The imperial expansion of Rome or in simpler terms the development of the Roman Empire can be associated with the second century BC. Over a relatively short period of time, Rome immensely expanded its territory at a rapid rate. Although the victories in the Second Punic War satisfied Rome, they also motivated them to expend further into their neighbour’s territories and eventually conquer Greece and the North African coast. The Roman Empire became colossal and unstoppable within a blink of a century. Robin Waterfield’s new translation of Plutarch’s original work Roman Lives clarifies the reasons behind this sudden need to grow. The necessity in increase of the common wealth, the lack of available land for the Roman citizen, the safety precaution of having foreign allies and most importantly the constant need in being the most influential empire are among some of the reasons Plutarch provided. The lives of Cato the Elder, Aemilius Paullius, Tiberius and Gaius Gracchus demonstrate specific cases of how these factors affected Rome and caused it to expand its borders. All explanations are valid however, when one looks at the larger picture it becomes clear that the prosperity of the Roman society is in the root of them all.
Many factors contribute to the success of a society and determine the supremacy of the entire empire. The most evident of these factors is the common wealth of the population. This wealth is not merely calculated in monetary form but comprises the amount of resources and military power an empire possesses. The endless necessity in an increase of wealth in Rome could have led to the expansion. Since the land was not rich in resources and the soil was not the greatest for agriculture, expansion of the Roman border...
... middle of paper ...
... just material wealth; it gave Rome a status of a dominating figure. It also instilled fear in neighbouring Empires, forcing them to strongly consider an alliance with Rome. Their success was greatly due to the fact that they never underestimated the strength of the enemy, and this helped them gain the land they fought for. All of the conquered land not only served its purpose for the citizens but also was seen as a war trophy for Rome. These are just some of the very many assumptions of why Rome grew and spread so quickly but no matter the nation, location or empire the necessity of having authority over others remains the reason for all expansion.
Works Cited
Plutarch, Philip A. Stadter, and Robin Waterfield. "Cato The Elder, Aemilius Paullus, Tiberius and Gaius Gracchus." Roman Lives: A Selection of Eight Roman Lives. Oxford: Oxford UP, 1999. 3-115. Print.
From ages past, the actions of conquerors, kings and tyrants had brought the Roman Republic to a stance that opposed any idea of a singular leader, of a single man that held total power over the entirety of the state. Their rejection of the various ruthless Etruscan rulers that had previously dictated them brought the Republic to existence in 509 BC , and as a republic their prominence throughout the provinces of the world exponentially expanded. Throughout these years, the traditions of the Romans changed to varying degrees, most noticeably as a result of the cultural influence that its subject nations had upon the republic, as well as the ever-changing nature of Roman society in relation to then-current events. However, it was not until the rise of Augustus, the first of a long line of succeeding emperors, that many core aspects of the Republic were greatly changed. These were collectively known as the “Augustan Reforms”, and consisted of largely a variety of revisions to the social, religious, political, legal and administrative aspects of the republic’s infrastructure. Through Augustus, who revelled in the old traditional ways of the past, the immoral, unrestraint society that Rome was gradually falling to being was converted to a society where infidelities and corruption was harshly looked upon and judged. The Roman historian Suetonius states, “He corrected many ill practices, which, to the detriment of the public, had either survived the licentious habits of the late civil wars, or else originated in the long peace” . Through Augustus and his reforms, the Republic was transformed into an Empire, and through this transformation, Rome experienced one of its greatest and stabl...
Bibliography:.. Plutarch, Fall of the Roman Republic: Six lives by Plutarch, Translated by Rex Warner (London: Penguin Books Ltd., 1972).
Livy’s The Rise of Rome serves as the ultimate catalogue of Roman history, elaborating on the accomplishments of each king and set of consuls through the ages of its vast empire. In the first five books, Livy lays the groundwork for the history of Rome and sets forth a model for all of Rome to follow. For him, the “special and salutary benefit of the study of history is to behold evidence of every sort of behaviour set forth as on a splendid memorial; from it you may select for yourself and for your country what to emulate, from it what to avoid, whether basely begun or basely concluded.” (Livy 4). Livy, however, denies the general populace the right to make the same sort of conclusions that he made in constructing his histories. His biased representation of Romulus and Tarquin Superbus, two icons of Roman history, give the readers a definite model of what a Roman should be, instead of allowing them to come to their own conclusion.
Over the span of five-hundred years, the Roman Republic grew to be the most dominant force in the early Western world. As the Republic continued to grow around the year 47 B.C it began to go through some changes with the rise of Julius Caesar and the degeneration of the first triumvirate. Caesar sought to bring Rome to an even greater glory but many in the Senate believed that he had abused his power, viewing his rule more as a dictatorship. The Senate desired that Rome continued to run as a republic. Though Rome continued to be glorified, the rule of Caesar Octavian Augustus finally converted Rome to an Empire after many years of civil war. Examining a few selections from a few ancient authors, insight is provided as to how the republic fell and what the result was because of this.
414-443. Antony Kamm The Romans: An Introduction Second Edition, Published in 2008, pages 47, 93. Dio Cassius Roman History (as presented in Antiquity 2). Augustus (Octavian) Res Gestae Divi Augusti (as presented in Antiquity 2). Eck, The Age of Augustus, p.45 (as presented in Antiquity 2).
Scarre, Christopher. Chronicle of the Roman Emperors: The Reign-by-reign Record of the Rulers of Imperial Rome. London: Thames and Hudson, 1995. Print.
