Question: What were Rome's legislative structures eventually turned into?

Answer: the Justinian Code

Roman government was headed by two consuls, elected annually by the citizens and advised by a senate composed of appointed magistrates. As Roman society was very hierarchical by modern standards, the evolution of the Roman government was heavily influenced by the struggle between the patricians, Rome's land-holding aristocracy, who traced their ancestry to the founding of Rome, and the plebeians, the far more numerous citizen-commoners. Over time, the laws that gave patricians exclusive rights to Rome's highest offices were repealed or weakened, and leading plebeian families became full members of the aristocracy. The leaders of the Republic developed a strong tradition and morality requiring public service and patronage in peace and war, making military and political success inextricably linked. <hl> Many of Rome's legal and legislative structures (later codified into the Justinian Code , and again into the Napoleonic Code) can still be observed throughout Europe and much of the world in modern nation states and international organizations. <hl>

Roman government was headed by two consuls, elected annually by the citizens and advised by a senate composed of appointed magistrates. As Roman society was very hierarchical by modern standards, the evolution of the Roman government was heavily influenced by the struggle between the patricians, Rome's land-holding aristocracy, who traced their ancestry to the founding of Rome, and the plebeians, the far more numerous citizen-commoners. Over time, the laws that gave patricians exclusive rights to Rome's highest offices were repealed or weakened, and leading plebeian families became full members of the aristocracy. The leaders of the Republic developed a strong tradition and morality requiring public service and patronage in peace and war, making military and political success inextricably linked. Many of Rome's legal and legislative structures (later codified into <hl> the Justinian Code <hl>, and again into the Napoleonic Code) can still be observed throughout Europe and much of the world in modern nation states and international organizations.

Many of Rome's legal and legislative structures (later codified into <hl> the Justinian Code <hl> , and again into the Napoleonic Code) can still be observed throughout Europe and much of the world in modern nation states and international organizations.


Question: What was the senate that advised consuls in the Roman government comprised of?

Roman government was headed by two consuls, elected annually by the citizens and advised by a senate composed of appointed magistrates. As Roman society was very hierarchical by modern standards, the evolution of the Roman government was heavily influenced by the struggle between the patricians, Rome's land-holding aristocracy, who traced their ancestry to the founding of Rome, and the plebeians, the far more numerous citizen-commoners. Over time, the laws that gave patricians exclusive rights to Rome's highest offices were repealed or weakened, and leading plebeian families became full members of the aristocracy. The leaders of the Republic developed a strong tradition and morality requiring public service and patronage in peace and war, making military and political success inextricably linked. Many of Rome's legal and legislative structures (later codified into the Justinian Code, and again into the Napoleonic Code) can still be observed throughout Europe and much of the world in modern nation states and international organizations.

Answer: appointed magistrates

<hl> Roman government was headed by two consuls, elected annually by the citizens and advised by a senate composed of appointed magistrates . <hl> As Roman society was very hierarchical by modern standards, the evolution of the Roman government was heavily influenced by the struggle between the patricians, Rome's land-holding aristocracy, who traced their ancestry to the founding of Rome, and the plebeians, the far more numerous citizen-commoners. Over time, the laws that gave patricians exclusive rights to Rome's highest offices were repealed or weakened, and leading plebeian families became full members of the aristocracy. The leaders of the Republic developed a strong tradition and morality requiring public service and patronage in peace and war, making military and political success inextricably linked. Many of Rome's legal and legislative structures (later codified into the Justinian Code, and again into the Napoleonic Code) can still be observed throughout Europe and much of the world in modern nation states and international organizations.

Roman government was headed by two consuls, elected annually by the citizens and advised by a senate composed of <hl> appointed magistrates <hl>. As Roman society was very hierarchical by modern standards, the evolution of the Roman government was heavily influenced by the struggle between the patricians, Rome's land-holding aristocracy, who traced their ancestry to the founding of Rome, and the plebeians, the far more numerous citizen-commoners. Over time, the laws that gave patricians exclusive rights to Rome's highest offices were repealed or weakened, and leading plebeian families became full members of the aristocracy. The leaders of the Republic developed a strong tradition and morality requiring public service and patronage in peace and war, making military and political success inextricably linked. Many of Rome's legal and legislative structures (later codified into the Justinian Code, and again into the Napoleonic Code) can still be observed throughout Europe and much of the world in modern nation states and international organizations.

Roman government was headed by two consuls, elected annually by the citizens and advised by a senate composed of <hl> appointed magistrates <hl> .


Question: What went hand and hand with military success?

Answer: political success

Roman government was headed by two consuls, elected annually by the citizens and advised by a senate composed of appointed magistrates. As Roman society was very hierarchical by modern standards, the evolution of the Roman government was heavily influenced by the struggle between the patricians, Rome's land-holding aristocracy, who traced their ancestry to the founding of Rome, and the plebeians, the far more numerous citizen-commoners. Over time, the laws that gave patricians exclusive rights to Rome's highest offices were repealed or weakened, and leading plebeian families became full members of the aristocracy. <hl> The leaders of the Republic developed a strong tradition and morality requiring public service and patronage in peace and war, making military and political success inextricably linked. <hl> Many of Rome's legal and legislative structures (later codified into the Justinian Code, and again into the Napoleonic Code) can still be observed throughout Europe and much of the world in modern nation states and international organizations.

