# Talk:First Jewish–Roman War

This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): KaiArwas.
Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 21:26, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

Simple question: is this the best name for this article? I've always referred to it as 'The Jewish war' (maybe the 'first Jewish war' or perhaps 'The (first) Jewish revolt'. I'm coming from a scholarly Christian environment, so I'm particularly interested in how Jewish works refer to it. Hyam Maccoby refers to it as 'The Jewish war against Rome' - but I don't know how typical he is --Doc (?) 21:25, 17 August 2005 (UTC)

I don't remember where exactly I got the title from (Josephus?) but I thought it is common enough. I am not a scholar, though. Does First Jewish-Roman War sound better?
Unrelated to this, I think the article titled Great Uprising should be renamed into something more sensible. ←Humus sapiens←ну? 23:19, 17 August 2005 (UTC)
I've always known/referred to it as either the Jewish War or periphrastically as something like the Fall of Jerusalem or the Destruction of the Temple. Jewish War is also the standard English title of Josephus' work (I think we all have at least seen the Pelican translation, and most reading this probably own a copy). To be frank, I've never heard of "Great Jewish Revolt" in any context. I don't think Josephus ever referred to it this way. And speaking of Josephus's Jewish War, a major rehab is in order. This is an extraordinarily important work of history. --FourthAve 23:48, 17 August 2005 (UTC)
I'd be happy with  per Humus sapiens. Either that or 'Jewish War (66-73)' (but that may be too akward}. I'd prefer simply 'Jewish-War' (but would be confused with Josephus' work) or simply 'The Jewish-Roman War' but that might be confused with  Bar Kokhba. Any takers or objections to 'First Jewish-Roman War' then? --Doc (?) 22:15, 21 August 2005 (UTC)
I've tabbed and marked this as a proposed move to First Jewish-Roman War - I'll do it in a few days, unless someone objects, or beats me to it. --Doc (?) 11:50, 23 August 2005 (UTC)
This article has been renamed after the result of a move request. Dragons flight 18:27, August 28, 2005 (UTC)

I know I shouldn't but part of me wants to disagree just because it is taken from that prick Josephus- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg 04:50, 30 October 2005 (UTC)
Jewish-Roman War is misleading. In a vast majority of Jewish studies, it is most commonly known simply as "The Great Revolt" (e.g. Jewish Virtual Library).  Given that this was by far the largest revolt, and the biggest catastrophe for the Jewish people, it can easily be distinguished versus the remaining and much smaller revolts.  Britannica labels it as the "First Jewish Revolt".  Therefore I propose that we combine the two for context purposes to: The Great Jewish Revolt.  I am open for discussion, but according to my research, the term "War" to me signifies a group consensus and complete adoption, which it most certainly was not.  It was more of an uprising by the people, which more closely identifies with resistance as opposed to a more formally recognized declaration.

Ben-Yehuda does not challenge Josephus' account of a mass suicide by the besieged on Masada.  Rather, he refutes, by reference to Josephus, the modern mythologising that casts those besieged, and their group suicide, as heroic. Josephus, the "Masada myth" that Ben-Yehuda criticises, and Ben-Yehuda himself fully agree that the suicides took place.
So I have taken out the "this view has been challenged".  I left the reference in, though, because it applies even so.
Lonewolf BC 20:13, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
Ben Yehuda notes that the archaeological findings do not support the idea of mass suicide exactly since only a few remains were found. The view has also been challenged by others. Shaye Cohen noted that the story that the Romans breached the walls but waited until the next day to enter Masada is a bit fishy. [[Mewnews (talk) 00:23, 17 May 2009 (UTC)]]

If I was a Roman I would consider "Jewish success" to be biased, non-neutral, racist, bigoted. Just like 99% of WP. Happy holiday, MF's. Fourtildas (talk) 06:50, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

Is "Roman losses" any better, colleague? ←Humus sapiens ну? 07:16, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

This is becoming a perpetual habit of Wikipedia. J.D.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 205.68.95.65 (talk) 22:25, 11 February 2008 (UTC) 

The problem is that it is written mainly from primary sources (Josephus). It is not much help for inclusion in the relevant sections of Antisemitism and History of antisemitism. Itsmejudith (talk) 15:49, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
So correct it. Take, for instance, the X Fretensis: that legion was left in Syria by Julius Caesar (it was his favourite unit, take for example the famous signifer leap leading his troops ashore in Britain) during the Civil War well over a hundred years before, and although recruiting from the Minervois north of Narbonne in France (the area's modern name still recalling the Legion's tutellary goddess), it never moved, despite at least one major reorganisation. So the suggestion that it landed with Vespasian from Rome is just plain wrong, the legion's LXF stamp on all the Sephoris and Caesarea Maritime roof tiles dating from c30BCE show it was well implanted in Judea and all Vespasian did was call on the garrison force. Some reference works here: Caesar's Legion, Stephen Dando-Collins, ISBN 0-471-09570-2. Journal of Roman Archaeology Supplementary Series #60, Excavations on the Site of the Jerusalem International Comference Centre (Binyanei Ha'uma) ISBN 1-877829-60-1 {{isbn}}: Check isbn value: checksum (help).
A further point. Josephus is NOT a primary source. His entire commission from Vespasian was to take the primary sources, consolidate them, and write a warts-and-all history of the Jewish War with insider knowledge, and that makes him a very authoritative secondary source, not least because his study was vetted from a very modern viewpoint by Vespasian himself, who wanted to learn lessons from an external observer's criticism of his own failings. Some critics suggest Josephus spun his own role, but then what author does not put something of himself into his work? Indeed, almost all history is written from the victor's viewpoint. The warning suffices to allow us to take appropriate pinches of salt.
Tens of thousands on crosses around Jerusalem cannot possibly be accurate.  That number needs to be checked.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.237.189.192 (talk) 20:38, 25 October 2008 (UTC) 

Your source, please? This kind of subjective thinking is what's wrong here in the first place. The reason I'm not tackling it is that WP refuses to value primary sources, reducing itself to third-hand commentary by rejecting OR, which is too often used to mean "working from primary sources", and thereby falling victim to exactly this kind of subjectivity. A balance is needed, representing secondary sources where authoritative, placing them in the context of the primary references. And where authoritative secondary sources do not exist, then the primary sources should most certainly be used alone, but appropriately annotated and cross-referenced.
yes i do agree what you say because it would be fair to other people so ya i do agree with you
Why is Phaissees in the list of opponents when the word pharisees is listed only once this page?!   — Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.130.249.198 (talk) 20:39, 30 January 2012 (UTC) 

In addition to Antiquities, which is not very relevant, and Jewish War, Josephus wrote his "Autobiography" which is directly relevant and details fighting in the Galilee. This can be found also in the article on Josephus - at least that should be consulted! [[[User:Mewnews|Mewnews]] (talk) 00:27, 17 May 2009 (UTC)]

Seriously?  First off, there were pleanty of Jewish-Greek tenions prior to Caligula.  Second, Caligula reigned from 38-42 and the revolt wasn't until 66.  Third, Caligula's statue never went up in Jerusalem (Caligula period riots were over a Greek clay alter).  Fourth, Caligula's religous policy only varied in Rome (making Senators honor him as a God).  Augustus and Tiberius commonly referred to as a living god in the east already.

