Voit lisätä twiitteihisi sijainnin, esimerkiksi kaupungin tai tarkemman paikan, verkosta ja kolmannen osapuolen sovellusten kautta. Halutessasi voit poistaa twiittisi sijaintihistorian myöhemmin. Lue lisää
Do you have a link or explanation for the “Romans didn’t so strategy” limits-of-empire thesis?
B. Isaac, The Limits of Empire (1992) is the key text, though the same is implied by W.V. Harris, War and Imperialism in Republican Rome (1981). The argument sticks around in some circles, despite being utterly obliterated by E.L. Wheeler, "Metholodigcal Limits" JMH 51.1-2
IIRC Heather in “Empires & Barbarians” argued that Romans basically expanded to the point where the ground wouldn’t support profitable agriculture (limited by period plow technology). Is that accepted or controversial?
Complicated, but probably close to the majority view? It's hard to square with Roman Britain or Dacia, which seem pretty clearly to have been imperial boondoggles that probably never paid for themselves.
One key to understanding the debate is that it was kicked off by E. Luttwak, The Grand Strategy of the Roman Empire (1976), the reception of which in Classics Land was contentious to say the least - 'no strategy' was a rejection of Luttwak.
Luttwak's book is a real mixed bag - he has some good observations, but his lack of classical training also shows quite badly at points.
One of the files in my 'to do' projects folder is an approach on this question, so maybe one day I'll do that, if I ever have time 
Twitter saattaa olla ruuhkautunut tai ongelma on muuten hetkellinen. Yritä uudelleen tai käy Twitterin tilasivulla saadaksesi lisätietoja.
