Question: Who initially had control over the Sabines?

Answer: Etruscan control

The first Roman republican wars were wars of both expansion and defence, aimed at protecting Rome itself from neighbouring cities and nations and establishing its territory in the region. Initially, Rome's immediate neighbours were either Latin towns and villages, or else tribal Sabines from the Apennine hills beyond. <hl> One by one Rome defeated both the persistent Sabines and the local cities, both those under Etruscan control and those that had cast off their Etruscan rulers. <hl> Rome defeated Latin cities in the Battle of Lake Regillus in 496 BC, the Battle of Mons Algidus in 458 BC, the Battle of Corbione in 446 BC, the Battle of Aricia, and especially the Battle of the Cremera in 477 BC wherein it fought against the most important Etruscan city of Veii.

The first Roman republican wars were wars of both expansion and defence, aimed at protecting Rome itself from neighbouring cities and nations and establishing its territory in the region. Initially, Rome's immediate neighbours were either Latin towns and villages, or else tribal Sabines from the Apennine hills beyond. One by one Rome defeated both the persistent Sabines and the local cities, both those under <hl> Etruscan control <hl> and those that had cast off their Etruscan rulers. Rome defeated Latin cities in the Battle of Lake Regillus in 496 BC, the Battle of Mons Algidus in 458 BC, the Battle of Corbione in 446 BC, the Battle of Aricia, and especially the Battle of the Cremera in 477 BC wherein it fought against the most important Etruscan city of Veii.

question: Who initially had control over the Sabines?, context: The first Roman republican wars were wars of both expansion and defence, aimed at protecting Rome itself from neighbouring cities and nations and establishing its territory in the region. Initially, Rome's immediate neighbours were either Latin towns and villages, or else tribal Sabines from the Apennine hills beyond. One by one Rome defeated both the persistent Sabines and the local cities, both those under Etruscan control and those that had cast off their Etruscan rulers. Rome defeated Latin cities in the Battle of Lake Regillus in 496 BC, the Battle of Mons Algidus in 458 BC, the Battle of Corbione in 446 BC, the Battle of Aricia, and especially the Battle of the Cremera in 477 BC wherein it fought against the most important Etruscan city of Veii.


Question: When did the Battle of Allia River approximately end?

Answer: 387 BC

By 390 BC, several Gallic tribes were invading Italy from the north as their culture expanded throughout Europe. The Romans were alerted to this when a particularly warlike tribe invaded two Etruscan towns close to Rome's sphere of influence. These towns, overwhelmed by the enemy's numbers and ferocity, called on Rome for help. <hl> The Romans met the Gauls in pitched battle at the Battle of Allia River around 390– 387 BC . <hl> The Gauls, led by chieftain Brennus, defeated the Roman army of approximately 15,000 troops, pursued the fleeing Romans back to Rome, and sacked the city before being either driven off or bought off. Romans and Gauls continued to war intermittently in Italy for more than two centuries.[relevant? – discuss]

By 390 BC, several Gallic tribes were invading Italy from the north as their culture expanded throughout Europe. The Romans were alerted to this when a particularly warlike tribe invaded two Etruscan towns close to Rome's sphere of influence. These towns, overwhelmed by the enemy's numbers and ferocity, called on Rome for help. The Romans met the Gauls in pitched battle at the Battle of Allia River around 390–<hl> 387 BC <hl>. The Gauls, led by chieftain Brennus, defeated the Roman army of approximately 15,000 troops, pursued the fleeing Romans back to Rome, and sacked the city before being either driven off or bought off. Romans and Gauls continued to war intermittently in Italy for more than two centuries.[relevant? – discuss]

The Romans met the Gauls in pitched battle at the Battle of Allia River around 390– <hl> 387 BC <hl> .

question: When did the Battle of Allia River approximately end?, context: By 390 BC, several Gallic tribes were invading Italy from the north as their culture expanded throughout Europe. The Romans were alerted to this when a particularly warlike tribe invaded two Etruscan towns close to Rome's sphere of influence. These towns, overwhelmed by the enemy's numbers and ferocity, called on Rome for help. The Romans met the Gauls in pitched battle at the Battle of Allia River around 390–387 BC. The Gauls, led by chieftain Brennus, defeated the Roman army of approximately 15,000 troops, pursued the fleeing Romans back to Rome, and sacked the city before being either driven off or bought off. Romans and Gauls continued to war intermittently in Italy for more than two centuries.[relevant? – discuss]


Question: How many of the Roman military were involved in the Battle of Allia River?

Answer: 15,000 troops

By 390 BC, several Gallic tribes were invading Italy from the north as their culture expanded throughout Europe. The Romans were alerted to this when a particularly warlike tribe invaded two Etruscan towns close to Rome's sphere of influence. These towns, overwhelmed by the enemy's numbers and ferocity, called on Rome for help. The Romans met the Gauls in pitched battle at the Battle of Allia River around 390–387 BC. <hl> The Gauls, led by chieftain Brennus, defeated the Roman army of approximately 15,000 troops , pursued the fleeing Romans back to Rome, and sacked the city before being either driven off or bought off. <hl> Romans and Gauls continued to war intermittently in Italy for more than two centuries.[relevant? – discuss]

By 390 BC, several Gallic tribes were invading Italy from the north as their culture expanded throughout Europe. The Romans were alerted to this when a particularly warlike tribe invaded two Etruscan towns close to Rome's sphere of influence. These towns, overwhelmed by the enemy's numbers and ferocity, called on Rome for help. The Romans met the Gauls in pitched battle at the Battle of Allia River around 390–387 BC. The Gauls, led by chieftain Brennus, defeated the Roman army of approximately <hl> 15,000 troops <hl>, pursued the fleeing Romans back to Rome, and sacked the city before being either driven off or bought off. Romans and Gauls continued to war intermittently in Italy for more than two centuries.[relevant? – discuss]

The Gauls, led by chieftain Brennus, defeated the Roman army of approximately <hl> 15,000 troops <hl> , pursued the fleeing Romans back to Rome, and sacked the city before being either driven off or bought off.

question: How many of the Roman military were involved in the Battle of Allia River?, context: By 390 BC, several Gallic tribes were invading Italy from the north as their culture expanded throughout Europe. The Romans were alerted to this when a particularly warlike tribe invaded two Etruscan towns close to Rome's sphere of influence. These towns, overwhelmed by the enemy's numbers and ferocity, called on Rome for help. The Romans met the Gauls in pitched battle at the Battle of Allia River around 390–387 BC. The Gauls, led by chieftain Brennus, defeated the Roman army of approximately 15,000 troops, pursued the fleeing Romans back to Rome, and sacked the city before being either driven off or bought off. Romans and Gauls continued to war intermittently in Italy for more than two centuries.[relevant? – discuss]


Question: Where did the Romans attempt to escape to after their loss against the Gauls?

Answer: Rome

By 390 BC, several Gallic tribes were invading Italy from the north as their culture expanded throughout Europe. <hl> The Romans were alerted to this when a particularly warlike tribe invaded two Etruscan towns close to Rome 's sphere of influence. <hl> These towns, overwhelmed by the enemy's numbers and ferocity, called on Rome for help. The Romans met the Gauls in pitched battle at the Battle of Allia River around 390–387 BC. The Gauls, led by chieftain Brennus, defeated the Roman army of approximately 15,000 troops, pursued the fleeing Romans back to Rome, and sacked the city before being either driven off or bought off. Romans and Gauls continued to war intermittently in Italy for more than two centuries.[relevant? – discuss]

By 390 BC, several Gallic tribes were invading Italy from the north as their culture expanded throughout Europe. The Romans were alerted to this when a particularly warlike tribe invaded two Etruscan towns close to <hl> Rome <hl>'s sphere of influence. These towns, overwhelmed by the enemy's numbers and ferocity, called on Rome for help. The Romans met the Gauls in pitched battle at the Battle of Allia River around 390–387 BC. The Gauls, led by chieftain Brennus, defeated the Roman army of approximately 15,000 troops, pursued the fleeing Romans back to Rome, and sacked the city before being either driven off or bought off. Romans and Gauls continued to war intermittently in Italy for more than two centuries.[relevant? – discuss]

The Romans were alerted to this when a particularly warlike tribe invaded two Etruscan towns close to <hl> Rome <hl> 's sphere of influence.

question: Where did the Romans attempt to escape to after their loss against the Gauls?, context: By 390 BC, several Gallic tribes were invading Italy from the north as their culture expanded throughout Europe. The Romans were alerted to this when a particularly warlike tribe invaded two Etruscan towns close to Rome's sphere of influence. These towns, overwhelmed by the enemy's numbers and ferocity, called on Rome for help. The Romans met the Gauls in pitched battle at the Battle of Allia River around 390–387 BC. The Gauls, led by chieftain Brennus, defeated the Roman army of approximately 15,000 troops, pursued the fleeing Romans back to Rome, and sacked the city before being either driven off or bought off. Romans and Gauls continued to war intermittently in Italy for more than two centuries.[relevant? – discuss]


Question: What is the name of the chieftan who led his army to victory in the Battle of Allia River?

Answer: Brennus

By 390 BC, several Gallic tribes were invading Italy from the north as their culture expanded throughout Europe. The Romans were alerted to this when a particularly warlike tribe invaded two Etruscan towns close to Rome's sphere of influence. These towns, overwhelmed by the enemy's numbers and ferocity, called on Rome for help. The Romans met the Gauls in pitched battle at the Battle of Allia River around 390–387 BC. <hl> The Gauls, led by chieftain Brennus , defeated the Roman army of approximately 15,000 troops, pursued the fleeing Romans back to Rome, and sacked the city before being either driven off or bought off. <hl> Romans and Gauls continued to war intermittently in Italy for more than two centuries.[relevant? – discuss]

By 390 BC, several Gallic tribes were invading Italy from the north as their culture expanded throughout Europe. The Romans were alerted to this when a particularly warlike tribe invaded two Etruscan towns close to Rome's sphere of influence. These towns, overwhelmed by the enemy's numbers and ferocity, called on Rome for help. The Romans met the Gauls in pitched battle at the Battle of Allia River around 390–387 BC. The Gauls, led by chieftain <hl> Brennus <hl>, defeated the Roman army of approximately 15,000 troops, pursued the fleeing Romans back to Rome, and sacked the city before being either driven off or bought off. Romans and Gauls continued to war intermittently in Italy for more than two centuries.[relevant? – discuss]

The Gauls, led by chieftain <hl> Brennus <hl> , defeated the Roman army of approximately 15,000 troops, pursued the fleeing Romans back to Rome, and sacked the city before being either driven off or bought off.

question: What is the name of the chieftan who led his army to victory in the Battle of Allia River?, context: By 390 BC, several Gallic tribes were invading Italy from the north as their culture expanded throughout Europe. The Romans were alerted to this when a particularly warlike tribe invaded two Etruscan towns close to Rome's sphere of influence. These towns, overwhelmed by the enemy's numbers and ferocity, called on Rome for help. The Romans met the Gauls in pitched battle at the Battle of Allia River around 390–387 BC. The Gauls, led by chieftain Brennus, defeated the Roman army of approximately 15,000 troops, pursued the fleeing Romans back to Rome, and sacked the city before being either driven off or bought off. Romans and Gauls continued to war intermittently in Italy for more than two centuries.[relevant? – discuss]


Question: Who asked Rome for assistance after being overburdened by their enemies?

