Unnamed: 0
int64 0
816
| context
stringlengths 151
3.71k
| question
stringlengths 1
25.7k
| id
stringlengths 8
24
| answer_start
int64 0
3.13k
| text
stringlengths 1
239
⌀ |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
8 | 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 Over time, the laws that gave patricians exclusive rights to Rome's highest offices were repealed or weakened, and leading plebeian families became full members of the aristocracy.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. | What was the senate that advised consuls in the Roman government comprised of? | 572fbf77b2c2fd14005683de | 113 | appointed magistrates |
9 | 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 Over time, the laws that gave patricians exclusive rights to Rome's highest offices were repealed or weakened, and leading plebeian families became full members of the aristocracy.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. | What went hand and hand with military success? | 572fbf77b2c2fd14005683df | 769 | political success |
10 | 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. | What factor is considered by some to be the main driving force behind the expansion of Rome? | 572fc1c9a23a5019007fc98d | 326 | inter-state factors |
11 | 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. | What type of policy is considered by some to be responsible for Rome's many military conflicts? | 572fc1c9a23a5019007fc98e | 189 | imperialism |
12 | 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. | What was a common conclusion to wars in the early days of republican Rome? | 572fc1c9a23a5019007fc98f | 1,137 | restoration of the way things were |
13 | 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. | What type of alliance was created between the various Roman city-states? | 572fc1c9a23a5019007fc990 | 956 | mutual self-protection |
14 | 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. | What did Roman settlers commonly seek out? | 572fc1c9a23a5019007fc991 | 1,339 | land |
15 | 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. | After what war did the alliances start to solidify? | 572fc41804bcaa1900d76cbb | 415 | Second Punic War |
16 | 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. | What helped Rome move closer to a confrontation with several other major powers in the area? | 572fc41804bcaa1900d76cbc | 0 | This growing coalition |
17 | 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. | What towns had chosen Hannibal's side? | 572fc41804bcaa1900d76cbd | 601 | southern Italian |
18 | 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. | What did city-states hope to gain from the Roman confederacy? | 572fc41804bcaa1900d76cbe | 238 | membership (and protection) |
19 | 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. | What effect did the weakening of Ptolemaic Egypt have on nearby areas? | 572fc931947a6a140053ccb8 | 528 | destabilisation |
20 | 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. | Who attempted to find out how Rome dominated the Greek east? | 572fc931947a6a140053ccb9 | 288 | Polybius |
21 | 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. | Why was Rome involved in matters in the Greek east? | 572fc931947a6a140053ccba | 192 | alliance-seeking |
22 | 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. | Which countries citie-states attempted to gain the protection of Rome? | 572fc931947a6a140053ccbb | 419 | Greek |
23 | 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. | What was seen as the behind the Roman influence in the east? | 572fcad3947a6a140053ccca | 137 | crisis management |
24 | 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. | At what point was the entire Roman world joined together under Roman control? | 572fcad3947a6a140053cccb | 554 | the time of the Roman Empire |
25 | 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. | What was not seen as an influence of Rome's influence in the west? | 572fcad3947a6a140053cccc | 95 | intentional empire-building |
26 | 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. | What type of city-states were involved with the Roman Republic? | 572fcad3947a6a140053cccd | 389 | independent |
27 | 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. | In what battle did Rome claim victory over several Latin cities in? | 572fcc0f04bcaa1900d76d47 | 510 | the Battle of Lake Regillus |
28 | 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. | What year did the Battle of Lake Regillus take place? | 572fcc0f04bcaa1900d76d48 | 541 | 496 BC |
29 | 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. | In what year did Rome claim victory against the city of Veii? | 572fcc0f04bcaa1900d76d49 | 687 | 477 BC |
30 | 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. | What Roman battle took place in the year 446 BC? | 572fcc0f04bcaa1900d76d4a | 587 | the Battle of Corbione |
31 | 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. | Who initially had control over the Sabines? | 572fcc0f04bcaa1900d76d4b | 412 | Etruscan control |
32 | By 390 BC, several Gallic tribes were invading Italy from the north as their culture expanded throughout Europe. The Romans were alerted to this when a particularly warlike tribe invaded two Etruscan towns close to Rome's sphere of influence. These towns, overwhelmed by the enemy's numbers and ferocity, called on Rome for help. The Romans met the Gauls in pitched battle at the Battle of Allia River around 390–387 BC. The Gauls, led by chieftain Brennus, defeated the Roman army of approximately 15,000 troops, pursued the fleeing Romans back to Rome, and sacked the city before being either driven off or bought off. Romans and Gauls continued to war intermittently in Italy for more than two centuries.[relevant? – discuss] | When did the Battle of Allia River approximately end? | 572fcda604bcaa1900d76d5d | 413 | 387 BC |
33 | By 390 BC, several Gallic tribes were invading Italy from the north as their culture expanded throughout Europe. The Romans were alerted to this when a particularly warlike tribe invaded two Etruscan towns close to Rome's sphere of influence. These towns, overwhelmed by the enemy's numbers and ferocity, called on Rome for help. The Romans met the Gauls in pitched battle at the Battle of Allia River around 390–387 BC. The Gauls, led by chieftain Brennus, defeated the Roman army of approximately 15,000 troops, pursued the fleeing Romans back to Rome, and sacked the city before being either driven off or bought off. Romans and Gauls continued to war intermittently in Italy for more than two centuries.[relevant? – discuss] | How many of the Roman military were involved in the Battle of Allia River? | 572fcda604bcaa1900d76d5e | 499 | 15,000 troops |
34 | By 390 BC, several Gallic tribes were invading Italy from the north as their culture expanded throughout Europe. The Romans were alerted to this when a particularly warlike tribe invaded two Etruscan towns close to Rome's sphere of influence. These towns, overwhelmed by the enemy's numbers and ferocity, called on Rome for help. The Romans met the Gauls in pitched battle at the Battle of Allia River around 390–387 BC. The Gauls, led by chieftain Brennus, defeated the Roman army of approximately 15,000 troops, pursued the fleeing Romans back to Rome, and sacked the city before being either driven off or bought off. Romans and Gauls continued to war intermittently in Italy for more than two centuries.[relevant? – discuss] | Where did the Romans attempt to escape to after their loss against the Gauls? | 572fcda604bcaa1900d76d5f | 549 | Rome |
35 | By 390 BC, several Gallic tribes were invading Italy from the north as their culture expanded throughout Europe. The Romans were alerted to this when a particularly warlike tribe invaded two Etruscan towns close to Rome's sphere of influence. These towns, overwhelmed by the enemy's numbers and ferocity, called on Rome for help. The Romans met the Gauls in pitched battle at the Battle of Allia River around 390–387 BC. The Gauls, led by chieftain Brennus, defeated the Roman army of approximately 15,000 troops, pursued the fleeing Romans back to Rome, and sacked the city before being either driven off or bought off. Romans and Gauls continued to war intermittently in Italy for more than two centuries.[relevant? – discuss] | What is the name of the chieftan who led his army to victory in the Battle of Allia River? | 572fcda604bcaa1900d76d60 | 449 | Brennus |
36 | By 390 BC, several Gallic tribes were invading Italy from the north as their culture expanded throughout Europe. The Romans were alerted to this when a particularly warlike tribe invaded two Etruscan towns close to Rome's sphere of influence. These towns, overwhelmed by the enemy's numbers and ferocity, called on Rome for help. The Romans met the Gauls in pitched battle at the Battle of Allia River around 390–387 BC. The Gauls, led by chieftain Brennus, defeated the Roman army of approximately 15,000 troops, pursued the fleeing Romans back to Rome, and sacked the city before being either driven off or bought off. Romans and Gauls continued to war intermittently in Italy for more than two centuries.[relevant? – discuss] | Who asked Rome for assistance after being overburdened by their enemies? | 572fcda604bcaa1900d76d61 | 187 | two Etruscan towns |
