What civilizations do you miss in BTS?

[Traitorfish]

I'm sorry but I think many of you are missing the point.
It's not the Ancient Kingdom that should be in the game, nor is it modern Israel. It's BOTH.

The history of the Jews is one history: from the ancient kingdoms, to the exile in Babylon, back to Judea, the revolt against the Greek, the Hasmonean independence, being a Roman province, revolt against the Roman, destruction and exile, 2000 years of exile, spreading to the 4 corners of the Earth and then being reunited as a country in the 20th century.

If a civ called "Israel" is included, then it stands for ALL of that. It represents 3000 years of history. And hundreds of the world's best scientists, inventors and artists were Jews, highly unproportinate to their number. I think I heard nearly 20% of all Nobel Prize winners are Jewish.

If you look at the Ancient Kingdom alone it might not deserve inclusion. It was small, didn't build any huge monuments and was conquered and vassalized by it's neighbours. It's only real achievement was a religous one.

Then if you look at modern Israel, it's a young and small country whose strong army does not warrant including.

But those two states and the 2000 years of exile between them are ONE AND THE SAME. It's the same people (maybe genetically dilluted, but nonetheless the same), in the same place, speaking the same language, believing in the same faith.

Assyria, Media and Elam were all great in their day, but they were assimilated and now no one calls himself an Assyrian, Median or Elamite anymore. They are dead and made no real impression on the world. Israel on the other hand, not only spurred the Western's world 3 major religions, but the Jews also had a part in the history of every place they lived in while in exile. The history of Europe is incomplete without Jews. And it still exists today, which is a monumental achievement in itself.

You seem to be buying into the Zionist delusion that the modern State of Israel is a genuine successor state to the ancient Kingdom. Most Jews don't believe that- the vast majority of non-Israeli Jews consider themselves to be American, British, German, or whatever- so why should the rest of us?
True, the Jews have an impressive history of retaining their ethno-religous identity, but that doesn't make them a good idea for a civ. A dispersed population, however much individual members of that population has achieved, does not equate to a nation.

This sentence contradicts itself. If Judeo-Christian religions are predominant in the West, then how is Israel's importance overrated? You said it yourself. Jewish/Hebrew culture is one of the pillars of what we now call Western civilization. It's not overrated, and it certainly deserves inclusion.

Firstly, Jewish influence does not equate to Israeli influence. Secondly, the actual level of Jewish influence on Christianity is actually rather small compared to that of Greco-Roman civilisation, and, in certain regions, Germanic, Celtic and Slavic culture. Thirdly, what I meant was that the importance of Israel in the ancient world has traditionally been mis-percieved by Europeans who fall for the ethnocentric slant that the Bible puts on history.

If anything, this thread and this poll at least prove that it would be economically sound to include it.

True, but that doesn't make it a good idea. America has been a civ since Civ1 one with financial justification, but it's always been a godawful idea.

 

[cybrxkhan]

again, i think Ancient israel is a decent idea (not modern), a possible 3rd, 4th, or even 5th tier civ.

however, i do agree with Traitorfish.

 

[Traitorfish]

again, i think Ancient israel is a decent idea (not modern), a possible 3rd, 4th, or even 5th tier civ.

Yeah, I mean, if Civ4 did get to the point where a fourth expansion was released, then I'd be quite happy to see an Israel civ. I just wouldn't put it at a higher priority than Assyria or the Hittites. Hell, if both of them were in a third expansion I'd be quite happy to see Israel in their too. I mean, it's far from being an invalid basis for a civ, I just wouldn't place it on a very high priority.

 

[Cromat]

You seem to be buying into the Zionist delusion that the modern State of Israel is a genuine successor state to the ancient Kingdom. Most Jews don't believe that- the vast majority of non-Israeli Jews consider themselves to be American, British, German, or whatever- so why should the rest of us?
True, the Jews have an impressive history of retaining their ethno-religous identity, but that doesn't make them a good idea for a civ. A dispersed population, however much individual members of that population has achieved, does not equate to a nation.

How is it a delusion?
Same place, same language, same faith, same people (they both define themselves as Jews, and genetic evidence proves that modern Jews originated at least partially from Israel) - 2000 years later.
And the fact that some Jews don't live in Israel doesn't mean that they don't see it as the successor state - in fact the vast majority of them do think that, but they choose to live in their own countries because they have good lives there.
And I DO think that retaining their identities is a good reason to include them. And I do think that a people retaining their unique identity even in exile constitutes a nation.

