Gallic (religion)

I got this usefull peice of information from Gaius Julius Casear's books "The gallic war" Translated to english :book:

Among the gods, they most worship Mercury.There are numerous images of him : they declare him the inventor of all arts, the guide for every road and journey,and they deem him to have the greatest influence for all money making and traffic. After him they set Apollo, Mars, Jupitar , and Minerva. Of these deities they have almost the same idea as all other nations: Apollo drives away diseases, Minerva supplies the first principles of arts and crafts, Jupitar holds the empire of heaven, Mars controls wars.

So what are those other deities doing in Gaul in RTW-BI ( not so much in BI). If the gauls worshipped the same deities as the italians and greeks, where did they get those other gods in the game?

If we cant trust Julius Casear's book...Who can we trust for historical accuracy?

They didn't worship the same gods exactly. They all worshipped very similar gods. The Greek gods are a developement from very primal deities, but they are a logical development. All cultures in Europe tended to develope a female goddess of fertility and a male god of war etc.

These gods aren't the same but they are similar enough that when the Romans came along they simply assumed they were the same gods because the gods could choose how to present themselves to mankind.

In the ancient world religion was about observance to the gods and action, not about faith and dogma. There was no Roman "Bible" to say exactly how the gods were.

In a lot of ways pagans were far more tollerant than Christians, Muslims or Jews. Pagans belived that all the gods existed if you worshipped different ones that was fine. As to why Christians were persecuted, well they refused to worship the Imperial State Religion, Emperor Worship. The issue was really political, they also went around telling everyone else they were going to hell.

I wouldn't be particularly surprised if most of those deities harked back to some common Indo-European pantheon way back in the mists of time. That a clever observer like old Julius would readily recognize mainly cosmetically differing variants from themes he was very familiar with seems quite likely.

I second Wigferth and Watchman.

The Romans themselves had long ago appropriated the Greek pantheon almost whole. Janus and Quirinus are among the few deities worshipped by the Romans before contact with Greek culture who continued to be revered afterward.

i'm belgian and i learned at school that the belgian tribes worshipped the goddess minerva as their main god.

So your saying Casear is false? In his book you got loads of facts...I would think he got something as common as religion right.

The greeks did influence the gauls. Just look at masilla on the map, that was a greek city (and it maintaned independance from Rome for a long long time)

Naw. We're just saying he was calling the Gallic versions of the more-or-less universal Indo-European deities by their Roman names, as he no doubt readily perceived the fundamental similarities and "labor divisions".

After all, he also calls something used by Germanic spearmen that's almost certainly a shieldwall a "phalanx", as that's the variation of the same basic principle the Romans were most familiar with.

lets just be good atheists and just kill each other... who cares about the gods?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Wigferth Ironwall

They didn't worship the same gods exactly. They all worshipped very similar gods. The Greek gods are a developement from very primal deities, but they are a logical development. All cultures in Europe tended to develope a female goddess of fertility and a male god of war etc.

These gods aren't the same but they are similar enough that when the Romans came along they simply assumed they were the same gods because the gods could choose how to present themselves to mankind.

In the ancient world religion was about observance to the gods and action, not about faith and dogma. There was no Roman "Bible" to say exactly how the gods were.

In a lot of ways pagans were far more tollerant than Christians, Muslims or Jews. Pagans belived that all the gods existed if you worshipped different ones that was fine. As to why Christians were persecuted, well they refused to worship the Imperial State Religion, Emperor Worship. The issue was really political, they also went around telling everyone else they were going to hell.

---

That and they were to use modern terms terrorists, that may seem inflamitory but if you read up on what we know of ancient christians it's essentially accurate. The early christians were out to destroy the empire anyway they could. They condidered it evil and the work of Satan.

Since you’re talking about the history of religions during the late Republic and the Empire, and not Rome:TW per se, I’m moving this to the Monastery.

Lars, I am sure those parties involved thus far would like to see evidence of early Christian terrorism against the Empire. Whether or not such evidence is forthcoming, this topic must not degenerate into something inflammatory.

Everyone be reminded that religions are a sensitive issue, especially when they are still in vogue and have a billion or so adherents.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by lars573

They condidered it evil and the work of Satan.

---

For some reasons I doubt that. Satan wasn't a central figure of the Christian mythology back then. I doubt the early christians went around calling the Roman Empire 'work of Satan' while most of them didn't even know who was Satan.
Now, OTOH, they might have considered it evil because they were persecuted, or because the idea of a godly Emperor was against their teachings, yeah.

Or because it was crawling with horrible pagans, some of whom (like a few emperors) were quite unfriendly too.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Meneldil

For some reasons I doubt that. Satan wasn't a central figure of the Christian mythology back then. I doubt the early christians went around calling the Roman Empire 'work of Satan' while most of them didn't even know who was Satan.
Now, OTOH, they might have considered it evil because they were persecuted, or because the idea of a godly Emperor was against their teachings, yeah.

