Israel In BNW?

[cybrxkhan]

If we wanted a Judaism-following civ, the Khazars would be a simple alternative. Avoids all the debate we'd have here with Israel, introduces a Silk Road civ, and a fascinating one in its own right (much of it because, but not only because, of the fact that its rulers converted to Judaism).

 

[bixbeiderbaby]

If you frame the question to ignore their influence on major world religion, they aren't that much different than other smaller cultures in the ancient world at that time. I just think it is crass to frame the question like this. It makes it seem that you think religion does not matter in terms for the development of culture and civilizations.

Regarding the logic I'm using, I am just saying that parts of Judaism are literally incorporated in the teachings of Christianity and Islam. The Old Testament in the Bible is essentially just the Torah, no? And all three religions treat Abraham as a patriarch, they have the same prophets (up until the time of Jesus, at least).

I'm not saying that just because some 'random culture' influenced another random (albeit more important) culture it should be included in Civ. I'm saying that Hebrew civilization is not just some 'random culture.'

 

[bixbeiderbaby]

Modern Israel is hardly "another example" of it "re-emerging".

Ha, then what is it an example of?

And don't bring the Canaanites into this answer

 

[Menzies]

If you frame the question to ignore their influence on major world religion, they aren't that much different than other smaller cultures in the ancient world at that time. I just think it is crass to frame the question like this. It makes it seem that you think religion does not matter in terms for the development of culture and civilizations.

Regarding the logic I'm using, I am just saying that parts of Judaism are literally incorporated in the teachings of Christianity and Islam. The Old Testament in the Bible is essentially just the Torah, no? And all three religions treat Abraham as a patriarch, they have the same prophets (up until the time of Jesus, at least).

I'm not saying that just because some 'random culture' influenced another random (albeit more important) culture it should be included in Civ. I'm saying that Hebrew civilization is not just some 'random culture.'

Religion does matter, but religion is separate in this instance, especially when framing the question in a way that includes the influences they had on Christianity and Islam would have the logical follow on of asking the question of the Canaanite and Babylonian religions and cultures that early Judaism came from. Talking about it merely on the basis of this effect really does show the reason why it shouldn't be considered. It is much simpler to represent them as the city state Jerusalem and the religion Judaism in the game.

Parts of other cultures are literally within Judaism as well, just because something is based on another doesn't mean you should credit them with eachother. Jesus is widely referenced within Islam, but it would be ridiculous to say that it was Christianity that spawned Islam.

If we wanted a Judaism-following civ, the Khazars would be a simple alternative. Avoids all the debate we'd have here with Israel, introduces a Silk Road civ, and a fascinating one in its own right (much of it because, but not only because, of the fact that its rulers converted to Judaism).

That is a whole other kettle of controversy though...

 

[Menzies]

Ha, then what is it an example of?

And don't bring the Canaanites into this answer

Here's another way of asking what I asked:

How exactly did modern Israel "re-emerge"?

 

[bixbeiderbaby]

How exactly did modern Israel "re-emerge"?

What, is this a cross-examination? I don't get to ask questions?

I don't want to get into the semantics of my hastily-typed usage of the word "re-emerge," but here is my short version for a long, nuanced, and complicated answer. It will be composed solely of nouns.

Usury, liturgical Hebrew, International Finance, British mandate, pogroms, Rothschild, Balfour Declaration, Zionism, 1948, Ben-Gurion.

 

[bixbeiderbaby]

Usury, liturgical Hebrew, International Finance, British mandate, pogroms, Rothschild, Balfour Declaration, Zionism, 1948, Ben-Gurion.

Now I'm the one who is being crass.

 

[VossPL]

No, there were lots that resisted. They were one that were brutally crushed at one point, but no, they weren't even that notable for that.

For example?

Didn't change it's identity? The nation didn't exist for a long time, and it's identity has changed in that time. The language has changed, the cultures have evolved and modern Israel is quite different to ancient Israel.

The language survived, customs survived, tradition survived- what apart from Hammurabi's Code do we have left from Babylonia?

And what, for example, Polynesia did to "deserve" being in game?

If we wanted a Judaism-following civ, the Khazars would be a simple alternative. Avoids all the debate we'd have here with Israel, introduces a Silk Road civ, and a fascinating one in its own right (much of it because, but not only because, of the fact that its rulers converted to Judaism).

While the Khazars idea is an interesting one, I don't get the "debate" about Israel. Jewish civilization shouldn't be in because of wrong-doing of their current state? So maybe we should exclude China because of Tibet, the US for Guantanamo, Russia for Chechnya, Japan for their bit of the Second World War, not even mentioning Germany.

 

[EYGuy]

I think the Israelites lead by Judah Maccabeus would be best suited as a Civ. The influence of the Ancient Israelites is quite impressive. But it's hard to put a "face" to the civ. Who will lead the civ? Is the figure historical or not? Did the figure lead some form of sovereign state or people? Will X, Y, or Z attribute of the civ alienate part of our customer base? (For example, a "West Bank Settlement" unique improvement or "Clandestine Nuclear Weapons Facility" UB would probably leave a bad taste in people's mouths, to give absurd examples.)

