Expansion Pack Civs Explained: Hebrew/Israelis

[Alexander I]

Great Leaders: Moses, Joshua, Caleb, Othniel, Ehud, Shamgar, Barak, Gideon, Jephthah, Samson, Saul, Jonathan, Abner, David (if not already included), Joab, Amasa, Jeroboam, Jehoshaphat, Hezekiah, Josiah, Gedaliah, Nehemiah, Judas, Jonathan, Simon, Eleazar and John Maccabeus, Hyrcanus

I wouldn't include Judah. He was simply a son of Jacob and a shepherd, founder of the tribe via ancestry, rather than phenomenal leadership.

And seriously, David as genocidal ? Are you insane> He was one of the better rulers the WORLD has ever seen! I doubt any of our current leaders would dare compare themselves to David. Yes, he killed several people himself or indirectly through war, but never in a brutal, genocidal manner.

In fact, the only unjustifiable killing caused by David was that of Uriah the Hittite, but that's another story.

[Rasputin]

actually the bible says that "god" often ordered the israelites to totally kill thier enemies, inlcuidng man , woman and child including all the animals too..... that was why saul was rejected by god because he took some spoil and allowed one of the enemy kings to live..... "god" requires complete genocide of the enemies of israel, i guess if they had fulfilled that back then there would be no ME problems today !!!!

[Alexander I]

God only ordered the destruction of peoples that were "fully ripened" in iniquity. Hence, the Canaanites were declared anathma during the lifetime of Joshua, not Abraham.

And the destruction of such totally degenerate peoples would have helped keep Canaan morally clean. It was a shame Israel couldn't finish what they started.

I wouldn't call human sacrifices, castrations, orgies and infant burnings civilized, and by allowing them to continue to exist, Israel only jeopardized it's own existence.

[Locutus]

Relax guys, let's not turn this thread into yet another religious or political argument, there's enough of those threads in the OT.

I had little time to work on summaries these days but I did finally manage to finish my version of Hebrew history. It's basically a fleshed out (and slightly adapted) version of what Alexander posted earlier. I tried to rely as little as possible on religious sources such as the Old Testament as the reliability and objectivity of it is, at least in this case, hard to determine. However, since it's such an important work it was impossible to ignore it completely. Here it is, comments are more than welcome:



How the Hebrews (also called Israelites) ended up in Israel is described in the Old Testament through the well known stories of Abraham and Moses. Secular history tells a story which at least partly corresponds with this: the Hebrews arrived in Canaan around 1300 BC (roughly at the same time as the Exodus, how exactly this fits together with the biblical stories is unclear). Since all the 'good spots' were already taken they settled in the somewhat less fertile areas inland (Galilee, Judah, Israel). They were originally a semi-nomadic tribe whose social hierarchy was based strongly on kinship and whose ideas of religion and justice were primitive. Both these would soon start to evolve though and greatly influence the history of the Middle East and Europe. The Hebrew would eventually spawn the world's most important monotheistic religions: Judaism, Christianity and Islam.

Around the same time as they Hebrew, the Philistines arrived in Canaan. They drove out the Egyptians and established themselves in the coastal regions in the south. Soon these Philistines tried to expand inland, towards the Hebrew, and skirmishes between (divided) Hebrews and Philistines followed. This was the time of the tribe of Dan and the zealous Nazirites (i.e. 'Zealot' Unique Unit). Around 1050 BC, the Hebrew first combined their forces against their common foe and around this time they chose Saul as their first king. After initial setbacks, their new king brought success and pushed back the Philistines.

A young man named David was with Saul and he soon proved himself a skilled warrior (e.g. against Goliath), superceding even Saul. This made Saul jealous and he tried to kill David, forcing the latter to flee. However, David allied himself with local tribes and with the Philistines. War between Saul and David (plus the Philistines) followed and resulted in the kings of Israel and Philistina dead and David appointed the new king. The Philistines were unhappy with their new ruler and turned against him. David and the Hebrews not only deveated these Philistines, they also conquered a sizeable empire which included much of present-day Isreal, Jordan and Syria and a part of Lebanon.

In this period, Hebrew society was greatly influenced by the Canaanites. Though the Hebrews had embraced Judaism centuries earlier, David had a whole harem of (mostly non-Hebrew) wifes and named many of his children after Phoenician and Philistian gods. Apparently the Ten Commandments were not yet an important part of their faith. David created what was to be called a golden age for the Hebrews. His rule benefited from the wealth taken from conquered peoples, and Israel benefited from a peace created by conquest. But it was a golden age that had, like other civilizations, antagonisms between rich and poor. Similar to other rulers, David taxed his subjects and forced them to labor for the state. David's subjects rebelled, a rebellion led by David's own son, Absalom. David crushed the rebellion and killed Absalom.

