Is someone still working about this mod?
Is someone still working about this mod?
yes, but it is very hollyday season right now, and we lack a coder, that sucks :/
And when will the approximate time of issue?
hey guys do you have a mapper?
isn't there an Israeli forum of total war? maybe they would be interested in this mod since this is probably the only mod that would represent jews or israel even though historically it is kind of sketchy since most of your sources are from the bible and the bible is not really known to be very objective or accurate in its descriptions, alas i was looking forward of decimating all nations as Persia.
the descripions from the previews are short because its a preview
We'll have longer descriptions in the mod ( if it ever comes ut, but thats another story)
and yes we do use the bible as source but only if there aren't any other sources.
there was some discussionm about this but we promise to make it an historical mod, not a religious mod.
Last edited by Venia; May 21, 2012 at 11:57 AM.
Hi, what is the date of release? And are they still working on it? Thanks
Yes the hyper religious always make history their top concern, like how they always demand a Jewish faction in mods that take place when the entire middle east was run by Macedonians. I'd be less indignant were I you. The promise to make it historical first is not a bad thing, in fact it will determine whether or not I enjoy the mod... if it is ever finished. I'm currently looking for a mod that takes place in the late bronze early iron age. I want to dominate the world as a proper eastern potentate, either an Assyrian, Egyptian, or Minoan, and the last thing I want are absurdly hyped biblical factions who blitz the entire map because their fans wanted them to.
Incidentally I hope this mod is finished, I really want to play Assyria.
Got to throw in with Giuliano on this one.
Certainly there are those that want a what-if experience but I agree that historical accuracy should be the focus.
Just a side note, I would consider the Bible to be one of those available resources. It contains some of the only historical documents remaining from the period and (as demonstrated by the Dead Sea Scrolls) has maintained an incredible accuracy to it's original text over thousands of years. In fact, there is far better evidence for the reliability of the Bible than for the writings of Homer, Julius Caesar, and Tacitus combined but nobody questions the reliability of their accounts. The fact that archaeology has largely confirmed the non-prophetic portions of the text gives it even stronger credibility. I do not believe that there should be angels and demons in this mod and David would have been dead for many years by the time of the start date but to outright dismiss something because it has religious ties seems rather short-sited.
I am not trying to start a big debate but I get tired of people parroting generalized statements that they heard from someone else without doing some research themselves.
Last edited by Bregil; September 13, 2011 at 01:20 PM.
yes but then again it is a very, very bad and inaccurate description of the events. for example in the bible says the jews ran away from Egypt and it speaks of cataclysmic events and death of a pharaoh at sea but the Egyptians don't even frigging mention this, no influx of mass refugees, no pharaoh running after them and etc.
the bibles histrionically accuracy and its legitimacy is like the game Telephone, the initial phrase is "would like a cheeseburger" and the end phrase is "Martians live in Hapsburg"
Before I respond, I want to state plainly and unequivocally I am not trying to hurt anyone's feelings. If someone is offended by my arguments, I am sorry.
Second, Given that most of the surviving records left by ancient Egyptians are celebrating the accomplishments of a pharoah's reign. Is it really surprising that something catastrophic like that is not mentioned?
There is precedent of pharaohs trying to eradicate all evidence of their predecessor. Look up Hatshepsut and Akhenaten if you want specific examples. They both had most of their records destroyed with their successors going so far as to have their likenesses chiseled off of monuments. If the Egyptians were willing to remove a supposed divine ruler from the historical record, why is is so hard to believe that they would be reluctant to record such calamitous events in the first place. Particularly when, if they occurred as the Bible depicts, would have thoroughly discredited both the Egyptian gods (and subsequently, eroded their priests power) and the pharaoh's claim to be divine. The fact that Hatshepsut's grandson, Amenhotep II (who continued his father's work of eradicating her legacy) is believed by some scholars to be the pharaoh mentioned in Exodus is even more supportive of this argument. As he had already changed history once, why not do it again?
In this time period, most of the country was illiterate. Those that could read and write (primarily the priests and the royal court) would have a vested interest in making this debacle go away as it could have undermined their power and prestige.
As I stated in my previous post, there is more evidence for the Bible's legitimacy as a historical document than all other ancient documents combined. I've attached a couple charts to compare the historicity of some ancient authors compared only with the copies of Old Testament books found at Qumran (the Dead Sea Scrolls.) As you can see, there is greater attestation for the Old Testament as a whole than for the writings of all these authors combined. Additionally, the book of Exodus (which contains the story we were discussing above) has more copies than all of the authors except Tacitus and Sophocles.
Look at Julius Caesar, there's about a 1,000 year gap between his death and the oldest known copy of his writings yet no one denies that, apart from some creative spin, the campaigns took place largely as they are written. If his writings can be trusted, why not the Bible?
Finally, your argument is covering the period of the Exodus which is took place more than 500 years before the time period covered in this mod. In the period of the Divided Kingdom, there is substantial corroborating evidence from surrounding nations for many of the events the Bible records. They may not always agree completely (case in point, Sennacherib and Hezekiah) but the end story (every city in Judah except Jerusalem sacked and the Assyrian withdrawal) is the same.
I am not advocating that we try to recreate the biblical account in this mod, I am merely suggesting that individuals who are of the opinion that the Bible should not be taken seriously as a historical document should study all the evidence and, if they feel that the evidence does not match up with their existing position, possibly revise their conclusion.
EDIT: This debate, while good, is seriously derailing this thread. If people wish to continue it, I am more than willing to do so however we should probably find another venue. Whether that is a new thread in this sub-forum (provided the developers are ok with it) or in the Ethos, Mores et Monastica section does not matter to me just please let me know what location is preferred.
Last edited by Bregil; September 14, 2011 at 12:54 AM.
That would be hilarious, but then again the Bible isn't telling "the truth" so he's on the safe side of it.Wouldn't it be funny if the Bible was telling the truth, and you're just full of ?
Now as things are taking place maybe we should move this to "Public Research" and debate the Bible as a historical source and document, rather than drive this thread off-topic no matter how interesting our discussion is.
My own view of it is that the Bible is a historical document BUT it isn't something that can just be read like that and be expected to deliver an objective of what actually happened. Primarily the Bible is in my eyes a theological text that concerns itself with theological issues and does for not take much interest in economical factors that can explain many decisions. I would think they have a more selective approach to historical events.
As I personally think that the Bible was writen roughly about the time it concern, after the foundation of Israel, I think that much of it can give an inclination about what happend but you shouldn't just read and belive everything that's writen in it. For once its peppered with supernatural events which cannot be proved and which seems to have left very little evidence for itself outside of the Bible and which I therefor will discard. I also take skeptical view of people living pre-kingdom. For once I do not believe that Abraham existed, nor Noah and probably not Moses. But I will however agree that Solomon and David existed, even if I do not for a single time believe that David's kingdom was as great as the Bible claims, nor that Israel's military history was its long and almost unbroken line of brilliant victories.
The truth probably lies somewhere outside of the Bible, but the Bible can be used to give some light on at least aspects of Hebrew society and history for the concerned period.
This will probably aggrevate alot of people, but fire away!
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)