1. We have added a Gift Upgrades feature that allows you to gift an account upgrade to another member, just in time for the holiday season. You can see the gift option when going to the Account Upgrades screen, or on any user profile screen.
    Dismiss Notice

Israel In BNW?

Discussion in 'Civ5 - General Discussions' started by Stonecutter9, Mar 19, 2013.

?

Should Israel be included as a civ in BNW?

  1. Yes

    45.7%
  2. No

    54.3%
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. Stonecutter9

    Stonecutter9 Rex Michiganensis

    Joined:
    Mar 16, 2013
    Messages:
    201
    Location:
    Michigan
    If Israel were to be included, the Synagogue is not a good UB choice; America might as well have a Synagogue UB because it has the world's highest Jewish population. It should be added though, as another religious belief building purchased through faith; perhaps +3 :c5happy:, +2 :c5culture:, and +1 :c5faith:; the reverse of the Mosque. I prefer the Bamah as a potential UB for Israel
     
  2. EYGuy

    EYGuy Chieftain

    Joined:
    Mar 26, 2013
    Messages:
    33
    Synagogue would make a good religious belief building.
     
  3. space measurer

    space measurer Chieftain

    Joined:
    Oct 2, 2010
    Messages:
    28
    Hey guys, if it weren't for the single most influential text in human history on the planet Earth we wouldn't know anything about these Jews who are walking around.

    Isn't this a bit like saying "if it weren't for the horse, we would have no idea who Genghis Khan was"?
     
  4. cybrxkhan

    cybrxkhan Asian Xwedodah

    Joined:
    Aug 10, 2006
    Messages:
    9,687
    Location:
    The Universe
    Its not that we wouldnt know anything about the Jews, its that we would know barely anything about the ancient Jews from the bronze/early iron age. The analogy with horses and Genghis Khan doesn't correlate - Genghis Khan's existence is known because of Chinese, Muslim, Indian, European, etc. sources as well as archaeological and environmental evidence of his destruction. Contrast this with the ancient Jews, where the only serious source isthe Bible. Having only one source is not reliale.

    This is not to say whether Israel is desrving or not (that's a different debate), but it is a bad idea, academically, to assume things based on only one source.
     
  5. Absolution

    Absolution Prince

    Joined:
    Mar 6, 2010
    Messages:
    591
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Israel
    Well, there are several Mesopotamian texts relating to the kingdom of Israel, and mostly to the kingdom of Juda.
    The big debate is whether David and Solomon really existed.

    And you mentioned archaeology and ruins.. I'll just let you know that Israel is full of them.


    Generally, there are many sources supporting the existence of the Israelite kingdoms.
    Here are a few examples you can read about: Tel Dan Stele, Sennacherib Prism, Mesha Stele, Kurkh Monolith,
    Black Obelisk of Shalmaneser, Siloam Inscription, Jehoash Inscription, Large Stone Structure in Jerusalem... And there are many more.
     
  6. space measurer

    space measurer Chieftain

    Joined:
    Oct 2, 2010
    Messages:
    28
    Sure the Tanakh isn't a reliable historical record of who paid the army and paved the roads 3 thousand years ago, but we have a continuous record of the activity of the Jewish people in the Levant (and the rest of the Hellenistic and later, Roman world) operating at various levels of political autonomy from whenever B.C.E. to present. (And contrary to one poster, who is under the laughable impression that there was not such a thing as a "Jewish people" before 1948.)

    Another poster remarked how we would not think of a Jew writing in the Caliphate of Cordoba or the Ottoman Empire as a member of the "Jewish nation" living in X place, but rather as a person of X political allegiance who "happened to be" Jewish (or some similar woolly-headed construction), but that's funny because that's exactly how the Caliph understood his relation to his minority subjects, who lived in the Muslim lands under their own community's rules so long as they rendered unto Caesar.

    Anyway, practically speaking, there are probably more modern Israelis playing Civ 5 than there are Huns, Songhai, and Byzantines. Not to mention those in the diaspora who'd like a shot at correcting certain historical iniquities. Does the "civilization" of Israel deserve a place in a game like Civ 5? Why not? They've literally survived "the test of time" like few others, even while being very small on the points leaderboard for long stretches of time. As someone else said, its about having fun and offering new strategic possibilities, not measuring up to some imagined standard of historical largeness.

