Carthagenians

[Jeru]

Arabic and Hebrew use consonants placeholding for vowels. So Vav/Waw (Hebrew/Arabic respectively) originally signified the V/W sound only (consonant), but with time, it took on an extra role. Depending on where it is in the word it could signify O or U (sort of hinting at a vowel). When the consonants serve in this second role, they're called matres lectonis, which is Latin for "Reading Mothers", though I have no idea what this has to do with dear mother.

The "true" vowels, and some other pronunciation stuff, are designated with a system of markings above, below and even inside the letters. In Hebrew, this is called Niqqud and it's usually made of combinations of dots, mostly below the letters; In Arabic, these are dashes and similar shapes. I know that in Hebrew this was invented in medieval times so as to guide the reader in reading the scriptures without having to change the actual arrangement of the letters, which is considered divine and untouchable.

In both languages these markings are mostly reserved for liturgical purposes, poetry and anything written for early readers and learners of Hebrew/Arabic as a foreign language. For everyday use we get along fine with matres lectonis; Niqqud is added very occasionally as a pronunciation guide, especially for new loanwords, or to help the reader distinguish between homographs. Otherwise the grammar of the Semitic language lends itself easily to wrtng almst wthout any vwls.

Edited June 4, 2010 by Jeru

[Ephestion]

Yes but the point is that all semitic languages didn't have specific letters for the vowels other than the methods already mentioned to denote them.

There were no Semitic language records for the Phoenicians.

Yet some people claim that this is Old Hebrew is Phoenician:

Gezer Phoenician?

[darthturtle]

Carthage at the time of 0 A.D. is the thriving trade empire during the Punic Wars, AFAIK. 0 A.D. as a point in time is non-existent, and the Carthaginians in-game will be during the high point of their civilisation, as will all other civilisations in the game

[Jeru]

Ephestion, I was just trying to explain how Semitic languages designate vowels (answering your question, not arguing either side, though I am with Alandil and SMST).

Also:

4. Are there records of semitic script used in the mediteranean? No.

False. Records were found even in modern-day Italy, not to mention modern-day Tunisia, Libya, Algeria and Malta.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pyrgi_Tablets

http://www.gettyimages.com/detail/89169108/De-Agostini

http://tinyurl.com/o9q5o4

[Ephestion]

thriving trade empire

Wow, i want to play a thriving trade empire. Aside Hannibal it wasn't even worth mentioning. The Keltoi were probably more of an issue or the Sythians in the east.

The Carthaginian Empire: will have the strongest navy in the game; the fiercest contendors on the high seas. They were also masters of naval trade, extending their trade routes even beyond the pillars of Hercules and circumnavigating Africa. They deployed towered War Elephants on the battlefield to fearsome effect, and had defensive walls so strong, they were never breached.

Pfffft The war elephants were left behind by the shrinking Ptolemaic rule. The boats were purchased off the Greeks, They sucked at naval warfare, the fortresses and walls they learned from Crete and the Greek Fortresses. And they sucked right upto the end when the Romans made a big hoopla about beating them. Hannibal was the only person worth mentioning.

Also Iberia ? wtf?

As for the entire game selection.....it sucks. All you guys did was put Rome in the middle and then pick and choose which civs lost to them.

Here is a better list:

Ethiopians

Egypt

Persia

Mongolia

Greece

Kelts

Rome

There are asians, blacks, mediteraneans, africans and Germanics. That way all the world is covered. Personally i would have prefered playing the Hellenistic states post Alexander since they cover every ethnicity on the planet. Indians (Bactria), Parthians, Selucids etc

Edited June 5, 2010 by Ephestion

[feneur]

There are asians, blacks, mediteraneans, africans and Germanics. That way all the world is covered. Personally i would have prefered playing the Hellenistic states post Alexander since they cover every ethnicity on the planet. Indians (Bactria), Parthians, Selucids etc

I'm not too fond of the notion of "ethnicity", but I can't see how you get the above to be "every ethnicity on the planet". Sure, you've got some Asians and Africans, but there's several continents you haven't even mentioned. Sure, they would not have fought each other, but if that's your argument then your selection is just as arbitrary as our. There are other civilizations which could have been part of the game, but as it is now they aren't, so it's not really worth arguing about. You are however free to create them yourself, nothing is stopping you.

