No Jewish Diaspora

  • Thread starter Deleted member 1487
  • Start date

Deleted member 1487

What would have been the effect if the jews were not moved out of the middle east and after the last revolt, just suppressed. Eventually the Romans would leave, but would the jews be able to establish an empire after they left? IIRC they had a population of about 3 million after the revolt, so as a populous people they might have been able to continue to expand and dominate a relatively large portion of the coast. Maybe a trading empire? I have heard thoughts that the arabs would overrun them eventually, but that would be hundreds of years down the line. Any chance this could be preempted?
 
Not really. Syria Palaestina was never a homogenously Jewish territory, so unless the government gets away with the near-genocidal policies of the early Hasmonaeans, they'd have their hands full keeping the lid on the goyyim. Also, given the presence of several empires in the region, it is hard to see how they could amount to anything more than a client state even if. After all, the Romans never 'left' the Levant, they lost it to the Arabs who took over the machinery of government lock, stock and barrel.

Another thing to bear in mind is that the diaspora predates the revolts. Aside from the prestige of having the Holy Land and the Temple, the Jewish communities of Judaea, Galilee and the surrounding areas had little to recommend them compared to the more learned, more cosmopolitan and infinitely richer communities in Alexandria, Babylon, Adiabene and Cyprus.
 
They´d be a minor community in Israel, like the mandaeans in Iran and Iraq, or something like that.

However, it could be a nice POD, since it would have massive butterfly effects.

Imagine: Story of the western world with no jews. That means another scapegoat will be found, and also a lot of historical persons that changed a lot of things are gone.

However, the first jewish community in Rome was founded before the birth of christ, so it´s hard to stop them leaving Israel. Rome, Alexandria and other cities are bound to tempt some of them.
 

ninebucks

Banned
Perhaps if there were different personalities were involved, the theological differences between Judaea and Rome wouldn't escalate to such an extent as to culminate in the rebellions.

Then, by the 500s-600s, the Romans would begin repatriating Jews from throughout the Empire back to Judaea and the other Near Eastern provinces as the loyalty of other ethnicities becomes suspect.

Of course, eventually, Imperial influence will wane and Judaea will come under the influence of the Arabs, and Judaism will be reduced to a footnote in anthropology books as a minor folk religion of the Levant.
 
What would have been the effect if the jews were not moved out of the middle east and after the last revolt, just suppressed. Eventually the Romans would leave, but would the jews be able to establish an empire after they left? IIRC they had a population of about 3 million after the revolt, so as a populous people they might have been able to continue to expand and dominate a relatively large portion of the coast. Maybe a trading empire? I have heard thoughts that the arabs would overrun them eventually, but that would be hundreds of years down the line. Any chance this could be preempted?

I don't think it's possible they had a population of 3 million at the time - I would be astonished if the region was capable of supporting a population that large. Maybe there were three million Jews total in the world, but even that seems like a huge number. In any case, was there not already a large diaspora by this period?
 

Deleted member 1487

I had read in a History of the Jewish people's book that there were about 4 million jews in the region at the time of the roman 'genocide' that killed about 1 million and scattered another 1.5 million throughout the roman world. I don't know how accurate the book was, but I was shocked that the Romans were able to kill some many.
 
*All* population figures for the ancient world must be consumed with a large grain of salt. 3 million is in tune with to the maximalist figure, which assumes that the Roman Levant was home to between 10 and 20 million people. This is possible, but definitely on the upper edge. The correspoding minimalist assumption is 2.-3 million for the Levant and 3-4 for Egypt. The actual hard data on which these figures are calculated is practically nil. Therefore we can say with certainty that the Romans found plenty of Jews living in the Levant and killed a whole lot of them, but also left a great deal alive. What that is in absolute figures - who knows? But it was a massacre by ancient standards, thus no minor affair.

And I think your idea of an independent Jewish state stands a better chance if you go about it the other way - avoid the unrest, make the Hasmonaeans a better and less mutually lethal dynasty. They could end up like Palmyra or Hatra.
 
I hate to be a killjoy but a possibly flawed premise is the concept that smaller states on Rome's border could survive in the long-term, barring a much more powerful ally close at hand or powerful defenses and probably both. In the earlier days Rome had many client states on the shifting border yet ultimately all of them were absorbed. There was also the possibility of offending Rome, with Rhodes as the classic example.

Armenia had a strong military tradition, exceptionally rugged terrain, and Persian support on the border yet found it difficult to survive at times. Judea could not have had the second or third and the first would inevitably have reflected a smaller area/population base.

Even if we assume that the Jews somehow earn special favor from one emperor you still have a puny state of less than a million, perhaps far less, with Roman borders north and south, a series of Roman clients to the east and southeast, no allies within reach AND serving as the one great blot on Rome's utter control of the Mediterranean, said control being vital to Roman trade and commerce. Considering how the island of Britain wound up being conquered to give a dull and accidental emperor a bit of prestige...

As to population the entire Roman Empire is believed to have peaked at 60 million, with Egypt having between 20-25 percent of that total. Given the massive inherent advantage of the Nile River leading to easy population control and exploitation of wealth, Egypt has always dominated the region in population.

As an example, with all of the modern technology and oil wealth which might even out the situation, Egypt has almost twice the population of Lebanon, Syria, Israel, Jordan, the Palestinians, Iraq AND Saudi Arabia combined to this day.

In the halcyon days when conversion was common there may have been as many as five or six million Jews throughout the empire but one wonders how sincere many of them were and how many, having converted in living memory to Judaism, found Christianity more appealing. Also the number is probably wide open to interpretation and could be cut in half without any difficulty. Certainly the tiny Jewish state, comparable to the West Bank in size, couldn't have had more than one million people, probably far less.

Recall that the size of Roman client state was because Rome gave a large piece of land to expand the state. Then took it away soon afterwards.


One more plausible way might be to destroy the Hasmonean dynasty, the reputed family of Matthias and his son, Judah Maccabee. By any objective standard of power the revolt against the Seleucids was deranged and the success seen as divine support, leading to most unfortunate attitudes when another vastly more powerful empire(Rome) came along.

The Seleucids were not very powerful and were a dying empire facing not only a puny Jewish revolt but a vastly more powerful Parthian revolt.

The success of the Parthian revolt left the entire Seleucid Empire smaller than the former Parthian provinces, by the by. Not to mention that the Parthians only briefly stopped the pressure for more territory. With such events in the east it should be no surprise that other local revolts were able to succeed. Unfortunately religious fanatics convinced so many Jews that this was divine intervention rather than success due to the ruling empire being smashed by not one but two more powerful states(Rome AND Parthia).

Note also that what little the Seleucids did manage to send against them was impressive enough that the Hasmoneans considered survival to be miraculous.

If the Jews had simply waited and quietly armed another 10-15 years without the revolt it is likely they would have regained a state by default.

So...if a lucky band of Seleucids were to kill Matthias and all of his sons and key followers early on, might the result be a more prudent Jewish society?
 
I remember that when emperor Octavian had the Roman people counted, they got 50 millions in the whole empire - half of them in Europe, the rest in Asia and Africa. So 3 millions are a bit too much maybe, but not that much.
 
I remember that when emperor Octavian had the Roman people counted, they got 50 millions in the whole empire - half of them in Europe, the rest in Asia and Africa. So 3 millions are a bit too much maybe, but not that much.

The figure Octavian actually quotes is only that of Roman citizens, and it is doubtful how that is to be understood. 50 million is an extrapolation based on at best shaky premises, though probably not unrealistic.
 
Top