(Bronze Age) Civ: Hebrews/ Israelites

[Lion.Kanzen]

This brings us back to the argument we had in the Mauryans thread where some people felt that it would be a bad idea to destroy Hindu temples in the game. I believe they settled on making the temple a normal building with no religious symbols on it. Maybe we could do something similar?

yeah im thinking in the jews that was deviated from Judaism, and worship foreign gods. and think we represent colonies in each map. thst why i want represent minor or medium temples.

[Atenmeses52]

I might be wrong, but I feel like having Ancient Jews worshiping pagan gods who were condemned as blasphemous in the Bible might be even more offensive than having their temple be destroyed. I'd be interested to hear a Jewish person's point of view on this... (I'm not looking for an argument --I just want to know what will be best for this mod!)

[Lion.Kanzen]

I might be wrong, but I feel like having Ancient Jews worshiping pagan gods who were condemned as blasphemous in the Bible might be even more offensive than having their temple be destroyed. I'd be interested to hear a Jewish person's point of view on this... (I'm not looking for an argument --I just want to know what will be best for this mod!)

yeah but not been exactly look baals temple only looks like semitical temple. that i was say. no take too literally XD.

a Random Mideastern Temple

[idanwin]

AAAaaargh! I hate religious bullshit! I do respect religious people, but why do they have to attack everyone who makes a joke about them/uses their symbol/puts their temple in a game? I'm exaggerating. I'm not even sure any Jews would have something against us, the few I know wouldn't care a cent. But certain other religions certainly would.

Can't we just all be friends and not feel offenced all the time?

Sorry, I let a bit go of myself.

Luckily the Egyptians won't be angry at me when their temples get destroyed... I like Ancient Egyptians... They're my friends.

'Hey mummy! Long time no see!' [dangles an eyeball in front of the mummy he keeps in his wardrobe and laughs maniacally].

I don't think that should be too much of a deal, if you look at the amounts of mosks and churches that have been destroyed in AoE, C&C, ...

[alpha123]

Given that the Jewish Temple was actually destroyed -- twice -- I don't think too many people would have a problem with that. It should be very hard to destroy though.

Personally I think it would be VERY cool to see Hebrews in this game. I'm not Hebrew myself, but I'm very interested in their culture and history.

[Thorfinn the Shallow Minded]

I agree with alpha. The thing which seriously set the Jews appart was their religious beliefs. To take that away is a serious insult to the culture as a whole. The people who were regarded as great (Joshua, Judas Maccabeus, David, etc,...) for the most part were also quite strong in the Jewish faith. Maybe there could be a technology for pagan beliefs though.

[mosadi]

Hi there, i'm little confused when reading your ideas about ancient israelites in this Mod, let me try to explain why.

Todays knowledge about this nation in the late bronze/ early iron age-

1) The temple

It is almost certain that there was NO temple of this size built by Solomon, I am talking about the so-called First Temple, as to the time of Josiah, Jerusalem was a city of very small and rather poor and there was no room for such a structure.

Besides, there is no archaeological trace of the temple.

2) Using the Old Testament as a source

Try to understand- if you want to create a game historically reliable you can not only use the Bible out of the present state of knowledge of ancient Israel - for example do you see the difference between Age Of Empires and Age of Mythology?

I can recommend to you, for example, the book-It combines what archeology can tell you about Israel, and what is in the Bible may be historically reliable-

http://pl.scribd.com/doc/27394235/Israel-s-History-and-the-History-of-Israel-Mario-Liverani

this is [illegal i think] ebook- if you are interested please buy it of course

PS Sorry for my english

[alpha123]

1) The temple

It is almost certain that there was NO temple of this size built by Solomon, I am talking about the so-called First Temple, as to the time of Josiah, Jerusalem was a city of very small and rather poor and there was no room for such a structure.

Besides, there is no archaeological trace of the temple.

There actually are archaeological traces of the First Temple. Not a whole lot, but various artifacts that would have been used in it have been dated to that time. Solomon was actually quite rich, I think he would have been able to afford the temple. According to National Geographic it seems likely that he would have had access to enough copper and other metals to build it. I think it's pretty reasonable to assume a large temple stood there.

2) Using the Old Testament as a source

Try to understand- if you want to create a game historically reliable you can not only use the Bible out of the present state of knowledge of ancient Israel - for example do you see the difference between Age Of Empires and Age of Mythology?

