Mithraism in the Roman Army

[Nathan Ross]

This leads on in a way from the interesting thread on Religion in the Reenactment section.

Most accounts of religion in the Roman army from the second to fourth centuries mention the prominence of Mithraism - and while I think the theory that it once rivalled Christianity has now been discredited (or has it?), it is still often portrayed as the most popular and widespread military cult of the empire. How true is this, though?

I've visited surviving Mithraea in Rome and Ostia, and one of the more surprising things about them is their relatively small size - a full congregation could not have numbered more than twenty men, especially if complicated rituals were involved. Very possibly the cult meeting-places near military bases are larger, I don't know - surviving bathhouses at forts are not huge either, and they were intended for the whole garrison... Is it possible, though, that we give Mithraism an undue prominence and attribute it an unfounded popularity for the simple reason that it seems so intriguing to us today, and leaves us with such easily-identifiable remains? Might it be true, instead, that the cult was always deeply exclusive and secretive - a sort of mystical version of the freemasons, perhaps - and not a popular religion of the common soldier at all?

I don't have an answer in mind for the above questions - just interested to discover what others might think.

And my apologies to any committed Mithraists amongst you!

[arklore70]

I remember reading someplace that this might also have been a cover for early Christians. Unfortunately I can not think of the source at the moment.

Is there anything published of their religious rites? Would be interesting too see if their is any free masonry/knights of Columbus/fraternity ritual cross over or influences.

v/r
Mike

[Carlton Bach]

R. Merkelbach: Mithras

That is the plkace I would go to look. unfortunately, my copy is on loan to a friend, but it seems that the earöly idea that soldiers and Mithras went together mnaturalöly just doesn't hold true. Mithraism was a very popular reliogion, but not only in the army, and it is also likely that there was a 'public' cult of Mithras as well as a mystery religion.

But as to surviving Mithraea, keep in mind that the ones we still find are those too small to be worth converting into Christian churches.

[Martin Wallgren]

One wonders how much of the Mithraism could be traced in Christian Cermonys and symbols of today. Isn´t is so that most of disappering religions is simly merged into another and thus isn´t recognised anymore. Sertanly happened to the Vanirgods and the Giants of the Asa-religion. Many Celtic Gods reappeard as Saints.

[Peroni]

Salvete,

The god Mithras came from India via Persia. In the west, Mithras was said to have sprung from a tree or a rock fully grown. The worship of Mithras and the associated cult became very important to soldiers because he represented the victory of the soul over death. The Romans elevated him to the position of a supreme deity, making him the centre of a complex mythology. This included a monstrous being, Kronos (or Aeon), portrayed as a lion-headed winged figure, encircled by a serpent and holding a sceptre and a thunderbolt.

In Sanskrit, Mithras means ‘friend’. In the Vedas he is a divinity of light, subordinate to Ahura or Varuna, in the Avesta, a spirit of light or fertilising warmth, also associated with truth and the oath. He is not the sky god, nor is he the Sun, which is described as the eye of Mithra and Varuna; the assimilation of the Sun (Persian Mihr) comes later. He is more probably the firmament, god of the upper air mediating between heaven and earth. The Assyrian Metru means ‘rain’.

The relation between Mithras emerging from a rock is analogous to the Sun rising from behind the mountains. A god of the air, like the Sun and the sky would see all things and therefore naturally become the enforcer of oaths and compacts. Although Mithras and the Sun are separate in the myth, their figures tend to merge and blend. The Sun was Ahura-Mazda’s chief representative in the battle of light against darkness. Mithras both shares the struggle with him and ousts him from his supremacy.

Ahura-Mazda’s first creation had been a wild bull, representing untamed creation; Mithras seized it by the horns and held out until the bull was worn by weariness, then slung it over his shoulder and dragged it into a cave. This explains why most Mithraea were in part underground and dark. The bull escaped, and the Sun sent forth its messenger, the Raven to follow it. In accordance with the will of Ahura-Mazda, Mithras, with his faithful hound set off in pursuit, found the bull pulled back its head, grasped its nostrils with his left hand, and with his right plunged a dagger in its throat. From the blood of the dead bull sprang the vine of life, and from the spinal cord and tail came wheat. Ahriman sent his servants, the snake the scorpion and the ant to lap up the life-giving stream, but in vain; it spread over the earth. Through this act the Sun yielded supremacy to his ally, knelt before Mithras, was invested by him with a crown; arose, and made a covenant with him. Finally he took leave of his ally the Sun in a ceremonial banquet which was commemorated within the cult by a sacramental meal. Initiates believed that the ritual meal strengthened them and was also indicative of a better life beyond this world.


The Mithraic cult spread greatly under the rule of the Flavians, especially in the military frontier provinces. Women were excluded from the cult, although there was fraternisation with the cult of Cybele.

