Why is monotheism an advance on polytheism?

[Warman17]

But the Ten Commandments were part of Judaism from the start, and Leviticus was written not too long after. .

Well if we consider the start of Judaism as the covenant between Abraham and G-d, which I do, than it took several hundred years until the 10 commandments and leviticus were passed down unto the Hebrew people.

 

[Princeps]

Troy,

Germans would have not provided any opposition against the Mongols. Germans were simply too disorganized.

The Mongols could have conquered europe. The Europeans wouldn't have time, knowladge, or resources to adapt their warfare against the mongols. There was absolutely *NO* army, that would be capable of hurting the Mongols, in europe.

When the Mongols fought in China, they fought against an army ten-times more numerous, ten-times better lead and disciplined, ten-times better armed ETC, yet after years of warring the mongols won.¨

If you take all the warriors in europe and put them together, you wouldn't still get an army larger than the one that the Mongols faced in china.

Mongol bows did function in a western European envoirment, as it is stated in the text.
Mongol recurved bow had almost as long range as the longbow, combined with the Mongol's mobility, discipline (which shined in the European armies with its absence), organization, leadership, and tactics made the mongol army, well what it was.

There was only one time (that I can think of) that the Mongol army was ambushed. Mongols had the best inteligence operations of the time, they planned their attacks very, very carefully, unlike many others, and because of that, it was usually the Mongols who ambushed the enemy. The Europeans had absolutely no idea what kind of army the Mongols had, when they saw a simple Mongol, with a pony, and a lether armour, the knights with their two-meter horses probably laughed, but the knights were slaugthered easily, by the Mongol armor piercing arrows.

(btw, aren't we getting little bit off-topic here )

 

[Tiger_Nation]

would I be right in thinking that monothesisms occured later as certainly the ones I know of occured later but that still doesn't explain it as an upgrade. However perhaps they may not be an upgrade in civ4 but just give you different religions. This is all speculation you understand.

 

[troytheface]

if they could have - they would have -
Once again it is nothing but making an assumption. "They had a great military with better weapons -no way europe could have won" is the premise-
(echos of 'Nam)
And by the way Monotheism was around during ancient Egyptian times when one of the pharoahs wanted one sun god- before judaism?- and mithradism (sp?)was monotheistic as well-meaning that there was monotheism before
greek/ roman ect. polytheism-and god only knows what nomadic tribes believed in-
and yes- ez to get off topic on these things.....

 

[Brain]

I think you are confusing the word "sect" with the word "cult." There is nothing inflammatory about the word "sect."

From Wikipedia:

A sect is a small religious group that has branched off of a larger established religion. Sects have many beliefs and practices in common with the religion that they have broken off from, but are differentiated by a number of doctrinal differences. In contrast, a denomination is a large, well established religious group.

AFAIK, catholicism is still one of the main established religions of the world, not merely a small group that branched off.

And also note:

In European languages (other than English) the corresponding words for 'sect' (for example "secte", "secta", or "Sekte") are used to refer to a harmful religious sect, similar to how English-speakers popularly use the word 'cult'.

This is the main reason for my objection. Given that many people from various cultures read these forums and that in many cultures "sect" is a very pejorative term I think the comment was inapropriate.

 

[warpstorm]

would I be right in thinking that monothesisms occured later as certainly the ones I know of occured later but that still doesn't explain it as an upgrade.

It is an "upgrade" because to make it come later in the game it has to be further up the tech tree. This has nothing to do with philosophy and whether it is really more advanced, but rather the limitations of the game mechanics.

 

[eaglefox]

as long as one religion does not have more benefits and less disadvantages compared to another, it cannot be called an upgrade. upgrade is upping the grade - plain and simple. if all religions are the same, then they aren't upgrades.

 

[bman003]

What was intresting is look at Egypt. There the civilization converted from a form of polytheism to monotheism and then back to polytheism. I'm curious if perhaps we'll have a period of disorder when our civs go from poly- to mono-. Currently I don't think that civ has looked at how these cultural conversions can have conflict. They have mainly focused on how monotheism ideas conflict with other monotheism ideas. I hope we do see some isssues arrise of the conversion from poly to mono but I'm not hopefull.

