> [!quote] [on the practice of Romanizing conquered gods and the evolution into monotheism](https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/u12z3s/it_is_known_that_in_the_roman_empire_foreign_gods/) by AndrewSshi (history professor) via [[rAskHistorians|AskHistorians]] around 2022-04-06 > > The biggest thing to remember here is that Greco-Roman religion was mainly thought of what scholars of religion call ordopraxy rather than orthodoxy. A Greek or a Roman doesn't really care whether you **believe** certain things about, say, whether Hephaestus has a club foot or Aphrodite intervened in the Trojan War to protect Aeneas from Diomedes. After all, Greco-Roman myths are just that: _mythoi_, stories. What they care about is _eusebeia_, i.e., piety. What does a good citizen do? He makes his sacrifices, takes part in various rituals, etc. > > This is the reason that the _Interpretatio Romana_ works so well. Gauls sacrifice to a god named Cosus who has features that are like the features of the God the Romans sacrifice to that's called Mars? Great, change the name plate on the temple, give it some columns, and everyone's still practicing their _pietas_ (Latin for _eusebeia_). > > There is, fwiw, a reading of the _Interpretatio_ that says that it's fundamentally an exercise of power by Rome over conquered people. > > So Romans are cool with most religious practice because if you're practicing religion, you're being pious, a good member of the community.