Why Civ always avoided Israelites?

[Martinus]

I think it is unfortunate that we do not have Israel, especially its ancient incarnation. Hebrew culture and religion has had an immense influence on the history of the world, and the arguments used in this thread (other than political cowardice/caution on behalf of Firaxis) can be used against countless other civs that are present in Civ6 or were present in earlier Civ incarnations (this goes for most/all Sub-Saharan African civs, most Native American civs, and some European civs, such as Celts).

The fear of losing few antisemitic players shouldn't stop Firaxis, imho.

 

[Martinus]

Civ would have problems with Israel from a number of different angles as far as I can see.

Chiefly, Israel is somewhat of a political nightmare of a topic and immediately subjects you to bad press. How do you represent them? Are they religious, are they militaristic? No matter how you do it, you're going to anger someone and that gets you bad press which is easily avoided.

All you need is an AI Arabia or AI US attacking them due to simple AI mechanics, and now you've got a video showing how Friaxis are against Israel. If I was leading the design team, I'd tell them to leave it out and work around it rather than deal with politically hot headed Youtubers putting your game out of context and kicking you over it.

Civ, or rather the Civilopedia, is a wonderful resource which breaks the history of wonders, improvements, units and civilisations down into a remarkably well represented version of history. With Israel, you have the same problem as above. Were they a Civilisation for 5,000 years, or were they formed in 1948? Do you lament over how that piece of land has been fought over and conquered so many times that trying to claim that there has been a coherently stable civilisation there the whole time is a bit of a stretch, or do you distort history for something that's more politically (and therefore commercially) safer to represent, but perhaps not entirely true.

So you're either risking your integrity or your reputation. Either way you're risking bad press, there's no win scenario for that one as far as I can see.

(Moreover, I trust we can all imagine the outcry as screen captures of Tel Aviv being the founder of X,Y, Z religion make their way out of context around the globe. "What is this game that denies Israels identity?")

The impact on history is undeniable, but it's box, best left closed from a commercial perspective I would hazard a guess.

I don't think any of this is more controversial than, say, having fascist Judaistic Germany nuking Mecca, which is a plausible Civ scenario....

 

[Xyriach]

I would tend to agree. By design it's widely open to a variety of scenarios. However, from a commercial angle, this particular one is just twitterverse cannon fodder.

People in the information era it seems like to get upset about things. :S

 

[vit_sin]

I think it is unfortunate that we do not have Israel, especially its ancient incarnation

This is what exactly I was talking about - Ancient Israelites, not today's Israel!
But members of the thread jumped into politics and how hard and how bad and how tons of other bla-bla-bla arguments,
completely forgetting (or I think mostly not even knowing) how much influence this old nation had on the entire world.
Christians, are you all in all sudden forgot who was Jesus Christ and 12 Apostles? etc,etc,etc.

And to compare Vatican and Jerusalem as the same level of City-State? Really? Its not even funny.

The purpose of my post was not to make a Hate or Love to any of great nations,
but to try to show history as today's science does, with all great archaeological evidence humanity have today.
Hope, I did not make angry anyone ))

 

[MistyRonin]

I think it is unfortunate that we do not have Israel, especially its ancient incarnation. Hebrew culture and religion has had an immense influence on the history of the world, and the arguments used in this thread (other than political cowardice/caution on behalf of Firaxis) can be used against countless other civs that are present in Civ6 or were present in earlier Civ incarnations (this goes for most/all Sub-Saharan African civs, most Native American civs, and some European civs, such as Celts).

The fear of losing few antisemitic players shouldn't stop Firaxis, imho.

As I said before, I think it's more due to the fact of their actual historical impact and extension than anything else.

Judea / Israel has never been a big empire, unlike the civs represented in the series. Heck many nations / countries with bigger territorial expansion and impact haven't made it, so IMHO it would be unfair if Israel does.

Are we also gonna include all the small countries of the World then?

And to compare Vatican and Jerusalem as the same level of City-State? Really? Its not even funny.

Well check the extension of the Papal States... (and you can read of its influence in history, have you ever heard of Cesare Borgia, even if its in the Assassin's Creed?).

