2,000 years ago, ancient Roman forces annihilated Jerusalem. Was its destruction inevitable?

In AD 70, Roman forces captured and destroyed Jerusalem after a brutal siege.

The fall of the city was one of the defining events of the first century. It marked the crushing of a major revolt in Judea – a region roughly corresponding to parts of modern Israel and Palestine – and reshaped both Jewish and Roman history. It also cemented the power of a new ruling family in Rome, the Flavians, whose legitimacy depended in part on military success.

But this outcome certainly wasn’t inevitable.

The destruction of Jerusalem stemmed from a very specific chain of events; a convergence of political chaos at the heart of the Roman empire and deep internal divisions within the city of Jerusalem itself. Together, these forces turned what might have remained a contained regional rebellion into a prolonged and devastating war.

Rome’s original strategy

When rebellion broke out in Judea in AD 66, Rome didn’t immediately move to annihilate Jerusalem. Revolts weren’t too perturbing to the Roman emperors, who had dealt with regional uprisings before – it was, in many ways, the cost of having an empire.

The task of restoring order was given to the general Vespasian, an experienced commander who had previously led campaigns in Britain and Germany. In the Roman system, such generals were expected to stabilise provinces and reassert imperial control, as well as achieving military victories.

“Vespasian’s response is a strategy of going from place to place in the countryside, defeating town after town,” explains historian Barry Strauss, speaking on the HistoryExtra podcast. Some communities surrendered while those who didn’t were “massacred, or enslaved”.

This was a standard Roman method of counterinsurgency. Rather than attacking the strongest position first – in this case Jerusalem, where the rebels had retreated to – the army would systematically secure the surrounding region to gain power in case of a siege and isolate the seat of the resistance.

By advancing through towns and villages, Vespasian was “driving more and more refugees to Jerusalem and slowly squeezing the city, slowly squeezing its supplies,” Strauss says.

• Read more | The overshadowed ancient empire that rivalled Rome with maritime might and an iron fist

This patience was a well-worn tactic. Ancient cities like Jerusalem depended heavily on surrounding agricultural land. By cutting Jerusalem off from that support network, Vespasian hoped to force a surrender without the need for a full siege, Strauss explains, because a siege “is going to be long, costly, expensive and bloody.”

At this stage, there was still a realistic possibility that Jerusalem might submit without being destroyed.

Politics intervenes

Before that strategy could succeed, events far beyond Judea reshaped the course of the war.

In AD 68, the emperor Nero – the last ruler of the Julio-Claudian dynasty – was overthrown and committed suicide. His death triggered a succession crisis known as the Year of the Four Emperors. Rome erupted into a full-scale civil war in which multiple Roman armies backed rival claimants to the throne.

“A series of new emperors take the throne,” Strauss explains. First came Galba, then Otho, and then Vitellius. Each was supported by different military factions. But none held power securely. “So, all heck is breaking loose on the Roman scene,” Strauss says.

For a general like Vespasian, this created a dilemma. His authority ultimately depended on whoever ruled in Rome – but it was no longer clear who that would be. Strauss explains that Vespasian’s approach was to say: “I think I’m going to call a halt to this war until I get new instructions from the new master of Rome, whoever he may be.”

• Read more | “Christianity didn’t invent itself as an empire from nothing: it adapted existing Roman structures”

So, Vespasian’s campaign in Judea paused, interrupting Roman momentum at a moment when the rebellion might still have been contained through pressure rather than destruction.

A general becomes Roman emperor

But this pause also created an unexpected opportunity for Vespasian. As the civil war intensified, Vespasian himself emerged as a contender for the imperial throne.

His position was strengthened by support from Tiberius Julius Alexander, the governor of Egypt. Egypt was one of the most strategically important provinces in the empire. It controlled the grain supply that fed the city of Rome, as well as key military forces.

When Alexander declared for Vespasian, it signalled that the general had both military backing and access to vital resources.

“The fact that he goes over to Vespasian gives Vespasian the heft,” Strauss says. At this point, Judea became a secondary concern. “This entirely puts a halt to the business of repressing the revolt in little Judea.”

Compared to the struggle for control of the entire empire, this revolt was relatively minor.

“Vespasian’s eyes are now on the big prize: Rome,” says Strauss.

Vespasian ultimately won the civil war and became emperor in AD 69, establishing the Flavian dynasty.

This marked a significant shift in Roman politics. Unlike earlier emperors, Vespasian did not come from the traditional aristocratic elite. So, for propagandistic purposes, he needed to prove that he was just as capable (if not more so) than his predecessors. His military success was a way to project that image.

• Read more | Are you healthier than a Roman? These ancient secrets for longevity are still shockingly relevant

So, in a new position of power, Vespasian returned to the unfinished war in Judea. But he didn’t lead the campaign himself. “Once he becomes emperor, Vespasian gives the command to his son Titus,” Strauss explains.

Titus had already been involved in earlier stages of the campaign and was an experienced commander in his own right. He was supported by Tiberius Julius Alexander, who brought both administrative experience and military expertise.

Together, they assembled a large and well-organised force. This time, the objective was to achieve a decisive victory, rather than to assert gradual pressure.

Jerusalem divided

While Rome reorganised, conditions inside Jerusalem worsened dramatically.

The city was, in theory, well equipped to withstand a siege. It had strong defensive walls and access to water through internal sources such as cisterns and springs.

Its weakness came from the rebels themselves.

“The rebels have no intention of surrendering,” Strauss explains. They believed they could resist Roman power. “That is a very dangerous position, and irresponsible.”

At the same time, different factions within the city were engaged in violent conflict with each other. “They fought and killed each other,” Strauss says, reflecting deeper political and religious disagreements about how to respond to Rome – whether to resist, negotiate or surrender.

“They seem to be as interested in internecine warfare as in fighting the Roman enemy.”

The most damaging consequence of this infighting, Strauss explains, was that “they burnt the grain supplies in the city,” – their own source of food. This was catastrophic. Jerusalem had previously stored enough grain to survive for years. By destroying those reserves, the defenders removed their greatest advantage.

Caesar: Death of a Dictator

Member exclusive | On the Ides of March 44 BC, the most famous Roman in history was murdered. Julius Caesar's assassination transformed Rome forever, and the image of his bloody toga has haunted monarchs and tyrants ever since.

Listen to all episodes now

The siege of AD 70

In AD 70, Titus’s forces “get down to the business of laying siege to the city,” Strauss says.

This time, with Rome’s political instability now resolved, there would be no reprieve for the rebels holed up in Jerusalem. And it was no longer the same city Vespasian had once hoped to pressure into surrender. It was divided, weakened and running out of food.

The siege that followed was brutal. Roman forces gradually breached the city’s defences, fighting their way inward. The culmination came with the destruction of the Second Temple – the religious centre of Jewish life. This was a humiliation: a profound religious and cultural rupture whose consequences would shape Jewish history for centuries.

But was the fall of Jerusalem inevitable?

On the one hand, this was an instance where the weight of a mighty empire was ready to be leveraged against a small population isolated in a single city. Rome certainly had the power to expedite the siege. However, Vespasian’s original plan aimed to avoid a costly siege. That plan was interrupted by a political crisis in Rome. That interruption gave time for divisions within Jerusalem to deepen and for critical resources to be destroyed. It was only due to this contingent sequence of events that Titus ended up at Jerusalem’s walls.

As much as the destruction of the city was the result of Roman strength, it was also the product of a collision of timing, political ambition and internal conflict.

James Osborne was speaking to Barry Strauss on the HistoryExtra podcast. Listen to the full conversation.