 

[Lockesdonkey]

What was intresting is look at Egypt. There the civilization converted from a form of polytheism to monotheism and then back to polytheism. I'm curious if perhaps we'll have a period of disorder when our civs go from poly- to mono-. Currently I don't think that civ has looked at how these cultural conversions can have conflict. They have mainly focused on how monotheism ideas conflict with other monotheism ideas. I hope we do see some isssues arrise of the conversion from poly to mono but I'm not hopefull.

1. It's "hopeful".

2. If you're talking about Akhenaton, then nobody really believed Akhenaton except a few.

 

[Aussie_Lurker]

Just a quick point. The Mongols almost did conquer Europe. If I am not mistaken, they had their forces gathered just outside the gates of Vienna (considered the Gateway to Western Europe), after having already lain waste to almost all of Eastern Europe and the Middle East.
What ultimately stopped the Mongols was not European military might, but the unexpected death of the Mongol leader (I'm not certain, but I believe that it was the original Temujin). This forced the leader of the Golden Horde to return to Mongolia-with his army-in order to help select a successor.
For some strange reason, after this was done, the Mongols never returned to finish the job they started-why is a mystery to me but, be assured, had they decided to do so, we would have had a period of history where we were the vassals of Mongolian Empire-because the Kingdoms of Europe were simply too disunited to provide a genuine threat to the Mongol horde.

As for this Sect vs Cult debate, I also don't see its negative connotation. To me, Protestant, Catholic, Orthodox and Coptic are all sects of the Christian religion, because they are all seperate segments of the greater Christian faith-with an overarching doctrine of Jesus as the Son of G-D. It is the same way that Orthodox and Hassidic (and Essene) are sects of Judaism, and Sunni, Shi'ite and Wahabi are all sects of Islam. To me, it just sounds like people are being overly sensitive.

Yours,
Aussie_Lurker.

 

[apatheist]

I don't think the Mongols got quite so far as Vienna. I believe they got to Poland. Edit: my mistake, they almost got there.

The Wikipedia article on Mongol tactics is not reliable. For one thing, it states that the Mamluks were created solely to oppose the Mongols. That's ridiculous. The Mamluks were originally a class of warrior slaves first employed by the Abbasids in the 9th century. They were rulers of Egypt from 1250 on. The Mongols didn't force their creation; they didn't appear in the Middle East until later in that decade.

I remember reading a fascinating paper in college about why the Mongols didn't/couldn't invade Europe. The author claimed it was a result of geography. Mongol warriors each had as many as 20 additional horses. This allowed them to move very rapidly, as they never exhausted their horses, since they could always switch to a slightly fresher mount. The problem with that was they needed an enormous amount of forage. A 100,000 strong Mongol army might have 1-2 million horses. West of the Carpathian mountains, there were no great open spaces like the steppes of Asia. As a result, the Mongols would have either had to leave behind some mounts, and thus lose their mobility advantage, or separate their forces, and thus lose their numerical advantage. As a result, they didn't go further west, as they would be at a greater risk of losing. I couldn't find the paper using Google, sadly. It was really good.

 

[bman003]

Even if the entire culture did not convert still look at its impact. Egypt lost territory atleast partly due to the internal struggles of monotheism and polytheism. If memory holds, some land after Akhenaton was never regained. This is why I believe this culture issue should be represented more in civ because it can change the course of that civ.

 

[troytheface]

well there then- someone wrote a paper backing MY original topography hypothesis- i think he invented a time machine and read my post then wrote a paper about it.
We would have been mongol vassals? thats the most ridiculous thing i have ever heard. Mongol ponies invading the fijords of Norway would not have gotten far i suspect. Likewise invading England would have been a trick since they had a lousy record at invading isle folk. These Mongols "could have" stories are fine and well- but the proof is in the pudding- they didn't
because they couldn't- Mongols were ok against middle eastern people and chinese and polish -they suxed (not good enough- not smart enough) - but they would have run home to momma san had they to face the great english Germans French Spanish Scandanavian combined forces who would have skewered them little ponies- this "europe was disorganized" arguement is a bit flawed in the sense that it does not mean that they could not have "organized" or guerilla tactic(ed) it out-
as a matter of fact - if i was fighting the mongols i would find a diseased horse or poisen the grazing land and then charge at the bandy legged mongols scuttling around and put their heads on french knight lances

 

[troytheface]

Double posted there - must have gotten excited with all the smak talk....
Wonder if the mongols were monotheistic.