The image Image:Second Temple Destroyed.jpg is used in this article under a claim of fair use, but it does not have an adequate explanation for why it meets the requirements for such images when used here.  In particular, for each page the image is used on, it must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page.  Please check

That there is a non-free use rationale on the image's description page for the use in this article.
That this article is linked to from the image description page.
This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. --06:03, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

How are we able to call it the second temple, if there is no evidence for a first?  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Davidlwinkler (talk • contribs) 21:29, 7 August 2014 (UTC) 

Per WP:ERA, the use of CE vs AD as abbreviations after dates should not be changed without consensus. Both are equally valid, and the version already in use on an article takes precedence unless there is broad consensus to change. Recent edits that changed the abbreviations in this article from CE to AD were therefore reverted. IF there is a wish to change, then it must be discussed and an agreement reached between interested editors before this can proceed. Triona (talk) 10:26, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

Should remain CE/BCE.Greyshark09 (talk) 21:30, 30 January 2012 (UTC)
Should revert to and standardize on BC/AD in English language versions. 173.71.10.232 (talk) 19:28, 13 August 2012 (UTC)
BC/AD is valid only for Christian related articles, the rest is made per editor agreement, which in this case is CE/BCE.Greyshark09 (talk) 17:27, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

It is true that Bar Giora is often considered a Zealot. However in fact, he was leading a faction of his own, completely unrelated to the Zealot factions of northern revolt. Bar Giora's faction is often named "peasantry faction", and its role during the revolt was complicated. Initially Bar-Giora fought together with the main Judean government (Matityahu and Ben-Gurion), but upon defeat of Syrian army, he was not given an official position. He then turned a renegade bandit, leading his comrades to pillage the country-side in Hebron area. In the year 68, however, with the civil war in Jerusalem turning in favor of the Zealots, Bar-Giora was called by surviving elements of the Judean government, and succeeded to take much of the city from the Zealots. From then on, he functioned as one of the leaders of the Judean government and presented a strong counter-force to John's and Eleazar's factions. Further, upon the fall of Jerusalem, unlike John, who was sold into slavery, Bar-Giora was executed as "Jewish leader", recognizing his official role in Judean rebel government.GreyShark (dibra) 17:06, 2 November 2013 (UTC)

205.126.85.0 (talk) 21:30, 13 May 2015 (UTC)unsigned

Hello editors of this wiki article, I will be making changes to the "outbreak of the rebellion," adding more descriptions of the events that took place and people named such as Eliezar ben Hanania. I will also be adding events and views that motivated the Jews to revolt against the Romans. I will be using the Article, "Roman Domination," by Shaye J.D. Cohen as a secondary source. Please feel free to comment on my changes on this talk page or on my talk page. KaiArwas (talk) 18:56, 5 May 2016 (UTC)

The article is problematic because it is laden with grammar mistakes, missing citations, incorrect and missing information. The secondary source from our course that I plan to use to solve some of the problems is Lawrence Schiffman’s From Text to Tradition, Ch 9: “Revolt and Restoration.” I plan on using the secondary source as a point of comparison to find inconsistencies, fallacies, and mistakes and correct the Wikipedia article to be more truthful, well-rounded, and detailed in its portrayal of the event. I will first correct the mechanical issues within the Wikipedia article. For example, the sentence: “Josephus claims that 1,100,000 people were killed during the siege, a sizeable portion of these were at Jewish hands and due to illnesses brought about by hunger” is a run-on sentence and should have a period between “siege” and “a sizeable portion” or a conjunction to connect those phrases. This wikipedia article also fails to discuss the specs of how Jews adapted to Roman influence, so I plan to add more background on Jewish life under Roman rule. Jimmy19951 (talk) 04:13, 9 May 2017 (UTC)Jimmy19951
Jimmy19951 - what do you mean "from our course"? Wiki users don't know that. Why is this comment under the title "AD vs CE edits"? Why not add a new section to Talk Page? "fallacies, mistakes" - vague. What background do you have in mind? More concrete plans would be helpful. Chapmansh (talk) 22:07, 10 May 2017 (UTC)

"the Menorah and the Table of the Bread of God's Presence, which had previously only ever been seen by the High Priest of the Temple"
This is an error. The Menorah and the Table of the Bread of God's Presence were also seen by the other priests, not only the High Priest.
--ThePro (talk) 14:59, 30 May 2021 (UTC)

The Legio IIII Scythica is a common way of Writing the number of this legion in academic sources, and in the epigraphic records we have seems to be how the legion numbered itself. IV maybe the more common version of the number in general use, but in this context it is not necessary to change.Pipsally (talk) 08:12, 23 July 2021 (UTC)

Is 736 - 776 a different calendar or just the wrong date for the siege?
131.152.225.37 (talk) 07:07, 30 August 2023 (UTC)

Hello Mariamnei!
In edit , you added a footnote that depends on a citation for "Horbury 2016". However, there's no such  citation in this article and now the article has a referencing error. Are you able to provide the missing citation and clean up the error? -- mikeblas (talk) 00:29, 10 January 2025 (UTC)

Hey @Mikeblas! Looks like I got the year wrong. Just fixed it to 2014. Thanks for catching that! 😊 Mariamnei (talk) 11:46, 12 January 2025 (UTC)
Great, thanks for the fix! -- mikeblas (talk) 16:30, 12 January 2025 (UTC)

This review is transcluded from Talk:First Jewish–Roman War/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
Nominator: Mariamnei (talk · contribs) 11:00, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
Reviewer: Borsoka (talk · contribs) 02:03, 27 February 2025 (UTC)
GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

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: 

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: 

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): 

Is it neutral?
It represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each: 

Is it stable?
It does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute: 

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: 

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)

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)
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)
Image review