And not including the Americans? are you serious? do you honestly think that Elam and Media, even Assyria had nearly the influence of the US?

 

[Traitorfish]

Same place

Okay, that's one reason.

same language

Wrong. No-one in Israel speaks Ancient Hebrew as a first language anymore than Italians speak Latin (and don't try the argument that it's still used when reading the Bible, because it's not, that's a form of Hebrew from the early Middle Ages called "Tiberian Hebrew").

same faith

Wrong. Modern Judaism has changed considerably since the faith practiced 2,000 years ago. For a start, there are several Jewish sects, so some of them must have deviated from the original Jewish tradition at some point.

same people (they both define themselves as Jews, and genetic evidence proves that modern Jews originated at least partially from Israel) - 2000 years later.

So? anywhere between 100 and 10,000 years back the majority of my family's Irish, doesn't make me Irish. Sure, I identify my ethnicity as Irish-Scots, but that doesn't make me an Irishman, or give me claim to any part of Ireland.

And I DO think that retaining their identities is a good reason to include them.

Why?

And I do think that a people retaining their unique identity even in exile constitutes a nation.

Well, you'd be wrong. A nation requires something more than an ethnic identity. Besides, there are actual many Jewish ethnic divisions, so there has clearly been some changes in their national identity.

So what we've got so far is people moving back to the area there ancestors lived in 2,000 years ago with heavily modified versions of their religion and language. Hardly a genuine continuation of the original Kingdom.

And the fact that some Jews don't live in Israel doesn't mean that they don't see it as the successor state - in fact the vast majority of them do think that, but they choose to live in their own countries because they have good lives there.

Yeah, that's definitely it. The only reason Jews stay in their own country is because they prefer it to their real homeland. Not because, say, their families have been their for centuries, because they consider themselves to members of that nationality, because they do not feel that Israel is the Jewish homeland that it's proponents imagine it to be.
Seriously, the reason that most Jews do not go to Israel is because they have no reason to, they feel no connection to a distant country that their ancestors happened to live in. Put short, they don't consider themselves Israelis, or the modern state of Israel to be representative of all Jews.
Again, the reason I don't move to Ireland isn't because I simply prefer being here, it's because I have no particular connections to the country. And I say that as someone who's family actually owns land there- some small farm in Donegal that was the property of an ancestors- rather than some 2,000 year old claim of nationhood.

And not including the Americans? are you serious? do you honestly think that Elam and Media, even Assyria had nearly the influence of the US?

Erm... Yes? They were all major forerunners of European and West Asian civilisation, the US is just a modern post-Imperial state. It's nothing more than an off-shoot of European, primarily English, civilisation.

 

[Cromat]

stuff

You know that by your definition, the England of today is not a succesor to the England of 500 years ago? I mean come on. Hebrew has changed in these 2000 years much less than English or French did in 500 years, because it was extinct and only used for prayers and such. The Bible is an Ancient Hebrew text that has been kept unchanged since 600 BC, and normal modern Israelis can understand it just fine.

And are you arguing that since Judaism had many different sects created and ideas absorbed while in 2000 years of exile it is not the same faith? Same God, same book, same prophets. All that changed is 2000 years of interpetations.
By your definition, nothing can ever be a succesor state to anything, unless the people were kept frozen for 2000 years.

Why are you citing ethnic divisions as proof of a national division? The Jews in Europe, Asia, America or Africa all eventually define themselves as Jews. These ethnic divisions are only barely relevant between Jews themselves.

Being in exile for 2000 years, retaining the same national, ethnic and religous identity, and then returning to their homeland - it strikes me as a huge achievement, especially since they were subjected to some of the worse if not the worse persecutions any group has ever faced in history. There is no such case in the history of the world. If that doesn't impress you, that's fine. I wonder what does.

Erm... Yes? They were all major forerunners of European and West Asian civilisation, the US is just a modern post-Imperial state. It's nothing more than an off-shoot of European, primarily English, civilisation.

It is now obvious that we have WILDLY different opinions on what constitutes a civilization.
I approach it this way: how much did the people who called themselves "Americans" had influenced the history of the world?
The answer: a whole lot.
The US might just be a 'modern post-Imperial state', but it's also the the biggest center of military power, economic power, technological advancement and cultural output in the last century. And I am not an American citizen, just to be clear.
If you apply my question to the Jews, the conclusion is that people who identified as Jews have done a whole lot to influence history, much more than some of the civilizations already included in the game.