A Mithraeum was an oblong building, often built underground with benches along each side of the interior. As little light as possible was provided to enhance the mystery effect. Dominating one end of the building would be a portrayal, either in stone or paint of Mithras’ greatest task, the slaying of the wild bull. Other figures associated with the worship of Mithras include Cautes who holds an upturned torch symbolising light and life, and Cautopates, whose downturned torch indicated darkness and death. Remains of these statues were found at the Carrawburgh Mithraeum.

Mithraism reached its height in Britain in the third century AD, and the Batavian cohorts altar dedications to Mithras at Carrawburgh (Brocolitia) are from this period. This Mithraeum and the one at the fort at Housesteads, are thought to have been desecrated by Christians.

Regards,

[Thiudareiks Flavius]

Most accounts of religion in the Roman army from the second to fourth centuries mention the prominence of Mithraism - and while I think the theory that it once rivalled Christianity has now been discredited (or has it?), it is still often portrayed as the most popular and widespread military cult of the empire. How true is this, though?

There's not a lot of doubt that Mithraism and the Sol Invictus cult that it came to be associated with (but which was originally separate) were highly popular in the Roman military. But as I've detailed in an earlier post, as Christianity became more influential in society generally, it also became more influential in the army.

As for Mithraism being a serious rival to Christianity, both shared attractive elements, as did other mystery cults. Christianity had an edge, however, in that it was highly non-exclusive (it accepted anyone - citizen, non-citizen, the poor, the rich, even women and slaves), whereas Mithraism was effectively a gentlemen-only exclusive club that was invitation only. Christianity also offered a very attractive view of the afterlife that other cults found hard to compete with and it provided a social support and welfare network which won it many converts.

I've visited surviving Mithraea in Rome and Ostia, and one of the more surprising things about them is their relatively small size - a full congregation could not have numbered more than twenty men, especially if complicated rituals were involved. Very possibly the cult meeting-places near military bases are larger, I don't know - surviving bathhouses at forts are not huge either, and they were intended for the whole garrison... Is it possible, though, that we give Mithraism an undue prominence and attribute it an unfounded popularity for the simple reason that it seems so intriguing to us today, and leaves us with such easily-identifiable remains? Might it be true, instead, that the cult was always deeply exclusive and secretive - a sort of mystical version of the freemasons, perhaps - and not a popular religion of the common soldier at all?

It definitely was highly exclusive in a way that Christianity was not. This was its strength in many ways, but ultimately it was its weakness. But its close-knit exclusivity, its comradeship and the fact that it was only open to (some) males by invitation also meant it flourished within the military.

I remember reading someplace that this might also have been a cover for early Christians.

I'd be interested in your source for this. I'd would think the two faiths were mutually exclusive. Christians refused to sacrifice to the Emperors or the official state cult, but I can't see how pretending to be Mithraists would help them there, since Mithraism had no problem with either of these things as far as we can tell.

Is there anything published of their religious rites?

Very little that can be relied upon. As a mystery cult, most of their practices were not revealed to non-initates.

Would be interesting too see if their is any free masonry/knights of Columbus/fraternity ritual cross over or influences.

I'd be surprised if there were any direct influences or anything more than vague parallels. Modern esoteric societies have a long history of pretending they have ancient pedigrees, but they always turn out to be modern fantasy rather than reality.

But as to surviving Mithraea, keep in mind that the ones we still find are those too small to be worth converting into Christian churches.

I know of several Christian churches built over Mithraea, but of no churches which were converted from Mithraic temples. Which ones are you thinking of?

One wonders how much of the Mithraism could be traced in Christian Cermonys and symbols of today.

It's often said that Christianity 'stole' Decemmber 25th from Mithraism, but that date was originally sacred to the Sol Invictus cult. It would be more accurate to say that Christianity followed Mithraism in 'stealing' that feast from the cult of the Unconquered Sun.

It used to be widely accepted that Christianity 'stole' many other things from Mithraism, and you can still find some badly researched websites that claim there were legends of Mithras having a virgin birth, being worshipped by shepherds, having twelve disciples, being crucified and rising again. Unfortunately, once you look at these supposed parallels/derivations in detail, you find (a) they aren't good parallels at all or (b) they simply didn't exist.

There was a Persian legend of how Mithra's mother was Anahita and how she became pregnant while still a virgin by swimming in a lake containing sacred semen. But there's no evidence this legend appeared in Roman Mithraism, which preferred the story that he was born, fully grown, from a rock. The Chrisitian story of the Virgin Birth didn't involve any 'sacred semen' anyway and has far closer parallels in stories from Judaism.

Besides, other Persian legends depict Anahita as Mithra's consort, not his mother.

As for any legends about Mithras having twelve followers, being crucified or rising from the dead - they simply don't exist. A Nineteenth Century writer called Kersey Graves claimed all these things, but his work is now dismissed as largely fantasy.

