Difficulty: Hard

Average Score: 20%

"In the past, the peoples of the earth were variously distributed into provincial, national, and local governments. The consequences of this distribution were war and strife, depopulation and captivity. The origin of these calamities may justly be ascribed to the delusion of polytheistic error. But when the holy body of Christ was raised, the energy of these evil spirits was at once destroyed. The manifold forms of government were now no more. One God was proclaimed to all mankind, one empire prevailed, and the whole human race received one another as brethren. Thus, the whole world appeared like one well-ordered and united family and the ancient oracle and predictions of the prophets were fulfilled, 'And they shall beat their swords into plowshares, and their spears into sickles, and nation shall not take up sword against nation."Eusebius, bishop of Caesarea and Church historian, oration dedicated to the Roman emperor Constantine on the anniversary of the thirtieth year of his reign, Constantinople, 336 C.E.

Which of the following statements about government in the Roman Republic is true?

Rationale

The decline of imperial authority in numerous provinces because of civil wars between Roman generals.

This decline led to fragmentation and instability within the Roman Empire, as competing factions weakened central power and resulted in local governments gaining prominence. Such conditions likely contributed to the wars and strife that Eusebius attributed to the distribution of power among various governments.

A (The two consuls had little authority over the military) YOUR ANSWER

While the assassinations of these emperors were significant events, they occurred earlier and did not directly pertain to the broader civil conflicts that characterized the third century. Instead, these events were part of a pattern of instability rather than the root cause of the widespread decline of imperial authority.

B (The popular assemblies consistently opposed expansionist policies) YOUR ANSWER

The sack of Rome occurred in 410 C.E., after the period in question. It was a symptom of the decline of the Western Roman Empire, rather than a direct explanation for the civil strife and distribution of power during the third century, which was characterized by internal conflicts rather than external invasions.

D (The Romans extended citizenship to all conquered peoples) YOUR ANSWER

This event took place in the seventh century and is unrelated to the developments in the third century. The Persian conquest did not influence the dynamics of Roman provincial authority or the internal conflicts that Eusebius discusses, making it an irrelevant choice in this context.

E (Political conflict between plebeians and patricians led to the abolition of slavery) YOUR ANSWER

The Frankish empire began to rise in the fifth century and was not a factor in the third-century issues concerning Roman authority. This choice misplaces the timeline and does not address the fragmentation and civil wars occurring within the Roman Empire at that time.

Conclusion

Eusebius' assertion about the consequences of governmental distribution highlights the turmoil caused by the decline of imperial authority in the third century, primarily due to civil wars. This fragmentation fostered conflict and instability, aligning with his observations on the resulting strife and the eventual need for unity under one divine authority. Understanding this context provides insight into the historical challenges faced by the Roman Empire during this tumultuous period.

Related Questions

View all