Roman government was headed by two consuls, elected annually by the citizens and advised by a senate composed of appointed magistrates. As Roman society was very hierarchical by modern standards, the evolution of the Roman government was heavily influenced by the struggle between the patricians, Rome's land-holding aristocracy, who traced their ancestry to the founding of Rome, and the plebeians, the far more numerous citizen-commoners. Over time, the laws that gave patricians exclusive rights to Rome's highest offices were repealed or weakened, and leading plebeian families became full members of the aristocracy. The leaders of the Republic developed a strong tradition and morality requiring public service and patronage in peace and war, making military and <hl> political success <hl> inextricably linked. Many of Rome's legal and legislative structures (later codified into the Justinian Code, and again into the Napoleonic Code) can still be observed throughout Europe and much of the world in modern nation states and international organizations.


Question: What factor is considered by some to be the main driving force behind the expansion of Rome?

The exact causes and motivations for Rome's military conflicts and expansions during the republic are subject to wide debate. While they can be seen as motivated by outright aggression and imperialism, historians typically take a much more nuanced view. They argue that Rome's expansion was driven by short-term defensive and inter-state factors (that is, relations with city-states and kingdoms outside Rome's hegemony), and the new contingencies that these decisions created. In its early history, as Rome successfully defended itself against foreign threats in central and then northern Italy, neighboring city-states sought the protection a Roman alliance would bring. As such, early republican Rome was not an "empire" or "state" in the modern sense, but an alliance of independent city-states (similar to the Greek hegemonies of the same period) with varying degrees of genuine independence (which itself changed over time) engaged in an alliance of mutual self-protection, but led by Rome. With some important exceptions, successful wars in early republican Rome generally led not to annexation or military occupation, but to the restoration of the way things were. But the defeated city would be weakened (sometimes with outright land concessions) and thus less able to resist Romanizing influences, such as Roman settlers seeking land or trade with the growing Roman confederacy. It was also less able to defend itself against its non-Roman enemies, which made attack by these enemies more likely. It was, therefore, more likely to seek an alliance of protection with Rome.

Answer: inter-state factors

The exact causes and motivations for Rome's military conflicts and expansions during the republic are subject to wide debate. While they can be seen as motivated by outright aggression and imperialism, historians typically take a much more nuanced view. <hl> They argue that Rome's expansion was driven by short-term defensive and inter-state factors (that is, relations with city-states and kingdoms outside Rome's hegemony), and the new contingencies that these decisions created. <hl> In its early history, as Rome successfully defended itself against foreign threats in central and then northern Italy, neighboring city-states sought the protection a Roman alliance would bring. As such, early republican Rome was not an "empire" or "state" in the modern sense, but an alliance of independent city-states (similar to the Greek hegemonies of the same period) with varying degrees of genuine independence (which itself changed over time) engaged in an alliance of mutual self-protection, but led by Rome. With some important exceptions, successful wars in early republican Rome generally led not to annexation or military occupation, but to the restoration of the way things were. But the defeated city would be weakened (sometimes with outright land concessions) and thus less able to resist Romanizing influences, such as Roman settlers seeking land or trade with the growing Roman confederacy. It was also less able to defend itself against its non-Roman enemies, which made attack by these enemies more likely. It was, therefore, more likely to seek an alliance of protection with Rome.

The exact causes and motivations for Rome's military conflicts and expansions during the republic are subject to wide debate. While they can be seen as motivated by outright aggression and imperialism, historians typically take a much more nuanced view. They argue that Rome's expansion was driven by short-term defensive and <hl> inter-state factors <hl> (that is, relations with city-states and kingdoms outside Rome's hegemony), and the new contingencies that these decisions created. In its early history, as Rome successfully defended itself against foreign threats in central and then northern Italy, neighboring city-states sought the protection a Roman alliance would bring. As such, early republican Rome was not an "empire" or "state" in the modern sense, but an alliance of independent city-states (similar to the Greek hegemonies of the same period) with varying degrees of genuine independence (which itself changed over time) engaged in an alliance of mutual self-protection, but led by Rome. With some important exceptions, successful wars in early republican Rome generally led not to annexation or military occupation, but to the restoration of the way things were. But the defeated city would be weakened (sometimes with outright land concessions) and thus less able to resist Romanizing influences, such as Roman settlers seeking land or trade with the growing Roman confederacy. It was also less able to defend itself against its non-Roman enemies, which made attack by these enemies more likely. It was, therefore, more likely to seek an alliance of protection with Rome.


Question: What type of policy is considered by some to be responsible for Rome's many military conflicts?

Answer: imperialism

The exact causes and motivations for Rome's military conflicts and expansions during the republic are subject to wide debate. <hl> While they can be seen as motivated by outright aggression and imperialism , historians typically take a much more nuanced view. <hl> They argue that Rome's expansion was driven by short-term defensive and inter-state factors (that is, relations with city-states and kingdoms outside Rome's hegemony), and the new contingencies that these decisions created. In its early history, as Rome successfully defended itself against foreign threats in central and then northern Italy, neighboring city-states sought the protection a Roman alliance would bring. As such, early republican Rome was not an "empire" or "state" in the modern sense, but an alliance of independent city-states (similar to the Greek hegemonies of the same period) with varying degrees of genuine independence (which itself changed over time) engaged in an alliance of mutual self-protection, but led by Rome. With some important exceptions, successful wars in early republican Rome generally led not to annexation or military occupation, but to the restoration of the way things were. But the defeated city would be weakened (sometimes with outright land concessions) and thus less able to resist Romanizing influences, such as Roman settlers seeking land or trade with the growing Roman confederacy. It was also less able to defend itself against its non-Roman enemies, which made attack by these enemies more likely. It was, therefore, more likely to seek an alliance of protection with Rome.

