THE AUGUSTEAN EMPIRE (44 B.C.—A.D. 70)

CHAPTER XXV

REBELLION WITHIN THE EMPIRE

ROMAN POLICY IN GAUL

IN order that the significance of the events now to be described may be grasped it is necessary to state in outline the policy which had been pursued by the Roman government in Gaul and on the Rhine since Tiberius had decided that an extension of the frontier to the Elbe was undesirable. In the first century AD, as at the present time, the Rhine did not form a boundary between two races. Many tribes included in the Roman Empire were akin to the ‘free’ Germans on the right bank of the river. No attempt had been made to impose Roman ways on these tribes, which had been allowed to retain their native institutions, but it was hoped that they would with time come to realize the advantages of membership in the Empire, would identify their interests with those of their Gallic neighbours, and would learn to think of Italy rather than of free Germany as their ‘spiritual home’. They had been freely drawn upon for military service in the auxilia, and their contingents were frequently under the command of their own chiefs, who had received Roman citizenship and bore Roman names. Most of these units were in the Julio-Claudian period employed in the neighbourhood of their homes, a fact which shows an almost excessive confidence on the part of the government in the power of military discipline. But before the year AD 69 there had been no reason to think that this confidence had been misplaced, and German soldiers had rendered valuable service not only on the Rhine but in Britain.

A similar policy had been pursued in Gaul proper. No interference had been made with native institutions. The tribal system had been left intact, and the main object of Roman rule had been to maintain peace among communities which had been at an earlier date constantly at war. “Before you came under our rule”, says a speaker in Tacitus, “Gaul saw nothing but wars and attempts at domination. The only use which we have made of our victory is to keep the peace”. The survival of traditional rivalries among Gallic tribes was not altogether unwelcome to Rome, so long as it did not lead to actual hostilities, for she was not anxious to create a sense of national unity, which under able leaders might have been a source of danger to herself. Individual Gauls were given opportunities of rising to high positions under the government. As early as the reign of Claudius some were admitted to the Senate; many were given the citizenship and commanded auxiliary units; a few, like Vindex, had even governed provinces. The annual assembly of the concilium Galliarum at Lyons brought together friends of Rome from all three provinces, on one of whom was conferred the distinguished title of ‘priest of Roma and Augustus.’ The speaker quoted above scarcely exaggerates when he says that the advantages of membership of the Empire were open to Gauls as freely as to Italians: ‘nihil separatum clausumve.’

The policy of Rome was thus to attach leading Gauls to herself, arid to trust to tribal rivalries to prevent discontented elements from fomenting a rising of the whole country against her rule. This policy had been successful against Florus and Sacrovir under Tiberius, and as recently as 68 had led to the defeat of Vindex, whose conqueror Verginius had been actively assisted by the Treveri and Lingones. At the time of Nero’s death few would have prophesied that it would soon again be put to the test.

A word must be added on the relations which existed at this period between Gauls and Germans. Rome justified her presence in Gaul by claiming to confer on the country security against the German peril. She hoped that the inhabitants of her Gallic provinces in spite of any ties of blood would come to regard the Germans as barbarians and would co-operate with her in holding the line of the Rhine. That this policy had met with some success is clear from Tacitus’ account of the rising of Civilis. The assistance rendered by the Gauls to the German rebels was belated, half-hearted, and confined to a few tribes. On the other hand Civilis and his Germans were unwilling to identify their interests with those of their Gallic allies, and refused to swear allegiance to the ‘Imperium Galliarum.’ Many Gauls must have feared that Civilis would prove a second Ariovistus. That the Rhine was coming to be regarded as the frontier between civilization and barbarism is shown by the unwillingness of the inhabitants of Cologne to remove the barriers set by the Romans to free intercourse between them and their kinsfolk on the opposite bank.

The temporary success of the rising against Rome in AD 69-70 does not justify a condemnation of the policy which had hitherto been pursued, though it taught some important lessons. German ‘nationalism’ was not yet extinct on Gallic soil, and it was made clear that the loyalty of German chieftains who had received Roman military training could not yet be fully trusted and that it was dangerous to employ them in the neighbourhood of their homes. But Gaul as a whole was not dissatisfied with Roman rule, and Gallic national feeling was too weak to cause alarm. Finally, the military situation at the time of the rising was unique, and very unlikely to recur. At no time was the army on the Rhine so small and so incompetently led as when it had been depleted by Vitellius for his campaigns against Otho and Vespasian.

II.

THE FIRST SUCCESSES OF THE REBELS

When the Flavian army was advancing into Italy in the summer of 69 Antonius Primus, fearing that Vitellius might receive reinforcements from the Rhine, communicated to the Batavian chief Julius Civilis a request to take such action as would detain on the river the Roman forces which had been left in the north, and a similar appeal, we are told, reached him from Hordeonius Flaccus, the governor of Upper Germany, whose sympathies were with Vespasian. These invitations were welcome to Civilis, who, in spite of his Roman citizenship and his twenty-five years of service in the army, had no love of Rome and had already in recent years been twice suspected of disloyalty. Though it was a matter of indifference to him whether Vitellius or Vespasian was emperor, he was prepared in the first instance to pose as a supporter of the latter, hoping that in the event of success he would be able to throw off the pretence and come forward as a champion of German and perhaps of Gallic independence.

The Batavians, who occupied the so-called Island between the Waal and the Lek on the Lower Rhine, had long been allies of Rome, and had taken part in the campaigns of Germanicus against the Germans east of the river. Though they paid no tribute they were expected to provide soldiers for the auxilia, in which Civilis had commanded a cohort. At the time when the revolt broke out recruiting officers of Vitellius were at work among the tribe, discrediting the cause of their emperor by their violence and corruption. Thus Civilis had no difficulty in collecting a force strong enough to overcome the resistance of the small Roman garrison in the Island. He secured the adhesion of his neighbours the Canninefates and the Frisii; in the first engagement with the enemy he was joined by a cohort of Tungri, a tribe of German stock who lived well inside the province of Belgica, and by his fellow-tribesmen who served in the Rhine fleet. More valuable reinforcements soon arrived in the form of eight veteran cohorts of Batavians which normally were attached to the army of Britain, and had formed part of the force with which Valens had invaded Italy. When the invitation of Civilis was received by these cohorts at Mainz, which they had reached on their way back to Britain, they decided to disobey the order of Vitellius to recross the Alps, and to join their fellow-countrymen. The rather half-hearted opposition of the legion stationed at Bonn was overcome without difficulty, and they met with no further resistance in their march to the north.

