Voit lisätä twiitteihisi sijainnin, esimerkiksi kaupungin tai tarkemman paikan, verkosta ja kolmannen osapuolen sovellusten kautta. Halutessasi voit poistaa twiittisi sijaintihistorian myöhemmin. Lue lisää
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.
Which is a real problem since it's precisely in that 150-50 BC period that we'd expect the nucleus of that sort of proto-professional Roman military class, constantly 're-upping' from one campaign to the next to emerge.
Exactly right about false binary. There's no discussion of evolution. And the Spanish campaigns are the perfect example. He seems only to acknowledge Gallic campaign as exceptionally long.
And @BretDevereaux may know where this is (or if I've invented it), but I think when Scipio Aemilianus went to the war against Numantia he found men who had been in service for 18-20 years and never permitted to return to Italy.
Twitter saattaa olla ruuhkautunut tai ongelma on muuten hetkellinen. Yritä uudelleen tai käy Twitterin tilasivulla saadaksesi lisätietoja.
