Titus, Josephus and the Torching of the Temple

[MARCvSVIBIvSMAvRINvS]

Don't forget though, this isn't just *a* temple, this is *the* temple! .

I am just reading this thread and came acros this remark....

It wasnt *The* Temple during that times for the Romans, that special meaning has been invented by Christians of later date so not at all historically correct. Maybe for the Jews it was, that could well be.. but at the time the temple of Janvs and the temple of Mars and Ivpiter were a hell of a lot more important to them.

I personally think the Romans did not really care, however Titus might have wanted to save the Temple from burning because of the temple treasure.... which he didnt want burnt... They probably did not know wether it was hidden or not. Religious motives seem a little silly since the attackers were Romans and normally incorporated any religion, but never intolerant religions.. They had meen more than tolerant by allowing the Sanhedrin to remain in power, and even erected stones in a few languages around the Temple telling gentiles they would be executed if they dared enter the temple grounds.

This all following the public outcry of attempting to erect the Roman standards on the Temple grounds, and the sacriledge of entering the holy of holiest much earlier........

Well those are my thoughts anyway... I am sad the religious nutting about of various factions still prevent a full scale and thorough historic excavation of the real temple grounds..........

MARCvS VIBIvS MAvRINvS

[sicarii sam]

I guess Im not catching the meaning of your post. It was the temple for the jews which were the insurgents who were bascially driven by their religious views.

Are you addressing the view of the romans on it ? Yeah, I dont think they really were worried about 'their' temple being destroyed but it was a moral blow to the nation as their religion was the heart and identity of their revolt although I think in reality it was only a segment of the population that really wanted war. Sorry if I just didnt read it closely enough but could you expand ? Thanks. Regards.

[sicarii sam]

also Im not sure that anyone was making the point that it was The temple of importance for the romans except in areas of revenue and respect for the power of rome as daily sacrifices were made for the emperor.

[MARCvSVIBIvSMAvRINvS]

Hey, no, the point was wether Titus truly was sad when the Temple burnt, and the discussion was in what manner Josephus wrote down the truth..

And in my view Josephus (the traitor) was exaggerating a very great many things apart from the description of Roman battle tactics. So I guess that for the political form, Titus acted as if he had wanted to save the temple, since i think the temple only mattered to him for its treasure.

The city of Jerusalem was important to the Romans, not only strategically, but also Politically...

the good part for the Romans was that they merely had to wait since the religious factions iside the city walls were starting to kill each other off in great numbers due to yet another religious dispute... has it ever been different in jerusalem i wonder........

The remark about it being *The!* Temple was written a few postings back, and presents a modern viewpoint in my opinion and you'll see what i mean if you read that posting.

Of course i see the Roman viewpoint before the Jewish, since there is not really a Jewish viewpoint which has survived... ie written historic accounts from inside! the city. and also because i am a Roman re-enactor.

who still would love to bring back Roman law and order to Judaea and the rest of the world.... (dangerous statement in these times hahahaha)
but intended as a pun!

M.VIB.M.

[Tarbicus]

Before the Romans stormed Syracuse Marcellus ordered that Archimedes be spared. He even preserved Archimedes' house, when all others were demolished for the Roman siege works. A soldier killed him anyway. As said above, Roman soldiers were all but uncontrollable after a storming, and their leaders had no particular interest in controlling them. It was customary to make an example of a city that resisted to the end as a warning to show what happened to anyone who resisted Rome.

A nice 16th C German copy of a Roman original mosaic showing the soldier ordering Archimedes to leave:
Death of Archimedes (212 BCE)

[sicarii sam]

very interesting and most plausible point that titus was more concerned with not destroying the temple treasures. So josephus in his own twisted way could please both sides by insinuating the kindness of titus in not wanting to destory the temple and also covering up the fact that it was purely for his own interests.

I do buy into the fact that titus, just like vespasian offered peace many times to the rebels. I dont remember the exact qoute but vespasian said something to the effect of using your brain and not fighting was better than wholesale slaughter. 'very paraphrased'. very interesting topic and gives alot of insight into the methods and motives of josephus and how he walked that fine line of pleasing his roman patrons and not appearing to have wholly sold himself to the romans. Trying to maintain favor with the jews.