The Old Testament is historically reliable (Egyptian and Babylonian carvings confirm some Old Testament events, the Tel Dan stele proves King David existed). Certainly other sources should be used as well though.

So yeah, I think there's nothing wrong with using the Bible as a historical account simply because it's also a religious text. There's not a lot of reason to doubt most of the stuff in the Old Testament. Besides, it would just look cool in the game to have this huge temple....

In the interest of full disclosure, I am a Christian and so that almost certainly biases my opinion of the Bible a bit. However, I would probably not be Christian if the Bible was obviously historically inaccurate.

[zoot]

The Old Testament is historically reliable (Egyptian and Babylonian carvings confirm some Old Testament events, the Tel Dan stele proves King David existed). Certainly other sources should be used as well though.

I appreciate your disclaimer, because I know a scholar or two who would strongly dispute the veracity of that statement

[mosadi]

Egyptian and Babylonian carvings confirm some Old Testament events, the Tel Dan stele proves King David existed

You see, the Egyptian and Babylonian records confirm some things in the Bible because the Bible was written in a historical space, but at the same time, most of what is in the old testament presented as fact is negated by the discovery of archaeological or ... other Egyptian and Babylonian records, but also the Syrians, and others.

It's like the Indian Bhagavad Gita-the content is placed in certain specific areas that can be identified archaeologically, but it does not mean that there was blue-skinned Krishna.

Bible says that kingdom of Solomon was very rich- but there is no archeological trace of this story- on the contrary-the kingdom of Judah is well recognized as a marginal and poor.

National Geographic is not a good place to learn history.

Archaeological material from Palestine is very rich so there can be no such mistake of historians, we can not simply reject their work..

[alpha123]

I appreciate your disclaimer, because I know a scholar or two who would strongly dispute the veracity of that statement

I expect there to be a few. I believe the Old Testament to be fact, but I definitely don't expect everyone to. There's a bit of a fundamental problem with historical science: we weren't actually there. It's like trying to put together a puzzle without having a picture of what the final thing looks like. Pretty hard; I have a lot of respect for historians even if they disagree with me.

Just out of curiosity, what part of it would you dispute? I really don't want to start some kind of religious war; I'm slightly curious. Besides, it would also likely prove useful to the creators of the Bronze Age mod.

You see, the Egyptian and Babylonian records confirm some things in the Bible because the Bible was written in a historical space, but at the same time, most of what is in the old testament presented as fact is negated by the discovery of archaeological or ... other Egyptian and Babylonian records, but also the Syrians, and others.

Well, the Egyptians probably lied a bit. It doesn't exactly look good for your kingdom if a truckload of slaves manage to escape.

It's like the Indian Bhagavad Gita-the content is placed in certain specific areas that can be identified archaeologically, but it does not mean that there was blue-skinned Krishna.

A bit like the Iliad, the content may actually have historical basis but is embellished with religious beliefs. Of course you could say this about the Old Testament as well, but I think it has more evidence going for it than the Iliad or the Bhagavad Gita.

Bible says that kingdom of Solomon was very rich- but there is no archeological trace of this story- on the contrary-the kingdom of Judah is well recognized as a marginal and poor.

I encourage you to look up Solomon's copper mines - there's a decent amount of evidence out there for them. I'm not going to claim they're conclusively proved to exist, but it's certainly not out of the question.

National Geographic is not a good place to learn history.

I know. The article seemed fairly good though, and being a secular source I don't think they'd be very biased.

[zoot]

Just out of curiosity, what part of it would you dispute? I really don't want to start some kind of religious war; I'm slightly curious. Besides, it would also likely prove useful to the creators of the Bronze Age mod.

Well, the Book of Genesis is Old Testament, right? That alone probably accounts for the single deepest and most inflamed point of disagreement between Christianity and mainstream science/history for the past 150 years.

[Lion.Kanzen]

For me as co-founder i was though, This faction must have more planification ideas in order to can create a non controversial faction.

[alpha123]

Well, the Book of Genesis is Old Testament, right? That alone probably accounts for the single deepest and most inflamed point of disagreement between Christianity and mainstream science/history for the past 150 years.

Oh, yes. I sort of forgot about that when I made my statement (I was thinking about Moses, David, Solomon, etc). Well, I personally believe Genesis is history, but I'm definitely in the minority here. There are legitimate reasons for believing in a young created earth though - we're not just believers in fairy-tales or delusional as some atheists have said.

