Masada mini series on DVD!

[Flavia Gemina]

I'm very pleased to see Caroline Lawrence here on the boards.

 

As a major collector of historical Roman fiction I have of course added The Roman Mysteries series to my collection a while ago. I was very pleased at the depth of research that went into each book and was quite entertained with the story as well. My little nephews love the copies I bought for them too.

 

I only wish the TV series was shown here in the States, from the tantalizing bits I've seen online they look very well done...

 

Thanks for those kind words. We are hoping to have news of US distribution after a big convention called Mipcom in Cannes next month. I'll keep you posted but we are hopeful for TV airing followed by DVDs!

 

Vale!

 

Flavia

[The Augusta]

Flavia's novel is of course a work of fiction, and doesn't focus entirely on Masada. But that one, poignant scene of the title character telling her personal story of a small group of Jewish survivors and their unlikely Roman rescuers, that alone makes Flavia's novel something I'd pay good money to see filmed and packaged in DVD.

 

Wow--that is refreshing! It's so nice to read an author who realizes that historical accuracy doesn't stop at knowing when Romans quit serving the dormouse--historical accuracy means conveying the whole context of events, not just the details. Also, I won't say that I'm surprised that this level of care was put into a "children's book". Rather I'm disappointed that more children's books aren't held to the standard that Flavia set.

 

BTW, I do agree with Vespasian Columbopolii that historical accuracy shouldn't be whole standard for judging historical fiction. But I do want to see the Romans depicted in a more favorable light--when they deserve it.

 

Great post. Not only does our Flavia give us such refreshing insights as this, but I remember when reading the very first of her Mysteries, where Flavia Gemina bought Nubia to save her from a terrible fate (even though perhaps the little girl did not entirely realise just what that fate would be for Nubia) I actually teared up and had a lump in my throat. And of course, Caroline wasn't just teaching the kids of today a moral lesson, she was actually telling it like it was. There is a wealth of evidence for the kind treatment of slaves by Romans - yet you will sometimes read scathing criticisms of such 'niceties' in novels. But this is rubbish.

 

As for depicting the Romans in a favourable light when they deserve it, this is one of the main bugbears I had with Manda Scott's Boudica series. We went back to the old stereotype of 'one good Roman' (a lovely chap called Corvus) amongst an army of absolute rats who had no morals at all. To be fair to Scott, she did try to address this by having a Briton change sides and told his tale far better (IMHO) than that of Boudica herself, but we were still left with an overall 'Braveheart' impression here. In fact, the final book closed with an epilogue about how a complete nation was lost with the defeat of Boudica. The novels, while enjoyable, seem to ignore totally the benefits brought to this little island by the Roman occupation, and to me that stood out like a sore thumb, as anyone who can bemoan the effects of Roman civilisation on Britain must be living in some sort of dream world!

 

It's the old 'Brian' sketch, isn't it? 'What did the Romans ever do for us?'

(See our Doc's wonderful signature for the evidence!)

[Ingsoc]

I'm not asking for the Romans to be depicted as all-good, but for their assault on the Masada to be placed in its proper, historical context--i.e., an assault on a group of murderous religious fanatics who had conducted terrorist operations against innocent Jews. In this context, you can have as many or as few Good Romans as you'd like, but at least it becomes clear what was at stake in purging Judaea of these zealots. Instead, the series depicts these backward, religious fanatics as heroic martyrs--which they most certainly were not--rather than as committed enemies of peaceful civilization and Hellenic enlightenment.

 

Let's not forget that most of our knowlege about the Sicarii and the Zealots are from the books of Josephus who goes out of his way to make them look as monsters and as a small minority who caused the war for apologistics reasons, not the best imparsial source...

 

If there is any doubt about the net beneficence of Roman rule of Judaea, just compare the progress of the region in the seven centuries of Roman rule (up to 638ish) to the seven centuries of rule by the Umayyads, Abbasids, and sundry Arab Caliphates. Just looking at Caesarea between the 7th and 9th century, one sees massive depopulation, the collapse of public buildings to the stone-robbers, and (most tellingly) the loss of the great Herodian harbor; by 1271, the previously magnificent city was a desolate wasteland of squatters. The fact is that Rome protected Judaea from Arab conquest, and the fools who camped out on the Masada were merely making enemies of their best hope for survival, prosperity, and progress. Oh, but then they wouldn't be religiously pure... idiots.

