Zeus vs Jupiter weren't they different ...?

[LibraryOgre]

The major Roman/Greek deities really were so similar that they amount to the same god with different names. I would not say that Odin and Zeus/Jupiter share this trait; the myths about Odin are quite different. He is also a god of magic, and not known for nearly the infidelity and half-divine kids that Jupiter/Zeus was. He's also not married to the Norse goddess of Marriage. (Which is one reason why Hera/Juno was so royally angered at Zeus/Jupiter's fillandering: he was not just cheating on her, his wife, he was disrespecting her very purview.

Odin is...generally much more respectable, as husbands go, and I don't believe Frigga was the goddess of Marriage to begin with.

Thor, too, has no real counterpart in Greco-Roman myth. The closest analogous figure usually used is Hercules, and they're very different characters. (Thor, incidentally, is the one responsible for thunder in Norse myth, while Haephestus is in Greek. Thor has little else in common with Haephestus, though, other than both being the sons of the kings of the gods. Thor was a prince for it; Haephestus was just one of the other gods...and not a well-liked or -respected one, at that.)

Yes and no; some of this goes back to the idea of a proto-Indo-European pantheon, that evolved in different ways as their societies evolved. That Thunder God became Thor in Scandinavia, Donar in Germany, Taranis in Gaul, Jupiter in Rome, and Zeus in Greece. Not infrequently, he was a Sky Father type and a chief, but different societies had different chiefs... Odin is seen as more akin to Mercury/Hermes, with his secret knowledge and wanderings. You also have deities who merged or diverged in different contexts, and ones who grew more similar due to proximity (this would be the case with Zeus and Jupiter, as cultural connections between the Greeks and the Romans melded the two).

When you start getting outside of where the Indo-Europeans and Indo-Iranians settled, you start getting religions that have different assumptions (like the aforementioned Egyptians, or the Japanese, Chinese, or pretty much anywhere which isn't Europe and South Asia), and those distinctions become more tenuous, if not strictly imaginary (connecting, say, Raiden as a god of lightning to Jupiter is going to be a lot more difficult to prove).

[Thinker]

Yes and no; some of this goes back to the idea of a proto-Indo-European pantheon, that evolved in different ways as their societies evolved. That Thunder God became Thor in Scandinavia, Donar in Germany, Taranis in Gaul, Jupiter in Rome, and Zeus in Greece. Not infrequently, he was a Sky Father type and a chief, but different societies had different chiefs... Odin is seen as more akin to Mercury/Hermes, with his secret knowledge and wanderings. You also have deities who merged or diverged in different contexts, and ones who grew more similar due to proximity (this would be the case with Zeus and Jupiter, as cultural connections between the Greeks and the Romans melded the two).

When you start getting outside of where the Indo-Europeans and Indo-Iranians settled, you start getting religions that have different assumptions (like the aforementioned Egyptians, or the Japanese, Chinese, or pretty much anywhere which isn't Europe and South Asia), and those distinctions become more tenuous, if not strictly imaginary (connecting, say, Raiden as a god of lightning to Jupiter is going to be a lot more difficult to prove).

It wasn't solely a matter of diverging over time. Different localities also inherited trappings of the aboriginal people who were already living where the Indo-Europeans and Indo-Iranians settled.

[Tobtor]

Yes and no; some of this goes back to the idea of a proto-Indo-European pantheon, that evolved in different ways as their societies evolved. That Thunder God became Thor in Scandinavia, Donar in Germany, Taranis in Gaul, Jupiter in Rome, and Zeus in Greece. Not infrequently, he was a Sky Father type and a chief, but different societies had different chiefs... Odin is seen as more akin to Mercury/Hermes, with his secret knowledge and wanderings. You also have deities who merged or diverged in different contexts, and ones who grew more similar due to proximity (this would be the case with Zeus and Jupiter, as cultural connections between the Greeks and the Romans melded the two).

When you start getting outside of where the Indo-Europeans and Indo-Iranians settled, you start getting religions that have different assumptions (like the aforementioned Egyptians, or the Japanese, Chinese, or pretty much anywhere which isn't Europe and South Asia), and those distinctions become more tenuous, if not strictly imaginary (connecting, say, Raiden as a god of lightning to Jupiter is going to be a lot more difficult to prove).

I slightly disagree: the presented picture is sort of a "backtrack" of a imagined development. Very popular by historians of religion, especially previously. The thing is, if we look at the evidence for it in the historical and archaeological material, the reality is much more diversified. The "Scandinavian" pantheon as we know it, doesn't develop until much later than the supposed split of the "indo-european" relgions. If looking at Roman sources, archaology etc, there is not a Thor/Odin/Freja/etc worship in the 1-4rd century AD.

So the "Scandinavian Pantheon" is likely developed out of a mix of earlier local gods, influences from Etruscan, Roman and other sources, as well as new developments.

