"Don't negatively affect" or "Doesn't do permanent, high cost damage"? It's honestly been so long since I had to read the agricultural devastation debate that I don't recall which argument gets made.
-
Tämä twiitti ei ole saatavilla.
-
Ah great, thanks for this. I just need some material for a footnote. It appears he just wants me to include some counterarguments for sections that I mention specific targeting of crops by generals.
I mean, in any event, contra a certain scholar, there is no question that ancient generals thought agricultural devastation worked and were really surprised that one time it didn't against Athens. Which suggests to me that it worked most of the time.
-
-
One wonders if the entire debate is merely the product of the fact that the two best attested sets of Greek wars - Persian and Peloponnesian - are by far the most unusual, as our sources flatly tell us. We're stuck reasoning from the exceptions.
-
Also, Roman armies explicitly 'trample down' grain as a strategy of agricultural destruction, so if that's the point at issue, the sources seem pretty clear. Trampling is explicit Liv. 34.26.8, implied in places like Liv. 34.9.13 or App. Iber. 87.
- Näytä vastaukset
Uusi keskustelu -
Lataaminen näyttää kestävän hetken.
Twitter saattaa olla ruuhkautunut tai ongelma on muuten hetkellinen. Yritä uudelleen tai käy Twitterin tilasivulla saadaksesi lisätietoja.