Oppositions to Arabs

[Heresson]

But it's a bit of a stretch to suggest Poland or Lithuania did as much as Israel in the grand scheme of things.

Nope; suggesting that Israel did as much as Poland with Lithuania is a big stretch

[Traelin]

Originally posted by Heresson


Nope; suggesting that Israel did as much as Poland with Lithuania is a big stretch

The key words to note in my post was "in the grand scheme of things". To me that infers the Civ's overall noteworthiness, such as Israel's cultural proliferation (for lack of a better word) worldwide. One can't really compare Israel directly to other Civs, because of many of them were measured in terms of territorial expanse, economy, etc. Israel is a unique situation. And in the grand scheme of things, they had a greater impact on the world than did most (if not all) Civs.

[Sonic]

Traelin, you say Israel had more impact than Britain, Rome or Mongol Empire?

[sabrewolf]

oh no... we're back to this part again. hasn't this topic (israel more or less important than xyz) come up several times already in this thread?

it's a fact, that israel (or better: the hebrew) was never a large nation, never militaristically powerful and havn't done much for science at all (after all, any strict religion is the brake block to science).

but it's also a fact, that from religious (and possibly cultural) point of view, israel has had one of the greatest impacts on the world.

so if we ask "should the hebrews be in?" you should first ask "is religion an important aspect for a civilisation?". if the second question is answered "yes", then so is the first.

[sabrewolf]

my last post was neutral - here is my opinion based on my theory:

YES, religion had and has a GIGANTIC influence (positive and negative) on politics, science, warfare, etc. [--> unfortunatly this is the case, best would be if there weren't any religions at all - a reason less to fight and die for...]

so YES, the hebrews should be in.

but then again... at what position? imo they should be one of the next 8 new civs. (but only as hebrews, NOT as isreal)

[Heresson]

And in the grand scheme of things, they had a greater impact on the world than did most (if not all) Civs.

You must be kidding. The only great influence of Jews
(do not call them Israelis, it is not correct as far as I'm concerned) was the Bible. However, its great importance comes not out of judaism, but of christianity
- and the expansion was due to the unity of Mediterrean
of that time - if not Rome, I doubt it could expand the way it did. And st Paul and others belong as much to the Jews as to Graeco-Roman culture.

Anyway, creating Bible and some other inventions aren't enough to become a civ in civ terms (no matter how strange does it sound), because it is not a civ in fact,
rather a state.

[Martinus]

Originally posted by Traelin


The key words to note in my post was "in the grand scheme of things". To me that infers the Civ's overall noteworthiness, such as Israel's cultural proliferation (for lack of a better word) worldwide. One can't really compare Israel directly to other Civs, because of many of them were measured in terms of territorial expanse, economy, etc. Israel is a unique situation. And in the grand scheme of things, they had a greater impact on the world than did most (if not all) Civs.

I wouldn't agree with that statement. Israel's culture has not really influenced the world history. Neither laws, nor political systems, nor indeed philosophy of Israel has proliferated in the world to the extent Greek or Roman did.

Indeed, the religious influence is significant, however as Heresson pointed out, it was not Israel religion, but an offshoot from it that dominated Western hemisphere. Similarly, Judaism originated and was heavily influenced by Babylonian and Egyptian beliefs, yet noone claims Babylonian or Egyptian religion dominated the world.

Still, I believe Hebrews should be in for the fun/what if quality - they were quite an interesting civ and more significant that Iroquis or Zulus for example.

Oh, and I believe the people should be called Hebrews, and the Civ should be called Israel. (i.e. historically)

[gsmoove23]

Interesting topic a few posts before about who is closer to Greek and Roman culture. A little strange, these are completely separate from european and middle eastern culture. To hear a european claim Greek and Roman cultural achievements as theirs is as false as hearing it from an arab/muslim. Both cultures absorbed a massive amount of material from these ancients but neither can claim that material as their own.

