Ancient World

in 800 BCE there ABSOLUTELY was a kingdom of israel. its capital was Samaria and it was more powerful than judah was.

i wont get into the whole debate over whether there was ever a united monarchy, but there absolutely was a northern kingdom of israel, as confirmed by excavations in samaria and megiddo (where I personally dig)

But the northern kingdom of israel WAS destroyed in 722 BCE by either Shalmaneser V or Sargon II (this is a debate that has conflicting accounts in the assyrian king lists and other records). This would be a fun thing to recreate in an 800 BCE scenario, as it was fairly important for the 3 monotheistic religions today (though judaism more-so)
 
in 800 BCE there ABSOLUTELY was a kingdom of israel. its capital was Samaria and it was more powerful than judah was.

i wont get into the whole debate over whether there was ever a united monarchy, but there absolutely was a northern kingdom of israel, as confirmed by excavations in samaria and megiddo (where I personally dig)

But the northern kingdom of israel WAS destroyed in 722 BCE by either Shalmaneser V or Sargon II (this is a debate that has conflicting accounts in the assyrian king lists and other records). This would be a fun thing to recreate in an 800 BCE scenario, as it was fairly important for the 3 monotheistic religions today (though judaism more-so)
It was not "israel". It was of Bit-Humri, with its capital Samaria.
It is said in the Assyrian records.
Apparently it was Aramaic state.
 
Bit-Humri = Beth Omri = house of Omri, who is a biblical king of Israel. I am by no means a biblical maximalist, or religious, but that seems pretty clear to me. And ancient kingdoms were often referred to as the "House of XXrulingfamilyXX" such as in the Tel Dan stele, which calls Judah "Beth David", or the "House of David".

Also, Omri was a powerful king of the Israel, being the creator of what is known as the Omride dynasty, hence it makes sense to call his kingdom beth-omri/bit-humri.

I see no reason not to call it what it was, the northern kingdom of israel.

And I do know it was mentioned in the Assyrian records, as I wrote my thesis on Assyria and read through every bit of the kings lists.
 
Bit-Humri = Beth Omri = house of Omri, who is a biblical king of Israel. I am by no means a biblical maximalist, or religious, but that seems pretty clear to me. And ancient kingdoms were often referred to as the "House of XXrulingfamilyXX" such as in the Tel Dan stele, which calls Judah "Beth David", or the "House of David".
.

Correct , the Archeologist Evidence proves somehow but still remains on thoughts but they found an old piece where it was written in Aramaic , and the translation shows some words where you can find those words "House of David" and also at the time of Pharaoh Shoshenq I, there was a mention about "the highlands of David"

also i have a book , where archeologists actually found certain things , by example at the time of Hypksos ,when they ruled a part of Egypt , their king (forgot the name) accepted Joseph to come to Egypt to help him then his family afterwards then more people came from Canaan
 
Bit-Humri = Beth Omri = house of Omri, who is a biblical king of Israel. I am by no means a biblical maximalist, or religious, but that seems pretty clear to me. And ancient kingdoms were often referred to as the "House of XXrulingfamilyXX" such as in the Tel Dan stele, which calls Judah "Beth David", or the "House of David".

Also, Omri was a powerful king of the Israel, being the creator of what is known as the Omride dynasty, hence it makes sense to call his kingdom beth-omri/bit-humri.

I see no reason not to call it what it was, the northern kingdom of israel.

And I do know it was mentioned in the Assyrian records, as I wrote my thesis on Assyria and read through every bit of the kings lists.
Humri - founder of the state Bit-Humri and the dynasty.
Name of State does not come up with the Assyrians, it is probably in the diplomatic correspondence of the whole region was.
Aramaic was dominated by a central Palestine.
There is no reason to doubt that it is Aramaic state and dynasty.

The authors of the Bible apparently attached Aramaic Humri (Omri) to their story.
 
