Never-Before-Seen Civilizations
- Thread starter The Kingmaker
- Start date
The Kingmaker
Alexander
- Joined
- Jan 18, 2004
- Messages
- 1,970
Many scholars today consider David and Solomon to be the earliest biblical figures whose existence can be substantiated. While there is a paucity of material evidence for the period, there are a few key items that deserve to be mentioned:
David is supposed to have lived around 1000 BC, with Solomon reigning a generation later.
An Aramean stele and the Moabite Stone, both dated to around 850 BC, mention "the House of David." This tells us that the Arameans and the Moabites considered the progenitor of Israel's royal house to be an individual named "David."
An inscription by Pharaoh Sheshonq dated to c. 950 BC may mention "the highlands of David." This would be just 50 years after David is supposed to have lived.
Excavations in Jerusalem have been underway for a few years on what may prove to be a 10th century royal structure.
As for legendary leaders... Firaxis has not hesitated to include Gilgamesh or Hiawatha, and there is considerably more evidence for both David and Solomon than for either of those two.
David is supposed to have lived around 1000 BC, with Solomon reigning a generation later.
An Aramean stele and the Moabite Stone, both dated to around 850 BC, mention "the House of David." This tells us that the Arameans and the Moabites considered the progenitor of Israel's royal house to be an individual named "David."
An inscription by Pharaoh Sheshonq dated to c. 950 BC may mention "the highlands of David." This would be just 50 years after David is supposed to have lived.
Excavations in Jerusalem have been underway for a few years on what may prove to be a 10th century royal structure.
As for legendary leaders... Firaxis has not hesitated to include Gilgamesh or Hiawatha, and there is considerably more evidence for both David and Solomon than for either of those two.
European union would be call but unrealistic
UA: can take citys with culture half as much culture for city states.
UU peace keeper, if the war was declared by not you but your enemy this special unit gains 50% combat when on defence.
UU: european missionary, goes to any civ and like a great artist enters a city with there ub, upon doing so you may build one of that building in your empire
UA: can take citys with culture half as much culture for city states.
UU peace keeper, if the war was declared by not you but your enemy this special unit gains 50% combat when on defence.
UU: european missionary, goes to any civ and like a great artist enters a city with there ub, upon doing so you may build one of that building in your empire
Save_Ferris
Admiring Myself
The EU is made up of several countries, many of which have disagreements with eachother.
JP1
Warlord
The Moors are the best option on the list, IMHO. They had significant impact in their time and represent a section of the world that the Civ franchise is always a little uncomfortable with, constantly experimenting and cycling civilizations in and out.
And as has already been mentioned, The Alhambra would make an awesome wonder of the world. Probably some kind of defensive wonder like Civ4 Chichen Itza.
And as has already been mentioned, The Alhambra would make an awesome wonder of the world. Probably some kind of defensive wonder like Civ4 Chichen Itza.
Gallean88
Squid Gynaecologist
The impact the Hebrews had on the world is extremely significant and quite frankly the fact that they have yet to ever be included over ridiculous tripe like polynesia (although very fun to play) is pretty ridiculous IMO. In terms of actual historical weight, the Hebrews have far more than a great many civs, and are practically the only ancient empire to have in a sense resurrected itself in the form of modern Israel. You don't see babylon or assyria around anymore.
i think phoenicians are the most worthy of their own civ. without them we wouldn't even have this alphabet to be typing in.
on the hebrew leader part i think it should be david and yes it would be unfair to have had gilgamesh (fictional) as a leader but not david or solomon (factual)
on the hebrew leader part i think it should be david and yes it would be unfair to have had gilgamesh (fictional) as a leader but not david or solomon (factual)
awesome
Meme Lord
the issue i have with the moors is that there's already spain and songai pretty close to them and there's a pretty high possibility of carthage and maybe even portugal. i guess there's enough room for all of them on a huge map and i'd probably like to see them before portugal, but it's not likely and i'd prefer something from a different part of africa, like kongo.
the kazakhs would also be interesting, especially since the only turks are usually the ottomans and they're another turkish group that was kind of a big deal.
the kazakhs would also be interesting, especially since the only turks are usually the ottomans and they're another turkish group that was kind of a big deal.
The Kingmaker
Alexander
- Joined
- Jan 18, 2004
- Messages
- 1,970
You think the Congolese are more likely than the Moors?
