Josephus description of Jewish Cannibalism

First Josephus describes the events leading up to the siege of Jerusalem.  The main topic he discusses is that of the starvation of the Jewish people inside Jerusalem.

                                                A portrait of Josephus
                                                          
One example he tells of is that of Mary, who was a respectable women from a high class family, who was starving in Jerusalem.  Her predicament as described by Josephus was " she perceived her labours were for others, and not for herself; and it was now become impossible for her any way to find any more food"  Therefore she resorts to drastic measures.  This is how it is describe by Josephus with Mary talking to her son. "The famine also will destroy us, even before that slavery comes upon us; yet are these seditious rogues more terrible than both the other. Come on; be thou my food, and be thou a fury to these seditious varlets and a byeword to the world, which is all that is now wanting to complete the calamities of us Jews. As soon as she had said this, she slew her son; and then roasted him, and ate one half of him."  She then saved the other half and offered it to soldiers after telling them what is was "those men went out trembling, being never so much affrighted at anything as they were at this, and with some difficulty they left the rest of that meat to the mother."

This passage is obviously one that is very disturbing since it tells of a mother having to resort to eating her own son.  However, this was one way in which the Roman people were able to justify the fact that they had just committed genocide on the Jewish people.  This is so because it painted the Jew as cannibals.  That these people were willing to eat each other.  In a society such as Rome this would be something that was not look at as a human trait.  Therefore this passage by Josephus really helps them to dehumanize the Jewish people and make them feel less guilty about killing so many of them.

This also has ramification on Josephus as the author of these texts.  He himself was a Jew and had fought alongside the Jews until he joined forces with Titus.  So it must have been hard for him to be able to justify what the Romans were doing to his own people.  So in dehumanizing them and making them seem as lesser people he is able to distance himself from the Jews.  This therefore will make his decision to join the Romans the correct one in his mind.  He would rather be part of the enemy then to be a cannibal.  So this description is very telling about Josephus.

Pericles' Funeral Oration by Thucydides

Pericles' funeral oration from Thucydides' History of the Pelopponnesian War has many overlapping themes with ancient just war theory, even though it does not address it directly.

Pericles starts his oration with discussing the honor that a public funeral holds for the slain soldiers. "But I should have preferred that, when men's deeds have been brave, they should be honored in deed only, and with such an honor as this public funeral, which you are now witnessing" (Thucydides). By framing a public funeral as a place to honor dead soldiers Pericles is effectively asserting the soldiers should be honored for going to war and that is some way their action were just.

Next, Pericles talks about their Athenian ancestors that also died in effort to create the Athenian city state that everyone is currently enjoying. "There has never been a time when they did not inhabit this land, which by their valor they will have handed down from generation to generation, and we have received from them a free state. But if they were worthy of praise, still more were our fathers, who added to their inheritance, and after many a struggle transmitted to us their sons this great empire" (Thucydides). Pericles is essentially justifying the action of his ancestors that fought for the free city state of Athens. As I have discussed before, fighting for freedom and peace is part of the ancient just war rhetoric. Augustine, Aristotle, and Cicero all see fighting for freedom and peace as a just cause in going to war.

Pericles also mentions the altruism of the Athenian city state that makes them righteous in preserving their way of life through war."Our form of government does not enter into rivalry with the institutions of others. Our government does not copy our neighbors', but is an example to them. It is true that we are called a democracy, for the administration is in the hands of the many and not of the few. But while there exists equal justice to all and alike in their private disputes, the claim of excellence is also recognized; and when a citizen is in any way distinguished, he is preferred to the public service, not as a matter of privilege, but as the reward of merit" (Thucydides). With this quote, Pericles is telling the funeral goers how great and just Athens is and that this in some way justifies the men that died in war to protect the Athenian way of life. This is gray area in the classical just war theories. The ancient authors did not expressly say that preserving a good way of life is a just cause in going to war. Defensive wars are permitted and preserving peace and freedom are also just causes. It seems as though Pericles is insinuating that preserving the Athenian way of life is a just cause in war for the simple reason that Athens is a just society.

Pericles also mentions the superiority of the Athenian army and that they fight in a just manner. "Then, again, our military training is in many respects superior to that of our adversaries...We rely not upon management or trickery, but upon our own hearts and hands" (Thucydides). This quote shows that Athenian warriors fight fairly, which is a very important part of just war theory. To fight a just war, they must fight with proper force against their enemies and show them mercy where necessary.

The main theme of Pericles' funeral oration is that war is just if you are fighting for a just and great society. Pericles asserts that these warriors have died defending the great city of Athens and that this is an honor and a just thing to do. "I have dwelt upon the greatness of Athens because I want to show you that we are contending for a higher prize than those who enjoy none of these privileges, and to establish by manifest proof the merit of these men whom I am now commemorating" (Thucydides). Although it may be a bit of a stretch, Pericles' funeral oration puts an interesting spin on the classical idea of just war theory.

British India

                 Although the grandeur associated with the Roman Empire seems unrivaled, the British Rule of India may have been a little grander.  The peak population of the Roman Empire around the age of the Antonines is estimated at 120,000,000, with the Italian population included in this figure. The population of India at the time of British rule was no less than 150,000,000 without including any of the British population.

                 It should also be noted that Rome had the advantage of location on its side with Italy perfectly situated in the Mediterranean, the basis of the Roman Empire’s power. The Mediterranean was a clear “boundary” of this power as, “a short journey in almost any direction from it would have taken the traveller completely from under the protection of the eagles”. England did not have this same advantage as India and England are separated by sea, land, and some of the most powerful European nations. It is no coincidence then that England’s conquest of India can be solely attributed to the superiority of the British navy. As Hazewell phrases it, “The condition of Indian dominion is ocean dominion”.

                While there are some considerable differences in the British and Roman Empires, they share one resemblance. Both empires were comprised of a multitude of different countries and cultures. This is obviously more evident in the case of the Roman Empire which ruled over Syrians, Greeks, Egyptians, and other Eastern peoples. India was at the time, made up of ten different civilized nations with entirely different cultures. In both cases, this division played into the hands of the conqueror. With so little in common, the nations and cultures on the defensive did not combine against their conquerors. Without this key factor at play, both empires would have been hard-pressed to build the grand empires remembered in history.

 (http://georgeorwellnovels.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/03/british-indian-empire-map-1909.jpg) 

(http://sis-giantempires-afroeurasia.wikispaces.com/file/view/746px-Roman_empire_395.jpg/50792219/746px-Roman_empire_395.jpg)

Hazewell, C. C. (1857, November). British India. The Atlantic Monthly, 1, pp. 85-93.