Search results
Results from the WOW.Com Content Network
The territorial evolution of the Eastern Roman Empire under each imperial dynasty until its demise in 1453. Following the fall of the Western Roman Empire in the 5th century, Roman civilization endured in the remaining eastern half of the Roman Empire, often termed by historians as the Byzantine Empire (though it self-identified simply as the "Roman Empire").
The anti-imperialists opposed the expansion because they believed imperialism violated the credo of republicanism, especially the need for "consent of the governed". Appalled by American imperialism, the Anti-Imperialist League, which included famous citizens such as Andrew Carnegie , Henry James , William James and Mark Twain , formed a ...
Free people not considered citizens, but living within the Roman world, were peregrini, non-Romans. [120] In 212, the Constitutio Antoniniana extended citizenship to all freeborn inhabitants of the empire. This legal egalitarianism required a far-reaching revision of existing laws that distinguished between citizens and non-citizens. [121]
During his early career, Caesar had seen how chaotic and dysfunctional the Roman Republic had become. The republican machinery had broken down under the weight of imperialism, the central government had become powerless, the provinces had been transformed into independent principalities under the absolute control of their governors, and the army had replaced the constitution as the means of ...
With Rome's great military victories, vast numbers of slaves were imported into Italy. [28] Significant mineral wealth was distributed unevenly to the population; the city of Rome itself expanded considerably in opulence and size; the freeing of slaves brought to Italy by conquest massively expanded the number of urban and rural poor. [29]
Musonius travelled to Syria, returning to Rome only after Vespasian's death in 79 AD. [7] Although Vespasian tried to present himself as a merciful ruler, he faced opposition from Helvidius Priscus who opposed imperial power, denounced kingship and hereditary succession, and was a fierce proponent of senatorial rights. [14]
As Roman society evolved, so did cult to emperors: both proved remarkably resilient and adaptable. Until its confrontation by fully developed Christian orthodoxy, "imperial cult" needed no systematic or coherent theology. Its part in Rome's continued success was probably sufficient to justify, sanctify and "explain" it to most Romans.
In Rome, there was a continuous alternation of emperors and usurpers (the so-called military anarchy). Not only did the internal wars unnecessarily consume important resources in the clashes between the various contenders, but – most seriously – they ended up depleting precisely the frontiers subjected to barbarian aggression.