|
I'm looking for a book (either reference or explanatory) on Roman/Latin mythology and religious practices during the middle Republic. Anybody have any good recommendations?
|
|
#
?
Feb 3, 2014 15:12
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 24, 2024 22:21 |
|
|
Grand Fromage posted:He was aware, that's why he was doing it. It was a source of unrest and division in his empire and he wanted it to stop, now. It depends how cynical you are/you think Constantine was for deciding what his approach was, whether he had a dog in the fight or just wanted something that would shut everyone up; there are points to be made for either interpretation and no way to really know. Was the writing already on the wall, though? I was under the impression that it was well into the 4th century before Christianity truly took on a dominant role in society.
|
|
#
?
Feb 3, 2014 21:12
|
|
|
Grand Fromage posted:He was aware, that's why he was doing it. It was a source of unrest and division in his empire and he wanted it to stop, now. It depends how cynical you are/you think Constantine was for deciding what his approach was, whether he had a dog in the fight or just wanted something that would shut everyone up; there are points to be made for either interpretation and no way to really know. Was there still a widespread Imperial cult after Christianity was legalised? And by this time period, were there still Romans that worshiped the Latin variants of the Hellenistic gods?
|
|
#
?
Feb 3, 2014 21:45
|
|
|
Noctis Horrendae posted:Was there still a widespread Imperial cult after Christianity was legalised? And by this time period, were there still Romans that worshiped the Latin variants of the Hellenistic gods? Yes and yes. It is only with the official switch to Christianity as state religion that polytheism finally withered as an institutional entity due to lack of funding and eventually, of course, prohibition of pagan belief. Julian is notable as a Constantinian pagan emperor, for example, and the period between Constantine and Theodosius saw churches and temples competing quite intensely with one another for worshippers.
|
|
#
?
Feb 3, 2014 22:21
|
|
|
Noctis Horrendae posted:Was there still a widespread Imperial cult after Christianity was legalised? And by this time period, were there still Romans that worshiped the Latin variants of the Hellenistic gods? Also, I don't think it's fair to call the Roman gods just Latinized versions of the Hellenistic gods. I'm not really up on my Roman mythology, but I've seen big explanations as to why it goes well beyond that, despite the superficial appearances.
|
|
#
?
Feb 3, 2014 22:43
|
|
Yes, it's like a lava lamp.
|
PittTheElder posted:Also, I don't think it's fair to call the Roman gods just Latinized versions of the Hellenistic gods. I'm not really up on my Roman mythology, but I've seen big explanations as to why it goes well beyond that, despite the superficial analogues. I'm no expert on any ancient mythology either, but I'm being honest when I say that I truly believe the Roman gods are Latin copy and pastes of the Hellenistic gods.
|
|
#
?
Feb 3, 2014 22:45
|
|
|
I think it was covered earlier in this thread but the reason they are so similar is that they are both descended from a proto-indoeuropean skygod religion. As each civilization evolved into separate cultures, their gods diverged but not so much for Romans to say "Zeus is enough like Jupiter so he's cool" and allow for Greek-originated stories to be adapted to Roman culture (ex. Heracles to Hercules).
|
|
#
?
Feb 3, 2014 22:52
|
|
|
I think Noctis Horrendae was being sarcastic.
|
|
#
?
Feb 3, 2014 22:53
|
|
|
euphronius posted:I think Noctis Horrendae was being sarcastic. No, I'm not. 
|
|
#
?
Feb 3, 2014 22:58
|
|
|
The easiest place to see differences, in my opinion, is in how much importance and power the Romans gave Mars and Venus compared to how the Greeks typically portray Ares and Aphrodite as foolish gods. I don't have my books with me right now to find some quotes, but Roman poets speak of Venus as being a primal force of creation and Mars as being the essence of everything appropriate to manhood - which includes violence and war, certainly, but not limited to it. There's more differences between the two religions, to be sure, but to me that's the most obvious shift.
|
|
#
?
Feb 3, 2014 23:26
|
|
|
Beamed posted:Was the writing already on the wall, though? I was under the impression that it was well into the 4th century before Christianity truly took on a dominant role in society. Well, Julian the Apostate certainly didn't think the writing was on the wall (okay, the writing probably was on the wall by then, but he didn't care). Anyway, it was about 70 years between Constantine fully legitimizing Christianity in the empire and Theodosius making it the official state religion.
|
|
#
?
