In the last couple of days, the press has been granted much greater freedoms in Burma. They held elections last year and even released Aung San Suu Kyi from house arrest (only a year or 2 after they extended it because some nutjob broke in uninvited).
What (or who) prompted the sudden wave of reforms? The Wikipedia page on said reforms doesn't really say much about the motivations of the ruling junta, or even their current status. And they were happy carrying out repression for 50 years previously
I found an interesting article that discusses this topic, and I believe it provided a pretty realistic explanation for this. Basically, it stated that the economic and diplomatic sanctions placed on Myanmar by the West had a major impact. The reasoning is not that the rulers of Myanmar particularly cared about the impact of said sanctions on the citizens as much as themselves. It suggests that those people who became rich through their involvement with the government had few places to invest their ill-gotten gains because the West is effectively closed off to them.
Why Was the Electoral College Created?
Five times in history, presidential candidates have won the popular vote but lost the Electoral College. This has led some to question why Americans use this system to elect their presidents in the first place.
Among the many thorny questions debated by the delegates to the 1787 Constitutional Convention, one of the hardest to resolve was how to elect the president. The Founding Fathers debated for months, with some arguing that Congress should pick the president and others insistent on a democratic popular vote.
Their compromise is known as the Electoral College.
Our editors will review what you’ve submitted and determine whether to revise the article.
New Deal, domestic program of the administration of U.S. Pres. Franklin D. Roosevelt between 1933 and 1939, which took action to bring about immediate economic relief as well as reforms in industry, agriculture, finance, waterpower, labour, and housing, vastly increasing the scope of the federal government’s activities. The term was taken from Roosevelt’s speech accepting the Democratic nomination for the presidency on July 2, 1932. Reacting to the ineffectiveness of the administration of Pres. Herbert Hoover in meeting the ravages of the Great Depression, American voters the following November overwhelmingly voted in favour of the Democratic promise of a “new deal” for the “forgotten man.” Opposed to the traditional American political philosophy of laissez-faire, the New Deal generally embraced the concept of a government-regulated economy aimed at achieving a balance between conflicting economic interests.
What was the purpose of the New Deal?
The United States was in the throes of the Great Depression. Banks were in crisis, and nearly a quarter of the workforce was unemployed. Wages and salaries declined significantly, as did production. U.S. President Franklin D. Roosevelt’s New Deal (1933–39) aimed to provide immediate economic relief and to bring about reforms to stabilize the economy.
What were the New Deal programs and what did they do?
- The Agricultural Adjustment Administration (AAA) brought relief to farmers by paying them to curtail production, reducing surpluses, and raising prices for agricultural products.
- The Public Works Administration (PWA) reduced unemployment by hiring the unemployed to build new public buildings, roads, bridges, and subways.
- The Civilian Conservation Corps (CCC) employed hundreds of thousands of young men in reforestation and flood-control work.
- The National Recovery Administration (NRA) established codes to eliminate unfair practices, establish minimum wages and maximum hours, and guarantee the right of collective bargaining.
- The Tennessee Valley Authority (TVA) brought cheap electricity to people in seven states.
- The Home Owners’ Refinancing Act provided mortgage relief to the unemployed.
- The Securities Act of 1933 provided government oversight of stock trading.
- The Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC) protected depositors’ bank accounts.
- Later programs included the Social Security Act, the Works Progress Administration (WPA), and the National Labor Relations Act.
What were the most important results of the New Deal?
The New Deal established federal responsibility for the welfare of the U.S. economy and the American people. Despite the importance of this growth of federal responsibility, perhaps the greatest achievement of the New Deal was to restore faith in American democracy at a time when many people believed that the only choice left was between communism and fascism.
What New Deal programs remain in effect?
The Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC) in banking and Fannie Mae (FNMA) in mortgage lending are among New Deal programs still in operation. Other such programs include the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC), the Federal Housing Administration (FHA), the Farm Credit Administration, and the Federal Communications Commission (FCC). The Soil Conservation Service remains as the Natural Resources Conservation Service. Perhaps the most notable New Deal program still in effect is the national old-age pension system created by the Social Security Act (1935).
