Voit lisätä twiitteihisi sijainnin, esimerkiksi kaupungin tai tarkemman paikan, verkosta ja kolmannen osapuolen sovellusten kautta. Halutessasi voit poistaa twiittisi sijaintihistorian myöhemmin. Lue lisää
I confess I have a number of reservations about the article. I think treating professional/non-professional as binary was a mistake (surely there needs to be the question of if the army was professionalIZING in the period as well), as is the sharpness of the pre-Octavian cutoff.
On campaign length, the traditional view has always been that campaigns got longer post-264 as they got further away from Italy, but Rosenstein has chipped at this view a bit in Rome at War (2004) by arguing against short seasonal warfare in Italy.
Trying to study campaign length is an interesting idea but it would be tricky - you'd be very beholden to Livy for knowing when existing formations were merely augmented or when they were replaced each year with the consuls.
Most other sources aren't as careful in noting new dilecti, formations, etc. Which means you'd have data from 219-179, then be partially blinded to 166, then almost entirely blind for the rest, forced to make assumptions in how to figure, for instance, Rome's long wars in Spain.
Twitter saattaa olla ruuhkautunut tai ongelma on muuten hetkellinen. Yritä uudelleen tai käy Twitterin tilasivulla saadaksesi lisätietoja.
