Jump to content

Talk:First Jewish–Roman War/GA1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

GA review

[edit]
GA toolbox
Reviewing

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

Nominator: Mariamnei (talk · contribs) 11:00, 16 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Reviewer: Borsoka (talk · contribs) 02:03, 27 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

  1. Is it well written?
    A. The prose is clear and concise, and the spelling and grammar are correct:
    B. It complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation:
  2. Is it verifiable with no original research, as shown by a source spot-check?
    A. It contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline:
    B. Reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose):
    C. It contains no original research:
    D. It contains no copyright violations nor plagiarism:
  3. Is it broad in its coverage?
    A. It addresses the main aspects of the topic:
    B. It stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style):
  4. Is it neutral?
    It represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each:
  5. Is it stable?
    It does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute:
  6. Is it illustrated, if possible, by images?
    A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content:
    B. Images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:
  7. Overall:
    Pass or Fail:

General remarks

  • The prose size (15,666 words) exceeds the limit. I think the topic should be summarised with less than 9,000 words.
  • I have not read section "Background" but my impression is that it does not present the Roman Empire, so it should be expanded in this respect.

Please, ping me if you addressed the above issues Borsoka (talk) 02:09, 27 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hey @Borsoka, First of all, thank you for the feedback and for taking this on! I wondered if people were hesitant because of the article's length, so I really appreciate you being ready to tackle the challenge!
I managed to trim the article down from 15,666 words to about 10.8k. At this point, though, I am struggling to see how I can reduce it further without making the content overly dry, choppy, or hard to read. Further cuts would also mean losing significant material, which is problematic given that this is really one of the most well-documented and researched events in ancient history (also considering that the featured article on Cleopatra has 13,000 words.)
As for the representation of the Roman Empire, I made some changes to the background section to clarify that Rome was a republic when they conquered Judaea (previously, I had only mentioned Pompey). I don't think there's a need to go too deep into Roman history before the revolt, since this was an uprising in a province (and especially as we're trying to shorten the prose). That's why, in my opinion, the focus should primarily be on Roman rule in the region and its relationship with the local population leading up to the revolt. The broader impact on Rome itself is thoroughly covered in the consequences part, where I detail how Vespasian and the Flavian dynasty leveraged the victory as a foundational moment that legitimized their rule and became central to their propaganda (appearing in coins, monuments, and so on...). I dedicated an entire section to analyzing these consequences in depth. Mariamnei (talk) 15:48, 11 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I highly appreciate your hard work, and fully understand that shortening the article is an especially difficult task. Borsoka (talk) 01:47, 12 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

  • @Borsoka: For the first file, I can try to find a reliable source to verify the image or replace it with a properly sourced alternative. By the way, here's the museum's page on the model, showing the same items: [1]. As for the second file, how should the public domain tag be added? Can I do it myself, or is additional documentation required? Let me know what you prefer, I'm also happy to remove or replace the images if that’s the better option. Mariamnei (talk) 17:45, 14 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Link to the museum page is now up. For the second image, the Jewish War manuscript, I've replaced it with another version from the 16th century, which (if I understood correctly) has a more clearly resolved copyright status. Mariamnei (talk) 20:30, 14 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Source review

  • Academic sources of high quality, including several monographs, are cited.
  • Either delete or add the place of publication at each titles listed in sections "Modern sources" and "Further reading".
  • Are all sources listed in section "Ancient sources" cited in the article?
    • Yes, all the ancient sources listed are cited within the article, except for Philostratus. The article originally included content from him, but I cut it during the trimming process, so I have now removed him from the ancient sources list as well.
  • The publication details of primary sources cited in the article are missing. Borsoka (talk) 01:47, 12 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    • Could you clarify what you mean? Are you referring to specific editions, translators, or something else? I didn't quote from all of them directly, so providing full publication details for each one would be tricky.
      Yes, I miss the details of the specific editions/translations cited. Borsoka (talk) 13:04, 12 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
      Got it, I'll make those changes. One more thing, how should I handle works that are mentioned but not directly quoted? Is there a preferred way to choose which translation or edition to cite in those cases? Mariamnei (talk) 14:02, 12 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
      Could you quote an example from the article here? Borsoka (talk) 15:02, 12 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
      Of course! For example, at one point, the article says: Suetonius claimed the Romans lost their legionary eagle., with a reference to Suetonius, Vespasian, 4.5. Since I'm not using a direct quote, how do I decide which translation to go with? Mariamnei (talk) 14:34, 18 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Could you please quote the texts from the cited reliable sources verifying the following statements?

  • After capturing Jerusalem, Pompey entered the Temple's Holy of Holies—an act of desecration, as only the High Priest was permitted to enter.
  • The second half of this sentence currently lacks a direct source, so I’ll address that shortly. What we do have currently is Price who writes: Before restoring Jerusalem, Pompey entered the Holy of Holies — a violation that would be remembered in 66, unsoftened by Josephus’ assurances that Pompey touched nothing, and Gabba, who writes that Pompey refrained from plundering the Temple treasure ... although he did enter the Holy of Holies. Goodman (1987), already cited in the bibliography, can also be added here, he states that Pompey earned himself undying Jewish hatred by wantonly desecrating the Holy of Holies. the second part of the sentence is supported by Rogers (p. 272), who mentions, while discussing the internal conflict in Jerusalem during the revolt, that the high priest alone was allowed to enter the Holy of Holies, and only on Yom Kippur or the Day of Atonement. Adding that now :) Mariamnei (talk) 17:57, 14 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Archelaus's misrule led to his deposition in 6 CE, and the Roman Empire annexed his territories as the province of Judaea.
