Question

There are, for example, the Spartans and the Romans. The Spartans held Athens and Thebes, establishing there an oligarchy: nevertheless they lost them. The Romans, in order to hold Capua, Carthage, and Numantia, dismantled them, and did not lose them. They wished to hold Greece as the Spartans held it, making it free and permitting its laws, and did not succeed. How does the text structure help the author convey his central idea in this chapter? By describing the actions taken by the Spartans and the Romans, Machiavelli sets up a comparison with the actions of other conquering forces discussed in the chapter. By contrasting the outcomes of Spartan and Roman conquests, Machiavelli provides evidence to support his claim that a prince must destroy a free city in order to hold it. By contrasting the goals of the Spartans and the Romans, Machiavelli establishes the problem of maintaining control of a conquered city, to which he will propose a solution. By listing the effects of these Spartan and Roman conquests, Machiavelli supports his overall description of how princes do or do not maintain control over the cities they conquer.

Answer 1

Answer: its b

Step-by-step explanation:

Answer 2

The text structure helps the author convey his central idea in this chapter:

B. By contrasting the outcomes of Spartan and Roman conquests, Machiavelli provides evidence to support his claim that a prince must destroy a free city in order to hold it.

Step-by-step explanation:

Niccolò Machiavelli, born in 1469, was an Italian political philosopher and statesman. The excerpt we are analyzing here belongs to his book "The Prince", published in 1532.

The structure of the passage contrasts the results of different conquests. According to Machiavelli, whenever a country conquers another, it is important to rule it personally or through an oligarchy, or to ruin it. Those are the ways to hold that country, keep it in one's possession. Any other way will lead to losing it.

That is why he mentions the Spartans and the Romans. The Spartans lost the lands they conquered because they gave them too much freedom. The Romans, on the other hand, were able to hold certain countries only because they dismantled them. This contrast serves as evidence to support the ideas above.