vexillum wording

[Caius Fabius]

I personally would go with no Roman soldiers for the Nativity, and Auxiliaries for the Passion. Once again, though, if you dress your soldiers in late Successor equipment, or non-Roman equipment you have to explain a lot to each person seeing the show, and that takes away from the celebration of the nativity, so you are forced to choose. I prefer to explain, but sometimes the people I work for don't. It comes down to what the 'director' or 'producer' wants, in theater, just like film.

What did Herod's guard wear? Probably mail and bronze helmets, probably round or oval shields, but I haven't found any exact details to the period 10BC to AD10, and I have been looking for about 30 years. Lots of opinions, many published, but few facts.

No friend and ally of Rome was without some sort of oversight, whether it was equestrian merchants or senatorial visitors or the government contracted people who checked to make sure proper taxes were being paid. Were there Legions? No. Were there people who the locals saw as Roman soldiers? ... probably, either retired soldiers serving as clients or bodyguards, or various groups wearing Roman looking armor.

The writings are pretty definite about a census, which was being taken because of a decree from Caesar in regards to taxation. I fail to imagine that even in autonomous provinces there would not have been some sort of Roman oversight. No we haven't found any proof in stone, but ...

Not to go into modern politics, but not all of the "French" who Invaded Russia in 1812 were French, even though many of the locals saw them as French and called them French. Not all the redcoats at Waterloo were British, but again, history and public perception at the time can be different.

I think we are on the same point of view here, just I am flexible when working with church groups, due to decades of experience. Sometimes it is 'my way or the highway' with some shows and I prefer to be helpful, even if they don't want accuracy.

A Vexillum without any wording can always be a Herodian standard. It should not have any pictures of animals or humans, which could have started a riot in devout Jewish communities.

[Mauritius]

well its given me something to think about

thanks for your ideas

[M. CVRIVS ALEXANDER]

Well, the initial question implied historical accuracy, hence my answer above. I doubt that there was military presence at all for the census in any of the villages or small towns. But if you ask how we do it...We have Legio XI and some Batavians here in Atlanta - and guess what? We have been having Legio XI at the nativity, and will probably have some Batavians there this year. It is as "accurate" in my opinion as having any Roman soldiers there. It is more tradition and people's desire to see the Romans than anything else.

[M. Demetrius]

people's desire to see the Romans than anything else

And of course, another chance to show up in public in kit, right?

I wonder what was the smallest unit that would be sent out to oversee a census or similar government function. No doubt they would be aware that only a few Romans would not be a good idea, as some would look for opportunity to bump off a few soldiers and disappear into the crowd, and too big a group might cause civil unrest to increase.

[Caius Fabius]

At the time, even the fanatics were afraid of Rome and her retaliation. It took a great deal of chutzpah to attack a Roman citizen, because sooner or later, Rome would come and punish the town, city, state. Remember, the Roman Civil Wars were still a part of the older Judean's memories, the assistance given to Herod, the tramp of Legions, the stories about what happened to communities who resisted the Romans....

It seems to have taken a religious zeal or insanity to contemplate attacking Roman soldiers, look at what Varus had recently done to a gathering that threatened to become unruly in the north. In most places, (not the dives) a Roman citizen was safer in a foreign country than he would have been in the suburbia of Rome. Remember what Sulla did to Stabia in 89 BC for their murder of Roman merchants? What had been to to Eastern cities who killed Roman citizens? It took time, but Rome was patient and was known to seek vengeance.

How many Roman soldiers in an escort? It would depend upon the prestige of the person being escorted. It would depend on the forces available to the local commander or regional commander. It would depend on whether or not the group was traveling into the areas known to have bandits. Bethlehem was an established peaceful place.

Again, in the final answer, it will depend on the 'director' or 'producer' and the local reenactment unit. You can always say that most of your men are on different shifts, other duties, or sick from strange food.