  • Goodman writes: The Roman emperor Augustus created the province of Judaea in AD 6 by subjecting to direct Roman rule the central part of the domain once ruled by the Jewish king Herod the Great. Herod's kingdom had proved unruly on his death in 4 BC. when the widespread resentment he had evoked was able to surface, and a series of revolts then had been suppressed only after intervention by the Roman governor of Syria. Herod's son Archelaus had nonetheless been permitted to inherit control of the area around Jerusalem, although he was granted the title merely of ethnarch. But by AD 6 even this appointment no longer seemed satisfactory in the eyes of his Roman patron. Archelaus was sent into exile in Gaul, and Judaea was incorporated into the Roman empire.
  • Gabba writes: When in the year CE 6 the united protests of prominent Jews and Samaritans (perhaps also renewing the petitions of 4 BCE) were brought to Rome (and apparently supported by Archelaus brothers, the tetrarchs), the ethnarch was summoned to the capital to explain his actions and then deposed and exiled to Vienna, in Gallia Lugdunensis. His ethnarchy was transformed into a Roman province of the equestrian rank.
  • Safrai & Stern: The rule of Herod's descendants was the last phase prior to the constitution of Judaea as a Roman province. The removal of Archelaus from his position as ethnarch of Judaea, Samaria and Idumaea (in 6 CE) opened a new chapter in the relations between the Jews and the Roman Empire, and administrative structures were then created which determined the political position of the majority of the Jewish people down to the Great Revolt. The population of Judaea was now included within the territory of a new Roman province headed by a Roman governor of equestrian rank. ... The deposition and exile of Archelaus occurred in a period in which the system of allied client kings was still being maintained side by side with that of direct annexation and organisation under the regime of a province. The Roman princeps therefore had several choices. He could impose the task of ruling Judaea on one of the members of the Herodian family, which was what Augustus had actually done with Judaea so far; but it would seem to have been impossible to proceed further in this fashion, on account of the unpopularity of the House of Herod in Judaea itself, resulting from the Jews' experience under Herod and his son Archelaus. Augustus found no member of the family capable of maintaining order in Judaea without infuriating its in- habitants. He therefore decided to place Judaea under direct Roman rule for the first time in its history. Mariamnei (talk) 19:00, 14 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Historian Jonathan Price wrote that apocalyptic beliefs played a role in fueling the revolt, with many rebels envisioning a divinely sanctioned cosmic struggle inspired by prophetic texts, such as the Book of Daniel, which foretold the fall of the fourth imperial power, which people believed was Rome.
  • The original says: It is true that many of the rebellion's perpetrators and participants, those motivated by prophetic visions of the End of Days, anticipated a cosmic clash with cosmic consequences—the promises of apocalypse. This vision did inspire Jews from all regions of Judea/Palestine to join the rebellion, fighting the Romans where they were and then fleeing to Jerusalem, the fall of which could not be accepted by true belief in the righteousness and divine sanction of the struggle ... Among the motivating ideas for the uprising was the widespread prophecy of Daniel predicting the fall of the fourth world empire, which was read at the time as foretelling the imminent demise of Rome. Mariamnei (talk) 17:57, 14 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • After failing to pacify the rebels, Jerusalem's moderate leaders sought military assistance from Florus and Agrippa. In response, Agrippa dispatched 2,000 cavalrymen from Auranitis, Batanaea, and Trachonitis.
  • Rogers writes: None of those who wished for revolution listened to a word spoken by the most prominent Jews. ... The leading citizens now understood that it was beyond their power to check the momentum of revolutionary movement, and they recognized that the danger from the Romans would come to them first. They therefore prepared to avoid blame for the war by calling in the Romans and by resorting to force against their fellow citizens. They sent out ambassadors to Florus, led by Simon, son of Ananias, and to Agrippa ... These emissaries begged the Roman governor and the king to come to the city along with an army and to eradicate the rebellion before it was unstoppable. ... Florus simply did not reply to the ambassadors. Agrippa, on the other hand, who, we are told, cared equally about the rebels and those against whom the war was being raised, sent 2,000 horsemen from Auranitis, Batanaea, and Trachonitis... Mariamnei (talk) 20:12, 14 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Millar writes: After initial conflicts in 66 between the Jewish population in Jerusalem and the auxiliary forces stationed there, outside military intervention began in a way not attested before, with the dispatch oby Agrippa II of 2000 cavalry to Jerusalem (the equivalent, that is, of four Roman cavalry alae), recruited from Auranitis, Batanaea and Trachonities. Mariamnei (talk) 18:11, 14 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Dated using a new revolutionary calendar (years one to five), they marked the start of a new era of independence.
