If patterns can be recognized in historical events and their validity widely demonstrated, these patterns could be used to direct the search for missing facts or to strongly infer facts that cannot be recovered from the historical record. Crane Brinton has documented a common pattern in the English revolution of the 1640s, the American Revolution, the French revolution and the Russian revolution. This paper will extend the applicability of that model by showing that the Jewish revolt of 66-70 AD falls within the pattern of revolution elucidated by Crane Brinton. Middle-Eastern History Leading Up To The First Jewish Revolt In 66 AD The first thread which can be discerned in the tapestry of history forming the pattern leading up to the Jewish revolt is the laws of Moses which established a monotheistic faith and a priestly class. The traditions of the period of the first Jewish conquest of the area of Palestine which became the Jewish homeland, see Fig. 2 below, established a strong belief that their God would defeat any enemy if only they obeyed his laws. The custom of priestly rule over the Jews was established after the Persian period. Their monotheistic belief and tradition of priestly rule shaped a history for the Jews, which was different from that of their neighbors in the Middle East. Judaea was one of the areas of contention between the Greek successor states of the Ptolemies of Egypt and the Seleucids of Mesopotamia. Under the dominion of the Greeks, the elite of Judaea acquired a veneer of Greek culture. The monotheism of the Jews restricted their absorption of Greek ways to the elite and strongly alienated the lower classes. The attempt of the Seleucid King Antiochus IV Epiphanes to eliminate the Jewish religion in 167 BC resulted in the revolt of the Macabees. This episode led to a lasting suspicion of foreigners and foreign customs on the part of the farmers and shepherds of Judaea. The Hellenization of the priestly upper class and the dislike of foreign influences remained a part of Jewish culture up to the time of the revolt. The Macabeean revolt established the Hasmonaean dynasty in power in Judaea. John Hyrcanus, grandson of the founder of the dynasty ruled Judaea as high-priest from 135 to 105 BC. His conquest of the Idumean Arabs, see Fig. 1 below, and their forcible conversion to Judaism initiated the chain of events which led to the establishment of two competing aristocracies in Judaea. Rome came to the Middle East to stay in 66 BC with Pompey's expedition against the Mediterranean pirates and the countries that supported them. Pompey incorporated the Seleucid Rump State of Syria into the Roman Empire and intervened in a succession dispute within the ruling family of Judaea to conquer Jerusalem. He installed Hyrcanus, the elder Hashomodean brother as client king. The history of Judaea from this time until the revolt is the story of its increasing integration into the Roman Empire and sporadic Jewish revolts against perceived and real Roman attacks on their religion. During the Roman civil wars leading up to the establishment of Cæsar as dictator, Julius Cæsar entered Egypt to settle the Egyptian succession with forces that proved to be inadequate. Antipater the Idumean adviser of Hyrcanus brought Jewish and Roman reinforcements to Cæsar who was besieged in Alexandria. Cæsar rewarded Antipater with the procuratorship of Judaea. Antipater's son Herod put down Jewish fundamentalists rebels in Galilee. Herod was confirmed as King of Judaea on his successfully switching sides after the defeat of Antony in the civil wars leading to Octavian's establishment of the principate. Herod, a half-Jewish, half-Arab Idumean, appointed Arabs to all of the positions of power in his kingdom. Herod taxed heavily and spent lavishly, both on his own building program and on bribes to prominent Romans to maintain his power. He paid a mercenary army to maintain order. On Herod's death in 4 BC, the Jews started a revolt against foreign (Roman) influence whose suppression required all of the royal forces. Josephus makes it clear that this revolt was a popular uprising against Roman cultural influence in Judaea by saying that "those who desired innovations . . . lamented those that were put to death by Herod, because they had cut down the golden eagle that had been over the gate of the temple." The Romans subsequent attempt to secure Herod's treasury provoked a Jewish response whose suppression required all of the Roman legions in the east. In 6 AD Herod's son Archelaus was banished and Judaea became a Roman province governed by a procurator who was subordinate to the governor of Syria. Small kingdoms were reconstituted for Herod's grandson, Agrippa and great-grandson, Agrippa II, but after 6 AD Judaea was usually under direct Roman rule. Although the aristocracy of Judaea had petitioned Augustus to be governed by Romans, this did not end conflict between the Romans and the xenophobic, lower class, Jewish fundamentalists. The procurator Pilate was induced to remove the images of Tiberius Cæsar from Jerusalem by passive resistance and put down a Jewish protest over his using temple funds to build an aqueduct with force. Caius Cæsar (37-41 AD) sent Petronius with three legions to place his statue in the temple at Jerusalem. A revolt was only avoided by the timely death of Caius. Under Claudius, disturbances were caused by a Roman soldier mooning the worshippers at the temple in Jerusalem and another burning the book