The exact causes and motivations for Rome's military conflicts and expansions during the republic are subject to wide debate. While they can be seen as motivated by outright aggression and <hl> imperialism <hl>, historians typically take a much more nuanced view. They argue that Rome's expansion was driven by short-term defensive and inter-state factors (that is, relations with city-states and kingdoms outside Rome's hegemony), and the new contingencies that these decisions created. In its early history, as Rome successfully defended itself against foreign threats in central and then northern Italy, neighboring city-states sought the protection a Roman alliance would bring. As such, early republican Rome was not an "empire" or "state" in the modern sense, but an alliance of independent city-states (similar to the Greek hegemonies of the same period) with varying degrees of genuine independence (which itself changed over time) engaged in an alliance of mutual self-protection, but led by Rome. With some important exceptions, successful wars in early republican Rome generally led not to annexation or military occupation, but to the restoration of the way things were. But the defeated city would be weakened (sometimes with outright land concessions) and thus less able to resist Romanizing influences, such as Roman settlers seeking land or trade with the growing Roman confederacy. It was also less able to defend itself against its non-Roman enemies, which made attack by these enemies more likely. It was, therefore, more likely to seek an alliance of protection with Rome.

While they can be seen as motivated by outright aggression and <hl> imperialism <hl> , historians typically take a much more nuanced view.


Question: What was a common conclusion to wars in the early days of republican Rome?

Answer: restoration of the way things were

The exact causes and motivations for Rome's military conflicts and expansions during the republic are subject to wide debate. While they can be seen as motivated by outright aggression and imperialism, historians typically take a much more nuanced view. They argue that Rome's expansion was driven by short-term defensive and inter-state factors (that is, relations with city-states and kingdoms outside Rome's hegemony), and the new contingencies that these decisions created. In its early history, as Rome successfully defended itself against foreign threats in central and then northern Italy, neighboring city-states sought the protection a Roman alliance would bring. As such, early republican Rome was not an "empire" or "state" in the modern sense, but an alliance of independent city-states (similar to the Greek hegemonies of the same period) with varying degrees of genuine independence (which itself changed over time) engaged in an alliance of mutual self-protection, but led by Rome. <hl> With some important exceptions, successful wars in early republican Rome generally led not to annexation or military occupation, but to the restoration of the way things were . <hl> But the defeated city would be weakened (sometimes with outright land concessions) and thus less able to resist Romanizing influences, such as Roman settlers seeking land or trade with the growing Roman confederacy. It was also less able to defend itself against its non-Roman enemies, which made attack by these enemies more likely. It was, therefore, more likely to seek an alliance of protection with Rome.

The exact causes and motivations for Rome's military conflicts and expansions during the republic are subject to wide debate. While they can be seen as motivated by outright aggression and imperialism, historians typically take a much more nuanced view. They argue that Rome's expansion was driven by short-term defensive and inter-state factors (that is, relations with city-states and kingdoms outside Rome's hegemony), and the new contingencies that these decisions created. In its early history, as Rome successfully defended itself against foreign threats in central and then northern Italy, neighboring city-states sought the protection a Roman alliance would bring. As such, early republican Rome was not an "empire" or "state" in the modern sense, but an alliance of independent city-states (similar to the Greek hegemonies of the same period) with varying degrees of genuine independence (which itself changed over time) engaged in an alliance of mutual self-protection, but led by Rome. With some important exceptions, successful wars in early republican Rome generally led not to annexation or military occupation, but to the <hl> restoration of the way things were <hl>. But the defeated city would be weakened (sometimes with outright land concessions) and thus less able to resist Romanizing influences, such as Roman settlers seeking land or trade with the growing Roman confederacy. It was also less able to defend itself against its non-Roman enemies, which made attack by these enemies more likely. It was, therefore, more likely to seek an alliance of protection with Rome.

With some important exceptions, successful wars in early republican Rome generally led not to annexation or military occupation, but to the <hl> restoration of the way things were <hl> .


Question: What type of alliance was created between the various Roman city-states?

Answer: mutual self-protection

The exact causes and motivations for Rome's military conflicts and expansions during the republic are subject to wide debate. While they can be seen as motivated by outright aggression and imperialism, historians typically take a much more nuanced view. They argue that Rome's expansion was driven by short-term defensive and inter-state factors (that is, relations with city-states and kingdoms outside Rome's hegemony), and the new contingencies that these decisions created. In its early history, as Rome successfully defended itself against foreign threats in central and then northern Italy, neighboring city-states sought the protection a Roman alliance would bring. <hl> As such, early republican Rome was not an "empire" or "state" in the modern sense, but an alliance of independent city-states (similar to the Greek hegemonies of the same period) with varying degrees of genuine independence (which itself changed over time) engaged in an alliance of mutual self-protection , but led by Rome. <hl> With some important exceptions, successful wars in early republican Rome generally led not to annexation or military occupation, but to the restoration of the way things were. But the defeated city would be weakened (sometimes with outright land concessions) and thus less able to resist Romanizing influences, such as Roman settlers seeking land or trade with the growing Roman confederacy. It was also less able to defend itself against its non-Roman enemies, which made attack by these enemies more likely. It was, therefore, more likely to seek an alliance of protection with Rome.

