Pontius Pilate-Not completely bad?

It was the Romans who deprived them of their homeland and practically extinguished them as a people

Is this actually true? The dispersion of Jewish merchant communities across the Mediterranean pre-dates the destruction of the Temple by several centuries. And as for the Jews who farmed the land, were these not the partial ancestors of today's Palestinians (minus the Arab admixture)?
 
Is this actually true? The dispersion of Jewish merchant communities across the Mediterranean pre-dates the destruction of the Temple by several centuries. And as for the Jews who farmed the land, were these not the partial ancestors of today's Palestinians (minus the Arab admixture)?

Sorry, that was sloppy writing because I was trying to pack too much information into too short a post.

No, all the Jews weren't killed or enslaved, and the Levant wasn't empty of them. After all, there were enough of them left in the Levant after the First Jewish War to participate in the Kitos War, and to stage the second "Jewish War" or the Bar Kochba revolt, and they even had a bit of a resurgence in the 600s, but they had no temple, weren't even allowed to enter Jerusalem, and they were much, much reduced in numbers. The whole focus of Jewish life moved away from the Levant.

Whether the Jews that remained in the Levant eventually became Christians, with some of them then becoming Muslims, it's a complicated, controversial subject, but I lean strongly toward the idea that rather than convert they just left. Under Muslim rule, my recollection is that there was only a relatively small number left in the Galilee, mostly scholars.

As for the diaspora Jews, there was the Kitos War, so there was a major "culling" of those Jews as well. Some of the figures for the dead are undoubtedly exaggerated, but there was massive slaughter on both sides. Some areas were virtually de-populated. Alexandria, which was such a center of Jewish life, was deeply affected.


What I was trying to say is that not only were they much, much reduced in numbers, but they also were no longer a unified people with a homeland of their own. It was a huge and terrible price to pay for all the internal conflict, which often times was actually a civil war, for letting the Zealots eventually take control of Jewish destiny instead of the more moderate Sadducees. That's my opinion, of course.

It's also my own opinion that it was the Jews who gave the Romans the most trouble in terms of the conquered peoples. Once Britain and France were pacified, and Spain as well, there was Romanization and order. Not so in Israel. Yahweh called them a "stiff-necked" people. I think that's right, but, as I said, they paid a huge price.
 
Last edited:
Sorry, that was sloppy writing because I was trying to pack too much information into too short a post.

No, all the Jews weren't killed or enslaved, and the Levant wasn't empty of them. After all, there were enough of them left in the Levant after the First Jewish War to participate in the Kitos War, and to stage the second "Jewish War" or the Bar Kochba revolt, and they even had a bit of a resurgence in the 600s, but they had no temple, weren't even allowed to enter Jerusalem, and they were much, much reduced in numbers. The whole focus of Jewish life moved away from the Levant.

Whether the Jews that remained in the Levant eventually became Christians, with some of them then becoming Muslims, it's a complicated, controversial subject, but I lean strongly toward the idea that rather than convert they just left. Under Muslim rule, my recollection is that there was only a relatively small number left in the Galilee, mostly scholars.

As for the diaspora Jews, there was the Kitos War, so there was a major "culling" of those Jews as well. Some of the figures for the dead are undoubtedly exaggerated, but there was massive slaughter on both sides. Some areas were virtually de-populated. Alexandria, which was such a center of Jewish life, was also affected.


What I was trying to say is that not only were they much, much reduced in numbers, but they also were no longer a unified people with a homeland of their own. It was a huge and terrible price to pay for all the internal conflict, which often times was actually a civil war, for the eventual control by the Zealots of Jewish destiny, instead of the more moderate Sadducees. That's my opinion, of course.

It's my own opinion that it was the Jews who gave the Romans the most trouble in terms of the conquered peoples. Once Britain and France were pacified, and Spain as well, there was Romanization and order. No so in Israel. Yahweh called them a "stiff-necked" people. I think that's right, but, as I said, they paid a huge price.


Regarding your last paragraph, I think you need to read some other views of Ancient Roman History, and especially regarding Britain.

Britain was never pacified by Rome, and this is confirmed by inscriptions and writers such as in the Augustan History 3rd C, "the Britons could not be kept under roman control " and from Fonto writing about the reign of Hadrian earlier, " Large numbers of Roman Soldiers were killed by the British"
 
Regarding your last paragraph, I think you need to read some other views of Ancient Roman History, and especially regarding Britain.

