Arab Warriors

20^th – 21st Century Military

Incompetence

Map Middle East / North Africa, 1995

In the aftermath of World War II the Arab nations of the Middle East became independent and acquired their own military establishments, and further they have been involved in wars with outside powers and with each other. The results have been less than impressive. Despite up to date training, equipment etc., Arab armies have been repeatedly thrashed.1

Remembering the Nightmare

Honouring the Sacrifice

 

Poppies

 

Today is November 11 which in Canada is Remembrance Day. Today and the week before lots of us Canadians go around wearing red poppies with black centres.

Another One Bites the Dust

Thoughts on the fall of Gaddafi

Gaddafi in better days

One of the common historical tropes of the last two centuries or so has been the rise and fall of the dictator. We recently have been given a veritable feast of falling and fallen dictators with the ongoing Arab Spring. Bloody and chaotic though it has been it has removed many of the world’s longest lasting dictators.1

Medieval Logistics:

An Overview

Italian Knight c. 1400 C.E.

Logistically Medieval armies of the 12th and 13th century tended to live off the land which made them veritable plagues of locusts to the locals who where unfortunate enough to be where the armies were. Crop surpluses were very low. Generally yields of crops were on the order of 1 to 3 to 1 to 6, in some cases it was a very bad 1 to 2. the above figures are the ratio of planted grain to yield. I.E. for every 1 grain planted you got 3 or more grains. This meant that a sizable portion of the harvest had to be saved as seed grain for the next planting. Of course the peasants also had taxes to pay and dues owing to their lords. Both of which were frequently quite substantial. This made living fairly precarious. Add an army marching through to the mix and life became vastly more difficult if not impossible. Peasants usually viewed armies as a curse and punishment from heaven, even if the army was their army. Areas through which armies went through were usually swiftly devastated. Added to this Peasants were frequently forcibly conscripted to provide labour services to armies, men forcibly billeted on them. Not surprisingly regions in which armies appeared were often depopulated as people fled, and often took decades to recover.

"Tough Minded"

Atomic blast at Hiroshima

The dropping of the atomic bomb on Japan in 1945 will remain a bone of contention among historians but it is fascinating how the the decision to drop the bomb is justified. The usual argument, expressed in such books as Thank god for the Atom Bomb by Paul Fussell1 is about how those who gainsay the decision to drop the bomb are foolish sentimentalists, who don't understand war and the then war situation. That they lack the tough mindedness necessary in war and are mired in a sentimental fog.

What of course is absolutely fascinating is how those so called realists and tough minded people are also sentimental in their own way. They refuse to use such words as "massacre" "atrocity" "mass murder" "war crime" "crime against humanity" to describe the bombing. They studiously avoid using such tough minded unsentimental language to describe the bombing.

The fact is the vast majority of the victims were civilians and that the bombs were even more destructive and frankly indiscriminate and hard to escape from than conventional area bombing.

It is remarkable how many people who excuse the bombing use the argument that it helped to end the war don't seem to understand that even if that was the case it still is an atrocity, a mass murder of civilians a violation of the Hague conventions, a war crime and crime against humanity.

As for actually ending the war. Well it should be pointed out that the entry of the Soviets into the war just after the dropping of the bomb on Hiroshima was likely even more important than the dropping of either bomb. Certainly it shook the Japanese leadership. Of course what was also important was that the Emperor intervened decisively (finally!!) to get acceptance of the surrender.

There also were available a few more bombs to be dropped just in case these two didn't work.

What is of interest is also that it appears that before the bomb dropped the Japanese were willing to accept almost any terms, what the Japanese were willing to accept was the retention of the Emperor as a condition and surrender unconditionally aside from that. Of course after the bombs were dropped the Americans accepted that the Emperor would be retained and told the Japanese who then surrendered. So ironically despite the bomb the Japanese did not surrender unconditionally.

In war engaging in atrocity to terrorize the enemy into surrender is an all to frequent tactic. And it is also one that works frequently, although at times it backfires or simply doesn't work. Assuming that the bomb worked to hasten the surrender of Japan. (I frankly doubt the argument that an invasion would have been necessary at all; Japan would have more likely than not surrendered before then.) The argument seems to be that some how that it is justifiable / excusable if dropping the bomb resulted in Japan surrendering. If that is the case than all sorts of atrocities throughout history become justifiable / excusable. In fact even if they don't work they become justifiable / excusable because the intention was to shorten the war and get the enemy to surrender. During the war the Japanese engaged in China in various spectacularly brutal campaigns called the "three alls" meaning burn all, loot all, kill all, during which millions of Chinese civilians were murdered directly and indirectly. The purpose was to terrorize the Chinese into submission. The Nanjing massacre could be viewed in a similar fashion.