 

[Kyriakos]

Monotheism almost certainly appeared later than polytheism.
The oldest form of religious beliefs is called Animism. It is theorised that cavemen regarded that by painting a drawing of a succesfull hunt in the walls of the cave they somehow helped make that image become reality, so a future hunt would be succesful, as in the painting (the painting therefore was the portrayal of their wishes).
Prehistoric man probably believed that he could in a way affect the elements and nature psycically, and this belief rised due to his obvious lack of ability to control them logically or mechanically. Hoewever in an animistic belief the person hasnt shaped any other barrier between him and the imaginary power that he thought he had, whereas the notion of a god clearly serves as a medium: the person alone has no magical power over nature/life etc, but through god he can get to have that. Again in its more promitive form this religous belief has god acting much like a tool (something which nietsche also noted in his work, although he was talking about christianity mostly) whereas in later religious systems the gods are not seen as tools but as masters, although, ofcourse, again they can shower their faithfuls with supernatural powers.
monotheism, ultimately, kept just one god, who was even more distant from the people than the polytheistic gods, and who expected full obedience, but would, again, act in favour of his followers. Ofcourse the clergy always helped shape such a notion as well, since it was profitable for them.

other note: today most religious believers do not consider that they may be given supernatural powers (only the more iliterate of them might do that) however they still confuse imagination, and psychological mechanisms, with the actions of a divine entity. In reality though the notion of a god is enough for a person to look at things very differently if they are of the mind that god exists, since at any rate they would have the notionitself to react to (which is what they do)

 

[troytheface]

thats quite a leap to make regarding the cave paintings- maybe they had a good painter and wanted to decorate their home- (although the glascow paintings always reminded me of the later church paintings (Giotto , Michealangelo ect- and they of course were religious )
But once again u state monotheism came later than polytheism and this is not actually clear- i gave two examples of monotheism that preceeded norse greek and Roman mythologies-
and i bet that this animism thing may be off in the sense that an early tribe could have worshiped the sun (monotheism)
Alot of these hypothesis regarding early artwork are used to further someone's theory (chariots of the gods ect.)
but that last post gave me an idea- man had gods that were close and personal to him- then as the population increased and it went from tribe with father figure to Civilisation with King - a distancing of god (as in the distancing with the father figure-ie. tribal leader) What is the first thing leaders even today do? Talk about family values- ie. reinforcing this father figure idea- read somewhere that a person's idea of god is how they view their father- ie. - if dad was mean and bossy then one's idea of god would be a punishing god- ect. Course that doesn't explain eastern population/religion
but maybe they had so many people that all the old folk wanted to be taken care of so revering alot of gods would behoove the old folk. (in so far as pyschologically taking in youth)

 

[Hyena]

I really should check these forums more often; by the time I read them, five people have already said what I was thinking. So, although you've heard it already......Monotheism is not an advance, but has to come later in the tech-tree because in human history it tended to come later than Polytheism.

As a side note, sometimes, it is even a little hard to tell the two apart. I say this in regards to my own religion. I am a Sicilian Catholic, and although we worship only one God, as other Catholics do, we also regard the saints with such intense significance that the line between Poly and Monotheism is a bit hazy. The cause for this seems to be the teacity of the old belief systems, or "la vecchia religione", as my father calls it. Since Sicily has been home to countless different cultures (we've been taken over too many times) there are tons of traditions and superstitions all across the island. Many of the older, Polytheistic religions and beliefs meshed well with Christianty mainly because of the saints. People were able to draw correlations between their various gods and Christian patron saints, thus allowing people to continue to follow their own beliefs to a certain extent. In effect, the older gods became subservient to the Christian god, while still retaining a good deal of significance in people's everyday lives. I hope this example illustrates some of the differences, and similarities between Polytheism and Monotheism and how they have affected one another in the real world.

Finally, I forget who it was, but earlier somebody said that he didn't understand the idea of the Christian god being three different parts. This is understandable. However, he then went on to say that even we don't understand it. I'm not sure if it was a joke, ignorance, or an attack on our faith, but allow me to assure you that we DO understand our own beliefs LOL. Saint Patrick once explained to the Irish that the Holy Trinity was just like a Shamrock. Each of its three leaves are seperate entites, yet one being. This is a difficult concept for anyone to undertsand (I actually told my first grade teacher that she was making that whole thing up), and it reqiures a type of thought that most of us are not used to.

