The Roman Empire was located in the Mediterranean, making the capital, Rome, a launch pad of sorts for all its expansionist ventures. Basically, Rome became wealthy by conquering its neighbors, taking back wealth to the capital where it was used accordingly to improve infrastructure, like roads, bridges, aquaducts and sewage systems. This infrastructure made travel easier around the empire, supporting the growth of trade and making conquest even easier. The booty that came back from sacking foreign lands also payed the soldiers' salary, and so the military became a means of earning wealth and status as one climbed the ranks. To continue to pay these soldiers, and to satisfy their ambitions for wealth and prestige that so came from war, Rome had to continue expanding, a lot. This contributed even more wealth to the empire (though later causing its collapse as over-expansion presented costly army maintenance fees and increased the length of the borders that needed to be defended, within and without). Beyond that, Rome's domination over the Mediterranean was good for trade and technological advances allowed for ships that could cross the Mediterranean sea, further stimulating trade. Controlling these trade routes also contributed to increased wealth that could be used for both internal growth and external expansion.
The correct answer to this open question is the following.
Were there winners and losers in the Cuban missile crisis? Yes, there were. The Winners, the arms and weaponry industry in both countries, the United States, and the Soviet Union. That was an essential part of the arms race between the United States and the USSR during the so-called Cold War. The losers, the people that lived in fear of another world war during those years, and the poor people that suffered from lack of basic necessities when the federal government was expending millions of dollars in weaponry instead of social programs, creation of jobs, and health services.
The Cuban Missile Crisis of October 1962 put the world on the brink of another world confrontation.
<u>Answer:</u>
The strike interfered with the United States' mails and interstate commerce.
Option: (a)
<u>Explanation:
</u>
- The skill of handling strikes and protests is an 'integral part of the traits' possessed by any leader as important as the President.
- One such example can be given of President Grover Cleveland who personally intervened in the 'Pullman Strike of 1894' and made the strikers withdraw the strike by telling them that the strike was not legitimate and ethically correct as it disturbed the mail service and also scrambled the interstate commerce.
