WI: No Jewish-Roman wars?

The Jewish-Roman wars had an important effect on the history of Judaism, the demographic makeup of the Mediterranean and early Christianity. What if they did not occurr? How would they not ocurr?
 
Well the first Jewish revolt was a result of Roman administrators not upholding previously granted exemptions and respecting Jewish customs. If Roman administrators either continue to respect the Jewish religion as they had previously or very slowly implement changes I think most of the conflict could be avoided.

The difficulty is that the rights the Jews were granted become less and less likely to be upheld as you get into the crazier emperors who see the Jews as both a challenge to their authority and a possible source of revenue. But overall I don't think any of the wars were inevitable.
 
It would be hard, given the political constellation. The Jewish state still very much lived with the ideologiocal legacy of the maccabees, a sense of rigorist irredentism that caused trouble for every accomodationist authority. Successfully handling these subjects would have required a great amount of tact and forbearance - not exactly Rome's strong suit. Rome, on the other hand, is getting paranoid about the loyalty of cliuent kingdoms around the first century and starts limiting their options, in often very public and humiliating ways. That's a pretty explosive mixture.

I still think it would be possible, assuming some things go right. The full-scale antagonism between Jews and Gentiles that characterises the second-centuery perspective was not a foregone conclusion. It was possible, and indeed reasonably common, to be a Roman and a Jew. If that party had been a bit more influential, things could have gone better on the Jewish side. Unfortunately, this goes against a very strong tradition in contemporary Judaism seeing accomodation as treason.

On the Roman side, we would need to get lucky with a string of governors better than Pilate and Felix. That's not a high bar, but the likely pool is not that big. If the Roman administration can feel consistent and reasonable, it would go some way towards healing the wounds the Hasmonean dynasty created.

Of course, a situation that could be resolved if everybody could just be reasonable for a while is very unlikely to be resolved. But here, it would likely be enough for nothing to go catastrophically wrong for a century for the messianic expectation to become a piece of folklore. The Jews of Judaea could become an exotic oddity in the Empire, and the rest of the Jewish community (smaller, but more cosmopolitan and Hellene) become a part of it.
 
If the Republic is preserved rather than having the Principate, there would likely be no revolts. The Republic was far more accommodating to Client States than the Principate.

Of course that opens it's own can of worms as a POD. . .
 
If the Republic is preserved rather than having the Principate, there would likely be no revolts. The Republic was far more accommodating to Client States than the Principate.

Of course that opens it's own can of worms as a POD. . .

How long until they get fed up with the Hasmoneans though?
 
How long until they get fed up with the Hasmoneans though?

They were already fed up with the Hasmoneans while Judea was a client. Ever Since Herod died, the Hasmoneans were in a constant state of backstabbing and low level civil war due to Herod dividing his kingdom up amongst his sons.

However with Rome's Backing Herod Antipas was able to subdue his brothers and become the Sole Roman Client in Judea. So Long as the Roman Garrison stays in Jerusalem I doubt he or his successors will do anything to piss Rome off.
 
They were already fed up with the Hasmoneans while Judea was a client. Ever Since Herod died, the Hasmoneans were in a constant state of backstabbing and low level civil war due to Herod dividing his kingdom up amongst his sons.

However with Rome's Backing Herod Antipas was able to subdue his brothers and become the Sole Roman Client in Judea. So Long as the Roman Garrison stays in Jerusalem I doubt he or his successors will do anything to piss Rome off.

No, I mean the locals themselves. The Herodians went a long way in creating the problems that would eventually fester under Roman misrule.
 
No, I mean the locals themselves. The Herodians went a long way in creating the problems that would eventually fester under Roman misrule.

Possibly, but then it was going to be like that no matter what, Roman Client or no. The Key thing is that in the event of a rebellion the Romans would be fighting Jews on behalf of the Jewish State, so technically it wouldn't really be a Roman-Jewish War in the Classic Sense.
 
If the Republic is preserved rather than having the Principate, there would likely be no revolts. The Republic was far more accommodating to Client States than the Principate.

Of course that opens it's own can of worms as a POD. . .

The Late Republic was pretty horrible to its client states, though. Pompey entering the Holy of Holies is still a big deal in Rabbinical writing, and the taxes that Herod forced out of the population - a big cause for the simmering discontent - were needed to feed the armies and ambitions of a succession of Roman magistrates ruling the area and buying off their corrupt lieutenants. By comparison, the imperial government was much more predictable.

You would need a stable Republic that has internalised some kind of safety mechanism against assigning overly broad imperia without affecting its military performnance. Hard to see how.
 
Top