Patron gods

As most people in the EB timeframe not only worshiped a "whole" religon, but also considered themselves the devotee of one paticular god, I was just wondering, of all the gods in the EB time frame, who would you choose to devote yourself to?

For me it would definetly be Athena, goddess of war and wisdom, what more could a fanatical EB player want?

Ohh, and I really like olives

Except myself? Athena or Ares. Can I chose them both? Do I have to give arguments regarding this? I mean I go for wisdon in real life/today, but in those times I think you needed more a "friend" up there that could kick some arse. On a second thought... I would have been the same agnostic I am today, except I wouldn't have beep honest about it cuz of the morale penalty.

I thought greeks and romans at least, were fairly tolerant of any beliefs, including none at all?

Polytheists tend not sweat the details, but all tended to be quite unanimous that it was Good Sense(tm) to ask the gods for aid for diverse endeavours, and particularly risky and dangerous businesses like warfare. Some foolish commander buggering the sacrifices and augurs is known to have led to a complete collapse of troop morale more than once.

Originally Posted by Pharnakes

I thought greeks and romans at least, were fairly tolerant of any beliefs, including none at all?

Are you saying you're tolerant of any beliefs or are you asking? Cuz if you're asking, I have no ideea how tolerant you are.

I dont know where you got the idea that people considered themselves 'devotees' of a paticular god.. DnD maybe? Certainly not so in widespread culture, especially for the Romans, even for the priestly professions. As far as tolerance went, the Romans were a deeply religious people, and deeply superstitious. They believed in the power of any god they heard of, which i suspect was true for polytheists in general. Those who did not respect the gods were usually considered insane, evil, foolish, etc.

Originally Posted by Zaknafien

I dont know where you got the idea that people considered themselves 'devotees' of a paticular god.. DnD maybe?

Or EB with its "Worshipper of ..." traits.

Foot

Partly that, but I have read that gods were sort of "kept in the family" with the house having a minature shrine to a paticluar god. Also, it just seems logical, that when exposed to so many gods, you should choose a favourite?

And whats DnD?

Yeah, we kinda jump the shark on that one I think. Hey, before my time. But then again its a 'feature' of the RTW temple system we're tied to.

As far as I know "DnD" means "don not disturb". But I don't think this is what he meant. Or did he? Cuz it makes no sense to me.

Right, traditional Romans of the Republic had national or public gods, their ancient household gods, and then venerated ancestors.

Originally Posted by Pharnakes

Partly that, but I have read that gods were sort of "kept in the family" with the house having a minature shrine to a paticluar god. Also, it just seems logical, that when exposed to so many gods, you should choose a favourite?

As far as I know, the Roman 'household gods' (lares, penates, etc.) were different from the 'regular' gods. They were sort of a different class that looked after the house, and some (the penates, I think) were the spirits of the family's ancestors. They were very important to families, and there is the description of Aeneas fleeing Troy with his father Anchises, Ascanius, Creusa, and his families penates. An example.

As for Dnd, I will hazard a guess and say Dungeons and dragons.

Originally Posted by Incitatus

Aeneas fleeing Troy

There's often a seed of truth to some of these stories.

And even more often a lot of self-aggrandizing hot air.

Exactly. The house hold gods' main purpose was to protect the house and in order to do so they needed to be shown the proper respect. I think the main idea was to keep alive the respect for own culture and ancestors (as far as I know something similar can be seen in chinese culture or at the american-indian natives). The funny thing is that these rituals weren't able to prevent a certain character to make his horse a senator and responsible for all the grains in Rome. As we know the personage was Caligula and the horse was Incitatus :P. And this is not the funniest part. The thing is that a culture whos ancestors were deified in order to preserve that culture gave birth to characters like Caligula, Nero and others that became "gods" themselves "before time". And this "gods" contributed greatly to the downfall of Rome. Today's paradox it's tomorrows banality someone once said.

Originally Posted by Watchman

And even more often a lot of self-aggrandizing hot air.

Like a candy-coat, that always helps a certain someones meds go down?

http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=pCxPEB-uu20&feature=dir

Or maybe not...

Originally Posted by Burakuku

Today's paradox it's tomorrows banality someone once said.

I belive it was 'the banality of evil.' (Hannah Arendt; 1963)

Originally Posted by cmacq

I belive it was 'the banality of evil.' (Hannah Arendt; 1963)

Don't know I just tried to translate this one, it belongs to a romanian: Gr. Moisil.

