Voit lisätä twiitteihisi sijainnin, esimerkiksi kaupungin tai tarkemman paikan, verkosta ja kolmannen osapuolen sovellusten kautta. Halutessasi voit poistaa twiittisi sijaintihistorian myöhemmin. Lue lisää
But, for instance, Erdkamp understands quaestors to have their own provincia and thus their own grant of authority entirely separate from the fellow with imperium - in that case, we'd have to imagine an active Senate role in the who-goes-where-does-what question.
I lean towards Erdkamp's reading, mostly because it seems like the kind of BS ad-hoc-ery that the Romans adore. Certainly we have some imperium-havers who go through more than one quaestor over long commands.
Honestly looking at a century and a half now of reevaluating German scholarship has taught me that if a reconstruction of the Roman system seems simple, direct and rules-based, it is almost certainly wrong and one should assume ample BS ad-hoc-ery wherever possible.
A little off topic: Its interesting to track how different titles gained / lost prominence over time during the course of different periods in Rome, demonstrating the ad hoc nature of titles / appointments / posts at macro time scale.
Twitter saattaa olla ruuhkautunut tai ongelma on muuten hetkellinen. Yritä uudelleen tai käy Twitterin tilasivulla saadaksesi lisätietoja.