37 | After recovering surprisingly fast from the sack of Rome, the Romans immediately resumed their expansion within Italy. The First Samnite War from 343 BC to 341 BC was relatively short: the Romans beat the Samnites in two battles, but were forced to withdraw before they could pursue the conflict further due to the revolt of several of their Latin allies in the Latin War. Rome beat the Latins in the Battle of Vesuvius and again in the Battle of Trifanum, after which the Latin cities were obliged to submit to Roman rule. | What country did the Romans continue to expand to after Rome was sacked? | 572fcee4b2c2fd1400568495 | 112 | Italy |
38 | After recovering surprisingly fast from the sack of Rome, the Romans immediately resumed their expansion within Italy. The First Samnite War from 343 BC to 341 BC was relatively short: the Romans beat the Samnites in two battles, but were forced to withdraw before they could pursue the conflict further due to the revolt of several of their Latin allies in the Latin War. Rome beat the Latins in the Battle of Vesuvius and again in the Battle of Trifanum, after which the Latin cities were obliged to submit to Roman rule. | How many battles were conducted by Rome before they were forced to flee in The First Samnite War? | 572fcee4b2c2fd1400568496 | 217 | two battles |
39 | After recovering surprisingly fast from the sack of Rome, the Romans immediately resumed their expansion within Italy. The First Samnite War from 343 BC to 341 BC was relatively short: the Romans beat the Samnites in two battles, but were forced to withdraw before they could pursue the conflict further due to the revolt of several of their Latin allies in the Latin War. Rome beat the Latins in the Battle of Vesuvius and again in the Battle of Trifanum, after which the Latin cities were obliged to submit to Roman rule. | What caused the Romans early withdrawl in The First Samnite War? | 572fcee4b2c2fd1400568497 | 315 | revolt of several of their Latin allies |
40 | After recovering surprisingly fast from the sack of Rome, the Romans immediately resumed their expansion within Italy. The First Samnite War from 343 BC to 341 BC was relatively short: the Romans beat the Samnites in two battles, but were forced to withdraw before they could pursue the conflict further due to the revolt of several of their Latin allies in the Latin War. Rome beat the Latins in the Battle of Vesuvius and again in the Battle of Trifanum, after which the Latin cities were obliged to submit to Roman rule. | When did The First Samnite War end? | 572fcee4b2c2fd1400568498 | 156 | 341 BC |
41 | After recovering surprisingly fast from the sack of Rome, the Romans immediately resumed their expansion within Italy. The First Samnite War from 343 BC to 341 BC was relatively short: the Romans beat the Samnites in two battles, but were forced to withdraw before they could pursue the conflict further due to the revolt of several of their Latin allies in the Latin War. Rome beat the Latins in the Battle of Vesuvius and again in the Battle of Trifanum, after which the Latin cities were obliged to submit to Roman rule. | Who did Rome claim victory against in The Battle of Vesuvius? | 572fcee4b2c2fd1400568499 | 387 | Latins |
42 | Despite early victories, Pyrrhus found his position in Italy untenable. Rome steadfastly refused to negotiate with Pyrrhus as long as his army remained in Italy. Facing unacceptably heavy losses from each encounter with the Roman army, Pyrrhus withdrew from the peninsula (hence the term "Pyrrhic victory"). In 275 BC, Pyrrhus again met the Roman army at the Battle of Beneventum. While Beneventum was indecisive, Pyrrhus realised his army had been exhausted and reduced by years of foreign campaigns. Seeing little hope for further gains, he withdrew completely from Italy. | Who suffered a great amount of losses battling the Roman army? | 572fd193b2c2fd140056849f | 115 | Pyrrhus |
43 | Despite early victories, Pyrrhus found his position in Italy untenable. Rome steadfastly refused to negotiate with Pyrrhus as long as his army remained in Italy. Facing unacceptably heavy losses from each encounter with the Roman army, Pyrrhus withdrew from the peninsula (hence the term "Pyrrhic victory"). In 275 BC, Pyrrhus again met the Roman army at the Battle of Beneventum. While Beneventum was indecisive, Pyrrhus realised his army had been exhausted and reduced by years of foreign campaigns. Seeing little hope for further gains, he withdrew completely from Italy. | What did Rome refuse to do in their relations with Pyrrhus? | 572fd193b2c2fd14005684a0 | 100 | negotiate |
44 | Despite early victories, Pyrrhus found his position in Italy untenable. Rome steadfastly refused to negotiate with Pyrrhus as long as his army remained in Italy. Facing unacceptably heavy losses from each encounter with the Roman army, Pyrrhus withdrew from the peninsula (hence the term "Pyrrhic victory"). In 275 BC, Pyrrhus again met the Roman army at the Battle of Beneventum. While Beneventum was indecisive, Pyrrhus realised his army had been exhausted and reduced by years of foreign campaigns. Seeing little hope for further gains, he withdrew completely from Italy. | What military leader does the term Pyrrhic victory come from? | 572fd193b2c2fd14005684a1 | 236 | Pyrrhus |
45 | Despite early victories, Pyrrhus found his position in Italy untenable. Rome steadfastly refused to negotiate with Pyrrhus as long as his army remained in Italy. Facing unacceptably heavy losses from each encounter with the Roman army, Pyrrhus withdrew from the peninsula (hence the term "Pyrrhic victory"). In 275 BC, Pyrrhus again met the Roman army at the Battle of Beneventum. While Beneventum was indecisive, Pyrrhus realised his army had been exhausted and reduced by years of foreign campaigns. Seeing little hope for further gains, he withdrew completely from Italy. | What ultimately caused Pyrrhus to vacate completely from the country of Italy? | 572fd193b2c2fd14005684a2 | 502 | Seeing little hope for further gains |
46 | Despite early victories, Pyrrhus found his position in Italy untenable. Rome steadfastly refused to negotiate with Pyrrhus as long as his army remained in Italy. Facing unacceptably heavy losses from each encounter with the Roman army, Pyrrhus withdrew from the peninsula (hence the term "Pyrrhic victory"). In 275 BC, Pyrrhus again met the Roman army at the Battle of Beneventum. While Beneventum was indecisive, Pyrrhus realised his army had been exhausted and reduced by years of foreign campaigns. Seeing little hope for further gains, he withdrew completely from Italy. | In what year did the Battle of Beneventum take place? | 572fd193b2c2fd14005684a3 | 311 | 275 BC |
47 | The first few naval battles were disasters for Rome. However, after training more sailors and inventing a grappling engine, a Roman naval force was able to defeat a Carthaginian fleet, and further naval victories followed. The Carthaginians then hired Xanthippus of Carthage, a Spartan mercenary general, to reorganise and lead their army. He cut off the Roman army from its base by re-establishing Carthaginian naval supremacy. The Romans then again defeated the Carthaginians in naval battle at the Battle of the Aegates Islands and left Carthage with neither a fleet nor sufficient coin to raise one. For a maritime power the loss of their access to the Mediterranean stung financially and psychologically, and the Carthaginians sued for peace. | What battles were initially complete disasters for Rome? | 572fd2b4b2c2fd14005684b3 | 14 | naval battles |
48 | The first few naval battles were disasters for Rome. However, after training more sailors and inventing a grappling engine, a Roman naval force was able to defeat a Carthaginian fleet, and further naval victories followed. The Carthaginians then hired Xanthippus of Carthage, a Spartan mercenary general, to reorganise and lead their army. He cut off the Roman army from its base by re-establishing Carthaginian naval supremacy. The Romans then again defeated the Carthaginians in naval battle at the Battle of the Aegates Islands and left Carthage with neither a fleet nor sufficient coin to raise one. For a maritime power the loss of their access to the Mediterranean stung financially and psychologically, and the Carthaginians sued for peace. | What type of engine was invented by the Romans? | 572fd2b4b2c2fd14005684b4 | 106 | grappling engine |
