StarDestroyer.Net BBS

I think the main problem is that we know nothing of how this force was really assembled in the first place. We know that at least parts of one legion were in it and that it "probably" included several auxillaries. We know that Gallus was the governor of Syria, so he should have had several legions there. But we only know of one involved in the fighting and I find it unlikely that more were present, seeing as how easily the Roman army seems to have been crushed.

To me, it looks like they vastly underestimated what amounted to the first popular religious uprising in antiquity. They probably thought what happened was just a local tax revolt, for which parts of a legion and auxilliary forces should have been more than adequate to deal with (and what was actually considered a decent-sized force of that). I say parts of a legion because the whole assembly seems to have been made quickly so I doubt the whole legion was recalled from its commitments to provincial building and admin.

So what I think what really happened here is that they came in expecting to destroy a few rebels but actually found the whole country in revolt. Which again, is not a bad assumption to make because nobody else had rebelled on this scale in antiquity before. (The ionian cities maybe but this happened long before and not for religious reasons)

Thanas wrote:Meh. This seems like typical Roman scapegoating to me. Note that it took Vespasian several years and over four-six times as many troops to crush the rebellion eventually. What was Gallus supposed to do with only a quarter or a fifth of that force, especially considering the terrain?

Were the Zealots that organised this early in the war? My impression was that there still existed significant pro Roman jewish leaders at the point and the defeat of Gallus removed that.

A missed opportunity perhaps, if Gallus had been able to gather a larger force or was informed of the nature of the rebellion, he might have been able to knock the wind out of the zealot rebellion then and there.

I really doubt that someone who had been in important positions before just forgot his common sense for over half a year.

If you want to talk about Epic Fail during the jewish uprising you have to mention Gessius Florus, the roman procurator of Judaea. First he steals from the Temple's treasures. The people revolt and he puts them down bloodily. Afterwards he has this genius idea to add insult to injury and parades a bunch of cohorts through Jerusalem to humiliate the people there. The result is that all Romans are violently kicked out of the city and the insurrection begins in earnest. Talk about kick 'em when they're down only for them to bite your leg off.

And up until then, this had been standard operating practice for Roman Governors. It was only after Vespasian that some sort of legal or moral framework was established. Before that, it was common to rob the province to a certain degree. What he did was dumb, especially if he was told about the Jewish faith (which he most certainly was). But it is not as his actions are without precedent.

Isn't that basically how people blunder into these sorts if situations, though? Oh it worked on France, surely it will work on the USSR, etc?

O, being a bunch of thieving bastards wasn't new for roman procurators*, it's just that Florus' utter defeat happened just as he was at his most smugly triumphant that makes it an epic fail.










*"Poor man Varus entered rich Syria, rich man Varus left poor Syria". And yes, it's the same Varus who died at Teutoburger Wald. The Germans didn't take too kindly to his thieving ways it seems.

Metahive wrote:O, being a bunch of thieving bastards wasn't new for roman procurators*, it's just that Florus' utter defeat happened just as he was at his most smugly triumphant that makes it an epic fail.

Hate to break it to you, but everybody did that. Every Governor of every nation ever. And you know why they did it? Because they were often forced to pay for everything out of their own pocket. There was no expense account for Governors who, say, needed to finance the construction of a new bridge. You wrote to the Emperor hoping he would pay for it, but if he did not, well.....

And one has to doubt Josephus account at everything he writes when casting blame.

*"Poor man Varus entered rich Syria, rich man Varus left poor Syria". And yes, it's the same Varus who died at Teutoburger Wald. The Germans didn't take too kindly to his thieving ways it seems.

Again, Imperial propaganda. There is no evidence that Varus was anything but a highly regarded Provincial Governor in his previous appointments, especially considering that he left Syria a very rich province and defused several ethnic powder kegs.

Could you say a bit more about the propaganda aspect? Who was behind it, why was it done, that sort of thing.

Esquire wrote:Could you say a bit more about the propaganda aspect? Who was behind it, why was it done, that sort of thing.

It is the same as in every military dictatorship - the Emperor can never be responsible for a defeat, while he gets credit for all victories. Thus, after the one of the worsts defeat in Roman military history (and to people considered already pacified to boot) the Emperor needed someone to blame. Thus, we get all kinds of stories how Varus was suddenly cruel, stupid and unprepared, despite being a highly successful officer before. This went so far as to hound his son to commit suicide to wash away the family shame etc.

Thanas wrote:

Metahive wrote:O, being a bunch of thieving bastards wasn't new for roman procurators*, it's just that Florus' utter defeat happened just as he was at his most smugly triumphant that makes it an epic fail.

Hate to break it to you, but everybody did that. Every Governor of every nation ever. And you know why they did it? Because they were often forced to pay for everything out of their own pocket. There was no expense account for Governors who, say, needed to finance the construction of a new bridge. You wrote to the Emperor hoping he would pay for it, but if he did not, well.....