 

A somewhat idealist and naive view about the Roman rule, you make it's sound as the Roman expend their empire out of concern to those poor barbarians who live outside the spear of the benevolent Roman rule. In fact we know that in Judea (and other provinces for that matter) the Roman rule was extremly oppressive and tend to exploit the conquered people.

 

In addition to all that from the moment that Roman set foot in Judea they made it clear that in order to consolidate their rule their intent to strengthen the Hellenist population on the expence of the Jewish one, so not only that the independence of the people was lost (a thing that would make them took arms by itself) but Romans began a process which it's aim was to de-Judaize the country. obivously those things weren't in the best intrests of the local people.

[docoflove1974]

It's the old 'Brian' sketch, isn't it? 'What did the Romans ever do for us?'

(See our Doc's wonderful signature for the evidence!)

 

It's why it's my signature here...and I think one of the more poignant quotes (and entire scenes) from the film. My dad has almost completely given up on many documentaries on the History Channel because there is still a thread of "one good [whatever]" and I can't say that I blame him. It gets better, and then gets worse. You'd think that with all of the primary sources that we have, and continue to find, that "Hollywood" (as a concept, not just what comes out of La-La-Land) would change their ways. I guess it's all about what sells...or what they think sells.

[ASCLEPIADES]

A little historical accuracy, then:

 

"Flavius Josephus ... In his view, the Sicarians were religious fanatics, who belonged to the Zealot movement which he held responsible for the outbreak of the war and the destruction of Jerusalem. To stress this, he has composed a speech in which Eleaser son of Yair abjures his earlier ideas about the use of violence...The -admittedly dull- truth is that the people who occupied Masada, were neither religious literalists nor fanatic soldiers... Archaeologists have found the bones of pigs on the plateau, which does not point at people who were deeply attached to the Jewish faith. They also discovered the bodies of people who tried to flee from the violence. And it is not true that the Jews at Masada were the last to defend the freedom of Judaea; they were people who had to be killed in order to reinforce an ancient imperialist superpower's reputation of invincibility."

 

Sequitur Jona Lendering

[Gladius Hispaniensis]

I would have to agree with Ingsoc on this issue. MPC's post reminds me uncomfortably of a pro-Imperial Rome apologia, rather similar to what pro-British Indians before 1947 would never tire of reminding us about regarding the benefits of His Majesty's benevolence towards his less enlightened subjects.

He seems to uncritically accept a Jewish turncoat's account about the resistance in Judea, I wonder why? If one reads Josephus's account carefully one thing that becomes obvious is that the Zealot movement was hardly monolithic. Their in-fighting and factionalism stand out quite glaringly. Wouldn't it be reasonable to assume that there may have been different degrees of militancy among them? Why brand all of them as extremists? That would be rather like viewing an account of the French maquis in the last war through the eyes of a pro-Vichy collaborator.

The fact is that Rome protected Judaea from Arab conquest

That is a rather hard concept to grasp, not only because the Arabs were not on a conquering spree at that time, but also because the Romans actually installed an Idumean Arab usurper on the throne of David.

peaceful civilization and Hellenic enlightenment

Well, if you want to call desolation peace I wouldn't disagree with you, but Hellenic enlightenment, especially if brought about at the point of a gladius, can be viewed in different ways by different people. The sight of naked statuary would have been startling to culture in which sexual modesty was considered a high virtue. Also, we are talking about an era in which there was hardly any separation between the secular and the religious, at least as far as Jews were concerned, and this also extended to politics. This is something we have to appreciate and respect. The fact is that foreign rule per se was considered an abomination that clashed jarringly with the ideals of pre- Diaspora Messianic Judaism. It didn't matter in the long run how benevolent the Romans or the Seleucid brutes considered themselves, the fact was they were not wanted there, end of story.

I agree the Masada story has been glorified by secular Zionists and completely blown out of proportion, but that hardly justifies painting the entire resistance movement with the same brush either.

[M. Porcius Cato]

If there is any doubt about the net beneficence of Roman rule of Judaea, just compare the progress of the region in the seven centuries of Roman rule (up to 638ish) to the seven centuries of rule by the Umayyads, Abbasids, and sundry Arab Caliphates.

A somewhat idealist and naive view about the Roman rule, you make it's sound as the Roman expend their empire out of concern to those poor barbarians who live outside the spear of the benevolent Roman rule.

