easier traced, and more simple, than the internal ones; for, the Romans
excepted, the instances of rich nations attacking and conquering poor
ones are very rare indeed.

The Romans had erected their republic on a different plan from that of
any other; they had neither arts, industry, nor territory of their own,
and they conquered nations upon speculation, and for the sake of
civilizing the people, and making them contribute revenue; how they
were successful has been explained. But even the Romans would not
have attacked poor nations, if they had been, at an earlier period,
possessed of the means of attacking those that were wealthy.

Necessity obliged them to begin with Italy: their safety made them
defend themselves against the Gauls, and, till they had a navy, it was
impracticable to carry their conquests into Asia or Africa; but, after
they had conquered Carthage, they lost very little time in attacking
Egypt, and those countries occupied by the successors of Alexander.

The taking of Constantinople was the last decided victory of this sort,
and in nothing but time and circumstance did it differ from the others;
in all the great outlines it was exactly the same. [end of page #176]

The effeminacy and luxury of the rich, those interior causes, of which
we have already spoken, always give facility to those efforts which
envy and avarice excite.

The rivalship, in time of peace, is a contest confined to modern
nations; or, at least, but little known to the ancients. Indeed, it is
only amongst commercial nations that it can exist. There can be no
competition in agriculture; and, indeed, it is only in war, or in