Their language might be Canaanite, but I’ve never heard anyone claim that Israelites were Canaanite until today. They’re a completely different ethnic group, related more to the Chaldeans, not the Phoenicians.
Canaanites is the endonym of the Phoenicians, and Carthaginians (Chanani, as they self-designated). Phoenicians is just how Greeks called them.
Congrats, you have learned something new today!
Please, provide evidence. Chaldeans are related to Arameans, and basically name for another group of people migrating from Levant into the Babylonia.
You are right that Israeli and Chaldeans are related, because Aramaic language is considered as a sister of Canaanite languages, and Chaldeans spoke Aramaic language.
After a little more thought (and some reading) I ended up voting none. I reasoned that Canaanites, including Israelites and Philistines, are already in the game as Bronze Age Phoenicians. As for the others in this poll, they mostly seem like they would be similar to civs already in the game.
If RoR was getting as many civs as AoE2, some of these would probably be justifiable – but at this stage, it seems excessive to add any of these instead of civs from unrepresented regions.
Israelites aren’t Canaanites though…
You keep repeating that. Yet, when you have been asked to provide evidence, you were silent.
On the other hand, I have linked you several links from Wikipedia, where you could read that indeed, Israelites belong to the Canaanite group.
1 Like
They are related by language, but AoE isn’t a game about language fightings.
Ehm, from Wikipedia:
Ok, I think you missed the point, but anyway…
Your own quote states that they formed their own civilisation by branching out of the Canaanite one. You’re disproving your own point there.
That’s because I don’t know of any secular sources that actually go into any depth about the subject. Only the Bible actually says anything conclusive about it, and not everyone takes it seriously, so I figured I wouldn’t bring it up.
Disproving my point that Israelites are Canaanites?
Are you trying to tell me that Carthaginians are not Phoenicians because of “branching out and creating their own culture”, despite Romans calling them Poeni which is derived from Phoenicians, and Carthaginians calling themselves “Chanani” which stands for Canaanites?
Strange hill to die on.
At least I know where this is coming from and we can lay it to rest.
I won’t argue with mythology.
Israelites had made two discrete kingdoms tho, Samaria and Judah, like Carthaginians had their state. Because of this they can be a civ. in game, like Carthaginians are.
The former was conquered by the neo-Assyrian empire, and the latter by the neo-Babylonian empire.
1 Like
Carthage used elephants and was more of a warmongering, Phoenicia was more of a commercial nature… Carthage is an iron age civ, Phoenicia is more of a late bronze age civ…
Yes, Sargon created the Akkadian empire but the Sumerians themselves cover a longer period of time (5500-1500 BC) than the Akkadians (2330-2150)…
The Akkadian Empire (/əˈkeɪdiən/)[4] was the first ancient empire of Mesopotamia after the long-lived civilization of Sumer. It was centered in the city of Akkad (/ˈækæd/)[5] and its surrounding region. The empire united Akkadian and Sumerian speakers under one rule. The Akkadian Empire exercised influence across Mesopotamia, the Levant, and Anatolia, sending military expeditions as far south as Dilmun and Magan (modern Saudi Arabia, Bahrain, and Oman) in the Arabian Peninsula.[6]
The Akkadian Empire reached its political peak between the 24th and 22nd centuries BC, following the conquests by its founder Sargon of Akkad. Under Sargon and his successors, the Akkadian language was briefly imposed on neighboring conquered states such as Elam and Gutium. Akkad is sometimes regarded as the first empire in history, though the meaning of this term is not precise, and there are earlier Sumerian claimants.
Babylonia (/ˌbæbɪˈloʊniə/; Akkadian: 𒆳𒆍𒀭𒊏𒆠, māt Akkadī) was an ancient Akkadian-speaking state and cultural area based in the city of Babylon in central-southern Mesopotamia (present-day Iraq and parts of Syria). It emerged as an Amorite-ruled state c. 1894 BC. During the reign of Hammurabi and afterwards, Babylonia was called “the country of Akkad” (Māt Akkadī in Akkadian), a deliberate archaism in reference to the previous glory of the Akkadian Empire.[1][2] It was often involved in rivalry with the older state of Assyria to the north and Elam to the east in Ancient Iran. Babylonia briefly became the major power in the region after Hammurabi (fl. c. 1792–1752 BC middle chronology, or c. 1696–1654 BC, short chronology) created a short-lived empire, succeeding the earlier Akkadian Empire, Third Dynasty of Ur, and Old Assyrian Empire. The Babylonian Empire rapidly fell apart after the death of Hammurabi and reverted to a small kingdom.
