Why did the Romans raze Jerusalem ? - Page 2 - Historum

KillCarneyKlansman · January 20th, 2012, 08:21 PM

They even tried to rename it Caesarea a few times to no avail.

**Sankari** · January 20th, 2012, 08:40 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by sylla1

Actually, the Jewish religion was objectively no problem for the Roman authorities whenever there was no political rebellion.

Even more, there's no evidence of any Roman anti-Jewish persecution from Antoninus Pius (after Hadrianus & Bar Kochba) to Constantinus I (the ascent of Christianism).

In fact, the Roman religious tolerance of Judaism is a strong argument against some common explanations of the persecution of the Christians.

Agreed. Roman prejudice against Christianity is amply explained in their own words. To understand why they were antagonistic to the Christians, we need look no further than the reasons given by Trajan, Pliny and Julian the Apostate.

Quote:

Originally Posted by KillCarneyKlansman

They even tried to rename it Caesarea a few times to no avail.

Hadrian effectively renamed it by building a Roman city on the site, which he called Colonia Aelia Captolina.

sylla1 · January 21st, 2012, 03:31 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sankari

Hadrian effectively renamed it by building a Roman city on the site, which he called Colonia Aelia Captolina.

From a section of the gorgeus Tabula Peutingriana (Map of the Roman empire by IV century AD)

As a double-house icon (center right), under the label:

Quote:

antea dicta Hierusalem n(unc) Helya Capitolina.

(Formely called Jerusalem, now called Aelia Capitolina)

Eumenes · January 21st, 2012, 10:27 AM

Is there really any evidence that the Romans went out of their way to destroy Jerusalem as a matter of policy at the end of the 1st Jewish Revolt?

Hadrian certainly was not a fan of the Jewish faith, but the sack of Jerusalem by Titus' men at the end of the First Revolt seems more like business as usual rather than a cruel deviation from norms.

See for example the numerous number of cities sacked throughout history with little regard for their inhabitants. Also, when a Roman army refrains from sacking a city it seems to be a noteworthy enough event that primary sources go out of their way to describe how unusual it was, which is the case with Caesar's campaigns and Aurelian's later reconquest of the Palmyrene Empire.

steve53 · January 21st, 2012, 12:06 PM

Sure. Read Josephus. Surprisingly enough, he wrote a seven book work on it called "The Jewish Wars."

Jerusalem was not totally razed. Titus saved part of the western wall of the upper city- probably for use as part of an army camp-and three of the towers that were in the palace of Herod, even though the towers were burned out.

Eumenes · January 21st, 2012, 02:10 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by steve53

Sure. Read Josephus. Surprisingly enough, he wrote a seven book work on it called "The Jewish Wars."

Jerusalem was not totally razed. Titus saved part of the western wall of the upper city- probably for use as part of an army camp-and three of the towers that were in the palace of Herod, even though the towers were burned out.

I had been under the impression that Titus' troops went at the final sack without orders, but Josephus, Flavian sycophant that he was, does lay at least some blame at Titus' feet.

Still, the siege seems to have followed normal conventions, and perhaps even have been more indulgent than usual.

Adrian Goldsworthy mentions, and I don't know what source he draws the from, that the Roman convention was that a reasonable surrender could be made until the first blow of the battering ram was made upon a city's wall.

Josephus' account has Titus offering surrender no less than seven times, with five of the offers including the safety of the city, and the remaining two coming after it had already been largely destroyed in the fighting.

First before his army has reached the city when he asked the defenders to discuss terms (Book V Chapter 3 of the Jewish Wars):

Quote:

But for Titus himself, he had this surprising conduct of the Jews in suspicion; for whereas he had invited them to come to terms of accommodation, by Josephus, but one day before, he could then receive no civil answer from them; so he ordered the soldiers to stay where they were.

Second when the siege of the city had been established and Josephus and Nicanor attempted to discuss terms from the foot of its walls (Book V Chapter 6):

Quote:

But at this time, as he was going round about the city, one of his friends, whose name was Nicanor, was wounded with a dart on his left shoulder, as he approached, together with Josephus, too near the wall, and attempted to discourse to those that were upon the wall, about terms of peace; for he was a person known by them. On this account it was that Caesar, as soon as he knew their vehemence, that they would not hear even such as approached them to persuade them to what tended to their own preservation, was provoked to press on the siege.

Third when a Jewish commander named Castor made a false attempt at surrender in order to buy time (Book V Chapter 7):

Quote:

Castor did then stretch out his hand, as a petitioner, and called for Caesar, and by his voice moved his compassion, and begged of him to have mercy upon them; and Titus, in the innocency of his heart, believing him to be in earnest, and hoping that the Jews did now repent, stopped the working of the battering ram, and forbade them to shoot at the petitioners, and bid Castor say what he had a mind to say to him. He said that he would come down, if he would give him his right hand for his security. To which Titus replied, that he was well pleased with such his agreeable conduct, and would be well pleased if all the Jews would be of his mind, and that he was ready to give the like security to the city.

Fourth, after the capture of the second wall (Book V Chapter 8):

Quote:

But then Titus, knowing that the city would be either saved or destroyed for himself, did not only proceed earnestly in the siege, but did not omit to have the Jews exhorted to repentance; so he mixed good counsel with his works for the siege. And being sensible that exhortations are frequently more effectual than arms, he persuaded them to surrender the city, now in a manner already taken, and thereby to save themselves, and sent Josephus to speak to them in their own language; for he imagined they might yield to the persuasion of a countryman of their own.

Fifth, during the assault on the Temple (Book VI Chapter II).

