Talk:Titanomachy

This says NOTHING about the war. It only tells the events leading up to it.

-G —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.24.150.190 (talk) 02:07, 19 June 2008 (UTC)Reply

vzxcfdsfvsd —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.225.102.90 (talk) 06:07, 17 January 2009 (UTC)Reply

There are no sources, does that qualify for speedy deletion?

The following statement is very inaccurate. I think it should be completely deleted.

"The Abrahamic religions (Judaism, Christianity and Islam) describe a similar event, the revolt of a group of Angels, led by Satan. In this case, the younger "gods" lost the war and were cast into Hell."

There are number of points to consider.

1. According to this link on Satan, Jews believe that Satan is actually an Angel working on the command of God. His job is to test the piety of the believer. So it is incorrect to use this an example of a Titanomachy.

2. Muslims do not believe Satan is an angel at all. Nor does it believe in a revolt in the heavens between the Angels, Satan and God. Rather, the Musliim belief is that Satan (a Jinn) was disobeyed God and was cast out. There was no challenge power or attempt on Satan's part to fight God. So again, this is an incorrect example of a Titanomachy.

3. While Christians do believe that Satan was an Angel who rebelled against God (in disobedience), there is no belief (to my knowledge) that Satan (a former Angel) fought against God to in order to take his place. So while there might be a slight case for a Titanomachy in this case, it is only a slight one.

Seeing that the comment is misleading as to the belief of these three religions (in a somewhat derogative way), I think it may upset followers of any of these faiths. Furthermore I suggest a detailed background research into some of the other assertions made in this article.

technically you are right and wrong. Some religions believe exactly what you put and you were fairly accurate on the buddhist beliefs. However Roman Catholics, Jews, and Mormons beilieve that Satan was God's first child and that he was originally to be the one who did what jesus was sent to do, but he decided that he would rather take all of the glory for himself and leave none for god. Whereas Jesus said that all the glory would be god's ( herein lies the only major difference between judaism and other abrahamic religions on *this* topic in that the jews believe that Jesus will come down to save them from their opressors with an army..(its kinda wrong i know but takes too long to explain) and i also think that they dont call jesus "jesus". anyways..Thus satan went to war with god and lost. Him along with a third of the people in heaven were cast out forever, never to obtain bodies. You are however right that god sent satan to be a test for all people, in that god is, in all abrahamic religions (cept islam....idk anything bout that) all knowing and thus would have forseen that satan would do such a thing. For many times throughout the Bible he refers to the fact that good could not exist without evil for there would be nothing but good. So there could thus obviously be nothing else and good wouldnt really be good. It would just be the only way and neutral. it is true that no religion specifies whether satan actually fought god or if he was cast out simply on disobidience. personally i dont see how he could have "fought" since at that time no one could really die and again god is supposed to be all knowing and all powerful ( how are you supposed to fight omnipotence *and* omniscience?)

It is also true that this might offend others of other religions for i only really have a good knowledge of buddhism, judaism, mormonism and roman catholocism (my best friend is a roman catholic and we frequently talk about the differences between his and my religion....there are remarkably few btw(where fundamental beliefs and philosophy are concerned)....i am mormon.....and my roommate is jewish and i talk with him as frequently....as for buddhism i have spent a great deal of time studying it because it interests me)......in short i also believe more research needs to be done....BUT this is accurate from the perspectives of a few religions

thus titanomachy could be a legitimate comparison to this depending on the religion you happen to be reffering to and there are countless renditions of christianity...so there is no way to *not* offend someone there because of the vast differing opinions

No, none of that is true. While the story is very popular among Christians, it doesn't appear in the Bible, isn't dogma of any group I'm aware of, and CERTAINLY isn't accepted by Jews. Also, you seem to have confused Jewish beliefs about the coming of the messiah with some random-ass nonsense. --Alakhriveion 05:50, 23 June 2006 (UTC)Reply

Ehm... No. Roman Catholicism does not believe that Satan or Lucifer was God's first child. There's some unclear legend about Lucifer (rather than Satan), the most perfect of angels, rebelling against God out of arrogance but I don't think it's part of the Bible nor the Catholic doctrine. In any case nothing about being a "child" but a creation, like the rest. I was raised in Catholicism (though left it as I reached my teens), studied in a Jesuit school and have a sister who's training to teach that religion, so I think I know what I'm talking about.

Nevertheless, that obscure Hebrew legend possibly can compare somewhat with the Titanomachy, the same that the Genesis can compare with Prometeus' creation of Humankind. --Sugaar 04:05, 28 November 2006 (UTC)Reply

First, the Titanomachy lasted ten years. I can see how "they fought for ten full years, then..." might suggest to some that victory came in the eleventh year, but the phrase "ten full years" should not be taken too literally. Greek mythology likes 10-year wars: e.g., the Trojan War and the Gigantomachy. I know there are a number of websites that say 11 years, but I defy anyone to find a peer-reviewed book or article that does likewise.