  • Magness: The coins carry dates, from Year One to Year Five (of the revolt), with the establishment of a new calendar being another proclamation of independence from Roman rule. McLaren: The second observation is that the documents are testimony to the existence of a new state. This is evident in two practical components of the documents: the dating formula and the language in which they are written. All the documents use the same basic dating formula, the date of the month followed by a given numerical year ... it is a formula that proclaims a new era being in operation; namely, the existence of the state of Israel. The state had an agreed point at which the era commenced and at which each year within the era commenced ... The second feature is the date formula on the coins. They all follow the same pattern; “year one,” “year two,” “year three,” “year four” and “year five.” By implication, the coins are a recognition that a new era had commenced. They also reflect agreement on the designated start date for each year. Mariamnei (talk) 18:11, 14 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • John of Gischala negotiated a surrender at Gush Halav, but fled with his followers during a Shabbat truce offered by Titus. The city capitulated upon Titus's return.
  • Wishing to avoid the inevitable slaughter that would ensue once the Romans had breached the walls, Josephus tells us, Titus attempted to persuade the Gischalans to surrender. ... John took it upon himself to negotiate with Titus. ... Agreeing to Titus's peace offer, John promised to persuade or compel any opponents of the proposal. He asked, however, for one day of rest before the treaty was concluded. Apparently it was the Sabbath, presumably a Friday afternoon, from what follows in Josephus’s narrative, and John pointed out to Titus that it was against the law for Jews either to conclude a treaty or bear arms on the Sabbath. ... Titus granted John and the Gischalans their respite. ... Taking advantage of Titus’s goodwill gesture, that Sabbath evening John led his armed followers and a large number of noncombatants with their families out of and away from Gischala. ... The next morning Titus came back to Gischala to finalize his agreement with John. He found the gates of the town wide open. After Titus entered the city, the townspeople who had remained behind told Titus of John's flight from the city the night before. I wonder whether saying "John of Gischala negotiated a surrender at Gush Halav but fled with his followers during a Shabbat interval agreed to by Titus. The city surrendered upon Titus's return." would be more faithful to the source. Mariamnei (talk) 18:32, 14 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • He then approached Jerusalem's walls, killing many and capturing others, marking his closest approach to the city.
  • Rogers: He then rode up to Jerusalem’s walls, killing many whom he came across and taking others prisoner. It would be as close as the future emperor Vespasian would ever get to entering the holy city. Mariamnei (talk) 20:12, 14 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • After Jerusalem's fall, Titus toured Judaea and southern Syria, funding spectacles with Jewish captives.
  • Andrade writes: After Titus sacked Jerusalem in 70 ce, he “funded expensive spectacles and used Jewish captives as a display of their own destruction” throughout the Greek cities of southern Syria and greater Judaea. Such spectacles promoted solidarity among Greek civic audiences whose ethnic and cultural constituents were increasingly heterogeneous, and they marginalized Jews who putatively threatened the cohesion of Greek civic topographies housing temples and figurative images. They also prompted Greeks to deem Romans their protectors from Jewish insurgency.
  • Davies: Thus, with the war proclaimed as won, with Titus having undertaken his victory tour of major eastern cities, and with the official triumph having celebrated this glorious achievement in the most magnificent style imaginable at Rome, the fact that armed opposition continued in significant areas of Judaea south of Jerusalem after the fall of that city represented an inconvenient truth, not to mention a potential embarrassment to the newly established Flavians. Mariamnei (talk) 20:02, 14 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • The social impact was profound, particularly for the classes closely associated with the temple. The aristocracy, including the High Priesthood, who held significant influence and amassed great wealth, collapsed entirely.
  • The original in Hebrew says: גם מבחינה חברתית היתה לתוצאות המלחמה משמעות מרחיקת לכת. שכבות חברתיות שלמות נעלמו לגמרי או ירדו ממעמדן. נפגעו ביותר אותן שכבות ואותם מעמדות שהיו מעוגנים בעיקר בירושלים ובמקדש. האוליגארכיה אריסטוקראטית של משפחות כהונה הגדולה ומקורביהן, ששלטו במקדש ובירושלים מבחינה מדינית, חברתית וכלכלית, ושצברה הרבה ממון וכוח וחלשה על חיי המסחר, נפלה ונתמוטטה לחלוטין. יחד עמה נעלמו גם הצדוקים, שעיקר כוחם ורוב מניינם ובניינם באו להם מקרב בני המעמד הזה, האריסטוקראטיה הירושלמית. גם אחרים, כמו האיסיים וכת מדבר יהודה, שחיו בעיקר במדבר יהודה, שנפגע קשה במלחמה, נעלמו מן העולם. and after translation: From a social perspective as well, the outcomes of the war held far-reaching significance. Entire social strata vanished completely or were lowered in their status. Those strata and classes that were primarily anchored in Jerusalem and the Temple were most affected. The aristocratic oligarchy of the High Priesthood families and their close associates, who politically, socially, and economically controlled the Temple and Jerusalem, and who had accumulated much wealth and power and held sway over commercial life, fell and utterly collapsed. Together with it, the Sadducees also disappeared, whose main strength and the majority of their numbers and establishment came from within this class, the Jerusalemite aristocracy. Others too, such as the Essenes and the Judean Desert sect, who lived mainly in the Judean Desert, which was severely affected by the war, vanished from the world. Mariamnei (talk) 20:02, 14 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Schwartz writes: Though the separation of Christianity from Judaism was a centuries-long process, and the polemics of Church Fathers remind us that some Christians. continued to feel a sense of kinship, if not identity, with Jews down to the fifth century, the Destruction was certainly an important milestone in the process of separation. Indeed, many Christians may have responded to the Destruction by distancing themselves from other Jews.
