Skip to main content

Why was the Roman Empire was more centralized than classical Greece?

"Classical Greece" was really not a single nation or state in the modern sense. Instead, the Greek mainland and nearby islands were a series of independent city-states (poleis) inhabited by people speaking a common language, albeit with dialectal variations. One significant reason for this was geographical. Greece is mountainous, making land travel between different Greek cities quite slow and difficult, something that would have impeded both political unification and military conquest. We see a similar pattern in the history of Switzerland, also a country geographically divided by mountainous terrain. Greece was not actually unified in the classical period until conquered from the outside by Macedon. In a sense though, individual poleis such as Sparta and Athens were strongly centralized, with the city controlling the surrounding countryside; it is not that the ancient Greek city states were not centralized so much as that they remained small, centralized, tightly knit communities. The degree of independence of colonies was in part due to colonies being considered nascent independent states.


Italy itself was gradually unified mainly by the pressure of external conflicts. The Romans ran into conflicts with the Etruscans quite early, and later had a series of wars with the Carthaginians. As Rome almost accidentally developed an empire through success in various wars, it needed a way to administer that empire. In part due to the need to award land as an incentive for military service and in part due to the need for control over the Egyptian grain supply, Rome developed a more centralized imperial bureaucracy, although daily administration of its far flung colonies was often left to provincial aristocrats.

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Is there a word/phrase for "unperformant"?

As a software engineer, I need to sometimes describe a piece of code as something that lacks performance or was not written with performance in mind. Example: This kind of coding style leads to unmaintainable and unperformant code. Based on my Google searches, this isn't a real word. What is the correct way to describe this? EDIT My usage of "performance" here is in regard to speed and efficiency. For example, the better the performance of code the faster the application runs. My question and example target the negative definition, which is in reference to preventing inefficient coding practices. Answer This kind of coding style leads to unmaintainable and unperformant code. In my opinion, reads more easily as: This coding style leads to unmaintainable and poorly performing code. The key to well-written documentation and reports lies in ease of understanding. Adding poorly understood words such as performant decreases that ease. In addressing the use of such a poorly ...

Is 'efficate' a word in English?

I routinely hear the word "efficate" being used. For example, "The most powerful way to efficate a change in the system is to participate." I do not find entries for this word in common English dictionaries, but I do not have an unabridged dictionary. I have checked the OED (I'm not sure if it is considered unabridged), and it has no entry for "efficate". It does have an entry for "efficiate", which is used in the same way. Wordnik has an entry for "efficate" with over 1800 hits, thus providing some evidence for the frequency of use. I personally like the word and find the meaning very clear and obvious when others use it. If it's not currently an "officially documented" word, perhaps its continued use will result in it being better documented.