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.
-
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.
-
So, it's state capacity, but a different side of it. Not a monopoly-on-force problem, like in the HRE, but sharp limits to state capacity to organize and govern.
Keskustelun loppu
Uusi keskustelu -
Lataaminen näyttää kestävän hetken.
Twitter saattaa olla ruuhkautunut tai ongelma on muuten hetkellinen. Yritä uudelleen tai käy Twitterin tilasivulla saadaksesi lisätietoja.