No Israel in Expansion Pack?

[TyBoy]

I think you can make a pretty legitimate argument for inclusion of the ancient hebrew state (the time of david and whatnot) as a civ4 civilization. Though not on par with china or egypt as some said, they could be compared in world power to the inca or zulu certainly. The reason why those civs are included while the hebrews are not, IMO, is the desire to spread the civs around the world. I'm surprised noone mentioned it (that I noticed anyway), but the main thing the inca or zulu have going for them is that they're the most significant civilizations we know about on their respective continents (zulu only for sub-saharan africa, but in practical terms the sahara is a far greater divider than the mediterranean). The hebrew country is not at all the greatest nation we know of from the middle east. They shouldn't be compared to either china or zulu, but to the babylonians and hittites when determining whether or not they should be included on the merits. Their major accomplishment, monotheism, is already represented in the inclusion of judaism as one of the religions. It's never really been a major religion historically as far as the number of followers go, but being a basis for other monotheistic religions it counts as one of the top seven, which seems logical to me. Also, you can't really attribute the success of monotheism to the jews. They started it and held on, but it grew because a roman emporer latched on to it and used the power of the roman empire to make it strong. Atleast for the christianity half of it. I don't know enough about the growth of islam but I doubt it was because of something the jews did that islam became a powerful religion.

The civs that are included from the middle east/europe, where there have been a lot of civilizations and so there is a lot of competition to get included, usually flare up to be pretty darn impressive in their time, then fizzle out. The golden age of the hebrew civilization just wasn't that impressive compared to some of the other ones around that area.

As far as modern Israel, given their situation it's an accomplishment just to hold out and survive. But I don't think that just holding out against any odds is very civ-worthy. If in 100 years the israelis have risen up to conquer most of the middle east (I wouldn't be that surprised, really) that would qualify them for civ. As it is it's a small country beset by small countries. Think of the other civs/leaders that are in the game based on their achievments in the modern world (by modern world I mean the past 50ish years). America, maybe china(for the mao part), soviet russia would prolly have made the bar if they didn't have a history that qualified them. Would you guys advocating Israel for inclusion say that their role as a power in the world is on par with any of those nations?

IMO the argument to show that a civ should be included should describe their power and influence over the people around them. Some people made that argument in this thread and I found it very interesting. I certainly learned some things about the ancient middle east. IMO the hebrew nation described in this thread doesn't quite cut it. I wonder how many other nations have existed through history that you could describe similarly? They conquered another tribe in an area and established a kingdom which lasted quite a while. Practices/beliefs/culture from that kingdom survive today amongst the descendents of that area.

As a footnote, I noticed that someone said that america isn't really an empire. I disagree. Given the subject of this thread, Israel seems like a good example to point out as a part of the american empire. We don't have any specific control over them or any other country in our "empire" but they depend on us and so we get to poke our nose in their business when we feel like it. There are quite a few countries around the world with a similar relationship.

 

[elderotter]

I've noticed most people who say that actually have their contry in the game already. However, it's worthwhile to note that Canada is a big market... Atleast way bigger than Isreal...

I noticed your banner - Quebec I would support.

 

[Older than Dirt]

There should be an ancient mod which includes the Israelites, Hittites, Ammonites, Moabites, Perizites, Girgashites, Caananites, and of course the Sodomites. Just think of the possible missionaries and temples! Firaxis and TakeYouTwice could enter a whole new market!

 

[Mott1]

Congratulations, Mott1. You have just pointed out the hallmark of a pacifist.

Its funny that you mention that, Older than Dirt. Two fellow students in my political science class are ardent pacifist, they believe that war is never an option. They argued that if our nation is being invaded retaliating is morally wrong!
These two students were always quick to anger, at times their anger esclated to the point of uncontrollable rage on whichever topic was being discussed.
On one occasion during a heated debate, one of these "defenders of peace" picked up his chair and threw it at a student across the room nearly hitting a few other students who were in the path of the large projectile. Needless to say the student on the recieving end of the thrown weapon proved his point.
Ironically the topic of that particular debate was about war and the moral implication of civilian casualties caught in the cross-fire.
The professor described these two students as passionate, I described them for what they really were, violent.

 

[Mott1]

Yes I did pass from one extreme to another.

This does not define me as an extremist, this also does not mean that I went from one religious, political or ideological extreme to another. Because of this transformation of thought I was able to assimilate to western culture/society without the prejudices of my former ideology.

Whether you realize it or not you are a defeatist simply because you do not understand the threat that faces us today.

Uh huh.

