Conquest Which conquest was the most important
#2
Posted 14 April 2005 - 02:43 PM
Without North Africa (and the defeat of Carthage) Rome never becomes the superpower that it did. Despite the fact that the conquests of the Hellenized east brought fabulous wealth and helped spread the Greco-Roman culture throughout the western world, I still think that without the Carthaginian victory Rome would've been constrained into more local/regional strength. All the conquests carry enormous weight and various repurcussions for western history, but I have to stick with the one that started it off.
#3
Posted 14 April 2005 - 03:02 PM
#4
Posted 14 April 2005 - 07:11 PM
#5
Posted 14 April 2005 - 07:26 PM
#6 Guest_Scanderbeg_*
Posted 14 April 2005 - 07:40 PM
#7
Posted 14 April 2005 - 11:32 PM
#8
Posted 15 April 2005 - 01:32 AM
#9
Posted 15 April 2005 - 01:58 AM
#10
Posted 15 April 2005 - 04:50 AM
#11
Posted 15 April 2005 - 01:40 PM
Its a good point Ursus makes about the conquest of Italy. Certainly the subjugation of the other Italian tribes and the Celts of Cisalpine Gaul was essential before Rome could make any further moves towards greatness. I think this only assured Rome's survival though, as has been said before Rome may have remained a regional power if they hadn't tackled the Carthaginians.
#12
Posted 15 April 2005 - 02:27 PM
He claims the most important conquest for Roman political life wasn't even a conquest in traditional military terms. The King of Pergamum died, leaving his kingdom to the Romans in his will.
This was Rome's first province in Asia, and their first real taste of Oriental wealth. The scramble for the wealth of Pergamum upset Roman society on two fronts.
1) Before Pergamum, Rome's "foreign policy" in the East was essentially to loot and rape a province, and leave whatever was left run by a puppet ruler who would have to pay the occasional tribute. Eastern provinces were never subject to direct Roman taxation or direct Roman administration. The wealth of Pergamum changed that. The Gracchi brothers (see below) pushed threw a bill that subject Pergamum to direct taxation under the auspices of Roman tax farmers.
In Holland's words the "lid was off the honeypot" and this now served as the model for Roman foriegn policy in the remainder of the Republican era. Conquered provinces would thenceforth be subject to direct Roman taxation. Rome would drawn further into its imperial mode.
2) Tiberius Gracchus needed funds for his political platform. Pergamum represented a windfall. Tiberius demanded the wealth of Pergamum be used to fund reforms for the people. The conservative senators disagreed, and had him killed. Gaius avenged his brother's murder by pushing through the bill that subject Pergamum to direct taxation. This considerably upped the ante in the struggle between the Optimates and the Populares and helped set the stage for the warlords of the late Republic.
So Pergamum helped initiate these interlocking trends in foreign and domestic policy that would take Rome from Republic to Empire. And all because the king left his country to the Romans in his will. :-)
#13
Posted 16 April 2005 - 02:14 AM
Zeke
#14
Posted 16 April 2005 - 02:20 AM
#15
Posted 17 April 2005 - 08:38 AM
Zeke













