Negative Effects Of Roman Conquests

The negative effects of the Roman conquests will vary with each different perspective. I am sure that if a Carthaginian was asked to give their opinion on the negative consequences of Roman expansion, it will sound nothing like the views of a Roman aristocrat. The same could probably said for the areas from Spain through Asia Minor and everything in between, each locality will have their own gripes. The journal prompt, no doubt is referring to Rome itself, or as a whole, but the above applies within Rome as well; the rich versus the poor, the citizens versus the provincial, slaves versus free men, the list is long. Each one of these negatives will have a tendency to overlap and have a cause and effect relationship with each. In general, these negatives range from economic problems, political and social inequality and moral bankruptcy. All of these forces combined will eventually add up to the decline and fall of the Republic, but not Rome itself.

With Roman expansion came the addition of new lands and the need to govern them. While Butler (2007) believes the problem was in the governing, stating “…Rome was trying to rule a large empire with an amateur city-state government” (2007). I agree, that could have been an issue, but not
Political inequality was not a consequence of Roman expansion but it did escalate matters. According to both Morey (1901) and Butler (2007), the aristocratic senate gained more power and became more corrupt, choosing instead to govern in the intestates themselves, not Rome. Morey (1901) also explores that with the rise and growth of Rome, their old ideals have vanished and new indulgences have emerged, focusing on wealth and luxury. Morey (1901) now portrays Romans to be greedy and perhaps even gluttonous; compared to a time when they were more simplistic and