---

Well they did. The 7 headed whore of Babylon in the book of revelations is Rome. For some reason I've never grasped the Judeo-Christians of the 1st century AD really didn't like Rome.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Nelson

Lars, I am sure those parties involved thus far would like to see evidence of early Christian terrorism against the Empire. Whether or not such evidence is forthcoming, this topic must not degenerate into something inflammatory.

---

There is new and mounting evidence that Nero wasn't using the Christians as a scape goats. They really did set fire to the palatine hill, which then ran wild and burned the whole place. In some sort of bid to destroy the empire.

Care to share this new evidence with us?

At least elaborate on it.
Religion is a touchy subject and flying comments are not the best way to go about it. We wouldn't want an escalating heated argument here.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by lars573

Well they did. The 7 headed whore of Babylon in the book of revelations is Rome. For some reason I've never grasped the Judeo-Christians of the 1st century AD really didn't like Rome.



There is new and mounting evidence that Nero wasn't using the Christians as a scape goats. They really did set fire to the palatine hill, which then ran wild and burned the whole place. In some sort of bid to destroy the empire.

---

Let me give you some advice. When talking about tha ancient world don't ever speak in terms of absolutes, you don't know what happened, you can only work out what probably happened.

Certainly in the later Empire Christians were violent, after Christianity became the official religion. I am, however, unaware of any evidence of significant Christian violence in the 1st Century AD. In general Jesus' message of love and forgiveness was very much still in force at this time, remember there would still have been people who had heard him then.

Lars, are you sure you're not getting confused with the militant Zionist-Jewish group Judas belonged to? They were very violent and they were terrorists. The Romans often didn't make a distinction; they were all followers of Yaweh after all.

There are plenty of stories of non-resistant Christians being killed by the Romans. I would contend that you have religious cults mixed up.

Exactly, early christians generally did "turn the other cheek" and persuaded masses to conversion by their martyrdom, not by violence.

Also at the time of the fire christianity was a novelty and only a marginal problem to the empire, restricted to the eastern provinces. How many of them would have been in Rome at the time? The thought of them starting a fire that could burn down three quarters of the city is ridiculous.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Kralizec

Care to share this new evidence with us?

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Kraxis

At least elaborate on it.
Religion is a touchy subject and flying comments are not the best way to go about it. We wouldn't want an escalating heated argument here.

---

I'd love too, and if it had come from a book I could. But it didn't, it was a TV documentary about the fire of Rome. Their thesis was did Nero really set fire to the place and then blame Christians? Now with anything of this nature I wait for them to start slinging pedantic BS about how we wish the past was. They didn't and thus had my attention.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Wigferth Ironwall

Let me give you some advice. When talking about tha ancient world don't ever speak in terms of absolutes, you don't know what happened, you can only work out what probably happened.

Certainly in the later Empire Christians were violent, after Christianity became the official religion. I am, however, unaware of any evidence of significant Christian violence in the 1st Century AD. In general Jesus' message of love and forgiveness was very much still in force at this time, remember there would still have been people who had heard him then.

Lars, are you sure you're not getting confused with the militant Zionist-Jewish group Judas belonged to? They were very violent and they were terrorists. The Romans often didn't make a distinction; they were all followers of Yaweh after all.

There are plenty of stories of non-resistant Christians being killed by the Romans. I would contend that you have religious cults mixed up.

---

No they said that a group of radical Christians, not all of them but a few. They were quite specific in saying it was early Chritians really could have burned Rome to try and destroy the empire. But Ironwall you yourself talk of a militant Zionist group, who's to say that there wasn't a Christian version? And I prefer to speak in absolutes then if not that serious get argued down to maybies.

Ok I just found the TV show (thank Baal for Google :sweatdrop: ). It was an episode of secrets of the dead. Reading the description has jogged my memory and why I found the Christians did it angle convincing. They presented 3 points of view on how the fire started. Theory 1 Nero did it, this was argued by archaeologist Andrea Carandini who has been digging up ancient Rome for 20 years. She uses Tacitus and that early Christians were pacifi. Theory 2 Christians did it, this was argued by several people including art historian Eric Varner, and Professor Gerhard Baudy of the University of Konstanz. Varner case for Nero not doing it is because his palace went up in flames too. And that Nero raced back to the city from his vacation palace to direct and aid in the fire fighting efforts. Konstanzes was the one who came right out and accused some early Christians of starting the fire. His main bits are that some Christians were circulating texts claiming that Rome would be ruduced to ashes.

Quote:

---

"In all of these oracles, the destruction of Rome by fire is prophesied," Baudy explains. "That is the constant theme: Rome must burn. This was the long-desired objective of all the people who felt subjugated by Rome."

---

He came across these nuggets while reseatching apocalyptic prophesies. I'm gonna copy/paste as I'm not sure how to paraphrase the next paragraph.

