I am doing research on investigating whether the increase in wealth during Rome's mediterranean expansion (218-167 BC) changed Roman politics and society. Harris' book has been a very helpful insight (Chapters II and III mainly) outlining his reasons for why he believes economic motive was a factor in the expansion.
I am not really looking at the argument of whether the expansion was motivated by wealth or not as I am focussing on the changes to politics/society, but I do believe that gathering information on a different viewpoint than the one proposed by Harris would be beneficial given that economic motive is a factor in the political change. Trying to find something that has provided a different viewpoint has been difficult.
In terms of books/articles I am looking for something written after Harris' book, I've already made a note of the ones within his bibliography. Any help would be appreciated!
My favorite response to Harris is Eckstein 2006, Mediterranean Anarchy, Interstate War, and the Rise of Rome (BMCR review here).
Eckstein makes the argument that Rome WASN'T more militaristic than other Mediterranean cultures; rather he uses systems-level analysis (I think developed to explain 20th century international politics) to argue that Rome won because of the place it occupied in a multi-polar international system. The Hellenistic powers were too focused on gaining supremacy over each other to prevent a small state from edging them out. It has (the argument goes) little to do with unique qualities of the Roman state so much as successfully navigating the system.
As you see from the review, the author is concerned that systems-level analysis (which he calls the "realist" model) doesn't adequately describe the complexity of state-level decision making (since it neglects the "intra-state" side of the equation where individuals have action), and questions the "realist" model as an analytical tool generally. In fact, it's a dangerous idea that brings around dangerous results (I didn't catch that bit in this review before: "I am concerned about its influence on a non-specialist audience whose worldview the book too confidently reinforces." Wow).
The impression I have of the field is that that is pretty representative of the book's reception. Removing individuals from the equation is a real hanging point for a lot of people. Which is a shame. I was a political science major in another life and I liked this book.
But maybe I'm one of those people with a flawed worldview that this book is dangerous for. Thanks, BMCR reviewer!