For those of you who never heard of it, Pankration is an ancient martial art. It was the official martial art styles used by the ancient Greek armies.Here is a documentary from an episode of Human Weapon, a TV show that aired on the History Channel a decade ago showing basic info on the martial art:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xFtLpB5-mCM

Now considering the Roman Legion burrowed much of their tactics from the Greeks, Iam curious did the Roman Legion ever standardized Pankration as their official martial art?Most sources I found in martial arts based websites state that the Romans generally looked down on Pankration but Iam really skeptical and find this claim very hard to believe considering much of Roman culture was influence heavily or even burrowed from Greek culture.

This is something I have been curious about for years. If Pankration was not the standard martial art of the Roman Legion, than what was?

I saw these two posts.

https://www.unrv.com/forum/topic/18800-did-the-roman-empire-not-fall-but-survived-unto-medieval-europe-into-today-morphing-into-roman-catholic-church/

And

https://www.unrv.com/forum/topic/18855-why-does-the-catholic-protestant-divide-as-well-as-the-catholic-orthodox-linestoday-so-much-parallels-the-end-of-roman-expansion-into-northern-europe-as-well-as-the-exact-division-between-the-western-and-eastern-empires/

They're so long they'd take up more space than what Reddit would allow in posts so I don't think I'll be able to quote the whole thing. That said at least read the first posts on both thread (as extremely long and even incoherent they could be) because they bring out some very intriguing questions and they inspired what I will post.

As the person points out in both linked discussions, there's an extremely strong correlation of countries that are Catholic and former provinces of the Roman Empire and he also points out the interesting parallel that the European colonial powers largely came from the territories that were the most important regions of the Roman Empire outside of Rome in the West. Even the countries that are not dominant Catholic today such as Netherlands, Germany, and esp the UK he points out had a very eerie similarity to modern maps where the Catholic regions were the locations the Empire conquered and the Protestant regions are lands that the Empire cold never fully stabilize and thus Roman maps often did not include them as part of Rome.

Roman Empire Map

https://lh6.googleusercontent.com/proxy/zQ-MxOrCzb-LhtKW8l4rjhoI73eug38oOFx8Xk9EXeTcqY1DPTF8ynDkLF4YIEVOWy2lqp5fZyHnkAd68CKzgWH59TGocThMv_DoOrNPBVUkXlKqQzz-GhnE7uM1oqmsU8dg-wRdtlS4ha4qyKNm0_e7ptxQIgFO_BM024dXKUJW6yFpieY1BGiFq-7dYrVrqB0T-_XrmlSgUEnsOFdGf64cqT6536EM6y5dCzMEsPkS8bnt

Modern Day map of religion in Europe.

https://www.reddit.com/media?url=https%3A%2F%2Fexternal-preview.redd.it%2FTFSCno-NT_A6NhvmunfJx4T7WRgPDah5gaeTK9SYxbU.png%3Fwidth%3D944%26auto%3Dwebp%26s%3De88b40b71606b768e93b5c4cffb325fa894126f6

Have you noticed that the Protestant territories in Netherlands, Belgium, and Germany are largely the same places that the Roman map doesn't consider the Empire? While all the strongly Catholic parts has s triking parallel to the areas Rome annexed in those countries?

And that you see a similar pattern where in the UK where Wales and Scotland are largely low church Protestant? That while England is now separate with its own church, the Church of England is a lot more Catholic in its structure than your typical Protestant Church and moreso to the neighboring parts of the United Kingdom? Reflecting England's bizarre history of being a meeting place between barbarian and Roman civilization and even having an independent settlements that copied Roman culture after they abandoned Britain from architecture to armor and weapons and artwork in some cases even speaking Latin over local languages.

But the thing thats the author of the two linked posts neglects to mention is that.......... The so much of regions that are predominantly Catholic today speak a Romance language. In particular the very European kingdoms that form empires were not only both the most important resource extraction and business spots of the Western Empire on top of formerly being the most religious places in Medieval Europe, but they all speak the Romance languages with the most number of speakers Spain who colonized Latin America and Portugal who annexed the gigantic Brazil, and France who had the alrgest Empire in the 19th century after Britain. Hell if you take into the fact English is a weird language containing the most Latin influence of any Germanic languages, the British Empire even counts in this regard once again showing the peculiar position Britain had during the Western Roman Empire's existence as being a hybrid of barbarian and Romans right in the middle between.

