Challenge: Help with a religion?

[sansahansan]

I'm looking for a cause (or collection thereof) of some sort that would create a religious belief system incorporating the following:
1) Fanatic frantic exploration and constant seeking of 'new lands'
2) Fanatic frantic expansion of core population to found colonies in the wake of the explorers.
3) A strong motivation to peace and not armed conflict with natives of new lands unless required for self-defense, in which case genocide is acceptable (within the religious beliefs)
4) A strong driving core belief in converting the world to the faith by outbreeding and outpopulating everyone else


Preferably, this would be some easy POD, but I think it might need a series of POD's in order for it to occur more rationally.

I'd like to avoid ASB if possible - they are fun to read, but trying to make it non-ASB is much more challenging.

[Saepe Fidelis]

I'm looking for a cause (or collection thereof) of some sort that would create a religious belief system incorporating the following:
1) Fanatic frantic exploration and constant seeking of 'new lands'
2) Fanatic frantic expansion of core population to found colonies in the wake of the explorers.
3) A strong motivation to peace and not armed conflict with natives of new lands unless required for self-defense, in which case genocide is acceptable (within the religious beliefs)
4) A strong driving core belief in converting the world to the faith by outbreeding and outpopulating everyone else


Preferably, this would be some easy POD, but I think it might need a series of POD's in order for it to occur more rationally.

I'd like to avoid ASB if possible - they are fun to read, but trying to make it non-ASB is much more challenging.

Three of those can be solved by calling Nazi, however hte pacifist one doesn't really fit with the others. Religions and other ideologies similar to them tend to deal in absolutes-no adultary, no stealing etc. so having exceptions to genocide doesn't really work.

[sansahansan]

Alright, much as I hate to admit it, you're right in that Naziism hits points 1 2 and 4, but the other 'junk' (loose euphemism) in it kind of defeats the purpose :(

And the pacifism still fits into dos and donts.
Do not force thyself or thine beliefs upon thine neighbor
If thy neighbor attacks you, causing you harm, then smite thine neighbor unto annihilation.

Just a loose example of a couple of potential commandments.

But what you said about Naziism bears further research... Didn't Hitler base it off something, and made the Jews into scapegoats for it?

[sansahansan]

And to Cicero (from the parent thread of this)


You're the one that said exploration was a liberal venture that was incompatible with the conservatism of theocracy. To be precise, you said:

I wouldn't have introduced those terms, but once they were introduced, I think it was justifiable for me to repeat them in order to refute the claim.


Drat it - teach me to be in a hurry :(
Quite right, chap, and I do beg your pardon.

As for the 'murder and steal' - I was attempting to joke at you, but it is difficult to do so in text sometimes. Apologies for the misunderstanding...


Fair enough. I'll join you in the new thread.

Looking for you here :) Hope you get the apologies.

[Saepe Fidelis]

Alright, much as I hate to admit it, you're right in that Naziism hits points 1 2 and 4, but the other 'junk' (loose euphemism) in it kind of defeats the purpose :(

And the pacifism still fits into dos and donts.
Do not force thyself or thine beliefs upon thine neighbor
If thy neighbor attacks you, causing you harm, then smite thine neighbor unto annihilation.

Just a loose example of a couple of potential commandments.

But what you said about Naziism bears further research... Didn't Hitler base it off something, and made the Jews into scapegoats for it?

So basically Nazism mixed with Islam, that is peaching non-violence except in self-defence in which case no holds barred warfare (outside killing civilians etc.)

[Cicero the Younger]

I don't think this is necessarily all that difficult. All you need is a religion that has this in its scriptures. If we imagine a hypothetical ancient tribe whose religious system is still developing, we can devise reasons for them to write these ideas down.