  • Alexander: It is simplistic to look for a decisive moment in the parting of the ways, a crucial doctrine or event that caused the final rupture. There was no sudden break between Christianity and Judaism, but rather an ever-widening rift. The War of 66—74 destroyed whatever existed of a centralized religious authority within Judaism and so removed the institutions that might have speedily and definitively resolved the problem of the status of Christianity. There were radical aspects to the Christian message that aroused opposition not only from the Pharisaic-Rabbinic party, but it was not inevitable that such radicalism should have led to a parting of the ways. ... In the power-vacuum created by the First Revolt the Rabbinic party and the Christians competed for the hearts and minds of Jewry. The Rabbis emerged victorious. Mariamnei (talk) 20:02, 14 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

  • After the siege. Changed the text to After capturing Jerusalem, Pompey entered the Temple's Holy of Holies—an act of desecration, as only the High Priest was permitted to enter to make it clear.
  • Make sure that each linked terms are only linked once.
  • Done!
  • Link Hellenistic.
  • A Jewish delegation from Alexandria attempted to persuade the emperor to abandon his plan. Delete.
  • Introduce the Sicarii as Jewish radicals.
  • During Passover, likely the year after Florus' appointment, Cestius Gallus, governor of Syria, visited Jerusalem, possibly to address complaints against Florus, but took no action. Delete. Alternatively, attribute the PoV ("...possibly to address...") to a scholar.
  • ..."freedom"... Why the quotation marks are needed?
  • David Goodblatt notes that efforts such as the attempt to liberate Judaea, minting coins inscribed with "Israel", and using an era of the "freedom of Israel" reflect characteristics comparable to modern national liberation movements. I do not understand. Introduce Goodblatt with one or two words.
  • Would you find this phrasing clearer? Historian David Goodblatt points to similarities between the actions and ideology of the rebels and those of modern national liberation movements, using the attempt to free Judaea, the minting of coins inscribed with 'Israel,' and the use of an era called the 'freedom of Israel' as examples. also, would mentioning the field of study be sufficient when introducing a scholar? (for example, historian, political scientist, archaeologist) Mariamnei (talk) 10:42, 16 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • ...and the use of an era called the "freedom of Israel"... I still do not understand this part. Did they frequently refer to an idealistic era called the "freedom of Israel"? Yes, you can introduce any scholar with one word.
  • Yep! this is reflected on coins minted by the rebels, using a new calendar that counted the years of the 'freedom of Israel.' This is explained later in the article in the section on the coins: They were dated using a new calendar based on the years of the revolt (years one to five), marking the dawn of a new era with the state's establishment.. Does this phrasing make it clearer? (And bonus—it's even a bit shorter!) Historian David Goodblatt points to similarities between the rebels' actions and ideology and those of modern national liberation movements, citing their struggle to free Judaea, the minting of coins inscribed with "Israel," and the adoption of the "freedom of Israel" era as examples. Mariamnei (talk) 16:29, 19 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • What does the concept "zeal" include?
  • Zeal, in this context, is a deep dedication to God's will, law, and the sanctuary, and the belief of a sacred duty to defend Israel's faith and purity. I'm changing the text to say The concept of "zeal"—a total commitment to God's will, law, and the sanctuary, rooted in figures like Phinehas, Elijah, and Mattathias, and driven by a belief in Israel's divine election and the sacred duty to uphold its faith and purity—is often seen as a key driver of the revolt. Mariamnei (talk) 13:08, 16 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    • ...a total commitment to God's will, law, and the sanctuary,[55] rooted in figures like Phinehas, Elijah, and Mattathias, and driven by a belief in Israel's divine election and the sacred duty to uphold its faith and purity... Shorten by at least 50%. :)
  • Introduce Hege with one or two words.
  • ...this term could be applied similar factions shared its ideology... Rephrase.
  • How about this: While Eleazar ben Simon's faction was the only one to explicitly call itself "Zealots," historian Martin Hengel maintained that all factions rejecting foreign rule in the name of God's sole sovereignty could rightfully be included under this designation. Mariamnei (talk) 19:05, 16 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Introduce Philip Alexander with one or two words.
  • Some scholars... Name one or two.
  • According to Jonathan Price, these ideas motivated Jews across the country to join the uprising. Delete.
  • Introduce Rajak with one or two words.
  • ...critics argue... Name one or two.
  • Introduce Rogers with one or two words.
  • ...are also considered a factor... By whom?
  • Most notably by Rapaport, rephrasing to present this as a debate rather than general statement: Historian Uriel Rappaport wrote that hostility between Jews and surrounding Greek cities was the decisive factor that made the revolt inevitable, as Rome failed to address the tensions. ... Historian Martin Goodman, however, argued that since Jews had chosen to live in Greek cities, deep hostility was not a long-standing issue, and the violence of 66 CE was a consequence of rising tensions rather than the root cause of the revolt. Mariamnei (talk) 15:33, 18 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Introduce Goodman with one or two words.
