Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[GavJ]

Goblin, your whole post is a big nest of contradictions and obviously hasty, lazy research --- missing well documented wars like those mentioned above that can be found with simple google search terms, redefining your claim from any polytheistic war to later in the same post only between two polytheists after presumably realizing you were wrong yourself halfway through, counting Islam twice in a simple list of 6 items...

Bold, sweeping world historical claims like the ones you're making are something you might do as a professor with half a career of religious studies under his belt. Or if you aren't that, you should be citing people like that. Not basing everything off of what appears to be 15 minutes of thinking about it with no references on your sofa on a whim, and (quite frankly) rudely expecting other people to spend their time doing your own most basic of research for you.

or they could be flat; as long as there's a semi-rational explanation for how things differ from Earth.

This begs some pretty major questions though, like where does all the new water come from if it's falling off the side all the time? Also, if we have a fort on the edge, why can't we look over into space, or throw things into space, or build staircases going down the side of the planet as an easier way to get to the caves, or flying creatures flying out of caves and around the side up to the top, etc. etc.? Why can't demons in particular access the rest of the world through the big gaping holes in the side of the planet that allow free access in and out of HFS?

[Urist McVoyager]

That could be answered with a Slade Wall. If the world is surrounded on all sides by an untouchable wall of Slade, then you will not fall off, you can not see beyond it, and nothing can break through to fly over. The questions are how high the wall is and whether it connects to a ceiling which holds a sun analog.

[LMeire]

I've worked out two possible flat-world explanations, the first is "box-world" and is basically summed up by Urist McVoyager's post. The second I call "table-world", there isn't a physical box and objects/materials are free to fly off the edge whenever; instead the void outside of the world plays by entirely different entropic rules than the rest of DF reality and systematically destroys anything hanging or flying off of the official edge. (Like a refuse stockpile, only it wraps around the entire universe and works instantly on everything.)

Nothing from the surface can climb down because constructions in the Void evaporate too fast to work with, nothing from below flies up because they rot and wither away too fast to fly to safety. Fluids flow off just fine, but as I addressed in my earlier comment, the oceans only need to connect to more aquifer-tiles than there are edge-tiles to stay full. I'm not sure about magma, but it seems fairly infinite as well. (I've yet to drain a volcano/pipe sufficiently enough to observe where exactly it comes from.)

[GavJ]

the first is "box-world" and is basically summed up by Urist McVoyager's post.

But if you build a fort on the edge of the world, you can still successfully drain liquid off the edge of the map, so there can't be a solid wall there. And invaders will also still appear from any direction, come to think of it (which is a problem for both solutions)

The second I call "table-world", there isn't a physical box and objects/materials are free to fly off the edge whenever; instead the void outside of the world plays by entirely different entropic rules than the rest of DF reality and systematically destroys anything hanging or flying off of the official edge.

This is better, but as above, how do caravans show up there? Or sieges?

Also, I'm not sure I understand the aquifer comment. There would still need to in fact be a layer of aquifer stone off the side of the playable map, prior to the withering zone. If so, why can't I dig into that aquifer and blah blah?

[Dirst]

It's a game in alpha for Christ's sake.  Round worlds are in the development plan but not yet implemented.

[GavJ]

I don't think we are nitpicking Toady's detail-orientedness. We are discussing possible world configurations as it is relevant to what the dwarven (pan)theon of god(s) might look like. Namely, the topic came up because of celestial gods like sun/moon gods, and their sphere extents and whether they should have full or limited power available for your slice of (or your entirety of) the world.

[GoblinCookie]

Once again your point of view doesn't seem to take the world into account beyond Europe and the Mediterranean.

The Aztecs and their neighboring nations waged war for literally no other reason than for their polytheistic religion, initially because they considered their neighbors to be worshiping the Sun god incorrectly, and after that as a way to ceremoniously collect strong sacrifices for this god. It's not like they needed the resources, after all. Central America is and always has been a paradise for agriculture, they didn't work or know about any weapon metals and obsidian was everywhere- the "Flower Wars" were fought specifically in honor of the Sun god.

