Never Before Seen Civs - Elimination Game

[Morningcalm]

Wait a minute shouldn't there be a vote every 24 hours? You're just four hours early

Sometimes I also post late, sometimes I post a few hours earlier than *exactly* 24 hours (in part this is because some of my late posts have been at 2 AM, i.e. 4-7 hours after my customary posting time). For today, I will be going to a dinner with friends later today and will be unavailable until I sleep.

Spoiler :

I'm sorry to interrupt, my goal was not to go into such discussions anymore. But this is actually funny. I clicked on the link, and looked up the source. Thankfully, it's a book I remember reading quite well. You should do give it a try if you are interested in the minefield that is the history of ancient Israel. Concerning Hezekiah he gives quite good arguments, why he was stylized as a much greater King in later times than he actually was. But maybe the writer of the wikipedia entry didn't read the book and just found some random sentences in it?

Er, no. Having checked the Google book myself, there is nothing indicating Hezekiah being portrayed as greater than he was. Maybe if you could provide page references and quotes that would be helpful. What I see from the Google book is a detailed analysis of the historical record regarding letters about Assyria's invasion. I see nothing indicating Hezekiah was not a good ruler.

It looks like you don't seem to contest the other things Hezekiah did--the creation of fortifications and the Siloam Tunnel among them. Nor do you seem to contest that Assyrian records do not indicate Jerusalem being conquered while under Hezekiah's rule. Hezekiah's defensive measures did increase Judah's power and allowed Hezekiah to keep Jerusalem out of Assyrian hands. There was also the population increase, but I didn't mention that as I don't see it as an indication of increased state strength as such.

Furthermore, the focus of this thread is on civilizations, not rulers. Hezekiah is just one of at least two leaders that would be ideal to lead the Hebrews, in part because they have a well attested historical record (vs. say, Gilgamesh or Dido). For his part, Nadav Naʼaman, author of Ancient Israel and Its Neighbors: Interaction and Counteraction (the book you refer to as having read and remembered), says the following:

"[Sennacherib] intended, rather, to break and weaken Judah, the strongest kingdom that remained near the Egyptian border."

This is on page 33 of the chapter "Forced Participation in Alliances".

So yes, Hebrews as a civ is viable and makes sense. Certainly would be more interesting than the Italians again.

 

[Siptah]

Spoiler :

I have no intention discussing this with you further, just as with Akhenaten, you have your opinion formed by what you've read and I have mine formed by what I've read and it's more or less futile to discuss. This not the place to do so anyway and since we can't produce anything original, we are also not the people.
And by the way: I just checked that. Did you read the text right before that? Or is that not available in your google book? Maybe went back a page or two to read why it is the strongest kingdom that remained? And why Judah was wrecked and even partly handed over to the not any more remaining others? And why Jerusalem wasn't conquered? And I'm too lazy to look up where Hezekiah's legacy is discussed, but I don't think it is in those chapters but in some about more religious topics where it belongs. Google books has word search iirc, so if it's available in the preview, you'll find it easily.
And I'm of course not referring to the Siloam Tunnel, because I don't believe that he was built by Hezekiah. But this is again just another topic in the endless minefield that is archeology in Israel. As is the population thingy...

 

[Kimiimaro]

Ashanti 21
Babylonians 20
Benin (Dahomey)/Benin (Nigeria) 18
Carthaginians 13
Creek/Muskogee/Other SE NA 17
Ethiopians 21
Georgians 19
Haida/Tlingit/Other PNW 16
Hebrews 14
Hittites 15
Incas 23
Iroquois 22
Italians 6
Khmer 22
Koreans 22
Malians 22
Maori/Other Polynesians 22
Mayans 23
Mongols 19
Ottoman Turks 19+1=20 - Putting the Ottoman Empire where it belongs - to the 20 club.
Siamese 9
Tibetans 15
Vietnamese 3-3=0 (ELIMINATED) - Goodbye. I think that two or three Civs from SE Asia would be enough, and I prefer Indonesia, Siam and Khmer to be these three.

 

[Zaarin]

Hebrews 13 (16-3) The Kingmaker is of course right, I meant to write Aram not Elam. And now I'll probably hear that Aram belongs to the Hebrew civ anyway...

I'm somewhat ambivalent on including Judah as a civilization. Their religious impact on the world has been astounding, but I'm pretty content with the Jerusalem city-state. Aram, on the other hand, I would love to see as a civ--whether we call it Aram or Aramea or Syria--led by Zenobia of Palmyra.

