Hebrew civilization

[cybrxkhan]

Imperial history in the middle east. From Egypt to now. Shows the Roman civilization from just a small city to an empire. (753BC---1453AD)

Other empires like the Turks, Mongols and the Alexander Empire. Shows the kingdom of Israel also. Imperial history in the middle east in 90 seconds. A good watch and it's only 90 seconds. I would love the ancient hebrew in the expansion even though they had a small empire/kingdom. I just think they deserve to be in as much as the Zulus or Celts.

http://www.mapsofwar.com/ind/imperial-history.html

interesting map... very interesting. however, i don't like how it shows only one empire at a time in comparison to others; all of my historical maps show empires in relation to empires and other nations, but i guess its harder to do it on a computer.

now back on topic. though i don't think Israel should be in the vanilla game, i wouldn't mind if it was in a later expansion. however, as i said before, i think the problem about adding the Hebrews is that people will somehow find it offensive, and people are scared its going to turn contreversial. again, thats just my view.

but really, i don't think the argument about significance works. tons of significant political entites are left out of civ over others that don't really make sense. really, if they put in civs like the Celts, Zulus, even more developed ones like Mali, Korea, Dutch, Scandinavians, then surely they can add civs like Ethiopia, Khmer, Nubia, Austria, okay, Poland too..

 

[Duuk]

if they were so good at the whole "kill or be killed" then why is modern day israel only 59 years old

Because the "or be killed" was the Roman Empire, and they still managed to . .. .. .. . up their world for 2 centuries until the Romans decided, rather impressively, to end jewish civilization and spread them in tiny groups across the empire rather than continue to fight the Maccabees and other Jewish revolters.

You just have to admire a people where the option "depopulate an entire frickin province of the Empire" is seen as the BETTER option to "continue to fight the rebellion". The Greeks, Gauls, Saxons, Vandals, Iberians, pro-Germans, Celts, Egyptians, Macedonians and Phoenicians were all flattened and either vassalized (Egypt) or assimilated (everyone else) by the Roman Empire. Only Carthage and the Jews pissed Rome off so bad that utter destruction was the best choice.

...and the Jews survived.

 

[Titus001]

Imperial history in the middle east. From Egypt to now. Shows the Roman civilization from just a small city to an empire. (753BC---1453AD)

Other empires like the Turks, Mongols and the Alexander Empire. Shows the kingdom of Israel also. Imperial history in the middle east in 90 seconds. A good watch and it's only 90 seconds. I would love the ancient hebrew in the expansion even though they had a small empire/kingdom. I just think they deserve to be in as much as the Zulus or Celts.

http://www.mapsofwar.com/ind/imperial-history.html

Sorry for quoting myself, I just want the civers to see such a cool map. If you click the home page on this website it will show how religion spread out to the regions of the world.

 

[cybrxkhan]

Sorry for quoting myself, I just want the civers to see such a cool map. If you click the home page on this website it will show how religion spread out to the regions of the world.

this is going to be very useful... BWAHAHAHAHAH. thanks, man.

 

[yewsef]

You'd be offended if Israel was included in Civ? Then I'd be even more offended at Arabia being included because they're tons worse in the oppression/terrorism dept.

But guess what? I'm actually not offended in the least bit. I don't worry about my personal world views when I'm playing a game. They can put Al Qaeda in as a civ and I'd still buy it. The game is still fun.

That said, I don't think the Hebrews should be a civ ingame. But who knows? With enough expansions they just might be included.

Arabic Civilization has taught you how to use numbers, without them you'd be using III X III V X. Arabia has taught the Zero. Arabia have taught you how to create Papers when they learned it from the Chinese. Arabia have translated the Greek literature and kept it safe for you. Arabia has invented Algebra and Alcohol. Arabia were advanced in Astronomy and ruled Spain for 800 years. The ships Columbus used were Arabic Ships. They were OLD ships and Isabella just conquered the Arabs few years before the expedition. But you children of hollywood movies need to read more about History.