Don't get me started on how I notice that not only were former barbarian lands Rome never annexed often speak a Germanic language today and how the modern Eastern Orthodox regions in Europe have a striking resemblance to the Eastern half of the Roman Empire. To the point that the islands in Greece today that are Catholic majority were the same territory that remained in the Western Roman empire after the empire was split in two! I'm gonna stop here with the fact for a whole other thread, that a lot of the Eastern Orthodoxy today also speak Slavic which again shows a correlation with the Eastern Empire. Greece was the language of the Eastern Empire and it shows in how the Greek church has so much influence on modern Eastern Orthodoxy! Ok stopping here........

Seriously I ask is it just a coincidence that the same regions that use Romance languages today are not only Catholic strongholds until the 20th century, but also were the Western Roman Empire's territory and their most important places as well outside of modern Italy?

Like is the Romance language family intrinsically so tied with Catholicism and the Western Roman Empire? I mean as the OP in the linked discussion points out, its so creepy that the largest European colonial powers were the same exact places where Rome got so much of her important resources and often recruited plenty of troops from and they'd form empires even greater than Rome. Is this just a mere coincidence or is it actually tied to the history of the Roman Empire as for why the Romance-speaking countries are so Catholic?

This vid is what I'm referring to.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gRzc--zUjsk

Its 6 minutes so if you haven't seen it yet I advise you to do so to get the context of this post.

Now I was dong a friendly sparring with a scutum and rubber foam Gladius with a weight and feel similar to the real thing but designed in a way that it doesn't really send out hard hits when you get whacked by it especially if you wear protective gear which we both were.

Now I'll openly state out I never learned proper sword training before though I have held replicas of real weapons with similar weight and designs tot he real thing. Even wielded actual blades that can cut and stab to cause wounds at Renaissance fares and in dojos. So I'm not the best person to seek advise from.

However in our friendly "light whack" "light stab" play fighting (yes even with foam weapons and authentic protective gear we decided to be safe and just horseplay around), I noticed something. As my friend was whacking my scutum I felt secure enough to push in close enough that my rfoam gladius was close enough that if we were horseplaying with just our fists, I'd be able to do an uppercut to his stomach.

In fact I began to approach my friend with the shield in front of me like I'm an invincible tank and while he's flailing and poking at me I simply do a semi talk to push his weapon away and then rush straight at him like a football player except witha s shield in front of me. He instincitvely backs away and you cans ee panick in his face every time I do this. I don't simply just walk towards him, I speed up for an instant confident my shield is protecting me and close in enough to poke his upper body ranging from chest to down tot he stomach.

Now I noticed during our horseplay if I try to do thrusts faroma far distance, it indeed does feel awkward like Skallagram states and even outright hurts as my wrist gets bent in an in appropriate way while my hand is gripping the hilt but its stuck to grip in a hammer holding manner by default because of the hilt's design. So when I was watching Skallagram's video the first time days ago I immediately recognized what he meant about the wrong grip hurting you and my hand was doing the exact same hing as he was showing as incorrect because I was literally doing that because of the way the gladius forces you to hold a blade........

However I immediately had in my head the moment Skallagram brings up the Gladius specifically the though of "if he had tried using a Gladius with a shield and sparred a few hours, he'd know not only how to stab properly with it but why the Gladius was designed with that kind of grip". I already have an assumed theory that I think is completely correct and answers Skallagram's question at the end of the vid. But as I said I lack actual training with weapons which is why I am posting here because I want input of veterans in this subject. OK here goes.

The Gladius was designed to be at extremely close quarters. To be specific its meant to be used in the same range at which two boxers exchange punches at each other. So there's really no need to learn how to change grip and hold it in more precise manners because its meant to be a close weapon. And as with waht I seen w playing with the scutum, the shield basically protects you from other longer blades and allows you to quickly rush in for the kill with the Gladius. So over-extended thrusts similar to longswords and rapiers isn't really meant to be done with the Gladius because you're meant to close in and the a brute first stabs at exposed areas in the body.

