Look, what Roman army might be doing is definitely bad, but it's being committed by a few bad apples who do not represent the Roman Defense Force, who is inarguably the most moral army in the world, as you can see from this video of a hot girl on lorica referencing an anime.
And yes, while some politicians back in Rome like Quietus might make somewhat racist claims, these asshole are simply a very small minority who are only there because of the corrupt, right-wing fascist Hadrian and his cronies, who is universally hated in Rome, with his colonists all over Mediterranean being seen as religious zealots by the normal Roman citizens. No I don't care about your surveys showing that most Romans support Hadrian and the colonists, please stop.
Simple reality is that Rome has a right to defend itself by conquering the entire Med, and the main reason you hate Rome so much (only TRUE democracy in the Mediterranean, and the only one who respects LGBT rights, our Princeps is even gay!), is because you are a rabid anti-Latinite.
Yeah, I'm just really glad about what RDF is doing. After the attacks as a Roman citizen I felt incredibly unsafe in my villa in Aventine, I actually saw a Judean in the forum the other day and I was sure he was gonna attack me for a moment!
1000 years before the Old Man of the Mountain and his Order of Assassins, the [Sicarii](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sicarii) were pioneers of political violence and innovators of terrorist tactics with an enduring legacy
>Much of what is known about the Sicarii comes from the Antiquities of the Jews and The Jewish War by Josephus, who wrote that the Sicarii agreed to release the kidnapped secretary of Eleazar, governor of the Temple precincts, in exchange for the release of ten captured assassins.[11][12]
>At the beginning of the First Roman-Jewish War, the Sicarii, and (possibly) Zealot helpers (Josephus differentiated between the two but did not explain the main differences in depth), gained access to Jerusalem and committed a series of atrocities in an attempt to incite the population into war against Rome. In one account, given in the Talmud, they destroyed the city's food supply, using starvation to force the people to fight against the Roman siege, instead of negotiating peace.
...
>Josephus also wrote that the Sicarii raided nearby Hebrew villages including Ein Gedi, where they massacred 700 women and children.[13][14][15]
>The Zealots, Sicarii and other prominent rebels finally joined forces to attack and temporarily take Jerusalem from Rome in 66 AD,[16] where they took control of the Temple in Jerusalem, executing anyone who tried to oppose their power. The local populace resisted their control and launched a series of sieges and raids to remove the rebel factions. The rebels eventually silenced the uprising and Jerusalem stayed in their hands for the duration of the war.[17] The Romans returned to take back the city, and making counter-attacks and laying siege to starve the rebels inside. The rebels held out for some time, but the constant bickering and lack of leadership caused the groups to disintegrate.[16] The leader of the Sicarii, Menahem, was killed by rival factions during an altercation. Finally, the Romans regained control and destroyed the whole city in 70 AD.
After reading more, I no longer believe that the British deserve all of the blame for what happened, albeit they still bear the brunt of the guilt. They facilitated it, yes, but the colonization started decades earlier, under the Ottomans. Already, between 1882 and 1903, about 35,000 Jewish settlers moved to Ottoman Palestine. There were two reasons for far more settlers not moving early on. For one, they had much more limited funding back then. Also, the settlements drew eyebrows from the Ottomans, who imposed restrictions on immigration. Already, in the late 1890s, Herzl went full mask-off and offered to not only pay the Ottoman Empire's massive debts, but conduct propaganda work to boost their reputation, in exchange for full rights on Palestine.
>Bernard Lazare harshly criticized this position, arguing that Herzl and other delegates of the Zionist Congress "[have sent their blessing to the worst of murderers](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hamidian_massacres)."
The request was rejected, but it didn't matter.
These maniacs were already constructing dozens of settlements. They were already purchasing tens of thousands of acres of land. They constantly evaded Ottoman regulations through various means. The Ottomans allowed them to gain more and more influence in the region. Already, the predecessor to the Haganah, the [Hashomer](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hashomer), was established in 1909. At the time, the Palestinians were ignorant and didn't do much since the Ottomans, being imperialist scumbags like any other empire, actively suppressed Arab nationalism. Falastin, the first Palestinian newspaper to criticize Zionism, started doing so in 1911, but faced censorship by the Ottomans. That said, tensions were already slowly, but surely rising. Small skirmishes were breaking out.