[MARCvSVIBIvSMAvRINvS]

Indeed!

and a well known and often used practice in Roman warfare from day one.

first enter a country with reconnaissance troops and diplomats. ask free passage through the land, tribute, and hostages to ensure this safe passage.. when the enemy gets too angry with your demands and acts, simply march in all legions.

Romans usually made an elaborate scheme of Warnings, put focus on common sense, ie we will spare your lives if you dont fight, come on, you know this cant be won by you lot, here is a giant sum of money if you dont fight (later of course returned by Roman tax collectors...)

divide and conquer!

and as for Josephus, the hilarious account of him and several resistance leaders in a well, deciding to kill themselves slain by each others sword.... being the last with a sword cuz everybody is already dead, and then inventing a story in which the Romans Coerse him to come out of the well??

doesnt suit him.......... However we may thank him for his account of the wars, not for his own part in it....

M.VIB.M.

[Tarbicus]

I just posted links to very nasty quick renders of an incredible cgi reconstruction of Jerusalem I bought last night. It might help with mentally mapping out some of the events in this thread.

link from old RAT

[MARCvSVIBIvSMAvRINvS]

nice!!

could you edit some legions in too?

best wishes,

M.VIB.M.

[Theodosius the Great]

I think the best evidence that Titus did order the burning is the fact that he hauled off the sacred artifacts, installed them in the Temple of Peace, and never allowed the Jews to rebuild.

Speaking of all the goodies taken from the Temple : Treasures looted by Rome 'are back in the Holy Land'



Theo

[MARCvSVIBIvSMAvRINvS]

THIS IS AN OUTRAGE!!!!!!!

WHAT A SHAMEFUL ACT!!!

May Nemesis destroy those who gave back our loot!



M.VIB.M.

[Robert Vermaat]

Speaking of all the goodies taken from the Temple : Treasures looted by Rome 'are back in the Holy Land'

So Hamas has all the Temple gold? GREAT bargaining chip!!

Personally I think is a c-'n-b story.

I mean:
"In the first holy crusade in AD533, the Byzantine Belisarius seized the treasure from a royal ship fleeing the Algerian harbour of Hippo Regius. It was then shipped to Constantinople, the capital of Byzantium.In the 7th century, Persians sacked Jerusalem, killing thousands of Christians, and dragging the Patriarch, Zacharias, to Persia. Dr Kingsley believes that his replacement, Modestus, spirited away the treasures to their final hiding place in AD614."

First of all, even if we aasume that it were the Vandals and not the Goths before tem (in 410) who laid their hands on the reasure (and Alaric would be a much much better candidate for the culprit!), we don't know that Gaiseric did not melt the stuff down. Also, no sources tell of the capture of this treasure by Belisarius after the capture of Carthage. In fact, Belisarius captured the royal treasure after the battle of Tricamarum (December 15, 533).

The next odd thing in this story is that they say the treasure was taken to Constantinople (where it was kept in utter silence, no sources report of it) but then they jump to Jerusalem being captured by the Sassanids. So? Did Justinian hide in in Jerusalem and not his own treasury? Very odd and extremely unlikely.

My guess would be that even IF this treasure had survived the ages and money shortages of Rome, it would've been the Goths who carried it away to Gaul in 410.

[Theodosius the Great]

The next odd thing in this story is that they say the treasure was taken to Constantinople (where it was kept in utter silence, no sources report of it)

I thought the sources say that the giant Menorah (as seen on the arch of Titus) was recovered by Belisarius in Vandal Africa. I'll check on this, though.

we don't know that Gaiseric did not melt the stuff down.

Yes, I always wondered why booty wouldn't be melted down as well. What value could it have just sitting in a treasure room ? Constantine went ahead with melting down pagan treasures to revive solvency in the gold currency.

BTW, by all means, feel free to tear up any articles I post. I just post them as I see them without necessarily agreeing with it. The supposed experts coming out with new claims aren't infallible

Theo