The Siege of Masada was, and perhaps still is, a myth treasured and propagated in Israel since it's founding. Not that the siege itself is a myth. It took place. But the actual siege differs from the myth.
The myth states that a relatively small (about 1,000 people) group of Jews defended the fortress/palace of Masada against the mighty Roman Empire after the fall of Jerusalem during the great first Jewish revolt for about three years. Finally, when the Romans managed to breach the fortress, the Jews chose to commit suicide rather than surrender.
The myth served to inspire a new nation made up largely of people who escaped the Holocaust, many of whom believed they were entitled to rule land long lived in by others hostile to them. They, like the ancient Jewish defenders of Masada, would fight long and courageously against great odds and, if necessary, die by their own hands rather than surrender.
If you've seen pictures of Herod's great fortress or better yet visited it, it's not difficult to believe it would take years for it to be conquered. But modern analysis and investigation of the site using drones and advanced technology now available establish the Roman legion and auxiliary troops consisting of 6,000 to 8,000 men took the fortress in a matter of weeks. In the time, they built camps surrounding it, a wall around it, constructed a massive ramp to its gates high above the desert and siege engines allowing for the successful assault. Even the mass suicide is now being questioned.
So, the siege now seems more a testament to the ferocity and efficiency of the Roman army than anything else. The myth, on the other hand, is shown to be incredible, even absurd. One who believed in it must feel silly or naive, I would think. Perhaps even feel a fool. I would, in any case.
One who feels he's been a fool may feel he's been made a fool of; may resent those who propagated the myth. This is a danger when a myth is used to gain an end through or advantage over others.
Modern cults are generally based on myths in the modern sense of beliefs that are untrue. Modern cult leaders are thus dependent on untruths. It's been proposed that the person I'll refer to here as "El Presidente" (like the leader of a banana republic) is the leader of a cult. And it does seem that he and his minions delight in the propagation of myths. Inconvenient truths are not merely questioned. They're not merely denied. Myths are substituted for them.
This is the case even where numbers are concerned., It isn't far from firing someone whose department advises of statistics El Presidente would rather not acknowledge to claiming, as in Orwell's 1984, that 2 + 2=5, and as we've seen insisting that what's clearly true is untrue.
I hope someday those being manipulated by myths will understand they've been made fools of and react accordingly. Or they may take their place in the cult as many have already, hoping to profit from those fooled.
