What additional civilizations would you like to see in Civilization V

[Syailendra]

For me, because they are the founder of monotheism, which in time evolves unto christianity and islam, two greatest religion at present day. Sulaiman their greatest king build a great temple that until this day seen as a holy place for judaists, christians, and moslems.
Before GnK, there are no religion mechanics in the game, so they are a 'big no no'. But now i'd like to see them as a strong religion based civ.

 

[Syailendra]

Oh and another thing, its better use the hebrews or the judeans than israel as their name.

 

[Liex]

Well, AbsintheRed used "Israel/Hebrew", and it's under the "Other Middle-Eastern civs" category. I didn't vote for it, but I should, mainly for Armenia, but I think people underestimate Ancient Israel influence in the Western World. I believe much of the relationship between church and kingship has to do with the anointing of King David, for instance. Also, David and Solomon are recurring themes in art and literature. Take our beloved 'Gods & Kings' box's art as an example So I don't think Israel popularity lacks an explanation if you take the ancient Hebrews in account.

I don't think modern-day Israel would be popular per se, though. All I know is that I wouldn't like to see it, nor a ancient/contemporaneous hybrid.

 

[CivilizedPlayer]

I believe much of the relationship between church and kingship has to do with the anointing of King David, for instance.

That relationship was actually established when Pope Leo III crowned Charlemagne "Emperor of the Romans". There was no "church" at the time of King David. The Hebrews always had a theocratic monarchy, and King David was just one of many in that regard. However, the concept of a divine ruler predates even the Israelites. The Egyptians, Incans, and even the earliest Mesopotamian civilizations all worshipped their leaders as divine beings. So the "relationship between church and kingship" was alive and well long before the Hebrews.

 

[Louis XXIV]

Everytime there's a poll or discussion like this one, I'm always surprised to see Israel as a relatively popular choice. Why does everyone want them in game? They've achieved so little of note, and they've only existed since 1948. It wouldn't make any sense to include Israel in Civ to represent that area before 1948, it would be like choosing the United States to represent all Native American tribes in the US before the the US was unified. And if they're only representing the post-1948 nation, that's even worse. I won't start on all their immorality (people seem to be in agreement that morals aren't important when choosing what Civs to be in-game), but I will say this: their achievements to date are negligible. Compared to Rome, England, or even Songhai, they just don't stack up, at all. I'm not saying that they won't ever be a great nation, but they certainly aren't now. Their military is based on US support, and that's pretty much the only thing impressive about them. So can someone please explain the love for Israel?

Well, for starters, people usually throw in the Ancient Kingdoms of Judah and Israel. It's similar to India representing Ancient India as well as the modern state. The ancient civilization's cultural heritage is the biggest reason, I would think.

I do think their modern accomplishments are nothing to scoff at, though. If I were to make them, they would have an ancient unit (either something to do with Maccabee or Masada) and the Merkava (Modern Armor replacement) as well as an ability that reflects their religious tradition. But, either way, it's the combination of ancient and modern that I'd recognize.

ETA: That being said, I probably voted for Assyria in that poll. I'm just explaining why I could support Israel.

 

[Liex]

That relationship was actually established when Pope Leo III crowned Charlemagne "Emperor of the Romans". There was no "church" at the time of King David. The Hebrews always had a theocratic monarchy, and King David was just one of many in that regard. However, the concept of a divine ruler predates even the Israelites. The Egyptians, Incans, and even the earliest Mesopotamian civilizations all worshipped their leaders as divine beings. So the "relationship between church and kingship" was alive and well long before the Hebrews.

Mind that I never said the "relationship" was product or exclusivity of the Hebrews. I was just talking about their influence in the Western World (Medieval and Renaissance Europe, specifically). I confess I have little to none knowledge in these matters, but I think it's hard to deny that influence.

The Carolingian dynasty also placed great reliance upon the church for its standing and legitimacy in western Europe. They had as I have already mentioned usurped the previous dynasty, and so they needed to find a legitimacy all to themselves, which could be presented as an explanation for their new won position. They found their legitimacy like so many others in the ‘word of God’ - the Bible. Charlemagne in particular went some way to associate himself fully with the prominent characters of the Old Testament, so much so that he “began to represent a new type of ruler modelled on David, and like David he was the anointed of God" Source

King David could be just one of many theocratic monarchs, but I honestly think he was more relevant to the Western World than any Pharaoh.