The dropping of the atom bombs purpose was to terrorize the Japanese by destroying two Japanese cities and massacring large numbers of people in what was then a truly jaw dropping stunning manner. The debate over how much it had to do with Japan finally surrendering will go on with in my opinion no final resolution.

There can be little doubt that if Japan had used a weapon of similar destructiveness on the United States and if they had then still lost the war, those that had authorized the use of such a weapon would have been justifiably tried and found guilty of war crimes.

It is quite grotesque to hear how after the war those involved in the dropping of the atom bombs got so defensive and upset when their acts were described as crimes, atrocities etc. So much for realism, tough mindedness and a lack of sentimentality. About themselves and their decision they seemed to wallow in it.

What will also continue to go on will be those who argue that the bombing was justified will continue to decry their opponents as lacking realism and tough mindedness while avoiding using such tough minded and realistic words to describe the bombing as massacre, atrocity, mass murder, war crime, crime against humanity. They seem to competely lack the realism and tough mindedness to call a spade a spade.

1. Summit Books, New York, 1988. See also Feifer, George, Tennozan, Ticknor and Fields, New York, 1992, pp. 566-584, for another example of “tough mindedness”.

Bibliography

Grayling, A.C., Among the Dead Cities, Bloomsbury, London, 2006, pp. 77-79, 113-116, 147-158, 231-234, 250-254.

Katsuichi, Honda, The Nanjing Massacre, An East Gate Book, Armonk NY, 1999.

Calvocoressi, Peter, Wint, Guy, Pritchard, John, The Penguin History of the Second World War, Second Edition, Penguin Books, London, 1989, pp. 1033-1037, 1181-1208.

Pierre Cloutier

Frederick the Overrated I
Frederick II and the Outbreak of the Seven Years War.

Frederick the “Great”

One of the joys of historical research is finding out that some historical personages who are celebrated to the skies may not be quite as wonderful as their legions of worshipers / hagiographers, opps1 sorry, biographers / historians, claim that they are. Just recently I came across a book about the Seven Years War that in between describing the battles and campaigns of the Seven Years War in Europe manages to take assorted pot shots at Frederick the “Great's’” reputation. Those more than occasional interludes of truly cattish scratching are thoroughly enjoyable and frankly about time.2

Frederick is called the “Great” because he was successful at war, or should I say thought to be successful at war, and because he succeeded in conquering territory and making Prussia one of the great powers of Europe. Basically he is a “Great” man because he succeeded. The actual manner by which he achieved his success and the cost of his success for others is as per usual in these things downgraded / ignored. This worship of military success leads to the idea that Frederick was “Great” in all sorts of things and a fawning, hero worship that writhes in ecstasy at his “glorious” victories and genuflects at his shrine.3

One can go into the rather puzzling question about how a King who massively strengthened the militaristic nature of the Prussian state, and its Police State apparatus and in effect completed the process of turning the Prussian state from a State with an army to an Army with a State could for a moment fool anyone into thinking he was an “Enlightened” monarch. But then military success does tend to dazzle. But then Frederick easily put on “enlightened” airs and dazzled the literati of his day with a lot of words and pretty speeches about “enlightened” values while increasing the subordination of society to the state and its army. That Frederick was also incredibly vain, arrogant and loath to take responsibility for things if things went wrong, (blaming other people was a fine if childish art with Frederick). That Frederick was also in many respects a reckless diplomat and frequently engaged in political and other acts of fairly dubious morality is often forgotten.4

For example when Maria-Theresa inherited the Austrian throne in 1740, Austria had been going through a long term period of decline and it was only with difficulty that Maria-Theresa’s father Charles VI was able to arrange for the myriad domains of the house of Habsburg to accept the succession of his daughter Maria-Theresa; who became the only female ruler of the house of Habsburg. This so-called Pragmatic Sanction was then accepted by the various major powers of Europe through the tireless diplomacy of Charles VI who was anxious to avoid a diplomatic crisis upon the accession of his daughter. Also there was his concern that the other powers would seek to take advantage of Maria-Theresa’s accession to attack Austria and attempt to partition the empire between them.

