When we think of Rome, we think of its empire extending into Spain, France and out west into Turkey, but it had to grow and conquest to reach that, and it took several centuries to do. After the kings of Rome were overthrown, or removed, in about 510 BC, there was an expansionary century for Rome where they established themselves as the dominant city in the Latium League and expanded their land-holdings, which is important for a yeoman military, however in 390 BC all these gains were lost with a successful Gallic invasion of Italy - and seizing of Rome.

I am going to focus on the military aspects of this period, to determine the external and internal pressures up against Rome. With the establishment of the Republic, the Etruscans were on the wane, while to the south was the Latium League, of which Rome was an on and off partner and signatory. Other groups that posed military threats included the Hernici, the Sabines which were probably being pressed from the north by Gauls and moving south under that pressure, the Aequi and the Volsci. Rome established treaties with the Latins and Hernici, and together they resisted the advances of the other tribes.

I am never sure how much of this is conquest, natural expansion, or just immigration. For instance the Gauls were constantly pressing down from the north, and it appears that a constant source of migration was from the Russian steppes into western Europe. Was the constant warring an aspect of culture or civilisation at the time? Or was it just a form of migration, albeit a violent form? I don't know.

Alot of the tales of the military campaigns from the period come from tradition, so they often have a political, as well as mythical, aspect to them, such as explaining away Roman failure in a way that is palatable to Roman readers. It appears that the Volsci and Aequians advanced into Latin and Hernici territory, a campaign in which Rome took part, and upon losing Lucius Mincius, precipitated the crisis that led to the legend of Cincinnatus. Who dropped the plough in a time of crisis, took dictatorial powers and retook the valley that Mincius was lost in. Seventeen days later Cincinnatus was back to his plough.

The big battles were in the north against the city-state of Veii - an Etruscan city which was only about twelve miles away from Rome. As part of this wider war, in which Rome expanded northward, the Etruscan city of Fidenae was taken through siege before Veii was besieged about twenty years later. In that time Fidenae revolted at least once.

All this fighting went on between 493 and 390 BC. A decisive battle against the Aequi was not until 431, and the same with the Volsci, who were pushed back constantly from the same year onwards. The battles with Veii seem to be in the latter part of the century, with Fidenae being taken in 435 BC and again, after a revolt, in 425 BC. Veii was also taken after a (probable) ten year siege in 396 BC. Interestingly, as the siege campaign went through summer and winter, the yeoman troops were payed for the first time - the beginnings of a Roman professional army.

H.H. Scullard writes that the end of this century's struggle left Rome on top politically, despite it having less land than the Latium League:

Whereas the Roman territory was a compact mass, the Latin possessions were scattered and often separated by Roman property. In these circumstances the Latins found common action difficult, so that a profound change came over th League. Rome almost unconsciously assumed the leadership. A city in distress would turn more readily to the united and ready forces of Rome than to the disunited Latins; and the Romans would often call on the Latins to supply their contingents without waiting to summon a federal council.

So the Sabines never really made it far enough south to bother Rome, but caused downwards pressure on other tribes. The Aequi and Volscans were beaten by a treaty between Rome, the Latins and Hernici such that they were no longer military threats; and the Etruscan cities, of which Veii was a large one, were now susceptible to Roman expansion. To top it off, Rome came out on top politically amongst its allies and had an efficient and organised military.

But this is still really only local power and influence. Rome is still pretty small and despite the conquering of Veii, it is a city that is only twelve miles away. This isn't the same projection the Roman legions in Caesar's time have.

This fragility is shown with the invasion of Brennus' celts. The Gauls were strong enough militarily that they were able to take northern Italian cities. When Brennus marched on Rome he did so with an army of approximately 30,000 to Rome's 10,000. Scullard comments that this Roman army was probably the largest it had put into the field in the history of Rome to that point!

Rome was taken by the Gauls, who appeared more interested in plunder than land, being bought with gold. The fact was that Roman power had been completely destroyed by the defeat at the hands of the Gauls. The city was taken, the treaties with the Latins and Hernici collapsed, the army was destroyed, and the territorial gains of the last century's fighting gone; and those that remained were under expansionary threat from neighbours.

Part of Rome's appeal is its resilience and it took fifty years to win back all that was lost in 390 BC to the Gallic invasion. Scullard writes:

it was largely owing to Roman courage in defeat and resolution in rebuilding a barrier against the north that France and not Italy became the home of the Celts.

cam

The prorogatio imperium positions, which are the pro-consul and pro-praeter, were established in 326 BC as military positions to aid the military needs of the Consuls. This places them in the Roman middle republic and is probably a result of Rome's expansion during that period placing pressure on military and civil administration in the provinces.

The position of Consul was a civil one in Rome, but outside of Rome it was a military position. So consular prestige came from military campaigns - a triumph, which was a parade through Rome to celebrate a military victory, was essential for the political popularity of any aspirant public figure. Whether a triumph would be held was up to the Senate who would vote on such measures - meaning the Senate could control who received triumphs, but also, it made it impossible for them to vote down a triumph for a truly popular general.

The praetor was a position that was established during the middle republic as well, in 366 BC. The praetor was intended to be a consul, who was restricted to civil affairs in the city. Scullard writes that this position was created as a patrician only one after plebians became eligible for the Consulship, but notes that by 337 BC plebians became eligible for this magistrate position.

The pro-consul and pro-praetar were the prior term's consuls and praetors who were given imperium in the provinces after they had finished their elected term in the magistracy. This certainly did make the position of Consul powerful, as imperium continued with the prorogatio positions. In later years the provinces were used by former consuls and praetors to pay for all the bribery they had done the year before in order to get elected.

