The Comparative Strength Of Rome

Rome, considered by most the greatest empire of the ancient world, stretched from modern day England to Palestine and was more successful than all previous Empires. Rome's government, military, economic and civic structures were all superior to those of their predecessors.

The Sumerians were the first people to build civilization and attempt empire in the western world. Like Rome, they had a governmental structure, conducted military operations to expand and ensure trade, and build a lasting civic structure. The Sumerians, however, were not as effective as the Romans in most respects. Rome had a strong central government; the Emperor was absolute ruler. The Sumerians had a weak form of government, the Kings of each city often warring and plotting against each other, wasting resources and weakening the empire from the inside. This ineffective government made far off conquest difficult and led to far less expansion than Rome. Sumeria did trade, but with less expansion came less interaction with other peoples. Rome expanded and traded with people all across the western world. When Sumeria did expand or conquer territory, it would force the rules of the lands to pay tributes, leaving the people angry and unhappy with outside rule. The Romans made sure than conquered people understood that Rome was now firmly in control, but this could be a good thing. As Rome prospered, so too did Roman controlled lands, local rulers (often allowed to remain local rulers) were still working for the benefit of their people while staying loyal to Rome. Although Sumeria did build cities and civic structure, Rome was far more effective. An elaborate bureaucratic system and common building plan made Roman cities very similar and reliable, the Sumerian cities varied greatly in layout and structure. While Sumerian cities were each dedicated to a different god, the Roman Imperial Cult unified Romans while not oppressing most religions of the conquered. The Lands once controlled by Sumeria were eventually ruled by Rome.

The Egyptians were not far behind the Sumerians in settling down to civilization and Empire. Like Rome they had a strong central government, a military structure, trade, a state religion and a civic structure. Rome was, however, superior to Egypt as well. Governmentally, the Pharaoh was an absolute ruler, as the Roman Emperor, but the Roman system was not reliant on a bloodline as was the Egyptian system, and was hence more likely to remain stable for long periods of time. The heir being intellectually picked and groomed greatly reducing the problems associated with hereditary rule. Militarily, Egypt was often strong enough to fight off invasion, but although they did project power, they did not conquer lands to expand their empire. Rome expanded their lands and grew more powerful, where the Egyptians seemed content with Egypt. Rome's policy of expansion helped fuel their trade routes and economy, boosting them past Egypt's limiting boarders. Egypt had a good infrastructure, largely an agrarian system of roads and irrigation, but it was nothing in comparison to the expansive Roman Imperial road system and aqueducts. The Egyptian religious structure promoted a feeling that the world was in order as it should be, while the aggressive Romans believed they descended from men raised by wolves. The difference can be seen in the difference in foreign policy. Egypt did not expand, and eventually the Romans ruled the lands of Egypt.

The Persians grew out of a once nomadic people, expanding their might to control from Egypt and modern day Turkey to Modern day Afghanistan. Their strong central government and centralized religion made them an effective empire, but still not as successful as Rome. Militarily, Persia was able to conquer their middle and near eastern neighbors, meeting with less

...