The very considerable force now commanded by Civilis was definitely of German stock. His early successes gained for him the support of the Bructeri and Tencteri on the right bank of the Rhine. But the envoys which he sent to the tribes of Gaul found little response, and it was not till a later stage in the revolt that certain of them were willing to co-operate; indeed at the outset very considerable reinforcements were sent from Gaul to the Roman generals.

Civilis was now strong enough to attack the nearest legionary headquarters, Castra Vetera at the mouth of the Lippe, where were stationed those soldiers of the Fifth and Fifteenth Legions who had not been taken to Italy. Though the garrison numbered barely five thousand men, about half of its normal strength, and the camp was in no way prepared for a siege, an indignant answer was given to the envoys of Civilis who urged the legionaries to swear allegiance to Vespasian. After a vain attempt to storm the camp it was invested by Civilis, who knew that it was badly supplied with provisions and that many civilians had taken refuge within the fortifications.

Hordeonius Flaccus, who must now have regretted his previous relations with Civilis, could not allow him to capture Vetera. Accordingly a relieving force was collected at Mainz consisting of soldiers of the Fourth and Twenty-Second legions under the command of Dillius Vocula, legate of the Twenty-Second. On its march down the river the army received reinforcements at Bonn from the First and at Neuss (Novaesium) from the Sixteenth Legions. Flaccus accompanied the expedition as far as Neuss, but handed over the supreme command to the younger and more vigorous Vocula. The advance of the relieving army was hampered by difficulties of supply and by the unruly conduct of the troops, who professed to distrust their leaders. A long halt was made at Gelduba, only twenty-five miles from Vetera, where the timely arrival of some Spanish cohorts enabled Vocula to repel an attack of Civilis. Even after this victory there was some delay, but at last Vetera was reached, and the wearied garrison sallied out to join the relieving force in repelling the Germans.

By this time the news of the defeat of the Vitellians at Cremona had arrived and been communicated to Civilis, who was thus forced to abandon the pretence that he was fighting for Vespasian. The Roman troops took the oath to the new emperor without enthusiasm, for they had suspected their leaders of disloyalty to Vitellius and had perhaps heard that Civilis had been instigated to rebellion by Flaccus. The situation was, however, now clear. The task of the Roman forces was to defend the integrity of the Empire against open rebellion.

The relief of Vetera was not followed, as might have been expected, by the reinforcement of the garrison or the total evacuation of the position. The fortifications of the camp were strengthened, a thousand soldiers withdrawn and incorporated in the army of Vocula, and non-combatants removed to Neuss. The rest of the garrison (some four thousand men) were provided with food and left where they were to face a second siege. It cannot be doubted that Vocula hoped to return before long and relieve the place, which in the meantime would have occupied the attention of part of the enemy’s forces. But his intentions are certainly obscure1, and it is not surprising that the army was discontented and suspected its general of treachery. The relief of Vetera had done little to weaken the enemy, who controlled the river and hampered communications along the road which followed the bank.

Hordeonius Flaccus was quite incapable of controlling the troops who were now concentrated at Neuss. In vain he distributed in the name of Vespasian a sum of money which had been sent by Vitellius. The soldiers dragged the old man from his bed and put him to death; Vocula would have shared his fate if he had not disguised himself as a slave. When, however, the news arrived that the trouble had spread to Upper Germany, and that Mainz itself was besieged, discipline was to some extent restored, and Vocula was able to collect an army from soldiers of the First, Fourth, and Twenty-Second Legions and march south to its relief. He was successful in defeating the assailants, who expected no opposition, and Mainz was for the time saved for Rome. But the situation was very critical. The garrison of Vetera could not be expected to hold out for long, and the recent events at Neuss had shown how untrustworthy were the troops on which Vocula was forced to depend.

As has been said, the appeals of Civilis for assistance had at the earlier stages of the revolt been rather coldly received by the Gauls. The Treveri had actually run a palisade round the whole of their territory, and vigorously repelled a German attack. But after, the murder of Flaccus the discontented elements in the Gallic tribes considered that the time for action had arrived. The leaders of the movement were, like Civilis himself, men of high birth, who had obtained citizenship and had served as officers in the Roman army. Julius Classicus of the Treveri had commanded a squadron of his fellow-tribesmen in the advance of Valens on Italy, and Julius Tutor of the same tribe had been appointed by Vitellius ‘prefect of the banks of the Rhine.’ The third leader, Julius Sabinus of the Lingones, claimed descent from Julius Caesar. Encouraged by the news from Italy, and especially by the burning of the Capitol, which they interpreted as an omen of the downfall of Roman power, these men did not realize that the success of Vespasian would be lasting and that he would soon be strong enough to crush a rebellion. At a secret meeting in Cologne, at which representatives of the Ubii and the Tungri were present, they decided to raise their tribes against the Romans. It was suggested that the troops on the Rhine should be immediately massacred, but it was ultimately decided to aim at securing their adhesion and to keep silence until Vocula and the few other officers of high rank had been disposed of. The conspirators were evidently sanguine enough to believe that initial success would bring the whole of Gaul over to their side, and that an ‘Imperium Galliarum’ could be created, independent of Rome and ruled presumably by one of themselves. But their plans were not worked out in detail and were doomed to failure. The rebellion made little headway outside the tribes to which the leaders belonged. Sabinus was vigorously opposed by the neighbouring tribe of the Sequani, and the Treveri were unable to secure the support even of the Mediomatrici whose territory adjoined their own on the Moselle.

The position of Vocula was now a very terrible one. Though he was aware of what was going on, he felt it his duty to lead his untrustworthy troops to the relief of the garrison of Vetera. At Cologne he dispatched Claudius Labeo, a Batavian rival of Civilis, to stir up trouble among the German tribes, and then advanced north. When he was approaching Vetera Classicus and Tutor thought that the moment had come to show their true colours and deserted to the enemy. Vocula fell back on Neuss with such troops as were prepared to follow him. There after making a fruitless appeal for loyalty to Rome he was murdered by a deserter from the legions sent by Classicus. The two remaining legionary legates were put in chains, and the troops actually swore allegiance to the Gallic Empire. As Mommsen truly says, ‘in Roman military history Cannae and Carrhae and the Teutoburg Forest are glorious pages compared with the double disgrace of Novaesium.’