The exact causes and motivations for Rome's military conflicts and expansions during the republic are subject to wide debate. While they can be seen as motivated by outright aggression and imperialism, historians typically take a much more nuanced view. They argue that Rome's expansion was driven by short-term defensive and inter-state factors (that is, relations with city-states and kingdoms outside Rome's hegemony), and the new contingencies that these decisions created. In its early history, as Rome successfully defended itself against foreign threats in central and then northern Italy, neighboring city-states sought the protection a Roman alliance would bring. As such, early republican Rome was not an "empire" or "state" in the modern sense, but an alliance of independent city-states (similar to the Greek hegemonies of the same period) with varying degrees of genuine independence (which itself changed over time) engaged in an alliance of <hl> mutual self-protection <hl>, but led by Rome. With some important exceptions, successful wars in early republican Rome generally led not to annexation or military occupation, but to the restoration of the way things were. But the defeated city would be weakened (sometimes with outright land concessions) and thus less able to resist Romanizing influences, such as Roman settlers seeking land or trade with the growing Roman confederacy. It was also less able to defend itself against its non-Roman enemies, which made attack by these enemies more likely. It was, therefore, more likely to seek an alliance of protection with Rome.

As such, early republican Rome was not an "empire" or "state" in the modern sense, but an alliance of independent city-states (similar to the Greek hegemonies of the same period) with varying degrees of genuine independence (which itself changed over time) engaged in an alliance of <hl> mutual self-protection <hl> , but led by Rome.


Question: What did Roman settlers commonly seek out?

Answer: land

The exact causes and motivations for Rome's military conflicts and expansions during the republic are subject to wide debate. While they can be seen as motivated by outright aggression and imperialism, historians typically take a much more nuanced view. They argue that Rome's expansion was driven by short-term defensive and inter-state factors (that is, relations with city-states and kingdoms outside Rome's hegemony), and the new contingencies that these decisions created. In its early history, as Rome successfully defended itself against foreign threats in central and then northern Italy, neighboring city-states sought the protection a Roman alliance would bring. As such, early republican Rome was not an "empire" or "state" in the modern sense, but an alliance of independent city-states (similar to the Greek hegemonies of the same period) with varying degrees of genuine independence (which itself changed over time) engaged in an alliance of mutual self-protection, but led by Rome. With some important exceptions, successful wars in early republican Rome generally led not to annexation or military occupation, but to the restoration of the way things were. <hl> But the defeated city would be weakened (sometimes with outright land concessions) and thus less able to resist Romanizing influences, such as Roman settlers seeking land or trade with the growing Roman confederacy. <hl> It was also less able to defend itself against its non-Roman enemies, which made attack by these enemies more likely. It was, therefore, more likely to seek an alliance of protection with Rome.

The exact causes and motivations for Rome's military conflicts and expansions during the republic are subject to wide debate. While they can be seen as motivated by outright aggression and imperialism, historians typically take a much more nuanced view. They argue that Rome's expansion was driven by short-term defensive and inter-state factors (that is, relations with city-states and kingdoms outside Rome's hegemony), and the new contingencies that these decisions created. In its early history, as Rome successfully defended itself against foreign threats in central and then northern Italy, neighboring city-states sought the protection a Roman alliance would bring. As such, early republican Rome was not an "empire" or "state" in the modern sense, but an alliance of independent city-states (similar to the Greek hegemonies of the same period) with varying degrees of genuine independence (which itself changed over time) engaged in an alliance of mutual self-protection, but led by Rome. With some important exceptions, successful wars in early republican Rome generally led not to annexation or military occupation, but to the restoration of the way things were. But the defeated city would be weakened (sometimes with outright <hl> land <hl> concessions) and thus less able to resist Romanizing influences, such as Roman settlers seeking land or trade with the growing Roman confederacy. It was also less able to defend itself against its non-Roman enemies, which made attack by these enemies more likely. It was, therefore, more likely to seek an alliance of protection with Rome.


Question: After what war did the alliances start to solidify?

This growing coalition expanded the potential enemies that Rome might face, and moved Rome closer to confrontation with major powers. The result was more alliance-seeking, on the part of both the Roman confederacy and city-states seeking membership (and protection) within that confederacy. While there were exceptions to this (such as military rule of Sicily after the First Punic War), it was not until after the Second Punic War that these alliances started to harden into something more like an empire, at least in certain locations. This shift mainly took place in parts of the west, such as the southern Italian towns that sided with Hannibal.

Answer: Second Punic War

This growing coalition expanded the potential enemies that Rome might face, and moved Rome closer to confrontation with major powers. The result was more alliance-seeking, on the part of both the Roman confederacy and city-states seeking membership (and protection) within that confederacy. <hl> While there were exceptions to this (such as military rule of Sicily after the First Punic War), it was not until after the Second Punic War that these alliances started to harden into something more like an empire, at least in certain locations. <hl> This shift mainly took place in parts of the west, such as the southern Italian towns that sided with Hannibal.

This growing coalition expanded the potential enemies that Rome might face, and moved Rome closer to confrontation with major powers. The result was more alliance-seeking, on the part of both the Roman confederacy and city-states seeking membership (and protection) within that confederacy. While there were exceptions to this (such as military rule of Sicily after the First Punic War), it was not until after the <hl> Second Punic War <hl> that these alliances started to harden into something more like an empire, at least in certain locations. This shift mainly took place in parts of the west, such as the southern Italian towns that sided with Hannibal.


Question: What helped Rome move closer to a confrontation with several other major powers in the area?

Answer: This growing coalition

<hl> This growing coalition expanded the potential enemies that Rome might face, and moved Rome closer to confrontation with major powers. <hl> The result was more alliance-seeking, on the part of both the Roman confederacy and city-states seeking membership (and protection) within that confederacy. While there were exceptions to this (such as military rule of Sicily after the First Punic War), it was not until after the Second Punic War that these alliances started to harden into something more like an empire, at least in certain locations. This shift mainly took place in parts of the west, such as the southern Italian towns that sided with Hannibal.