 

[methane]

If you apply my question to the Jews, the conclusion is that people who identified as Jews have done a whole lot to influence history, much more than some of the civilizations already included in the game.

Stop confusing Jews with Israelis.

Jews are in the game. The religion can spread all over, just like it did in real history. The ancient state of Israel is not in the game. Neither is the modern state of Israel. Even if you combine them, there are far more worthy candidates.

 

[Traitorfish]

You know that by your definition, the England of today is not a succesor to the England of 500 years ago?

No, because the modern United Kingdom is the actual, legal successor state to the Kingdom of England that has existed for 1,000 years. It's not just people moving to a country where there great ^ 75 grandparents lived.

I mean come on. Hebrew has changed in these 2000 years much less than English or French did in 500 years, because it was extinct and only used for prayers and such.The Bible is an Ancient Hebrew text that has been kept unchanged since 600 BC, and normal modern Israelis can understand it just fine.

That's the sort of claim that requires some sort of evidence, you know.

And are you arguing that since Judaism had many different sects created and ideas absorbed while in 2000 years of exile it is not the same faith?

Yes, that was fairly clear in my post.

Same God, same book, same prophets. All that changed is 2000 years of interpetations.

Interpretations are important, y'know. What is Christianity but a different interpretation of Judaism?
Look, I'm not saying that modern Judaism and ancient Judaism are unconnected, I'm just saying that, over the last 2,000 years, changes have been made to the faith. Less than have been to Christianity, of course, but changes are changes.

By your definition, nothing can ever be a succesor state to anything, unless the people were kept frozen for 2000 years.

No, it just requires that a state have substantial connections to it's predecessor and is not a mere romantic invention.

Why are you citing ethnic divisions as proof of a national division?

Because you cited their supposed ethnic unity as evidence of a continuous, 2,000 year nation.

The Jews in Europe, Asia, America or Africa all eventually define themselves as Jews. These ethnic divisions are only barely relevant between Jews themselves.

So?

Being in exile for 2000 years, retaining the same national, ethnic and religous identity, and then returning to their homeland - it strikes me as a huge achievement, especially since they were subjected to some of the worse if not the worse persecutions any group has ever faced in history. There is no such case in the history of the world. If that doesn't impress you, that's fine. I wonder what does.

Sure, it's impressive, but not in the same way that the Pyramids are impressive or the Roman Empire was impressive. In short, it's not the sort of impressive that makes a great argument for inclusion in Civ.
Besides, "returning to their homeland"? Firstly, There's several million more Jews in the USA than Israel; Israel, as I've said, is not the new Jewish homeland that some people believe. Secondly, I would not define "homeland" as where someone's ancestors lived 2,000 years ago. Is the homeland of an an Irish-American Ireland? Is the homeland of an African-American Africa? So is the homeland of a Jewish-American Israel?
Britain, for example, has had a Jewish Prime Minister. He was not an Israeli, nor did he consider himself one, as evidenced by the fact that he assumed the role of Prime Minister, one only allowed to those of British nationality. I'm sure he acknowledge his ancient Israelite roots, but that does not mean he considered Israel to be his homeland.

I approach it this way: how much did the people who called themselves "Americans" had influenced the history of the world?
The answer: a whole lot.

I never denied that. But the Assyrians, Elamites and Medians all influenced history a fair bit more.

The US might just be a 'modern post-Imperial state', but it's also the the biggest center of military power, economic power, technological advancement and cultural output in the last century.

So? It's still just a modern post-Imperial state, it has no place in the game.

If you apply my question to the Jews, the conclusion is that people who identified as Jews have done a whole lot to influence history, much more than some of the civilizations already included in the game.

So what? That does not equate to a nation or a civilisation.

And, just in case you missed my earlier comments, I don't consider Israel to be an invalid civ, I'd jsut place a pretty low priority on them. Half of this is debate is just me playing devil's advocate, as I am prone to do.

 

[cybrxkhan]

israelis are descendants of the ancient jews, just in the way germans are descendants of holy romans.

 

[civhelp121]

First of all I am jewish and I am very into jewish history, so lets clear some things up. After all, I think a jew can speak best for his own people.

