|
The exact causes and motivations for Rome's military conflicts and expansions during the republic is subject to wide debate.[4] While they can be seen as being motivated by outright aggression and imperialism, historians typically take a much more nuanced view.[5] They argue that Rome's expansion was driven by short term defensive and inter-state factors (i.e. relations with city-states and kingdoms outside of Rome's hegemony), and the new contingencies that these decisions created.[6] 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.[7] With some important exceptions, successful wars in early republican Rome generally led, not to annexation or military occupation, but the restoration of the status quo ante, only with the defeated city weakened (sometimes with outright land concessions). Being weakened, it was less able to resist Romanizing influences, such as Roman settlers seeking land or the trade the growing Roman confederacy could benefit it with. 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.[8] This growing coalition expanded the potential enemies that Rome might face, and moved Rome closer to confrontation with major world powers.[9] The result was more alliance-seeking, on both the part of the Roman confederacy, as well as 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),[10] it wasn't until after the Second Punic War that this alliance started to harden into something more approximating an ancient empire, at least in certain locations.[11] This shift mainly took place in parts of the west, such as the southern Italian towns that sided with Hannibal. Roman expansion into Spain and Gaul, in contrast, occurred as a mix of alliance-seeking and military occupation.[12] In the 2nd century BC, Roman involvement in the Greek east remained a matter of alliance-seeking, only this time in the face of major powers that could equal Rome.[13] According to Polybius,[14] 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 a destabilizing situation created by the weakening of Ptolemaic Egypt.[15] 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 was capable of pacifying.[16] This had some important similarities (and some important differences) to what had occurred in Italy centuries earlier, but was this time on a global scale. Historians[17] see the growing Roman influence over the east, as with the west, not as a matter of intentional empire-building, but constant crisis management narrowly focused on accomplishing short term goals within a highly unstable, unpredictable, and inter-dependent network of alliances and dependencies.[18] 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.[19] It wasn't until the time of the Roman Empire that the entire Roman world was organized into provinces under explicit Roman control.[20] Early Republic (458–274 BC) Early Italian campaigns (458–396 BC) The first Roman republican wars were wars of both expansion and defence, aimed at protecting Rome itself from neighbouring cities and nations and establishing its territory in the region.[21] Initially, Rome's immediate neighbours were either Latin towns and villages,[22] or else tribal Sabines from the Apennine hills beyond. One by one Rome defeated both the persistent Sabines and the local cities that were either under Etruscan control or else Latin towns that had cast off their Etruscan rulers.[23] Rome defeated Latin cities in the Battle of Lake Regillus in 496 BC,[22][24] the Battle of Mons Algidus in 458 BC, the Battle of Corbione in 446 BC,[25][26] the Battle of Aricia,[27] and an Etruscan city in the Battle of the Cremera in 477 BC,[28][29] [show] v t e Rome's Early Italian Campaigns By the end of this period, Rome had effectively completed the conquest of their immediate Etruscan and Latin neighbours,[30] as well as secured their position against the immediate threat posed by the tribespeople of the nearby Apennine hills. Celtic invasion of Italia (390–387 BC) See also: Roman Republican governors of Gaul [show] v t e Roman–Gallic Wars By 390 BC, several Gallic tribes had begun invading Italy from the north as their culture expanded throughout Europe. The Romans were alerted of this when a particularly warlike tribe[31] invaded two Etruscan towns from the north. These two towns were not far from Rome's sphere of influence. These towns, overwhelmed by the size of the enemy in numbers and ferocity, called on Rome for help. The Romans met them in pitched battle at the Battle of Allia River around 390–387 BC. The Gauls, under their chieftain Brennus, defeated the Roman army of around 15,000 troops and proceeded to pursue the fleeing Romans back to Rome itself and sacked the city[32] before being either driven off or bought off. Now that the Romans and Gauls had bloodied one another, intermittent warfare was to continue between the two in Italy for more than two centuries. The Celtic problem would not be resolved for Rome until the final subjugation of all Gaul by Julius Caesar at the Battle of Alesia in 52 BC. Roman expansion into Italia (343–282 BC) Map showing Roman expansion in Italy. [show] v t e Ancient unification of Italy [show] v t e Samnite Wars After recovering surprisingly swiftly from the sack of Rome,[33] the Romans immediately resumed their expansion within Italy. The First Samnite War of between 343 BC and 341 BC was a relatively short affair: the Romans beat the Samnites in two battles, but were forced to withdraw from the war before they could pursue the conflict further due to the revolt of several of their Latin allies in the Latin War.