English Deutsch Français Italiano Español Português 繁體中文 Bahasa Indonesia Tiếng Việt ภาษาไทย
All categories

5 answers

They did grow some of their own, but productivity of farming was not so good at that time and the population of Rome was enormous for a city at that time in history. It would have to import a lot of its food for that reason.

2007-03-19 16:55:23 · answer #1 · answered by Anonymous · 0 1

i've got been to the two. Rome is super.... Sicily is a huge place to trip. indexed right here are a number of my concepts on Italy: i like: The language the various different areas and their variations Sicily and it’s categories of coast lines. Friuli – the folk, language, the grappa and the polenta The neighbourhood grocery shops (that still exist) The fruit, vegetable, meat and fish markets. Venice & the lagoon Agrigento Rome Pizza in Naples Arancini & granite in Sicily Pedavena beer Risotto Prosecco Mount Etna for summer season walks and iciness snowboarding Cheese Liver & onions in Venice the actuality that family participants remains important The truthful friendships I don’t like: The interference of the Church in politics & own possibilities the conceitedness of the Milanese The no longer hassle-free heads in Brianza The site visitors the shortcoming of corporation ethics The politics and the actuality that there are participants of parliament that have been indicted for crimes The bullies interior the intense faculties The procuring department stores Many Italians save their cities grimy and their residences immaculately sparkling. Why can’t they do a similar for their cities? Sidewalk parking The “pizo” = the money the mafia asks corporation people for for defense (from the mafia!).

2016-10-01 05:04:28 · answer #2 · answered by ? 4 · 0 0

The previous answers are both true.
However, there is something to add: Italy is not a flat land, therefore it is not very very easy to grow cereals like grain, especially in central Italy.

Furthermore, think about it: all colonial empires have been fed by grain grown in their colonies, because it was somehow cheaper.

2007-03-20 02:19:28 · answer #3 · answered by DDgirl 1 · 0 0

at the beginning they did. with the growth of the empire the city became the largest in the whole world, and so they werent able to crop enough grain for everyone. and why should they bother to cultivate the land if they had provinces under their rule to give them what they needed? rich landowners had no interest in gaining money from agriculture since it was easier to earn a fortune in the political activities of the capital of the known world

2007-03-20 06:56:01 · answer #4 · answered by maroc 7 · 0 0

The Romans didn't have the sustainable land for crops of that nature. Or in the amount they needed to feed the population.

2007-03-19 14:25:06 · answer #5 · answered by loves easy tears 3 · 0 0

fedest.com, questions and answers