Oh I'm sorry. It will be the Moops instead.
Hebrew civilization
- Thread starter rightstoff
- Start date
Oh I'm sorry. It will be the Moops instead.
Rancid Sushi
Last year's catch
So how about some ideas guys? Here's mine that a posted a while back, but with some revisions.
Israeli Empire
Leaders: Solomon (Philosophical/Creative), Arial Sharon (Organised/Protective)
Unique Unit: Zionist (replaces infantry). 20
, 1 
, +25% vs. Gunpowder units. +50% v.s units of a different or no state religion.
Unique Building: Tabernacle (replaces temples). +1
, +2
, +25%
, +25%
, can turn 1 citizen into priest.
Starting Techs: Mysticism, Agriculture
Israeli Empire
Leaders: Solomon (Philosophical/Creative), Arial Sharon (Organised/Protective)
Unique Unit: Zionist (replaces infantry). 20
, 1 , +25% vs. Gunpowder units. +50% v.s units of a different or no state religion.Unique Building: Tabernacle (replaces temples). +1
, +2, +25%, +25%, can turn 1 citizen into priest. Starting Techs: Mysticism, Agriculture
TobyWanKenobi
Chieftain
Ariel Sharon is too new...Golda Meier would be better...especially with the focus on espionage.
Maverick667
Warlord
I seriously don't think Sharon is a good leader anyway...
why not Rabin or something
why not Rabin or something
mitsho
Deity
Ben Gurion if we have a modern leader, come on, that guy shaped the whole Israeli state, it was practically his own project... If you look at Israel today, their is no way around Ben Gurion.
But i would prefer Solomon or David as they are far less controversial and more known. But If you want to have more modern leaders, ok take Ben Gurion.
m
But i would prefer Solomon or David as they are far less controversial and more known. But If you want to have more modern leaders, ok take Ben Gurion.
m
Maverick667
Warlord
Are Solomon or David actually historical figures, or are they biblical figures...
If they're not historical, I don't think they should be in the game...
If they're not historical, I don't think they should be in the game...
mitsho
Deity
they are afaik, the Old testimony is foremost a history book. Naturally, their sagas are not a 100% historical, but that doesn't matter...
mick
mick
Maverick667
Warlord
This isn't a thread about religion, but according to me there are no other sources that confirm the historic value of the bible. So there is no reason to accept it as a history book...
or are David and Solomon confirmed historic persons. No more than Jesus I think.
or are David and Solomon confirmed historic persons. No more than Jesus I think.
Brentimus
Chieftain
The Bible has been proven more reliable than any other historical documents produced. Basically, there is more evidence to support Biblical history than to support Roman records concerning 95% of accepted Roman history. These documents were most often written by people who did not observe the events and were hired by the Emperor to write about the Emperor and his own achievements.
Additionally, there are far fewer documents surviving of a secular nature, therefore you often have no other secular sources to compare to for discrepancies.
One huge reason modern scholars do not accept the Bible as historically reliable, despite its consistency, accuracy, and the number of surviving documents. Is that it contains records of supernatural events. Most scholars will immediately discredit the Book based upon this because it is assumed since they and their parents have never experience supernatural events they are therefore not possible and the book must be fictional in nature. This is of course a logical fallacy.
EW. lock this thread. theres no way these 'hebrews' get a civ. becuase they were never a nation that in our beloeved game can be CALLED a Civ. its just silly.
and basing an entire civilization on one cruddy belief is a wholly rediculous reason to include anything to this game.
hate these threads ¬¬
and basing an entire civilization on one cruddy belief is a wholly rediculous reason to include anything to this game.
hate these threads ¬¬
Brentimus
Chieftain
Would you care to support your statements with evidence? Or is it more fun to just make stuff up?
mitsho
Deity
@Brentimus, of course the miracles of the old testimony are nonsense. That isn't the question, but nevertheless the bible can be accepted as a history book as it is a "Sammelsurium", a compilation of stories of any kind, there are allegories, moral stories (for example the Genesis [or "how men and women grow up"]), memories turned into sagas (Noah and the Flood), there are poems and lyrics (Solomon and the psalms) and there are historical accounts&chronologies.
But there were of course never miracles, a talking burning bush or whatever. But nevertheless especially the old testimony is one of our most valuable sources of ancient history...
mick
But there were of course never miracles, a talking burning bush or whatever. But nevertheless especially the old testimony is one of our most valuable sources of ancient history...
mick
Gaius Octavius
Deity
- Joined
- Jul 28, 2006
- Messages
- 4,016
What Brentimus says about the reliability of the Old Testament is true. Even if you doubt some of the stories themselves, there is good evidence there really was a David and Solomon. And since they satisfy Sid's requirements for a leader to be "long dead," they would both work pretty well.