Answer: two Etruscan towns

By 390 BC, several Gallic tribes were invading Italy from the north as their culture expanded throughout Europe. <hl> The Romans were alerted to this when a particularly warlike tribe invaded two Etruscan towns close to Rome's sphere of influence. <hl> These towns, overwhelmed by the enemy's numbers and ferocity, called on Rome for help. The Romans met the Gauls in pitched battle at the Battle of Allia River around 390–387 BC. The Gauls, led by chieftain Brennus, defeated the Roman army of approximately 15,000 troops, pursued the fleeing Romans back to Rome, and sacked the city before being either driven off or bought off. Romans and Gauls continued to war intermittently in Italy for more than two centuries.[relevant? – discuss]

By 390 BC, several Gallic tribes were invading Italy from the north as their culture expanded throughout Europe. The Romans were alerted to this when a particularly warlike tribe invaded <hl> two Etruscan towns <hl> close to Rome's sphere of influence. These towns, overwhelmed by the enemy's numbers and ferocity, called on Rome for help. The Romans met the Gauls in pitched battle at the Battle of Allia River around 390–387 BC. The Gauls, led by chieftain Brennus, defeated the Roman army of approximately 15,000 troops, pursued the fleeing Romans back to Rome, and sacked the city before being either driven off or bought off. Romans and Gauls continued to war intermittently in Italy for more than two centuries.[relevant? – discuss]

question: Who asked Rome for assistance after being overburdened by their enemies?, context: By 390 BC, several Gallic tribes were invading Italy from the north as their culture expanded throughout Europe. The Romans were alerted to this when a particularly warlike tribe invaded two Etruscan towns close to Rome's sphere of influence. These towns, overwhelmed by the enemy's numbers and ferocity, called on Rome for help. The Romans met the Gauls in pitched battle at the Battle of Allia River around 390–387 BC. The Gauls, led by chieftain Brennus, defeated the Roman army of approximately 15,000 troops, pursued the fleeing Romans back to Rome, and sacked the city before being either driven off or bought off. Romans and Gauls continued to war intermittently in Italy for more than two centuries.[relevant? – discuss]


Question: What country did the Romans continue to expand to after Rome was sacked?

Answer: Italy

<hl> After recovering surprisingly fast from the sack of Rome, the Romans immediately resumed their expansion within Italy . <hl> The First Samnite War from 343 BC to 341 BC was relatively short: the Romans beat the Samnites in two battles, but were forced to withdraw before they could pursue the conflict further due to the revolt of several of their Latin allies in the Latin War. Rome beat the Latins in the Battle of Vesuvius and again in the Battle of Trifanum, after which the Latin cities were obliged to submit to Roman rule.

After recovering surprisingly fast from the sack of Rome, the Romans immediately resumed their expansion within <hl> Italy <hl>. The First Samnite War from 343 BC to 341 BC was relatively short: the Romans beat the Samnites in two battles, but were forced to withdraw before they could pursue the conflict further due to the revolt of several of their Latin allies in the Latin War. Rome beat the Latins in the Battle of Vesuvius and again in the Battle of Trifanum, after which the Latin cities were obliged to submit to Roman rule.

After recovering surprisingly fast from the sack of Rome, the Romans immediately resumed their expansion within <hl> Italy <hl> .

question: What country did the Romans continue to expand to after Rome was sacked?, context: After recovering surprisingly fast from the sack of Rome, the Romans immediately resumed their expansion within Italy. The First Samnite War from 343 BC to 341 BC was relatively short: the Romans beat the Samnites in two battles, but were forced to withdraw before they could pursue the conflict further due to the revolt of several of their Latin allies in the Latin War. Rome beat the Latins in the Battle of Vesuvius and again in the Battle of Trifanum, after which the Latin cities were obliged to submit to Roman rule.


Question: How many battles were conducted by Rome before they were forced to flee in The First Samnite War?

Answer: two battles

After recovering surprisingly fast from the sack of Rome, the Romans immediately resumed their expansion within Italy. <hl> The First Samnite War from 343 BC to 341 BC was relatively short: the Romans beat the Samnites in two battles , but were forced to withdraw before they could pursue the conflict further due to the revolt of several of their Latin allies in the Latin War. <hl> Rome beat the Latins in the Battle of Vesuvius and again in the Battle of Trifanum, after which the Latin cities were obliged to submit to Roman rule.

After recovering surprisingly fast from the sack of Rome, the Romans immediately resumed their expansion within Italy. The First Samnite War from 343 BC to 341 BC was relatively short: the Romans beat the Samnites in <hl> two battles <hl>, but were forced to withdraw before they could pursue the conflict further due to the revolt of several of their Latin allies in the Latin War. Rome beat the Latins in the Battle of Vesuvius and again in the Battle of Trifanum, after which the Latin cities were obliged to submit to Roman rule.

The First Samnite War from 343 BC to 341 BC was relatively short: the Romans beat the Samnites in <hl> two battles <hl> , but were forced to withdraw before they could pursue the conflict further due to the revolt of several of their Latin allies in the Latin War.

question: How many battles were conducted by Rome before they were forced to flee in The First Samnite War?, context: After recovering surprisingly fast from the sack of Rome, the Romans immediately resumed their expansion within Italy. The First Samnite War from 343 BC to 341 BC was relatively short: the Romans beat the Samnites in two battles, but were forced to withdraw before they could pursue the conflict further due to the revolt of several of their Latin allies in the Latin War. Rome beat the Latins in the Battle of Vesuvius and again in the Battle of Trifanum, after which the Latin cities were obliged to submit to Roman rule.


Question: What caused the Romans early withdrawl in The First Samnite War?

Answer: revolt of several of their Latin allies

After recovering surprisingly fast from the sack of Rome, the Romans immediately resumed their expansion within Italy. <hl> The First Samnite War from 343 BC to 341 BC was relatively short: the Romans beat the Samnites in two battles, but were forced to withdraw before they could pursue the conflict further due to the revolt of several of their Latin allies in the Latin War. <hl> Rome beat the Latins in the Battle of Vesuvius and again in the Battle of Trifanum, after which the Latin cities were obliged to submit to Roman rule.

After recovering surprisingly fast from the sack of Rome, the Romans immediately resumed their expansion within Italy. The First Samnite War from 343 BC to 341 BC was relatively short: the Romans beat the Samnites in two battles, but were forced to withdraw before they could pursue the conflict further due to the <hl> revolt of several of their Latin allies <hl> in the Latin War. Rome beat the Latins in the Battle of Vesuvius and again in the Battle of Trifanum, after which the Latin cities were obliged to submit to Roman rule.

question: What caused the Romans early withdrawl in The First Samnite War?, context: After recovering surprisingly fast from the sack of Rome, the Romans immediately resumed their expansion within Italy. The First Samnite War from 343 BC to 341 BC was relatively short: the Romans beat the Samnites in two battles, but were forced to withdraw before they could pursue the conflict further due to the revolt of several of their Latin allies in the Latin War. Rome beat the Latins in the Battle of Vesuvius and again in the Battle of Trifanum, after which the Latin cities were obliged to submit to Roman rule.


Question: When did The First Samnite War end?

Answer: 341 BC

After recovering surprisingly fast from the sack of Rome, the Romans immediately resumed their expansion within Italy. <hl> The First Samnite War from 343 BC to 341 BC was relatively short: the Romans beat the Samnites in two battles, but were forced to withdraw before they could pursue the conflict further due to the revolt of several of their Latin allies in the Latin War. <hl> Rome beat the Latins in the Battle of Vesuvius and again in the Battle of Trifanum, after which the Latin cities were obliged to submit to Roman rule.

After recovering surprisingly fast from the sack of Rome, the Romans immediately resumed their expansion within Italy. The First Samnite War from 343 BC to <hl> 341 BC <hl> was relatively short: the Romans beat the Samnites in two battles, but were forced to withdraw before they could pursue the conflict further due to the revolt of several of their Latin allies in the Latin War. Rome beat the Latins in the Battle of Vesuvius and again in the Battle of Trifanum, after which the Latin cities were obliged to submit to Roman rule.

question: When did The First Samnite War end?, context: After recovering surprisingly fast from the sack of Rome, the Romans immediately resumed their expansion within Italy. The First Samnite War from 343 BC to 341 BC was relatively short: the Romans beat the Samnites in two battles, but were forced to withdraw before they could pursue the conflict further due to the revolt of several of their Latin allies in the Latin War. Rome beat the Latins in the Battle of Vesuvius and again in the Battle of Trifanum, after which the Latin cities were obliged to submit to Roman rule.


Question: Who did Rome claim victory against in The Battle of Vesuvius?

Answer: Latins

After recovering surprisingly fast from the sack of Rome, the Romans immediately resumed their expansion within Italy. The First Samnite War from 343 BC to 341 BC was relatively short: the Romans beat the Samnites in two battles, but were forced to withdraw before they could pursue the conflict further due to the revolt of several of their Latin allies in the Latin War. <hl> Rome beat the Latins in the Battle of Vesuvius and again in the Battle of Trifanum, after which the Latin cities were obliged to submit to Roman rule. <hl>

After recovering surprisingly fast from the sack of Rome, the Romans immediately resumed their expansion within Italy. The First Samnite War from 343 BC to 341 BC was relatively short: the Romans beat the Samnites in two battles, but were forced to withdraw before they could pursue the conflict further due to the revolt of several of their Latin allies in the Latin War. Rome beat the <hl> Latins <hl> in the Battle of Vesuvius and again in the Battle of Trifanum, after which the Latin cities were obliged to submit to Roman rule.

question: Who did Rome claim victory against in The Battle of Vesuvius?, context: After recovering surprisingly fast from the sack of Rome, the Romans immediately resumed their expansion within Italy. The First Samnite War from 343 BC to 341 BC was relatively short: the Romans beat the Samnites in two battles, but were forced to withdraw before they could pursue the conflict further due to the revolt of several of their Latin allies in the Latin War. Rome beat the Latins in the Battle of Vesuvius and again in the Battle of Trifanum, after which the Latin cities were obliged to submit to Roman rule.


Question: Who suffered a great amount of losses battling the Roman army?