  • ...both of whom were often despised by the populace.... That the Herodians were despised is not previously mentioned? Why?
  • Good point! I'm adding a sentence in the background section to clarify the resentment toward Herod: Herod ruled Judaea as a client kingdom of Rome, imposing heavy taxation, engaging in court intrigues and murders, controlling Jewish institutions, and promoting Hellenization, fueling Jewish resentment. Mariamnei (talk) 20:04, 18 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    • Shorten by 50% the new text. :)
  • Introduce Caesarea as a town.
  • ...that blocked access... To where?
  • ..., but he took the money and left for Sebaste, allowing work to continue. I would rephrase and avoid mentioning his leave for Sebaste.
  • I changed the text to Prominent Jews paid Florus eight talents to stop the construction, but he took the money and left without intervening, allowing the work to continue. Hope that's better now! Mariamnei (talk) 11:10, 16 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • ...mocking him by collecting alms... I do not understand.
    I changed the text to Protests followed, with crowds mocking him by passing around a basket to collect alms, as if he were a beggar. Does this make it clearer? Mariamnei (talk) 11:10, 16 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Introduce the Sanhedrin with two or three words.
  • ..., blocked by the crowd that severed the fortress-Temple link by destroying the porticoes,... Delete.
  • ..., the Jewish vassal king of Chalcis,... Delete.
  • Addressing the people alongside his sister Berenice,... I assume this is a reference to Agrippa's public speech.
  • ...paid the talents owed... I assume this is a reference to tax.
  • Subsequently, the leaders of Jerusalem, along with the high priests and Pharisee leaders, failed to dissuade the populace from revolting and sought help from Florus and Agrippa. Rephrase.
  • ...from Auranitis, Batanaea, and Trachonitis... I would say "from Syria".
  • The issue is that there was a Roman province called Syria at the time, but these districts weren't actually part of it: they were under Agrippa's rule. Some cities there belonged to the Decapolis, so calling them 'Syria' might be confusing. Mariamnei (talk) 11:32, 16 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • ...along with the moderates... Who?
  • Those who urged compromise with Rome (as opposed to the Zealots). For clarity, I changed the text to say: Subsequently, the moderate leaders of Jerusalem, including the high priests and Pharisee leaders, failed to dissuade the populace from revolting and sought help from Florus and Agrippa. Agrippa dispatched 2,000 cavalrymen from Auranitis, Batanaea, and Trachonitis, These forces joined the moderates, who controlled the Upper City, while Eleazar ben Hanania's followers controlled the Lower City and Temple Mount. Mariamnei (talk) 11:32, 16 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Who is Ananias?
  • After appearing in royal attire... Why?
  • Possibly a messianic claim, trying to present himself as the prophesied anointed king. But that's a speculation. He may have aimed for kingship, but as one scholar put it, "With his own murder the question became academic and remains unanswerable." (Smith, M., 2006, p. 508). Think it's worth adding? Mariamnei (talk) 20:04, 18 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • ...the Sicarii were expelled from Jerusalem By whom and why?
  • When Eleazar ben Hanania' faction killed their leader Menahem ben Judah. Rogers describes this as more of a violent scattering than an organized expulsion, so fixing the text to say After appearing in royal attire in public, Menahem was captured, tortured, and executed by Eleazar ben Ananias' faction, while many of his Sicarii followers were killed or scattered. Others, including Menahem's relative Eleazar ben Yair, withdrew to Masada. Mariamnei (talk) 20:04, 18 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • ...they were betrayed and murdered By whom?
  • Changed the text to say The Jews of Scythopolis initially assisted their fellow townspeople in defending the city from Jewish attackers. However, they were later relocated with their families to a grove outside the town, where they were massacred by those who had fought alongside them. Mariamnei (talk) 11:32, 16 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • ...a large number of Jews... A scholarly estimation?
  • Let's remove this part since it's the same event mentioned below, the massacre of Damascus' Jewry in the city's gymnasium. I'm adding another event from the same time: how some communities in other cities were spared. Mariamnei (talk) 13:08, 16 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Link and explain toparchy.
  • Introduce Stern with one or two words.
  • Introduce Smallwood with one or two words.
  • ...where the Maccabees had once defeated the Seleucids,... Delete.
  • ... Battle of the Teutoburg Forest... I would say "the Romans defeat by Germans in the Teutoborg Forest", or something similar.
  • ...and undecideds... Delete.
  • Some elite moderates fled to the Romans, while others stayed and joined the rebels. Could you name some of them?
  • Around the same time, a pogrom in Damascus saw the city's men, fearing betrayal by their Judaized wives, lock the Jews in a gymnasium and, according to Josephus, kill thousands within hours. Rephrase.
