Sample Solution

Roman of his time, who had subdued the most belligerent tribes, and driven Pyrrhus out of Italy. Yet, he tilled this tiny plot of land himself and lived in this simple cottage – even after his three triumphs!” (Plutarch 334) As a prominent public figure, he had influence over the way the public perceived the world around them. His viewpoints idealized the Roman characteristics of the farmer soldier, of conservatism and masculine virtue. He perceived the Greeks to be men of words and philosophy rather than of military service and mighty acts as Plutarch says (350). These are just some of the ways in which ideologically Rome conflicted with cultures under their rule.

Each of these factors led to a rather complex web of both benefits and downfalls for Rome. In many cases Rome expanded as a way of defending itself and partook in the resulting benefits. Rome saw many positive effects such as acquiring profitable lands, expanding the reach of its power, and improving the quality of life for many of its citizens. Yet, in spite of these benefits the pressure to stretch governmental power, the resulting violence of war, and influence of newly incorporated cultures complicated and in many ways had a negative impact on Rome. This conflict between good and bad defines Roman expansion, in the grey area that cannot be simply defined as good or bad.