As Rome expanded their reach and influence around the Mediterranean Sea, their wealth and power grew exponentially. They became the undisputed superpower of the known world. However, it also brought tremendous unrest and your text begins the discussion of the fall of the mighty Roman Republic. Give your views on the idea that the aftermath of the Punic Wars was both "the best of times and the worst of times" for Rome.
WOW!! What a blog!! Have fun!!
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
19 comments:
for starters, the roman republic was not "mighty" i just have to put that out there now. there are just to many problems in the system which set rome up for an empire. it was the best of times foe the rich senators who bought everything they could and prospered. much more important was the worst of times for the army vetrans who had no land and werent allowed in the army because of this lack of land. this could have and should have led to a massive uphevel which would have saved rome from its wealthy, but marius came along and reformed the army so non-landowners could be in the army. he also made the soldiers sware loyalty to him rather than the state giving individual gennerals huge power. in this way, marius is at least in part respomsible for the fall of the republic. we later see generals exploiting the loyalty of their soldiers to fight in civil wars worse than the punic wars. the aftermath was an illusion. it seemed good, but that was just a veil for how bad rome really was.
i agree with alex when he said that the Punic war aftermath was worse than better. it was better because it allowed change in Rome. it made it easier to join the army which a lot of people needed after they lost land. this stopped a rebellion of unemployed soldiers. the bad part is that this new system allowed generals to have more power because now the men are swearing loyalty to the generals, not the state. this allowed generals to take power by force which eventually led to the downfall of Rome's republic.
Sarah Kelley
The aftermath of the Punic Wars was both the best and worst times for Rome. Rome becoming an empire was great...but the overall process in which this empire was created weakened the internal stability of Rome. As Alex stated above, the army vetrans, who now had no land, weren't allowed in the army because they had no land. But, Marius did alter the standards for being in the army, which proved to be a positive change in Rome. Civil wars and chaos later began because of the fight for power in Rome. A few powerful individuals all wanted power over Rome. It seemed that wealth and power for these certain individuals enabled them to rule and bask in their sucsess. In 47 B.C.E Cesar was named "dictator for life." Although considered a dictator, Cesar did reform the calendar and had the senate hold less power. It can be said that the senate holding less power was fair.
I agree with Alex and Justin. I do not think it was the best for Rome to go into an empire because it odviously was not the right thing for the middle to low class of people. But it was the right choice for the high classes such as the wealthy senators. This empire was also created because of the problems in Rome's republic. The largest problem was because of the way the army was created. This caused Rome's powerful individuals who had large military power to gain control of Rome. The three individuals were Ceasar, Crassus, and Pompey. Ceasar outlasted the rest and was declared dictator for life because of his enormous military power. This was what the massive hole in Rome's government was that tore it down. The generals had too much power in the government.
Matt Hoey
As the others, i agree with Alex as well. It was the best of times because Rome had finally killed Hannibal, won the war and became an empire. But, it was also a terrible time. Rome's land owners had to sell their land because all of it had been burned down by Hannibal and his men. All the men got was money that wouldn't last long. This is because they couldn't get jobs because slaves already aquired them for less money. The last thing they could do was join the Roman army. But, they couldn't do that either because they still have no land. Later though, Tiberius Gracchus enforced the law that made man only allowed to own 640 acres of land. This helped many of those men's problems who had no land and couldn't do anything. But it really didn't help the men that had bought all the land.
Edward Cummins
I couldn't word it any better than Justin in this case of the aftermath of the punic wars. It was more the worse of times than the best of times in Rome which lead to the downfall of the Roman Republic as they know it. I agreed with Justin as the best times is when Rome allowed people who lost their lands to join the army. The worst of times is when the people that were the small farmers lost their land to hannibal and his army's recklessness of burning them down. I agree with Matt in this case that the only thing these men could do is join the aarmy which they couldn't do because these certain people didn't contain the land in order to join. But Tiberius found out a way that would help those class of people.
I agree with everyone in saying that the aftermath was more worse then better. The best of this time would be Rome becoming an empire and and the defeat of Hannibal. However the Romans were so involved and wrapped up in these wars they failed to see what was all around them. They only began to become involved with Hellenistic politics and such after these wars. The wealthy people of Rome were well set however the lower class and the middle class weren't. Like many of the other posts said that many landowners had to sell thier land, and getting into the army was also hard if you owned no land. Many people wanted landowners in the army, and not everyone owned land. There were really welathy powerful people in Rome including Crassus, Pompey and Ceaser. These three men had enormous wealth, and alot of power. Power was great in Rome, as well as wealth but those are just three people. Not everyone had the luxory of being wealthy and powerful. Generals also were granted alot of power becuase Men delcared loyalty towards them, not the state. All in all the aftermath showed worse, rather then better.
