Voit lisätä twiitteihisi sijainnin, esimerkiksi kaupungin tai tarkemman paikan, verkosta ja kolmannen osapuolen sovellusten kautta. Halutessasi voit poistaa twiittisi sijaintihistorian myöhemmin. Lue lisää
So private businessmen filling public contracts probably had some role - but a smaller and less important (and presumably less lucrative) one that has long been supposed.
Also, on the road system, note Luttwak's observation (Grand Strategy of the Roman Empire (1976), 67ff) about the interaction of vertical vs. horizontal roads. A lot of Roman roads didn't reach back to bases of supply, but connected one frontier region to another.
In short, a lot of those roads may be more for moving troops than for continuous movement of supplies to those troops (also on the Rhine and Danube, why move supplies by road when you can move them by river?)
So view a composite system. Don't seek a single answer. Some things moved up by road (wine, oil, they got the good stuff even in Britain [Tacitus]) because not avail locally. But grain for iron rations (bulky!) source locally (compelled? Taxed? Bought?), livestock also.
I thought we didn't like Luttwak much any more? I like it and find it insightful, but I once mentioned his name in a classics meeting at Cambridge and was almost whipped!
Luttwak is controversial, absolutely and some of the critique of him is valid. And some of it isn't and some of it was 'not one of us' angry-grumbles. It makes Grand Strategy a flawed, but useful book, though dangerous in the hands of folks who can't assess its errors.
Twitter saattaa olla ruuhkautunut tai ongelma on muuten hetkellinen. Yritä uudelleen tai käy Twitterin tilasivulla saadaksesi lisätietoja.
