Question

from robert hoylands in gods path: the arab conquest
from this excerpt, what argument can be made about imperial expansion and conflict?
choose 1 answer:
a because of their strategy of raiding, steppe peoples do not have stable enough economies to run an empire
b empires grow weak when they overextend themselves militarily, opening themselves up to invasion from outside forces or infighting
c the best borders for an empire are natural borders: mountains, rivers, and oceans
d regional autonomy always leads to greater imperial stability

Explanation:

• Option A: There is no mention in the general context of imperial expansion and conflict (without the excerpt) about steppe peoples' economies in relation to running an empire based on raiding. This is a very specific claim that would need excerpt - based evidence.
• Option B: In the context of imperial expansion, over - extending militarily is a common historical phenomenon. When empires expand too much, they can face problems like difficulty in maintaining control over far - flung territories. This can lead to internal infighting (as different factions within the empire may struggle for resources or power) or make them vulnerable to external invasions (as they spread their military thin).
• Option C: While natural borders can be an advantage, there is no indication in the general understanding of imperial expansion and conflict (without the excerpt) that this is the "best" or the main argument. Empires have expanded across various terrains, and the role of natural borders is just one aspect among many.
• Option D: "Always" is an absolute term. Regional autonomy can sometimes lead to stability (as local populations may feel more included), but it can also lead to separatist movements if not managed properly. So, the claim of "always" is too strong.

Answer:

B. Empires grow weak when they overextend themselves militarily, opening themselves up to invasion from outside forces or infighting