The man known to history as Titus
Flavius Vespasianus was born in late December 39 AD in the area
of the Campus Martius in Rome. His father was Vespasian, the eighth successor
to Caesar Augustus as Emperor of the Roman Empire and the founder of the Flavian
dynasty, one of Rome’s more successful, yet relatively short-lived, ruling dynasties. He
came from an undistinguished equestrian family, equestrian referring to the class of Roman society
that ranked below senatorial in the Roman social hierarchy. Vespasian was born in around 9 AD,
and entered a Roman world that was relatively settled and stable, having undergone a century of
bloody upheaval during the fall of the Republic, ending in the establishment of the principate
under Caesar Augustus and the transition of Roman government from a Republican city-state
into an autocratic, administrative government responsible for the governance of a vast
Empire. Titus’ mother was Domitilla the Elder, who came from a relatively humble family, the
daughter of a quaestor’s clerk from Ferentium. She married Titus’ father Vespasian in around
37 AD, though she would die before her husband’s ascendancy to the imperial throne. The cause
and exact date of her death are not known. The erosion of the Republic arguably saw its
first violent manifestation in the deaths of the Gracci brothers by their Senatorial
opponents in 133 and 121 BC. The elder brother Tiberius became Tribune of the Plebs, an
office representing the lower classes of Rome, and used his considerable constitutional powers
in an attempt to force through radical economic and land-owning reforms in the teeth ofwhich faced
opposition from the patrician Senate. His apparent radicalism and accumulation of power led to the
death of Tiberius and his followers at the hands of a violent mob organised by the Senate, and 12
years later a similar fate would befall Tiberius’s brother Gracchus when he attempted to rejuvenate
the ambitious and reforming legacy of his brother. These blatant displays of political violence and
willingness to step beyond traditional political boundaries heralded a century of political
chaos in Rome, with the incredible expansion of the city’s Empire, and the riches, glory and
prestige this brought to individual commanders was a major factor in destabilising a political
system that was designed to organise the affairs of a city-state, rather than an overseas Empire of
incredible scope and wealth. Victorious generals led armies that were loyal to themselves rather
than to the state, and thus statesmen like Gaius Marius and Lucius Cornelius Sulla starteding using
violence and the riches they had accumulated on campaign to purge political enemies and
violate hallowed customs. In the 80s BC Sulla broke with centuries of tradition to march
his army on Rome and declare himself Dictator. Another issue the Republic faced was the lack
of a major enemy power that could unite Romans in opposition. After the destruction of Carthage
in 146 BC and the defeat of Mithridates of Pontus in the mid-first century BC Rome did not face an
existential threat anything like that of Carthage in the Punic Wars - this lack of a powerful foe
meant that Romans were increasingly turning on one another. This came to a head when a new generation
of statesmen and warlords emerged - led by Pompey the Great and Julius Caesar. The wealth,
popularity and power concentrated on these men turned Rome into an effective oligarchy
in the 50s BC with the emergence of the First Triumvirate featuring Pompey and Caesar alongside
Marcus Crassus, the wealthiest man in Rome. It was perhaps inevitable that such ambitious men would
turn on one another and that the Senate would fight to re-assert its influence - the spark came
with Caesar’s campaign in Gaul, modern-day France, where his stunning and brutal successes garnered
him unparalleled fame and admiration in Rome and saw him with possess an immensely powerful army
that was deeply loyal to their leader. The Senate, now viewing Caesar as a mortal threat to the
Republic, ordered him to relinquish control of his army. Caesar, knowing that such an action
would almost certainly lead to his arrest, made the fateful decision to cross the Rubicon
river in 49 BC with his army into Italy, thus beginning a great civil war with
Pompey and the Senate. The decisive battle was fought a year and a half later at
Pharsalus in Greece, where Caesar’s legions won a decisive victory, forcing Pompey
to flee to Egypt where he was murdered. In 48 BC Julius Caesar was the master of Rome,
and of much of the civilised world. However, this state of affairs was to prove short
lived. Though he was made dictator by the Senate after his victory over Pompey, his move
to make himself dictator for life in 44 BC, coupled with his steady accumulation of power
was too much for many in the Senate who were accustomed to a political system in which power
was competed for by Rome’s patrician families, rather than held and bestowed by one man. These
tensions came to a head on the Ides of March in 44 BC, when a conspiracy led by the Senators Brutus
and Cassius, but involving dozens of senatorial co-conspirators, murdered Caesar at a meeting of
the Senate, days before he was due to depart Rome to lead a campaign against the Parthian Empire.
Rome was again plunged into civil conflict which would last on and off for over a decade - until
finally Caesar’s adopted son and heir, Octavian, stood alone at the summit of the Roman world
with total control over the army and state, and was given the name Augustus, meaning
(‘revered one’,) by the Senate. During his 40-year overlordship Rome would transform from
a city-state Republic to an imperial government, increasingly aware of and attentive to
its provinces outside of Rome itself. Though the decades of Augustus’ dominance over the
Roman world solidified one-man rule at the top of the political system, the demise of the Republic
opened up many opportunities for equestrian families like Vespasian’s that were not available
under the strict oligarchy of the Republic, especially families from provincial Italy
and the regions outside of Rome. Under the Emperors a vast bureaucracy for governing
all the provinces of the Empire developed and it became open to aspiring families from
throughout the Empire in a way that prominent political positions had not been open when a few
patrician families dominated the Republic. Thus, although Vespasian’s father was a humble money
lender and tax collector, his ambitious sons were determined to climb the cursus honorum, the
Roman ladder of political hierarchy. Indeed, it was Vespasian’s elder brother Sabinus who
appeared destined for greatness from an early age, with Vespasian largely following in the latter’s
footsteps. Nevertheless, after military service in Thrace, Vespasian was made a quaestor in 35
AD, entering into Roman magisterial service. As he climbed the Roman political ladder Vespasian
was able to gain favour with the short-tempered, unpredictable Emperor Gaius, better known by his
nickname Caligula, who held power between 37 and 41 AD. Exploiting the vanity of the young Emperor,
Vespasian used his public office to glorify the Emperor’s victories and harshly punish those who
conspired against him. Substantial advancement for the Flavians came however under the rule of
Caligula’s successor Claudius. In the early 40s AD Vespasian received command of Legio II Augusta,
then based in the province of Germania, however in 43 AD this legion was ordered to become part
of the invasion of the island of Britain. Roman influence had been strong over Britain ever since
Caesar’s first expedition there in the 50s BC, however Claudius now aimed for complete conquest
of the island and its annexation into the Empire. Under the overall command of Aulus Plautius,
Vespasian led his force along the Southern part of the island from East to West, ending in
Exeter. Later Flavian writers likely exaggerated Vespasian’s exploits, claiming that he won
30 pitched battles. It is more likely that Vespasian enhanced his reputation through a good
performance as a competent military commander, and he was rewarded by Emperor Claudius for
his performance in the invasion. After this both Vespasian and his brother became consul, the