of the law. Josephus recorded that by the reign of Cæsar Nero fundamentalist terrorism had become widespread in the countryside and had moved into the cities. The target of these terrorists was the aristocracy who cooperated with Roman rule. His description of these terrorist attacks is familiar to students of modern history, "there sprang up another set of robbers in Jerusalem which were called Sicarii, who slew men in the day-time . . . The first man who was slain by them was Jonathan the high-priest, after whose death many were slain every day." The Pattern Of A Revolution Crane Brinton carefully defined a revolution as the "drastic, sudden substitution of one group in charge of the running of a territorial political entity by another group hitherto not running that government" and added the proviso that this substitution must be by "an actual violent uprising or "some other kind of skullduggery." He limited his study to "'democratic' revolutions" or revolutions which "have a social or class . . . basis." He found a pattern, which he refers to as "commonalties" in the four modern revolutions that he analyzed. Brinton notes that "the American Revolution does not quite fit the pattern and is therefore especially useful as a kind of control." This pattern will be described and compared to the events of the Jewish revolt of 66 AD. Brinton noted that a revolution could be divided into three phases: the pattern of events leading up to the revolution, the revolution itself, and the aftermath. Precursors of Revolution The pattern of events leading up to a revolution contains several elements that are present in combination. An economic upturn creates an aura of rising expectations. The government is clearly inefficient. There is bitter class conflict between almost equal upper classes. The intelligentsia and the upper class who normally support the government are alienated by its incompetence. Revolution Revolution occurs when government applies force to put down social unrest. The force applied, like the government that applies it, is inept and fails in its objectives. The failed use of force is a turning point that sets up the revolutionaries in power. The revolutionaries are upper class moderates who take charge of the revolutionary government. Outside pressure, mandating a "government of national salvation", and class conflict enables a lower class radical movement to overthrow the moderate upper class government and kill the upper class or drive them into exile. The radical government suspends normal governmental procedures and protection for individuals. It implements a special police force and courts that are answerable only to the radicals. The radicals begin a reign of terror to enforce their ideology. Brinton noted that in this phase, "The little band of violent revolutionists who form the nucleus of all action during the terror behave as men have been observed to behave . . . under the influence of active religious faith." This observation is especially significant in regard to the Jewish Revolt where these violent revolutionaries, Zealots, give their name to the genre of violent, unreasoning religious fanatics. The revolutionaries consume each other in the reign of terror until the revolution ends. Aftermath Revolutions change society a lot less than revolutionaries would hope. After the revolution, society settles back into the old pattern with a shift toward a more diffuse exercise of power. Power becomes somewhat more diffused but life goes on mostly as before. We shall now examine how the Jewish revolt of 66 AD fits into this pattern. The Jewish Revolt In 66 AD the Roman procurator of Judaea, Gessius Florus, provoked the revolt by confiscating temple funds, probably to pay arrears of the tribute. Elezar, son of the high-priest Ananias, and the temple priests refused to sacrifice on behalf of the Roman emperor. Josephus observed, "And this was the true beginning or our war with the Romans." Florus called in the Roman legions led by Cestius Gallius, governor of Syria to put down the revolt. Cestius suffered a serious defeat near Beth-horon in October 66 and retreated to the coast. The rebels were then in control of the territory. A Jewish elite of the Sadducee and Pharisee sects directed the revolt. Josephus, son of Matthias, a Pharisee and author of the history of the wars, was given command in Galilee, Gamala, and Gaulanitis. He defeated an attempt by the extremist, John of Gischala, to oust him and take leadership of Galilee. In 67 AD the Roman general Vespasian led 60,000 Roman legionaries into Galilee. After praising the discipline, training, and equipment of the Roman army, Josephus says that his Jewish army "fled, not only before they came to a battle, but before the enemy even came in sight." Josephus with a remnant of his army defended the fortified city of Jotapata. The Romans captured Jotapata after a siege of forty-seven days in the summer of 67, and the remainder of Galilee shortly thereafter. In 68-69 Peraea and Judaea were captured with a 12-month pause after the death of Nero. Jerusalem was devastated by a vicious civil war between the radical John of Gischala, with Idumean allies, and the aristocratic leaders of the rebellion. Jerusalem was captured in 70 AD by Titus, son of Vespasian who had now become the Roman emperor. During the fighting, Jerusalem suffered the destruction of the Jewish temple and massive destruction to the inhabitants and structure of the city. The last flames of