

    第一段:介绍背景:罗马分裂为东西罗马;在公元五世纪,由于各种问题导致西罗马日渐衰落

    第二段:问题or原因一——东西罗马年幼子嗣继承;因其年幼,需依赖权臣监管,权臣斗争,大众利益受损;同时女性有一定的影响力

    第三段:问题or原因二——外界因素

            西罗马:边界不稳,防守不易;Germanic culture文化渗透,文化混合

            东罗马:边界易守;资源充沛;根深蒂固的希腊文化;

    第四段:问题or原因三——日耳曼人在罗马帝国军队的地位很高

            地位高的原因:

    1)对军事人力的需求→招募日耳曼族人加入军队→受帝王青睐,晋升

    2)授予地位,把敌军变为盟友

    3)帝王强调自身的平民角色,依赖日耳曼将军的保护

    第五段:问题or原因四——①罗马军事和文职官员嫉妒日耳曼军官所取得的高位,日耳曼人趁机报复 ②罗马内部的争斗和权力斗争加剧

     

    答案:BDE

    题型:小结题

    解析:

    A选项错误,原文没有谈到西罗马经济依赖东罗马。

    B选项正确,对应第2段内容。

    C选项错误,与原文第四段最后一句相反。

    D选项正确,概括第3段内容。

    E选项正确,概括第5段内容。

    F选项错误,文章没有提到任何如何保护领土的争议和冲突。

题目讨论

如果对题目有疑问,欢迎来提出你的问题,热心的小伙伴会帮你解答。

最新提问