This is why I think Judah Maccabeus leading the "Kingdom of Israel" (or Judah) with ancient era UU and UB is ideal. The kingdoms of Israel/Judah were important political entities in the levant from 9th century BC to 7th century BC (roughly). Judah Maccabeus lead a successful revolt against the Seleucid Empire (a revolt now commemorated by Hanukkah, an important Jewish holiday). Perhaps a Synogogue (distinctly Jewish) for the UB?

In any case, any "Israel" civ in the game would probably be best served as an amalgamation. You have a 9th century BC kingdom lead by a 1st century BC warlord with a 1st century AD unique building and a who-knows-what UU. In this way, they would be similar to the Celts.

As for the UU, I don't know much about the Ancient Israelite military. For a military unit, Modern Israel would probably lend itself more easily than any other "incarnation" of Israel, but I think that might ruin the flavor the civ. Besides, modern Israel and ancient Israel are worlds apart. As for a unique ability...hell if I know.

 

[Tomatekh]

The language survived, customs survived, tradition survived

Israel didn't reemerge. Modern Isreal is a reconstructed identity but its not a continuous identity from ancient times and especially not from the ancient kingdom. Customs and traditions survived? The differences between Ashkenazi, Sephardic, and Mizrahi Jews are staggering in terms of customs and traditions. That's not even counting various Orthodox sects, Beta Israel, and elements such as Kabbalah which emerged in medieval Iberia. Language? Modern Hebrew is not Biblical Hebrew. The Hebrew we know today is entirely dependent on its adoption of Arabic elements and grammar, again in the Middle Ages, not to mention Yiddish and Ladino. Even the religion itself. Rabbinic Judaism is completely different than Temple Judaism.

 

[Securion]

While the Khazars idea is an interesting one, I don't get the "debate" about Israel. Jewish civilization shouldn't be in because of wrong-doing of their current state? So maybe we should exclude China because of Tibet, the US for Guantanamo, Russia for Chechnya, Japan for their bit of the Second World War, not even mentioning Germany.

Its weird, isnt it? The same people that think Israel should not be in are clapping their hands and having orgasms when someone mentions the muslim Mughal Empire. Which, as we all know, committed the largest genocide in human history with up to 120 million hindu people killed.
"Arabia" is also OK even though they stood for more than 90% of all the slave-trade in the world and actually have never existed as a state in the first place. (unless they talk about Arabs, as a people? Or Saudi Arabia?)
And why not talk about the Ottoman Empire? 1 million armenians, 750 000 Assyrians, 350 000 Anatolian Greeks and god knows how many kurds, all wiped out, slaughtered in massive genocides by the ottoman turks.
But hey, who cares right? Lets focus on ISRAEL!

Israel deserves to be in the game. The wrongdoings that country (in its modern state) have done pales in comparison to what have been going on in other cultures. (And still goes on...)

People should google the word "hypocrisy" more often.

 

[cybrxkhan]

Israel didn't reemerge. Modern Isreal is a reconstructed identity but its not a continuous identity from ancient times. Customs and traditions survived? The differences between Ashkenazi, Sephardic, and Mizrahi Jews are staggering in terms of customs and traditions. That's not even counting various Orthodox sects and elements such as Kabbalah which emerged in medieval Iberia. Language? Modern Hebrew is not Biblical Hebrew. The Hebrew we know today is entirely dependent on its adoption of Arabic elements and grammar, again in the Middle Ages, not to mention Yiddish and Ladino. Even the religion itself. Rabbinic Judaism is completely different than Temple Judaism.

Very succinct, and well said - much better than I could have done.

The Jews have diversified in such a way that is impressive and amazing indeed (I am particularly fond of Sephardic culture, as a random side note), but in the 2000 or so years in between the fall of ancient Israel and the rise of the modern Israeli state, each different Jewish group adopted and changed based on the local situation. That's not to mention all the religious innovations. Much of Rabbinic Judaism evolved during late antiquity - the Talmud itself wasn't written down until the 4th century or so (don't remember exactly). As Tomatekh said, these differences are too much to count really as a clear-cut, continuous identity. Is there some continuity? Of course. But not as much as some think - nowhere near as much as some think. There's as much continuity as there is between Mycenaean Greece and modern-day Greece.

 

[El Conquistador]

I would love to see Israel included, but I doubt it will ever happen due to the controversy its inclusion would generate.

 

[Morningcalm]

People keep talking about the controversy, but let's be clear--what exactly is controversial about including ancient Israel? Is there a perception that modern-day Palestinians find that offensive, and that modern-day Palestinians would boycott the game (assuming there is even an audience for the Civ games in Palestine)?

 

[Gucumatz]

While many aspects of Ancient Israel and Modern Israel are different, certainly degrees of culture and ideas remain and evolved. We have other civilizations who you could argue "re-emerged" over time, like the Safavids who are included under the Persian's as an agglomerate civilization from multiple periods of "Persian" history. Likewise for Arabia, India, China, the Maya, Germany, etc.

All previous evidence from the civilization franchise shows this not hurt the chances of Israel in the slightest, rather enhances it and its ability to connect with the player/user.

