Ursus

Nice post, fatboy. I never knew about the Celtic road network. Interesting. I plan to do some serious research on the links between Celtic and Roman societies that occured after Roman conquest. I suppose the greatest difference between the two cultures would be the status of women, with Rome being somewhat less accomodating. Indeed, most of the modern Celtic pagans I have met are actually progressive leaning, feminist type women who came to Celtic culture precisely because they were looking for a system that was friendly to their feminist politics.

The constant civil wars took soldiers from the frontier posts. When a general won a civil war, he had to pay his soldiers - so he coined a lot of money, which debased the currency. Amidst the growing internal problems, the Empire was less able to maintain its border defenses, and the Germanic barbarians started taking up residence and carving out their own kingdoms. By the empire's end, people were paying a lot of money into a system that simply wasn't working, and many provincials preferred the simple overlordship of petty Germanic barbarian lords to the dysfunctional empire.

For me it's Augustus. Hadrian isn't bad, though.

These questions might make sense from a Christian or Islamic perspective, but they don't make sense from the perspective of my religion. We feel different people have different gods, who may or may not be the same gods known by different names to different cultures. In any case, different cultures have different ways of approaching divinity, and that's to be expected. Religion to us is about how we of a certain cultural persuasion approach certain divine and supernatural forces in the here and now. It's very ritualistic rather than moralistic, and the status of one's afterlife doesn't play the same part as it would in Abrahamic faiths. Morality is something that is usually separate from religion. That means two people who use the same exact rituals in a religious format might go about their lives with different philosophies. But generally morality so construed is inspired by the traditional mores of the culture that knows them. We sometimes have different ideas about what " being a good person" and "living a good life" means. There is an emphasis on one's proper standing in the community, on being an honorable person, on glory for one's self and one's community. One scholar defines the values of Roman society as such: "Repute, gloria, was the reward of virtus, manly courage, expressed in service to the patria, by the holding of high office and the waging of war. " -- F.W. Walbank, The Hellenistic World. Most of us can't go about these days conquering nations and civilizing barbarians, but the point is made that one's reputation is based on how the community perceives one's duties and abilities in relation to that community. It's a very earthy morality.

I'm not sure how literally modern days pagans take mythology. Surely some do. Many others see them as allegories, filled with meaning, whether divine or merely poetic. This is similar to many educated Christians who regard Genesis as more of a metaphor than a literal account of the creation of the world. I let the explanation of physical nature of the universe to scientists. And I let history to historians. Mythology is poetry on a level that can be taken both as base entertainment and concealed philosophy, depending on what meanings you're willing to see. Anyway, I'm not here to attack anyone's religion or defend my own from skeptics. I'm merely stating most modern pagans don't treat mythology as an inerrant holy text the way Muslims treat the Koran or some Christians treat the Bible. And the fact that different places and different poets put different twists on the same mythological tales doesn't matter to me since it's not meant to be read on a very literal level.

From what I've read, the Celtic tribes just rushed at their enemies like madman, every individual fighting for his own glory and honor. If their opponents were unnerved by the mass of tall, smelly, sometimes painted barbarians making an insane charge at them, they broke ranks and fled, and the Celts would mow them down. But if their opponents held their ground, eventually their more organized tactics would quickly wear down the Celts, and the Celts would lose their stomach for fighting and surrender or be slaughtered. Once the Romans had gotten used to the sight of their colorful opponents and their unorthodox ways, they were usually able to stand their ground and use their superior organization against the incohesiveness of the Celtic advance. Major revolts against Roman rule were generally infrequent in the Roman Empire. The Romans brought peace and prosperity, and the luxury loving Celts learned to buy into the Roman peace. The one who revolted were usually from the sectors of society that had held the most power before the coming of the Romans (nobles like Boudicia, or powerful castes like the Druids). Once these rebellions were crushed, the Celts of southern Britain seemed to assimilate readily into the empire and enjoy its riches.