Humri - founder of the state Bit-Humri and the dynasty.
Name of State does not come up with the Assyrians, it is probably in the diplomatic correspondence of the whole region was.
Aramaic was dominated by a central Palestine.
There is no reason to doubt that it is Aramaic state and dynasty.

The authors of the Bible apparently attached Aramaic Humri (Omri) to their story.

From Black obelisk
Aside from the Hebrew Bible, Jehu appears in Assyrian documents, notably in the Black Obelisk where he is depicted as kissing the ground in front of Shalmaneser III. In the Assyrian documents he is simply referred to as "Jehu son of Omri" (The House of Omri being an Assyrian name for the Kingdom of Israel). This tribute is dated 841 BC.[4]

According to the Obelisk, Jehu severed his alliances with Phoenicia and Judah, and became subject to Assyria.
thats what i found
 
From Black obelisk
Aside from the Hebrew Bible, Jehu appears in Assyrian documents, notably in the Black Obelisk where he is depicted as kissing the ground in front of Shalmaneser III. In the Assyrian documents he is simply referred to as "Jehu son of Omri" (The House of Omri being an Assyrian name for the Kingdom of Israel). This tribute is dated 841 BC.[4]

According to the Obelisk, Jehu severed his alliances with Phoenicia and Judah, and became subject to Assyria.
thats what i found
"Jehu" and "Omri" - the kings of the state Bit-Humri, and not "Israel".
This name (Bit-Humri) and was used in diplomacy.

Better to leave the Bible to believers. Let it be epic. Why make a mess?
 
Enlightening debate so far. What I assess is that the area of northern Israel became part of a fracturing kingdom system ruled by those best able to attain and secure power. Along the way Hebrews included these historical events into the Bible trying to connect to their formerly united nation through any successors they could find, along the way waging wars and having propaganda campaigns against their neighbors (like everyone else) which leads to this very confusing debate. I conclude this is a great mod.
 
Nexxo, will you still upload the new stuff( i mean by fixing certain stuff) in here for Ancient world ,just curious :)

better start somewhere else this debate about Israel in Assyrian Period or Whatever the Topic is about Israel in the Civfanatics forum if we can
 
I must state that many scientist and Archaeologist look to Bible as important historical document
This is so. Without a doubt.



and many stories there were scientific confirmed.
The Old Testament was compiled from actual historical documents.
Therefore, it is not surprising.
But the texts processed.


Israel did exist in that period.
"Israel" did not exist at that time.
The only mention - Mesha Stele. But the stone had been blown up.
Because a possible forgery. There are doubts.This is one word.
 
The Old Testament was compiled from actual historical documents.
Therefore, it is not surprising.
But the texts processed.

"Israel" did not exist at that time.
The only mention - Mesha Stele. But the stone had been blown up.
Because a possible forgery. There are doubts.This is one word.

Ok ,so what civ we should put in that area? Judea , Philistine,or Samaria , or just Canaan
 
Nexxo, will you still upload the new stuff( i mean by fixing certain stuff) in here for Ancient world ,just curious :)

better start somewhere else this debate about Israel in Assyrian Period or Whatever the Topic is about Israel in the Civfanatics forum if we can

Yes, i,m almost ready.
 
You could look at the map for the Middle East 2006 scenario. The maps for Alexander's conquests usually cover the area and some are truly massive. The MidEast 1.3 map for one of the Saddam scenarios is 140x140 and includes Thrace, if you could tweak the map to include Greece you'd have quite a good map. The WW1 scenario here on the forum also has a great Middle East representation. Just thinking out loud on these. What size map were you thinking you'd need?
 
You could look at the map for the Middle East 2006 scenario. The maps for Alexander's conquests usually cover the area and some are truly massive. The MidEast 1.3 map for one of the Saddam scenarios is 140x140 and includes Thrace, if you could tweak the map to include Greece you'd have quite a good map. The WW1 scenario here on the forum also has a great Middle East representation. Just thinking out loud on these. What size map were you thinking you'd need?

Yes I'll going to use map from Middle East 2006 scenario, thank you for Information.
 
Back
Top Bottom