Feb 4, 2014 01:09
|
|
|
Jazerus posted:Yes and yes. It is only with the official switch to Christianity as state religion that polytheism finally withered as an institutional entity due to lack of funding and eventually, of course, prohibition of pagan belief. Julian is notable as a Constantinian pagan emperor, for example, and the period between Constantine and Theodosius saw churches and temples competing quite intensely with one another for worshippers. The aristocracy and Senate of Rome remained Pagan for a long time - their pagan rituals and artifacts like the Temple of Victory were tolerated for a while (the alter of Victory was only removed from the Senate House in 382). Whilst Rome was becoming a backwater and the Senate was no longer even in the power structure they were still powerful enough to avoid offending too much - there was still institutional memories of the Senate putting forth candidates for the Emperor. Though I believe it was Constantine's rival for the Western throne who was the last claimant to really court Rome and the Senate.
|
|
#
?
Feb 4, 2014 01:31
|
|
|
Wasn't it Theodosius I who really turned the heat up on adopting Christianity and turning the screws on everyone else espeically Hellenism and its descendents? He outlawed the Roman pantheon, and banned the Olympics. Dissolving the Vestal Virgins and destroying many Roman temples throughout? OK not him destroying them but he made no condemnation of it which with his other edicts was more or less encouragement. Sure Christianity wasn't united at that point but it was pretty clear by him... Christ's way or the brimstone highway.
|
|
#
?
Feb 4, 2014 02:02
|
|
|
I would say tthe closing of Delphi by Theodosius in 395 is a good demarcation, yeah.
|
|
#
?
Feb 4, 2014 02:08
|
|
|
Is there a particular reason anybody can point to why Christianity got picked up by the Romans over Sol Invictus? Was the latter tainted by the association with Elagabalus? It seems like a monotheistic religion that didn't also have the baggage of conflicting interpretations would be more appealing if it came down to a choice, or was Christianity already too entrenched amongst the greater population by the time Constantine saw the writing on the wall?
|
|
#
?
Feb 4, 2014 04:35
|
|
|
My simple answer is that it was popular in the upper middle class of the eastern empire.
|
|
#
?
Feb 4, 2014 04:56
|
|
|
euphronius posted:My simple answer is that it was popular in the upper middle class of the eastern empire. drat hipsters.
|
|
#
?
Feb 4, 2014 05:19
|
|
|
In the spirit of ancient Roman religiochat I dedicate my firstest ever post herein to the gods and the "oldest" [yet found] Roman temple (of which I have seen no mention in this thread): http://www.npr.org/2014/01/29/267819402/archaeologists-unearth-what-may-be-oldest-roman-temple
|
|
#
?
Feb 4, 2014 05:55
|
|
|
Jerusalem posted:Is there a particular reason anybody can point to why Christianity got picked up by the Romans over Sol Invictus? Was the latter tainted by the association with Elagabalus? It seems like a monotheistic religion that didn't also have the baggage of conflicting interpretations would be more appealing if it came down to a choice, or was Christianity already too entrenched amongst the greater population by the time Constantine saw the writing on the wall? If I recall, by this time Christianity had made itself popular with a certain class of Roman; while it appealed greatly with lower classes and slaves, etc., it was really catching on with the clerical/bureaucratic type. "Christians" kind of emerged out of the persecutions as a group investing a lot in education and learning and started to fill these middle positions of power. Also Constantine's mom was Christian and Constantine loved his mom. Though you're kind of on to something, if it wasn't Christianity it probably would have been something else. The Third Century Crisis seems to have left everyone very rattled and turning hard to religion. edit: Another thing: Christianity already had an extensive shadow bureaucracy alongside the Roman. Berke Negri fucked around with this message at 06:53 on Feb 4, 2014 |
|
#
?
Feb 4, 2014 06:04
|
|
|
Berke Negri posted:If I recall, by this time Christianity had made itself popular with a certain class of Roman; while it appealed greatly with lower classes and slaves, etc., it was really catching on with the clerical/bureaucratic type. "Christians" kind of emerged out of the persecutions as a group investing a lot in education and learning and started to fill these middle positions of power. Also Constantine's mom was Christian and Constantine loved his mom. A friend of mine did his thesis on related subjects, and apparently the whole "Christianity was a religion of the poor and the slaves" is a later invention. Those who had the chance to check out new religions were the well-off ones. There's a shitload of really bad science out on the spread of early Christianity since most writers on the subject up until today have been Christians who have been more or less ideological in their writing.
|
|
#
?
