Tom Holland in Persian Fire discusses Darius.

It seems he invented the idea of fighting for one's god, and that he was god's representative.

Seems to have been successful! He did run an empire!

Roll on a few hundred years, and Constantine uses the same ideas.

But this time it has a further iteration.

There is an infrastructure of buildings and office holders and rituals and rules. Stuff becomes internalised. People are self policing, with assistance, like the stazi, from family, regular attendance at ceremonies and rituals. Concepts of heresy are introduced, with reward and punishment systems.

Roll on a few more hundred years and there is another iteration. This time based on a short holy instruction book.

This one might be a deliberate propaganda tool to get people to fight an enemy, possibly invented by Romans to attack Darius's lot. But the weapon is more successful than is envisaged, and leads to new empires.




Humans have always had issues about social control - some half million year old skulls have been found with very probable evidence of murder.

"Paganism" doesn't really help run empires and cities. It is quite good at town and village level, as the Celts showed.

External policing and armies help with cities, but internal policing, schools, ten commandments, religions are very valuable tools.

The idea of "religious trauma syndrome" shows how religions are effective means of social control.

But one god systems are what empires need! They are like high grade motor oil in high performance engines.



I am unaware of discussion of religion as a successful form of social control. There are plenty of attacks on the specific beliefs and practices, but the tradition of Durkheim seems to have got lost somewhere.

If religions have functions in tribal systems, why do not one god systems get equal analysis?

Are not religions really propaganda tools? Maybe one current example is a more powerful example?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I5slk97ss2Q&app=desktop

Tom Holland at Hay Festival

Clive Durdle wrote:http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I5slk97ss2Q&app=desktop

Tom Holland at Hay Festival

Thanks Clive for the link to the video. I like the books of Tom Holland, but it is the first time I have heard him speaking.

Ancient history mentions a variety of empires everywhere. Everybody seems to have had their five minutes of glory, as some commentator once said.

I suppose that being in possession of a matchless power makes it easy to find a sublimating explanation for the subjugation of the weak . The strong know that they are winners because they are better than the ones they conquer; their god is eternal and they feel invincible under the divine command.

The Roman Empire had many gods and was very successful. It would seem that monotheism is not necessarily an advantage .

Dudeism is the up and coming religion. We'll control the masses through bowling tournaments and free White Russians.

Iterations! I am arguing for a strengthening over time, new soft police tactics, everyone attending the same church and hearing the same stuff.

Repetition works only for a time. I don't know if they had something like ' police tactics' in antiquity.
The Greeks were polytheists , but they defeated Darius and his iterative propaganda .

The Greeks fought for the temples of their gods!

Rush'd on in view: in orderly array
The squadron on the right first led, behind
Rode their whole fleet; and now distinct we heard
From ev'ry part this voice of exhortation:-
"Advance, ye sons of Greece, from thraldom save
Your country, save your wives, your children save,
The temples of your gods, the sacred tomb
Where rest your honour'd ancestors; this day
The common cause of all demands your valour."

THE PERSIANS , by Aeschylus, translated by Robert Potter

I've never seen any correlation between one-god religions and added control. I think any notion of that, might be an accidental result of both the great actual success, and the post imperial fantasy images of the Roman Empire. It's often forgotten that the Empire reached it's furthest extent well before Christianity was even legalized. Then the British Empire made Christianity seem even more influential than it ever really was.

What I have seen in my studies, is that people seeking to build and maintain power, will use ABSOLUTELY ANYTHING to do so.

When the opportunity arises to pretend to be the Chosen One of one or more magic beings, the would-be emperor does the dances, wears the hats, drinks the punch, or whatever else is required to make the EXISTING followers of whatever belief system is already well established, accept him as a True Spokesperson or whatever.

I have come to the conclusion that religions are mostly organically grown, as so many other human social artifacts are. I entirely agree with the idea that many of them had control of the social group as one of their motivations, but I see a number of other elements intrinsic to them as well.

In fact, the Bible is an ironic example of the organic and all-encompassing aspects of most religions. In addition to religious teachings, it also contains attempts at Physics, Dietary advice, tribal histories, medical instructions, and on and on. After a long time, everything has come to have been assumed to be in there for purely religious purposes, but most of us here easily recognize how many twists and tricks worshipers have to do, in order to make some of the verses seem meaningful.

On the control side of things, a number of other concepts have been invented and pushed to try to accomplish the same thing that the control side of religion does. Nationalism was invented specifically to get people to behave without having to station troops everywhere, just as religions have been. Patriotism gets pushed with the same thing in mind. Americanism is almost a religion in this very sense.

All this shows that the general idea of getting people to behave at least conveniently, is a VERY common goal that humans try to get rolling.