There is really no connection between Thor and Zeus, other than they are both thunder gods. at least I cannot see any, but if you have any points I would be willing to change my mind. And yes Odin does have similarities to Hermes, but not really a connection - not any more than other wandering gods across the world. He is a god of war, the dead, strategy, kings and lords, as well as poetry and scalds, and he is the king of gods. In some ways Hermes/Mercury is closer to Heimdal, but then there are completely other things where they do not cennect, and so on. There really is NO one-to-one translation of Scandinavian and Roman/Greek gods.

Much of the aforementioned ideas of a "indo-european" origin really comes out of 19th century scolarship, among a group of scholars primarily with the background in the classics, and then they try to fit everything else imagined "indo-european" toegether. To this day scholars (linguist, archaologist etc) cannot even say when and what indo-eruopean is and when they emerged (so wildly different ideas exist) so anything on detailed religious connection is vary sketchy in my eyes.

[Anxe]

I would say that parallels between Odin/Thor probably would've been drawn with Zeus or Heracles if the Pantheons were worshipped at the same time. The Egyptian comparisons are a stretch as well, but they happened.

I wonder if genetic maps could solve that "origin of the Indo-Europeans" question. To the Google!

[Thinker]

I would say that parallels between Odin/Thor probably would've been drawn with Zeus or Heracles if the Pantheons were worshipped at the same time. The Egyptian comparisons are a stretch as well, but they happened.

I wonder if genetic maps could solve that "origin of the Indo-Europeans" question. To the Google!

Wikipedia suggests the Caspian-Pontic Steppe, though I'm not in a position to research if that is true. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proto-Indo-Europeans

[LibraryOgre]

It wasn't solely a matter of diverging over time. Different localities also inherited trappings of the aboriginal people who were already living where the Indo-Europeans and Indo-Iranians settled.

Another fair point; the religions that developed were syncretic with the folks who were pre-Indo-European invasions.

I slightly disagree: the presented picture is sort of a "backtrack" of a imagined development. Very popular by historians of religion, especially previously. The thing is, if we look at the evidence for it in the historical and archaeological material, the reality is much more diversified. The "Scandinavian" pantheon as we know it, doesn't develop until much later than the supposed split of the "indo-european" relgions. If looking at Roman sources, archaology etc, there is not a Thor/Odin/Freja/etc worship in the 1-4rd century AD.

By those names? No. But there are analogues, who later developed into the Aesir we know today (my pet theory is that the Vanir may represent earlier deities still, but that's admittedly a pet theory).

There is really no connection between Thor and Zeus, other than they are both thunder gods. at least I cannot see any, but if you have any points I would be willing to change my mind. And yes Odin does have similarities to Hermes, but not really a connection - not any more than other wandering gods across the world. He is a god of war, the dead, strategy, kings and lords, as well as poetry and scalds, and he is the king of gods. In some ways Hermes/Mercury is closer to Heimdal, but then there are completely other things where they do not cennect, and so on. There really is NO one-to-one translation of Scandinavian and Roman/Greek gods.

Much of the aforementioned ideas of a "indo-european" origin really comes out of 19th century scolarship, among a group of scholars primarily with the background in the classics, and then they try to fit everything else imagined "indo-european" toegether. To this day scholars (linguist, archaologist etc) cannot even say when and what indo-eruopean is and when they emerged (so wildly different ideas exist) so anything on detailed religious connection is vary sketchy in my eyes.

Wikipedia has a fairly good entry on what I recall as the standard, but I also recognize that it's not a universally held hypothesis. A useful model, but not one that's rigorously provable.

[Tobtor]

By those names? No. But there are analogues, who later developed into the Aesir we know today (my pet theory is that the Vanir may represent earlier deities still, but that's admittedly a pet theory).

Do tell which one you mean and what evidence there is of "analogues" to the Aesir in the time of proto-europeans spread... I am all ears.

That Vanir represent earlier elements is suggested by several serious scholars, so not as much a pet theory. Especially since there seem to be a goddess "Nerthus" in Roman sources, who could be a female version of Njord, and that Would give "Nerthus"/Njord parallel to Freja/Frej (the children of Njord). Its vague and possible, but definately a theory with some scholars behind it. They suggest it happens 1ad-500Ad or thereabouts (various theories). Far later than any "proto-Indo-European" religion

Wikipedia has a fairly good entry on what I recall as the standard, but I also recognize that it's not a universally held hypothesis. A useful model, but not one that's rigorously provable.

So any suggestions about the religious practise of the Bronze age (2.000BC) is really where the connection should be, unless you favour other theories (like the one from resent genetic studies pointing to the expansion of genetic trademarks of the "corded ware" culture 2.800BC. Research about northern European religion in that time have no parallels to the "Aesir", but perhaps some "sun-worship", with scholars prefers to refer to Egyptians (if anything).