Answer: Pyrrhus

<hl> Despite early victories, Pyrrhus found his position in Italy untenable. <hl> Rome steadfastly refused to negotiate with Pyrrhus as long as his army remained in Italy. Facing unacceptably heavy losses from each encounter with the Roman army, Pyrrhus withdrew from the peninsula (hence the term "Pyrrhic victory"). In 275 BC, Pyrrhus again met the Roman army at the Battle of Beneventum. While Beneventum was indecisive, Pyrrhus realised his army had been exhausted and reduced by years of foreign campaigns. Seeing little hope for further gains, he withdrew completely from Italy.

Despite early victories, <hl> Pyrrhus <hl> found his position in Italy untenable. Rome steadfastly refused to negotiate with Pyrrhus as long as his army remained in Italy. Facing unacceptably heavy losses from each encounter with the Roman army, Pyrrhus withdrew from the peninsula (hence the term "Pyrrhic victory"). In 275 BC, Pyrrhus again met the Roman army at the Battle of Beneventum. While Beneventum was indecisive, Pyrrhus realised his army had been exhausted and reduced by years of foreign campaigns. Seeing little hope for further gains, he withdrew completely from Italy.

question: Who suffered a great amount of losses battling the Roman army?, context: Despite early victories, Pyrrhus found his position in Italy untenable. Rome steadfastly refused to negotiate with Pyrrhus as long as his army remained in Italy. Facing unacceptably heavy losses from each encounter with the Roman army, Pyrrhus withdrew from the peninsula (hence the term "Pyrrhic victory"). In 275 BC, Pyrrhus again met the Roman army at the Battle of Beneventum. While Beneventum was indecisive, Pyrrhus realised his army had been exhausted and reduced by years of foreign campaigns. Seeing little hope for further gains, he withdrew completely from Italy.


Question: What did Rome refuse to do in their relations with Pyrrhus?

Answer: negotiate

Despite early victories, Pyrrhus found his position in Italy untenable. <hl> Rome steadfastly refused to negotiate with Pyrrhus as long as his army remained in Italy. <hl> Facing unacceptably heavy losses from each encounter with the Roman army, Pyrrhus withdrew from the peninsula (hence the term "Pyrrhic victory"). In 275 BC, Pyrrhus again met the Roman army at the Battle of Beneventum. While Beneventum was indecisive, Pyrrhus realised his army had been exhausted and reduced by years of foreign campaigns. Seeing little hope for further gains, he withdrew completely from Italy.

Despite early victories, Pyrrhus found his position in Italy untenable. Rome steadfastly refused to <hl> negotiate <hl> with Pyrrhus as long as his army remained in Italy. Facing unacceptably heavy losses from each encounter with the Roman army, Pyrrhus withdrew from the peninsula (hence the term "Pyrrhic victory"). In 275 BC, Pyrrhus again met the Roman army at the Battle of Beneventum. While Beneventum was indecisive, Pyrrhus realised his army had been exhausted and reduced by years of foreign campaigns. Seeing little hope for further gains, he withdrew completely from Italy.

question: What did Rome refuse to do in their relations with Pyrrhus?, context: Despite early victories, Pyrrhus found his position in Italy untenable. Rome steadfastly refused to negotiate with Pyrrhus as long as his army remained in Italy. Facing unacceptably heavy losses from each encounter with the Roman army, Pyrrhus withdrew from the peninsula (hence the term "Pyrrhic victory"). In 275 BC, Pyrrhus again met the Roman army at the Battle of Beneventum. While Beneventum was indecisive, Pyrrhus realised his army had been exhausted and reduced by years of foreign campaigns. Seeing little hope for further gains, he withdrew completely from Italy.


Question: What military leader does the term Pyrrhic victory come from?

Answer: Pyrrhus

<hl> Despite early victories, Pyrrhus found his position in Italy untenable. <hl> Rome steadfastly refused to negotiate with Pyrrhus as long as his army remained in Italy. Facing unacceptably heavy losses from each encounter with the Roman army, Pyrrhus withdrew from the peninsula (hence the term "Pyrrhic victory"). In 275 BC, Pyrrhus again met the Roman army at the Battle of Beneventum. While Beneventum was indecisive, Pyrrhus realised his army had been exhausted and reduced by years of foreign campaigns. Seeing little hope for further gains, he withdrew completely from Italy.

Despite early victories, <hl> Pyrrhus <hl> found his position in Italy untenable. Rome steadfastly refused to negotiate with Pyrrhus as long as his army remained in Italy. Facing unacceptably heavy losses from each encounter with the Roman army, Pyrrhus withdrew from the peninsula (hence the term "Pyrrhic victory"). In 275 BC, Pyrrhus again met the Roman army at the Battle of Beneventum. While Beneventum was indecisive, Pyrrhus realised his army had been exhausted and reduced by years of foreign campaigns. Seeing little hope for further gains, he withdrew completely from Italy.

question: What military leader does the term Pyrrhic victory come from?, context: Despite early victories, Pyrrhus found his position in Italy untenable. Rome steadfastly refused to negotiate with Pyrrhus as long as his army remained in Italy. Facing unacceptably heavy losses from each encounter with the Roman army, Pyrrhus withdrew from the peninsula (hence the term "Pyrrhic victory"). In 275 BC, Pyrrhus again met the Roman army at the Battle of Beneventum. While Beneventum was indecisive, Pyrrhus realised his army had been exhausted and reduced by years of foreign campaigns. Seeing little hope for further gains, he withdrew completely from Italy.


Question: What ultimately caused Pyrrhus to vacate completely from the country of Italy?

Answer: Seeing little hope for further gains

Despite early victories, Pyrrhus found his position in Italy untenable. Rome steadfastly refused to negotiate with Pyrrhus as long as his army remained in Italy. Facing unacceptably heavy losses from each encounter with the Roman army, Pyrrhus withdrew from the peninsula (hence the term "Pyrrhic victory"). In 275 BC, Pyrrhus again met the Roman army at the Battle of Beneventum. While Beneventum was indecisive, Pyrrhus realised his army had been exhausted and reduced by years of foreign campaigns. <hl> Seeing little hope for further gains , he withdrew completely from Italy. <hl>

Despite early victories, Pyrrhus found his position in Italy untenable. Rome steadfastly refused to negotiate with Pyrrhus as long as his army remained in Italy. Facing unacceptably heavy losses from each encounter with the Roman army, Pyrrhus withdrew from the peninsula (hence the term "Pyrrhic victory"). In 275 BC, Pyrrhus again met the Roman army at the Battle of Beneventum. While Beneventum was indecisive, Pyrrhus realised his army had been exhausted and reduced by years of foreign campaigns. <hl> Seeing little hope for further gains <hl>, he withdrew completely from Italy.

<hl> Seeing little hope for further gains <hl> , he withdrew completely from Italy.

question: What ultimately caused Pyrrhus to vacate completely from the country of Italy?, context: Despite early victories, Pyrrhus found his position in Italy untenable. Rome steadfastly refused to negotiate with Pyrrhus as long as his army remained in Italy. Facing unacceptably heavy losses from each encounter with the Roman army, Pyrrhus withdrew from the peninsula (hence the term "Pyrrhic victory"). In 275 BC, Pyrrhus again met the Roman army at the Battle of Beneventum. While Beneventum was indecisive, Pyrrhus realised his army had been exhausted and reduced by years of foreign campaigns. Seeing little hope for further gains, he withdrew completely from Italy.


Question: In what year did the Battle of Beneventum take place?

Answer: 275 BC

Despite early victories, Pyrrhus found his position in Italy untenable. Rome steadfastly refused to negotiate with Pyrrhus as long as his army remained in Italy. Facing unacceptably heavy losses from each encounter with the Roman army, Pyrrhus withdrew from the peninsula (hence the term "Pyrrhic victory"). <hl> In 275 BC , Pyrrhus again met the Roman army at the Battle of Beneventum. <hl> While Beneventum was indecisive, Pyrrhus realised his army had been exhausted and reduced by years of foreign campaigns. Seeing little hope for further gains, he withdrew completely from Italy.

Despite early victories, Pyrrhus found his position in Italy untenable. Rome steadfastly refused to negotiate with Pyrrhus as long as his army remained in Italy. Facing unacceptably heavy losses from each encounter with the Roman army, Pyrrhus withdrew from the peninsula (hence the term "Pyrrhic victory"). In <hl> 275 BC <hl>, Pyrrhus again met the Roman army at the Battle of Beneventum. While Beneventum was indecisive, Pyrrhus realised his army had been exhausted and reduced by years of foreign campaigns. Seeing little hope for further gains, he withdrew completely from Italy.

In <hl> 275 BC <hl> , Pyrrhus again met the Roman army at the Battle of Beneventum.

question: In what year did the Battle of Beneventum take place?, context: Despite early victories, Pyrrhus found his position in Italy untenable. Rome steadfastly refused to negotiate with Pyrrhus as long as his army remained in Italy. Facing unacceptably heavy losses from each encounter with the Roman army, Pyrrhus withdrew from the peninsula (hence the term "Pyrrhic victory"). In 275 BC, Pyrrhus again met the Roman army at the Battle of Beneventum. While Beneventum was indecisive, Pyrrhus realised his army had been exhausted and reduced by years of foreign campaigns. Seeing little hope for further gains, he withdrew completely from Italy.


Question: What battles were initially complete disasters for Rome?

Answer: naval battles

<hl> The first few naval battles were disasters for Rome. <hl> However, after training more sailors and inventing a grappling engine, a Roman naval force was able to defeat a Carthaginian fleet, and further naval victories followed. The Carthaginians then hired Xanthippus of Carthage, a Spartan mercenary general, to reorganise and lead their army. He cut off the Roman army from its base by re-establishing Carthaginian naval supremacy. The Romans then again defeated the Carthaginians in naval battle at the Battle of the Aegates Islands and left Carthage with neither a fleet nor sufficient coin to raise one. For a maritime power the loss of their access to the Mediterranean stung financially and psychologically, and the Carthaginians sued for peace.

The first few <hl> naval battles <hl> were disasters for Rome. However, after training more sailors and inventing a grappling engine, a Roman naval force was able to defeat a Carthaginian fleet, and further naval victories followed. The Carthaginians then hired Xanthippus of Carthage, a Spartan mercenary general, to reorganise and lead their army. He cut off the Roman army from its base by re-establishing Carthaginian naval supremacy. The Romans then again defeated the Carthaginians in naval battle at the Battle of the Aegates Islands and left Carthage with neither a fleet nor sufficient coin to raise one. For a maritime power the loss of their access to the Mediterranean stung financially and psychologically, and the Carthaginians sued for peace.

question: What battles were initially complete disasters for Rome?, context: The first few naval battles were disasters for Rome. However, after training more sailors and inventing a grappling engine, a Roman naval force was able to defeat a Carthaginian fleet, and further naval victories followed. The Carthaginians then hired Xanthippus of Carthage, a Spartan mercenary general, to reorganise and lead their army. He cut off the Roman army from its base by re-establishing Carthaginian naval supremacy. The Romans then again defeated the Carthaginians in naval battle at the Battle of the Aegates Islands and left Carthage with neither a fleet nor sufficient coin to raise one. For a maritime power the loss of their access to the Mediterranean stung financially and psychologically, and the Carthaginians sued for peace.


