Voit lisätä twiitteihisi sijainnin, esimerkiksi kaupungin tai tarkemman paikan, verkosta ja kolmannen osapuolen sovellusten kautta. Halutessasi voit poistaa twiittisi sijaintihistorian myöhemmin. Lue lisää
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/
My point being that the system here is both carrot-and-stick, and the Romans often got more mileage out of the carrot - the promise of loot, collective security, just generally respecting their allies - than they did the stick. There simply wasn't enough stick to go around. 7/
Twitter saattaa olla ruuhkautunut tai ongelma on muuten hetkellinen. Yritä uudelleen tai käy Twitterin tilasivulla saadaksesi lisätietoja.