Suppose the tribe was a small one to begin with, and was surrounded by larger tribes. It would easily occur to them that they'd have a better chance of success if there were more of them, so their religious leaders would encourage them to reproduce. They'd put in place laws designed to increase the birthrate*. Obligation to marry at an early age, perhaps; maybe even the insistence that anyone who is widowed, man or woman, must remarry to keep their place in society. A prohibition on contraception, almost certainly. At any rate, the specifics aren't important; suffice to say they'd oblige the people to have lots of offspring.

(*For the purposes of this discussion, I am assuming a human origin to religion. Admittedly, anyone who has a belief in an actually-intervening deity would presumably find this challenge much easier by simply saying that God told them to do it. But that wouldn't make for a very interesting alternate history discussion.)

Suppose also that this tribe had, say, a history of infighting. Their ancestors weren't as fruitful as those of their neighbors because they were always killing each other in petty squabbles. Obviously the religious leaders would want to curb that. They could simply forbid killing others of your own kind, but they could also take it farther. They could insist that God will deny salvation to anyone who begins a cycle of aggression against anyone. They could say that He favors those who are gentle, but that He also forgives those who return aggression for the sake of justice. So, say tribesman A attacks tribesman B and steals his cloak. Then B attacks A and takes it back. Well, then, A is an aggressor and is damned. B, as the victim of the initial aggression, was only seeking justice, so he is forgiven.

Now, if their program to boost fecundity is successful, then eventually they'll run out of land. There are too many of them now for the space they have, so they need to expand outward. Most of history's peoples, in this situation, would invade a weaker tribe and take their land. But this tribe already has it in their religious system that God hates aggressors. They would be damned if they invaded anyone. What to do?

They'll just have to go out and seek new lands. Their leaders will tell them to go forth and multiply, but peacefully. They'll tell them it's their duty to God, their religious imperative, to keep going over the horizon every few generations or so and always be looking for new places to form new communities. Never seek to conquer, they will say, but if any nation seeks to conquer you, then, in the name of justice, you are blessed by God if you retaliate and conquer them in return!

Eventually all this might be written down in an actual holy book; their own equivalent of the Torah or the Bible or whatever. Now it's an established part of their religion. Practical aspects, like the fact that the original command to spread out was as a result of population pressures, will get lost in the mists of time. All they know is, their holy book tells them that their God commands them to spread out and actively look for new lands and found new communities. They are now, by the very nature of their religious beliefs, peaceful explorers and colonizers, albeit ones who turn vicious and merciless if you are aggressive to them.

Initially the sea will be the barrier to further expansion, but once ship-building becomes available to them, they'll sail off into the unknown. Nobody else would dare to take a suicide voyage over the horizon in the vague hope that there's more land in the world than they already know about. A Christian or a Muslim or a Buddhist might accidentally discover a new land in the course of voyaging somewhere else, but for our hypothetical faction here, sailing away hoping to find new land is a religious imperative.

I think that's a plausible history. Nothing ASB in it, I don't think. I don't know where this sect rose up or how their existence will alter the course of other religions. But I think this is a reasonable background for a religion that meets the criteria.

[sansahansan]

Wow - that's quite good.

A couple of minor points- first being, what if they had seafaring from very nearly the beginning? When you say (paraphrased for shortness)


...eventually they'll run out of land. There are too many of them now for the space they have, so they need to expand outward. ...They would be damned if they invaded anyone. What to do?

They'll just have to go out and seek new lands. Their leaders will tell them to go forth and multiply, but peacefully. They'll tell them it's their duty to God, their religious imperative, to keep going over the horizon every few generations or so and always be looking for new places to form new communities. Never seek to conquer, they will say, but if any nation seeks to conquer you, then, in the name of justice, you are blessed by God if you retaliate and conquer them in return!
(love that bit, btw)

What if they were coastal to begin with, and so took to the sea at this point rather than later? Thus, bearing their religion out into the seas?
Or, with a slight change, they acknoweldge ownership of a territory, but ask to live their anyway. If denied, they label the deniers aggressors and justify their slaughter to clear their own way. If that's workable, I'm thinking the very early battle-axe culture might be a nice POD? If not, then maybe something in the American west or Latin America. The Battle-Axe culture certainly seems driven to expand in OTL and they certainly got the hang of boats in the Baltic sea very early on -- Presuming I'm recalling what I've read correctly.


