What Are The Negative Effects Of The Roman Conquests

Today, the Roman Empire is often pictured as a shining testament to simplicity, bravery, and imperialism. Many look to the longstanding success of Rome as an example for strong modern nations to follow, conveniently choosing to downplay the importance of Rome’s eventual downfall. While this image is not entirely incorrect, it fails to acknowledge the corruption that plagued Rome, a feature that was particularly evident during the empire’s decline. One of the most conventional examples of a time that suffered the outcomes of this corruption occurred during the third century A.D. While a number of factors contributed to this time of vast turmoil which would ultimately become known as the Third Century Crisis, one of the most substantial was the political instability that arose from the changes that were occurring inside the Roman military and its ties to succession.

The Roman Empire conquered land at a previously unparalleled rate, within the known world, affecting its institutions from the rest of the Empire’s prevalence. From Hispania to Britannia sweeping across the mediterranean, gaining Egypt, ending in Persia; the absorption of Carthage and North Africa, and finally the civil war being won by Augustus, all brought upon the negative effects of their conquest. The Empire continued to grow from the year 200 B.C.E. to the year 200 C.E.; this growth had many effects upon the Empire. Although expansion and conquest are often good, seen as liberating, or wholly expansive in mathematical, philosophic, and scientific thought, this is not inherently the case. The Roman Empire’s expansion was not entirely as powerful and awe inspiring as many claim it to be; the greedily performed collection of lands resulted in many negative outcomes. These outcomes largely presented Rome with an issue they would never be able to recover from: empiric decay. The effects of militaristic expansion, of the Roman Empire, resulted in the decay of previously prosperous economic, political, and social institutions.

From 509 BC to about 27 BC, Rome was considered a republic. During this time there was no single leader of Rome and the government was run by elected officials. The main leaders of the Roman Republic were the consuls. There were always two consuls in power at a time. Each year new consuls were elected to serve for a one-year term. This kept any one man from becoming too powerful in the government. At the time the Senate was the most powerful governing body in Rome. The Senate had control of the state’s finances and foreign policies. Senators were elected by the people to represent them in government. The Senate was made up of 300 of the most elite and wealthiest of the Roman Republic. One of the most important roles of the Senate to undergo the checks and balances of the Roman government. Checks and balances are the “principle of government under which separate branches are empowered to prevent actions by other branches and are induced to share power” (The Editors). The checks and balances of Rome helped to stabilize the government and allowed the power to be distributed somewhat equally between the consul, the Senate, and the people. However, the fall of the Roman Empire eliminated this type aspect of government in Rome (Kagan 101-103).

In correspondence, Document C projects that, “What was the ruin of Sparta and Athens, but this, that mighty as they were in war, they spurned from them as aliens [foreigners] those whom they had conquered? Our founder Romulus, on the other hand, was so wise that he fought as enemies and then hailed as fellow citizens several nations on the very same day.” (Document C) In correcting the mistake of Athens, Rome already builds a better society. Additionally, the inclusion of conquered nations provides fairness for foreigners who are now involved in building Rome to make it more successful.

Looking at Rome’s political struggles at the dawn of the first century B.C., it becomes apparent that the groundwork for Caesar’s Republic shattering revolt was lain down by Marius and Sulla. To be more specific, the stage was set by the class struggles between the Aristocracy, who demanded control of the Republic by virtue of tradition, and the masses, which demanded a voice.

The trials of political success and error throughout history, have led to more efficient and authentic ways of governing, making nations stronger over the course of time. While the United States and the Roman Republic share similar political systems, the structure of the Roman Republic is in many ways flawed compared to the modern Democratic Republic of the U.S. nation. The Roman Republic’s rigid social structure flawed their political system because there was less flexibility within the social ladder, affecting citizens and their opportunity to be elected into office. The Republic’s society was made up of two distinct and separate social classes, the Patricians and the Plebeians. “In the early years of the Roman Republic, patricians controlled all the religious and political offices; plebeians had no right of appeal against decisions of the patrician government, since no laws were codified or published.