  • Changed to Around the same time, a pogrom broke out in Damascus. The city's men, fearing betrayal by their wives who had converted to Judaism, locked the Jewish population in a gymnasium and, according to Josephus, killed thousands within hours. Mariamnei (talk) 11:32, 16 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Borsoka (talk) 07:16, 15 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  • Hey @Borsoka:, I've gone over all the inputs and addressed them (posting a few questions along the way!). Please let me know what your thoughts are, and looking forward to the next set of comments whenever you're ready. 😊Mariamnei (talk) 20:14, 18 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • ...appears to have taken on the role of second-in-command... Why does it appear? If this is a scholarly PoV, attribute it to the scholar.
  • Do we know why those people were chosen to govern the provinces?
  • It's not very clear, at least based on the sources I've seen. It doesn't seem like appointments were always based on knowledge of each area, for instance, Josephus was from Jerusalem but was still sent to command Galilee. Mariamnei (talk) 13:16, 22 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Eleazar ben Simon, the Zealot leader, was denied any formal position. He was not previously mentioned. What was his role in the revolt? Why was he ignored?
  • That's important background since Eleazar would later become one of the main faction leaders during the civil war in Jerusalem. He was sidelined because of his Zealot ties (according to Josephus, it was because "they saw he was of a tyrannical temper, and that his followers were, in their behavior, like guards about him"). That didn't sit well with the more moderate provisional government. Some scholars, notably Richard A. Horsley, see this as evidence for the leadership hoping to make a deal with Rome and keep the Zealot movement in check. Anyway, since this Eleazar's first appearance, I'm changing the line to: Eleazar ben Simon, a prominent Zealot leader who played a role in Gallus' defeat and seized large amounts of money, spoils, and public treasuries, was denied any formal position., let me know if there are any further thoughts? Mariamnei (talk) 12:13, 22 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • I was wrong. He is mentioned in a previous paragraph.
  • ...the rejection of foreign authority and currency while... Delete "and currency".
  • ...due to its forbidden images... Rephrase to make it clear that it was decorated with images in contradiction to Jewish religious practices.
  • According to Tacitus, "arms were available for all who could bear them". Delete or cite also a secondary source to verify the statement.
  • However, the government may have merely pretended to support the revolt, instead aiming to restore control and negotiate with Rome. I do not understand. Furthermore, this is a PoV, so attribute it to a scholar.
  • Moving this to appear right after the exclusion of Simon the Zealot, and attributing to Horsely: Citing the exclusion of the Zealots, scholars such as Richard Horsley argue that the government may have only feigned support for the revolt, instead seeking a compromise with Rome. Mariamnei (talk) 12:13, 22 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Introduce Ashkelon as a town still under Roman rule.
  • ...aiming to destroy a Roman stronghold and settle deep-seated tensions. I would delete, especially because I do not understand the reference to deep-seated tensions.
  • ...and obscure background Delete.
  • I think that's actually an important part of why he was chosen. Vespasian's obscure background probably made him seem like a safer option at the time. He wouldn't have looked like an immediate political threat to the emperor. Mariamnei (talk) 11:36, 22 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • For me, the phrase "obscure background" is obscure. (A bastard son? A man of uncertain social status? ...) Could you make it clear?
    Sure. Unlike other high-ranking Roman officials (and all emperors up to that point), who came from the old nobility, the patrician families, the Flavii were newcomers to Rome's upper classes. Vespasian came from a family that had only recently risen in status. To make that (and the context) clear, I'm changing the text to say Vespasian came from a family of humble origins, and according to Suetonius, he was chosen not only for his effectiveness but also for his relatively obscure background, which made him a politically safe choice to crush the revolt without threatening the emperor. Mariamnei (talk) 10:26, 5 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Link to cohortes and alae?
  • ...reportedly killed... Could you name the source?
  • ...(Yodefat/Iotapata)...(Panias)... Are these necessary?
  • All the forms show up in different sources, so I think it helps, some people might have trouble finding them otherwise. Not essential, but it can make things easier if someone's trying to Ctrl+F one of those names. Mariamnei (talk) 13:16, 22 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • The city's population, divided into pro-revolt and pro-Roman factions, saw the pro-Roman faction prevail as the Romans approached. Delete.
  • The city was loyal to Rome, but soon switched allegiance and minted its own coins. Delete.
  • ,...a priestly faction devoted to strict religious observance Delete.
  • The two factions... More than two factions are mentioned in the previous sentences.
  • ...the rebel factions... Name them to avoid misunderstanding.
  • ..., realizing the extent of their wrongs,... I do not understand.
  • The Idumeans regretted joining forces with the Zealots and felt complicit in their actions. Changing the text to say ..., regretting their involvement in the atrocities,... Mariamnei (talk) 13:16, 22 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • ...by paying for safe passage To whom?
  • ...God was letting the Jews destroy themselves... Was Vespasianus monotheist?
  • Not really. He did decide to wait and let the civil war weaken Jerusalem, but the idea that "God was letting the Jews destroy themselves" is most likely Josephus adding his own theological spin. That fits with his attempt to explain the disaster as divine punishment (like other Jews did too). It's also possible this statement was meant ironically, or even reflected the ancient (polytheistic) idea that each nation had its own gods, and in this case, the god of the Jews (whom the Romans have seomtimes equated with other deities) had turned against them. But I guess that might be a bit too deep, probably best to leave it out of the article? Mariamnei (talk) 13:16, 22 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • After re-reading both the source and Price's presentation of it, I've adjusted the phrasing to better follow what Vespasian really said, while also making it clear that it was their God, as you're saying. It now reads: ... reasoning that the Jews' God was delivering them into Roman hands without any effort, and that it was wiser to let them destroy one another. Mariamnei (talk) 09:48, 5 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • ...descended from Masada and raided the wealthy village of Ein Gedi... Why?