highest political office on the cursus honorum, Vespasian gaining the honour in 51 AD. As was
traditional Vespasian was able to administer a foreign province following his consulship, and
in 63 AD he became proconsul of Africa, where he demonstrated his rigorous administrative and
financial skills. At this time Vespasian’s eldest son Titus was around 24 years old. What little
we know of Titus’s early life is provided by the Roman historian Suetonius, who tells of Titus
being raised at the imperial court and becoming very close with Claudius’s son Brittanicus. It
was due to his father’s outstanding performance in the invasion of Britain that Titus was able
to be educated at the court of the Emperor. Brittanicus was later assassinated
by the Emperor Nero and it is said, albeit this is difficult to confirm, that a
young Titus was sitting alongside his friend when he drank the poison that would kill
him. Certainly, Brittanicus’ death would have a large impact on the young Titus and
he would later work to cultivate his memory. Suetonius states that in around 57 AD Titus
served as a military tribune in Germany and Britain. Military tribunes were officers in the
Roman army who ranked below the legate and above the centurion and was a traditional preparatory
role for a career in the upper echelons of Roman Senatorial politics. Following this stint in
the army, where he gained praise and acclaim, Titus entered the legal profession, and married
his first wife in around 63 AD, Arrecina Tertula, the daughter of a former prefect of the
Praetorian Guard, the elite unit of the Roman army that served as personal bodyguards of the
Emperor. The couple had a daughter named Julia, however, in the very sameis year, around of
approximately 65 AD, Arrecina died, and Titus then married again, this time to Marcia Furnilla.
Furnilla was from a prestigious Senatorial family and she soon gave birth to another daughter,
however subsequent events would demonstrate the extent to which marriages in elite Roman society
were dominated by political and social concerns. Furnilla’s uncle, Marcius Sornaus, was a former
consul who fell foul of the Emperor Nero in 66 AD due to accusations made against him for plotting
against the Emperor during his stint as proconsul in the province of Asia. His condemnation on false
charges immediately blackened any association with his close relatives and thus Titus divorced his
wife that same year to retain his standing amongst Nero and his associates. Up until the year 66
AD Titus followed a conventional trajectory into the upper echelons of Roman politics, at this
time he had gained a quaestorship and thus stood at the lower rungs of the Senatorial class.
However, things would soon change for Titus and his father as they would embark upon one of
the most infamous campaigns of the 1st century. In 66 AD Vespasian was invited by the Emperor
Nero to accompany him on his tour of Greece, as an official travel companion, however during
this trip Vespasian offended the Emperor, leaving a theatre, or possibly falling asleep, whilst
Nero was in the middle of one of his long solo singing performances - this led to Vespasian being
banned from all companionship with the Emperor. Later that year however Vespasian was appointed
to the command that would dramatically alter the fortunes of the Flavians, when he was sent to
Judea in order to quell the Jewish revolt that had broken out there. It is not totally clear
why he was appointed, but his relatively obscure background and the family name may have convinced
the increasingly paranoid Nero that Vespasian did not pose a threat to his authority and would
thus be suitable to command a large force. Nero’s paranoia at this time derived from the
uncovering in 65 AD of the Pisonian conspiracy, a plot to murder Nero and replace him with the
aristocratic orator Calpurnius Piso. A great number of Senators, equestrians and military
personnel were involved and the Emperor was in many ways lucky to survive. Nero’s rule was
dramatically altered following the conspiracy’s uncovering and Vespasian’s appointment was
thus likely made out of considerations for the Emperor’s own safety, with Nero assuming that
Vespasian did not pose a threat to his power. By 66 AD the situation in Judea was very serious
for Rome. Judea had been a province of the Roman Empire since 6 AD, though there had been
Roman dominance over the area since the 60s BC with the conquests of Pompey. Though
the Jews were not persecuted for their faith as a recognised religious minority, they
suffered under the heavy taxes imposed by the Empire and by the appointment by the Romans
of the Jewish High Priest. This is because the High Priest was chosen from the section of the
Jewish population that collaborated with Rome and thus was alienated from the rest of the
Jewish population. Tensions were inflamed by the influence of Hellenistic culture and
the resulting emergence of a Romanised, Hellenistic elite who dominated the affairs
of Judea and promoted the cult of the Emperor. Rebellious groups emerged among the Jewish
population, known as ZealoutsZealots, who believed that any means were necessary to attain
complete political and religious liberty and autonomy. Perhaps unsurprisingly, groups like this
rose in popularity during the reign of Caligula, where the unstable Emperor ordered his statue to
be set up in every temple throughout the Empire, and threatened to destroy the Jewish temple
when the Jews refused. Things came to a head under the procuratorship of Gessius Florus, as
Florus had particular disdain for the Jews and lacked the political skill to quell the gathering
tensions. In 66 AD a revolt broke out in the town of Caesarea in Judea, as a gang of ZealoutsZealots
attacked the Greeks living in the town after a Greek mob had profaned the local synagogue. Florus
chose this moment to initiate a forceful gathering of taxation in Jerusalem, and as part of this
he plundered vast quantities of silver from the sacred Jewish temple. This infuriated the Jewish
population, however unrest was brutally quashed by Florus who executed several city leaders. This
only turned the unrest militant however and armed rebels destroyed the local Roman garrison and
embarked on the destruction of Roman people and symbols throughout Judea. Rebel mobs also
fought with Jews who were opposed to rebellion, until the ZealoutZealot factions won out and
determined to cleanse Judea of Roman influence. Rome soon responded with the proconsul of Syria,
Cestius Gallus, marching south with around 30,000 troops to put down the revolt. Gallus attempted
to capture Jerusalem but was repulsed after a siege and forced to retreat, his troops were then
ambushed by Jewish rebels at Beth-Horon and took heavy losses, including the humiliating loss of
an eagle standard. Gallus died soon afterwards, possibly killing himself. This stunning
victory galvanised the Jewish rebels and pushed aside moderates, hardening their desire
for complete Judean independence from Rome. With Judea spiralling out of control and Romans
determined to take vengeance for Gallus’ defeat, Vespasian was appointed to put down the
rebellion in late 66 or early 67 AD, and he set off immediately with Legio V and Legio
X. Vespasian made Titus, now 27 years old, legate of his third legion, Legio XV ‘Apollinaris’,
then stationed in Egypt. Whilst Vespasian made his way to Judea by land from Greece, going
through modern-day Turkey, Titus travelled across the Mediterranean and took command
of his legion in Egypt, before moving north. The Romans had around 60,000 soldiers in total,
and Vespasian and Titus began the campaign in Galilee, in the north of Judea and one of the
most radicalised regions in the area. The campaign was brutal, with entire villages and towns being
destroyed by the Romans - Titus himself was able to lead the final onslaught against numerous
towns in the north, although at Giscala, the last remaining rebellious town in Galilee,
Titus fell for a ruse on the part of the rebel leader which allowed a large group of the most
dedicated rebels to escape to Jerusalem. Though unquestionably brave as a commander, Titus had not
yet developed the careful and considered military approach that was definitive of his father. It is
estimated that in 67 AD as many as 100,000 were killed or enslaved in the pacification of Galilee.
