Voit lisätä twiitteihisi sijainnin, esimerkiksi kaupungin tai tarkemman paikan, verkosta ja kolmannen osapuolen sovellusten kautta. Halutessasi voit poistaa twiittisi sijaintihistorian myöhemmin. Lue lisää
Yeah, I am pretty confident here that one of the main take-aways is that letting the inciters of violent mobs (Scipio Nasica, Gaius Marius, etc. etc.) get away with it and in Marius' case potentially try again later gets you more violent mobs. Accountability matters.https://twitter.com/asymmetricinfo/status/1359241287938023437 …
Or take Athens - letting Peisistratos escape accountability when his first violent coup failed is why he had a second. Letting Pesistratos escape when his second failed is why he had a third. Peisistratos' third succeeded and put Athens under the power of a tyrant for 35 years.
The one argument in that context I find convincing is that it was the looming threat of prosecution that essentially forced Caesar into extending his military command, and when they called him back left him with the choices of downfall or coup. Is that wrong?
Twitter saattaa olla ruuhkautunut tai ongelma on muuten hetkellinen. Yritä uudelleen tai käy Twitterin tilasivulla saadaksesi lisätietoja.