revolt were extinguished with the fall of the Zealot fortress of Masada in 74 AD. DOES THE JEWISH REVOLT FIT THE PATTERN? The first Jewish revolt will be compared in detail to the pattern of more modern revolutions noted by Crane Brinton. Precursors of Revolution Economic Upturn Economic data is not available for Judaea for the period before the revolt, but from a number of factors an economic upturn can be strongly inferred. Herod the Great acquired seaports for Judaea and built Caesarea, one of the best artificial harbors on the eastern Mediterranean coast. Inclusion within the Empire gave Judaea access to wide markets for manufactures and foodstuffs. The income of Herod the Great was about 40 million denarii per year, equal to about one tenth of the estimated total budget of the Roman Empire. At this time the tax burden on subjects of the Roman Empire averaged about 3.5% of the Gross Domestic Product, or 15 sesterces (3.75 denarii — about two dollars in modern money) per subject. The frequent laments over Herod's taxation do not quantify the tax burden on Judaea, but the conversion of his kingdom into a Roman province and the end of his grandiose building spree must have greatly lowered the tax burden on Judaea. The Roman peace, access to good harbors on the Eastern Shore of the Mediterranean and relief from the taxation of Herod the Great created an economic upturn in Judaea. The world had widened for the hellenized Jewish priestly elite but someone else was reaping the benefits. The economic precursor to revolution was in place. Inept Government One of the most important precursors to a social war is an inept government. Inept does not mean oppressive, corrupt, or lax. Inept means incompetent at maintaining internal peace, collecting taxes, resolving disputes, and the other normal functions of government. Both Josephus and Tacitus, who have opposing views on most other issues, agreed that the Roman Procurators of Judaea were incompetent. Normally Roman Procurators were of the Senatorial rank, occasionally of the Equestrian class. Procurators of Judaea were imperial appointees, usually of low social rank, occasionally freedman, always with no understanding of the peculiar problems of Judaea, and seldom with any experience at governing. Their objectives were to collect the tribute, enrich themselves, and prevent complaints about their administration from reaching the emperor. But the problems in the governance of Judaea were deeper than incompetent corrupt procurators. Rome normally governed newly acquired provinces through her support and maintenance of the pre-existing provincial elite. In exchange for Roman military muscle when needed, the local elite used their wealth and prestige within the community to collect tribute, maintain order and generally provide the bureaucracy that Rome had not evolved at this time. Rome expected to find a provincial aristocracy whose power was based on wealth and family prestige, like the senatorial class of Rome. In Judaea Rome found a class with the power and prestige that was required to govern successfully based on the priesthood — not wealth. However, Roman ethnocentrism did not permit them to recognize this power class. They chose instead as their partners in government the few wealthy landowners found in the country, although their level of wealth was below that of the Roman senatorial class. Unfortunately these landowners had, for the most part, been appointed by Herod the Great and were Idumeans (Arabs) and despised by the Jewish population. They did not have the power and prestige required to perform the function Rome expected of a provincial elite. This crippled the effectiveness of the best of the procurators of Judaea, and many of them were not the best! Class Conflict The Jews, at the time of the first revolt, had a tradition of being ruled by high-priests of the tribe of Levi extending back to the time of Moses -- with unfortunate periods of foreign or royal rule. Josephus makes it very clear in his autobiography that the upper class of Judaea, those, who had the prestige necessary to lead their fellow countrymen, were of the priestly elite -- and that he was a member of that elite. But in the period before the revolt another aristocracy had been created. Herod the Great was an Idumean, half-Arab half-Jew. The old priestly aristocracy of Judaea opposed Herod in the civil war between himself and Antigonus the heir of the Hasmonaean dynasty. When Herod had won the civil war with Roman help Josephus says that ". . . Herod, now he had Jerusalem under his power, . . . spoiled the wealthy men of what they possessed; . . . He also slew 45 of the principal men of Antigonus's party." Herod destroyed many of the aristocratic priestly families, confiscated their wealth, and gave their estates to Idumaeans or foreigners. Thus two aristocracies uneasily shared power in Judaea; the new landed wealthy created by Herod, and the older priestly aristocracy who were threatened by them. Josephus did not emphasize this split in the aristocracy in Judaea. At the time of his writing he had joined the new elite who sided with the Romans in the revolt and his former compatriots of the priestly elite were gone. He did record that the early, moderate aristocratic leaders of the revolt, including himself, were of the priestly elite and that the property of the Herodian nobility was destroyed in the initial violence in Jerusalem. In the revolution the priestly class used the xenophobia