343 Words2 Pages
Rome began as a small city-state. It's army and way of running government remained the same as the small city grew to a huge empire. Somehow, this small-time system of management lasted for 600 years. It's obvious ill suitedness showed through though, when Rome's once strong rigid links began to jingle. When Rome began to crumble, its army went first. Besides causing civil unrest, with the people knowing their army was less than satisfactory, the loss of the army's comforting presence also caused a feeling of weakness about Rome. The economy of Rome was not perfect either. Though the taxes were heavy, they were not able to cover the cost of government and construction of public buildings, the maintenance of the army, support two capitals, etc. etc. Because of this, Rome's splendor and beauty began to diminish (without the public funding to preserve the beauty), unrepaired roads and bridges, increased banditry, danger in travel (hence decreased trade), and a weak army. This was all because Rome did not organize an economic style made for and fitting an empire of its size. A final force in the decay of Rome, perhaps as a result of the previous mentioned, was loss of public morale and values. Although in general, Rome was always mainly without the morals righteous people try to uphold today, Romans were hardworking, athletic, philosophical, stern, noble, and patriotic. When public morale decreased, however, Rome fell into a pit of laziness, unethical, disloyal dishonesty. One example of how this effected society, is when armies were pressured to work hard, the disloyal soldiers abandoned their legions to flee. Rome's main problem, as you can see, is the combination of all of these factors.

More about Rome

Open Document