That's right. What I think is that we cannot link 'civs' as shown in the game to real-world historical states/empires. As I said, these in-game 'entities' are rather linked to what I'd call culture. Let's take Poland for example, with a leader from XIV century and a very modern UA. What creates a link between those two features is not a contuity of some sort of terrirotial statehood. There even was a period of some 120 years in which Poland didn't really exist as a state. So what really constitutes Poland (and all other civs in the game for that matter)? For me, that is a continuity of culture and identity.
Ok, now if we look at Jewish identity and culture, we'd have to admit, that it never ceased to exist, evolve and exert influence on the world. Sure, its heritage is very diverse, it's linked to the history of many other cultures (incl. Polish) and it's difficult to think of modern Israel and ancient Hebrew state as the 'same thing'. But think about ancient Greece and today's Greece. Or Vikings and modern Denmark. By all means, these are not 'the same thing' either.
I think it's a stretch to say that there's more continuity in Jewish culture from ancient times to now in contrast to other cultures. Firstly, Jewish religion and culture has changed
considerably even within the last few centuries - the Jews didn't even speak Hebrew as we know it until it was revived as a language a couple of centuries ago, for instance; contrast that with your example of Greece, where Greek has evolved continuously since it broke off Proto-Indo-European. Additionally, the Talmud as we know it wasn't even written down until a few centuries after the beginning of the diaspora - and even by then there were considerable differences among different Jewish groups; essentially, the religion of the Israelites is not the same as the religion fo the Jews today. While I suppose you can say there's some continuity there, the fact that the Jews scattered all over the globe and partially or almost fully assimilated into various cultures, leads me to believe that there isn't as much continuity as places such as Greece.
What I mean is I think it doesn't make sense to consider the Jews in between the ancient state and the modern state as really the same group. Would we consider a Jewish scholar in medieval Iberia to be part of Moorish or Castillan society and culture, for instance, or of a separate Jewish society? The former, I'd wager. Would we consider a Jewish rabbi in medieval Poland to be a Polish Jew, or just a Jew? He'd be the former - a Jew who's part of Poland.
Civs in game
are linked to existing states and empires. Your case with Poland I think doesn't really work because Poland as a clearly defined political entity was still around for 120 years, enough that the children and grandchilren of the last independent rulers of Poland were still around when it gained independence again, and enough that the Poles were still in their own homeland and still had a clear distinct identity - contrast this with Israel, which did not exist at all as an independent political entity for almost 2000 years, and whose people dispersed all across the globe and picked up cultural elements from all over. While you may disagree, I think the amazing dispersal of Jews all over the world simply makes them parts of their new homes' cultures, or rather a sub-culture of their new culture, not the old Israelite one.
Additionally, Greece as represented in-game is only the ancient Greece, not the medieval one (which is represented by Byzantium), or the modern one (which isn't really represented). Or, take Rome - you don't see a medieval or modern Italian civilization (as some have suggested). Even many non-European civs get this treatment, too - Persia represents only Achaemenid Persia, not Sassanid Persia, any of the medieval Turco-Persian states, or modern Iran; the Ottomans represent a small subset of the many Turks, not all Turks; the Aztecs don't represent Mexico, as they do in a few other games (like Rise or Nations or Empire Earth II). The only exceptions are few - China (though the
state of China as a concept and its existence is more or less as old as at least the Qin Dynasty (i.e. 2200 years), if not further back into the Zhou or Shang dynasties and maybe even the Xia - even conquerors of China had to adhere to this concept of the Middle Kingdom, which not only survived for more than two millennia, but was actively promoted and enforced (in contrast to Israel, which as a concept survived, but was not enforced until very recently)); India (which is a frankensteinian agglamation of various cultures and historical states); Ethiopia (dunno why); and that's all I can think of.
All that said, I don't think the inclusion of Israel's a bad idea - I just think they'd have to focus on either the ancient kingdom or the modern state, the former being more preferable in my opinion. Though frankly I don't think they'd make it into BNW. As I said before, if they were going to be in, it would have been with Gods and Kings.
As for a choice in Solomon? The Bible is a Jewish source. It's certainly not a secular source, but many histories were religious sources. In another thread, people are suggesting the Trung Sisters for Vietnam, but they also only appear in folk stories.
While I do agree the Trung Sisters don't have the most reliable of historical evidence to back up many of their deeds, they
were mentioned in Chinese sources - though the Chinese just considered them another bunch of upstart tribal nonsense from the southern regions and didn't care much. While I understand your analogy, I think it's al ittle off since Vietnam - and much of ancient far Asia - only have China to go off as a source for historical information, while Israel was surrounded by a whole myriad of record-keeping cultures, including Egypt, Assyria, Babylon, the Hittites, Elam, Minoa and Mycenae, even other city-states and petty kingdoms in the Levant. But anyhow as you say I don't consider it too relevant - either David or Solomon would be good as a leader for an Israel civ in my opinion.