There are 38 pictures in the article, although it needs no more than 8-10 pictures.
Hey @Borsoka, I removed most of the images, but I believe the rest are kinda essential for a deeper understanding of the topic. Would it be okay if we keep them? I believe they add valuable context, but I'm happy to make adjustments if needed of course. Let me know what you think! Mariamnei (talk) 12:39, 12 March 2025 (UTC)
Do not use a gallery in the infobox, but choose one picture. A caption is needed in the infobox. Borsoka (talk) 01:47, 12 March 2025 (UTC)
Done! Mariamnei (talk) 12:39, 12 March 2025 (UTC)
File:19 Shrine of the Book 005 (cropped).jpg: the reliable source verifying the picture is missing at Commons.
File:Flavius Josephus, The Jewish War, Cologne, Ms. 163.jpg: US PD tag is missing at Commons. Borsoka (talk) 13:46, 19 March 2025 (UTC)
@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)
@Mariamnei: yes, I think the link to the museum's page would be an acceptable source, and you could add the tag yourself. Borsoka (talk) 01:23, 4 May 2025 (UTC)
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)
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".
Done! Mariamnei (talk) 12:39, 12 March 2025 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
Could you quote an example from the article here? Borsoka (talk) 15:02, 12 March 2025 (UTC)
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)
Now, I understand your approach. Can we be sure that all editions of Suetonius's Vespasian are divided into the same chapters and captions, etc? Borsoka (talk) 13:46, 19 March 2025 (UTC)
Modern sources generally follow the same paragraph numbering (minor variations can happen but not too often), so that usually isn't an issue. Mariamnei (talk) 14:21, 19 March 2025 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
The revolt has been identified by several scholars as one of the stages in the gradual separation between Christianity and Judaism. Borsoka (talk) 01:37, 4 May 2025 (UTC)
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)
Comments

I am missing a section about primary sources and their very short evaluation. Borsoka (talk) 01:47, 12 March 2025 (UTC)
You can find that in the section First_Jewish–Roman_War#Sources. Mariamnei (talk) 12:39, 12 March 2025 (UTC)
Sorry, I expected the sources' introduction at the very beginning of the article. Why did you place it at the article's end? Borsoka (talk) 13:02, 12 March 2025 (UTC)
I guess I wanted to present the historical narrative first and then discuss the sources that inform it. My thinking was that introducing the sources too early might interrupt the reader's flow of understanding. Do you think it would be more effective to start the article with the sources? Mariamnei (talk) 14:00, 12 March 2025 (UTC)
I will begin the text review, and after its finished, we could decide what is the better approach. Borsoka (talk) 15:02, 12 March 2025 (UTC)
During his siege of Jerusalem, Pompey entered the Holy of Holies... During or after the siege? Make it clear that the Holy of Holies is in the Temple. Mariamnei (talk) 10:42, 16 March 2025 (UTC)
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.
Done! Mariamnei (talk) 10:42, 16 March 2025 (UTC)
A Jewish delegation from Alexandria attempted to persuade the emperor to abandon his plan. Delete.
Done! Mariamnei (talk) 10:42, 16 March 2025 (UTC)
Introduce the Sicarii as Jewish radicals.
Done! Mariamnei (talk) 10:42, 16 March 2025 (UTC)
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.
Deleted! Mariamnei (talk) 10:42, 16 March 2025 (UTC)
..."freedom"... Why the quotation marks are needed?
Absolutely unnecessary, removed. Mariamnei (talk) 10:42, 16 March 2025 (UTC)
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)
...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)
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)
...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%. :)
Done! a total commitment to God's will and law,[55] rooted in figures like Phinehas, Elijah, and Mattathias,[56][57] Mariamnei (talk) 16:29, 19 March 2025 (UTC)
Introduce Hege with one or two words.
I assume you meant Hengel? Done! Mariamnei (talk) 15:33, 18 March 2025 (UTC)
...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)
Introduce Philip Alexander with one or two words.
Done! Mariamnei (talk) 11:10, 16 March 2025 (UTC)
Some scholars... Name one or two.
Changing to "Historian Jonathan Price wrote that"... Mariamnei (talk) 11:10, 16 March 2025 (UTC)
According to Jonathan Price, these ideas motivated Jews across the country to join the uprising. Delete.
Done! Mariamnei (talk) 11:10, 16 March 2025 (UTC)
Introduce Rajak with one or two words.
Done! Mariamnei (talk) 19:05, 16 March 2025 (UTC)
...critics argue... Name one or two.
Named Jonathan Price as an example. Mariamnei (talk) 15:33, 18 March 2025 (UTC)
Introduce Rogers with one or two words.
Done! Mariamnei (talk) 15:33, 18 March 2025 (UTC)
...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)
Introduce Goodman with one or two words.
Done! Mariamnei (talk) 15:33, 18 March 2025 (UTC)
...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)
Shorten by 50% the new text. :)
Done! Herod ruled Judaea as a client kingdom, taxed heavily, murdered rivals, controlled Jewish institutions, and fueled resentment. Mariamnei (talk) 16:29, 19 March 2025 (UTC)
Introduce Caesarea as a town.
Done! I used 'city' instead, which is a bit more accurate. Mariamnei (talk) 11:10, 16 March 2025 (UTC)
...that blocked access... To where?
to the synagogue, added. Mariamnei (talk) 11:10, 16 March 2025 (UTC)
..., 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)
...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)
Introduce the Sanhedrin with two or three words.
Done! Mariamnei (talk) 11:10, 16 March 2025 (UTC)
..., blocked by the crowd that severed the fortress-Temple link by destroying the porticoes,... Delete.
Done! Mariamnei (talk) 11:10, 16 March 2025 (UTC)
...,  the Jewish vassal king of Chalcis,... Delete.
Done! Mariamnei (talk) 11:10, 16 March 2025 (UTC)
Addressing the people alongside his sister Berenice,... I assume this is a reference to Agrippa's public speech.
Changed the text to say: Agrippa then delivered a public speech to the people of Jerusalem alongside his sister Berenice. Mariamnei (talk) 11:10, 16 March 2025 (UTC)
...paid the talents owed... I assume this is a reference to tax.
Replacing 'talents' with 'tax'. Mariamnei (talk) 11:10, 16 March 2025 (UTC)
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.
Changed to After failing to pacify the rebels, Jerusalem’s moderate leaders sought military assistance from Florus and Agrippa. Mariamnei (talk) 20:10, 18 March 2025 (UTC)
...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)
...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)
Who is Ananias?
Oops, looks like I accidentally removed it during the trimming! Adding back his title (ex-High Priest, father of Eleazar ben Hanania) Mariamnei (talk) 20:04, 18 March 2025 (UTC)
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)
...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)
...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)
...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)
Link and explain toparchy.
Done! Mariamnei (talk) 13:08, 16 March 2025 (UTC)
Introduce Stern with one or two words.
Done! Mariamnei (talk) 20:04, 18 March 2025 (UTC)
Introduce Smallwood with one or two words.
Done! Mariamnei (talk) 20:04, 18 March 2025 (UTC)
...where the Maccabees had once defeated the Seleucids,... Delete.
Done! Mariamnei (talk) 11:10, 16 March 2025 (UTC)
... Battle of the Teutoburg Forest... I would say "the Romans defeat by Germans in the Teutoborg Forest", or something similar.
Done! (rephrased to Scholars compare this defeat to the Roman defeat against the Germans in the Teutoburg Forest. Mariamnei (talk) 11:32, 16 March 2025 (UTC)
...and undecideds... Delete.
Done! Mariamnei (talk) 11:10, 16 March 2025 (UTC)
Some elite moderates fled to the Romans, while others stayed and joined the rebels. Could you name some of them?
Yes! Adding their names now. Costobar, Saul, and Philip (Agrippa's prefect). Mariamnei (talk) 20:04, 18 March 2025 (UTC)
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)
Borsoka (talk) 07:16, 15 March 2025 (UTC)

