《考研英語(yǔ)閱讀理解100篇 高分版》 Unit 8 - TEXT TWO

Publishers cannot have enough of books from serious historians about the “whys” of war. Why do they start? Why do they last? What makes a peace fragile? The past is one place to look for answers. Charles Esdaile, a lecturer at the University of Liverpool, is too good a scholar to make easy comparisons between then and now. But the “whys” of war run through his masterly account of the Napoleonic wars, a 12-year conflict between France and Europe's other powers that killed almost 2m soldiers. Mr. Esdaile, in a politico-military survey of extraordinary scope and detail, tells us what he believes caused the conflict, what it was about and why it lasted so long despite, as it seemed, frequent chances for peace. Neither battlefield chronicle nor biography in disguise, “Napoleon's Wars” is explanatory history of high order.
Historians date the Napoleonic wars from 1803, when Britain declared war on France after the brief Peace of Amiens. Mr. Esdaile recounts how Napoleon came to power in 1799, mastering France and then Europe. Britain commanded the seas after Trafalgar in 1805. But France held the continent thanks to victories on land against the Austrians, Prussians and Russians. Setbacks in Spain, which Napoleon's troops entered in 1807, and disaster in Russia in 1812, led to eventual defeat at Waterloo.
Mr. Esdaile makes that familiar story fresh in three connected ways. He shows how marginal-looking conflicts—for example over the Romanian lands, Sweden, Portugal, Canada—ignited larger ones or divided potential allies. He reminds us that defeating Napoleon was never sure. Europe's armies had first to learn from their own failures and their rulers had to make common cause. Both things happened, but late in the day. Above all, he stresses that the conflict was not ideological but geopolitical. It was about the balance of power, disturbed for a century by Ottoman decline, Russian and Prussian growth and Franco-British rivalries.
Few if any of France's foes were fighting for regime change in Paris. At many times they would have settled with Napoleon—had he settled with them. But they could never trust him to settle, and the wars went on. His two strongest opponents, Britain and Russia, resisted him, in Mr. Esdaile's view, not because he was a revolutionary, a republican or the head of an upstart dynasty. They fought him because as long as he controlled France, there was no telling where France would stop.
At this point Napoleon's character enters Mr. Esdaile's intricate geopolitical equations. Without accepting a great-man theory of history, he thinks the Napoleonic wars deserve their name. Europe's powers would have fought over their differences without Napoleon. But the scale and ferocity of conflict was due in large part to the emperor's “aggression, egomania and lust for power”.
Mr. Esdaile's book reflects a vast and varied range of recent scholarship. But he never leaves his geopolitical story for long. War started, he believes, because Europe was not in balance. It dragged on because Napoleon could not be trusted. Peace came—and lasted until later generations forgot the horror of the alternative.
1. Mr. Esdaile's book can be best described as _____.
[A] a politico-military survey of the Napoleonic wars
[B] an account of the Napoleonic wars in extraordinary scope and detail
[C] a historical chronicle of the Napoleonic wars with comparisons of the past and the present
[D] an exploration of the deep-rooted reason that led to the long war
2. Mr. Esdaile holds the view that the Napoleonic wars are originated by _____.
[A] marginal conflicts
[B] imbalance of power in Europe
[C] Napoleon's aggressive ambition
[D] Franco-British rivalries
3. Mr. Esdaile's novelty in recounting the conflict is in _____.
[A] that he dates from 1799 when Napoleon came to power in France
[B] that he explains Napoleon's character and history in detailed and vivid account
[C] that he reminds us the importance of some marginal-looking conflicts
[D] that he thinks the war was indeed started due to geopolitical factors
4. France's rivals fought against Napoleon despite chances for peace because _____.
[A] the political imbalance of Europe stimulated inevitable hatred and conflict between the countries and Napoleon
[B] they were alert to the possible aggression by Napoleon
[C] they attempted to settle with Napoleon but in vain
[D] Napoleon was too ambitious to be trusted by them
5. According to the passage, which one of the following statements is NOT true of the Napoleonic wars?
[A] The wars would have been fought without Napoleon.
[B] The wars were due to the emperor's aggression, egomania and lust for power.
[C] The wars lasted for so long time because France's rivals could not trust Napoleon.
[D] The wars were fought over the difference of the Europe's powers.