The decay of Rome has been frequently ascribed to the translation of the seat of empire, but this history has already shown that the powers of government were divided rather than removed. The throne of Constantinople was erected in the East; while the West was still possessed by a series of emperors who held their residence in Italy and claimed their equal inheritance of the legions and provinces. This dangerous novelty impaired the strength, and fomented the vices, of a double reign; the instruments of an oppressive and arbitrary system were multiplied; and a vain emulation of luxury, not of merit, was introduced and supported between the degenerate successors of Theodosius...Yet the salutary event approved in some measure the judgment of Constantine. During a long period of decay, his impregnable city repelled the victorious armies of Barbarians, protected the wealth of Asia, and commanded, both in peace and war, the important straits which connect the Euxine and Mediterranean seas. The foundation of Constantinople more essentially contributed to the preservation of the East than to the ruin of the West.

- Edward Gibbon, “General Observations on the Fall of the Roman Empire in the West,” from The Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire, 1776.
Which of these would best support the author’s assertions about the Roman Empire?
A) The city of Rome would be sacked less than a century after the actions of Theodosius.
B) The imperial government engaged in extensive reform efforts to stop the decline.
C) The conflict between the western and eastern halves of the empire hastens the fall.
D) The Roman Empire would continue to dominate the Mediterranean world.