G. Cestius Gallus – history can rhyme, but a doctored history can also repeat

“History Doesn’t Repeat Itself, but It Often Rhymes”. Mark Twain Gaius Cestius Gallus Steve Mason writes: https://www.cambridge.org/core/books/abs/history-of-the-jewish-war/neros-war-i-the-blunder-of-cestius-gallus/96D313480094F1FE648A41266B60CCA4 5 - NERO'S WAR I: THE BLUNDER OF CESTIUS GALLUS? from Part II - INVESTIGATIONS Published online by Cambridge University Press: 05 February 2016 One of the great puzzles of the Judaean War is the event that set it in motion: the expedition to Jerusalem by the legate C. Cestius Gallus, in September–October of A.D. 66. Until that time, as we have just seen, Judaeans had been in conflict only with the largely Samarian auxiliary (Chapter 4). Now Cestius marched south with a reported force of 30,000, anchored in the Twelfth Legion, with auxiliaries and regional allies from the north plus ad hoc recruits (War 2.499–502). Within two months, most of that being travel time, he was back in Antioch, disgraced and disconsolate after losing an alleged 5,300 men. Even if the real number were much smaller, he suffered a serious humiliation. No one could doubt that this would swiftly be avenged. Judaeans began preparing for that retaliation (War 2.562–79). But how did Cestius come to such grief? What was he intending, and was he so utterly incompetent to see it through? Assuming that Judaea was already in open revolt against Rome and that Cestius’ objective was to crush Jerusalem, analysts have found his behaviour baffling. His apparent dithering en route and abrupt departure from Jerusalem, capped by the catastrophic ambush in the Beit-Horon pass, have seemed evidence of staggering ineptitude. The successful ambush gave an incalculable boost to Judaean morale (War 3.9). And because it clearly demanded revenge, more than any other single event it created the Judaean-Roman War. Josephus’ formulaic repetition of “the blunder(s) of Cestius” brings this episode into the orbit of “the Varian disaster” (clades Variana) of A.D. 9, in which an emeritus legate of Syria lost three legions and his own life in Germany. Cestius lived long enough to suffer the ignominy, but not long enough to redeem his reputation. A generation later Tacitus reflects that “he suffered varied fortunes and met defeat more often than he gained victory” (Hist. 5.10). [End of quote] Gunnar Heinsohn wrote (badly formatted here, see original): https://www.scribd.com/document/655098736/Gunnar-060322-Jerusalem-First-Millennium-Ad-Heinsohn-September-2021-1 ________________________________________ III. TWO ATTACKS OF GALLUS AND THE REPETITION OF 1-66 AD during 284-350/51 AD We know the names of the Roman officials in charge of Jerusalem for the 66 years from 1 to 66 AD (see p. 15 above). For the 66 years 284/85-350/51 AD we do not know such names. This is remarkable because the second period is almost 300 years closer to us than the first. And it is also the period closer to us that sees the erection of imposing Roman buildings in Jerusalem, while the first period – in terms of Roman monuments and ursbanism – seems to be a phantom. 284/285 AD is the textbook date for the beginning of the Tetrarchy under Diocletian (284/85-305 AD). 350/351 AD dates the death of Constans I (337-350 AD) and the beginning of the sole rule of the last emperor, Constantius II (337-361), of the dynasty of Constantine the Great (306-337 AD). In 351 AD, a Roman legate for Syria stationed in Antioch named Gallus attacked Judaea. 1 AD constitutes the first year of the Christian calendar which is also trusted by the archaeologists and historians of Israel. In 66 AD, a Roman legate for Syria stationed in Antioch named Gallus attacked Judaea. There are further similarities between the two periods, but also striking differences as shown in the table below. JERUSALEM’S parallels between 1 to 66 AD and 284/285 to 350/351 AD [cf. also the appendix after the bibliography]. 79 AD (Vespasian’s death and rule of Titus with Jewish bride 284 years later, in 363 AD, Flavius Claudius Julianus (the Apostate) Berenice [eventually abandoned]) created hope for 3rd temple. offered the rebuilding of the Jewish temple in Jerusalem. 66 years from 1 to 66 AD 66 years from 285 to 351 AD Legio X Fretensis was active in the Jewish wars of 66 - 136 AD. Legio X Fretensis was active in fighting Jews 350s-420s AD GALLUS (legate for Syria 63/65-67 AD) marched from Constantius GALLUS (legate for Syria 351-354 AD) marched from Antioch/Syria to attack Judaea but failed to take Jerusalem. Antioch/Syria to attack Judaea but failed to take Jerusalem. St. Paul (10-60 AD) had trouble in Antioch under Nero (54-68 AD). Paulinus of Antioch had trouble in Antioch under Constantius II (337-361 AD).