Much of the New Deal legislation was enacted within the first three months of Roosevelt’s presidency, which became known as the Hundred Days. The new administration’s first objective was to alleviate the suffering of the nation’s huge number of unemployed workers. Such agencies as the Works Progress Administration (WPA) and the Civilian Conservation Corps (CCC) were established to dispense emergency and short-term governmental aid and to provide temporary jobs, employment on construction projects, and youth work in the national forests. Before 1935 the New Deal focused on revitalizing the country’s stricken business and agricultural communities. To revive industrial activity, the National Recovery Administration (NRA) was granted authority to help shape industrial codes governing trade practices, wages, hours, child labour, and collective bargaining. The New Deal also tried to regulate the nation’s financial hierarchy in order to avoid a repetition of the stock market crash of 1929 and the massive bank failures that followed. The Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC) granted government insurance for bank deposits in member banks of the Federal Reserve System, and the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) was formed to protect the investing public from fraudulent stock-market practices. The farm program was centred in the Agricultural Adjustment Administration (AAA), which attempted to raise prices by controlling the production of staple crops through cash subsidies to farmers. In addition, the arm of the federal government reached into the area of electric power, establishing in 1933 the Tennessee Valley Authority (TVA), which was to cover a seven-state area and supply cheap electricity, prevent floods, improve navigation, and produce nitrates.
In 1935 the New Deal emphasis shifted to measures designed to assist labour and other urban groups. The Wagner Act of 1935 greatly increased the authority of the federal government in industrial relations and strengthened the organizing power of labour unions, establishing the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) to execute this program. To aid the “forgotten” homeowner, legislation was passed to refinance shaky mortgages and guarantee bank loans for both modernization and mortgage payments. Perhaps the most far-reaching programs of the entire New Deal were the Social Security measures enacted in 1935 and 1939, providing old-age and widows’ benefits, unemployment compensation, and disability insurance. Maximum work hours and minimum wages were also set in certain industries in 1938.
South Korean Education Reforms
Over the last two decades, Korea has shown what can be done to improve education. It has extended class size and schooling hours to meet a surging demand for better education, and students from all socio-economic levels do well on examinations, including the sophisticated problem-solving skills on the Program for International Student Assessment (PISA).
Primary and secondary enrollment rates have been near universal since about 1990, and currently 86 percent of young Koreans enroll in higher education programs. There was an unprecedented increase in primary and secondary education from around 1975 to 1990 when the country also grew at a rapid rate. A commensurate growth in tertiary education took place thereafter and continues to date. This expansion can be explained by a number of convergent factors: cultural and historical reasons, economic growth, value placed on education, and government policies that promote educational achievement.
To begin, a long tradition of Confucianism has established a society in which the scholar sits at the top of the social hierarchy and the attainment of knowledge is considered a priority. The educated person in Korea, thus, is highly respected. However, even ordinary Koreans could enjoy the respect and privileges of this highest class by passing the Kwageo (a rigorous civil service examination that pays little heed to consanguinity and political ties) to become civil servants. This democratization of talent has put great stock in the power of education to transform lives.
Alongside this, a national drive against Japanese occupation from 1910 to 1945 placed a lot of emphasis on the importance of economic self-reliance and national cultivation through education. This resulted in the establishment of approximately 3,000 private schools across the nation, which bolstered the Korean education system. The devastating Korean War that followed left the country bereft of any social, physical, and economic capital. The recovery process was done on Korea’s own terms and through hard work.
Investments in Education
The dramatic growth of the Korean economy has also contributed significantly to the value that Koreans place on higher education. In the past 25 years, the country has realized an extraordinarily high rate of return from education investment, hovering around 10 percent. As Dr. SooBong Uh, from the Korea University of Technology and Education has stated, “It is wiser for young people to invest their money in education than to keep it in the bank.”
Secondarily, there is a large and growing wage premium attached to obtaining a higher education in Korea. In 2007, for instance, college graduates earn up to 2.5 times more than their colleagues with a junior high school degree. With the rapid industrialization of the country, Korea’s labor market is highly segmented along educational background. As such, obtaining higher education is seen as essential to enter the primary labor market. Partially as a result of this relationship, in addition to the tradition of Confucianism, education is associated with positions of power and influence: graduates from ten major universities have almost three-fourths of the high-ranking government positions.