    I like the idea of some kind of national wonders UA (no one really has something like this, and the Temple seems to be the prototype), or the Great Person buying, which is a cunning suggestion. And they should probably get a UI to make the desert bloom, even if Ben Gurion is a bit much for most people. But otherwise Shlomo is a good leader, and probably closer to their theme than David and Maccabi, the warriors.

    I bet we'll see them, what with a "Brave New World".
     
  7. space measurer

    space measurer Chieftain

    Joined:
    Oct 2, 2010
    Messages:
    28
    Or maybe -2 :c5happy:
     
  8. SemperFi2382

    SemperFi2382 Mitten Marauder

    Joined:
    Nov 10, 2003
    Messages:
    321
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Michigan, USA
    I voted no, because while interesting, there is too much that will be done incorrectly. For example, you would either have to include Palestine, or merge the two. (Jesus was Palestinian you know) Then add in the leader choices, many of which are just not correct. (My wife, who has some authority on the matter has scoffed at a lot of the stuff she has seen suggested on the forums regarding this topic.)

    Frankly, add in the controversy and I just do not see it being in BNW. It could be done, but it has to be done correctly, which I just do not see without it being a joke. Yes, whether or not people even consider it a civilization is a different matter, because the same could be said for many others in (or not in) in the game.
     
  9. Cromat

    Cromat Warlord

    Joined:
    Nov 15, 2005
    Messages:
    138
    Jesus... was a Palestinian?
     
  10. Mrdarklight

    Mrdarklight Warlord

    Joined:
    Mar 27, 2002
    Messages:
    255
    Location:
    Sacramento, CA
    I'm not married to the idea. It would make as much sense as some of the other choices, and more than some. Brazil is a civilization? I think that's the hardest one to agree with. I just don't see what they've done that warrants being called a Civilization any more than Canada or Mexico, or Pakistan.
     
  11. Androrc the Orc

    Androrc the Orc Emperor

    Joined:
    Apr 19, 2004
    Messages:
    1,621
    Location:
    Vienna, Austria
    Pakistan is already to some degree represented by India. Mexico would be nice, but they are largely a mix of Spanish and Aztec cultures, both of which are already in the game. Canada is more like two civilizations (Anglo-Canada and Québec) than a single one. Furthermore, in our days Brazil has a larger economy than any of the countries you have mentioned, and many people find its culture interesting.
     
  12. SemperFi2382

    SemperFi2382 Mitten Marauder

    Joined:
    Nov 10, 2003
    Messages:
    321
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Michigan, USA
    Yes.

    Jesus was born in Bethlehem, a few miles outside of Jerusalem. Jerusalem was the center of Jewish government of Palestine. Nazareth, where Jesus grew up, is located in Northern Palestine.
     
  13. aluelkdf

    aluelkdf Prince

    Joined:
    Mar 5, 2012
    Messages:
    420
    Brazil is a civilization. And so is Mexico. Mexico has food, music and culture that is unique to Mexico. The reason why they added Brazil over Mexico is for several reasons.

    -We already have Aztecs and Maya (sort of like how Rome represents Italy). Modern North America is represented by the USA. Adding Mexico or Canada would be representing modern North America more while ignoring modern South America.

    -Modern South America is completely unrepresented. They needed something to fill the gap, and Brazil fits it better than anybody. Brazil vs Paraguay, no contest.

    -Brazil is the superpower of South America, economically, military, pretty much everything. And Brazil is the second most powerful and influential civ in all of the Americas (second only to the USA).

    -Civilization is NOT an ancient or even a medieval game. Civilization covers all eras up to and including the space age. And Brazil is a perfect addition for the late game.
     