There's a big gaping hole in north Africa where the Moorish empire belongs, and let's not forget that in their heyday the Moors dominated both Spain and Mali/Songhai at the same time.
awesome
Meme Lord
that's what i said. "i'd prefer" them, not they're "more likely". and i know where the moors were. i also said i'd prefer the moors before portugal, which everybody knows isn't very likely to happen.
awesome
Meme Lord
the moors aren't very well known for having a civilization, either. i'm pretty sure the first time i ever even heard of them was in a martin lawrence movie.
in a history class today you eventually end up learning about the moors, they are a very important part of spanish history and it was their final expulsion by ferdinand and isabela that allowed spain to begin exploring and creating their colonial empire
Yeah, but you have a stereotype in mind, right? (not saying that this is good or bad, just that there is one)
And that's something you can build on. I think more people can imagine something when they hear "Moor" than when hearing Indonesians or Vietnamese. You have rather an imagination in which direction the leader, the units, the unique power etc. could go. And that's important for the design decission.
Edit: This first part was directed at awesome.
With a look on the poll, i think it's more possible that some of the even more outsider civs will be choosen, like the aboriginies and the Inuit. Reason? Same like for the Polynesians. Unique "image", you can easily do something unique about gameplay, they really fill a continous gap on Civs earthmap, and there's a lot room for discussion.
From the poll itself, i'd say Nubians and Minoans. The first for the stereotype, the second for some...errr....legendary input (not saying that this is good or bad, again). You can both use somehow for a scenario (probably not that accurate), and they have some points from the civs above.
And that's something you can build on. I think more people can imagine something when they hear "Moor" than when hearing Indonesians or Vietnamese. You have rather an imagination in which direction the leader, the units, the unique power etc. could go. And that's important for the design decission.
Edit: This first part was directed at awesome.
With a look on the poll, i think it's more possible that some of the even more outsider civs will be choosen, like the aboriginies and the Inuit. Reason? Same like for the Polynesians. Unique "image", you can easily do something unique about gameplay, they really fill a continous gap on Civs earthmap, and there's a lot room for discussion.
From the poll itself, i'd say Nubians and Minoans. The first for the stereotype, the second for some...errr....legendary input (not saying that this is good or bad, again). You can both use somehow for a scenario (probably not that accurate), and they have some points from the civs above.
awesome
Meme Lord
maybe you guys are misunderstanding me. i don't know. i never said that i don't know who the moors were. so let me explain what i'm talking about.
when i was 15 years old back in 2001, a movie called "black knight" came out, starring martin lawrence. i'm not sure when i first saw the movie, but whenever it was, this was the first time i heard the word "moor". there was one character who kept calling martin that and at one point, he said, "i'm starting to like this word 'moor' less and less." on the other hand, i'm pretty sure i'd heard of the country of congo, maybe under the name of zaire, before that.
in the several years since then i've learned about the moors and lots of other african cultures. before i had heard of the word "moor", the most i knew about them was that they were muslims and they got kicked out of spain, if i even knew that. i mean, i was 15.
also, as far as the "you eventually learn about the moors" is concerned, i learned about the kingdom of kush in a history class when i was 12 or 13, even before i learned about the moors.
when i was 15 years old back in 2001, a movie called "black knight" came out, starring martin lawrence. i'm not sure when i first saw the movie, but whenever it was, this was the first time i heard the word "moor". there was one character who kept calling martin that and at one point, he said, "i'm starting to like this word 'moor' less and less." on the other hand, i'm pretty sure i'd heard of the country of congo, maybe under the name of zaire, before that.
in the several years since then i've learned about the moors and lots of other african cultures. before i had heard of the word "moor", the most i knew about them was that they were muslims and they got kicked out of spain, if i even knew that. i mean, i was 15.
also, as far as the "you eventually learn about the moors" is concerned, i learned about the kingdom of kush in a history class when i was 12 or 13, even before i learned about the moors.
you know about congo because they are a modern country, that doesn't make them a civilization. in fact, before colonization that region was filled with tribal people. the belgians came in and took the congo basin and when they left that territory became the modern nation of congo (or zaire).
awesome
Meme Lord
the kingdom of kongo existed for almost a century before contact with europeans and still existed for more than another 4 centuries after it, before being completely colonized. not even the aztecs can say that. but yeah, i already said that i first heard about them because they're a modern country. repeating what i said isn't refuting it.
awesome
Meme Lord
you can read about them here, here, here and here.
but some basics:
-was established when the founder conquered another kingdom
-centralized and densely populated, for the time and region
-fought off the portuguese
-had a dedicated, well-disciplined army
-interesting art.
i'm not saying you guys have to agree with me, either. i'm just saying, "hey, this is what i think and here's why"
but some basics:
-was established when the founder conquered another kingdom
-centralized and densely populated, for the time and region
-fought off the portuguese
-had a dedicated, well-disciplined army
-interesting art.
i'm not saying you guys have to agree with me, either. i'm just saying, "hey, this is what i think and here's why"
Similar threads