In Titus Livius’, The Early History of Rome, Livy takes on the task of documenting Rome’s early history and some of the famous individuals who help contribute to the ‘greatness’ of Rome. Livy dedicates an entire portion of his writing to describe the reigns of the first seven kings of Rome; all who influence the formation and governance of Rome in some way. However, of the seven kings in early Roman history, King Romulus and King Numa Pompilius achieved godlike worship and high esteem from their fellow Romans. While both highly important and respected figures in Rome’s history, the personalities and achievements of King Romulus and King Numa Pompilius are complete opposites of one another. Despite the differences found in each king and of their rule over Rome, both Romulus and Numa Pompilius have a tremendous influence in the prosperity and expansion of Rome in its early days.
It has been debated by varying scholars as to whether Caesar Augustus’ foreign policy to expand Rome’s empire had more to do with defensive imperialism as a response to encroaching threats, or rather, an aggressive, unprovoked move to claim hegemony over the known world. However, I would like to postulate in support of the former theory that in an attempt to restore and ensure long-lasting security to their empire, Augustus was forced to take proactive measures in order to preserve it. With territorial boundaries normally running along the rivers so as to provide a better defensive posture, he felt it necessary to expand the northern border to the river so as to secure their autonomy and position. Perhaps if he could establish a wide buffer of room along Roman lands, he could ensure the safety of the people, the cities, and most of all—the government.
In the early first century AD, the Roman Empire was subject to autocratic rule and the old Republic was long dead. Augustus had been ruling for forty years and most of that time he was loved and praised by the Senate and the people of Rome. Throughout his reign, Augustus had the one lingering problem of finding a successor to take over the role of Emperor. He had chosen 3 different heirs in his time of rule; however, they all passed before they had the chance to inherit Augustus’ esteemed power. His fourth choice, Tiberius, was the one to succeed Augustus. He was often referred to, by Augustus, as an outstanding general and the only one capable of defending Rome against her enemies. The statement, ‘Tiberius is condemned by many ancient historians (including Tacitus), and his reign is often portrayed as being detrimental to the welfare of the Roman Empire’ is invalid as he treated the senate fairly, created strong economics and security in the state and boosted the empire into an unprecedented state of prosperity. This hypothesis will be proven through this essay by analyzing factors such as Tiberius’ administration of the Empire, his relationship with the senate, his financial control, the effect of Sejanus over his rule and why were his last years as Emperor referred to as a ‘reign of terror’ by Tacitus.
Rome became a powerful empire engulfing much of Europe, North Africa, and parts of Asia and what seemed like this great entity called the Romans were always in the search of more territory and land to conquer and assimilate into their ever growing vast empire. However, this was not always the case, before Rome became one of the greatest empires in all of history, Rome was a republic. They were government consisted of a Senate who much like our country today represented certain classes of the citizens of the Republic. During the growth and rise of the Roman republic conquering neighboring territories and competing for land grabs was not Romans primary objectives. Romans believed in the well being and wealth of Rome, and if that meant the total destruction of a potential adversary, then as history will show that is unfortunately to the detriment of the adversary what happened.
The Roman Republic (Res Pvblica Romana) was a form of republican government that was established in 509 BCE to replace the monarchy government that had reigned over Rome since the founding in 753BCE (Steele, 2012). The Failure of the Roman Republic was inevitable as it was an unjust system of government and it was left vulnerable after the attempted changes instigated by the Gracchi, as the Gracchi exposed the weaknesses in the political structure allowing future politicians to manipulate the system. The sources used throughout the essay, which include Plutarch, Appian, Florus and Velleius, will need to be examined closely as each source will demonstrate different views on the Gracchi, as the authors purpose of writing will differ. The Gracchi had set out to change Rome for the better, however in the process; they exposed the internal flaws of the government which resulted in the beginning of the decline of the Roman Republic.
Hopkins, Keith. 2009. “On the Political Economy of the Roman Empire.” In The Dynamics of
Over time, ever-increasing taxation placed a massive burden on the Roman people with the majority of these taxes falling on the poorest members of society. The plight of the masses slowly ate away at the foundation of the Roman economy, especially following the final division of the empire in 395. The Roman economy in the West simply lost the ability to function in the face of overwhelming exterior and interior pressures”. This shows that to the author of this article, the economy played one of the bigger roles in the collapse of the Roman Empire. It also shows that the failing of the military, and the economic downfall were linked, the military gradually declined, and thus so did the economy of
The Roman Mediterranean experienced both economy and social development as the state expanded and united new area into the network of trade. Because of the unequal distribution of benefit, the class conflicts become more extremely, and the administration of wide land also met the inefficiency. Moreover, the unfair distribution of land caused more political and social tension so that many civil and military leaders gradually ignored the republican constitution and applied a centralized imperial form of political form. Gradually, the economy in Roma changed to money-based that the land owner’s wealth was not stable anymore, and the social was in a mess as more unjust policy appeared. During these disorder decades, a great general called Julius Caesar became very popular in Roma because of his military achievements and he also favored liberal policies and social reform. As more people decided to follow him, he named himself as the master of Roman state for live with centralized political and military functions. His policies established a centralized, imperial form of government for Roma and its possessions, however, they also negatively affect the profit of Roman elite, who murdered him
An Empire that is too big is not always for the better because there are more problems to be dealt with. In the case of the Roman E...