Romans were quite tolerant about religions in their empire, so long as they did not usurp the authority of the Emperor. As Christianity spread in the empire, it did become a threat. But when Constantine converted, Christianity became the state religion and so that was no longer a problem. Anyone who does not recognize that yahweh, allah & the xian gods are not imaginary/idealised warlord/emperors, needs a reality check.

The common cause of all demands your valour."

Hmm, strength of hierarchies as against common wealth systems? Aren't one god systems basically very unequal hierarchies?

Clive Durdle wrote:

The common cause of all demands your valour."

Hmm, strength of hierarchies as against common wealth systems? Aren't one god systems basically very unequal hierarchies?

Associated hierarchies versus conscripted hierarchies.
Their common cause is easy to recognise as 'our' cause by whoever happens to be reading it: The Greeks wanted to avoid falling into slavery, protect their people and preserve their culture. The common cause of all.

Zeus will strike you down for that!

Fuck Zeus, man, I just sacrificed a horse to Poseidon.

Darwinsbulldog wrote:Romans were quite tolerant about religions in their empire, so long as they did not usurp the authority of the Emperor. As Christianity spread in the empire, it did become a threat. But when Constantine converted, Christianity became the state religion and so that was no longer a problem. Anyone who does not recognize that yahweh, allah & the xian gods are not imaginary/idealised warlord/emperors, needs a reality check.

Yes , that's also how I see it. If the 'emperor' is replaced with ' the law of the land' it describes the situation now in the UK , for example.

Gods are emperors to their followers , but the title does not cause any major problem, for as long as gods remain restricted to being the emperor of the kingdom of the dead .
The problem is how to prevent their priests from lording over the living. The law of the land is the common cause of all.

Clive Durdle wrote:Tom Holland in Persian Fire discusses Darius.

It seems he invented the idea of fighting for one's god, and that he was god's representative.

Seems to have been successful! He did run an empire!

Roll on a few hundred years, and Constantine uses the same ideas.

But this time it has a further iteration.

There is an infrastructure of buildings and office holders and rituals and rules. Stuff becomes internalised. People are self policing, with assistance, like the stazi, from family, regular attendance at ceremonies and rituals. Concepts of heresy are introduced, with reward and punishment systems.

Roll on a few more hundred years and there is another iteration. This time based on a short holy instruction book.

This one might be a deliberate propaganda tool to get people to fight an enemy, possibly invented by Romans to attack Darius's lot. But the weapon is more successful than is envisaged, and leads to new empires.




Humans have always had issues about social control - some half million year old skulls have been found with very probable evidence of murder.

"Paganism" doesn't really help run empires and cities. It is quite good at town and village level, as the Celts showed.

External policing and armies help with cities, but internal policing, schools, ten commandments, religions are very valuable tools.

The idea of "religious trauma syndrome" shows how religions are effective means of social control.

But one god systems are what empires need! They are like high grade motor oil in high performance engines.



I am unaware of discussion of religion as a successful form of social control. There are plenty of attacks on the specific beliefs and practices, but the tradition of Durkheim seems to have got lost somewhere.

If religions have functions in tribal systems, why do not one god systems get equal analysis?

Are not religions really propaganda tools? Maybe one current example is a more powerful example?

I have now finished watching the lecture given by Tom Holland on Islam. I am glad you have posted the link for the video.


The Koran precedes the Jewish bible and Adam and Eve were Muslims. This photo shows how Eve covered her body in the Garden of Eden

Doomed for a certain time to walk the night, and for the day confined to fast fires

Hamlet , 1,V, 10

She/he/it is not wearing gloves! Exposed skin.

Scot Dutchy wrote:She/he/it is not wearing gloves! Exposed skin.

Religions are obsessed with sexual purity. The godless Buddhist is another 'sexual purity' fanatic.

Karma is a cruel master.
The Buddhist Monastic Code , page 14 , writes, “It would be better that your penis be stuck into a pit of burning embers, blazing and glowing, than into a woman’s vagina.” The pit kills , but the vagina sends you to hell."

http://www.accesstoinsight.org/lib/auth ... o/bmc1.pdf

Worthless man, it would be better that your penis be stuck into the mouth of a poisonous snake than into a woman’s vagina. It would be better that your penis be stuck into the mouth of a black viper than into a woman’s vagina. It would be better that your penis be stuck into a pit of burning embers, blazing and glowing, than into a woman’s vagina. Why is that? For that reason you would undergo death or deathlike suffering, but you would not on that account, at the break-up of the body, after death, fall into a plane of deprivation, a bad destination, a lower realm, hell. But for this reason you would, at the break-up of the body, after death, fall into a plane of deprivation, a bad destination, a lower realm, hell