But anyway by 200 AD we have no signs of any religions resembling the Aesir in Scandinavia (except perhaps "Nerthus", which might be a female counterpart to an minor Vanean inclusion to the aesir, namely Njord). By the 4th-7yh century, we see Bractaetes which depict a spear wielding horseman (suggested proto-odin) and another god with two wolves being bit in the hand (Early version of Tyr with one hand bitten of by Fenris). Thus the Scandinavian pantheon develops during the later part of the Roman period and in the post Roman world of the migration period.

[LibraryOgre]

I haven't looked at this stuff in more than a decade. The analogues would be Germanic (the aforementioned Donar\Thor), and the Germanic influence spread into Scandinavia over time, but it's been a long time since I dealt with this stuff.

[Roderick_BR]

Not adding to the topic, just wanted to point out two interesting stories.

On DC Comics, they use mostly the Greek pantheon for Wonder Woman's lore, but they sometimes bring in the roman ones, including a story arc where both pantheons were on a fully open war between the two groups.

On Disney, in one of the Young Hercules' cartoons they made it clear they are the same Gods, as the Greeks were answering an ad for Rome's patron deities, and Icaro (Hercules' wacko inventor friend) was tasked to give them local names (after causing trouble being mistaken by a god himself) because the Roman were "too proud to use the God of some other people" so they got the new names to make them look more "exclusive."
The episode ends with Hades complaining that "Pluto" is a name so silly he wouldn't even name his dog that.

[Zaydos]

For the most part Rome took the Greek gods. Zeus became Jupiter. There are some that show major differences, and some that have more minor differences. For example the Romans played down Jupiter's infidelity and Juno's jealousy (at least until the Roman Empire), and Mars was closer to the Spartan Ares than to the Athenian Ares/Homeric Pan-Hellenistic Ares we are most familiar with. Bigger differences are noted with Saturn, who was a fully respected god, and who we have evidence of being from before the assimilation of Greek culture, and Janus who has no Greek equivalent. If you're interested in this sort of stuff look into Robert Graves' book of Greek Myths it has the most background information to the myths of any I can think of, though he will try and turn anything and everything into proof of Great Mother worship because that was his pet theory.

On the topic of equivalencies with other gods. Tacitus discusses the early Germanic religions in his Germania. There he equates Odin with Mercury, Thor with Hercules, and Tyr with Mars; this does date the Aesir to the 1st Century AD at the latest. Or that's the believed equivalences. He lists them all as the head deity of separate groups also. This is our earliest source on a lot of Germanic religion, and Tacitus even mentions Great Mother worship/groups with a head female deity specifically the Nerthus mentioned earlier; who I personally took as a prototype of Freyja since they are both warrior goddesses of fertility and Freyja retains trappings associated with the head of a pantheon. I forget who he equates her to as it's been a while, and I think it might have been Isis. The theory I've heard for Vanir/Aesir is that they were worshiped by separate sets of tribes and that the Aesir were consolidated into a pantheon before the Vanir were added to it; this works with how Tacitus discussed the deities traceable to Aesir and the one traceable to Vanir as being from different regions of Germany. What I've heard from various books on comparative mythology is that Tyr is a relatively late comer to the Aesir, having been the head god of his own pantheon till relatively recently (Tyr/Tui means God), and that the Vanir were added not too long after; I remember it got mentioned in Gog and Magog even though it mainly dealt with early Britain religion. Tacitus of course doesn't mention it directly except in that he references a warrior god named a word for god which he chooses to call the German Mars as a head deity of one of multiple groups.

As for the Egyptian gods the Romans would call some of them with Roman names sometimes using them as a title. The one that stands out in my mind is Mercury as either Osiris or Anubis as they all three took the role of psychopomp. I have also seen things that associate Set or Apep with Typhon but that's less primary sources and more secondary sources/historical fiction.

[theMycon]

Yes, they're different. Zeus was a myth. A fairy story. He never existed.

Jupiter told some really cool stories about what he did hundreds of years ago when nobody was looking, and a lot of people believed him, and he might've borrowed a few older stories later on, but Zeus was just a myth.

[RedWarlock]

Ooh, I love this topic.

The PIE concept does also merge Zeus and Poseidon, having them be two cultures that split, their chief god, one land-based, the other sea-based (their names share a common PIE root word) but who, when the re-encountered one another and traded stories, decided their equally-powerful gods much be brothers rather than one being subservient to the other.

Likewise, Tyr in the norse/germanic pantheon was once the leader, but was ousted when a Wodan/Odin figure was raised to god-hood. (Maybe Wodan was a regional king who was deified, and the relationships of the former leader became his as stories conflated.)