Like Assyria, the Babylonian state retained the written Akkadian language (the language of its native populace) for official use, despite its Northwest Semitic-speaking Amorite founders and Kassite successors, who spoke a language isolate, not being native Mesopotamians. It retained the Sumerian language for religious use (as did Assyria), but already by the time Babylon was founded, this was no longer a spoken language, having been wholly subsumed by Akkadian. The earlier Akkadian and Sumerian traditions played a major role in Babylonian and Assyrian culture, and the region would remain an important cultural center, even under its protracted periods of outside rule.
Palmyra is older than the Nabateans…
Palmyra (/pælˈmaɪrə/ pal-MY-rə; Palmyrene: 𐡶𐡣𐡬𐡥𐡴 (
), romanized: Tadmor; Arabic: تَدْمُر, romanized: Tadmur) is an ancient city in present-day Homs Governorate, Syria. Archaeological finds date back to the Neolithic period, and documents first mention the city in the early second millennium BC. Palmyra changed hands on a number of occasions between different empires before becoming a subject of the Roman Empire in the first century AD.
The city grew wealthy from trade caravans; the Palmyrenes became renowned as merchants who established colonies along the Silk Road and operated throughout the Roman Empire. Palmyra’s wealth enabled the construction of monumental projects, such as the Great Colonnade, the Temple of Bel, and the distinctive tower tombs. Ethnically, the Palmyrenes combined elements of Amorites, Arameans, and Arabs. The city’s social structure was based structured on kinship and clans, and its inhabitants spoke Palmyrene Aramaic, a variety of Western Middle Aramaic, while using Koine Greek for commercial and diplomatic purposes. The Hellenistic period of West Asia influenced the culture of Palmyra, which produced distinctive art and architecture that combined different Mediterranean traditions. The city’s inhabitants worshiped local Semitic, Mesopotamian, and Arab deities.
By the third century, Palmyra had become a prosperous regional center. It reached the apex of its power in the 260s, when the Palmyrene King Odaenathus defeated the Sasanian emperor Shapur I. The king was succeeded by queen regent Zenobia, who rebelled against Rome and established the Palmyrene Empire. In 273, Roman emperor Aurelian destroyed the city, which was later restored by Diocletian at a reduced size. The Palmyrenes converted to Christianity during the fourth century and to Islam in the centuries following the conquest by the 7th-century Rashidun Caliphate, after which the Palmyrene and Greek languages were replaced by Arabic.
Before AD 273, Palmyra enjoyed autonomy and was attached to the Roman province of Syria, having its political organization influenced by the Greek city-state model during the first two centuries AD. The city became a Roman colonia during the third century, leading to the incorporation of Roman governing institutions, before becoming a monarchy in 260. Following its destruction in 273, Palmyra became a minor center under the Byzantines and later empires. Its destruction by the Timurids in 1400 reduced it to a small village. Under French Mandatory rule in 1932, the inhabitants were moved into the new village of Tadmur, and the ancient site became available for excavations. During the Syrian civil war in 2015, the Islamic State (IS) destroyed large parts of the ancient city, which was recaptured by the Syrian Army on 2 March 2017.
The Palmyrene Empire was a short-lived breakaway state from the Roman Empire resulting from the Crisis of the Third Century. Named after its capital city, Palmyra, it encompassed the Roman provinces of Syria Palaestina, Arabia Petraea, and Egypt, as well as large parts of Asia Minor.
The Palmyrene Empire was ruled by Queen Zenobia, officially as regent for her son Vaballathus, who inherited the throne in 267 at age ten. In 270, Zenobia rapidly conquered most of the Roman east, attempting to maintain relations with Rome as a legitimate power. In 271, she claimed the imperial title for both herself and her son, fighting a short war with the Roman emperor Aurelian, who conquered Palmyra and captured Zenobia. A year later the Palmyrenes rebelled, which led Aurelian to destroy Palmyra.
Despite its brief existence, the Palmyrene Empire is remembered for having been ruled by one of the most ambitious and powerful women in antiquity. It is also hailed in Syria, where it plays an important role as an icon in Syrian nationalism.