After David's death in 965, two of his sons, Solomon and Adonijah, vied with each other to succeed him. Solomon emerged as the victor, and he had Adonijah executed. Like David, Solomon benefited from an era of peace and prosperity. He enjoyed alliances with his Egyptian and Phoenician neighbors. He encouraged trade and built a merchant fleet that he harbored at the Gulf of Acaba at the northeast end of the Red Sea. He acquired copper mines and built refineries for smelting metals. His ships brought goods from afar and important trade routes passed through his kingdom. Solomon wanted to live as splendidly as the king of Assyria, so to create many luxurious palaces for himself he imported the skilled craftsmen that he could not find among his subjects. According to the Old Testament, Solomon, like his father, had many wives, as many as seven hundred, including princesses from other kingdoms given to Solomon as gifts to promote good relations. And he had four hundred horses. This was an age in which kings acted as a judge for the community and the Old Testament describes Solomon as a very wise judge.

A priest-king like his father, Solomon, according to the Old Testament, led sacrifices to the god Yahweh. This being a time of religious toleration among the Hebrews, Solomon had temples built for his wives who worshiped other gods. As for Yahweh, to give him a home and to put Yahweh worship under his domination, Solomon had the temple constructed that his father had intended to build, a temple to be described in the Old Testament as "the House of the Lord." The temple was built on property on a hill north of Jerusalem that David had purchased. The temple's design resembled the temples of other religions. It was decorated with sculptures and other works of art, and in the inner sanctum of the temple was the famous Ark of the Covenant. And to run the temple in his behalf he appointed as high priest the court priest who had performed religious duties for David, a priest named Zadok, who was the first of a hereditary priesthood that would last for centuries to come.

Around 922 BC, Solomon died of old age. Soon after this, the north rebelled and became an independent state, maintaining the name Israel. The state to the south, which included Jerusalem, was smaller and less commercially advanced, and it became known as Judah. The Hebrew would remain independent in their two states until the 700s BC when they were conquered by the Assyrians. The rule of the Assyrians was followed by that of the Persians and the Greeks. Things got so bad under the Seleucid rule that the Maccabees started an independence war and began the independant Hasmonean dynasty. This lasted until hte 1st Century BC. Then there was a succesion problem with two brothers, who asked Rome to intervene. Bad idea. The Romans were there to stay. The Edomite chieftain Antipater supported Julius Caesar in Egypt and against Parthia, and won the 'crown' for his family. His son was the famous despot Herod the Great. Around this time Jesus was born and the Christian movement soon commenced. Relations with Rome continually worsened until Jerusalem was under siege again. In AD 70, legions under Prince Titus sacked the city and destroyed the Temple. This started the Great Diaspora, when Hebrews were scattered across the world and Israel would lose its independence for the next (almost) 1900 years.

Eventually, through the efforts of Great Britain, the United States, and thousands of dedicated Zionists around the world, the new state of Israel was founded in 1948 with David Ben-Gurion as Prime Minister. They came into immediate conflict with the neighboring Arabs and angry Palestinians, but won their wars in the '60s and occupied the West Bank, Gaza Strip, Golan Heights and Sinai Peninsula. The Sinai was fazed back to Egypt, but the other areas are still under Israeli occupation today. Israel is currently involved in a bloody struggle with the Palestinians over the creation of an independent Palestinian state.

[jdd2007]

locutus, may i have your permission to cut and paste your history, make changes and add a little?

[Locutus]

Of course you have my permission, that's what this thread is all about...

[Martinus]

Originally posted by Alexander01
God only ordered the destruction of peoples that were "fully ripened" in iniquity. Hence, the Canaanites were declared anathma during the lifetime of Joshua, not Abraham.

And the destruction of such totally degenerate peoples would have helped keep Canaan morally clean. It was a shame Israel couldn't finish what they started.

I wouldn't call human sacrifices, castrations, orgies and infant burnings civilized, and by allowing them to continue to exist, Israel only jeopardized it's own existence.

Well, as Locutus said, lets not turn this into a political debate. Thanks, btw, for calling me insane because of not agreeing with you.

I would like just to comment that if you consider it feasible that the whole ethnical group could be considered "impure" "anathema" and "immoral" and by the virtue of their ethnicity destroyed, men, women and children, than I simply will not say anything more.

(btw, if you want to discuss longer how it is moral and great to destroy whole "peoples that were fully ripened in iniquity" by the order of some god, fuhrer or party, I suggest we move it to OT)

[Martinus]

Originally posted by Alexander01
And the destruction of such totally degenerate peoples would have helped keep Canaan morally clean. It was a shame Israel couldn't finish what they started.

Btw, I love this quote the most. Try putting names of different states in the place of "Canaan" and "Israel" and see what wonderful results you can achieve

[Rosacrux]

Originally posted by Martinus

Btw, I love this quote the most. Try putting names of different states in the place of "Canaan" and "Israel" and see what wonderful results you can achieve

You got a valid point there Martinus! Surely nowadays you would only need to replace one of the two... let's say instead of Canaan use "Palestine"

But since we do not want this to degenerate into some nasty discussion, I would like to point out that in these times exterminating the "unpleasand" or "annoying" elements of an enslaved or even neighbouring nation wasn't considered "genocide" or anything like that...