The current position amongst Mithraic scholars is that the two religions both influenced each other in terms of their art, and that's about it. That's less controversial and exciting as claiming that Christianity stole most of its ideas from Mithraism, but the actual evidence is often less exciting than hopeful New Age speculation and amateur Nineteenth Century muddle-headedness.

[Martin Wallgren]

Tanx Tim! And others, very intrssesting topic!

M

[Nathan Ross]

Carlton Bach wrote:

But as to surviving Mithraea, keep in mind that the ones we still find are those too small to be worth converting into Christian churches.

I know of several Christian churches built over Mithraea, but of no churches which were converted from Mithraic temples. Which ones are you thinking of?

I wondered that too - surely if they'd been converted into churches they would be more and not less likely to have survived? I wouldn't think the structure of a mithraeum - a long narrow tunnel, basically - would be all that suited to rededication as a church anyway. There is the one under the basilica San Clemente, but that had the church built over the top of it, not inside it.

Mithraism was a very popular reliogion, but not only in the army, and it is also likely that there was a 'public' cult of Mithras as well as a mystery religion.

Now that's a good point - perhaps we're just conflating two very different aspects of religious practice. After all, plenty of Romans worshipped Isis at one point or another, without being inducted into the Isiac Mysteries or joining the cult, which was a very different matter altogether!

Peroni wrote:

Mithraism reached its height in Britain in the third century AD, and the Batavian cohorts altar dedications to Mithras at Carrawburgh (Brocolitia) are from this period. This Mithraeum and the one at the fort at Housesteads, are thought to have been desecrated by Christians.

But it wasn't the Batavian cohort themselves who dedicated the altars at Carrawburgh - it was the Equestrian Praefects of the cohort - the officers. They were carrying out personal vows, not performing an action on behalf of their men. It's perfectly possibly that the Carrawburgh mithraeum, being so close to the fort, was regularly crowded out with soldiery - but perhaps it might be better seen as similar to those 'scholae' that existed in bigger camps and legion bases? Somewhere, essentially, for the commanders to go.

Mithraism was, after all, very hierarchical, and surely this hierarchy would be in conflict with military hierarchy. I know social divisions were supposed to disappear within the 'brotherhood' of Mithras, but is it likely that a cult congregation would be led by a ordinary ranker, or ex slave, and include within it the soldier's own commanding officers? That could create all sorts of problems, discipline-wise, surely?

[Carus Andiae]

I was able to do one of my pieces of coursework for A-level Religious Studies on Mithraism (lucky me! ) and have been interested ever since.

The work of Cumont, the 'father' of Mithraic Studies, has been largely discredited in more recent times. It appears that Roman Mithraism bore only a passing resemblance to its Persian Zoroastrian origins. It seems to have gained a following in Tarsus (of St Paul fame) where it mixed with the Cult of Perseus that was then popular in the city. It was probably introduced to the Roman Army through contact with Cilesian Pirates.

Unfortunately we know little of the rites (it wasn't called a Mystery Cult for nothing!), and what was written down was from second hand sources, some of them Christian and deliberately distorted, but in any case unreliable.

There were seven grades:
Corax (raven)
Nymphus (bride)
Miles (soldier)
Leo (lion)
Perses (Persian)
Heliodromus (sun-courier)
Pater (father)

Each had his (members seem to have been exclusively male) own dress, symbols and duties. The central rite appears to have involved a shared meal, but they also seem to have had baptismal ceremonies and other rites of initiation. The iconography centered around the Tauroctany, and image of Mithras slaying a Bull, often with accompanying images of a Scorpion, Dog and other animals. This seems to have in fact been a Star Map, with Mithras as Perseus, the Bull as Taurus etc. Cautes and Cautopates were probably representative of the rising and setting sun. Certainly the cult was closely bound up with astrology - the god was Mithras Kosmokrator, Mithras, Ruler of the Cosmos. This was only the basis of the beliefs though - subsidiary inconography suggests that Mithraism developed a rich mythology of its own.

I would refer anyone interest to David Ulansey's Origins of the Mithraic Mysteries.

[arklore70]

Tim,
wow. That is a lot of great information. Thanks.

I'll shoot you a note on the Christian cover theory, give me a day. I think I know which book I pulled that from. I just want to make sure before I shoot it to you and post it.

Cheers!!

Mike

[Tarbicus]

I've visited surviving Mithraea in Rome and Ostia, and one of the more surprising things about them is their relatively small size - a full congregation could not have numbered more than twenty men, especially if complicated rituals were involved. Very possibly the cult meeting-places near military bases are larger, I don't know - surviving bathhouses at forts are not huge either, and they were intended for the whole garrison... Is it possible, though, that we give Mithraism an undue prominence and attribute it an unfounded popularity for the simple reason that it seems so intriguing to us today, and leaves us with such easily-identifiable remains?

