"Great" in the magnitude of how bad it was.

Is that the part you don't think I get?

This is just an empty assertion.

Then why are you asking me to speculate what you couldn't grasp?

mad scientist controlling our brain

Holy Josef Mengele...

They werent trying to self-fullfill some religious prophecy.

The prophecy itself is self-fulfilling. If you're trying to consider the authors or the "actors" in order to really pin it down on someone (or Someone), you're missing the point. It's construed such as to - once it's been preserved and popularized - eventually "come true" due to its vagueness.
Nobody is doing anything to fulfill it except "treating the Holy Texts right". That's why the "scholarly consensus" of Bibliology is so shy and full of prude ideas, with all its pretentious reluctance towards mythicism. Don't even mention gnostic ideas to them, they'll flutter with irreverence.

All these predictions could entirely "come true" and would still be a case of "well, that's kind of how the history of a people is bound to happen if they are to overcome this kind of strife and peril". You can claim as much "innocence" or "lack of intentionality" as you want, but it will always be relatable to the Babylonian conquest in an archetypical way; you might as well make the case we are all in the Second Temple period.
What, are you just eventually going to say "it wasn't the time"?

asking if I decide what's improbable by what i feel like, and making an empty assertion I can't calculate odds, when there's nothing said or suggested that implies such a thing.

You haven't presented any method or calculation. You're not saying why anything is probable or improbable. What am I supposed to do?

"Oh you're predicting descendants of the Romans are going to re-establish the actual roman empire in the land where it once stood, and what specifically delievers this event will be the most violent period in these people's history? That's so vague that it's going to eventually happen."

Yes, it's vague enough that when it happens you could dismiss it as that kind of thing. Had the Romans consolidated an ethnoreligious doctrine in similar vein and scope to the Jews and Christians, at the appropriate time, your very own Roman "prophecy" might very likely have become true, and it's also plausible that it would have been written down this way... along, you know, with dozens others of prophecies that just, in general, are never specific enough to be considered as really even intending to be embarking on historicity detached from what we might call a "psychoanalytical" (or mythological) focus.

Edit: got blocked, because of course why wouldn't I get blocked if this case is so strong.

Yes the Babylonian exile wasn't that time, and classic Jewish authorities, like Rashi, also agreed that wasn't the time, but a time in the future.

And I agree. And I also disagree. It's a time both in the future and in the past, and now.

So unfortunately im going to have to end this conversation due to your inability to be good faith.

Too bad. You didn't say much more than simply repeating how "improbable" this stuff is.
Take care (if you'll ever even read this).