Masada

[Norseman2]

Modern day partisan warfare also assumes the enemy won't just round up all civilians and kill them- loks bad on the news. The Romans could have put the entire population to the sword so resistence fighters can't hide amoung them. Killing everyone and repopulating an area was acceptable military practice in Roman times.

This happened to Emiliano Zapata in the Mexican revolution of 1910. His guerrillas blended in so well with the local population that the Mexican military just killed everyone. The difference between then and 70 AD is that when the Roman legions start to kill everyone, the people have much better chances of escaping and coming back after being trained to fight. Bullets simply catch up with people too quickly to allow any organized escaping.

 

[starlifter]

Fight, see Winston Churchill 1940 for reasons .

 

[Margim]

I'm suprised at the poll result. Why wouldn't more people choose to live and fight another day?

It was not a realistic option. Masada was the very end of the Jewish resistance... the Romans were sick of them. There was no honorable prisoner of war stuff.

Im 99% sure they all would have been crucified, surrender or not.

 

[Gladi]

It was not a realistic option. Masada was the very end of the Jewish resistance... the Romans were sick of them. There was no honorable prisoner of war stuff.

Im 99% sure they all would have been crucified, surrender or not.

Yes once in Masada you were doomed, but there were options for surrender before Masada. Masada itself was already a choice.