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)
...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.
On second thought it's probably not that important, removing it. Mariamnei (talk) 12:13, 22 March 2025 (UTC)
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)
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)
I was wrong. He is mentioned in a previous paragraph.
...the rejection of foreign authority and currency while... Delete "and currency".
Done! Mariamnei (talk) 11:36, 22 March 2025 (UTC)
...due to its forbidden images... Rephrase to make it clear that it was decorated with images in contradiction to Jewish religious practices.
Done! Mariamnei (talk) 11:36, 22 March 2025 (UTC)
According to Tacitus, "arms were available for all who could bear them". Delete or cite also a secondary source to verify the statement.
The secondary source appears after the next statement. I've added it directly after the Tacitus quote so it's clear which secondary source supports it. Mariamnei (talk) 11:36, 22 March 2025 (UTC)
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)
Introduce Ashkelon as a town still under Roman rule.
Done! Mariamnei (talk) 11:36, 22 March 2025 (UTC)
...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.
Done! Mariamnei (talk) 11:36, 22 March 2025 (UTC)
...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)
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)
Link to cohortes and alae?
Done! Mariamnei (talk) 13:16, 22 March 2025 (UTC)
...reportedly killed... Could you name the source?
That would be Josephus, adding. Mariamnei (talk) 13:16, 22 March 2025 (UTC)
...(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)
The city's population, divided into pro-revolt and pro-Roman factions, saw the pro-Roman faction prevail as the Romans approached. Delete.
Done! Mariamnei (talk) 11:36, 22 March 2025 (UTC)
The city was loyal to Rome, but soon switched allegiance and minted its own coins. Delete.
Done! Mariamnei (talk) 11:36, 22 March 2025 (UTC)
,...a priestly faction devoted to strict religious observance Delete.
Done! Mariamnei (talk) 13:16, 22 March 2025 (UTC)
The two factions... More than two factions are mentioned in the previous sentences.
Changed to The Zealots and the Idumeans... for clarity Mariamnei (talk) 13:16, 22 March 2025 (UTC)
...the rebel factions... Name them to avoid misunderstanding.
That mainly refers to the Zealots, so I've specified them. Mariamnei (talk) 13:16, 22 March 2025 (UTC)
..., 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)
...by paying for safe passage To whom?
To the Zealots and their factional allies, adding this to the article. Mariamnei (talk) 13:16, 22 March 2025 (UTC)
...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)
What about "...their God was letting..."? Borsoka (talk) 14:23, 4 April 2025 (UTC)
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)
...descended from Masada and raided the wealthy village of Ein Gedi... Why?
For money and supplies (the next sentence already mentions them looting homes and taking crops with them). Mariamnei (talk) 13:16, 22 March 2025 (UTC)
...they blamed for it... Delete.
Done! Mariamnei (talk) 13:16, 22 March 2025 (UTC)
Around this time... I assume this is based on archaeological evidence.
Yep! Just added a note to reflect that. Mariamnei (talk) 13:16, 22 March 2025 (UTC)
...the sectarian Qumran community... Delete "sectarian".
Done! Mariamnei (talk) 13:16, 22 March 2025 (UTC)
...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)
Introduce Lucius Annius with one or two words.
Done! Mariamnei (talk) 14:27, 22 March 2025 (UTC)
I do not find it. Borsoka (talk) 14:23, 4 April 2025 (UTC)
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)
Borsoka (talk) 07:54, 22 March 2025 (UTC)

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)
...great events were occurring... Rephrase.
Changed to As the Roman campaign in Judaea progressed, major political upheavals were taking place in Rome. Mariamnei (talk) 08:06, 5 April 2025 (UTC)
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)
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)
I think modern scholars' criticism should also be included in the article.
How about this version? Would using an  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)
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?
I rephrased it and clarified that it's Simon bar Giora. Mariamnei (talk) 08:06, 5 April 2025 (UTC)
...northern sections of the city I would delete "of the city".
Done! Mariamnei (talk) 08:06, 5 April 2025 (UTC)
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)
Introduce V Macedonica, etc as legions.
Done! Mariamnei (talk) 08:06, 5 April 2025 (UTC)
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)
Link "crucified" to Crucifixion.
Done! Mariamnei (talk) 08:06, 5 April 2025 (UTC)
I think the link should be added when the term is first mentioned as "crucified".
Fixed. Mariamnei (talk) 13:23, 7 April 2025 (UTC)
...—possibly based on Tacitus—... Delete.
Done! Mariamnei (talk) 08:06, 5 April 2025 (UTC)
As the Temple burned... Why not present continuous?
Changed to past continuous: While the Temple was burning.... Mariamnei (talk) 08:06, 5 April 2025 (UTC)
...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)
...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)
For his brother's birthday... Name his brother.
Done! Mariamnei (talk) 08:06, 5 April 2025 (UTC)
Introduce the Jordan as a river.
Done! Mariamnei (talk) 08:06, 5 April 2025 (UTC)
...for the Jewish defenders... Why the Jewish? Borsoka (talk) 14:23, 4 April 2025 (UTC)
It's important to mention this since the next sentence refers to the non-Jews living there, who weren't covered by the agreement and were killed by the Romans. Mariamnei (talk) 08:06, 5 April 2025 (UTC)
Meanwhile, Jerusalem was torn by civil war between John of Gischala, Simon bar Giora, and Eleazar ben Simon. Delete.
Done! Mariamnei (talk) 08:06, 5 April 2025 (UTC)
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?
Done! Mariamnei (talk) 16:09, 7 April 2025 (UTC)
Introduce Schwartz, Rogers, and Murison with one or two words.
Added brief identifiers for Schwartz and Murison. Rogers was already introduced earlier under "Causes and motivations," so I left that as is. Mariamnei (talk) 16:09, 7 April 2025 (UTC)
...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)
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)
Herr notes that ... Delete. We can consider the subsequent statement as a fact based on archaeological evidence and written sources you mentioned above.
Done! Mariamnei (talk) 17:39, 14 April 2025 (UTC)
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.
Definitely redundant, removed. Mariamnei (talk) 16:16, 7 April 2025 (UTC)
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)
Present Sukkot also in accordance with Gregorian calendar.
Done! Mariamnei (talk) 17:39, 14 April 2025 (UTC)
...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)
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: Done! Mariamnei (talk) 17:39, 14 April 2025 (UTC)
@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)
Why is not Justus of Tiberias's work an important source of the war. Borsoka (talk) 07:43, 6 April 2025 (UTC)
Ah, I accidentally deleted the part saying the work is now lost — that’s why it's not a major source. I've added it back. Mariamnei (talk) 16:08, 7 April 2025 (UTC)
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)