And one has to doubt Josephus account at everything he writes when casting blame.

I read my sentence and then your reply and I just don't get what you "hate breaking to me" since I wasn't actually saying otherwise.

*"Poor man Varus entered rich Syria, rich man Varus left poor Syria". And yes, it's the same Varus who died at Teutoburger Wald. The Germans didn't take too kindly to his thieving ways it seems.

Again, Imperial propaganda. There is no evidence that Varus was anything but a highly regarded Provincial Governor in his previous appointments, especially considering that he left Syria a very rich province and defused several ethnic powder kegs.[/quote]
So unlike what you just asserted not all procurators were thieving bastards?

Metahive wrote:I read my sentence and then your reply and I just don't get what you "hate breaking to me" since I wasn't actually saying otherwise.

Because if it was a widely accepted and common practice it is not that fair to criticize them as thieving bastards? I mean, would you call today's states thieving basterds if it turns out taxation is unnecessary in a few centuries?

So unlike what you just asserted not all procurators were thieving bastards?

Learn to think in nuances and shades of grey. The characterization of Varus as being cruel and avaricious beyond the socially accepted norms are Imperial propaganda for sure, especially because nobody had anything bad to say about him before he was defeated.

Sea Skimmer wrote:The Peninsula Campaign was far more of an epic fail then Antietam. Based on reports of a single spy McClellan came to believe that he was outnumbered by more then 50%, when in fact he had closer to twice as many troops as the Confederates. The war should have ended in that campaign.

The same spy reports were a factor at Antietam, but at least at Antietam McClellan had already been defeated by the Confederates, and now saw them invading the north, which would in his eyes have seemed to justify those reports. Certainly more justified then believing them while he pushed up the Peninsula.

I never have really understood why McClellan thought the confederates could be so much stronger. He wasn't a great field general, but he certainly was good on engineering, organization and logistical stuff and so would well understand the problems involved. I guess with such a lack of information he simply assumed that the still very weak blockade had not prevented the rebels from arming every farm boy they had with European rifles. He may have assumed they were just neglecting wagon trains ect... and trying for a quick and dirty army. Hmm, someone has likely published a paper or ten on this somewhere. Can't be unstudied.

McClellan had some very strange love affair with Pinkerton. His estimates of Confederate strength were always much higher than anyone else yet McClellan always believed them.

I think part of it was his timid nature. By using the grossly inflated numbers he could justify his excessively cautious leadership.

Thanas wrote:

Purple wrote:Really? Now on that I have to get a citation. Seriously, was having your city burned down from under you really not a big deal back than?

It was a big thing, but when faced with a religious, country-wide revolt, burning down one city, even one temple, did not do much. Heck, Massada is the prime example - the Romans had taken everything, burned down Jerusalem, utterly collapsed Herod's great walls. They had surrounded the fortress, everyone knew there was no chance of defeating the Romans. And still they fought. The Jewish revolt was unlike a lot of other revolts because you were up against the taliban of their time. Heck, you even got Jewish suicide commandos.

I thought that studies have suggested that Massada is not quite what the history/legends made it out to be. Something along the lines that a good number of the people inside were more than willing to surrender and it was the zealots with the swords that were in charge that kept the fight going until the bitter end and ensured that everyone inside died by "suicide" whether they wanted to commit suicide or not.

Kind of like Jonestown, sure everyone drank the Kool-Aid but that was because there were guys standing around with assault rifles making certain that everyone drank the Kool-Aid.

Replicant wrote:

Thanas wrote:

Purple wrote:Really? Now on that I have to get a citation. Seriously, was having your city burned down from under you really not a big deal back than?

It was a big thing, but when faced with a religious, country-wide revolt, burning down one city, even one temple, did not do much. Heck, Massada is the prime example - the Romans had taken everything, burned down Jerusalem, utterly collapsed Herod's great walls. They had surrounded the fortress, everyone knew there was no chance of defeating the Romans. And still they fought. The Jewish revolt was unlike a lot of other revolts because you were up against the taliban of their time. Heck, you even got Jewish suicide commandos.

I thought that studies have suggested that Massada is not quite what the history/legends made it out to be. Something along the lines that a good number of the people inside were more than willing to surrender and it was the zealots with the swords that were in charge that kept the fight going until the bitter end and ensured that everyone inside died by "suicide" whether they wanted to commit suicide or not.

No conclusive evidence either way. Wouldn't surprise me but not what I would consider an iron-clad case by any stretch. And btw, even if you accept that some "civilians" did not want to fight, fact is the zealots did fight.

With Massada there's the issue of fear of what the Roman's would do to the survivors after a protracted siege and then having to storm the fort. They had every reason to believe that the Romans would deal with survivors severely and could have believed that dying by their own hands to be the best option.

That is a good point as well. Though massacring everyone was seldom occurring in antiquity.