and religious fanaticism of the lower class farmers and herdsmen to drive out both the Romans and Herod's new aristocracy. Alienation Of The Upper Class Rome had few troops in Palestine; therefore stable rule was dependent on the cooperation of the local leaders. Josephus records that at the beginning of disturbances in Judaea "John, and twelve of the principal men with him, went to Florus . . . and besought him to help them . . . but he had the men seized upon, and put in prison." This undercut the local elite's position as community leaders and forced them to abandon their support of the government in order to maintain their power base (influence) with the people. Thus the inept government of the procurator had broken down the normal provincial governing structure and forced the aristocracy to join the revolt for self-preservation. In Brinton's model, the precursors for revolution were in place waiting for a spark. Revolution Inept Use Of Force To Put Down The Revolution The spark was the procurator Florus' massacre of Jews in the upper market of Jerusalem in response to protest against his removal of 17 talents (about 35,000 ounces of silver -- $200,000 at today's prices) from the temple treasury. The subsequent massacre of the Roman cohort left in Jerusalem after its surrender to the Jewish rebels convinced the Jewish aristocracy that their only chance of survival was to lead a successful revolt against Rome. Cestius led the legions based in Syria to a Siege of Jerusalem but Josephus records that "he retired from the city, without any reason in the world" when the rebels were on the point of surrender and suffered a humiliating defeat at the hands of the Jews on his retreat out of Judaea. These two bungled attempts to use force to put down the revolt match the start of active revolution in Brinton's model. Moderate Revolutionary Government The failure of the use of force to put down the rebellion left Judaea in the hands of a moderate, priestly elite led by Eleazar, son of Ananias the high-priest and composed of members of the Sadducee and Pharisee sects. An attempt by Menahem, leader of the zealots, to gain power at this time was defeated by Eleazar. The (subsequent) historian, Josephus, son of Matthias, a Pharisee, was given command in Galilee, Gamala, and Gaulanitis. He defeated an attempt of another radical, John of Gischala, to take power in Galilee. The priestly nobility retained control of the revolution until Vespasian had put down the revolt in Galilee. This reconquest was the crisis, which empowered the radical "government of national salvation", which takes control during the "crisis" phase of revolution in Brinton's model. Convinced that the revolution was on the point of failure, the Idumeans helped the radical John of Gischala, take control of Jerusalem. John instituted a revolutionary reign of terror. He sent his supporters to loot and kill the moderates who had been in control of the revolution. Josephus says: "They were scourged, racked, tortured, and finally killed -- 12,000 of the young nobility." The Zealots murdered the wealthy Zacharias when a jury of his peers refused to convict him on a false charge. In short, John instituted the reign of terror predicted by Crane Brinton's model of a revolution. John led "The little band of violent revolutionists who form the nucleus of all action during the terror" and acted "as men have been observed to behave . . . under the influence of active religious faith." But John did not win a complete victory; the revolutionary moderates (priestly nobility) called in Simeon and his followers to combat John. The result was a violent civil war within Jerusalem between moderate and radical revolutionaries, which continued with those unspeakable atrocities on both sides, which the twentieth century has taught us to expect from the righteous until the utter destruction of both factions by the victorious Romans. Aftermath The Romans retook Jerusalem. The revolutionaries/revolters were killed outright, enslaved, led through the streets of Rome in the triumph of Titus, or killed in the circus in the cities of Palestine and Syria as an object lesson. Some of the revolutionaries who escaped the Roman reconquest of Judaea started revolts in Egypt and Cyrene, which were easily suppressed. The Romans eliminated the Jewish elite. However, this did not end the resistance of Jewish fundamentalists to outside influence and Roman rule. Unrest broke out again under Trajan and under Hadrian that led to the Jewish Diaspora of 133 AD whose consequences have echoed down through the ages and influence world politics today. The destruction of the temple during the siege of Jerusalem ended the temple cult of Judaism and gave rise to rabbinical Judaism. There was no-longer one center for the Jewish faith but many. DOES THE JEWISH REVOLT DOES FIT CRANE BRINTON'S MODEL? Precursors of Revolution The bitter class conflict in the Jewish revolt was between the old Jewish elite whose prestige was based on the priesthood and the new aristocracy appointed by Herod. Racism or race hatred embittered this conflict. The Herodian aristocracy was composed of Idumean Arabs or foreigners. The priestly aristocracy was very careful to preserve and authenticate the purity of their Jewish descent and contemptuous of those not of pure Jewish blood. The procurator's refusal to accept the intercession of the Jewish nobility undercut their influence with their constituency and forced them to abandon