This meant a lot of the fighting was at sea where Carthage had the advantage of a much stronger navy than Rome.
But we will skip over this. Being the Roman emperor had always been a particularly dangerous job, but during the tumultuous second and third centuries it nearly became a death sentence. So when these state incomes declined so did Roman cities. But during the decline, the makeup of the once mighty legions began to change.
Rulers can stop paying salaries, and have greater control over their personnel as a result. Overexpansion and military overspending At its height, the Roman Empire stretched from the Atlantic Ocean all the way to the Euphrates River in the Middle East, but its grandeur may have also been its downfall.
Third Servile War 73 - 71 BC This war started when 78 gladiators, including their leader Spartacus, escaped and started a rebellion.
The taxes were always unpopular, which did not make Romans to change their army. E to G Process where people vote to choose the people they want to be in charge.
Bishop Augsburg Museum, a round silver disk with niello decorations, possibly from a round disk shaped chape, actual size ca.
Tax was, that is to say, no longer the basis of the state. Economist at George Mason University specializing in economic history, law and economics and institutional economics.
When Rome counterattacked his homeland of Carthage, Hannibal was forced to retreat. Now, it was natural for separatist barbarian generals to base their power on ethnicity, and to their supporters to consider themselves of the same enthnicity it was not difficult as many came from Danube border, the melting pot of nations.
Individual soldiers had to be incredibly fit and strong, and willing to follow orders without questioning them. The problem with it is that it is at odds with what standard economics and with what economic historians know about other preindustrial societies. This crossing was made more famous because he also brought a large number of elephants with him.
Both cities were major powers at the time and both were expanding their empires.
And to say "that is probably wrong but it's what i think" is just as dumb. I am skeptical of such a description being an accurate description of a premodern state.
They fought all the time. P to Z Money paid to a retired worker or soldier. The Tortuga was the undoing of many British hill forts. For kings as well as armies, landowning was the major source of wealth from now on Meanwhile, popes and other church leaders took an increased role in political affairs, further complicating governance.
With its insistent gathering of wealth and goods through taxes and their distribution for the maintenance of large armies, of privileged cities, of imperial palaces, and of an entire ruling class implicated in the imperial system, the late Roman state was the crude but vigorous pump which had entered the circulation of goods in an otherwise primitive economy.
Some were expert archers, some were trained to use giant catapults onagers or large crossbows called ballistas, and some were trained to fight on horseback. Then, in BC, Gaius Marius began to accept volunteers who had no property and were equipped at the expense of the government.
The division made the empire more easily governable in the short term, but over time the two halves drifted apart. The Fall of Rome: Facts and Fictions. But money and titles couldn't buy back a Roman army or, more important, a reputation for invincibility.
So why then all the fixation on "fall," when the "evolution" of Rome is a much more accurate way of expressing the transition Rome underwent during the fifth century? The answer should be self.
Published: Mon, 5 Dec The current archaeological evidence for the presence of the Roman army across Europe, the Mediterranean, Near East and North Africa is significant both in quality and quantity, however, much of it cannot be construed as providing evidence.
The Roman army was the largest and meanest fighting force in the ancient world. One of the main reasons Rome became so powerful was because of the strength of its army.
It conquered a vast empire that stretched from Britain all the way to the Middle East. These roads served a crucial purpose for the Roman Empire – one that helps explain not only how the Roman Empire grew so large, but also why it remained so powerful for so long. Control.
Next Article Was the Roman Army Actually a Cause for Instability? More Ancient and Classical Articles.
The Roman Army was quite advanced for its time. They had the finest weapons and the finest and most effective armor and they knew how to use it.
The main advantage of the romans was their dicipline and surperior tactics. for example: There was a f.
Reddit gives you the best of the internet in one place. Get a constantly updating feed of breaking news, fun stories, pics, memes, and videos just for you.
Passionate about something niche? Reddit has thousands of vibrant communities with people that share your interests. Alternatively, find out what’s trending across all of Reddit on r/popular.Why was the roman army so