(I also 100% agree about the Maya.)

 

[Morningcalm]

Spoiler :

I have no intention discussing this with you further, just as with Akhenaten, you have your opinion formed by what you've read and I have mine formed by what I've read and it's more or less futile to discuss. This not the place to do so anyway and since we can't produce anything original, we are also not the people.
And by the way: I just checked that. Did you read the text right before that? Or is that not available in your google book? Maybe went back a page or two to read why it is the strongest kingdom that remained? And why Judah was wrecked and even partly handed over to the not any more remaining others? And why Jerusalem wasn't conquered? And I'm too lazy to look up where Hezekiah's legacy is discussed, but I don't think it is in those chapters but in some about more religious topics where it belongs. Google books has word search iirc, so if it's available in the preview, you'll find it easily.
And I'm of course not referring to the Siloam Tunnel, because I don't believe that he was built by Hezekiah. But this is again just another topic in the endless minefield that is archeology in Israel. As is the population thingy...

If you had no intention on discussing this with me further, you ought not to have discussed this with me further. But instead you added several asides in your post with a series of questions and further criticisms of my view of Hezekiah. I'm happy to agree to disagree, noting (as my own aside) that I have never seen any online source stating Akhenaten was a good ruler, *especially* on foreign policy grounds (let alone taxation, military, etc.)

I'm somewhat ambivalent on including Judah as a civilization. Their religious impact on the world has been astounding, but I'm pretty content with the Jerusalem city-state. Aram, on the other hand, I would love to see as a civ--whether we call it Aram or Aramea or Syria--led by Zenobia of Palmyra.

The Jerusalem city-state is frankly underpowered in the game as yet, so from a gameplay perspective alone I disagree. I also think that the Hebrews are well due for inclusion in Civ, at least in the game where a religious victory is possible. I like Zenobia as well, but plenty of others dislike the idea of including a short-lived empire in the game.

 

[Zaarin]

The Jerusalem city-state is frankly underpowered in the game as yet, so from a gameplay perspective alone I disagree. I also think that the Hebrews are well due for inclusion in Civ, at least in the game where a religious victory is possible. I like Zenobia as well, but plenty of others dislike the idea of including a short-lived empire in the game.

I do agree that I'd like to see Judah or Israel in game, I'm just not entirely confident about how Firaxis might portray them--as much as I love my ancient empires, Civ6 has a very mixed record on that front (like Gilgabro, for example...). If it were just Palmyra, I'd agree, but I think Zenobia is a prime candidate to lead a civilization called "Aram" or "Syria." Her empire was brief but her civilization was ancient.

 

[luigilime]

Ashanti 21
Babylonians 20
Benin (Dahomey)/Benin (Nigeria) 18
Carthaginians 13
Creek/Muskogee/Other SE NA 17
Ethiopians 21
Georgians 19-3=16 even if I like this option I think that the Caucasus is a fairly small region that can be neglected at least for the time being
Haida/Tlingit/Other PNW 16
Hebrews 14
Hittites 15
Incas 23
Iroquois 22
Italians 6+1=7 giving Italy an extra life just for the sake of it
Khmer 22
Koreans 22
Malians 22
Maori/Other Polynesians 22
Mayans 23
Mongols 19
Ottoman Turks 20
Siamese 9
Tibetans 15

 

[Guatenadian]

Ashanti 21
Babylonians 20
Benin (Dahomey)/Benin (Nigeria) 18
Carthaginians 13
Creek/Muskogee/Other SE NA 17
Ethiopians 21
Georgians 16
Haida/Tlingit/Other PNW 16
Hebrews 11 (14-3) Tough choices have to made, at this point pretty much all of these Civs deserve to be in the game.
Hittites 15
Incas 23
Iroquois 22
Italians 7
Khmer 22
Koreans 23 (22+1) I really enjoyed Korea in Civ5 and I would really like to see them again in Civ 6.
Malians 22
Maori/Other Polynesians 22
Mayans 23
Mongols 19
Ottoman Turks 20
Siamese 9
Tibetans 15

 

[Zaarin]

Ashanti 21
Babylonians 20
Benin (Dahomey)/Benin (Nigeria) 18
Carthaginians 13
Creek/Muskogee/Other SE NA 17
Ethiopians 21
Georgians 17 (16 + 1) -- Georgia shouldn't be dropping so quickly.
Haida/Tlingit/Other PNW 16
Hebrews 11
Hittites 15
Incas 23
Iroquois 22
Italians 4 (7 - 3) -- Among European powers, the Italian city-states are a low priority and modern Italy isn't even on the map.
Khmer 22
Koreans 23
Malians 22
Maori/Other Polynesians 22
Mayans 23
Mongols 19
Ottoman Turks 20
Siamese 9
Tibetans 15

