Was Jesus a political revolutionary? A violent one? From a non-Christian and purely historical perspective, is there clear evidence on whether the historical Jesus was a political revolutionary? A violent political revolutionary?
For example, this review of a book by Reza Aslan complains:

[...] why credit and emphasize violent passages in the Gospels while discrediting and deemphasizing peaceful ones? Why believe that Jesus really told his disciples, “If you do not have a sword, go sell your cloak and buy one” (Luke 22:36)? Why the skepticism when it comes to “love your enemies” (Matthew 5:44)?
And what about the obvious problems with the argument that Jesus was not just a political revolutionary — as biblical scholar John Dominic Crossan and others have argued — but a violent one?

If one simply takes the gospels at face value, then:

There is overwhelming emphasis on his teaching of nonviolence and forgiveness.

He's clearly talking about the end of the world, not a secular revolution.

His crucifixion was not the failure of a revolution but the success of a preordained plan that he predicted in advance to his followers.


But what if, as Aslan does, one dismisses nearly all of the content of the gospels as a description of historical fact, and relies only on criteria that would be considered more reliable by non-Christians, such as non-Christian records, the criterion of embarrassment, etc.?
Prefacing with quotes from the article [which is critical of Mr. Aslan] referenced in the question:

Like every other scholar with the chutzpah to try to divide the
historical Jesus accurately from the Christ of Christian faith, Aslan
does a lot of cherry-picking. [...]
And what about the obvious problems with the argument that Jesus was
not just a political revolutionary — as biblical scholar John Dominic
Crossan and others have argued — but a violent one? What are we to
make of Jesus’s apparent lack of interest in doing anything practical
whatsoever to prepare for holy war? If he has come to fight for “a
real kingdom, with an actual king,” where are his soldiers and their
weapons? And why no battle plan?
In the end, “Zealot” offers readers not the historical Jesus but a
Jesus for our place and time — an American Jesus for the 21st century,
and more specifically for a post-Sept. 11 society struggling to make
sense of Christianity’s ongoing rivalry with Islam.

Answering Mr. Aslan [through the question posed]: &quot;This is our position/accusation, now support/prove it for us&quot; is not how it is done.
In programs that appear on secular TV around the Christmas and Easter seasons, e.g. After Jesus | CNN, the narrative given for  Jesus' crucifixion is that he was a rabble-rouser [exact wording - I had to look it up] and the local Roman officials had to deal with him, and in a way that issued a warning to others, or else the matter, unresolved, would landed them in hot water with Rome.
Similarly, St. John's account of Jesus' crucifixion is explained away as a 'Johnny-come-lately' [no pun intended] narrative that progressively pins Jesus' crucifixion on 'the Jews' [one wonders why a Jew would want to do that to fellow Jews].
My take was that this is one of the fallouts from Antisemitism.
These were the politico-religious sects/factions at the time of Jesus: the Pharisees, the Zealots, and the Herodians. There is no historical or scriptual basis that Jesus belonged to any of these.
A cursory look at Jesus' Apostles and Disciples might indicate an apparent indirect link to the Zealots via St. Simon the Apostle, surnamed Zelotes [cf. Luke 6:15; Acts 1:13], except the New Advent link from his name explains his name does not signify that he belonged to the party of Zealots, but that he had zeal for the Jewish law, which he practised before his call.
It is likely that Mr. Reza Aslan is jumping on the bandwagon of the current popular narrative [what people want to hear, aligned with the current political opinion, and what sells], and if not, he has the burden of proof to his assertions in the absence of historical and scriptural [the Gospels are also historical] evidence.
Was Jesus a political revolutionary? A violent one?
Another approach is to look at Jesus' 'Movement' after his Death and Resurrection. If he were, as the question asks, it is surprising that of his followers [14 out of 16 Apostles] all but one were martyred for him like lambs led to the slaughter. Their legacy a 2000-year [now the] oldest institution in the world; absent in it a violent political revolutionary idealogy.