Question: What type of engine was invented by the Romans?

Answer: grappling engine

The first few naval battles were disasters for Rome. <hl> However, after training more sailors and inventing a grappling engine , a Roman naval force was able to defeat a Carthaginian fleet, and further naval victories followed. <hl> The Carthaginians then hired Xanthippus of Carthage, a Spartan mercenary general, to reorganise and lead their army. He cut off the Roman army from its base by re-establishing Carthaginian naval supremacy. The Romans then again defeated the Carthaginians in naval battle at the Battle of the Aegates Islands and left Carthage with neither a fleet nor sufficient coin to raise one. For a maritime power the loss of their access to the Mediterranean stung financially and psychologically, and the Carthaginians sued for peace.

The first few naval battles were disasters for Rome. However, after training more sailors and inventing a <hl> grappling engine <hl>, a Roman naval force was able to defeat a Carthaginian fleet, and further naval victories followed. The Carthaginians then hired Xanthippus of Carthage, a Spartan mercenary general, to reorganise and lead their army. He cut off the Roman army from its base by re-establishing Carthaginian naval supremacy. The Romans then again defeated the Carthaginians in naval battle at the Battle of the Aegates Islands and left Carthage with neither a fleet nor sufficient coin to raise one. For a maritime power the loss of their access to the Mediterranean stung financially and psychologically, and the Carthaginians sued for peace.

However, after training more sailors and inventing a <hl> grappling engine <hl> , a Roman naval force was able to defeat a Carthaginian fleet, and further naval victories followed.

question: What type of engine was invented by the Romans?, context: The first few naval battles were disasters for Rome. However, after training more sailors and inventing a grappling engine, a Roman naval force was able to defeat a Carthaginian fleet, and further naval victories followed. The Carthaginians then hired Xanthippus of Carthage, a Spartan mercenary general, to reorganise and lead their army. He cut off the Roman army from its base by re-establishing Carthaginian naval supremacy. The Romans then again defeated the Carthaginians in naval battle at the Battle of the Aegates Islands and left Carthage with neither a fleet nor sufficient coin to raise one. For a maritime power the loss of their access to the Mediterranean stung financially and psychologically, and the Carthaginians sued for peace.


Question: Who did the Carthaginians hire to lead their army after several losses against the Romans?

Answer: Xanthippus

The first few naval battles were disasters for Rome. However, after training more sailors and inventing a grappling engine, a Roman naval force was able to defeat a Carthaginian fleet, and further naval victories followed. <hl> The Carthaginians then hired Xanthippus of Carthage, a Spartan mercenary general, to reorganise and lead their army. <hl> He cut off the Roman army from its base by re-establishing Carthaginian naval supremacy. The Romans then again defeated the Carthaginians in naval battle at the Battle of the Aegates Islands and left Carthage with neither a fleet nor sufficient coin to raise one. For a maritime power the loss of their access to the Mediterranean stung financially and psychologically, and the Carthaginians sued for peace.

The first few naval battles were disasters for Rome. However, after training more sailors and inventing a grappling engine, a Roman naval force was able to defeat a Carthaginian fleet, and further naval victories followed. The Carthaginians then hired <hl> Xanthippus <hl> of Carthage, a Spartan mercenary general, to reorganise and lead their army. He cut off the Roman army from its base by re-establishing Carthaginian naval supremacy. The Romans then again defeated the Carthaginians in naval battle at the Battle of the Aegates Islands and left Carthage with neither a fleet nor sufficient coin to raise one. For a maritime power the loss of their access to the Mediterranean stung financially and psychologically, and the Carthaginians sued for peace.

question: Who did the Carthaginians hire to lead their army after several losses against the Romans?, context: The first few naval battles were disasters for Rome. However, after training more sailors and inventing a grappling engine, a Roman naval force was able to defeat a Carthaginian fleet, and further naval victories followed. The Carthaginians then hired Xanthippus of Carthage, a Spartan mercenary general, to reorganise and lead their army. He cut off the Roman army from its base by re-establishing Carthaginian naval supremacy. The Romans then again defeated the Carthaginians in naval battle at the Battle of the Aegates Islands and left Carthage with neither a fleet nor sufficient coin to raise one. For a maritime power the loss of their access to the Mediterranean stung financially and psychologically, and the Carthaginians sued for peace.


Question: Who claimed victory at the Battle of Aegates Islands?

Answer: The Romans

The first few naval battles were disasters for Rome. However, after training more sailors and inventing a grappling engine, a Roman naval force was able to defeat a Carthaginian fleet, and further naval victories followed. The Carthaginians then hired Xanthippus of Carthage, a Spartan mercenary general, to reorganise and lead their army. He cut off the Roman army from its base by re-establishing Carthaginian naval supremacy. <hl> The Romans then again defeated the Carthaginians in naval battle at the Battle of the Aegates Islands and left Carthage with neither a fleet nor sufficient coin to raise one. <hl> For a maritime power the loss of their access to the Mediterranean stung financially and psychologically, and the Carthaginians sued for peace.

The first few naval battles were disasters for Rome. However, after training more sailors and inventing a grappling engine, a Roman naval force was able to defeat a Carthaginian fleet, and further naval victories followed. The Carthaginians then hired Xanthippus of Carthage, a Spartan mercenary general, to reorganise and lead their army. He cut off the Roman army from its base by re-establishing Carthaginian naval supremacy. <hl> The Romans <hl> then again defeated the Carthaginians in naval battle at the Battle of the Aegates Islands and left Carthage with neither a fleet nor sufficient coin to raise one. For a maritime power the loss of their access to the Mediterranean stung financially and psychologically, and the Carthaginians sued for peace.

question: Who claimed victory at the Battle of Aegates Islands?, context: The first few naval battles were disasters for Rome. However, after training more sailors and inventing a grappling engine, a Roman naval force was able to defeat a Carthaginian fleet, and further naval victories followed. The Carthaginians then hired Xanthippus of Carthage, a Spartan mercenary general, to reorganise and lead their army. He cut off the Roman army from its base by re-establishing Carthaginian naval supremacy. The Romans then again defeated the Carthaginians in naval battle at the Battle of the Aegates Islands and left Carthage with neither a fleet nor sufficient coin to raise one. For a maritime power the loss of their access to the Mediterranean stung financially and psychologically, and the Carthaginians sued for peace.


Question: Who lost access to the Mediterranean after numerous naval losses?

Answer: the Carthaginians

The first few naval battles were disasters for Rome. However, after training more sailors and inventing a grappling engine, a Roman naval force was able to defeat a Carthaginian fleet, and further naval victories followed. The Carthaginians then hired Xanthippus of Carthage, a Spartan mercenary general, to reorganise and lead their army. He cut off the Roman army from its base by re-establishing Carthaginian naval supremacy. <hl> The Romans then again defeated the Carthaginians in naval battle at the Battle of the Aegates Islands and left Carthage with neither a fleet nor sufficient coin to raise one. <hl> For a maritime power the loss of their access to the Mediterranean stung financially and psychologically, and the Carthaginians sued for peace.

The first few naval battles were disasters for Rome. However, after training more sailors and inventing a grappling engine, a Roman naval force was able to defeat a Carthaginian fleet, and further naval victories followed. The Carthaginians then hired Xanthippus of Carthage, a Spartan mercenary general, to reorganise and lead their army. He cut off the Roman army from its base by re-establishing Carthaginian naval supremacy. The Romans then again defeated <hl> the Carthaginians <hl> in naval battle at the Battle of the Aegates Islands and left Carthage with neither a fleet nor sufficient coin to raise one. For a maritime power the loss of their access to the Mediterranean stung financially and psychologically, and the Carthaginians sued for peace.

question: Who lost access to the Mediterranean after numerous naval losses?, context: The first few naval battles were disasters for Rome. However, after training more sailors and inventing a grappling engine, a Roman naval force was able to defeat a Carthaginian fleet, and further naval victories followed. The Carthaginians then hired Xanthippus of Carthage, a Spartan mercenary general, to reorganise and lead their army. He cut off the Roman army from its base by re-establishing Carthaginian naval supremacy. The Romans then again defeated the Carthaginians in naval battle at the Battle of the Aegates Islands and left Carthage with neither a fleet nor sufficient coin to raise one. For a maritime power the loss of their access to the Mediterranean stung financially and psychologically, and the Carthaginians sued for peace.


Question: What was the name of Hannibal's family member that wanted to join his army in battle?

Answer: Hasdrubal Barca

The Romans held off Hannibal in three battles, but then Hannibal smashed a succession of Roman consular armies. <hl> By this time Hannibal's brother Hasdrubal Barca sought to cross the Alps into Italy and join his brother with a second army. <hl> Hasdrubal managed to break through into Italy only to be defeated decisively on the Metaurus River. Unable to defeat Hannibal on Italian soil, the Romans boldly sent an army to Africa under Scipio Africanus to threaten the Carthaginian capital. Hannibal was recalled to Africa, and defeated at the Battle of Zama.

The Romans held off Hannibal in three battles, but then Hannibal smashed a succession of Roman consular armies. By this time Hannibal's brother <hl> Hasdrubal Barca <hl> sought to cross the Alps into Italy and join his brother with a second army. Hasdrubal managed to break through into Italy only to be defeated decisively on the Metaurus River. Unable to defeat Hannibal on Italian soil, the Romans boldly sent an army to Africa under Scipio Africanus to threaten the Carthaginian capital. Hannibal was recalled to Africa, and defeated at the Battle of Zama.

question: What was the name of Hannibal's family member that wanted to join his army in battle?, context: The Romans held off Hannibal in three battles, but then Hannibal smashed a succession of Roman consular armies. By this time Hannibal's brother Hasdrubal Barca sought to cross the Alps into Italy and join his brother with a second army. Hasdrubal managed to break through into Italy only to be defeated decisively on the Metaurus River. Unable to defeat Hannibal on Italian soil, the Romans boldly sent an army to Africa under Scipio Africanus to threaten the Carthaginian capital. Hannibal was recalled to Africa, and defeated at the Battle of Zama.


Question: At what river was Hasdrubal Barca defeated at?

Answer: Metaurus River

The Romans held off Hannibal in three battles, but then Hannibal smashed a succession of Roman consular armies. By this time Hannibal's brother Hasdrubal Barca sought to cross the Alps into Italy and join his brother with a second army. <hl> Hasdrubal managed to break through into Italy only to be defeated decisively on the Metaurus River . <hl> Unable to defeat Hannibal on Italian soil, the Romans boldly sent an army to Africa under Scipio Africanus to threaten the Carthaginian capital. Hannibal was recalled to Africa, and defeated at the Battle of Zama.

