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.
-
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.
Kiitos. Käytämme tätä aikajanasi parantamiseen. KumoaKumoa
-
Lataaminen näyttää kestävän hetken.
Twitter saattaa olla ruuhkautunut tai ongelma on muuten hetkellinen. Yritä uudelleen tai käy Twitterin tilasivulla saadaksesi lisätietoja.