The Roman Empire controlling a large area?
920468
Cruelty and Technological Superiority. Cruelty: Everyone knew that if you rebelled against the Romans, they'd slaughter you and your kids and ravage your wife and salt the earth of your best farm lands. Technological superiority:Military strength of the bow and effective catapults is amazing when you're fighting Germanic tribes with out of date weapons\n\nDoc's answer is better
108164
Tis where Rome was... ya see, that's where the early church started out and the capital of the roman empire (which twas in charge) also the book of Romans was written to Christians in Rome... so there ya go, very important I'd say one of the top 3 citites, Jeusalem, Antioch, Rome
806931
Originally the lands of the Byzantine empire were part of the massive Roman empire. However, this was too big an area for one emperor to rule, so the land was split into east and west, the east remaining the Byzantine with a capitol at Constantinople. Eventually, the western Roman empire collapsed, and the Byzantine empire remained due to its connection with the east and the fact that it did not suffer the barbarian invasions the way the western empire did. Further splits occurred with the churches, but to answer your question, yes the Byzantine empire was, for a brief time, part of the Roman empire.
453560
Your lucky...okey, the famous of allò is that Julius had built the largest city in ancient rome and he had conquered many countries such as Egypt, Jerusalem, etc.
189252
Economy in the Han empire\n\nThe empire expanded westward as far as the rim of the Tarim Basin (in modern Xinjiang-Uyghur Autonomous Region), making possible relatively secure caravan traffic across Central Asia. The paths of caravan traffic are often called the "Silk Road" because the route was used to export Chinese silk. Chinese armies also invaded and annexed parts of northern Vietnam and northern Korea (Wiman Joseon) toward the end of the 2nd century BC. Han control of peripheral regions was generally insecure, however. To ensure peace with non-Chinese local powers, the Han court developed a mutually beneficial "tributary system." Non-Chinese states were allowed to remain autonomous in exchange for symbolic acceptance of Han overlordship. Tributary ties were confirmed and strengthened through intermarriages at the ruling level and periodic exchanges of gifts and goods.
277610
It is a fascinating region.  I'm sure that there are millions of good intellegent people there.  However too many people have been intellectually abused by opressive, radical religious zelots who have maintained vast populations in pathetic ignorance.  It takes centuries to develop a mind set that accepts xenophobia and the total inhalation of other nations as divine will. It is true that western countries have exploited the region for years, but so have the local kingdoms and the religious leaders.  It seems to be a worldwide practice to blame failed economies and societies on those who have achieved success.
50637
Short answer: The Roman Empire was destroyed by rebellious barbarian peoples living WITHIN the empire, especially the Goths and Vandals.\n\nOver all, the Empire was a huge success story and went from strength to strength in civilizing the Western world. Many historians believe that there was no social and moral decline leading to a fall. The idea of decline and fall, they say, is a straw man (fake argument) based on later writer's sense of social standards. Like "Dude, those Romans were like so unrighteous that it was totally karma that they just like had to SO fall to pieces".\n\nWestern barbarians were forced into alliance with the empire because of pressure from the Huns. The empire's structure allowed for self-governance as long as you paid your taxes and sent recruits to the army. Tax revolt time!\n\nThe Goths rose up and crushed the Romans in the massive battle of Adrianople in 378. And then burglarized Rome in 410.\n\nThen the Vandals (sort of the old Carthaginian empire Part Deux) under old King Gaiseric built up ginormous naval power  and politely arranged to visit Rome in 455 and steal it blind (as agreed, no killing, no torture, no knocking down buildings). \n\nIn 468 the eastern empororer Leo suddenly realizd, "Hey those guys knocked down the whole west side of the empire, so go git em boys" and sent an armada (1,000 ships and 100,000 men) down south. Where the Vandals promptly destroyed the fleet and captured the army. So in 474 the empire said "okay you win" and signed a treaty of just one word: "Uncle!".\n\nPlague and back-and-forth battles with the Vandals, Goths, Franks and Lombards, plus civil wars and internal treachery pretty much made the empire give up the Western part of the  empire and stick to their knitting back in Constantinople where they lasted another 1,000 years.
478893
Well, he moved the Capital of Byzantine Empire to Constantinople in order to control trade routes and water ways. Check out the link, it has a lot more information and important events in detail.
60165
The Roman empire was completely around the Mediterranean Sea, much easier to transport over water than over undeveloped roads (although the Romans built fantastic roads--macadam--that are still usable today).
879569
A long, long history of Western imperialism.
733013
There will be a too huge of a list of reasons, but still it was an early form of a democracy that was tested out and civilized the Roman Empire for a while, which includes a large amount of territory. Any time you have a decadent society and barbarian symbolizims accompanying a heathenistic world, there is so much conflict that it will refuse to be dicated too for the violence,death and blood shed it was built upon spreds as a virus where all of the others around you develop this same thought and now you have armies that pop up everywhere to defeat their conquerers after they weaken. In the case of Rome it was weakened when Pompeii waged war with Julius Caesar. Yes Julius built the Senate and conquered that known world then and when he wanted to settle in and develop a culture and fix the disease and famon in Rome (the city of light) the Senate would not tolerate this for they would have to give up the wealth that Julius had afforded them from War. They just figured he should just keep fighting and they would sit back and in lust and greed get fat off the profits. He received knowledge an inner peace to be content with what they had accomplished but they assasinated him. Anytime you have an assasination like that and a cruel ruler like Octavian who lusted and got fat off the people that was the beginning of the fall and they never recupperated from that until Marcus Aurelius, and then inevitably they were surviving on one thread. The well know enemies the Huns, Constatine, etc. surrounded and brought the demise of this once thought of good civilizations. Many people (rulers, senators, governors, military men) brought down the city of Rome. Rome never really developed but they had a good concept at first and then the corruption sets in just like our own government today. If you dont clean up your filth, feed your people, provide them with food and shelter, and let disease go rampid, all will fail. When you put people to death in a public display guilty or innocent it gives a bad example of the rulership of any government. No government will survive on terroristic, ruthless tactics ever. There is always someone bigger waiting in the shadows for the crack at the title.