If anything the grip of the Gladius which Skallagram criticizes int he vid and calls it unusual, citing that it prevents safethrusting technique actually was designed for safety! Because as we spared one thing I notice witht he Gladius is that as long as you come close for the stab, it is impossible to lose grip of the sword just by sloppy technique alone. The way the hilt with its large top guard and the ball at the bottom actually is designed to force you to hold it as a hammer grip. So you don't drop it as your fist is tightly clenched on the weapon while you do repeated thrusting. So it actually is a safety measure for the range at which a Gladius is supposed to be used. Not just that it optmizes effective stabbing and thrusting. Because A few times I unintentionally thrusted harder than warranted in friendly playing and while we were wearing full protection, my friend told me a few times He really felt my stabs and if it wasn't for the metals mixed in with softpadding and plastic underneath these replicase, he would have felt like he got punched , probably with a few bruises. The hammer grip the sword's hilt forces really does subconsciously make you stab in such a way that it'll be easy to penetrate someone's muscles possibly bons even if you have no training is what I got from using the foam items similar in feel to a Gladius.

Last but not least and quite heavily related to all that I said earlier.......... Roaen warfare was fought in square rectangular formation in interlocked shields. Just by this fact alone you're not gonna have the chance to really do a long thrust rapier style. In these tight formations you're pretty much gonna be locked ina tight space so pretty much the enemy barbarians who can't kill you because of the scutum's size and in tandem with the rectangular shield wall, will at some point find himself closing in on you..... Well guess who's gonna find himself with holes in his stomach? And quite releated once the Roman legion goes ont he offensive, you're talking about a primitive moving tank. As they start steamrolling over the disorganized barbarians, just like in my horseplaying, it begins to bake sense why you need a hammer grip as you're closing in poking out exits for blood spillage as you get near enough to punch them except you're doing it with a deadly sword.

So it all makes sense and I think this should answer Skallagram's question. If I knew how to make videos I'd even send a response video (unfortunately I don't know anything behind film making).

Just one more note from what I send from authors, sparing sessions between Roman soldiers and known accounts between a Legatus (Roman generals) and barbarian chieftains even a few famous Gladiator events, often the outcome decided by effective use of the shield and getting the enemy into close range. You'll find the winner does moves to knock the shield away and then runs in to get close enough for punching range and kills the opponent. Or lets the opponent attacks nonstop and using the scutum for stonewall defense until the enemy gets fatigued or makes a mistake in his barrage that leaves and opening. To get close in at punching or even clinching range and then do the lethal stabs. Sometimes not even blocking with the shield at all but simply stepping backwards or circling the enemy to get him frustrated until that vulnerable moment where you can get in to send a punch but with a sword that kills him instead of KO. Without a shield? I seen an account of a centurion literally grabbing a barbarian champions arm, pulling him in for a clinch and then stabbing himg.

Well tahts my personal hot take based on my sparring experience and wikipedia level reading into the subject. So whats your thoughts? What response do you personally give to Skallagram about his confusion near the end of the vid? Is his question stemming from not understand the nature of the Gladius (which is my presumption right now)?

You can't got through a Youtube clip of a boat being rowed by slaves ancient Greece and the Roman empire without someone getting hissy fitty about the historically wrong portrayal of rowers being slaves and then going on a diatribe about how in reality men who rowed boats in voyages, trading and commerce, and military expeditions would have been professional freemen. And that any captain worth his salt would look for professionals because despite what movies show illiterate untrained slaves lack the necessary skills to rowing giant boat in the galley class and larger particularly military battleships monsters.

So I'm asking does rowing actually require a lot of knowledge and specialized skills? Obviously its already a hard thing to do just going by movies but is it more than just brute force? Why not just teach slaves the skills? Since most rowers were paid professional crews I'd assume that means the specific knowledge needed for moving large ship with oars is far more complicated than just lifting, dropping, and pushing the oar backwards?

