Garrison of Jerusalem - AD30

[Caius Fabius]

www.livius.org/jo-jz/judaea/judaea.htm<br>
<br>
this seems to be the relevant link????? <p></p><i></i>

[Anonymous]

<br>
I'm working on a novel that takes place in 4BC in Palestine, which is fairly close in time to this discussion. I hope it's all right to use this thread to ask a few questions. My impression is that members of this board are knowledgeable and I can really use that knowledge.<br>
<br>
The scene I'm working on is one in which Roman soldiers are trying to capture a small band of bandits, or brigands as they're sometimes referred to, in the hills near Nazareth. A helpful person on a Roman Army Web site said I could have two contuberniums go after the bad guys--I want to keep the number of people fairly small. But now that I'm ready to write the scene, it occurs to me that I have more questions which are going to sound embarrassingly basic, so be patient.<br>
<br>
What I need to know is how on earth would the Romans go about capturing the bad guys? Would the soldiers be on foot? Or would they have used the cavalry? (According to Josephus, there would have been one cavalry unit comprising 500 men at the time, as well as 5 infantry units totalling 2,500 men. Paula Fredriksen in "Jesus of Nazareth" agrees with these numbers, saying the Judean prefect would have had 3,000 troops garrisoned with him in Caesarea). Would it be possible to use some cavalry and some infantry?<br>
<br>
What weapons would they have used? The Pompeii sword and a javelin? Could an archer or two be thrown in the mix? (I told you these questions would be basic!)<br>
<br>
Any help will be most appreciated.<br>
bd23<br>
<br>
<br>
<p></p><i></i>

[Anonymous]

I would say use two contubernia armed with gladii (swords) and pila (lances). Have the centurio detach a squad of Syrian archers for the operation, too.<br>
<br>
Then work it like a sting operation. Use a lightly (or no) guarded mini-caravan laden with all kinds of booty to lure the bad guys out of their den.<br>
<br>
Then kill them!!!!!!!!!!!<br>
<br>
Look up on Google some articles on how Julius Caesar caught the pirates harrassing the Italian coast to get a feel for the bait-and-strike method of catching brigands. <p><BR><p align=left><font color=gold><font size=2>
_______________________________<BR>
MILES CASCA TARQVINIVS GEMINVS<BR>
<a href=http://www.legio-ix-hispana.org> LEG IX HSPA COH V CEN VIII CON III </font></font><BR>
<font color=gold><font size=2>
VIRES ET VALOR PRO GLORIA ROMAE<BR>
_______________________________</font></font></p><i></i>

[Anonymous]

<br>
<br>
What a great reply! I love it, and will definitely check out Caesar's method. Thank you so much.<br>
<br>
I have another question. How old would a young man be when he joined the Roman Army--could he be in his late teens? And could this young man who started out, say, in the infantry, work his way up to centurion? How long would that take? Could a Syrian archer ever become a centurion even though he was an auxiliary soldier?<br>
<br>
Thank you so much for the most excellent help.<br>
Barbara D.<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<p></p><i></i>

[Anonymous]

In 4 BC, 17, was the average age of an enlistee, but there were cases of boys as young as 14 acting as pages to prepare them for military service. If you want to add a little spice, make a couple of the legionaries Israelites who want citizenship. That'll cause some interesting rifts between those who want to be full citizens and those who want independence.<br>
<br>
To work up to centurion from a simple miles, I don't know. I would guess that would take around 12 years...maybe fewer if he were a really good soldier.<br>
<br>
Auxiliary troops <i> normally</i> would advance to command other auxiliary troops, but they wouldn't attain centurion status. However, as in everything else, there were exceptions where an auxiliary trooper might actually gain patricianship through some act of extreme gallantry, and then he could become a high-ranking officer. <p><BR><p align=left><font color=gold><font size=2>
_______________________________<BR>
MILES CASCA TARQVINIVS GEMINVS<BR>
<a href=http://www.legio-ix-hispana.org> LEG IX HSPA COH V CEN VIII CON III </font></font><BR>
<font color=gold><font size=2>
VIRES ET VALOR PRO GLORIA ROMAE<BR>
_______________________________</font></font></p><i></i>

[Caius Fabius]

You could also buy citizenship, perhaps with the proceeds of some interesting candlesticks, taken from some temple. Depending on the time and place, there are several examples of people who were not born Roman citizens having the positions of higher command in the auxiliaries. Some auxiliary units were awarded citizenship for bravery or simply supporting the winning side in a civil war. I don't see in my quick scans of materials any non-citizens commanding Legion troops, but I am sure there will be exceptions to any "hard and fast" rule, if we look hard enough. <p></p><i></i>

[Theodosius the Great]

Avete,

For some reason, I'm only able to see the first two posts from this old thread.

Well, I watched "Ben Hur" (1958) again recently and was wondering about Judea and Jerusalem during the time of Christ (20-30s AD)

From reading about the Roman Near East in the 30s and before, my understanding is that the garrison was basically made up of Herod's royal troops after he died and that they were organized into cohorts (six ?). And as such, they would have been under the command of tribunes.

So, Jerusalem itself would've been under a tribune's direct control, while the province of Judea was controlled by his superior (the prefect) based in Caesarea, is that right ?

So, that part of the movie was correct, about having a tribune controlling the garrison in Jerusalem ?

However, the parts that show legionaries is wrong (anacronistic). They were auxiliaries and presumably Jewish for the most part, stationed in the Antonian fortress. If true, I doubt there would've been much friction between them and the civilian population or at least there would have been more had they been pagans.