49 | The first few naval battles were disasters for Rome. However, after training more sailors and inventing a grappling engine, a Roman naval force was able to defeat a Carthaginian fleet, and further naval victories followed. The Carthaginians then hired Xanthippus of Carthage, a Spartan mercenary general, to reorganise and lead their army. He cut off the Roman army from its base by re-establishing Carthaginian naval supremacy. The Romans then again defeated the Carthaginians in naval battle at the Battle of the Aegates Islands and left Carthage with neither a fleet nor sufficient coin to raise one. For a maritime power the loss of their access to the Mediterranean stung financially and psychologically, and the Carthaginians sued for peace. | Who did the Carthaginians hire to lead their army after several losses against the Romans? | 572fd2b4b2c2fd14005684b5 | 252 | Xanthippus |
50 | The first few naval battles were disasters for Rome. However, after training more sailors and inventing a grappling engine, a Roman naval force was able to defeat a Carthaginian fleet, and further naval victories followed. The Carthaginians then hired Xanthippus of Carthage, a Spartan mercenary general, to reorganise and lead their army. He cut off the Roman army from its base by re-establishing Carthaginian naval supremacy. The Romans then again defeated the Carthaginians in naval battle at the Battle of the Aegates Islands and left Carthage with neither a fleet nor sufficient coin to raise one. For a maritime power the loss of their access to the Mediterranean stung financially and psychologically, and the Carthaginians sued for peace. | Who claimed victory at the Battle of Aegates Islands? | 572fd2b4b2c2fd14005684b6 | 429 | The Romans |
51 | The first few naval battles were disasters for Rome. However, after training more sailors and inventing a grappling engine, a Roman naval force was able to defeat a Carthaginian fleet, and further naval victories followed. The Carthaginians then hired Xanthippus of Carthage, a Spartan mercenary general, to reorganise and lead their army. He cut off the Roman army from its base by re-establishing Carthaginian naval supremacy. The Romans then again defeated the Carthaginians in naval battle at the Battle of the Aegates Islands and left Carthage with neither a fleet nor sufficient coin to raise one. For a maritime power the loss of their access to the Mediterranean stung financially and psychologically, and the Carthaginians sued for peace. | Who lost access to the Mediterranean after numerous naval losses? | 572fd2b4b2c2fd14005684b7 | 714 | the Carthaginians |
52 | The Romans held off Hannibal in three battles, but then Hannibal smashed a succession of Roman consular armies. By this time Hannibal's brother Hasdrubal Barca sought to cross the Alps into Italy and join his brother with a second army. Hasdrubal managed to break through into Italy only to be defeated decisively on the Metaurus River. Unable to defeat Hannibal on Italian soil, the Romans boldly sent an army to Africa under Scipio Africanus to threaten the Carthaginian capital. Hannibal was recalled to Africa, and defeated at the Battle of Zama. | What was the name of Hannibal's family member that wanted to join his army in battle? | 572fd44fb2c2fd14005684cf | 144 | Hasdrubal Barca |
53 | The Romans held off Hannibal in three battles, but then Hannibal smashed a succession of Roman consular armies. By this time Hannibal's brother Hasdrubal Barca sought to cross the Alps into Italy and join his brother with a second army. Hasdrubal managed to break through into Italy only to be defeated decisively on the Metaurus River. Unable to defeat Hannibal on Italian soil, the Romans boldly sent an army to Africa under Scipio Africanus to threaten the Carthaginian capital. Hannibal was recalled to Africa, and defeated at the Battle of Zama. | At what river was Hasdrubal Barca defeated at? | 572fd44fb2c2fd14005684d0 | 321 | Metaurus River |
54 | The Romans held off Hannibal in three battles, but then Hannibal smashed a succession of Roman consular armies. By this time Hannibal's brother Hasdrubal Barca sought to cross the Alps into Italy and join his brother with a second army. Hasdrubal managed to break through into Italy only to be defeated decisively on the Metaurus River. Unable to defeat Hannibal on Italian soil, the Romans boldly sent an army to Africa under Scipio Africanus to threaten the Carthaginian capital. Hannibal was recalled to Africa, and defeated at the Battle of Zama. | In which battle was Hannibal clearly defeated at? | 572fd44fb2c2fd14005684d1 | 531 | the Battle of Zama |
55 | The Romans held off Hannibal in three battles, but then Hannibal smashed a succession of Roman consular armies. By this time Hannibal's brother Hasdrubal Barca sought to cross the Alps into Italy and join his brother with a second army. Hasdrubal managed to break through into Italy only to be defeated decisively on the Metaurus River. Unable to defeat Hannibal on Italian soil, the Romans boldly sent an army to Africa under Scipio Africanus to threaten the Carthaginian capital. Hannibal was recalled to Africa, and defeated at the Battle of Zama. | Who had led the army that the Romans had sent to Africa? | 572fd44fb2c2fd14005684d2 | 427 | Scipio Africanus |
56 | The Romans held off Hannibal in three battles, but then Hannibal smashed a succession of Roman consular armies. By this time Hannibal's brother Hasdrubal Barca sought to cross the Alps into Italy and join his brother with a second army. Hasdrubal managed to break through into Italy only to be defeated decisively on the Metaurus River. Unable to defeat Hannibal on Italian soil, the Romans boldly sent an army to Africa under Scipio Africanus to threaten the Carthaginian capital. Hannibal was recalled to Africa, and defeated at the Battle of Zama. | Why did the Romans send an army to Africa? | 572fd44fb2c2fd14005684d3 | 444 | to threaten the Carthaginian capital |
57 | Carthage never recovered militarily after the Second Punic War, but quickly economically and the Third Punic War that followed was in reality a simple punitive mission after the neighbouring Numidians allied to Rome robbed/attacked Carthaginian merchants. Treaties had forbidden any war with Roman allies, and defense against robbing/pirates was considered as "war action": Rome decided to annihilate the city of Carthage. Carthage was almost defenceless, and submitted when besieged. However, the Romans demanded complete surrender and moval of the city into the (desert) inland far off any coastal or harbour region, and the Carthaginians refused. The city was besieged, stormed, and completely destroyed. Ultimately, all of Carthage's North African and Iberian territories were acquired by Rome. Note that "Carthage" was not an 'empire', but a league of punic colonies (port cities in the western mediterranean) like the 1st and 2nd Athenian ("attic") leagues, under leadership of Carthage. Punic Carthago was gone, but the other punic cities in the western mediterranean flourished under Roman rule. | What had prevented Carthage from defending their territory from pirates? | 572fd5f8947a6a140053cd28 | 256 | Treaties |
58 | Carthage never recovered militarily after the Second Punic War, but quickly economically and the Third Punic War that followed was in reality a simple punitive mission after the neighbouring Numidians allied to Rome robbed/attacked Carthaginian merchants. Treaties had forbidden any war with Roman allies, and defense against robbing/pirates was considered as "war action": Rome decided to annihilate the city of Carthage. Carthage was almost defenceless, and submitted when besieged. However, the Romans demanded complete surrender and moval of the city into the (desert) inland far off any coastal or harbour region, and the Carthaginians refused. The city was besieged, stormed, and completely destroyed. Ultimately, all of Carthage's North African and Iberian territories were acquired by Rome. Note that "Carthage" was not an 'empire', but a league of punic colonies (port cities in the western mediterranean) like the 1st and 2nd Athenian ("attic") leagues, under leadership of Carthage. Punic Carthago was gone, but the other punic cities in the western mediterranean flourished under Roman rule. | What type of colony was Carthage primarily comprised of? | 572fd5f8947a6a140053cd29 | 857 | punic colonies |
59 | Carthage never recovered militarily after the Second Punic War, but quickly economically and the Third Punic War that followed was in reality a simple punitive mission after the neighbouring Numidians allied to Rome robbed/attacked Carthaginian merchants. Treaties had forbidden any war with Roman allies, and defense against robbing/pirates was considered as "war action": Rome decided to annihilate the city of Carthage. Carthage was almost defenceless, and submitted when besieged. However, the Romans demanded complete surrender and moval of the city into the (desert) inland far off any coastal or harbour region, and the Carthaginians refused. The city was besieged, stormed, and completely destroyed. Ultimately, all of Carthage's North African and Iberian territories were acquired by Rome. Note that "Carthage" was not an 'empire', but a league of punic colonies (port cities in the western mediterranean) like the 1st and 2nd Athenian ("attic") leagues, under leadership of Carthage. Punic Carthago was gone, but the other punic cities in the western mediterranean flourished under Roman rule. | What cities flourished after they were conquered by the Romans? | 572fd5f8947a6a140053cd2a | 1,033 | punic cities |
