It’s time to go back in time. Far back in time, that is.
Inspired by Dr. Henry Abramson’s video about three ancient matzevot from Germany commemorating Roman soldiers who may (?) have been Jews, “this” post is a full transcript of an academic paper by Shimon Applebaum, entitled “Jews and Service in the Roman Army”. From Roman Frontier Studies, part of the Proceedings of the Seventh International Congress held at Tel Aviv, it was published by the Students Organization of Tel Aviv University fifty-seven years ago, in 1967.
I’ve enhanced the paper for the purposes of this blog by supplementing terms that may be obscure or little-known with explanatory comments in boldface, like this; hyperlinking such words; and, including text in Greek accompanied by translation – to match Applebaum’s original Greek text. Also included are a few bibliographical references to send you further down the rabbit-hole of antiquity.
While I’m unfamiliar with ancient history in general and Roman history in particular and thus cannot evaluate the accuracy of this paper in light of nearly six decades of subsequent scholarship, it’s still an interesting and thought-provoking read.
The paper follows…
(The above illustration, a bookplate by famed illustrator Ephraim Moses Lilien, does not (!) accompany Applebaum’s original article. I’m simply including it here to lend a little “atmosphere” to this post. Though it’s moving and evocative to see the Magen David displayed as the central motif upon the shield of a Jewish warrior in ancient times, I doubt – given the history of the six-pointed star and the timing of its adoption by the Jewish people – that it would have appeared in such a context. As for this image, I found it over two decades and many pixels ago, I now know not where.)
Jews were common in the forces of the Ptolemies and Seleucids both as line-troops and military settlers (katoikoi), [Meaning “home-grown”, “locals” or “natives”.] (1) and the problem arises: Why are they so seldom recorded in the Roman army? The political tension between the Empire and the Jews of Judaea does not entirely explain their comparative absence, since ‘Antiochus Epiphanes’ attack on Judaism does not seem adversely to have-affected the readiness of Jews to serve in Asia, Egypt and Cyrenaica, and Caesar’s favourable attitude removed the tension created by Pompey and Crassus. Nor is it true that there existed any general privileged exemption of Jews from military service in the Roman Empire; the exemptions given in Asia were by-products of civil war and applied only to Jews who were Roman citizens, clearly a minority. (2) In Judaea, exemption from local recruitment was a clause in the treaty between Rome and the last Hasmonaeans, (3) extended to the Herods, who had their own armed forces. Nominally no obstruction existed to including Jews in the dilectus [The levying of soldiers for military service among the Romans.] in provinces where they were numerous, that is, in Syria, Asia, Egypt, Cyrenaica and Cyprus.
The general change of Jewish attitude to service in the armed forces of the ruling power is perhaps to be explained, if it took place, by the different character of the Roman forces. The Roman army was not cosmopolitan, like the forces of the Ptolemies and the Seleucids, but imposed an atmosphere of uniformity. The Seleucids, for instance, made provision for the cultic needs of their Jewish troops before and after the Maccabees; (4) Launey concludes that neither in the Ptolemaic forces nor in the Seleucid armies was the ruler cult obligatory. (5) But the Roman army possessed a much stronger cultic basis whose main foci were the standards, the imperial cult and the auspicia. (6) [In its proper sense the word means the watching of signs given by birds. But it was also applied to other signs, the observation of which was not intended to obtain answers about future events, but only to ascertain whether a particular proceeding was or was not acceptable to the deity concerned.] The Jewish rejection of the imperial cult remained uncompromising even after the Jewish scholars had begun to take a lenient view, of ornamental statuary, mosaics and painting. (7) As to augury, Josephus (8) cites from Hecataeus the entertaining anecdote of the Jewish archer Meshullam who, having shot the eagle which was being observed by the augurs, asked them how the bird had not foreseen its own fate. A third, political factor, may well have made the Roman authorities reluctant to conscript Jews: this was the rise during the first seventy years of the 1st century C.E., if not before, of the revolutionary Zealot movement which spread before the war of 70 to Egypt, and after it to Cyprus and Cyrenaica. This movement met its end in the Diaspora under Trajan and in Judaea under Hadrian, but its elimination carried with it the destruction of the Jewish communities outside Judaea from which Jewish manpower could be drawn – the exceptions were Asia Minor and Syria.