Thoughts ? Corrections ?

[Carlton Bach]

From reading about the Roman Near East in the 30s and before, my understanding is that the garrison was basically made up of Herod's royal troops after he died and that they were organized into cohorts (six ?). And as such, they would have been under the command of tribunes.

They were auxiliaries and presumably Jewish for the most part, stationed in the Antonian fortress. If true, I doubt there would've been much friction between them and the civilian population or at least there would have been more had they been pagans.

I think that was the theory, but I doubt it worked. This is one of those group psychology things - if a Roman garrison moves into Jerusalem and pushes around the locals, that is what you expect. It's what filthy foreigners do. But if Jews do it on their behalf, they can probably count on few sympathies from their fellow countrymenm and co-religionists. Conversely, a roman is not expected to have any loyalties or sympathies to Judaeans, so any kindness or courtesy from him counts in his favour. A Judaean is assumed to be a member of the group and automatically owes this. Any absence will count against him, all honest effort to mediate simply be insufficient. You see the same thing in guerilla wars to this day - foreign occupiers can usually march away in relative safety when it's over, but their local henchmen are in for terrible vengeance. I doubt these cohorts had an easy time of it.

[drsrob]

As I recall they auriliaries in Judea were Samaritans rather than Jews and therefore there was a lot of animosity

[Theodosius the Great]

A Judaean is assumed to be a member of the group and automatically owes this. Any absence will count against him, all honest effort to mediate simply be insufficient.

Great point. In other words, any Jews in the garrison would've been seen as collaborators.

On the other hand, these men were the same garrison who kept things under control for many, many decades. Herod lived and reigned a long time, and so when his men were organized into cohorts I doubt most people would have noticed a difference in day to day life.

As I recall they auriliaries in Judea were Samaritans rather than Jews and therefore there was a lot of animosity

Yes, and I think there was even an "Italian" cohort mentioned in the Bible. But, I don't know if Jews would've been the dominant group in the garrison or one of many small groups who hail from surrounding regions (i.e. Syria)

But what about how I described the command structure with the tribunes and prefect of the province ? Was it correct ?

[Jona Lendering]

Is it possible that some posts are missing on this topic? The first page contains only two messages. So perhaps the following is unnecessary: M.P. Speidel, 'The Roman Army in Judaea under the Procurators', in M.P. Speidel, Roman Army Studies II (1992 Stuttgart), pages 224-232

Summary: There were two cohorts of auxiliaries in Jerusalem (at the old Herodian palace and at the fortress called Antonia): about thousand men. A third cohort guarded the capital Caesarea. Two cohorts of infantry and one squadron of cavalry served throughout the province.

The latter was the Ala I Sebastenorum which must be meant in Acts 23.23-32. It consisted of Samarians. We also know of the existence of an Cohors I Sebastenorum. These two regiments were probably created by king Herod the Great, who may have chosen Samarians, who often adhered to the Samaritan faith, to guard the Jewish population of Judaea.

Other known units are the Cohors Prima Italica Civium Romanorum, the Cohors Secunda Italica Civium Romanorum (Acts 10.1) and the Italian Cohors Prima Augusta (Acts 27.1). In short, of only one cohors we do not know the name.

[arklore70]

By Italica, do we mean to say that we believe that the unit originated in Modern day Spain?

v/r
Mike

[Jona Lendering]

I think that this time, it means that the unit originated in Italy. This does not necessarily mean that the soldiers were from Italy. For example, there were several units of Batavians in the Roman army, which were in the first half of the first century partly made up from Cananafates and Frisiavones. After the reign of Hadrian, recruits were usually found near a unit's base, so the geographical origin of the units no longer coincided with the ethnic origin of the soldiers. For example, British soldiers in a unit called Batavians. (Sometimes I wonder if a "Batavian" is not a technical expression to describe a type of amphibious cavalry; cf. gladiators called Samnites or Thracians.)

It is, in my view, not unlike Arab military units in eighth-century Spain, which had the names of tribes living on the Arabian peninsula, but consisted of Berbers and Spanish converts. The great civil war of the mid-eighth century looks like a tribal conflict, but was essentially a local war.

I served in the Dutch regiment of the Limburgse Jagers ("Limburgian riflemen"); Limburg is a Dutch province, but the soldiers were from everywhere in the country. (I was not trained for a rifle either. :wink: )

[Jona Lendering]

As I recall they auriliaries in Judea were Samaritans rather than Jews and therefore there was a lot of animosity

Please not the difference between Samaritans and Samarians. Samarians are people from the city of Samaria, who had Roman citizenship and were also called Sebastiani; Samaritans are members of a religious community. (Cf. Roman Catholics, who are not necessarily living in Rome.)
[url:2dbod2h5]http://www.livius.org/saa-san/samaria/samaritans.htm[/url]
[url:2dbod2h5]http://www.livius.org/saa-san/samaria/samarians.htm[/url]

[Graham Sumner]

Hello Theodosius

I wrote and Illustrated an article for 'Military Illustrated' Magazine number 120 May 1998, called 'The Soldiers who Killed Christ: Pontius Pilate's Bodyguard,' which might be of interest to you.

It was mentioned earlier in the thread but as you say only the original first two posts seem to have survived. If you can not get the magazine I can email the article to you if you like. Do I have your address if not can you PM it to me?

On one well documented occasion Pilate had some of his soldiers disguised as civilians which should support their local origin. However the general consensus is that they were indeed mainly recruited from Samaria.

Graham.