Voit lisätä twiitteihisi sijainnin, esimerkiksi kaupungin tai tarkemman paikan, verkosta ja kolmannen osapuolen sovellusten kautta. Halutessasi voit poistaa twiittisi sijaintihistorian myöhemmin. Lue lisää
It is for instances exactly like this one that reputation is so important in international relations. It was never one US officer standing there, but the whole of the American reputation with him. If I may provide a similar example from antiquity... 1/6https://twitter.com/pptsapper/status/1187433596530896897 …
In 168, the Seleucid king, Antiochus IV went to invade Egypt (then under the rule of the Ptolemies), which was a ally/vassal of Rome. Antiochus overcomes the meager defenses of the Ptolemaic kingdom and is marching on the capital of Alexandria, with his full army and fleet. 2/6
He's met at the final river crossing, just a few miles from Alexandria, by a senator, C. Popilius Laenas, armed only with a letter from the Senate, backed up by a handful of commissioners; no army, no fleet. 3/6
All Popilius has is the Senatus Consultum, the non-binding opinion of the senate that the war ought to end and that Antiochus should withdraw with his army. There is a standoff. Antiochus tries to delay, but Popilius demands a decision on the spot. 4/6
And Antiochus blinks, calls off the operation and retreats. He does this, Polybius notes, because he knew that the last ruler to have broken faith with the Romans, Perseus of Macedon, had lost his kingdom. 5/6
Antiochus doesn't retreat from Popilius, but from the Roman reputation, defeated not by Roman legions, but by Roman fides. Just like - if you will permit me - those Israeli tanks in 1983 were confronted not by one man, but by one man and American fides. 6/6
Twitter saattaa olla ruuhkautunut tai ongelma on muuten hetkellinen. Yritä uudelleen tai käy Twitterin tilasivulla saadaksesi lisätietoja.