So many ages ago when I was playing Age of Empires, the very first mission of Caesar's campaign was to wipe out a fleet of pirates. I lost a few times and I remember the Defeat screen saying that because Caesar used his own private fundings for the military expedition, he is pardoned and won't face imprisonment, loss of military and political leadership, and nmnost importantly a lawsuit from the Roman government for loss of warships..... But it sstated something the Republic will take over in battling the pirates since Cesar's defeat alerted the Senate just how big of an issue the pirate attacks are. When I won the campaign, it emphasizes just how big a boost it is to Caesar's career that he managed to wipe out the entire pirate coalition.

In addition I finally watched the entire Once Upon a Time In China series for the first time in completeness rather than just stopping at the 3rd movie the last few times I seen the film over the past decades. The 4th movie had Jet Li on the mission to capture the pirates and he doesn't simply use the police but gets an entire militia and round up 50 volunteers so they can capture one of the heads through abn unexpected ship counterattack. He then uses the captured pirate leader to gather intel and attack the pirate base with an elite cadre of volunteers and then continues holding the elader hostage awaiting for the rest of the pirate fleet to attack the enarest town in retaliation for ransacking their unprotected base and in expectation they will try to free their leader by attacking the local prison. He has the complete militia force of over 200 to fortify the town and a big battle takes plae as over 400 pirates besiege the town.......

So this makes me wonder........ Were pirates so huge a deal that not only do local militaries like Jet Li's character in Once Upon A Time in China have to mobilize a military force to defend against them but even a brilliant military mind like JUlius Caesar have to be sent in sometimes to battle them?

Oh I almost forgot, Ben HUr even has a battle between Greek pirates and the Roman Navy that ended with not just the ROman deeat but the Admiral's ship being destroyed and it kicks off the whole reason why Massala was even able to become a charioteer. Because he saved the admiral from drowning, the Roman militaryman takes him in as an adopted son and gives him funding to become one of the best chariot rider throughout the whole empire.

Is this actual realistic? That actual professional navy could lose to a bunch of ragtailed pirates in an engagement?

For a long time I couldn't believe Caesar actually had been sent to fight pirates until I learned recently the event was real. And ditto with the idea of a Roman fleet facing defeat from pirates.......

Just how far fetched is Once Upon A Time in China sending Jet Li to mobilize a militia to defend a community from pirates? Was piracy really the big a danger?

One of the cliches about the Battle of Hastings is that the Battle was won Because the Fyrd Militia repeatedly broke out of the Shieldwall to chase the Norman cavalry who suddenly start retreating only to turn around and counterattack or run away further for the rest of the Norman army to hack these isolated Anglo Saxon individuals. In fact the first time this happened in the battle it wasn't even an intentional feign retreat by the Normans-they actually suddenly fled out of panick because they thought their king William was killed and thus when some Fyrd militia broke out to chase them they really had the momentum against the Normans and had Harold sent his entire army to attack and not just these individuals who disobeyed orders, there's a good chance they would have won Hastings.

William had to follow the demoralized Norman knights back tot he main army when he actually wanted to press a full cavalry charge and remove his helmet to show he was alive. And it was his infantry who killed some of the early berserking fyrd.

IN fact it was from this actual real full on retreat that William observed what happened and decided to test it a few more times and ultimately saw this to be the key ti winning the fight. So he used retreat than counter attack fryd who leave the Anglo-Saxon shield wall over and over and eventually it weakened the Anglo-Saxons enough that he was able to do the killing blow.

Now this sounds like typical disorganized poorly trained Medieval Warfare esp since one army was composed almost entirely of militia.......

Except in the first major battle of the Vietnam War, Ia Drang....... When the 7th Cavalry Regiment entered the field, one platoon against Colonel Hal Moore's orders spotted some NVA patrols and proceeded to chase it. That unit would get pinned down and spark the first firefight of the whole battle. So while Ia Drang was ultimately won, that specific units suffered the heaviest casualties of any unit. It was like despite all the training for jungle warfare, that platoon's officer suddenly just went "enemy! Lets chase it down!"