1. Legally, you are right. But according to your own definition england is not the successor because the two states are too radically different. An example being the parliament having the vast majority of power rather than the King.

2. The hebrew used in prayer books, which have been preserved as the same since we are praying to god and the prayers created do not need to be altered, is the same used in Israel. In hebrew school when they taught us hebrew the hebrew of course had modern additions to it, but it didn't go far from the original.

3. All faiths change. You say that the beginning of judaism is so different than now its not the same, and yet look at the beginning of christianity. It was a small underground realigion of pacifists and those who strictly did what jesus said. I think its common knowledge that the medieval church made so many changes in order to explain their political involvment, plus the prostitant revolution and the counter of that by the cathlics that Christianity, although technically the same faith, is radically different.

4. I talked about that in the previous number

5. I find it offensive when people say its a romantic invention. It may be to christians and muslims because to them all it is, is a religious site. But to us its our home, and we never forgot that it was as much a political site than it was a realigious. In fact during passover a tradition is always to say, while outside Israel "Next time in Israel." Its not meant to say that religious events should take place in Israel, its safe to say one can practice Judaism anywhere, but a reminder of our lost home.

6. Regional Ethnicity means nothing to jews. It doesn't matter if you are chinese and one is western, if you are a jew you are a jew, and being a jew is not technically an ethnicity, but it plays the same role in uniting people.

8. You obviously don't know jewish history. It wasn't until the 1800's did the Europeans finally allow jews to intergrate, and even then it was short lived until the 1900's. Jews lived in ghettos, seperate cities from the non-jews. In times of peril, jews didn't seperate they helped each other to survive, since they couldn't rely on anybody else and its one of our values that we need others to help support ourselves, as it is in many other cultures. In addition, many of these persecutions were government orchastrated, so its not random murderers who killed the jewish population, its a powerful organized force. Don't forget that the crusades aimed to kill as many jews as possible, i'm blocking on the word, but rampages in russia (a place with high concentration of jews) in the time of the Czar's were often, the holocaust is another example, the greeks (this is after dividing alexander's empire) tried to convert all jews, the holiday of purim tells the story of a man who tried to get a King to kill as many jews as possible, the Spanish inquisition forced jews out, converted them or killed them, and the list goes on and on.

11. In their time, they did, but jews have influenced history over the long term a lot more, as already explained by Cromat.

12. The U.S is very different than europe in terms of culture and values, in the sense that the U.S is much more into individualism (NASA made competitions for amatuer inventors to invent improvements to some of their equipment, that has never happened in Europe). The U.S may be western, but it has made an impact nevertheless that will remebered through time. War and imperialism is not the only way to be influential

 

[civhelp121]

"Sure, it's impressive, but not in the same way that the Pyramids are impressive or the Roman Empire was impressive. In short, it's not the sort of impressive that makes a great argument for inclusion in Civ.
Besides, "returning to their homeland"? Firstly, There's several million more Jews in the USA than Israel; Israel, as I've said, is not the new Jewish homeland that some people believe. Secondly, I would not define "homeland" as where someone's ancestors lived 2,000 years ago. Is the homeland of an an Irish-American Ireland? Is the homeland of an African-American Africa? So is the homeland of a Jewish-American Israel?
Britain, for example, has had a Jewish Prime Minister. He was not an Israeli, nor did he consider himself one, as evidenced by the fact that he assumed the role of Prime Minister, one only allowed to those of British nationality. I'm sure he acknowledge his ancient Israelite roots, but that does not mean he considered Israel to be his homeland."

The only reason more jews haven't gone to Israel is because of the extreme danger of the situation, and don't forget that Jews still go there at a large rate. You can't expect such a mass returning for a nation barely 60 years old. Not all jews consider Israel their homeland, but I can tell you the vast majority do. Besides, look at the poll. Israel is now leading.

 

[Cromat]

Sure, it's impressive, but not in the same way that the Pyramids are impressive or the Roman Empire was impressive. In short, it's not the sort of impressive that makes a great argument for inclusion in Civ.
Besides, "returning to their homeland"? Firstly, There's several million more Jews in the USA than Israel; Israel, as I've said, is not the new Jewish homeland that some people believe. Secondly, I would not define "homeland" as where someone's ancestors lived 2,000 years ago. Is the homeland of an an Irish-American Ireland? Is the homeland of an African-American Africa? So is the homeland of a Jewish-American Israel?
Britain, for example, has had a Jewish Prime Minister. He was not an Israeli, nor did he consider himself one, as evidenced by the fact that he assumed the role of Prime Minister, one only allowed to those of British nationality. I'm sure he acknowledge his ancient Israelite roots, but that does not mean he considered Israel to be his homeland.