And over in Japan, we've got Shinto, developed by the Japanese shortly before or after they arrived on the islands from what is now Korea. The Shinto adherents are known to have launched several invasions against the native Ainu people for no other reason than because they worshiped the wrong set of gods.

Not to mention all the tribal wars fought for the sake of ancestors and spirits in pre-colonization Africa, the list would stretch on for miles.

Shinto does not have an established pantheon and it has been argued that the whole concept of it was invented by 19th Century Japanese Nationalists.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flower_war

The Flower Wars were not religious wars.  Even if were to  accept the disputed religious wars concept what we have is a case of inter-religious 'harmony' in which two powers agree to have a war because they both need a supply of sacrifices for their religions. 

A single tile of aquifer has more than enough water to flood the entire map as long as you can design a pumping systems to get it that high without flowing back into the aquifer. No matter what measurements you apply to the individual tiles, a finite water supply shouldn't be able to do that. Since water clearly isn't finite, it doesn't necessarily have to all drain off the flat edge that may exist on the border of a generated world- so long as the oceans are fed by more aquifer tiles than can drain off border tiles.

And I've seen generated worlds called anything from "realm" (An old-timey way to say nation or country) to "universe". (Implying that the displayed world is literally all there is in existence.)

I was talking about the wording in the corner of the create new world screen (confusing how the two are conflated). 

The aquifer thing is not supposed to establish that there is an infinite amount of water, it is simply supposed to represent how if you make a dent within a body of water, water flows in to plug the dent. 

The land-line telephone has only existed for like, 1/30 of that time; and not too long ago everyone had at least one. How long ago something came into practice isn't really a good way to measure how long it'll stick around.

Originally there were no Monotheists and now the democratic majority of the world is Monotheistic.  It is not as if we randomly got Polytheists and Monotheists, the latter happening to prevail by pure accident.  At a particular point in history Monotheistic religions arose and eventually overcame Polytheistic religions in their regions. 

Goblin, your whole post is a big nest of contradictions and obviously hasty, lazy research --- missing well documented wars like those mentioned above that can be found with simple google search terms, redefining your claim from any polytheistic war to later in the same post only between two polytheists after presumably realizing you were wrong yourself halfway through, counting Islam twice in a simple list of 6 items...

Bold, sweeping world historical claims like the ones you're making are something you might do as a professor with half a career of religious studies under his belt. Or if you aren't that, you should be citing people like that. Not basing everything off of what appears to be 15 minutes of thinking about it with no references on your sofa on a whim, and (quite frankly) rudely expecting other people to spend their time doing your own most basic of research for you.

It so happens that I do have degrees in both Theology and History.  It is not a matter of research, it is a matter of interpretation and putting together the pieces. 

Yes I did accidently repeat Islam, probably because I was thinking about all the Shiite/Sunni wars, essentially that is correct as regarding religious warfare it is IslamVSIslam more often than anything else.  Look at the news at the moment.

http://deusdiapente.blogspot.co.uk/2011/09/monotheism-is-inherently-intolerant-and.html

People have written whole books on the subject, putting forward similar ideas; show some respect.  I did not redefine anything, I purposely ignored wars between Polytheists and Monotheists because we then cannot determine which is 'at fault' meaning that nothing can be proven by such wars.

[Dirst]

I don't think we are nitpicking Toady's detail-orientedness. We are discussing possible world configurations as it is relevant to what the dwarven (pan)theon of god(s) might look like. Namely, the topic came up because of celestial gods like sun/moon gods, and their sphere extents and whether they should have full or limited power available for your slice of (or your entirety of) the world.

There is no conflict if two different civs have different gods for the same Sphere because gods are associated with a Sphere, not its personification.  You can have Apollo and Ra in the same world, and it wouldn't be any more trouble for the metaphysics than if you had Hephaestus and Vulcan as gods of smithing.

Now, the worshipers of two "competing" gods could well be extremely hostile.  Two different monotheist religions are automatically "competing."  The worshipers could perceive the other god as a competitor that must be stopped (by ridding the world of its worshipers) or just heretics who worship their god the wrong way.