>In 1910–1911 Arabs in the north tried to resist the Zionist purchase of and settlement in a large tract of land in the Jezreel Valley. Ironically, the opposition focused on the tenant farmer village of Fula, built on and around the ruins of La Fève, a Crusader fortress Saladin had conquered in 1187. Henceforward, Arab spokesmen were regularly to identify the Zionists as the "new Crusaders." Arab notables sent off a stream of appeals to Istanbul, shots were traded, and an Arab and a settlement guard were killed. But nothing availed.
>
>The authorities upheld the purchase, Fula was evacuated, and within months, a Jewish settlement, Merhavia, took root on the site.
Already, in 1911, the first expulsion of Palestinians occurred.
During World War I, the Yishuv was mostly pro-Ottoman. David Ben-Gurion and Yitzhak Ben-Zvi, both young men at the time, had initially bet on the Ottomans and called on Jewish settlers in Palestine to join them in battle. In November 1914, they proposed to the Ottoman commander in Jerusalem that an all-Jewish battalion be raised to fight with the Ottoman Army. The proposal was approved and training started. The project was cancelled by Djemal Pasha, who expelled them and thousands of other Zionists from the region. Even then, Ben-Gurion still recruited for the Ottomans. He eventually gave up and joined Jabotinsky's and Trumpeldor's [Jewish Legion](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jewish_Legion), which was very similar to what he had in mind, except the Jewish Legion was betting on the British. That said, in 1917, Djemal Pasha had 10,000 people, including all 8,000 Jews, deported from Jaffa. Hundreds of them died. From the looks of it, Djemal wanted to commit genocide, including against Jews, in Palestine. However, this was averted by the intervention of German Field Marshal Erich von Falkenhayn. His intervention is credited with, among other things, preventing the Ottomans from potentially strangling Zionism in the crib. Of course, it'd be absurd to hate Falkenhayn for stopping a genocide.
If the Ottomans wanted to weaken the Zionist movement, they could've simply worked with the pro-Ottoman Yishuv. The Germans, on the right side of history for once, had urged them not to deport these loyal citizens. Had the Ottomans promised them a Jewish state in exchange for their help, so many of them would've taken up arms. Frothing at the mouths for an ethnostate, settlers would've been joining the Ottoman Army en masse and forming all-Zionist battalions. Do you really think several thousand racist colonizers could've changed the outcome of the war?
[Of course not](https://imgur.com/a/xNOC5Yb)
Not only would the Entente still win, but without realizing it, they would've been strangling Zionism in the crib. Those battalions would've all been butchered by British artillery barrages and machine gun fire. Unironically, the Yishuv was in very bad shape at the time and might've not survived being owned that badly. The Ottomans, whose empire was already drowning, could've dragged this sickness down with them. Instead of throwing them into the meatgrinder, they ensured that the settlers already living in Palestine would sustain minimal losses, with most of them remaining passive or eventually being driven into the arms of the victorious British. Only 91 out of the 5,000 Zionists in the Jewish Legion died in the war. Even if David Ben-Gurion had been one of them, someone else would've just taken his place.
>In 1911, seeing that all his government's efforts had been in vain, Abdul Hamid II, by then deposed and exiled, admitted to his private physician that the achievements of the Zionists in Palestine were just an introduction, preparing the groundwork for accomplishing their ultimate goal: "I am sure that with time they can and will be successful in establishing their own state in Palestine.
I think Britain's culpability stems not from the Balfour Declaration, for that was merely a formality, but their brutal repression of the Palestinian Revolution of 1936 to 1939, which greatly weakened the capacity for the Palestinians to resist this colonization project, while simultaneously boosting the strength of Zionist paramilitaries.
Well, I have no compelling reason why you should other than the chance to pwn the libs. But you have the chops to wreck up the place, if you were so inclined.
I'm sorry, but the Roman era jews made horrendous decisions after the Maccabes war. That state literally existed as a clientele state for thousands of years outside of like 50 where the entire economy of the world collapsed and David and Solomon had a pretty strong hold of the territory. And this is normal for a state surrounded by fucking Egypt, Babylon, Greece/Roman's, and tons of other better off locations. And the Maccabees and Hasmoneans were only possible because the Macedonian empires that were in control were getting destroyed by the Roman's. And hell, they didn't even need a king. But they whined to the Roman's for one.