So it makes me curious. Why is it so difficult to stay in formation and resist the lure of chasing enemies? Why do even disciplined armies suffer from resisting this urge? The Romans even had very heavy specific death sentences for troops who go out on their own to fight of the enemy as one of their most important rules!

Forget that, even modern armies of the highest quality like Americans in Vietnam suffered from this! Is it really that hard to obey orders and not chase down fleeing scouts after your unit's sniper killed another one nearby?

So many Sword Reconstructionist like ScholaGladiatoria Who Runs a Youtube Channel claim that the Gladius is one of the least effective swords on its own..... That a Gladius user will lose to other sword styles 95%+ of the time according to another Sword Revivalist Metatron on one of his Youtube videos........ But ScholaGladiatoria and Metatron and practically every other Historical European Martial Arts enthusiast online states when you add a rectangular Body size shield into the equation, the Gladius becomes one of the flatout most effective swords and easily a contender for most noob friendly with minimal moveset (think attacks commonly used in formations like stab stab maybe a few cuts stab so common in shield wall fighting)..........

But this brings one single but extremely significant detail.....................

What about infantry Scouts? And lone defenders in a military building like sentry towers and a small 3 story barracks? Cramped camps?

I bring this up because a o you can find on Reddit and Quora multiple users pointing out that Scouts not only would have been used to disorganized combat outside of formation but even single one on one fighting but a lot of times they'd even drop out shields because they'd be too difficult to bring across wild environments like rocky roads full of potholes and caves. Another user also pointed at during the Siege of Rome after the disaster at the Allia Battle, the Celts manage to sneak into a Rome past the watchtower and the Roman miltiai were int for a surprise and had to rush last minute to the hidden pathway the Celts were sneaking into, many of them leaving their shields behind as they rushed. They managed to hold off and force the more heavily armored Gauls who all had shields and other heavy stuff because they were fully pumped up for battle to retreat,killing a surprising so many that ultimately it was the straw that broke Brennus's back and after a female days with some skirmishes in between, he made truce to leave Central Italy in exchange for Gold.

So it makes me wonder how much the claim that a shield was necessary to fight with a Gladius even outside o formation is true? Considering the accounts of foot scouts in wars in the Middle East foot scouts would travel much lighter because of the heat including dropping large straps of armor and still defeating more individualistic warrior cultures like the Hebrew Zealots and Armenian cavalry harassers in unorganized out-of-formation fighting and a lot of sieges fighting in places too cramped for shields to be used like stairways across towers or inside a bedroom in a Roman barracks or at a bandit's lair climbing a steep hill into caves but Roman infantry still wininig without shields...........

Is this claim so common among HEMA and other historical sword recontructionists a massive hyperbole?

This topic was inspired by a chat I saw on Discord.

Gonna sleep now but I really wonder why the Abrahamic becamse so patriarchal and "women as chattel property" approach? While European Chrstiaity developed so radcally different and kept mother Goddess? I mean even comparing MidEstern Christian sects to Catholicism and Estern Orhtodoxy you see a major difference in the mportance of Mary So what reasoning can you give? Any Good night see yah tomorrow.

Another person made this reply.

Well, the reason behind the Abrahamic denial of matriarchal homage was because of Eve in Genesis, being blamed for tempting Adam to eat the fruit. And in Judaism, it's still present in their practices (Qabalah demonstrates one aspect of how male & female are separated, in a concept of good vs. evil). And the Desert Fathers originally came from that context, which is seen by modern Westerners as "misogynistic" because their own pre-Christian practices accepted women, be it as the role of lustful seductresses like Aphrodite, the downtrodden housewife like Aeval, the mother like Hera or the energetic sportswoman that some men want to follow, like Athena.

And the reason why Mary was such a no-brainer for those cultures to venerate, during the adoption of Christianity, is because of that pre-Christian acceptance of women as having some role in society (regardless of how complex or simplistic that role in society was).