1126225
Why did Rome fall ?\nWell, the old-fashioned, traditional explanation for the fall of Rome points out the mass migration as the biggest reason for the collapse of Rome. \n\nIn ancient European history it happened two or three times that huge migrations took place, hundreds of thousands, even millions of people set out to find new homelands. \nThe fact that such a mass migration took place whilst the Romans were still in power, must be seen as at least a major contributor to their fall. For as we see in modern days too, armies can fight other armies, but they cannot fight entire peoples. The Romans were overwhelmed in a human deluge.\n\n\nBut today one tends not to rely so much on the idea of mass migration and rather understands Rome as having suffered from an entire list of problems. \n\nRome had always had its fair share of bad emperors. Caligula, Nero, Commodus are such examples. But there always followed good emperors to correct their errors. At Rome's end however, there was really no good rulers. For example great generals like Stilicho were killed because the emperor feared losing his throne to them. If you kill your best generals, your army will never be as good as it could be.\nAlso important to the weakening of the Romans was that they began to get more and more civilized. Civilized people were not as good warriors on the battlefields as barbarians. For a long time the Romans had their own barbarians. Gauls, Illyrians, Belgians, Helvetians, Germans, etc.; they all joined the Roman legions. But soon they too were living like Romans. They enjoyed the fruits of Roman civilization and hence became less barbarous, - and less able to fight the barbarian Goths, Vandals, Sueves, etc..\nAnother important reason is perhaps that of Roman unity. The early Romans who built the empire stood united. By the end of course Rome had two capitals, Rome and Constantinople, each with its own emperor. But to the earlier Romans, Rome had been something special, something they served. But the later Romans only sought power for themselves. Almost every military commanders secretely had his eye on the throne and was ready to overthrow the emperor and take power himself. The armies spent a lot of time fighting each other for power in Rome, rather than fighting the enemy.\nTo this cataolgue of troubles one needs also to add economic problems. Rome was spending more than it could afford. The free food rations for the poor of Rome and Constantinople were costing a fortune. The Purchasing of exotic spices and silk from the orient ment that over time Rome was spending its gold on overseas luxuries. Gold which didn't return. Soon Rome didn't have enough gold to produce coins with.\nAnd then there were the plagues. Deadly diseases brought in from the east swept across Europe, killing vast numbers among the population of the empire.\nEven if the mass migration of the wild, Germanic people of the eastern plains is no longer seen as the all-important reason for Rome's demise, it naturally still is seen as one of the capital problems which caused the empire to fall.\nAs a last reason I'd also see the disastrous decision of emperor Valens (who was emperor of Constantinople) to allow the Visigoths to settle in Moesia.\nThe Roman empire's borders to the north had been the river Rhine and the river Danube. They are wide streams and therefore hard to cross. This means, the border was easy to defend. But when the Huns from the east attacked the Visigoths on the other side of the Danube, emperor Valens let them settle on the Roman side of the river. True, the Visigoths then were friends of the Romans. But that soon changed. It didn't take long and bad living conditions, poverty and starvation led the Visigoths to revolt. In the following war, the Romans no longer had a protective river from behind which to defend themelves. The enemy was settled within their own empire. - And it should be the Visigoths who eventually sacked the city of
932410
You can probably find online that part of the Roman Empire's fall was due to the fact that it over extended itself. Others say it was Barbarian rule. However, there's a unique answer that you could give that might give you some credit for being out-side the box:\nConside Agriculture and its economy.\n\n1. Slavery\nSlaves were the backbone of the Roman republic, and Rome had increasing difficulty trying to accomodate them. THey lived in really bad conditions, and they weren't the major concentration of the Roman Repub. So what would they do? revolt. stop working. etc etc.\n2. Free Distribution of corn\nThe majority of people were supported by corn, which was given more as a right than as a privilege. It was in essence a welfare state. Parents didn't have to make any effort to feed their children, so why work? This led to decay.\n3. Soil Deterioration\nRome had a cheap food policy. And they forced farmers to pay taxes that they couldn't afford. Farmers were gang up together and plant a lot of stuff in one area to beat teh tax loopholes. But this deteriorated the soil quality. NOrth africa was once a grainary storage system for Rome, but after the Carthrage sack, it didn't work out. Land shortage was a big problem for rome, that's why they kept expanding. They stripped their forests of lumber, so they had poor weapons when it came to the Punic Wars.\n\n\nThese are just some rarely considered ideas.
610046
It happened to Rome too.
683311
Based upon your own information and bias, the Mongols were the best in the steps and open ground where they could use their horses.  Indeed, the largest empire (land area) in human history was the Mongol empire.\n\nBased upon who they met and never conquered: the Norse (as the Russ, who traveled to Russia) and the Celts.  The Golden Horde stopped in Poland and Novgorod.\n\nIt was also the Celts who stopped the Roman army from expanding to the very coasts of Europe and the British Isles.
1007000
In the face of invasion, in the last years of the Roman Empire (421), a group of romans evacuated to an easily defensible group of islands in the Adriatic sea during the Goth invasion of Italy. Although there are no real records of the actual founding of tye settlement on the islands, the above is a widely accepted explanation.
527860
It's not a matter of right, it's a matter of strength.  Early rulers gained there position by pretty much beating the crap or killing anyone who opposed them.  This can be seen in the animal kingdom in pack animals.  The alpha male and alpha female are in charge because of there strength.