Stargate - Baal Quesstion

[Timotheus]

Has it ever been explained how Baal was able to control and get all his clones to work together?

I know he had tracking devices implanted in them to know where they are. He also killed a bunch off at one point with symbiote poison though the latest Stargat movies suggests that he did not kill them all.

There must be something. The episode where they stole the data from Stargate command showed them working very well together with a smooth running command structure. One Baal gave orders and the rest acted as soldiers to the point of putting themself in deadly situations.

[Stargate Nerd]

Common interest perhaps?

[Timotheus]

Common interest perhaps?

Among the Gould? There only common interest is power. Now if it had come out at some point that the origional Baal was dead and it was all clones who keep killing each other and making more to replace that might make sense.

Imagine real Baal killed by a clone who replaces him as the real Baal but then a week later he gets killed and replaced. Repeat every few weeks as the Baals work together as a group while still knocking each other off.

[Brother-Captain Gaius]

Give Baal a little credit. He may be a Goa'uld, but he's smart and not one to let stupid ambition cripple his own work.

If you were able to make identical copies of yourself with your memories, personality, etc., wouldn't you work toward your own common good rather than fight yourself? I like to think I would do the former, and Baal is wise enough to do so as well.

[PREDATOR490]

Baal is such a good villian because he breaks from the traditional Goa'uld mindset and clearly isnt hellbent on genocidal plans like Anubis. He still has the god complex attitude but he does have some modicum of rational thinking.
With that in mind, his clones are going to be equally rational enough to realise that working together is in their best intrests but I wouldnt be too surprised to learn Baal included some method of obedience.

[Braedley]

As far as Goa'uld go, Ba'al is, well, brilliant. The only other Goa'ulds that can reasonably offer Ba'al an intellectual challenge is Nerus (who Ba'al promptly killed after Nerus was outsmarted) and Anubis (who he joined in order to survive). And let's give Ba'al a little credit, Anubis was (is?) and ascended being.

[CaptJodan]

I've always found it somewhat ironic that while much of the rest of SG-1 was starting to become somewhat stale in the later years in many other areas, it was those later years where it hit its stride in terms of at least one villain. Baal was easily my favorite Goa'uld, as he brought a personality and a humor (which added something other than the mustache twirling, Darth Vader style villain) that all the other main villains lacked. He wasn't uber ascended or really even that overly powerful. He just outlasted the others by outsmarting them. I sometimes even found myself sympathizing with him, if only for a moment, which I think is the mark of a good villain.

A full sack of Baals could have been handled really badly, but I think it speaks to the actor and the way he was written that made it work so well. The concept was, I thought, somewhat weak, and I questioned whether or not a Goa'uld hellbent on domination of the galaxy would really have duplicates who wouldn't be out for the same thing, and would be planning both the other clones and the originals' death. A case of being too alike. But the actor and writing of Baal and his clones made me not care.

It doesn't really answer the OP question. I wondered about the same thing myself, but then dismissed it as "I don't really care. The more Baals, the better."