Despite the anticipation of crisis Maria-Theresa succeeded her father in 1740 and at first it looked as if the various powers would accept the Pragmatic Sanction and let Maria-Theresa reign in peace. Frederick who had recently come to the throne of Prussia decided that given that so many powers were just waiting to attack Austria and carve her up that he would start the whole process, this was after he had signed a treaty saying he would respect the Pragmatic Sanction.5

The result was the war of Austrian Succession an interminable 8 year war during which Prussia was able to wrest the province of Silesia from Austria. Despite the serious decay of Austrian institutions and military during Charles VI’s reign, (Charles was a good diplomat but not a good administrator and Austria fell behind and looked like ripe pickings for the other powers), Maria-Theresa, who had not been educated or trained in any fashion to rule proved to be a very capable if not great ruler, and despite her almost total lack of experience rose to the challenge.6

Frederick went to war, made peace and unmade alliances almost at will with little regard to any moral imperatives or even his word. Frederick blithely betrayed his allies twice by making separate peace treaties with Austria and broke his agreements with Austria with equal facility. In the end though Frederick ended up with Silesia a province that increased the population of Prussia by more than 50% and a even larger increase in wealth. In fact Prussia’s pretensions of being a great power were dependent on possession of Silesia.7

Frederick had inherited from his father, Frederick William I, (a man whose behavior indicated a psychopathic personality), an excellent, large standing army that by means of the most draconian exploitation of the country he was able to extract from his fairly small country. Frederick had great ambitions and from the first wanted to take Austrian lands to further those ambitions.8

Austria was able fight off this attempt to partition her. Aside from Silesia Austria lost very little territory. But the war convinced Maria-Theresa of the urgent need to reform and revitalize the state. As an “enlightened” monarch Maria-Theresa easily puts Frederick in the shade and unlike him the challenges that she faced and difficulties she had to overcome were quite significantly greater. Further unlike Frederick Maria-Theresa had real moral scruples which did affect her behavior and policies. The idea of subordinating the state to the army was anathema to her. If Maria-Theresa had inherited a ramshackle state she was with remarkable skill able to hold the great majority of it together despite everything.9

Despite the ohhs and awws of the literati Frederick’s double dealing in this period had left a bad taste in the mouths of many including that of Frederick’s allies, especially France. Although many were dazzled by Frederick’s military victories, Frederick had a serious enemy in Maria-Theresa, who wanted Silesia back and it would have been prudent for Frederick to make every effort to remain an ally of France in order to hold Austria back from a war of revenge. Well to put it bluntly Frederick muffed it.10

The story of the long diplomatic intrigues that eventually resulted in the alliance of Russia, France and Austria against Prussia belongs in another essay suffice to say Frederick proved a clumsy and basically inept diplomat at the time. The fact that he was suspected of having further massive territorial designs especially on the lands of the Austrian monarchy, which were in fact true, increased the determination of Maria-Theresa to cut him down to size. Prussian schemes to annex parts of Poland increased Russian anxieties and France was utterly infuriated by Frederick’s behavior during the war of Austrian Succession and felt it could not trust him at all.11

In the end France, reversing a policy of long standing (centuries) signed an alliance with Austria and Russia joined in. Now this alliance, which was only formalized after Frederick attacked Saxony, was defensive in nature and frankly neither France nor Russia was really all that interested in a war to gain Silesia back for Austria, but all three powers were determined to contain Prussia, and its King who they viewed as a loose cannon liable to go off in any direction.12

Frederick muffed it again. In 1756 he invaded Saxony and then Austria deliberately starting a war with France, Austria and Russia.

Faced with a circle of enemies Frederick decided to attack. Frederick’s defenders have from that day to this have defended his action as a preventive strike designed to anticipate his enemies and hence a move a great boldness.