Meanwhile, Galilean refugees had fled to Jerusalem and the Jewish resistance was now concentrated
in this great city. As the Romans entered winter quarters, early 68 AD saw a Judean civil war
erupt in Jerusalem between rival Jewish factions, with the radicals attacking moderate leaders and
eventually solidifying their hold over Jerusalem. Vespasian and Titus were content to sit back
and allow their enemies to destroy themselves. As the campaign season of 69 AD opened,
Vespasian led his forces towards Jerusalem, capturing towns that anchored the city’s supply
route and tightening the noose around the city, destroying any rebellious towns as he went.
Throughout 68 AD Titus was in the province of Syria, seeking to sort issues of jurisdiction
between Vespasian and the new governor of the Roman province, which lay to the north
of Judea. Titus’s deft political skills ensured that he won over the governor Licinius
Mucianus, who would come to be an important ally to Vespasian in the important year that lay
ahead. The importance of the coming year was soon evident as news reached Judea that Nero was
dead, with Servius Sulpicius Galba declared as Emperor by the Senate. Discontent with Nero had
not dissipated following the Pisonian conspiracy, indeed it had only increased as the Emperor became
ever more tyrannical and cruel in the following years. Rebellions grew, especially in Gaul and
in Hispania under the governorship of Galba, and this increasing pressure led tobrought the
head of the Praetorian Guard to abandoning Nero and declaringe for Galba, and the rest of
the Emperor’s guards then followed suit. Fleeing the city, Nero learned that he had
been declared a public enemy by the Senate, and on the 9th June he either took his own life,
or ordered his personal assistant to kill him. Tacitus wrote that Nero’s death was celebrated by
the Roman upper classes but was somewhat lamented by the lower classes who had often gained
from the Emperor’s excesses. Nero was the final member of the Julio-Claudian dynasty who
had monopolised imperial power since the time of Augustus - his death was dangerous for the
Empire as the primacy of the Julio-Claudian bloodline had always limited the number of
candidates who could claim the imperial purple, now however that the dynasty had died with
Nero, ultimate power could be competed for by a greater number of candidates, all of
whom could command great armies. In Judea, Vespasian was unnerved by reports that Galba,
who had been declared as Emperor by the Senate, was executing opponents and Nero loyalists, and
thus sent Titus east to pay formal respects to the new Emperor and to win his favour. Titus had
reached Corinth in Greece in January 69 AD when he heard news of Galba’s murder on the 15th of that
month. Galba was a straight-laced disciplinarian and his failure to sufficiently reward legions who
had rebelled against Nero and the Praetorian guard soon made him unpopular. Suffering from gout, the
ageing Emperor was killed by the Praetorians - the guard had been won over by Marcus Salvius Otho.
Otho had joined the rebellion against Nero under Galba and had hoped to be named his successor,
when Galba chose somebody else to adopt, Otho organised a conspiracy amongst
the Praetorian Guard and rose to power. Thus, 69 AD, was the so-called
‘year of the four emperors’, and it would see the Flavian dynasty
establish itself as the successors to the Julio-Claudians as rulers of the Roman
world, and would enable Titus to rise from the upper echelons of Roman politics to
master of the greatest Empire of the age. Otho was the second emperor to take power in
this year, and he was immediately challenged, as prior to Galba’s death the legions of Germany
had rallied behind the provincial governor, Aulus Vitellius, as their candidate for Emperor and
were marching on Italy even as Otho established himself as Emperor in Rome. Considering
his and his father’s situation in Greece, Titus feared becoming a hostage in the hands of
one of the rival Emperors and so decided to turn back to the East - the Roman historian Tacitus
presents Titus as contemplating at this point the potential for a Flavian attempt to take power,
and it is possible that this played into Titus’s decision not to pay homage to any of the rival
Emperors in the West and instead help his father consolidate his power in the East. The difficulty
of this decision is emphasised by the fact that he returned to Judea via Cyprus, where he consulted
with the oracle of the Paphian Venus, who apparently favoured Titus’s decision, and he thus
sped to the eastern shore of the Mediterranean. Vespasian remained a novus homo, or ‘new man’
in amongst the Roman political class and was far from being one of the wealthiest or
most prestigious men in Rome, indeed, Vespasian himself was not a particularly
ambitious man by Roman standards and as Emperor was well known for his indifference
to the glory of the imperial office. Thus, his decision to make an attempt for the imperial
purple was not an easy one to make. At first Vespasian was happy to sit back as Vitellius
and Otho fought one another in northern Italy. Gradually however Vespasian’s supporters
and advisors pushed him towards making the fateful decision to intervene, especially
after the controversial Vitellius defeated Otho at the battle of Bedriacum and was proclaimed
Emperor. Mucianus was particularly insistent and as the momentum for a Flavian intervention
grew amongst the Romans in the East, the legions in Alexandria proclaimed an oath of
loyalty to Vespasian and declared him Caesar, followed by the legions in Judea and
then Mucianus’ Syrian legions. Though the proclamation of the legions was made to
seem spontaneous, in reality the Flavian camp had planned their opening moves carefully, and
had decided to commit in the middle of June. Titus’ role in his father’s decision to march on
Rome and his ultimate elevation to the imperial power was extremely significant. Unlike his
father Titus had been brought up around the imperial court and possessed great ambition and
the political skills and talents necessary to help drive make his ambition ato reality. His
winning of Mucianus as an ally of Vespasian in the previous year was pivotal, as the
Syrian governor commanded as many legions as Vespasian and their forces combined were
considerable. Some historians consider Titus to have been the originator of the Flavian bid
for the Empire following the death of Galba, as the heir apparent to Vespasian he had among
the most to gain from his father’s elevation. At a final organisational conference,
it was decided that after ensuring the security of Judea and the eastern borders of
the Empire, Mucianus would lead a force West whilst Vespasian would travel to Egypt
to secure Rome’s vital grain supply. Titus meanwhile was given supreme command over
Judea and Syria and charged with completing the pacification of the region, which at this
point in the campaign meant the capture of Jerusalem. Vespasian appointed his close ally
Tiberius Alexander as Titus’ chief of staff, perhaps a reflection of his son’s lack of
military experience in such an important role. Whilst Vespasian was in Egypt the Flavian campaign
met with unexpectedly rapid success - the eastern half of the Roman world had declared for Vespasian
and armies loyal to him rapidly entered the North-East of Italy and won a decisive victory
over Vitellius’ forces at Cremona. Vespasian’s forces then entered Rome in heavy street fighting
and dragged Vitellius through the streets before killing him in December of 69 AD Having been
declared Emperor by the Senate whilst in Egypt, in 70 AD Vespasian departed for Rome to
take up his newthe position of Emperor. Titus had accompanied his father to Egypt, but
in the spring of 70 AD he departed to Judea in order to open the final campaign in the region.
