Voit lisätä twiitteihisi sijainnin, esimerkiksi kaupungin tai tarkemman paikan, verkosta ja kolmannen osapuolen sovellusten kautta. Halutessasi voit poistaa twiittisi sijaintihistorian myöhemmin. Lue lisää
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
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 
I'd like to read that! If I may: how far do you see the process of 'who goes where' as foreign policy vs high politics: is the strategy Rome's, or that of individual senators, perhaps with clashing aims? And how far do the 'seeing like a state' ideas in your EU4 blog matter here?
Twitter saattaa olla ruuhkautunut tai ongelma on muuten hetkellinen. Yritä uudelleen tai käy Twitterin tilasivulla saadaksesi lisätietoja.
