How come Firaxis didn't create an Israely Empire on Civ4???

[Xanikk999]

Out of all the civs they could of included honestly this is very low on the priority list.

 

[Little Corporal]

Ealier, Mott said "1) Israel was never large nor powerful.
I have established that their is no requirement for a civilization to be large or powerful to be implemented in the game.
Aztecs, Incans, Mali were never large or powerful. Also babylon and Sumer from civ 3 aswell."

The Mali, Aztecs and Incas ruled empires far larger than Israel! The Mali ruled over a fairly large empire(larger than what modern-day Israel has conquered) and supplied half of the Old World's gold supply. The Aztecs ruled most of modern-day Central America and were a major regional power, and the Incas ruled northeast South America and some of Central America.

 

[Ceritoglu]

I've found this thread rather daunting, and half-way through I just stopped reading the massive essays that people had written. Although I can't say I feel Israel is a particularly influential civilisation since it was little more than a minor Middle-Eastern kingdom during ancient times before ceasing to exist for almost two millenia, I can conclusively say that the Jewish people have had a massive impact on the way the world has developed - even though many of these great achievements occured when there was no recognisable Israeli state. The way cIV accomadates this is by having great Jewish historic figures transferred into the game as Great People, thus recognising their achievements while refraining from including a relatively minor civilisation.

The game developers have tried to include a number of civilisations from each region so as to provide a balanced picture of the world (this is why the the Inca and the Aztecs are included to represent South America while Mali is included to represent Africa). Israel is situated in the Eastern Mediterranean, where there is plenty of competition to be found. The region has given the game civs like Greece, Egypt and Arabia (Persia and Rome have influenced the region in the past and are also included in the game), enough civs to represent the region.

As a Turk I was somewhat disappointed that the Turks were not included since the Ottoman Empire was the dominant force in the Eastern Mediterranean from the 16th Century to the early 20th Century. Despite this, I concede that the Eastern Mediterranean civs included deserve their places - and I expect that the Turks and the Israelis will probably come in time to further represent that region.

 

[Mott1]

I've found this thread rather daunting, and half-way through I just stopped reading the massive essays that people had written. Although I can't say I feel Israel is a particularly influential civilisation since it was little more than a minor Middle-Eastern kingdom during ancient times before ceasing to exist for almost two millenia,

To which civilizations are you comparing Israel? If you are comparing Israel to Rome then I would agree with you.
However ancient Israel in its prime was not a minor Middle-Eastern Kingdom,
Israel was highly influential and was repsected by the great powers that bordered its land.
You probably have not read Sharules post on the history of ancient Israel so if you will allow me, I will outline its history.

(1020 BCE) The first king Saul bridged the period between loose tribal organization and set up a full monarchy

(1004-965 BCE) King David established his kingdom as a major power in the region by successful military expeditions including the final defeat of the Philistines, as well as a network of friendly alliances with nearby kingdoms.
His authority was recognized from the borders of Egypt and the Red Sea to the banks of the Euphrates.

(965-930 BCE) King Solomon further strenghtened the kingdom. Through treaties with neighboring kings, reinforced by political motivated marriages, Solomon ensured peace for his kingdom and made it equal among the great powers of the age.

(930 BCE) After the death of Solomon civil war divided the kingdom to northen Israel and southern Judea.

The expansion of Assyrian and Babylonian kingdoms brought first Israel and later Judea under foreign control.

(722 BCE) Assyria conquered northen Israel.

(586 BCE) Babylon conquered southern Judea.
The exile to Babylonia marked the begining of Jewish diaspora. There, the people of Israel developed a religious framework and a way of life outside the land, ultimately ensuring the people's national survival to safeguard its future as a nation.

(538-142 BCE) The Persian king Cyrus conquered Babylon. The people of Israel are freed and return to the land of Israel.
Over the next four centuries, Israel knew varyng degrees of self-rule under Persian and later Hellenistic overlordship.

(142-63 BCE) Complete Autonomy and ruleship is restored to Israel and with the collpase of the Seleucid kingdom, Israel achieves full independence.
Under the Hasmonean dynasty, which lasted for about 80 years, Israel regains boundries not far short of Solomons realm.

(63 BCE-40 BCE) Romans replaced the Seleucids as the great power in the region granting the Israeli king Hyrcanus II, limited authority under the governor of Damascus. The new Roman regime was met with hostility and the following years witnessed frequent insurrections. A last attempt to restore the glory of the Hasmonean dynasty was made by Antigonus, whose defeat and death brought Hasmonean rule to an end and the land became a province of the Roman empire.

