Talk:Bar Kokhba's revolt

(moved from Talk:History of anti-Semitism) (moved from Talk:Hadrian)

Hadrian [...] raises a new temple to Jupiter on the ruins of the Second Temple.

This is standard operating procedure in the Roman religion: you tear down opposing holy sites and build your own temple on top of their ruins. No evidence this was motivated by anti-Semitism, that I can see. Indeed, the whole section seems only partially related to anti-Semitism, falling into the more general category of "history of nasty stuff done to Jews". I'm less sure about this, but wasn't collective punishment such as decimation a standard Roman technique too? Our article on Hadrian doesn't suggest that he was anti-Semitic. Perhaps it should, if we're going to be making that accusation here. Martin 23:05, 7 Jan 2004 (UTC)

The only thing that suggests Hadrian was anti-Semitic is his ban on circumcision, enacted (I think) before the revolt, and its truth is debatable -- the only source that reports the ban is rather dubious. His actions after the revolt were unquestionably hostile towards Jews, but he had reasons other than a hatred of Jews qua Jews. (For reading on this, and ancient anti-Semitism in general, I recommend the essay "Anti-Semitism" in Antiquity: The Problem of Definition, by Shaye J. D. Cohen, in History and Hate: The Dimensions of Anti-Semitism (ed. David Berger).)

Err, and attacking Judaism as a religion could be seen as anti-Semitic, I suppose, but again the issue is cloudy; the Romans made conquered barbarians worship Roman gods as a standard practice of Romanization, and the vast majority of said barbarians, being polytheists, didn't object too loudly. --MIRV 23:58, 7 Jan 2004 (UTC)

AFAIK, circumcision (brit-milah) has utmost religious importance in Judaism. Hadrian loathed it, and forbade this mutilation (as he called it) on pain of death. I'm not sure how far his projects of pagan temple advanced _before_ the uprising, but that's secondary. For what he did before and for his inadequate response to the uprising, he well deserves a place in the roaster. Humus sapiens 08:09, 9 Jan 2004 (UTC)

brit milah is indeed an important Jewish ritual. However, one cannot presume that every person who dislikes circumcision is anti-Semitic. It may be that Hadrian loathed circumcision because it was a Jewish ritual because he loathed the Jews. However, he may have loathed circumcision for other reasons. Further, note that we're not even sure that Hadrian did ban circumcision, as MIRV states. Martin 19:27, 9 Jan 2004 (UTC)

Hadrian's dislike of circumcision (assuming that the Augustan History can be trusted -- Antoninus Pius did rescind a ban on the practice, but it's not clear that said ban was originally Hadrian's) may have been based on anti-Semitism, or it could have been part of a general Greco-Roman dislike for mutilation of the body (especially the male body) -- the ancient Greeks detested such mutilations, and Hadrian was strongly influenced by Greek thought and culture. --MIRV 19:44, 9 Jan 2004 (UTC)

I've moved the content from history of A-S here, and left a stub to point to this article. Feel free to improve it radically. I wasn't sure about the title - perhaps "Hadrian in Judea" would be better? Martin 23:55, 9 Jan 2004 (UTC)

---

numbers

(580,000 Jews were killed, 50 fortified towns and 985 villages were razed)

Where did these numbers come from... trying to estimate WW2 numbers is often controversial, let alone numbers about stuff that happened 2000 years ago. User:GeneralPatton

I returned them back, with attribution. Got to admit, I haven't read C.Dio myself, but at least 2 reputable sources that I've got right here & now refer to him. --Humus sapiens|Talk 05:19, 11 May 2004 (UTC) Both include these same numbers. --Humus sapiens|Talk 05:40, 11 May 2004 (UTC)

About all we can do is attribute - sometimes people do research papers working up a more plausible guess, based on population, grain shipments, or whatever, but then you'd still want Dio's number alongside. Stan 05:30, 11 May 2004 (UTC)

Ancient sources are generally unreliable when it comes to numbers; they tend to inflate Roman military exploits with exaggerated numbers. --GeneralPatton 02:10, 13 May 2004 (UTC)

Headline text

Philistines long extinct???

What is the basis for this assertion? According to the Philistines article the place seems to have been continuously inhabited up to Roman times. "Nebuchadnezzar II of Babylon eventually conquered all of Syria and the land of Canaan, and the Philistine cities became part of the Neo-Babylonian empire. Subsequently the cities were under the control of Persians, Greeks, and Romans, and 'Philistia' was governed as a territory."24.64.166.191 04:46, 16 May 2005 (UTC)

They vanished as a people. Their neigbors stopped identifying them (and they stopped identifying themselves) as such. A typical story for an ancient people. ←Humus sapiens←Talk 06:04, 16 May 2005 (UTC)

Most people identify themselves as members of some people/tribe/nation and only stop identifying themselves if they assimilate into some other people/tribe/nation(s). Were the Philistines assimilated into some other people/tribe/nation(s)?

I remember being taught that the Mayans were extinct (in your sense) but on a trip to Yucatan I found that the native Mayans didn't think so.24.64.166.191 04:33, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Your teacher was obviously wrong, the Mayans are not extinct as you have observed. This is not the case with the Philistines.--Doron 07:12, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)