Also, this article is poorly (i.e., not at all) sourced, and seems to be a mish-mash of disparate sources blended together. For example, the stuff about Poseidon's trident and Hades' helmet comes from Apollodorus, not Hesiod.

Finally, what's with the "Gigantes"? The article uses the term "Titans" rather than "Titanes", so why not simply "Giants"? Ifnkovhg (talk) 17:03, 2 February 2008 (UTC)Reply

Please do insert sources, using the <ref></ref> formula. Gigantes shouldn't be confused with Titans. --Wetman (talk) 22:17, 2 February 2008 (UTC)Reply

As for using "gigantes" rather than "giants", perhaps the editor was hungry. --Akhilleus (talk) 22:37, 2 February 2008 (UTC)Reply

Personally, I'm a fan of the series... but I don't think that this section belongs here. If it weren't bad enough, they wrote the end like a game stop review. -TheCrimsonANTHROPOLOGIST 03:14, 29 April 2008 (UTC)Reply

This is totally unrelated, but the Titanomachy is in the game Age Of Mytology as a cheat. If typed in full caps in the chat box, during a Random Map game, will make a Titan appear at the Town Center. Yugiohguy1 (talk) 20:28, 27 May 2008 (UTC)Reply

I know there was a war between the Titans led by Kronos and the Olympians led by Zeus, but who fought, who remained neutral, and who was banished to the pit of Tartaros?

Many sources say all of Kronos brothers were banished with him to Tartaros, thought Okeanos never took part in the fighting, so was he pardoned or was he banished. Assuming that all of Zeus brothers and sister fought on his side then its seems to be the Olympians were Zeus, Hera, Poseidon, Haides, Hestia, and Demeter. What Titans fought then and who was banished? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.152.188.253 (talk) 01:40, 14 September 2009 (UTC)Reply

We have a problem with a User who objects to the italicised example in the following:

"Other examples might include the wars of the Æsir with the Vanir and Jotuns in Scandinavian mythology, the Babylonian epic Enuma Elish, the Hittite "Kingship in Heaven" Kumarbi narrative, and the obscure generational conflict in Ugaritic fragments, not to mention the Judeo-Christian rebellion-in-heaven tradition of the Fallen angel.

Our fearless theologian asserts, in justifying his twice-repeated censorship (Christianists dislike parallels), "Fallen angels not in conflict with another generation of angels-like beings" and the spurious quibble "Fallen angels not in conflict with another generation of angels-like beings; angels do not have offspring." The theme is rebellion in heaven, between El and the angels of his creation (for the red herring re offspring of angels see Nephilim of course) and the parallels with other Near Eastern myths are perfectly familiar.

I have informed User:Carlaude that Wikipedia is not censored. Can some competent and unbiased editors provide the article the scholarly support this statement needs to foolproof it from further interference?--Wetman (talk) 06:43, 26 February 2010 (UTC)Reply

Please be civil... even if you consider yourself some sort of profesional theologist. Your interpation of whatever you call "the Judeo-Christian... tradition" is hardly critical to understanding "battles fought between... the Titans and... the Olympians," even if we all agreed on its accuracy. ^{Carlaude:Talk} 11:45, 26 February 2010 (UTC)Reply

I suppose we can't cite Satan's speech in the first book of Paradise Lost? You can always try Jan Bremmer, "Remember the Titans!" in The Fall of the Angels (Brill 2004). A draft is here, I'm not sure if it's the final text. The first couple of sentences establish Wetman's point quite well. --Akhilleus (talk) 18:52, 26 February 2010 (UTC)Reply

