Ö÷²¥´óÐã

Ancient and ArchaeologyÌý permalink

Mariccus - God of the Year AD69

• Message 1.Ìý

  Posted by RainbowFfolly (U3345048) on Tuesday, 22nd January 2008

  Hi all,
  
  Anybody know anything about this guy apart from what Tacitus says about him?
  
  Amid the adventures of these illustrious men, one is ashamed to relate how a certain Mariccus, a Boian of the lowest origin, pretending to divine inspiration, ventured to thrust himself into Fortune's game, and to challenge the arms of Rome. Calling himself the champion of Gaul, and a God (for he had assumed this title), he had now collected 8,000 men, and was taking possession of the neighbouring villages of the Aedui, when that most formidable state attacked him with a picked force of its native youth, to which Vitellius attached some cohorts, and dispersed the crowd of fanatics. Mariccus was captured in the engagement, and was soon after exposed to wild beasts, but not having been torn by them was believed by the senseless multitude to be invulnerable, till he was put to death in the presence of Vitellius. Ìý
  Histories: Book II - Chapter 61 (Tacitus)
  
  
  Now I can understand all the Messianic cults popping up every five minutes over in Judea, but did Gaul have its share of religious nutters too? I can appreciate precedents like the the Imperial Cult may have inspired the odd remaining druid, but I always thought the Imperial Cult was bigger in the eastern part of the empire than the west. But I have to admit, I'm pretty impressed with a cult leader having 8,000 followers willing to fight for him - it kind of makes nutters like David Koresh and Charlie Manson look like small fry.
  
  Is that old snob Tacitus trying to differentiate between Mariccus's uprising and the various troubles in Gaul caused by the claims of various Romans to be Emperor, purely because of Mariccus's "lowest origin"? Was it just an opportunistic attack on the Aedui by the Boii (there doesn't appear to have been much love lost between the two tribes) or was it possibly linked directly to other events?
  
  Cheers,
  
  
  RF
  
  p.s. Religious motivator able to inspire 8,000 "fanatics" and a Gaul to boot - any chance he was a druid?

  Link to this forum: Mariccus - God of the Year AD69

  Report message1

• Message 2

  , in reply to message 1.

  Posted by TonyG (U1830405) on Wednesday, 23rd January 2008

  I hadn't heard about him before but I suspect you may be right in thinking he was a druid. The romans did their best to stamp out the druids, of course, but simply decreeing that everyone will follow a new religion and killing any adherents of the old religion does not necessarily mean that the old religion dies. It seems likely that many Gauls might acknowledge the de facto rule of Rome and the upper classes might well outwardly accept the imperial cult while still retaining their old beliefs. If th efigure of 8,000 supporters is correct, it seems likely that he was a druid.
  
  As for the reasons for the timing of the uprising, that must surely have been an opportunistic move. There were uprisings and raids in other parts of the empire as well, as people sought to take advantage of the chaos following Nero's death.
  
  As you say, his main offence seems to have been having the temerity to raise a rebellion while being of low social status. How dare he?

  Link to this forum: Mariccus - God of the Year AD69

  Report message2

• Message 3

  , in reply to message 2.

  Posted by RainbowFfolly (U3345048) on Thursday, 24th January 2008

  Hi TonyG,
  
  Thanks for replying - I had a feeling that this would be one of those posts that drift of the board with no responses!
  
  I know of a good few of the other uprisings around this time - didn't someone in the eastern part of the empire even claim to be Nero? What intrigued me the most was Mariccus's claim to be a god and the fact that 8,000 people actually accepted it - you need to be pretty damned charismatic to pull that kind of thing off. In Judea, this was a period when Messianic cults were popping up all over the place, and if had happened there I would have just taken it for granted, but Gaul?
  
  Cheers,
  
  
  RF
  
  

  Link to this forum: Mariccus - God of the Year AD69

  Report message3

• Message 4

  , in reply to message 3.

  Posted by an ex-nordmann - it has ceased to exist (U3472955) on Thursday, 24th January 2008

  It all depends on what you understand by Tacitus's use of "god". In a Roman context it was a job that any mortal, given the right circumstances, could aspire to even in his own lifetime if he had the neck for it and happened - crucially - to be emperor.
  