 

[yewsef]

But people like Alexander the Great can be confirmed to have existed...

people like Solomon, David or Jesus cannot... at least not simply because it says so in the Bible...

I am neither a Jew or a Christian and I tell you David and Solomon are real historical figures. Just like Hamurabi is just like Amon Ra, just like Cleopetra..etc

The same methods that taught us that Hamurabi existed also taught us that David existed. The Lake of Jalut where David killed Jalut in that Battle is still known and is still there. People in Middle East have continuously kept their history within libraries and scholars, they weren't primitive people like some people think.

 

[cybrxkhan]

I am neither a Jew or a Christian and I tell you David and Solomon are real historical figures. Just like Hamurabi is just like Amon Ra, just like Cleopetra..etc

The same methods that taught us that Hamurabi existed also taught us that David existed. The Lake of Jalut where David killed Jalut in that Battle is still known and is still there. People in Middle East have continuously kept their history within libraries and scholars, they weren't primitive people like some people think.

Amon Ra was a major Egyptian god, so he probably wasn't real, unless he was based on some distant Atlantean hero we never heard of.

anyhow, even though the Bible cannot be trusted as much as people think it can be trusted, people like Solomon and David are real, and have been mentioned in other places, like in Ancient Egyptian records, for example, stating the existance of some really annoying king/chief in the Levant called Selaybayu (or something like that ) which corresponds to Solomon.

 

[mitsho]

Does nobody read my posts?

Again, you are way too much on the historical railway at the moment. You need to think outside your box, think marketingwise.

m

 

[Horizons]

Does nobody read my posts?

Again, you are way too much on the historical railway at the moment. You need to think outside your box, think marketingwise.

m

I'd buy BtS even if it had no other new civs but Israel. There are far too many second-rate European 'powers' represented now and the token representations of Native Indian 'civilization' have become rather profuse.

 

[rabidveggie]

How does thinking marketing wise make a difference. Is anybody not going to buy the expansion if Israel is or isn't included? Israel population is about seven million which isn't even large enough to target as a demograph. If its all about target marketing why not include Canada we have a population of thirty million. Also a country that has been conquered as many times as Israel is a third rate power. Current Israel is pretty powerful, but too young.

 

[mitsho]

well, marketingwise might have been a misnomer. Read my two other posts in this thread. I was more aiming at popular culture. Firaxis does not need to be neutral, obkjective and fair. It does not need to rate the empires of history after importance and then chose the most powerful ones, or the ones that offer most cultural diversity. Instead, they chose the civs they think will appeal to most people and perhaps make people happy (e.g. more prone to buy). Of course, that's just one single factor.

m

 

[rabidveggie]

Then countries like Poland are going to get in due to the vast number of people asking for it, while were at it lets put in Canada and Australia, and the other countless civ not yet included though still asked for. Firaxis has already shown that civs aren't picked for popularity, but instead for their accomplishments.

 

[cybrxkhan]

marketing-wise, i think Israel would be a risky decision. people may find it offensive, pro-Jew or anti-Jew. and, again, people are fearful of it becoming contreversial, even if that is not so. it is a very risky thing. i know of only one decently to very popular game that has Israel as an actual playable faction - Empire Earth I, where you could play Ancient Israel in the Ancient eras.

Firaxis has already shown that civs aren't picked for popularity, but instead for their accomplishments.

not necessarily. for example, the Zulus were great in defending their homeland, but you'll agree that they could not compare to the Byzantines, who held out for centuries before falling in an epic seige, and its obvious that the producers take more importance in putting the Zulus than Byzantium; the Zulus could not compare to the Vietnamese, and the Vietnamese aren't in.

what Mitsho said "Instead, they chose the civs they think will appeal to most people and perhaps make people happy (e.g. more prone to buy).", does not mean necessarily the most popular civs; some civs look good, but not necessarily popular.