This is probably a separate topic, and perhaps off topic, but I think the Christian "domination" of Europe and America is often superficial. Europe seems to be largely secular in practice, aside from a swelling Islamic minority. In America, certainly most people pay lip service to Christianity and honor the important festivals. But if you look at the real values of the culture, I don't think it's Christian so much as ... Capitalist. I think Capitalism is the only true "religion" that really affects America on all levels. And I don't necessarily have a problem with that. But I think we've gotten to a point in America not unlike a point of Greek and Roman history. The Protestant majority in America, which used to rule with an iron hand, is shrinking. Under the impact of imperial wealth, a lot of people are becoming more and more and secular and care more about money than religion (there is where Capitalism comes in). Under the impact of multiculturalism, other people are trying their hand at different religions and exotic cults. Buddhism, Hinduism, Islam, New Age and other religions are on the rise. Certainly most people still formally associate with some version of Christianity, but I don't think the identification is universal and sincere as it once was.

The Meyers-Briggs test only really measures two aspects of your personality: 1) How you process information (are you more focused on the internal or external environment, and are you more sensory or intuitive) 2) How you make decisions (are you more logical or emotional, and do you come to decisions quickly or through hesitation). Those are two significant aspects of personality, however, and I find these tests useful for determining those broad areas. For instance, since Moonlaspe registered as INTJ, I can tell you that he comes to decisions pretty quickly, by taking things in with his intuition and then organizing his ideas externally through quick and decisive logic. And as an INTJ I have that in common as well, even though there might otherwise be a thousand differences between us in other areas.

Well, it depends. Someone took the sixteen Meyers-Briggs personality types, and grouped them into four families. Each family has four of the personality types that have a strong relation to each other in one trait or another. NT family (iNTj, eNTj, iNTp, eNTj) - live in a world of ideas and knowledge. Interested in competence, abilities, and intellectual knowledge and personal achievement. They make good scientists, engineers, professors, military and business leaders, etc. Example: most of the great scientists in history, like Einstein NF family (iNFj, eNFj, iNFp, eNFp) - live in a world of feelings, people, and value systems. Interested in being moral people, in helping other people, and expressing emotions and values. They make good religious and political leaders, psychologists, counselors, writers, artists, doctors, etc. Example: most of the religious leaders and political reformers in history, like Jesus or Buddha. SP family (iSfP, eSfP, iStP, eStP) - these people are tuned to the details of the external world. They have heightened sensory abilities and are out to experience the tastes, smells, sights, and aventure of the world. They make good artists, actors, salespeople, craftsmen, etc. Example: most of the people in entertainment like Madonna SJ Family (iSfJ, eSfJ, iStJ, eStJ). - These people are everybody else. They are the most common in society. They live in a world of tradition and down-to-eath business. These make good accountants, school teachers, police men, and most of the other "normal' people who fill societies ranks. Example: most of the people you probably know in real life. So you have to ask yourself which of four families you fit in best, and from there you can narrow it down a bit. At least according to these personality theories. Some people regard psychology as bogus and not much better than astrology, but I think there is some truth to it. I, for instance, think INTJ describes my overall personality pretty well.

I like the reorganization so much, I propose shuffling things around a bit more to make it even easier to skim through threads. I propose two main headings: "Roman Empire" and "Miscelleneous" Under "Roman Empire" I suggest several folders, including several present ones: -- The Forum (For discussing personalities, politics, and general historical and cultural matters) -- The Legion (all specifically military matters) -- The Temple (all specifically religious matters) -- Peregrini (for discussing cultures related to Rome - Greece, Celts, Germans, Egyptians, etc) -- Roman Media (any media product related to the Roman Empire) -- Archaeology (for discussing all archaeologicical news related to Rome and surrounding cultures like Greece, Egypt, etc. Just get rid of the "world archeology" folder. I don't think it's read very much and posts about Mayan temples and so forth are probably off topic for this forum. No offense intended). And then under "Miscelleneous" Have -- Suggestions and Feedback (self-explanatory) -- Social Lounge (combine the "Afterhours Lounge" with the "Introductions" folder. A place where people can introduce themselves and talk about off-topic stuff)).

