EUREKA - Roman army troops

[Tarbicus]

A lot of this goes to explain why the tribes increased in increments of two. There is one period with an increase of four, but this is still two increments of two. All this shows an ongoing strategy of expansion...

Is it the Mennonites who split the group into two once they reach a certain number, half of whom form a new colony elsewhere? This keeps the social group manageable with less risk of internal conflict. For a modern business parallel see W.L. Gore & Associates (makers of Gore-Tex) management philosophy that rejected the traditional pyramid structure, and implemented a lattice structure. Highly successful and keeps productivity and ingenuity within a growing company whilst preserving co-operation.
http://www.fundinguniverse.com/company- ... story.html

Do you not think that the location of new colonies could have more to do with local resources than provocation? If a competing city-state had already colonised an area or was located there it stands to reason that the resources in that location were good (or they wouldn't be there in the first place), so it would make sense to locate your own colony in or near that region to also take advantage of such resources? But, where other city-states would prefer not to go there, simply to avoid conflict, the Romans showed more willingness to not be bullied off the 'turf'. It doesn't mean they had a deliberate policy of provoking war, just that they felt there were enough resources for them as well, but if a competitor didn't think so, tough. The likelihood may have been that no matter where you colonised there would always be someone nearby who objected, so what the hell; "Damned if you do, damned if you don't" The alternative could be famine and internal social conflict.