Feb 4, 2014 07:09
|
|
|
I like to think that Christianity succeeded partly because it was full of contradictary and conflicting interpretations. More well-established cults like Sol Invictus or Mithraism were, in a sense, closed and shut cases. Mithraism especially, since it was a mystery cult and thus built on unchanging tradition. Christianity, however, was relatively ill-defined, and you could project your expectations on it. Hell, you could even decide what it was if you were important enough.
BravestOfTheLamps fucked around with this message at 00:45 on Feb 5, 2014 |
|
#
?
Feb 5, 2014 00:15
|
|
|
Similar things have been posted, but here is a neat site with maps of the Roman Empire through its history, along with summaries of the major events. http://4umi.com/image/map/rome/19maps.php
|
|
#
?
Feb 6, 2014 20:48
|
|
|
BravestOfTheLamps posted:I like to think that Christianity succeeded partly because it was full of contradictary and conflicting interpretations. I think that may be part of it, but at the same time I think Christianity gives a more concrete offering for the future(i.e. what happens after death). Accept the message of Jesus/God, try to be good, and confess your sins when you're not good(which I have to imagine is a big thing in a world full of murder and thievery) and you're good to go to paradise for eternity.
|
|
#
?
Feb 6, 2014 21:02
|
|
|
Amused to Death posted:I think that may be part of it, but at the same time I think Christianity gives a more concrete offering for the future(i.e. what happens after death). Accept the message of Jesus/God, try to be good, and confess your sins when you're not good(which I have to imagine is a big thing in a world full of murder and thievery) and you're good to go to paradise for eternity. I think this is far more likely. The notion of a paradise being available to anyone who just believes a certain thing was a major change from the other religions which promised paradise to only the chosen few, or a somewhat-less-lovely afterlife for performing certain actions (some of which being out of reach for your average dirt farmer).
|
|
#
?
Feb 6, 2014 21:26
|
|
|
Thwomp posted:I think it was covered earlier in this thread but the reason they are so similar is that they are both descended from a proto-indoeuropean skygod religion. Early Rome was heavily, heavily influenced by Greek culture though (what with all those Greek colonies in southern Italy). I think it goes a bit further than just both descending from PIE religion.
|
|
#
?
Feb 6, 2014 22:00
|
|
|
feedmegin posted:Early Rome was heavily, heavily influenced by Greek culture though (what with all those Greek colonies in southern Italy). I think it goes a bit further than just both descending from PIE religion. It was also heavily influenced by Etruscan culture, what with them being neighbors.
|
|
#
?
Feb 6, 2014 22:04
|
|
|
homullus posted:It was also heavily influenced by Etruscan culture, what with them being neighbors. And the Etruscans were also heavily influenced by the Greeks.
|
|
#
?
Feb 6, 2014 22:07
|
|
|
homullus posted:It was also heavily influenced by Etruscan culture, what with them being neighbors. Yep, and said Etruscans were also influenced by the Greeks! I'm not saying Roman religion = Greek religion with the serial numbers filed off or anything, but saying 'oh they were both descended from proto-Indo-Europeans and that's why there are resemblances between them' is going a bit far in the other direction.
|
|
#
?
Feb 6, 2014 22:09
|
|
|
Civilizations in the Mediterranean had links and contact for thousands of years, it shouldn't be too surprising that they have similarities. Particularly when they were descended from common roots.
|
|
#
?
Feb 7, 2014 00:17
|
|
|
Grand Fromage posted:Civilizations in the Mediterranean had links and contact for thousands of years, it shouldn't be too surprising that they have similarities. Particularly when they were descended from common roots. Similarities is a bit of an understatement I'd say. I still stand by what I originally said - the Roman gods are near-identical to the early Greek gods. Moving on to another topic, is it true that the Greeks were the first to use the swastika? I've seen a few sites claiming this - some of which have actual "evidence" - but no solid proof in encyclopaedias or books.
|
|
#
?
Feb 7, 2014 01:22
|
|
|
Noctis Horrendae posted:Similarities is a bit of an understatement I'd say. I still stand by what I originally said - the Roman gods are near-identical to the early Greek gods. But this is factually wrong? Like, it's not even arguable.
|
|
#
?
Feb 7, 2014 01:40
|
|
|
You'll have to be a bit more specific what a "Greek" God was too as there were like thousands of them.
|
|
#
?