The fate of the wretched garrison of Vetera was soon decided. As all hope of relief had vanished and all food was exhausted the survivors surrendered under promise of their lives. But five miles from the camp they were treacherously attacked, and perished either on the spot or in the flames of the burning fortress. The legionary legate Lupercus was assassinated on his way as an offering to the prophetess Veleda. The soldiers of the First and Sixteenth Legions were sent to Treves. All the legionary headquarters north of Mainz were set on fire and nowhere on the Rhine was Roman authority recognized. The leaders of the revolt had some difficulty in saving the city of Cologne, which had the status of colonia., and where many non-German veterans had been settled, so that it was naturally regarded by the tribes of the right bank as the centre of Roman influence. Accordingly they clamoured for its destruction, but were forced to be content with permission to cross the river under certain conditions and with the abolition of the dues which had been charged on goods entering Roman territory. That the adhesion of Cologne to the rebels was due simply to compulsion is shown by its subsequent behaviour. As soon as the collapse of the revolt seemed to be impending all Germans stationed in the city were murdered and a cohort of Chauci and Frisii left by Civilis in the neighbourhood was rendered intoxicated and burnt to death.

III.

THE TURN OF THE TIDE

It was soon clear that the leaders of the Gallic revolt had greatly overestimated the amount of support that they were likely to obtain. When it was known that an army was approaching from across the Alps a conference of representatives of the tribes of Gaul was held in the territory of Rome’s old allies the Remi, at which opinion was very definitely hostile to the rebellion. The other Gauls did not forget that the Treveri and Lingones had taken the lead in opposing Vindex, and apart from this the rivalry which existed between the tribes rendered common action impossible. In spite of the opposition of Valentinus, the representative of the Treveri, a letter was sent to that tribe urging the cessation of hostilities. Though no notice was taken of this communication little was done by the rebels to prepare for the impending attack. Civilis wasted time in trying to capture his fellow-countryman Claudius Labeo. Classicus was entirely inactive, and Tutor took no steps to close the Alpine passes.

No want of vigour was shown by Mucianus, the representative of Vespasian in Rome, in dealing with the situation. Two experienced generals, Petilius Cerialis and Annius Gallus, were put at the head of an army which eventually consisted of as many as nine legions, five of which came from Italy, three from Spain, and one from Britain. Gallus was probably instructed to deal with the Lingones and secure Upper Germany, while Cerialis was given the more difficult task of defeating the Treveri and then of advancing north against Civilis and his German allies. An attempt made by Tutor to stop the advance of the Twenty-First Legion and some auxiliary troops from Raetia came to nothing. In spite of a preliminary success he was deserted by the ex-legionaries in his army and by most of the recruits whom he had raised on the Rhine, and was forced to retreat with what remained of his force to a point near Bingen, north of Mainz, where he suffered a second defeat. At this point the Treveri would probably have submitted if they had not been more deeply committed by the action of Tutor and Valentinus in murdering the two surviving legionary legates of the old Rhine army.

Cerialis, who had now reached Mainz, made a good impression by dismissing the recruits who had been raised in Gaul, asserting that Rome could deal with the revolt without Gallic assistance. Deciding that his first duty was to reduce the Treveri, he advanced rapidly to the valley of the Moselle, where at Rigodulum, six miles below Treves, he easily disposed of the resistance put up by Valentinus against the advice of Civilis and Classicus. Valentinus himself was captured and sent to Italy for execution. The Roman army occupied Treves, where it was met by the wretched remains of the First and Sixteenth Legions, whom Cerialis treated with surprising indulgence. He forbade his soldiers to taunt them with their perfidy and included them in his army.

The surviving leaders of the revolt were not prepared to allow the Treveri to submit without making a further effort. The advice of Tutor to attack at once was accepted, though Civilis was in favour of delaying till a large army could be collected from across the Rhine. A surprise attack was made on the Roman camp which had been constructed opposite the town, and only the personal efforts of Cerialis prevented a disaster. His appeal to the repentant legionaries to show their sincerity by fighting bravely was responded to, and when the veteran Twenty-First Legion had a chance of showing its quality the badly disciplined barbarians suffered a severe defeat. The three leaders disappeared to the north, where the arrival of the Fourteenth Legion from Britain rendered their presence necessary; on its approach the Nervii and Tungri had returned to their allegiance and a body of the former tribe had even been armed against the rebels.

The ‘Imperium Galliarum’ had now completely collapsed, and the only tribes which supported Civilis were those which had begun the revolt. The city of Cologne, as was noted above, abandoned him at once. The wife and sister of Civilis and the daughter of Classicus were seized and held as prisoners. As the presence of Cerialis in the town was urgently required, he proceeded there without delay in order to protect the inhabitants and to avenge certain minor successes gained by the rebels.

The vigour and ability of Civilis were abundantly displayed in the last stage of the rebellion, during which he made a very gallant stand against the army of Cerialis, now reinforced by four legions. A bitter fight took place on the site of Vetera, where the ground had been skilfully flooded so as to hamper the movements of the Romans. Things looked very bad for them till a deserter enabled Cerialis to send round cavalry to take the enemy in the rear. Even when Civilis and his allies retired to the Island the war was far from over. The armies were separated by the river Waal, which had been deepened by the destruction of a mole built by Drusus in 9 BC. to divert the water of the Rhine from the Waal to the Lek. Across this raids could more easily be made by the Batavians than by the Romans. They captured the fleet which Cerialis brought down the river and for some time completely controlled the stream. When at last Civilis withdrew still farther to the north and the Romans crossed into the Island without opposition the war was over. Both sides were probably anxious to make peace before winter, and so Civilis agreed to a conference with Cerialis on a bridge which spanned one of the numerous rivers of the district. At this point the narrative of Tacitus ends and we do not know what settlement was reached. The fate of Civilis and the other leaders is uncertain. The Batavians were treated with leniency and seem to have been allowed to retain the privileged position which they had occupied before they had been so misguided as to challenge the power of Rome.