Originally Posted by Burakuku

it belongs to a romanian

These may apply to the above as well...

people get the government they deserve; Jefferson

and...

the United States is a big Gersey Cow just waiting to be milked; Grant

Originally Posted by Burakuku

Exactly. The house hold gods' main purpose was to protect the house and in order to do so they needed to be shown the proper respect. I think the main idea was to keep alive the respect for own culture and ancestors (as far as I know something similar can be seen in chinese culture or at the american-indian natives). The funny thing is that these rituals weren't able to prevent a certain character to make his horse a senator and responsible for all the grains in Rome. As we know the personage was Caligula and the horse was Incitatus :P. And this is not the funniest part. The thing is that a culture whos ancestors were deified in order to preserve that culture gave birth to characters like Caligula, Nero and others that became "gods" themselves "before time". And this "gods" contributed greatly to the downfall of Rome. Today's paradox it's tomorrows banality someone once said.

I'm sorry but I strongly disagree with that.

Gaius and Nero were both victims of the principate's system. AUgustus had the authority and myth around him that kept the senators down. You had 2 options as emperor: whether you play the game and pretend that the senators are important or you don't and risk them killing you sooner or later. The move away from prinicipate to monarchy would have given the whole situation more stability and they tried.

Gaius and Nero were both "people's emperors" and because of that hated by the senate (who wrote their history). Before Gaius supposed "mental illness" there were 4 senatorial plots against him trying to kill him. I agree with Winterling that he was not insane but simply had enough. The horse was not insanity but to show the senate how worthless they are, that the consul is worthless and that he is so powerful that he can even make a horse a senator. The senate just turned this into a story of a weirdo.

Same for Nero (yes he thought he could sing). Everything went well until he reformed the states finances by raising the taxes for the rich and lowering the ones for the poorer classes....

the biggest thread to the empire were the senators, greedy remains of a state long gone and it would take until 260CE when Gallienus locked the senators out of all important military offices (and guess what things they wrote about him for that)

About the gods:

it has already been mentioned that especially the Romans were very superstitious and tried not to anger any god they came across.

I dont know where you got the idea that people considered themselves 'devotees' of a paticular god.. DnD maybe? Certainly not so in widespread culture, especially for the Romans, even for the priestly professions. As far as tolerance went, the Romans were a deeply religious people, and deeply superstitious. They believed in the power of any god they heard of, which i suspect was true for polytheists in general. Those who did not respect the gods were usually considered insane, evil, foolish, etc.

that's not quite true. You should not offend other gods but you could and did pick your favourites, like Caesar with Venus, Sulla with Fortuna or Domitianus with Minerva.

Ancient Polytheism is not a question of believe. You have to believe in christianity because it is an absurd and abstract story which contradicts itself and you whether believe that story or you don't.

The gods represent nature or human features, behaviour, such things. you can't really ask an ancient greek if he believes because the things are obviously present. do you believe in jealousy, the wind, the sun? doesn't make sense because these things are real.

Now there were on the one hand local differences, on the other hand people had their gods they prayed to. you pray to the things which you think most important, which you want to achieve. If your marriage and family is very very important for you you'd rather pray to Hera, a soldier would probably favour Herakles or something like that. Of course people had their favourites. You can see that very well on the coins they minted for example.

Except myself? Athena or Ares

you wouldn't want that. No one really adores Ares (at least not usually).

Some Roman goods were assimilated with greek gods but Ares and Mars are not the same. You would worship Mars but not Ares.

Mars is the mighty god of war, the fighter and avenger and saviour of Rome's army. He's the god in blood red leading the troops into battle.

Ares is something different. No one likes Ares, not event the gods. He IS war, he doesn't favour one side, he won't help one side. his only delight is to see blood and destruction and to spread the destruction and death war brings. In the eyes of the gods Ares is not the smartest, they make fun of him regularly.

So you'd be better of with Athena, the goddess of just war and cunning warfare, Mars, Victoria/Nike or Bellona

I'll leave it to others to deal with theological/philosophical discussions.

Myself? I would have probably worshipphed all the gods of the pantheon, but I think I would have favoured Neptune (because I travel alot and always want safe voyages) Minerva ([Roman name for Athene] because in Roman terms she was the patron of wisdom, craft, poetry and music) and Jupiter (because it's always good to please the guy at the very top).

Of course, in war, pleasing Mars is a must.

.
Patron Gods/Regional Gods

May I draw the subject a little aside?

