Here is what I am hoping to do when I take write my response to this question. Definitely doesn’t matter how you do, just thought I would clarify for any one still a bit confused. My plan is to take the main examples provided for why each is successful and format it as follows: Roman Republic, Roman Empire, both, hit on other civilizations, misc. I’m planning to link examples that explain how other emperors didn’t do what Rome did correctly directly with my fact on what Rome did do correct. As far as the second half of the question goes I am planning on taking what I have on each empire and try to make references to them during my arguments above. Tom L. was emphasizing Assyria during his explanation of this response. I listed some main points to hit on for every civilization below. Then with the remaining information I’m planning on just picking and choosing whatever fits. If you want me to send a list of my sources or an unrefined copy of my original notes let me know, it is kind of a cluster fuck but has some other background information.
What factors enabled republican and imperial Rome to establish its hegemony over the Mediterranean world for nearly a millennium when the earlier Assyrian, Babylonian, Greek, and Persian empires collapsed much more quickly? Your response should demonstrate your knowledge both of Rome’s imperial record [differentiating between the Republican and the Imperial eras] and those of its less successful predecessors [e.g. explain how the different empire builders acquired and attempted to retain their possessions by considering administrative, commercial, legal, military, and religious factors].
“Republic Rome and Imperial Rome – How they developed hegemonies over Mediterranean world”
* Rome allowed the people of conquered city-states to join their army, causing it to grow in size and making it next to impossible to stop.
* The military success of the Republic Rome has a direct correlation to the Republic’s success in politics and vice-versa. * Office officials are allowed one year in office, which is followed by a ten-year break. This technique prevented a single greater influence, which could lead to corruption. * The Constitution of the Roman Republic was constantly changing. Much of which change was due to dispute between aristocracy and Patrician. Checks and balances are a vital tool used in Republican Rome. It allowed each branch to limit the others. Eliminating the chance of one person becoming dominant, a reoccurring process used within the Roman Republic not practiced in previous empires. Generally they were under control of a single monarch power, or a select group of individuals. * There are three branches that make up the Republic. Each of which is derived from a different form of government. The first branch would be a democracy, also known as the legislative assemblies. This is where the public would go to vote. Next, you have the aristocracy, or the Senate. Their job was to advise the two consuls. The last branch within the Republic would be a monarchy, or the executive magistrates who were responsible for enforcing the law. At the top of the magistrate pecking order were the two Consuls, who could only veto one another. Once the Roman Empire was in place Consuls lost most of their authority. * For five centuries the Roman Republic conquered the majority of the Mediterranean, giving them an exceptionally long period of time as the hegemony. This helped form stability within the state, something other empires and kingdoms lacked, such as Assyria and Babylon. * The fall of the Roman Republic was partially to the formation of an elite group within the community. Which took the Republic away from its original goal, which was to eliminate opportunity for a single group or individual to dominate. Consequently bringing civil war, leaving the Roman Republic venerable to enemies....