 

[hossam]

Because the "or be killed" was the Roman Empire, and they still managed to . .. .. .. . up their world for 2 centuries until the Romans decided, rather impressively, to end jewish civilization and spread them in tiny groups across the empire rather than continue to fight the Maccabees and other Jewish revolters.

You just have to admire a people where the option "depopulate an entire frickin province of the Empire" is seen as the BETTER option to "continue to fight the rebellion". The Greeks, Gauls, Saxons, Vandals, Iberians, pro-Germans, Celts, Egyptians, Macedonians and Phoenicians were all flattened and either vassalized (Egypt) or assimilated (everyone else) by the Roman Empire. Only Carthage and the Jews pissed Rome off so bad that utter destruction was the best choice.

...and the Jews survived.

you do know that this just means the jews at the time werent smart enough to realize that they couldnt over power the roman empire and the romans imnpatient with their lack of realistic thinking . and why does everybody think that just because they survived they should be in the game
thats the least they can do . civilizations shouldnt be put in because they survived but because they did something great.

 

[dh_epic]

A lot of these discussions turn on what you think makes a civilization worthy. A lot of people look for military power. But Civilization is not strictly a military game. The truth is, any civilization that changed history for a large number of people qualifies. And if you've added a bunch of civilizations, and yet a large part of history or a large part of history is left unaccounted for, that's all the more reason to find a civilization that can account for them.

The Hebrews had a huge impact on history and continue to do so today. Since they're not included, the closest way to account for their existence is the indirect influence of the Babylonians (in Civ 3 and now BTS) and Arabs -- who are both Semitic peoples. That's just barely enough to describe the ancient and middle ages near east in the 18 civilizations quota Firaxis had.

But as that quotas reaches 30, it seems the Hebrews would almost HAVE to be in. You only have to go to Wikipedia to see how many times they come up. Let's talk about a few contributions:

- the intellectual foundation for half the world's religions
- wrote half of the world's all time best selling book
- changed the course of history in the ancient (egypt, persia, babylon), classical (rome), medieval (arabia), renaissance , industrial, and modern eras (europe)
- arguably, the first people to come up with monotheism (although most people say that was the zoroastrians)
- and maintained a steady identity throughout the whole time

I'm not saying these are necessary. Mongolia did none of these things, and contributed almost nothing to "civilization", with the exception of warfare and conquest. They had the world's largest contiguous empire ever. You don't have to do any one thing to qualify, in my mind. Just something of real significance to a large number of people at an important period in time.

 

[cybrxkhan]

But as that quotas reaches 30, it seems the Hebrews would almost HAVE to be in. You only have to go to Wikipedia to see how many times they come up. Let's talk about a few contributions:

- the intellectual foundation for half the world's religions
- wrote half of the world's all time best selling book
- changed the course of history in the ancient (egypt, persia, babylon), classical (rome), medieval (arabia), renaissance , industrial, and modern eras (europe)
- arguably, the first people to come up with monotheism (although most people say that was the zoroastrians)
- and maintained a steady identity throughout the whole time

I'm not saying these are necessary. Mongolia did none of these things, and contributed almost nothing to "civilization", with the exception of warfare and conquest. They had the world's largest contiguous empire ever. You don't have to do any one thing to qualify, in my mind. Just something of real significance to a large number of people at an important period in time.

the problem with half of those achievments is that they occured when the Jews weren't in a unified political state, hence a civilization, so that renders half of those achievements "disqualified".

and the Mongols did contribute to civilization. they were not as barbaric as they seem; leaders like Hitler and Mao were much more barbaric then they. the Mongols, after their conquests, were actually very efficient and humane rulers. they supported freedom of religion, protected trading routes so much one scholar of the time wrote "a man could travel with a golden plate on his head from one end of the entire to another without dropping it at all"; the Mongols had arguably one of the greatest communication systems stretching the entire empire, and began to make the world a "smaller place"; it was because of the Mongols the Europeans knew that there was a world out there, a world they would eventually try to reach when it was cut off by the Turks. the Mongols have an influence in their time and future generations, directly and indirectly.