(37 BCE-73 CE) Romans appoint Herod as king of Israel. Granted almost unlimited autonomy in the countries internal affairs, Herod became one of the most powerful monarchs in the eastern part of the Roman empire.
Ten years after Herods death (4 BCE), Israel came under direct control of Roman administration. Growing anger against increased Roman suppression resulted in sporadic violence then esclated to a full scale revolt (63 CE).
Roman forces finally crushed the revolt and razed Jerusalem to the ground.
Hundreds of thousands of Israelis perished in the siege of Jerusalem and else where in the country.
After, the Romans seeking to suppress the name Israel, reorganized it as part of the province of Syria-Palestine.


As you can see ancient Israel was not a minor kingdom and in its long existance had a tremendous influential impact on the great powers of its age.
Ancient Israel has lasted longer and had seen the rise and fall of great civilizations such as the Babylonian, Assyrian, and Persian empires.
Israel has proven that it withstood the "test of time" (which many here agrue game civs should maintain).
I am not including modern Israel because many here refuse to recognize ancient and modern Israel as the same entity.

The game developers have tried to include a number of civilisations from each region so as to provide a balanced picture of the world (this is why the the Inca and the Aztecs are included to represent South America while Mali is included to represent Africa). Israel is situated in the Eastern Mediterranean, where there is plenty of competition to be found. The region has given the game civs like Greece, Egypt and Arabia (Persia and Rome have influenced the region in the past and are also included in the game), enough civs to represent the region.

I agree with your observation that the game developers utilize logistics as a criteria with regards to civ implementation, however it is the civilizations point of origin which I believe they ascribe to.
I see it in terms of regions such as the Middle-East, Europe, Asia and the Americas. The region of the Middle-East has only two game civilizations.

The arguments that I have seen on this topic that oppose the inclusion of Israel in the game, just do not hold any water.
There is no substance in these arguments other than the arguments that can basically be applied to any other given civ already represented in the game.
It has become brazenly obvious that the people that vehemently oppose the inclusion of Israel in the game are driven by their negative disposition toward modern Israel.

As a Turk I was somewhat disappointed that the Turks were not included since the Ottoman Empire was the dominant force in the Eastern Mediterranean from the 16th Century to the early 20th Century. Despite this, I concede that the Eastern Mediterranean civs included deserve their places - and I expect that the Turks and the Israelis will probably come in time to further represent that region.

I too believe the Turks will be included in the expansion seeing that they were included in the civ3 expansion.

 

[Ceritoglu]

This is my reply to a little section that was somewhat off topic.

It has become brazenly obvious that the people that vehemently oppose the inclusion of Israel in the game are driven by their negative disposition toward modern Israel.

This is really an assertion that can be flung around by both sides without really gaining any headway, and thus should be avoided if possible. The politics involved are irrelevant, if there is a well-structured and valid argument presented. I find it interesting that you think others are arguing due to their political inclinations, since they could make an equally valid point about you arguing for Israel's inclusion due to some sort of pro-Israeli political agenda. Such accusations simply detract from the topic at hand while gaining very little ground, and things can quickly become personal.

End of off-topic section.

Moving back to the actual argument, I accept that Israel existed for quite a long period of time as a strong nation, I just don't think it exactly outshines some of its neighbours that left a lasting impression on the region.

(1004-965 BCE) King David established his kingdom as a major power in the region by successful military expeditions including the final defeat of the Philistines, as well as a network of friendly alliances with nearby kingdoms.
His authority was recognized from the borders of Egypt and the Red Sea to the banks of the Euphrates.

(965-930 BCE) King Solomon further strenghtened the kingdom. Through treaties with neighboring kings, reinforced by political motivated marriages, Solomon ensured peace for his kingdom and made it equal among the great powers of the age.

This very much seems to represent Ancient Israel at its peak. By the end of David's rule the state controlled (as well as the Israeli heartland) Philistia, Edom, Moab, Ammon, and parts of ancient Aram. This is roughly equivalent to Israel, Jordan and a small part of southwest Syria. This state of affairs comes to an end upon Solomon's death (he had a fairly peaceful reign), the country breaking into civil war soon afterwards.

I imagine you agree with my previous paragraph, I want to make sure you understand I recognise Israel at its height - that I'm not denying it was a strong nation that achieved regional dominance.