Despite all this, we do find a Jewish centurion recorded in 1st century Egypt. (9) In 23 B.C.E. M. Terentius Varro as legate of Syria settled near Antioch, or in the Huleh Valley of Galilee, a squadron of Jewish mounted archers who had left Babylonia under their commander Zamaris. A little later (9 B.C.E.) the unit was given to Herod to embody as military settlers near the Trachonitis. (10) [A province of the area of *Bashan E. of the River Jordan and N. of the River Yarmuk. It was one of the three provinces into which the area was divided by the Ptolemies, the other two being Gaulonitis and Batanaea.] These were not at first Roman troops sensu stricto, but they are interesting as being the product of a continuous Jewish military tradition in Mesopotamia which I shall refer to again. (10a) Of a different order was Tiberius’ forced conscription of Judaizing freedmen at Rome to suppress brigandage in Sardinia. (11) It was a special purge of social intention, but it also falls into line with the forced conscription of Roman proletariat in times of stress, (12) and Cheeseman thought to find these freedmen later present in the Orient among the cohortes c.R. (13) [Cohors quinta Delmatarum civium Romanorum (“5th Cohort of Dalmatae Roman citizens”) was a Roman auxiliary infantry regiment.] Further, the duties imposed on them do conform to the conception of the Jews as capable frontier settlers and river-police. (14) Perhaps in this spirit we should interpret information from the Mishnah which suggests that Jews were already serving as burgārĭi [defenders of the borders] in Judaea at the end of the 1st century of the current era. (15) We also hear of the infiltration of renegade Jews into the Roman army in Hadrian’s time. The Midrash tells us of one such who had been a pupil of R. Joshua ben Hananiah. (16)
The Severan dynasty achieved a certain modus vivendi with the Jews of the Empire and their chief representative, R. Judah the Prince. [Yehudah HaNasi] This might be thought to have opened the way to Jewish service in the forces. (17) But the evidence is not abundant. A Rufinus whose epitaph in a Roman catacomb (18) suggests he was a soldier, was not quite certainly Jewish; at Beth Shearim, where the burials begin in this period, the epitaph of one Germanus of Palmyra has been thought to have been that of a member of the armed forces because the drawing of a soldier appears near his tomb, (19) but this does not seem to be quite beyond controversy. More important is Cosmus, praepositus stationis [Jewish dedication to Alexander Severus] and archisynagogas at Intercisa under Alexander Severus. (20) To assume that he was a customs official is to fall into an anachronism concerning Jewish occupational structure – he might equally have been in charge of a cattle-depot or a statio of coloni, and of this we shall speak below.
Christian writers say that Jews were frequent in the army in the 4th century, presumably because of much changed conditions. (21) Of this time doubtless is the Jaffa tombstone commemorating a Jew whose father was
κεντηναριος της παρεμβολης [centenary of the intervention]. (22) I suspect this was a centenarius [regimental officer in the late Roman army] of the Negev limes rather than a legionary centurion.
The Equites Promoti Indigenae [a limitanean military unit which was part of the army at disposition of the dux Arabiae] at Sina ludaeorum in Osrhoene, recorded in the Notitia Dignitatum Orientis, XXXV, (19), [The official handbook of the civil and military officials in the later Roman Empire; see also] are also interesting from a Jewish point of view, because from Mesopotamia came Zamaris’ cavalry unit, and the Babylonian Jews seem to have been good military material, having defeated the dreaded Galatians there in the later 3rd century B.C.E., (23) and as witness the two brothers Hasinai and Hanilai who set up their own principality near Nehardea in the 1st century C.E. and defended it by force of arms. (24) It may not be irrelevant to recall that Alexander Severus, who was well disposed to the Jews, mobilized considerable forces of archers in Osrhoene. (25) [an ancient region and state in Upper Mesopotamia] This being so, it is not beyond possibility that some of the former garrison at Sina ludaeorum were Jews; the placename doubtless represents a Seleucid foundation for Jewish katoikoi.
No such doubt affects the numerus regi – – ludeorum Emesenorum referred to on a 4th century tombstone from Concordia, the modern Porto Grdaro near Aquileia. (26) I cannot explain how or why a Jewess, Flavia Optata, [(wife?) of a soldier from the troop of the royal Emesene Jews] who is here commemorated, came to be serving in the Roman army, but I do have views on the origin of the unit itself. Editors of the inscription have inevitably agreed that the word regi- is to be completed as regorium and connected with the regii referred to in the Notitia (Occ, V, 209; VII, 32). But the royal house of Emesa [City in Syria. It was ruled by a dynasty which enjoyed friendly political relations in the first century C.E. with Agrippa I (Jos., Ant., 18:135; 19:338) and with Agrippa II (ibid., 20:139).] was dethroned under Domitian (27) and the first numeri appear only under Hadrian (28). In any case, the other known Emesan numerus appears under the Severi, (28a) when the city received ius Italicum. (29) [Ius Italicum (Latin, Italian or Italic law) was a law in the early Roman Empire that allowed the emperors to grant cities outside Italy the legal fiction that they were on Italian soil.] I suggest that the abbreviation regi – should be completed regionis [Area or region.] – as in a British inscription from Ribchester. (29a) In this case, where was the “Regio ludaeorum Emesenorum”?
