Discussion in 'Civ5 - General Discussions' started by volbound1700, Apr 27, 2010.
the american school system is really so bad like all european think it is .
Then cite me a source. I have never seen a historical source that called the Exodus or Egyptian capitivity a myth (and actually never heard this before except for the people on this website). You do know that most of history from that time and even from the later Roman Empire is based on writings from that time and these writings are no less authenticated or proven then the Dead Sea Scrolls.
I really do think there is an anti-semitic and anti-religion group out there that likes to disprove anything historical referenced in the Bible. So far I have never seen anything in the Bible that conflicts with real history, in fact it supports it.
Carthage is very insignificant... name one cultural influence or technology they gave to the world. I can't. All people know about Carthage is Hannibal's invasion of Rome. That is the scope of their history and it is only known because the Romans recorded it and discussed it so much. 90% of what we know about Carthage comes from Roman and Greek sources written at their time.
How about that German school system where a news outlet polled the German Highschool students in the mid 1990s about Adolf Hitler and 80% of them thought he was a rock star.
I mean I see no point in teaching about Carthage because they contributed nothing to the modern world other than their fantastic story about Hannibal invading Italy and almost beating Rome. They were nothing more then a speed bump for Rome to power.
Funny thing is, the Roman Empire, the most powerful civilization ever was conquered by the teachings of one jew and his 12 apostles.
Rome defeated all their enemies save Christianity. Guess what, Christianity comes out of Jewish culture. Everything Christian can be pointed back to ancient Israel and the jewish culture.
Don't even try to tell me that Christianity has not had an impact on the world because that is laughable.
There is no archeological evidence for the exodus or the egyptian captivity. Notably egyptian writings make no mention of any larger exodus of a group of slaves - though that would not be surprising since egyptian official history was tightly censored over the ages by the rulers
The wiki article on this is actually reasonably well sourced - though most of those are obviously books not widely available online
Edit: I'd highly doubt the thing about the German school system by the way
Could you be so kind and post a source please?
One thing wrong about your post already is that we don't have Highschools in Germany, we have three different types of schools you can go too after the elementary school. It would be a very long post if I start explaining how our education system works so anybody interested can read it on wikipedia.
My primary source is lectures from seminary school, but even the Christian archaeology- group http://www.biblearchaeology.org/ has the following to say on the matter: "Sadly, most contemporary Biblical scholars deny the historicity of God’s miraculous deliverance of Israel from Egypt as documented in the Old Testament (Ex 2–12) and alluded to in the New Testament (Acts 7:36; Rom 9:17)". They of course disagree and gives compelling arguments for the historical correctness of the Exodus. Their arguments still doesn't change the fact that "most contemporary Biblical scholars deny[...]".
I don't mention my background from having studied to be a priest (didn't complete the studies though) to sound snotty on an internet forum, but to show that I have spent quite some time at bible studies at university level and take this quite seriously. The historical reading of the OT (especially) is rather old fashioned and considered very fundamentalistic (not in the common negative use of the term, but as in keeping to the foundament and not wanting to interpret). Fundamentalism in that respect is still common amongst the laity, but is an ever shrinking group amongst Christian scholars.
Most of modern (non popular-)research is done by reading the Bible in light of the time it was written and applying the same kinds of logic to it as you would reading any other kind of historical source, thus not falling into the trap of the "fundamentalists" who kind of has the answer first and then try to make the historical evidence fit together, often having to change around a lot of facts and dates to make it so.
What you have to remember is that the OT is a collection of sources from a wide area, both in time and geography, and that it has in it fragments of traditions from many peoples from the areas around Israel. Many scholars for example agree that the oldest parts of the OT stems from a time when the Israelites were polytheistic. I don't want to make this thread into another theological debate, but if you want to know more, without having to go through dry research material, Karen Armstrong has written a very readable "popular sciency" book that my former tutors at seminary agreed sticks quite closely to the leading theories amongst scholars. You can pick it up at Amazon http://www.amazon.com/History-God-000-Year-Judaism-Christianity/dp/0345384563 if you are interested.
What you have to remember is that the teachings of the Bible doesn't get less valid, just because you can't read the "stories" in it literally...
As for Carthage, you can't really invade Rome without being a major player in history, now can you? I have to admit that I don't know that much about the empire, but if you look at this map were not exactly talking 20 770 km², like Israel is today.