  Should someone from Gaul make the claim, the greatest offence taken by a Roman would not be in the man's assumption to be divine, but in his self-elevation to a status reserved for the emperor. The Judaean based cults were even more loathsome of course in that they claimed divinity that superceded anything produced by Rome. Their only saving grace was that they were all fictional characters who were thus elevated in the believers' minds and not likely therefore to cause Rome much problem in a military sense.
  
  Of course history reveals just what damage could still be inflicted even by an invented deity if the effect was insidious and from within the body politic, and it was something that Rome's very complexity made it more susceptible to eventually. But when it came to gods raising armies to fight them, the Romans had seen it all before and despatched many a supreme being (to meet himself?) during their time.

  Link to this forum: Mariccus - God of the Year AD69

  Report message4

• Message 5

  , in reply to message 4.

  Posted by RainbowFfolly (U3345048) on Thursday, 24th January 2008

  Hi Nordmann,
  
  To be honest, I'd pretty much taken Tacitus's use of the word "god" literally, and the word "divine" in the phrase "pretending to divine inspiration" pushed me towards this. Looking at that phrase again - and especially the words surrounding "divine" - with Tacitus's supposed wit in mind, I can see the point you're making. In fact, when it says "for he had assumed this title [of God]" it doesn't explicitly state that he claimed the title himself. Or does it? I don't know the original Latin, and it may be a poor translation that I've used!
  
  Cheers,
  
  
  RF

  Link to this forum: Mariccus - God of the Year AD69

  Report message5

• Message 6

  , in reply to message 5.

  Posted by Mick_mac (U2874010) on Thursday, 24th January 2008

  I would be cautious about placing too much reliance on one translation. Compare the following three translations, first the one you offered yourself and then two others.
  
  (1) 'Amid the adventures of these illustrious men, one is ashamed to relate how a certain Mariccus, a Boian of the lowest origin, pretending to divine inspiration, ventured to thrust himself into Fortune's game, and to challenge the arms of Rome. Calling himself the champion of Gaul, and a God (for he had assumed this title), he had now collected 8000 men, …'
  
  (2) 'With so many of the great in danger of their lives, an obscure creature called Mariccus, of the tribe of the Boii—it is a sordid incident—endeavoured to thrust himself into greatness and to challenge the armies of Rome, pretending to be a minister of Heaven. This divine champion of the Gauls, as he had entitled himself, had already gathered a force of eight thousand men, … 'http://www.gutenberg.org/files/16927/16927-h/i.html
  
  (3) 'While great men went in peril of their lives, it cannot be recorded without a blush that a humble member of the Boian tribe, a certain Mariccus, had the impudence to try to sneak into prominence and challenge the armed might of Rome by pretending to be divine. This self-styled 'champion of Gaul' and 'god' had raised a force of 8,000 men …' Ìý
  All of which are attempts to translate and capture the meaning of the Latin
  … inserere sese fortunae et provocare arma Romana simulatione numinum ausus est iamque adsertor Galliarum et deus (nam id sibi indiderat) concitis octo milibus hominum … Ìý
  A careful analysis of these translations demonstrates the difficulty that individual translators had in choosing a literal rendering into English. There is obviously some degree of latitude in their mind regarding the choice of words and phrases they can use.
  
  The obvious question is whether Tacitus’s meaning is that Mariccus actually considered himself to be divine, or that he merely claimed divine inspiration in acting as he did, or that he was just acting in some religious capacity as a leader of the people. There does not seem to be a clear and unambiguous translation or else all three translators would have given it. However, knowing what we do about Gaulish religion and druids, and mindful of the few people who took up arms and followed him, I do not think that Mariccus believed himself to be divine. He appears only to have been motivated either by religious fervour or plain madness.
  

  Link to this forum: Mariccus - God of the Year AD69

  Report message6

• Message 7

  , in reply to message 6.

  Posted by RainbowFfolly (U3345048) on Thursday, 24th January 2008

  Thanks Mick!

  Link to this forum: Mariccus - God of the Year AD69

  Report message7

Back to top