The naivet

[M. Porcius Cato]

MPC's post reminds me uncomfortably of a pro-Imperial Rome apologia, rather similar to what pro-British Indians before 1947 would never tire of reminding us about regarding the benefits of His Majesty's benevolence towards his less enlightened subjects.

Again, if I had wanted to say that Rome was 'benevolent', I would have said so. There is an elementary distinction between benevolence (goodwill) and beneficence (good deeds), and the understanding of history requires knowing that sometimes the second prohibits the first. Frankly, your post reminds me uncomfortably of the advocates for African independence who--in their zeal for home rule--failed to acknowledge that there are real costs involved in letting backwards, superstitious, illiterate tribalists control the government. Substitute Idi Amin for Elazar Ben-Yair.

 

He seems to uncritically accept a Jewish turncoat's account about the resistance in Judea, I wonder why?

Jewish turn-coat? Your tribalism is overwhelming. Do you really assume that by virtue of being born a Jew, admiration of Rome was impossible? I think we have here on this board many living counter-examples!

 

The fact is that Rome protected Judaea from Arab conquest

That is a rather hard concept to grasp, not only because the Arabs were not on a conquering spree at that time, but also because the Romans actually installed an Idumean Arab usurper on the throne of David.

Pure intellectual dishonesty: you quote me out of context and then direct your criticism at the ellipsis. I was talking about a period of seven centuries, and you talk about a blip.

 

peaceful civilization and Hellenic enlightenment

Well, if you want to call desolation peace I wouldn't disagree with you

Truly amazing. If you think that Caesarea was a desolation, I wish Rome had brought more desolations to the world.

 

but Hellenic enlightenment, especially if brought about at the point of a gladius, can be viewed in different ways by different people. The sight of naked statuary would have been startling to culture in which sexual modesty was considered a high virtue. Also, we are talking about an era in which there was hardly any separation between the secular and the religious, at least as far as Jews were concerned, and this also extended to politics. This is something we have to appreciate and respect. The fact is that foreign rule per se was considered an abomination that clashed jarringly with the ideals of pre- Diaspora Messianic Judaism. It didn't matter in the long run how benevolent the Romans or the Seleucid brutes considered themselves, the fact was they were not wanted there, end of story.

 

First, the notion that Hellenic enlightenment "can be viewed in different ways by different people" is banal pablum. The same could also be said of the code in Deuteronomy, which wasn't practiced voluntarily but was very much enforced by physical force. If you committed adultery in ancient Judaea (maybe because you didn't appreciate an arranged marriage), it didn't matter that you viewed the ancient code "in different ways"--the Jews stoned you. And, no, I don't have to appreciate and respect this arrangement--quite the contrary, I detest it and have withering contempt for its apologists. Second, the fact is that "foreign rule" is a constant in the ancient Mediterranean. I'm sure the pagan Philistines would have said that the Jews were not wanted there, either, yet you strangely think the "end of the story" only comes in what was desired by the Jews living under Roman rule. Finally, anti-Hellenic Jews--such as the terrorists on the Masada-- were not the only people who lived in the region. For the Hellenizing factions (esp Samaritans) and for people like Josephus, Roman rule was a blessing.

[ASCLEPIADES]

Nietzsche said, "The Romans were the strongest and most noble people who ever lived."

But this is just the problem.

What Nietzsche admired was unapologetic power, conquest, and domination.

This no longer seems so admirable.

(Yes, you're right, it's the Friesian School speaking)

Ah, and "Flavius" Josephus was no more no less than a learned Quisling.An obnoxious scoundrel if there was ever one.

[M. Porcius Cato]

Nietzsche said, "The Romans were the strongest and most noble people who ever lived."

But this is just the problem.

What Nietzsche admired was unapologetic power, conquest, and domination.

This no longer seems so admirable.

 

An interesting observation a propos of absolutely nothing being discussed here. The argument I've advanced against the zealots on the Masada in no way rests on the idea that the Romans were the "strongest and most noble people", but that they were the conduits of Hellenism, urbanization, trade with the West, and security from Eastern conquest. These fruits did not spring merely from physical power--if that were sufficient, the Huns would have left a trail of flowers in their wake rather than a trail of tears, blood, and ashes.

[ASCLEPIADES]

Nietzsche said, "The Romans were the strongest and most noble people who ever lived."

But this is just the problem.

What Nietzsche admired was unapologetic power, conquest, and domination.

