...but absent Hannibal stomping around, after Sentinum, there wasn't enough capacity to band together around the usual discontents (Gauls, Samnites) to make balancing feasible. Roman missteps created a situation in 91BC where that was no longer true - like we're doing now 13/20
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/
-
-
This comes out very clearly in the events running up to the Social War (the revolt of the Italian allies in 91). Part of - and this is a tweet-unfriendly complex issue, forgive my simplification - part of the reason for the revolt was that the balance of benefits...8/
-
...in the alliance system had shifted decisively towards Rome. The 'loot' income stream, which the allies shared, was being replaced by a 'tribute' income stream, which they had no part in. Moreover, a Roman program of land redistribution, the Gracchan reforms...9/
- 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.