[34][35] Rome bested the Latins in the Battle of Vesuvius and again in the Battle of Trifanum,[35] after which the Latin cities were obliged to submit to Roman rule.[36] The Second Samnite War, from 327 BC to 304 BC, was a much longer and more serious affair for both the Romans and Samnites.[37] The fortunes of the two sides fluctuated throughout its course. The Romans then proved victorious at the Battle of Bovianum and the tide turned strongly against the Samnites from 314 BC onwards, leading them to sue for peace with progressively less generous terms. By 304 BC the Romans had effectively annexed the greater degree of the Samnite territory, founding several colonies. Seven years after their defeat, with Roman dominance of the area looking assured, the Samnites rose again and defeated a Roman army in 298 BC, to open the Third Samnite War. With this success in hand they managed to bring together a coalition of several previous enemies of Rome.[38] In the Battle of Populonia in 282 BC Rome finished off the last vestiges of Etruscan power in the region. Pyrrhic War (280–275 BC) Route of Pyrrhus of Epirus [show] v t e Pyrrhic War By the beginning of the 3rd century, Rome had established itself as a major power on the Italian Peninsula, but had not yet come into conflict with the dominant military powers in the Mediterranean Basin at the time: Carthage and the Greek kingdoms.[39][40] When a diplomatic dispute between Rome and a Greek colony[41] erupted into open warfare in a naval confrontation, the Greek colony appealed for military aid to Pyrrhus, ruler of the northwestern Greek kingdom of Epirus. Motivated by a personal desire for military accomplishment, Pyrrhus landed a Greek army of some 25,000 men on Italian soil in 280 BC. 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.[42] Facing unacceptably heavy losses with each encounter with the Roman army, Pyrrhus withdrew from the peninsula (thus deriving 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, and seeing little hope for further gains, he withdrew completely from Italy. The conflicts with Pyrrhus would have a great effect on Rome. Rome had shown it was capable of pitting its armies successfully against the dominant military powers of the Mediterranean, and that the Greek kingdoms were incapable of defending their colonies in Italy and abroad. Rome quickly moved into southern Italia, subjugating and dividing the Greek colonies.[43] Now, Rome effectively dominated the Italian peninsula,[44] and won an international military reputation.[45] Mid-Republic (274–148 BC) Punic Wars (264–146 BC) Theatre of the Punic Wars [show] v t e First Punic War [show] v t e Second Punic War [show] v t e Third Punic War The First Punic War began in 264 BC when settlements on Sicily began to appeal to the two powers between which they lay – Rome and Carthage – to solve internal conflicts. The war saw land battles in Sicily early on, but the theatre shifted to naval battles around Sicily and Africa. Before the First Punic War there was no Roman navy to speak of. The new war in Sicily against Carthage, a great naval power,[46] forced Rome to quickly build a fleet and train sailors.[47] The first few naval battles were catastrophic disasters for Rome. However, after training more sailors and inventing a grappling engine,[48] a Roman naval force was able to defeat a Carthaginian fleet, and further naval victories followed.[49] The Carthaginians then hired Xanthippus of Carthage, a Spartan mercenary general, to reorganise and lead their army.[50] He managed to cut off the Roman army from its base by re-establishing Carthaginian naval supremacy. With their newfound naval abilities, the Romans then beat the Carthaginians in naval battle again at the Battle of the Aegates Islands and leaving Carthage without a fleet or 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. Continuing distrust led to the renewal of hostilities in the Second Punic War when Hannibal Barca attacked a Spanish town,[51] which had diplomatic ties to Rome.[52] Hannibal then crossed the Italian Alps to invade Italy.[53] Hannibal's successes in Italy began immediately, and reached an early climax at the Battle of Cannae, where 70,000 Romans were killed. In three battles, the Romans managed to hold off Hannibal 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.[53] Unable to defeat Hannibal himself on Italian soil, the Romans boldly sent an army to Africa under Scipio Africanus with the intention of threatening the Carthaginian capital. Hannibal was recalled to Africa, and defeated at the Battle of Zama. Carthage never managed to recover after the Second Punic War[54] and the Third Punic War that followed was in reality a simple punitive mission to raze the city of Carthage to the ground.[55] Carthage was almost defenceless and when besieged offered immediate surrender, conceding to a string of outrageous Roman demands.[56] The Romans refused the surrender, and the city was stormed after a short siege and completely destroyed. Ultimately, all of Carthage's North African and Spanish territories were acquired by Rome. Kingdom of Macedonia, the Greek poleis, and Illyria (215–148 BC) Poleis and wars Map showing the southern Balkans and western Asia Minor [show] v t e Macedonian Wars [show] v t e First Macedonian War [show] v t e Second Macedonian War [show] v t e Third Macedonian War [show] v t e Fourth Macedonian War [show] v t e Roman–Syrian War 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.