What is the point you are trying to make here?
Are you still labeling me an extremist? Do you still believe I accused you of being a defeatist?
It also seems like you are suggesting that I somehow implicate myself as a defeatist by using snipets of my prior posts.
Its not clear what your point is, please elaborate.

 

[Armed_Maniac]

I noticed your banner - Quebec I would support.

Indeed, however i am satisfied with a mod, something that some people can't seem to do...

Are you a modder? All the Québec mods suck... Using inapropriate units, leaders, starting techs and/or something else of the like...


And yes, it is ALL about marketing. They figured it'd be better to have civs from all over, that way though african states aren't zulu, people from those regions can take them as they are what most resembles them.

If a nation is a big market or the civ could represent alot of people in the world (the gaming world, that is), it will most likely be included, if not, it might be in an expansion. Firaxis is a company like all others, wathever makes the money!

 

[Sohan]

Sumerians, Egyptians, Phoenicians, Philistines, Hittites, Akkadians, Assyrians, Babylonians, Medians, Persians, Armenians, Parthians, Seljuk Turks, Ottoman Turks, Arabs, Mamluks, Hebrews... and on and on it goes until the Middle East explodes in a flash of nukes.

 

[Armed_Maniac]

What Market? If this is all about market, then why is Mali in it?!

Oh yes...because they did something to warrant a plance in history. Mostly carving up a huge empire in Africa.

This isn't about marketing, this is about Culture, History & Influence.

Considering the belief system is unique, considering the history is unique and it's influence is evident, it is more then enough reasont put them in.

What other nation survived a diasapora, by being scattered all over the known world, and kept their identity for 2000 years, and 2000 years later bring back a dead langauge to be widely spread once again.

Okay, double posts be bad and all... but i jsut reread this and...

and 2000 years later bring back a dead langauge to be widely spread once again.

Widely spread? We must have a different definition of "widely spread"... A few people here and there and a bunch in one spot doesn't make it widely spread. If you want, you can consider 5.1 million alot... But really to think of it alot of big cities have more than that many inhabitants...

 

[Sohan]

The Hebrews laid the foundation for the cultural and religious core of more than half the world. And yet they couldn't even forge an empire.

 

[CarterField]

Its funny that you mention that, Older than Dirt. Two fellow students in my political science class are ardent pacifist, they believe that war is never an option. They argued that if our nation is being invaded retaliating is morally wrong!
These two students were always quick to anger, at times their anger esclated to the point of uncontrollable rage on whichever topic was being discussed.
On one occasion during a heated debate, one of these "defenders of peace" picked up his chair and threw it at a student across the room nearly hitting a few other students who were in the path of the large projectile. Needless to say the student on the recieving end of the thrown weapon proved his point.
Ironically the topic of that particular debate was about war and the moral implication of civilian casualties caught in the cross-fire.
The professor described these two students as passionate, I described them for what they really were, violent.

What a large sample base you describe. Before you take a few shots at Ghandi, let's end this debate now. The idea that a human being can leave everything behind is ridiculous. Have you ever heard of AA? I suggest that you learn about their program because it is impossible to fully shed oneself from the environment that someone developed within. Yes, I am a pacifist. We do get heated and suffer from the same emotions that everyone else does from time to time. We look at violence as a final alternative and feel that its act hurts us more than those who we injure. You obviously are doing well in your studies. However, I encourage you to use some more introspection before you label everything from your original culture *evil*. That is something that I don't respect. There are no black/whites in this world; that is where you have a lot of learning to do. Once you accept that everything is neutral you could be a very wise person.

 

[Mott1]

What a large sample base you describe. Before you take a few shots at Ghandi, let's end this debate now.

You really do have a habit of jumping to conclusions. Although true, the story I related to Older than Dirt was meant to be taken satirically.
Don't worry Ghandi is safe for now. Even though I have a bone to pick with him, I have no wish to evoke your verbal wrath once again.

The idea that a human being can leave everything behind is ridiculous. Have you ever heard of AA? I suggest that you learn about their program because it is impossible to fully shed oneself from the environment that someone developed within. Yes, I am a pacifist. We do get heated and suffer from the same emotions that everyone else does from time to time. We look at violence as a final alternative and feel that its act hurts us more than those who we injure. You obviously are doing well in your studies. However, I encourage you to use some more introspection before you label everything from your original culture *evil*. That is something that I don't respect. There are no black/whites in this world; that is where you have a lot of learning to do. Once you accept that everything is neutral you could be a very wise person.