The reorganization of the Rhine army which followed the suppression of the revolt shows that Vespasian profited by the lessons which it had taught. The defence of the frontier was entrusted to an almost completely new set of legions, drawn from other parts of the empire, and unlikely to sympathize with any Gallic or German national movement. Of the legions which had been affected by the revolt four were disbanded and one (V Alaudae) was transferred to Moesia. The Twenty-Second was allowed to survive and is found in Lower Germany, possibly as a tribute to the memory of its legatus Dillius Vocula. A new legionary camp, garrisoned by the Tenth Legion, was established at Nijmegen in close proximity to the territory of the Batavians. Further, although recruits for the auxilia continued to be drawn from Gallic and German tribes, it was no longer considered wise to employ them near their own homes under leaders of their own stock. In the subsequent period units bearing Gallic or German titles are to a much greater extent than before found in other provinces, where as a result of the development of local recruiting they tended to lose their national character. The commanders of such troops were normally men who had no ties of blood with the districts with which the units were associated.

No radical change however was made in the policy sketched at the beginning of this chapter. By its means the regions west of the Rhine were gradually linked closer and closer to Rome, and no attempt was made to establish Gallic independence until in the third century the Empire as a whole seemed to be in danger of collapse.

IV.

THE ROMAN GOVERNMENT OF PALESTINE1

Far different from the issue of the rebellion in the West was to be that of the revolt of the Jews which ran its course about the same time. Palestine continued to be a distracted country. The hatred of the conquered for their conquerors was complicated by the ill-feeling between the upper and lower classes; to the one class, which was more or less resolutely Sadducee, belonged a few priestly families who monopolized the higher offices, especially that of the High Priest, the other was strongly Pharisee in sentiment and supported by most of the lesser priests and the Levites. And since this division involved social questions too, and the lower classes clamoured for some such redistribution of land as the Mosaic law ordered, or dreamed of a communism like that of the Essenes, and were already rising to action, the upper classes found their natural protectors in the Romans. In Palestine, as in Greece, Rome protected the great landowners, and for such obvious advantages these were prepared to abate their national pride and to live on terms with the Romans. Not so the populace: their hatred and scorn for their rulers—Gentile, unclean and idolatrous—was only increased by recognition of the fact that Rome was the champion of the rich, a class to whom the Jewish Law in its entirety, whether written or oral, was not a vital matter, and who showed signs of adopting Roman customs, just as in the days of the Seleucid conquest they had adopted Greek. To the ordinary Jew the duty of paying tribute to the Romans, the sight of the Temple commanded by the Roman garrison in the neighbouring Tower of Antonia, the thought that the vestments of the High Priest were in Roman hands and the knowledge that the traditional administration of justice was limited by the intervention of the Roman governor, which was inevitable in spite of the large share left to Jewish courts—all these things were a continual offence.

The complete lack of understanding and consequently of tolerance that most of the Jews evinced for the Romans was matched on the Roman side: indeed the Roman lack of sympathy was so great as to overpower their natural administrative sagacity, which bade them respect the religious traditions of Judaism. If the procurators could not hide their antipathy in their daily contacts with their subjects, far less could their underlings and the soldiers, drawn from the non-Jewish population of Palestine: hence arose numberless small fracas, rendered serious simply because the Romans, in conflicts between Jews and non-Jews, usually took (whether rightly or wrongly) the side of the latter. But occasionally the provocation came direct from Rome, and produced not isolated outbreaks but an almost general uprising; such, for example, was the attempt of Gaius to impose the imperial cult on the Jews, and this attempt marked the beginning of a series of disorders that was to culminate in the rebellion of 66. In 36 L. Vitellius had apparently begun a more conciliatory policy but it was rudely interrupted when Gaius determined to set up his own image in the Temple itself. So formidable was the feeling aroused that the legate of Syria, P. Petronius, who had been ordered to carry through the erection of the statue, dared not risk it and persuaded Gaius to give up the idea, but this disturbance, reinforced by the news of similar disturbances in other parts of the empire, especially at Alexandria, greatly widened the gulf between Jews and Romans.

The one way of restoring some calm to Judaea was to hand it back to a vassal king of the Jewish faith, for this would give the Jews a feeling of greater autonomy and put an end to the constant friction between governors and governed. This was the solution that Claudius favoured: shortly after his accession he practically reconstituted for his friend Agrippa the old kingdom of Herod the Great. Although Agrippa was probably at heart indifferent to Pharisaism, he showed himself able to work in concert with the more orthodox Jews and so has left a good memory of himself in many traditions of the Talmud. The few years of his reign, AD 41—4, might really have begun the task of pacification had he not aroused the suspicion of the Romans by a policy of co-operation and agreement with other vassal kings that culminated in the Congress of Tiberias, which was dissolved by the governor of Syria. The precise aims of Agrippa must remain doubtful, but the mere hint of a possible coalition between vassal states was enough for Rome to place Judaea again under a procurator when Agrippa died, although his son Agrippa II enjoyed the personal favour of the Emperor and, like his father, was always treated as a sort of representative at court of the interests of the Jews.

With the reappearance of the procurators the enmity of the Jews towards Rome flared up again, all the more because the government of Agrippa had been popular whereas the return to Rome looked like a return to slavery; by this sudden attack of prudence Roman statecraft had missed a unique opportunity of securing the tranquillity of Judaea. Doubtless the position was made worse by the incompetence of the several governors, an incompetence which is magisterially rebuked in a solemn and famous sentence of Tacitus; but it is perfectly clear that if their conduct had been contrary to the aims of the government in Rome they could not long have continued in the system. On the other hand, it is equally clear that the fundamental thesis advanced in the Jewish War of Josephus—that a minority of extremists overcame the moderate party in Judaea and carried it to rebellion—is only true in the restricted sense that in this, as in all other rebellions, an extremist minority (the so-called Zealots) succeeded in dragging the majority, who thought as they did though with less intensity, in their train. But it is useless to try to allot responsibility between individuals, when the real conflict was between minds incapable of any mutual sympathy, for it was a conflict between the Jewish ideal of a State subordinated to the national religion, and the cosmopolitanism of Imperial Rome in which religion itself was subordinated to the State.