Hmm, wouldn't they also have to have a fairly workable idea of genetics (not as such necessarily, but of 'inbreeding' issues) fairly early, as an offshoot of the fecundity? Thus, the 'explorerers' they launch would have to either drag along sufficient 'colonists' or come back for them.

Oh, and polygamy would certainly be par for the course wouldn't it? One man and several wives makes for more children... <blink> social structure to reenforce that could be a matrilineal society where resource ownership is passed through the oldest female, but only female siblings are to be supported, men have to go find new land for the girls. When a man opens up new land/resources, existing family youngest daughters court the man to form a new family? Fascinating concept, I think, standing quite a few OTL traditions on its head. The new land would be the equivalent of a 'rite of passage' from boy to man - boys explore, men settle, women supply more workers.

Huh I can't think of any culture remotely like that in OTL.
Anyone?

[Cicero the Younger]

What if they were coastal to begin with, and so took to the sea at this point rather than later? Thus, bearing their religion out into the seas?

It depends on the time period when this religion springs up. The later it is, the easier a time they'll have getting ships, but the harder it will be for them to compete with nations that have already developed and gotten strong. If they start out by competing with Age of Discovery-era Europe or Ming China, they may have ships, but they'll get curb-stomped. If they rose up in the dim mists of proto-history, they'll have to wait to get sea vessels and navigational techniques reliable enough to take them anywhere (first the explorers have to find the land, then the ships have to come back and collect colonists, then the ships have to find their way back to the same land with the colonists still alive), but there will be more of them by then and their power will be greater.

Actually, if this sect rose up among the Phoenicians, that might be a great starting point. Good ships, skilled mariners, and seemingly endless miles of African and European and Asian coasts to work with. And presumably their own religion would drive them to develop better ships and better navigation so that colonizing the New World even becomes possible. (In theory, the Phoenicians could have reached the New World, but they would have run into the problem of getting there and back reliably.)

Or, with a slight change, they acknoweldge ownership of a territory, but ask to live their anyway. If denied, they label the deniers aggressors and justify their slaughter to clear their own way.

Quite plausible. Dare I say, even likely. A literal reading of their scriptures would probably encourage them to take this attitude whether their original leaders would have approved or not.

Hmm, wouldn't they also have to have a fairly workable idea of genetics (not as such necessarily, but of 'inbreeding' issues) fairly early, as an offshoot of the fecundity?

Incest taboos are easy enough to work into any system. Even without knowing anything about genetics, a lot of ancient peoples noticed that the offspring of close relatives had a greater tendency to be deformed and short-lived. Those obsessed with keeping the fatuous concept of "royal blood" intact have tended to enforce incest on monarchs, but I don't know of any culture where it isn't forbidden, or at least considered distasteful, among the regular people.

[RMcD94]

must remarry to keep their place in society

I doubt this kind of religion would be pro marriage...

Polygamy would be right down its street too.

Edit: I see san mentioned that.

a lot of ancient peoples noticed that the offspring of close relatives had a greater tendency to be deformed and short-lived.

I thought genetic deformities only occurred through consistent inbreeding through out the generations, that a sister-brother couple were no more likely to get a deformity than anyone else, as long as their parents weren't siblings.

but I don't know of any culture where it isn't forbidden

The old testament encourages incest does it not? Two people breeding the entire world. Their daughters breeding with their sons.

[Cicero the Younger]

I thought genetic deformities only occurred through consistent inbreeding through out the generations, that a sister-brother couple were no more likely to get a deformity than anyone else, as long as their parents weren't siblings.

It builds up, but the possibility is there from the beginning.

The old testament encourages incest does it not? Two people breeding the entire world. Their daughters breeding with their sons.You can find passages of the Bible that encourage or condemn damn near anything. This link (http://www.skepticsannotatedbible.com/says_about/incest.html) gives more detail on what the Bible actually says about incest. But just because you can read their origin myth that way doesn't mean the Hebrews approved of or practiced incest themselves.