 

[cybrxkhan]

While many aspects of Ancient Israel and Modern Israel are different, certainly degrees of culture and ideas remain and evolved. We have other civilizations who you could argue "re-emerged" over time, like the Safavids who are included under the Persian's as an agglomerate civilization from multiple periods of "Persian" history. Likewise for Arabia, India, China, the Maya, Germany, etc.

I'd disagree that the Safavids are represented directly by the Persians in-game. If you look carefully, all the Persian cities are from the Achaemenid era - there are no cities unique from the Sassanid era; the UA and UU are clearly from the Achaemenid era, and the UB is from the ancient era (the Satrapy system was used by several dynasties ruling over Persia, including the Achaemenids and Seleucids).

But anyhow that's just a minor nitpick.

 

[Tomatekh]

People keep talking about the controversy, but let's be clear--what exactly is controversial about including ancient Israel? Is there a perception that modern-day Palestinians find that offensive, and that modern-day Palestinians would boycott the game (assuming there is even an audience for the Civ games in Palestine)?

These are the people that decided not to give the Great Prophet unit names just to avoid controversy. Plus, look how they opted to cut the Pueblo because it was offensive to portray one of their spiritual leaders (is there even a big Pueblo Civ audience or are they afraid of a Pueblo boycott?). I think it's safe to assume Firaxis will avoid anything that can be considered the least bit controversial when it comes to religion.

 

[Cromat]

First of all I think the best argument for including Israel is that it would be an interesting Civ to play as. It presents a lot of interesting gameplay possibilities.

The controversy is a non-issue, Firaxis is not the UN and including a Civ is not a moral judgment of its character. The Mongols raped, the Aztecs sacrificed children and so forth. But they are included because they are notable civilizations and they are fun to play as. So why not Israel? I don't see many that would actually boycott the expansion because of their inclusion, if anything any 'controversy' would only raise interest and awareness of the expansion. So that's the most important reason. Seriously they are now at a point when finding totally unique Civilizations is getting hard, and Israel is just sitting there waiting to get chosen.

Israel didn't reemerge. Modern Isreal is a reconstructed identity but its not a continuous identity from ancient times and especially not from the ancient kingdom. Customs and traditions survived? The differences between Ashkenazi, Sephardic, and Mizrahi Jews are staggering in terms of customs and traditions. That's not even counting various Orthodox sects, Beta Israel, and elements such as Kabbalah which emerged in medieval Iberia. Language? Modern Hebrew is not Biblical Hebrew. The Hebrew we know today is entirely dependent on its adoption of Arabic elements and grammar, again in the Middle Ages, not to mention Yiddish and Ladino. Even the religion itself. Rabbinic Judaism is completely different than Temple Judaism.

For the last 2,500 years or so there has been a group which identified as Jewish. This is a fact. Are Jewish people today exactly like those that lived 2,500 years ago? No, but that's a ridiculous requirement.

Is Constantine's Rome the same as Caesar's? It was different in language, customs, economy, borders and culture but it is still Rome. Is Obama's America the same as Washington's? The country which had a significant part of its economy based on African slaves now has a president which is of African descent. Is today's Chinese the same as the people who lived there 2,500 years ago? Of course not, but they're still Chinese and that is still part of their heritage.

People lived as Jews and very often died as Jews for 2,500 years, so how exactly is not a continuous identity? This implies a point in history when there were no Jews at all, which never happened (not for lack of trying). Also, as a modern Hebrew speaker I can open the Bible and understand it quite fine. Of course it's archaic but so is Shakespeare, doesn't mean English speakers can't understand it. Hell, I can even understand most of Dido's Phoenician, which is quite cool .

 

[Gucumatz]

I'd disagree that the Safavids are represented directly by the Persians in-game. If you look carefully, all the Persian cities are from the Achaemenid era - there are no cities unique from the Sassanid era; the UA and UU are clearly from the Achaemenid era, and the UB is from the ancient era (the Satrapy system was used by several dynasties ruling over Persia, including the Achaemenids and Seleucids).

But anyhow that's just a minor nitpick.

While true, the steam achievement for the Persians regarding golden ages shows that Firaxis meant to include the Safavids under Persia as well

 

[Louis XXIV]

Israel didn't reemerge. Modern Isreal is a reconstructed identity but its not a continuous identity from ancient times and especially not from the ancient kingdom. Customs and traditions survived? The differences between Ashkenazi, Sephardic, and Mizrahi Jews are staggering in terms of customs and traditions. That's not even counting various Orthodox sects, Beta Israel, and elements such as Kabbalah which emerged in medieval Iberia. Language? Modern Hebrew is not Biblical Hebrew. The Hebrew we know today is entirely dependent on its adoption of Arabic elements and grammar, again in the Middle Ages, not to mention Yiddish and Ladino. Even the religion itself. Rabbinic Judaism is completely different than Temple Judaism.

Is it fair to say that the modern Jewish state would not exist were it not for the preservation of some identity with the ancient kingdoms? Why is there no Sumerian state today, for example? Or Chaldean or Thracian or Phoenician (which, to me is the big one)?