His army contained a core of four Roman legions: Legio XV Apollinaris, Legio V Macedonica,
Legio X Fretensis and Legio XII Fulminata, and was supplemented by auxiliary and native forces.
Titus’ army likely totalled around 70,000 troops, a force even larger than that commanded by his
father at the opening of the Judean campaign. Titus made straight for Jerusalem, ensuring
the security of Roman supply lines as he went, and began siege preparations in April, around
the time of Passover. The Jews in Jerusalem were by this time utterly determined to face
down the Romans, and were composeds of broadly three factions, one led by John of Gischala, a
prominent Zealot leader and one of the Galilean rebels who had fled the town of Gischala to
Jerusalem after deceiving Titus in 67 AD. Another important leader was Simon Bar Giora,
who had led the Jewish forces that ambushed Gallus’ forces at Beth-Horon at the beginning of
the uprising in 66 AD, and Eleazar ben Simon led a third rebel force. The Jewish forces in
Jerusalem could muster perhaps upwards of 20,000 troops, but more importantly they were
ensconced in a city with formidable defences. In the factional violence before the approach
of the Romans however much of the city’s food supply had been destroyed by fire, leaving
the defenders vulnerable to starvation. The city was divided into three sections
- the upper and lower cities in the south, the new city in the north and the Temple Mount
in the East. The city had three defensive walls and contained numerous fortresses at its
corners. To add to the confusion within the city and to strain its food supplies Titus
allowed the passage of pilgrims into the holy city for Passover yet did not allow them
to exit. As Titus ordered his legions to surround the city and establish camps to
the West of the city and on the Mount of Olives to the east, the Jewish forces sent
out expeditions to harass the Roman forces, one of which almost captured Titus himself when
he was carrying out personal reconnaissance. Titus ordered the construction of ramps
and battering rams to breach the city walls - the construction of these was initially
disrupted by Jewish sorties out from the city, however the Romans began a concentration of
artillery, including stone-throwing catapults, on the defenders which pinned them to
theretheir defences. Using siege towers, artillery and bronze-head battering rams
Titus’ forces were able to destroy the city’s outer walls in only a few weeks.
Concentrating on the north of the city, the Romans focused their forces on the
First Wall and the Antonia fortress. As his forces erected siege works and
battered the inner walls of the city, Titus dispatched Josephus, a
Romano-Jewish military leader and writer who had defected to the Romans
3 years earlier and, now a Roman citizen, was a friend and advisor to Titus, to
persuade the Jews to surrender. It is from an account written by Josephus that we
have much of our information on the First Jewish Revolt. Josephus however was derided by
the defenders and Titus’ offer was rejected. After the destruction of the outer defences,
Roman forces were near to the heart of the city, besieging Temple Mount and the Antonia Fortress.
There was savage street fighting as legionaries were ambushed by rebel fighters, the Jews even
managed to tunnel beneath the Roman position and undermine the ground beneath, collapsing and
destroying many of the Romans’ siege works. Amidst the costly fighting Titus reconsidered his
strategy and decided to intensify the blockade of the city by constructing a siege wall encircling
the city to prevent anybody escaping and any supplies from reaching Jerusalem’s defenders.
This wall was completed in only three days, and was four and a half miles long, testament
to the remarkable engineering abilities of the Roman army, and it worsened the
famine within the city considerably, leading to misery and atrocities
amongst the inhabitants of the city. Three weeks after completing the construction
of the wall, Titus’ men used ramps against the walls of the Antonia fortress and finally took the
stronghold after fierce fighting, and they razed it to the ground. The fall of the Antonia left
Temple Mount as the last remaining stronghold in the city, and Jewish forces had concentrated
here in expectation of a final battle. Titus ordered a ramp to be constructed by
the walls of the Temple Mount, and though the Romans initially suffered setbacks
when the rebels organised the collapse of a fifty-feet-high colonnade into flames,
killing many Roman troops in the process, Titus felt that the end was drawing near and
pressed the attacks. The Jewish destruction of the western colonnade and the Roman
destruction of the northern colonnade forced the rebels to fall back to within
the walls of the temple complex itself. Eventually, amidst the fighting the walls of
the Temple were set ablaze, though it was not clear exactly how this happened. Josephus in his
account of the siege is keen to exonerate Titus for the destruction of the Temple and the chaos
that ensued. He claims that Titus would never have ordered the annihilation of a holy place,
rather his goal had to been to seize it. However, a much later Roman historian, possibly basing his
account from a lost section of the mostly reliable Histories of Tacitus, states that Titus wished for
the Temple to be destroyed in the siege so as to exterminate the Jewish and Christian religions.
It is unclear which source to trust, as Josephus was keen to ingratiate himself with the Flavian
dynasty and his patron was Titus himself, however the latter source was written long after the
event and likely altered the account of Tacitus. Either way, having finally broken the resistance
of the defenders the Roman army unleashed terror and chaos onto Jerusalem, slaughtering most
of the able-bodied men and rounding up the inhabitants to be sent to Rome as slaves.
