Would you rather see Palmyra or Canda?

[Zaarin]

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.

I think you're thinking of Solomon. I don't know of any archaeological evidence for David, but Solomon's cylinder seals have been found and portions of his palace--which makes him about as well-attested as Gilgamesh.

Also, while the Bible was never intended to be a history book per se, I don't see the need to examine it more critically than other ancient sources when it discusses history, particularly of the monarchic period. Maybe we can talk about the Patriarchs being of dubious historicity, but no one is suggesting Abraham lead Israel.

 

[liv]

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

3 years is correct
Odaenathus did not rule an independent Palmyra.
From Zenobia declared independence till she lost to Aurelian was about 3 years

 

[The Kingmaker]

3 years is correct
Odaenathus did not rule an independent Palmyra.
From Zenobia declared independence till she lost to Aurelian was about 3 years

There's a big difference between being a client state and a conquered province.

Being in a tributary relationship doesn't disqualify them from being a unique culture.

Just ask the people of Judaea.

 

[Zaarin]

3 years is correct
Odaenathus did not rule an independent Palmyra.
From Zenobia declared independence till she lost to Aurelian was about 3 years

I'l also point out that prior to Rome the Aramaean highlands were populated by Aramaic-speaking city-states and petty kingdoms for centuries, and Zenobia is a fair representative of that heritage and that region, even if her own personal empire was relatively short-lived (though as The Kingmaker points out, she was ruling the region long before she openly defied Rome).

 

[liv]

I am not saying they were not a culture etc. But Palmyra being independent for 3 years is still correct

 

[The Kingmaker]

I am not saying they were not a culture etc. But Palmyra being independent for 3 years is still correct

Palmyra was a rival empire of Rome for three years. They were a client state of Rome's for decades.

You don't have to be an empire to be a civilization.

 

[dunkleosteus]

Palmyra was a rival empire of Rome for three years. They were a client state of Rome's for decades.

You don't have to be an empire to be a civilization.

There's a big difference between being a client state and a conquered province.

Being in a tributary relationship doesn't disqualify them from being a unique culture.

Just ask the people of Judaea.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but being a "client state" of a more powerful entity is essentially the same thing as a suzerainship, going by Civ's definition of it, no?

 

[The Kingmaker]

Correct me if I'm wrong, but being a "client state" of a more powerful entity is essentially the same thing as a suzerainship, going by Civ's definition of it, no?

Could be. Though being a kingdom is a bit more than being a single city-state. And Firaxis is mostly just putting extra civs in as city-states right now instead of proper single city polities.

Granted there are several essential "city-states" that need to be translated in-game to their full form before Palmyra ever makes it in, ie. Palenque, Carthage, Babylon, etc.

Ideally, I'd like to see a proper vassalage feature return like in Civ4. Civ5 had "puppet states" which ended up being an odd mechanism.

 

[dunkleosteus]

Could be. Though being a kingdom is a bit more than being a single city-state. And Firaxis is mostly just putting extra civs in as city-states right now instead of proper single city polities.

Granted there are several essential "city-states" that need to be translated in-game to their full form before Palmyra ever makes it in, ie. Palenque, Carthage, Babylon, etc.

Ideally, I'd like to see a proper vassalage feature return like in Civ4. Civ5 had "puppet states" which ended up being an odd mechanism.

I heard that Rise and Fall does away with ceding conquered cities. It feels like a huge step away from what needs to be implemented to make war more balanced, which it currently isn't. Puppeting/vassalage would be great.

 

[The Kingmaker]

I heard that Rise and Fall does away with ceding conquered cities. It feels like a huge step away from what needs to be implemented to make war more balanced, which it currently isn't. Puppeting/vassalage would be great.

Oh dear. Yeah, we can't lose ceding cities.

 

[Morningcalm]

Why the weird Canada vs. Palmyra question? I don't think I've seen such unlike civs pitted against each other before.

But I second Zaarin--frankly even if the Palmyrene Empire was short lived, Zenobia easily makes up for it--one of the most fascinating and powerful female leaders of antiquity, easily.

 

[Greywulf]

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.

Ok, what kind of archaeological evidence would make it convincing for a character of history to have existed?

The difference with characters we find in the Bible is that there is automatic bias for and against, just like with Belshazzar, and if memory serves me, Cyrus. Many of these characters didn't have any discovered archaeological evidence for a while, so this meant that for a time a community of people believed that they existed without outside archaeological evidence, and a community of people said that they didn't exist since the only thing known to support their existence was the Bible...bias on both sides, see. Now we know that characters like Belshazzar, Cyrus, Nebuchadnezzar, David and Solomon, etc., actually did exist due to finding inscriptions of them in archaeological findings.

