Voit lisätä twiitteihisi sijainnin, esimerkiksi kaupungin tai tarkemman paikan, verkosta ja kolmannen osapuolen sovellusten kautta. Halutessasi voit poistaa twiittisi sijaintihistorian myöhemmin. Lue lisää
Right - and it feels unlikely in any case that Marius was the only possible agent who would have paved the way for a series of brutal strongmen, given the very real military inadequacies he was responding to.
I've always felt that the real failure was that the Senate didn't act to pull the funding and settlement of soldiers directly under its purview, or to assign it to junior magistrates (e.g. Quaestors). Augustus, of course, does exactly this, regularizing the system and thus...
...largely neutralizing the threat that the professional army posed for the state. But reading, for instance, Cicero (De RP, De Leg) is so bittersweet, because you can tell he just doesn't think institutionally like that.
Neither did Sulla, really. But I have no sympathy for him.
Right - and that would seem to me analogous to the other issues we're mentioning. Unwillingness even to consider what structural reform would look like means essential changes must be effected on an ad hoc basis by brutal warlords, until one wins thoroughly enough to really do it
Twitter saattaa olla ruuhkautunut tai ongelma on muuten hetkellinen. Yritä uudelleen tai käy Twitterin tilasivulla saadaksesi lisätietoja.