By 264 BCE the groundwork had been laid for an unprecedented empire to expand it’s reign across the Mediterranean. Ancient Rome is lauded for the strength of its republic and its unparalleled military prowess but the reason for its domestic and foreign success was the confidence Roman citizens had in their state. In order to determine why Romans had such a prolific faith we must look to the flexible political structure they developed during the early Republic. The governmental system they crafted was incredibly malleable and allowed for modification whenever it couldn’t meet the needs of the people it was designed to serve. Because of the Rome’s economic reliance on war, their need for soldiers, and the stratification of the patrician

The consuls were the supreme power of authority with one year terms and could not be elected more than two times in a row and three times total. However, in situations of crisis, the Romans were led by a dictator who had complete power in a six month term. The Republic also had a senate, picked by the two consuls. The senators held their position for life and were responsible for taxes, funding laws, and foreign affairs. Next in line were the assembly, an elected body drawn from the citizens of Rome with two year terms and no term limits. The assembly occasionally made laws that had to be approved by the senate. The common people of Rome were called the Plebeians. The Plebeians served in the army, payed taxes, and had other citizen duties, but were not allowed to hold any important positions in office, unlike the Patricians who had all the rights. The Tribunes represented the voice of the Plebeians and were elected by the Plebeians. There were two Tribunes at a time with one year terms and had the power to veto any law. The Tribunes were “sacred” and left their doors open to the public to speak to them about any problems they might have

The Roman Republic was a “democratic” republic, which allowed first citizens to vote, and to choose their governors in the senate (Hence, their consuls). However, it was a nation ruled by its aristocracy, and, consequently, the entire Republic`s power was concentrated in a few individuals. Furthermore, the Senate was controlled by Patricians, which directed the government by using wealth to buy control and power over the decisions of the senate and the consuls. This situation aroused the inconformity of the people; as result, a civil war took place in the Republic (destroying it), and then the Roman Empire was born.

Much like we see in daily in the media, power struggle has been a problem of humanity in many situations, and the Roman empire was no exception. The Roman Empire as a world power, extended its reach across parts of Europe, Africa, and Asia; however, the wars of conquest came with a price and especially effected the lie legionaries who had gone for years and where forced to sell their lands upon returning home (McKay, 110). After losing their lands many of the veterans were unable to find employment and would follow any leader until Gaius Marius recruited some of them to fight in Africa in return for land, however, the senate or the state refused to support Marius’ promise (McKay, 111). These events were one of the first destabilizing factors

It is clear that the dynamics that characterized Rome’s society during the Republic were never easy. There was a constant push and pull of intentions and interests between Patricians and Plebeians. The Patricians always wanting to maintain economic and political supremacy while the Plebeians were in constant

Many anthropologists and historians have speculated about the different causes and effects of the fall of the Roman Empire. Some have even stated that Rome did not fall but instead, was merely transformed. However, there were many causes that did end this prodigious empire. Many seemingly small decisions made by powerful emperors over the course of just over a century lead to its destruction. In this paper it will be established that the Roman emperors, in an effort to save their political power, made adjustments to warfare/treaty practices and made political changes which over time lead to the inevitable collapse of the realm, this caused a drastic regression in the living standards of the Roman citizens, implying that the Empire did indeed collapse and not transform.

For 350 years the Roman Republic had grown, retracted, and grown again, surviving and thrived. Through it all the Romans never turned away from their basic founding principle that no king shall rein in Rome. Every year men stood for election and every year free ballots were cast by free citizens. The winner won and the looser lost, and power was transferred between them. It was a remarkable run and the republic’s track record was and is the case of much justifiable envy. The Roman’s success would be the undoing of the Roman republic. Over the years the republic had survived for two major reason, the lower class had not been so impoverished that they

Since its collapse, historians have attempted to explain the struggle for power and control over both the Roman Republic and the Roman Empire that followed. To explain the complexities of the Roman Republic, the Empire, and their political complexities can be a daunting task. For nearly ten centuries Rome would rule most of the known world before the fall of the Western Empire (Byzantine) in 476 C.E. Before that fall occurred, a fundamental change would take place that would transform the original Republic into the Roman Empire. Many factors would be directly and indirectly responsible for this transition. These would

Finally, we come to the focus of this report, that is, the Roman Senate. The Senate represented the aristocratic and elitist element of Roman government and was a collection of patrician citizens (the patrician/plebian conflict will be described in more depth later) who served as the legislative branch of the government as well as an advisory body. In the beginning of the Republic, the Senate contained 300 members, the members themselves were chosen from the patrician class, ex-consuls, and other officers who served for life. By the time that Julius Caesar gained power, the Senate's membership had increased to nearly 800 people.