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)
Reminder for reviewer in case needed. Setergh (talk) 23:20, 3 May 2025 (UTC)
@Borsoka: All set on my end for now! I've shared all the original quotes and taken care of the pictures as well. Looking forward to your inputs! Mariamnei (talk) 20:30, 14 May 2025 (UTC)
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)

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)

Hi @Mariamnei: regarding your edit comments:

rev - Masada's fall did not happen "around the war's conclusion." in many works, the narration of the revolt ends with the fall of Masada, which is why 73/74 CE is typically given as the end date. Masada was the last rebel stronghold to be subdued, and its fall marks the end of resistance
rev - sorry, but I'm not seeing how removing the site being the revolt's last stronghold, along with the chronological placement after the fall of Jerusalem, is an improvement. That context is important, both factually and narratively. please check my comments elsewhere. Thanks!
rev - just to clarify: yes, the Sicarii are sometimes described as part of the broader Zealot movement. Of course, they weren't *The* Zealots (that would be Eleazar's faction), but they definitely fall within that field of groups often called that way, since they were inspired by the ideas of the Fourth Philosophy. If you're curious, Hengel goes into all of this in detail: The Zealots: Investigation into the Jewish Freedom Movement in the Period from Herod until 70 AD (1989). Worth a read!
rev, unfortunately not really an improvement! There's no need to separate Masada from the other strongholds, sources actually describe the capture of Masada as part of the broader Roman mop-up campaign (with Herodium and Machaerus). Masada was absolutely a rebel stronghold, in the sense that its inhabitants continued to resist Roman rule even after the rest of the province had been pacified. Throwing in another mention of the Sicarii to remind readers that this was the faction
The drafting should not be promoting Masada myth narratives (Sicarii=Zealots, Sicarii=Rebels in the War). The myth narrative had permeated a lot of popular works on this topic, and has been deconstructed by the last 30 years of scholarship.
On Sicarii=Zealots, Hengel’s work was published prior to the bulk of this scholarship – on the treatment of Sicarii / Zealots it does not represent the current consensus (frankly, as Hengel explains on page xvii, his treatment was down to his “belief” in the absence of any available evidence to disprove Josephus). 
On Sicarii=Rebels in the War, the same is true. Current consensus is now clear that the Sicarii were not participants in the wider war. This can be confirmed by reading Josephus’s narrative. Onceinawhile (talk) 18:36, 14 June 2025 (UTC)

@Onceinawhile The Sicarii they were absolutely rebels and very much part of the war. In 66 CE, their leader Menahem ben Judah (a descendant of the founder of the Fourth Philosophy, who had led an uprising against Rome in 6 CE) was one of the major rebel figures in Jerusalem. He brought weapons to support the revolt, taken from Masada after leading the assault that killed the Roman garrison stationed there. Under his leadership the Sicarii actively Roman forces inside Jerusalem, took part in the capture of Herod's Palace, and helped destroy the Roman garrison there. They only left Jerusalem after Menahem was assassinated, following what appears to have been a display of messianic pretensions, possibly signaling a claim to kingship over the now independent city. At Masada, they then had their own isolated, mini-state for several years. The biggest wave of arrivals there, btw, seems to have come during years 2 through 4 of the revolt, in 67–69 CE (see Rogers, 2022, p. 407). These new joiners weren't all Sicarii, many were just refugees from other parts of Judaea. It also seems that some Essenes from Qumran joined them in 68 CE (see Rogers, 2022, p. 408; Magness, 2019, pp. 3–4).
The Romans didn't consider the war in Judaea finally over until the last pockets of resistance, including Masada, were taken. In what I have seen, scholars consistently describe the siege of Masada as part of the Roman campaign to end the revolt, so saying it happened "around the war's conclusion" is definitely not aligned with the sources. About Hengel, yes, his work is a bit older, but I wouldn't dismiss it so quickly. His research on Zealotry in ancient Judaism continues to be cited today, and he's widely respected to this very day.
Just a few examples:
Millar (1995): "In the few years of the new-style province it also had to act still as an army of conquest, for major strongholds—Herodium, Machaerus and Masada—remained in rebel hands." (p. 77)
Magness (2012): "Finally, in the winter–spring of 72–73 or 73–74 (there is a debate about the exact year), the Romans arrived at the foot of Masada – the last Jewish stronghold." (p. 215)
Magness (2019): When introducing Masada, writes: "they were the last holdouts of the First Jewish Revolt against Rome" (p. 1); and "During the First Jewish Revolt, the rebels who occupied Masada…" (p. 67)
Rogers (2022): Writes that after the fall of Masada, "The war of Jews against Romans was over. Except it wasn't," and then he describes how some Sicarii escaped to Libya and stirred anti-Roman sentiment until they were executed for refusing to accept Caesar as lord (p. 428). For him, the Sicarii's activities in North Africa and the closure of the Temple of Onias in Egypt represent the final stages of the revolt.
Davies (2023): "The reduction of Masada in 73 or 74 CE is, strictly speaking, the final act of the revolt" and includes it in his overview of Rome's mop-up operations. (p. 100)
So honestly, the idea that the Sicarii weren't part of the war, or that the siege of Masada wasn't part of the revolt's final stage(s), just doesn't seem to hold up in recent history/archaeology/classics scholarship. If there's a newer, mainstream interpretation that truly challenges the consensus, I'd like to see it. But as it stands, this is what the best reliable sources support! Mariamnei (talk) 08:51, 15 June 2025 (UTC)


