Gallic (religion)

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

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.

[Watchman]

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.

[Atilius]

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.

[gigi]

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

[Mooks]

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)

[Watchman]

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.

[Cras]

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

[lars573]

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.

[Nelson]

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.

[Meneldil]

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.

[Watchman]

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

[lars573]

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.

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.

[Kralizec]

Care to share this new evidence with us?

[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.

[lars573]

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.

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.

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 ). 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.

"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.

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.

[GoreBag]

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).

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

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.

[Kralizec]

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.