But then, came the Protestant movement & the desire of some sects to resort to fundamental thought in Judaism (i.e.: Eve tempted Adam to eat the fruit, therefore all women are temptresses to be blamed for bringing man away from God). You see that with the Puritans, Plymouth Brethren, Luddites/Amish/Mennonites & Evangelicals

And what modern Westerners are terrible at, is understanding historical context; rather than concluding that the social issues of the US have its roots in Puritanical beliefs (which led to women traumatised from war with the Natives, being then accused of witchcraft & burnt at the stake, for example, or for the Puritanical belief that fair skin is superior over dark skin due to the way the sun shines on different parts of the world,) misogyny, black rights & (within the last decade only) LGBT rights issues are generally blamed on Christianity as a whole, rather than the initial Puritan sect

Another example; Mohammed's massacre of the Khaiber tribe of Jews who chose to break their peace treaty with Mohammed, to try & sell him out to the Kuresh tribe. If you read the Quran & the history of Mohammed in Medina, he made an alliance with the Jewish Khaiber tribe to be given peaceful residence & religious freedom (along with a Christian tribe). However, the leader of the Khaiber tribe was also a trade partner with the Kuresh tribe that Mohammed came from; in wanting to maintain business alliances, the Khaiber chief tried to mount a war against the Muslims, which failed & resulted in Mohammed's executing every Khaiber man of fighting age. If you look at this in the Medieval Arab context, you understand that it was an act of politics & warfare for the purpose of tribal superiority & survival, aside from the control of resources like water, food, etc. But to the modern Western eyes, it's automatically declared to be "anti-Semitic" because of the fact that Mohammed had Jews executed

Anyways, back to the idea of female representation in religion, the fact is there was an Allat & Allah, there was Ba'al Yahu & that god also had a wife (in Canaanite, Nabatean & Phoenician religion, being all pagan pantheons). However, the Jews are collectively & racially people from all 3 of these ethnicities, so historically speaking it's not exactly out of the question to say that their origins had similar implications as Mohammed's context (where a monotheistic movement sprang up from the syncretised combination of 3 different pantheons, while having revolts against the older generation in a similar manner to Kuresh vs. Mohammed's followers). There's evidence of that in the Old Testament's war against Jericho, for exampe. But never the less, since the establishment accepted female & male equality in the pantheon, while the temporal laws didn't, it'd be safe to assume that the monotheists who revolted against all other idols would also declare that women are not equal, thus eliminating Allat, Ishtar & other idols

Anyways, I'm going to sleep too. Have a good night

So I'd have to ask despite the sexism of Roman civilization, why were Romans as well as Greeks so enthusiastically quickly chose Mary Mother of Jesus Christ to become the Goddess like figure of Christianity? While other converted places esp the Middle Est even Christian were not energetic about Mary prayers?



Why the Greco-Roman regions had to create a Goddess standin in contrast to Judaism and Islam?

Is there something unique about Greco-Roman culture for this to happen?

If Judaism and even Islam ever took over Ancient Rome, would they twist doctrines to create a new standin? LIke say Fatima daughter of MUhammad to be treated like a sacred virgin or Khadjiya his first life as a standin for Mother Goddess? Would a Romanized Judaism try to interpret Yahweh as having male and female forms?

Why did Blessed Holy Virgin Mother Mary get elevated into a borderline Goddess in ancient Greece and moreso Ancient Rome (esp the homeland of the Empire, the Italian Peninsula) after Christianity became the monopoly religion in throughout the Empire)? Why did other Christian regions esp the MidEast did not go to Venerate the Sacred Mother of God to nowhere close to the same level? Was there something unique in Europe esp in the modern location of current Italy lacking elsewhere in Africa and the rest of the world during early Abrahamic Religions esp before the Catholic Church canonized its core dogma in the Dark Ages?

I live near Romanians and one the female member has been teaching Romanians for free at a building because my town has enough Romanians that there is the official Church of their country has a local building here (apparently a national one where everything is done in Romanian and all books are in that language, etc).

Their eldest Aunt is a very warm person and has told me to feel free to go to the local boarding building to learn lessons despite not being Romanian or a member of their national Church and she even agreed to do a few private lessons to me because (well I guess its partly because a few time I just helped a few members of the community out of the blue in different situations, though the girl is a pretty warm person herself in an Audrey Hepburn charming sortaway).