The government also shows a consistent commitment to investing in education: The Ministry of Education has a budget of US$29 billion, six times what it was in 1990. This accounts for about 20 percent of the central government expenditure. Koreans, as well, are willing to spend on education. The Korean government spends 3.4 percent of GDP on formal schooling when taking private and informal schooling into account the amount nears 10 percent. Teachers are seen as a key part of that investment: OECD statistics place Korea 10th in rankings of entering teacher salaries. After fifteen years of service, Korean teachers move up to third place, demonstrating that the investment grows significantly over time.
The Teaching Profession
Like other high-performing nations, teaching is a highly competitive occupation. Teacher preparation programs for elementary school teachers have a limited number of places and selective entry, while no limits are set for students interested in becoming secondary school teachers: all can enter a preparation program though only 20 percent find employment as secondary school teachers. Selectivity for the elementary program means that there is not much competition for jobs elementary schools have barely as many candidates as there are teaching vacancies. Teachers work less than 600 hours per year, however, class size ranges to from 37-50 students. Local teacher’s associations exist at the city and province level. The Korean Federation of Teachers Association (KFTA) is the central representative of these associations and meets annually with the Ministry of Education and Human Resources Development to discuss teachers’ welfare. Three teachers unions also exist. The position of school principal has been held in high regard until recently when the teacher’s unions have begun to call into question the selection process and the verification of candidate’s abilities.
The School System
The Korean school system is a 6-3-3-4 system that is, six years of primary school, three years of junior high, three years of senior high school and four years of college. The system contains national, public, and private schools. The administrative structure to oversee education consists of federal governance, as well as regional and local control. However, the system overall is highly centralized. For instance, the Ministry of Education and Human Resources Development dictates the national curriculum, which, along with regional guidelines, only allows individual school principals to choose their own goals.
Curriculum for a Globalized Economy
The curriculum has undergone major revisions seven times since 1954, to “reflect the newly rising demands for education, emerging needs of a changing society, and new frontiers of academic disciplines.”
The most recent update, known as the Seventh Curriculum, aims to prepare students for the knowledge-based, globalized 21st century. To that end, it emphasizes individuality, creativity, and knowledge of Korean culture as well as other cultures. Covering grades one through ten, students are allowed to choose their own courses in their final two years of high school.
All students study English beginning in primary school and continue through high school where additional foreign language classes are offered.
New Challenges to Overcome
Despite all of the achievements of Korea, some distinctive problems still face their education system. According to Okhwa Lee, professor at Chungbuk National University, “Korea has a high graduation rate, but Koreans have a low passion for education.” Too many people view educational institutions as “convenience institutes” – like convenience stores. The government’s Korea 2030 Commission is examining how to make lifelong learning an integral aspect of Korea’s continuing dynamism.
Campaign-Finance Reform: History and Timeline
By Beth Rowen
Over the past several decades, political campaigns in the U.S. have become increasingly costly and unsavory. Nevertheless, campaign finance remains a divisive issue. Proponents of campaign finance limits argue that wealthy donors and corporations hold too much sway in elections and as a result, corrupt campaigns. Those favoring less regulation contend that campaign donations are a form of free speech.
Campaign finance legislation dates to 1867, but the regulation of campaign fundraising didn't become a major issue until the early 20th century, prompted by the presidential election of 1896, which introduced a new era of campaign advertising and the custom of seeking donations from businesses.
The Whiff of Corruption in Campaigns Not a New Phenomenon
Patronage was prevalent in early campaigns, and the spoils system was in full swing by the time Andrew Jackson took office in 1828. Jackson was famous for appointing contributors to plum positions in his administration. The spoils system factored into the assassination of James Garfield. One of the president's supporters and speech writers, Charles Guiteau, shot and killed Garfield after being denied a post in his administration. The assassination led to passage of the Pendleton Act of 1883, which required that civil service positions be filled based on merit and exam results rather than party affiliation.
Vote-buying was another form of corruption in early presidential races. Political parties and candidates printed their own ballots and often paid voters to submit them. The government didn't take responsibility for printing ballots until 1896.
The movement to rein in campaign fundraising and spending gathered steam once again after Watergate, when corruption in politics reached its peak and public confidence in public officials hit a nadir.
Below is a timeline of campaign-spending regulations.
- institutes disclosure requirements for federal candidates, political parties, and political action committees of donations more than $100.
- sets spending limits for candidates and their family members: $50,000 cap for presidential and vice presidential candidates, $35,000 for Senate candidates, and $25,000 for House candidates.