Quote:

---

Moreover, the Book of Revelations, written a mere 30 years later, seems to equate evil with Rome. The Whore of Babylon, the source of this evil according to Revelations, is described as having seven heads. "The seven heads are seven mountains," Revelations says. Rome, of course, is famously known as the city of seven hills. What's more, an ancient Egyptian prophecy that would have been well known in the Christian quarters of Rome foretold the fall of the great evil city on the day that the dog star, Sirius, rises. In 64 A.D., Sirius rose on July 19, the very day the great fire of Rome began. Baudy believes that, bearing this prophetic date in mind, some of the Christians, maltreated and embittered, may have started the fire -- or perhaps lit additional fires, adding fuel to the larger conflagration -- in hopes of realizing their prophecies.

---

Now I realize that this is just the arguements of one German professor. But it was very convincing. Also he (IIRC) dismisses Tacitus as too anti-Nero to be taken as a reliable source on his reign or actions. And they are careful to say that it wasn't all Chrisitans and that they might have just impeded the Urbans and vigiles (and Praetorians once Nerp got there) fighting the fire.

Oh yeah, Theory 3 is that it was an accedent. 100 minor fire broke out in Rome every day. If 10 burned out of control they could have merged into one big assed fire.

http://www.pbs.org/wnet/secrets/case_rome/clues.html
This breif blurb isn't much. And it doesn't do the full episode justice.

Caesar just wrote what would have made sense to the Romans back home. The Gauls didn't worship the same gods as the Romans, except in cases where the proximity of their cultures allowed for a transition (Epona, for example).

Well I'll tell you what Lars, it sounds like another set of acedemics trying to make a name for themselves. I don't believe the Christians would have done it, I do believe a group that were confused with Christians could have. Added to which Christians usually weren't persecuted, only a certain points in history, i.e. Nero. The religion wasn't outlawed and a lot of people were happy with the Roman Empire, in fact most people were.

Maybe the Whore of Babylon does refer to Rome but it seems to me an underground sect could have been more explicit. Added to which many believe the Apocalypse also refers to the fall of Rome. so the fall of Rome was the end of the world.

Sorry but this just doesn't jive for me. Even if the Book of Revelations does refer to Rome it was written after Nero's persecution of the Christians.

I'll grant you that 7 headed monster could be interpreted as being Rome. It also says in Relevation that the monster would rule over every nation and tribe, but the comparison pretty much stops there.
However, considering the date of the fire (64 AD) it's unlikely that Revelation was even written at the time, let alone spread among all the early christians.

Nero was a raving psychopath, and the fire conviniently gave him the opportunity to live out his hobby of architecture to the fullest. I find it far more likely that he was responsible then that a few christian madmen started a fire that the vigiles could not contain.

Not to mention he composed a poem on the destruction of Troy while the city burned. Which is nice, because Rome was the second Troy (sarcasm).

~:eek:
You mean he didn't play a violin...?
:shame:
What is there to be trusted anymore...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Kralizec

Nero was a raving psychopath, and the fire conviniently gave him the opportunity to live out his hobby of architecture to the fullest. I find it far more likely that he was responsible then that a few christian madmen started a fire that the vigiles could not contain.

---

Well my view of Nero is a bit different than yours. Another TV doc I watched (from either the national geographic channel or PBS) made the case that Nero was the victim, or at worst a forced monster. That his mother was the problem. That he never wanted to be emperor. That his mother forced him on the throne to rule through him. And that most of his more violent out bursts were because of his mother pushing him to be a "man". She was painted a the evil one, and Nero was too much of a mamma's boy to kill her.

Quote:

---

Well I'll tell you what Lars, it sounds like another set of acedemics trying to make a name for themselves. I don't believe the Christians would have done it, I do believe a group that were confused with Christians could have. Added to which Christians usually weren't persecuted, only a certain points in history, i.e. Nero. The religion wasn't outlawed and a lot of people were happy with the Roman Empire, in fact most people were.

Maybe the Whore of Babylon does refer to Rome but it seems to me an underground sect could have been more explicit. Added to which many believe the Apocalypse also refers to the fall of Rome. so the fall of Rome was the end of the world.

Sorry but this just doesn't jive for me. Even if the Book of Revelations does refer to Rome it was written after Nero's persecution of the Christians.

---

Maybe buyt I was open to the idea that Nero was misunderstood (see above for why). Plus I've heard at least 4 different and good arguments that Tacitus was unfair to Nero. And is not a good source for anything having to do with bhim.

Christianity was widespread enough to be noticed in 64AD? Seems a bit early to me...

But I know nothing. *shrug*

Andrea Carandini is a man. ~;)
It doesn't surprise me that he trusts Tacitus implicitly. He's a rather charismatic old chap of the old school of Italian archaeology, and he's widely respected for the way he runs his digs. However, he does take an extremely literal view of the sources and he makes the evidence fit his literal interpretations. It's fun, but not convincing most of the time. The Italians love to trust everything written by their Roman forebears, even the obviously mythological stuff.

Tacitus is clearly biased, and this does make his account problematic.
The fire did destroy most of Nero's new palace complex.
Nero did take immediate action to try to stop the fire and then to remedy its effects.
Personally, I think it probable that the whole thing was accidental - Rome was a tinderbox, and regularly ravaged by great fires.