60 | Carthage never recovered militarily after the Second Punic War, but quickly economically and the Third Punic War that followed was in reality a simple punitive mission after the neighbouring Numidians allied to Rome robbed/attacked Carthaginian merchants. Treaties had forbidden any war with Roman allies, and defense against robbing/pirates was considered as "war action": Rome decided to annihilate the city of Carthage. Carthage was almost defenceless, and submitted when besieged. However, the Romans demanded complete surrender and moval of the city into the (desert) inland far off any coastal or harbour region, and the Carthaginians refused. The city was besieged, stormed, and completely destroyed. Ultimately, all of Carthage's North African and Iberian territories were acquired by Rome. Note that "Carthage" was not an 'empire', but a league of punic colonies (port cities in the western mediterranean) like the 1st and 2nd Athenian ("attic") leagues, under leadership of Carthage. Punic Carthago was gone, but the other punic cities in the western mediterranean flourished under Roman rule. | What was the main request of the Romans that Carthage turned down? | 572fd5f8947a6a140053cd2b | 514 | complete surrender |
61 | Carthage never recovered militarily after the Second Punic War, but quickly economically and the Third Punic War that followed was in reality a simple punitive mission after the neighbouring Numidians allied to Rome robbed/attacked Carthaginian merchants. Treaties had forbidden any war with Roman allies, and defense against robbing/pirates was considered as "war action": Rome decided to annihilate the city of Carthage. Carthage was almost defenceless, and submitted when besieged. However, the Romans demanded complete surrender and moval of the city into the (desert) inland far off any coastal or harbour region, and the Carthaginians refused. The city was besieged, stormed, and completely destroyed. Ultimately, all of Carthage's North African and Iberian territories were acquired by Rome. Note that "Carthage" was not an 'empire', but a league of punic colonies (port cities in the western mediterranean) like the 1st and 2nd Athenian ("attic") leagues, under leadership of Carthage. Punic Carthago was gone, but the other punic cities in the western mediterranean flourished under Roman rule. | Who did the Numidians form an alliance with? | 572fd5f8947a6a140053cd2c | 211 | Rome |
62 | Rome's preoccupation with its war with Carthage provided an opportunity for Philip V of the kingdom of Macedonia, located in the north of the Greek peninsula, to attempt to extend his power westward. Philip sent ambassadors to Hannibal's camp in Italy, to negotiate an alliance as common enemies of Rome. However, Rome discovered the agreement when Philip's emissaries were captured by a Roman fleet. The First Macedonian War saw the Romans involved directly in only limited land operations, but they ultimately achieved their objective of pre-occupying Philip and preventing him from aiding Hannibal. | What kingdom sent an ambassador to Italy in an attempt to form an alliance against Rome? | 572fdbd404bcaa1900d76de3 | 103 | Macedonia |
63 | Rome's preoccupation with its war with Carthage provided an opportunity for Philip V of the kingdom of Macedonia, located in the north of the Greek peninsula, to attempt to extend his power westward. Philip sent ambassadors to Hannibal's camp in Italy, to negotiate an alliance as common enemies of Rome. However, Rome discovered the agreement when Philip's emissaries were captured by a Roman fleet. The First Macedonian War saw the Romans involved directly in only limited land operations, but they ultimately achieved their objective of pre-occupying Philip and preventing him from aiding Hannibal. | Where did Philip V want to extend his control to? | 572fdbd404bcaa1900d76de4 | 190 | westward |
64 | Rome's preoccupation with its war with Carthage provided an opportunity for Philip V of the kingdom of Macedonia, located in the north of the Greek peninsula, to attempt to extend his power westward. Philip sent ambassadors to Hannibal's camp in Italy, to negotiate an alliance as common enemies of Rome. However, Rome discovered the agreement when Philip's emissaries were captured by a Roman fleet. The First Macedonian War saw the Romans involved directly in only limited land operations, but they ultimately achieved their objective of pre-occupying Philip and preventing him from aiding Hannibal. | What peninsula was the kingdom of Macedonia able to be found in? | 572fdbd404bcaa1900d76de5 | 142 | Greek peninsula |
65 | Rome's preoccupation with its war with Carthage provided an opportunity for Philip V of the kingdom of Macedonia, located in the north of the Greek peninsula, to attempt to extend his power westward. Philip sent ambassadors to Hannibal's camp in Italy, to negotiate an alliance as common enemies of Rome. However, Rome discovered the agreement when Philip's emissaries were captured by a Roman fleet. The First Macedonian War saw the Romans involved directly in only limited land operations, but they ultimately achieved their objective of pre-occupying Philip and preventing him from aiding Hannibal. | Who did Philip V seek an alliance with? | 572fdbd404bcaa1900d76de6 | 227 | Hannibal |
66 | Rome's preoccupation with its war with Carthage provided an opportunity for Philip V of the kingdom of Macedonia, located in the north of the Greek peninsula, to attempt to extend his power westward. Philip sent ambassadors to Hannibal's camp in Italy, to negotiate an alliance as common enemies of Rome. However, Rome discovered the agreement when Philip's emissaries were captured by a Roman fleet. The First Macedonian War saw the Romans involved directly in only limited land operations, but they ultimately achieved their objective of pre-occupying Philip and preventing him from aiding Hannibal. | At what point did Rome discover that an alliance between Philip V and Hannibal had been achieved? | 572fdbd404bcaa1900d76de7 | 349 | Philip's emissaries were captured by a Roman fleet |
67 | The past century had seen the Greek world dominated by the three primary successor kingdoms of Alexander the Great's empire: Ptolemaic Egypt, Macedonia and the Seleucid Empire. In 202 BC, internal problems led to a weakening of Egypt's position, thereby disrupting the power balance among the successor states. Macedonia and the Seleucid Empire agreed to an alliance to conquer and divide Egypt. Fearing this increasingly unstable situation, several small Greek kingdoms sent delegations to Rome to seek an alliance. The delegation succeeded, even though prior Greek attempts to involve Rome in Greek affairs had been met with Roman apathy. Our primary source about these events, the surviving works of Polybius, do not state Rome's reason for getting involved. Rome gave Philip an ultimatum to cease his campaigns against Rome's new Greek allies. Doubting Rome's strength (a reasonable doubt, given Rome's performance in the First Macedonian War) Philip ignored the request, and Rome sent an army of Romans and Greek allies, beginning the Second Macedonian War. Despite his recent successes against the Greeks and earlier successes against Rome, Philip's army buckled under the pressure from the Roman-Greek army. In 197 BC, the Romans decisively defeated Philip at the Battle of Cynoscephalae, and Philip was forced to give up his recent Greek conquests. The Romans declared the "Peace of the Greeks", believing that Philip's defeat now meant that Greece would be stable. They pulled out of Greece entirely, maintaining minimal contacts with their Greek allies. | What was declared by the Romans now that the Philip had been defeated? | 572fddc804bcaa1900d76df3 | 1,381 | "Peace of the Greeks" |
68 | The past century had seen the Greek world dominated by the three primary successor kingdoms of Alexander the Great's empire: Ptolemaic Egypt, Macedonia and the Seleucid Empire. In 202 BC, internal problems led to a weakening of Egypt's position, thereby disrupting the power balance among the successor states. Macedonia and the Seleucid Empire agreed to an alliance to conquer and divide Egypt. Fearing this increasingly unstable situation, several small Greek kingdoms sent delegations to Rome to seek an alliance. The delegation succeeded, even though prior Greek attempts to involve Rome in Greek affairs had been met with Roman apathy. Our primary source about these events, the surviving works of Polybius, do not state Rome's reason for getting involved. Rome gave Philip an ultimatum to cease his campaigns against Rome's new Greek allies. Doubting Rome's strength (a reasonable doubt, given Rome's performance in the First Macedonian War) Philip ignored the request, and Rome sent an army of Romans and Greek allies, beginning the Second Macedonian War. Despite his recent successes against the Greeks and earlier successes against Rome, Philip's army buckled under the pressure from the Roman-Greek army. In 197 BC, the Romans decisively defeated Philip at the Battle of Cynoscephalae, and Philip was forced to give up his recent Greek conquests. The Romans declared the "Peace of the Greeks", believing that Philip's defeat now meant that Greece would be stable. They pulled out of Greece entirely, maintaining minimal contacts with their Greek allies. | Where did the Romans remove their troops from after Philip's loss? | 572fddc804bcaa1900d76df4 | 1,493 | Greece |