<hl> This growing coalition <hl> expanded the potential enemies that Rome might face, and moved Rome closer to confrontation with major powers. The result was more alliance-seeking, on the part of both the Roman confederacy and city-states seeking membership (and protection) within that confederacy. While there were exceptions to this (such as military rule of Sicily after the First Punic War), it was not until after the Second Punic War that these alliances started to harden into something more like an empire, at least in certain locations. This shift mainly took place in parts of the west, such as the southern Italian towns that sided with Hannibal.


Question: What towns had chosen Hannibal's side?

Answer: southern Italian

This growing coalition expanded the potential enemies that Rome might face, and moved Rome closer to confrontation with major powers. The result was more alliance-seeking, on the part of both the Roman confederacy and city-states seeking membership (and protection) within that confederacy. While there were exceptions to this (such as military rule of Sicily after the First Punic War), it was not until after the Second Punic War that these alliances started to harden into something more like an empire, at least in certain locations. <hl> This shift mainly took place in parts of the west, such as the southern Italian towns that sided with Hannibal. <hl>

This growing coalition expanded the potential enemies that Rome might face, and moved Rome closer to confrontation with major powers. The result was more alliance-seeking, on the part of both the Roman confederacy and city-states seeking membership (and protection) within that confederacy. While there were exceptions to this (such as military rule of Sicily after the First Punic War), it was not until after the Second Punic War that these alliances started to harden into something more like an empire, at least in certain locations. This shift mainly took place in parts of the west, such as the <hl> southern Italian <hl> towns that sided with Hannibal.


Question: What did city-states hope to gain from the Roman confederacy?

Answer: membership (and protection)

This growing coalition expanded the potential enemies that Rome might face, and moved Rome closer to confrontation with major powers. <hl> The result was more alliance-seeking, on the part of both the Roman confederacy and city-states seeking membership (and protection) within that confederacy. <hl> While there were exceptions to this (such as military rule of Sicily after the First Punic War), it was not until after the Second Punic War that these alliances started to harden into something more like an empire, at least in certain locations. This shift mainly took place in parts of the west, such as the southern Italian towns that sided with Hannibal.

This growing coalition expanded the potential enemies that Rome might face, and moved Rome closer to confrontation with major powers. The result was more alliance-seeking, on the part of both the Roman confederacy and city-states seeking <hl> membership (and protection) <hl> within that confederacy. While there were exceptions to this (such as military rule of Sicily after the First Punic War), it was not until after the Second Punic War that these alliances started to harden into something more like an empire, at least in certain locations. This shift mainly took place in parts of the west, such as the southern Italian towns that sided with Hannibal.


Question: What effect did the weakening of Ptolemaic Egypt have on nearby areas?

In contrast, Roman expansion into Spain and Gaul occurred as a mix of alliance-seeking and military occupation. In the 2nd century BC, Roman involvement in the Greek east remained a matter of alliance-seeking, but this time in the face of major powers that could rival Rome. According to Polybius, who sought to trace how Rome came to dominate the Greek east in less than a century, this was mainly a matter of several Greek city-states seeking Roman protection against the Macedonian kingdom and Seleucid Empire in the face of destabilisation created by the weakening of Ptolemaic Egypt. In contrast to the west, the Greek east had been dominated by major empires for centuries, and Roman influence and alliance-seeking led to wars with these empires that further weakened them and therefore created an unstable power vacuum that only Rome could fill. This had some important similarities to (and important differences from) the events in Italy centuries earlier, but this time on a global scale.

Answer: destabilisation

In contrast, Roman expansion into Spain and Gaul occurred as a mix of alliance-seeking and military occupation. In the 2nd century BC, Roman involvement in the Greek east remained a matter of alliance-seeking, but this time in the face of major powers that could rival Rome. <hl> According to Polybius, who sought to trace how Rome came to dominate the Greek east in less than a century, this was mainly a matter of several Greek city-states seeking Roman protection against the Macedonian kingdom and Seleucid Empire in the face of destabilisation created by the weakening of Ptolemaic Egypt. <hl> In contrast to the west, the Greek east had been dominated by major empires for centuries, and Roman influence and alliance-seeking led to wars with these empires that further weakened them and therefore created an unstable power vacuum that only Rome could fill. This had some important similarities to (and important differences from) the events in Italy centuries earlier, but this time on a global scale.

In contrast, Roman expansion into Spain and Gaul occurred as a mix of alliance-seeking and military occupation. In the 2nd century BC, Roman involvement in the Greek east remained a matter of alliance-seeking, but this time in the face of major powers that could rival Rome. According to Polybius, who sought to trace how Rome came to dominate the Greek east in less than a century, this was mainly a matter of several Greek city-states seeking Roman protection against the Macedonian kingdom and Seleucid Empire in the face of <hl> destabilisation <hl> created by the weakening of Ptolemaic Egypt. In contrast to the west, the Greek east had been dominated by major empires for centuries, and Roman influence and alliance-seeking led to wars with these empires that further weakened them and therefore created an unstable power vacuum that only Rome could fill. This had some important similarities to (and important differences from) the events in Italy centuries earlier, but this time on a global scale.


Question: Who attempted to find out how Rome dominated the Greek east?

Answer: Polybius

In contrast, Roman expansion into Spain and Gaul occurred as a mix of alliance-seeking and military occupation. In the 2nd century BC, Roman involvement in the Greek east remained a matter of alliance-seeking, but this time in the face of major powers that could rival Rome. <hl> According to Polybius , who sought to trace how Rome came to dominate the Greek east in less than a century, this was mainly a matter of several Greek city-states seeking Roman protection against the Macedonian kingdom and Seleucid Empire in the face of destabilisation created by the weakening of Ptolemaic Egypt. <hl> In contrast to the west, the Greek east had been dominated by major empires for centuries, and Roman influence and alliance-seeking led to wars with these empires that further weakened them and therefore created an unstable power vacuum that only Rome could fill. This had some important similarities to (and important differences from) the events in Italy centuries earlier, but this time on a global scale.