The Romans held off Hannibal in three battles, but then Hannibal smashed a succession of Roman consular armies. By this time Hannibal's brother Hasdrubal Barca sought to cross the Alps into Italy and join his brother with a second army. Hasdrubal managed to break through into Italy only to be defeated decisively on the <hl> Metaurus River <hl>. Unable to defeat Hannibal on Italian soil, the Romans boldly sent an army to Africa under Scipio Africanus to threaten the Carthaginian capital. Hannibal was recalled to Africa, and defeated at the Battle of Zama.

Hasdrubal managed to break through into Italy only to be defeated decisively on the <hl> Metaurus River <hl> .

question: At what river was Hasdrubal Barca defeated at?, context: The Romans held off Hannibal in three battles, but then Hannibal smashed a succession of Roman consular armies. By this time Hannibal's brother Hasdrubal Barca sought to cross the Alps into Italy and join his brother with a second army. Hasdrubal managed to break through into Italy only to be defeated decisively on the Metaurus River. Unable to defeat Hannibal on Italian soil, the Romans boldly sent an army to Africa under Scipio Africanus to threaten the Carthaginian capital. Hannibal was recalled to Africa, and defeated at the Battle of Zama.


Question: In which battle was Hannibal clearly defeated at?

Answer: the Battle of Zama

The Romans held off Hannibal in three battles, but then Hannibal smashed a succession of Roman consular armies. By this time Hannibal's brother Hasdrubal Barca sought to cross the Alps into Italy and join his brother with a second army. Hasdrubal managed to break through into Italy only to be defeated decisively on the Metaurus River. Unable to defeat Hannibal on Italian soil, the Romans boldly sent an army to Africa under Scipio Africanus to threaten the Carthaginian capital. <hl> Hannibal was recalled to Africa, and defeated at the Battle of Zama . <hl>

The Romans held off Hannibal in three battles, but then Hannibal smashed a succession of Roman consular armies. By this time Hannibal's brother Hasdrubal Barca sought to cross the Alps into Italy and join his brother with a second army. Hasdrubal managed to break through into Italy only to be defeated decisively on the Metaurus River. Unable to defeat Hannibal on Italian soil, the Romans boldly sent an army to Africa under Scipio Africanus to threaten the Carthaginian capital. Hannibal was recalled to Africa, and defeated at <hl> the Battle of Zama <hl>.

Hannibal was recalled to Africa, and defeated at <hl> the Battle of Zama <hl> .

question: In which battle was Hannibal clearly defeated at?, context: The Romans held off Hannibal in three battles, but then Hannibal smashed a succession of Roman consular armies. By this time Hannibal's brother Hasdrubal Barca sought to cross the Alps into Italy and join his brother with a second army. Hasdrubal managed to break through into Italy only to be defeated decisively on the Metaurus River. Unable to defeat Hannibal on Italian soil, the Romans boldly sent an army to Africa under Scipio Africanus to threaten the Carthaginian capital. Hannibal was recalled to Africa, and defeated at the Battle of Zama.


Question: Who had led the army that the Romans had sent to Africa?

Answer: Scipio Africanus

The Romans held off Hannibal in three battles, but then Hannibal smashed a succession of Roman consular armies. By this time Hannibal's brother Hasdrubal Barca sought to cross the Alps into Italy and join his brother with a second army. Hasdrubal managed to break through into Italy only to be defeated decisively on the Metaurus River. <hl> Unable to defeat Hannibal on Italian soil, the Romans boldly sent an army to Africa under Scipio Africanus to threaten the Carthaginian capital. <hl> Hannibal was recalled to Africa, and defeated at the Battle of Zama.

The Romans held off Hannibal in three battles, but then Hannibal smashed a succession of Roman consular armies. By this time Hannibal's brother Hasdrubal Barca sought to cross the Alps into Italy and join his brother with a second army. Hasdrubal managed to break through into Italy only to be defeated decisively on the Metaurus River. Unable to defeat Hannibal on Italian soil, the Romans boldly sent an army to Africa under <hl> Scipio Africanus <hl> to threaten the Carthaginian capital. Hannibal was recalled to Africa, and defeated at the Battle of Zama.

question: Who had led the army that the Romans had sent to Africa?, context: The Romans held off Hannibal in three battles, but then Hannibal smashed a succession of Roman consular armies. By this time Hannibal's brother Hasdrubal Barca sought to cross the Alps into Italy and join his brother with a second army. Hasdrubal managed to break through into Italy only to be defeated decisively on the Metaurus River. Unable to defeat Hannibal on Italian soil, the Romans boldly sent an army to Africa under Scipio Africanus to threaten the Carthaginian capital. Hannibal was recalled to Africa, and defeated at the Battle of Zama.


Question: Why did the Romans send an army to Africa?

Answer: to threaten the Carthaginian capital

The Romans held off Hannibal in three battles, but then Hannibal smashed a succession of Roman consular armies. By this time Hannibal's brother Hasdrubal Barca sought to cross the Alps into Italy and join his brother with a second army. Hasdrubal managed to break through into Italy only to be defeated decisively on the Metaurus River. <hl> Unable to defeat Hannibal on Italian soil, the Romans boldly sent an army to Africa under Scipio Africanus to threaten the Carthaginian capital . <hl> Hannibal was recalled to Africa, and defeated at the Battle of Zama.

The Romans held off Hannibal in three battles, but then Hannibal smashed a succession of Roman consular armies. By this time Hannibal's brother Hasdrubal Barca sought to cross the Alps into Italy and join his brother with a second army. Hasdrubal managed to break through into Italy only to be defeated decisively on the Metaurus River. Unable to defeat Hannibal on Italian soil, the Romans boldly sent an army to Africa under Scipio Africanus <hl> to threaten the Carthaginian capital <hl>. Hannibal was recalled to Africa, and defeated at the Battle of Zama.

Unable to defeat Hannibal on Italian soil, the Romans boldly sent an army to Africa under Scipio Africanus <hl> to threaten the Carthaginian capital <hl> .

question: Why did the Romans send an army to Africa?, context: The Romans held off Hannibal in three battles, but then Hannibal smashed a succession of Roman consular armies. By this time Hannibal's brother Hasdrubal Barca sought to cross the Alps into Italy and join his brother with a second army. Hasdrubal managed to break through into Italy only to be defeated decisively on the Metaurus River. Unable to defeat Hannibal on Italian soil, the Romans boldly sent an army to Africa under Scipio Africanus to threaten the Carthaginian capital. Hannibal was recalled to Africa, and defeated at the Battle of Zama.


Question: What had prevented Carthage from defending their territory from pirates?

Answer: Treaties

Carthage never recovered militarily after the Second Punic War, but quickly economically and the Third Punic War that followed was in reality a simple punitive mission after the neighbouring Numidians allied to Rome robbed/attacked Carthaginian merchants. <hl> Treaties had forbidden any war with Roman allies, and defense against robbing/pirates was considered as "war action": Rome decided to annihilate the city of Carthage. <hl> Carthage was almost defenceless, and submitted when besieged. However, the Romans demanded complete surrender and moval of the city into the (desert) inland far off any coastal or harbour region, and the Carthaginians refused. The city was besieged, stormed, and completely destroyed. Ultimately, all of Carthage's North African and Iberian territories were acquired by Rome. Note that "Carthage" was not an 'empire', but a league of punic colonies (port cities in the western mediterranean) like the 1st and 2nd Athenian ("attic") leagues, under leadership of Carthage. Punic Carthago was gone, but the other punic cities in the western mediterranean flourished under Roman rule.

Carthage never recovered militarily after the Second Punic War, but quickly economically and the Third Punic War that followed was in reality a simple punitive mission after the neighbouring Numidians allied to Rome robbed/attacked Carthaginian merchants. <hl> Treaties <hl> had forbidden any war with Roman allies, and defense against robbing/pirates was considered as "war action": Rome decided to annihilate the city of Carthage. Carthage was almost defenceless, and submitted when besieged. However, the Romans demanded complete surrender and moval of the city into the (desert) inland far off any coastal or harbour region, and the Carthaginians refused. The city was besieged, stormed, and completely destroyed. Ultimately, all of Carthage's North African and Iberian territories were acquired by Rome. Note that "Carthage" was not an 'empire', but a league of punic colonies (port cities in the western mediterranean) like the 1st and 2nd Athenian ("attic") leagues, under leadership of Carthage. Punic Carthago was gone, but the other punic cities in the western mediterranean flourished under Roman rule.

question: What had prevented Carthage from defending their territory from pirates?, context: Carthage never recovered militarily after the Second Punic War, but quickly economically and the Third Punic War that followed was in reality a simple punitive mission after the neighbouring Numidians allied to Rome robbed/attacked Carthaginian merchants. Treaties had forbidden any war with Roman allies, and defense against robbing/pirates was considered as "war action": Rome decided to annihilate the city of Carthage. Carthage was almost defenceless, and submitted when besieged. However, the Romans demanded complete surrender and moval of the city into the (desert) inland far off any coastal or harbour region, and the Carthaginians refused. The city was besieged, stormed, and completely destroyed. Ultimately, all of Carthage's North African and Iberian territories were acquired by Rome. Note that "Carthage" was not an 'empire', but a league of punic colonies (port cities in the western mediterranean) like the 1st and 2nd Athenian ("attic") leagues, under leadership of Carthage. Punic Carthago was gone, but the other punic cities in the western mediterranean flourished under Roman rule.


Question: What type of colony was Carthage primarily comprised of?

Answer: punic colonies

Carthage never recovered militarily after the Second Punic War, but quickly economically and the Third Punic War that followed was in reality a simple punitive mission after the neighbouring Numidians allied to Rome robbed/attacked Carthaginian merchants. Treaties had forbidden any war with Roman allies, and defense against robbing/pirates was considered as "war action": Rome decided to annihilate the city of Carthage. Carthage was almost defenceless, and submitted when besieged. However, the Romans demanded complete surrender and moval of the city into the (desert) inland far off any coastal or harbour region, and the Carthaginians refused. The city was besieged, stormed, and completely destroyed. Ultimately, all of Carthage's North African and Iberian territories were acquired by Rome. <hl> Note that "Carthage" was not an 'empire', but a league of punic colonies (port cities in the western mediterranean) like the 1st and 2nd Athenian ("attic") leagues, under leadership of Carthage. <hl> Punic Carthago was gone, but the other punic cities in the western mediterranean flourished under Roman rule.