[57][58] However, Rome discovered the agreement when Philip's emissaries were captured by a Roman fleet.[57] 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. 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 troubles lead Egypt to weaken, and disrupted the power balance. Macedonia and the Seleucid Empire agreed to an alliance to conquer and divide Egypt.[4] Fearing what this increasingly unstable situation might lead to, several small Greek kingdoms sent delegations to Rome to seek an alliance.[59] Polybius, our primary source on this series of events, doesn't tell us in his surviving works what the exact Roman reason was for getting involved (prior Greek attempts to involve Rome in Greek affairs had always been met with Roman apathy), but ultimately the Greek delegations were successful. Rome gave Philip an ultimatum that he must cease in his campaigns against Rome's new Greek allies. Doubting Rome's strength (not an unfounded belief given Rome's performance in the First Macedonian War) Philip ignored the request, and Rome sent an army of Romans and Greek allies to force the issue, beginning the Second Macedonian War.[60] Surprisingly (given 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.[61] 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.[62] With Egypt and Macedonia now weakened, the Seleucid Empire became increasingly aggressive and successful in its attempts to conquer the entire Greek world.[63] Now not only did Rome's allies against Philip seek a Roman alliance against the Seleucids, but Philip himself even sought an alliance with Rome.[64] 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 for an outright conquest not just of Greece, but of Rome also.[65] The Seleucids were much stronger than the Macedonians had ever been, given that they controlled much of the former Persian Empire, and by this point had almost entirely reassembled Alexander the Great's former empire.[65] Fearing the worst, the Romans began a major mobilization, all but pulling out of recently pacified Spain and Gaul.[65] They even established a major garrison in Sicily in case the Seleucids ever got to Italy.[65] 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.[65] 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).[64] Like the Spartans, the Seleucids lost the battle, and were forced to evacuate Greece.[64] The Romans pursued the Seleucids by crossing the Hellespont, which marked the first time a Roman army had ever entered Asia.[64] The decisive engagement was fought at the Battle of Magnesia, resulting in a complete Roman victory.[64][66] The Seleucids sued for peace, and Rome forced them to give up their recent Greek conquests. Though they still controlled a great deal of territory, this defeat marked the beginning of the end 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 pulled out of Greece again, assuming (or hoping) that the lack of a major Greek power would ensure a stable peace, though it did the opposite.[67] In 179 BC, Philip died[68] and his talented and ambitious son, Perseus, took his throne and showed a renewed interest in conquering Greece.[69] With Rome's 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 simply sending another stronger army. The second consular army decisively defeated the Macedonians at the Battle of Pydna in 168 BC[68][70] and the Macedonians duly capitulated, ending the Third Macedonian War.[71] Convinced now that the Greeks (and therefore the rest of the world) would never have peace if Greece was left alone yet again, Rome decided to establish its first permanent foothold in the Greek world. The Kingdom of Macedonia was divided by the Romans into four client republics. Even this proved insufficient to ensure peace, as Macedonian agitation continued. The Fourth Macedonian War, fought from 150 BC to 148 BC, was fought against a Macedonian pretender to the throne who was again destabilizing Greece by attempting to re-establish the old Kingdom. The Romans swiftly defeated the Macedonians at the Second battle of Pydna. The Achaean League chose this moment to fight Rome but was swiftly defeated. Corinth was besieged and destroyed in 146 BC, the same year as the destruction of Carthage, which led to the league's surrender.[72] After nearly a century of constant crisis management in Greece, which always led back to internal instability and war when Rome pulled out, Rome decided to divide Macedonia into two new Roman provinces, Achaea and Epirus. Late Republic (147–30 BC) Jugurthine War (111–104 BC) [show] v t e Jugurthine War 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,[73] 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,[74] a loyal ally of Rome since the Punic Wars,[75] Rome felt compelled to intervene. Jugurtha impudently bribed the Romans into accepting his usurpation. Jugurtha was finally captured not in battle but by treachery. The Celtic threat (121 BC) and the new Germanic threat (113–101 BC) [show] v t e Cimbrian War 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[76] migrated from northern Europe into Rome's northern territories,[77] and clashed with Rome and her allies.