Is it possible that not all followers gathered at one time, but they may have split worship among the congregation at different times or days? Especially within the military that could be very useful, given duty rosters, etc.

[Peroni]

Nathan said

But it wasn't the Batavian cohort themselves who dedicated the altars at Carrawburgh - it was the Equestrian Praefects of the cohort - the officers. They were carrying out personal vows, not performing an action on behalf of their men. It's perfectly possibly that the Carrawburgh mithraeum, being so close to the fort, was regularly crowded out with soldiery - but perhaps it might be better seen as similar to those 'scholae' that existed in bigger camps and legion bases? Somewhere, essentially, for the commanders to go.

I agree with you on that point. From the surviving inscriptions and dedications from Batavians found at Empel, the troopers tended to worship Hercules Magusanus.

Regards,

[tlclark]

Tim, EXCELLENT post. I was about to tackle this when you did it better that I could.

It's often said that Christianity 'stole' Decemmber 25th from Mithraism, but that date was originally sacred to the Sol Invictus cult. It would be more accurate to say that Christianity followed Mithraism in 'stealing' that feast from the cult of the Unconquered Sun.

I agree completely. Rather than a common origin, what we have is parallel traditions that emerge from a common cultural milieu. Rather than Christians borrowing from Mithraism, we have Christians borrowing from the background noise of general religious imagery that existed in the Roman world. Christians borrowed from everyone, and it is not alwyas clear that Christians are painting or making their own images. In the tomb of the Julii in the Vatican necropolis, Christ appears as Helios. Now clearly, no Christian meant to equate Helios with Christ. Rather a pagan artist was given the difficult task of creating an image appropriate for a "Prince of Light" or a Christian had to come up with an image from his own cultural background.

There is a difference between syncretism, which renders the dieties equivalent or mixes them, and artistic license which borrows the image, but not the intent. Christians borrowing from pagan sources no more indicates a connection to paganism, than Michelangelo's borrowing of classical forms to depict God and Adam in the Sistine Chapel.

Travis

[flavia]

Tim, EXCELLENT post. I was about to tackle this when you did it better that I could.

It's often said that Christianity 'stole' Decemmber 25th from Mithraism, but that date was originally sacred to the Sol Invictus cult. It would be more accurate to say that Christianity followed Mithraism in 'stealing' that feast from the cult of the Unconquered Sun.

I agree completely. Rather than a common origin, what we have is parallel traditions that emerge from a common cultural milieu. Rather than Christians borrowing from Mithraism, we have Christians borrowing from the background noise of general religious imagery that existed in the Roman world. Christians borrowed from everyone, and it is not alwyas clear that Christians are painting or making their own images. In the tomb of the Julii in the Vatican necropolis, Christ appears as Helios. Now clearly, no Christian meant to equate Helios with Christ. Rather a pagan artist was given the difficult task of creating an image appropriate for a "Prince of Light" or a Christian had to come up with an image from his own cultural background.

There is a difference between syncretism, which renders the dieties equivalent or mixes them, and artistic license which borrows the image, but not the intent. Christians borrowing from pagan sources no more indicates a connection to paganism, than Michelangelo's borrowing of classical forms to depict God and Adam in the Sistine Chapel.

Travis

Ibelieve that the three wisemen were priests of Zoroaster (called Magi)which has connections to Mithras.It was very easy to mix Jesus with Mithras as the emperor,I think, Constantine only was baptized on his death bed and he was a follower in Mithraism so the two religions seem to be confusing to some at first. The romans adopted gods from all culturals the greek Zeus was their Jupiter and so on ,so I believe some believed that Jesus was just another personification of Mithras.Flavia aka Carolina I'm sure someone will correct me if I am wrong.

[tlclark]

Ibelieve that the three wisemen were priests of Zoroaster (called Magi)which has connections to Mithras.It was very easy to mix Jesus with Mithras as the emperor,I think, Constantine only was baptized on his death bed and he was a follower in Mithraism so the two religions seem to be confusing to some at first. The romans adopted gods from all culturals the greek Zeus was their Jupiter and so on ,so I believe some believed that Jesus was just another personification of Mithras.Flavia aka Carolina I'm sure someone will correct me if I am wrong.

Actually we discussed this over on this thread extensively..

http://www.romanarmy.com/rat/viewtopic. ... ght=meteor

Nearly all late Hellenistic Princes employed solar imagery as part of their political propaganda. When Constantine appropriates this imagery it isn't certain what he's trying to do. You have to remember that there is no separation between church and state in the ancient world. If a person wished to evoke the political aspects of his past, he would inevitably drudge up religious connotations as well, intended or not. For Constantine, wearing the crown of solar invictus (not necessarily Mithras) may just be a political statement, and not a religious one.

Travis