This no longer seems so admirable.

 

An interesting observation a propos of absolutely nothing being discussed here. The argument I've advanced against the zealots on the Masada in no way rests on the idea that the Romans were the "strongest and most noble people", but that they were the conduits of Hellenism, urbanization, trade with the West, and security from Eastern conquest. These fruits did not spring merely from physical power--if that were sufficient, the Huns would have left a trail of flowers in their wake rather than a trail of tears, blood, and ashes.

Touch

[Gladius Hispaniensis]

Substitute Idi Amin for Elazar Ben-Yair.

And why would I want to do such a thing? On the basis of a one sided account written by Flavius Josephus? I don't think so. Let us use the WWII analogy again. How would one judge the character of a maquis leader based on an account written by a member of Marshall Petain's staff?

Jewish turn-coat? Your tribalism is overwhelming. Do you really assume that by virtue of being born a Jew, admiration of Rome was impossible? I think we have here on this board many living counter-examples!

This has nothing to do with tribalism. Admiration for Rome or Greece does not make one a traitor just as admiration for Britain didn't make traitors of Gandhi and Nehru. However, changing sides during combat after witnessing your comrades paying the ultimate sacrifice, and on top of everything ingratiating one's self with an enemy commander by an obsequious and absurd interpretation of an ancient prophecy, does indicate a turncoat. If it does not then may I ask what is a turncoat in your vocabulary?

Pure intellectual dishonesty: you quote me out of context and then direct your criticism at the ellipsis. I was talking about a period of seven centuries, and you talk about a blip

Ahh. So we misunderstood each other. Fair enough. Let us talk about seven centuries then. How exactly did they protect the Holy Land from the Arab invasions? By suffering defeat after humiliating defeat and being physically ejected from there?

Truly amazing. If you think that Caesarea was a desolation, I wish Rome had brought more desolations to the world.

One swallow does not make a summer. Caesarea might not have been a desolation, but Jerusalem, Jotapata, and a series of other towns certainly were. One might also add that Pompey's gratuitously insulting entry into the Holy of Holies and massacre of priests peacefully performing their services has been taken by many as a fulfillment of Daniel's "Abomination of the Desolation". How, in your opinion, was Roman rule any more peaceful than the enlightened rule of kings like David and Solomon?

As for the rest of your post, I don't really want to get into a chicken-or-egg discussion about who was there first and what the original inhabitants thought about Hebrew settlement in the area. Suffice it to say that all civilizations and cultures throughout history have resorted to colonization and conquest but the point is that people that resisted such conquest certainly do deserve our admiration, whether they are Philistines of the Old Testament or Jews of the Seleucid and Roman eras.

Your resentment at the Deuteronomy laws is certainly understandable, but the Romans evidently did little to ameliorate the situation. The Sanhedrin was still allowed to apply capital punishment in cases of adultery and blasphemy - witness the stoning of Stephen and St. James. Even if they did abolish the right of the Jews to punish their own offenders, what would they have offered as a substitute? Parricides being thrown into the sea with a sack containing a dog around their faces? Rebels being scourged and crucified in their thousands? Prisoners being buried alive or ritually strangled to appease some deity or another? Fathers exercising their right to indiscriminately have their slaves and offspring executed?

I await your answer.

Edited September 8, 2007 by Gladius Hispaniensis

[M. Porcius Cato]

Suffice it to say that all civilizations and cultures throughout history have resorted to colonization and conquest but the point is that people that resisted such conquest certainly do deserve our admiration, whether they are Philistines of the Old Testament or Jews of the Seleucid and Roman eras.

I think this is ultimately the root of our disagreement. In my view, the Hellenic values of reason, humanism, and representative government (whether held by Greeks, Romans, and Jewish "turn-coats") deserve greater admiration than mysticism, tribalism, and theocracy, and those who promote these latter values (whatever their ethnicity) deserve no admiration.

 

I await your answer.

If we agree that the defenders of the Masada were no heroes, we have little else to discuss in this thread, which is veering off into an 1800-year history of Judaea, which has its history written in Hebrew, Greek, Latin, and Arabic and its record scattered across a mountain of archaeological and numismatic material. If you want to follow up on a wider discussion of Roman Judaea/Syria Palaestina, then I'm happy to discuss each of your challenges in turn--from the question of Josephus' credibility as a source to the question of the effect of Roman rule on the urbanization of Judaea--in a new thread.