These conversations always remind me of kids grabbing at a toy truck in a sand box, fighting over whose it is when it was another kid who left it there.

[gsmoove23]

My God/Allah this thread has gotten weird. Talking about whose going to conquer the world, the west the east or the people in the middle? This isn't civ guys. Its funny how outlooks can be so different. When I was first playing civ it took me a long time to realize that there had to be one winner. I would just plod along completely happy with developing my civ, getting into wars sometimes, trading sometimes and it would suddenly get to be the modern age and I find out somebody has already built their spaceship. Actually I still do that.

Whose to think that in a hundred years or ten years for that matter that our outlooks on the world, on nationalism, on religion, on race(a complete invention as the things that make us look different are the littlest tinyiest percentage of our genetic makeup) will be the same.

I think if you look at history you'll see that all these hatreds and conflicts die away eventually if people are given justice and relative prosperity. Assuming that we can increase the peace(love that phrase) and not create any new undying hatreds, ie., bombing the Middle East to bits(damn Roalan, your West is not my West) perhaps we'll be amazed by the future.

Take a look at european history and look whats happening now. You think anyone but the wildest dreamer could have forseen it in the 30s. What will it become in the next 50 years. Maybe its a model for the future of the world, and ideas like nationhood(another relatively recent invention) will go in to the dustbin with race where they should have been all along. Why do we always have to be at odds, its such a depressing view. Then again I might be a wild dreamer.

Man, Alireza you dream even further then I do, arabs and Israel rulin' the world hand in hand scary.

[Traelin]

Originally posted by Heresson


You must be kidding. The only great influence of Jews
(do not call them Israelis, it is not correct as far as I'm concerned) was the Bible. However, its great importance comes not out of judaism, but of christianity
- and the expansion was due to the unity of Mediterrean
of that time - if not Rome, I doubt it could expand the way it did. And st Paul and others belong as much to the Jews as to Graeco-Roman culture.

Anyway, creating Bible and some other inventions aren't enough to become a civ in civ terms (no matter how strange does it sound), because it is not a civ in fact,
rather a state.

Hrm, the most widely-read book of all time? I think that counts for something. And yes, that includes Christians too, but as I've said countless times in this thread, Christ was a Jew, too.

[Traelin]

Originally posted by Sonic
Traelin, you say Israel had more impact than Britain, Rome or Mongol Empire?

Rome? Well since Roman culture was CLEARLY affected by Christianity (and, therefore, Judaism), I'd say you at least have to grant Israel its dues. Emperor Constantine was clearly affected by Jewish culture, since he was Christian (i.e., Roman Catholic). Since Rome was known for much more than just religious culture, I'd have to say they win the "Rome-Israel" battle.

For the same basic reasons as mentioned in my Rome response, I'd say Britain wins the "Britain-Israel" battle.

But the Mongol "Empire"?? Come on, so what if they had a nice, semi-big stretch of land. And I'm even a huge Temujin history-lover. If you think how much land a Civ occupies is the primary reason to include them in the game, then I won't even try to convince you otherwise. The same goes if you can't see how Israel affected world culture.

To me, religion has a much more permanent, prolific effect on world culture than the fact that a Civ owns 30000 square miles of land for 10 years. That's what I meant by "the grand scheme of things".

Let me give you a simple "for instance". If you were to ask 10 people in this world if they had heard of Judaism, I guarantee 7 or 8 out of 10 would say yes. If you asked them how large the Polish, Mongol, or Ethiopian empire was at its height of power, then I'd wager to say that only 1 (maybe 2, but that's being generous) out of ten would know.

[Traelin]

Originally posted by sabrewolf
oh no... we're back to this part again. hasn't this topic (israel more or less important than xyz) come up several times already in this thread?

it's a fact, that israel (or better: the hebrew) was never a large nation, never militaristically powerful and havn't done much for science at all (after all, any strict religion is the brake block to science).

but it's also a fact, that from religious (and possibly cultural) point of view, israel has had one of the greatest impacts on the world.

so if we ask "should the hebrews be in?" you should first ask "is religion an important aspect for a civilisation?". if the second question is answered "yes", then so is the first.