  • ...they blamed for it... Delete.
  • Around this time... I assume this is based on archaeological evidence.
  • ...the sectarian Qumran community... Delete "sectarian".
  • ...with some members possibly joining the rebels at Masada. Why do scholars think this?
  • Jodi Magness writes this idea originated with Yigael Yadin, who had based it on the presence of cylindrical and ovoid jars at Masada. These are strongly associated with the Qumran community and their distinctive material culture rooted in purity practices. Do you think it's worth including in the article? It might be a bit too detailed, but maybe we could just mention that the link has been suggested based on shared material culture, (or even say "Qumran-style vessels" if we want to keep it tight..) Mariamnei (talk) 14:27, 22 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Introduce Lucius Annius with one or two words.
  • Oops, you're right, thanks for catching that! I've added "commander" to clarify, and removed the link (that's another Lucius Annius) since there's not much known about him beyond his role in Vespasian's army in Judaea. Mariamnei (talk) 09:48, 5 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Borsoka (talk) 07:54, 22 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hey @Borsoka:, just checking in to see if you've had a chance to continue the review! Please let me know if you have any updates. Thank you! Mariamnei (talk) 11:43, 3 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • ...great events were occurring... Rephrase.
  • The Galilean Zealots had plundered the homes of the wealthy, murdered men, and raped women. The sentence comes out of the blue after the changes in Rome are listed. Why past perfect?
  • I added some context and fixed the grammar, and now it reads: Meanwhile, in Jerusalem, the Galilean Zealots plundered the homes of the wealthy, murdered men, and raped women. Mariamnei (talk) 08:06, 5 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Following this, they reportedly began to adopt the attire and behaviors of women, imitating both their ornaments and their desires, as Josephus notes, engaging in what he describes as "unlawful pleasures". Is this report by Josephus accepted by all modern scholars as a reliable narration of the events?
  • Not all scholars take it as a straightforward account, and it's honestly hard to say for sure. Steve Mason, for instance, thinks Josephus may have used this story to undermine John of Gischala by questioning his masculinity (2016, p. 106). Guy Rogers also suggests to see it as part of a bigger narrative move, with Josephus trying to contrast John with what he saw as "real" Jewish masculinity. But he also points out that just because something fits a literary theme doesn't mean it didn't actually happen (2022, p. 607). So do you think we should include both interpretations, or just leave the passage out altogether? Mariamnei (talk) 10:07, 5 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think modern scholars' criticism should also be included in the article.
  • How about this version? Would using an Cite error: There are <ref> tags on this page without content in them (see the help page). work here? This claim by Josephus has not been universally accepted by scholars. Steve Mason, for example, sees it as a literary device meant to portray John of Gischala as unmanly.[1] Guy Rogers views it as part of a broader narrative strategy, though he notes that the events could still be historically grounded despite the thematic framing.[2] Mariamnei (talk) 13:23, 7 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Those attempting to flee the city from the Zealots were killed by Simon and his followers outside the walls. I would rephrase: "Those who fled the city were killed by Simon and his followers outside the walls." Which Simon is he?
  • ...northern sections of the city I would delete "of the city".
  • Titus returned to Judaea... We are not informed that he had left Judaea.
  • You're right! the previous paragraph was missing context on Vespasian and Titus's movements in mid to late 69, during the pause in the Jewish war as Vespasian increasingly gained support as emperor. In autumn 69, they went to Egypt, and it was from there that Titus marched when the campaign resumed in the winter. I've added a few sentences to provide that background before the siege chapter begins. Please let me know what you think? Mariamnei (talk) 11:19, 5 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Introduce V Macedonica, etc as legions.
  • Can you add a date in Gregorian calendar for early Nisan, 14 Nisan, Sivan, Av?
  • Added that Nisan corresponds to March/April, Sivan to May/June, and Av to July/August (based on Price). For 14 Nisan, there's no fixed Gregorian date, it could fall in either late March or April. Mariamnei (talk) 09:55, 5 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I think the link should be added when the term is first mentioned as "crucified".
  • As the Temple burned... Why not present continuous?
  • ...while Simon bar Giora, dressed in white and purple, emerged at the Temple ruins and was taken to Rome I do not understand.
  • That explains how Simon was finally captured at the end of the siege. He came out of hiding, dressed in those colors, and walked through the Temple site, where Roman soldiers arrested him. So I've changed it to: ... while Simon bar Giora, dressed in white and purple, emerged from a hidden underground passage beneath the destroyed Temple, was captured by the Romans, and sent in chains to Titus. Hope that's clearer! Mariamnei (talk) 10:36, 5 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • ...while Simon bar Giora, dressed in white and purple, emerged from a hidden underground passage beneath the destroyed Temple, was captured by the Romans, and sent in chains to Titus I still do not understand why the colors are relevant. Rephrase.