[jkay]

...doesn't that describe American settlers? What are you trying to do with them?

[sansahansan]

...doesn't that describe American settlers? What are you trying to do with them?


Wait - did I miss something?? Unless you're commenting on what I missed before, which is some minor similarity to manifest destiny? But was that a religious drive across multiple generations?

As for the bible/old testament - I'm rather fond of some of the misconceptions therein.

Incest is, overall, frowned upon - to varying degrees.
The link Cicero provided shows that to some degree, yet even most of those examples aren't (or might, arguably, not be) about incest. A man's fathers wife - note, not his mother, daughter-in-law - definitely not his daughter, and the man who lays with wife and her mother - still not incest technically.

It takes considerable reading to find any mention of real incest - the link mentions at least one - but notice the girls had to get their father drunk beyond recognition to do it? (which is ironic btw, in that that level of drunkenness often leads to impotence in the act)

Anyway, point being is most of the misconception lies around the whole Adam & Eve populating the world - which is a false concept. They were one people, not all the people. Cain, Adam's son, went off and married in the land of Nod, for example. Other peoples existed, but they were not the peoples of the old testament, nor of the God that created Adam & Eve.



Aside from that, a brother and a daughter have a good chance of encountering interbreeding issues - but less than a son and a mother would have typically, oddly.

Here, this explains it better: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inbreeding

Essentially, brother/sister is the worst possible combination. From livestock breeding to plant breeding, even extremely primitive tribes recognized this as an issue (even if by different signs, such as looking alike), which is one of the reasons blood ties are important to almost all levels of cultures. Which reminds me of my soapbox on GE crops, but that's a whole different topic :)


Point being, incest would be found to be avoided if possible. I rather liked the matrilineal, polygamic 1 male + bunch of sisters type of descent - it nicely sidesteps the more obvious issues. The equivalent of culling could certainly come into play once in a while (deformed male children would always be put to death, deformed female children... dunno - priestesses?)


I'm still trying to harness a seafaring culture - and the phoenicians sure sound ideal.

[black angel]

I'll with Mormons or The Replenish Movement

the Mormon's ideas of plural marriage, and mood to move ever east work

the Replenish Movement (If you've 19 Kids and Counting (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/19_Kids_and_Counting) you know what this is) has the whole BREED! thing going on a little tweaking and ether would fit.

[sansahansan]

I'll with Mormons or The Replenish Movement

the Mormon's ideas of plural marriage, and mood to move ever east work

the Replenish Movement (If you've 19 Kids and Counting (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/19_Kids_and_Counting) you know what this is) has the whole BREED! thing going on a little tweaking and ether would fit.

Mormons had other issues that I'd personally find hard working against, but it is a good suggestion

I can't find much on the Replenish Movement, but the link gave me an idea to start the POD on.

Take an early Phoenician settlement (Maybe Massilia? or was it Phoenician?) and add a little something, similar to say El Paso, Texas with natural lithium in the water, that increases fertility to match that of this lady... Twins & Triplets to be quite commonplace therein.

Mix and match elements of surrounding belief systems to back up this 'miracle' and I think I'm set.

Great... Now I'm off to read up on the Phoenicians *again* :)

[black angel]

Mormons had other issues that I'd personally find hard working against, but it is a good suggestion

I can't find much on the Replenish Movement, but the link gave me an idea to start the POD on.


Replenish Movement is more a school of thought in the modern evangelical moment than anything else, it takes it's name from "Go forth and Replenish the earth" it's the base for evangelicals rejecting any and all birth control and have tons of kids

[Tobit]

One thing I want to bring up from the last thread that I wanted to bring up was that Marco Polo wasn't an explorer. He was accompanied by guides and was traveling along well known paths. He was more a tourist than an explorer.

