The Siege of Rome in 87 B. C.
IN THE year 88 B.C. Sulla had regained the coveted command against Mithridates by leading four legions to Rome and capturing the city by armed force'-a first in Roman history, surprising even to old Marius. This march aroused hostility to Sulla among all classes, even the many senators who shared the political profits of the march: the elimination of Marius and Sulpicius, the denial of equal suffrage to the Italians who had secured citizenship through the Social War, and the re-establishment of the ancient senatorial probouleutic power (App. BC 1. 59. 265-66). After Sulla's departure for the eastern war in early 87, one of the consuls of the year, Cinna, revived the Sulpician bill to distribute the novi cives among all the tribes, instead of restricting them to a limited number of tribes which voted last (in comitia with consecutive voting). Cinna perceived that bearing the banner of the irate novi cives as well as proposing recall of the exiles, including Marius himself, could pay high political dividends. His colleague, Octavius, however, took a staunch optimate line in defense of Sulla's arrangements, protecting the extremely oligarchic status quo. A bloody clash occurred between the followers of the two. Seeing the defeat, indeed, the slaughter of his partisans, Cinna fled the city. Soon afterward, the senate deposed Cinna from office (an unprecedented and illegal act) and his place was taken by Cornelius Merula, the flamen dialis. Cinna assumed the role of (live) martyr for the novi cives and champion of the people's rights (as a consul deposed without a vote of the people [App. BC 1. 65. 296-66. 300]). He easily collected money and men, including even the legion left behind by Sulla. The exiled Marius, long awaiting an opportunity for action (App. BC 1. 62. 281), joined Cinna in the attempt to repeat Sulla's military coup. Meanwhile, the regime in Rome, threatened by these activities, had been compelled to appeal to Pompeius Strabo,2 the only commander in Italy with a large regular armv; for, in general, the plebs urbana was an infrequent and unsatisfactory source of soldiers.3 Strabo had resumed control of his army in late 88, following the murder of the consul Pompeius Rufus, who had briefly superseded the proconsul. Although Strabo and the regime viewed each other with suspicion and distaste,4 he nevertheless brought his formi-
The Jews under Hasmonean rule
THE PERIOD The Roman seizure of Jerusalem in the autumn of 63 b.c. brought to a close a formative period in Jewish history. The previous century had seen Judaea's emergence as a power to be reckoned with in the region of Palestine, one comparable in extent, even if not quite in distinction, with the kingdom of David. The impact of this national experience continued for the Jews through the classical period, and, indeed, far beyond. From the military leadership of Judas Maccabaeus and his Hasmonean brothers came, in due course, permanent authority, a dynastic succession and a monarchy which eventually gained independence. Defensive wars merged into aggressive ones; there was expansion westwards to occupy most of the cities of the coast, east to the Jordan, south into Idumaea and north to Samaria and the Galilee. However, long-term stability was not secured. Geographical factors alone would always make Palestine vulnerable. Religion made it volatile; and this period was one of intense religious activity. Thus, elements within Jewish society found the hardening authority, the profane habits, the wealth and perhaps the Hellenizing style of the Hasmoneans wholly unacceptable. The ruling family itself also fell prey to a war of succession, so, at the time of Pompey's annexation of Syria, the door was wide open to a Roman intervention which had been long in the making. One of the rival Hasmoneans then remained in control of a reduced Jewish entity, and he was made subject to Roman taxation and to the Roman order. This was the political outcome, together with a divided population and substantial discontent.
The Mound on the Mount: A Possible Solution to the Problem with Jerusalem
Following Knauf's suggestion (2000), the article raises the possibility that in most periods in the second and first millennia BCE the main built-up area of Jerusalem was limited to a mound on the Temple Mount. This mound, which may have covered an area of five hectares and more, was boxed-in under the Herodian platform. At these periods activity in the City of David ridge was restricted to the area near the Gihon spring. In the Iron IIB and late Hellenistic Periods the fortified settlement expanded simultaneously to both the City of David ridge and the southwestern hill. In these two periods there was no need to fortify the western side of the City of David, as this line ran in the middle of the city.