Will the kind EB historians and EB playing historians among us enlighten us on which in-game deities were particularly related to what territories or tribes, if any? It will help me improve the RP aspects of my game.

Let's start with Lusotana for instance. In which regions or by which tribes were the influence of Endovellikos, Ataekina and others were felt? To push it into the game further, while a Lusitani would more likely value Endovellikos, how would a -say- Bastetani behave? Would warriors favour Ataekina over the rest?
.

Originally Posted by L.C.Cinna

About the gods:
that's not quite true. You should not offend other gods but you could and did pick your favourites, like Caesar with Venus, Sulla with Fortuna or Domitianus with Minerva.

Ancient Polytheism is not a question of believe. You have to believe in christianity because it is an absurd and abstract story which contradicts itself and you whether believe that story or you don't.

The gods represent nature or human features, behaviour, such things. you can't really ask an ancient greek if he believes because the things are obviously present. do you believe in jealousy, the wind, the sun? doesn't make sense because these things are real.

Now there were on the one hand local differences, on the other hand people had their gods they prayed to. you pray to the things which you think most important, which you want to achieve. If your marriage and family is very very important for you you'd rather pray to Hera, a soldier would probably favour Herakles or something like that. Of course people had their favourites. You can see that very well on the coins they minted for example.

You misunderstand the Roman religion when you say Caesar has Venus as his "favorite" or Sulla, et all. Deities were not baseball cards that people collected and talked about which they preferred over another. The Roman religion was an all in one deal, you venerated the entire pantheon accordingly, and if one deity seemed to prefer you on some circumstance, then an offering to that god or goddess would be appropriate certainly.

Originally Posted by L.C.Cinna

Ares is something different. No one likes Ares, not event the gods. He IS war, he doesn't favour one side, he won't help one side. his only delight is to see blood and destruction and to spread the destruction and death war brings. In the eyes of the gods Ares is not the smartest, they make fun of him regularly.

Yes this is exactly what I said, I want a fried that could kick some arse. I was just acting silly.

Now about the Roman Republic and the Principate and later the Empire we seem to have very different opinions. I'm not saying that Octavian's actions weren't of need in that times, all I am saying is that a gov system in which one man holds all power has its ups and downs depending on that man. I wouldn't give the Republic in its apogee not for the 5 "good emperors". And about Caligula, why do you think there were so many atepts to kill him? His politics of "give them circus and bread constantly" emptied the treasury in 2 years, treasury which was quite rich in the time of Tiberius whos one of main purposes was to gather more and more money (through persecutions, etc). We could argue regarding roman emperors for a long, long time I'd say, but I'm note sure that this is the place to do that.

Originally Posted by Zaknafien

You misunderstand the Roman religion when you say Caesar has Venus as his "favorite" or Sulla, et all. Deities were not baseball cards that people collected and talked about which they preferred over another. The Roman religion was an all in one deal, you venerated the entire pantheon accordingly, and if one deity seemed to prefer you on some circumstance, then an offering to that god or goddess would be appropriate certainly.

no I guess you misunderstand the whole concept of the gods, their purpose and reception a bit. The state religion is one thing but the individual is different and you don't worship all gods. There are gods you might never in your life pray to and you usually don't offer collectively. The whole purpose of the gods is that you pick the things you admire most in your life. You worship 3 or 4 gods extensively for yourself while still following the necessary offerings (like Saturnalia for example). People had few statues in their home altars not the whole pantheon.

You are right that the Romans tried to include all gods they came across but this only applies for the state religion. The state tried not to put down any god (but still that doesn't mean they created an official cult immediately), the people usually worship their own favourites.

Apollo was one of the most worshipped gods in Greece, more than Zeus or others because many people chose him as their protector and ideal to follow.

I assure you that I know what I'm talking about when it concerns the Religio Romana, but I suppose we won't agree on this subject. I could suggest some books on the subject though if you like.

WHat's DnD though?

Originally Posted by Zaknafien

I assure you that I know what I'm talking about when it concerns the Religio Romana, but I suppose we won't agree on this subject. I could suggest some books on the subject though if you like.

I do believe you. but the Religio Romana is only the official cult and not the private. I'd actually be highly interested in your point of view

.

Originally Posted by Zaknafien

I could suggest some books on the subject though if you like.

I'd like.

Originally Posted by Pharnakes

WHat's DnD though?

Dungeons & Dragons
.

What's that got to do with polytheistism?