69 | The past century had seen the Greek world dominated by the three primary successor kingdoms of Alexander the Great's empire: Ptolemaic Egypt, Macedonia and the Seleucid Empire. In 202 BC, internal problems led to a weakening of Egypt's position, thereby disrupting the power balance among the successor states. Macedonia and the Seleucid Empire agreed to an alliance to conquer and divide Egypt. Fearing this increasingly unstable situation, several small Greek kingdoms sent delegations to Rome to seek an alliance. The delegation succeeded, even though prior Greek attempts to involve Rome in Greek affairs had been met with Roman apathy. Our primary source about these events, the surviving works of Polybius, do not state Rome's reason for getting involved. Rome gave Philip an ultimatum to cease his campaigns against Rome's new Greek allies. Doubting Rome's strength (a reasonable doubt, given Rome's performance in the First Macedonian War) Philip ignored the request, and Rome sent an army of Romans and Greek allies, beginning the Second Macedonian War. Despite his recent successes against the Greeks and earlier successes against Rome, Philip's army buckled under the pressure from the Roman-Greek army. In 197 BC, the Romans decisively defeated Philip at the Battle of Cynoscephalae, and Philip was forced to give up his recent Greek conquests. The Romans declared the "Peace of the Greeks", believing that Philip's defeat now meant that Greece would be stable. They pulled out of Greece entirely, maintaining minimal contacts with their Greek allies. | What request of Rome was ignored by Philip V that quickly led to the start of the Second Macedonian War? | 572fddc804bcaa1900d76df5 | 779 | an ultimatum to cease his campaigns against Rome's new Greek allies |
70 | The past century had seen the Greek world dominated by the three primary successor kingdoms of Alexander the Great's empire: Ptolemaic Egypt, Macedonia and the Seleucid Empire. In 202 BC, internal problems led to a weakening of Egypt's position, thereby disrupting the power balance among the successor states. Macedonia and the Seleucid Empire agreed to an alliance to conquer and divide Egypt. Fearing this increasingly unstable situation, several small Greek kingdoms sent delegations to Rome to seek an alliance. The delegation succeeded, even though prior Greek attempts to involve Rome in Greek affairs had been met with Roman apathy. Our primary source about these events, the surviving works of Polybius, do not state Rome's reason for getting involved. Rome gave Philip an ultimatum to cease his campaigns against Rome's new Greek allies. Doubting Rome's strength (a reasonable doubt, given Rome's performance in the First Macedonian War) Philip ignored the request, and Rome sent an army of Romans and Greek allies, beginning the Second Macedonian War. Despite his recent successes against the Greeks and earlier successes against Rome, Philip's army buckled under the pressure from the Roman-Greek army. In 197 BC, the Romans decisively defeated Philip at the Battle of Cynoscephalae, and Philip was forced to give up his recent Greek conquests. The Romans declared the "Peace of the Greeks", believing that Philip's defeat now meant that Greece would be stable. They pulled out of Greece entirely, maintaining minimal contacts with their Greek allies. | In what year did Philip lose the Battle of Cynoscephalae? | 572fddc804bcaa1900d76df6 | 1,218 | 197 BC |
71 | The past century had seen the Greek world dominated by the three primary successor kingdoms of Alexander the Great's empire: Ptolemaic Egypt, Macedonia and the Seleucid Empire. In 202 BC, internal problems led to a weakening of Egypt's position, thereby disrupting the power balance among the successor states. Macedonia and the Seleucid Empire agreed to an alliance to conquer and divide Egypt. Fearing this increasingly unstable situation, several small Greek kingdoms sent delegations to Rome to seek an alliance. The delegation succeeded, even though prior Greek attempts to involve Rome in Greek affairs had been met with Roman apathy. Our primary source about these events, the surviving works of Polybius, do not state Rome's reason for getting involved. Rome gave Philip an ultimatum to cease his campaigns against Rome's new Greek allies. Doubting Rome's strength (a reasonable doubt, given Rome's performance in the First Macedonian War) Philip ignored the request, and Rome sent an army of Romans and Greek allies, beginning the Second Macedonian War. Despite his recent successes against the Greeks and earlier successes against Rome, Philip's army buckled under the pressure from the Roman-Greek army. In 197 BC, the Romans decisively defeated Philip at the Battle of Cynoscephalae, and Philip was forced to give up his recent Greek conquests. The Romans declared the "Peace of the Greeks", believing that Philip's defeat now meant that Greece would be stable. They pulled out of Greece entirely, maintaining minimal contacts with their Greek allies. | What was Philip forced to return after his loss in the Battle of Cynoscephalae? | 572fddc804bcaa1900d76df7 | 1,329 | his recent Greek conquests |
72 | With Egypt and Macedonia weakened, the Seleucid Empire made increasingly aggressive and successful attempts to conquer the entire Greek world. Now not only Rome's allies against Philip, but even Philip himself, sought a Roman alliance against the Seleucids. The situation was made worse by the fact that Hannibal was now a chief military advisor to the Seleucid emperor, and the two were believed to be planning an outright conquest not just of Greece, but of Rome itself. The Seleucids were much stronger than the Macedonians had ever been, because they controlled much of the former Persian Empire, and by now had almost entirely reassembled Alexander the Great's former empire. | Who had now been appointed as a military advisor to the emperor of Seleucid? | 572fe7abb2c2fd1400568595 | 304 | Hannibal |
73 | With Egypt and Macedonia weakened, the Seleucid Empire made increasingly aggressive and successful attempts to conquer the entire Greek world. Now not only Rome's allies against Philip, but even Philip himself, sought a Roman alliance against the Seleucids. The situation was made worse by the fact that Hannibal was now a chief military advisor to the Seleucid emperor, and the two were believed to be planning an outright conquest not just of Greece, but of Rome itself. The Seleucids were much stronger than the Macedonians had ever been, because they controlled much of the former Persian Empire, and by now had almost entirely reassembled Alexander the Great's former empire. | What was thought to be the plan of Hannibal and the emperor of Seleucid? | 572fe7abb2c2fd1400568596 | 412 | an outright conquest not just of Greece, but of Rome itself |
74 | With Egypt and Macedonia weakened, the Seleucid Empire made increasingly aggressive and successful attempts to conquer the entire Greek world. Now not only Rome's allies against Philip, but even Philip himself, sought a Roman alliance against the Seleucids. The situation was made worse by the fact that Hannibal was now a chief military advisor to the Seleucid emperor, and the two were believed to be planning an outright conquest not just of Greece, but of Rome itself. The Seleucids were much stronger than the Macedonians had ever been, because they controlled much of the former Persian Empire, and by now had almost entirely reassembled Alexander the Great's former empire. | Which empire currently controlled the majority of the former Persian Empire? | 572fe7abb2c2fd1400568597 | 477 | Seleucids |
75 | With Egypt and Macedonia weakened, the Seleucid Empire made increasingly aggressive and successful attempts to conquer the entire Greek world. Now not only Rome's allies against Philip, but even Philip himself, sought a Roman alliance against the Seleucids. The situation was made worse by the fact that Hannibal was now a chief military advisor to the Seleucid emperor, and the two were believed to be planning an outright conquest not just of Greece, but of Rome itself. The Seleucids were much stronger than the Macedonians had ever been, because they controlled much of the former Persian Empire, and by now had almost entirely reassembled Alexander the Great's former empire. | Who had managed to recreate nearly the entirety of the empire of Alexander the Great? | 572fe7abb2c2fd1400568598 | 477 | Seleucids |
