which civs would you add?

[Zachriel]

Originally posted by Baron Scot

there was no such thing as israelites till 1948.

Genesis 32:28
And he said, Thy name shall be called no more Jacob, but Israel: for as a prince hast thou power with God and with men, and hast prevailed.

Exodus 5:2
And Pharaoh said, Who is the LORD, that I should obey his voice to let Israel go? I know not the LORD, neither will I let Israel go.

One can argue about the exact dates of Genesis or the Exodus, but most scholars would put it somewhat before 1948. If you want to be pedantic, Jews refers to the tribe of Judah or the southern kingdom.

 

[Kal-el]

Originally posted by Zachriel
One can argue about the exact dates of Genesis or the Exodus, but most scholars would put it somewhat before 1948. If you want to be pedantic, Jews refers to the tribe of Judah or the southern kingdom.

Thank you. I was really scrathing my head while reading BS's post. I was thinking, what is this guy talking about. Yes the state of Israel was formed in 1948, but clearly the Israelites have been around for much longer than that. And they were in what is now Israel, thats why the State of Israel was created where it is.

 

[Baron Scot]

yes yes,but i would think the civ should ignore everything pre-1948 when israel was created because the jewish people are not a civilazation. they are romans or british or egyptian or palistinian pre 1948

does anyone agree with my notion the civ Israel should only be post 1948?

 

[Kal-el]

they were a civilzation with kings and everything. The Bible/Torah is the story of this ancient peoples.

 

[Reboot]

Civilization is not equal to state. A closer word would be "nation", and "nation" may or may not imply an independent state. Palestine nation, Kurdish nation, Slavic nation, Chinese nation, etc. Hence also the issue about Portuguese-Brazilian, U.S-English being similar.

The Israelite/Jewish "nation" has been around for a long time. Archeological evidence seem to suggest that. So, they can be recognised as a Civilization. It depends on how one see a civ in the game. As a state with sovereignty and defined borders recognised by others, Israelites are pretty new. As an ethnic group with its own language, religion, creation-myth, history, culture, social practices, etc. Israelite/Jew already predates quite a few of the civs in CivIII, and are at least have as much impact in human history as them.

 

[hr_oskar]

Originally posted by Kal-el
The Incans:
Scientific/Industrious
UU-Eagle Warrior-Fast moving Warrior

Mayans:
Scientific/Religious
UU-Plumed Archer
...

Celts:
Robert the Bruce
Religious/Expansionist
UU-Woad Warrior
...

Scandinavians(Vikings):
Canute
Commercial/Expansionist
UU-Berserker
....

Mongols:
Militaristic/Expansionist
UU-Horse Archer(Mangudai)
...

Saracens:
Religious/Expansionist
UU-Mameluke

Hmm... been playing Age of Empires 2 alot, have you?

I would personally not choose to have 'Berserkers' as the Viking UU; I'd rather like either 'Longship' (perhaps Galley with +1 MP and safe voyage over Sea squares) or 'Raiders' (Swordsmen with amphibious attack). If we would be so correct to call the "Viking" civ something other than 'Vikings' (e.g. 'Norse', 'Northmen', etc), then the 'Raiders' should themselves be called 'Vikings'; that is because the word 'viking' only really referred to the class of overseas raiders/pirates. The current name tradition is kind of like talking about the 'Samurai' civ instead of 'Japanese' (!).

And oh, please no 'Saracens'. Let's call them 'Arabs', and they are btw the most notably missing civ in the game. Really a scandal that they should not be included - hope Play the World will add them. The term 'Saracen' came from an originally Greek derogatory name for the early Arab nomad people (meaning "people of the tent"). Medieval Westerners then used that term for all the Muslim people of the Middle East, Turks, Arabs and Persians alike. So it's not very respectful, and very imprecise.

 

[Kal-el]

Actually, though I have AoK, I tend not to play it that much. Yes, most of the Units have come from that game, but the civs are natural selections that were unfortunately not included in Civ3.

Regarding the Vikings: As you can see I prefer calling them the Scandinavians, but expect that Firaxis will go with the traditional Civ1/Civ2 name of Vikings. And if they do call the Civ "Vikings" I would not expect their UU to be called the Viking as well. In fact, i think we have seen that the "Vikings" will be in the XP and their UU will be called the "Berskerer". I prefer to not have ships for UUs as they cannot trigger a golden age.

As regards to the Saracens: I didn't know that. Thanks for the info. Call them the Arabs then. Works for me.

 

[Zachriel]

Originally posted by Baron Scot
yes yes,but i would think the civ should ignore everything pre-1948 when israel was created because the jewish people are not a civilazation. they are romans or british or egyptian or palistinian pre 1948

does anyone agree with my notion the civ Israel should only be post 1948?

