This. The Roman Peace was neither Roman, nor peaceful.https://twitter.com/jpnudell/status/1266148060725420038 …
-
I mean, we're not looking at major organizational or technological changes in the first 2 centuries CE though? So if fewer soldiers are holding more ground, it is because violence is being 'pushed out' to the frontier, creating zones of peace where they didn't exist before.
Of course, you are doing that by inflicting new violence at the frontier, but the limes is a smaller zone than the imperial core and those areas were not exactly peaceful before the Romans showed up either.
-
-
More generally, the shift from systems of interstate anarchy to systems of hegemony tend to link to low general levels of violence (on this, note Eckstein's Med. Anarchy and Rome Enters the East)
-
yes. I think it would be quite possible to measure the number of wars in, for example, mainland Greece from mid-Republic to 3rd century AD and claim that Greece DID experience a Pax Romana, albeit at the cost of provincialization. (records good for Greece, perhaps also Egypt)
- Näytä vastaukset
Uusi keskustelu -
-
-
Also, how much of the low level Kashmir-border style violence with Bastarnae and Dacian tribes went unreported?
-
Probably a lot, but then our evidence suggests that violence would be happening with or without the Romans. Rhine/Danube region looks pretty violent (inter-state/non-state anarchy) pre-Romans.
- 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.