 

[Louis XXIV]

That relationship was actually established when Pope Leo III crowned Charlemagne "Emperor of the Romans". There was no "church" at the time of King David. The Hebrews always had a theocratic monarchy, and King David was just one of many in that regard. However, the concept of a divine ruler predates even the Israelites. The Egyptians, Incans, and even the earliest Mesopotamian civilizations all worshipped their leaders as divine beings. So the "relationship between church and kingship" was alive and well long before the Hebrews.

It's worth noting that the title Charlemagne preferred over all others (including Romanorum Imperator Augustus) was "David." So that demonstrates the symbolic importance of David in the church-state relationship.

 

[Nyanko]

Well, for starters, people usually throw in the Ancient Kingdoms of Judah and Israel. It's similar to India representing Ancient India as well as the modern state. The ancient civilization's cultural heritage is the biggest reason, I would think.

I do think their modern accomplishments are nothing to scoff at, though. If I were to make them, they would have an ancient unit (either something to do with Maccabee or Masada) and the Merkava (Modern Armor replacement) as well as an ability that reflects their religious tradition. But, either way, it's the combination of ancient and modern that I'd recognize.

ETA: That being said, I probably voted for Assyria in that poll. I'm just explaining why I could support Israel.

I think that if Israel is to be added, the modern state should be divorced completely and utterly from the ancient state, the ancient state was arguably influential. The Modern state is too controversial.

Not that I think Israel should be added at this moment, there are at least a half dozen civs before them in my opinion.

Mind that I never said the "relationship" was product or exclusivity of the Hebrews. I was just talking about their influence in the Western World (Medieval and Renaissance Europe, specifically). I confess I have little to none knowledge in these matters, but I think it's hard to deny that influence.

Indeed the Assyrians thought the same too, that their king was Ishtar's will, the reason they were so hard on revolts was because they were defying the will of Ishtar (the king)

 

[Louis XXIV]

I don't think you can divorce the controversy by only representing the ancient Kingdoms. They're still very closely associated with each other.

 

[nokmirt]

We need the Sioux added. My Giant Earth Map is completely empty in North America, as I explore west. If not the Sioux give me some indians to fight. Zulu Sioux next civ DLC. It even rhymes.

"I don't care what that kid woulda done. I never shootem in the back." John Wayne talking about Clint Eastwood

 

[Nyanko]

I don't think you can divorce the controversy by only representing the ancient Kingdoms. They're still very closely associated with each other.

While you may not be able to completely divorce the controversy, you can definitely limit it by separating the two states

 

[That nerdy kid]

Actually, the Hebrews did not start monotheism. It started in Old Kingdom Egypt, as well as in Greece (worship of only Zeus)

 

[JFD]

Actually, the Hebrews did not start monotheism. It started in Old Kingdom Egypt, as well as in Greece (worship of only Zeus)

Atenism, right?

I would like to see Hungary, under Louis I or Stephen. Perhaps with some sort of bonus during war times to do with maintaining happiness, to emulate stability.

 

[flakercorn]

Great poll!
But why are there so few voters?

 

[OmniPotent42]

I am offended that Texas wasn't an explicit choice.

 

[AbsintheRed]

I am offended that you didn't vote for Hungary
Btw, a poll has maximum 25 options in CFC
Nevertheless, Texas wouldn't have made it as a separate option with 50 votes either

 

[Arachnofiend]

I think that if Israel is to be added, the modern state should be divorced completely and utterly from the ancient state, the ancient state was arguably influential. The Modern state is too controversial.

It's as controversial as Iran and the other modern states that were once Arabia, who get a nod with the double oil aspect of the UA.

 

[AbsintheRed]

Great poll!
But why are there so few voters?

You are right
The main discussions forum would probably be a better place would be for this (these) polls

 

[awesome]

It made sense at the time

 

[AbsintheRed]

It made sense at the time

Thanks