Jewish Revolt

[Jona Lendering]

OK, when authors use weasel words like "interdisciplinary", you have every right to ignore what else they may have to say. Still, “The Jewish Revolt against Rome: History, Sources and Perspectives” by Mladen Popovic is interesting (here at Academia.edu).

[D B Campbell]

I wonder why Brill think that, because "the contributors draw from a wide range of literary, archaeological, documentary, epigraphic and numismatic sources", this makes it an "interdisciplinary perspective". :?

These are not (imho) separate disciplines, but simply facets of the single discipline of ancient history.

If it didn't cost 143 EUR, I'd get myself a copy to see if Brill have really "brought together different disciplines, some for the first time", as advertised.

[Nathan Ross]

I've always thought that mentions of the interdisciplinary were principally a way of attracting funding from more than one source, or ticking a box in the academic publishing world.

But, sure enough, there seems only one discipline at work here (unless one of the contributors has decided to dance her responses to the Jewish revolt, perhaps, or compose a psychoanalytical study of Flavius Josephus, or something)...

Looks interesting though - thanks Jona. If only there weren't already so many other things to read... :neutral:

* I also notice that the first two paragraphs of the introduction appear to be almost entirely redundant... :-x

[Jona Lendering]

I've always thought that mentions of the interdisciplinary were principally a way of attracting funding from more than one source, or ticking a box in the academic publishing world.

"Paradigm change" is another one.

[MARCvSVIBIvSMAvRINvS]

Flavius Josephus already wrote everything there is to say about the Jewish revolt.



M.VIB.M.

[M. Demetrius]

:!:

[Gaius Decius Aquilius]

When I was doing field work,"interdiciplinary" was a buzz word to get funding. I fact I saw very little of it. It looks good on paper but only token contributions were actually made. It was more fun to fight with each other than do anything else. Archaeologists, all too often ignore anything outside the ruling click. See Thomas Kuhn's "The Structure of Scientific Revolution". I was a field director of a regional survey. I found most of the maps made by field crews to be uselsss. I then got a second degree in cartography, maps being my thing. I was then told "cartographers did not understand archaeological mapping". That is, I was no longer part of the click. I was expected to do maps for differnt projects for free because "mapping was not in the budget". Or, can we borrow your mapping equipment you paid thousands for? It is too expensive to hire mappers. What is spatial analysis anyway? We don't need it. So much for interdiciplinary studies.

When I win the jackpot there are three things I am going to do with the money:

A. Make a movie about the Jewish Revolt. Dumbest stunt in history number one. You know, where a group of bickering pooorly equiped and untraind locals took on the worlds finest war machine with predictable results.

B. Make a movie about the Mongol Invasion of Japan. Dumbest stunt in history number two. That is where a Mongol/Chinese/Korean fleet went to Japan, against aadvice of the people who had been there, and knowing nothing about the typhoon season. The Mongols never made a sucessful landing. Please note it was easier to pay off the Nicherin sect for "praying up a storm" rather than the thousands of Samurai who trashed the Mongol landing party. Vets always get the shaft, fact of life number 576. No government ever keeps what ever promises are made when it is scared. Once the crisis is over the excuses start and the promises made are forgotten. The Romans never did figure out wat makes a professional army tick until it is too late.

C. Make a movie about the Conquest of Mexico, you know the one where Moctezuma gave the finest (and broke) army in Europe gold to go go away. Dumbest stunt (on the part of the Aztecs)number three. Gold was a guarantee thet the Aztecs had it, and were afraid. No way Nothing could now get the Spanish to leave.

All films will be acurate, acording to original sources, and will not cater to modern values or popular concepts. I will be assinated of course, but who cares.

Everyone on RAT whi I am not irritaed with will get to be in the films and drive gas guzzzling Hummers and get $1000 sunglasses, of course.