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Papal_States

 

[CaiusDrewart]

It's true that the ancient Israelites probably never formed a great empire (despite their claims to the contrary), but neither did Venice, nor the Shoshone, nor the Scythians. And the impact of Israel on the rest of the world is tremendous. With the new religious victory it seems to me like a no-brainer to put them in. I don't see why this should be at all controversial if it was made clear that this Civ is representing the ancient civilization, not the modern state of Israel.

Plus, to mollify critics, Firaxis could package a Palestinian civ along with the Israeli civ in a DLC! They could call it the Two-Civ Solution. I'd pay $3.99 for that!

 

[Manifold]

a suggestion for the Civilization Ability
Six-Day War - your modern units get strength +10% for every Civ you are at war with

 

[MistyRonin]

It's true that the ancient Israelites probably never formed a great empire (despite their claims to the contrary), but neither did Venice, nor the Shoshone, nor the Scythians.

I must confess my limited knowledge in native American nations, but the Venetian Empire was quite broad, same as the Scythian conquests.

Venetian Empire:


Scythian Empire:

 

[jsciv69]

I for one sure would not mind an Israel Civ. I would suggest Rabin("enough blood and tears) as leader. The 3rd expansion of both Civ IV and V had an emphasis on the modern era. So given that Civ VI would follow suit, I would like to see more post-Industrial Civs including Israel. The modern age is our age and it males sense to feature cultures that reflect our times.

 

[CaiusDrewart]

I must confess my limited knowledge in native American nations, but the Venetian Empire was quite broad, same as the Scythian conquests.

Venetian Empire:


Scythian Empire:

Hmm, well, I guess it just depends on what your standards for "great empire" are--a bunch of islands in the Eastern Mediterranean, plus a few mainland territories where Venice harvested some wood, does not qualify for me. There's no doubt that Venice was a huge commercial power though, so I don't object to their inclusion even though they controlled very little territory (just like how Israel was such a huge religious influence that I think they should be included on that basis).

As for Scythia, yes, a broad range, but they were never a united empire, or anything close to it. No cities, no sophisticated administration.

 

[MooFreaky]

Hmm, well, I guess it just depends on what your standards for "great empire" are--a bunch of islands in the Eastern Mediterranean, plus a few mainland territories where Venice harvested some wood, does not qualify for me. There's no doubt that Venice was a huge commercial power though, so I don't object to their inclusion even though they controlled very little territory (just like how Israel was such a huge religious influence that I think they should be included on that basis).

As for Scythia, yes, a broad range, but they were never a united empire, or anything close to it. No cities, no sophisticated administration.

Sorry, but your views on Scythia seem to be based on a very basic knowledge. The old Graeco-Roman "They are just uneducated barbarians" style.

Scythia went through numerous periods of loose confederation, but there are numerous times they were united and formed a coalesced kingdom. It may be not as tight as our modern nations, but no Civilizations were back then. Many "big named Civilizations" were loose coalitions. I mean look at most of Persian history. Or the Greeks (you have what less than 2 decades under Alexander, and then it's not until modern times they united). The Mongols were a loose conglomeration other than under a handful of leaders. The Chinese had similar themes throughout much of their history. All of German history prior to the modern era.

Scythia also were far more settled than you give credit for. As a Scythian state they were around from 800BC until 200AD (Scythian people were there before that, just under the rule of others), and had large settled populations by 400BC. So almost a millennia. They may not have had cities ala Rome, but few were. As to administration, what do you require to be worthy? They had extensive external and internal trade, moved resources across their territory to where it was needed, has a developed tax-like system (largely goods, services and people. Different groups were required to supply different things). Clear evidence of laws, such as clear dynastic inheritance lines. Minting of coins, which requires both a large degree of unity, a reasonable degree of law and administration.

 

[Thormodr]

Sadly, like not including Tibet, Firaxis knows that including Israel would anger a lot of people and even if a tiny fraction of these people would do the unthinkable, they don't want to take that chance. China is at least sensible in that they would just ban the game in China or heavily censor it. Not that I agree with that position, of course, but it is preferable to having your offices fire bombed.

