For over two centuries, ancient Judea was a restless province of the Roman Empire, marked by rebellions, shifting loyalties, and the tensions between imperial might and local identity. In his latest book, Jews vs. Rome: Two Centuries of Rebellion Against the World's Mightiest Empire, renowned historian Barry Strauss explores these conflicts in vivid detail. In this interview, conducted by James Blake Wiener of World History Encyclopedia, Strauss discusses the origins and consequences of these revolts, the internal and external forces that shaped them, and the enduring legacy they left on Judaism, the wider Roman world, and historical memory.

JBW: Dr. Strauss, thanks so much for speaking with me about your latest title. The Jews vs. Rome book spans the period from 63 BCE-136 CE and covers the multiple revolts undertaken by the Jews against the Roman Empire.

What motivated you to treat this two‑century epoch as a single narrative, rather than focusing on one revolt (for example, the Great Jewish Revolt of 66‑70 CE)?

BS: The geopolitical and the religious factors motivating Jewish rebellion against Rome both come out more clearly when you study these two centuries as a single narrative rather than focusing on, say, the Great Jewish Revolt of 66 to 70. For example, if you zero in on that one revolt, you might forget that Parthia conquered Judea in 40 BCE and snatched it away from Rome, but the Romans didn’t forget that. And the continuing interest of the Parthians in Judea and also in the Diaspora Jews of the Roman empire comes into focus when one considers the broad span of two centuries. Likewise, the enduring appeal to Jews of apocalyptic and messianic beliefs stands out when over the span of centuries. For that matter, so does the preference of some Jews to cooperate with Rome and even, in at least a few cases, to assimilate.

Another thing that emerges from a broader focus is the interplay of geopolitical and religious factors on the part of the Romans. From the Roman point of view, the main problem with Jews was not religious but political. The problem was their cozy relationship with Parthia, who was public enemy number one for Rome. In general, that problem was on the back burner, so to speak, but the Romans kept an eye on it, and it became red hot at the time of the various revolts. By the same token, the Romans recognized the role of the Temple in Jerusalem as an engine of rebellion. They had no intention of allowed it to be rebuilt after they destroyed in 70. For good measure, they imposed an unprecedented tax on all Jews in the empire, a punishment inflicted on no other rebellious people (and there were many). And they pointedly directed that tax to the chief god of Rome, Jupiter Capitolinus, whose temple stood on the citadel of Rome itself. This tax was kind of an anti-tax to the one that Jews had contributed to the Temple in Jerusalem. It was as if the Romans wanted to underline the superiority of their god, and they wanted Jews to acknowledge that. Again, however, the real issue was less religious than political, because the temple in Jerusalem had been a hotbed of rebellion. By the way, it’s a little-known fact that there was also a Jewish temple in Egypt. The Romans destroyed that temple too in the wake of the Great Revolt, lest it incite further rebellion. There was, in short, only a fine line separating religion and politics in the ancient world.


JBW: One of the main points in Jews vs. Rome is the interplay of external imperial pressures (from Rome and Parthia) and internal Jewish divisions (religious, political, and geographic) in shaping the outcome of the uprisings.

How do you weigh the relative importance of those internal and external factors?

BS: Rome, of course, was always a factor. Parthia never delivered to the rebels the aid they were hoping for. The Roman administration of the province of Judea was generally not brutal, but it was harsh enough, especially in the years before the Great Revolt, to generate support for rebellion. In those years Roman governors tilted strongly away from the Jewish population of Judea in favor of the Greeks living there. They also took money from the Temple and massacred civilian protestors in Jerusalem. Two other factors must be taken into account. The Roman ruler, Nero, seemed like a weak emperor as well as a vicious one. In 63 he was forced to accept a Parthian victory that put a member of Parthia’s ruling dynasty on Armenia, a buffer state between Parthia and Rome. Then he survived a major domestic plot against him in 65, the year before the outbreak of the Great Revolt. There had always been some Jews in Judea who resented their loss of independence to Rome, but it was not easy to galvanize a sufficient number to rebel. In 66, when Rome seemed cruel but shaky, they seized the day. They did not, however, unify the nation behind them. On the contrary, the revolt was bedeviled both by internal divisions among different rebel factions and by the armed support for the Romans by a minority of Jews. 


JBW: You describe how the destruction of the Temple in Jerusalem, the shifting of Jewish religious identity, and the emergence of Christianity were important consequences of these rebellions.

In which unexpected ways did the revolts shape the subsequent evolution of Judaism after the destruction of the Temple?

BS: After the devastation of the Jewish communities not only in Judea but also in centers of the diaspora in Egypt, Cyrenaica (Libya), Cyprus, and parts of Mesopotamia, it was not to be taken for granted that Judaism would survive. But it did, and in new and unexpected ways, thanks to the emergence of the rabbinic movement and the intellectual ferment that eventually led to those two foundational texts, the Mishnah and the Talmud, and both to major changes in the role of the synagogue and to the emergence of the Study House as centers of Jewish life. As other scholars have pointed out, we shouldn’t underestimate what a major effort this was to carry out in a very difficult post-revolts environment. Another important factor was the emergence of the Jewish communities of Babylonia (southern Iraq) as a center of Jewish learning and life. They thrived under successive empires, beginning with the Parthians.


JBW: Given your background in military history, I’m curious if you might comment how the military dimensions of these revolts shaped your interpretation of them. For instance, which military decisions or missteps stood out as you researched Jews vs. Rome?