The Temple and the city were plundered of their wealth, including the sacred menorah
(the seven-branched candle) from the Temple, whilst other sacred valuables from the temple
were turned over to Titus by captured priests. To celebrate their victory Titus ordered sacrifices
to be made in the Temple court to the Roman gods, even as the Temple itself still burned. The
Roman troops hailed their commander as imperator, a title usually reserved for the Emperor,
in gratitude at the hard-fought success. The destruction of the Temple took place in
August of 70 AD, although the siege did not come to a complete end for another month, as
defenders fled to the Upper City. However, after besieging the walls of the Upper City
the Romans met with little resistance from the starved and exhausted rebels, and that
part of Jerusalem was overranoverrun and met with the same destruction as had the
rest of the city. After the rounding up and enslavement of the survivors on Titus’ orders,
the Flavian commander instructed the city and the Temple to be completely razed, with the
exception of a number of towers within the Temple complex to stand as testament to the
strength of Jersualem’sJerusalem’s defences. Josephus stated that over one million people died
in the Jewish Revolt, although historians do not view this figure as credible as it was unlikely
that one million people lived in the entire province of Judea at the time. Nevertheless,
thousands if not hundreds of thousands perished or were enslaved in the revolt and its suppression,
and it must be said that Titus himself bears great responsibility for the brutality of the siege of
Jerusalem. This is not to say that his actions were atypical of a Roman general subduing
a revolt, and indeed the Romans faced few revolts in the history of their Empire that were
as significant and tenacious as the Jewish revolt, but it nevertheless underlines the brutality
of the age and the brutality of Roman rule that Jerusalem and Judea were decimated the way they
were for their insubordination. In his command of the siege Titus displayed the tenacity, the
skill and the brutality that was expected of Roman commanders and lauded by Romans of his day,
and whilst the events of the siege are deeply unpleasant to modern audiences, and have left
a deep scar on the history of the Jewish people that has echoed through the ages and persists to
this day, to most Roman citizens Titus’ reconquest of Jerusalem made him a hero, and elevated him
to almost god-like status in the eternal city. Before departing JersualemJerusalem, Titus
stationed the Tenth legion within the outskirts of the city - Vespasian wanted to make Judea an
independent province and have legions stationed at its heart rather than in distant Syria,
so as to ensure the events of 66-70 AD could never be repeated. Many sources depict Titus as
growing arrogant and self-indulgent in the years following the Fall of Jerusalem, and making his
father nervous as a result, however many of the anecdotes that play to this narrative, such as
his wearing of a diadem in Egypt seems highly unlikely and were probably generated in order
to emphasise his apparent transformation upon becoming Emperor in 79 AD into a benevolent
and loved ruler. That he would undergo such a dramatic change of personality upon rising
to the imperial purple seems unlikely - though it is not impossible that his triumph at
Jerusalem impacted his ego significantly. Titus held celebratory games in Syrian
cities before meeting with envoys of the King of the Parthian Empire of Persia
on a diplomatic mission - Roman military movements close to the Parthian border
had generated suspicion and thus the Flavian utilised his diplomatic talents to
quell the nerves of the Parthians and was presented with a golden crown by the envoys
in honour of ‘his victory over the Jews’. After his diplomatic business was
complete Titus returned to Rome by way of Alexandria in early 71 AD and was
awarded a Triumph by Emperor Vespasian. Since the days of the Republic commanders
who won great victories for Rome could be awarded a triumphal procession steeped
in civic and religious significance, to parade the spoils of war and experience the
acclaim of hundreds of thousands of Romans. This joint triumph was celebrated by Titus,
his father and his younger brother Domitian, and its description by Josephus provides our
most detailed account of a Roman triumph. The rebel leaders Simon bar Giora and John of
Gischala were paraded along with hundreds of the most handsome prisoners, whilst the looted
treasures were displayed for all to see, with items taken from the temple
itself displayed most prominently, including the menorah and the golden showbread
table and a copy of the Torah. The procession, with Vespasian and his son the centre of attention
as they rode in magnificent apparel, ended at the Temple of Jupiter where Simon bar Giora was taken
to be executed and the triumphant general went to offer a sacrifice in thanks to the chief deity
of the Romans for their victory. To the Romans, the events of 70 AD demonstrated the triumph of
their pantheon of deities over the God of Israel. The procession has been immortalised on the
Arch of Titus which still stands in Rome to this day - it was constructed in 81 AD by
the Emperor Domitian, Titus’s brother and successor. The arch contains panels depicting the
triumphal procession and the fall of Jerusalem, with the images closely paralleling the
description of events given to us by Josephus. Particularly clear on the arch’s
engravings is the seven-branched menorah, which is depicted being looted from the Temple
and paraded on the streets of Rome. The arch has been important in art history and was the
inspiration for the Arc de Triomphe in Paris. Soon after the triumph Titus’s exalted political
position was confirmed when he was formally granted tribunician power, which had since
the years of Augustus’ rule been the mark of an emperor or his heir designate, and Titus along
with his brother had already been given the title of ‘Caesar’ by the Senate before his return to
Rome. Though it may seem fairly obvious to modern eyes that Titus would be Vespasian’s successor,
in the Empire at this time primogeniture was far from the established custom, and indeed
Titus would be the first son to succeed his biological father (natural father rather than
adopted) as Emperor in the Empire’s history. Titus himself did not possess a male heir
- though he had been married twice he did not show any enthusiasm for marrying again,
instead he preferred the company of young men with whom he was thought to have had romantic
relations. This was very ordinary in Ancient Rome, even if excessive indulgence in sexual relations
with younger men was perceived to be a sign of moral decadence. In today’s terminology Titus
would likely be best described as bisexual, however there is no such term in the classical
Latin and his romantic interests would not be seen as noteworthy or peculiar by
the Romans of his day. Nor was there pressure on Titus to produce children,
as his younger brother Domitian was being lined up as Titus’ potential successor so
that the Flavian dynasty seemed secure. From 71 AD until the death of Vespasian, Titus
was a close partner to his father and played a key role in the ruling of the Empire, though he
was never co-emperor and the hierarchy between Vespasian and those beneath him was always clear
and adhered to. Vespasian held the titles of Augustus, Pontifex Maximus, (head of the Roman
state religion,) and did not share them during his lifetime. Titus however held numerous
important roles during the remainder of his father’s reign which underlined his position as
the heir designate and ensured that challengers to power from outside the Flavian dynasty did
not arise. Between 71 and 79 AD he held the consulship seven times alongside his father
