Firaxis: Ruler of the Jews

[bartdanr]

I would add my vote for King David...though I understand support for Moses as the founding Prophet of Judaism, the one person who welded together the lose confederation of tribes was David. (Saul, I suppose one could argue, did this first--but David made Israel a regional power. I would also like to see the Temple in Jerusalem as a wonder.

To those who don't like Solomon: I agree that he was largely responsible for the religious downfall of the nation, but Civ III is not just about religion. Under him the nation prospered economically and was largely respected by the surrounding nations. Sometimes messing with people's cultural traditions can actually help advance a nation--or at least not hurt it (consider Peter the Great's treatment of the Russian Orthodox Church.) Still, I would argue that David was more historically significant.

And FFIW, I'd prefer the name "Israel" to the "Jews." To me, "Jew" suggests a religion more than a nation; and Israel (as an ancient nation) was often only weak in following that religion. In fact, one could argue that Israel (especially the Northern Kingdom after the death of Solomon) was more pagan than Jewish until the first diaspora.

[Traelin]

Originally posted by History Guy
Well, here's what I think that they should do.

Israel/Israelites/Israelite
King David
Religious & Commercial
Capital City: Jerusalem
UU: Slinger, a fast, cheap archer that can be quickly produced and rushed into the field...2/1/2
Great leaders: Moses, Aaron, Saul, Solomon, Hezekiah, Maccabeus

Very astute choices. Thumbs up to the Civ traits and leader especially. You could actually have a ton of great leaders. How about Samson, my favorite? Good warrior until he lost his hair hehe.

EDIT: Perhaps the UU should be a Pharisee or Sadducee? Just kidding of course.

[Traelin]

Originally posted by bartdanr
And FFIW, I'd prefer the name "Israel" to the "Jews." To me, "Jew" suggests a religion more than a nation; and Israel (as an ancient nation) was often only weak in following that religion.

I agree, especially after my posts and reading others' responses in the thread Oppositions to Arabs. People shouldn't be too upset with David being the leader. If they are, they need only look at Abu Bakr as an example of a religious figure as a leader of a Civ.

[Alexander I]

Well, we could consider the benefits of a "prophet" unit. What could he do?

He could be a diplomat. (warning other nations of impending travesty, etc.)

He has a divine intervention ability. (Elijah calling down fire from heaven, Joshua and the Walls of Jericho, etc.)

He could heal damaged units.

He could cause unrest or support for your Civ with others.

It would be really cool, but probably an unfair advantage.

Maybe in a mod-pack.

[Tassadar500]

I have to say that a prophet is a little to religous. It could either be like a stone thrower or a modern day tank or something like that.

[Martinus]

I think Solomon should be definitely a King of Hebrews - the ruler during the cultural heights of that civilization, as opposed to David, who was nothing more than a barbaric chieftain of a primitive tribe.

[bartdanr]

I wouldn't characterize David entirely this way (as the leader of a Barbaric Tribe). Remember, all of Solomon's domains were conquered by David--Solomon didn't add any territory to the Kingdom (and indeed lost Edom in a rebellion.) The glory of Solomon's temple might be cited, but David was responsible for gathering all the materials for it and designing it--Solomon did little more than assemble it according to David's wishes.

I think that it's arguable that the leader should be Solomon, but IMO David's significance outweighs Solomon's...though to be honest, what real difference would it make? It's easy enough to edit the name, and I don't think we know enough about David's or Solomon's apperance for it to matter on the leaderheads.

[Kingof the Apes]

Originally posted by Martinus
I think Solomon should be definitely a King of Hebrews - the ruler during the cultural heights of that civilization, as opposed to David, who was nothing more than a barbaric chieftain of a primitive tribe.

You could say the same thing about Ghengis and that Viking guy whose name eludes me.

On the Hebrew UU, maybe a Levite, a warrior priest from the Old Testament, it could be a cheap swordsman.

[Martinus]

Yeah, you are probably right - especially as Firaxis turns more towards nigh-mythical leaders and big conquerors, rather than peace-time great leaders.

So, while they won't choose Moses imho (as they didn't choose Muhammad for Arabs either), it will be probably David.

Still, I resent it when people say Solomon was a failure because he encouraged religious tolerance etc.

[Beren]

Originally posted by Martinus
So, while they won't choose Moses imho (as they didn't choose Muhammad for Arabs either), it will be probably David.

I was told they didn't choose for Mohammed, because it would gravely insult the islam. (Who cares anyway, islam forbids to use images of people anyway...)

Firaxis didn't always choose warriors. Look at Ghandi (bad choiche, Osoka or something like that (I am not in the position to check his exact name) would be better or a Gupta ruler.)
Let's conclude by saying: Firaxis's casting often doesn't make sense.

[Robert]

Why not just "David Ben Goerion" ?
I think rebuilding / refounding Israel in the 20th centurty is as much as a big achivement as what David did in those days.

[Martinus]

I think he is a bit... shall we say... controversial...