Cuspius Fadus, the procurator in 44, showed at once the line of policy he favoured by demanding the return of the High-Priestly garments whose keeping Vitellius had allowed to the Jews. A long agitation followed until Claudius, on the advice of Agrippa II, definitely recognized the right of the Jews. But the ferment did not cease: the anti-Roman agitations gathered strength and took that Messianic colouring that was peculiar to them; a prophet, Theudas, gathered around him bands of disciples by promising wonders and ended by urging them to rise against Rome. With the speculative uneasiness that beset men of his time Fadus may have feared that Theudas really could work miracles; he had the prophet killed and his head sent to Jerusalem. Owing to the meagreness of our sources we do not know exactly what followed, but obviously discontent increased. However, Rome recognized that Fadus could no longer remain at his post, for he was soon succeeded (the exact date is unknown) by the apostate Jew, Tiberius Alexander, who remained in office until 48: the choice was unfortunate, in view of the hatred that Jews felt for apostates. And though we know nothing of his government it is likely that it marked a definite step forward in the discontent of the people, which was aggravated by the famine that began to torment Palestine after the death of Agrippa I.

Under his successor, Ventidius Cumanus (48—52), a soldier who was on guard at the Temple committed an offence during Passover which provoked the gravest riots in Jerusalem. The subsequent murder of an imperial slave brought on reprisals by the Romans, who sacked some villages not far from Jerusalem near which the murder had taken place, and since in the plundering a roll of the Law was profaned, fresh disturbances arose, quieted only by the execution of the offender. Soon after came a second incident: Galilean Jews, on pilgrimage to Jerusalem, were killed by Samaritans; this provoked a mass movement of Jews against Samaria; the procurator failed to arrest its progress and only put it down with bloodshed. The question of culpability for these affairs came before the legatus of Syria who could, however, reach no decision, since judgment for Samaritans would have implied censure upon the procurator of Judaea, and so referred the case to Claudius. Claudius decided that Ventidius must be put on his trial and entrusted the inquiry to the governor of Syria and to a brother of the freedman Pallas, Antonius Felix, who had been sent out to Samaria with the rank of procurator. The inquiry led to the execution of the Samaritan leaders and the exile of Ventidius, and Felix was now placed in charge of all Palestine. But even these acts of tardy justice meant a loss of prestige for Rome, which had thus to disown its own official, and the gangs of those extremist Pharisees who had already taken a great part in the attack on the Samaritans emerged from the conflict bolder than before. In these bands the economic agitation, already associated for some time with the political unrest, found its most vigorous expression1; they systematically robbed large estate-owners, hence the name of ‘brigands’ which Josephus gives them.

The new procurator proceeded against these bands at once, but he could not avoid acts which made him personally hated; for example, he took a Jewish princess, Drusilla, sister of Agrippa II, from her lawful husband, Azizus, the judaizing King of Emesa, in order to marry her himself; and even from the Roman side severe judgments were passed upon him. Though the ‘brigands’ were dispersed, they arose again in another form as ‘Men of the Knife,’ fanatics armed with daggers who gave up attacks on landed estates and took to ambushing and murdering the friends of Rome. The refusal to pay tribute became more general and Messianic hopes spread more widely than ever; while they helped to feed Christianity, they also filled up the ranks of the rebels. An Egyptian Jew succeeded in gathering several thousands around him on the Mount of Olives by promising to cause the fall of the walls of Jerusalem: during the governorship of Porcius Festus, who succeeded Felix about 60, another visionary promised freedom from all evils to all who would follow him to the desert. Both these bands could only be dispersed by the aid of Roman soldiers. And now there began outbreaks between the Jews and the Gentile inhabitants of Palestine. Long quarrels accompanied the Jewish claim to rights of equal citizenship (iso-politeia) at Caesarea, and Nero’s decision against them served only to increase their hatred. Internal conflicts between the priestly classes to secure the rights of tithe also grew more bitter. In the days of Felix the High Priest Jonathan was killed by the ‘Men of the Knife.’ Josephus asserts that the assassins acted on the instructions of the procurator Felix, who for the moment was in agreement with them, an assertion which is naturally difficult to control and not made by Josephus in his preceding work1; but whether this is true or not, it is beyond doubt that the High Priesthood, though philo-Roman, was never really in complete understanding with the procurators, possibly owing to personal antipathies, but above all because the violent partisan quarrels in the High Priesthood could not be favoured by Rome since they only aggravated the situation. An example of this turbulence was the action of the High Priest Ananus in the period that intervened between the death of Festus and the arrival of the new procurator, Albinus (? 62—4). He summarily condemned his opponents, among whom apparently was James, the brother of Jesus, and had to be deposed scarcely three months after he had taken office.

The situation was further complicated because, perhaps in 61, Rome had added a part of Galilee and of Peraea to the realms of Agrippa II, and had moreover granted him the power to appoint or dismiss the High Priest that Herod of Chalcis had enjoyed after the death of Agrippa I. Although he was in agreement with the Priesthood in its general aims, his control provoked ill-will such as is revealed in an absurd episode which, however, gave rise to a diplomatic incident of some importance in the time of Festus. In order to prevent Agrippa from watching from his palace all that was happening in the precincts of the Temple, the priests built a high wall. Agrippa, supported by Festus, protested. The decision was left to Nero, who solved the matter by a compromise, allowing the wall to remain but detaining the High Priest Ishmael, who had gone to Rome personally to plead his cause, and so giving Agrippa the chance of making another appointment. If we add that Agrippa, like his father, could never remain in lasting agreement with the Romans, because as a Jew and representative of Jewish interests he was influenced by the nationalism of his co-religionists, we shall realize how many contradictory elements there were to weaken the forces in favour of Rome, which were already in a minority. The continual changes in the High Priesthood show clearly the weakness of the philo-Roman party, and were in turn a cause of the final weakness of the Priesthood itself.

THE JEWISH REBELLION

Albinus, who succeeded the unimportant governor Festus, initiated in his brief term a policy of mildness which caused him to be accused of corruption1. But the next procurator, Gessius Florus (64—6), returned to the policy of a strong hand, and so gave the final impulse to the rebellion. In 66 he confiscated seventeen talents from the Temple treasury, possibly as a partial set-off for alleged arrears of tribute; but this pretext, apart from having no legal basis, so shocked the religious sentiment of the people that they broke into riot. Gessius replied by allowing a cohort to plunder some quarters of Jerusalem, and this is the moment (16th Artemision, about May) from which Josephus makes the Jewish war against Rome begin. In reality the inhabitants of Jerusalem were prepared to make the submission which Gessius demanded, and to welcome honourably two cohorts which came up from Caesarea. But apparently these cohorts were not responsive and behaved arrogantly, and this provoked a new outburst, during which the people succeeded in cutting the communications between the Tower of Antonia and the Temple where fortifications were being run up. Gessius had to withdraw to Jerusalem leaving there one of the cohorts as reinforcement for the garrison.

