why no hebrew civ ???

yes- dieing with a little honor is a good thing, especially with the blood of your 7 year old daughter on your dagger. Honor? Wonder if David Koresh used that word. Guerilla tactics would have been smarter, defending your family til the end would have some honor, Infancide and killing women is Honorable? Must have changed the definition of the word.
 
troytheface said:
yes- dieing with a little honor is a good thing, especially with the blood of your 7 year old daughter on your dagger. Honor? Wonder if David Koresh used that word. Guerilla tactics would have been smarter, defending your family til the end would have some honor, Infancide and killing women is Honorable? Must have changed the definition of the word.

barring the fact that none of that actually happened.. yes, I think that when given the option of giving your 7 year old daughter a quick and painless death over the option of her being raped and tortured by Roman soldiers.. I'd go with the former
 
or could have been sold into slavery and had kids and a life- but for an ego driven dogmatic bloodthirsty father pining away for a bad decision- pushing self indulgent ideas onto the innocent even if it kills them.
At anyrate the story is being questioned for its validity?
Learn something new everyday.
 
troytheface said:
or could have been sold into slavery and had kids and a life- but for an ego driven dogmatic bloodthirsty father pining away for a bad decision- pushing self indulgent ideas onto the innocent even if it kills them.

I can definitely see your point.. though whether a life of slavery is a life worth living is a matter of opinion from person to person.. I can say I would prefer it to death.. though, having never been a slave nor a dead person, I am unqualified to make that decision :p
 
troytheface said:
At anyrate the story is being questioned for its validity?
Learn something new everyday.

I have read that the accuracy of Josepheus (I believe is the historian who relates the story) may have exaggerated.. though which side is truly correct may never be known.. but recent scholars have found archaelogical evidence that leads them to believe that what actually happened was when the gate was breached by the Romans, the defenders set the buildings inside on fire and attempted to flee.. though many are likely to have committed suicide either way.. just not a mass suicide as has been earlier thought
 
The greatness of massada was holding off the romans for so long. Also it was the end the romans had built a road up to the fortress and there was no chance of surviving a fight inside.

troytheface: saying the Israelis did not have to fight for their land is total bull ****. Less than 24 hours after becoming an independant state they were fighting 6 other countries, SIX. they were outnumbered but managed to get all their land back and then some in a matter of months! then do it again in the six-day war and the yom-kippur war and so on.... They most definetly fought for their land!
 
civaddict098 said:
The greatness of massada was holding off the romans for so long.

thats another good point.. 15,000 Roman soldiers against 1,000 jewish men, women, and children.. I'm unsure the percentages of each, but fairly sure the women and children didn't do much fighting.. and holding them off several months is certainly an accomplishment, though the geography of the area helped a great deal


civaddict098 said:
troytheface: saying the Israelis did not have to fight for their land is total bull ****. Less than 24 hours after becoming an independant state they were fighting 6 other countries, SIX. they were outnumbered but managed to get all their land back and then some in a matter of months! then do it again in the six-day war and the yom-kippur war and so on.... They most definetly fought for their land!

some would argue about the equipment they used to fight.. but fight, they did, there is no doubt about that.. the fact that the Arab name for the 1948 Arab-Israeli war is "al Nakba", meaning "the catastrophe", is proof of that
 
Also Israel is now a nuclear power, they also supply themselves with their own tanks, the famous Merkavas, own assault rifles, the Galil, and the widley used machine gun the Uzi.
 
wrong- they fought for that land AFTER it was given to them and taken from someone else.
They just fought to keep it.
I am glad all that money the U.S. gives is being used.
 
troy you're letting modern political grudges get in the way of your thinking. You sound almost personally offended over the massada incident! Plenty of people who consider themselves civilized and honorable would rather die than become a slave, and rather see their children die than become slaves. Not to mention their wives turning into sex slaves to be passed around the Roman camps and raped at will. A Hebrew nation would not be the modern state of Israel at anyrate......especially not in the earlier parts of the game.
 
political grudges? Thats quite a leap. But, ok, Isreal is the best ever and deserves a thread that states "20 question marks".
 
I just smelled some resentment in your remark about the US funding of Israel, sorry if I misinterpreted it. I don't think they are the best ever and I don't think they should have been included in the vanilla version but in ancient and modern times Jeruselem has been an extremely significant city in the grand scheme of things, so I'd like to see the Hebrews in an expansion pack.
 
troytheface said:
political grudges? Thats quite a leap. But, ok, Isreal is the best ever and deserves a thread that states "20 question marks".

I guess I got off the topic some, and as far as that goes, I'm not really pushing for a Hebrew civilization in the game either.. I'm neither for nor against it, but I think there are certainly more deserving civs that have been left out

they couldn't include everyone, and thats the real answer to the question.. even some old favorites were left out to make way for the new.. and everyone can just make a custom tribe in the editor I'm sure, and be happy :p
 
vareles I dont think you Misinterpeted.

and troy they sure has hell worked for their land, it wasnt just said, "here take this land you have nothing to do with".

and i was just reading up on masada and it is highly belived that only one person killed themslef, the last person, because suicide is looked down upon in the Jewish religion. Instead they probably drew lots and ... yeah. not that any of this matters though.
 
Ancient Judea was just too peripherial even in their region besides Babylonia or Iran.

Modern-day Israel is very much a copy of the american civ.

Though you could mod one into the game as well as i could mod a Magyar civ :)
 
Jecrell said:
What? No. It's a historic simulation because it's set on the Battle of Gettysburg with as much realism as possible set about it with the goal of winning the battle itself so that history can move right along. However if there was an alternate ending to the battle then it would be leaning moreso towards fantasy than history.

You seem to be saying that the Confederates shouldn't be allowed to win a game of the Battle of Gettysburg, or that if they do it's not a simulation.

If simulation games were what you think they are, they wouldn't exist. No-one would bother to make them, because they'd be utterly pointless.

I've been playing simulation games for forty years. I shouldn't need to be telling people what they are in the year 2005.
 
I"m sure that they would be in an expantion pack or in one of the first civ4 mods. Besides if they kept adding civ on top of civ the game would never come out
 
Back
Top Bottom