Hebrews: If they have been a big civilization?

CrONoS · December 6, 2002, 03:22

Hi!
Why Hebrews is not in Civilization3:PTW???

If they ever been a big civilization? Or be the subject of another civilization?
Or they have been replaced by another Civilization in Civ3?

Dont wanna talk about Arabs or something like that, cause it's not the same thing, in not the same time!

Just want to understand what is Hebrews Civilization, if this had ever existed. and why these Civ dont have been put in Civ3:PTW?

Nice night everyone!

Traelin · December 6, 2002, 04:20

Quote:

Originally posted by cronos_qc
Hi!
Why Hebrews is not in Civilization3:PTW???

If they ever been a big civilization? Or be the subject of another civilization?
Or they have been replaced by another Civilization in Civ3?

Dont wanna talk about Arabs or something like that, cause it's not the same thing, in not the same time!

Just want to understand what is Hebrews Civilization, if this had ever existed. and why these Civ dont have been put in Civ3:PTW?

Nice night everyone!

Good question, cronos. I've been asking the same question for a long time, and there was once a heated debate on this very same topic. I'm not going to reinvent the wheel and go into the same discussion again, but if you perform a search on the thread "Oppositions to Arabs", you'll find some interesting comments. Yes, I understand you mentioned this had nothing to do with the Arab Civ. But just read the thread and you'll see some posters' thoughts into the inclusion of the Hebrew/Israeli Civ.

Mannamagnus · December 6, 2002, 04:53

I don't want to offend anybody but the Hebrews were never a truly great civilization. Through religion they have had a great impact on western civilization but even in their golden age they were only a minor power in their region.

Minmaster · December 6, 2002, 05:25

u might wanna go to civilizations section of the forum, theres another hebrew civ thread.

CrONoS · December 6, 2002, 12:52

ok tanx i gonne read it...
i wish this is not just some insipid distrib
Tanx

Switch · December 6, 2002, 17:08

Quote:

Originally posted by Mannamagnus
I don't want to offend anybody but the Hebrews were never a truly great civilization. Through religion they have had a great impact on western civilization but even in their golden age they were only a minor power in their region.

Actually at their Golden Age they were a major power in their region.....it just happens that their region wasn't very big

joncnunn · December 6, 2002, 18:00

Their golden age was during the reign of King Solomon.

At the time, they were on-par with Eqypt & Assyria, with clear superority over what is now Syria, Saudi Arabia (those regions payed tribute to Solomon), and direct rule over the settled portions of what is now Jordan.

Yes, that area is smaller in area than every civ's core territory that's included in the game was during their GA.

Quote:

Originally posted by Switch

Actually at their Golden Age they were a major power in their region.....it just happens that their region wasn't very big

mawfia · December 6, 2002, 18:05

Well if you consider after the children of Israel left egypt and found the promised land...that would be the climax of their civilization (called the twelve tribes of Israel)...which lasted a very long time. However the kingdom eventually split after King Solomon's death (for reasons i wont get into), there was the King of Israel and the King of Jerusalem. Their civ then went into decline by the time the Babalonians took seige of the place (better explained in Daniel's writings). Who were then conquered by the Romans.

But you were right about their size...i dont think the total population ever exceeded a couple of mill...however I do think in current times that Israel is a very powerful nation...with or without the US

FNBrown · December 6, 2002, 18:48

I think one could argue that the Hebrews had a more substantial civilization than that of some of the others included in the game... namely the Iroquois. I think the challenge is geographical... there are already an overwhelming number of civs from the middle east included in the game, so someone has to get nudged out. One of the points that was brought up in the aforementioned thread was that in real-map scenarios, the mid-east is jam packed, while we only have the Aztecs in all of central and southern America (begging the question - why weren't the Mayans or Incans included; or perhaps more native north American tribes?)

joncnunn · December 6, 2002, 18:48

Begining of the decline was towards the end of Solomons reign when they started getting Decadent.

The north fell to the Assyrains about a century before Babylon captured Jersusalem. Daniel was taken much earlier than the final fall of Jersusalem and doesn't include any details of that. Lamenations has the gory details of what was going on during the seige itself. What we call I & II Samuel and I & II Kings were written primarly an explaination of why the Isreallis were taken into captivity.

The Babyloanians fell to the Meo-Persians. That event is described in Daniel.

Meo-Persians fell to Alexander the Great. After his death, the empire split into 4 pieces. (Greece/Macedonia, Syria, Egypt, India)

Rome in turn conquered much of Alexanders old empire, but never reached India and only realtively breifly held parts of Persia. (But they did control a lot of territory that none of the previous world empires captured.)

