Would you rather see Palmyra or Canda?

[IgorS]

I want both. As city-states.

Israel and Nabataea are the civs from the Levant I would like to see in the game.

 

[halfhalfharp]

Israel and Nabataea are the civs from the Levant I would like to see in the game.

I think Palestine will make a protest if Israel appears in the game...especially when it shares city names that were originally in Palestine control.

And almost the entire Islamic world hates it... so I am not sure if Firaxis will receive Bombs or threatening letters from the middle east, if they make it in the game.kidding haha

I think they are important as a civ, but the religious and historic matters behind are somewhat troubling to solve, if it will rise any discontent for any parties.

 

[Zaarin]

I think Palestine will make a protest if Israel appears in the game...especially when it shares city names that were originally in Palestine control.

And almost the entire Islamic world hates it... so I am not sure if Firaxis will receive Bombs or threatening letters from the middle east, if they make it in the game.kidding haha

Probably true, but I don't think anyone is asking for the modern state of Israel but the ancient kingdom, and I don't think anyone is arguing that the kingdom wasn't there first. Plus you can call it the Kingdom of Judah and make Hezekiah or Josiah the leader and most of the problem is solved, except that their capital would still be Jerusalem...

Israel and Nabataea are the civs from the Levant I would like to see in the game.

Meh. The Nabataeans were pre-Islamic Arabs; I'd rather have an Aramaic-speaking civ.

 

[halfhalfharp]

Probably true, but I don't think anyone is asking for the modern state of Israel but the ancient kingdom, and I don't think anyone is arguing that the kingdom wasn't there first. Plus you can call it the Kingdom of Judah and make Hezekiah or Josiah the leader and most of the problem is solved, except that their capital would still be Jerusalem...

.

Modern or not, they will be viewed as the same, I supposed.

For the leader choice, although I dont know much of the history of Judah, I probably will propose king Solomon or David the little pillar as representives.

I only know Jerusalem from the bible and history of crussades, so pardon my lack of knowledge here haha.

 

[The Kingmaker]

Hezekiah is a great choice. Faced down Sennacherib of Assyria.

That takes major guts, knowing what Assyria did to their enemies.

 

[Greywulf]

I want both. As city-states.

I could see Palmyra as a CS, but it feels weird to me for Canada to be a CS...Unless it's Quebec of course. Quebec doesn't represent all of Canada however.

Modern or not, they will be viewed as the same, I supposed.

For the leader choice, although I dont know much of the history of Judah, I probably will propose king Solomon or David the little pillar as representives.

I only know Jerusalem from the bible and history of crussades, so pardon my lack of knowledge here haha.

Hezekiah is a great choice. Faced down Sennacherib of Assyria.

That takes major guts, knowing what Assyria did to their enemies.

David and Solomon are the most popular choices for Israel. I think Hezekiah is also an awesome leader choice, however he was the king of Judah, not Israel (during the time when the nation was divided into two separate kingdoms).

 

[The Kingmaker]

The polity itself is not important. By that logic, we could only have the three kings of united Israel (Saul, David, Solomon) or kings from the north like Ahab.

Hezekiah being Jewish does not preclude him from being Israelite.

If we nitpicked the distinction, we'd have to have a specific Jewish civ for Hezekiah, the Maccabees or the Herods, and that would be the only thing more controversial than Israel itself.

I'd prefer a "Hebrew" civ. Not quite as controversial, if only just.

No one batted an eye when they were included in Call to Power.

 

[Greywulf]

The polity itself is not important. By that logic, we could only have the three kings of united Israel (Saul, David, Solomon) or kings from the north like Ahab.

Hezekiah being Jewish does not preclude him from being Israelite.

If we nitpicked the distinction, we'd have to have a specific Jewish civ for Hezekiah, the Maccabees or the Herods, and that would be the only thing more controversial than Israel itself.

I'd prefer a "Hebrew" civ. Not quite as controversial, if only just.

No one batted an eye when they were included in Call to Power.

That's fair enough. I don't mind really if Hezekiah leads Israel...He did rule from Jerusalem after all, while the other kingdom's capital was Samaria.