[78] At the Battle of Aquae Sextiae and the Battle of Vercellae both tribes were virtually annihilated, which ended the threat. Internal unrest (135–71 BC) [show] v t e Roman Servile Wars [show] v t e Ancient unification of Italy 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.[79] 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 did not break until Octavian (later Caesar Augustus) ended it by becoming a successful challenger to the Senate's authority, and was made princeps (emperor). 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,[80] involving ultimately between 120,000[81] and 150,000[82] slaves under the command of the gladiator Spartacus. Additionally, in 91 BC the Social War broke out between Rome and its former allies in Italy over dissent among the allies 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. The internal unrest reached its most serious state, however, in the two civil wars that were caused by the consul Lucius Cornelius Sulla at the beginning of 82 BC. In the Battle of the Colline Gate[83] at the very door of the city of Rome, a Roman army under Sulla bested an army of the Roman Senate and entered the city. Sulla's actions marked a watershed in the willingness of Roman troops to wage war against one another that was to pave the way for the wars which ultimately overthrew the Republic, and caused the founding of the Roman Empire. Conflicts with Mithridates (89–63 BC) and the Cilician pirates (67 BC) [show] v t e First Mithridatic War [show] v t e Second Mithridatic War [show] v t e Third Mithridatic War Mithridates the Great was the ruler of Pontus,[84] a large kingdom in Asia Minor (modern Turkey), from 120 to 63 BC. Mithridates antagonised Rome by seeking to expand his kingdom,[84] and Rome for her part seemed equally keen for war and the spoils and prestige that it might bring.[84][85] In 88 BC, Mithridates ordered the killing of a majority of the 80,000 Romans living in his kingdom.[86] The massacre was the official reason given for the commencement of hostilities in the First Mithridatic War. The Roman general Lucius Cornelius Sulla forced Mithridates out of Greece proper, but then had to return to Italy to answer the internal threat posed by his rival, Gaius Marius. A peace was made between Rome and Pontus, but this proved only a temporary lull. The Second Mithridatic War began when Rome tried to annex a province that Mithridates claimed as his own. In the Third Mithridatic War, first Lucius Licinius Lucullus and then Pompey the Great were sent against Mithridates.[87] Mithridates was finally defeated by Pompey in the night-time Battle of the Lycus.[88] [show] v t e Rome against the Cilician Pirates The Mediterranean had at this time fallen into the hands of pirates,[88] largely from Cilicia.[89] The pirates not only strangled shipping lanes but also plundered many cities on the coasts of Greece and Asia. Pompey was nominated as commander of a special naval task force to campaign against the pirates.[87][88] It took Pompey just forty days to clear the western portion of the sea of pirates and restore communication between Iberia (Spain), Africa, and Italy. Caesar's early campaigns (59–50 BC) Map of the Gallic Wars [show] v t e Gallic Wars During a term as praetor in the Iberian Peninsula (modern Portugal and Spain), Pompey's contemporary Julius Caesar defeated two local tribes in battle.[90] Following his term as consul in 59 BC, he was then appointed to a five-year term as the proconsular Governor of Cisalpine Gaul (current northern Italy), Transalpine Gaul (current southern France) and Illyria (the modern Balkans).[90][91] Not content with an idle governorship, Caesar strove to find reason to invade Gaul, which would give him the dramatic military success he sought. When two local tribes began to migrate on a route that would take them near (not into) the Roman province of Transalpine Gaul, Caesar had the barely sufficient excuse he needed for his Gallic Wars, fought between 58 BC and 49 BC. Caesar defeated large armies at major battles 58 BC and 57 BC. In 55 and 54 BC he made two expeditions into Britain, becoming the first Roman to do so. Caesar then defeated a union of Gauls at the Battle of Alesia,[92] completing the Roman conquest of Transalpine Gaul. By 50 BC, the entirety of Gaul lay in Roman hands. Gaul never regained its Celtic identity, never attempted another nationalist rebellion, and, other than the crisis of the 3rd century, remained loyal to Rome until the fall of the western empire in 476. Triumvirates and Caesarian ascension (53–30 BC) [show] v t e Caesar's Civil War By 59 BC an unofficial political alliance known as the First Triumvirate was formed between Gaius Julius Caesar, Marcus Licinius Crassus, and Gnaeus Pompeius Magnus ("Pompey the Great") to share power and influence.