Quote:

Originally posted by mawfia
Well if you consider after the children of Israel left egypt and found the promised land...that would be the climax of their civilization (called the twelve tribes of Israel)...which lasted a very long time. However the kingdom eventually split after King Solomon's death (for reasons i wont get into), there was the King of Israel and the King of Jerusalem. Their civ then went into decline by the time the Babalonians took seige of the place (better explained in Daniel's writings). Who were then conquered by the Romans.

But you were right about their size...i dont think the total population ever exceeded a couple of mill...however I do think in current times that Israel is a very powerful nation...with or without the US

joncnunn · December 6, 2002, 18:57

Well, the Suiox [sp?] would have been a better pick than the Iroquois to represent the northern Indian tribes, but the Iroquois civ was still larger geograhicly than the Hebrews.

Mayas would crowd out Aztecs on a world map, but in a map of just the Americas should be included.

I'm not sure why Incas weren't included, they should have been.

Other N.A. Indian civs that you'd want on a Map of the Americas are the Cherokee, Creeks, and whichever N.A. Indian tribe Geromino was in.

Quote:

Originally posted by FNBrown
I think one could argue that the Hebrews had a more substantial civilization than that of some of the others included in the game... namely the Iroquois. I think the challenge is geographical... there are already an overwhelming number of civs from the middle east included in the game, so someone has to get nudged out. One of the points that was brought up in the aforementioned thread was that in real-map scenarios, the mid-east is jam packed, while we only have the Aztecs in all of central and southern America (begging the question - why weren't the Mayans or Incans included; or perhaps more native north American tribes?)

Mr. President · December 6, 2002, 19:44

Territorial size alone shouldn't matter, since there were many civilizations that were geographically large at some point but had a small impact on history and modern culture.

Cyclotron · December 7, 2002, 02:11

Perhaps big territories should not guarantee a civ being included, but I think cetainly a small territory should prevent them from being in. While it is true that large civs are not necessarily important ones, it seems to be generally true that very small civs are usually not very important ones.

Minmaster · December 7, 2002, 07:50

how about when that region was divided between judeans and israelites? im guessing both are counted as being "hebrew"?

Switch · December 7, 2002, 13:40

Yes, they would both be Hebrew. However, that wouldn't have any effect on the civ if they were included, seeing as it was right AFTER their GA that they split. They would be an interesting civ to include in a Mediterranean or Middle Eastern scenario.
Leader: King David
Attrib.: Religious/Commercial?
UU: No idea. (Arc? Ancient ship with 40 capacity

)

---------
I personally think that the Celts, if anything, should have been dropped for the Inca. Sure, the Celts may have had some impact on Europe, but Europe is waaay too crowded. Their territory is pretty much summed up with all of the more current civs in their area. S. America, on the other hand

Zero · December 7, 2002, 13:53

Quote:

Originally posted by cronos_qc
Hi!
Why Hebrews is not in Civilization3:PTW???

If they ever been a big civilization? Or be the subject of another civilization?
Or they have been replaced by another Civilization in Civ3?

Dont wanna talk about Arabs or something like that, cause it's not the same thing, in not the same time!

Just want to understand what is Hebrews Civilization, if this had ever existed. and why these Civ dont have been put in Civ3:PTW?

Nice night everyone!

Same old question, Same old answer.

Why arent mayans in the game? Why not Incas? Sioux? Why not Poland? Czech? Prussia? Thailand?

So many possible civ, only 24 space....

maybe another exapansion w/ 8 more civ? but ill croak if I see another exp pack.

Switch · December 7, 2002, 13:58

Ohhh.....unless they up the civ count, the next x-pak could only have 7 new civs

. Not that I'm really complaining.....24 is still quite a bundle.

Datajack Franit · December 7, 2002, 19:00

There are civs deserving 1000 times more than Israel to be in CIV3

ranskaldan · December 7, 2002, 19:42

But most of those are already in civ3.

Traelin · December 9, 2002, 11:22

Quote:

Originally posted by Datajack Franit
There are civs deserving 1000 times more than Israel to be in CIV3

Like which ones that aren't already included?

Dutch: Yes
Incas: Yes, but only for geographic reasons

Who else?

CrONoS · December 9, 2002, 11:30

Traelin:
Canada deserve to be include in Civ3:PTW!!!!

UU can be "Missionnary" or "Homme des bois"(dont know how to say that in english), with a 2 of movement, like a special scout!

hheheh i'm kidding!

Minmaster · December 9, 2002, 12:01

or a mountie replacing tanks with 1/1/2

BigFurryMonster · December 9, 2002, 12:05

Quote:

Originally posted by cronos_qc
Traelin:
Canada deserve to be include in Civ3:PTW!!!!

UU can be "Missionnary" or "Homme des bois"(dont know how to say that in english),

"Woodman"