"Pigs were not listed by Leviticus among the clean animals."
"Swine are filthy and therefore not to be eaten."
"I like bacon."

[GavJ]

I purposely ignored wars between Polytheists and Monotheists because we then cannot determine which is 'at fault' meaning that nothing can be proven by such wars.

If polytheists were pacifists who don't go to war over their religion, then they would simply roll over when monotheists declared war on them. I don't see how it matters who the "aggressor" was for purposes of this discussion.

People have written whole books on the subject

Like who? And do they have peer reviewed credentials as well on those same theories? And if so, what responses do they get in the field?

You've given us a blog post that mentions one book, and gives a quote from it that doesn't even mention monotheism or polytheism (they claim that "the author argues that elsewhere" in the blog. Okay...). I took the liberty of looking up that one author anyway, and he seems to be a lecturer at Iowa State who only publishes popular press books, and one or two random, unrelated monographs.

[GoblinCookie]

If polytheists were pacifists who don't go to war over their religion, then they would simply roll over when monotheists declared war on them. I don't see how it matters who the "aggressor" was for purposes of this discussion.

Please start actually thinking!

Certain data is not valuable because it cannot prove anything about the matter at hand.  If we are comparing how warlike two groups are, we cannot learn usually learn anything about the groups from the instances when they fought because we cannot tell clearly who started each particular war.

When either group is fighting itself however, the data is useful because in this case we do not need to know who started anything since it is the total level of religious violence WITHIN the group as a whole we are interested in. 

Like who? And do they have peer reviewed credentials as well on those same theories? And if so, what responses do they get in the field?

You've given us a blog post that mentions one book, and gives a quote from it that doesn't even mention monotheism or polytheism (they claim that "the author argues that elsewhere" in the blog. Okay...). I took the liberty of looking up that one author anyway, and he seems to be a lecturer at Iowa State who only publishes popular press books, and one or two random, unrelated monographs.

Someone wrote a book on the subject.  Just as I said they did, so your sheer insolence and blatent lack of respect is quite jarring.   

This is a matter of historical interpretation, it is not a matter of hard science so show some respect and cease babbling about peer reviews.  I am not particularly interested in what response they got from the field because it will simply reflect how much they conform or do not conform to the prevailing ideologies of the pool of people doing the responding, plus I suppose how controversial they are as well. 

[GavJ]

If we are comparing how warlike two groups are, we cannot learn usually learn anything about the groups from the instances when they fought because we cannot tell clearly who started each particular war.

I simply disagree. Meeting the threat of war with WAR = being warlike. Perhaps not AS MUCH warlike as the aggressor, but still warlike. The completely non-warlike options would be to offer diplomatic concessions or seek to bribe the aggressors into leaving you alone, or just giving up. Not taking up arms in defense.

Your dismissal of wars that were completely between polytheists as "not counting" due to potential motivations for wanting more sacrifices seems odd as well. Why does that not count? That's a super violent and possible even more shocking reason to start a war IMO than for land or converts...

Someone wrote a book on the subject.

Anybody can write a book on anything.  Academic field books are worth more as evidence of something when written by people who are well established in a field with peer-reviewed publication history. Otherwise it's just some dude writing some opinions with no guarantees whatsoever that anybody else in the field actually thinks he is not crazy (and thus no guarantees that he is actually not crazy...). There are a LOT of peer reviewed history journals, and most historians recognized as experts do indeed have a well established publication history in them.

By no means do you have to conform to one single story to get published in those, either. People have half a dozen conflicting theories in journals all the time -- the peer review process is primarily about verifying that the research methods are sound and that the argument stands up at all and evidence is provided, versus just some crackpot theory. It's not about forcing a party line. That's actually counter productive to their mission statements.

Here's somebody who went out and wrote a book too, without any peer-reviewed credentials: It's a Breatharian book about how you can live without any food from light and air alone:
http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/3929512351/002-9072932-0770442?ie=UTF8&tag=veganfruitari-20&linkCode=xm2&camp=1789&creativeASIN=3929512351

Should we treat this as a valuable research source?