In contrast, Roman expansion into Spain and Gaul occurred as a mix of alliance-seeking and military occupation. In the 2nd century BC, Roman involvement in the Greek east remained a matter of alliance-seeking, but this time in the face of major powers that could rival Rome. According to <hl> Polybius <hl>, who sought to trace how Rome came to dominate the Greek east in less than a century, this was mainly a matter of several Greek city-states seeking Roman protection against the Macedonian kingdom and Seleucid Empire in the face of destabilisation created by the weakening of Ptolemaic Egypt. In contrast to the west, the Greek east had been dominated by major empires for centuries, and Roman influence and alliance-seeking led to wars with these empires that further weakened them and therefore created an unstable power vacuum that only Rome could fill. This had some important similarities to (and important differences from) the events in Italy centuries earlier, but this time on a global scale.

According to <hl> Polybius <hl> , who sought to trace how Rome came to dominate the Greek east in less than a century, this was mainly a matter of several Greek city-states seeking Roman protection against the Macedonian kingdom and Seleucid Empire in the face of destabilisation created by the weakening of Ptolemaic Egypt.


Question: Why was Rome involved in matters in the Greek east?

Answer: alliance-seeking

<hl> In contrast, Roman expansion into Spain and Gaul occurred as a mix of alliance-seeking and military occupation. <hl> In the 2nd century BC, Roman involvement in the Greek east remained a matter of alliance-seeking, but this time in the face of major powers that could rival Rome. According to Polybius, who sought to trace how Rome came to dominate the Greek east in less than a century, this was mainly a matter of several Greek city-states seeking Roman protection against the Macedonian kingdom and Seleucid Empire in the face of destabilisation created by the weakening of Ptolemaic Egypt. In contrast to the west, the Greek east had been dominated by major empires for centuries, and Roman influence and alliance-seeking led to wars with these empires that further weakened them and therefore created an unstable power vacuum that only Rome could fill. This had some important similarities to (and important differences from) the events in Italy centuries earlier, but this time on a global scale.

In contrast, Roman expansion into Spain and Gaul occurred as a mix of <hl> alliance-seeking <hl> and military occupation. In the 2nd century BC, Roman involvement in the Greek east remained a matter of alliance-seeking, but this time in the face of major powers that could rival Rome. According to Polybius, who sought to trace how Rome came to dominate the Greek east in less than a century, this was mainly a matter of several Greek city-states seeking Roman protection against the Macedonian kingdom and Seleucid Empire in the face of destabilisation created by the weakening of Ptolemaic Egypt. In contrast to the west, the Greek east had been dominated by major empires for centuries, and Roman influence and alliance-seeking led to wars with these empires that further weakened them and therefore created an unstable power vacuum that only Rome could fill. This had some important similarities to (and important differences from) the events in Italy centuries earlier, but this time on a global scale.


Question: Which countries citie-states attempted to gain the protection of Rome?

Answer: Greek

In contrast, Roman expansion into Spain and Gaul occurred as a mix of alliance-seeking and military occupation. <hl> In the 2nd century BC, Roman involvement in the Greek east remained a matter of alliance-seeking, but this time in the face of major powers that could rival Rome. <hl> According to Polybius, who sought to trace how Rome came to dominate the Greek east in less than a century, this was mainly a matter of several Greek city-states seeking Roman protection against the Macedonian kingdom and Seleucid Empire in the face of destabilisation created by the weakening of Ptolemaic Egypt. In contrast to the west, the Greek east had been dominated by major empires for centuries, and Roman influence and alliance-seeking led to wars with these empires that further weakened them and therefore created an unstable power vacuum that only Rome could fill. This had some important similarities to (and important differences from) the events in Italy centuries earlier, but this time on a global scale.

In contrast, Roman expansion into Spain and Gaul occurred as a mix of alliance-seeking and military occupation. In the 2nd century BC, Roman involvement in the <hl> Greek <hl> east remained a matter of alliance-seeking, but this time in the face of major powers that could rival Rome. According to Polybius, who sought to trace how Rome came to dominate the Greek east in less than a century, this was mainly a matter of several Greek city-states seeking Roman protection against the Macedonian kingdom and Seleucid Empire in the face of destabilisation created by the weakening of Ptolemaic Egypt. In contrast to the west, the Greek east had been dominated by major empires for centuries, and Roman influence and alliance-seeking led to wars with these empires that further weakened them and therefore created an unstable power vacuum that only Rome could fill. This had some important similarities to (and important differences from) the events in Italy centuries earlier, but this time on a global scale.


Question: What was seen as the behind the Roman influence in the east?

Historians see the growing Roman influence over the east, as with the west, as not a matter of intentional empire-building, but constant crisis management narrowly focused on short-term goals within a highly unstable, unpredictable, and inter-dependent network of alliances and dependencies. With some major exceptions of outright military rule, the Roman Republic remained an alliance of independent city-states and kingdoms (with varying degrees of independence, both de jure and de facto) until it transitioned into the Roman Empire. It was not until the time of the Roman Empire that the entire Roman world was organized into provinces under explicit Roman control.

Answer: crisis management

<hl> Historians see the growing Roman influence over the east, as with the west, as not a matter of intentional empire-building, but constant crisis management narrowly focused on short-term goals within a highly unstable, unpredictable, and inter-dependent network of alliances and dependencies. <hl> With some major exceptions of outright military rule, the Roman Republic remained an alliance of independent city-states and kingdoms (with varying degrees of independence, both de jure and de facto) until it transitioned into the Roman Empire. It was not until the time of the Roman Empire that the entire Roman world was organized into provinces under explicit Roman control.