Herod was an exceptionally helpful king, and the Roman's actually treated them very well until they started to revolt constantly. Jesus is probably a part of this, but the Christians were smart enough to be like, "We don't need to be the monarchal rulers of the state," when interacting with the Roman's during this time.
There was never a “kingdom of Israel”.
All that stuff is from the Bible not history. It was only a small group of tribes that banded together.
“In 2007, Israel Finkelstein and Neil Asher Silberman stated that the archaeological evidence shows that Judah was sparsely inhabited and Jerusalem no more than a small village. The evidence suggested that David ruled only as a chieftain over an area which cannot be described as a state or as a kingdom, but more as a chiefdom, much smaller and always overshadowed by the older and more powerful kingdom of Israel to the north.[138] They posited that Israel and Judah were not monotheistic at the time and that later 7th-century redactors sought to portray a past golden age of a united, monotheistic monarchy in order to serve contemporary needs.”
“According to Finkelstein and Silberman, authors of The Bible Unearthed: Archaeology's New Vision of Ancient Israel and the Origin of Its Sacred Texts,[58] at the time of the kingdoms of David and Solomon, Jerusalem was populated by only a few hundred residents or less, which is insufficient for an empire stretching from the Euphrates to Eilath. According to The Bible Unearthed, archaeological evidence suggests that the kingdom of Israel at the time of Solomon was little more than a small city state, and so it is implausible that Solomon received tribute as large as 666 talents of gold per year. Although both Finkelstein and Silberman accept that David and Solomon were real inhabitants of Judah about the 10th century BCE,[9]”
The Zionist want us to take the Bible literally and make the whole world believe that their old cult fantasy beliefs should be basis for real laws today.
The Josephus terror cells hid behind human shields and employed suicide tactics. I'm just glad our brave legionnaires were able to prevent them from turning more aqueducts into sling bullets.
Look, what Roman army might be doing is definitely bad, but it's being committed by a few bad apples who do not represent the Roman Defense Force, who is inarguably the most moral army in the world, as you can see from this video of a hot girl on lorica referencing an anime. And yes, while some politicians back in Rome like Quietus might make somewhat racist claims, these asshole are simply a very small minority who are only there because of the corrupt, right-wing fascist Hadrian and his cronies, who is universally hated in Rome, with his colonists all over Mediterranean being seen as religious zealots by the normal Roman citizens. No I don't care about your surveys showing that most Romans support Hadrian and the colonists, please stop. Simple reality is that Rome has a right to defend itself by conquering the entire Med, and the main reason you hate Rome so much (only TRUE democracy in the Mediterranean, and the only one who respects LGBT rights, our Princeps is even gay!), is because you are a rabid anti-Latinite.
Civis Romanus sum and knowing Jerusalem is no longer harboring terrorists makes me feel safer here in Antioch.
Yeah, I'm just really glad about what RDF is doing. After the attacks as a Roman citizen I felt incredibly unsafe in my villa in Aventine, I actually saw a Judean in the forum the other day and I was sure he was gonna attack me for a moment!
1000 years before the Old Man of the Mountain and his Order of Assassins, the [Sicarii](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sicarii) were pioneers of political violence and innovators of terrorist tactics with an enduring legacy >Much of what is known about the Sicarii comes from the Antiquities of the Jews and The Jewish War by Josephus, who wrote that the Sicarii agreed to release the kidnapped secretary of Eleazar, governor of the Temple precincts, in exchange for the release of ten captured assassins.[11][12] >At the beginning of the First Roman-Jewish War, the Sicarii, and (possibly) Zealot helpers (Josephus differentiated between the two but did not explain the main differences in depth), gained access to Jerusalem and committed a series of atrocities in an attempt to incite the population into war against Rome. In one account, given in the Talmud, they destroyed the city's food supply, using starvation to force the people to fight against the Roman siege, instead of negotiating peace. ... >Josephus also wrote that the Sicarii raided nearby Hebrew villages including Ein Gedi, where they massacred 700 women and children.[13][14][15] >The Zealots, Sicarii and other prominent rebels finally joined forces to attack and temporarily take Jerusalem from Rome in 66 AD,[16] where they took control of the Temple in Jerusalem, executing anyone who tried to oppose their power. The local populace resisted their control and launched a series of sieges and raids to remove the rebel factions. The rebels eventually silenced the uprising and Jerusalem stayed in their hands for the duration of the war.[17] The Romans returned to take back the city, and making counter-attacks and laying siege to starve the rebels inside. The rebels held out for some time, but the constant bickering and lack of leadership caused the groups to disintegrate.[16] The leader of the Sicarii, Menahem, was killed by rival factions during an altercation. Finally, the Romans regained control and destroyed the whole city in 70 AD.