Pfffft The war elephants were left behind by the shrinking Ptolemaic rule. The boats were purchased off the Greeks, They sucked at naval warfare, the fortresses and walls they learned from Crete and the Greek Fortresses. And they sucked right upto the end when the Romans made a big hoopla about beating them. Hannibal was the only person worth mentioning.

I'll leave it to other people who are more qualified to say something about whether these things are true or not, but even if they are, what's wrong about learning from others? Does it make an idea less useful if someone else has had it before? Sometimes the greatness comes from the way these ideas are combined to a greater effect than before.

[Ephestion]

Nothing wrong with using other peoples technology but you also need to contribute something of interest otherwise its mediocre. Hannibal was certainly interesting but if an Egyptian civ was made they would have almost identical units to Carthage. Ptolemy, Cleopatra or Hannibal?

[Mythos_Ruler]

lol...

Ethiopians

Egypt

Persia

Mongolia

Greece

Kelts

Rome

[Aldandil]

In both languages these markings are mostly reserved for liturgical purposes, poetry and anything written for early readers and learners of Hebrew/Arabic as a foreign language. For everyday use we get along fine with matres lectonis; Niqqud is added very occasionally as a pronunciation guide, especially for new loanwords, or to help the reader distinguish between homographs. Otherwise the grammar of the Semitic language lends itself easily to wrtng almst wthout any vwls.

Xctly.

[Jeru]

We welcome all kinds of feedback, and thanks for participating in our forums, but I think hearing a more constructive, positive attitude from you could be great, Ephestion.

Edited June 5, 2010 by Jeru

[Mythos_Ruler]

Hannibal was certainly interesting but if an Egyptian civ was made they would have almost identical units to Carthage. Ptolemy, Cleopatra or Hannibal?

Most of the Mediterranean powers at this time would have used similar technology and tactics. The Hellenistic methods of warfare were pervasive throughout the central and Eastern Mediterranean and Middle East.

[Ephestion]

Yes but Elephants like those used by Hannibal were Ptolemaic not Selucid. I was trying to say that essentially North Africa had it's own style of army that was very similar in make up. They all had hoplites and cavalry or some variation of them but the style of army was different to those in Europe.

[Mythos_Ruler]

All ancient factions have the same basic units: Spearmen, Swordsmen, Skirmishers, Archers, etc.

A few things the Ptolemies did though was hire Galatians, Cretans, and Rhodians as mercenaries and put towers on their North African Elephants. The Carthaginians didn't use towers on their elephants and hired different mercenaries: Iberians, Balearians, Cis-Alpine Celts, Italiotes. Carthage relied much more on mercenaries than most powers at this time.

[blablahead]

Ephestion, why do you seem to have such an irrational hatred of Carthage?

[Ephestion]

I don't have a hatred for them, I just don't think they were very strong when it came to military. Egypt had a better chance against Rome than Carthage, but they mismanaged the navy which cost them in the end.

[Mythos_Ruler]

Carthage took over half of North Africa and half of the Iberian Peninsula, and defeated Rome countless times in Italy.

[AuroN2]

Egypt had a shitload less chance of surviving rome than carthage did, carthage just had very bad luck, egypt had a ton weaker army, mostly slaves, which were weakly armoured, at least the carthaginians had versatility in their armies, the mercanaries came from many countries see? the only reason egypt was independant for so long is because they didnt have many conflicts with rome, as the romans, while in the middle east, consentrated on the parthians and pontus and so on, so in no way did the egyptians have more chances to survive, especialy since they didnt play apart in a crapload of wars, they got owned in one war with roman support.