Further Frederick is congratulated for trying to break up his enemies by attacking first and trying to drive Austria out of the alliance and thus breaking up the coalition against him. This is of course to take Frederick’s self serving apologia at face value. What is forgotten is that Austria, Russia and France had a defensive alliance not an offensive one. Neither France nor Russia were terribly eager to fight a war solely for Austria to get back Silesia. Further Frederick attacked Saxony an ally of Austria, not Austria. What is forgotten is also that Frederick did indeed want to defeat Saxony and Austria quickly, and then impose on both a peace that would satisfy his long standing desire for much more territory from both of them. In other words Frederick attacked Austria and Saxony in order to extract from both has much territory as possible not just to break up a coalition against him. He also had plans to impose a heavy indemnity on both. What happened is that both Russia and France pursuant to their alliance with Austria declared war on Prussia. Thus Frederick had, with great efficiency, created a powerful coalition against himself.13

Having thus set himself up for failure and being crushed by a much more powerful coalition, Frederick would spend most of the next seven years desperately trying to save himself from the predicament he had so expertly put himself in. Needless to say the Frederick gawkers would spend centuries afterwards writhing in ecstasy at Frederick’s “greatness” in holding off a much more powerful coalition and repeating Frederick’s self serving apologia that the war was inevitable and that he was thus justified in attacking first, carefully avoiding the fact that the so-called inevitable attack was NOT inevitable. Further that Frederick’s behavior was in effect a self fulfilling prophecy and that Frederick had very ambitious territorial ambitions, against Austria, Saxony and Poland, which he was most anxious to satisfy. In other words Frederick's attack was an act of aggression designed to seize territory, at least in part.14

It takes real incompetence to put your head in the noose the way Frederick did. Frederick in the end was only saved one of the most bizarre strokes of good fortune ever, for which he could take no responsibility. Another time I will go into that stroke of fortune. Meanwhile the people of Prussia, Saxony, Austria, Russia, Germany, and France would pay for Frederick’s incompetent diplomacy, lack of scruple and ambition in spades.15

1. The number of suck-up biographies of Frederick the “Great” is legion perhaps the most stomach turning, at least in English, is Carlyle, Thomas, History of Frederick the Great, Six Volumes, Robson and Son, London, 1858-1865. Google Books, Here, see also Fuller, J. F. C., A Military History of the Western World, v. 2, DaCapo, New York, 1955, pp. 192-215.

2. Szabo, Franz A., The Seven Years War in Europe 1756-1763, Pearson, Longman, London, 2008.

3. See Carlyle above and Duffy, Christopher, Frederick the Great: A Military Life, Routledge, London, 1985 for many examples.

4. See Duffy, pp. 195-196, Szabo, pp. 87-88, 238-240, 253-255, Williams, E. N., The Ancien Regime in Europe, Penguin Books, London, 1970, pp. 372-398, Waite, Robert, G. L., The Psychopathic God, Signet, New York, 1977, pp. 306-311, Ogg, David, Europe of the Ancien Regime 1715-1783, Harper Torchbooks, New York, 1965, pp. 212-217, Hufton, Olwen, Europe: Privilege and Protest: 1730-1789, Fontana Books, London, 1980, pp. 191-219.

5. IBID, Waite, Williams, pp. 430-432, Ogg, pp. 124-127.161-168.

6. No really good biography of Maria-Theresa exists in English, but see Williams, pp. 435-459, Ogg, 206-211, Hufton, pp. 160-73.

7. Hufton, pp. 191, 206.

8. See Williams, pp. 335-351, Waite, 306-307, Williams, 376-378, Hufton, 205-206, Ogg, 161-168.

9. Ogg, pp. 210-211, Williams, 435-459, Hufton, 160-173.

10. Williams, pp. 437-438, Ogg, pp. 138-143, Duffy, pp. 82-85, Szabo, pp. 8-18.

11. IBID.

12. IBID.

13. IBID, and Szabo, pp. 10, 37, 82.

14. IBID.

15. Duffy, pp. 242, 244, Hufton, pp. 211-212. Prussia for example lost 400-500 thousand people.

Pierre Cloutier

War Time Letters  

Map of Egypt

The sands of Egypt have preserved many documents of everyday life and therefore provide a fascinating glimpse of everyday matters and private life. Several of these documents are the remnants of the archives of the family of a man named Apollonios who lived in the region of Hermoupolis in middle Egypt. At the time that the archive was accumulated he was serving as Strategos, (Chief Officer for law enforcement) for the district of Apollinpolis-Heptakomias. A position which he seems to have been appointed c. 113/14 C.E. He was caught in a truly unpleasant situation a few years, (115-117 C.E.) later when Egypt was engulfed by rebellion and war.1

The war is in fact very poorly known from our sources. It is generally characterized as the second Jewish revolt. From the accounts the Jewish communities of Cyprus, Egypt and Libya rose in revolt. The revolt was one of great ferocity and it appears to have been quelled with considerable savagery. Its causes and course are very obscure and given the extreme terseness of the sources likely to remain so.2 Some other time I may go through what we know and do not know about the rebellion.

