Was Rome a Good Society?
Imagine yourself, in the land of Rome, an average civilian walking through the crowd. Heading towards the bathrooms, you look at the thin, tall, standing aqueduct as it leads towards hundreds of gallons of water from the mountains to the empire. As you hear the water flowing down the hills, in a distance, footsteps could be heard. Looking in closer at where the noises are from, you see a great and giant army coming back from a conquest, victorious, which shows their large and strong army. Rome also had a well made government and had many useful inventions to the society.
Have you ever wondered how Rome got enough water to supply such a big empire? One of the reasons why Rome was so outstanding was due to their inventions. …show more content…
According to History 's Ancient Rome Article, Rome was a dominant society because at the peak of its civilization which was around 53 - 117 A.D, the Romans controlled all of the land around the Mediterranean and Britain. They had land from Egypt, Britain, Portugal, and Mesopotamia. Their army was very well trained, every day they would march around 20 miles wearing 80 pounds worth of food, weapons, and armor. They would set up camps, build watch towers, and dig a 6 foot deep ditch around their camp. Their weapons and armor were made of iron and bronze. Some of their military formations included the turtle formation, in which they would use their shields to make a box-like structure with javelins pointing outward. They were very smart when fighting and also went over seas using their warships. This proves that Rome was a good society because they annexed much land around them and if they were defeated, they would rebuild and defeat their opponent through its outstanding military, which was made up of the army and the navy. Some people may disagree with me because they think that Rome’s size contributed to their downfall, because the powerful generals wanted all the power of the empire, and that caused Rome’s army to grow corrupt due to the generals who were bribing the soldiers, this caused many to break from Roman control. Those who oppose are wrong because the main reason Rome fell was not because of size, but because of ineffective leaders. Rome could still have been dominant if they had stable leadership. If there was stable leadership, there would have been no bribery, and that means that the army would stay strong, and Rome would continue to be
Imagine yourself, in the land of Rome, an average civilian walking through the crowd. Heading towards the bathrooms, you look at the thin, tall, standing aqueduct as it leads towards hundreds of gallons of water from the mountains to the empire. As you hear the water flowing down the hills, in a distance, footsteps could be heard. Looking in closer at where the noises are from, you see a great and giant army coming back from a conquest, victorious, which shows their large and strong army. Rome also had a well made government and had many useful inventions to the society.
Have you ever wondered how Rome got enough water to supply such a big empire? One of the reasons why Rome was so outstanding was due to their inventions. …show more content…
According to History 's Ancient Rome Article, Rome was a dominant society because at the peak of its civilization which was around 53 - 117 A.D, the Romans controlled all of the land around the Mediterranean and Britain. They had land from Egypt, Britain, Portugal, and Mesopotamia. Their army was very well trained, every day they would march around 20 miles wearing 80 pounds worth of food, weapons, and armor. They would set up camps, build watch towers, and dig a 6 foot deep ditch around their camp. Their weapons and armor were made of iron and bronze. Some of their military formations included the turtle formation, in which they would use their shields to make a box-like structure with javelins pointing outward. They were very smart when fighting and also went over seas using their warships. This proves that Rome was a good society because they annexed much land around them and if they were defeated, they would rebuild and defeat their opponent through its outstanding military, which was made up of the army and the navy. Some people may disagree with me because they think that Rome’s size contributed to their downfall, because the powerful generals wanted all the power of the empire, and that caused Rome’s army to grow corrupt due to the generals who were bribing the soldiers, this caused many to break from Roman control. Those who oppose are wrong because the main reason Rome fell was not because of size, but because of ineffective leaders. Rome could still have been dominant if they had stable leadership. If there was stable leadership, there would have been no bribery, and that means that the army would stay strong, and Rome would continue to be