I am not sure if this has been said before, my search results were unlucky.

I dont particularly care, but I do find it bizarre that there is a leader for many civilizations on earth, from the Ethiopians to the Dutch, but none representing what I think have to be considered the cornerstone and roots of almost everything people today call "European", namely the empires of Judea and Israel.

I do not mean, by the way, to start bickering about modern politics. I dont care how the civ is called, I think "Israel" may be too touchy for some people, but anything else like Macabea(n), Hebrew, Judea(n) would make sense.
You dont have to look far for leaders, anything from David to Solomon to Judas Maccabeus, heck even Moses (have to remove him from the list of great prophets perhaps) or Abraham.
Spiritual and Philosophical makes sense for most of them (Solomon, David), or spiritual and aggresive (JM).

Naja, just an idea.

The old hebrews are genetically and to large extent culturally the same people as modern day arabs and egyptians. So they are covered. Modern askenazi jews are mostly east european in origin and and so are not well covered but could be argued to be part of germany/HRE and russia.

Is Jerusalem in the list of city names for any civilization? I've never seen it on a map...

Agree zenspiderz.

Most Europeans are descended from the Aryan tribes that came out of the northern Caucasus, the Goth, Alemanni, Seuvi, Teuton, folk like that. they came to arrangements of one kind or another with the earlier Celt settlers. The Hun and Mongols gave them a slice of the Orient not too long after that.

The Semitic tribes dissipated across vast areas geographically after the Romans expelled them from Judea and Samaria, and through persecution/religious law and
"xx Insert Personal Theory Here xx" never integrated racially or culturally with their host communities.

King David of Judea would be a good Civ to have, that's for sure.

My mod adds them along with some other important Civs such as the Hittites and the Siamese. The link is in my signature...

Cheers,
ripple01

Something I was thinking about just now: have the Hebrews been in any civilization game as their own tribe? Maybe it was too controversial.

They don't deserve their own country and they DAMN sure don't deserve their own country in the game!

Something I was thinking about just now: have the Hebrews been in any civilization game as their own tribe? Maybe it was too controversial.

Call to Power II

Think maybe Firaxis is thinking of Hebrews as more of a cultural or religious group, as opposed to a "nation." And/or, might be too controversial to some (as posted above)...
Or, in the case of naming a Civ "Israel," maybe they were worried about historical accuracy? As in, it didn't technically "exist" through a number of Civ eras (between Biblical times to post-WWII)?
In any case, there are the Mods... :p

They don't deserve their own country and they DAMN sure don't deserve their own country in the game!

Take it easy, dude... :crazyeye:

I'm not your dude, buddy!

They don't deserve their own country and they DAMN sure don't deserve their own country in the game!

says a man named after a rebel leader that caused the death of over 400,000 Americans for the right to keep others as chattel property.

I dont particularly care, but I do find it bizarre that there is a leader for many civilizations on earth, from the Ethiopians to the Dutch, but none representing what I think have to be considered the cornerstone and roots of almost everything people today call "European", namely the empires of Judea and Israel.

I have nothing against the jews but this is pure nonsense. What do you have in common with the israelites? Absolutely nothing. What novelty did they introduce in to the world? I am not saying they were useless or sth, far from it, but claiming that they were "the cornerstone of europe" needs serious backing.

I'm not your dude, buddy!

and I don't think you're his buddy either, I can see this thread getting closed soon.

and I don't think you're his buddy either, I can see this thread getting closed soon.

:thumbsup: I see he at least was warned.

and I don't think you're his buddy either, I can see this thread getting closed soon.

lol
Let the countdown begin
T minus 10...
9...
8...

I'm not your dude, buddy!

I'm not your buddy, guy!



lol... southpark anyone?

The old hebrews are genetically and to large extent culturally the same people as modern day arabs and egyptians. So they are covered. Modern askenazi jews are mostly east european in origin and and so are not well covered but could be argued to be part of germany/HRE and russia.
And the sephardits? Not all jews are askenazi , you know....

I think that they should have the Hebrews as a civ with Solomon (Spi/Cha) and maybe a medieval rabbi (Spi/Ind???) as a leader. They would have Maccabean swordsman as unique unit and some sort of synagogue as a UU.

I'm not your buddy, guy!



lol... southpark anyone?

Got it, buddy lmfao

And the sephardits? Not all jews are askenazi , you know....

sephardits are arabs who practice judaism. my point stands.

sephardits are arabs who practice judaism. my point stands.

okay, alright, fine
(snores lightly)
Back to the game, anyone?

WTF? Sephardits are Iberian Jews ( trust me, I'm descendant of some ;) )... some of them fled to Morrocco , Turkey and even Russia in the time of the Inquisition, but most of them stayed in here ( more or less hiding their beleifs under a false catholicism ).... Don't see where the arabs appear in that history :confused:

Oooh, I love quoting wiki:

1.A Sephardi is a Jew originating in the Iberian Peninsula (modern Portugal and Spain), including the descendants of those subject to expulsion from Spain by order of the Catholic Monarchs Ferdinand and Isabella (as codified in the Alhambra decree of 1492), or from Portugal by order of King Manuel I in 1497.

OR

2. In a broader sense, the term Sephardim has come to include Jews of Arabic and Persian backgrounds who have no historical connection to Iberia except their use of a Sephardic style of liturgy. For religious purposes, Jews of these communities are considered to be "Sephardim", meaning not "Spanish Jews" but "Jews of the Spanish rite".

OR

3. Accordingly, in the vernacular of modern-day Israel, "Sephardi" has come to be used as an umbrella term for any Jewish person who is not Ashkenazi.

Now for some extras.

A variety of non-Ashkenazi Jewish groups are regarded as "Sephardim" for religious purposes, and are so identified in modern Israel, including Jews of Arabic or Persian backgrounds.

The term Sephardi can also describe the nusach (Hebrew language, "liturgical tradition") used by Sephardi Jews in their Siddur (prayer book).

I MAY BE COMPLETELY WRONG, AND THIS IS NOT MY OPINION. Just some facts from a generally reliable source of general info.

A small correction:

King Manuel I did not expel the Jews... to be able to marry the Catholic Kings daughter ( that posed the conditions of not having Jews in Portugal ) he forced baptized all the Jews in Portugal ( clever trick ;) ). His son João III "expelled" ( not all... most of them moved to small villages in the interior of Portugal and continued Jewish in hearth, while pretending to be Catholic ) the jews and installed the Inquisition.

You're probably right, I just wanted to stop arguement. I have no prior knowledge of Judaism. I mean I know about it, but not much of the indepth stuff.

A small correction:

King Manuel I did not expel the Jews... to be able to marry the Catholic Kings daughter ( that posed the conditions of not having Jews in Portugal ) he forced baptized all the Jews in Portugal ( clever trick ;) ). His son João III "expelled" ( not all... most of them moved to small villages in the interior of Portugal and continued Jewish in hearth, while pretending to be Catholic ) the jews and installed the Inquisition.

Okay, all valid points, important to those of us whom it's important to. Now really: We're from everywhere on the planet, and we're all talking about something which is important to all of us, regardless of what Government is in charge. Right? And we're all discussing a game that lets us (or at least allows us to) build our own private utoipa, yes?
Just my thoughts.

I simply don't see how you can build a utopia about the Jews and then forget the probably most influent part of the jewish diaspora for at least millenia and a half...

But ok, we are all from everywhere ( some more than others... ) and we are talking about pixels.... no need for rage ;)

Here's another mod that includes the civ;

They don't deserve their own country and they DAMN sure don't deserve their own country in the game!

Head of the local KKK chapter are 'ya? Sounds rather venomous. Perhaps a more articulated argument that incorporated logic might have become more persuasive. As it stands, you present the impression of intolerance and bigotry; hardly a winning image for a WORLD community of gaming enthusiasts who follow a diverse, multi-cultural past-time.

I'm for including everybody...even the Poles! Give every tribe under the sun their own expression in civ, let the fans mod them, and Firaxis market it. I'm anxiously awaiting the next expansion pack to be named, "Civ4, It's A Small World After All."

I'm not your buddy, guy!



lol... southpark anyone?

i'm not your guy hoser!

but silriously isn't Jew the 3rd religion in Civ4 all ready and why do the Jews keep changing it on us?...first they are a race and next they want to just be a religion?...i'm cunfused I mean the Simpsons used to be good before they decided to kiss Jewish butt in every episode with their honorary Jew joke or two per show.

I say America, France, and England are part of the Jewsish Axis so isn't that enough allready?...shouldn't we make every Civ Jewish since Nohahs family were the only surivors of the flood when God killed everyone else 5 thousand years ago?

i'm not your guy hoser!

but silriously isn't Jew the 3rd religion in Civ4 all ready and why do the Jews keep changing it on us?...first they are a race and next they want to just be a religion?...i'm cunfused I mean the Simpsons used to be good before they decided to kiss Jewish butt in every episode with their honorary Jew joke or two per show.

I say America, France, and England are part of the Jewsish Axis so isn't that enough allready?...shouldn't we make every Civ Jewish since Nohahs family were the only surivors of the flood when God killed everyone else 5 thousand years ago?

Just keep drinking there, don't worry your head, we'll do the thinkin' from now on! :p

Hello there, the Original Poster here, I guess I am still fairly new here and misjudged this community. Seeing as the number of serious posts and posters here will be overshadowed by anti-semitic numbskullery and unsound grasps of both the concepts of history and culture, those who read Hegel here being quite obviously few in number, I refrain from commenting on all of the above (including, sadly, the decent posts), apologize for even bringing up the topic, and would suggest this thread be closed before hotheadedness spreads.
Peace

http://www.jewfaq.org/ashkseph.htm

According to Judaism 101 - sephardic jews are arabs and that includes those arab jews that went to spain with islamic arabs. my point stands. sephardic jews are covered by civ as being under the arab umbrella or even egyptian.

Askhenazi could be considered to be under the germanic or russian umbrella.

Judaism is a religion NOT a race. Askhenazi and sephardim are not of the same race they just have the same religion (more or less).

Edit: there is no need for abuse; it is really easy to understand.

Hello there, the Original Poster here, I guess I am still fairly new here and misjudged this community. Seeing as the number of serious posts and posters here will be overshadowed by anti-semitic numbskullery and unsound grasps of both the concepts of history and culture, those who read Hegel here being quite obviously few in number, I refrain from commenting on all of the above (including, sadly, the decent posts), apologize for even bringing up the topic, and would suggest this thread be closed before hotheadedness spreads.
Peace

Indeed, Onomastikon. I feel your pain. You might expect this board to be replete with intellectuals and self-actualized persons, yet you shall here find plenty who fail in these regards.

http://www.jewfaq.org/ashkseph.htm

According to Judaism 101 - sephardic jews are arabs and that includes those arab jews that went to spain with islamic arabs. my point stands. sephardic jews are covered by civ as being under the arab umbrella or even egyptian.


Sorry, but that is not completely true... First reference about Jews in Iberia is far before Arabian invasion and they we so important that a visigothic ( the germanic people that occupied most of Iberia after the Romans ) council of the Iberian church was called once to discuss how to stop the popular practice of calling a rabi instead of a priest for the weddings....

Sephardic Jews were in Iberia far before the Maometan ( not arab... ) invasions.

Just for a modern day example: do you think that Shimon Perez (http://http://www.jafi.org.il/education/100/people/bios/peres.html) is from "arab" ( I'm seeing that your definition is pretty wide ) origin? He's a Sephardi, you know.....

yes shimon perez looks like an arab.

Random arab guy of similar age
http://tbn0.google.com/images?q=tbn:ItDAYF-JJ4CbuM:http://www.classicescapes.com/images/Arab-Man.jpg
Shimon Perez
http://tbn0.google.com/images?q=tbn:-O9Akc0jvYfJ2M:http://suryaningsih.files.wordpress.com/2007/12/simon-perez.jpeg

Random Sephardic Jews
http://www.usnews.com/dbimages/master/1939/FE_DA_071022israel_24304.jpg
http://www.dailyjews.com/images/174_shalom.jpg

Random Arabs
http://images.google.co.uk/imgres?imgurl=http://images.jupiterimages.com/common/detail/17/67/22426717.jpg&imgrefurl=http://www.jupiterimages.com/itemDetail.aspx%3FitemID%3D22426717&h=202&w=250&sz=7&hl=en&start=143&um=1&tbnid=UbcczAfaZjcthM:&tbnh=90&tbnw=111&prev=/images%3Fq%3Darab%2Bman%26start%3D140%26ndsp%3D20% 26um%3D1%26hl%3Den%26client%3Dfirefox-a%26rls%3Dorg.mozilla:en-US:official%26sa%3DN
http://tbn0.google.com/images?q=tbn:8ShdXvMcYjY8XM:http://img2.photographersdirect.com/img/14224/pd762547_s.jpg
http://tbn0.google.com/images?q=tbn:BXN2pBc10Bu1-M:http://www.factmonster.com/images/arab.jpg
http://images.inmagine.com/img/digitalvision/dvs078/dvs078765.jpg

Arab and Isrealis .. spot the difference.
http://zioneocon.blogspot.com/Israeli%20and%20arab.jpg

Just for fun .. who is that?
http://i.cnn.net/cnn/2002/TECH/science/12/25/face.jesus/story.jesushead.cnn.jpg

I think that Israel should be included. I would be nice! Every leader should at least have the trait financial. :D

The last one is a possible face for a Jew of the I century AD , that was made to show how Jesus could have been ;)

And BTW what is a Arab to you? For me it is simply a inhabitant of Arabia... and that is why I responded that way... there were almost no Arab jews coming to Iberia. There were some Magrebian Jews coming and going but the vast majority of the Iberian jews were indistiguishhable of the the average Iberian ( if they were easily distinguishabe, inquisition would had far less reason to exist ;) )

You are right about the last picture it is 'reconstruction' of face of jesus. The caption says he looks like an arab. Which is why the pic came up on 'arab man' google image search.

From Wiki article on semitic ethnicity (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Semitic)

Modern science, in contrast, identifies a population's common physical descent through genetic research, and analysis of the Semitic-speaking peoples suggests that they have some common ancestry. Though no significant common mitochondrial results have been yielded, Y-chromosomal links between Semitic-speaking Near-Eastern peoples like Arabs, Assyrians and Jews have proved fruitful, despite differences contributed from other groups (see Y-chromosomal Aaron). Although population genetics is still a young science, it seems to indicate that a significant proportion of these peoples' ancestry comes from a common Near Eastern population to which (despite the differences with the Biblical genealogy) the term "Semitic" has been applied. However, this correlation should rather be attributed to said common Near Eastern origin, as for example Semitic-speaking Near Easterners from the Fertile Crescent are generally more closely related to non-Semitic speaking Near Easterners, such as Iranians, Anatolians, and Caucasians, than to other Semitic-speakers, such as Gulf Arabs, Eritrean Semites, Ethiopian Semites, and North African Arabs.[11][12]

And BTW what is a Arab to you? For me it is simply a inhabitant of Arabia... and that is why I responded that way... there were almost no Arab jews coming to Iberia. There were some Magrebian Jews coming and going but the vast majority of the Iberian jews were indistiguishhable of the the average Iberian ( if they were easily distinguishabe, inquisition would had far less reason to exist ;) )

Where did the Iberian jews originate? Are they semetic (in a genelealogical sense) or are the caucasian?

The old hebrews are genetically and to large extent culturally the same people as modern day arabs and egyptians. So they are covered. Modern askenazi jews are mostly east european in origin and and so are not well covered but could be argued to be part of germany/HRE and russia.

That way of talking about the hebrews is just gross and unfair. Changing your words a bit we can make equally gross statements about most civs in the game:

The old americans are genetically and to large extent culturally the same people as modern day native americans. So they are covered. Modern americans are mostly european in origin and so are not well covered but could be argued to be part of england.

The old british are genetically and to large extent culturally the same people as celts. So they are covered. Modern English are mostly germanic in origin and so are not well covered but could be argued to be part of germany/HRE.

The old turks are genetically and to large extent culturally the same people as mongols. So they are covered. Modern turks are mostly greek, mongol or persian in origin and so are not well covered but could be argued to be part of Greece, Persia and Mongolia.

The old Spanish/Portuguese are genetically and to large extent culturally the same people as celts and ibers. So they are half covered. Modern are mostly roman and arab in origin and so are not well covered but could be argued to be part of Roman Empire/ Arabia.

And so on and on…. Most civs are “genetically and to large extent culturally the same people” as some other neighbour, take Spaniards and Portuguese as a clear example.

Probably ancient Hebrews were not too different to the other semitic groups that lived around them, especially to other Canaanite like the Phoenicians. But that doesn’t mean their culture hasn't its own distinct characteristics, which make them just as worthy for having their own civ as any other.


Just for fun .. who is that?

OK now someone posts pictures of one German, one Dutch, one American, one French and you tell us who is who by his racial features.

I'm not your dude, buddy!
you need take a pill, or get more love

Where did the Iberian jews originate? Are they semetic (in a genelealogical sense) or are the caucasian?
As far as it is known ,the Iberian jews are not semitic in genetical terms, but as the Jewish community is in here for at least 2 millenia ( if not more: given the reference in Jonas book that he tried to run to Tarsis ( somewhere in South Iberia ) from God's will, the idea of a Jew community in Spain pre-exile ( like the Djerba one in nowadays Tunisia ) is not that farfetched ) and with extensive interbreeding and conversion ( not that dificult: it is estimated that in the end of the Middle ages Jews were roughly 10% of the Portuguese population ) it is somewhat dificult to say. I bet that most of the Iberian Jews descended of converted "locals" .....

you need take a pill, or get more love

I recommend love, pills are bad m'kay ;)

... zzzzZzzzzZZ
No thanks.

@ danieldaniel

What i said isn't gross or unfair and really can't understand how you see it that way. Are you anti-semitic?

But I understand your confusion. It comes from confusing racial, national and religion identities particulary in the concept 'jew'.

In civ to be fair what constitutes a civ can be any of these combinations except the religious identity because that is covered seperatly by the religion feature.

For example England is a nation state and nothing else.
Celts are a racial group and nothing else.
Arabs are a racial group (semites) and nothing else.
Chinese is a racial group AND and a nation state.

In civ Judaism is covered as a religion (as it should be).
Since racially jews can be either semites or caucasian (or even something else) it doesn't make sense to define them by race.
Since jews can be of any nation state it doesn't make sense to define them by nation.
The only valid logical definition of a jew therefore is religious. And that is already covered by civs religion feature.
Even though it is not really correct to define jew by race as already shown. The racial groups jews tend to belong to are already covered by the arabian and egyptian civs (semites) and german and russian civs (caucasian/aryans) whatever. Please don't use the nazi definition of aryan as it very stupid.

And that is that.

@zenspiderz

Where in my post do I mention the Jews? :confused: :confused:

I’m talking about the Hebrews as distinct historical group of people that lived in middle east. Like the OP I’m talking about the Hebrews as a possible civ. I don’t mention jewish religion at all in my post. Please could you explain me where did you take that from??

I think everyone here knows Hebrews and Jews are two different things. No one here is saying the jews should be a civ, we are talking about the Hebrews.

Please could you explain what part of my post makes you think I’m antisemitic?

You say “The old hebrews are genetically and to large extent culturally the same people as modern day arabs and egyptians” and I just told you similar things could be said about a number of civs in the game. Like “The old Turks are genetically and to large extent culturally the same people as modern Mongols. Please explain me how this is wrong???

The Hebrews? There are many other civs that were far more influential than the Hebrews that should be put into the game first.

Like somebody already said, the Hebrews are represented in the game - by Judaism.

and would suggest this thread be closed before hotheadedness spreads.
Peace

eh.. don't worry about it ono, there is always one or two in every crowd. I'm sad to say this 'one' was an American, the most multi-cultural nation in the world... oh well.

@danieldaniel

the hebrews were a small clan within the larger arabic/semetic group. civ would get too complicated if every small clan got its own civ. If the hebrews get their own civ distinct from arabs and egyptians THEN so should assyrians, hittites, phonecians, samaritans, armenians, anatolians, kurds, pashtu, basque, picts, teutons, alemmeni, maori, burgundians, bohemians, saxons, finns, samoy, inuit, soiux, hopi, siamese, massai, berbers, pygmies, watusi, thai, malay, yanomo, khorsan, danes, yemeni, watusi, macedonians, eritreans, bosnians, serbs, croats, spartans, sicilians, maltese, venetians, poles, magyars, huns, goths, visigoths, iberians, cornish, welsh, mercians, normans, franks, prussians, autralian aboriginies (for want of a better term), khazars, swiss, azeri, tibetans, nepalese, caledonii, scotia, thracians, swazi, ashanti, senegalese, chechens, apache, cherokee, cayuga, chaldeans, parthians, lydians, bactrians, medians, dravidians, gilaks, turkomen, brahui, bedouin, akkadians, punjabs, tamals, scythians, bulgars, seljuks, timurids, uzbeks, manchurians, han, kazakhs, tungus, bangladeshi, tatars, ukrainians, gallacians, qashqai etc,etc,etc,etc,etc,etc...............

do you see?

You see, now I agree with you. I wouldn't choose the hebrews for a new civ because there are many better options. It's the argument you used before I don't agree with.

EDIT: Just one small correction;The hebrews are not "small clan within the larger arabic/semetic group". There's not an arab/semitic group, there's a semitic group, both arabs and hebrews are part of it. And I would say they both are more than just "clans".

You see, now I agree with you. I wouldn't choose the hebrews for a new civ because there are many better options. It's the argument you used before I don't agree with.

EDIT: Just one small correction;The hebrews are not "small clan within the larger arabic/semetic group". There's not an arab/semitic group, there's a semitic group, both arabs and hebrews are part of it. And I would say they both are more than just "clans".

Ok good. It is the same argument just phrased differently.

as to your edit. That depends on the defintion of the term arab. There are a few diffent definitions and none of them very precisely defined. For this reason I prefer to use the looser definition of arab which is equivalent to semite. And by this defintion hebrews as well all the rest are arabs. For example the modern day people of egypt are called arabs, yes? Well it has been discovered by DNA research that the modern egyptian arabs are genelocally the same as those chaps who built the pyramids. Also modern day palestinians are genelogically the same as the old hebrew, canaanites, judeans and so on but these days we just say they are arabs. Modern day syrians are the same as ye old assyrians but today we call them arabs. So arab is an umbrella term for semite. sorry if that was the source of confusion.

Ok good. It is the same argument just phrased differently.

Well if your argument is something like "Hebrews are not different enough from the arabs" then I don't agree. If the argument is "Hebrews are not important enough in history" then I agree.

as to your edit. That depends on the defintion of the term arab. There are a few diffent definitions and none of them very precisely defined. For this reason I prefer to use the looser definition of arab which is equivalent to semite. And by this defintion hebrews as well all the rest are arabs. For example the modern day people of egypt are called arabs, yes? Well it has been discovered by DNA research that the modern egyptian arabs are genelocally the same as those chaps who built the pyramids. Also modern day palestinians are genelogically the same as the old hebrew, canaanites, judeans and so on but these days we just say they are arabs. Modern day syrians are the same as ye old assyrians but today we call them arabs. So arab is an umbrella term for semite. sorry if that was the source of confusion.

Yes I can see that, modern Egyptians and Palestine speak arabic and identify theirselves as arabs, the ancient egyptian and hebrews didn't. My DNA might be the same as my iberian ancestors, but it would be wrong to say they were spanish or I iberian. So you consider Cartaguinians and Babylonians arabs as well. I find that quite wierd.

Semitic and arab are different words and have different meanings. I guess you can use any definition you want, but when the definitions you're using are so different from the ones most people use its good practice to say it in advance.

From the wiki: The term Semite means a member of any of various ancient and modern peoples originating in southwestern Asia, including Akkadians, Canaanites, Phoenicians, Hebrews, Arabs, and Ethiopian Semites

@zenspiderz

Now let me see if I follow your reasoning well:

1. Based on genetics modern Palestinians are the same people as ancient Hebrews and modern Egyptians are the same as ancient Egyptians. I gather the same could be said about Babylonians and Iraquies and even about Cartaguinians and Libanese (or do you prefer Cartague and Tunis?).

2. Since modern Palestinians, Egyptians, Iraquies and Libanese are all arabs (And since all semites are arabs for you anyway) is fair to consider that the arab civ in the game is enough to represent them all, and there’s no need for a specific Babylonian, Egyptian, Cartague or Hebrew civ in the game.

Now I would add third point that I think it would follow from this line of reasoning:

3. If ancient Hebrews, Egyptians, Babylonians etc are arabs and can be represented by the arab civ. Why not use Hannibal, Hammurabi or Ramses as arab leaders together with Saladin? Or why not making king David as the next Arab leader?

Please tell me where I got lost…

PD: sorry for double posting

I'm not your guy, man!

BTW, Israel should be in.

I'm not your guy, man!

BTW, Israel should be in.

But you're The Dude. The Big Lebowski

My comment in red.

@zenspiderz

Now let me see if I follow your reasoning well:

1. Based on genetics modern Palestinians are the same people as ancient Hebrews and modern Egyptians are the same as ancient Egyptians. I gather the same could be said about Babylonians and Iraquies and even about Cartaguinians and Libanese (or do you prefer Cartague and Tunis?).

It is true of egyptians and palestinians. My guess is it also true of sumer/babylonians/modern Iraq but I don't know enough about carthage to make a guess.

2. Since modern Palestinians, Egyptians, Iraquies and Libanese are all arabs (And since all semites are arabs for you anyway) is fair to consider that the arab civ in the game is enough to represent them all, and there’s no need for a specific Babylonian, Egyptian, Cartague or Hebrew civ in the game.

If you determine a civ solely by a broad racial group then yes. Definitely babylonia is superflous especially if you have sumer and irritated by a bit to see them both included. Of course the game designers are not prissily following some rigid anthropological logic; they are just making a fun game after all. So they can be forgiven for, for example, lumping all the different Native American tribes into one civ on one hand and yet on the other hand splitting up the semites into sumer/egypt/arab/babylonian etc. Or overlapping others such as HRE and Germany. There is no rigourous definition of a civ in civ sometimes they are broad racial groups and sometimes they are nation states. Their criteria for what should be in as far as I can guess is just 'hey that would be cool'. Which is fine.

Now I would add third point that I think it would follow from this line of reasoning:

3. If ancient Hebrews, Egyptians, Babylonians etc are arabs and can be represented by the arab civ. Why not use Hannibal, Hammurabi or Ramses as arab leaders together with Saladin? Or why not making king David as the next Arab leader?

Um yes it would not be wrong, except of course Saladin represented in his life the broad arab camp whereas the others only represented small local subdivisions which is why it would seem weird. As I say the civ makers are not motivated by genelogical or historical felicity only what seems to be to them 'cool'. And I don't blame them for that one bit.
Please tell me where I got lost…

PD: sorry for double posting

[Additional comment] Basically if we give the Arab camp another leader (and they should have one) Nasser would be more representative.

Carthage was a colony of the Phoenician city of Tiro. In fact Carthage (Kart-hadash or something in Phoenician) means New City. They were semites.

Sumer's origin on the contrary is unknown, but is generally accepted that they were not semites.

And about the arguments on the preceding post, I think civs don't need to be wide ethnic groups. Then the game would be very boring. Ancient Egyptians and Hebrews have both enough personality and particularities to distinguish them from other semitic groups and both can have their own civ. Only I think there're much better options than Hebrews, but that's quite subjective.

Carthage was a colony of the Phoenician city of Tiro. In fact Carthage (Kart-hadash or something in Phoenician) means New City. They were semites.

Sumer's origin on the contrary is unknown, but is generally accepted that they were not semites.

And about the arguments on the preceding post, I think civs don't need to be wide ethnic groups. Then the game would be very boring. Ancient Egyptians and Hebrews have both enough personality and particularities to distinguish them from other semitic groups and both can have their own civ. Only I think there're much better options than Hebrews, but that's quite subjective.

ok I guess we have finally thrashed out some agreement. :)

Just a quick point in here about Arabs.

Within the Arab world, it is not perceived as an ethnic identity. The most widespread definition (and the one used by the League of Arab States) is one who's first (or best) language is Arabic, and who identifies with the culture of the Arab people.

Less common, but also present is the narrower definition of those who trace their genealogy to the Arabian peninsula.

So within the Arab world at least, "Arab" is predominantly a linguistic/cultural identity. Hence, it is not viewed as an ethnic or religious definition.

Indeed, many of the most prominent advocates of pan-Arabism were not ethnically semitic. Michel Aflaq was of Greek ancestry, but born in Syria (And Orthodox Christian). Similarly, Tariq Aziz was a Chaldean (Assyrian) Christian.

There are disputes about these definitions of Arab, especially in Libanon. Many Libanese see themselves as inheritors of the Phoenician identity.

Anyway, I went on a bit longer than I expected. Suffice it to say that Arab is predominantly viewed as a linguistic/cultural identity, but it is not a uniform view.

Hey how about Nasser as new arab leader?
Traits could be organised/charimatic
or philo/organised
or maybe philo/charismatic

They don't deserve their own country and they DAMN sure don't deserve their own country in the game!

Hey Skinhead welcome to the 21'st century, Hitler is dead.

Nasser would be a great addition I think! I actually just wrote a term paper on Nasser and pan-Arabism. I think Charismatic would be a definate first choice for his traits. Organized or maybe industrious for his 2nd? What with Aswan Dam....

Fascinating man though, it's amazing what he was able to do, and how quickly it dissolved after he died.

Hey Skinhead welcome to the 21'st century, Hitler is dead.

That's what they want you to think!

But seriously, hating Jews was so very 1940s.

Organized or maybe industrious for his 2nd? What with Aswan Dam....

Too bad "Shoddy Engineering" can't be one of the traits because of the Aswan Dam... :mischief:

I should just walk away, and never look back.

haha fair point, one2.

Too bad "Shoddy Engineering" can't be one of the traits because of the Aswan Dam... :mischief:

Am I missing something?

I looked up the aswan dam on wiki. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aswan_High_Dam) can't see anything to merit that comment.

im quite happy that to paly civ without a hebrew civ... or a polish civ, or an australian civ, or a mexican etc etc civ to be quite honest.

In civ Judaism is covered as a religion (as it should be).
Since racially jews can be either semites or caucasian (or even something else) it doesn't make sense to define them by race.
Since jews can be of any nation state it doesn't make sense to define them by nation.
This is by far the most sensible thing i ve read in this thread.

The only valid logical definition of a jew therefore is religious. And that is already covered by civs religion feature.
Even though it is not really correct to define jew by race as already shown. The racial groups jews tend to belong to are already covered by the arabian and egyptian civs (semites) and german and russian civs (caucasian/aryans) whatever.
True. Jews are not an ethnic group but rather a religious group.

The OP must clarify what he meant about a hebrew civ. I mean Hebrews as as a state or as a nation. In some regards there is no hebrew civ today (in fact there hasn't been any hebrew civ since the persian conquest of palestine). Israelis are not hebrew in a sense, they are former citizens of other countries who share only one common characteristic, their religion not their race. Judaism is already included in the game and it's fine by me.

im quite happy that to paly civ without a hebrew civ... or a polish civ, or an australian civ, or a mexican etc etc civ to be quite honest.

And I'd be quite happy playing without Portugal too. I mean, after all, Portugal is just Spain's little sister, and shouldn't merit their own civ. Certainly, they haven't made any impact upon the world.

In case any one missed the subtlety, the above constitutes sarcasm to illustrate a point.

This post has become ridiculous; people simply lost in details and therefore incapable of seeing the bigger picture, or simply suffering from a difficult to further remain hidden sense of bigotry.

To refer to Jews or Egyptians or all Mesopotamian peoples as Arabic is just plain stupid. Each have distinguished their culture sufficiently to stand on their own regardless of ethnic relations.

For just about all of our acknowledged civilizations there is some sort of continuity that binds it together. The exact nature and number of those continuities often differ from one civilization to another and even from within the various time periods of a single continuous civilization where the nature of that continuity has changed. The basic continuities, however, seem to be religion, time, geography, ethnicity, language and customs.

There have been times in certain civs where the ethnicities have changed but the language, geography, time and customs remained the same, yet we consider that civilization to have existed unbroken through both periods.

In similar fashion, it should be easy to see to any objective eye that the Hebrew/Israelite/Jewish civilization has continued extant for three thousand years. In their case, even though their geography may be rather shifting and ambiguous, their defining continuity has certainly been religion, and also perhaps customs and language and even in some sense ethnicity (despite intermingling with other peoples in the nations of their dispersal, all of the Jewish groups in the world originated in Israel).

Now, the influence that this extant Jewish civilization has extended to the many nations that they have been dispersed to has been quite remarkable. Any denial of this assertion would really be simply quite absurd. Does this really need to be argued? Even the anti-semitic neo-nazi's here in America complain about their perception of Jewish world "control" of media and banking. Those very detractors very plainly see the remarkable influence this civilization imposes upon the world.

In truth, the subtle, latent hatred that JeffersonDavis posted in his remark concerning Jews not deserving their own civilization really serves all the more to prove their influence and necessity for inclusion. That is to say that their hatred of the Jewish civilization verily proves the influence and importance of that Jewish civilization. To take this argument further, the holocaust itself proves the importance and influence of this civilization. The Nazi's practically created a religion regarding the necessity of irradicating the pervasive influence of Jews from Europe and the world at large. Why? Because the Jewish civilization exerted no influence upon the world? Because they were an unnoticable and irrelevant people? Wrong, and far from it. The Germans could point to a remarkable Jewish influence to philosophy, banking, and music (and now today, movies and newspapers).

Even if the Jewish civilization had been insignificant to the world stage before Nazism, being victims of the holocaust itself catapults the Jewish civilization to a position of prominence that greatly effects our world social conscious. And this to such a degree that the United Nations should grant them a claim to their original homeland. Even dispersed to the ends of the earth for two thousand years, the Jewish civilization maintained their identity so vigorously that the United Nations (the ultimate congregation of world civilizations) recognized this fact and granted them a return to their original homeland. This is unique and unprecedented in the history of the world.

Hence, by definition, the United Nations essentially disagrees with those who speak diarrhetically concerning the Jews not deserving their own civilization.

What intellectual inanity for people to spout otherwise.

Rubbish. Rubbish to the small sighted ignorance that has been pervasive to this thread.

It's time to stop denigrating the importance, influence and legitimcy of the 3 thousand year extant cvilization of the Hebrews. Come on Sid Meier, include them already, officially; it's starting to look bad.

And in case any one is wondering (so that they might harbor an ethnic prejudice against me), no, I'm not Jewish. I'm Viking American--from the alleged master race.

I am not a Jewish as well, but I can not see them as Civilization in a common sence. Yes, there are many important Great Persons of Jewish ethnicity, yes, they are among the leaders in nations they live in (Russian new president for example). But there was never a Jewish Empire, never in the history, empire which would be bigger than modern day Latvia. At least there was/is nothing called Jewish/Israeli Empire.
I mean they had influence in almost every of European empires, but they had never been an empire on their own.

In similar fashion, it should be easy to see to any objective eye that the Hebrew/Israelite/Jewish civilization has continued extant for three thousand years.
well NO! :p you are mistaken. Hebrew-israeli and jewish are not the same. Hebrew refers to the ancient semitic peoples who inhabited the palestinian region. Israeli refers to the modern state.
Jewish refers to religion exclusively.
On the civilization part, you are again mistaken, for you disregard the fact that jews were not autonomous but represent the culture and opportunities that the state they were born into, supplied.
Einstein wouldn't become the genius he was if he hadn't been given a higher education in Central europe where most of the serious research in physics happened to be taking place at the time. Nor should the fact, that he was the product of Swiss education, elude you. Minorities, even if culturally different are confined to the opportunities presented to them by the state they reside.

In their case, even though their geography may be rather shifting and ambiguous, their defining continuity has certainly been religion, and also perhaps customs and language and even in some sense ethnicity (despite intermingling with other peoples in the nations of their dispersal, all of the Jewish groups in the world originated in Israel).
And this is CERTAINLY wrong.
Customs vary between jewish groups and of course they are not the same ethnically. There are some groups in the jewish family that are completely FOREIGN to the middle eastern region and to the semitic roots of ancient hebrews.
Namely:
Khazars, a semi-nomadic Turkic people from Central Asia (historical Khazaria), many of whom converted to Judaism en masse in the 8th and 9th Centuries CE
And many more (mainly converts), see some for yourself in here (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_notable_converts_to_Judaism)

Well, I dont think the Swiss schooling system should take credit for Einstein. He didn´t learn to speak until about the age of 6 or 7. We can argue the nature/nurture issue, too, but remember that he didn´t attend any fancy schools, he wrote the Theory of Relatively while working at the patent office in Bern. Finally, didn´t they disect his brain after his death and found out that their was something unique and different with it´s structure? That is nature all the way, not nurture.

@ zenspiderz
There were some serious problems with both the building and the operation of the dam.

Aside from the attendant cultural/social loss when you uproot thousands of people and flood a river valley that has some 5,000 years of artifacts, the actual construction was not exemplary.

Unfortunately for Egypt, the removal of Anglo-American support for the building of the dam necessitated a reliance on Soviet equipment and expertise. Unwilling to spare their best equipment or experts for the project, construction was marked by huge cost overruns and use of substandard material.

Dissatisfaction with the construction actually sparked a group known as the "Arab Contractors" to rally the population and forced the government to shift major responsibilities to these contractors. Ironically, this group was notable chiefly for its rampant corruption.

So, still impressive, but hardly a paragon of "Organized" or "Industrious". Further, the dam employs an inefficient and outdated filtration system that regularly gets clogged by silt, necessitating regular shutdowns in operation.

And, to stay somewhat on topic, I would like to see the Hebrews as a civilization. However, I would strongly advise it be called Hebrew, not Israel. Though the names might have been more interchangeable in the past, the modern nation state is not significant enough to be a civilization. The name Hebrews doesn't carry the same connotations. Also, I would strongly advise against it being called the Jews or Jewish.

Though Jewish people have had immense effects on history, the game is Civilization, which I think the ancient Hebrews eminently qualify for, but Jewish people spread across Europe and Asia under many governments do not.

Isn't this a group of people famous for, for most of their history, NOT having a nation to call their own? :o

Guys, the jewish deserve their own civ... They actualy Created something useful..... Uzis

What each civ in the game boils down to:

Leaderhead(s)
Flag
Leader Traits
Unique Unit
Unique Building
Various aesthetic variations on unit design & audio

Historical significance, any questions about what groups they represent, etc. mean absolutely nothing whatsoever...in case you haven't noticed, historical representation is pretty insignificant (for example the supremacy of bronze age axes over iron age swords). It's merely a strategy game decorated with various historical allusions - so I really couldn't care less who gets into the next civ as it will bear absolutely no impact on the gameplay itself...it'll merely just be another pretty addition.

in case you haven't noticed, historical representation is pretty insignificant (for example the supremacy of bronze age axes over iron age swords).

Psh, what are you talking about? Everyone knows that the real impact of iron working is that it allowed for the jungled of Europe to be cleared.

Edit: Not worth it.

These are the worst kinds of topics ever though.

Well, I dont think the Swiss schooling system should take credit for Einstein.
Then who should? There was no Jewish education at the time.

He didn´t learn to speak until about the age of 6 or 7. We can argue the nature/nurture issue, too, but remember that he didn´t attend any fancy schools, he wrote the Theory of Relatively while working at the patent office in Bern.
This is wrong, because he did attend good schools and kept some mail communication with many scientists at the time. Also the fact that he didn't learn to speak early is irrelevant to the educational system. When you learn to speak you are under the supervision of your parents so they are to blame not his education.
Finally, didn´t they disect his brain after his death and found out that their was something unique and different with it´s structure? That is nature all the way, not nurture.
I know nothing about this, could you be more specific. It is without doubt that intelligence is hereditary but it also relies heavily on external factors like the environment you grow up or the education you get. :)

Peace

Meh, they added the HRE (was already in the game as Germany) and Byzantium (was already in the game as Greece). Why not add the Hebrews? Answer: It's a touchy topic. People should understand just how touchy touchy topics can get. Heck, people kill other people in the name of sides in touchy topics.

Well Einstein may not be the best example of jewish science. See here (http://home.comcast.net/~xtxinc/AEIPBook.htm).

Closed while I decide what actions to take against who....