Carthage never recovered militarily after the Second Punic War, but quickly economically and the Third Punic War that followed was in reality a simple punitive mission after the neighbouring Numidians allied to Rome robbed/attacked Carthaginian merchants. Treaties had forbidden any war with Roman allies, and defense against robbing/pirates was considered as "war action": Rome decided to annihilate the city of Carthage. Carthage was almost defenceless, and submitted when besieged. However, the Romans demanded complete surrender and moval of the city into the (desert) inland far off any coastal or harbour region, and the Carthaginians refused. The city was besieged, stormed, and completely destroyed. Ultimately, all of Carthage's North African and Iberian territories were acquired by Rome. Note that "Carthage" was not an 'empire', but a league of <hl> punic colonies <hl> (port cities in the western mediterranean) like the 1st and 2nd Athenian ("attic") leagues, under leadership of Carthage. Punic Carthago was gone, but the other punic cities in the western mediterranean flourished under Roman rule.

question: What type of colony was Carthage primarily comprised of?, context: Carthage never recovered militarily after the Second Punic War, but quickly economically and the Third Punic War that followed was in reality a simple punitive mission after the neighbouring Numidians allied to Rome robbed/attacked Carthaginian merchants. Treaties had forbidden any war with Roman allies, and defense against robbing/pirates was considered as "war action": Rome decided to annihilate the city of Carthage. Carthage was almost defenceless, and submitted when besieged. However, the Romans demanded complete surrender and moval of the city into the (desert) inland far off any coastal or harbour region, and the Carthaginians refused. The city was besieged, stormed, and completely destroyed. Ultimately, all of Carthage's North African and Iberian territories were acquired by Rome. Note that "Carthage" was not an 'empire', but a league of punic colonies (port cities in the western mediterranean) like the 1st and 2nd Athenian ("attic") leagues, under leadership of Carthage. Punic Carthago was gone, but the other punic cities in the western mediterranean flourished under Roman rule.


Question: What cities flourished after they were conquered by the Romans?

Answer: punic cities

Carthage never recovered militarily after the Second Punic War, but quickly economically and the Third Punic War that followed was in reality a simple punitive mission after the neighbouring Numidians allied to Rome robbed/attacked Carthaginian merchants. Treaties had forbidden any war with Roman allies, and defense against robbing/pirates was considered as "war action": Rome decided to annihilate the city of Carthage. Carthage was almost defenceless, and submitted when besieged. However, the Romans demanded complete surrender and moval of the city into the (desert) inland far off any coastal or harbour region, and the Carthaginians refused. The city was besieged, stormed, and completely destroyed. Ultimately, all of Carthage's North African and Iberian territories were acquired by Rome. Note that "Carthage" was not an 'empire', but a league of punic colonies (port cities in the western mediterranean) like the 1st and 2nd Athenian ("attic") leagues, under leadership of Carthage. <hl> Punic Carthago was gone, but the other punic cities in the western mediterranean flourished under Roman rule. <hl>

Carthage never recovered militarily after the Second Punic War, but quickly economically and the Third Punic War that followed was in reality a simple punitive mission after the neighbouring Numidians allied to Rome robbed/attacked Carthaginian merchants. Treaties had forbidden any war with Roman allies, and defense against robbing/pirates was considered as "war action": Rome decided to annihilate the city of Carthage. Carthage was almost defenceless, and submitted when besieged. However, the Romans demanded complete surrender and moval of the city into the (desert) inland far off any coastal or harbour region, and the Carthaginians refused. The city was besieged, stormed, and completely destroyed. Ultimately, all of Carthage's North African and Iberian territories were acquired by Rome. Note that "Carthage" was not an 'empire', but a league of punic colonies (port cities in the western mediterranean) like the 1st and 2nd Athenian ("attic") leagues, under leadership of Carthage. Punic Carthago was gone, but the other <hl> punic cities <hl> in the western mediterranean flourished under Roman rule.

question: What cities flourished after they were conquered by the Romans?, context: Carthage never recovered militarily after the Second Punic War, but quickly economically and the Third Punic War that followed was in reality a simple punitive mission after the neighbouring Numidians allied to Rome robbed/attacked Carthaginian merchants. Treaties had forbidden any war with Roman allies, and defense against robbing/pirates was considered as "war action": Rome decided to annihilate the city of Carthage. Carthage was almost defenceless, and submitted when besieged. However, the Romans demanded complete surrender and moval of the city into the (desert) inland far off any coastal or harbour region, and the Carthaginians refused. The city was besieged, stormed, and completely destroyed. Ultimately, all of Carthage's North African and Iberian territories were acquired by Rome. Note that "Carthage" was not an 'empire', but a league of punic colonies (port cities in the western mediterranean) like the 1st and 2nd Athenian ("attic") leagues, under leadership of Carthage. Punic Carthago was gone, but the other punic cities in the western mediterranean flourished under Roman rule.


Question: What was the main request of the Romans that Carthage turned down?

Answer: complete surrender

Carthage never recovered militarily after the Second Punic War, but quickly economically and the Third Punic War that followed was in reality a simple punitive mission after the neighbouring Numidians allied to Rome robbed/attacked Carthaginian merchants. Treaties had forbidden any war with Roman allies, and defense against robbing/pirates was considered as "war action": Rome decided to annihilate the city of Carthage. Carthage was almost defenceless, and submitted when besieged. <hl> However, the Romans demanded complete surrender and moval of the city into the (desert) inland far off any coastal or harbour region, and the Carthaginians refused. <hl> The city was besieged, stormed, and completely destroyed. Ultimately, all of Carthage's North African and Iberian territories were acquired by Rome. Note that "Carthage" was not an 'empire', but a league of punic colonies (port cities in the western mediterranean) like the 1st and 2nd Athenian ("attic") leagues, under leadership of Carthage. Punic Carthago was gone, but the other punic cities in the western mediterranean flourished under Roman rule.

Carthage never recovered militarily after the Second Punic War, but quickly economically and the Third Punic War that followed was in reality a simple punitive mission after the neighbouring Numidians allied to Rome robbed/attacked Carthaginian merchants. Treaties had forbidden any war with Roman allies, and defense against robbing/pirates was considered as "war action": Rome decided to annihilate the city of Carthage. Carthage was almost defenceless, and submitted when besieged. However, the Romans demanded <hl> complete surrender <hl> and moval of the city into the (desert) inland far off any coastal or harbour region, and the Carthaginians refused. The city was besieged, stormed, and completely destroyed. Ultimately, all of Carthage's North African and Iberian territories were acquired by Rome. Note that "Carthage" was not an 'empire', but a league of punic colonies (port cities in the western mediterranean) like the 1st and 2nd Athenian ("attic") leagues, under leadership of Carthage. Punic Carthago was gone, but the other punic cities in the western mediterranean flourished under Roman rule.

question: What was the main request of the Romans that Carthage turned down?, context: Carthage never recovered militarily after the Second Punic War, but quickly economically and the Third Punic War that followed was in reality a simple punitive mission after the neighbouring Numidians allied to Rome robbed/attacked Carthaginian merchants. Treaties had forbidden any war with Roman allies, and defense against robbing/pirates was considered as "war action": Rome decided to annihilate the city of Carthage. Carthage was almost defenceless, and submitted when besieged. However, the Romans demanded complete surrender and moval of the city into the (desert) inland far off any coastal or harbour region, and the Carthaginians refused. The city was besieged, stormed, and completely destroyed. Ultimately, all of Carthage's North African and Iberian territories were acquired by Rome. Note that "Carthage" was not an 'empire', but a league of punic colonies (port cities in the western mediterranean) like the 1st and 2nd Athenian ("attic") leagues, under leadership of Carthage. Punic Carthago was gone, but the other punic cities in the western mediterranean flourished under Roman rule.


Question: Who did the Numidians form an alliance with?

Answer: Rome

<hl> Carthage never recovered militarily after the Second Punic War, but quickly economically and the Third Punic War that followed was in reality a simple punitive mission after the neighbouring Numidians allied to Rome robbed/attacked Carthaginian merchants. <hl> Treaties had forbidden any war with Roman allies, and defense against robbing/pirates was considered as "war action": Rome decided to annihilate the city of Carthage. Carthage was almost defenceless, and submitted when besieged. However, the Romans demanded complete surrender and moval of the city into the (desert) inland far off any coastal or harbour region, and the Carthaginians refused. The city was besieged, stormed, and completely destroyed. Ultimately, all of Carthage's North African and Iberian territories were acquired by Rome. Note that "Carthage" was not an 'empire', but a league of punic colonies (port cities in the western mediterranean) like the 1st and 2nd Athenian ("attic") leagues, under leadership of Carthage. Punic Carthago was gone, but the other punic cities in the western mediterranean flourished under Roman rule.

Carthage never recovered militarily after the Second Punic War, but quickly economically and the Third Punic War that followed was in reality a simple punitive mission after the neighbouring Numidians allied to <hl> Rome <hl> robbed/attacked Carthaginian merchants. Treaties had forbidden any war with Roman allies, and defense against robbing/pirates was considered as "war action": Rome decided to annihilate the city of Carthage. Carthage was almost defenceless, and submitted when besieged. However, the Romans demanded complete surrender and moval of the city into the (desert) inland far off any coastal or harbour region, and the Carthaginians refused. The city was besieged, stormed, and completely destroyed. Ultimately, all of Carthage's North African and Iberian territories were acquired by Rome. Note that "Carthage" was not an 'empire', but a league of punic colonies (port cities in the western mediterranean) like the 1st and 2nd Athenian ("attic") leagues, under leadership of Carthage. Punic Carthago was gone, but the other punic cities in the western mediterranean flourished under Roman rule.

question: Who did the Numidians form an alliance with?, context: Carthage never recovered militarily after the Second Punic War, but quickly economically and the Third Punic War that followed was in reality a simple punitive mission after the neighbouring Numidians allied to Rome robbed/attacked Carthaginian merchants. Treaties had forbidden any war with Roman allies, and defense against robbing/pirates was considered as "war action": Rome decided to annihilate the city of Carthage. Carthage was almost defenceless, and submitted when besieged. However, the Romans demanded complete surrender and moval of the city into the (desert) inland far off any coastal or harbour region, and the Carthaginians refused. The city was besieged, stormed, and completely destroyed. Ultimately, all of Carthage's North African and Iberian territories were acquired by Rome. Note that "Carthage" was not an 'empire', but a league of punic colonies (port cities in the western mediterranean) like the 1st and 2nd Athenian ("attic") leagues, under leadership of Carthage. Punic Carthago was gone, but the other punic cities in the western mediterranean flourished under Roman rule.


Question: What kingdom sent an ambassador to Italy in an attempt to form an alliance against Rome?

Answer: Macedonia

<hl> Rome's preoccupation with its war with Carthage provided an opportunity for Philip V of the kingdom of Macedonia , located in the north of the Greek peninsula, to attempt to extend his power westward. <hl> Philip sent ambassadors to Hannibal's camp in Italy, to negotiate an alliance as common enemies of Rome. However, Rome discovered the agreement when Philip's emissaries were captured by a Roman fleet. The First Macedonian War saw the Romans involved directly in only limited land operations, but they ultimately achieved their objective of pre-occupying Philip and preventing him from aiding Hannibal.

Rome's preoccupation with its war with Carthage provided an opportunity for Philip V of the kingdom of <hl> Macedonia <hl>, located in the north of the Greek peninsula, to attempt to extend his power westward. Philip sent ambassadors to Hannibal's camp in Italy, to negotiate an alliance as common enemies of Rome. However, Rome discovered the agreement when Philip's emissaries were captured by a Roman fleet. The First Macedonian War saw the Romans involved directly in only limited land operations, but they ultimately achieved their objective of pre-occupying Philip and preventing him from aiding Hannibal.