Regarding our family. It appears that Apollonios’ family was of Greek descent, although several members had Egyptian names and further that they spoke Greek as their daily language. The family seems to have been upper class with a fair degree of wealth and estates in various parts of Egypt. Aside from Apollonios the other surviving letters are one from his wife and sister Aline and Apollonios’ mother Eudaimonis. Brother sister marriages seem to have been fairly common at this time among the Greeks in Egypt apparently has a way to consolidating wealth. Although it does tend to creep out people today. It is not clear whether or not Aline is Apollonios full sister or half sister, although full sister seems most likely given the letter from Eudaimonis to Aline.3

Apollonios comes across as bit of a wet blanket from his correspondence. Aline comes across as a worrywart. Eudaimonis comes across, however, like the bitchy relative you definitely want on your side.

Aline writes as follows to her husband / brother:

Aline to Apollonios her brother greetings. I am terribly anxious about you because of what they say about what is happening, and because of your sudden departure. I take no pleasure in food or drink, but stay awake continually night and day with one worry, your safety. Only my father’s care revives me and as I hope to see you safe, I would have lain without food on News Year’s day, had my father not come and forced me to eat. I beg you to keep yourself safe and not go into danger without a guard. Do the same as the Strategos here, who puts the burden on his officers…my father…for the name… of my brother was put forward…May God [preserve] him. If then, my brother, (you have leisure from) your business…write to me…to you…he is coming up safety…4

The letter was apparently written sometime in September of 115 or 116 C.E. The New Year’s day referred to here is the first day of the month of Thoth.5 It is certainly interesting to find out that c. 1900 years ago some people worried over there loved ones and were rendered sleepless by worry over them.

Eudaimonis writes in a different spirit instead of mooning and worrying she sends some good wishes to her son:

…with the good will of the gods, above all, Hermes the invincible, may they not roast you. For the rest, may all be well with you and all your men, Heraidous, your daughter, who is free from harm, greets you.6

Rather than bother her son with complaining about how worried she is; she assures him his daughter is well and safe and wishes him well and inquires about how he and his men are doing. A rather different tone from the rather self absorbed Aline. The comment about roasting refers to alleged atrocities being committed by the rebels. The letter is apparently dated from after Aline’s letter and can be dated to either 116 C.E. or 117 C.E.7

We know from another surviving letter in the archive, although it is not a letter addressed to Apollonios or other family members, and appears to be a letter written to his household presumably in the course of carrying out their duties, that the rebels won several battles in the Hermoupolis area and things must have gotten very difficult for the family.8

The one hope and expectation that was the push of the massed villagers from our district against the impious Jews; but now the opposite has happened. For on the 20th(?) our forces fought and were beaten and many of them were killed … now, however, we have received the news from men coming from … that another legion of Rutilius arrived at Memphis on the 22nd and is expected.9

Apollonios leading some troops, local militia, from his province took part in a battle near Memphis that resulted in a Roman victory. The letter goes as follows:

Aphrodisios to his dearest Herakleios, greeting. I have learnt from men who arrived today from Ibion that they travelled with a slave of our lord Apollonios; the slave was coming from Memphis to bring the good news of his victory and success. I have therefore sent you specially. that I may know with certainty and make a festival and pay the due offerings to the gods. You will therefore do well, dear friend, to inform me with speed. Two boys have been brought from the Oasis to my master, of whom one is four years old, the other three … the price … to you that you may be … I pray for your health, dear friend.10

The letter seems to be addressed from a steward of one of Apollonios’ properties to another, and aside from reporting the victory and Apollonios’ involvement records the purchase of some young slaves. The letter probably dates from early 117 C.E.11

Eudaimonis letter to Aline reveals again that Eudaimonis is a strong matriarch and more than a bit bitchy:

Eudaimonis to her daughter Aline, greeting. I pray above all that you may be delivered of a child in good time and that I shall receive news of a son. You sailed up on the 29th, and on the next day I began to weave. I at last got the material from the dyer on the 10th of Epeiph. I am working with your slave-girls as far as I can. I cannot find girls to work with me, for they are all working for their own mistresses. Our people have been marching all over the city, asking for more pay (or: offering higher wages). Your sister Souerous has been delivered of a child. Teeus wrote to me, expressing her gratitude to you, so I know, lady, that my instructions are being carried out. For she has left all her own people and gone to join you. The little girl sends her greetings, and is persevering with her lessons Be sure that I shall pay no attention to God until I get my son back safe. Why do you send me 20 drachmai, when I have no leisure? already have a vision of being naked when winter starts. (2nd hand) Farewell Epeiph 22. (1st hand) The wife of Eudemos has stuck by me and I am grateful to her.12

This letter seems to date from July of 117 C.E. The revolt is almost over and Eudaimonis is anxiously waiting for the return of her son Apollonios. The comment about paying no attention to the God refers to the old practice that the Gods are expected to do certain things in exchange for human worship, should they fail to do so they will be ignored until they fulfill their side of the bargain. Eudaimonis complains about the situation on the estate including an apparent lack of clothing and the fact slave labourers are hard to find. Which may indicate the area and more particularly Apollonios estates were hard hit by the war. The war itself seems to be over in the region of the estate, (Apollinopolis, Hermoupolis). Eudaimonis hopes that Aline, who is pregnant gives birth to a son safely. The little girl mentioned may be Apollonios’ and Aline’s daughter. Eusdaimonis seems to hope that Aline will give birth soon and is slightly exasperated by the delay in Aline giving birth which is why she mentions that Aline’s sister Souerous has given birth. Further Eusdaimonis is exasperated with Aline sending her money, as if she is not busy with making clothes and other duties and so has no time to lounge around. The comment about the wife of Eudemos sticking by her seems to be an indirect reproach of Aline.13

We finally hear from Apollonios himself in this letter in which he asks for 60 days leave:

To Rammius Martialis, the mighty prefect, from Apollonios Strategos of Apollinopolis-Heptakomias, greeting.

I attach a copy, prefect, of the application for leave which I previously submitted, in order that, by your favour you may grant me sixty days to put my affairs in order, at the time, especially, when … is pressing. I pray for your health, prefect. The (first) ear of the Emperor Caesar Trainus Hadrianus Augustus, Choiak 2. [The application follows]

To Rammius Martialis, the prefect, from pollonios, Strategos of Apollinopolis-Heptakomias, greeting.

…prefect … once … (Col. II) … make use of … For not only are my affairs completely uncared for because of my long absence, but also, because of the attack of the impious Jews, practically everything I posses in the villages of the Hermoupolite nome [province] and in the metropolis needs my attention. If you accede to my request and I am enabled to put my affairs in order as far as possible. I will be able to approach the duties of my office with a more tranquil mind.14

Aside from the usual flattery of a higher up. (Sucking up to the boss never goes out of style), the letter reveals that that Apollonios’ business interests have been badly affected by the war and that he feels those interests require his attention for a period of 2 months. Of course Apollonios adds the detail that if this request is granted he will be able to perform his official duties better because he will be less distracted. The techniques of psychological manipulation never go out of style. The letter can be fairly securely dated to the last half of 117 C.E, shortly after the accession of the Emperor Hardian who succeeded the Emperor Trajan in 117 C.E. 15

A few other letters round out this archive; in one the writers complain about Apollonios attitude in complaining about their failure to fulfill a contract:

We had no time, because of the bringing-in of the public corn, to protest to you and complain about your attacking us as if we were men of no account.

…

Now the affair must be governed by your conscience and your view of the matter(?) …consider too that not much … and that there was a state of riot.16

The authors are annoyed that Apollonios did not take into account the fact that things were in a state of disorder and the violence impeded their ability to fulfill the contract. They hope that upon reflection Apollonios will change his attitude. The letter probably dates from late 117 C.E.17

An architect named Herodes who was working for Apollonios gives some indication of the damage possibly done to Apollonios home by the revolt:

You know well of the urgently needed woodwork for the shrines and the guest-house, and because of this it was only on the second of the intercalary days that we set up the doors of the bedchamber in the hall as laid down in the agreement.18

Later in the letter Herodes requests time off to visit his brother in Alexandria who is mourning the death of his daughter to help his brother carry out his public duties during this difficult period.