Andrew Lintott writes that the territories the pro-consuls and pro-praetors had imperium were massive even by today's standards; and meant that the military and economic power of Rome was in the hands of the pro-consuls and pro-praetors.

Moreover, the growth of Roman military power and empire, which ultimately allowed a single Roman commander discretion over territory which in the present day forms more than one nation-state, made the powers of a consul in Rome insignificant compared with those of a consul or proconsul abroad.

In the late republic and its political turmoil, pro-consuls were a source of constant consternation and pro-consuls preferred the pro-consulship of Cisalpine Gaul as it placed their military just north of Rome, close by in case of any political development for or against them. When the Senate went after Mark Antony with Octavian, Pansa and Hirtius; Antony was just north of Italy.

Seems Praetors weren't excused from serving as generals either. The praetor was supposed to be the elected civil helper of the Consuls in Rome and served mainly in a judicial capacity. Except when they were needed on the battlefield. From Scullard's A History of the Roman World:

These [two Roman legions] hastened in pursuit [of a Celtic invasion force in ~223 BC], intending to converge at Clusium, where however the Gauls turned and tricked the Praetor into battle near Montepulciano before the Consul's arrival.

So it is probably fair to say no magistracy position was exempt from military leadership in the Roman Constitution.

Carthage was one of many cities founded by the Phoenicians in approximately 800 BC. Like Rome, it had a Republican (non-regal) Constitution, which, as described by Aristotle, was a mixed one, with a dominant aristocracy and some oligarchic and democratic leanings.

The Phoenicians came from modern-day Turkey, Syria and Palestine. They were a maritime trading people, possibly because of the poor quality of soil in their native land.

They established colonies, towns and cities across the Mediterranean including the north African coastline, and Spain. it appears their colonisation extended to the Atlantic coast of Africa and Spain.

Carthage was founded by the Phoenician city of Tyrria. In a very fertile part of North Africa (modern-day Tunisia) with a dominating strategic position. Eventually Carthage lost contact with Tyrria as its own power grew, but also because the Phoenicians were pressed by the Asiatic empires of Assyria, Babylon, Egypt and Persia.

Like Rome, Carthage came to dominate the Punic cities through a mix of military might, colonisation and equitable treaties. The Carthaginians also fought nearly constantly against the Greeks in Sicily. Which would ultimately lead to the First Punic War with Rome.

H.H. Scullard speculates that Carthage was founded a republic so as not to encourage the idea that it was disloyal to the Phoenician monarchs.

Aristotle writes:

The Carthaginians are also considered to have an excellent form of government, which differs from that of any other state in several respects, though it is in some very like the Spartan.

Indeed, all three states - the Spartan, the Cretan, and the Carthaginian - nearly resemble one another, and are very different from any others. Many of the Carthaginian institutions are excellent.

The superiority of their constitution is proved by the fact that the common people remain loyal to the constitution.

The Carthaginians have never had any rebellion worth speaking of, and have never been under the rule of a tyrant.

Carthage had a Senate of Three Hundred of which there was a Council of Thirty chosen from the Senate, and as part of the thirty, were included two popularly elected judges called Suffetes. The judges were mainly focused on civil, rather than martial affairs and were elected annually by an assemblic body.

The popular body voted on legislation and policies, but only when the Senate and Council could not reach agreement - such that the popular will became a tie-breaker.

There was also a Council of One Hundred and Four which was purely judicial in focus and was chosen from the Senate. This body was intended to act as check and balance on any tyranny flowing from the other magistracies. It was very close to separation of powers between executive and judicial - but like Rome, tyranny was a real fear, probably because these systems despite the checks and attempts at political balance were often based on arbitrary power.

The Council of One Hundred and Four was appointed, rather than elected, with the appointments done by a group of five magistrates - the Pentarchs. Scullard writes that this led to corruption of the judicial powers until Hannibal flushed out the pentarchs and judges.

H.H. Scullard writes:

The effective government was thus in the hands of an oligarchy of nobles. But it is uncertain how far they formed an aristocracy of birth or of wealth, how far they closed ranks against other aspirants to office, and whether their interests were commercial or agricultural.

Apparently most of what is known about Carthage comes from Roman or Greek writings, which are biased, or from modern archeology. Despite being an Empire and fighting Rome near to defeat through three very long wars it left little mark on the world that was permanent.

Another data point for the definition of Empire being control of foreign policy. H.H. Scullard writes on Rome's run-in with Sparta:

But Flaminius would not go as far as his [Greek] allies desired; as with Phillip [of Macedon], he wished to cripple, but not destroy. Once again it was the Romans and not the allies who dictated terms, which included the surrender by Nabis of Argos and other towns and of his fleet, an indemnity, and the renouncing of the right to make war or alliances.

When Germany established a colony in New Guinea in the 1880s Queensland raised up militia and prepared to go and kick the Germans out. The Colonial Office was not happy, and told the Colony of Queensland to drop any thoughts of military action against the German outpost. Britain was concerned it would precipitate war in Europe.

It is interesting to note that Australia didn't bother ratifying the Statute of Westminster until 1942 after the GAPF had been switched from the UK to the US.

The Department of External Affairs was established in 1935 when it was split out of the Prime Minister's department. Prior to that the Prime Minister had usually dealt directly with the Dominions Office and it was not until 1974 that the Australian High Commissioner in London reported to the foreign affairs department rather than directly to the Prime Minister.

Joan Beaumont writes:

The department's role in these pre-1939 years was so limited that it was scarcely recognisable as a modern foreign office.

Quite late in Australian history.