76 | With Egypt and Macedonia weakened, the Seleucid Empire made increasingly aggressive and successful attempts to conquer the entire Greek world. Now not only Rome's allies against Philip, but even Philip himself, sought a Roman alliance against the Seleucids. The situation was made worse by the fact that Hannibal was now a chief military advisor to the Seleucid emperor, and the two were believed to be planning an outright conquest not just of Greece, but of Rome itself. The Seleucids were much stronger than the Macedonians had ever been, because they controlled much of the former Persian Empire, and by now had almost entirely reassembled Alexander the Great's former empire. | Which former enemy wanted an alliance with the Romans? | 572fe7abb2c2fd1400568599 | 195 | Philip |
77 | Fearing the worst, the Romans began a major mobilization, all but pulling out of recently pacified Spain and Gaul. They even established a major garrison in Sicily in case the Seleucids ever got to Italy. This fear was shared by Rome's Greek allies, who had largely ignored Rome in the years after the Second Macedonian War, but now followed Rome again for the first time since that war. A major Roman-Greek force was mobilized under the command of the great hero of the Second Punic War, Scipio Africanus, and set out for Greece, beginning the Roman-Syrian War. After initial fighting that revealed serious Seleucid weaknesses, the Seleucids tried to turn the Roman strength against them at the Battle of Thermopylae (as they believed the 300 Spartans had done centuries earlier). Like the Spartans, the Seleucids lost the battle, and were forced to evacuate Greece. The Romans pursued the Seleucids by crossing the Hellespont, which marked the first time a Roman army had ever entered Asia. The decisive engagement was fought at the Battle of Magnesia, resulting in a complete Roman victory. The Seleucids sued for peace, and Rome forced them to give up their recent Greek conquests. Although they still controlled a great deal of territory, this defeat marked the decline of their empire, as they were to begin facing increasingly aggressive subjects in the east (the Parthians) and the west (the Greeks). Their empire disintegrated into a rump over the course of the next century, when it was eclipsed by Pontus. Following Magnesia, Rome again withdrew from Greece, assuming (or hoping) that the lack of a major Greek power would ensure a stable peace. In fact, it did the opposite. | Which town in Italy now housed a large Roman garrison? | 572fe971947a6a140053cdd6 | 157 | Sicily |
78 | Fearing the worst, the Romans began a major mobilization, all but pulling out of recently pacified Spain and Gaul. They even established a major garrison in Sicily in case the Seleucids ever got to Italy. This fear was shared by Rome's Greek allies, who had largely ignored Rome in the years after the Second Macedonian War, but now followed Rome again for the first time since that war. A major Roman-Greek force was mobilized under the command of the great hero of the Second Punic War, Scipio Africanus, and set out for Greece, beginning the Roman-Syrian War. After initial fighting that revealed serious Seleucid weaknesses, the Seleucids tried to turn the Roman strength against them at the Battle of Thermopylae (as they believed the 300 Spartans had done centuries earlier). Like the Spartans, the Seleucids lost the battle, and were forced to evacuate Greece. The Romans pursued the Seleucids by crossing the Hellespont, which marked the first time a Roman army had ever entered Asia. The decisive engagement was fought at the Battle of Magnesia, resulting in a complete Roman victory. The Seleucids sued for peace, and Rome forced them to give up their recent Greek conquests. Although they still controlled a great deal of territory, this defeat marked the decline of their empire, as they were to begin facing increasingly aggressive subjects in the east (the Parthians) and the west (the Greeks). Their empire disintegrated into a rump over the course of the next century, when it was eclipsed by Pontus. Following Magnesia, Rome again withdrew from Greece, assuming (or hoping) that the lack of a major Greek power would ensure a stable peace. In fact, it did the opposite. | Why was a garrison implented in Italy by the Romans? | 572fe971947a6a140053cdd7 | 164 | in case the Seleucids ever got to Italy |
79 | Fearing the worst, the Romans began a major mobilization, all but pulling out of recently pacified Spain and Gaul. They even established a major garrison in Sicily in case the Seleucids ever got to Italy. This fear was shared by Rome's Greek allies, who had largely ignored Rome in the years after the Second Macedonian War, but now followed Rome again for the first time since that war. A major Roman-Greek force was mobilized under the command of the great hero of the Second Punic War, Scipio Africanus, and set out for Greece, beginning the Roman-Syrian War. After initial fighting that revealed serious Seleucid weaknesses, the Seleucids tried to turn the Roman strength against them at the Battle of Thermopylae (as they believed the 300 Spartans had done centuries earlier). Like the Spartans, the Seleucids lost the battle, and were forced to evacuate Greece. The Romans pursued the Seleucids by crossing the Hellespont, which marked the first time a Roman army had ever entered Asia. The decisive engagement was fought at the Battle of Magnesia, resulting in a complete Roman victory. The Seleucids sued for peace, and Rome forced them to give up their recent Greek conquests. Although they still controlled a great deal of territory, this defeat marked the decline of their empire, as they were to begin facing increasingly aggressive subjects in the east (the Parthians) and the west (the Greeks). Their empire disintegrated into a rump over the course of the next century, when it was eclipsed by Pontus. Following Magnesia, Rome again withdrew from Greece, assuming (or hoping) that the lack of a major Greek power would ensure a stable peace. In fact, it did the opposite. | Who had been defeated in the Battle of Thermopylae? | 572fe971947a6a140053cdd8 | 801 | the Seleucids |
80 | Fearing the worst, the Romans began a major mobilization, all but pulling out of recently pacified Spain and Gaul. They even established a major garrison in Sicily in case the Seleucids ever got to Italy. This fear was shared by Rome's Greek allies, who had largely ignored Rome in the years after the Second Macedonian War, but now followed Rome again for the first time since that war. A major Roman-Greek force was mobilized under the command of the great hero of the Second Punic War, Scipio Africanus, and set out for Greece, beginning the Roman-Syrian War. After initial fighting that revealed serious Seleucid weaknesses, the Seleucids tried to turn the Roman strength against them at the Battle of Thermopylae (as they believed the 300 Spartans had done centuries earlier). Like the Spartans, the Seleucids lost the battle, and were forced to evacuate Greece. The Romans pursued the Seleucids by crossing the Hellespont, which marked the first time a Roman army had ever entered Asia. The decisive engagement was fought at the Battle of Magnesia, resulting in a complete Roman victory. The Seleucids sued for peace, and Rome forced them to give up their recent Greek conquests. Although they still controlled a great deal of territory, this defeat marked the decline of their empire, as they were to begin facing increasingly aggressive subjects in the east (the Parthians) and the west (the Greeks). Their empire disintegrated into a rump over the course of the next century, when it was eclipsed by Pontus. Following Magnesia, Rome again withdrew from Greece, assuming (or hoping) that the lack of a major Greek power would ensure a stable peace. In fact, it did the opposite. | Why did the Romans decide to withdraw their forces from Greece? | 572fe971947a6a140053cdd9 | 1,570 | assuming (or hoping) that the lack of a major Greek power would ensure a stable peace |
81 | Fearing the worst, the Romans began a major mobilization, all but pulling out of recently pacified Spain and Gaul. They even established a major garrison in Sicily in case the Seleucids ever got to Italy. This fear was shared by Rome's Greek allies, who had largely ignored Rome in the years after the Second Macedonian War, but now followed Rome again for the first time since that war. A major Roman-Greek force was mobilized under the command of the great hero of the Second Punic War, Scipio Africanus, and set out for Greece, beginning the Roman-Syrian War. After initial fighting that revealed serious Seleucid weaknesses, the Seleucids tried to turn the Roman strength against them at the Battle of Thermopylae (as they believed the 300 Spartans had done centuries earlier). Like the Spartans, the Seleucids lost the battle, and were forced to evacuate Greece. The Romans pursued the Seleucids by crossing the Hellespont, which marked the first time a Roman army had ever entered Asia. The decisive engagement was fought at the Battle of Magnesia, resulting in a complete Roman victory. The Seleucids sued for peace, and Rome forced them to give up their recent Greek conquests. Although they still controlled a great deal of territory, this defeat marked the decline of their empire, as they were to begin facing increasingly aggressive subjects in the east (the Parthians) and the west (the Greeks). Their empire disintegrated into a rump over the course of the next century, when it was eclipsed by Pontus. Following Magnesia, Rome again withdrew from Greece, assuming (or hoping) that the lack of a major Greek power would ensure a stable peace. In fact, it did the opposite. | What loss started a decline of the Seleucids Empire? | 572fe971947a6a140053cdda | 1,035 | Battle of Magnesia |