I therefore request you, master, to allow me to go to my brother Hierakion in his boat during these idle days, for at another time I will not be able to go by foot through the country because of its devastation and the lack of …19

To sweeten his request for time off Herodes gives a statement of progress made and indicates that he is not immediately needed and can therefore take sometime off. Further he indicates that travel by water is preferably due to the devastation and the still chaotic nature of the much of the countryside due to the war. The letter seems to date from late 117 C.E.20

About subsequent developments we know nothing. Whether or not Apollonios was successful in re-establishing his family wealth, or if Aline successfully gave birth etc. All we have is a few tantalizing glimpses, almost a series of snapshots of a small group of people in time trying to cop under very difficult circumstances.

These letters give a rare glimpse into the private lives of an ancient family in the midst of a war and its aftermath. It certainly indicates that humans even thousands of years ago were very much like they are today despite the amount of time and cultural change in the meantime.

Funerary Portrait from the Fayum area of Egypt
Roman Period 1st Century C.E.

1. Tcherikover, Victor A., Corpus Papyromun Judaicarum, Harvard University Press, Cambridge MASS., 1960, pp. 226-227. These letters can also be found in Ben Zeev, Miriam Pucci, Diaspora Judaism in Turmoil, 116/117 CE, Peeters, Leuven Netherlands, 2005, in Part I, Ancient Sources, s. 2 Papyri, pp. 14-76.

2. The chief ancient accounts of the revolt, all very brief, are, written c. 326 C.E., Eusebius, The History of the Church, Penguin Books, London, 1965, Book 4, s. 2. See also Early Church Fathers, Church History of Eusebius, Here, in the Tetrullian website. Orosius, written c. 410 C.E., Seven Books of History Against the Pagans, in The Fathers of the Church, Vol. 50, The Catholic University of America Press, Inc., Washington DC, 1964, Book 7, s. 12. For a Latin version of this text see Paulus Orosius: Historiarum Adversum Paganos, Here, in the Attalus website. Dio, Cassius, written c. 220 C.E., Roman History, Loeb Classical Library, William Heinemann, London, 1925, vol. 8, Book 68, s. 32, see Cassius Dio: Roman History, Here, in the LacusCurtius website. Dio's account unfortunately only survives in summary form. A few interesting tidbits about the revolt are found in The Babylonian Talmud, Sider Nashim, vol. III, Sotah, 49a-49b, Soncino Press, London, 1936, see also The Babylonian Talmud, Here and the The Talmud of the Land of Israel, vol. 17, Sukkah, University of Chicago Press, Chicago, 1988, pp. 116-119. For modern accounts of the revolt see Tcherikover, above, pp. 79-93, 225-227, Schurer, Emil, The History of the Jewish People in the Age of Jesus Christ, Vol 1, T & T Clark Ltd., Edinburgh, 1973, pp. 529-534, Applebaum, Shim’on, Jews and Greeks in Ancient Cyrene, E.J. Brill, Leiden The Netherlands, 1979, pp. 251-256, 269-305, Pucci, Marina, La Rivolta ebraica al Tempo di Traiano, Giardini Editori E. Stampatori, Pisa, 1981, [This is a good over all account of what little we know.] See also Ben Zeev in Footnote 1, [This account provides a detailed listing of virtually all the extant, inscriptional, literary, papyrical sources complete with originals and translations. The rest of the book is a analysis of certain themes and controversies, like the timing of the revolts, the duration, causes etc., rather than a overview of the course of the revolt.]  Alon, Gedaliah, The Jews in Their Land in the Talmudic Age, vol. II, Magnes Press Hebrew University, Jerusalem, 1984, pp. 386-427, Smallwood, Mary E., The Jews under Roman Rule: From Pompey to Diocletion, E.J. Brill, Leiden the Netherlands, 1976, pp. 389-427.

3. See Footnote 1, Tcherikover.

4. IBID, pp. 234-235.

5. IBID, pp. 233-234.

6. IBID, p. 236.

7. IBID, pp. 235-236.

8. IBID, pp. 237-238.

9. IBID, p. 238.

10. IBID, p. 240.

11. IBID, pp. 239-240.

12. IBID, p. 245.

13. IBID, pp. 244-246.

14. IBID, p. 248.

15. IBID, pp. 247-249.

16. IBID, p. 251.

17. IBID, p. 251.

18. IBID, p. 254.

19. IBID, p. 254.

20. IBID, pp. 253-254.

Pierre Cloutier