 

[Siptah]

I‘m not a fan of calling a civ Hebrews when most other civs try to use state names (and even invent words like Sumer and Aztec to fit the model). „Hezekiah Leads Hebrew...“ just sounds wrong to me.

I‘m not too big a fan of mythological leaders and Kingdoms, so I wouldn‘t like a United Kingdom of Israel under David or Solomon. While it is possible that it existed, it is very unlikely according to archeological records.

If we follow the Bible, Josiah is the perfect choice - but he is also only attested there and thus has to be seen as mythological. On the other hand, many scholars that doubt the United Kingdom believe Josiah was a real person, since large parts of the Bible would be rather meaningless to write if this weren‘t the case.

So Hezekiah of Judah seems the only viable option - or someone from the North, a Kingdom that was far more successful and is well attested (and Jerusalem could stay a CS). Both sound like a suboptimal option to me.

Palmyra is a completely different case.

 

[Greywulf]

I‘m not a fan of calling a civ Hebrews when most other civs try to use state names (and even invent words like Sumer and Aztec to fit the model). „Hezekiah Leads Hebrew...“ just sounds wrong to me.

I‘m not too big a fan of mythological leaders and Kingdoms, so I wouldn‘t like a United Kingdom of Israel under David or Solomon. While it is possible that it existed, it is very unlikely according to archeological records.

If we follow the Bible, Josiah is the perfect choice - but he is also only attested there and thus has to be seen as mythological. On the other hand, many scholars that doubt the United Kingdom believe Josiah was a real person, since large parts of the Bible would be rather meaningless to write if this weren‘t the case.

So Hezekiah of Judah seems the only viable option - or someone from the North, a Kingdom that was far more successful and is well attested (and Jerusalem could stay a CS). Both sound like a suboptimal option to me.

Palmyra is a completely different case.

Mythological leaders and kingdoms? Honestly, this strikes me as an odd thing to say, as there is archaeological evidence to support that king David existed, and the kingdom of Israel, besides being mentioned by the 1st Century historian Flavius Josephus, and in the Talmud. That is pretty convincing, no? When I think of mythological, I think of characters like Thor and Odin, not like king David.
There are actually many historical characters that some people really doubt if they ever existed but are otherwise accepted to have existed, such as Shakespeare, King Arthur, Robin Hood, Homer, Pythagoras, Lycurgus, Midas, Confucius, and even Gilgamesh. Who knows, maybe some doubt if Zenobia existed as well? If they doubt king David, then they might also doubt Queen Zenobia. That's fair enough if some doubt that they existed, although king David has more supporting his existence that many characters of history that are not often if at all questioned to have existed. This reminded me of other historical characters that critics claimed did not exist, due to only appearing the the Tanakh, yet later they discovered archaeological evidence for their existence, such as Belshazzar, and and I think Cyrus. Now there is no questioning their existence due to archaeology.

 

[Siptah]

Mythological leaders and kingdoms? Honestly, this strikes me as an odd thing to say, as there is archaeological evidence to support that king David existed, and the kingdom of Israel, besides being mentioned by the 1st Century historian Flavius Josephus, and in the Talmud. That is pretty convincing, no?

No, I don‘t think this convincing at all, at least not more than the Bible itself. And mine is also not an odd viewpoint, but one shared by many historians and scholars. It’s often not very vocal since it hurts religious feelings of some people. There’s also not much point in arguing about it, since a lot of people take extreme views on one side or the other. As you see, ancient Israel is not at all uncontroversial to add.

And the issue is completely different to Canada and Palmyra. We can be rather sure that everyone who is informed about the topic is speaking about more less the same history of those two.

 

[The Kingmaker]

Anyway, back to Palmyra.

Leader: Zenobia
Leader Ability: probably something with loyalty--being able to flip neighboring cities more easily/quickly - representing how fast the Palmyrene kingdom became an empire?
Leader Agenda: maybe opposite of either Cleo or Trajan? dislikes big or strong neighbors?

UU: Clibanarii (Heavy Cavalry) or Dromedary (Camel)
UI/UB: Caravanserai - perhaps a market replacement or a +gold tile improvement
UA: Jewel of the East - incremental culture/income/amenity bonus for building and improving a diversity of districts in each city

 

[IgorS]

I could see Palmyra as a CS, but it feels weird to me for Canada to be a CS...Unless it's Quebec of course. Quebec doesn't represent all of Canada however.