Agrippa II hastened back from Alexandria, hoping to move the people from their attitude, but all in vain: the crowd demanded the suspension of the daily sacrifice for the Emperor, and succeeded in storming the fortress of Masada, on the western bank of the Dead Sea (the modern Sebbeh), and did not even give way when 3000 of Agrippa’s cavalry, who were stationed in the upper city where Herod’s palace lay, arrived to reinforce the peace party. The mob now captured the Tower of Antonia and drove from it the garrison, which took refuge in some towers of the palace of Herod, and even this was besieged. Agrippa’s little force soon surrendered, glad to withdraw with the honours of war; shortly after the Roman garrison followed, and at this same time (about September 66) the High Priest Ananias also fell a victim.

The rebellion spread over all Palestine; Jews and non-Jews set about killing each other; the effects were even felt in Alexandria where Tiberius Alexander had great difficulty in repressing a revolt of the Jews. In Caesarea, in Scythopolis, and finally in Tyre, the Jews were massacred until the troops that the governor of Syria, Cestius Gallus, sent into Palestine to restore calm had to turn and safeguard Jews and non-Jews alike. But the Jews greeted them as enemies, and began fortifying Jerusalem; though Cestius had with him the whole of the Twelfth Legion (Fulminata), numerous detachments from other legions and a large body of auxiliaries, and although he reached the gates of Jerusalem, he did not dare assault it for he feared an attack on his flanks. He finally decided to withdraw, but well-timed sallies of the Jews converted his withdrawal into a rout, and at Beth-horon he had to leave in their hands his baggage train and his artillery (November 66), a prize which was to prove of great value during the actual siege.

So unexpected and so sensational a success naturally strengthened the hands of the war-party; their opponents dared not proclaim themselves openly and even thought it advisable to express approval for fear of losing control over the country. So the High Priest’s party, although it had been notoriously on the side of peace, decided to assume the direction of the war which it now considered inevitable. Palestine was divided into various military zones, each under a commander, and the defence of Jerusalem was entrusted to Ananus, the ex-High Priest, who had his own reasons for enmity to the Romans, and to Joseph the son of Gorion. But the lukewarm spirit in which they undertook the war can be gauged by their choice of a general, or of one of the generals1, for the important district of Galilee, which was likely to bear the brunt of the Roman offensive: they sent there a young priest, barely thirty years old, Joseph son of Matthias, the future historian Flavius Josephus. Born about AD 37 he had passed through the schools of the Pharisees, Sadducees and Essenes, and had then spent three years in the desert under an ascetic called Banus, but after that had returned to civil life and gained some reputation as a Pharisee of moderate and philo-Roman views. He had therefore been sent to Rome to win pardon for some priests imprisoned there, had won the favour of Poppaea through a Jewish mime at the court, and finally succeeded in his mission. The dispatch of a philo-Roman general to Galilee showed that the government had no desire for war to the bitter end with Rome, and was merely manoeuvring to find the best mode of concluding an honourable peace. But in the agitated state of the country such a policy of compromise could never succeed, and this is clearly shown by what happened in Galilee, the only district upon which Josephus gives us information. Confused and contradictory though this information is it probably represents well enough the complications of the situation, which must have been matched in the rest of Palestine. The rivalries of the different cities, of different classes, and of individuals, and their attitude, alternately favourable and unfavourable, towards Agrippa II (to whom a part of Galilee belonged), meant that neither anti-Romans nor philo-Romans could agree among themselves.

On his arrival in Galilee Josephus was soon drawn into the maelstrom. His chief support he found in the moderate elements which were scattered about the country and were specially strong in Taricheia, a city that had revolted from Agrippa II. But he had difficulties with all his supporters, even in Taricheia; for instance, on one occasion, Josephus, who had no wish to antagonize Agrippa, appropriated some plunder that had been taken from one of the king’s officials, with the intention of returning it; but his action provoked riots in Taricheia which he could only appease by making the populace believe that he was going to use the money on building new walls for the city.

Naturally the more fervent zealots were against Josephus; from their centre at Gischala, where their leader, John, son of Levi, was tyrant, they aimed at bringing Galilee under their sway. To defend himself against these Josephus had to stoop to an alliance with gangs of ‘bandits’ whom he took into his pay, but upon whose loyalty he could not absolutely rely; these bandits were probably zealots who had found that John, rich merchant as he was, could not at that time accept their whole programme. Among the cities in which John had the largest following was Tiberias, which had also broken away from Agrippa II; here his influence was only limited by a strong philo-Roman minority. True there was yet another party in the city, a more moderate one, headed by Justus, son of Pistus, but Josephus could not avail himself of it owing to his personal enmity with its head, an enmity that was to develop into a literary rivalry too, for afterwards Justus published his own account of the war.

This rivalry also paralyzed the party of Justus, and owing to his awkward situation he swayed now towards John of Gischala, now towards Agrippa; thus Josephus found himself, in Tiberias at any rate, obliged to put down extremist movements whether anti-Roman or philo-Roman. In addition one city, Sepphoris, remained loyal to Rome and though once occupied by Josephus freed itself and admitted a garrison sent there by Cestius; another city, Gamala in Gaulanitis, which had also revolted from Agrippa, was besieged by his troops without success for seven months and could not be used effectively by Josephus as a unit in his defensive scheme; and finally disturbances arose in every place almost as soon as the Roman troops of Cestius drew near in their raids.

The central government at Jerusalem meanwhile was doing nothing to help; instead, whether from dissatisfaction at his work or because it was gradually coming under extremist influences, it decided to send four commanders into Galilee to replace Josephus. Josephus was fully equal to maintaining his own position by a dexterous use of his friends against the newcomers, but this episode too only helped to increase the general confusion. Naturally enough he was unable not only to offer any systematic opposition to the Romans, but to give any aid to his government apart from defending his own position. Such was the situation when Nero, in February 67, appointed Titus Flavius Vespasianus with the rank of legatus to carry on the war.