As far as the debate itself goes, I've always been a long supporter of Israel as a new Civ. It makes sense to me given it's impact on the world not just through religion, but through the conflicts throughout the Middle East (ancient and modern). Yes, they were never a huge empire like Rome or China, but were the Sioux? Ancient Israel was around for about 1,000 years, plus or minus, just as long as the Romans lasted in the West, just as long as the Maya, and yes, even longer than the good old USA so far.
The real reason people don't want Israel in is because they are, well, like Tokugawa; their philosophy was kind of a closed-borders situation, where the Israelites kept to themselves and took care of their own little part of the world. Unlike the Persians or Romans, they never sought to conquer everybody in sight (after they settled the Promised Land, that is
). As such, they didn't make lasting contributions to law, art, or science, but their impact in other areas is incalculable. Besides, if I can build the Temple of Solomon in the game, it might as well be in Jerusalem, right?
As far as the debate itself goes, I've always been a long supporter of Israel as a new Civ. It makes sense to me given it's impact on the world not just through religion, but through the conflicts throughout the Middle East (ancient and modern). Yes, they were never a huge empire like Rome or China, but were the Sioux? Ancient Israel was around for about 1,000 years, plus or minus, just as long as the Romans lasted in the West, just as long as the Maya, and yes, even longer than the good old USA so far.
The real reason people don't want Israel in is because they are, well, like Tokugawa; their philosophy was kind of a closed-borders situation, where the Israelites kept to themselves and took care of their own little part of the world. Unlike the Persians or Romans, they never sought to conquer everybody in sight (after they settled the Promised Land, that is
). As such, they didn't make lasting contributions to law, art, or science, but their impact in other areas is incalculable. Besides, if I can build the Temple of Solomon in the game, it might as well be in Jerusalem, right?
warpus
Sommerswerd asked me to change this
More reliable than all the historical books I have sitting on my bookshelf, including books about WW2, Russian history, ancient Greek history, European history, etc..? I doubt it!
Name one other book containing supernatural elements that you consider a reliable historical source.
The real reason that the Bible isn't considered a reliable historical source is that you just can't know which passages are historical fact and which are based on myths & legends. Obviously the supernatural elements are myth, so you can discount that, but what about the rest? You just don't know...
Gaius Octavius
Deity
- Joined
- Jul 28, 2006
- Messages
- 4,016
Without derailing the thread...
Is the Epic of Gilgamesh reliable? Probably not insofar as the specific events are concerned. But in the context of this topic, i.e. what was said about David and Solomon being no more historical than Jesus (which is absurd, since he's clearly a historical figure, Messiah or not), it has relevance. There was as far as we know a real Gilgamesh who was king of Uruk sometime around 2500 BC, if I remember correctly. What Brentimus said about the Bible being accurate has to do with the fact that there are more copies of it (i.e. Old and New Testaments, but particularly the New) than any other piece of ancient literature, and they can all be cross-checked for variants and accuracy.
To answer your last question, if you're a critical historian you can check the events described against archaeology and other records. If they agree, you know they're right. If there is no mention of one in the other (like the census around the time of Jesus' birth) then you just don't know. Brentimus was saying that when they do actually check the Bible, it turns out to be right again and again.
What this means is if you're willing to throw out the Bible, saying, "Oh, it's been corrupted, full of fake stories added in later, etc.," then you pretty much have to take a similar stance on virtually every other ancient record. What this means for the thread topic is that David and Solomon can be justifiably used as Israeli leaders, because there is good reason to believe they were real people. The supernatural aspects are irrelevant here.
Is the Epic of Gilgamesh reliable? Probably not insofar as the specific events are concerned. But in the context of this topic, i.e. what was said about David and Solomon being no more historical than Jesus (which is absurd, since he's clearly a historical figure, Messiah or not), it has relevance. There was as far as we know a real Gilgamesh who was king of Uruk sometime around 2500 BC, if I remember correctly. What Brentimus said about the Bible being accurate has to do with the fact that there are more copies of it (i.e. Old and New Testaments, but particularly the New) than any other piece of ancient literature, and they can all be cross-checked for variants and accuracy.
To answer your last question, if you're a critical historian you can check the events described against archaeology and other records. If they agree, you know they're right. If there is no mention of one in the other (like the census around the time of Jesus' birth) then you just don't know. Brentimus was saying that when they do actually check the Bible, it turns out to be right again and again.
What this means is if you're willing to throw out the Bible, saying, "Oh, it's been corrupted, full of fake stories added in later, etc.," then you pretty much have to take a similar stance on virtually every other ancient record. What this means for the thread topic is that David and Solomon can be justifiably used as Israeli leaders, because there is good reason to believe they were real people. The supernatural aspects are irrelevant here.
