You take far too much in terms of folklore, mythology, Nationalistic plays on old, unverified claims, other very dubious legends and claims, and even outright balderdash at face value. It would do you very well to be much more discerning in these areas.
Well, Armenia beat Ethiopia by a few years as the first Christian commonwealth, but both were early adopters of Christianity. Osroene might have beat both of them, but it was a rather short-lived state. While the Jewish nature of pre-Christian Ethiopia or of the Khazars is very much open to debate, if you want a genuine Jewish state outside of Israel you might look into Adiabene, an Aramaic kingdom in what is now northwestern Iraq.
The Khazar language is in the Guiness Book of World records, apparently, for the least amount of, "written literature," of any language with actual written, translated script available. A bronze bar with a missive sent to Yuri I the Wise, Grand Prince of Kiev, saying, "I have read," or, "I understand," is all we have.
When you send a diplomatic missive and all you get back is a read notification.The Khazar language is in the Guiness Book of World records, apparently, for the least amount of, "written literature," of any language with actual written, translated script available. A bronze bar with a missive sent to Yuri I the Wise, Grand Prince of Kiev, saying, "I have read," or, "I understand," is all we have.
Why Rome? The Roman conquest of Judea was pretty uneventful. They basically just shifted from being a client kingdom of the Seleucids to a client kingdom of Rome. I'd see them much more likely to appear in an "Ancient World" scenario where Egypt, Babylon, Assyria, Hittites, Persia (and sure, go ahead and throw in Greece if you want, even if it's anachronistic) jockeying for control of the trade route crossroads in Canaan (as they historically did).
There was a Kingdom of Israel as a default civ in Empire Earth 1.
Civ 4 has Solomon Temple as the shrine for Judaism and civ 5 has the mines of Solomon as a natural wonder which also could be some plusses as to why we could have Solomon as a leader for Israel. All Solomon did was build because he had asked wisdom from god which god gave to him and made him very wise but he eventually spent his wisdom with many women and their gods which god disliked. David also had some issues with god later where he had to choose his punishment so they were both not as good. However, David did do better the Saul but at least Solomon had helped establish a lineage of kings for Israel. I dont want to turn this into a father-son feud so David would be better simply because he is the father.
Given the only source on Saul we have--the book of Samuel--is extremely hostile to him to the point that it could be described as propaganda, there's not much useful to work with. (Of course, David and Solomon have the opposite problem: what we have to work with is pro-Davidic propaganda.)
Yes, it's not proper Jewish observance to get foreign witches to necromantically conjure the ghosts of dead prophets because you're stumped for advice...
There's his ability: Witch of Endor: Can activate expended great people a second time.Yes, it's not proper Jewish observance to get foreign witches to necromantically conjure the ghosts of dead prophets because you're stumped for advice...
There's his ability: Witch of Endor: Can activate expended great people a second time.
It seems odd the Israelites getting worked up, or caring too much, about religious conflicts between other peoples entirely. Such an attitude also does not go with such an exclusionist attitude, theologically speaking., either.
Well, Saul did commit FREAKING GENOCIDE on the Amalekites. He also paled in success to David and Solomon. If you want to look at Saul in a Judeo-Christian-Muslim lens, he was unfaithful to God.
I don't think this ability will fly...