Israel would be an excellent addition to Civ VI. King Solomon would be an excellent leader. Have the courage to make it so, Firaxis.

 

[CaiusDrewart]

Sorry, but your views on Scythia seem to be based on a very basic knowledge. The old Graeco-Roman "They are just uneducated barbarians" style.

Scythia went through numerous periods of loose confederation, but there are numerous times they were united and formed a coalesced kingdom. It may be not as tight as our modern nations, but no Civilizations were back then. Many "big named Civilizations" were loose coalitions. I mean look at most of Persian history. Or the Greeks (you have what less than 2 decades under Alexander, and then it's not until modern times they united). The Mongols were a loose conglomeration other than under a handful of leaders. The Chinese had similar themes throughout much of their history. All of German history prior to the modern era.

Scythia also were far more settled than you give credit for. As a Scythian state they were around from 800BC until 200AD (Scythian people were there before that, just under the rule of others), and had large settled populations by 400BC. So almost a millennia. They may not have had cities ala Rome, but few were. As to administration, what do you require to be worthy? They had extensive external and internal trade, moved resources across their territory to where it was needed, has a developed tax-like system (largely goods, services and people. Different groups were required to supply different things). Clear evidence of laws, such as clear dynastic inheritance lines. Minting of coins, which requires both a large degree of unity, a reasonable degree of law and administration.

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.)

 

[Uberfrog]

Christians, are you all in all sudden forgot who was Jesus Christ and 12 Apostles? etc,etc,etc.

Except famously at the time of Christ, Judea was under Roman rule. The Hasmonean dynasty of Herod the Great and his successor ended quite shortly after Jesus was born and the province was under prefecture of Pontius Pilate.

but to try to show history as today's science does, with all great archaeological evidence humanity have today

I believe the archaeological evidence for the United Kingdom of Israel and Judah that David and Solomon ruled is very scant. Pretty much everything we know is based on the Hebrew Bible.

 

[Fluphen Azine]

I suspect it is the same reason that we do not see Hitler as a Leader. I always found it odd that it was ok to have Stalin and others in the game though

 

[Siptah]

I suspect it is the same reason that we do not see Hitler as a Leader. I always found it odd that it was ok to have Stalin and others in the game though

I never understood why Stalin and Mao are ok. Some people want them for their games, but I don't really get it. There are also still many people alive today that suffered under those people. Of course, many rulers had cruel sides...

 

[IgorS]

I believe Israel is not in the game mainly because it was too small rather than the controversy around modern Israel. Modern Israel should in no way be a civ in the game, and an Israel civ should focus only on the ancient history. However, because of all the factors mentioned above, it should not surprise anyone Israel was never in the game. It was a) too small, b) not independent for long enough, and c) located in an area full of other more important civs (Arabs, Egyptians, Babylonians...)

Having said that, I would love to see an Israelite civ in the game, with Salome Alexandra as queen.

 

[IgorS]

I suspect it is the same reason that we do not see Hitler as a Leader. I always found it odd that it was ok to have Stalin and others in the game though

How can you compare Israel and Hitler? The reason for Israel not being in the game is not the same as for Hitler not being in the game. Israel is not in the game for various reasons and considerations I, and others, have mentioned above. Hitler is not in the game because he simply does not belong in a game called "Civilization".
As for Stalin and Mao, I believe the developers have realized their mistake, and will never include them again, since they are the same as Hitler.

 

[Fluphen Azine]

How can you compare Israel and Hitler? The reason for Israel not being in the game is not the same as for Hitler not being in the game. Israel is not in the game for various reasons and considerations I, and others, have mentioned above. Hitler is not in the game because he simply does not belong in a game called "Civilization".
As for Stalin and Mao, I believe the developers have realized their mistake, and will never include them again, since they are the same as Hitler.

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?

 

[MistyRonin]

Hitler is not in the game because he simply does not belong in a game called "Civilization".
As for Stalin and Mao, I believe the developers have realized their mistake, and will never include them again, since they are the same as Hitler.

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.