Very well said, I have to concur with the spirit of this post.

[Traelin]

Originally posted by Martinus

I wouldn't agree with that statement. Israel's culture has not really influenced the world history. Neither laws, nor political systems, nor indeed philosophy of Israel has proliferated in the world to the extent Greek or Roman did.

Their laws have pervaded the U.S. and Western legal systems. Especially the U.S.

Originally posted by Martinus
Indeed, the religious influence is significant, however as Heresson pointed out, it was not Israel religion, but an offshoot from it that dominated Western hemisphere. Similarly, Judaism originated and was heavily influenced by Babylonian and Egyptian beliefs, yet noone claims Babylonian or Egyptian religion dominated the world.

Whoa, Babylon and Egypt were known for their Polytheistic religions. The Egyptians had literally hundreds of deities. The only realy influence Babylon and Egypt had on the Hebrews was their oppression of the Israelites. And that they were from the same region of the world.

Christianity isn't the same as Judaism, I cede that. All I'm saying is its influence on world religion, hence on the world population, is undeniable. Should they receive all the credit for Christianity's current sphere of influence? Nope. But I just find it odd that many people want to deny them a spot in CivIII for other Civs that were either one or -- dare I say it -- no-faceted.

[Ozymandias]

Originally posted by Traelin
Their laws have pervaded the U.S. and Western legal systems. Especially the U.S.

U.S. law is primarily derived from English "Common Law", which, in turn, has its roots --

(1) In the canonized customs of the (feudal) middle ages.

(2) In the spirit of the medieval-renaissance Parliament (and associated evolution of law and individual liberties), aruguably dating best from 1486, when Parliament accepted the new Tudor dynasty on the condition that it live on the profits from its own estates and customs duties -- ie, no more traditional feudal income.

(3) With the re-emergence of urban centers in medieval Europe -- and the concomittant need for all the laws required for a city to run smoothly -- most turned first to remaining examples of Roman law (better suited to the re-emergence of capital-based commerce than feudal regulations), modified these -- and then borrowed them from one another; the "Law Of Lubeck" (north Germany) being arguably the most prominently copied. And Roman law was COMPLETELY uninfluenced by the Talmud.

-- And, nope, I'm not an expert in legal history, and will happily debate this at greater length.

Best,

Oz

[gsmoove23]

to you to Traelin asuming I'm in the "many people" you refer to in your last sentence. Yes the Old Testament is quite an influence but its a one off shot and while my definition of civilization outside of the game does not put an emphasis on military power or expansive empires you have to admit that in civ these things gain more importance.

Now the Mongols had a massive effect on the history of the world, yes it was mostly military but they shook they literally shook the world. This was direct effect, not indirect like the contribution of religious teachings and texts later co-opted re-interpreted and spread by other people.

Since the cultural influence of the Jews spread after their "civ"(in a game sense) had died and largely due to the strength of the Roman world I can't say this is much of an arguement for civhood. Also, while Jesus was a Jew he was living in the Roman empire at the time. In a game sense this doesn't stand for much. With 8 slots to choose from its not a natural choice.

[Buster13]

And let's not forget that when the Mongolians had pretty well conquered China, they kept the Chinese culture in place, but took over the government, and created a "Forbidden City" which was open to only Mongols, not the indigenous Chinese.

The way they told the difference was that they made the Chinese wear thier hair in long braids. It was effectively a caste system. That's one reason the Taoist and Buddhist monks were bald, so they could avoid this labelling.

[Traelin]

Originally posted by Ozymandias


U.S. law is primarily derived from English "Common Law", which, in turn, has its roots --

(1) In the canonized customs of the (feudal) middle ages.