Another thing I want to bring up is a key part of exploration and colonization: Maps and Charts. With out those you're really not likely to be very effective colonizers. Because you can't say where you have been or what you say unless you have the knowledge of the stars, writing, and math that is required to navigate. If you don't have knowledge of those things the best you can do is follow the coast or get lucky with storms. The Vikings were unlikely explorers of the Americas because they lacked the navigational equipment to cross the Atlantic ocean reliably.

Any religion could encourage exploration and fruitfully multiplying but the ability to chart the oceans and locations reliably was what made the great colonizers and explorers able to create transoceanic empires. In OTL all the Math that was required for charts of that type came from the Middle East. Any religion that encourages colonization should have at least the math of the Babylonians, Greeks, or Ancient Hindus. The Arabs were premier navigators and traveled as far as the Philippines spreading their religion and trading. They were able to do this because of their navigation.

[Keenir]

I'm looking for a cause (or collection thereof) of some sort that would create a religious belief system incorporating the following:
1) Fanatic frantic exploration and constant seeking of 'new lands'
2) Fanatic frantic expansion of core population to found colonies in the wake of the explorers.
3) A strong motivation to peace and not armed conflict with natives of new lands unless required for self-defense, in which case genocide is acceptable (within the religious beliefs)
4) A strong driving core belief in converting the world to the faith by outbreeding and outpopulating everyone else

the "discovery" of a new Bible text that says Jesus actually said "Go forth and spread My Name to all lands. Make haste as ye do so. Be fruitful and multiply, for only through that do you truly honor Me."

[Keenir]

Oh, and polygamy would certainly be par for the course wouldn't it? One man and several wives makes for more children... <blink> social structure to reenforce that could be a matrilineal society where resource ownership is passed through the oldest female, but only female siblings are to be supported, men have to go find new land for the girls. When a man opens up new land/resources, existing family youngest daughters court the man to form a new family?

Huh I can't think of any culture remotely like that in OTL.
Anyone?

there are groups in India who do that -- the youngest daughter is the one who inherits the property.

or the Na of China.

[sansahansan]

One thing I want to bring up from the last thread that I wanted to bring up was that Marco Polo wasn't an explorer. He was accompanied by guides and was traveling along well known paths. He was more a tourist than an explorer.

True enough, but I still claim he explored unknown 'cultures', and thus did travel into the unknown. I guess you could say that of any first time tourist? Just like you could say, they all followed explorers.


Another thing I want to bring up is a key part of exploration and colonization: Maps and Charts. With out those you're really not likely to be very effective colonizers. Because you can't say where you have been or what you say unless you have the knowledge of the stars, writing, and math that is required to navigate. If you don't have knowledge of those things the best you can do is follow the coast or get lucky with storms. The Vikings were unlikely explorers of the Americas because they lacked the navigational equipment to cross the Atlantic ocean reliably.



The Vikings quest of faith into mysterious and dangerous seas, sailing into the unknown, out of sight of land and stars, has obvious romantic appeal . . .


Try googling Viking navigation methods. No incontrovertible proof for any of the good theories, but the current, favored, explanation is
"In all likelihood, the Viking sailor would have used a large number of clues from the sea and the sky to steer his ship. In many cases he could have interpolated the position of the sun between sightings or estimated its position. Many times it suffices to look at the pattern of illumination of the clouds, their iridescence, the direction of crepuscular rays or, close to twilight, the general illumination of the sky. Furthermore, the knowledge of the sun position is not sufficient for navigation. The helmsman needed to correct the sun direction for the time of the day and day of the year. Thus, he must have been quite a good reader of the sky and the sea. "

Which I find to be somwhat ridiculous, but I guess it more neatly explained how easy it was to get off course?

regardless, numerous theories have been advanced over the years. I all honesty, when traveling unknown oceans, most 'experiential' methods such as the one above would, almost by definition, fail.

There is reasonable circumstantial proof of alternate navigational means, sufficient for me to believe they had 'something'. It may have required writing, but it certainly didn't require math to follow 'two thumbwidths left of the North star for seven days' type directions.