I need to go and don't have time to reply to everything, but i'll reply to this.

First of all, you are right in saying the Jews survival as a distinct identity is not impressive as the Pyramids or Roman Empire were. It's impressive in it's own way. Whether that is a good argument to being included in Civ, that question can only be answered by Firaxis, and they have their own considerations (hint: $$$). Whether it makes the Jews a greater civilization, I think it does.
Just look at the Egyptians and Romans you mentioned: great empires, wonderful monuments, amazing culture, huge influence. But they are nowhere to be found today. Their faith, culture, language and even ethnicity are extinct and dilluted. No one is a Roman today, and the Egyptians of today call themselves Arabs. The Jews called themselves Jews 3000 years ago
and call themselves Jews today. That IS an achievement.
The Jews survival isn't 'simply not dying' - something history proves wasn't simple at all to begin with for the Jews. It's not dying while passing on your unique culture, religion and unused language. It's retaining that identity for all those years in all of those different places.
Of course Jews were influenced in 2000 years. Of course they changed. But no group of people have ever been so similiar 2000 years apart. At least none that I know of.
And how you define homeland is of no relevance, since Jews, from the first century to the 20th century DID consider Israel/The Holy Land/Palestine to be their homeland. And if there is any sort of homeland of the Jews it could only be there. And if the Jews were ever to be independent it could only be there.
And some Jews have sufficiently good homes that they consider themselves loyal Americans/British/French/etc. And they consider those countries as their homelands. That doesn't mean they don't recognize their origins.
And the fact that most Jews didn't immigrate to Israel upon it's founding doesn't mean that they don't consider it their homeland. It just means that they have a good life they are not willing to abandon.
An intresting quote from British PM D'israeli you mentioned: when confronted by some sort of comment about him being a Jew from a fellow Brit, he replied "my ancestors served in the court of King Solomon while your ancestors were busy clubbing each other with sticks".

I will continue this later

 

[Slaughter]

Assyria and Austria could have been in, why not?

 

[TheLastOne36]

Saim made an argument a week or two ago against isreal and this is what it was:

"Christanity, Islam and Judaism is already in the game, why do we need isreal? Isreal was a weak kingdom that only lasted for (wait how long did it last? ) A short time. "

Modern Isreal was invented as a home for all those Jews across the world after WW2. It has not much relation to the ancient Kingdom.

Having Isreal as a modern day country might be an idea, as if i had to choose a modern day country (post ww2) the first one i'd choose is isreal.

 

[Antilogic]

Franky, the modern age is overrated (highly) on these boards. I'm all for the more ancient civilizations, which is why I was disappointed when I found the Hittites would not be returning for another bout in Civ. If I had to make a decision on Israel, I would call it "Judea" or use an otherwise historic name for the Civ.

 

[TheLastOne36]

Anyway did anyone here the theory that the Atlanteans might be the ancesters of the jews? I find that theory quite interesting...

 

[cybrxkhan]

Anyway did anyone here the theory that the Atlanteans might be the ancesters of the jews? I find that theory quite interesting...

that sounds like a load of ****.

now, for Israel, Israel's survival is great, but if so, what aren't the Vietnamese in? we survived for 2500 years one way or another, fought against some of the greatest powers of the world - China, Mongolia, USA... and we're still not in. longetivity, i guess, then, doesn't help that much.

 

[ComradeGeneral]

They should make the Thracians an official civ, not just a barb city.

 

[TheLastOne36]

that sounds like a load of ****.

now, for Israel, Israel's survival is great, but if so, what aren't the Vietnamese in? we survived for 2500 years one way or another, fought against some of the greatest powers of the world - China, Mongolia, USA... and we're still not in. longetivity, i guess, then, doesn't help that much.

If Longetivity isn't a reason then why is HRE in?

 

[cybrxkhan]

If Longetivity isn't a reason then why is HRE in?

1. TOo lazy to make a new leaderhead and civ, use from Charlemagne scenario they did

2. Holy Roman sounds epic

3. Make spam threads.