I notice your detractor [gfjl] made no effort at honest refutation,made no reference to any countervailing research, & gave not one single solitary link, in answer to your presentation.

So what grade does he get, “Teach” ?? {be nice and go on class curve…}

Historians do not find sections of his history credible: his hyperbole about the savagery (famous is a claim about “rivers of blood in Jerusalem put out the many fires”) is in fact meant to honor the Romans and their general Titus, a future emperor.

He is completely black and white about his role in the war and about the leaders of the revolt: he wears a white hat, and they wear black hats.

His imagination for horror comes into play about the events at Masada and in Jerusalem, which he could absolutely NOT have witnessed.

To be sure it was a brutal affair: the Romans were not pussycats when crossed. But they had their limits, and historians find that Josephus a little too often goes beyond the truth.

And so the errors spread and multiply.

This is also how con men work: they wear nice clothes, have an elevated, knowledgeable, and trustworthy tone, and suddenly your bank account is drained.

On that basis, despite the ignorance of MAObama and his minions about so many things, he and his advisors must be considered one of the most fraudulent in American History.

And Mars, nice quote there from Epictetus!

You are fighting an uphill battle against ignorance and lack of historical perspective, due to the state of education, as it has been for decades, and a Hollywood view of what Rome was….

One more, and I shall strike them down!!!! (LOL)

Trajan deports thousands of Dacians after their surrender as slaves: random crucifixions? When and where?

In Britain, the Romans depended on client kings, like Herod in Judaea, to handle the peace and to handle local affairs which were of no interest to them. King Cogidubnus in England was adopted by the Emperor Claudius: how exactly would he have been able to stay an ally of Rome if the Romans were crucifying at random his people in their villages?

Again, did the Romans commit atrocities? Yes. Did they have a policy of random crucifixions in villages during the Pax Romana? NO!

After they had established their control, they weren’t as apt to practice that behavior because they knew it could start a revolt, because they would turn fear into rage, which would cause a revolt.

Trust me: that was NOT Roman policy! Observe how Pilate, for example, is upset about the demands for Christ’s death! He does NOT want to crucify him, and does so to stop “a riot from breaking out.”

If it is Roman policy to crucify people at random, that scene makes no sense!

Did Romans occasionally commit atrocities? Yes. Was random crucifixion a policy during the Imperial Pax Romana? Absolutely not.

While you are correct concerning the Turks, that is more of people got the name of the people in the area at the time wrong. The were right about the Romans committing the attrocities.

When the Romans conquered an area, even a group that had attacked them first, the policy of the Senate was to turn the former enemy into allies. By treating the conquered well, the Romans built up long-term loyalty.

For example: when in the Second Punic War Hannibal and the Carthaginians invaded Italy, they were hoping for Rome’s allies to revolt and join them instead of supporting the Romans, who were on the ropes.

Rome’s fair treatment of its former enemies paid off: Hannibal’s strategy had depended on being joined – and supplied – by Rome’s Italian allies. They refused, and he lost the war.

And by the way: NO Turks lived in the empire, because the Turks dwelt in Central Asia until the Middle Ages.

And by the way again: Rome’s history as a major state encompasses 600 years. I am not so sure that with America electing people like MAObama that we will come close to a life of half of that length.

I hope we do…but…