### Zealots
A series of quotes below that explain the need to tidy up our descriptions of Sicarii as Zealots:

Magness, 2019, Chapter 7 footnote 5: "Josephus, War 2.447–48. Smallwood 2001: 299 n.22, notes that Josephus’s use of Zealot to describe Menahem’s followers in War 2.444 (and only here) has caused scholars to confuse the sicarii at Masada with Zealots. For a discussion see chapter 8."… Chapter 8: "In one passage, Josephus describes Menahem’s followers as “Zealots” (War 2.444). This has created confusion as Josephus generally uses the term Zealots to describe other factions that were active during the revolt, including those led by Eleazer ben Simon and John of Gischala. Although many scholars have offered different solutions to reconcile these contradictions, most agree that Eleazar ben Yair and his group at Masada were sicarii. Nonetheless, Yadin’s consistent use of the term Zealots rather than sicarii to describe the dominant rebel group at Masada continues to cause confusion, not least among the many tourists who are told stories of the Zealots’ heroic last stand. It is unclear why Yadin chose to use the term Zealot, as he certainly knew about the contradictions in Josephus. Amnon Ben-Tor, a senior Israeli archaeologist who as a graduate student was an area supervisor on Yadin’s excavations at Masada, connects Yadin’s choice of terms with his aversion to a Jewish political group called Brit Habiryonim (the Strongmen Alliance), which was active in Palestine in the 1930s and 1940s. Members of this group considered themselves the successors of the sicarii and believed that the killing of Jews who collaborated with the British was justified—a position diametrically opposed to that of the Haganah, with which Yadin was affiliated (see chapter 9). The nature and even the very existence of the Zealots and sicarii are also debated by scholars."
Horsley, 1979, p.435-436 "One would think that Morton Smith's sharp rebuttal would have laid these misconceptions to rest, especially after Kirsopp Lake and Solomon Zeitlin had previously pointed to the lack of evidence for these notions. Unfortunately, they have become enshrined in important professional handbooks and dictionaries in the field. And influential scholars persist in their misreading of Josephus's accounts, still concluding that Josephus uses the terms zelotai, sicarioi, and lestai interchangeably for the Jewish rebel movement and labeling the Jewish "freedom movement" (whatever the differences between the separate groups) as "the Zealots." It is virtually impossible, argues Hengel, "to elucidate the often dark and uncertain representations of Josephus on the Jewish 'freedom movement.'" But Josephus is not that obscure in his reports. Generally speaking, the terms zelotai, sicarioi, and lestai refer to three separate phenomena. As Smith has made abundantly clear, Josephus knows the Sicarii and the Zealots as totally different groups, involved at different times and places during the Jewish revolt."
Brighton, 2009, page xiii: "In the course of my investigation I discovered that no comprehensive study of the Sicarii, the last defenders at Masada in Josephus’s Judean War (often and erroneously called “Zealots”), had yet been done."
Smith, Morton (1971). "Zealots and Sicarii, Their Origins and Relation". The Harvard Theological Review. 64 (1). Cambridge University Press: 1–19. ISSN 0017-8160. JSTOR 1508968. "…in the mid-fifties, when Roman control of the country began to disintegrate, made itself notorious by a series of murders of distinguished individuals. These won this party the name of "the Sicarii," by which Josephus consistently refers to it from this time on, but we cannot suppose that every assassin (sicarius) in Palestine was therefore a party member. All that we know of the party locates it in Judea, where the census was introduced and where Judas of Galilee presumably staged his opposition. Neither Josephus' detailed accounts of events in Galilee nor the Galilean material in the Gospels shows any trace of it, and the notion that it organized all the resistance to the Romans is unsupported by evidence and refuted by the lack of evidence. It is also refuted by the course of events, for the party played only a minor role in the war against Rome. In 66 it allied with that portion of the priesthood which had started the revolt, and its alliance enabled them to get control of the city. It also got control of Masada, which enabled it to recruit and arm a considerable number of troops. Relying on these, its leader, Menahem, attempted to take control of Jerusalem, but the priests who had started the revolution attacked him in the Temple and murdered him and most of his followers. In this they had the help of the Jerusalem demos. Most of the Sicari fled to Masada and there did nothing of importance for the rest of the war, nor thereafter, until the place was taken by the Romans in 73. A few remained at large and some of these escaped to Egypt and Cyrene after the war, but there too they failed to secure general support and were handed over or betrayed to the Romans. In all this history there is no evidence of any connection of these Sicari with the Zealots. The latter, as a party, did not come into existence until the winter of 67-68 (more than a year after Menahem had been murdered and his followers driven out). There had, indeed, been many individual zealots in the city before this time; they had formed an important element in the following of Eleazar ben Simon, and had posed a serious problem for those leaders who wanted a peaceful settlement with Rome," but there is no clear evidence that they yet formed a definite party, and Josephus in War IV.130-61 gives a full description of the formation of the party in Jerusalem, as a result of the common interest of the rural resistance groups who took refuge in the city when the Romans moved south from Galilee, but not before."
Onceinawhile (talk) 09:58, 18 June 2025 (UTC)

The scholarly debate seems to focus on the connection between the Sicarii and the Zealots, with some scholars considering them part of the broader Zealot movement/coalition, while other note that they were not not Eleazar's "Zealots," the only group to officially adopt that title, starting in 67-68.
Overall, as I said before, the Sicarii were a rebel faction, Masada was a rebel stronghold, and its fall was part of the war. Mariamnei (talk) 07:43, 22 June 2025 (UTC)
@Mariamnei: thank you for your patience. I have pasted below a number of quotes. They show that the Sicarii did not fight the Romans. Onceinawhile (talk) 22:26, 26 June 2025 (UTC)


### Sicarii as participants in the war
The answer here is a nuance somewhere in between the way we have both described it. I will pull some quotes to explain. Onceinawhile (talk) 09:58, 18 June 2025 (UTC)

