[Steppes] Lessons in historical research (was: Challenge)

[Diane Rudin]

Nick Vatavia wrote:
 
> So Bacchides’s army consisted of nothing but the right wing of the Syrian
> army?  Or was this saying that Demetrius sent the right wing of his army to
> assist Bacchides.  I thought that Bacchides had his own men that where not
> Syrian.  It seems to me to be a bit vague, which is why several people where
> not sure of the answer.  Mind you I am not saying you are wrong as I believe
> I said from the get go I do not know much about the time period.  I am just
> playing devils avocet.

Of course it seems vague--it's been translated out of the language in which it
was written, and it was written in an idiom that has not been used for over two
thousand years.  Bacchides's army consisted of his own vassal-troops, and the
right wing of Demetrius's own army of vassal-troops.  Whatever the nationality
of Bacchides's troops, they were fighting for a Syrian "general" who in turn
was sent there by a Syrian king.  A medieval artist would have considered them
Syrian, and drawn them in whatever accoutrements he considered "Syrian", which
most likely would not have been at all what the alleged Syrians actually wore.

> When I was looking into the answer I saw that Judas had in fact made a treaty
> with the Romans but pages I read made it sound like the Romans did it.  One
> said something to the extent that it was a misfortune of history that Judas
> had made a treaty with the Romans but that it had not reached the Senate till
> a few days after Judas’s death by Roman troops.  This was on a page talking
> about Jewish faith and the festival of lights.

Anyone can put up a webpage that says anything.  Much of what is available on
the internet fails to meet academic standards of quality research.  What
sources did they cite?  Are the sources primary, secondary, or tertiary?  Are
the sources of good repute?  Did they cite them using footnotes/endnotes?  Is
there obvious bias in the writing?  (All writing will have subtle bias; it's
human nature.  But a good, responsible historian makes an effort to examine
both sides of an issue dispassionately, and lets the evidence lead, not
opinion, despite the current fad in some circles to be lazy and make no effort
at objectivity.)

I can find no evidence that Bacchides was a Roman general; I find it highly
unlikely that a Roman general would take orders from a Syrian king who had
violated Roman law by running away from Rome (and his responsibility to be
there as hostage), returning to Syria, and taking his crown by force.  While it
appears that Syria was a client-state of Rome (witness the references to
Demetrius being a hostage, and the wording of the Roman alliance with the Jews)
that would not extend to the Syrian king the right to order around Roman
soldiers.  A much later Roman administration had no sympathy for the plight of
the Jews, and eventually destroyed the temple, but the relationship between the
Jews and Rome was neutral-to-cordial during the time of Judas Macchabees.  It
is true that, due to the limitations of communications at the time, the
alliance between Rome and the Jews was not fully ratified at the time of
Judas's death. 

The edition I have of the "New American Bible" has copious footnotes by
Biblical scholars, of such an extent that at times there is almost as much
footnote on a page as there is Biblical text.  The purpose of those footnotes
is to explain anything that is unclear.  They are quite clear that Judas was
defeated by a Syrian army.

The Republic's control over its provinces and client-states was crumbling
during the Late Republican period.  For a more detailed discussion of Roman
law, I recommend Wolfgang Kunkel, *An Introduction to Roman Legal and
Constitutional History*, J.M. Kelly, transl. (Oxford:  Clarendon Press, 1966),
especially Part II, "The Law of Rome as a Great Power and of the Roman World
Empire From the Mid-Third Century B.C. to the Mid-Third Century A.D.", p.
35-123.

If someone has any quality evidence that proves that Bacchides's troops were
Roman, I would appreciate receiving source citations.  If anyone still is
confused or unsure, I will be happy to contact a professor of Greco-Roman
history, who is assisting me in my study of ancient Grecian and Roman law, for
a source reference.

Otherwise, I think we've beaten this topic to death.  Being a devil's advocate
is all well and good, but remember that if you argue with the devil long
enough, he might convince you that the sky is chartreuse.

--Serena Lascelles, OL / Diane Rudin, legal historian

__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
SBC Yahoo! DSL - Now only $29.95 per month!
http://sbc.yahoo.com