Remember, at this period, the Romans were trying to get along with the Judean rulers and people, they did not come visiting with idols and standards that were offensive. 50-60 years later it was a different story.

I am still waiting for the Osprey book, "Armies of the Herodians" :roll:

[Hugh Fuller]

I personally would go with no Roman soldiers for the Nativity, and Auxiliaries for the Passion. <Portions Deleted>

I have read some authors, Stephen Dando-Collins comes immediately to mind, who state that there were Vexillia of the Syrian legions stationed in Judaea by the time of the Crucifixion and Dando-Collins even goes so far as to state that it was a specialist unit of one of the Legio X Fretensis that did the actual crucifixion. His argument is that this function was something that was reserved to the Legions as Roman citizens at that time. We all know that there were no full legions in Judaea as it was a Procuratorial province ruled by a person of Equestrian status and legions, being made up of Roman citizens, could only be commanded by one of Senatorial status, but legions could and did send vexillia into procuratorial provinces. I believe that one such was stationed in the Antonia Fortress in Jerusalem and another at Ceasarea Philippi, the procuratorial seat on the coast.

[Caius Fabius]

Dando-Collins as a source?
I have his books, safely in my historical fiction section.
Here are some reviews of his books...

link from old RAT
link from old RAT
link from old RAT
link from old RAT

[L C Cinna]

Well to start with the whole census is more than questionable as well as the procedure described for the census. Just aliterary feature to get the prophet into the right town because "no prophet is born in Galilaea". So my guess is, no Roman troops present.

Here a very nice article on the topic:
[url:2vdbpqoy]http://hsozkult.geschichte.hu-berlin.de/forum/id=853&type=diskussionen[/url]

[M. Demetrius]

Cinna, I don't see where your logic follows a straight line here. The method of the census (which, as I understand it wasn't all that uncommon--to get taxes you have to know who you're taxing) was useful because the Israelis of the day knew which tribe and town they came from. Their geneology was very important to them. So it makes sense to find out how many of which tribe were still living, and the easy way is to get them to go back where they originated.

But the aside about getting the prophet in the right town, I don't follow your reasoning. Can you help me out?

[Mauritius]

Well to start with the whole census is more than questionable as well as the procedure described for the census. Just aliterary feature to get the prophet into the right town because "no prophet is born in Galilaea". So my guess is, no Roman troops present.

Here a very nice article on the topic:
[url:k6fzmky0]http://hsozkult.geschichte.hu-berlin.de/forum/id=853&type=diskussionen[/url]

Thank you for your answer

however this thread is not for bible bashers or for bashing the bible just simply a simple question with a simple answer would fine !!

and a english link would be better

dont forget the rules chaps

[M. CVRIVS ALEXANDER]

...this thread is not for bible bashers or for bashing the bible just simply a simple question with a simple answer would fine !!

and a english link would be better

dont forget the rules chaps

Well, the initial question of this thread was about historically appropriate setting for the nativity; therefore, pointing out the historical problems associated with the Lukan account (which is not the same as "bashing the bible") is not out of place. Regarding the sources in English, the work of Emil Schürer, The History of the Jewish People in the Age of Jesus Christ, 399-427, is still useful. His main points are as follows:
(1) History does not otherwise record a general imperial census in the time of Augustus;
(2) Under a Roman census, Joseph would not have been obliged to travel to Bethlehem, and Mary would not have been required to accompany him there;
(3) A Roman census would not have been carried out in Palestine during the time of King Herod;
(4) Josephus knows nothing of a Roman census in Palestine during the reign of Herod; he refers rather to the census of A.D. 6/7 as something new and unprecedented;
(5) A census held under Quirinius could not have taken place in the time of Herod, for Quirinius was never governor of Syria during Herod's lifetime.

[Mauritius]

thaks for the info

which Herod ?

[M. CVRIVS ALEXANDER]

thaks for the info

which Herod ?

Herod the Great.