Any religion could encourage exploration and fruitfully multiplying but the ability to chart the oceans and locations reliably was what made the great colonizers and explorers able to create transoceanic empires. In OTL all the Math that was required for charts of that type came from the Middle East.


Right. Started by the best Mariners of the Mediterranean - the Phoenician/Canaanites. They had writing, they had 'charts' presumably (though I can't find any direct reference or example), bit maybe 5000BC to 4000BC was a tad bit early for advanced navigational math?


Any religion that encourages colonization should have at least the math of the Babylonians, Greeks, or Ancient Hindus. The Arabs were premier navigators and traveled as far as the Philippines spreading their religion and trading. They were able to do this because of their navigation.

Heh, so did the Phoenicians/Canaanites before them - at least the trading for sure, the spread of religion is circumstantial, but considerable parallels exist.

But I'm curious as to why a religion, driving exploration/colonization, should be bound by a logic that requires math and a desire for trade?

Aren't religions, by nature, illogical? So, say a tenet is that any excess sons past the second should be sent on journeys of exploration into the sea, to seek foreign brides and lands?

[Tobit]

True enough, but I still claim he explored unknown 'cultures', and thus did travel into the unknown. I guess you could say that of any first time tourist? Just like you could say, they all followed explorers.

He wasn't even the first European to travel to China, he's just the only one most people remember. Not to degrade him or anything, he was very brave to go all the way to China.



Try googling Viking navigation methods. No incontrovertible proof for any of the good theories, but the current, favored, explanation is
"In all likelihood, the Viking sailor would have used a large number of clues from the sea and the sky to steer his ship. In many cases he could have interpolated the position of the sun between sightings or estimated its position. Many times it suffices to look at the pattern of illumination of the clouds, their iridescence, the direction of crepuscular rays or, close to twilight, the general illumination of the sky. Furthermore, the knowledge of the sun position is not sufficient for navigation. The helmsman needed to correct the sun direction for the time of the day and day of the year. Thus, he must have been quite a good reader of the sky and the sea. "

Which I find to be somwhat ridiculous, but I guess it more neatly explained how easy it was to get off course?

Hence, why you need at least an astrolabe to

regardless, numerous theories have been advanced over the years. I all honesty, when traveling unknown oceans, most 'experiential' methods such as the one above would, almost by definition, fail.

There is reasonable circumstantial proof of alternate navigational means, sufficient for me to believe they had 'something'. It may have required writing, but it certainly didn't require math to follow 'two thumbwidths left of the North star for seven days' type directions.


Right. Started by the best Mariners of the Mediterranean - the Phoenician/Canaanites. They had writing, they had 'charts' presumably (though I can't find any direct reference or example), bit maybe 5000BC to 4000BC was a tad bit early for advanced navigational math?

As far as I know they only followed the coast. Which is a great way to travel the Mediterranean and a guaranteed way never to get lost. But that means that for the most part you're restricted, and reliance on the coast means your probably stuck in seas like the Med or Baltic.



Heh, so did the Phoenicians/Canaanites before them - at least the trading for sure, the spread of religion is circumstantial, but considerable parallels exist.

But I'm curious as to why a religion, driving exploration/colonization, should be bound by a logic that requires math and a desire for trade?

Aren't religions, by nature, illogical? So, say a tenet is that any excess sons past the second should be sent on journeys of exploration into the sea, to seek foreign brides and lands?

Alot of second sons will die by rocks or shoals before they make land fall. Even the Spanish when they were sailing around the Caribbean had Native guides in canoes or brought along natives who knew the Caribbean with them.

The Vikings I think were probably as expert as it gets for coastal sailors. But they were also adept traders and raiders, so they don't fit your pacifistic theological bent. But I don't think that they would been as good a sailors if they didn't have the materials they did. And the Vikings were an extremely materialistic culture. They were able to explore so much because they had alot of boats, and boats are crafted from iron nails, perfectly shaped wood, sail cloth, and rope. These were either traded for or manufactured.