I usually score INTJ on these things as well. Here is another version of the test, which displays the relative strengths of your traits. Jung Test I am highly introverted (I) and more moderate on the other spectrums (N)(T)(J).

If you don't like Romans, what are you doing here? "Celtic" is simply modern short hand for a lot of different people in Western Europe who had similar cultures, religions, and languages. The Romans themselves always seemed to refer to those people by the particular tribe they were in.

The Romans did enjoy sex. Just not with their spouses. :-) No, seriously, the Roman male was allowed to sleep with slaves, prostitutes, and other men. He wasn't supposed to sleep with someone else's wife - this was actually a capitol crime in the Republic - but in the empire it happened all the time. During Republican times women were not supposed to sleep with anyone but their husbands, but as they became increasingly liberated in imperial times they started sharing in men's vices, and adultery was rampant. Now this was the upper classes, for whom social advancement came before anything. When marriage is more about money and politics than love, you can see why things were the way they were. I know less about love and marriage in the lower classes, but I suspect since cutthroat social advancement was less of a possibility for the lower dregs, things might have been more stable for them.

A Roman male wasn't supposed to be too overly concerned with sex. Someone that was enthralled with sex was considered weak, effeminate, and easily manipulated. Caesar, with his legendary promiscuity, was easily mocked by his opponents for being "a man for every woman and a woman for every man." Those Romans who practiced Stoicism would also have frowned on excessive sex a s a sign on uncontrolled emotion. However, under the empire, with all its wealth and disintegration of traditional mores, some of that austere morality did start to decay. Sex became more open, and was considered a blessing of Venus. Some Romans in the upper class became famous for debauchery, although the extent to which this allegedly happened may have been exaggerated by critics with an agenda, especially the early Christian writers with their own dim views of sexuality. I am currently reading Roman Sex by John R. Clark. It's very enlightening and the pictures are, uh, interesting. I was thinking of doing a review on it if I could convey some of the details in such a way that wouldn't require censorship...

Demson is right. Marriage, at least among the upper classes, was considered purely from a standpoint of uniting families in economic and socio-political alliances. Love had little to do it. Roman men who displayed too much feeling for their wives were considered effeminate. Love wasn't, strictly speaking, a family value. This cold affair actually worked during the Republic with all its insular austerity. But as the imperial age dawned, divorce and adultery became as common as they are in the modern West.

I'm rather skeptical as well. When Christianity broke out of its Jewish origins and started penetrating into the wider Greco-Roman society, there were doubtless influences and co-mingling with pagan society, especially in the various other Eastern cults who had something of a dying and rising deity. But to equate Caesar worship with Christ is rather overblown.