Historians see the growing Roman influence over the east, as with the west, as not a matter of intentional empire-building, but constant <hl> crisis management <hl> narrowly focused on short-term goals within a highly unstable, unpredictable, and inter-dependent network of alliances and dependencies. With some major exceptions of outright military rule, the Roman Republic remained an alliance of independent city-states and kingdoms (with varying degrees of independence, both de jure and de facto) until it transitioned into the Roman Empire. It was not until the time of the Roman Empire that the entire Roman world was organized into provinces under explicit Roman control.


Question: At what point was the entire Roman world joined together under Roman control?

Answer: the time of the Roman Empire

Historians see the growing Roman influence over the east, as with the west, as not a matter of intentional empire-building, but constant crisis management narrowly focused on short-term goals within a highly unstable, unpredictable, and inter-dependent network of alliances and dependencies. With some major exceptions of outright military rule, the Roman Republic remained an alliance of independent city-states and kingdoms (with varying degrees of independence, both de jure and de facto) until it transitioned into the Roman Empire. <hl> It was not until the time of the Roman Empire that the entire Roman world was organized into provinces under explicit Roman control. <hl>

Historians see the growing Roman influence over the east, as with the west, as not a matter of intentional empire-building, but constant crisis management narrowly focused on short-term goals within a highly unstable, unpredictable, and inter-dependent network of alliances and dependencies. With some major exceptions of outright military rule, the Roman Republic remained an alliance of independent city-states and kingdoms (with varying degrees of independence, both de jure and de facto) until it transitioned into the Roman Empire. It was not until <hl> the time of the Roman Empire <hl> that the entire Roman world was organized into provinces under explicit Roman control.


Question: What was not seen as an influence of Rome's influence in the west?

Answer: intentional empire-building

<hl> Historians see the growing Roman influence over the east, as with the west, as not a matter of intentional empire-building , but constant crisis management narrowly focused on short-term goals within a highly unstable, unpredictable, and inter-dependent network of alliances and dependencies. <hl> With some major exceptions of outright military rule, the Roman Republic remained an alliance of independent city-states and kingdoms (with varying degrees of independence, both de jure and de facto) until it transitioned into the Roman Empire. It was not until the time of the Roman Empire that the entire Roman world was organized into provinces under explicit Roman control.

Historians see the growing Roman influence over the east, as with the west, as not a matter of <hl> intentional empire-building <hl>, but constant crisis management narrowly focused on short-term goals within a highly unstable, unpredictable, and inter-dependent network of alliances and dependencies. With some major exceptions of outright military rule, the Roman Republic remained an alliance of independent city-states and kingdoms (with varying degrees of independence, both de jure and de facto) until it transitioned into the Roman Empire. It was not until the time of the Roman Empire that the entire Roman world was organized into provinces under explicit Roman control.

Historians see the growing Roman influence over the east, as with the west, as not a matter of <hl> intentional empire-building <hl> , but constant crisis management narrowly focused on short-term goals within a highly unstable, unpredictable, and inter-dependent network of alliances and dependencies.


Question: What type of city-states were involved with the Roman Republic?

Answer: independent

Historians see the growing Roman influence over the east, as with the west, as not a matter of intentional empire-building, but constant crisis management narrowly focused on short-term goals within a highly unstable, unpredictable, and inter-dependent network of alliances and dependencies. <hl> With some major exceptions of outright military rule, the Roman Republic remained an alliance of independent city-states and kingdoms (with varying degrees of independence, both de jure and de facto) until it transitioned into the Roman Empire. <hl> It was not until the time of the Roman Empire that the entire Roman world was organized into provinces under explicit Roman control.

Historians see the growing Roman influence over the east, as with the west, as not a matter of intentional empire-building, but constant crisis management narrowly focused on short-term goals within a highly unstable, unpredictable, and inter-dependent network of alliances and dependencies. With some major exceptions of outright military rule, the Roman Republic remained an alliance of <hl> independent <hl> city-states and kingdoms (with varying degrees of independence, both de jure and de facto) until it transitioned into the Roman Empire. It was not until the time of the Roman Empire that the entire Roman world was organized into provinces under explicit Roman control.


Question: In what battle did Rome claim victory over several Latin cities in?

The first Roman republican wars were wars of both expansion and defence, aimed at protecting Rome itself from neighbouring cities and nations and establishing its territory in the region. Initially, Rome's immediate neighbours were either Latin towns and villages, or else tribal Sabines from the Apennine hills beyond. One by one Rome defeated both the persistent Sabines and the local cities, both those under Etruscan control and those that had cast off their Etruscan rulers. Rome defeated Latin cities in the Battle of Lake Regillus in 496 BC, the Battle of Mons Algidus in 458 BC, the Battle of Corbione in 446 BC, the Battle of Aricia, and especially the Battle of the Cremera in 477 BC wherein it fought against the most important Etruscan city of Veii.