 

[The Kingmaker]

Ashanti 21
Babylonians 20
Benin (Dahomey)/Benin (Nigeria) 18
Carthaginians 13
Creek/Muskogee/Other SE NA 17
Ethiopians 21
Georgians 17
Haida/Tlingit/Other PNW 16
Hebrews 11+1=12 First off, no, the Aramaeans are not the same as the Hebrews. (I even advocated for their inclusion elsewhere and was shot down.) Look, it doesn't always have to be about military prowess and territorial expansion.
Hittites 15
Incas 23
Iroquois 22
Italians 4
Khmer 22
Koreans 23
Malians 22
Maori/Other Polynesians 22
Mayans 23
Mongols 19
Ottoman Turks 20
Siamese 9-3=6 Bring back the Khmer first. Not that I don't want Thailand back.
Tibetans 15

 

[Roman Citizen]

Ashanti 21
Babylonians 20
Benin (Dahomey)/Benin (Nigeria) 18
Carthaginians 13
Creek/Muskogee/Other SE NA 17
Ethiopians 21
Georgians 17
Haida/Tlingit/Other PNW 16
Hebrews 12
Hittites 15
Incas 23
Iroquois 22-3=19 If the Iroquois are to return they can not have Hiawatha show up again with some dumb forest ability. I got a feeling that if the Iroquois are to return, they are going to make the same mistakes form civ 5 again.
Italians 4+1=5 What??? Italy isn't the worst option we have that's left on here. I'm sick of European civs, but if we had to have another one it would be either Italy or the Ottomans.
Khmer 22
Koreans 23
Malians 22
Maori/Other Polynesians 22
Mayans 23
Mongols 19
Ottoman Turks 20
Siamese 6
Tibetans 15

 

[Zaarin]

Italians 4+1=5 What??? Italy isn't the worst option we have that's left on here. I'm sick of European civs, but if we had to have another one it would be either Italy or the Ottomans.

...In what way is a civilization from Central Asia located in Asia Minor European? If the Ottomans are European, Russia is Asian...

Ignoring the very much Asian Ottomans, I have to disagree: I'd place the Netherlands, Portugal, and the Gauls as all being higher priority European civs than Italy (the Netherlands and Portugal for being far more important, the Gauls for representing Ancient/Classical Northern Europe). If we must have European civs beyond those three, I'd still rather see one of Hungary/Austria/Austria-Hungary than Italy. While I don't think Rome stands for Italy any more than it does for France and Spain, Italy's window of significance was very brief.

 

[luigilime]

...In what way is a civilization from Central Asia located in Asia Minor European? If the Ottomans are European, Russia is Asian...

Ignoring the very much Asian Ottomans, I have to disagree: I'd place the Netherlands, Portugal, and the Gauls as all being higher priority European civs than Italy (the Netherlands and Portugal for being far more important, the Gauls for representing Ancient/Classical Northern Europe). If we must have European civs beyond those three, I'd still rather see one of Hungary/Austria/Austria-Hungary than Italy. While I don't think Rome stands for Italy any more than it does for France and Spain, Italy's window of significance was very brief.

I'm probably being biased right now but I'll say one last thing and then we close the discussion in this thread.
Ok Italy importance wise should be at the same level of Portugal and the Netherlands but the latter two did different things than Italy; Portugal and the Netherlands are famous mostly for their colonial empire, for founding New York, and for the northern Renaissance (Hyeronimus Bosch and company), Portugal the same. Their achievements are almost completely political, while Italy did nothing important politically until it's unification. But Italy was ripped off by firaxis, I mean France throughout history copied Italy, made Paris so it looked like Rome, invaded Italy several times to get artwork to put in the Louvre, heck even the french unique ability, gran tour: the gran tour was the trip young nobles from England and northern Europe did, traveling to Italy through France to learn architecture and the various arts.
Even if the Renaissance was just one of many as you say, Italian culture influenced Europe at least until the XIX century, look at the film Amadeus that shows you the situation, people from Italy would be called to enter the various European courts to teach Italian music and art (the example I made was Salieri at the court of the Habsburgs).
Italy is the birthplace of many architectural styles like baroque, of modern banking, of international trade at least in Europe, being the place where the pendulum, the battery, the radio, arguably the telephone. Things that define our life today.
Italy has always been mocked and laughed at because of the past( even the national anthem sais something about the mockery), but let's not forget what Italy did for the world, which much more than a lot of the options in this list. I reckon it's time Italy gets what it deserves.
But I can't change your mind it's just my final push to save my country.

