This thread is fantastic, but I wouldn't be needlessly pedantic if I didn't jump in and point out that even the Roman Roman Empire wasn't as centralized as we tend to think about it today. Lots of local autonomy, even some quasi-independent client-kings.
-
Tämä twiitti ei ole saatavilla.
-
Tämä twiitti ei ole saatavilla.
-
Tämä twiitti ei ole saatavilla.
-
Tämä twiitti ei ole saatavilla.
-
Tämä twiitti ei ole saatavilla.
-
Tämä twiitti ei ole saatavilla.
-
Tämä twiitti ei ole saatavilla.
-
Tämä twiitti ei ole saatavilla.
-
Hm. Depends on what you mean by state capacity. The Romans don't have intervening authorities with the ability to stop them from governing intensively like the princes of the HRE. But the Romans do not have (at least until around Diocletian) anything like the bureaucracy...
required to actually administer the provinces intensively on any kind of basis. On this, you might check out Drogula, Commanders and Command (2015) which gets into the nature of provincial governance and commands. Often you are looking at the 'Roman government' in a province...
-
-
Being a single pro-magistrate, his entourage (a few dozen people) and *maybe* a military presence (but frequently not significant). And that's...about it. For a provinces that might have c. 1m people. Rome simply doesn't have the developed, complex bureaucracy to do much else.
-
There is a steady trend as time goes on towards local government weakening and central government strengthening, such that by Diocletian and Constantine, that bureaucracy seems to have emerged. But creating it was a task that took centuries, and its expense was considerable.
- 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.