BS: As often in military history, it’s easy to compile a list of errors. The Romans were unprepared for all three major Jewish revolts and unable to suppress them rapidly. This is not surprising, as the Romans didn’t have a big enough military to police all their provinces carefully, and Judea was considered relatively low risk after the bloody and efficient suppression of one revolt after Herod’s death in 4 BCE and the quashing of another upon Rome’s annexation of Judea as a province in 6 CE. The Romans did not bother to station a legion (an elite force) in Judea, relying on auxiliary troops that hired locals. That is a sign of how little they were concerned about a major uprising. They were wrong!

In 116 the Romans had siphoned off legionary manpower in Egypt to support Rome’s invasion of the Parthian empire, which left the Romans struggling when the Diaspora Revolt broke out that year. As for Judea, after defeating the Great Revolt in 70, the Romans did maintain first one and then two legions in Judea, but they underestimated the locals’ spirit of resistance and were unprepared for the Bar Kokhba revolt in 132.

The rebels made even more mistakes. In all three revolts they underestimated the Roman will to suppress rebellion and overestimated the chances of getting help from the Parthian empire, either from Parthian Jews or from the Parthian government. Early in the Great Revolt they sent inexperienced forces against the veteran Roman defenders of the city of Ascalon and suffered a crushing defeat. Afterwards they stayed mainly on the defensive behind city walls, waiting for help from Parthia or for the Romans to become frustrated and agree to a negotiated peace, neither of which happened. The rebels didn’t even return to the guerrilla tactics in which Jewish soldiers excelled and which had allowed them to destroy a Roman legion at the beginning of the revolt. Nor did they reckon with Titus’s willingness to sustain casualties in order to besiege Jerusalem and conquer it by assault, no matter the cost.

JBW: Dr. Strauss, you draw some parallels between the ancient geopolitics of Judea—as a small state caught between empires—and contemporary times.

Do you believe the experience of Judea under Rome is a useful lens for today’s multipolar geopolitics or would you caution against making direct analogies?

BS: As many scholars have said, history is good to think with. Direct analogies are usually misleading, but thinking about the past often helps to put the present in perspective. So, for example, it’s useful to remember that Israel and Iran are not fated to be enemies, however hostile their current relationship. For much of history, in fact, they were natural allies. Yet it is also useful to remember that empires or great powers have different interests and perspectives than small states. Professions of friendship and alliance endure only as long as they are considered useful.

A second point is the impact of disunity. However small Judea’s chance of defeating Rome was in the Great Revolt, it was made even less, infinitesimal, really, by the civil war of Jew vs. Jew, especially within the walls of Jerusalem on the eve of the Roman siege. In the face of political polarization in Israel in recent years, some Israelis have recalled the bitter experience of rebel Judea and called for national cohesion. The analogy may be overdramatic, and debate is a sign of political health but even the most resilient of societies needs to hit the pause button from time to time and agree to patch up its quarrels.


JBW: In Jews vs. Rome, you make excellent use of recent archaeological discoveries and new scholarship.

Did any archaeological or epigraphic discovery challenge long-standing assumptions about the Jewish‑Roman conflicts or significantly reshape your interpretation?

BS: The study of material culture – archaeology, epigraphy, papyrology, and numismatics – adds an essential dimension to the study of the Jewish-Roman conflicts. There are many examples but let me highlight just one. The emperor Hadrian’s decision to rebuild the ruined Jerusalem as a pagan, Roman city was the main catalyst of the Bar Kokhba Revolt (132 to 136). It used to be thought that Hadrian took that decision in the year 130, that is, two years before the outbreak of the revolt. Archaeological excavation in Jerusalem, however, demonstrates that the project was underway shortly after Hadrian became emperor in 117, so, about a dozen years earlier than had been thought. Knowing this helps us understand the contention by the main source, the Roman historian Cassius Dio, that the rebels had planned their uprising far in advance of the revolt’s outbreak. Clearly, they had a long time to think about what the Romans were doing and to prepare for what was primarily a guerrilla war by building underground shelters. That long period of preparation helps explain why the rebellion proved so hard for the Romans to put down. In this case, archaeology makes a big difference for historians.


JBW: Looking back at how this history has been received and remembered—by Jews, by Christians, by historians of Rome—what do you see as the most persistent myth or misunderstanding about the Jewish revolts against Rome?

BS: The biggest myth is that the Jewish revolts were primarily a religious war of paganism versus monotheism. That is incorrect. The main problem that the Romans had with Judea was not that it was monotheist. The problem was that a significant part of its Jewish population wanted to regain national independence and preferred being an ally of Rome’s archenemy, Parthia to being a province of the Roman empire.

JBW: Dr. Strauss, as always, it’s such a pleasure to speak with you! Thanks for lending your expertise and time with users of World History Encyclopedia; I wish you many happy further adventures in research.

BS: Thank you, James, the pleasure was mine.

Barry Strauss is the Corliss Page Dean Senior Fellow at the Hoover Institution and the Bryce and Edith M. Bowmar Professor in Humanistic Studies Emeritus at Cornell University. Strauss is a 2025 recipient of the prestigious Bradley Prize. He is a member of the American Academy of Sciences and Letters. Strauss is a military and naval historian with a focus on ancient Greece and Rome and their lessons for today. “No one presents the military history of the ancient world with greater insight and panache than Strauss,” writes Publishers Weekly. He is the author of nine books on ancient history, several of them bestsellers, and co-author or co-editor of several others.

His latest book is Jews vs. Rome: Two Centuries of Rebellion Against the World's Mightiest Empire, which was published in August 2025. From Andrew Roberts’ review of Jews vs. Rome in The Wall Street Journal: "Mr. Strauss is excellent at using modern archaeology to extract information from ancient battlefields. . . . Jews vs. Rome is packed with tales of assassins, mobs, agents provocateurs, zealots and traitors. . . . Without the Jews and their indomitable determination to resist Rome, this book argues powerfully, modern Judaism would look very different—and less heroically noble—than it does today."