One other response, a separate thought, related to this particular point. What was Rome willing to do to keep its allies and protectorates in line? And what is the US prepared to do? One of the great conceits of American primacy is that it isn’t coercive like other empires. 1/
-
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/
-
-
...we might call them a form of 'economic nationalism' - they proceeded at the expense of the allies, redistributing public land (some of which was rented by allied communities) to Roman citizens - and only Roman citizens. Suddenly the spoils were reserved for Romans. 10/
-
I see close parallels with much of what we are doing now - banging the table about NATO contributions, demanding to know what NATO can do for us and demanding that our NATO partners sacrifice more - rather than less - of their national interest on the altar of the alliance 11/
- 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.