From: Celtopedia ROMAN BRITAIN At the end of april in AD 43 the conquest of Britain was begun with the invasion of more than 40.000 men in the Roman legions, led by general Aulus Plautius under the Roman Emperor Claudius, and it came to an end in AD 476. The civilisation of Roman Britain was a synthesis of things Roman and Celtic. Though it owed an incalculable debt to introductions from abroad and its preponderating element was imported from the civilisation of the Mediterranean, this civilisation took root in a Celtic land and enjoyed a native contribution: 'Romano-British' is a term not wholly synonymous with 'Roman'. Britain formed part of the Roman Empire for close on 400 years, a not inconsiderable slice of her total recorded history; and during this time there was ample opportunity for interaction and development; there were the powerful influences of geographical environment, as well as previous regional differences in the inheritance of the inhabitants to modify and colour the history of the province. Romano-British culture arose from the impact of the civilisation of Rome upon the Celtic people of Britain; the result, however, was not a replacement of cultures, but rather what can broadly be described as a synthesis. A convenient illustration of this is provided at the small town of Brough on Humber (Petuaria), which may have been the caput of the civitas of the Parisi. By the middle of the second century military occupation of the area had ceased, and a civilian town was arising over the site of the fort. It possessed a theatre whose stage-building was presented by a Roman citizen, M. Ulpius Ianuaris, aedile of the vicus of Petuaria, who set up a tablet in honour of the Domus Divina of Antoninus Pius and the deified emperors. It would be hard to find a more Roman scene. But about the same time as this dedication was made there was buried in the cemetery just outside the town a local priest. The burial rite was inhumation accompanied by a native iron-bound wooden bucket and two sceptres. This was a native burial-rite; and as if to emphasise the non-Roamn character of the ritual the two sceptres had been intentionally bent and broken to devitalise them for the journey to the Otherworld. Nothing could illustrate better the dual character of Romano-Brtish civilisation. Outwardly it was Roman, inwardly it remained Celtic; yet it would be wrong to suppose an inner conflict between the two aspects. The result was a synthesis, intended by Rome, and welcomed by the British people as they came to realise the advantages of peace and wealth conferred by membership of the empire. At any one time, indeed, there was a wide range of variability within the synthesis, owing to the social stratification of Romano-British society on the one hand, and, on the other, to the widely varying conditions of life and opportunity existing in different regions of the province. At one end of the spectrum lay considerable approximation to the classical way of life and at the other a substantial survival of native characteristics. Moreover, the culture of Roman Britain should not be treated as if it were a static historical phenomenon. Through the four centuries of its existence it had its periods of development and decline, of maturity and decay, despite the comparative slowness of such processes of change in the ancient world when compared with our own. It should be studied, therefore, as far as the evidence allows, against the background not only of historical growth but also of varied social achievement. In this quotation from Sheppard Frere's latest edition (1986) of his work BRITANNIA, the author adds, We can measure the Romanisation of Britain only with imprecision, for we have to depend so largely upon the much more revealing evidence of contemporary testimony. Not that the evidence of material things is of little account. Haverfield long ago made the point that when the provincial adopted the use of Roman things he could be declared civilised enough to realise their value and, further, could be seen to have abandoned any inherited hostility towards them. Nevertheless, the evidence of the written word is invaluable in such an enquiry, and Romano-British writings are denied us until the fifth century. The Romanising agents responsible for the new culture were the soldiers of the occupying army, service by Britons themselves in the Roman forces, the colonies of Roman citizens, the merchants from the Continent and, at a higher level, the policy of governors like Agricola or of client kings like Cogidubnus. The civilisation thus introduced was not really the metropolitan culture of Rome or even of Italy: it was the provincial version of this, diluted but none the less real, and sufficiently vigorous to unify an empire whose boundaries touched Scotland, the Black Sea, the Euphrates and the Sahara.

Well, Ireland and the Scottish highlands were never conquered by the Romans, but the other Celtic lands were conquered and some amount of blending in cultures and religions did transpire. I see nothing wrong with it. There is a historical backdrop to a Celto-Roman lifestyle. In modern revivals of paganism you don't see very much of Celto-Roman. Many pagan Celts do seem to have a hostility to all things Roman, but I think they are in denial about how much their luxury loving ancestors readily assimiliated into the rich Roman Empire. Sometimes I've thought about being Celto-Roman rather Greco-Roman. Greek philosophy bores me, honestly. There is a side of me that would rather hoard luxury items and chop off the heads of people I don't like - I think it must be the latent Celt in me.

Rome was situated on the main trading road that ran between the Greek colonies in the south and the various peoples who inhabited Italy's north and center. Rome was in contact with Greek merchants from the beginning. The Etruscans who ruled early Rome were themselves influenced by Hellenic civilization. So whether it was from the Greeks directly or through Etruscan middle man, Rome had always been exposed to Greek culture. But when we say "influenced" by Greece, we have to take it into context. The largest influence seems to be religious cults that were adopted early and eagerly. If by Greek culture we mean some of the more complicated aspects like philosophy and so forth, that didn't seem to penetrate until later, and then only to those who had the wealth to pursue a Greek style education.

