No. That's why He accomplished almost nothing.
He was some kind of anti Roman rabble rouser. I think He was a recruiter for the really violent people, but nobody knows. He was executed by the Romans for sedition. He left nothing but a scattered handful of apocalyptic cults. Judea had many of those. Most of them vanished when Rome destroyed Judea. The cult of Jesus probably would have to.
This is not in
complete accordance with the scholarly consensus, with the exception of your recognition that Jesus was "apocalyptic" (in the Second Temple Jewish sense).
Most scholars are in agreement with Bart Ehrman that Jesus was an apocalyptic "prophet". They do not believe he was violent or a recruiter of violent people, however. The Q Sayings Source, which Matthew and Luke relied upon in writing their gospel accounts, taught explicitly that the eschatological Kingdom which the heavenly 'Son of Man' would inaugurate on earth (not necessarily Jesus himself in the earliest traditions, we can't really say for sure) could not be brought about violently.
As Ehrman notes, Jesus (in his opinion) taught his followers that the divine judgement was imminent and would happen irrespective of human action. Therefore there was no point in engaging in violence or revolting against the Romans. God was going to take care of that anyway when the Son of Man came with the clouds of heaven. So Ehrman and most scholars adhering to the mainstream apocalyptic interpretation contend that Jesus taught non-violence: people were going to be "judged" by God in the imminent apocalypse, so the mission of the disciples was to "redeem" as many people as possible and leave the rest to God's wrath. Hence why we find Jesus commanding his disciples to scuff their feet and refuse to bless any village that doesn't accept them. No violence is permitted, just the recognition that they had effectively doomed themselves in light of the coming eschaton.
There is absolutely no evidence to back up the claim that Jesus was violent or preached violence. In fact the earliest evidence from Q emphatically dictates against such an assessment and it seems plausible that Judas might have been a "Zealot", betraying Jesus because he was furious that the latter was not willing to engage in violent insurrection against the Romans but was rather waiting for this coming divine judgement, that at least materially speaking obviously didn't materialize, with Jesus instead being executed and a new theology (justifying this) being created on the basis of him as a "Suffering Messiah" (which apparently no Jews of that period had been anticipating) who sacrificed himself for the sins of humanity.
He was an apocalyptic prophet (according to most scholars although not those who participated in the Jesus Seminar, who regard him as having been a cynical sage), not a national insurrectionist.