Horsley, pp. 439 “In all cases the attacks by the Sicarii appear to be highly discriminate and always directed against fellow Jews, not against Roman soldiers or civilians.”
Zeitlin, 1965, p. 310 “We have the right to assume that since the Sicarri were in Masada for six and one half years and did not participate in the revolt, that their leaders must have put in writing some of their ideals and ideas to encourage their followers.”
Ben-Yehuda, p190 “Masada was gradually in the process of being socially constructed as a shrine for Jewish martyrdom and heroism. The “defenders” (or “Zealots”) of Masada (not the “Sicarii”) were portrayed as the last ones to hold out against the Romans, the last ones to give their life for the political independence of Israel. They could not be viewed as a questionable group of fanatics who were chased out of Jerusalem, who did not come to the aid of its defenders, who robbed and killed other Jewish settlements, and, when faced with a choice, who chose to “die in the end” rather than “fight to the end.””
Ben-Yehuda, p46-46 We have already noted that Josephus Flavius does not mention any battles around Masada or raids by the Sicarii on the Roman army. This is a strange and significant fact indeed. The impression one gets is that the Sicarii were not very belligerent, not interested in actually fighting the Romans. A few scholars have focussed their criticism exactly on this point. These are Zeitlin (1967) and Hoenig (1970,1972), both of whom point out that, indeed, the Sicarii did not fight. In Israel, both Kedar (1973, 1982) and Rotstein (1973) have joined this view. Zerubavel (1980:118-21) also notes that a minority of her interviewees (20 percent) said that this issue in the Masada narrative was problematic for them.”
Zeitlin, 1967 p.260, 265 “The Sicarii, after their leader Menachem was slain, fled to Masada to escape persecution by the Judaean authorities… First let me say that the word "defenders" used by Professor Yadin is historically wrong. The Sicarii did not defend Masada. They did not resist the Romans, they did not kill even one Romans soldier. They surrendered the fortress to the Romans by their suicide.”
Onceinawhile (talk) 22:24, 26 June 2025 (UTC)
Sorry, but Nachman Ben-Yehuda is a sociologist of the 20th century, we shouldn't rely on his work for the historical reconstruction of first-century events. The fact that the Sicarii didn't help other factions in the war doesn't mean they weren't revolting against Rome. It simply suggests they had their own agenda and didn't want to cooperate with the other groups. This makes sense, as they were likely the most radical faction (active against Rome long before the formal revolt erupted, as early as in the 50s CE) and clearly didn't get along with the other rebels in Jerusalem, they had their own thing going.
As for Zeitlin, his work is from the 1960s, which makes it quite outdated. You mentioned the deconstruction of knowledge from the past 30 years, so using such an old source doesn't seem ideal, especially given the many new articles about Masada and the Sicarii published since then. When Zeitlin mentions that the Sicarii didn’t participate, it likely refers to the time after their escape from Jerusalem, but prior to that, they were heavily involved. The quote from Horsley (1979) also seems to refer to a specific timeframe (again, the Sicarii did fight the Romans in both Jerusalem and Masada in 66 CE before their leader Menahem ben Judah was assassinated in Jerusalem, and I don’t think serious scholarship would deny that).
To sum it up, Ben-Yehuda is valuable for sociology but not for the historical reconstruction of this period. The other quotes, beside being 50 and 60 years old, appear to address only specific timeframes. They do not say the Sicarii never fought the Romans, but seem to refer to the period that followed their expulsion from Jerusalem.
The works currently used in the article to explain this topic, by Fergus Millar (highly respected 1995 work), Jodi Magness (2012, 2019), Guy Rogers (2022), and Gwyn Davies (2023), are all written by highly respected classicists, archaeologists, and historians actively working in the field, predominantly from the last 25 years. To this, we can add Guy Stiebel (2022), one of the most recent archaeologists to excavate there, who consistently refers to those occupying Masada as rebels (and refugees). With huge respect, I encourage you to explore more specialist, recent literature on both the Sicarii and Masada! 😊 Mariamnei (talk) 08:00, 27 June 2025 (UTC)
To that, I should add that by late 70 CE, the main phase of the war had largely ended, so much so that Titus and Vespasian were able to celebrate their triumph over the defeated Judaea in Rome in 71 CE. At this point, the Sicarii could have simply left Masada and resettled in villages across the almost-entirely-pacified Judaea; there would have been little to stop them from doing so. Unlike the later Bar Kokhba war, most of Judaea remained relatively unaffected and continued to prosper until the 130s. The people of Sepphoris, for example, chose not to participate in the revolt and surrendered to Gallus as early as 66 CE, and Tiberias and Capharabis, which surrendered to Vespasian during his campaigns (67–69), were not harmed. The rebels at Herodium also seemingly surrender so shortly after Jerusalem's fall. The fact that the Sicarii held Masada (a military stronghold) until 73/74 CE, and that the Romans left impressive siege works indicating there was no swift surrender, is a clear act of defiance and rebellion against Rome, one that could not go unpunished. And we shouldn't forget ideological motivation for their actions is backed by the fact that Sicarii refugees tried to spark Jewish uprisings against Rome in Egypt and Cyrenaica in the following years (likely laying the foundations for the Diaspora Revolt against Trajan in the 110s). Mariamnei (talk) 08:31, 27 June 2025 (UTC)
@Mariamnei: thanks for your detailed comment (and all the work you have done on these articles). Your dismissal of the evidence and sources appears to be well-poisoning, rather than based on sources of your own.
We are not disagreeing on the word rebel itself, but rather what the word rebel means in this context.
The easiest way to solve this is to read the original Josephus itself. No archeological finds have or could credibly shed material light on whether the Sicarii fought in the war. The weapons were not labelled with the identity of their holders. All the modern scholars are doing on this question is reading Josephus, with their own specific interpretations. I have read it many times and cannot see where it says the Sicarii fought the Romans in the war. If you disagree, perhaps you could show me where.
Onceinawhile (talk) 23:11, 29 June 2025 (UTC)
@Onceinawhile, thanks for your comment! But I have to say, everything I say is based on sources, suggesting that "The easiest way to solve this is to read the original Josephus itself" feels like it's exactly what Wikipedia doesn't encourage, bypassing well-established academic sources, like world-renowned scholars, classicists, historians, and archaeologists, and going straight to the ancient text.
That said, Josephus  does talk about the Sicarii fighting in the war in its early stages:
Sicarii fighting in Jerusalem: he [Manahem] became the leader of the sedition, and gave orders for continuing the siege, but they wanted proper instruments, and it was not practicable to undermine the wall, because the darts came down upon them from above. But still they dug a mine from a great distance under one of the towers, and made it totter, and having done that, they set fire on what was combustible, and left it; and when the foundations were burnt below, the tower fell down suddenly. Yet did they then meet with another wall that had been built within, for the besieged were sensible beforehand of what they were doing, and probably the tower shook as it was undermining; so they provided themselves of another fortification; which when the besiegers unexpectedly saw, while they thought they had already gained the place, they were under some consternation. However, those that were within sent to Manahem, and to the other leaders of the sedition, and desired they might go out upon a capitulation: this was granted to the king’s soldiers and their own countrymen only, who went out accordingly; but the Romans that were left alone were greatly dejected, for they were not able to force their way through such a multitude; and to desire them to give them their right hand for their security, they thought it would be a reproach to them, and besides, if they should give it them, they durst not depend upon it; so they deserted their camp, as easily taken, and ran away to the royal towers [...] But Manahem and his party fell upon the place whence the soldiers were fled, and slew as many of them as they could catch, before they got up to the towers, and plundered what they left behind them, and set fire to their camp. (The Jewish War, Book II, 17.8)
On how Masada was taken by the Sicarii: And at this time it was that some of those that principally excited the people to go to war, made an assault upon a certain fortress called Masada. They took it by treachery, and slew the Romans that were there, and put others of their own party to keep it. (The Jewish War, II, 17.2) In the mean time one Manahem, the son of Judas that was called the Galilean ... took some of the men of note with him, and retired to Masada, where he broke open King Herod's armoury, and gave arms not only to his own people, but to other robbers also. These he made use of for a guard, and returned in the state of a king to Jerusalem (The Jewish War, II, 17.8) This fortress was called Masada. It was one Eleazar, a potent man, and the commander of these Sicarii that had seized upon it. (The Jewish War, VII, 8.1)
Modern sources:
Rogers, 2022: In 66, however, Judas’s son Menahem became one of the leaders of the revolt against Rome, and Judas’s descendant Eleazar, possibly his grandson, was the leader of the rebels and, it turns out, of others on Masada. (pp. 66-67)
Rogers, 2022: Since Josephus had informed his readers that some of those who were most desirous of war had taken Masada from its Roman guards earlier that summer, Menahem must have gained access to Herod’s armory on Masada while it was being held by fellow insurrectionists—perhaps supporters of Menahem’s younger relative, Eleazar ben Yair. That might explain at any rate how Menahem gained access to Masada and its armory. In any case, after his successful raid and return to Jerusalem, Menahem became the leader of the revolution and took command of the siege of the royalists in the palace of Herod. ... After the royal troops and the natives had come out, the Romans were left alone inside, now in dire straits. Outmanned and having no faith in the word of their enemies, the Romans retired from their camp up into the royal towers of Hippicus, Phasael, and Mariamme at the northwest corner of the city’s “First Wall” and on the north side of the palace precinct. Menahem’s followers promptly broke into the palace, killed anyone they encountered, plundered the baggage that had been left behind, and set the Roman camp on fire. (pp. 152-153)
Rogers, 2022: In 66 Menahem and his friends had raided Herod’s armory up on Masada, looking for weapons to fight against the Roman auxiliary garrison in Jerusalem. After Eleazar and the sicarii seized it by some kind of tactical surprise attack, Masada became the refuge of the dagger-men and the last serious tactical challenge of the war for the Romans. (p. 407-408)
Let me set the record straight regarding what can be said:
1. The Sicarii are often described as rebels, so removing this label would not be accurate.
2. While the Sicarii were not technically the group called "Zealots" during the war, some leading scholars refer to them as part of the broader Zealot movement, or as sharing Zealot ideals, given their origins in the original Fourth Philosophy of the early first century CE.
3. Menahem, a Sicarii leader, played a key role in the early phases of the revolt and was responsible for killing Roman soldiers in Jerusalem.
4. After their escape from Jerusalem, the Sicarii did not actively participate in the fighting against the Romans until the events at Masada in 73/74 CE.
5. Describing Masada as a rebel stronghold involved in the Roman mop-up operations at the end of the war is correct. However, suggesting that it happened "around the war's conclusion" without acknowledging its direct connection to the war would be misleading. Mariamnei (talk) 07:46, 30 June 2025 (UTC)
Hi @Mariamnei: sorry it took me so long to respond here. I see you have nominated the article for WP:FA, so I will get back to you on this shortly so as not to hold up the nomination. Onceinawhile (talk) 06:49, 13 October 2025 (UTC)


