The subject of the talk of the author's on the basis of which I bought
this book was that the destruction of temples was not a Roman thing—no Roman
general would want to get on the wrong side of the gods—and it was a
peculiarly unfortunate combination of Jewish history with Roman history that
resulted first in the destruction of the Second Temple, and secondly in the
fact it did not get rebuilt, and anti-Semitism ended up becoming ingrained in
western culture.
To summarise (possibly missing some points, since I left it a bit late to write
this): At the end of the Year of the Four Emperors, Vespasian needed a military
victory to secure his position as emperor (which is why he pushed Titus to
securing a victory in Jerusalem fast, rather than waiting for the siege to
starve out the city). Secondly, Titus possibly did not intend to destroy the
Temple, but once it was on fire, he had to make this out to be deliberate.
Thirdly, because of the way Vespasian played this up, with the triumphal
procession in Rome, and the construction of the Arch of Titus, the victory of
Rome, over not just the Judaeans but Judaism, became a cornerstone of the
Flavian emperors' worldview, and, despite the Flavian dynasty lasting only
three emperors, ended up becoming part of the policy of almost all subsequent
emperors.
I found the book, though, disappointing: most of it was a straightforward
comparison of Roman and Jewish culture, and didn't tell me much I didn't know
already—though I did learn of a couple of additions to make to my list of Jewish
rulers scattered through history: The bandit leaders Asinaeus and Anilaeus
who, in the first century, set up their own state and kept it independent of
the Parthians for fifteen years; and Izates of Adiabene in Mesopotamia, who,
along with his his brother and their mother Helena converted to Judaism in the
first century. (Helena donated treasures to the Temple, and some of Izates'
sons were present during the siege of Jerusalem in the First Judaean Revolt
against the Romans.)
I also disagreed with some of the parts of the author's portrayal of the
Romans' treatment of the Jews as unusual. Indeed; he contradicts himself in
this respect, citing, for example, the Romans' confessed genocide of the
Nasamones. I also found it odd how he kept trying to make the point that until
shortly before the revolt began, the Jews got on well with the Romans; that's
not the impression I get from elsewhere. (Cf., frex, the Encyclopaedia
Judaica: "Before the time of Pontius Pilate (26–36 C.E.) there is no
mention of bloodshed in Judea. But from his days and onward there are
increasing references to a messianic ferment, to disturbances, and to a gradual
disappointment in the Roman administration.")
(Reading up about this in fact moved me sufficiently to use it when I had occasion a couple of years ago to write (for an exercise) a story which was both epistolary and second-person. I can put it up here if anyone's interested.)
In summary, worth reading the prologue and Part III, but unless you're a fast
reader, a completionist, or don't know much about Roman and first-century
Jewish culture, I'd skim over the intervening material.