It is tempting to connect the name with the Regio of Ainathus, (30) in the Pcraca of Transjordan. one of Herod’s administrative centres, certainly inhabited by Jews (cf. Josephus, Ant., XVII, 277;B.J., II, 59) and still a regio in the 6th century. (31) But although the names Ainathus and Emesa bear a deceptive resemblance, the hellenized “Hemesinus” of the inscriptions appears to be confined to the Syrian Emesa. The two types of regio which seem most relevant to our case are the frontier area in which the coloni were organized as numeri, and the area attached to a fort, in which the veterans of a numerus were settled after their service; an example is the regio Bremetenacensis observed by the late Sir Ian Richmond in north Britain. (32) There were certainly Jewish villages near Emesa in the 3rd and 4th centuries (33) but Hierocles, who records many regiones and klimakes from the time of Theodosius, knows none near that city.
A third suggestion is possible, and I offer it for the consideration of our Hungarian colleagues. The fort of Intercisa was occupied from the later 2nd century by the Cohors I miliaria Emesenorum sagittariorum equitata c.R. (34), and, as we have seen, there was a synagogue outside the fort whose archisynagogus [Head or chief of a synagogue.] in the time of Alexander Severus was a praepositus stationis. As we learn from an independent source that Emesa gave a complete Jewish unit to the Roman army, it seems probable that an Emesan cohort garrisoning a fort which boasted a synagogue in its vicus, also had Jews in its ranks. It is not impossible, therefore, that Jewish veterans from the unit were settled near the fort in their own region, from which the numerus rcgionis Emesenorum Iudeorum was duly enrolled, – the more so as the brigading of numeri [A vague term (singular: numerus), which became increasingly popular as a general term for both infantry and cavalry units.] with other units became a common practice in the 3rd century, for instance in Britain. (35) In this case the statio for which Cosmus was responsible might well have been the centre of a regio of the type which originated as a centre of taxation and recruiting in the Severan period (36). From Intercisa it would not have been unexpected for the numerus Emesenorum Iudeorum to have been moved to Concordia in the 5th century, (37) with various other numeri from Germany and Dalmatia, whose tombstones were found with that of the mysterious and martial Jewess, Flavia Optata.
NOTES
(1) See V. Tcherikover, The Jews in Egypt (2) 1963, English summary, pp. v-vi; Tcherikover and Fuks, Corpus Papyrorum Judaicarum, I, 1957, 11-15; Section III, 147-178; M. Launey, Recherches sur les armees hellenistiques, 1949-50. Asia: Jos., Ant, XII, 148-153; XIII, 250-252. Cyrenaica, C Ap., II, 44.
(2) Jos., Ant., XIV, 224; 228; 231; 234; 2 36; XVI, 27 etc. Augustus has no mention of military exemption in his general confirmation of Jewish rights in 2 C.F., (Ant., XVI, 160).
(3) Jos., Ant., XIV, 202.
(4) Jos., Ant, XII, 150, 152; XIII, 251.
(5) Op. Cit.
(6) See A. von Domaszewski, Die Fahnen in römischen Heere, 1885; Die Religion des römischen Heeres, Westd. Ztschr., XIV, 1895; Fink, Hoey and Snyder, The Feriale Duranum, Yale Class. Stud., 7, (1940).
(7) Urbach, I.E. J., IX, (1959), “The rabbinical law of idolatry in the second and third centuries in the light of archaeological evidence and historical facts”.
(8) C. Ap., I, 22 (201).
(9) Ostrakon Edfu 159 = Corpus Papyrorum Judaicarum, II, 1960, no. 229 (116 C.E.); his name was Aninios (Hanina).
(10) Jos., Ant, XVII, 23-28.
(10a) Cf. O.G.I., I, 435 (Sür), a στρατοπεδαρχης καλογειτων και στρατιωτων [commander of good men and soldiers] (75 or 80 C.E.), suggesting that these troops were reorganized on Roman lines by the Flavians.
(11) Tac., Ann., 11/85; Suet., Tib., 36; Jos., Ant, XVIII, 81-84. Suetonius’ phrase in reference to the Jewish freedmen’s conscription – per speciem sacramenti – is interesting. Does it mean that a special form of oath was used? Or alternatively, that conscription was a mere pretext for exile?
(12) Dio, LV, 31; LVI, 23; Velleius, II, 111; Suet., Aug., 25. Cf. L. Cheeseman, Auxilia of the Roman
Army, 1914, 65-6.