their support of his government. The new, Herodian aristocracy fled to join Herod's grandson, Agrippa II and the old priestly nobility took control of the revolt. The pattern of events in Judaea leading up to the first revolt matched the pattern in Crane Brinton's model for the precursors to revolution. The economic upturn was represented in Judaea by the opportunities presented by the Pax Romana. The required inept government was provided by the Roman failure to recognize and support the Jewish leaders who had the influence to maintain order. In Judaea the class conflict between nearly equal upper classes was represented by the old priestly nobility and the new Herodian aristocracy. The final element in the pattern was the alienation of both groups of aristocracy by Florus' incredible inept handling of the crisis. The revolutionary phase of the Jewish revolt followed the model closely. The inept use of force, initially by Florus and Agrippa II, resulted in the surrender and retreat of the royal forces and the massacre of the Roman Cohort in Jerusalem. The subsequent unexplained retreat of the governor of Syria from the walls of Jerusalem when he was near victory and his defeat and flight out of the province gave Judaea to the rebels. This certainly qualifies as the inept use of force to put down the revolution in Brinton's model. Conformity with the model for revolutions continued during the revolutionary phase with the initial establishment of a moderate revolutionary government by the priestly elite lead by Eleazar. The subsequent reign of terror by the followers of John of Gischala with the suspension of normal governmental protection of individual rights and the destruction of the aristocracy in Jerusalem during a "reign of terror" was predicted by Brinton's model. The failure of John of Gischala to win complete control of Jerusalem seemed to be outside the model. But Brinton himself pointed out that there was an apparent deviation from his model in the American Revolution in which there was no reign of terror and no shift of power from the moderate aristocracy who initially controlled the revolution until the election of 1800. Fitting the aftermath of the revolution into Brinton's model, which requires a political shift to the left, is somewhat more problematical. The Romans did win a complete victory. The rebel leaders and 1,197,000 of their followers died or went into captivity during the conflict. The Roman Empire did not become more democratic, nor did the government of the province of Judaea. The second Jewish revolt proved that dissatisfaction with Roman rule continued after the revolt just as before. What did change was the Jewish faith. The Jewish temple cult died with the destruction of the Temple in 70 AD. Jews the world over could no-longer buy forgiveness for their sins by sending the appropriate sacrifice to the priestly nobility in Jerusalem. Rabbinical Judaism replaced the temple cult. Instead of one world center in Jerusalem, the center of Jewish religious life shifted to the synagogue in each Jewish community. This diffusion of religious power from the priestly elite in Jerusalem to the multitude of local Synagogues fits well into Brinton's model for the aftermath of a revolution -- and the Jewish revolt of 66 AD has a greater religious content than the modern revolutions that he analyzed. We can conclude that the Jewish revolt of 66 AD does fit into the pattern of a revolution elucidated by Crane Brinton. His model for revolution provides a useful structure for understanding the Jewish revolt and placing the events described by Josephus into a coherent framework. Tessa Rajak notes, "a modern reader of Josephus can hardly fail to remark that the events he describes . . . accord particularly well with the scheme proposed in . . . Crane Brinton." PROBLEMS WITH THE MODEL While the first Jewish revolt fits surprisingly well into Brinton's model for a social revolution, the model itself requires some development to broaden its applicability. The model is specifically for social revolutions that result in a broadening of the exercise of power, but there are many other types of revolutions that share many of the same characteristics. The Spanish and German revolutions of the 1930s and the triumvirate of Octavian, Antony, and Lepidus in 43 BC included class conflict, the replacement of inept governments, reigns of terror and other elements of the model, but resulted in a greater centralization of power. The moderate colonial aristocrats who began the American Revolution did not lose control to a small group of fanatics who instituted a reign of terror as the model predicts. These examples do not invalidate the model but they do point to the requirement for a more complex model. The techniques for developing, testing and applying models which have been formalized and widely applied in the decades after the publication of Brinton's work could be profitably applied to revolutions to create a tool for inferring areas of history which cannot be recovered by other means. This would require a more rigorous definition of the model and the detailed analysis of many revolutions to validate it. Map Back to Cry Havoc #31 Table of Contents Back to Cry Havoc List of Issues Back to MagWeb Master Magazine List © Copyright 2000 by David W. Tschanz. This article appears in MagWeb (Magazine Web) on the Internet World Wide Web. Other military history articles and gaming articles are available at http://www.magweb.com