Anyway, I'm not really going to talk about that here - those discussions tend to turn into flame wars (although you're a quite reasonable person, zoot, and I doubt it would with you) - and it wouldn't be particularly helpful to the Bronze Age mod. You can PM me if you think I'm insane or something though.

For me as co-founder i was though, This faction must have more planification ideas in order to can create a non controversial faction.

I suggest just go with a big, glorious temple. That way nobody will be offended - the worst you'll get will be, "Uh hey, you know the thing might not have been that big, right?" from the people who think early Israel was poor. There won't really be any controversy (although you will have to be a little careful, given that the religion is still practiced today).

What do you mean by "planification ideas"?!

[Lion.Kanzen]

Design ideas, like that you suggest. sorry I choose wrong word. I'm thinking special scenario building have ancient Salomon temple, bot don't have hp is the single building in game can be destroyed but if you don't have any other building left you lose. Is like King role in Chess, if you lost all your pieces in game the other player but you in hack, same thing with temple, if you lost all building and the temple can be destroyed you lost, the temple is only representative or symbolic, don't let you survive. But can don't be destroyed. Is converted to Gaia object. Of course this in special maps. In regular a normal temple, big as you suggested, but with a limit of building. The gameplay of 0 AD is about create colonies in many kind of maps only in scenarios the capital is represented.

[alpha123]

I barely understood that (maybe just write in Spanish and use Google Translate?), but that idea seems good. Basically you couldn't lose the temple, but if you lost everything else it would be over? That sounds good, but presumably the temple would be garrisonable (to heal units or something), in which case what do you do if a player just hides his last few units in the invincible temple? If the temple isn't garrisonable it doesn't really serve a whole lot of purpose (although I suppose maybe it could have some kind of aura, once that's implemented).

Also I could totally see a "protect the temple" kind of scenario, where naturally the temple could be destroyed, but I don't feel like it would offend anyone in that circumstance.

[Lion.Kanzen]

You Dint think if i use google translator, I don't have mistakes, google translator always have mistakes. For cultural reasons and for differences in what I want to say. Even I don't expect in Spanish someone can understand. Some creative people like me, is hard to express. By the way.

In chess game that are a videogame, You never see,the king fall. I think see a Salomon temple even never see in Flames, even if in History that happens. This faction, is very special, may be new alternatives to gameplay. I prefer to finish as at last. Beyond 0AD part 2.

Other faction is special and controversial, are the Sea People. They evolving to become into philistine people.

Now the temples, can be protected, but maybe with trigger if temple take a some damage, the game is over. The player loses the game. That way, forces to the temple to dont have any damage, even a scratch.

But I'm worrying with antisemites, try to insult the Jews with the game. Even I want to prevent that. May be Amish or other can say a suggest, for me. Is difficult all I know, was reading the bible, I was Baptist in the past. All I know about Jews is by Christians Zionists. But is obviously the same.

[alpha123]

You Dint think if i use google translator, I don't have mistakes, google translator always have mistakes. For cultural reasons and for differences in what I want to say. Even I don't expect in Spanish someone can understand. Some creative people like me, is hard to express. By the way.

I just think if you used Google Translate it might come out a little more understandable. I know machine translation isn't and can't really be as good as a human, but Google's Spanish to English (and vice versa) is pretty well developed. I think it would have fewer mistakes (particularly spelling).

Now the temples, can be protected, but maybe with trigger if temple take a some damage, the game is over. The player loses the game. That way, forces to the temple to dont have any damage, even a scratch.

If you're going to allow it to be damaged, you might as well allow it to be destroyed. There's always the possibility that it has no rubble actor and/or the normal actor doesn't go away when the temple is technically destroyed. I think at least in a scenario you might as well just go with your original idea and make it impossible to damage but also not have the ConquestCritical class.

[Lion.Kanzen]

with a large block of text, ok I'm testing with the iPad app. still my way of expressing it is from another culture. Do you understand this last?.

would be a special actor or new, if we can open a new topic or a ticket for these cases would be good, at some point we will have to deal with the Jewish war against the Romans.

[NoMolester]

You should only use mainstream archeological science and researches for all factions (not limited to jews). You shouldn't base the civilization features on a book/work (whatever the book/work is) that is not a scientific or historiographical study (and i don't mean national geographic/history channel/discovery channel documentaries, no offence alpha). You shouldn't use the bible to create the jews, but an historiographic study on the bible instead.