Leave out King David and King Solomon? David turned Israel into a "modern" nation, with extended and defined borders. Solomon created a trading empire which included treaties with nearly every country of the civilized world. Later in history, the Romans certainly recognized Israel as a nation.

The Arch of Titus was built by the Roman commander to commemorate his Judean victory in 70 C.E. It shows the triumphal parade with the Temple vessels carried aloft.

 

[bobgote]

Israel is an ancient nation and in its time was very powerful. It well deserves a place there.

Spain is in the expansion and rightly so, should've been there from the start (as should portugal and dutch). I think these should rank higher than another South American civ, as they were powers as well as nations.

And as much as I would love an Australian civ, i think a lot more need to go in before that. Sure we have a proud tradition, military and otherwise, but many more need to go in first. (Note: this equally applies to canada)

 

[Baron Scot]

Originally posted by Reboot
Civilization is not equal to state. A closer word would be "nation", and "nation" may or may not imply an independent state. Palestine nation, Kurdish nation, Slavic nation, Chinese nation, etc. Hence also the issue about Portuguese-Brazilian, U.S-English being similar.

The Israelite/Jewish "nation" has been around for a long time. Archeological evidence seem to suggest that. So, they can be recognised as a Civilization. It depends on how one see a civ in the game. As a state with sovereignty and defined borders recognised by others, Israelites are pretty new. As an ethnic group with its own language, religion, creation-myth, history, culture, social practices, etc. Israelite/Jew already predates quite a few of the civs in CivIII, and are at least have as much impact in human history as them.

i guess i have been flipped, i agree with you now

 

[Sultan Bhargash]

I agree 100% with the Ethiopians and the Dutch as choices for the reasons laid out above.

I would add Polynesians for quick long distance boats and geographical balance.

I would love to the see the Swahili in there, another long distance boating culture with a big sphere of influence.

I disagree with putting "Canadian" "Israel" in there - nation states do not make Civs. I would not object to Hebrews, as Hebrew civilization has spread throughout the world. The Canadian, who are part French, part English, all snow, are a bit like the Swiss... while the Swiss have all the world's money and the Canadians have all the world's fresh water, other than the Swiss army knife and the Royal Mountie, what trademark impact on the world do they have?

For that matter, I am against the Zulu representing black Africa. With all of the great literate civilizations there, it is a shame that a stereotypic and warlike group was chosen.

I am against very dead civs like the Carthaginians making it in.

 

[danielhart]

Originally posted by Sultan Bhargash
For that matter, I am against the Zulu representing black Africa. With all of the great literate civilizations there, it is a shame that a stereotypic and warlike group was chosen.

The Nubians would be a great civ to represent black Africa. The Nubians, for people not familiar with them, lived in northern Sudan and southern Egypt, and traded and fought with Egypt for the duration of its existence. It actually lasted quite awhile, starting at about the same time as Egypt and lasting as an independent country until around 1550 AD. They were pagans at first, then Christians for seven hundred years, and then converted to Islam. They had a long and very interesting history, and there are still about 300,000 Nubians alive today. They were a big religious, cultural, and financial center for Africa, and were also a big center of science for Africa during the Middle Ages.

I'd suggest some type of archer for their UU, as the Egyptians called Nubia Ta-sety (Land of the Bow), among other things (Zatju, Irtjet, Cush, Ethiopia). They also have a wide variety of choices for leaders; King Taharqa was a great king mentioned in the Bible and a great architect. Queen Alakhebasen fought three Roman legions to a standstill, participating in the battle herself and ensuring that Nubia remained independent of the Romans. King Piye had a hand in conquering Egypt, which was ruled by Nubian pharoahs for seventy years. They'd probably be... commercial/militaristic or commercial/religious. I'd love to see the Nubians in the game, and think that it could use some more African civs. The Nubians stand out as one of the best choices.

<edit: spelling>

 

[Sultan Bhargash]

I agree on the Nubians, although in my mind still sort of a "dead" civ now in the Carthaginian category, as compared to the Ethiopians and Swahili.

As I did for Civ2 MGE, I vow to make a great all-African scenario for Civ 3 as soon as Firaxis gives me the right editor or I get my phd in computer programming (which I ain't applied for)...

 

[Evie]

I disagree with putting the Hebrews or Israelites. Israel has an ancient history as far as archeology tell us, yes.

Archeology tell us of a minor tribe of the area, with nothing much of a city. That's the Israel archeology tell us about. The archeologues tell us about a small city-state named Jerusalem (the city itself was on a thin rocky area of 200 meters by 80 - a burg at most) jammed between swarms of world powers which tend to ignore her 99.9999% of the time - it'S not worth talking about. And that'S the size of the town at the time of king David.