VI.

THE CAMPAIGNS OF VESPASIAN

Vespasian started off at once and picked up two legions at Antioch, the Vth (Macedonica) and the Xth (Fretensis). Then at Ptolemais he met his son Titus, who was bringing with him the XVth (Apollinaris) from Egypt. With the auxiliary cohorts, the cavalry squadrons and the militia of the client-kings (among whom naturally was Agrippa) his army must have amounted to some 50,000 or 60,000 men. By the beginning of June he was already on the frontier of Galilee and began a series of campaigns characterized by extreme prudence and great care in keeping his army united as far as possible. Such tactics, though they prolonged the war, were justified by the extreme pugnacity which the Jews, in spite of their internal dissensions, displayed, preferring a species of guerilla warfare, especially in each city, to open fighting, where the Roman superiority was indisputable. Open fighting scarcely occurred at all; Josephus tried to concentrate his army near the village of Garis, two and a half miles from Sepphoris, where Vespasian had placed a garrison of 6000 men; but it melted away before coming to blows, and with the remainder he had to take refuge in the hill-fortress of Jotapata, north of Sepphoris, where for forty-seven days in June and July he was besieged by Vespasian. When it was captured, he and forty companions took refuge in an underground reservoir, and decided to kill each other, in accordance with the established custom not to fall into the hands of the enemy. But Josephus, probably by a trick, succeeded in being one of the last two left and persuaded his companion to surrender with him to the Romans. Brought before Vespasian he attracted his attention by prophesying his elevation to the throne, and for this he obtained a pardon that, when the prophecy came true, was changed into open good-will and the gift of his freedom.

Meanwhile the Romans, after a brief rest at Caesarea, resumed the struggle in Galilee, where the opposition was now broken up into various local units; while Tiberias immediately opened its gates, Taricheia, Gischala, and, above all, Gamala made a fierce resistance which protracted matters until late autumn. After wintering at Caesarea, in the spring of 68 Vespasian began the encirclement of Jerusalem, occupying with ease Samaria, Peraea, Idumaea, and the coast region of Judaea, properly so called. By June a few isolated hill-fortresses such as Herodium, Masada and Machaerus (in Peraea) alone remained in the hands of the Jews, but as Vespasian was preparing for the final attack upon Jerusalem the news of Nero’s suicide (June 68) determined him to suspend operations until his command was confirmed by Nero’s successor. The succeeding complications resulted in his remaining inactive for a whole year, until June 69.

The Jews used this interval not only to strengthen the defences of Jerusalem but also to begin the struggle again in the rest of Judaea. But this bold effort was practically useless because they were incapable of organizing an army that could oppose the Romans. In fact, the struggle became mere brigandage upon the Romans in which Simon bar Giora (‘son of the proselyte’) won great fame; his most successful coup was the occupation of Hebron, from which he gained much booty. Even more damaging to the Jews than their military incompetence were their internal dissensions. By the end of 67 the concentration in Jerusalem of gangs of zealots who had been hunted out of the rest of Palestine gave the upper hand to the extremists who were still dominated by John of Gischala with his band. All whom suspected of philo-Roman tendencies he imprisoned or killed; for a high priest nominated from one of the aristocratic priestly families he substituted one drawn by lot. The moderate elements, headed by some of these dispossessed priestly families and helped by the population, which naturally had suffered much from the lawless bands that were camping in the city, attempted counter-measures, but though the zealots were at first driven back into the inner court of the Temple they succeeded in admitting secretly into the city bands of Idumaeans who were certainly inspired not so much by hatred of Rome as by loathing for the Jewish upper classes, whom they thought responsible for their oppression. With their aid John of Gischala made himself master of the whole city and drove out his opponents.

There was no change in the situation till the spring of 69 when the band of Simon bar Giora, who found his raids in the country severely hampered, entered the city. The inhabitants at first gave him a warm welcome, but soon realized from the quarrels that immediately followed between the rival captains that they had gained nothing by opposing Simon to John. In the reaction a third party of local zealots, headed by Eleazar, son of Simon, was formed and barricaded itself in the Temple; the rest of the hill to the east, upon which the Temple stood (the lower city), with the Tower of Antonia, was in the hands of John, and Simon occupied the western hill (the upper city). Partisan fury rose to such a height that the reserves of corn in the city were destroyed.

VII.

THE SIEGE AND FALL OF JERUSALEM

Meanwhile, in June 69, after the victory of Vitellius, Vespasian decided to take the field again, reoccupied Hebron, and restored order throughout all the territory around Jerusalem; but once more the war was interrupted owing to the proclamation of Vespasian as princeps which occurred shortly after. The command was transferred to Titus, but after long delays in Alexandria and Caesarea he only really began operations in the spring of 70. His three legions, whose effective strength had been lowered by the dispatch of detachments to the West with Mucianus, were reinforced by the Twelfth Legion which was recalled to share in the campaign, and Tiberius Alexander, with his valuable experience of Jewish circles, was appointed chief of staff1. The siege of Jerusalem was now begun without delay. Upon the approach of the enemy internal quarrels broke out for a moment with even greater violence, possibly because the various leaders realized that they must eliminate their rivals in order to gain the necessary unity in defence. At the Passover John of Gischala succeeded in penetrating into the Temple and removing Eleazar. Even now, in spite of the decimation of the peace party, a few dared advise peace, but naturally they were forced to keep silence; it was probably at this moment that the most notable of them, the famous teacher and Pharisee, John, the son of Zakkai (Johanan ben Zakkai), succeeded in escaping in a coffin, according to tradition, to the Roman camp. The danger that had now become pressing owing to the Roman attack upon the so-called third encircling wall, that surrounded both the city and also the suburb of Bezetha, warned John and Simon that they must come to an agreement; the first continued to maintain the defence of the Tower of Antonia and of the Temple, the second that of the upper city.