I hope I shed some light on these issues, and that I didn't offend anyone. Send me a message if you have any questions or comments. Ciao, e buonna fortuna.

 

[Kyriakos]

the notion of the father -because it is the notion itself, and not the actual father or your views about your father; for example a childhood bully can evolve to be part of the notion of a father- does indeed seem to be rellevant to the notion of a god. most people who were orphans or didnt know their parents tend to become religious, OR they have a love of the unknown. i am not saying that it is certain that the cave paintings were just the depiction of wishes, however it is probable that they served a practical/imaginary service of the kind, rather than being enrichments of the life in the cave which is in all probability highly unlikely. As with the school environment (bullies, etc) you can guess that only something that would appeal to the most vulgar instincts and fears would survive the tentions of a group of cavepeople.

-It isnt impossible that monotheism would appear in some parts of the world before polytheism, however largely the evolution would lead to monotheism. I think that even the oriental religions (hinduism) have monotheistic elements, as happens on the other side with monotheistic religions (tri-part form of god, angels etc). But i think that the basis of it all is the distancing of the individual from the actual source of the imaginary powergiver.

-the clergy is crucial to leading to even greater such distancing, for the very simple reason that they would want themselves to be seen as figures of authority, and mediums of god etc. By this i do not ofcourse mean that every part of the clergy acted/acts due to this, some do, but those who dont are just sunk in the imaginary world of the religious belief itself and therefore cannot at any rate see out of it.

-also, sorry that i wasnt clear on animism (i think it is called animism, or animatism, one of the two...) it is just a self-devised supernatural belief system, so the sun worship can be see as animism in a way, but if it was organised then it would be a monotheistic religion. A mad person who thinks that the chair is a god can be seen as an animist in a way, although he would be out of the historical context since original animism evolved in a very uncivilised world. A fundamental characteristic of it however is that the person doesnt feel that the imaginary power-giver is something distanced from himself, he can reach for it; this isnt exactly the same as the christian "ask and you shall be given" because in christianity, a monotheistic religion, the person has to deal with the notion of a supreme god, whereas in animism the person would be reaching for something a lot less formulated, and therefore a lot more intimate. Ofcourse a christian believer, if he experiences so called "religious experiences" is again just getting in touch with something in his subconscious, like the animist would, but the christian -metaphorically speaking- is walking a corridor towards his notion of a dog, which corridor is formed in a large degree from stuff that are historic-political as well, and not just the imaginations of the cave-dweller. Ofcourse imagination is a very complex human mechanism, and it is the common basis of all religions.

 

[Brain]

... Mongols were ok against middle eastern people and chinese and polish -they suxed (not good enough- not smart enough)

This comment just shows your arrogance and blatant ignorance of history.

Not good enough? Not smart enough? If you had made at least some half-assed effort to learn history you would have known about the Battle of Vienna where it was thanks to the Polish king that the christans defeated the Ottomans, a much bigger threat to Europe than the Mongols ever were.

Dismissing the achievements of any nation in the way you did above only leads to nationalistic xenophobia, something my people have experienced in some of the worst imaginable ways.

 

[ShunNakamura]

I suggest anyone interested to read this link.

Very interesting read about the mongols and thier tactics.

[edit] As a an added note I do not know much about the source(this eric fella) so it may or may not be biased or overly reputable. However, from what I have known previousally it rings true(in other words I see no reason to not trust the validitity of the source). [/edit]


Now as for the topic. What I think is being meant by this is that the religion monotheism has as a prerequisite the religion polytheism(yes it does have another path but this is the one I believe the starter was focusing on). It isn't the fact that it occurs later in teh tech tree that the opposition is coming from(so I believe) rather that having them linked like this implies to some that Monotheism is better then Polytheism. Or any number of things overly sensitive people can come up with.(not that I am saying anyone in particular is overly sensitive rather that I am sure there is alot of things people could accuse this of).

It doesn't matter much to me. but what I percieved the problem as being was that one requires the other, not that it was later in the tech tree.

I had something I thought I was going to say.. but I forgot it... too late/early in the night/morning I guess.