Ursus

Interesting indeed. I may look into it.

And many more!

I read this about 15 years ago. It's a retelling of the Arthurian legend by a British author. A lot of it is pure fantasy fluff. The survivors of Atlantis escape to the British Isles. The Druids are peaceful nature worshippers who readily accept Christianity. Feh. But what is interesting is that the first two books of the series are set in the dying days of Roman Britain. What's left of the Roman government organizes a Celtic cavalry band to fight Germanic invadors. From this arises Merlin, Arthur and the Knights of Camelot. Merlin's adventures as a Romano-Celt fighting Saxons are actually more interesting than Arthur and his Knights. Anyway, some nice escapist drivel to read on a slow day. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pendragon_Cycle

Probably not to imperator, no. But he was shrewd and could have done well for himself.

Nicely done, Lacertus. Thanks for the contribution. Odin was a Norse god. I believe you may mean Lugh. But yes, you're right, there is a danger in overemphasizing the extent of women's rights in Celtic culture and religion. Some bad scholarship along those lines helped create some New Age women-centered, goddess spiritualty cults that are based on an overly romanticized idea of Celtic matriarchy.

I split the topic from the other folder. Any virulent form of nationalism or ethno-centrism disagrees with me.

The wikipedia article is nice. I already knew the basics of Samhain, but the bit about the elf Blots in Germanic polytheism was new to me.

I'd say he more than anyone else brought Christianity out of its Jewish roots and into the Gentile world, in effect making it a near universal religion.

As Samhain is the quintessential Celtic pagan holiday, I was hoping some of the Celtic types on here would speak out. Demson, FatBoy, are they still around? Also, any Catholics want to give us a briefing on All Souls Day?

Didn't mean to ignore the thread as it's interesting, I just didn't know how to respond. Consider these were times when a lot of people simply dropped dead because of plagues and starvation. Then there were the arena games, and public executions like Crucifixion. Imagine walking the Appian Way after the failed Spartacus revolt and seeing miles of rotting corpses hanging on crosses. What a sight, especially for the young. These were times when life was cheap and death ubiquitous. But then most of these people with their pagan faiths ultimately believed the souls of the dead were still around somewhere to exert a power on the living. Death may have had a different meaning to ancient people than to moderns. For that matter life may have had a different meaning. I think understanding the effects on ancient society on human psychology requires a shift in perspective to understand the nature of pre-modern psychology. If violent deaths are commonplace perhaps it is simply not as much of a shock to the system as in cultures where it's considerably rarer.

In honor of upcoming Samhain, it's Celtic month here on the forum Peregrini. *bump*

With Samhain coming up, I think I'll bump some older Celtic threads. Maybe some of the new members of the forum would like to add anything.

I'd go for Elagabalus as well.

Even if Germania were conquered, there were still Persians on the eastern flank. There was still economic debasement and political instability. Some of the Western provinces were simply more trouble than they were worth. For instance, Britain in the short term provided some raw materials, but in the long term it tied up three legions that could have been used elsewhere. Had I been emperor I think I might have shifted the capitol east and let the West decline a century before Constantine.

Well, the Romans could have been hardly surprised to find Gauls in northern Italy. The main reason the Romans could defeat the Etruscans in the first place is precisely because the Etruscans were being given a headache by Celtic migrations. I doubt the Romans meant to start a war with the Gauls at that point in time. The Gauls were useful in softening up the Etruscan hold out cities to the north. What probably happened is the three Roman envoys were sent to observe things as a polite farce to the Etruscans. But once there three haughty nobles trying to prove themselves made things go horribly wrong. Had I been the Roman chief back home I would have gladly handed over the three envoys to the Gauls to tear apart. It would have kept the peace until such time as Rome was ready for a war with the Gauls.

I bet there is amazing stuff buried somwhere just waiting to be discovered ...

Well, you know, the Celts under Brennus invaded *Etruscan* territory in the Po Valley, not Roman. When the Roman ambassadors went to act as nuetral parties, they broke international law by taking up arms. The Gauls were understandably miffed and asked Rome to hand over the three guilty envoys. When the Romans stupidly refused, that was the beginning of the sack of Rome. The Romans started it, and not very honorably. But the Romans also finished the war, much more honorably, by allowing the conquered Celtic elite to become Equestrians and Senators.

Having just read Livy's I-X, I have to agree with you. There was so much detail crammed together in a dry manner. Of course, the Penguin translations I read are probably not the best, either.

Hmm, well this could be interesting.

It's dated insofar as some things have been re-interpreted in the last few years since 1940's. For instance, in speaking of Roman women of the imperial era, and of "feminization" he makes the remark that Roman women were as free as any society up to "our own time." Well, by "our own time" he means his time, which is 1940. Women and feminists of 2005 are in a different position than they were even 65 years ago, which puts a different spin on the social liberties of Roman women compared to ours. In other instances, he merely holds to views that are now questionable. For instance, on the topic of the rise of Christianity he holds to the old view of vast pagan intolerance to Christianity. Today historians view the persecution of Christians at the hand of Rome to be somewhat exaggerated by Church propaganda, with the effects of "martyrdom" to be overblown. All in all, though, it's a great book that makes you think.

Caesar would win the Tour de France, but he would be later murdered by jealous rivals.

The Etruscans were to some degree Hellenized, and their gods are similar to Hellenic gods. The Hellenized Etruscan religion did exercise an influence on early Rome. I too would like to know the ultimate origins of the Etruscans. If they came from Asia Minor perhaps there is some truth in the Aeneas myth.

Among males it went like this: First Name Clan Name Nickname Gaius Julius Caesar .... Gaius= First Name Julius= Clan Name, of the Julian Clan Caesar = nickname, Casear means "hairy." In formal society Roman males were known by the clan name and nickname (e.g. Julius Caesar, The Hairy One of the Julian Clan). Only their closest friends and family would call them by their first name.

I haven''t seen any episodes yet, but I would assume it would be Magna Mater as Violentilla suggested. At the very least it had to be some Oriental deity. The cults of the Roman gods were too austere for what is described above. The cult of Magna Mater came to Rome during the War with Hannibal. It was distinguished by its bizarre Oriental rituals, and Roman citizens were forbidden to participate in its orgies. It was run by foreigners from the East. The Julian clan claimed descent from Aeneas, who was from the Phyrgian area where the cult originated. In Caesar's time and beyond the cult thus became legitimized among Romans. Maybe that is what was going on in the episode.

Well, perhaps not to start an argument, but just as a comment, I think Hitler's rise to power had more to do with the Allies lack of resolve than his strategic genius. If Britain and France had enforced the Versaille treaty after Hitler started breaking it, his regime would have ended pretty quickly. But of course, they didn't. Either through sheer lack of will ... or because they secretely wanted a powerful buffer in central Europe against Soviet Communism. Nonetheless, if Hitler hadn't invaded the Soviet Union before he had pacified Britain, leading to an unwinnable two front war, he might have gone down as a strategic genius. But here he didn't learn the lesson of Napolean. Now one German politician to whom I would grant magnus, even though he lives outside our given historical time frame, is the Iron Chancellor, Otto Von Bismark. His combination of foreign policy and internal politics was brilliant.