You are mistaken. I do not label everything from my original culture evil, only the ideology of my former religion.
Before you become all irate and jump to the defense of Islam, I suggest you first do some thorough research. If you do decide to at least give me the benefit of the doubt and undertake this task, I ask only that you are fair and objective in your research.
Concluding an argument with your own personal philosophy and then stating that I must further my learning in order to see the truth in this philosophy, borders on arrogance.
Scholars have been debating over diverse philosopies and schools of thought for hundreds of years and all we know for certain is that they still disagree.
We as humans define good and evil, right and wrong by our morals. Our morals are derived from our ethics, it is our human ethics that govern these axioms.
If we as humans do not follow this basic principle and see everything as neutral, we would have no direction.
I can go on but I hardly think you would be interested in furthering this discussion.

 

[CarterField]

You really do have a habit of jumping to conclusions. Although true, the story I related to Older than Dirt was meant to be taken satirically.
Don't worry Ghandi is safe for now. Even though I have a bone to pick with him, I have no wish to evoke your verbal wrath once again.



You are mistaken. I do not label everything from my original culture evil, only the ideology of my former religion.
Before you become all irate and jump to the defense of Islam, I suggest you first do some thorough research. If you do decide to at least give me the benefit of the doubt and undertake this task, I ask only that you are fair and objective in your research.
Concluding an argument with your own personal philosophy and then stating that I must further my learning in order to see the truth in this philosophy, borders on arrogance.
Scholars have been debating over diverse philosopies and schools of thought for hundreds of years and all we know for certain is that they still disagree.
We as humans define good and evil, right and wrong by our morals. Our morals are derived from our ethics, it is our human ethics that govern these axioms.
If we as humans do not follow this basic principle and see everything as neutral, we would have no direction.
I can go on but I hardly think you would be interested in furthering this discussion.

Here's some news for you; I am arrogant. In addition to my education and my travels I've encountered many passive aggresivists in my day. My studies have remained focused upon the integration of religion into history, the polarization between monotheism and the olde ways, and the political radicalization of governments that have used these ideologies to further their aims. I have an intimate familiarization with Islam and easily become annoyed when people judge any organized religion based on a single interpretation via a particular school of thought.

In addition, humans do not measure good and evil against our morals. Our interpretations of what is right and what is wrong are swayed primarily by the advantages and disadvantages that we believe will result from committing the said actions. Ethics? A system of ethics is simply a codified social understanding of what, hopefully, the majority of the persons in a democracy believe to be advantageous or disadvantageous to society. The loose concepts that you are describing, such as "morals" and "ethics," are as unique in every human being as the genes in our DNAs. What makes our motivations become synchronized, however, is the historical understanding that groups of people will impose rules on each other to increase efficiency, productivity, and pleasure.

Yes, for centuries persons like me have debated spiritual and religious ideologies and have, at times, disagreed. But we have also agreed on the notion that dogma is seperate from spirituality. In this regard, we study multiple answers to the same question; since everything is subjective none of those interpretations can be considered to be inherently wrong.

You say that the neutral path is a still journey. I say that the neutral path is the most exhillarating of all because (1) it is unattainable in our present forms, and (2) it is the only way that a man or a woman can walk on the Razor's Edge. That is, the only point in our lives when we can truly recognize that we are alive. I implore you to investigate this term as it will only enhance your studies.

 

[elderotter]

well said Carterfield

 

[Xineoph]

Okay, double posts be bad and all... but i jsut reread this and...



Widely spread? We must have a different definition of "widely spread"... A few people here and there and a bunch in one spot doesn't make it widely spread. If you want, you can consider 5.1 million alot... But really to think of it alot of big cities have more than that many inhabitants...

Ok, so widely spread is a bad definition in this case. But a whole nation reviving a dead language and using it as their first language again...well you don't see that very often. I can't even think of other cases, where a nation suddenly uses the language of their forefathers 2000 years ago as common usage.

 

[Armed_Maniac]

Ok, so widely spread is a bad definition in this case. But a whole nation reviving a dead language and using it as their first language again...well you don't see that very often. I can't even think of other cases, where a nation suddenly uses the language of their forefathers 2000 years ago as common usage.

That would be because most of them were not lucky enough to be scattered around, they were exterminated or assimilated by force. Also, it there wasn't much litterature in the old language, very little would incite a people to revert to a language of the past.

And yes, I did say lucky. From all the nations of the past, very few remain, and even fewer have any power in world events, or even continental events.

Which made me look into this...

David waged several successful military campaigns, annexing Philistia, Edom, Moab, Ammon, and parts of ancient Aram (roughly modern Syria) known as Aram-Zobah, and Aram-Damascus. Aram itself became a vassal state of Israel under David.