Of course, I did a lot of my research through the lens of a concrete unified world mythology for use with an urban-fantasy story-concept (So the Vanir were actually the Celtic deities, and they were LITERALLY at war with the Germanic pantheon) so my memory is a little distorted by trying to squish together the content. (Like I still assert that the ahura/asura and Daeva/Deva are opposite sides of a cultural war, being the supernaturals of their respective cultures, and demonized in the other. There are academic assertions that this is wrong, but it works for my headcanon-mythology.)

[TheCountAlucard]

The PIE concept does also merge Zeus and Poseidon, having them be two cultures that split, their chief god, one land-based, the other sea-based (their names share a common PIE root word) but who, when the re-encountered one another and traded stories, decided their equally-powerful gods much be brothers rather than one being subservient to the other.

PUPPETS CANNAE EVEN EAT PIE!!!

[Tobtor]

On the topic of equivalencies with other gods. Tacitus discusses the early Germanic religions in his Germania. There he equates Odin with Mercury, Thor with Hercules, and Tyr with Mars; this does date the Aesir to the 1st Century AD at the latest. Or that's the believed equivalences.

Is that the believed equivalence? By whom? As far as I remember Tacitus there is nothing that relates those gods to the Aesir, that is nothing linguistics or any stories etc. So the connection is: Tacitus hears about local Germanic of various gods from different tribes, he sort of connects to Roman gods (some times he has difficulty making one-one comparisons), but thats because he clearly belives the gods exist, so anything worshipped must be one of these gods. Then 19th century scholars go the other way and claim "since Mercury is sort of like Odin, then the Germanic god Tacitus thinks is a bit like Mercury, must be Odin". yea - I am not convinced....

Tacitus even mentions Great Mother worship/groups with a head female deity specifically the Nerthus mentioned earlier

Yes there is much interesting on the subject of Nerthus, who seem to be the only god/godess worshipped among the northern germanic tribes.

who I personally took as a prototype of Freyja since they are both warrior goddesses of fertility

There is nothing about Nerthus being a warrior goddess.... and Freja is not really a godess of fertility, but of love, beauty and war. Frej is a fertility god, and perhaps also Thors wife Sif. Nerthus is connected to cows (and a "bull" is also mentioned being worshipped), while Freja is connected to cats (and a pig). The resemblance is vague at best. The linguistic relation to Njord is there however, and a female version of Njord is a possibility, however not possible to prove.

I forget who he equates her to as it's been a while, and I think it might have been Isis.

He doesn't really connect her to anyone.

The theory I've heard for Vanir/Aesir is that they were worshiped by separate sets of tribes and that the Aesir were consolidated into a pantheon before the Vanir were added to it; this works with how Tacitus discussed the deities traceable to Aesir and the one traceable to Vanir as being from different regions of Germany.

Again the gods Tacitus discuss cannot directly be traced as either Vanir or Aesir (or anything else really), except perhaps Nerthus. They could equally be a completely different set of gods (not that I think they are). The thing is, its a circular argument. "These gods are the Aesir, thus the Aesir must have existed at the time of Tacitus, and thus these gods must be the Aesir". There really isn't any EVIDENCE for the theory.

Anyway, none of this would have happened before the time of Tacitus, that is first century AD. So any indo-european "pantheon" is out of the question. Instead its a process happening at the time between 1st/2nd century ad, and is finalised before the advent of christianity in the 10-11th century AD.

What I've heard from various books on comparative mythology is that Tyr is a relatively late comer to the Aesir, having been the head god of his own pantheon till relatively recently (Tyr/Tui means God)

There is a lot of discussion of the meaning of Tyr (Tiwar in old runic inscriptions). It is true it means "god" and some scholars have used this to suggest that he really never existed, and that his inclusion is due to a 13th century misunderstanding. However, we do have bractaetes with the depiction of a god being bitten by a dog/wolf. Interestingly these are a) early, and b) mainly from the northen Germany/southern Jutland area, related to the Angles and Saxons.

Any relation between Tyr and MArs, is a modern invention. There is nothing pointing to Tyr being a god of war. He is a god, of justice, bravery etc. But war is more the domain of Odin. Which is why any of the comparisons between Norse and Roman gods fall apart as soon as you look into the actual stories. Whatever god Tacitus compared to Mars, we have no indication that this is the same god as the god later refered to as Tyr. At all.

Much of the "comparative" mythology never really interest themselves in actual finds of figures, depictions etc, but mainly relies on linguistic evidence and their own opinions.

It interesting that before 200AD, wagons are found in bogs (suggested to relate to the Nerthus cult), depictions of bulls and birds and other animals are common, that while the bracteates and other later depictions are more readily compared to later norse mythology.

[woweedd]

Yes, they're different. Zeus was a myth. A fairy story. He never existed.

Jupiter told some really cool stories about what he did hundreds of years ago when nobody was looking, and a lot of people believed him, and he might've borrowed a few older stories later on, but Zeus was just a myth.

What is that supposed to mean?