The Palmyrans could also be considered as successors of the Middle Eastern civs (Sumerians, Phoenicians, Assyrians, Babylonians).
I think the latter is more likely…
Which were later conquered by Neo-Babylonia…
Yes, and I would put general civs (Celts, Germanics, Scythians, Xiognu, Mauryas, Kushans, Guptas) and then gradually divide them…
Do you think modern day Italians are still Romans? Would you call US citizens British, Mexicans Spanish and Brazilians Portuguese? Do you see Dutch people as Germans? That’s what branching out means, those culture share a part of their heritage but moved in different directions and created their own separate thing.
More importantly, you focus way too much on language, there are many other elements defining a civilisation such as arts, culutural references, traditions, and espectially during the Ancient Era, myths. The Hebrews created their own religion, entirely different from the pantheon previously worshiped in Canaan. That in itself justify seeing them as separate cultures.
Furthermore, language is irrelevant in AoE games’ gameplay, and I say that as someone who loves linguistics. That’s not what defines tech trees or civ bonus. If a civ has bowmen with a better range, it’s not because it uses a word with more letters to say arrows. Military traditions (strategy, tactics, training, hierarchy, equipment, etc.), economy, religion, etc. are way more important than language to determine what could or couldn’t make an interesting civ.
1 Like
There seem to be arguments to be made either way here. I think you’re right that the Bible uses the word “Canaanites” in a sense that excludes Israelites. (I say “I think” because I don’t think it’s clear – the Bible seems to be written in a way that assumes the reader knows what “Canaanites” means.) On the other hand, “Canaanites” seems to be primarily a geographic term (during a certain time period), and at least some Israelites were from Canaan.
In any case, this is a purely semantic issue that isn’t really relevant to what I said. I’m not suggesting adding a civ called “Canaanites” and using it to represent Israelites – I’m saying that they’re already covered by Phoenicians. The word “Canaanites” isn’t involved, so its precise meaning isn’t relevant. (As I alluded to earlier, I also think Arabs and Nabataeans are sufficiently covered by Palmyrans, but I’m not claiming that they actually are/were Palmyrans.)
The really relevant thing is what the civ designs would be like, of course. Did Israelites and Canaanites have different enough cultures that they (a) are not well-represented by Phoenicians, and (b) can’t be well-represented by the same civ? I don’t know the answer to that. Phoenicians have what are, to me, the obvious essentials (slingers, polytheism, monotheism), but I’ll admit that’s not much.
I don’t think these analogies fit this case well. Following the Biblical narrative, the Israelites originated in Canaan (Isaac, Jacob, and Jacob’s sons were all from Canaan) and later returned to conquer it. So maybe the very early Israelites (i.e. Jacob’s sons) were Canaanites, and so were the Israelites born in Canaan after the conquest? I don’t know. (And also, I don’t have any stake in the answer.)
1 Like
Not in Bronze Age or early Iron Age, but you can easily make the distinction between coastal seafaring Canaanites (represented by Phoenicians) and landlocked non-seafaring one (which could be represented by Israelites). Especially if you take inspiration from later times, such as the Hebrew revolt during Roman times.
Just spitballing, monk and light infantry civilisation, low on cavalry, or CHA, but having access to Scythe Chariots. I think FOG2 represents Israelites in this way.
1 Like
[quote=“Temudhun”] Do you think modern day Italians are still Romans? Would you call US citizens British, Mexicans Spanish and Brazilians Portuguese? Do you see Dutch people as Germans? That’s what branching out means, those culture share a part of their heritage but moved in different directions and created their own separate thing.
Are Czechs, Polish, Ukrainians etc. no longer Slavs?
Are Duch, Germans, Danish etc. no longer Germanic?
I think you have completely lost the point of the argument. I am not saying that Israelites didn’t have different culture to other Canaanites, and that their culture di not evolved differently.
I am not. You are forgetting that many cultures are archaeologically barely distinguishable. Hell, we have issues often distinguishing between Slavs, Germans and Celts from archeological evidence.
Same with Myths. We have Bible, but we don’t have comparable mythology from other local nations. And I am not an expert, but automatically taking bible for granted might be problematic due to way bible was rewritten and reinterpreted during the ages.
Dude, no one is claiming that.
You have completely missed the point.