82 | In 179 BC Philip died. His talented and ambitious son, Perseus, took the throne and showed a renewed interest in conquering Greece. With her Greek allies facing a major new threat, Rome declared war on Macedonia again, starting the Third Macedonian War. Perseus initially had some success against the Romans. However, Rome responded by sending a stronger army. This second consular army decisively defeated the Macedonians at the Battle of Pydna in 168 BC and the Macedonians duly capitulated, ending the war. | In what year did Philip pass away? | 572feac7a23a5019007fcb35 | 3 | 179 BC |
83 | In 179 BC Philip died. His talented and ambitious son, Perseus, took the throne and showed a renewed interest in conquering Greece. With her Greek allies facing a major new threat, Rome declared war on Macedonia again, starting the Third Macedonian War. Perseus initially had some success against the Romans. However, Rome responded by sending a stronger army. This second consular army decisively defeated the Macedonians at the Battle of Pydna in 168 BC and the Macedonians duly capitulated, ending the war. | Who was next in line to the throne at the time of Philip's death? | 572feac7a23a5019007fcb36 | 55 | Perseus |
84 | In 179 BC Philip died. His talented and ambitious son, Perseus, took the throne and showed a renewed interest in conquering Greece. With her Greek allies facing a major new threat, Rome declared war on Macedonia again, starting the Third Macedonian War. Perseus initially had some success against the Romans. However, Rome responded by sending a stronger army. This second consular army decisively defeated the Macedonians at the Battle of Pydna in 168 BC and the Macedonians duly capitulated, ending the war. | In what year were did the Macedonians lose The Battle of Pydna? | 572feac7a23a5019007fcb37 | 449 | 168 BC |
85 | In 179 BC Philip died. His talented and ambitious son, Perseus, took the throne and showed a renewed interest in conquering Greece. With her Greek allies facing a major new threat, Rome declared war on Macedonia again, starting the Third Macedonian War. Perseus initially had some success against the Romans. However, Rome responded by sending a stronger army. This second consular army decisively defeated the Macedonians at the Battle of Pydna in 168 BC and the Macedonians duly capitulated, ending the war. | How did Rome respond to their successive losses against the Macedonians? | 572feac7a23a5019007fcb38 | 333 | by sending a stronger army |
86 | In 179 BC Philip died. His talented and ambitious son, Perseus, took the throne and showed a renewed interest in conquering Greece. With her Greek allies facing a major new threat, Rome declared war on Macedonia again, starting the Third Macedonian War. Perseus initially had some success against the Romans. However, Rome responded by sending a stronger army. This second consular army decisively defeated the Macedonians at the Battle of Pydna in 168 BC and the Macedonians duly capitulated, ending the war. | Who had initially begun the Third Macedonian War? | 572feac7a23a5019007fcb39 | 181 | Rome |
87 | Convinced now that the Greeks (and therefore the rest of the region) would not have peace if left alone, Rome decided to establish its first permanent foothold in the Greek world, and divided the Kingdom of Macedonia into four client republics. Yet, Macedonian agitation continued. The Fourth Macedonian War, 150 to 148 BC, was fought against a Macedonian pretender to the throne who was again destabilizing Greece by trying to re-establish the old kingdom. The Romans swiftly defeated the Macedonians at the Second battle of Pydna. | How many republics was the Kingdom of Macedonia splintered into? | 572fec5d947a6a140053cdfc | 222 | four client republics |
88 | Convinced now that the Greeks (and therefore the rest of the region) would not have peace if left alone, Rome decided to establish its first permanent foothold in the Greek world, and divided the Kingdom of Macedonia into four client republics. Yet, Macedonian agitation continued. The Fourth Macedonian War, 150 to 148 BC, was fought against a Macedonian pretender to the throne who was again destabilizing Greece by trying to re-establish the old kingdom. The Romans swiftly defeated the Macedonians at the Second battle of Pydna. | In what year did the Fourt Macedonian War end? | 572fec5d947a6a140053cdfd | 316 | 148 BC |
89 | Convinced now that the Greeks (and therefore the rest of the region) would not have peace if left alone, Rome decided to establish its first permanent foothold in the Greek world, and divided the Kingdom of Macedonia into four client republics. Yet, Macedonian agitation continued. The Fourth Macedonian War, 150 to 148 BC, was fought against a Macedonian pretender to the throne who was again destabilizing Greece by trying to re-establish the old kingdom. The Romans swiftly defeated the Macedonians at the Second battle of Pydna. | Who did Rome fight in the Fourth Macedonian War? | 572fec5d947a6a140053cdfe | 343 | a Macedonian pretender to the throne |
90 | Convinced now that the Greeks (and therefore the rest of the region) would not have peace if left alone, Rome decided to establish its first permanent foothold in the Greek world, and divided the Kingdom of Macedonia into four client republics. Yet, Macedonian agitation continued. The Fourth Macedonian War, 150 to 148 BC, was fought against a Macedonian pretender to the throne who was again destabilizing Greece by trying to re-establish the old kingdom. The Romans swiftly defeated the Macedonians at the Second battle of Pydna. | What effect did the establishment of the kingdom of Macedonia have on Greece? | 572fec5d947a6a140053cdff | 394 | destabilizing |
91 | Convinced now that the Greeks (and therefore the rest of the region) would not have peace if left alone, Rome decided to establish its first permanent foothold in the Greek world, and divided the Kingdom of Macedonia into four client republics. Yet, Macedonian agitation continued. The Fourth Macedonian War, 150 to 148 BC, was fought against a Macedonian pretender to the throne who was again destabilizing Greece by trying to re-establish the old kingdom. The Romans swiftly defeated the Macedonians at the Second battle of Pydna. | Who could claim victory at the Second Battle of Pydna? | 572fec5d947a6a140053ce00 | 458 | The Romans |
92 | The Jugurthine War of 111–104 BC was fought between Rome and Jugurtha of the North African kingdom of Numidia. It constituted the final Roman pacification of Northern Africa, after which Rome largely ceased expansion on the continent after reaching natural barriers of desert and mountain. Following Jugurtha's usurpation of the throne of Numidia, a loyal ally of Rome since the Punic Wars, Rome felt compelled to intervene. Jugurtha impudently bribed the Romans into accepting his usurpation. Jugurtha was finally captured not in battle but by treachery. | What war is considered to be the last Roman pacification in Northern Africa? | 572fee59b2c2fd14005685f5 | 0 | The Jugurthine War |
93 | The Jugurthine War of 111–104 BC was fought between Rome and Jugurtha of the North African kingdom of Numidia. It constituted the final Roman pacification of Northern Africa, after which Rome largely ceased expansion on the continent after reaching natural barriers of desert and mountain. Following Jugurtha's usurpation of the throne of Numidia, a loyal ally of Rome since the Punic Wars, Rome felt compelled to intervene. Jugurtha impudently bribed the Romans into accepting his usurpation. Jugurtha was finally captured not in battle but by treachery. | What eventually caused Jugurtha to become a captive? | 572fee59b2c2fd14005685f6 | 545 | treachery |
94 | The Jugurthine War of 111–104 BC was fought between Rome and Jugurtha of the North African kingdom of Numidia. It constituted the final Roman pacification of Northern Africa, after which Rome largely ceased expansion on the continent after reaching natural barriers of desert and mountain. Following Jugurtha's usurpation of the throne of Numidia, a loyal ally of Rome since the Punic Wars, Rome felt compelled to intervene. Jugurtha impudently bribed the Romans into accepting his usurpation. Jugurtha was finally captured not in battle but by treachery. | When did the Jugurthine War end? | 572fee59b2c2fd14005685f7 | 26 | 104 BC |
