Hebrews: Chosen People, but not for Civ?

[Alexander I]

It's been discussed in the past; this thread is simply here to gain a general consensus and to discuss the Hebrew civilization -- should they be added to Civ in the future? Why or why not? Why haven't they been added so far?

Possible issues for discussion could include cultural achievements, their role in global religions, and the scale of their actual geopolitical expansion in the past and present.

And lets keep prejudices and other negative behavior out of this thread, please?

[ZEE]

no because it would honestly offend lots of people. also, adding the hebrews would entail adding the kurds and the sunni and other religiously oriented civs, not to mention other geo-political civs from history such as the nazi. while i understand fully why they would be a welcome addition, there would have to be a slew of others added as well. and all about that magic word again... BALANCE! this would be too much of a risk for firaxis and their clean image.

so my vote is NO...



piece

[Alexander I]

Originally posted by AAHZ
this would be too much of a risk for firaxis and their clean image.

so my vote is NO...

piece

I don't understand why adding the ancient Hebrews is a risk for Firaxis' clean image.

They were in Call to Power and no one was offended, though Call to Power wasn't a Sid Meier game.

[Kuciwalker]

Let's not hold up CtP as a model, here. They had the Jamaicans.

[Virdrago]

I chose indifferent; when I want to play as the Hebrews, I just take another civ and change the name, YET -

Throughout the Old Testament, approximately 1800 years (from Abraham to the last books), Israel was never a major power. It didn't exist except as a group of wandering tribes for 600 years (until Moses led them out of Egypt). Under three kings (Saul, David, and Solomon; about 100 years) they still had the Philistines as a major enemy and the Egyptians and Hittites to deal with. After that, Israel had a civil war and immediately half the country fell to the Assyrians (Judah was vassalized, then taken later). The Hebrews then fell under the yoke of Babylonia, Persia, The Hellenes (Alexander), and the Romans. Hardly a model for a major civ, monotheistic religion founded or not. Most of the Bible's historical context has the Promised Land under some foreign power or another.

I know you can lump other civs into this (what did the Zulus do besides terrorize other native tribes for 50 years?), but the Zulus influenced a large part of Africa with military innovation and their conquests. Religiously, even the Hebrews may have been trumped by Zoroastrianism as the first monotheistic religion. The one thing the Hebrews have over other civs would be the amount of historical detail they provided about the Middle East over 2000 years, which includes details about other civs in the area.

That may be why Firaxis hasn't included them.

I don't know if you agree with me, but I do like a good debate.

[Alexander I]

Originally posted by Virdrago
The one thing the Hebrews have over other civs would be the amount of historical detail they provided about the Middle East over 2000 years, which includes details about other civs in the area.

That may be why Firaxis hasn't included them.

I don't know if you agree with me, but I do like a good debate.

I might add an inexplicably tremendous influence on the ideology, philosophy and religion of the western world.

[LordShiva]

As originator of the "No More Civs " petition, I hardly need to state my position on the issue.

[CarnalCanaan]

As a supporter of the "More Civs, Please" petition, MY position hardly has to be stated.

With one asterisk*

*Only after the addition of the Poles, Summerians, Ethiopians, Iroquois, and Siamese.

[trev]

I think there are good reasons to include the Hebrews, they founded two important religions, Judaism and Christianity, plus another minor religion based on the teaching of John the Baptist and pioneered some advances in military technology and civil engineering (catapults and other machines of war - Uzziah, Hezekiah's tunnel) as well as David who wrote most of the world's ancient preserved poetry, Solomon a great philosopher of the ancient age.
I have no problem with including a greater number of civs with different combinations of civ traits than we have now, as many of the existing civs are rarely used and useless in mp games.

[Solver]

Much as I may be biased, I think inclusion of the Hebrews is long overdue. We are, after all, talking civilizations here, not countries. Israel is a recently founded country, and the ancient Kingdom of Israel was arguably not as powerful and important as some other ancient countries in the region.

As a civilization, though, I think Hebrews warrant inclusion for religious achievements, if you can call them so, alone. Judaism, while relatively small as far as the amount of adherents goes, has always been seen as an important religion, and it's the world's first monotheistic religion. Christianity can be seen as a "spin-off" of Judaism originally. One has to keep in mind that the Old Testament, the Tanakh, is a scripture that is acknowledged as holy most widely in the world - it's acknowledged by Christians and Muslims and Judaists.

If it were my call, I'd have included the Hebrews instead of one of the European civs. I favour civ diversity - with all due respect, the differences between European civs, such as the French, Germans and English, are many less than between, say, the Hebrews and Romans.

[Asmodean]

I personally think there should be loads of more choices, civilization wise. Given the amount of artwork and balancing Fireaxis had to work out for that to happen, though, we would have to pay rougly $99.95 for a Civ game with 64 civilizations to choose from.

I am not prepared to pay that kind of money for a game, so I guess the current number of civs is ok.

That said, I would have liked to have seen the Hebrews in Civ. Perhaps at the exense of the Americans?

Asmodean

[ZEE]

Originally posted by Alexander01


I don't understand why adding the ancient Hebrews is a risk for Firaxis' clean image.

They were in Call to Power and no one was offended, though Call to Power wasn't a Sid Meier game.

you are right... it wasnt a sid meier game. but civ 4 is. they made all religions in the game have the same effect. they didnt add ANY of my aformentioned civs above. they NEVER added hitler much to some peoples arguments. firaxis or should i say sid meier has a clean image, and a solid reputation to uphold. he wont risk that by mixing two of the most inflammable topics in the world: religion and politics on a detailed level... and risk a PR nightmare.


at least thats what i think....




piece

[Tattila the Hun]

Hmmm, how much do we know about the hebrew civilization, from reliable, written sources? (Bible isn't a reliable source....)

[Solver]

Sorry, how on Earth would including the Hebrews be sensitive or likely to soil their good reputation? Including Hitler would be a PR nightmare. Making in-game religions each provide a different bonus would likely be a PR nightmare. But how would including Hebrews cause any more problems than including any other civ?

[ZEE]

solver,

i just believe with all the problems in the mid-east right now, a lot of people there who might play civ might get angry with adding the hebrews and not their own civs which have stood for centuries. (not the persians).


please correct me if im wrong...



piece