Religions despite what they claim have always been based on wealth in some way. The temples, usually are big and grand inspiring awe. They usually have the money and knowhow to copy books, write down wise sayings that kind of thing.

So there is no escaping the economics of exploration or religion.

[sansahansan]

Religions have always been based on money??

Shaminism, Animism, even the Nordic worship of the All Father and the Tree of Life??

I find this difficult to comprehend.


AS for the rest, a quick note on Phoenicians... Around 5-700BC, Carthage was engaged in both coastal & deep sea trade routes - deep sea is where you sail out of sight of land with an idea of where you are going. There is some indications - hotly contested - that they made it to Britain.

Also, the astrolabe isn't the only seafaring navigation device in history. There's at least some indications of others, if not concrete evidence. The astrolabe is certainly, err - most likely, the best ever developed short of gps satellites, but nonetheless, others appear to have possibly existed before it. Once the North Star is identified, you can even navigate with just your thumbs & a semi-accurate time device - which they did have.

I will say that the Antikytheria device illustrates a much better understanding of mechanical gadgetry, and time, than we had thought those cultures to have.

Regardless, that is the land of speculation :) no hard evidence in any direction exists.


Alot of second sons will die by rocks or shoals before they make land fall. Even the Spanish when they were sailing around the Caribbean had Native guides in canoes or brought along natives who knew the Caribbean with them.


True, as their ships were deep sea ships with large drafts, rocks & shoals were a danger to the Spanish. And the British and the French.

A Phoenician merchant ship was a bit different. Their warships quite a bit different. Shallow draft, raisable oars and rudder, etc. When placing colonies up and down the Iberia & African coast, they routinely pulled their ships onto shore, and placed their colonies exactly one day apart (rowing) so they could stay overnight on land, in shelters. At least, for warships.

For their merchant ships, they had a smaller boat (though we don't know if it was fastened, mounted, or towed) that they used for shipping freight to non-tidal docks rather than approach to closely. The greeks called their merchant ships 'tubs' and described them as wallowing :)

I don't think the merchant ships could survive in the open atlantic... but their smaller warships, while built completely differently, actually somewhat resembled the Viking longships... (it actually took me two or three days to reluctantly give up on the idea of a cross-pollination of ship building ideas from Scandia to Phoenicia, but they are built different, and there are *no* examples anywhere in the spaces between them)

Anyway - the religious ideas here were sufficient for me to start the timeline :) I used the Phoenicians, and will shift their religion shortly (in the TL)

Thanks! :)

[Cicero the Younger]

Religions despite what they claim have always been based on wealth in some way.

I think that's overstating it somewhat. Religion began as a means of explaining the otherwise inexplicable. It is true that in most, though not all, religious traditions, sooner or later leaders notice that they can use the beliefs their people have developed to control people and empower themselves. I won't say the wealth isn't an end in itself, as it certainly becomes that in most cases. But I think the power is more important, and even then, some religions never get that far.

Mind you, I'm not saying I think the hypothetical religion we're discussing here won't go that far. In fact, I think it's almost a guarantee it will. It's one thing to believe that we can all commune with the spirits to apologize for killing a deer or persuade them to make the rain fall. But the religion we've devised here has an all-powerful deity that operates on a reward/punishment system and a class of priests who can interpret His will for other people. The original priests who used their power to persuade people to make lots of babies and be excellent to each other may have had their people's interests at heart, but things will get corrupted in time.

The religion we've devised will probably not be an Abrahamic faith. I don't know anything about the traditional religion or religions of the Phoenicians, so I don't know what kind of deities or priestly class they'll be starting with. But if they've gotten as far as having a deity who has demands and issues punishments, and a written holy book codifying what is demanded of them, then I think the effects will be the same. This is ostensibly a religion of peace--but so are Christianity and Islam, and I don't think I need to spell out that train of thought.