The Myth of Masada

[Minimalist]

Yes and no. The Romans were not above building up their enemies so that their triumphs looked better than they were. But it is true that this was the last battle of a war that Josephus began on the other side until he went over to the Romans so perhaps he was given to nostalgia?

The Romans almost exclusively practiced cremation in the first century so the lack of bodies is not much of a surprise. They were either crucified as a lesson or burned.

Most Confederates did not own slaves in either case. If you read recruiting posters from 1861-2, soldier's journals or letters, and the lyrics to their songs, there is not a lot of talk about slavery on either side. It's quite a curious topic for discussion.

It almost seems as though they fought because they wanted to fight.

[EGross]

One thing to remember about Josephus, was that he was a murderous thug - his descriptions of the zealots/Biryonim/Sicarii are so jumbled at times it is hard to tell which group is the least evil or which is which. This is because, as he admitted, he was one of them. Was he someone who sliced up people who disagreed with his dogma and political agenda? Was he one who burned homes and supplies and threatened the populace to follow the party line, or was he just one who ranted? His story is odd, but there is a section where he admits surrendering, while, according to his story his men chose death. And his aspirations to Romanhood, to be adopted into the family Flavius, marrying one woman after another as he rose in social standing (he had the unfortunate bad luck of picking wives who did not have long lives), and his patronis was Vespasian.

From other sources, we read that it was Josephus who told Vespasian the Moshiach story, of prophecy, and encouraged Vespasian to believe that HE (a Roman), could be destined to be the Moshiach of the Jews, and Vespasian demanded all of the Davidic descendants to be killed because of that (he wasn't that successful, but enough were massacred for this mad plot seeded by Josephus). Josephus wrote what he was told, or what was approved, and became the official chronicler of the Roman mad man. His son, Titus, was a lot more stable, and according to jewish legend, had permitted many Jews to escape death that was demanded by his father.

Ok, so this is the background of the historian, who wanted so much to rise to the top of Roman society, and was the official chronicler of a man who would be king, messiah, and a god.

And chuck has a good point. The story was never accepted by the Jews, even during the time it happened, and was fully ignored. And it was only when those who needed some sort of historical rallying cry to be a symbol of defiance (although how dying for a cause is a very weird symbol in my eyes) picked the Josephus story, and used it for indoctrination to make it a national rallying cry, then that is where symbolism can go bad. Unlike religious symbolism, however, it can be tossed away when its use is over.

But it makes for a nice story (and movie) and tourist attraction.

---

The Romans almost exclusively practiced cremation in the first century so the lack of bodies is not much of a surprise. They were either crucified as a lesson or burned.

While they might have had cremation in practice, they had a history of leaving the dead enemies to rot. The story of their attack on Beitar, the battle that was the turning point in the Bar Kochba war, is one example. There is a Jewish custom after eating a meal to say a blessing that commemorates the Romans finally permitting the Jews to collect the bodies for burial.

And there was a cave found at Masada with a half dozen bodies, buried with the roman custom of a pig and their weapons (even a dead guy has to eat!)

And even if you can imaging them bulldozing 1000 bodies into a pile and having a pyre. One would expect to find even one skull. Or even a dagger.

[Anomalocaris]

Actually, it is not common for the Romans to crucify captured rebels unless they had been slaves before, the instances mentioned Josephus during seige of Jeruselum not withstanding. They are generally put to the sword, sold as slaves, or in rare instances paroled.

We really won't ever know for sure what happended at Masada, other than there was a rebel force there sufficient for the Romans to encircle it with a legionary force and attack it with a ramp. The siege wall, legionary camp and the rap for the siege engine survives. It could be that in fact the Rebels didn't die on Masada. It could also be that rebels dies and the Romans threw most of the corpses down the cliffs and the bones were subsequently scavenged by desert animals. The few corpses that survived in the cistern simply being the ones that a few lazier Roman soldiers and porters didn't bother to carry all the way to the edge. It seems unlikely that the Romans would have bothered to find the wood to burn hundreds of corpses to the point where no large bone fragments remains, nor such a cremation pile would have left no trace.

[EGross]

But I will admit that a group of them probably did escape jerusalem, fled to the hills, got caught and killed. But most likely, that was it. But like the original Little Red Riding Hood story that has "...the better to eat you with my dear. And the wolf ate the girl. The end." - it's not as cool of a story. If you are the narcisissic Emperor, you might want a script with a lot more "oomph".

---

It seems unlikely that the Romans would have bothered to find the wood to burn hundreds of corpses to the point where no large bone fragments remains, nor such a cremation pile would have left no trace.

If you go to Masada, there isn't a single tree for miles. It is still one of the reasons that 99.99% of all homes in Israel are stone. The only trees in that desert area are the ones planted by the gift shop. Italy is another matter. They probably did some burning in the more tree-friendly places if it is recorded that Romans did creamations.

Here is a nice helicopter shot of the place:

[Justtristo]

Yes and no. The Romans were not above building up their enemies so that their triumphs looked better than they were. But it is true that this was the last battle of a war that Josephus began on the other side until he went over to the Romans so perhaps he was given to nostalgia?

The Romans almost exclusively practiced cremation in the first century so the lack of bodies is not much of a surprise. They were either crucified as a lesson or burned.

Most Confederates did not own slaves in either case. If you read recruiting posters from 1861-2, soldier's journals or letters, and the lyrics to their songs, there is not a lot of talk about slavery on either side. It's quite a curious topic for discussion.

It almost seems as though they fought because they wanted to fight.

I was actually stating that there was a correlation between support for succession and the level of slave ownership, even if a minority of the white population owned slaves.



Percentage of the population who were slaves before the Civil War



Support for succession by county.


West Virginia became a state during the civil war, because the counties which would become West Virginia opposed succession. While on the rest of Virginia supported succession. Also there were much fewer slaves in those counties than in the rest of Virginia.

[Minimalist]

I don't want to derail the thread to a discussion of the civil war but there is a book, "Company Aytch" ( H in the local southern dialect, I guess ) written by Sam Watkins. It was a primary source for Ken Burns' documentary on The Civil War. Watkins was a soldier in the Army of Tennessee.

At one point Watkins mentions that the Confederate Congress allowed a draft exemption for any man who owned 20 negroes. It set off a firestorm in the Confederate ranks. "Rich Man's War, Poor Man's Fight" noted Watkins. It is the only time in the whole book that I can recall Watkins talking about slavery. There were class problems in the rebel army.

[A_Nony_Mouse]

...
10 years or so ago, Dr. ben Yehuda explained in his book "The Masada Myth" (available on amazon), how the myth deveoped, which, until 50 or so years ago, nobody even gave it any thought. I add this because just as those go "How could anyone create a Jesus myth. It must be true!", this is a modern day example using Josephus as a source.
...

For a very lethal example of recent creation try Schlomo Sand, The Invention of the Jewish People. To put simply, Jews are people who follow the Jewish religion and always were from the oldest records and even reflected in bible fiction. Then about 130 years ago the Zionists invented a jewish people independent of the religion.

Two states for two peoples? For two different religions? A state for both Israelis and Palestinians regardless of religion?