Rome's preoccupation with its war with Carthage provided an opportunity for Philip V of the kingdom of <hl> Macedonia <hl> , located in the north of the Greek peninsula, to attempt to extend his power westward.

question: What kingdom sent an ambassador to Italy in an attempt to form an alliance against Rome?, context: Rome's preoccupation with its war with Carthage provided an opportunity for Philip V of the kingdom of Macedonia, located in the north of the Greek peninsula, to attempt to extend his power westward. Philip sent ambassadors to Hannibal's camp in Italy, to negotiate an alliance as common enemies of Rome. However, Rome discovered the agreement when Philip's emissaries were captured by a Roman fleet. The First Macedonian War saw the Romans involved directly in only limited land operations, but they ultimately achieved their objective of pre-occupying Philip and preventing him from aiding Hannibal.


Question: Where did Philip V want to extend his control to?

Answer: westward

<hl> Rome's preoccupation with its war with Carthage provided an opportunity for Philip V of the kingdom of Macedonia, located in the north of the Greek peninsula, to attempt to extend his power westward . <hl> Philip sent ambassadors to Hannibal's camp in Italy, to negotiate an alliance as common enemies of Rome. However, Rome discovered the agreement when Philip's emissaries were captured by a Roman fleet. The First Macedonian War saw the Romans involved directly in only limited land operations, but they ultimately achieved their objective of pre-occupying Philip and preventing him from aiding Hannibal.

Rome's preoccupation with its war with Carthage provided an opportunity for Philip V of the kingdom of Macedonia, located in the north of the Greek peninsula, to attempt to extend his power <hl> westward <hl>. Philip sent ambassadors to Hannibal's camp in Italy, to negotiate an alliance as common enemies of Rome. However, Rome discovered the agreement when Philip's emissaries were captured by a Roman fleet. The First Macedonian War saw the Romans involved directly in only limited land operations, but they ultimately achieved their objective of pre-occupying Philip and preventing him from aiding Hannibal.

Rome's preoccupation with its war with Carthage provided an opportunity for Philip V of the kingdom of Macedonia, located in the north of the Greek peninsula, to attempt to extend his power <hl> westward <hl> .

question: Where did Philip V want to extend his control to?, context: Rome's preoccupation with its war with Carthage provided an opportunity for Philip V of the kingdom of Macedonia, located in the north of the Greek peninsula, to attempt to extend his power westward. Philip sent ambassadors to Hannibal's camp in Italy, to negotiate an alliance as common enemies of Rome. However, Rome discovered the agreement when Philip's emissaries were captured by a Roman fleet. The First Macedonian War saw the Romans involved directly in only limited land operations, but they ultimately achieved their objective of pre-occupying Philip and preventing him from aiding Hannibal.


Question: What peninsula was the kingdom of Macedonia able to be found in?

Answer: Greek peninsula

<hl> Rome's preoccupation with its war with Carthage provided an opportunity for Philip V of the kingdom of Macedonia, located in the north of the Greek peninsula , to attempt to extend his power westward. <hl> Philip sent ambassadors to Hannibal's camp in Italy, to negotiate an alliance as common enemies of Rome. However, Rome discovered the agreement when Philip's emissaries were captured by a Roman fleet. The First Macedonian War saw the Romans involved directly in only limited land operations, but they ultimately achieved their objective of pre-occupying Philip and preventing him from aiding Hannibal.

Rome's preoccupation with its war with Carthage provided an opportunity for Philip V of the kingdom of Macedonia, located in the north of the <hl> Greek peninsula <hl>, to attempt to extend his power westward. Philip sent ambassadors to Hannibal's camp in Italy, to negotiate an alliance as common enemies of Rome. However, Rome discovered the agreement when Philip's emissaries were captured by a Roman fleet. The First Macedonian War saw the Romans involved directly in only limited land operations, but they ultimately achieved their objective of pre-occupying Philip and preventing him from aiding Hannibal.

Rome's preoccupation with its war with Carthage provided an opportunity for Philip V of the kingdom of Macedonia, located in the north of the <hl> Greek peninsula <hl> , to attempt to extend his power westward.

question: What peninsula was the kingdom of Macedonia able to be found in?, context: Rome's preoccupation with its war with Carthage provided an opportunity for Philip V of the kingdom of Macedonia, located in the north of the Greek peninsula, to attempt to extend his power westward. Philip sent ambassadors to Hannibal's camp in Italy, to negotiate an alliance as common enemies of Rome. However, Rome discovered the agreement when Philip's emissaries were captured by a Roman fleet. The First Macedonian War saw the Romans involved directly in only limited land operations, but they ultimately achieved their objective of pre-occupying Philip and preventing him from aiding Hannibal.


Question: At what point did Rome discover that an alliance between Philip V and Hannibal had been achieved?

Answer: Philip's emissaries were captured by a Roman fleet

Rome's preoccupation with its war with Carthage provided an opportunity for Philip V of the kingdom of Macedonia, located in the north of the Greek peninsula, to attempt to extend his power westward. Philip sent ambassadors to Hannibal's camp in Italy, to negotiate an alliance as common enemies of Rome. <hl> However, Rome discovered the agreement when Philip's emissaries were captured by a Roman fleet . <hl> The First Macedonian War saw the Romans involved directly in only limited land operations, but they ultimately achieved their objective of pre-occupying Philip and preventing him from aiding Hannibal.

Rome's preoccupation with its war with Carthage provided an opportunity for Philip V of the kingdom of Macedonia, located in the north of the Greek peninsula, to attempt to extend his power westward. Philip sent ambassadors to Hannibal's camp in Italy, to negotiate an alliance as common enemies of Rome. However, Rome discovered the agreement when <hl> Philip's emissaries were captured by a Roman fleet <hl>. The First Macedonian War saw the Romans involved directly in only limited land operations, but they ultimately achieved their objective of pre-occupying Philip and preventing him from aiding Hannibal.

However, Rome discovered the agreement when <hl> Philip's emissaries were captured by a Roman fleet <hl> .

question: At what point did Rome discover that an alliance between Philip V and Hannibal had been achieved?, context: Rome's preoccupation with its war with Carthage provided an opportunity for Philip V of the kingdom of Macedonia, located in the north of the Greek peninsula, to attempt to extend his power westward. Philip sent ambassadors to Hannibal's camp in Italy, to negotiate an alliance as common enemies of Rome. However, Rome discovered the agreement when Philip's emissaries were captured by a Roman fleet. The First Macedonian War saw the Romans involved directly in only limited land operations, but they ultimately achieved their objective of pre-occupying Philip and preventing him from aiding Hannibal.


Question: Who did Philip V seek an alliance with?

Answer: Hannibal

Rome's preoccupation with its war with Carthage provided an opportunity for Philip V of the kingdom of Macedonia, located in the north of the Greek peninsula, to attempt to extend his power westward. <hl> Philip sent ambassadors to Hannibal 's camp in Italy, to negotiate an alliance as common enemies of Rome. <hl> However, Rome discovered the agreement when Philip's emissaries were captured by a Roman fleet. The First Macedonian War saw the Romans involved directly in only limited land operations, but they ultimately achieved their objective of pre-occupying Philip and preventing him from aiding Hannibal.

Rome's preoccupation with its war with Carthage provided an opportunity for Philip V of the kingdom of Macedonia, located in the north of the Greek peninsula, to attempt to extend his power westward. Philip sent ambassadors to <hl> Hannibal <hl>'s camp in Italy, to negotiate an alliance as common enemies of Rome. However, Rome discovered the agreement when Philip's emissaries were captured by a Roman fleet. The First Macedonian War saw the Romans involved directly in only limited land operations, but they ultimately achieved their objective of pre-occupying Philip and preventing him from aiding Hannibal.

Philip sent ambassadors to <hl> Hannibal <hl> 's camp in Italy, to negotiate an alliance as common enemies of Rome.

question: Who did Philip V seek an alliance with?, context: Rome's preoccupation with its war with Carthage provided an opportunity for Philip V of the kingdom of Macedonia, located in the north of the Greek peninsula, to attempt to extend his power westward. Philip sent ambassadors to Hannibal's camp in Italy, to negotiate an alliance as common enemies of Rome. However, Rome discovered the agreement when Philip's emissaries were captured by a Roman fleet. The First Macedonian War saw the Romans involved directly in only limited land operations, but they ultimately achieved their objective of pre-occupying Philip and preventing him from aiding Hannibal.


Question: What was declared by the Romans now that the Philip had been defeated?

Answer: "Peace of the Greeks"

The past century had seen the Greek world dominated by the three primary successor kingdoms of Alexander the Great's empire: Ptolemaic Egypt, Macedonia and the Seleucid Empire. In 202 BC, internal problems led to a weakening of Egypt's position, thereby disrupting the power balance among the successor states. Macedonia and the Seleucid Empire agreed to an alliance to conquer and divide Egypt. Fearing this increasingly unstable situation, several small Greek kingdoms sent delegations to Rome to seek an alliance. The delegation succeeded, even though prior Greek attempts to involve Rome in Greek affairs had been met with Roman apathy. Our primary source about these events, the surviving works of Polybius, do not state Rome's reason for getting involved. Rome gave Philip an ultimatum to cease his campaigns against Rome's new Greek allies. Doubting Rome's strength (a reasonable doubt, given Rome's performance in the First Macedonian War) Philip ignored the request, and Rome sent an army of Romans and Greek allies, beginning the Second Macedonian War. Despite his recent successes against the Greeks and earlier successes against Rome, Philip's army buckled under the pressure from the Roman-Greek army. In 197 BC, the Romans decisively defeated Philip at the Battle of Cynoscephalae, and Philip was forced to give up his recent Greek conquests. <hl> The Romans declared the "Peace of the Greeks" , believing that Philip's defeat now meant that Greece would be stable. <hl> They pulled out of Greece entirely, maintaining minimal contacts with their Greek allies.

The past century had seen the Greek world dominated by the three primary successor kingdoms of Alexander the Great's empire: Ptolemaic Egypt, Macedonia and the Seleucid Empire. In 202 BC, internal problems led to a weakening of Egypt's position, thereby disrupting the power balance among the successor states. Macedonia and the Seleucid Empire agreed to an alliance to conquer and divide Egypt. Fearing this increasingly unstable situation, several small Greek kingdoms sent delegations to Rome to seek an alliance. The delegation succeeded, even though prior Greek attempts to involve Rome in Greek affairs had been met with Roman apathy. Our primary source about these events, the surviving works of Polybius, do not state Rome's reason for getting involved. Rome gave Philip an ultimatum to cease his campaigns against Rome's new Greek allies. Doubting Rome's strength (a reasonable doubt, given Rome's performance in the First Macedonian War) Philip ignored the request, and Rome sent an army of Romans and Greek allies, beginning the Second Macedonian War. Despite his recent successes against the Greeks and earlier successes against Rome, Philip's army buckled under the pressure from the Roman-Greek army. In 197 BC, the Romans decisively defeated Philip at the Battle of Cynoscephalae, and Philip was forced to give up his recent Greek conquests. The Romans declared the <hl> "Peace of the Greeks" <hl>, believing that Philip's defeat now meant that Greece would be stable. They pulled out of Greece entirely, maintaining minimal contacts with their Greek allies.