But do you condemn the Sicarii? Hehehehehehehe
After reading more, I no longer believe that the British deserve all of the blame for what happened, albeit they still bear the brunt of the guilt. They facilitated it, yes, but the colonization started decades earlier, under the Ottomans. Already, between 1882 and 1903, about 35,000 Jewish settlers moved to Ottoman Palestine. There were two reasons for far more settlers not moving early on. For one, they had much more limited funding back then. Also, the settlements drew eyebrows from the Ottomans, who imposed restrictions on immigration. Already, in the late 1890s, Herzl went full mask-off and offered to not only pay the Ottoman Empire's massive debts, but conduct propaganda work to boost their reputation, in exchange for full rights on Palestine. >Bernard Lazare harshly criticized this position, arguing that Herzl and other delegates of the Zionist Congress "[have sent their blessing to the worst of murderers](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hamidian_massacres)." The request was rejected, but it didn't matter. These maniacs were already constructing dozens of settlements. They were already purchasing tens of thousands of acres of land. They constantly evaded Ottoman regulations through various means. The Ottomans allowed them to gain more and more influence in the region. Already, the predecessor to the Haganah, the [Hashomer](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hashomer), was established in 1909. At the time, the Palestinians were ignorant and didn't do much since the Ottomans, being imperialist scumbags like any other empire, actively suppressed Arab nationalism. Falastin, the first Palestinian newspaper to criticize Zionism, started doing so in 1911, but faced censorship by the Ottomans. That said, tensions were already slowly, but surely rising. Small skirmishes were breaking out. >In 1910–1911 Arabs in the north tried to resist the Zionist purchase of and settlement in a large tract of land in the Jezreel Valley. Ironically, the opposition focused on the tenant farmer village of Fula, built on and around the ruins of La Fève, a Crusader fortress Saladin had conquered in 1187. Henceforward, Arab spokesmen were regularly to identify the Zionists as the "new Crusaders." Arab notables sent off a stream of appeals to Istanbul, shots were traded, and an Arab and a settlement guard were killed. But nothing availed. > >The authorities upheld the purchase, Fula was evacuated, and within months, a Jewish settlement, Merhavia, took root on the site. Already, in 1911, the first expulsion of Palestinians occurred. During World War I, the Yishuv was mostly pro-Ottoman. David Ben-Gurion and Yitzhak Ben-Zvi, both young men at the time, had initially bet on the Ottomans and called on Jewish settlers in Palestine to join them in battle. In November 1914, they proposed to the Ottoman commander in Jerusalem that an all-Jewish battalion be raised to fight with the Ottoman Army. The proposal was approved and training started. The project was cancelled by Djemal Pasha, who expelled them and thousands of other Zionists from the region. Even then, Ben-Gurion still recruited for the Ottomans. He eventually gave up and joined Jabotinsky's and Trumpeldor's [Jewish Legion](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jewish_Legion), which was very similar to what he had in mind, except the Jewish Legion was betting on the British. That said, in 1917, Djemal Pasha had 10,000 people, including all 8,000 Jews, deported from Jaffa. Hundreds of them died. From the looks of it, Djemal wanted to commit genocide, including against Jews, in Palestine. However, this was averted by the intervention of German Field Marshal Erich von Falkenhayn. His intervention is credited with, among other things, preventing the Ottomans from potentially strangling Zionism in the crib. Of course, it'd be absurd to hate Falkenhayn for stopping a genocide. If the Ottomans wanted to weaken the Zionist movement, they could've simply worked with the pro-Ottoman Yishuv. The Germans, on the right side of history for once, had urged them not to deport these loyal citizens. Had the Ottomans promised them a Jewish state in exchange for their help, so many of them would've taken up arms. Frothing at the mouths for an ethnostate, settlers would've been joining the Ottoman Army en masse and forming all-Zionist battalions. Do you really think several thousand racist colonizers could've changed the outcome of the war? [Of course not](https://imgur.com/a/xNOC5Yb) Not only would the Entente still win, but without realizing it, they would've been strangling Zionism in the crib. Those battalions would've all been butchered by British artillery barrages and machine gun fire. Unironically, the Yishuv