Britain was never pacified by Rome, and this is confirmed by inscriptions and writers such as in the Augustan History 3rd C, "the Britons could not be kept under roman control " and from Fonto writing about the reign of Hadrian earlier, " Large numbers of Roman Soldiers were killed by the British"

Honestly, your friends at anthrogenica are letting you down.

Even Wiki gets it right.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roman_Britain

After the initial period there was nothing of much moment: nothing, absolutely nothing on the scale of the Jewish revolts. They could have brought down the empire, or at leasat the eastern and southern part of the Empire, and hundreds and hundreds of thousands of people were enslaved or died. There's barely a mention of Britannia in Roman chronicles after the initial period, as there is barely a mention of the Ligures after initial hard fighting.

Sorry if that offends your nationalistic feelings, but it's a fact.

Don't presume to school me in Roman history, or ancient history in general. You'll lose.
 
I refer to your statement about Rome pacifying Britain, and stand by my view. Rome never could or did pacify Britain. Fact.
 
I refer to your statement about Rome pacifying Britain, and stand by my view. Rome never could or did pacify Britain. Fact.

Is even Wiki too sophisticated for you? You either didn't read the article, or you didn't understand it.

If you're talking about Scotland or deep into Wales, that's a different story. The Romans were pretty practical about Empire; on a profit/loss spreadsheet, they weren't worth the cost. There was a limit, given the times, to the amount of territory they could govern. England itself was very Romanized. Indeed, from the beginning the Romans had "British" allies.

Do some reading before you post, or pretty soon no one with any real knowledge of these topics will bother to engage you.
 
Sorry, that was sloppy writing because I was trying to pack too much information into too short a post.

No, all the Jews weren't killed or enslaved, and the Levant wasn't empty of them. After all, there were enough of them left in the Levant after the First Jewish War to participate in the Kitos War, and to stage the second "Jewish War" or the Bar Kochba revolt, and they even had a bit of a resurgence in the 600s, but they had no temple, weren't even allowed to enter Jerusalem, and they were much, much reduced in numbers. The whole focus of Jewish life moved away from the Levant.

Whether the Jews that remained in the Levant eventually became Christians, with some of them then becoming Muslims, it's a complicated, controversial subject, but I lean strongly toward the idea that rather than convert they just left. Under Muslim rule, my recollection is that there was only a relatively small number left in the Galilee, mostly scholars.

As for the diaspora Jews, there was the Kitos War, so there was a major "culling" of those Jews as well. Some of the figures for the dead are undoubtedly exaggerated, but there was massive slaughter on both sides. Some areas were virtually de-populated. Alexandria, which was such a center of Jewish life, was deeply affected.


What I was trying to say is that not only were they much, much reduced in numbers, but they also were no longer a unified people with a homeland of their own. It was a huge and terrible price to pay for all the internal conflict, which often times was actually a civil war, for letting the Zealots eventually take control of Jewish destiny instead of the more moderate Sadducees. That's my opinion, of course.

It's also my own opinion that it was the Jews who gave the Romans the most trouble in terms of the conquered peoples. Once Britain and France were pacified, and Spain as well, there was Romanization and order. Not so in Israel. Yahweh called them a "stiff-necked" people. I think that's right, but, as I said, they paid a huge price.

Given this history, it's amazing to me that Europeans thought Jews were cowards. Some of that was because they were so scattered, isolated in small ghettos, perpetually under threat of death. If the geneticists are correct, Central and Eastern European Jews descend from a couple of hundred Jews, so they were right to be afraid. Or look at what was done to them in Iberia. Part of it is because of the holocaust, as well.

It's total stupidity. Are they going to be blamed for not believing until they got to the camps that such things could be done by supposedly "civilized" Europeans of the 20th century? I have seen all the evidence, and it's still hard for me to credit it.
 
Is even Wiki too sophisticated for you? You either didn't read the article, or you didn't understand it.

If you're talking about Scotland or deep into Wales, that's a different story. The Romans were pretty practical about Empire; on a profit/loss spreadsheet, they weren't worth the cost. There was a limit, given the times, to the amount of territory they could govern. England itself was very Romanized. Indeed, from the beginning the Romans had "British" allies.

Do some reading before you post, or pretty soon no one with any real knowledge of these topics will bother to engage you.

Think you need to be 'taught' actual history. You seem to be wrapped up in your own self importance, and 'your' italian ancestry, you ignore that theres another vast 'real' world out here, but choose to slag off most views you dissagree with. try coming back down to earth., among real people, you might even learn some thing new.
 

This thread has been viewed 18356 times.

Back
Top