I'm still reading it, and it's definitely interesting, but is the current consensus that the Silk Road trade was as fundamental to the economy of the "periferal empires" like China, Rome and Byzantium as he makes it to be?
I am not a fan. In fact, most of Beckwith's recent books have been blasted in the academic press, particularly by those who study East Asia (Beckwith seems to have a problem with the Chinese).
That being said, I don't remember the specific content of his economic claims, can you give a brief, two sentence summary? I can respond to them in regards to Rome.