My view however is that this relatively shortlived (since it was a united state with those conquests incorporated for, at most, 60 years) kingdom is in no way a rival of Egypt, Greece, Arabia, Persia or Rome at their height, as well as not surpassing Babylon, Assyria, the Ottoman Empire or the Byzantine Empire (you could argue that it is a continuation of Rome since it was known by contemporaries as the Eastern Roman Empire - an equally valid argument stating that the Byzantines were a hellenic civilization and are thus covered by the Greeks) at their height. I'm presenting regional alternatives to Israel that are perhaps more worthy candidates (this is arguable and not really a conclusive statement. You can disagree with this and present your own arguments against it, but I hope you can understand why some might think so.)

I see it in terms of regions such as the Middle-East, Europe, Asia and the Americas. The region of the Middle-East has only two game civilizations.

This is a fair argument, and I can see where you're coming from. The reason I bolded regional earlier was because I'd eventually have to justify this statement. Unfortunately for Israel, it can be claimed to be in three seperate regions. It lies on Africa's doorstep, has often relied on the Mediterranean for much of its trade since it lies on the coast and is geographically in the Middle East - and thus must be compared to the powers of these regions (something I've already done.) If - and only if - you agree with me about Israel having to be compared to its regional neighbours then you'll probably agree with my whole argument. If not, you're not going to convince me, but I'll respect you're view since it is a valid one.

Israel has proven that it withstood the "test of time" (which many here agrue game civs should maintain).

Israel did indeed stand the test of time, but after the death of David it rarely achieved that status as a regional power again. It was invaded on various occasions, and existed under Roman, Greek and Persian overlordship for long periods of time. It often had autonomy, but was rarely given more than a limited form of self rule. For many years, far from being a regional player, it was often dominated by its neighbours. In any case, I fail to see why merely existing would qualify it for entry as one of the top civs.

The arguments that I have seen on this topic that oppose the inclusion of Israel in the game, just do not hold any water.

The arguments you've presented are reasonable and although I disagree with them, I can see why someone would support them. I hope you see some sound reasoning behind my arguments, even if you oppose them.

 

[kernok]

israel is an utopia not a civilization
this could be the simple reason why israel hasn't been included in civs series
however a jewish civilization might deserve the honor to be in civ4...

 

[Mayan Raptor]

On the subject of King David and his empire...did he actually exist? What about Solomon?

 

[Atropos]

On the subject of King David and his empire...did he actually exist? What about Solomon?

Your websites are rather obviously polemical. The Tel Dan stele is usually taken as evidence for the existence of the House of David.

No, there's no proof positive. There's no proof positive for a lot of things in ancient times. But it's more probable that he existed than not.

 

[Mayan Raptor]

Your websites are rather obviously polemical. The Tel Dan stele is usually taken as evidence for the existence of the House of David.

No, there's no proof positive. There's no proof positive for a lot of things in ancient times.

True, the sources do have biases, but bias alone does not mean you can dismiss them.

But it's more probable that he existed than not.

The reverse holds true. If you have little proof of a mythicized person's existence, than, using Occam's Razor, you should assume that person didn't exist until proof comes along.

 

[kernok]

proof no proof... this kind of question reminds me of the big one: does god exist?

god is like the sugar in the coffee: the more you seek it the less you can find it!

i've found another way of being happy with that problem: i drink my coffe without sugar

 

[Mewtarthio]

Does the Iraq war exist? What proof do we have that the entire thing isn't really shot on a sound stage in Nebraska and all our soldiers are being bound and sent to Malaysia to test new pharmaceuticals?

 

[Ceritoglu]

Shh, don't let them hear you.

 

[Mott1]

This is my reply to a little section that was somewhat off topic.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
Quote by Mott1:
It has become brazenly obvious that the people that vehemently oppose the inclusion of Israel in the game are driven by their negative disposition toward modern Israel.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
This is really an assertion that can be flung around by both sides without really gaining any headway, and thus should be avoided if possible.

True,the above quote is off topic, but then again about 50% of the posts on this thread are off topic as well. I was addressing those off topic posts.
Just to list a few of the past off topic quotes:

Israel hasn't been around that long, and it's survival is really only garunteed by the United States. After all, it is the US that gave Israel nukes. The US also spends something like $5 billion dollars annually to buy Egypt and Israel off from going to war. Israel would not now exist if it were not for US funding and military aid.

one could certainly going into issues of occupation and of people going from oppressed to oppressor

a lot of people don't like Jews.I'm just stating a fact.

Let's hope Palestine gets it's territory back, and gets the Israeli boot of its neck.

As has been mentioned numerous times, "Israel" has contributed practically nothing to the world as a civilization

As you can see I am not just aimlessly flinging assertions around. My "assertions" are justifiable and not without merit.

The politics involved are irrelevant, if there is a well-structured and valid argument presented.

I agree, but you are being a bit hypocritical by addressing only me.