  14. ragan651

    ragan651 High Regent of Candlewick

    Joined:
    Jul 9, 2012
    Messages:
    328
    Location:
    NW US
    From the point of view of military conquests and domination, Israel isn't known for having a vast empire. Instead, they had a rich, unique culture which has shaped the rest of the world in many way. From a cultural and religious standpoint, they are very significant, and very important. The kings David and Solomon are two of the most famous rulers of all time. To me, there's no question Israel belongs in Civilization (and despite not controlling a vast empire like Rome or Byzantium, they were able warriors and had their share of great victories and conquests).

    In Brave New World, there will be an emphasis on archeology, where ancient battle sites are investigated and relics recovered, which is a perfect fit of Israel. I do agree the civ should be focused on ancient Israel rather than the modern nation, but it should still recognize the current nation of Israel in the modern era. As a leader, I would suggest Solomon. I liked one suggestion that they generate additional great people.

    Also, another civ that can handle religion would give the Celts a run, because currently the Celts don't have much competition in early religion.
     
  15. Cromat

    Cromat Warlord

    Joined:
    Nov 15, 2005
    Messages:
    138
    I am aware that Bethlehem is now in the Palestinian West Bank, but that does not mean Jesus was Palestinian... Jesus was Jewish. Also at the time there was no land called Palestine since the Romans only gave that name to the Judea province after the Jewish revolt which ended in 70 AD, years after Jesus died.
     
  16. Mrdarklight

    Mrdarklight Warlord

    Joined:
    Mar 27, 2002
    Messages:
    255
    Location:
    Sacramento, CA
    See, that's the difference in our thinking. You are thinking we need to spread the distribution of civilizations around, geographically. I think a civilization should have been important in world history in some way in order to be called a civilization. Where a country appears on the map has no relevance at all to whether it is a civilization, in my opinion. Australia isn't a civilization - why not? There's a big whole on the map that has no representation in Civilization. According to your logic, they should.

    For marketing reasons they probably decided they need a South American country, but that doesn't make Brazil a "civilization".
     
  17. Cromat

    Cromat Warlord

    Joined:
    Nov 15, 2005
    Messages:
    138
    I think people are taking this too hard. Being included into Civ, a computer game, does not mean entering the hall of fame of human civilization. It's all about which cultures, empires or nations are fun to play as.

    Seriously, if the game has Polynesia and Zulu, then there is no reason why Israel and Brazil, which definitely have much more historical significance shouldn't be in. Both should be good fun.
     
  18. Mrdarklight

    Mrdarklight Warlord

    Joined:
    Mar 27, 2002
    Messages:
    255
    Location:
    Sacramento, CA
    As I've said before, it's all arbitrary. I don't have a problem with Brazil, or with Israel not being in it. It actually has less to do with what that civilization accomplished (or where it was geographically) than simple game mechanics. The game designers want to spread out unique units and abilities across the time span of the game. If we were strict about what a civilization was, half of the civs would have ancient era UU's and UA's, because that's when most of the "civilizations" of importance lived - Assyria, the Hittites, Egypt, Sumeria, Babylon, etc. About the only modern era "civilization" would be America, and maybe Russia. But they wanted to spread it out more evenly, which is fine with me.
     
  19. ferretbacon

    ferretbacon Obsessor

    Joined:
    Apr 11, 2012
    Messages:
    1,530
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    North Texas
    That's the thing that the majority of people here seem to fail to take into account:

    A Civilization must be unique, flavorful, and iconic.

    Secondary are the considerations of historical relevance and geographical underrepresentation/voids.

    The Polynesians got in. Why? They aren't really all that relevant in history. Sure, they also filled a geographical void, albeit, one composed almost entirely of water.

    No, the primary reason they got in was because they offered a unique play style, flavorful uniques, and have iconic, readily-identifiable motifs (music, dress, culture [even if some of this is stereotypical as it is presented in the game]).

    For this reason, Israel/the Hebrews/the Jews/whatever would make great additions to the game. They're unique/flavorful/iconic and historically relevant and fill a (small) geographical void.
     
  20. oski90

    oski90 Chieftain

    Joined:
    Mar 18, 2013
    Messages:
    48
    Location:
    San Diego, CA, USA
    Couldn't have said it better - the Celts are another example. A number of other new civs would fit that bill (unique, iconic, etc) - Indonesia and/or Viet Nam to name two.
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page