### First Jewish–Roman War
I'm requesting a peer review for the First Jewish–Roman War article as I plan to nominate it for FAC status in the future. It recently received GA status (review), and it’s currently under ongoing WikiProject Military History A-Class review. Any feedback on structure, content, or citations would be greatly appreciated! Thank you!
Thanks, Mariamnei (talk) 13:03, 1 July 2025 (UTC)

I've been watching you work on this for a while now, and I'm glad it's time for me to look at it like I wanted to. Remsense 🌈 论 00:32, 2 July 2025 (UTC)

There several pending errors and warnings in the citations. For example,

#83 Smallwood 1977 p.288 does not exist. There is "Smallwood 1976" but I do not have the source to verify.
Oops, that was supposed to be 1976. Fixed, thanks! Mariamnei (talk) 20:36, 3 November 2025 (UTC)
"Bendlin, Andreas (2020)", Weksler-Bdolah, Shlomit (2020), and Zissos, Andrew (2016), do not appear to be cited in the main text, recommending to be moved to "Further reading" section.
All done! Mariamnei (talk) 20:36, 3 November 2025 (UTC)
Zissu, Boaz (2017) in the "further reading" section is actually cited in the main text so it should be in the "Modern Books" section. Well I hope this is not another possible spelling error since there is Zissos, Andrew (2016), both similar surname and publication year. Either way, double checking the sources is required.
Yep, these are two different authors and sources.. moved Zissu to "Modern books." Mariamnei (talk) 20:36, 3 November 2025 (UTC)
More than half of the references in Ancient Sources generate "Harv warning", because they are formatted as references but not cited in the main text. A solution would be to add the option "ref=none" in the reference format.
@A.Cython: I think I got it right: added "ref=none" to all of them. Did that fix the warnings? How can I make sure it's fine now? Mariamnei (talk) 20:36, 3 November 2025 (UTC)
My two cents.A.Cython (talk) 17:30, 3 November 2025 (UTC)

Yeap, no errors and no warnings. Thanks. Btw, great work, looking forward to reading it carefully. (one day)A.Cython (talk) 20:46, 3 November 2025 (UTC)
Yay, glad to hear that! So whenever you get the chance (no rush, haha, it's definitely a long read). Appreciate the kind words! Mariamnei (talk) 20:55, 3 November 2025 (UTC)