...but their US alignment takes that GDP - and thus that potential military capacity, if those economies were ever militarized - off of the table. That, in turn, effects the balancing calculus... 10/20
Näytä tämä ketju
-
...and even seem to have had access to settlement in colonies founded on seized land. Obviously, the USA is not going to pillage non-NATO countries to provide goodies to handout to wavering NATO members, that's not what I'm suggesting 3/
And I'm also not saying Rome wasn't willing, at points, to be staggeringly brutal in keeping its allies in line. But that brutality had limits - Rome couldn't hold Italy by pure force of arms alone, and they knew it, and they didn't try. 4/
-
-
The limits to coercion appear quite clearly in both 209 and 90. In 209, with Hannibal in Italy, 12 allied communities in Italy essentially refuse to send anymore soldiers (claiming they have none). The senate wags its finger, but does nothing (Liv. 27.10.10) 5/
-
(I promise this will come to a point relevant to the modern world soonish). In 90, faced with widespread revolt among the allies, the Romans are forced to rely on carrot, rather than stick and offer Roman citizenship, with its attendant privileges, to any who laid down arms. 6/
- Näytä vastaukset
Uusi keskustelu -
Lataaminen näyttää kestävän hetken.
Twitter saattaa olla ruuhkautunut tai ongelma on muuten hetkellinen. Yritä uudelleen tai käy Twitterin tilasivulla saadaksesi lisätietoja.