(2) In the spirit of the medieval-renaissance Parliament (and associated evolution of law and individual liberties), aruguably dating best from 1486, when Parliament accepted the new Tudor dynasty on the condition that it live on the profits from its own estates and customs duties -- ie, no more traditional feudal income.

(3) With the re-emergence of urban centers in medieval Europe -- and the concomittant need for all the laws required for a city to run smoothly -- most turned first to remaining examples of Roman law (better suited to the re-emergence of capital-based commerce than feudal regulations), modified these -- and then borrowed them from one another; the "Law Of Lubeck" (north Germany) being arguably the most prominently copied. And Roman law was COMPLETELY uninfluenced by the Talmud.

-- And, nope, I'm not an expert in legal history, and will happily debate this at greater length.

Best,

Oz

Correct, but English "Common Law" has its roots in Judeo-Christian ethics. For example, F.U.C.K. was originally based on a law applied to carnal misdeeds. It stood for "For Unlawful Carnal Knowledge" (it wasn't always a vulgar term). Anyways, the law was generally applied to prostitutes and the like, and apparently (at least from what I've read), their view toward such acts was inherited from Judeo-Christian ethics. It certainly was not inherited from Romanized codes of laws, because history has not always dubbed the Roman Empire to be the most moral society.

[Traelin]

Originally posted by gsmoove23
Now the Mongols had a massive effect on the history of the world, yes it was mostly military but they shook they literally shook the world. This was direct effect, not indirect like the contribution of religious teachings and texts later co-opted re-interpreted and spread by other people.

Since the cultural influence of the Jews spread after their "civ"(in a game sense) had died and largely due to the strength of the Roman world I can't say this is much of an arguement for civhood. Also, while Jesus was a Jew he was living in the Roman empire at the time. In a game sense this doesn't stand for much. With 8 slots to choose from its not a natural choice.

Like I said before, we'll just have to agree to disagree. You'll never convince me that the size of an empire is as important as its overall culture, and I'll never convince you my way.

[gsmoove23]

You notice how no one ever says "you're right I agree with you" after an arguement? Its damn annoying cause I'm almost always right and I'd like some acknowledgement once in awhile

[Traelin]

Originally posted by gsmoove23
You notice how no one ever says "you're right I agree with you" after an arguement? Its damn annoying cause I'm almost always right and I'd like some acknowledgement once in awhile

HAHA no way will I admit defeat on this one. Not when we all know that religion is much more important to human civilization than whether or not someone's borders were 2500 miles long or 2510 miles long!

[gsmoove23]

You should realize you're posting to an atheist.

[roalan]

almost does'nt count except in horseshoes and grenades.

[gsmoove23]

Fair enough

[roalan]

atheist to bad your loss

[sabrewolf]

actually atheism is the best, because you have a reason less to fight, kill and die for.

no more "for allah"-suicide bombings, no more catholic-protestant wars, no more islam-hindu wars, no more shiites-sunnites wars and endless other reasons.

in an ideal world there isn't any reason to fight for: no nationalism, no racism, no poverty, no unfairness and... no religionism.

but as i said: in an ideal world... that's completely illusionary

[sabrewolf]

i prefer an atheist who accepts people from other religions, than god-believers who don't tolate other faiths.

[roalan]

Religious dogma and fighting for and killing in the name of "their"religion is a human problem. Do not blame the Lord for Human stupidity.

[sabrewolf]

i didn't say, humans wouldn't fight and kill any more. i said, they'd have one major reason less to fight and kill (other reasons: nationalism, racism, etc.).

and: i've never heard of a war between two atheist groups

[Ozymandias]

Originally posted by sabrewolf

and: i've never heard of a war between two atheist groups

... Sino-Soviet border clashes in the 1970s ...

[sabrewolf]

sino (chinese): afaik usually buddhists
soviet: majority russian-orthodox (christians)

and anyway... the reason for those clashes were probably territorial reasons, not religious one ("you bastards don't believe in the same god we don't either believe in" )