Description
just read the paragraph and answer the question(s) towards the end of the paragraph. I just don’t understand it fully. Need help getting it done.Below is what you have to read and towards the end of the paragraphs the questions start coming up. (IF YOU USE OTHER SOURCES PLEASE SITE) :)The Roman conquest of the Mediterranean took several forms over the centuries. Often, and especially in Republican period, acquirements were the result of military action; the Romans slaughtered enemies, enslaved defeated populations, and confiscated land for the resettlements of their own people. As a society they were not shy about flexing their muscle, and for almost the entire history of the civilization, they were either campaigning in new territory or quelling revolts in areas that they had previously brought under their banner. Such is why the doors to the Temple of Janus, which were only allowed to be closed during times of peace, shut only around seven times over the course of nearly a millennium.Armed invasion wasn’t the preferred method of gaining provinces, however. Many times, the Romans would send diplomatic missions to the frontiers and attempt to convince their neighbors to willingly join Rome. The offers that they made were alluring – in exchange for submission, the city-states that were folded in would receive paved roads, aqueducts supplying fresh water, urban infrastructure, and many other benefits. Of course, it was certainly a “stick-and-carrot” scenario, as any refusal on the part of the approached would be a signal to the Romans that military intervention was needed. Often the mere threat of annihilation was sufficient to make the rulers of potential acquisitions come to the table, as occurred with the Ligurians in northern Italy. Sometimes, though, cultures would resist at any cost, as was demonstrated by the Parthians in modern-day Iran and the Germanic tribes east of the Rhine.The situation had to be difficult for anyone faced with such a decision, to be sure. The loss of autonomy, coupled with the potential for new taxation or conscription, was doubtlessly infuriating. Simultaneously, though, the advantages of receiving supplies of potable water, better transit networks, and metropolitan development had to be attractive, as was the idea that one could avoid being enslaved or killed should the war be lost. A question, then – if you were the leader of a kingdom and were approached by Rome, what would you do in this situation? Would you instruct your population to fight the invaders and attempt to preserve your authority, or would you concede and accept a proposal of peaceful surrender? What would be the best outcome for you individually, and would you make the same choice for your people and their way of life?
Tags:
military action
MEDITERRANEAN
Roman conquest
Republican period
slaughtered enemies
User generated content is uploaded by users for the purposes of learning and should be used following Studypool’s honor code & terms of service.
Reviews, comments, and love from our customers and community: