Why Civ always avoided Israelites?

Status
Not open for further replies.
For instance known ruthless bloodthirsty historical leaders are Leopold II of Belgium, Qin Shi Huang of China (yeah, it's in Civ 6), Wu Zeitan of China, Attila the Hun, Nero, Genghis Khan, Isabella I of Castile, Mary I of England "Bloody Mary", etc.

But those people are long dead. People that lived and suffered during the reigns of Hitler, Stalin and Mao are still alive. This alone is a very good reason for me not to include them.

Edit: sorry for the off-topic.
 
What are these Scythian cities of which you speak? Do tell. I think you're thinking of the Greeks who lived near the Scythians and mixed with them to some degree. Herodotus himself says unambiguously that the Scythians have no cities, by the way.

As for coins, the Indo-Scythians (who really have almost nothing to do with the Scythians Civ VI is representing) minted some. Did the Scythians who lived on the Russian steppe mint any? Not that I know of.

As to administration, I have not claimed the Scythians were savages who never traded and had no rules or customs. I'm saying they had no central administration organizing anything someone could reasonably call a state. They had no "empire," ever. All of the civilizations you mention--Persia, Greece, China, Germany, Mongolia--did form an empire at some point in their history, and all quite significant ones, at that.

(None of this is to say, by the way, that I object to Scythia being in the game. I'm a bit disappointed that they probably took Persia's spot, but I'm OK with the choice. Just trying to get the historical facts straight here.)
Definitely not talking about the Indo-Scythians. I know zero about them.
The Scythians actually had basic cities founded. As they traded more and more with the Greeks they became increasingly settled. Then they continued to do this with others. There was still nomadic, and a semi-nomadic factions too who continued to be the more warlike of the group (while the semi-nomadics were more a agricultural).

As to the coins, yeah there is a record of them being minted. They have some with engravings of one of the 2nd Kingdom's victories. I don't remember which king or over who off the top of my head.

EDIT: http://www.wildwinds.com/coins/greece/scythia/i.html link to Scythian coins. These are later, when they had split into two Kingdoms, rather than just the one.

I disagree with you on their "Empire". That is just a term to say a big kingdom. The Scythians had long periods where a King ruled over the entire Scythian realm. Most of the Persian Empires (Achaemenid, Parthians etc) and Mongolians had significant similarities in their make up, in that they were ruled over by a King (or Khan, or King of Kings, whatever) but the various Lords were more or less independent but paid fealty. That is one of the reasons they broke apart so radically from time to time, before being reformed under a strong ruler. It's also why the Persian rulers were known as "King of Kings", because most of their subjects were largely independent kingdoms and it could be like herding cats to get them to do what the ruler wanted. So in many ways it's actually very similar to Scythia.

The Mongol Empire existed for less than a century before it broke apart into divided realms. The Greek Empire under Alexander lasted less than 2 decades.

Similarly the German Empires were recent things. The Holy Roman Empire was the loosest of the loose, and it was only after that we got Germany. The Scythians spent plenty of time under a King, ruling a big area (bigger than something like Parthia, which was one of the Persian empires)
 
Last edited:
or King David.

Have the courage to make it so, Firaxis !!!
And that's exactly why they won't do it. So far all civs included have proven to be existent in history. The united kingdom of Juda and Israel is not. This is a very touchy subject for some, and that's why they won't add it as that. When I read your OP I first thought you think of Israel, and not the untied kingdom. Israel/Samaria or Juda alone seems not to have been too important and that might be another reason not to include it. So even if they add Israel, David or Solomo seem out of the box choices, we had/have mythic leaders before, but not entire civs that are unsure to have ever existed in that way. It's like adding the Atlantis Plato talks of (exaggerating a bit here) or the kingdom of the three Indias. This may sound harsh, I have nothing against religious people and what they believe in, and I don't want to make an affront to anyone. But I see a line here for me personally that should not be crossed. And really, speaking of our knowledge, it is really a big mess. You'll find so much stuff that takes everything from the holy books and so much stuff that denies everything from the holy books. It's hard to see through this mess of books and articles.
 
I think Firaxis should release at some point Israel and Palestine civilizations. Could be a great message to the world i believe.
 
I do not see your point since we have leaders like: Theodore Roosevelt, Queen Victoria, Abraham Lincoln...etc.

How does Catherine de Medici trump Napoleon Bonaparte?
I have absolutely no idea what you mean by your response, and what does it have to do with the topic.
 
I personally don't see why not.

I mean some important historical leaders have been really blood thirsty and committed what today we would consider as awful atrocities. But that doesn't demerit their "clean" feats.

For instance known ruthless bloodthirsty historical leaders are Leopold II of Belgium, Qin Shi Huang of China (yeah, it's in Civ 6), Wu Zeitan of China, Attila the Hun, Nero, Genghis Khan, Isabella I of Castile, Mary I of England "Bloody Mary", etc.
First of all, Leopold of Belgium was never in Civ, and will never be in Civ. Nero and Mary I were also never in the game.
Now, when it comes to other bloodthirsty leaders of the past, like those you have mentioned, we should also think about the time when they lived. These were different times, when humanity was not so advanced, when there were few leaders who actually cared about their people, and wanted to live in peace. Yes, Attila, and Genghis Khan, and others were known for their ruthlessness, but they still cannot be compared to the likes of Hitler, Mussolini, Mao, Stalin and others simply because of the different eras.
Having said that, I must say that I do not think Qin Shi Huang is a good choice for leader of China. Genghis Khan for Mongolia, however... well, yes he was a conqueror who burned cities to the ground, and killed so many people, but it wasn't so unique back at the time, and he was great for his own Mongol people, and was known also for his tolerance for other religions.
 
I have absolutely no idea what you mean by your response, and what does it have to do with the topic.

The OP is asking why do we not have Israel in the game? The answer is that the Devs don't want to put Israel in the game. My answer was that they do not put Israel in the game because of the same reason they do not put Hitler as a Leader. They do not want to for whatever reason does not matter. It is most likely because it will cause more problems than it is worth in the long run. Your answer is that... Hitler doesn't belong in the game because he has nothing to do with Civilization. I am saying that Israel and Hitler have more to do with the History of Civilization more so than Teddy Roosevelt and most certainly Israel and Hitler are more deserving than Catherine de Medici.

Honestly though we have marks of Israel all through the game with Judaism symbols and even Jerusalem as a City State not to mention some others. IMHO I have no problem with Israel in the game and Hitler as well as I believe they are both more than deserving than Catherine de Medici and I will not be surprised if we see Napoleon in some DLC soon enough. My real point is... If we can have Stalin, Mao, Napoleon, Kahn, The Hun, and other warmongers give us Hitler as well. If we can have Israels enemies like Egypt, Babylon, and others just give us Israel as well. However, in the long run it will not matter what you and I think or want. We will only get what the Devs or the Corporations allow us to have. I do not get into Mods very much but I know that creators of Mods have made other Civs and Wonders and what not so... where is our Hitler or Israel Mod located?
 
And that's exactly why they won't do it. So far all civs included have proven to be existent in history. The united kingdom of Juda and Israel is not. This is a very touchy subject for some, and that's why they won't add it as that. When I read your OP I first thought you think of Israel, and not the untied kingdom. Israel/Samaria or Juda alone seems not to have been too important and that might be another reason not to include it. So even if they add Israel, David or Solomo seem out of the box choices, we had/have mythic leaders before, but not entire civs that are unsure to have ever existed in that way. It's like adding the Atlantis Plato talks of (exaggerating a bit here) or the kingdom of the three Indias. This may sound harsh, I have nothing against religious people and what they believe in, and I don't want to make an affront to anyone. But I see a line here for me personally that should not be crossed. And really, speaking of our knowledge, it is really a big mess. You'll find so much stuff that takes everything from the holy books and so much stuff that denies everything from the holy books. It's hard to see through this mess of books and articles.
Israel is definitely not a mythic civilization. There is historical and archeological proof that the Kingdoms of Israel and Judah were real. The Bible may have lots of mythology, but it is the story of real people and events, only seen from a religious perspective. There are plenty of non-religious texts from ancient times that prove Israel existed, not to mention the older Hasmonean kingdom, which was definitely real. You cannot compare Israel to Atlantis. Israel is not a myth. Neither are David and Solomon. They are real people, and have really existed. It is just that we know more about them from myths and tales because this is how these stories were told back then. David and Solomon are in no way Noah, or Abraham, or even Moses, who may be mythical. And if we have leaders like Gilgamesh and Dido, there is no reason not to have them. So don't confuse myth with real history. The history of Ancient Israel is not only a bunch of myths religious people believe in, it is also real facts, places, and people.
Now, I am not saying Israel must be in the game. I am saying that I understand why it is not in the game, and yes, it was not as important as other civs from the region which were more powerful, more unified, and more independent, and lasted for a longer time.
 
The OP is asking why do we not have Israel in the game? The answer is that the Devs don't want to put Israel in the game. My answer was that they do not put Israel in the game because of the same reason they do not put Hitler as a Leader. They do not want to for whatever reason does not matter. It is most likely because it will cause more problems than it is worth in the long run. Your answer is that... Hitler doesn't belong in the game because he has nothing to do with Civilization. I am saying that Israel and Hitler have more to do with the History of Civilization more so than Teddy Roosevelt and most certainly Israel and Hitler are more deserving than Catherine de Medici.

Honestly though we have marks of Israel all through the game with Judaism symbols and even Jerusalem as a City State not to mention some others. IMHO I have no problem with Israel in the game and Hitler as well as I believe they are both more than deserving than Catherine de Medici and I will not be surprised if we see Napoleon in some DLC soon enough. My real point is... If we can have Stalin, Mao, Napoleon, Kahn, The Hun, and other warmongers give us Hitler as well. If we can have Israels enemies like Egypt, Babylon, and others just give us Israel as well. However, in the long run it will not matter what you and I think or want. We will only get what the Devs or the Corporations allow us to have. I do not get into Mods very much but I know that creators of Mods have made other Civs and Wonders and what not so... where is our Hitler or Israel Mod located?
And I will repeat myself again:
Israel and Hitler are not in the game for DIFFERENT reasons.
Israel is not in the game because it was not as significant as other civs from its region, it was not a big and strong empire for a long period of time, and it was not independent for long periods of time. Also, it might cause some controversy due to the current political situation surrounding Israel's settlements in the West Bank, which could anger some people since an Isarelite civ would require places like Jericho and Hebron to be included on the city list, and these cities are now claimed by the Palestinian Authority, which does not wish to recognize the Jewish/Israelite presence in these areas in ancient times, again, for political reasons.
Hitler is not in the game because it would offend so many people, especially Germans and Austrians. Everybody wants to have a worthy leader for their civ, and I am sure no German who respects himself and his nation would want to have Hitler lead his country in the game. Hitler was a criminal, who murdered lots of people simply because they were Jews/Roma/Slavs/gay/communists/handicapped... well, you got it. His methods were especially cruel since he made killing people an industry. Eventually, he left Germany in ruins, and divided between other countries, with the eastern part occupied by totalitarian communist rule for another 45 years (!) so how can you say he is deserving? And how is he better than Teddy Roosevelt or Catherine de Medici? Did these leaders do any of that? Did these leaders kill so many people while utilizing such methods? Did these people leave their countries in ruin? Are these people so hated and despised in their countries, and around the world? And here is another word - respect. Did Hitler make the world respect Germany? No, quite the opposite.
 
And I will repeat myself again:
Israel and Hitler are not in the game for DIFFERENT reasons.
Israel is not in the game because it was not as significant as other civs from its region, it was not a big and strong empire for a long period of time, and it was not independent for long periods of time. Also, it might cause some controversy due to the current political situation surrounding Israel's settlements in the West Bank, which could anger some people since an Isarelite civ would require places like Jericho and Hebron to be included on the city list, and these cities are now claimed by the Palestinian Authority, which does not wish to recognize the Jewish/Israelite presence in these areas in ancient times, again, for political reasons.
Hitler is not in the game because it would offend so many people, especially Germans and Austrians. Everybody wants to have a worthy leader for their civ, and I am sure no German who respects himself and his nation would want to have Hitler lead his country in the game. Hitler was a criminal, who murdered lots of people simply because they were Jews/Roma/Slavs/gay/communists/handicapped... well, you got it. His methods were especially cruel since he made killing people an industry. Eventually, he left Germany in ruins, and divided between other countries, with the eastern part occupied by totalitarian communist rule for another 45 years (!) so how can you say he is deserving? And how is he better than Teddy Roosevelt or Catherine de Medici? Did these leaders do any of that? Did these leaders kill so many people while utilizing such methods? Did these people leave their countries in ruin? Are these people so hated and despised in their countries, and around the world? And here is another word - respect. Did Hitler make the world respect Germany? No, quite the opposite.

I love how people blame one person for something that happened that is considered horrible. I have seen plenty of documentaries watching a whole country behind Hitler and his Regime. It is pretty clear to me that Hitler could not do anything on his own just the same way that Fidel Castro or any other Dictator could not do anything by themselves. It is pretty clear that you need the power of the people and a large military to be able to accomplish what these Leaders accomplished. I think you are completely wrong to say that Israel wasn't big enough or significant enough to be allowed in this game. Israel and all of its leaders aren't worthy enough to be in the game but leaders like Catherine de Medici are? I can accept all of your reasons even if I do not agree with them. As I have said. The people who make the game and put up the money to make the game do what they want because it is what they want to do and you and I have no bearing on it. You have explained the reason about Hitler and Israel but please give us your reasons for Catherine de Medici??

The last I checked Germany seems to have done just fine after Hitler. I seen somewhere that they even have the 5th largest army in the world and it has only been 80 years since he left that country in ruble! Also I seem to remember another country or two helping out with this Hitler. It seems that Japan and Italy were helping out the Axis Team if I remember correctly. As a matter of fact it appears old Stalin was on Hitlers side before Hitler turned on Russia if I remember as well. Stalin allowed in the game... Hitler and Israel not.

Edit: The more that I read your comments the more I realize you are making decisions on an emotional level and not a historical or educated point of view, which makes the debate pointless for me.
 
Last edited:
if you exclude one people/civ for any reason there will be people wanting to exclude others is what i ment.... but... it is will be a ix between sales politics and their place in history..
 
I love how people blame one person for something that happened that is considered horrible. I have seen plenty of documentaries watching a whole country behind Hitler and his Regime. It is pretty clear to me that Hitler could not do anything on his own just the same way that Fidel Castro or any other Dictator could not do anything by themselves. It is pretty clear that you need the power of the people and a large military to be able to accomplish what these Leaders accomplished. I think you are completely wrong to say that Israel wasn't big enough or significant enough to be allowed in this game. Israel and all of its leaders aren't worthy enough to be in the game but leaders like Catherine de Medici are? I can accept all of your reasons even if I do not agree with them. As I have said. The people who make the game and put up the money to make the game do what they want because it is what they want to do and you and I have no bearing on it. You have explained the reason about Hitler and Israel but please give us your reasons for Catherine de Medici??

The last I checked Germany seems to have done just fine after Hitler. I seen somewhere that they even have the 5th largest army in the world and it has only been 80 years since he left that country in ruble! Also I seem to remember another country or two helping out with this Hitler. It seems that Japan and Italy were helping out the Axis Team if I remember correctly. As a matter of fact it appears old Stalin was on Hitlers side before Hitler turned on Russia if I remember as well. Stalin allowed in the game... Hitler and Israel not.

Edit: The more that I read your comments the more I realize you are making decisions on an emotional level and not a historical or educated point of view, which makes the debate pointless for me.

My decisions are made from a purely historical and educated point of view, which I truly cannot say about you.

First of all - Catherine de Medici. I never said I was a fan of including her as a leader in Civ VI. The only thing I said was that she was not a horrible leader like Hitler, Stalin, Mao and the other dictators were. This is it. Of course I would want another leader for France, preferably Louis XIV or Napoleon. Also, Catherine de Medici's inclusion could mean that Catherine the Great of Russia will not be in the game, because I don't think the developers would want two leaders with the same name. But this is only a speculation I have.

Secondly - Israel. I never said that I did not want Israel in the game. I only said that it was not as important as other civs from its region. This is it. I never said Israel was not important or significant at all. So if Israel is to be considered for this game, they should be added at a later stage.