Big Ralph
(the Producer)

[Robert Vermaat]

C. Make a movie about the Conquest of Mexico, you know the one where Moctezuma gave the finest (and broke) army in Europe gold to go go away. Dumbest stunt (on the part of the Aztecs)number three. Gold was a guarantee thet the Aztecs had it, and were afraid. No way Nothing could now get the Spanish to leave.

Only a million indians could have, and they would had they not been engaged in civil war. So one half supports Cortez' miserable little army against the Aztecs, hoping they will win. Well, win they did, but the fox was in the hen-house. Dumbest stunt number 3a.

[Gaius Decius Aquilius]

Read Bernal Diaz. Unlesss it is banned there. (It is not PC). The Conquest of of Mexico has to be one of the incredable feats of history from any perspective. Your remark would have not been sounded so condecending if you knew the political and social situation there. A lot of my professinal work has been on the Spanish, and things are a bit more complex that the usual stereotype. That is, of course why I want to make a film about it. The Triple Aliance was very strong and hard to defeat, but the main Spanish ally, the Talascalans found the Spanish a much better deal than Aztec domination. They disappear from the archaeological record quickly because they assimilated rapidly. Many of the original group of Cortez's army did not want too many other Spanish showing up so and not to have them share the loot. THe Spanish could beat anybody of the time and they knew it. THey get lesser credit in modern history than they deserve. Most older histories written in English in the 1880s to the 1920s were written with a bias against Spain and to a certain extent Catholocism. THe popular stereotype comes from them. More modern histories are more balanced.

The later Mixton Wars were quite brutal, and both sides were given to excessses.

Mst of my work, reguarding the Spanish occupation of New Mexico and northern Mexico has been on the Spanish military material culture of the 16th century. I do not do any work in Mexico anymore because of the drug cartels and the de facto civil war that no one will call as such, that is going on now. Also, the rampant corruption make it impossible to do any real work.

Ralph

[Caballo]

Going off topic here and off Roman Military and Archaeology , guys. If you want to continue, happy to move it to off topic?

[Theodosius the Great]

OK, when authors use weasel words like "interdisciplinary", you have every right to ignore what else they may have to say.

Interesting. At face value the term seems innocuous enough. I would have thought it meant combining historical research with recent archaeological data to form or refine a conclusion.

~Theo

[Robert]

I recently read a good piece on the Jewish Revolt (written by a Jewish research institute), which made a case against the Zelots for actually causing the death of more people then the Romans eventually did. For instance, prior to the siege of Jerusalem, a internal fanatical faction actually set fire to the city's stockpiles of preserved food to make sure everyone would have to fight the Romans. It was fight or starve. Well, a great many non-combatants(elderly, women, children) starved. In the end, the Jewish revolt seems to have been as much a civil war between rivelling factions as it was a war against an oppressing invader. Hopelessly divided, each man his own king, they stood no chance against the might of the Roman army brought to bare on them.

[Theodosius the Great]

Interesting. I wonder if anyone is actually pro-Zealot these days. At the very least it was foolish to revolt against Rome at the absolute height of her power. If the Roman civil war did not coincide with the revolt the outcome would probably not have been nearly as bad. Vespasian needed a victory against a 'foreign' enemy to help prop up his new regime.

The Judeans had little cause to revolt. It wasn't as if they were living under the oppressive Selueucids. In fact, I think Judea under the Romans was the most ideal arrangement it could possibly hope for with the High Priest under a tolerant Roman prefect or procurator.

~Theo

[MARCvSVIBIvSMAvRINvS]

I am sorry Theo but you are quite wrong again. I would advise you to read up on the entire history of the Jewish wars.

M.VIB.M.

[M. Caecilius]

In fact, I think Judea under the Romans was the most ideal arrangement it could possibly hope for with the High Priest under a tolerant Roman prefect or procurator.

They could certainly hope for such an ideal, but what they tended to get was a corrupt Roman prefect or procurator who could not keep his hands of the temple treasury (Josephus cites plenty of those), or an emperor who decided that a temple to the Capitoline Trias on the Temple Mount would look just great (and then wondered why the Second Revolt broke out).