(13) Op. cit, 66, n, 2.
(14) The Jewish ποτομοφνλακια [river banks] – Jos., C. Ap., II, 64.
(15) See the additional note to Dr. Safrai’s paper.9999
(16) Mid. Gen. Rabb., 82, 9, Albeck, 984, 985: “Renegade troops” are referred to. One of them would appear to have been Barsimso Callisthenis f. of Caesarea Maritima, who joined the Coh. I. Vindelicorum in 132 C.E., (C.I.L., III, 2, p. 882, Dip. XL). A different case was Mathaius son of Polaus, a Syrian, who enlisted in the fleet, probably at Antioch-on-the-Orontes, somewhere about 40 C.E., and was discharged as a soldier of Leg. I Adiutrix in 68. (C.I.L., III, 2, p. 914, Dip. V). Among the men who joined up with him was a C. Iulius Agrippa of Apamea, who may well have been Jewish also. Mathaius, who cites no birthplace, must have been from the countryside.
(17) Severus adjusted formalities to facilitate Jews to take official posts: Ulp., Dig., 50, 2, 3, 3.
(18) Frey, C.I.J., I, 79.
(19) B. Maisler (Mazar), Beth Shearim (2) I, 195 8, p. 126 and fig. 15. (Heb.).
(20) Frey, CI.J., 1936, 677.
(21) Sulpicius Severus, Chron., 2, 3, 6.
(22) Sepher Ha-Yishuv, I, 1939, 81, no. 114 (Heb.).
(23) II Macc, 8, 20. S. Zeitlin, The Second Book of the Maccabees, 1954, p. 174, n. 20, tentatively attributes the battle concerned to Antiochus III’s war with Molon (Justin, 25, 2; Polyb., V, 5 1-4).
(24) Jos., Ant., XVIII, ch. 9 (310-370).
(25) Herodian, VII, 1, 9.
(26) C.I.L., V, 8764.
(27) Rostovtzeff, Soc. Econ. Hist. Rom. Emp. (2) 1957, 663, n. 31.
(28) Kaiserliche Beamten und Truppenkörper im römischen Deutschland unter dem Principat, 1965, 233 sqq.
(28a) Ann. Epig., 1926, n. 145.
(29) Dig., L. 15, 1,4, 8, 6.
(29a) C.I.L.,VII, 218; Richmond in J.R.S., XXV, (1935), 15 sqq.
(30) Georg. Cyp., 18.
(31) Ibid.
(32) Note 29a.
(33) Jer., Yeb., XI, 2; Jer., Dem., VI, I.
(34) RE, IV, 1, 1900, col. 295, s.v. Cohors.
(35) AA (4), IX, (1932), 210; C.I.L., VII, 218, 285, 1037 (= RIB, 583; 601; 1270); RIB, 1244 etc. Cf. for Germany, Stein, op. cit., 240.
(36) Carcopino, Rev. Africaine, 1918, 5-22; H.M.D. Parker, Hist of the Rom. World, 1935, 1 18-1 19. For Jewish settlement in Roman times between Intercisa and Esztergom, see T. Balacz in Semit. Studies in Memory of I. Löw, 1947, 5 sqq.
(37) Or were these men of various units detached for service in the arrow-factory of Concordia recorded by Not. Dig., Occ, IX, 24?
Otherwise…
“Jews in the Roman Army”, at Roman Army Talk (2009)
Articles
Olshanetsky, Haggai, “Keeping Kosher: The Ability of Jewish Soldiers to Keep the Dietary Laws as a Case Study for the Integration of Minorities in the Roman Army”, Jewish Quarterly Review, V 113, N 1, Winter, 2023, pp. 59-82
Schoenfeld, Andrew J., “Sons of Israel in Caeser’s Service: Jewish Soldiers in the Roman Military”, Shofar – An Interdisciplinary Journal of Jewish Studies, V 24, N 3, 2006, pp. 115-126
A Chapter in a Book
Roth, Jonathan P., “Jews and the Roman army: Perceptions and realities”, chapter in The Impact of the Roman Army (200 B.C. – A.D. 476): Economic, Social, Political, Religious and Cultural Aspects (pp.409-420), June, 2007, from Proceedings of the Sixth Workshop of the International Network Impact of Empire (Roman Empire, 200 B.C. – A.D. 476), Capri, Italy, March 29-April 2, 2005 (Series: Impact of Empire, Volume: 6)
And, A Book
González-Salinero, Raúl, “Military service and the integration of Jews into the Roman empire.”, The Brill reference library of Judaism, 72. Leiden and Boston: Brill, 2022. ISBN 9789004506756 (Reviewed at Bryn Mawr Classical Review)