- this was by now a mostly ceremonial office but it nevertheless is a testament to his
influence at the highest levels of the Roman state. In addition, he was made ‘protector
of the imperial office’ and became praetorian prefect in 73 AD, holding command
of the praetorian guard and thus responsible for the Emperor’s security
and for security in Rome more generally. Titus also became Vespasian’s chief administrative
officer, in charge of penning edicts and dictating official letters, and he often represented his
father to the Senate. Matters of strategic and civic importance remained the preserve
of Vespasian, including masterminding the construction of the great Flavian
amphitheatre, known today as the Colosseum. Titus however seems to have been far from
popular in Rome, as he often took his role as protector of the imperial office to brutal
extremes. This combined with a reputation for debauchery led to him being seen as a ‘second
Nero’. These tensions were fuelled by his controversial relationship with Berenice, an
eastern client queen. Berenice was a member of the Herodian dynasty as the granddaughter
of Herod the Great, and along with her brother King Herod Agrippa she ruled a client kingdom
of varying extent on the eastern border of the Roman Empire, where it is rumoured the
two engaged in an incestuous relationship. During the First Jewish Revolt it was rumoured
that Titus and Berenice, who had supported Vespasian’s bid for the imperial throne, engaged
in a romantic affair, indeed, Tacitus writing around 40 years later states that Titus abandoned
his mission to Rome in 69 AD not due to the civil war and the death of Galba but because he was
‘ablaze with passion for Queen Berenice’. However, the exact nature of their relationship during
this period is not truly known. In 75 AD, Berenice arrived in Rome and it seems that her
friendship with Titus was re-kindled, as she accompanied the imperial heir wherever he went
and she lived in his part of the imperial palace. Whatever the truth about the relationship
between Titus and Berenice, the already unpopular Titus did not help his cause amongst
the Roman people by being seen together with a controversial and influential eastern queen - as
the reputations of Cleopatra, and later Zenobia of the third-century Palmyrene Empire would attest,
powerful eastern queens could become figures of hatred and resentment in Rome, especially when
they were perceived as having a malign influence over Roman leaders. Indeed, rumours of Berenice’s
incest and Titus’ overwhelming infatuation with her during the Jewish campaign may well have
been slanderous gossip in the vein of that which swirled around Cleopatra in the 30s BC.
This reached a head when prominent philosophers of the Cynic school openly denounced
Titus and Berenice in the public theatre. Though Titus responded to this denunciation
brutally by executing one of the philosophers, he understood that his reputation
was becoming tarnished in Rome, and sometime after 75 AD he dismissed Berenice
from his company. Nevertheless, by 79 AD, the year of Vespasian’s death, Seutonius relates
that the people of Rome feared the accession of Titus and of the reign of ‘a second Nero’
who would bring cruelty, tyranny and excess back to Rome. His father was widely admired,
having reigned with administrative prudence, competence and being personally honest, moral and
decent. After the chaos of Nero and the year of the four emperors Vespasian had restored order and
prosperity to the Empire, and through his calm and steady leadership Romans were once more enjoying
the peace and stability of the Pax Romana. The fear of what was to come after the
death of Vespasian is evidenced by a plot uncovered in 79 AD led by two of Vespasian’s
allies and supporters, Caecina Alienus and Eprius Marcellus. Though the details are very unclear,
it seems the two men were plotting to overthrow the Flavian regime. Getting word of this,
Titus acted quickly and Caecina was murdered, with Eprius Marcellus put on trial and found
guilty by the Senate, before taking his own life. Though this threat was quickly dealt with,
it illustrates the tension that surrounded Titus’ accession and the fear that Rome’s stability
over the previous decade would not continue. Vespasian died in mid-to-late June
of 79 AD, having ruled for a decade, and was immediately succeeded by Titus in one of
the smoother instances of imperial succession in Roman history. Titus quickly set about proving
to the people of Rome that they had nothing to fear regarding his accession. Soon after coming to
power Titus began to curtail the ‘treason laws’, or the lex maiestasis, which were severe laws
that intended to root out any form of treason or plotting against the Emperor. Having been
greatly expanded in scope under Tiberius, these laws gave rise to frequent trials
that prosecuted suspected enemies of the Emperor (the punishment for treason was always
death), as well as a professional class of informers, known by the Latin delatores, who
often fed Emperors false information about powerful and wealthy Romans in an attempt to
gain wealth and influence themselves. Titus despised these delatores and his elimination
of treason trials allowed Romans to speak more openly with less fear; remarkably, not a single
Senator was executed during Titus’ short reign. Similarly to Shakespeare’s Henry V,
Titus is portrayed in Roman sources as undergoing a momentous personal change
upon his accession to the imperial throne, he is shown as suddenly grasping the
gravity of his position and becoming a beloved character almost overnight. Whether
Titus evolved more gradually, or whether his unpopularity as heir has been exaggerated, it
is clear that in his short time as Emperor, Titus made a deeply positive impression on the
Roman people, becoming widely admired as his father had been and being affectionally remembered
in the sources both for his stewardship of the Empire and his personal traits. Indeed, it is also
possible that Titus made no such personal change, and that he was a shrewd enough to political
operator to recognise his deep unpopularity in Rome upon his father’s death and thus the need for
him to present himself as a transformed leader. Titus faced problems early on in his rule
however, as just months after his father’s death Mount Vesuvius, just east of present-day
Naples in southern-central Italy, erupted in one of the most legendary and destructive natural
disasters in human history. Pompeii and nearby Herculaneum were utterly annihilated by a wave of
pyroclastic lava flow and buried beneath immense piles of ash. The disaster killed thousands and
left behind a city frozen in time - archeological excavations in Pompeii have shed more light onto
daily life in the Roman empire than anywhere else, as people and buildings were encased under layers
of pyrocrastic flow and thus when excavating archeologists have discovered the remains of the
city and its people exactly as they were in 79 AD. Eyewitness accounts of the disaster
survive written by Pliny the Younger, a prominent writer and statesman. Some years
after the event Pliny wrote a letter to his friend Tacitus, himself a prominent historian,
detailing the eruption of Vesuvius and also describing the death of his uncle Pliny the
Elder, an author, naturalist and statesman. The elder Pliny was then a commander in the
Roman Fleet stationed in the Gulf of Naples, and he attempted to organise a rescue mission
to save his friend Rectina, though as he sailed towards Herculaneum he died, possibly from
the inhalation of fumes or of a heart attack. When he received news of the disaster Titus
appointed two ex-consuls to organise the relief effort as well as donating substantial sums from
the imperial treasury to aid the victims of the disaster. According to Cassius Dio the Emperor