- requires disclosure of contributions above $100. Contributions above $5,000 had to be reported within 48 hours of receipt.
- allows union officials to establish and solicit contributions from union members for a political fund.
- sets caps on television advertising to $.10 voter in the previous election or $50,000.
Rather than having one body charged with oversight over the law, the Clerk of the House, the Secretary of the Senate, and the Comptroller General of the United States General Accounting Office (GAO) monitored compliance, which made enforcement difficult.
What Are Public Sector Reforms? (with picture)
Public sector reforms are where the government tries to change the way it operates. This tends to concern areas such as welfare, health care, government administration and other areas where the government has a stake. Such public sector reforms can be launched for a number of reasons. This includes budgetary reasons, political and ideological reasons, and because of an event that renders the service unfit for purpose. Reforms may cover the whole of government or specific areas of it.
There are multiple purposes for launching reforms. These reforms are often led by politicians, meaning that political ideology often plays a part. There are politicians who believe the public sector should be kept to the minimum and there are those who believe it should control everything a good balance between the two is rarely found.
Ideologically-driven reforms in the public sector are designed to put the stamp of the political party or politicians in charge on the government’s services. For example, a government that believes in business would try to minimize public health care or would try to allow companies to control things such as wasteful spending, immigration and other areas of government. The reverse may also be true a government might reform public services by creating a national health service or by nationalizing whole industries.
Governments need to operate within a budget. If the government, such as the Labour government in Britain between 1997 and 2010, borrows 25 percent of the money it spends, debt will eventually become unmanageable. Such public sector reforms tend to be focused on cutting as much waste as possible. The effectiveness of such reforms depends upon who is enacting them, their politics and what they aim to cut.
Cutting waste is the holy grail of public sector reforms. Such reforms tend to focus on reducing lavish pensions or increasing pension contributions, the reduction of red tape, more efficient tax regimens and the removal of highly-paid workers. In practice, however, such reforms tend to end up cutting needed jobs while protecting higher management and inefficiencies.
When a service or institution is not fit for purpose, it needs reforming. This happens because of a massive internal failure or because it has failed to modernize in line with society. Such reforms try to restructure a service, to add new elements to it and to make it better at its job. This includes new laws, budget increases, restructuring and new powers.
Public sector reforms of any kind are not easy. First, there is political opposition from other parties, and often from within the ruling party. Second, there is opposition from media opponents and interest groups. Vested interests within government will not want to have their privileges, wages or pensions cut. Such reforms often require a strong majority in government in order to force them through.
For over a decade, the Brennan Center has supported reform of the filibuster. In January 2010, we launched a special, year-long project to address procedural dysfunction in the Senate. Our ultimate goal was to restore legislative accountability by reforming rules that incentivize relentless and unprincipled obstruction. That year, our experts testified several times before the Senate Committee on Rules and Administration, the organization submitted general testimony to the same committee, and we put out our first report on filibuster abuse. footnote1_ru6e5s6 1 Examining the Filibuster: History of the Filibuster 1789–2008, Submitted to the U.S. Senate Committee on Rules & Administration, 111th Cong. (2010) (testimony of Mimi Marziani, counsel at the Brennan Center for Justice, and Diana Lee, researcher at the Brennan Center for Justice) Examining the Filibuster: Silent Filibusters, Holds and the Senate Confirmation Process, Submitted to the U.S. Senate Committee on Rules & Administration, 111th Cong. (2010) (testimony of Mimi Marziani, counsel at the Brennan Center for Justice, and Diana Lee, researcher at the Brennan Center for Justice) Examining the Filibuster: Legislative Proposals to Change Senate Procedures, Submitted to the U.S. Senate Committee on Rules & Administration, 111th Cong. (2010) (testimony of Mimi Marziani, counsel at the Brennan Center for Justice) Examining the Filibuster: The Filibuster Today and Its Consequences, Submitted to the U.S. Senate Committee on Rules & Administration, 112th Cong. (2010) (testimony of the Brennan Center for Justice at NYU School of Law) and Mimi Marziani, Filibuster Abuse, Brennan Center for Justice, 2010, https://www.brennancenter.org/sites/default/files/2019-08/Report_Filibuster%20Abuse.pdf. Its recommendations included the following:
- Allowing the minority party ways to meaningfully participate, including the right to offer germane amendments
- Making it difficult for obstructionists to delay action preferred by the majority, such as placing the burden upon filibustering senators to sustain a filibuster and instead forcing filibustering senators to stay on the Senate floor and actually debate
- Bringing every measure or nomination to a yes-or-no vote in a timely manner once all senators have had a reasonable opportunity to express their views
In November 2012, we issued a follow-up report, Curbing Filibuster Abuse, that provided empirical evidence of how rampant filibuster abuse was causing an unprecedented lack of legislative productivity. For example, it showed that the 110th Senate (2007–2009) passed a record-low 2.8 percent of bills introduced, a 66 percent decrease from 2005–2006 and a 90 percent decrease from 1955–1956. And it endorsed the recommendations of the first report. footnote2_fnrox4c 2 Mimi Marziani, Jonathan Backer, and Diana Kasdan, Curbing Filibuster Abuse, Brennan Center for Justice, 2012, https://www.brennancenter.org/sites/default/files/2019-08/Report_Curbing_Filibuster_Abuse.pdf. In December 2012, a group of leading academics and constitutional scholars, including Brennan Center board member Burt Neuborne, sent a letter to the Senate in support of changing filibuster rules. We endorsed and circulated it. That same month, we urged the public to call their senators to express their support for changing filibuster rules and urged them to emphasize the importance of a talking filibuster. In November 2013, Brennan Center President Michael Waldman put out a statement praising the Senate’s rule changes to limit filibusters for presidential nominees. And over the years, our staff and experts have written extensively on the subject. Frederick A. O. Schwarz Jr., “The Filibuster Myth,” Brennan Center for Justice, January 15, 2013, https://www.brennancenter.org/our-work/analysis-opinion/filibuster-myth Victoria Bassetti, “In Filibuster We Trust,” Brennan Center for Justice, July 27, 2015, https://www.brennancenter.org/our-work/analysis-opinion/filibuster-we-trust Alicia Bannon, “Filibuster Fight Isn’t Over,” Brennan Center for Justice, December 3, 2013, https://www.brennancenter.org/our-work/analysis-opinion/filibuster-fight-isnt-over and Elizabeth Goitein, “Fixing Justice: Don’t Filibuster the Rule of Law,” Brennan Center for Justice, April 9, 2009, https://www.brennancenter.org/our-work/research-reports/fixing-justice-dont-filibuster-rule-law.
The Senate did make changes to the filibuster rules subsequent to those reports and testimony. Although a cloture motion — the formal process to bring an end to a filibuster — is still necessary for legislation, the Senate adopted changes to its rules governing nominations to executive branch positions and federal judgeships. In 2013, Democrats altered filibuster rules so that only a simple majority is required to end debate on nominees to lower courts and administration positions. footnote3_g4rxypo 3 Jeremy W. Peters, “In Landmark Vote, Senate Limits Use of the Filibuster,” New York Times, November 21, 2013, https://www.nytimes.com/2013/11/22/us/politics/reid-sets-in-motion-steps-to-limit-use-of-filibuster.html. In 2017, Republicans extended that change to Supreme Court nominations. footnote4_pydq6ai 4 Matt Flegenheimer, “Senate Republicans Deploy ‘Nuclear Option’ to Clear Path for Gorsuch,” New York Times, April 6, 2017, https://www.nytimes.com/2017/04/06/us/politics/neil-gorsuch-supreme-court-senate.html.
Origins of the Revolution
The French Revolution had general causes common to all the revolutions of the West at the end of the 18th century and particular causes that explain why it was by far the most violent and the most universally significant of these revolutions. The first of the general causes was the social structure of the West. The feudal regime had been weakened step-by-step and had already disappeared in parts of Europe. The increasingly numerous and prosperous elite of wealthy commoners—merchants, manufacturers, and professionals, often called the bourgeoisie—aspired to political power in those countries where it did not already possess it. The peasants, many of whom owned land, had attained an improved standard of living and education and wanted to get rid of the last vestiges of feudalism so as to acquire the full rights of landowners and to be free to increase their holdings. Furthermore, from about 1730, higher standards of living had reduced the mortality rate among adults considerably. This, together with other factors, had led to an increase in the population of Europe unprecedented for several centuries: it doubled between 1715 and 1800. For France, which with 26 million inhabitants in 1789 was the most populated country of Europe, the problem was most acute.