 

[Siptah]

Look, it doesn't always have to be about military prowess and territorial expansion.

Sure, I'll be among the first to agree to that. My problem with Judah/Israel/Hebrews is not primarily it's military strength, I just went that route because some people argued that they were a strong kingdom.
You down voted the Armenians, which is of course something completely different. Anyway, there's only two people really going for the Hebrews as it seems, so there's no hurry, they'll be gone soon enough.

Ashanti 21
Babylonians 20
Benin (Dahomey)/Benin (Nigeria) 18
Carthaginians 13
Creek/Muskogee/Other SE NA 17
Ethiopians 21
Georgians 17
Haida/Tlingit/Other PNW 16
Hebrews 12
Hittites 16 (15+1) A fascinating civ for me. Great terraformers, developed their own completely unique architectural style, used multiple languages and scripts for most of their time, famed for their open trade... If you ever get a chance to visit the remains of Hattusha and know enough to understand what you see - you'll be happy.
Incas 23
Iroquois 19
Italians 5
Khmer 22
Koreans 23
Malians 22
Maori/Other Polynesians 22
Mayans 23
Mongols 19
Ottoman Turks 20
Siamese 3 (6-3) Time for the Khmer or Burmese.
Tibetans 15

 

[Amrunril]

Ashanti 18 (21 - 3) We could definitely use more African civs, but Benin and Ashanti are fairly close geographically, and I've seen much stronger arguments for Benin.
Babylonians 20
Benin (Dahomey)/Benin (Nigeria) 18
Carthaginians 13
Creek/Muskogee/Other SE NA 17
Ethiopians 21
Georgians 17
Haida/Tlingit/Other PNW 16
Hebrews 12
Hittites 16
Incas 23
Iroquois 20 (19 +1) I don't think the Iroquois should come back as a primarily forest-focused civ, but I think they'd be a great choice for a diplomatic civ.
Italians 5
Khmer 22
Koreans 23
Malians 22
Maori/Other Polynesians 22
Mayans 23
Mongols 19
Ottoman Turks 20
Siamese 3
Tibetans 15

 

[Xandinho]

Ashanti 18
Babylonians 20
Benin (Dahomey)/Benin (Nigeria) 18
Carthaginians 13
Creek/Muskogee/Other SE NA 17 - 3 = 14 Usually, I am not very interested in NA natives. The Creek may have been important and powerful in its region, but I do not care much.
Ethiopians 21
Georgians 17
Haida/Tlingit/Other PNW 16
Hebrews 12
Hittites 16
Incas 23
Iroquois 20
Italians 5
Khmer 22 + 1 = 23 Probably the most interesting civ of Southeast Asia
Koreans 23
Malians 22
Maori/Other Polynesians 22
Mayans 23
Mongols 19
Ottoman Turks 20
Siamese 3
Tibetans 15

 

[The Kingmaker]

You down voted the Armenians, which is of course something completely different. Anyway, there's only two people really going for the Hebrews as it seems, so there's no hurry, they'll be gone soon enough.

Sure, simple enough. How many World Civ classes mention the Armenians vs. how many mention the Hebrews?

Hebrew religion, law and culture have had significant world-changing effects.

 

[Kimiimaro]

Sure, simple enough. How many World Civ classes mention the Armenians vs. how many mention the Hebrews?

Hebrew religion, law and culture have had significant world-changing effects.

Well, I remember that here in Czech Republic, we were taught about Hebrews, but not about Armenia.

 

[luigilime]

Well, I remember that here in Czech Republic, we were taught about Hebrews, but not about Armenia.

I guess everywhere at least in continental Europe they teach about the Hebrews, firstly because of Christianity giving them a significant importance, secondly we all feel ashamed of what happened to the Jews, which is reasonable. But that doesn't change the fact that their importance ends with their religion which is already in the game.

 

[The Kingmaker]

But that doesn't change the fact that their importance ends with their religion which is already in the game.

See, I wouldn't agree with that. Their ideas have had a marked effect on the legal systems, philosophies and culture of all later Western and Near Eastern civilizations.

For a tiny coastal kingdom, the world has been and largely continues to be absolutely obsessed with them.