also visited Pompeii twice after the eruption, although no attempt was made to rebuild the
city, presumably because the destruction was too complete, and building on the layers of
debris and volcanic matter too difficult a task. Titus’ rule would see yet more disaster strike
the heart of the Empire when in 80 AD a great fire broke out in Rome, a conflagration on the level
of the great fire of 64 AD under the Emperor Nero. Starting from the Capitoline Hill in the centre of
the city it spread to the north-west and raged for three days and nights, destroying large numbers
of buildings and homes. In the wake of the fire, likely being caused by the unsanitary conditions
in its aftermath, a great plague swept the city, heaping yet more suffering on the Roman
people. As with the eruption of Vesuvius, Titus’ response was widely admired - he offered
consolation for the victims publicly through his edicts and sent practical help by donating
great sums of his personal wealth to aid the victims and help with restoration. The sources
say that he refused financial assistance from other individuals and foreign powers, instead
taking the expense of the disasters onto himself. Much of the rebuilding work would take place
under Domitian, though Titus personally oversaw the building of a new Temple of Jupiter
Optimus Maximus, Rome’s supreme deity. Titus won the hearts of the Roman people in
other ways however, and his reign was not one remembered simply for the natural disasters that
befell the Empire. In 80 AD Titus took over the construction of the top level of the Flavian
Amphitheatre, better known as the Colosseum. This iconic amphitheatreamphitheater, the largest
in the Roman world, was begun under Vespasian and remains one of the great, perhaps the greatest,
wonders of the Roman world that can still be seen to this day. It was located in a low valley
in central Rome surrounded by the Caelian, Esquiline and Palatine hills. Titus officially
opened the Colosseum in spring of the year 80 AD, and organised 100 days of games featuring
spectacular gladiatorial shows in the new arena, which was, in the wake of the previous disasters,
immensely popular with the Roman people. The shows put on during the 100 days
of games included gladiatorial combats, chariot races around the vast arena and a
battle to the death between war elephants. At one point during the games the stage level
of the amphitheatre was flooded and a mock naval battle was staged between two groups of
condemned criminals. These displays delighted the crowds although the brutality of them
would no doubt disturb modern audiences, as most of the criminals who took part in
the naval battle for instance were killed. Another project completed by Titus that
proved popular with the people of Rome was the new complex of public
baths that were opened in 80 AD, they were built on the southern slopes of the
Oppio hill, northeast of the Colosseum. Indeed, an access staircase was built that led from
the Colosseum straight to the thermal rooms. The remains of these baths can still be seen
today, though they were later dwarfed by the 3rd century baths of Caracalla and the
early 4th century baths of Diocletian. Both the Colosseum and the Baths of Titus
represented an attempt by the Flavian dynasty to augment a rupture with the perceived tyranny of
Nero and usher in a new age of public beneficence on the part of the emperor. The land on
which both of these projects were built was land that had been used by Nero to build
his lavish ‘Domus Aurea’, or ‘Golden House’, a private palace of immense luxury that had
been built in the aftermath of the Great Fire of 64 AD. With these projects the Flavians
were in effect returning land that had been used by the emperor to showcase his decadence
and wealth to the Roman public to use for their own enjoyment. This was a symbolic gesture
that was designed to showcase Titus and his father’s commitment to the public good, in sharp
contrast to their Julio-Claudian predecessor. During his reign Titus also sought
to revive the imperial cult in Roman worship and solidify the Flavian dynasty
at the pinnacle of the Roman world. He thus helped to ensure that his father was
officially deified around 6 months after his death and attempted to promote the honouring of
Vespasian to cement his and his brother’s claim to the imperial throne. To this end the foundations
were laid for what would become the Temple of Titus and Vespasian in Titus’s reign, and this
work was completed in the reign of Domitian. A persistent challenge for Titus throughout his
brief reign came in the form of his brother, Domitian. Titus continued the practice
of his father of consigning Domitian to relative political inactivity, yet despite this
the sources suggest that the younger Flavian was eager to gain glory like his elder
brother had in the Judean campaign, and that he was impatient with his relative lack of
influence throughout the 70s and into the 80s AD. Upon becoming Emperor Titus had made
Domitian his official partner and successor, and appointed him as his co-consul in
80 AD, however Titus did not bestow upon him any of the traditional powers and
trappings of the imperial heir-presumptive, such as the granting of tribunician powers that
Vespasian had given to Titus, nor did he give to him a major role in the imperial government, and
this no doubt further stoked Domitian’s grievance. In regards to the external, foreign
policy of Titus as Emperor we have very little information from the ancient
sources, indeed, from the ending of the 100 days of games to mark the opening of the
Flavian Amphitheatre in July of 80 AD until Titus’ death in September the following year
the record tells us virtually nothing of the actions of Titus or of wider events within his
Empire. We do however have a short account of his death from Suetonius. He states that in
September of 81 AD Titus was travelling to the ancestral Flavian home in the territory
of the Sabine hills, to the north of Rome, when he was struck by a sudden fever, potentially
malaria, on his journey and died quickly. According to Suetonius, Titus’ last words were
allegedly ‘I have made but one mistake’. Whether or not the Emperor spoke these words
before he died is deeply disputable, nevertheless historians to the extent that
this story can be believed have questioned whether Titus might have been referring to
his brother. The sudden nature of Titus’ death and the relative obscurity surrounding
it have led some to suspect that his brother Domitian may have had some involvement in the
death of his brother, knowing full well that he was the heir to the imperial throne. Certainly
Cassius Dio and other later Roman historians, many of whom loathed Domitian, wrote of plots
concocted by Titus’ younger brother to poison him and then seize the throne. Titus’
last words therefore from this perspective could have referred to his mistake in not
eliminating his brother before it was too late. This however is pure speculation and
it must be emphasised that Domitian, who would rule for 15 years after the death of
Titus, was utterly despised by many of the Roman authors upon whom we rely for our knowledge of
imperial history due to his tyrannical rule in his final years as Emperor and, perhaps
more importantly, for his shrinking of Senatorial power, prestige and influence and
concentration of government in the court of the Emperor. Most of the Roman historians were
of Senatorial class and came from a group that had notoriously bad relations with Domitian, and
thus rumours of his involvement in Titus’ death, though they cannot be completely discounted,
should be viewed with a heavy amount of scrutiny. In any case, Titus was succeeded
by Domitian in an orderly fashion, the latter proceeding to the camp of the
Praetorian Guards upon hearing of Titus’ death and giving a donative to the soldiers
