Hi everyone and welcome to another episode of ancient warfare answers with me, Murray, your

weekly fix of ancient warfare related rant by me where you ask a question, I attempt to answer

it in 10 minutes. Sometimes I get it in on time, sometimes I do not. Now, this question is from Chris,

dear Mr. Darm. I recently read your article on the Siege of Masada in Ancient Warfare magazine

and I had a couple of questions regarding the assumptions made about the shortened timeline

of the siege. Specifically, you mentioned two assumptions supporting the idea of a shorter siege.

I was curious if you could provide more information or sources to support this hypothesis. Additionally, I have a colleague who views Josephus's work

with skepticism, considering him to be a collaborator whose writings might have served Roman propaganda.

Given this perspective, I was wondering why there seems to be such a

heavy reliance on Josephus, especially considering the article's focus on Legion 10 fritensis,

rather than Josephus's narrative. Okay. I may have missed something in the article and would

appreciate any clarification for further insights. Thank you for your time and I look forward to hearing from you.

Right. Thanks, Chris.

Okay.

So one of the issues, of course, with any writer writing under Rome, having been an enemy of Rome,

the two main examples, of course, are Josephus himself and Polybius in the second century V.C.

What does that hostage situation mean for their reliability?

And it's fascinating that the opening of Josephus's Jewish war is a huge apology for historians

in general and a massive argument by Josephus about why he's going

to be a reliable source. Now, at various different points, and Masada is one of them, he talks about

not being an eyewitness, but talking to veterans and survivors. And for some parts of the war,

until his own capture, of course, he is an eyewitness.

...