Text 1: Historian Marlowe Chen argues that the decline of the Roman Empire was fundamentally an economic phenomenon. Overtaxed peasants abandoned farmland, supply chains collapsed, and the treasury could no longer fund the legions. Military failures, in this view, were symptoms rather than causes.
Text 2: Classicist Petra Holt concedes that fiscal stress was present in the late empire but insists that the sequence matters: military pressure from external forces preceded and accelerated fiscal breakdown, not the other way around. Without the constant warfare of the third century, the tax base would not have eroded so rapidly.
Based on the texts, how would Holt most likely respond to Chen's claim that military failures were 'symptoms rather than causes'?
-
A
She would reject it entirely, arguing that military failures were the primary and independent cause of Rome's fall.
-
B
She would partially accept it, noting that military failures were symptoms of fiscal stress while also being catalysts that deepened that same stress.
-
C
She would agree that military failures were symptoms, but attribute them to cultural decay rather than economic factors.
-
D
She would argue that Chen's framing inverts the causal chain — military pressure was an initiating cause, making economic collapse the symptom.