Shortly after the death of emperor Theodosius in 395 A.D., the Roman Empire

游客2023-12-25  11

问题     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 able 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.  [br] According to the fourth paragraph, by becoming generals in the Roman army, Germanic chieftains were given a chance to________.

选项 A、obtain benefits from the emperor
B、influence Roman civilian life
C、help shape military policy
D、attract Germanic recruits into the Roman army

答案 A

解析 第4段第3句提到,使日耳曼将军在罗马帝国军队中获得最高指挥地位有助于招募日耳曼人进入军队,反过来,也能使能干的首领和军阀有机会获得皇帝的赏识和晋升(gain imperial favor and advance in rank)。由此可知,成为罗马军队的将军会给日耳曼酋长带来一些利益,因此A项 “从皇帝那里得到好处”正确。B项“影响罗马平民生活”和C项“帮助制定军事政策”在文中均未被提及,可排除。D项“吸引日耳曼新兵加人罗马军队”是罗马帝国可以获取的好处,并不是日耳曼将军能得到的益处,对象错误,可排除。
转载请注明原文地址:https://www.tihaiku.com/zcyy/3304649.html
最新回复(0)