I did not mean I wanted a city-state named "Canada", of course) I mean that Canada should be various city-states, like we had Toronto and Quebec City in Civ V.

 

[IgorS]

and I don't think anyone is arguing that the kingdom wasn't there first.

Actually... the Palestinians do argue they were first... because politics...
Anyway, back to Palmyra and Canada.

And I have to say the question itself sounds weird to me. Why that choice? Why Palmyra or Canada? Why are we trying to choose between these two and compare them? To me, both are very weird civ choices. Palmyra was a breakaway state that lasted for only three years (unlike Nabataea, which could be a really interesting civ to play with their focus on surviving in the desert, trade, and building wonders of the world) while Canada, important as they are, are not as unique as Australia.

 

[The Kingmaker]

To me, both are very weird civ choices. Palmyra was a breakaway state that lasted for only three years (unlike Nabataea, which could be a really interesting civ to play with their focus on surviving in the desert, trade, and building wonders of the world) while Canada, important as they are, are not as unique as Australia.

Why do people only count Zenobia's military career and her brief attempt at empire?

Palmyra was a kingdom before it was an empire.

Odenathus was Ras of Palmyra from the 240s to 260, he was King from 260 to 267, and Zenobia was Queen Regent from 267-272.

You guys are making me sound like a broken record.

 

[dunkleosteus]

Are we talking about the Palmyrene empire that existed for all of 3 years? Seems like a better candidate for a City State than a full civ. Its history seems to be mostly about being controlled by larger powers, and the brief period in which it formed an empire is like when a city state conquers a civ's city.

As for Canada (as a resident) I'm a bit biased. If we do see Canada, I'd like to see it done differently than America or Australia: even though we didn't get [partial] independence until 1867, I want to see Canada c. 1600s. We were English and French colonies back then, but I think the environment changed us and made us who we are today. We might not have have sovereignty, but that's still our heritage, not Britain's. I want to see Voyageurs as a UU, not the Mountie that every Canada mod uses.

 

[Duckfromstatefarm]

Palmyra, They may have not lasted very long but they do have a good leader to lead them and that's Zenobia. She fits the Rise and Fall mechanics well.

 

[The Kingmaker]

Are we talking about the Palmyrene empire that existed for all of 3 years? Seems like a better candidate for a City State than a full civ. Its history seems to be mostly about being controlled by larger powers, and the brief period in which it formed an empire is like when a city state conquers a civ's city.

As for Canada (as a resident) I'm a bit biased. If we do see Canada, I'd like to see it done differently than America or Australia: even though we didn't get [partial] independence until 1867, I want to see Canada c. 1600s. We were English and French colonies back then, but I think the environment changed us and made us who we are today. We might not have have sovereignty, but that's still our heritage, not Britain's. I want to see Voyageurs as a UU, not the Mountie that every Canada mod uses.

Again with the three years. I literally just posted a more expanded timeline in the previous post.

 

[dunkleosteus]

Again with the three years. I literally just posted a more expanded timeline in the previous post.

Apologies, I did not read the entire thread before I responded. Personally though, I don't think Palmyra qualifies as a Civ. They have a great leader candidate but they lack virtually everything else. Whether their empire lasted for 3 years or 20 or 40, it doesn't really matter. They declared independence from Rome due to a power vacuum in the area. They conquered an area but were quickly quashed by the very Empire they just seceded from. That's barely enough time to consolidate your holdings, let alone establish a meaningful government infrastructure. In other historical strategy games, Palmyra's empire might be more rightly considered a coup rather than the founding of a meaningful empire.

Most of the citizenry living at the time of Palmyra's reconquering by Rome would remember being Romans before they seceded.

 

[Xandinho]

Why do we have to choose one or the other? I am of those who thinks the more civs the better.

Palmyra has an interesting leader (Zenobia), but it does not seem to have lasted long, while Canada is a former British colony, and we already have two in the game, I'm preferring a former Spanish colony at the moment. So I am not able to decide what is the best, but I don't mind much, I would not complain if either of them were included.