Thirdly - Hitler. So what you are saying that we should blame the people for something horrible that happens, and not the leaders? I can also play this game, and say that the people would not be able to do anything without a leader to rally them. It is true the whole country was behind Hitler, but it did not come out of nowhere. And we should never forget there was also much resistance to Hitler in Germany. Hitler and his Nazis were just a bunch of bullies who used terror and propaganda to sway public opinions their way, the situation in Germany back at the time did much to help, as Germany was in a bad state. It is true that Hitler built the autobahns, created jobs, rebuilt the Wehmacht, and expanded Germany's territory, but his actions resulted in Germany being devastated and ruined. Yes, Hitler had many supporters like Tojo, and Franco, and Mussolini, and at first also Stalin, but they were all criminals just like him. You know, tell me who your friends are, and I will tell you who you are. The fact Stalin was in two Civ games has been discussed millions of times already, and I am sure Firaxis know they have made a mistake (same thing should be said about Mao, although there is a minor difference here. Remember how I said Hitler was loathed in Germany? Well, unfortunately, Mao and Stalin are still popular in China and Russia, respectively, even though Mao was not in the Chinese version of Civ, ironically). And yes, Germany did very well after Hitler. But did it have anything to do with Hitler? No.
 
Also, Catherine de Medici's inclusion could mean that Catherine the Great of Russia will not be in the game, because I don't think the developers would want two leaders with the same name. But this is only a speculation I have.
That didn't stop Pedro II and Peter the Great from appearing together in Civ VI (same name in Portuguese and Spanish), as well as Isabella and Elizabeth I in various Civilization games (same name in Spanish) and Maria I and Maria Theresa in Civ V.
 
That didn't stop Pedro II and Peter the Great from appearing together in Civ VI (same name in Portuguese and Spanish), as well as Isabella and Elizabeth I in various Civilization games (same name in Spanish) and Maria I and Maria Theresa in Civ V.
Pedro and Peter and Isabella and Elizabeth are not good examples since they have different names in English. Maria and Maria Theresa, however, could actually give some hope, though. Forgot about these two.
 
I don't think it would cause any controversy as long as we're talking about ancient Israel and king David/Solomon. I'm pretty certain that in Islam both David and Solomon were kings who ruled in Jerusalem and muslims also consider them prophets of Allah.
And I know others have already said it but there is plenty of evidence of Israel existence. Israel was occupied by Rome and even installed puppet king to rule it much like Rome did to Egypt.
There is plenty of evidence for king David and Solomon's existence, more than Gilgamesh who the civilopedia even expresses doubts of his existence.
 
me curious,
why Civ never created a leader for Jews/Israelites ?
This nation survived for at least last 5000 years

Source missing. (To wit: they weren't even 'a nation' in ancient times, except very briefly.)

Israel (both ancient and modern) has been modded plenty of times, and I'm sure Civ 6 will be no exception.

By the way, 'nations' don't found religions, religiously inspired people do. And religiously inspired Jewish people even wrote a book on it. (Which, oddly, religion founders rarely do.)
 
And that's exactly why they won't do it. So far all civs included have proven to be existent in history. The united kingdom of Juda and Israel is not. This is a very touchy subject for some, and that's why they won't add it as that. When I read your OP I first thought you think of Israel, and not the untied kingdom. Israel/Samaria or Juda alone seems not to have been too important and that might be another reason not to include it. So even if they add Israel, David or Solomo seem out of the box choices, we had/have mythic leaders before, but not entire civs that are unsure to have ever existed in that way. It's like adding the Atlantis Plato talks of (exaggerating a bit here) or the kingdom of the three Indias. This may sound harsh, I have nothing against religious people and what they believe in, and I don't want to make an affront to anyone. But I see a line here for me personally that should not be crossed. And really, speaking of our knowledge, it is really a big mess. You'll find so much stuff that takes everything from the holy books and so much stuff that denies everything from the holy books. It's hard to see through this mess of books and articles.

Israel as a nation under King Solomon and King David is a historical reality. Try as some people might, archeology has never disproven anything in the Bible. Never will disprove it, either. :)
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top Bottom