Thus the defence was reinforced, but none the less it did not prove possible to prevent the third wall from falling into the hands of the Romans by May. Five days later the second wall fell and the Romans began their attack on the more elaborate system of fortifications that made up the first wall. Two legions were launched against the upper city and two against the Tower of Antonia, while Josephus, who was now on the staff of Titus, vainly advised the besieged to surrender. The Jews succeeded at first in destroying the platforms raised by the besiegers, but they could not prevent their reconstruction or the building of a wall of circumvallation which was designed to cut off all provisions. In spite of heroic attempts to destroy these works, in June the Tower of Antonia fell and siege was laid to the Temple, which was defended by its own system of fortifications. The daily sacrifices in the Temple had at last to be suspended and the agony of famine began. In August, on the day that corresponds to the 9th Ab in the Jewish calendar, the Roman troops succeeded in firing the gate of the Temple and broke into it. Jewish tradition treats this day as that of the destruction of the Temple; in reality it was not until the next day, apparently on the order of Titus himself, that the Temple was burnt by the soldiers and a terrible massacre began. The head of the resistance, John of Gischala, with a band of his soldiers succeeded in retreating safely into the upper city, which continued to be defended, since it was separated from the lower city by a wall.

Upon this all the efforts of the Roman soldiery were now turned, once Titus refused to grant the right of free departure which the besieged claimed as a condition of surrender. The struggle ended in September amid scenes of renewed slaughter and with the almost complete destruction of the city. Simon bar Giora was taken to Rome to be killed at the foot of the Capitol in the victors’ triumph; John of Gischala was spared, but spared for imprisonment for life. Titus returned to Italy with his booty, among which was the table of the Shewbread and the seven- branched candlestick which had been saved from the burning Temple; afterwards, apparently, these were carried by Genseric’s Vandals to Africa, where they were recaptured by Belisarius and taken to Constantinople. Titus celebrated his triumph, together with his father and his brother Domitian, in 71. But the struggle in Palestine was not yet finished, for the three fortresses of Herodium, Machaerus and Masada continued to hold out. The new governor, Lucilius Bassus, who, like Vespasian, was of senatorial rank, received the task of reducing them, which passed to his successor, Flavius Silva. Herodium was easily captured; not so Machaerus, whose defenders in the end were allowed to leave with the honours of war. The resistance of Masada, in which a group of Sicarii under the command of Eleazar, son of Jairus, had taken refuge, was prolonged until April 73, and when further resistance appeared impossible its defenders killed themselves.

Outside Palestine the destruction of Jerusalem had not the immediate echoes that might be expected. The Roman government had to put down outbursts of anti-Semitic feeling here and there, as at Antioch, and rapidly put an end to Jewish disorders in Cyrene and in Egypt. But it created a complicated and deplorable state of feeling that was to find an outlet fifty years later in the time of Trajan and Hadrian.

From the purely juridical point of view the status of Judaea was little altered. It remained, as before, a separate province, though its equestrian procurator was now made subordinate to a legatus, of senatorial rank, who commanded the Tenth Legion (Fretensis), which was left there as a garrison. Caesarea continued to be the seat of the governor, though now raised to the rank of a colony with the title of Colonia Prima Flavia Augusta Caesarensis. The Jews outside Palestine and those in Palestine who had supported Rome naturally retained their status as ordinary provincials. Those who had fought but escaped death or enslavement, and so were regarded as dediticii, must soon have been merged in the remainder of the Jewish people, so that, generally speaking, apart from the multitude of slaves, the status civitatis of the Jews was not permanently altered. But within this framework their lot was radically changed. Landed property in Palestine underwent a profound transformation, though much of the truth about it remains obscure. Apparently the whole territory, apart from some portions of Galilee and Peraea, which had belonged to Agrippa II and were now restored to him with some undefined extension, became imperial domain. Most of this land was farmed out, some districts near Jerusalem served for the army of occupation, 800 veterans were assigned lots at Emmaus, about three miles from Jerusalem (not to be confused with Emmaus Nicopolis), and there were the usual grants to those whom the Emperor favoured; here Josephus profited, since he was able to withdraw to Rome and enjoy there the pension and the rights of Roman citizenship that Vespasian bestowed on him. All the cities that had resisted the Romans were sacked and partially destroyed, while those of their citizens who had been captured were sold into slavery: still there were many fugitives to spread abroad the seeds of future revolts.

The most serious measure of all remains to be mentioned: by abolishing the Sanhedrin and the High Priesthood and by forbidding the resumption of the worship of the Temple at Jerusalem the Romans destroyed the political and religious centre of Judaism. Even the schismatic temple at Leontopolis in Egypt was closed in 73, although it was in decay, in order to prevent its becoming a centre of attraction after the closing of the Jerusalem Temple. A seal was set on this severance of the ties that bound Jews to their centre by an order diverting the poll-tax of two drachmae, that they had been accustomed to pay to the Temple of Jerusalem, to the temple of Capitoline Juppiter instead: from this arose the fiscus judaicus. But this does not mean that the existence of the Jewish nation was no longer recognized: the religious privileges that the Jews originally enjoyed were maintained, and since they passed on to successive generations they presuppose the recognition of the national unity of the Jews. Further, the creation of the fiscus judaicus, clearly on the same lines as the fiscus Asiaticus and the fiscus Alexandrinus, implies the recognition of the Jews as a separate entity. There is no proof that the Jews of the Diaspora lost particular rights in any place where, as for example at Alexandria, they already possessed them. Far more serious was the fact that even those who had taken no part in the war were subjected to the humiliation of a payment to Capitoline Juppiter.

From the point of view simply of the religious development of Judaism the destruction of the Temple marked the end of a process that had been in operation from at least the days of the Maccabees. With the abolition of the High Priesthood and of the Sanhedrin Sadduceeism vanished, and Pharisaism—with its characteristic institution of the Rabbi—was left triumphant. A few saw this clearly and believed that a fresh field for development lay open to Judaism: the representative of this school of thought was Johanan ben Zakkai who during the siege of Jerusalem persuaded Vespasian to grant him leave to open a school at Jamnia, which became a new centre for Judaism; so much so that later Jews were to look on it as a new Sanhedrin. But the great majority of the people, although they might find satisfaction for their religious needs in the Synagogue which henceforth took the place of the Temple, could not easily accept the humiliation of defeat, the most galling mark of which was the ruin of the Temple. The Temple that they no longer needed for their religion lived on as a symbol of their nation and the memory of the Temple was to inspire all the struggles and all the Messianic hopes of the succeeding centuries.