who then proclaimed him Emperor. Shortly afterwards the Senate met to decree honours for
the deceased Titus and awarded Domitian imperium, the title of Augustus and the office
of Pontifex Maximus, thus ratifying his accession to power. Titus was deified later
in Domitian’s reign as his father had been. Assessing Titus the Emperor is difficult
due to the shortness of his reign - just 2 years and 2 months - and the relatively
little information we have about it. His reign tends to blend into that of
Vespasian’s, because it was Titus who completed many of the building works
began by Vespasian, such as the Colosseum, but also because his reign marks a continuation of
Flavian stability, competence and good governance. Certainly the circumstances in Titus’ brief
reign were anything but stable with eruptions, fire and plague, however his response to these
disasters demonstrated compassion and sense, and the problems that faced Rome in his reign were
not the fault of the Emperor and his governance, which is not something that can be said for many
other periods in Rome’s post-Augustan history. The nature of the ancient Roman sources are such
that Emperors are often lavished with praise or smeared and maligned, and Titus definitely
fell into the former category, being described by Suetonius as ‘the darling and delight of the
human race’, with the majority of Latin writers following Suetonius describing him in similar
terms, including his patron and historian of the first Jewish Revolt, Josephus. They emphasise
his generous response to the disasters that afflicted Rome and his dedication to the public
good displayed in this as well as his building projects and public games. Above all they stress
that he was a kind and moral character, no doubt deliberately contrasting Titus with the tyrannical
character of his brother who succeeded him. Cassius Dio however has a perhaps more rounded
perspective on Titus that seems to accord with his record, in book 66 of his ‘Roman History’
he states that ‘his satisfactory record may also have been due to the fact that he survived his
accession but a very short time (short, that is, for a ruler), for he was thus given no opportunity
for wrongdoing. For he lived after this only two years, two months and twenty days — in addition to
the thirty-nine years, five months and twenty-five days he had already lived at that time. In this
respect, indeed, he is regarded as having equalled the long reign of Augustus, since it is maintained
that Augustus would never have been loved had he lived a shorter time, nor Titus had he lived
longer. For Augustus, though at the outset he showed himself rather harsh because of the wars
and the factional strife, was later able, in the course of time, to achieve a brilliant reputation
for his kindly deeds; Titus, on the other hand, ruled with mildness and died at the height of
his glory, whereas, if he had lived a long time, it might have been shown that he owes his
present fame more to good fortune than to merit.’ Though this judgement may seem
harsh, it does reflect the fact that Titus will always be something of
a mystery in Roman imperial history, an Emperor who ruled the one of the
greatest Empires in history at the peak of its power and prestige, yet
one who alludes conclusive judgement. What we can speak to with greater confidence
is Titus’ career before taking up the imperial purple, and using this we can come to a much
more conclusive judgement on his life and career. He was a man who in many ways embodied
and was deeply moulded by elite imperial Roman culture. He was educated at the court of
the Emperor alongside the Emperor’s son, and from a young age was set upon a path through
the high levels of Roman politics. He was thus prone to indulgence and excess throughout
his life, yet possessed a deep confidence in his own abilities and in his place in
the Roman world, and stepped into roles of incredible power and responsibility
seemingly without hesitation or doubt. Due to his beneficent responses to disaster
and his dedication of great public works to the people, as well as his popularity with many
Roman historians and the hatred of Emperors that proceeded and succeeded him and his father, Titus
was and is generally seen in a positive light, both by proceeding Romans and by those
who study Roman history to this day. The historical trend of dividing
Roman Emperors between those who were fundamentally ‘good’ and those who
were immoral and evil helps Titus’ image, as he is always to be found on the side of
the ‘good’ Emperors alongside his father. His legacy is clouded by the excess and
indulgence he displayed prior to becoming Emperor, and by the somewhat thuggish nature he displayed
when he was praetorian prefect and in charge of the security of his father’s regime. By far the
most infamous aspect of Titus’ legacy however, and potentially the events by which he is best
known, has to do with his role in the Judean campaign, and especially his command of the
siege of Jerusalem. In the Roman world this brought him great fame and acclamation and
underpinned his image and popularity for the rest of his life. The great wealth captured
in the campaign and the pacification of the region were widely admired in Rome at
the time and would be remembered as one of the most famous and most effective Roman
military campaigns of the 1st century AD. However, in Jewish history Titus is remembered
as a cruel tyrant, a merciless leader who brought devastation, slaughter and destruction
upon the most holy place in the Jewish world, killing many thousands of Jewish men, women
and children in the process. Jewish literature features him in numerous legends as a wicked
figure who was cursed by God for his actions. To modern eyes as well the Judean campaign appears
brutal and shocking in its destruction and Titus as a chaotic commander in the devastation he
wrought on Jerusalem or as a savage military leader with a disregard for human life. There
is controversy over whether he intended to destroy the Temple, but either way this makes
him a careless commander, or a brutal one. Nevertheless, it must be emphasised that
none of this was uncharacteristic for a Roman military commander. The destruction of
such a holy place has meant that this incident has resonated especially through the ages, not
least because the logic of ancient warfare, and especially Roman warfare, was well known,
straightforward and brutal. Failure to surrender a city meant almost certain destruction for
that city, and defeat of a people meant death or enslavement for the vast majority. Rebellion
against Rome’s authority was punished by the legions in the most severe manner throughout
centuries of Republican and then Imperial rule, and in this regard very little about the First
Jewish Revolt and its destruction by Titus is out of the ordinary for the time. Another problem
surrounding the revolt is the figure of 1.1 million Jewish people killed that is often
attributed to the siege of Jerusalem and its aftermath. Historians are clear that Josephus’
claim is a wild exaggeration, as it is unlikely that 1.1 million Jews were resident in the entire
Judean province, let alone were killed in the city. Whilst the number was no doubt significant,
historians doubt whether it was above 100,000. In addition, the fact that Josephus,
who was a close supporter of Titus, would attribute over a million deaths to his
campaign demonstrates the extent to which a Roman audience did not see these casualties at Titus’
hands as a bad thing, but rather the opposite. What do you think of Titus? Was he a
good, moral Emperor who put the people of Rome first and was a key part of one of
Rome’s most successful imperial dynasties? Or was he a brutal and indulgent man, whose
short reign obscured his faults? Please let us know in the comment section and in the
meantime, thank you very much for watching.