• There isn't any one "Judeo-Christian rebellion-in-heaven tradition," as you imply with the term. If you read the chapter in Neil Forsyth's "The Old Enemy," that you cite, you will see his total failure to agree with this text. My issue-- as before-- is not if the fallen angel(s) were successful or not, but what (if anything) considers it a rebellion of "another generation."
• It is generally in the Pentateuch that scholars see any evidence of Israely theology being of a council of gods, with Yahweh at the head. Apocalyptic literature is typically thought to begun much later, like a 100 or 200 years BC. The Israely/Jewish texts that Forsyth discusses are between these to times and calls the texts (such as Isaiah 12) "proto-apocalyptic texts" (p.146).
• Forsyth agrees that Israely theology is maximally monotheistic by the time of Isaiah. This is contrasted with the idea of the "many gods," (of a different generations) that is the subject of this Titanomachy and even contrasted with Zoroastrianism-like dualism that sees the enemy as the equal and opposite of the (good) God.
• Forsyth, in this chapter, follows the motif of an enemy that is a rebel of an overlord. There is an idea of a Satan during the same time frame (see his chapter 5), but Forsyth points out that they later became "fused." Forsyth does not developed any union of the two and seems to be indicating that it is only later that this happens. At the chapter's end Forsyth says "we should not make the mistake of reading into these texts the full cosmology that was to be invented by Christianity, though that was precisly what the church fathers were to do." In fact, this contrast with Christian cosmology is the only mention of Christianity in the whole chapter.
• Futhermore, any full commentatry (from the last 100 years) on Isaiah or Ezekial will tell you that the passages by Isaiah/Ezekial/whoever-you-think-authored-'em had human kings (or emperors) in mind for these passages and thus they are about human rebelliors. (And only later seen as Satan by church fathers. This theology was made even more one or two thousand years later in "Paradise Lost," but not even all Christians holds to Milton's cosmology, much less Judism today.)
• Forsyth seems to be aware of this but does not make it clear (as it is not really his interest.) But even if you think this is a chapter by scholar supporting the idea that these passages really are about Satan, it is moot because even by this time all ideas of there being non-Yahweh "god" are dropped. Satan is a just another created being (like human kings.) ^{Carlaude:Talk} 06:21, 27 February 2010 (UTC)Reply

Wikipedia's rather naive article War in Heaven also takes Carlaude's narrowly Christianist pov, and is not a desirable model of competent discourse, but it does have a brief section that Carlaude will surely want to blank:

Similar motif outside Judeo-Christian faiths

The fall of superhuman beings punished for opposing gods is also found outside of the Abrahamic faiths. Homer's Iliad says Hephaestus was cast down from the heavenly threshold by Zeus and landed on the island of Lemnos nearly dead.^[1] Hesiod 's Theogony recounts that the gods, after defeating the Titans, hurled them down to Tartarus (the Titanomachy) as far beneath the earth as earth is beneath the sky.^[2]

I don't think we need to put up with bullying over something as familiar as this.Wetman (talk) 18:56, 26 February 2010 (UTC)Reply

We don't need to blank this. The text is seems fine to me; it is only the footnote that both fails to be found in the cited chapter and is missleading (at best). If you think it has any bearing on your Titanomachy statement, thou, I don't see it. Please be more clear on that, or take this to that page. ^{Carlaude:Talk} 06:21, 27 February 2010 (UTC)Reply

I'm not the local amateur theologist you have in mind, but as I've never, ever, ever, EVER heard of a Jewish War in Heaven myth, I think just "Christian" is probably fine. Also, what is "Israely"? Do you mean "Israeli" or is there some term I haven't heard of? 134.173.14.247 (talk) 19:18, 24 March 2010 (UTC)Reply

This article starts by saying the war took place "long before" mankind appeared. But later it says Hera got the ball rolling because of Epaphus, whose mother was a human from Argos. Which is it? Do sources differ? --72.34.180.61 (talk) 05:06, 2 July 2010 (UTC)Reply

Sources always differ in Greek Mythology GrassHopHer (talk) 22:49, 20 October 2013 (UTC)Reply

The article lede says that the Titan Wars were "fought ... long before the existence of mankind." But the Works and Days (ll. 109 ff.) talks of: "a golden race of mortal men who lived in the time of Cronos when he was reigning in heaven." Does this not suggest that, in the mythology, men existed before the Titanomachy; or, at least, that the matter is contentious? It Is Me Here ^{t / c} 15:45, 12 December 2013 (UTC)Reply

The same answer applies here that I gave to a previous question, that is that there are always conflicts among sources in Greek mythology, which just goes to show that there were multiple versions of the myths (which makes sense given the geographical diversity of greek culture and the long length of time the civilization lasted for, of course new versions woud arise). I think that the ideal for a wikipedia article is to talk about all the different versions of the myth, and the inherent inconsistencies, so as to say there is no "right" version. GrassHopHer (talk) 14:57, 14 December 2013 (UTC)Reply

The article changes from using Uranus to Ouranos mid-way through. Is the latter vandalism, or an alternative spelling? 203.173.35.138 (talk) 13:09, 6 August 2016 (UTC)Reply

Both "Uranus" and "Ouranos" are common English spellings. But "Uranus" is the more traditional and still -- by far -- the most common spelling. Hence the spelling used in our article Uranus (mythology) . A recent IP changed the spelling in part of this article to "Ouranos". I've changed it back. Obviously any article ought to use a consistent spelling, and also ought to use the most common spelling. Paul August ☎ 16:17, 6 August 2016 (UTC)Reply