I find it interesting that you think others are arguing due to their political inclinations, since they could make an equally valid point about you arguing for Israel's inclusion due to some sort of pro-Israeli political agenda. Such accusations simply detract from the topic at hand while gaining very little ground, and things can quickly become personal.

Given the quotes of past posts listed above, I don't think I am far off the mark when I say that many opposing arguments are in fact motivated by political inclinations. Keep in mind I have listed just a few of those incriminating quotes.
There is nothing that has been said on this topic that I have taken personal. I have stated many times that I am not Jewish nor am I an Israeli sympathizer. I can asure you I have no pro-Israeli agenda, in fact my view on modern Israel is ambivalent. My argument is purely objective.

Moving back to the actual argument, I accept that Israel existed for quite a long period of time as a strong nation, I just don't think it exactly outshines some of its neighbours that left a lasting impression on the region.

Can you be more specific, which neighbours are you refering too? It would be a good place to start, we can then compare the various attributes and go from there.

This very much seems to represent Ancient Israel at its peak. By the end of David's rule the state controlled (as well as the Israeli heartland) Philistia, Edom, Moab, Ammon, and parts of ancient Aram. This is roughly equivalent to Israel, Jordan and a small part of southwest Syria. This state of affairs comes to an end upon Solomon's death (he had a fairly peaceful reign), the country breaking into civil war soon afterwards.

I imagine you agree with my previous paragraph, I want to make sure you understand I recognise Israel at its height - that I'm not denying it was a strong nation that achieved regional dominance.

Yes I do agree. But your initial argument was that you believed that Israel was a minor Middle-Eastern kingdom and a civilization that had little influence. That is what I based my reply on.

My view however is that this relatively shortlived (since it was a united state with those conquests incorporated for, at most, 60 years) kingdom is in no way a rival of Egypt, Greece, Arabia, Persia or Rome at their height, as well as not surpassing Babylon, Assyria, the Ottoman Empire or the Byzantine Empire (you could argue that it is a continuation of Rome since it was known by contemporaries as the Eastern Roman Empire - an equally valid argument stating that the Byzantines were a hellenic civilization and are thus covered by the Greeks) at their height. I'm presenting regional alternatives to Israel that are perhaps more worthy candidates (this is arguable and not really a conclusive statement. You can disagree with this and present your own arguments against it, but I hope you can understand why some might think so.)

What exactly is your criteria for a civilization to be represented in the game? it is not clear to me. Is it the duration of its power? the duration of its existance? its influence? its contribution to the (known) world?
It seems that you do not believe ancient Israel measures up to Babylon or Assyria. Can you list your reason how and why?

This is a fair argument, and I can see where you're coming from. The reason I bolded regional earlier was because I'd eventually have to justify this statement. Unfortunately for Israel, it can be claimed to be in three seperate regions. It lies on Africa's doorstep, has often relied on the Mediterranean for much of its trade since it lies on the coast and is geographically in the Middle East - and thus must be compared to the powers of these regions (something I've already done.) If - and only if - you agree with me about Israel having to be compared to its regional neighbours then you'll probably agree with my whole argument. If not, you're not going to convince me, but I'll respect you're view since it is a valid one.

I completely agree with you about Israel having to measure up to its neighbours in order to be included as a game civ, however I do not agree with your entire argument because I do not believe that the other contending regional neighbours surpass ancient Israel as a civilization.
This includes the other primary candidate civilizations such as Babylon, Assyria,and the Hytites.

Israel did indeed stand the test of time, but after the death of David it rarely achieved that status as a regional power again. It was invaded on various occasions, and existed under Roman, Greek and Persian overlordship for long periods of time. It often had autonomy, but was rarely given more than a limited form of self rule. For many years, far from being a regional player, it was often dominated by its neighbours. In any case, I fail to see why merely existing would qualify it for entry as one of the top civs.

Actually it is after the death of Solomon that Israel declined in power, however it regained its power once again after the fall of the Hellenistic Seleucid empire which was initiated by the Hasmonean family however brief.
What you say is true, but it seems you are establishing an incomplete and very limited criteria that ancient Israel does meet. Basically you are suggesting that if a civilization does not maintain regional power for a very long duration it does not deserve to be in the game. You seem to purposely select a civilization attribute which Israel does not meet and it is not unreasonable for me to assume that you are specifically targeting Israel only.

The arguments you've presented are reasonable and although I disagree with them, I can see why someone would support them. I hope you see some sound reasoning behind my arguments, even if you oppose them.

Your argument is refreshing, it is one of the very few that I've seen on this thread that did not contain any bias. I compliment you on well written objective opinion.