Quote:

Upon this Josephus stood in such a place where he might be heard, not by John only, but by many more, and then declared to them what Caesar had given him in charge, and this in the Hebrew language. So he earnestly prayed them to spare their own city, and to prevent that fire which was just ready to seize upon the temple, and to offer their usual sacrifices to God therein. At these words of his a great sadness and silence were observed among the people. But the tyrant himself cast many reproaches upon Josephus, with imprecations besides; and at last added this withal, that he did never fear the taking of the city, because it was God's own city.

Sixth, right before the fall of the temple (Book VI Chapter VI):

Quote:

However, I will not imitate your madness. If you throw down your arms, and deliver up your bodies to me, I grant you your lives; and I will act like a mild master of a family; what cannot be healed shall be punished, and the rest I will preserve for my own use."

And finally, right before the complete capture of Jerusalem (Book VI Chapter VII:

Quote:

It was at this time that the commanders of the Idumeans got together privately, and took counsel about surrendering up themselves to the Romans. Accordingly, they sent five men to Titus, and entreated him to give them his right hand for their security. So Titus thinking that the tyrants would yield, if the Idumeans, upon whom a great part of the war depended, were once withdrawn from them, after some reluctancy and delay, complied with them, and gave them security for their lives, and sent the five men back.

Source: The Wars of the Jews; or the history of the destruction of Jerusalem by Josephus - Project Gutenberg

If Josephus, admittedly a Flavian sympathizer as I said before, is to be believed, the Roman destruction of Jerusalem was more out of exasperation than anything.

Or, to be more fair, neither side was going to reach terms. The Jewish factions in control of the city refused to negotiate with Titus, and Titus would not and could not simply walk away from Jerusalem, especially with the Flavian dynasty so new to the throne.

yakuza90 · January 21st, 2012, 05:32 PM

Caligula would have put thousands of golden statues of himself in that temple; they would have torn that thing to pieces themselves. They practically hated the Romans for what they were. Except maybe an Herodes Agrippa. But as soon as those people were gone...

steve53 · January 22nd, 2012, 10:48 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Eumenes

I had been under the impression that Titus' troops went at the final sack without orders, but Josephus, Flavian sycophant that he was, does lay at least some blame at Titus' feet.

Still, the siege seems to have followed normal conventions, and perhaps even have been more indulgent than usual.

Adrian Goldsworthy mentions, and I don't know what source he draws the from, that the Roman convention was that a reasonable surrender could be made until the first blow of the battering ram was made upon a city's wall.

Josephus' account has Titus offering surrender no less than seven times, with five of the offers including the safety of the city, and the remaining two coming after it had already been largely destroyed in the fighting.

First before his army has reached the city when he asked the defenders to discuss terms (Book V Chapter 3 of the Jewish Wars):

Second when the siege of the city had been established and Josephus and Nicanor attempted to discuss terms from the foot of its walls (Book V Chapter 6):

Third when a Jewish commander named Castor made a false attempt at surrender in order to buy time (Book V Chapter 7):

Fourth, after the capture of the second wall (Book V Chapter 8):

Fifth, during the assault on the Temple (Book VI Chapter II).

Sixth, right before the fall of the temple (Book VI Chapter VI):

And finally, right before the complete capture of Jerusalem (Book VI Chapter VII:

Source: The Wars of the Jews; or the history of the destruction of Jerusalem by Josephus - Project Gutenberg

If Josephus, admittedly a Flavian sympathizer as I said before, is to be believed, the Roman destruction of Jerusalem was more out of exasperation than anything.

Or, to be more fair, neither side was going to reach terms. The Jewish factions in control of the city refused to negotiate with Titus, and Titus would not and could not simply walk away from Jerusalem, especially with the Flavian dynasty so new to the throne.

Absolutely.

Jerusalem HAD to fall. No way around it. Titus was under grreat pressure as well. As I mentioned in a previous post, Vespasian hung around the East, hoping that Titus would make quick work of Jerusalem and they both could enter Rome together as sort of co-rulers. When Jerusalem proved to be so tough to take for Titus, Titus not only felt that he was letting his father down, but Vespasian himself might have felt that he blundered by giving the job over to his son. If Vespasian, as emperor, took on Jerusalem, the result might have quite different, and the siege ending months earlier. Titus changed tactics at least three times, as I remember.

Titus later became one of the best and most human emperors of Rome, likely due in no small measure to his humbling experience in Jerusalem, where he witnessed passionate people fighting to preserve their religion.
At his heart, Titus was probably no warrior.
Interestingly, he almost married a true Jewish Princess, Bernice, but did not due to political pressure.

Hagan in "Fires of Rome" parses through Josephus and reconstructs Jerusalem of that time, and argues that much of modern "old" city of Jerusalem can be traced to the monumental efforts of Titus and his armies as they strove to breech the three northern walls of the city- including the location of Golgotha and the Palace of Herod.

Amazon.com: Fires of Rome: Jesus and the Early Christians in the Roman Empire (9780982082812): John Hagan: Books

*Giraffe* · January 24th, 2012, 12:00 PM

The Romans tolerated a lot of Religions, as long as they were willing to recognise the Roman ones - eg acknowledge their Emperor as a God, as well as their own. Even if it was only a nominal acknowledgement, they had to 'play the game' to some extent, and not make waves.

The Jews (and Christians) were inclined to be a bit huffy about this, often openly refusing, proclaiming that their God was the one and only.

The Romans could not allow them to get away with this, as it would be a very bad example to others in the Empire, so maybe this was a factor in the rougher treatment they got.

KillCarneyKlansman · January 24th, 2012, 06:27 PM

Ah, no bites, go niners, blaahhhh