The Romans definitely committed war crimes

The Roman takeover of Jerusalem in the first century was horrendous, violating probably hundreds of current laws of war.

 

The Roman army brutally destroyed Jerusalem, then constantly and cruelly reminded the remaining Jewish population any chance they got.

The burning of the Temple was horrific to the Jewish people. Many of them, upon seeing the flames, killed themselves. Others begged to be exiled into the desert (Armstrong, 152). After the Temple was gone, the Jewish people just gave up, but the onslaught wasn’t over yet. The Temple reduced to smoldering rubble, Titus turned his attention, and his soldiers, to obliterating many of “the elegant mansions in the Upper City.” Titus had this troops pull “down Herold’s beautiful palace… how thoroughly and ruthlessly the roman troops went about their task. Houses collapsed and lay buried under piles of debris that were never cleared away” (Armstrong, 153).

Never cleared away.

After enduring all of that, the Jewish people faced a bleak future filled with perpetual punishment. Constantly they were reminded of their horrific defeat, the loss of their sacred things and places, and were disrespected relentlessly by their new occupiers. Taxes were employed just for being Jewish, with the money donated to the Temple of Jupiter in Rome. Celebratory victory arches were erected depicting the removal of Jewish sacred objects, while these items lay on display proudly in the imperial capital. Sacred cloths remained stained with the blood of Jewish victims of the takeover, and Roman soldiers would display the imperial eagles in the streets (Armstrong, 154). Furthermore, the Romans “may have even built a shrine to Serapis-Asclepius, god of healing, near the Pool of Beth-Hesda” (Armstrong, 154).

So, one would assume that Jerusalem was a very important place to the Romans. How else could they validated these atrocities? In an odd twist, the Romans didn’t seem to care much for Jerusalem once they had it. They didn't even clear away the rubble from fallen buildings.

Jerusalem “was little more than a base for the Roman army. The Tenth Legion has left little [archeological] trace… since the soldiers probably lived in wooden huts and tents” (Armstrong, 154). There is no way the Romans were all that invested in the city of Jerusalem post-takeover if the soldiers lived in shacks, and few civilians inhabited the city.

Moreover, the Romans had little knowledge of the geography and society of the city, coming to the incorrect assumption that David lived in “the Upper City in the better part of town”, where some of the only houses left standing when the destruction had finally stopped. (Armstrong, 154).

An act of violent takeover like this is today’s time would no doubt result in a massive push back from the international community, with involvement being a near inevitability. In fact, I’m running out of synonyms for the word horrific as I try to describe the scale of the monstrosities inflicted on the Jewish people living in Jerusalem. The most frustrating and unbelievable aspect of this takeover is without a doubt the general lack of respect shown to the city the Romans fought so hard for.