"Apollo rejects whatever is too near - entanglement in things, the melting gaze, and equally, soulful merging, mystical inebriation and its ecstatic vision. He desires not soul but spirit. And this means freedom from the heaviness, coarseness, and constriction of what is near, stately objectivity, a ranging glance. Apollo's ideal of distance not only puts him in opposition to Dionysiac exuberance: for us it is even more significant that it involves a flat contradiction of values which Christianity later rated high. ***** " The image of Apollo 'who shoots" from afar' is the manifestation of a single idea. ... It is a spiritual force which raises its voice, and it is sufficiently important to give form to a whole humanity. It proclaims the presence of a divine not in the miracles of the supernatural power, not in the rigor of an absolute justice, not in the providence of an infinite love, but in the victorious splendor of clarity, in the intelligent sway of order and moderation. Clarity and form are the objective aspect, to which distance and freedom are the subjective pendant." -- Walter Otto. The Homeric Gods Whether we take Apollo as a literal deity or a mere symbol of cultural ideals, the Far Shooter promotes a spiritual and intellectual ideal that runs contrary to many religions, past or present. While many religions seek a sublime union and reconciliation with some deity or enlightening force, Apollo keeps his followers at a distance. The Greek god is said to hold sway over the fine arts, healing and purification, law and order and tradition, athleticism and beauty of the young, and the higher intellectual and artistic functions of society as the Greeks understood them. What unites all these diverse provinces is a concern for the timeless and universal forms that underscore the essence of existence. Walter Otto understood Apollo as music incarnate, if by

Well, I for one DON'T believe all the religions are the same and teach the same things. Different religions have different goals and values. I for one don't see Roman paganism or many other pagan systems inherently proscribing "love, tolerance and humanity" to its adherents. That assigns a "moral" system to the religion that simply didn't exist. To equate religion with morality is a modern fallacy. Roman religion concerned itself with the rituals and such by which a community or household connected with its deities to secure their favor. Morality had little to nothing to do with how an adherent propitiated his/her deities, spirits and ancestors. The Romans were not unconcerned with morals, but these they left to philosophers, law makers and other agents of society to ponder over. The separation of religion from morality is what I consider one of the strengths of Roman paganism. It means that religion is how people relate with divinity, while "morality" so construed is how people relate to society. And I find universal and unconditional "love" and "tolerance" as moral ideals to be overrated, honestly. There are a great many individuals in the world I'll never love or tolerate.

For those of you who dislike Gibson, just remember he started out as being famous for little more than showing his naked rear end on some bad police movie. Don't take the views of a male bimbo too seriously. In fact, I don't think anyone really took him seriously until he starred in a version of Hamlet designed to draw in younger viewers to Shakespeare. After that, he was suddenly respectable for some reason, even though he couldn't hold a candle to the British Shakespearean actors who were his supporting cast.

I think myths often have some iota of truth to them. The Trojan War was once thought complete fiction until archaeology proved there was some kind of historical backdrop for it.

I should mention, Zeke, I have something of an interest in this area too. While my heart belongs to Rome, most of my ancestors did come from Celto-Germanic stock. I do see the Celts as having many of the core values of the Romans. They merely expressed them within a primitive, illiterate tribal society and learned to find more "advanced" ways to express those values when they were assimiliated into the Empire. Which is to say being a government functionary or businessman is a better way of gaining social status than raiding you neighbor's cattle and chopping off someone's head to decorate your house. So if anyone has some serious information to deliver on Romano-Celtic culture and religion, I'd be most interested.

I suggest a "Media" forum for the discussion of books, films and computer games with a Roman theme.