Ok, well this was a very interesting section and it can lead to a controversey between some students. I think that Rome was pretty much screwed after reading this because everyone is killing each otehr to gain power and money. For instance, they didn't need to attack all of Greece and Macedonia, they could have done it another way, but for Rome there was no other way. They were becoming blind by the site of large amounts of land and wealth and mostly, power. They thought they were the most powerful Conquerors out there, which they were, but they were not good at keep things going smoothly at Rome itself. They let the senate get to much power, they were buying out all of the farmers and plebians who fought the biggest wars of Rome. They were treated extremely unfairly, but as I said early, Rome was blinded by the power. Each one of them only thought of personal gain when they killed someone such as when Caesar killed Pompey and his allies because he didn't want to stand down or even make an agreement for Rome. They each wanted Rome to themselves, and Caesar got to carried away after a while and ended up being what everyone in Rome hated, a king. So essentially, Rome was dying after the Punic wars and they couldn't help themselves or prevent it from collapsing, which it later did.
I like what every one else has been saying. I do think the the aftermath of the Punic Wars was a lot worse then it was good. It was good was they won the war and it was good for them, but while all of there good fortune and new wealth for some was going on the soilders suffered and there were so many flaws to handle at one time. I think the brothers would have had a good idea with distributing land becuase that would have help. The Romans were just lucky they did not have a rebellion on their hands. This was deffinatly the worst time for the Republic becuase it did fall because of all the flaws it got after the Punic War.
I like how everyone seemed to side with Alex and basically just restated his points in their own unique way to fool Mr. Yip. Well first of all you can’t fool Mr. Yip and secondly I’m not saying I won’t do the same thing I’m just observing. I believe that the Aftermath of the Punic wars was more good than bad; I do not hate Rome and do not understand what Alex has against it. For the record these guys were pretty @#$%ing mighty. In the first Punic war the Romans were faced with the strong navy of Carthage, which made them realize they needed a navy. When the finally won the war-taking Carthage as a prize- they had a navy that was…well not respectable but they had one none the less. During the Punic wars Rome took both Macedonia and Rome’s first Asian province. Although the unemployment thing was pretty bad they soon found a way out of that with the soldiers swearing allegiance to the generals not the state. I’m not going to lie, that was not one of Rome’s best ideas and the whole issue of Crassus, Pompey, and Julius Caesar (who was obviously more important than the rest because his full name was written in the text) did kind of go against the whole I hate monarchy thing. Man I guess there is some bad stuff. That’s weird I just confused myself rather than stating my point. In conclusion I am undecided; the aftermath of the Punic Wars seems both good and bad.
I agree with Sarah. I think that the aftermath of the Punic wars enabled the Romans to experience both the best and worst of times. Rome evolved after the War. It did cause many men to be without jobs. The army did not take you unless you owned land. The flaws of the Roman Empire caused Rome to fall.
The aftermath of the Punic Wars was the best of times because Rome had control over almost all of the Mediterranean. Also, the wealthy senators took land from the war veterans making them wealthier. This caused an economic crisis. This started the worst of times for Rome. The veterans of the war would get their land bought by the rich senators and then go to Rome to look for a job, but since Carthage’s slaves came over there were no jobs for them, so they turned towards the military. The only problem was that you could only join the military if you owned land, causing many of the people in Rome to become poor and homeless. Marius changed this law; he allowed any man to join the military and promised them land once their jobs were done. This made the people loyal to him instead of the state. Once Sulla came into the picture civil wars started to break out in Rome, because the generals gained too much power. After the civil war Crassus, Caesar, and Pompey all fought for power. After Crassus was killed in battle, Pompey and Caesar began to fight for power agian. The senators chose Pompey as the better leader of the military but Caesar revolted, causing another civil war. Pompey and his army were defeated and Caesar took control. At this point Rome has completely lost sight if their morals, people were loyal to the generals and not to the state and Caesar was made dictator for life instead of 6 months. Rome realized their mistake and then assassinated Caesar. There was one more civil war between Octavian and Anthony. Once they were both dead, the roman republic ended.
Long story short the economic crisis after the Punic Wars is all to blame, because they caused the generals to gain the loyalty of the commoners and a lot of power, causing a chain of civil wars for the power, causing the end of Rome.
My opinion would be that there were worst times than good ones, mostly because Rome couldn't govern the whole empire themselves.
If Rome didn’t go into war with Carthage their empire might not have died, but if they didn’t go into war with Carthage they would not even have an empire.
Alex, your blog is great, and i dont think that Ralph Nader himself could have been as liberal. I agree with many of your arguments, but I think that an opposite opinion should be given to better understand how the Romans might of thought, and how the thoughts are extremely foreign to the generally accepted arguments that you have given. From the Roman perspective this is marks the true beginning of the flourishing juggernaut that was Rome. To the Romans, Rome was about the glory of Rome, not the roman citizen. It was about progressing Rome forward as a whole. If you color Rome this way, there has never been a greater time for the city state. Rome, at this point, controls the Mediterranean, has dominated Carthage, and is well on it's way to becoming the greatest power that the world has ever seen. To the Romans, Alexander and his empire was nothing but a small child in a sandbox kicking sand in the other childrens' faces until they cry and submit. This was Rome's golden age, the age of expansion, when harlots filled the mens rooms, and smooth, brilliant wine filled their cups. Truly the "rutilus aevum Rome", the Golden Age of Rome.