A larger population created a greater demand for food and consumer goods. The discovery of new gold mines in Brazil had led to a general rise in prices throughout the West from about 1730, indicating a prosperous economic situation. From about 1770, this trend slackened, and economic crises, provoking alarm and even revolt, became frequent. Arguments for social reform began to be advanced. The philosophes—intellectuals whose writings inspired these arguments—were certainly influenced by 17th-century theorists such as René Descartes, Benedict de Spinoza and John Locke, but they came to very different conclusions about political, social, and economic matters. A revolution seemed necessary to apply the ideas of Montesquieu, Voltaire, or Jean-Jacques Rousseau. This Enlightenment was spread among the educated classes by the many “societies of thought” that were founded at that time: masonic lodges, agricultural societies, and reading rooms.
It is uncertain, however, whether revolution would have come without the added presence of a political crisis. Faced with the heavy expenditure that the wars of the 18th century entailed, the rulers of Europe sought to raise money by taxing the nobles and clergy, who in most countries had hitherto been exempt, To justify this, the rulers likewise invoked the arguments of advanced thinkers by adopting the role of “enlightened despots.” This provoked reaction throughout Europe from the privileged bodies, diets. and estates. In North America this backlash caused the American Revolution, which began with the refusal to pay a tax imposed by the king of Great Britain. Monarchs tried to stop this reaction of the aristocracy, and both rulers and the privileged classes sought allies among the nonprivileged bourgeois and the peasants.
Although scholarly debate continues about the exact causes of the Revolution, the following reasons are commonly adduced: (1) the bourgeoisie resented its exclusion from political power and positions of honour (2) the peasants were acutely aware of their situation and were less and less willing to support the anachronistic and burdensome feudal system (3) the philosophes had been read more widely in France than anywhere else (4) French participation in the American Revolution had driven the government to the brink of bankruptcy (5) France was the most populous country in Europe, and crop failures in much of the country in 1788, coming on top of a long period of economic difficulties, compounded existing restlessness and (6) the French monarchy, no longer seen as divinely ordained, was unable to adapt to the political and societal pressures that were being exerted on it.
Income Tax Raid on Arhtiyas
The Income Tax raids were conducted at the premises of big Arhtiyas of Punjab within four days of issuing notices, without waiting for responses to the notices. Around 16 Arhtiyas have been served Income Tax notices. There are around 28,000 licensed commission agents in Punjab.
As per leaders of different unions, Arhtiyas are standing shoulder-to-shoulder with farmers in their ongoing protest against the Farm Laws 2020 and the raids were an attempt to divide the farmer and arhtiya unity to sabotage this movement.
Thus, Arhtiyas in the Indian State of Punjab have decided to shut down all the grain markets in the state from 22-25 December 2020 to express resentment over the Income Tax raids.
The Marian Reforms were a turning point in ancient Roman military history. They were instituted by Gaius Marius in 107 BC and can be broken down into three major reforms:
First, Marius established Rome’s first ever standing army (up until the Marian Reforms, Rome had simply enlisted its soldiers on a season-by-season basis and dissolved its army after every campaign). Furthermore, since he was establishing Rome’s army, essentially from scratch, Marius was able to change the manner in which his new army would be organized, choosing to make the century (a group of 100 soldiers) the basic unit from which his legions were built.
Second, Marius secured the rights of the poor to enlist in the Roman army, which they hadn’t previously been permitted to do because Roman soldiers had previously been required to provide their own arms and armor, which the common people simply didn’t possess enough money to purchase. In order to make this reform work, Marius also standardized the equipment that Roman soldiers were to use while on campaign and ensured that his new army would provide each of its soldiers with said equipment.
Third, Marius ensured that any Roman soldiers who spent enough time serving in the army would be compensated with a plot of farmland for them to retire to. This served as the primary incentive for the common people of Rome to enlist in the Roman army, since land ownership was the best way for them to lift their way out of poverty and improve the quality of their lives.
Ultimately, the Marian Reforms had a huge impact on the Roman army and how it operated. The Roman army was now much larger, enabling greater conquests uniformly outfitted, enabling more complex and efficient tactics and more mobile, enabling faster strategic maneuvers.