Greece and Rome is a very heated decision in which one had more of an impact on the mediterranean area. Both places greatly affected it. When it comes down to it, I think Rome affected it greater, even if it has its flaws. There are also reasons that greece affected it, but I think Rome affected it greater.
Rome was at one time the greatest empire in the world. They were in great times because they had Julius Caesar, who was an awesome ruler. They had a great water system that could support everyone. But what controlled the mediterranean was their army. They could march distances up to 40km a day and that was due to the extreme conditioning they had to do. They also had a very big army because romans lived about 100% longer than everyone else in western europe. The way they expanded their army was by destroying other army’s. Their biggest rival, Carthage, they beat them every time they were in a war. Even what Hannibal came through the alps (which nobody thought they could do) they held their ground and defeated them. Everyone was happy while the army was fighting because they used
…show more content…
Sparta’s army could be stopped when the Battle of 300 came around where sparta lost its soldiers. Olives were the only thing that greece used to trade because their land was not suited for agriculture. Only 1 in 10 acres of land was available for farming. This shows that olives were the only thing sustaining them for trade. Even though they beat the persian army in the persian war, that led to bad things. Since Athens navy was getting all the recognition for the win, Athens got lots of money from other greek city-states to protect them. This sparked a flare in other city-states like sparta. That all created the Peloponnesian war and Athens downfall. It 's hard to believe, but winning the persian war really made one of greece’s biggest city-states have a giant downfall. Everything good that greece did turned out bad in the