[93] In 53 BC, Crassus launched a Roman invasion of the Parthian Empire (modern Iraq and Iran). After initial successes,[94] he marched his army deep into the desert;[95] but here his army was cut off deep in enemy territory, surrounded and slaughtered at the Battle of Carrhae in which Crassus himself perished. The death of Crassus removed some of the balance in the Triumvirate and, consequently, Caesar and Pompey began to move apart. While Caesar was fighting in Gaul, Pompey proceeded with a legislative agenda for Rome that revealed that he was at best ambivalent towards Caesar[96] and perhaps now covertly allied with Caesar's political enemies. In 51 BC, some Roman senators demanded that Caesar not be permitted to stand for consul unless he turned over control of his armies to the state, which would have left Caesar defenceless before his enemies. Caesar chose civil war over laying down his command and facing trial. By the spring of 49 BC, the hardened legions of Caesar crossed the river Rubicon and swept down the Italian peninsula towards Rome, while Pompey ordered the abandonment of Rome. Afterwards Caesar turned his attention to the Pompeian stronghold of Iberia (modern Spain)[97] but decided to tackle Pompey himself in Greece.[98] Pompey initially defeated Caesar, but failed to follow up on the victory, and was decisively defeated at the Battle of Pharsalus in 48 BC,[99] despite outnumbering Caesar's forces two to one, albeit with inferior quality troops.[100] Pompey fled again, this time to Egypt, where he was murdered. Pompey's death did not result in an end to the civil war as Caesar's enemies were manifold and continued to fight on. In 46 BC Caesar lost perhaps as much as a third of his army, but ultimately came back to defeat the Pompeian army of Metellus Scipio in the Battle of Thapsus, after which the Pompeians retreated yet again to Iberia. Caesar then defeated the combined Pompeian forces at the Battle of Munda. Caesar was now the primary figure of the Roman state, enforcing and entrenching his powers and his enemies feared that he had ambitions to become an autocratic ruler. Arguing that the Roman Republic was in danger a group of senators hatched a conspiracy and murdered Caesar in the Senate in March 44 BC. [101] Mark Antony, Caesar's lieutenant, condemned Caesar's assassination, and war broke out between the two factions. Antony was denounced as a public enemy, and Caesar's adopted son and chosen heir, Gaius Octavian, was entrusted with the command of the war against him. At the Battle of Mutina Antony was defeated by the consuls Hirtius and Pansa, who were both killed. Octavian came to terms with Caesarians Antony and Lepidus in 43 BC when the Second Triumvirate was formed.[102] In 42 BC Triumvirs Mark Antony and Octavian fought the Battle of Philippi with Caesar's assassins Brutus and Cassius. Although Brutus defeated Octavian, Antony defeated Cassius, who committed suicide. Brutus joined him shortly afterwards. However, civil war flared again when the Second Triumvirate of Octavian, Lepidus and Mark Antony failed. The ambitious Octavian built a power base of patronage and then launched a campaign against Mark Antony.[101] At the naval Battle of Actium off the coast of Greece, Octavian decisively defeated Antony and Cleopatra. Octavian was granted a series of special powers including sole "imperium" within the city of Rome, permanent consular powers and credit for every Roman military victory, since all future generals were assumed to be acting under his command. In 27 BC Octavian was granted the use of the names "Augustus" and "Princeps" indicating his primary status above all other Romans, and he adopted the title "Imperator Caesar" making him the first Roman Emperor.[103] The Roman Republic (Latin: Res publica Romana) was the period of ancient Roman civilization beginning with the overthrow of Roman Kingdom, traditionally dated to 509 BC, and ending in 27 BC with the establishment of the Roman Empire. It was during this period that Rome expanded from the city of Rome itself to hegemony over the entire Mediterranean world. During the first two centuries of its existence the Roman Republic expanded through a combination of conquest and alliance, from central Italy to the entire Italian peninsula. By the following century it included North Africa, Spain, and what is now southern France. Two centuries after that, towards the end of the 1st century BC, it included the rest of modern France, Greece, and much of the eastern Mediterranean. By this time, internal tensions led to a series of civil wars, climaxing with the assassination of Julius Caesar, which ended with the establishment of the Roman Empire. The exact date of the transition to the Roman Empire can be a matter of interpretation. Historians have variously proposed Julius Caesar's crossing of the Rubicon River in 49 BC, Caesar's appointment as dictator for life in 44 BC, and the defeat of Mark Antony and Cleopatra at the Battle of Actium in 31 BC. Most, however, use the same date as did the ancient Romans themselves, the Roman Senate's grant of extraordinary powers to Octavian and his adopting the title Augustus in 27 BC, as the defining event ending the Republic. Roman government was headed by two consuls, elected annually by the citizens and advised by a senate composed of elected magistrates. As Roman society was very hierarchical by modern standards,[2][3] the evolution of the Roman government was heavily influenced by the struggle between the patricians, Rome's land-holding aristocracy, who traced their ancestry back 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 then again into the Napoleonic Code) can still be observed throughout Europe and much of the world in modern nation states and international organizations. |
About us|Jobs|Help|Disclaimer|Advertising services|Contact us|Sign in|Website map|Search|
GMT+8, 2015-9-11 21:19 , Processed in 0.166045 second(s), 16 queries .
