Question

state building: roman empire years there is no significant history of change at rome. autocracy represented, in a sense, an end of history. of course there were all kind of events, battles, assassinations, political stand - offs, new initiatives and inventions; and the participants would have have all kinds of exciting stories to tell and disputes to argue. but unlike the story of the development of the republic and the growth of imperial power, which revolutionised almost every aspect of the world of rome, there was no fundamental change in the structure of roman politics, empire, or society between the end of the first century bce and the end of the second century ce. from mary beard, spqr: a history of ancient rome (new york: liveright publishing corporation, 2015), 335 - 336. which of the following evidence supports this claim? choose all answers that apply: a there continued to be internal events and disputes in rome b there were many events and conflicts that changed the structures of the republic in the first century bce c autocratic government always produces stability d the political structures augustus created changed very little over two centuries

Explanation:

• Option A: The text says there were events/disputes but no fundamental change. This just states ongoing events, not support for no structural change. Eliminate A.
• Option B: The claim is about no change after the first century BCE. This option is about changes in the Republic (first century BCE), which is the period before the claimed stable period, not support. Eliminate B.
• Option C: The text doesn't claim autocracy always produces stability, and this is a general statement not related to Roman structure stability. Eliminate C.
• Option D: If Augustus' political structures changed little over two centuries, it supports the claim that there was no fundamental change in Roman politics/society in that period. So D is correct. Wait, also re - evaluate B: The claim compares the lack of change after the first century BCE to the revolutionary changes of the Republic's development. Option B describes the revolutionary changes of the Republic (first century BCE), which sets up the contrast for the claim (no change later), so B also supports. Let's re - analyze:
• The claim is that between end of 1st century BCE and end of 2nd century CE, there was no fundamental change, unlike the Republic's development (which had revolutionary changes).
• Option B: "There were many events and conflicts that changed the structures of the Republic in the first century BCE" shows the Republic had changes, which is the contrast to the later period (no change), so it supports the claim's comparison.
• Option D: "The political structures Augustus created changed very little over two centuries" directly supports the claim that there was no fundamental change in the relevant time period.
• Option A: Just says there were events/disputes, not about structural change.
• Option C: The text doesn't make a general claim about autocracy and stability, and it's not evidence for Roman's specific case.

So correct options are B and D.

Answer:

B. There were many events and conflicts that changed the structures of the Republic in the first century BCE
D. The political structures Augustus created changed very little over two centuries