Let me explain, if the bible (a non scientific book) says the jews were "X shaped", you shouldn't just say "the jews will be X shaped" but find an historiographical study of the bible saying "This claim from the bible where it says that jews were X shaped is true" and then say "the jews will be X shaped".

I don't mean that the bible has non-cientific or fake things, just that the bible (even if its content was true), was not written by scientific-post enlightment-historians and therefore should not be considered for the game until a modern day study of it confirms its claims to be true. Imagine it like a filter, we should use the filter of historiography and archeology, if its true or likely to be true what the bible says, there must be studies about it, and we should use the results of those studies and not the bible itself as inspiration.

Edited July 5, 2013 by NoMolester

[Lion.Kanzen]

Yeah but game can enjoy all. And is very delicate topic. And yes I'm not religious but, I respect the believes of others. And they Ancestral culture.

[NoMolester]

Thats why we should base the game strictrly on laic non religious material.

[Lion.Kanzen]

Yeah , but for now we are stopped , and I'm waiting for idawin and atemneses. Or new fans. But I'm mostly interesting into Main game.

[Thanduel]

You should only use mainstream archeological science and researches for all factions (not limited to jews). You shouldn't base the civilization features on a book/work (whatever the book/work is) that is not a scientific or historiographical study (and i don't mean national geographic/history channel/discovery channel documentaries, no offence alpha). You shouldn't use the bible to create the jews, but an historiographic study on the bible instead.

Let me explain, if the bible (a non scientific book) says the jews were "X shaped", you shouldn't just say "the jews will be X shaped" but find an historiographical study of the bible saying "This claim from the bible where it says that jews were X shaped is true" and then say "the jews will be X shaped".

I don't mean that the bible has non-cientific or fake things, just that the bible (even if its content was true), was not written by scientific-post enlightment-historians and therefore should not be considered for the game until a modern day study of it confirms its claims to be true. Imagine it like a filter, we should use the filter of historiography and archeology, if its true or likely to be true what the bible says, there must be studies about it, and we should use the results of those studies and not the bible itself as inspiration.

Actually this view is indefensible. To say that all post enlightenment historians wrote without bias or purpose is simply not true (the implication of only being able to trust post enlightenment history). Actually if we were to take this view we would know almost nothing about the ancient world. For example, by that argument we would have to say Julius Caesar didn't exist, we would have to disregard the writings of historians like Seutonius, Tacitus, Josephus, Plini because they are for the most part not "scientifically verifiable". No the historian is dependent on histories like the Old Testament to make sense of the Archaeological record. HOWEVER generally the Old Testament is frowned upon as a historical source because of it's religious context, again though this is poor scholarship for the simple reason that most of our sources from the ancient world have religious elements and without these texts we would know almost nothing about the civilisations they were written by. Hear me correctly here, I'm not saying these sources should be trusted without question however what I am saying is that it is poor scholarship to disregard them on the basis of their ideology.

Another very large concern relevant to this discussion is that near eastern chronology is in no way a perfect science. Talking for example about Solomon's empire not existing is a bit of a leap, it takes only a little trip into archaeological scholarship and chronology to see this. Tools like radio carbon dating or dendrochronology are only now making an impact in chronology, for a long time and perhaps even now they were rejected in favour of the old methods of dating. There are many many very poor or circular arguments that are accepted as truth in the Archaeological world and espoused as fact to the public. One instructive example is the dating of Lachish (an Israelite city) level III. The dating of the destruction of this level of Lachish was originally based on the dating of a number of ostraca found in its ruins (a type of letter generally written on pottery). The date initially given for this level of Lachish was derived from analysis of these letters by a Hebrew specialist named Torczyner. However, these dates were revised by about 150 years by Hebrew specialists over a number of years of dissecting his arguments. The archaeological world seemed completely oblivious to this though and still continued to use the incorrect dates to peg the dating of Lachish III. Given that Lachish was used a reference date this had pretty big consequences. A very interesting book on this topic (near eastern chronology), though sadly out of print now, is "Centuries of Darkness" by Peter James et al. My point is this: what we know about the ancient near east is a very large moving target and it is certainly not the perfect post enlightenment science it is made out to be. In my opinion basing the Hebrews off the O.T. would be reasonable.

[NoMolester]

Ok, well you convinced me that is OK to use direct ancient sources, but how could we discern what things to put and what things to put not based on the OT. If we base the hebrews on the OT, then their monks would have the hability of splitting the waters and their soldiers the hability of destroying walls dancing.