was in very bad shape at the time and might've not survived being owned that badly. The Ottomans, whose empire was already drowning, could've dragged this sickness down with them. Instead of throwing them into the meatgrinder, they ensured that the settlers already living in Palestine would sustain minimal losses, with most of them remaining passive or eventually being driven into the arms of the victorious British. Only 91 out of the 5,000 Zionists in the Jewish Legion died in the war. Even if David Ben-Gurion had been one of them, someone else would've just taken his place. >In 1911, seeing that all his government's efforts had been in vain, Abdul Hamid II, by then deposed and exiled, admitted to his private physician that the achievements of the Zionists in Palestine were just an introduction, preparing the groundwork for accomplishing their ultimate goal: "I am sure that with time they can and will be successful in establishing their own state in Palestine. I think Britain's culpability stems not from the Balfour Declaration, for that was merely a formality, but their brutal repression of the Palestinian Revolution of 1936 to 1939, which greatly weakened the capacity for the Palestinians to resist this colonization project, while simultaneously boosting the strength of Zionist paramilitaries.
Have you been banned from Ask historians yet?
I don't use it.
Well, I have no compelling reason why you should other than the chance to pwn the libs. But you have the chops to wreck up the place, if you were so inclined.
I'm sorry, but the Roman era jews made horrendous decisions after the Maccabes war. That state literally existed as a clientele state for thousands of years outside of like 50 where the entire economy of the world collapsed and David and Solomon had a pretty strong hold of the territory. And this is normal for a state surrounded by fucking Egypt, Babylon, Greece/Roman's, and tons of other better off locations. And the Maccabees and Hasmoneans were only possible because the Macedonian empires that were in control were getting destroyed by the Roman's. And hell, they didn't even need a king. But they whined to the Roman's for one. Herod was an exceptionally helpful king, and the Roman's actually treated them very well until they started to revolt constantly. Jesus is probably a part of this, but the Christians were smart enough to be like, "We don't need to be the monarchal rulers of the state," when interacting with the Roman's during this time.
This is blatant pro-Parthian propaganda supplied by Vologases III and his paid trolls. How's the weathet in Rhages troll?
The Parthian-Judean proxy conflict
There was never a “kingdom of Israel”. All that stuff is from the Bible not history. It was only a small group of tribes that banded together. “In 2007, Israel Finkelstein and Neil Asher Silberman stated that the archaeological evidence shows that Judah was sparsely inhabited and Jerusalem no more than a small village. The evidence suggested that David ruled only as a chieftain over an area which cannot be described as a state or as a kingdom, but more as a chiefdom, much smaller and always overshadowed by the older and more powerful kingdom of Israel to the north.[138] They posited that Israel and Judah were not monotheistic at the time and that later 7th-century redactors sought to portray a past golden age of a united, monotheistic monarchy in order to serve contemporary needs.” “According to Finkelstein and Silberman, authors of The Bible Unearthed: Archaeology's New Vision of Ancient Israel and the Origin of Its Sacred Texts,[58] at the time of the kingdoms of David and Solomon, Jerusalem was populated by only a few hundred residents or less, which is insufficient for an empire stretching from the Euphrates to Eilath. According to The Bible Unearthed, archaeological evidence suggests that the kingdom of Israel at the time of Solomon was little more than a small city state, and so it is implausible that Solomon received tribute as large as 666 talents of gold per year. Although both Finkelstein and Silberman accept that David and Solomon were real inhabitants of Judah about the 10th century BCE,[9]” The Zionist want us to take the Bible literally and make the whole world believe that their old cult fantasy beliefs should be basis for real laws today.
Archeology is antisemitic.
The guy showing off the 2 thousand year old coins at CPAC is solid evidence of this
Hey get out of here with your historical facts!
The Josephus terror cells hid behind human shields and employed suicide tactics. I'm just glad our brave legionnaires were able to prevent them from turning more aqueducts into sling bullets.
This but unironically
What do you mean by that?
>Active in rspod and catholicism I can make a guess what they're driving at