Masada

[Guest spartacus]

First of all, may I say hello to all site users, at last I have found a site that covers my interest in the Roman World !

 

Anyway, for my first post, I would like to bring up the subject of Masada ( Herods Palace)

 

Was the long, siege by the tenth legion worth it?

Did it REALLY serve any purpose?

 

They built a wall that encircled the mountain, built a ramp to capture it, and a legion was tied down for a long time and finally, when Masada was taken, the thousand or so zealots inside commited suicide anyway, except a handful of woman and children!

 

I guess it was a "pride" thing with the Romans, but what is your opinion on Masada?

[Primus Pilus]

Masada was the symbolic destruction of Jewish resistance. It held no strategic value, other than the final defeat of that resistance. Was it worth it? After the wars of the Flavians, Judaea was mostly peaceful (with the notable exception of Hadrian's reign).

[P.Clodius]

Agreed. It was the Romans sending a message to the rest of those who thought they might try something similar. Behave or else!!

[Guest spartacus]

I still think the siege was OTT, and unnessacery, most of the rebellions had been put down, Masada was in the middle of no where, with a group of zealots inside! it served no purpose in besieging it, it was not a threat, from a military point of view and there was nothing for the romans to prove, it did not send out any message as other countries were well aware of Romes power so that is a weak motive!

 

I still feel it was a nudge to roman pride and was taken purely for egotistical reasons, nothing else!

[Fafnir]

Was Masada the fortress where, when the Romans finally assaulted, the zealots inside had committed suicide? I thought i saw something on the History Channel about that.

[Fafnir]

Nevermind didnt read the first post carefully.

[Scaevola]

I still think the siege was OTT, and unnessacery, most of the rebellions had been put down, Masada was in the middle of no where, with a group of zealots inside! it served no purpose in besieging it, it was not a threat, from a military point of view and there was nothing for the romans to prove, it did not send out any message as other countries were well aware of Romes power so that is a weak motive!

 

I still feel it was a nudge to roman pride and was taken purely for egotistical reasons, nothing else!

 

Well, see if this makes a bit more sense to you.

 

In your first post you say there were a thousand or so zealots inside of Masada. That's a thousand people who would otherwise be dispersed across the countryside raiding caravans, burning houses, ambushing patrols of soldiers and otherwise making Rome appear impotent even after the seige of Jerusalem. Rome should've be grateful that the zealots gave it the chance to do a decisive stroke against them. If the zealots had remained dispersed, Rome would have been stuck shadow boxing with smoke.

 

After the cost, loss and time to take Jerusalem, Rome needed a quick decisive and easy victory to impress the local powers helping them with occupation. They saw Masada as fitting that bill.

 

In a way it was an egotistical ploy, but it was necessary to shore up support from local lackeys of the empire.

[Guest spartacus]

I see your point and that had crossed my mind, but over three quarters of the occupants were old men, women and children, so that leaves roughly 250 men to run riot over 1500 square miles! Hardly threatening now is it?

 

See if THAT makes sense to you!!

 

By the time of the Masada siege, most insurrections were quelled, the Romans had regained control and Masada as I have said was un-nessacery, if you study the works of Goldsworthy and like-minded scholars they agree the siege served no purpose!

 

But this is a discussion forum and everyone is entitled to their opinion of which I respect

 

Regards

 

Spartacus

[Ursus]

Death to All Enemies of the Empire!!!!!

 

Sorry, needed to get that out of my system.

 

I still feel it was a nudge to roman pride and was taken purely for egotistical reasons, nothing else!

 

 

And pride was, to the Romans, everything. So, from that perspective, it was necessary.

[Primus Pilus]

Indeed, Masada may very well have been a scapegoat or a final victory to 'hang one's hat on', but the necessity of it depends on one's perspective.

 

I would respectfully disagree with Goldsworthy and other scholars that it served no purpose. This 'final defeat' gave the impression to the Roman people that the threat was over. Whether it was already over or not was irrelevant. Masada left the perception that resistance and diversion from imperial rule still existed. From a Roman perspective stamping out out all resistance, even if it was actually just Roman propoganda (depends on the sources), it served the purpose of closing out a long and brutal war.

[Scaevola]

I see your point and that had crossed my mind, but over three quarters of the occupants were old men, women and children, so that leaves roughly 250 men to run riot over 1500 square miles!  Hardly threatening now is it?

 

See if THAT makes sense to you!!

 

Yes it is does make sense to me.

That is 200 odd families willing to thumb their noses at Roman rule. If they were left in peace to continue to defy Rome, how could Rome maintain order?

 

It would not just be 250 men, they still had significant support from their neighbors. If not active fighting, then passive supply and hiding holes. Any group that stood against imperial power had to be eliminated. Quite simple actually.

 

Would you have simply starved them out? That probably would not have sent a strong message.

 

Let them be? Then it appears that the proceeding conflicts had wore the empire out and now was the time to take some action.

 

So, a strong military response does make sense to me.

 

IMHO as always

[Guest spartacus]

Thanksfor posting your views gents!

 

We obviously have different views on Masada, but I always respect others opinions, it would be very boring if we all agreed!

 

The zealots hid in Masada to escape the roman tyranny NOT to threaten Roman rule, that alone suggests that Masada could have been left alone! there was other zealots and others still dotted around, but were closely watched but were not attacked!

There was no need for Rome to stamp their authority or set an example as you put it, the peoples of that area were well aware of Romes power, and Goldsworthy is usually a reliable source and can be relied on, he is one of a few that regulary dismisses claims by Livi and Polybius as they have a tendancy to use propaganda when it suits the Roman cause, but unfortunately in most cases are the only source we have! Liddell-Hart is a good Historian but gets carried away on occassion and has a tendancy toward stretching historical fact - see Scipio greater than Napoleon - as an example!

 

 

Regards

 

Spartacus

[Primus Pilus]

I guess the point is... from a military and control stand point it was propbably not necessary. From the perspective of necessitating total victory over the Jews and making sure that everyone knew that resistance would not be tolerated.. Masada proved an excellent example.

 

Equating the politics of the ancient world to modern rational simply doesn't work. 'Necessary' seems to imply right and wrong. To the Romans... it was the right thing to do and modern arguments against it are really irrelevant.

[Guest spartacus]

With respect I never get confused with the difference between modern and ancient polictics! I am well aware of roman thinking but I still think Masada could have been left!

[rvmaximus]

Think the Romans would have left Massada if it was not of economic value. Judea brought much wealth to the Romans.