  • The colors might suggest a royal claim or something along those lines, but none of the sources I looked at say that directly. In any case, that probably fits better in the article about Simon himself and feels a bit out of scope here. How about Simon bar Giora was captured after emerging from a tunnel beneath the destroyed Temple and brought in chains to Titus.? Mariamnei (talk) 13:01, 7 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • For his brother's birthday... Name his brother.
  • Introduce the Jordan as a river.
  • Meanwhile, Jerusalem was torn by civil war between John of Gischala, Simon bar Giora, and Eleazar ben Simon. Delete.
  • Tacitus described the siege as involving "six hundred thousand" besieged people of all ages and both sexes, remarking: "Both men and women showed the same determination; and if they were to be forced to change their home, they feared life more than death." Could you add a reference to a scholarly work to verify the direct use of a primary source?
  • Introduce Schwartz, Rogers, and Murison with one or two words.
  • ...refused to acknowledge Caesar as "lord"... Caesar? I think some explanation is needed for the religious background to this refusal.
  • The ideological background for the Sicarii’s actions is already addressed earlier under "Causes and motivations": historian Martin Hengel maintained that all factions rejecting foreign rule in the name of God's sole sovereignty could rightfully be included under this designation.[62][63] Hengel traced this view to the intensification of Torah concepts,[64] such as God's kingship,[65] first manifested by Judas' "Fourth Philosophy".[66] This ideology resurfaced in the revolt, especially among the Sicarii, led by Judas' descendants.[67] As for the wording, I've replaced "Caesar" with "emperor" to make it clearer for readers. Mariamnei (talk) 16:08, 7 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Jews are also believed to have first settled... By whom?
  • There’s strong evidence for a Jewish presence in those regions from this period, based on both archaeological and textual sources. The specific connection to the aftermath of the First Revolt is made by historian Moshe David Herr (already introduced earlier), so I’ve attributed the statement directly to him. Mariamnei (talk) 16:08, 7 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    • Herr notes that ... Delete. We can consider the subsequent statement as a fact based on archaeological evidence and written sources you mentioned above.
  • The Fiscus Judaicus' revenues were used to reconstruct the Temple of Jupiter Optimus Maximus on the Capitoline Hill, which had been destroyed during the civil war. This is mentioned in a previous section.
  • They were succeeded by the rabbis,... I am not sure that I understand it.
  • I rewrote that part to better explain the connection between the two groups: Though not all early rabbis were Pharisees, and they did not claim the label, Pharisaic teachings and practices were preserved by the emerging rabbinic movement. The house of Gamaliel—a prominent Pharisaic lineage whose descendants became leading rabbinic figures for generations—reflects the continuity between the two groups. Any thoughts? Mariamnei (talk) 08:25, 9 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Present Sukkot also in accordance with Gregorian calendar.
  • ...the covenant with God... Why not "the Covenant with God"? A link?
  • This doesn’t refer to a specific covenant like Abraham or Sinai, but rather to the general idea of the special relationship between God and the Israelites. So I guess lowercase “covenant” fits better here. Mariamnei (talk) 08:25, 9 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • The destruction may have contributed to the separation of Christianity from Judaism, possibly prompting early Christians... Attribute this PoVs to scholars.
    • Occurring soon after the deaths of James, Peter, and Paul,[543] and the Neronian persecution,[544] it led to the destruction... I would destruct the text before "it led to...".
  • @Borsoka: I re-read this section and realized it was a bit too vague, so I added a little more detail, but kept it as concise as I could! Where relevant, I also added attribution to specific scholars to clarify whose theories are being presented. Let me know what you think, and if anything feels like too much or should be trimmed. Mariamnei (talk) 08:25, 9 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I would still suggest to reduce the article's size by 10-15 percent. This could be an FA, but it is too large. Sections "Judean provisional government", "Vespasian's Galilee campaign", "Civil war and coup in Jerusalem" and "Siege of Jerusalem" could be radically shortened, as each has their own main article. Borsoka (talk) 10:29, 22 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Borsoka! following your suggestion, I went through and trimmed the article quite a bit. I moved a lot of material into the main articles, and if my math is right, I think I was able to cut about 900 to 1000 words. 😊
At this point, though, I'm honestly not sure what else can still be removed. I also checked a few other FAs on classical antiquity topics, and it looks like ours isn't too different from others: Augustus has 12,699 words, Cleopatra has 13,234, and the Diocletianic Persecution article is about 10,322 words, pretty close to where we are now (10,350). So maybe there's a little room for flexibility here? 😅
Of course, if you think there are still specific areas that could be tightened more, your advice and help would be welcome! Let me know what you think! 🌟 Mariamnei (talk) 20:43, 28 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Reminder for reviewer in case needed. Setergh (talk) 23:20, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for this thoroughly researched article. I passed it. Your could request a peer review for further ideas of improvement, and also an A-Class review at the WikiProject Military history before a FAC. Nice work. Borsoka (talk) 01:49, 16 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you so much, Borsoka, for the thorough review and kind words. I really appreciate all of the insights that you brought to the process, I have to say I learned a great deal along the way! I'll definitely take your advice and recommendations on the next steps. Thanks again! Mariamnei (talk) 09:20, 16 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:First_Jewish–Roman_War/GA1&oldid=1290674961"