The Romans declared the <hl> "Peace of the Greeks" <hl> , believing that Philip's defeat now meant that Greece would be stable.

question: What was declared by the Romans now that the Philip had been defeated?, context: The past century had seen the Greek world dominated by the three primary successor kingdoms of Alexander the Great's empire: Ptolemaic Egypt, Macedonia and the Seleucid Empire. In 202 BC, internal problems led to a weakening of Egypt's position, thereby disrupting the power balance among the successor states. Macedonia and the Seleucid Empire agreed to an alliance to conquer and divide Egypt. Fearing this increasingly unstable situation, several small Greek kingdoms sent delegations to Rome to seek an alliance. The delegation succeeded, even though prior Greek attempts to involve Rome in Greek affairs had been met with Roman apathy. Our primary source about these events, the surviving works of Polybius, do not state Rome's reason for getting involved. Rome gave Philip an ultimatum to cease his campaigns against Rome's new Greek allies. Doubting Rome's strength (a reasonable doubt, given Rome's performance in the First Macedonian War) Philip ignored the request, and Rome sent an army of Romans and Greek allies, beginning the Second Macedonian War. Despite his recent successes against the Greeks and earlier successes against Rome, Philip's army buckled under the pressure from the Roman-Greek army. In 197 BC, the Romans decisively defeated Philip at the Battle of Cynoscephalae, and Philip was forced to give up his recent Greek conquests. The Romans declared the "Peace of the Greeks", believing that Philip's defeat now meant that Greece would be stable. They pulled out of Greece entirely, maintaining minimal contacts with their Greek allies.


Question: Where did the Romans remove their troops from after Philip's loss?

Answer: Greece

The past century had seen the Greek world dominated by the three primary successor kingdoms of Alexander the Great's empire: Ptolemaic Egypt, Macedonia and the Seleucid Empire. In 202 BC, internal problems led to a weakening of Egypt's position, thereby disrupting the power balance among the successor states. Macedonia and the Seleucid Empire agreed to an alliance to conquer and divide Egypt. Fearing this increasingly unstable situation, several small Greek kingdoms sent delegations to Rome to seek an alliance. The delegation succeeded, even though prior Greek attempts to involve Rome in Greek affairs had been met with Roman apathy. Our primary source about these events, the surviving works of Polybius, do not state Rome's reason for getting involved. Rome gave Philip an ultimatum to cease his campaigns against Rome's new Greek allies. Doubting Rome's strength (a reasonable doubt, given Rome's performance in the First Macedonian War) Philip ignored the request, and Rome sent an army of Romans and Greek allies, beginning the Second Macedonian War. Despite his recent successes against the Greeks and earlier successes against Rome, Philip's army buckled under the pressure from the Roman-Greek army. In 197 BC, the Romans decisively defeated Philip at the Battle of Cynoscephalae, and Philip was forced to give up his recent Greek conquests. <hl> The Romans declared the "Peace of the Greeks", believing that Philip's defeat now meant that Greece would be stable. <hl> They pulled out of Greece entirely, maintaining minimal contacts with their Greek allies.

The past century had seen the Greek world dominated by the three primary successor kingdoms of Alexander the Great's empire: Ptolemaic Egypt, Macedonia and the Seleucid Empire. In 202 BC, internal problems led to a weakening of Egypt's position, thereby disrupting the power balance among the successor states. Macedonia and the Seleucid Empire agreed to an alliance to conquer and divide Egypt. Fearing this increasingly unstable situation, several small Greek kingdoms sent delegations to Rome to seek an alliance. The delegation succeeded, even though prior Greek attempts to involve Rome in Greek affairs had been met with Roman apathy. Our primary source about these events, the surviving works of Polybius, do not state Rome's reason for getting involved. Rome gave Philip an ultimatum to cease his campaigns against Rome's new Greek allies. Doubting Rome's strength (a reasonable doubt, given Rome's performance in the First Macedonian War) Philip ignored the request, and Rome sent an army of Romans and Greek allies, beginning the Second Macedonian War. Despite his recent successes against the Greeks and earlier successes against Rome, Philip's army buckled under the pressure from the Roman-Greek army. In 197 BC, the Romans decisively defeated Philip at the Battle of Cynoscephalae, and Philip was forced to give up his recent Greek conquests. The Romans declared the "Peace of the Greeks", believing that Philip's defeat now meant that <hl> Greece <hl> would be stable. They pulled out of Greece entirely, maintaining minimal contacts with their Greek allies.

question: Where did the Romans remove their troops from after Philip's loss?, context: The past century had seen the Greek world dominated by the three primary successor kingdoms of Alexander the Great's empire: Ptolemaic Egypt, Macedonia and the Seleucid Empire. In 202 BC, internal problems led to a weakening of Egypt's position, thereby disrupting the power balance among the successor states. Macedonia and the Seleucid Empire agreed to an alliance to conquer and divide Egypt. Fearing this increasingly unstable situation, several small Greek kingdoms sent delegations to Rome to seek an alliance. The delegation succeeded, even though prior Greek attempts to involve Rome in Greek affairs had been met with Roman apathy. Our primary source about these events, the surviving works of Polybius, do not state Rome's reason for getting involved. Rome gave Philip an ultimatum to cease his campaigns against Rome's new Greek allies. Doubting Rome's strength (a reasonable doubt, given Rome's performance in the First Macedonian War) Philip ignored the request, and Rome sent an army of Romans and Greek allies, beginning the Second Macedonian War. Despite his recent successes against the Greeks and earlier successes against Rome, Philip's army buckled under the pressure from the Roman-Greek army. In 197 BC, the Romans decisively defeated Philip at the Battle of Cynoscephalae, and Philip was forced to give up his recent Greek conquests. The Romans declared the "Peace of the Greeks", believing that Philip's defeat now meant that Greece would be stable. They pulled out of Greece entirely, maintaining minimal contacts with their Greek allies.


Question: What request of Rome was ignored by Philip V that quickly led to the start of the Second Macedonian War?

Answer: an ultimatum to cease his campaigns against Rome's new Greek allies

The past century had seen the Greek world dominated by the three primary successor kingdoms of Alexander the Great's empire: Ptolemaic Egypt, Macedonia and the Seleucid Empire. In 202 BC, internal problems led to a weakening of Egypt's position, thereby disrupting the power balance among the successor states. Macedonia and the Seleucid Empire agreed to an alliance to conquer and divide Egypt. Fearing this increasingly unstable situation, several small Greek kingdoms sent delegations to Rome to seek an alliance. The delegation succeeded, even though prior Greek attempts to involve Rome in Greek affairs had been met with Roman apathy. Our primary source about these events, the surviving works of Polybius, do not state Rome's reason for getting involved. <hl> Rome gave Philip an ultimatum to cease his campaigns against Rome's new Greek allies . <hl> Doubting Rome's strength (a reasonable doubt, given Rome's performance in the First Macedonian War) Philip ignored the request, and Rome sent an army of Romans and Greek allies, beginning the Second Macedonian War. Despite his recent successes against the Greeks and earlier successes against Rome, Philip's army buckled under the pressure from the Roman-Greek army. In 197 BC, the Romans decisively defeated Philip at the Battle of Cynoscephalae, and Philip was forced to give up his recent Greek conquests. The Romans declared the "Peace of the Greeks", believing that Philip's defeat now meant that Greece would be stable. They pulled out of Greece entirely, maintaining minimal contacts with their Greek allies.

The past century had seen the Greek world dominated by the three primary successor kingdoms of Alexander the Great's empire: Ptolemaic Egypt, Macedonia and the Seleucid Empire. In 202 BC, internal problems led to a weakening of Egypt's position, thereby disrupting the power balance among the successor states. Macedonia and the Seleucid Empire agreed to an alliance to conquer and divide Egypt. Fearing this increasingly unstable situation, several small Greek kingdoms sent delegations to Rome to seek an alliance. The delegation succeeded, even though prior Greek attempts to involve Rome in Greek affairs had been met with Roman apathy. Our primary source about these events, the surviving works of Polybius, do not state Rome's reason for getting involved. Rome gave Philip <hl> an ultimatum to cease his campaigns against Rome's new Greek allies <hl>. Doubting Rome's strength (a reasonable doubt, given Rome's performance in the First Macedonian War) Philip ignored the request, and Rome sent an army of Romans and Greek allies, beginning the Second Macedonian War. Despite his recent successes against the Greeks and earlier successes against Rome, Philip's army buckled under the pressure from the Roman-Greek army. In 197 BC, the Romans decisively defeated Philip at the Battle of Cynoscephalae, and Philip was forced to give up his recent Greek conquests. The Romans declared the "Peace of the Greeks", believing that Philip's defeat now meant that Greece would be stable. They pulled out of Greece entirely, maintaining minimal contacts with their Greek allies.

Rome gave Philip <hl> an ultimatum to cease his campaigns against Rome's new Greek allies <hl> .

question: What request of Rome was ignored by Philip V that quickly led to the start of the Second Macedonian War?, context: The past century had seen the Greek world dominated by the three primary successor kingdoms of Alexander the Great's empire: Ptolemaic Egypt, Macedonia and the Seleucid Empire. In 202 BC, internal problems led to a weakening of Egypt's position, thereby disrupting the power balance among the successor states. Macedonia and the Seleucid Empire agreed to an alliance to conquer and divide Egypt. Fearing this increasingly unstable situation, several small Greek kingdoms sent delegations to Rome to seek an alliance. The delegation succeeded, even though prior Greek attempts to involve Rome in Greek affairs had been met with Roman apathy. Our primary source about these events, the surviving works of Polybius, do not state Rome's reason for getting involved. Rome gave Philip an ultimatum to cease his campaigns against Rome's new Greek allies. Doubting Rome's strength (a reasonable doubt, given Rome's performance in the First Macedonian War) Philip ignored the request, and Rome sent an army of Romans and Greek allies, beginning the Second Macedonian War. Despite his recent successes against the Greeks and earlier successes against Rome, Philip's army buckled under the pressure from the Roman-Greek army. In 197 BC, the Romans decisively defeated Philip at the Battle of Cynoscephalae, and Philip was forced to give up his recent Greek conquests. The Romans declared the "Peace of the Greeks", believing that Philip's defeat now meant that Greece would be stable. They pulled out of Greece entirely, maintaining minimal contacts with their Greek allies.