5

The first Jewish-Roman War started in 66 CE. When I read about it, it sounds so futile: you have a group of zealots (literally and figuratively) revolting against a professional army from the period's superpower.

It reminds me a bit of Boudica's revolt in Britain, which was only 6 years earlier. Perhaps the Jews had heard news of that revolt? There were other revolts in other places too, and from what I understand, I don't think any really succeeded.

Did the contemporary Jews know about these other revolts - and if so, did they realize how futile their revolt would be?

I understand that many of the moderate Jews wanted to surrender and work peaceably with the Roman rulers, but the more fanatical zealots killed the moderate leaders. But why? Couldn't they guess how futile their revolt would be, and how terrible the price their people would pay?

  • 1
    I'm not privy enough with that area to answer, but if you'd like to get a feel of how communications worked in Roman times, see the first few chapters of Wickham's Inheritance of Rome for an overview, or the Fall of Rome podcast -- particularly episodes 11 and 12, which discuss the economy, and most importantly 13, which discusses communications network. The podcast's host did a PhD on Roman communications, and describes a world that is at odds with the current answer's 2nd paragraph. Basically, elites exchanged letters extensively throughout the Empire; these were carried along trade routes. – Denis de Bernardy Sep 23 at 10:02
  • You ask 4 questions: 1. What foreign news were known 2. Why were moderates killed in infighting? 3. Did they know how futile you (or 'proven by later events'/historians) think the idea was? 4. related: How were chances and possible outcomes calculated internally? / That's based around cold, rational and slow choice, when most we know points into the direction of turmoil, principle, fanaticism in bunker mentality group dynamics. Would there be any need of outside news as encouragement or decelerator? Hindsight hopeless rebellions are the norm, but sometimes the VietMinh or Taliban triumph. – LаngLаngС Sep 23 at 10:46
  • but the more fanatical zealots killed the moderate leaders. But why? Pretty much because they were fanatical men of blood. – Display name Sep 23 at 11:30
  • Couldn't they guess how futile their revolt would be ? - An insignificant local revolt automatically ceases to be both local and insignificant the moment other insignificant local populations from across the Empire decide to join in on the action, and simultaneously start their own insignificant local rebellions. It's like a large man being simultaneously attacked by a swarm of bees, as opposed to one single bee at a time, which he could otherwise effortlessly squash. There is also the question of quality of life. Many would choose death over a life not worth living. – Lucian Sep 24 at 8:26
8

First of, idea that First Jewish-Roman war was futile is wrong. War lasted several years, Roman armies were defeated few times. Main reason for failure was Jewish infighting and therefore lack of cohesion between Jews themselves. "Professional armies" are not magically better then volunteer armies, or even conscript armies, as proven many times in history. It all depends on training, tactics, and willingness to fight.

As for news about similar rebellions and revolts, it is plausible that inhabitants of Judea did hear about some of them. In those times main source of news was word of a mouth, with occasional official proclamation on public square. Very few people in those times were literate enough to comprehend true size of Roman Empire, and associated strengths and weaknesses of that colossal state. But they did know they local situation, had idea about the size of local Roman forces, and of course they had their own worldview which was often based on religion and emotions (we against them) .

Considering that stories like story of Boudica could be interpreted in various ways, rumors about that event were certainly shaped by views of storyteller and listener. Those that were afraid of Roman might could emphasize her eventual defeat and slaughter of her supporters. Those opposing Romans and willing to fight could downplay her defeat, blame it on treachery or simply ignore it. Instead they could spin it as a proof that Romans could be defeated, even by the woman.

Of course, chances that this particular revolt influenced leaders of Jewish rebellion in significant way are minimal. There is no record of anyone of them mentioning it, and realistically Britain was barbaric land on far edge of the Empire at that time. Instead, main motivation for Zealots and others was religious (they didn't want to be ruled by Roman "heathens" ) and inspiration mainly came from Jewish holy scripture (latter compiled as Old Testament) which did have many examples of Jews defeating stronger forces if Yahweh wished so.

  • 3
    I do not understand the downvotes – SJuan76 Sep 23 at 9:05
  • 5
    @SJuan76 Not me, but the lack of sources for some of the assertions probably has something to do with it. In part, though, it's not a bad answer (there are certainly worse contributions on this site). – Lars Bosteen Sep 23 at 14:21
  • 3
    Anyone who understood the nature of the Empire would have understood why the British revolt had hope but the Jewish revolt did not. Britain was a frontier province on the edge of the civilized world. There was a limit to the investment Rome would have made to keep it. Judea was an interior province near the cradle of civilization and had a Mediterranean coast. Rome would have kept coming until they took it back, no matter the cost. – C Monsour Sep 23 at 17:13
  • 1
    This answer hits almost all the points I would have (+1). However, I can see from the above comment more may need to be said. – T.E.D. Sep 23 at 18:56
  • 1
    @T.E.D. On the contrary I think "face" was why they suppressed the British rebellion instead of cutting their losses. To say there was an element of face involved in defending the heart of their empire...well maybe at the end of a long list after everything else, but it didn't really matter. – C Monsour Sep 23 at 22:04
4

I can only give part of an answer. However, Josephus, a moderate Jewish leader of the time who changed sides when he decided the Jews could not win, subsequently wrote a 'History of the Jewish War' and other writings about it. He twice puts into the mouths of Moderate Jewish leaders speeches in which the ask how their people can hope to stand against the Romans, who are so powerful 'they have conquered even Britain at the end of the Earth'. However, they do not mention Boudicca's revolt specifically.

For Mediterranean civilizations at that date Britain was known of as a proverbial 'ends of the Earth' kind of place, rather like 'Outer Mongolia' for us, so for Roman power to stretch from there to Judaea meant they were powerful indeed.

We should not take the 'speeches' in Josephus History as word for word accurate. In a society that valued rhetoric very highly, they were an accepted literary device. The Roman historian Tacitus in 'Agricola' purports to give word for word a speech by a barbarian Chieftain Galgacus to his followers in the unconquered far north of Britain, in which Galgacus appears improbably learned in the techniques and conventions of Roman oratory.

However, even if Josephus made up the speeches, he was himself a Jew from 1st Century Palestine so what he knew and what he thought his readers would find plausible in the mouths of other Jews of the time are, especially in the absence of other evidence, significant.

We know from gravestones and other evidence of e.g. soldiers and others from Syria and North Africa ending up in Roman Britain. Indeed the Romans often posted troops to parts of the Empire distant from their place of origin, so they were less likely to join in a local rebellion. When enslaving war captives there was an advantage in selling them to a distant part of the Empire where they had less chance of escaping back to their own countries. There was also quite a lot of long distance trade within the Empire.

Consequently it was by no means impossible that occasionally someone in First Century Palestine would meet someone from or who had been to Britain or provinces in more direct contact with it such as northern Gaul.

  • 3
    Biggest caveat: he wrote after the fact, 'when in Rome', for the Romans, they being the primary audience. Seems uncertain to know what he knew, when in Galilee. Could you quote the exact passage you seem to referring to? – LаngLаngС Sep 23 at 21:06

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service, privacy policy and cookie policy

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.