Jerusalem only became worthy of note as a (minor) power in roughtly -727 when the then king had a number of defensive fortification built to repel invaders. A century or so later, the slowly rising minor power of Jerusalem was conquered by Nebuchadnezzar II.

The exile ended quickly, but Israel remained part of another empire for a while ; Persia, then Greece, then Syria. Only in 140BC did Judea becomes a free state again. That was perhaps's ancient Israel's one moment in the sun as a free state where they grew back to they (mythical) ancient borders between 134BC and 76BC, but even that is not all that big a feat, considering they took a handful of territories from crumbling local powers, and kept them for about 70 years...(the mongols took much, much more than a handful).

Then got annexated again, this time through the Romans.

This is the time at which the only temple of which any historical trace has been found was built, under Herod. This is also the only time at which Israeli territory was important - as a roman province. The great port of Israel, Cesarea, was aptly named in honor of Augustus, built based on greek plans, with a statue of Zeus in a temple dedicated to Augustus.

Another century after Herodus had made judea a noteworthy province of the roman empire, the Jews revolted. The romans defeated them, razed the temple, and when the Jews revolved one final time in 132, they were banned from Jerusalem and Israel became Palestine.

While it is true that the Jews greatly contributed to world advancement later on, giving them a religion-based civilization would be out of place, IMHO. The civs in the game reached great height as countries, not through the acts of scattered members of a religion.

Having a "Hebrew" civilization or "Israel" civilization would be no different than having a "Christian" civilization (under that name( or a "Vatican" civilization, in a sense...

 

[Carver]

Originally posted by ABX


Maybe cuz there is nothing valueable in Ethiopia.

The Ark of the Covenant isn't valueable?

 

[Myartar]

I'm all for a Ethiopia Civ in the game. They are also the oldest Christian nation in Africa. I'm not sure on my acuraccy on my description here, I read it somewhere a while back.. But Ethiopia was a lone Christian(that was not Catholic) nation surrounded by Muslum nations and repeled repeated invasions. They didn't think they could hold off the invaders much longer, so they begged for help from the European powers. Thier pleas went unanwsered for a while until Portugal came and helped in the fight. After the Muslums stoped thier invasion, the Portugese killed the Ethiopian king, claimed the land for Portugal, realized there was nothing there, and went home leaving the country destroyed. After that, they rebuilt they're power, but Christianity lost a lot of power due to the betryal by the Christian church in the north.

 

[bobgote]

The reasons the zulu are in the game, rather than anyone else african is because they were not only a nation, but a power. They dominated (for a time) all the other tribes in the area, and that is why they got into the game and others didn't. Maybe a South African (In terms of the RSA) civ isn't out of the question. Remember we have 2 African civs in place already tho.

I think that Israel should be in, even if they weren't militarily worthy to be in the game, they may well be historically and culturally. Also i think you'll find that israel are going to grow into a power now (even tho they are opressed on all sides)

Go little Lleyton!!!! Go you big red fire engine!!1

 

[Sultan Bhargash]

Okay I will argue with everyone.

No the Portuguese did not conquer the Ethiopians in any sense. They sent some Jesuit advisors and built a few bridges but never converted Ethiopia away from their native orthodox Christianity. Except for a few years of Italian occupation in WW2, Ethiopia was never conquered by a foreign power.

Now as for the Hebrews, I used to be against putting them in the game because of the trouble in the Middle East (nobody wants to see a UU of a bulldozer). But honestly, they are not just a "religious based" civ, and although they were incorporated from time to time into other cultures, the fact that they retained their language, customs, etc. for thousands of years of scattering tells me they count as a Civ- at least as much as the Celts. Your logic is faulty Oda when you consider that the Greeks, Romans, Chinese, Japanese as presented could also be considered "religion" based civs by your definition. I would like to see both Hebrew and Arab (the people, not the religions of Judaism and Islam) represented in Civ, and I only wish the young people of Israel/Palestine could vent their frustration on a computer game instead of each other's real lives.

 

[bobgote]

Originally posted by Sultan Bhargash
Now as for the Hebrews, I used to be against putting them in the game because of the trouble in the Middle East (nobody wants to see a UU of a bulldozer).

If this were the case, i would argue that america also be left out of the game. To a less recent extent, all should be removed.

And it looked like there's some description of Arab civ in the upcoming expansion, so your wish should be granted.

 

[BCLG100]

yeh but america has made a huge impact in the world like the atomic bomb and reaching the moon