So I am gonna go ahead take the offer because I have nothing else to do in my free time and I admit I never took another language before. In fact I was gonna order some Dutch CDs to learn the language my fav celeb Audrey Hepburn but I decided to shelf that plan after receiving the next door neighbor's offer.

So TIL Romanian is a Romance Language. So does that mean knowing it would make French, Spanish, Italian, Portuguese, and a whole other bunch of obscure language I just learned today from across Europe much easier to learn?

In addition reading on Wiki the language has a strong Slavic influence esp in word count. Enough I seen a few Redditors calling if a hybrid of Russian and Italian. So does that mean learning the language would put me a step up in learning Russian and Polish and other Eastern European languages and Balkan tongues such as Serbian?

Last but not lest a few posts online not just here in reddit but various blogs and forums, etc says Romanian is the one Romance Language today that is closest to Latin after Sardinian and some other old languages across Italy before the Unification. So would it be a building block for getting into Latin?

A common claim in the occult and pagan communities is that pagan gods never stopped being worshipped- they simply were canonised as Saints by the Catholic Church. That Sainthood is a way to "worship the old gods" while also remaining monotheistic under the new state religion of Roman Catholicism established and enforced by Constantine.

I seen so many claims about many Saints having similar names or appearances to pagan gods because they are essentially the old gods. Such as Martin of Tours being Mars, Mother Mary being Diana, Jesus being Mithras, etc.

Around the world many foreign traditions blended Christianity to disguise old pagan gods with Catholicism. There is Santeria in Latin America which worships old African gods using Saint statues as disguise, Hoodo which alters African magic to be practised in a Christian framework, and plenty of Hispanic countries have local uncanonised Saints not endorsed by the Vatican such as Santa Muerte as well as customs directly from pre-Spaniard invasion. In addition many associated Catholic iconography such as the Lady of Guadalupe were attempts to use local pagan deities such as Tonantzin to make it easier for locals to accept Christianity.

So it shouldn't surprise me if there is a connection of using Saints as a proxy to worship old Roman gods. Hell in Italy there is even Stregheria and Stregoneria, a recent underground movement of witchcraft and sorcery using reconstruction of old lost Roman religion and using the Saints as a guise to worship the old gods (because Italy still has violence against pagans and accused witches). Some Stregoneria websites and Stragheria books even mentioned that the Roman paganism was never lost and as far as the Medieval ages many old Italian aristocrats and locals were already practising pre-modern versions Stregoneria and Stragheria, worshipping pagan gods and casting spells to curse others or for selfish acts such as money gains or earning someone's love.

Just a FYI tidbit, Stregoneria and Stragheria translates as witchcraft inmodern Italian with the latter being the old common word and the former being contemporary usage to refer to local witchcraft.

I am curious from the perspective of Academia and Ancient Rome studies, how accurate are these claims? Just the fact every place the Iberians conquered ended up having local syncretism of paganism and Catholicism wouldn't surprise me at all if Italians still continued worshipping the old gods as far as into the Renaissance and even Napoleonic era. I mean the Scandinavians did try to worship both Viking gods and Christian saints using the same statues in simultaneous rituals. So shouldn't something like this have happened to the Roman pagan religions and various Italic peoples and states post-Rome?

Can anyone give their input? With reliable sources (preferably books and documentaries but anything including websites will do)?

I know that at the time of hannibal they had 230k soldiers (before hannibal crossed the alps I mean, 4 years after he did that, the number would have been half of it) but that was with all of the italian peninsula and sicily.

PS. I dont mean a single army but the combined might of all their armies and garrisons.

A friend of mine told me its because Italians lacked the qualities that made the Roman people create the one of if not the greatest civilizations in the history of the world:

1)Industriousness 2)Stoicism 3)Frugality 4)Toughness 5)Discipline 6)Militarism and above all: 7)Willingness to sacrifice everything(including one's self and one's entire family) for the country.

Is my friend right?If not,then what are the reasons why Italy is so weak today?

Someone should take care of that shit

delenda est

Ask me anything.

romanus erat superaberat hispania, gaul, africa, et helvetius. ergo, romanus est magnus!

senatus poplulsque romanus!!! :D :D :D