Feb 7, 2014 01:53
|
|
|
Noctis Horrendae posted:Moving on to another topic, is it true that the Greeks were the first to use the swastika? I've seen a few sites claiming this - some of which have actual "evidence" - but no solid proof in encyclopaedias or books. They probably weren't first, but they certainly used it. The wikipedia page on the swastika is pretty decent, and full of references.
|
|
#
?
Feb 7, 2014 02:01
|
|
|
Noctis Horrendae posted:Similarities is a bit of an understatement I'd say. I still stand by what I originally said - the Roman gods are near-identical to the early Greek gods. I still don't accept what you originally said, unless you're going at a macro level of "they both had gods, the Romans copied Greek iconography, and there were some state-sponsored festivals." Visually, they are near-identical, but that's because the Romans were never really all that art-oriented and the Greeks had a long tradition of it. And yes, the Romans did import some mystery religions, and Apollo was very popular. The Romans worshiped more gods in earnest, though, and it pervaded their culture more. There is nothing like the imagines in Greek religion, nor the Lares and Penates. Yes, the Greeks had Hestia as a household deity, but the Romans took Vesta far more seriously, and then had all those other guys. There is no Greek Quirinus. Mars is not at all like Ares, even if he dresses the same; Ares is the raging madness of war, often made fun of in myth, while Mars is state-beloved Athena-like military precision, and is agricultural in nature. Minerva is probably a moon goddess originally, and while she inherited Athena's iconography and mythology, Mars holds the place of honor in Roman culture that Athena gets in Greek (though there is the amusing phrase "use your fat Minerva" in Latin, meaning to try to use your own self-deprecated smarts to figure something out). Roman Liber is not Dionysus, either originally or after they made him up out of older gods -- wine, sure, but not so much theater, which Rome mistrusted. Basically, if you look at the pictures and listen to the stories Romans told by the end of the Republic, and ignore all the gods the Romans had that weren't Greek at all, sure, totally similar. In practice, very different.
|
|
#
?
Feb 7, 2014 18:35
|
|
|
Yep. If you think they're the same gods, then you just haven't read enough about them. From a distance and on the surface they appear very similar, and there is syncretism, but they're not at all the same thing. In general. The Roman pantheon commonly incorporated foreign gods, and some Greek gods were attached to it wholesale. Apollo would be a good example there, or Herakles (though that goes into a whole mystery religion direction as well). We talked about it earlier in the thread and it's come up here, but I highly suggest Ares/Mars as the first pair to read up about to see this. They are both the god of war with a few shared attributes, and later cultures have conflated them as the same dude, but are wildly different figures occupying very different cultural roles. Grand Fromage fucked around with this message at 18:45 on Feb 7, 2014 |
|
#
?
Feb 7, 2014 18:43
|
|
|
I mean come on, there is no Greek Quirinus or Janus.
|
|
#
?
Feb 7, 2014 19:00
|
|
|
euphronius posted:I mean come on, there is no Greek Quirinus or Janus. Grand Fromage posted:Yep. If you think they're the same gods, then you just haven't read enough about them. From a distance and on the surface they appear very similar, and there is syncretism, but they're not at all the same thing. In general. The Roman pantheon commonly incorporated foreign gods, and some Greek gods were attached to it wholesale. Apollo would be a good example there, or Herakles (though that goes into a whole mystery religion direction as well). These are both very good points and I shouldn't have made such an all-encompassing statement. From what I understand Ares was a god that was worshiped primarily out of fear, and he was the god of general blood-spilling and killing in general, while Mars was held in a higher regard.
|
|
#
?
Feb 7, 2014 23:10
|
|
|
Noctis Horrendae posted:These are both very good points and I shouldn't have made such an all-encompassing statement. From what I understand Ares was a god that was worshiped primarily out of fear, and he was the god of general blood-spilling and killing in general, while Mars was held in a higher regard. I think 'higher regard' is sort of a problematic way to put it. There's this idea, now, that 'bad' guys don't deserve to be worshipped, but when you're dealing with a lot of religions that's how quite how it works. But yeah, Mars is real different than Ares.
|
|
#
?
Feb 7, 2014 23:37
|
|
|
Quick Rome question, could Tribunes veto the actions of Consuls(or magistrates in general for that matter)? I believe no, but I'm not certain.
Amused to Death fucked around with this message at 03:04 on Feb 8, 2014 |
|
#
?
Feb 8, 2014 03:00
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 24, 2024 22:21 |
|
|
Yes but only when they were in Roma. The power of the Tribune became one of the important legal groundworks of the emperors.
|
|
#
?
Feb 8, 2014 03:10
|
|