 

[yewsef]

Amon Ra was a major Egyptian god, so he probably wasn't real, unless he was based on some distant Atlantean hero we never heard of.

anyhow, even though the Bible cannot be trusted as much as people think it can be trusted, people like Solomon and David are real, and have been mentioned in other places, like in Ancient Egyptian records, for example, stating the existance of some really annoying king/chief in the Levant called Selaybayu (or something like that ) which corresponds to Solomon.

Maybe you don't know that Pharaos declared themselves as Gods. The guy who chased Moses and died in the sea exists today as a mummy. He declared himself as God too.

I agree with you I didn't say David and Solomon existed because the Bible mentions them. I said they existed because they are recognized as history figures just like Cyrus and others are recognized. I don't know why people feel insecure about any history that's mentioned in the Bible. Just because it's in the bible doesn't mean it didn't happen. People would believe with no question about, say, Cleopetra. They don't need any further proof. But if you talk about, say, David they'd be skeptical. Why? because David is in the bible.

That sometimes annoys me because it's biased thinking. It comes because of the idea that, pre-renaissance the europian history is really un-authentic. Like the story of Arthur it's so primitive how these people kept their history. They were very humble in terms of knowledge and studies. That's why you see lots of Myth and Legens. Also in the Greek myth. So, since NOW Europian are more advanced they don't want to believe that BEFORE Middle East was very advanced and they had better means of keeping the history as history, regardless of what's written in the religious books.

 

[demokratickid]

The Hebrew "civilization" was virtually non-existent. King Solomon's temple was smaller than his personal brother, or harem. When the Hebrews were captive in Babalyon, that is where most cultural influence came from. As for early Judaism, Yaweh was just another God. A war God in paticular, until conformed by the Babalyonians more civilized ideas. As for Christianity, Jesus was part of a radical sect of Jews known as the Qum'rannians. They were a Radical sect promoting the two pillars: faith and justice. For more on the ancient Jews and Christians, see Christopher Knight's and Robert Lomas' book about these and more subjects. It is called the "Hiram Key". Please don't incite wrath upon me for my comments. I am just telling what appears to be the truth. Truth at any time, though, can be countered and killed by a new truth. One I would be happy to accept upon discovery of suficcient proof. Please feel free to send me a private message if you have any questions on ancient Judaism or Christianity, or wold like to send a message for an undisclosed, undeclared reason.

 

[Cu Chulainn]

Maybe you don't know that Pharaos declared themselves as Gods. The guy who chased Moses and died in the sea exists today as a mummy. He declared himself as God too.

Except that it never happened. There's no evidence for this whatsoever outside Hebrew mythology.

I agree with you I didn't say David and Solomon existed because the Bible mentions them. I said they existed because they are recognized as history figures just like Cyrus and others are recognized. I don't know why people feel insecure about any history that's mentioned in the Bible. Just because it's in the bible doesn't mean it didn't happen.

But it's important to recognize that much of what is in there is probably false. I'd say that its almost certain that Israel was once led by two men of David and Solomon's approximate descriptions but I'd argue that many of their exploits are tall tales. The problem with the veracity of the Bible is that the mythology is so interwoven with the plot that its very hard to be sure what is based on reality and what is legend. The same is true of all such writings.

That sometimes annoys me because it's biased thinking. It comes because of the idea that, pre-renaissance the europian history is really un-authentic. Like the story of Arthur it's so primitive how these people kept their history. They were very humble in terms of knowledge and studies. That's why you see lots of Myth and Legens.

The Bible is chock full of myths and legends, what makes you think that they are any more valid than European myths? I think you might have your own bias.

 

[demokratickid]

My dear cu chulainn,
Yes the Bible is 'chock' full of parabels. But, one must get into the mind set of the writers writing them. To them writings was more of an art, recording truth. They did not take the writing of absolute truths as seriously as many do today. So yes, it is full of parabels, but they serve thier purpose along with the three pages on who begat whom.