I think you're thinking of Solomon. I don't know of any archaeological evidence for David, but Solomon's cylinder seals have been found and portions of his palace--which makes him about as well-attested as Gilgamesh.

Also, while the Bible was never intended to be a history book per se, I don't see the need to examine it more critically than other ancient sources when it discusses history, particularly of the monarchic period. Maybe we can talk about the Patriarchs being of dubious historicity, but no one is suggesting Abraham lead Israel.

True about Solomon, however I was talking about the Tel Dan inscription, which refers to king David.

As for Solomon and Gilgamesh, Gilgamesh isn't mentioned by the 1st Century historian Flavius Josephus, nor the Talmud. These different independent sources, along with the Tanakh, aid in supporting the existence of this character. It's always good to have multiple independent sources pointing to a character's existence, which is what we see here.

 

[Zaarin]

As for Solomon and Gilgamesh, Gilgamesh isn't mentioned by the 1st Century historian Flavius Josephus, nor the Talmud. These different independent sources, along with the Tanakh, aid in supporting the existence of this character. It's always good to have multiple independent sources pointing to a character's existence, which is what we see here.

No, but Gilgamesh is widely attested in Sumerian, Babylonian, and other Near Eastern literature, even appearing as a djinni in the Quran, apparently. True, he became extraordinarily mythologized, but we have enough evidence to say that he was a real person before he became a demigod. I also think we have enough evidence to say that Solomon was a real person, which makes it far more probable that David and Saul were real people. If I'm not mistaken, there is some archaeological evidence to support the existence of Saul, as well. It's also worth remembering that there were other records that were lost: think of all the times the books of Kings and Chronicles point you to other sources that unfortunately no longer exist. So again, just as you say, I would assert that it's undue cynicism to dismiss the Bible as a source, especially where the kings of Israel and Judah are involved.

 

[The Kingmaker]

Why the weird Canada vs. Palmyra question? I don't think I've seen such unlike civs pitted against each other before.

But I second Zaarin--frankly even if the Palmyrene Empire was short lived, Zenobia easily makes up for it--one of the most fascinating and powerful female leaders of antiquity, easily.

Agreed. And Palmyra makes for a very interesting desert civilization as well. Exotic and eastern but also classically influenced ... sort of a Greco-Roman/Persian/Semitic fusion.

 

[Zaarin]

Agreed. And Palmyra makes for a very interesting desert civilization as well. Exotic and eastern but also classically influenced ... sort of a Greco-Roman/Persian/Semitic fusion.

Yeah, it's easy to overlook that part of what she did to tick off Rome was buddy up with Sassanian Persia, arch enemy of Rome. I mean, of course if you're going to butt heads with Rome and have Persia as a neighbor, you'd better court Persia's favor, but it's still an interesting little detail.

 

[The Kingmaker]

And of course it was Odenathus' victories over the Sassanids that allowed him to claim the kingship in the first place.

He really bloodied Shapur's nose... pushed all the way to Ctesiphon.

His quick victories were likely what made them take Zenobia more seriously later on.

Palmyra could actually be a good civ for the loyalty mechanism. Maybe they excel at picking off cities from neighbors who have entered Dark Ages?

 

[TahamiTsunami]

@The Kingmaker I've been thinking about how that would be the perfect ability for Zenobia to have. At this point I'd be a bit disappointed if she wasn't one of the post-R&F DLC civs and didn't have that ability!

 

[IgorS]

I still don't agree that Palmyra qualifies to be a civilization in its own right. A city-state - sure, a must-have, I'd even say. But a civ?

You know, I really dislike those civs that are based on a single historic event, no matter how great. Palmyra would be like the Huns or the Macedonians - a civ with not much to it beside a brief period when they all of a sudden were an empire. A great and interesting leader is not enough for a civ. This is good for "Age of Empires", not for "Civilization".

 

[The Kingmaker]

@The Kingmaker I've been thinking about how that would be the perfect ability for Zenobia to have. At this point I'd be a bit disappointed if she wasn't one of the post-R&F DLC civs and didn't have that ability!

Still not sure on the details of the loyalty system, but this might at least be a start.

UA: Rebel Queen - increases loyalty to your faction in neighboring cities at an increased rate; neighboring civs in dark ages lose cities twice as fast

 

[TahamiTsunami]

@IgorS Its been argued a few times here that, aside from Palmyra being around quite a bit longer than its 3 most famous years, Zenobia's civ could be called Aram or Syria since those are essentially the predecessor and successor states of Palmyra and that region in general.

It's similar to how the Trung Sisters were leaders for a few years but they could be used to represent/lead a Vietnamese civ that was both around long before they arrived and continued long after they left.