I am not particularly interested in what response they got from the field

Okay. Well almost everybody else is interested, and you're trying to convince people in a public forum where things like this matter a lot.

[Dirst]

Someone wrote a book on the subject.

Anybody can write a book on anything.

Actually, they counterargument to "all viewpoints are equal despite differing levels of evidence" is the Flying Spaghetti Monster.

But subsisting on light is pretty out there, too.  I wonder what her explanation is for plump helmets.

[kontako]

For the most part I feel that people are bringing their knowledge and beliefs to the table and expecting that to be the case in-game. (Excuse me if this is irrelevant, but I hope you'll understand my intentional oversight of the somewhat unrelated material).

As I understand it, the lack of specific events in history should not dictate that in a similar timeline of a similar reality whether it were to happen or not. (If that makes any sense). Within reason, if something was possible due to a series of events, it should be possible to replicate within Dwarf Fortress world generation. It's a mythical universe in which the player may interact and observe the history of its world - therefore the progression and behaviour of polytheistic tribes in reality should not be enacted within the game for the sake of realism but as result of the generation algorithm and player interaction. The motives for wars between polytheistic tribes should be dictated by this generation, and not limited by our understandings. Whether or whether not this is key to the argument, please keep this in mind.

In the case of the flat world, I imagined it to operate similar to primitive belief of our universe - due to incomplete implementation of the entire system. However I don't think the concept of a flat world should be entirely disregarded when replaced by a working planetary model. The option to create a flat world should remain within the possibilities of world generation, whether the player decided to have a flat world created or a spherical planet.
However due to my lack of understanding, I am also questioning whether or not the flat world simulation is ideal. Although we have no need to fear, we are clearly in the presence of an educated man:

It so happens that I do have degrees in both Theology and History.

Please, educate us GoblinCookie. How did the flat world belief operate? What would happen if someone were to fall off? How deep did people believe they could go without digging through? What kept the world in place? - surely if it were eternally falling, an individual on the surface would forever be floating if he had jumped. How did the deities control and interact with this world?
Surely your vast array of knowledge could be put to better use answering these questions for us than by debating problems which would automatically be solved by interactions in world generation.

Also would you do us the favour of explaining how polytheistic tribes believed and expected deities to interact with them, each other, the world, and especially the deities of other pantheons and religions. Knowing how things like this worked would enable the construction of an algorithm to automatically solve the gaps in history, as you pointed out, in the intentions for wars between polytheistic tribes and peoples.

Also, anyone else with available knowledge please contribute.

[GoblinCookie]

I simply disagree. Meeting the threat of war with WAR = being warlike. Perhaps not AS MUCH warlike as the aggressor, but still warlike. The completely non-warlike options would be to offer diplomatic concessions or seek to bribe the aggressors into leaving you alone, or just giving up. Not taking up arms in defense.

Your dismissal of wars that were completely between polytheists as "not counting" due to potential motivations for wanting more sacrifices seems odd as well. Why does that not count? That's a super violent and possible even more shocking reason to start a war IMO than for land or converts...

I am quite amazed that you are still arguing this point. 

1. Religious War (or any war for that matter) is not a game.  If some crazy bunch of monotheists turn up and decide to kill you for worshipping 'idols' then you are not waging a religious war if you drive them out.  You are still not waging a religious war if your fellow 'idol-worsippers' decide to help out because they are also threatened on an entirely secular basis. 

However in real-life there are conflicting accounts and it may be that earlier you polytheists turned up and killed the monotheists due to their atheism and they were retaliating.  This means that religious wars between the two groups cannot accurately gage the propensity of either group to engage in religious wars, only the total propensity of religion in general to have religious wars.

But because we are only interested in the relative religious violence propensity of each group and not each individual religions propensity we do not have the same problem with inter-category religious violence.  It does not matter if the Crusades are Christianity or Islam's fault because it still counts as an example of monotheistic religious violence in general we do not have to pin it on anyway.

2. The difference here is that there is no argument about religion between the two camps nor is there is any clear religious definition of the camps.  The two groups are fighting over resources (people to sacrifice) not over religion, though the reason they demand those resources is certainly religious.  I do not actually believe in the whole sacrifice story by the way, I think the wars were primarily secular in nature. 

The Crusades are a religious war because whatever the secular motives the factions were defined along religious lines, Catholicism (as a whole) irrespective of political allegiance is called to fight against Islam (irrespective of political allegiance) to obtain something that the religion wished to possess (the Holy Land) and officially called by the Pope.

We would not call the Papal States attacking a wealthy city-state in Italy in order to loot it of candles in order to place in St. Peter's basilica a religious war simply because the material requirements for religious worship are thus aquired.  The Aztecs and their enemies 'require' sacrifices for their religious worship, just as also they require food and water resources for their clergy. 

Anybody can write a book on anything.  Academic field books are worth more as evidence of something when written by people who are well established in a field with peer-reviewed publication history. Otherwise it's just some dude writing some opinions with no guarantees whatsoever that anybody else in the field actually thinks he is not crazy (and thus no guarantees that he is actually not crazy...). There are a LOT of peer reviewed history journals, and most historians recognized as experts do indeed have a well established publication history in them.

It actually does not matter if all the people in his field think he is crazy or not.  It really does not matter, either he is right and his ideas have both reason and evidence backing them up or they do not.  If his ideas have neither (or just one) then he is probably wrong. 

By no means do you have to conform to one single story to get published in those, either. People have half a dozen conflicting theories in journals all the time -- the peer review process is primarily about verifying that the research methods are sound and that the argument stands up at all and evidence is provided, versus just some crackpot theory. It's not about forcing a party line. That's actually counter productive to their mission statements.

It is about making sure that while the theories may conflict on details they do not violate the fundemental philosophical and ideological assumptions that are held in common by the group.  The group is mostly self-selecting but the government and the media also have a pretty big role. 

If I am wrong then good luck publishing your Creationism and Astrology in any respected scientific journal for 'peer review'. You won't be able to because those ideas violate the fundermental philosophical and ideological assumptions of the group (they will not leave up to the peers to decide).  Publishing your work for review puts them into disrepute, thus they will not do it, their reputation is more important than anything else.

The ideology of peer-review is therefore mainly a system of locking out, designed to consign ideological/philosophical deviants to the 'outer darkness' where they are forced to howl in the wilderness, the established core ideas secure against respectable criticism.  The government and media have leeway in that they decide who is recognised AS an academic and thus whose reviews are taken seriously. 

This is quite a cosy arrangement, provided that you are on the right side of the fence.  The respected scientists get to establish a common generally consistant view of the world that they can present to the public with authority, ensuring that they are seen as higher beings that pass knowledge down to the ignorant common man.  Governments and media get to define the group and status within it but at the same time the respected scientists find them useful as a stick with which to beat the dissidents. 

This is accomplished through a mixture of ridicule and misrepresentation from the media and outright government coercion (think laws against teaching Creationism and Intelligent Design).  None of this implies of course that those views or any other generally accepted psuedoscientific views are actually correct, just how the mechanic works. 

Here's somebody who went out and wrote a book too, without any peer-reviewed credentials: It's a Breatharian book about how you can live without any food from light and air alone:
http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/3929512351/002-9072932-0770442?ie=UTF8&tag=veganfruitari-20&linkCode=xm2&camp=1789&creativeASIN=3929512351

Should we treat this as a valuable research source?

I have never read the book and know nothing about the matter; though  I do not believe that people can exist without food and water.  But if for instance people could do it then the whole of existing science would be proven utterly false and therefore it is no surprise that nobody is peer reviewing it or taking it seriously. 

It would ironically be a fairly easy thing to test though. Lock the author and any other believers in a room with only this book and see whether they can manage to avoid starving to death.

Okay. Well almost everybody else is interested, and you're trying to convince people in a public forum where things like this matter a lot.

Thing is that those are not my own ideas.  While I agree with the fundermental negative assertion, that Polytheistic religions generally do not have wars of religion as I define them I do not believe in the opposite, that Monotheistic religions are inherantly warlike and there is no way that a Monotheistic religion can be peaceful or tolerant.

Actually, they counterargument to "all viewpoints are equal despite differing levels of evidence" is the Flying Spaghetti Monster.

But subsisting on light is pretty out there, too.  I wonder what her explanation is for plump helmets.

I think she would be happy with goblins since they clearly follow her ideas to the letter. 

The Flying Spaghetti Monster is not an argument.  It is a crude strawman caricature that serves no function than to facilitate the inane mockery of religion by certain Atheistic individuals.

Mockery of other's ideas is generally a sign that one is simply dealing with an oppressive and narrow minded individual.  The more reasonable the ideas actually are (when argued by their proponants), the more oppressive and narrow-minded said mockers are. 

For the most part I feel that people are bringing their knowledge and beliefs to the table and expecting that to be the case in-game. (Excuse me if this is irrelevant, but I hope you'll understand my intentional oversight of the somewhat unrelated material).

As I understand it, the lack of specific events in history should not dictate that in a similar timeline of a similar reality whether it were to happen or not. (If that makes any sense). Within reason, if something was possible due to a series of events, it should be possible to replicate within Dwarf Fortress world generation. It's a mythical universe in which the player may interact and observe the history of its world - therefore the progression and behaviour of polytheistic tribes in reality should not be enacted within the game for the sake of realism but as result of the generation algorithm and player interaction. The motives for wars between polytheistic tribes should be dictated by this generation, and not limited by our understandings. Whether or whether not this is key to the argument, please keep this in mind.

Funny thing is I never actually said that I had a problem with Polytheistic religious wars.  Indeed they are a fundermental part of my system but as part of the development of Monotheism out of the Polytheistic system. 

Please, educate us GoblinCookie. How did the flat world belief operate? What would happen if someone were to fall off? How deep did people believe they could go without digging through? What kept the world in place? - surely if it were eternally falling, an individual on the surface would forever be floating if he had jumped. How did the deities control and interact with this world?
Surely your vast array of knowledge could be put to better use answering these questions for us than by debating problems which would automatically be solved by interactions in world generation.

Also would you do us the favour of explaining how polytheistic tribes believed and expected deities to interact with them, each other, the world, and especially the deities of other pantheons and religions. Knowing how things like this worked would enable the construction of an algorithm to automatically solve the gaps in history, as you pointed out, in the intentions for wars between polytheistic tribes and peoples.

Also, anyone else with available knowledge please contribute.

Ummmmm, I am one of the people arguing that the game universe is actually round.  Ask someone else. 

[LMeire]

...
But if you build a fort on the edge of the world, you can still successfully drain liquid off the edge of the map, so there can't be a solid wall there. And invaders will also still appear from any direction, come to think of it (which is a problem for both solutions)

...
This is better, but as above, how do caravans show up there? Or sieges?

Also, I'm not sure I understand the aquifer comment. There would still need to in fact be a layer of aquifer stone off the side of the playable map, prior to the withering zone. If so, why can't I dig into that aquifer and blah blah?

Well, I've got nothing on travelers, though they don't make sense in a lot of ways; since they also have no problems with leaving a fortress by way of an unexplored cavern or a bridge that extends to the edge of an embark over an ocean. I'm going to go with "wagons are magic and can teleport".

As for the water; not what I meant. I meant that the ocean was being refilled from all the aquifer/river source tiles that it's connected to on the continents faster than what could be drained off the sides of the table world; assuming of course, that the combined surface area of the world's coastline aquifers and river sources exceeds that of the edges bordered by ocean. The water is created in the aquifer/river source, flows out to the ocean, hits the edge and gets obliterated just like everything else that falls off.

...

 How did the flat world belief operate? What would happen if someone were to fall off? How deep did people believe they could go without digging through? What kept the world in place? - surely if it were eternally falling, an individual on the surface would forever be floating if he had jumped. How did the deities control and interact with this world?
Surely your vast array of knowledge could be put to better use answering these questions for us than by debating problems which would automatically be solved by interactions in world generation.

I know you were directing this at Goblin, but since I've been the one arguing for the possibility of generated flat-worlds (In order to have multiple, equally valid sun-gods and such.) I figured I'd go ahead and answer all this. Though since I've already answered most of this with GavJ, I'm going with what I know about history mixed with a healthy amount of guesswork for what I don't know.
In order:

How did the flat world belief operate?

The traditional flat world as we know it comes from Persian mythology (The kind that predates Zoroaster). They held that the lands and seas of the known world were balanced on a table, that the table was balanced on the backs of four elephants (One for each cardinal direction.), and that these elephants were standing on the back of a gigantic tortoise. When questioned by Greek philosophers what the tortoise was standing on, priests would typically flounder for for an answer before coming to the conclusion that the tortoise was itself standing on an even larger tortoise, which was on top of another, and another, and so on until those pesky Greeks stopped asking such difficult questions. These encounters (which were recorded by the visiting Greeks) is where we get the phrase "turtles all the way down" to describe a poorly thought out world-view

The sun and moon of the Persian Mythos were described as being a gluttonous dragon and a benevolent goddess, the dragon (sun) was said to chase the goddess (moon), across the sky and catch her about once a week to take a bite out of her. After finally devouring her completely she would be reborn and grow to full- size again, while the dragon was unable to chase her down due to being too full. This was how they explained both the movements of the sun and the moon, as well as the phases of the moon and the occasional eclipse.

"What would happen if someone were to fall off?"

Well the Persians never really considered it, but if they did the logical conclusion would be going splat on a giant tortoise shell, since there was apparently nothing else you might possibly land on.

Later it was supposed by medieval "scholars" that never bothered to ask an actual astronomer (The educated elite had known the world was round since before the Roman conquest of Greece, by studying the apparent movement of the stars over time.), that God was holding the world up in the void with some sort of intangible force. Since you couldn't hit anything after falling off, you'd probably die of dehydration after falling for a few days. Not a pleasant fate, in either case.

How deep did people believe they could go without digging through?

Deep mines weren't really a thing until the invention of dynamite made it possible to dig large holes without relying too much on pre-dug ventilation shafts- which slowed work down and were fairly dangerous to make as far as safety features go. But for argument's sake, you could say that a flat-world only has access to what would be the crust of Earth, and it'd still be plenty as human civilization has yet to dig that far down even now with modern technology.

How did the deities control and interact with this world?

Deities were believed to be physical entities that either lived in some remote, inaccessible location (Such as Mount Olympus) or in the "heavens"- usually meaning the stars or clouds. They were basically omnipotent, except when fighting the wishes of another god, where their powers suddenly became limited according to hierarchy of the pantheon and/or the importance of their patronized aspects to the mortal worshipers.

Also would you do us the favour of explaining how polytheistic tribes believed and expected deities to interact with them, each other, the world, and especially the deities of other pantheons and religions. Knowing how things like this worked would enable the construction of an algorithm to automatically solve the gaps in history, as you pointed out, in the intentions for wars between polytheistic tribes and peoples.

Also, anyone else with available knowledge please contribute.

Generally speaking, a god/spirit/ancestor/whatever was said to live in a specialized chamber in the back of whatever shrines they were worshiped in, nobody was allowed in the chamber as it was supposed to be their private place where they could partake in offerings and grant wishes without being disturbed by the masses. Good things that happened were attributed to a god's blessings while bad things meant that a god had cursed someone and that they had to pay a tithe to the nearest temple of the associated god to (maybe) make the curse go away. What sacrifices were considered appropriate depended on the god; the Sumer god An demanded the ritual killing of large, muscular bulls while the Greek god Dionysus could be appeased by hosting a wild party/orgy in the middle of the woods.

In terms of politics with other nations and city-states, it gets interesting. The deities were often regarded as being of the same mind as their patron city; so when Sparta went to war with Athens, Ares would pick a fight with Athena, when Olympia settled a colony on some distant shore, Zeus would have yet another affair with one of the locals (Like he needed an excuse. ) and give them a demigod hero to help ward off monsters. If two city states settled into an alliance, so too would their gods have a child to represent that alliance. To the ancients, gods were as much personified thoughts as they were concrete people.