Answer: the Battle of Lake Regillus

The first Roman republican wars were wars of both expansion and defence, aimed at protecting Rome itself from neighbouring cities and nations and establishing its territory in the region. Initially, Rome's immediate neighbours were either Latin towns and villages, or else tribal Sabines from the Apennine hills beyond. One by one Rome defeated both the persistent Sabines and the local cities, both those under Etruscan control and those that had cast off their Etruscan rulers. <hl> Rome defeated Latin cities in the Battle of Lake Regillus in 496 BC, the Battle of Mons Algidus in 458 BC, the Battle of Corbione in 446 BC, the Battle of Aricia, and especially the Battle of the Cremera in 477 BC wherein it fought against the most important Etruscan city of Veii. <hl>

The first Roman republican wars were wars of both expansion and defence, aimed at protecting Rome itself from neighbouring cities and nations and establishing its territory in the region. Initially, Rome's immediate neighbours were either Latin towns and villages, or else tribal Sabines from the Apennine hills beyond. One by one Rome defeated both the persistent Sabines and the local cities, both those under Etruscan control and those that had cast off their Etruscan rulers. Rome defeated Latin cities in <hl> the Battle of Lake Regillus <hl> in 496 BC, the Battle of Mons Algidus in 458 BC, the Battle of Corbione in 446 BC, the Battle of Aricia, and especially the Battle of the Cremera in 477 BC wherein it fought against the most important Etruscan city of Veii.


Question: What year did the Battle of Lake Regillus take place?

Answer: 496 BC

The first Roman republican wars were wars of both expansion and defence, aimed at protecting Rome itself from neighbouring cities and nations and establishing its territory in the region. Initially, Rome's immediate neighbours were either Latin towns and villages, or else tribal Sabines from the Apennine hills beyond. One by one Rome defeated both the persistent Sabines and the local cities, both those under Etruscan control and those that had cast off their Etruscan rulers. <hl> Rome defeated Latin cities in the Battle of Lake Regillus in 496 BC , the Battle of Mons Algidus in 458 BC, the Battle of Corbione in 446 BC, the Battle of Aricia, and especially the Battle of the Cremera in 477 BC wherein it fought against the most important Etruscan city of Veii. <hl>

The first Roman republican wars were wars of both expansion and defence, aimed at protecting Rome itself from neighbouring cities and nations and establishing its territory in the region. Initially, Rome's immediate neighbours were either Latin towns and villages, or else tribal Sabines from the Apennine hills beyond. One by one Rome defeated both the persistent Sabines and the local cities, both those under Etruscan control and those that had cast off their Etruscan rulers. Rome defeated Latin cities in the Battle of Lake Regillus in <hl> 496 BC <hl>, the Battle of Mons Algidus in 458 BC, the Battle of Corbione in 446 BC, the Battle of Aricia, and especially the Battle of the Cremera in 477 BC wherein it fought against the most important Etruscan city of Veii.

Rome defeated Latin cities in the Battle of Lake Regillus in <hl> 496 BC <hl> , the Battle of Mons Algidus in 458 BC, the Battle of Corbione in 446 BC, the Battle of Aricia, and especially the Battle of the Cremera in 477 BC wherein it fought against the most important Etruscan city of Veii.


Question: In what year did Rome claim victory against the city of Veii?

Answer: 477 BC

The first Roman republican wars were wars of both expansion and defence, aimed at protecting Rome itself from neighbouring cities and nations and establishing its territory in the region. Initially, Rome's immediate neighbours were either Latin towns and villages, or else tribal Sabines from the Apennine hills beyond. One by one Rome defeated both the persistent Sabines and the local cities, both those under Etruscan control and those that had cast off their Etruscan rulers. <hl> Rome defeated Latin cities in the Battle of Lake Regillus in 496 BC, the Battle of Mons Algidus in 458 BC, the Battle of Corbione in 446 BC, the Battle of Aricia, and especially the Battle of the Cremera in 477 BC wherein it fought against the most important Etruscan city of Veii. <hl>

The first Roman republican wars were wars of both expansion and defence, aimed at protecting Rome itself from neighbouring cities and nations and establishing its territory in the region. Initially, Rome's immediate neighbours were either Latin towns and villages, or else tribal Sabines from the Apennine hills beyond. One by one Rome defeated both the persistent Sabines and the local cities, both those under Etruscan control and those that had cast off their Etruscan rulers. Rome defeated Latin cities in the Battle of Lake Regillus in 496 BC, the Battle of Mons Algidus in 458 BC, the Battle of Corbione in 446 BC, the Battle of Aricia, and especially the Battle of the Cremera in <hl> 477 BC <hl> wherein it fought against the most important Etruscan city of Veii.


Question: What Roman battle took place in the year 446 BC?

Answer: the Battle of Corbione

The first Roman republican wars were wars of both expansion and defence, aimed at protecting Rome itself from neighbouring cities and nations and establishing its territory in the region. Initially, Rome's immediate neighbours were either Latin towns and villages, or else tribal Sabines from the Apennine hills beyond. One by one Rome defeated both the persistent Sabines and the local cities, both those under Etruscan control and those that had cast off their Etruscan rulers. <hl> Rome defeated Latin cities in the Battle of Lake Regillus in 496 BC, the Battle of Mons Algidus in 458 BC, the Battle of Corbione in 446 BC, the Battle of Aricia, and especially the Battle of the Cremera in 477 BC wherein it fought against the most important Etruscan city of Veii. <hl>

The first Roman republican wars were wars of both expansion and defence, aimed at protecting Rome itself from neighbouring cities and nations and establishing its territory in the region. Initially, Rome's immediate neighbours were either Latin towns and villages, or else tribal Sabines from the Apennine hills beyond. One by one Rome defeated both the persistent Sabines and the local cities, both those under Etruscan control and those that had cast off their Etruscan rulers. Rome defeated Latin cities in the Battle of Lake Regillus in 496 BC, the Battle of Mons Algidus in 458 BC, <hl> the Battle of Corbione <hl> in 446 BC, the Battle of Aricia, and especially the Battle of the Cremera in 477 BC wherein it fought against the most important Etruscan city of Veii.