Mohammed the Persian

I'm reading a whole book about Jerusalem so I was intrigued

The Romans had beaten the Jerusalemites in the siege of Jerusalem (the one that resulted in Herod's temple being destroyed by General Titus), but why did they have to raze Jerusalem to the ground ?

gaius valerius

Setting an example.

Salah

Jerusalem's spiritual importance to the Jews made it a focal point of unified resistance to Roman rule.

The Romans were normally tolerant of religions, but would viciously attack any cult that was able to unify and inspire their enemies - a similar incident nearly contemporary to the destruction of Jerusalem was the supression of British druidry, which was carried out with similar wholesale brutality.

After Bar Kochva's revolt half a century later, the entire province of Judea was renamed 'Palestine' after the Phillistines, the Biblical enemies of Israel.

sylla1

Actually, Jerusalem was strictly speaking never razed "to the ground" (i.e. like the also semitic Carthage) by the Romans, not even after the later Bar Kochba rebellion.

Back to the OP, I don't think the exemplary punishing intentions of the winnig side after such a hard victory couldn't have been any more obvious.

Shapur

I would add to what's already been posted, that it was long brutal siege and the average legionnaire was unlikely to show much mercy once the Jewish defense was broken, regardless of what their commanders wanted. Also, the city would have been pretty devastated regardless of the Romans actions afterwards.

Eumenes

I second this. Jerusalem's treatment was not atypical for its time. Get a bunch of legionaries who have had to fight a four year long campaign and then conduct months of siege warfare, and they aren't in the best mood. Combine this with the natural lust for plunder of the common soldier, and it isn't too surprising what happened.

People were apt enough to sack their own cities, like the Gallic Empire's troops treatment of Mainz and the French sacking of Soissons in the Hundred Years War

pixi666

Interesting. Do you think that the fact the Jews were monotheistic contributed to this?

Salah

It certainly didn't help their standing with the Romans, at the least - the worship of a single, invisible god was often labelled 'atheism', hence all the trouble Jews and especially Christians received from the Romans.

Jews did get a little respect for the antiquity of their religion, but by the 2nd Century Christianity had evolved from a branch of Judaism into its own religion, and being a new religion was not afforded the same grudging acceptance.

Sankari

You mean the Jews.

Because Jerusalem was the nexus of Jewish resistance and this was the most effective way to neutralise it. Bear in mind this was in response to the latest of several large scale Jewish revolts.

Having said that, Jerusalem was destroyed but not 'razed to the ground.'

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.