Outlaw_Rudy
Chieftain
- Joined
- Dec 23, 2003
- Messages
- 31
Obviously not the best source, but Wikipedia has the United Kingdom of Israel and Judah lasing from 1050-930 BCE. It then has Israel lasting from 930-720 BCE, when the Assyrians crushed them, and Judah lasting from 930-586 BCE, when the Babylonians took 'em and spread them all over.
The Roman Republic/Empire lasted from 509 BCE to 1453 CE, including the Byzantines (or 476 CE without).
The Mayans are rather iffy, but you can say that the "classical" mayan empire of urbanization and large-scale construction lasted from 250~900 CE. If you wanna go by artifacts and the like, there's good evidence from 1800 BCE (and questionable evidence from ~10000 BCE) up until 1697 CE when the Spanish subdued Tayasal and Zacpeten.
While Judaism unfortunately doesn't really have their "home" nation in Civilization, I'm not really sure either Israel or Judah had a large enough impact on history outside of religion to be considered part of Civilization; at least, not before several far more worthy civilizations are added (or perhaps some less worthy civilizations are taken out).
ripple01
Emperor
I'm going to go out on a BIG limb here, but I am going to say that Israel will be of the remaining BTS civs we don't know about...
ripple01
ripple01
Brentimus
Chieftain
This thread is suppose to be about the Hebrew Civilization. The thrust of my argument is that David and Solomon are real historical figures. That there is more reliable evidence of this than there is of most aspects of accepted Roman history, such as Julius Ceasar's Gallic Wars and the chronicles that were written. In fact, there is even a consensus among modern scholars that David and Solomon lived and died as Kings of Israel.
History can very rarely be proven, instead it is a subjective task of weighing evidence. How do you prove something historically happened? Its not repeatable under the scientific method. How do we know the civil war happened, better yet what were the details? Are there surviving witnesses? How many? If so are they honest, is there any reason they might not tell the truth? What about documents? How many, and by how many sources? Contradictions found in those sources? How long after the event where those documents written? And certainly, what physical evidence is available to support that these events did in fact happen? Its a long and continuing process that is certainly even deeper than my brief summary here. The further back in history you go, it typically becomes harder to find supporting evidence that an event did happen.
The number of surviving Biblical documents is mind blowing. While you may have one or two documents written about the Gallic Wars or Alexander you can find literally thousands of copies of Biblical documents written about a single event. Now you would think, as Emperor of Rome, you could be assured that there would be tons of written records about your accomplishments long after your gone. But the answer to this is no, we have very few records of ancient history. Yet scholars piece the picture together and present you with a seamless story that is taught to school children as fact.
The consistency of the surviving Biblical documents is also unprecedented. And without me giving a dissertation on this entire subject, suffice it to say that many an ancient city has been found based soley or primarily on the Bible.
History can very rarely be proven, instead it is a subjective task of weighing evidence. How do you prove something historically happened? Its not repeatable under the scientific method. How do we know the civil war happened, better yet what were the details? Are there surviving witnesses? How many? If so are they honest, is there any reason they might not tell the truth? What about documents? How many, and by how many sources? Contradictions found in those sources? How long after the event where those documents written? And certainly, what physical evidence is available to support that these events did in fact happen? Its a long and continuing process that is certainly even deeper than my brief summary here. The further back in history you go, it typically becomes harder to find supporting evidence that an event did happen.
The number of surviving Biblical documents is mind blowing. While you may have one or two documents written about the Gallic Wars or Alexander you can find literally thousands of copies of Biblical documents written about a single event. Now you would think, as Emperor of Rome, you could be assured that there would be tons of written records about your accomplishments long after your gone. But the answer to this is no, we have very few records of ancient history. Yet scholars piece the picture together and present you with a seamless story that is taught to school children as fact.
The consistency of the surviving Biblical documents is also unprecedented. And without me giving a dissertation on this entire subject, suffice it to say that many an ancient city has been found based soley or primarily on the Bible.
Brentimus
Chieftain
You can probably leave your WW2 book on the shelf.
Its a recent event, we have surviving witnesses, lots of documents from hundreds of points of view. I really was argueing about ancient history. I would without hesitation put Biblical accounts above ancient Greek history and ancient European history for all the reasons that go into my post above.As you probably know, the Bible is a collection of books, and I never claimed that their was an abundance of reliable accounts of supernatural events. Just that dismissing a book simply based upon the fact that it contains records of supernatural events reveals a bias.
Why? Because you've never seen or experienced them? You can't prove that they didn't happen just as I'm not able to prove here that they did. I will say that someone who prides rational thinking should not dismiss something simply based upon their own experiences or the experiences of their own generation.
