RE: The people of the antichrist...
http://www.wnd.com/2009/08/107325/
Consistent with the linked article, I’ve read Josephus, and he makes quite clear that when Titus saw the Temple treasury, and the edifice in 70AD, his desire was to preserve it all as a fabulous trophy for Rome.
So, when the inner sanctuary — the House, as it was called — of the temple at Jerusalem was set ablaze by a firebrand thrown through a window by an unidentified conscript, Titus was sent for immediately. He came, saw, and commanded the troops be brought to order, but he faced this one mitigating problem: the rank-and-file legionnaires who were raging out of control were conscripts, and they had thrown off all constraints of rank and would in no wise be reined in by Titus’ Roman commanders. Titus could not — by any means known to Rome — restore order to his forces on the Temple Mount, and so the structure became fully involved in fire and was destroyed, and the will of Rome was thwarted. though I have VERY often heard it said, it remains a cavalier mishandling of history to blithely assert, “The Romans destroyed the Temple in 70AD.” No. The Official desire of Rome — the full force and authority of which was then vested in Titus — was NOT to destroy the Temple at all. the Temple was, in plain fact, destroyed by others, IN SPITE of the wishes of Rome.
It is also interesting to note that there is mention in the Bible of what we would call a battalion of Roman soldiers who were garrisoned at Cesarea. The writer of Acts, in chapter 10, makes reference that this force was known locally as “The Italian Regiment.” That detail forces the question, “Why the distinction? They were Roman soldiers, so why was it so notable that they were Italian?” The article, and Josephus, answer the question: because, by that time in history MOST of the Roman legion WEREN’T Italians, anymore; they were conscripts from surrounding regions.
The Bottom Line: “The people of the ruler who will come”; the people from whom antichrist will arise — the people who destroyed the temple and the holy place — were NOT Romans, and their descendants are NOT Italians. No, rather look to the east, my friend, and be vigilant; the hour grows late, and something wicked this way comes.
The term "regiment" is problematic; that would indicate a fraction of a legion ("brigade") but not a cohort (more like a battalion, about 480-600 men usually). This suggests that the term used in the original, which we'd have to see, was tagma, a Greek word meaning a detachment (tagma => "tactic", "tactical"). By the time of Titus, yes, many legions were composed of troops not levied in Italy. Those led by Vespasian, emperor during the Sack, during the civil war a dozen years earlier had been Syrians. During those years the army was made up of large constellations of legions raised in the West and those raised in Asia Minor and greater Syria. There were also large agglutinations of auxiliary troops, which in the Roman system very often kept their native organizations, arms, and fighting styles (Cretan archers, Balearic slingers, etc.). These troops usually formed up in detachments (tagmata again) sometimes called "cohorts", by inscriptional evidence (I've seen such e.g. funerary inscriptions in Britain). These units were not part of any legionary organization and were separately led and paid.
It's worth noting that in Vespasian's time, auxiliary infantry were usually paid a denarius a day, one third the legionary rate (but equal to the old legionary rate in the later republican period).