...it was everyday life

[Martinus]

Originally posted by Rosacrux


You got a valid point there Martinus! Surely nowadays you would only need to replace one of the two... let's say instead of Canaan use "Palestine"

But since we do not want this to degenerate into some nasty discussion, I would like to point out that in these times exterminating the "unpleasand" or "annoying" elements of an enslaved or even neighbouring nation wasn't considered "genocide" or anything like that...

...it was everyday life

Ok, I guess we may agree on this common middle ground. This does not change the fact that calling David a peaceful and good (in a moral sense, I gather) monarch is a bit untrue.

Salomon is actually one of the rare Kings who promoted tolerance and multi-cultural society other warfare and ethnical cleansing - and strangely enough he is viewed as a rather controversial monarch

[Rosacrux]

Ok, this is what I think:

David is supposed to be an actual hebrew leader but his actions are vaguely overrated and overestimated, due to the myth that embraces him (and most of the other hebrew leaders mentioned in the old testament).

We have gone through this before - you can't accept the old testament as a valid historical source, because that would lead us to rather absurd conclusion - like that before 4000 years people lived 900 years (Abraham? ).

Having this in mind, let's jump to the wider aspect of the situation here: David was a leader of his nation and of his times. He can not be judged with 21st century morals and ethics - it would be just ridiculous to do so.

Saying "he was moraly evil" or "he was genocidal", might or might not be true with 21st century morals, but it is beyond innacurate if you take into account the timeframe in which David lived.

For sure, some things are known and can be accepted without doubt: He was a good leader for his people. He was an able leader, expanding his nations borders, conquering neighbouring nations and thous promoting his nations chances to make it further (and those are only the "international" aspects of his policy, I wouldn't go into the "domestic" issues since this would mean taking into account the facts mentioned in the Old Testament which are, IMHO, plain myths and fairy tales).

You want me to point out more leaders of the very same kind (only greater than David - more able and with greater achievements)?

Alexander the Great
Julius Ceasar
Clovis
Frederick Barbarossa
Justinian
Attila

...and the list is really endless... would you call them all "genocidal maniacs" because they did what they thought best for their nations and their own fame/wellbeing?

Then you won't let anyone missing that characterization... it's just that nowadays the things one could do for the sace of one's nation and his own wellbeing are restricted vastly due to our (improved) moral system.

[Martinus]

Ok, rosecrux. I never said he (or other Hebrew leaders) were somewhat exceptional in their cruelty. Genocide actually is a word deriving from Latin, meaning "killing people" and can be applied to most rulers of the era.

That's why I said: "conquests which, btw, put him in the league of Mao, Alexander and Shaka as far as genocide is concerned", rather than calling him a genocidal maniac or comparing him, say, to Hitler.

Personally I think Salomon was a much greater King, and this was what I was trying to say - by calling David a ruler that was not exceptional among his contemporaries (he was a butcher by modern standards like everybody else) - unlike Salomon, who was renown for his tolerance and wisdom.

When I wrote this, you called me insane
I was just saying Salomon deserves more to be the ruler of Israeli as he was exceptional, unlike David who was not much different from a standard ruler of the era

[Rosacrux]

Alright, but still Mao or Shaka cannot be compared with David or Alexander - completely different timeframe... and if you call Mao genocidal, how would you call Stalin? Of Frankos? Or Pinochet?

Another point I want to make - and this is only my humble opinion - is that Israel/hebrew civilization is one of the less important minor middle east civs and shouldn't be in the game - there are houndreds more important civs out there that deserve much better. If a 100 civ expansion would be in question, I'd say "add them". What distinguishes them besides the fact they made it to the 21st century?

There are many in the same league as well. Why not them?

Thank you

[Martinus]

Alright, but still Mao or Shaka cannot be compared with David or Alexander - completely different timeframe... and if you call Mao genocidal, how would you call Stalin? Of Frankos? Or Pinochet?

Well, Stalin was as genocidal as Mao, I guess. Frankos or Pinochet do not even make it around their numbers (which doesn't make them nice guys, btw)

Another point I want to make - and this is only my humble opinion - is that Israel/hebrew civilization is one of the less important minor middle east civs and shouldn't be in the game - there are houndreds more important civs out there that deserve much better. If a 100 civ expansion would be in question, I'd say "add them". What distinguishes them besides the fact they made it to the 21st century?

I guess it may have something to do with the "Great Epic" Minor Wonder they built some time ago - for some reason it has proven quite popular

[Rosacrux]

Originally posted by Martinus

Well, Stalin was as genocidal as Mao, I guess. Frankos or Pinochet do not even make it around their numbers (which doesn't make them nice guys, btw)

Yeah, sure... Mao and (especially) Stalin were vile dictators, surely in the "genocidal" league, but they also were great leaders: Stalin reformed a less-than-zero agricultural economy to build the most impressive industrial wonder since the industrial revolution and Mao created a modern society, dropping the feudal elements and getting the major powers out of China.
OTOH Pinochet and Markos were bloody dictators with one and only concern: How to stay in power.

I think there are visible distinctions between those two categories, don't you think so?

I guess it may have something to do with the "Great Epic" Minor Wonder they built some time ago - for some reason it has proven quite popular

Torah-Old T. and the rest? Bah