P.S. and by the way Mr. Yip, nice Tale of Two Cities reference.
-Peter
The aftermath of the Punic Wars was both the best and the worst of times for Rome. Firstly, after the punic wars Rome had gained a new power which was controling the waters with a navy which had helped them greatly during the first punic wars. They had also gained new lands like Macedonia, Spain and Sicily which would boost their economy and slaves. Although, they had a boost in slaves this ruined chances for small farmers and other people who were trying to get jobs. More wealthy land owners with larger estates were able to take many of the small farmers estates leaving them with no property. This was bad for when they had no property they could not even join the army which some had the fight ability. Later on, a general helped them out by making them pledge to him so that they were able to join. Even though Rome had dictators, they were not bad or evil because people like Ceasar were thinking about the poor and other citizens and made reforms for land and other issues. Overall, I think that Rome had more good times except for when they had a lot civil wars over being rulers and such.
First off, i agree with you Mr. Yip. This really is an intresting topic for it was the highest and lowest times. It was the best of times for Rome, because Rome had massive expansion all across the Medditeranain. For a time, they were the ultimate super power but after that everything went downhill. Kyle had the right idea when he said that Rome should have never become an empire. When the vets. of the punic wars became homeless and jobless, Rome began to slowly break down and became the worst of times for Rome. I believe that the aftermath of the punic wars only brought trouble, while expanded their horizon, only led to their ultimate downfall.
In the aftermath Rome reaked of power. They spread from spain, to zama, and all the way east as far as Pergamum. The best thing is that they didn't even planned this. This accomplishment first began as a conflict between Rome and Carthage which soon spread and involved the Hellenistic area. As much in power they rose conflicts rose as well. Struggles between small battles here and there as well as security conflicts. The aftermath also held the bad times because of the land problem. Many former soldiers had no land due to the Hannibal's action, as well as job loss augmented. When Carthage was conquered Rome found more wealth, goods, cultural intelligence expendation, and more importantly slaves. The slaves were spread among the empire for aristocrats especially, to buy. This inflicted another problem because they slave owner was better of rather than hiring a non slave person. Slaves, back then, were cheaper. They were either paid nothing or little, which increased the slave numbers and left others jobless. It seems that Rome will always have its good and bad times.
I want to agree with Tom Wynne very badly. By my disagreeing with him I am in mortal fear of my life. It would take one swing from his enormous biceps to cut my lip, or give me a charley horse. I want you to know that Mr. Yip. I am, however, going to have to agree with Alex. Though I feel the opinion of the class is to take note of the great accomplishments that the civilizations before us achieved, we cannot stand here as one and ignore their flaws. The aftermath of the Punic wars really brought to fruition the Roman priority. I shouldn’t say that for the whole republic however, just the regular citizens. The expansion in the army cultivates the way the Romans went about there culture. Their thirst for war is not hidden. As Mr. Yip said “Zack is so handsome”…….. I mean “there’s always a war in Rome”, shows they were stubborn for pride. The reason why it was bad for the Romans, in my opinion, was for the reasons Alex and Justin brought about. As a result of the men swearing their loyalty to the Generals and not State Officials and other citizens, was what led to their eventual fall and/or demise.
I agree with iamazing that Rome was blinded by power, focusing on gaining land, wealth and controlling people. Justin’s comments about the loyalty of soldiers to their generals and the negative consequences of that on the republic were ideas that I agree with, also. For Rome, the result of the Punic Wars was described the "the best of times”, with Rome expanding into the Mediterranean, their strength increasing dramatically. The conflicts that Rome became involved with originally kept them secure and created an Empire, but Rome may also have bee involved due to greed and to increase their economic place – like increasing slave labor for aristocrat farms. Also, leading to “the worst of times", the inside of Rome began to crumble, with senate rivalries and a civil war, as individuals trying to take over Rome by military might broke the empire to pieces. The book said that Romans did not have a “master plan” for creating an empire. This was a huge problem as they also must not have planned what to do after they gained all that power and land. As greed took hold, there was no “master plan” for keeping peace and order in the government once the power became too great.
i must admit that the roman republic was not a very stable government. it lacked the ability to get things done due to the tribunes, but also lacked an element of equality between the plebians and the patricians. the patricians could buy anything they wanted due to the fact that it was their job to take money from hardworking people. and this was during the best of times. the worst of times entailed civil unrest and political tesions that arised from the arrival of hannibal. when hannibal burned down the farms and farmland of the italians, it left them with no crops to grow. they had nochoice to sell to a wealthy patrician for less than they are entitled and move to rome only to find that they have enslaved people to do the work for free. this caused a surge of unemployed, angry, militarily trained roman men with noone to fight. this lead to revolts and an age of problems in rome. so i believe that the punic wars lead more to disaster than to improvement.
Post a Comment