95 | The Jugurthine War of 111–104 BC was fought between Rome and Jugurtha of the North African kingdom of Numidia. It constituted the final Roman pacification of Northern Africa, after which Rome largely ceased expansion on the continent after reaching natural barriers of desert and mountain. Following Jugurtha's usurpation of the throne of Numidia, a loyal ally of Rome since the Punic Wars, Rome felt compelled to intervene. Jugurtha impudently bribed the Romans into accepting his usurpation. Jugurtha was finally captured not in battle but by treachery. | Who attempted to usurp the throne of Numidia? | 572fee59b2c2fd14005685f8 | 425 | Jugurtha |
96 | The Jugurthine War of 111–104 BC was fought between Rome and Jugurtha of the North African kingdom of Numidia. It constituted the final Roman pacification of Northern Africa, after which Rome largely ceased expansion on the continent after reaching natural barriers of desert and mountain. Following Jugurtha's usurpation of the throne of Numidia, a loyal ally of Rome since the Punic Wars, Rome felt compelled to intervene. Jugurtha impudently bribed the Romans into accepting his usurpation. Jugurtha was finally captured not in battle but by treachery. | Who did Jugurtha have to bribe in order for them to accept him as the new leader of Numidia? | 572fee59b2c2fd14005685f9 | 452 | the Romans |
97 | In 121 BC, Rome came into contact with two Celtic tribes (from a region in modern France), both of which they defeated with apparent ease. The Cimbrian War (113–101 BC) was a far more serious affair than the earlier clashes of 121 BC. The Germanic tribes of the Cimbri and the Teutons migrated from northern Europe into Rome's northern territories, and clashed with Rome and her allies. At the Battle of Aquae Sextiae and the Battle of Vercellae both tribes were virtually annihilated, which ended the threat. | When did the Cimbrian War end? | 572fefcb947a6a140053ce2e | 161 | 101 BC |
98 | In 121 BC, Rome came into contact with two Celtic tribes (from a region in modern France), both of which they defeated with apparent ease. The Cimbrian War (113–101 BC) was a far more serious affair than the earlier clashes of 121 BC. The Germanic tribes of the Cimbri and the Teutons migrated from northern Europe into Rome's northern territories, and clashed with Rome and her allies. At the Battle of Aquae Sextiae and the Battle of Vercellae both tribes were virtually annihilated, which ended the threat. | In what year did Rome come into contact with a couple Celtic tribes? | 572fefcb947a6a140053ce2f | 3 | 121 BC |
99 | In 121 BC, Rome came into contact with two Celtic tribes (from a region in modern France), both of which they defeated with apparent ease. The Cimbrian War (113–101 BC) was a far more serious affair than the earlier clashes of 121 BC. The Germanic tribes of the Cimbri and the Teutons migrated from northern Europe into Rome's northern territories, and clashed with Rome and her allies. At the Battle of Aquae Sextiae and the Battle of Vercellae both tribes were virtually annihilated, which ended the threat. | What war began in the year 113 BC? | 572fefcb947a6a140053ce30 | 139 | The Cimbrian War |
100 | In 121 BC, Rome came into contact with two Celtic tribes (from a region in modern France), both of which they defeated with apparent ease. The Cimbrian War (113–101 BC) was a far more serious affair than the earlier clashes of 121 BC. The Germanic tribes of the Cimbri and the Teutons migrated from northern Europe into Rome's northern territories, and clashed with Rome and her allies. At the Battle of Aquae Sextiae and the Battle of Vercellae both tribes were virtually annihilated, which ended the threat. | Where did the tribes that were almost annihilated in the Battle of Vercellae hail from? | 572fefcb947a6a140053ce31 | 299 | northern Europe |
101 | The extensive campaigning abroad by Roman generals, and the rewarding of soldiers with plunder on these campaigns, led to a general trend of soldiers becoming increasingly loyal to their generals rather than to the state. Rome was also plagued by several slave uprisings during this period, in part because vast tracts of land had been given over to slave farming in which the slaves greatly outnumbered their Roman masters. In the 1st century BC at least twelve civil wars and rebellions occurred. This pattern continued until 27 BC, when Octavian (later Augustus) successfully challenged the Senate's authority, and was made princeps (first citizen). | How were soldiers rewarded by Roman generals? | 572ff12ea23a5019007fcb77 | 82 | with plunder |
102 | The extensive campaigning abroad by Roman generals, and the rewarding of soldiers with plunder on these campaigns, led to a general trend of soldiers becoming increasingly loyal to their generals rather than to the state. Rome was also plagued by several slave uprisings during this period, in part because vast tracts of land had been given over to slave farming in which the slaves greatly outnumbered their Roman masters. In the 1st century BC at least twelve civil wars and rebellions occurred. This pattern continued until 27 BC, when Octavian (later Augustus) successfully challenged the Senate's authority, and was made princeps (first citizen). | Who saw increased loyalty from the Roman soldiers? | 572ff12ea23a5019007fcb78 | 181 | their generals |
103 | The extensive campaigning abroad by Roman generals, and the rewarding of soldiers with plunder on these campaigns, led to a general trend of soldiers becoming increasingly loyal to their generals rather than to the state. Rome was also plagued by several slave uprisings during this period, in part because vast tracts of land had been given over to slave farming in which the slaves greatly outnumbered their Roman masters. In the 1st century BC at least twelve civil wars and rebellions occurred. This pattern continued until 27 BC, when Octavian (later Augustus) successfully challenged the Senate's authority, and was made princeps (first citizen). | Who was greater in numbers than the Roman slave masters? | 572ff12ea23a5019007fcb79 | 373 | the slaves |
104 | The extensive campaigning abroad by Roman generals, and the rewarding of soldiers with plunder on these campaigns, led to a general trend of soldiers becoming increasingly loyal to their generals rather than to the state. Rome was also plagued by several slave uprisings during this period, in part because vast tracts of land had been given over to slave farming in which the slaves greatly outnumbered their Roman masters. In the 1st century BC at least twelve civil wars and rebellions occurred. This pattern continued until 27 BC, when Octavian (later Augustus) successfully challenged the Senate's authority, and was made princeps (first citizen). | Around how many rebellious uprisings and civil wars happened in the 1st century BC? | 572ff12ea23a5019007fcb7a | 456 | twelve |
105 | The extensive campaigning abroad by Roman generals, and the rewarding of soldiers with plunder on these campaigns, led to a general trend of soldiers becoming increasingly loyal to their generals rather than to the state. Rome was also plagued by several slave uprisings during this period, in part because vast tracts of land had been given over to slave farming in which the slaves greatly outnumbered their Roman masters. In the 1st century BC at least twelve civil wars and rebellions occurred. This pattern continued until 27 BC, when Octavian (later Augustus) successfully challenged the Senate's authority, and was made princeps (first citizen). | Which individual later became princeps after having challenged the senate? | 572ff12ea23a5019007fcb7b | 540 | Octavian |
106 | Between 135 BC and 71 BC there were three "Servile Wars" involving slave uprisings against the Roman state. The third and final uprising was the most serious, involving ultimately between 120,000 and 150,000 slaves under the command of the gladiator Spartacus. In 91 BC the Social War broke out between Rome and its former allies in Italy when the allies complained that they shared the risk of Rome's military campaigns, but not its rewards. Although they lost militarily, the allies achieved their objectives with legal proclamations which granted citizenship to more than 500,000 Italians. | How many slaves at most were under the command of Spartacus? | 572ff287a23a5019007fcb8b | 200 | 1,50,000 |
107 | Between 135 BC and 71 BC there were three "Servile Wars" involving slave uprisings against the Roman state. The third and final uprising was the most serious, involving ultimately between 120,000 and 150,000 slaves under the command of the gladiator Spartacus. In 91 BC the Social War broke out between Rome and its former allies in Italy when the allies complained that they shared the risk of Rome's military campaigns, but not its rewards. Although they lost militarily, the allies achieved their objectives with legal proclamations which granted citizenship to more than 500,000 Italians. | When was the beginning of the Social War? | 572ff287a23a5019007fcb8c | 264 | 91 BC |
Subsets and Splits
No community queries yet
The top public SQL queries from the community will appear here once available.