BTW: Please stop building anti -semitic or -religious straw men. At least refrain from doing so, following a quote by me...
Edit: Nobody is saying that Judaism or Christianity (or Islam for that matter) are insignificant. We are saying that the Israelites as a civilization judged by the standards of the game (political, military, diplomatical) were.
And to say that the Romans seeing in Christendom a potential to make centralized rule stronger, does in no way mean that the Christians "conquered" Rome. Ease down.
Edit again: The map was huge! Rather than break the forum rules, let me point you towards http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/9/9b/Carthaginianempire.PNG for a map of Carthage.
Oh, so that explains why Austria and Germany wanted to merge but were prohibited by the Entente after WWI!
There is soo much historical ignorance in this whole thread...
Yeah, and US is represented by the Brits, just lousy colonies that became independent for a few years. Culture is much worse, so no need for a US civ by your standards!
What a ridiculous argument. But that logic, the only factions we should have in the game are some tribes from the rift valley in Africa.
The US, after independence, never though of itself as English.
Austria DID think of itself as German - not meaning German the country, but German the culture. And it was arguably the center of German culture for quite some time.
German culture and civilization existed long before Germany the country.
Where I come from, there are laws against this one and that is certainly a good thing.
I won't say anything more on this topic because it is useless to discuss with such people.
You know I used to have as my signature:"What is the capital of Assyria? Ashur."
But in my rush to calm down the thread --I FAILED!
I shall now return to lurking.
read your own words again, then think, then think some more...
Strange as it may sound, it's actually correct. Germany, the state, was founded in 1871. And didn't receive it's current form until 1937. German (Germanic) culture is ancient and is spread out to a large area...
I dug this up real quick on wikipedia about Exodus and Israel. You are right some historians do not see it as accurate.
Josephus... a contemporary Jewish historian around the time of Jesus cited the Exodus as historic in both his books http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antiquities_of_the_Jews
I know wikipedia is not the best source but it is citing other articles. It sounds like historians are a little unsure about it but then again they are unsure about Sumeria and Hammurabi. In fact it is only in recent history that historians discovered how influential and big the Hittites really were. There is just not a lot of archeological records from that time and most of the stuff we have to go on is records made by people at that time. It is logical to assume that the Egyptians for example, who give us most our documents, would not record everything, especially parts of history they may want to forget.
The fact that so much research has been done and this is such a hot topic alone points to the fact that Israel is a worth choice for Civilization.
I do think that the bible was of course influenced by historical events, but also I guess the writers had no intention of beeing pure chronists... for example the part where jesus foresees the destruction of jerusalem was actually written after the event and by a guy who didn´t meet jesus, cause he was long dead...
Thought about it... yep, still true.
Think about this statement very very carefully for me...
Moderator Action: Moderator Warning - If you can't remain civil we will reinstated the 'no topics about left out civs ban'.
As a Veteran of Civ since when I was married and had a life, (IE, before it!)
Israel, Hitler, contentious issue of whatever color - MAKE A MOD!!!!!!!!!
Not in factory issue, no controversy.
No lengthy threads on same topic........
First, Wikipedia is not the best source of quality history, but your links are pretty ok, they show my point:
From your Germanic people: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Germanic_peoples
"the Germans, English, Dutch, Norwegians, Flemish, Swedish, Danish, Faroese, Icelanders, Frisians, Luxembourgers, Swedish-Finns, Estonian Swedes, Liechtensteiners, and Swiss Germans."
I've underlined the seperate civs in CIV, so why not representing England by a German civ
now, lets look at your beloved Wikipedia http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_where_English_is_an_official_language
Hmm, so let's also represent India, Australia, Canada and the US by an "English" civilization
Or just let the US be represented by the Native Americans, if we go by territory instead of language.
Ok, so back to seriousness business; the "civs" in the game are conglomerations of power within a certain period of time in history, some in the past, some still existing.
Austria, which has fought several wars with the main predecessors of Germany (Prussia, Bavaria) in different centuries; throughout its long, independant history, is NOT represented by Germany. At least less than the US is represented by Great Britain. The German speaking people didn't even count for the majority of the inhabitants during the centuries of Austrian's height of power.
I don't argue if Austria should be included as a civ, there are already a lot of European civs, and this is just a game, but please don't tell us who represents us, you are totally wrong here.
Separate names with a comma.