This speaks for itself...

 

[Xineoph]

Very true..the Diasapora was a blessing in disguise. It prevented full assimiliation and allowed us to maintain our culture even under persecution by running all over the known world.

But the Romans, Greeks & Persians scattered nations too, didn't they? Why did they not survive and the Hebrews/Jews did?

Also, I don't quite understand the last part of your message...it just shows the David subjugated the neighbouring areas. Or is it something else?

 

[Mott1]

Here's some news for you; I am arrogant.

And all this time I was led to believe most pacifist were modest, humble, and meek! I need to trash that political correctness manual, as of yet I have not found a single truth in that darn thing

Before I begin I want to make clear that I am not refuting your views, philosophy, political stance, way of life etc..
I ask questions, scrutinize and doubt because it is in my nature to do so.
I believe everyone is entitled to their personal beliefs (and that includes religion) as long as it does not promote hate, violence, intolerance or in any way impose itself on others.

In addition to my education and my travels I've encountered many passive aggresivists in my day. My studies have remained focused upon the integration of religion into history, the polarization between monotheism and the olde ways, and the political radicalization of governments that have used these ideologies to further their aims. I have an intimate familiarization with Islam and easily become annoyed when people judge any organized religion based on a single interpretation via a particular school of thought.

Just how intimate is your familiarization of Islam? is your view on Islam dependant on your relationship with a few Muslims? Do you adhere to the politically correct Islam where the many many violent verses are rationalized or purposely avoided? or have you actually read the Quran and the Hadith?
There is only one interpretation of Islam that Muslims follow, and that is what is written word for word in the Quran. The Quran is the perfect and incorruptable word of Allah, their is no other interpretation. This is the Islam we must examine.
You can remain annoyed with me and linger in the comfort of your philosophies; relying only on the confidance of your knowledge, or you can open your mind to at least examine the alternate possibilty.

In addition, humans do not measure good and evil against our morals. Our interpretations of what is right and what is wrong are swayed primarily by the advantages and disadvantages that we believe will result from committing the said actions.

So our conscience plays no role in our morals? the laws that we abide by today are simply the product of an evolutionary process of cause and effect?
This idea seems to dehumanize us, that the only thing that separates human from animal is our level of intelligence.
Assuming you are correct, there still must be a universal primer to define right and wrong based on these precieved results.

Ethics? A system of ethics is simply a codified social understanding of what, hopefully, the majority of the persons in a democracy believe to be advantageous or disadvantageous to society. The loose concepts that you are describing, such as "morals" and "ethics," are as unique in every human being as the genes in our DNAs. What makes our motivations become synchronized, however, is the historical understanding that groups of people will impose rules on each other to increase efficiency, productivity, and pleasure.

You and I define ethics quite differently. You seem to rely on the theory of normative ethics given your discription above, I however applied metaethics.
Ethical naturalism to be more precise.
It is my view that ethics dervied from our human conscience establishes the yardstick that I believe defines right and wrong. This yardstick can best be described as the Golden Rule, it is the universal principle that is as old as humanity.
Right and wrong must be defined by a set criterion and there is nothing more self evident than the Golden Rule.
The Golden Rule basically says treat others only in ways you are willing to be treated. It is the common theme in almost all religions(Islam is void of this principle). In short the Golden Rule represents fairness.

Yes, for centuries persons like me have debated spiritual and religious ideologies and have, at times, disagreed. But we have also agreed on the notion that dogma is seperate from spirituality. In this regard, we study multiple answers to the same question; since everything is subjective none of those interpretations can be considered to be inherently wrong.

You are a scholar of philosophy? I am truly privileged.(no sarcasim)

You say that the neutral path is a still journey. I say that the neutral path is the most exhillarating of all because (1) it is unattainable in our present forms, and (2) it is the only way that a man or a woman can walk on the Razor's Edge. That is, the only point in our lives when we can truly recognize that we are alive. I implore you to investigate this term as it will only enhance your studies.

I am always willing to learn more on philosophy, I can never learn enough. What books or authors do you suggest?
I have enjoyed this insightful dicussion and I would enjoy nothing more than to continue, although I keep forgeting that this is a gaming forum.

 

[Tulkas12]

~Vicariously I.... live while the whole world dies.

 

[^alon^]

israel rules!

i realy think it shoud be in the exp game.

israel have a very important part in the world!

 

[Older than Dirt]

Ethics derived from the human conscience? Yours? Mine? Pol Pot's? Bin Laden's? Emperor Augustus'? Ivan the Terrible's? Without God everything is permissible! Why is it that children have to be taught that there is no creator God?