The game suggests that he's loopy and/or uncomfortable with his position but the Civlopedia entry does no justice towards explaining this.
The game suggests that he's loopy and/or uncomfortable with his position but the Civlopedia entry does no justice towards explaining this.
I dunno, but its hilariously awesome meeting him for the first time.
A quick wikipedia search reveals that, according to the bible, at least, God "humbled" Nebuchadnezzar and he went insane and spent 7 years living like an animal in the wild. Whether this has any connection to the stuff he says, such as "Are you just a phantom of my tortured senses" and "Those fools outside say that I am a God, but that seems rather unlikely", is unknown. But its still awesome.
All i know is that the first time i met him i my reaction was "OMGOMGJUSTTAKEWHATEVERYOUWANT".
<.< ...he is scary
I just love him so much. He's got a total Dr. House vibe, and also GREEN FIRE.
Haha, me too. He's definitely the most intimidating, in my opinion. His voice, the dark atmosphere, green fire, THE CUP and its uncomfortable clatter... <shudder>Originally Posted by cahtush
I doubt he would've had his scribes record that. Most ancient leaders skipped all the bad bits and just recorded all the stuff they were proud of - and if they had nothing they'd invent it - which makes the Bible special, because it records all the awkward bits as well.
The awkward bits of history keep it entertaining
Like the fact that the entire rebel army created by the CIA to overthrow Arbenz in the fifties was thrown in El Salvadorian jail for being too drunk and the El Salvadorians stole their weapons. The CIA had to bail them out of jail and buy them new weapons.
I must also point out his music is pretty kickass.
It's a tough call between him and Monty for my favourite leader screen
I don't care how awesome Monty's altar is, I hate him. He is put into the game as a nuisance civ. First war he declares on me, I squish him like a bug.
On Montezuma's screen you can hear the people booing or cheering...Sounds cool!
Leaders don't write their own history. If they are lucky then a friendly relative takes the throne and has nice things written. However there are MANY cases of unflattering things written about past rulers in the generation after them.I doubt he would've had his scribes record that.
How about Catherine's equine diversions? There is even an achievement about it. Those likely have no basis in fact, but the guy holding the pen didn't like her.
Oh, and Napoleon wasn't short. Not at all. But victors write the histories.
The bible does record awkward bits, like the Jews being slaves in Egypt. But that seems not to have been true either. Be very skeptical of written records from these times. They are usually just writing down folk stories that carry several generations of embellishment.
And you're basing the Jews not being slaves in Egypt on...what?
Btw, the 3 leader screens with fire are my favorite...
Also, I dunno why you guys are so impressed by green fire. It merely suggests there are cuprate salts in the torch holder. Which makes it a rather low quality torch, considering pure copper isn't ionized at such low temperatures.
I think the real question is, "You're basing the Jews being slaves in Egypt on what?"
There's no actual physical proof they were, therefore saying there was/wasn't any Jewish slaves in Egypt makes no sense.
I didn't say that it never happened. Of course there would be plenty of cases when the bad bits were recorded, as not all leaders were popular, or well liked. It would be more likely that these happened after the leader died though, as many leaders made sure that nothing bad was written about them while they lived - especially in Mesopotamian and Middle Eastern history.
From what I remember, they talked about the Hebrews in Egypt on the History channel a while back. I don't think there was anything on their slavery, but it was saying that they had been in Egypt. Also the first-century Jewish historian Josephus suggested that it was true in his writings.
This is an interesting article on the subject as well: http://creation.com/egyptian-history...-perfect-match
Genetic studies
I cant say they were or were not. But if they were, there was a very surprising lack of inbreeding. Slave populations tend to pick up a significant number of genes from their oppressors..... But also there seems to be a considerable debate on whether the Egyptians used slaves at all. Or at least en-masse. The pyramids show signs of having been created by well fed and educated craftsmen. Though their ethnicity cant be so easily determined through archaeology.
Er, not to discount but... how would a first century 'historian' know any better? His source material would have been exodus. This would be his distant past as well.
And the history channel has shows about ghosts and alien abductions
Well they did have quite a population...Personally I'm not surprised in the least. There was that many of them that the Pharaoh at the time ordered all the boys under the age of two amongst the Hebrews to be put to death.
Why would you use a site named creation.com? It doesnt really sound very credible.
Especially when it has "question evolution" on its front page.
I don't know if you have ever done any research, but the Jews were well documented to be excellent record keepers and experts on geneology, and the first century historian, Josephus, is still in print today and very credible...I also find some of those alien abduction shows very interesting...Genetic studies
I cant say they were or were not. But if they were, there was a very surprising lack of inbreeding. Slave populations tend to pick up a significant number of genes from their oppressors..... But also there seems to be a considerable debate on whether the Egyptians used slaves at all. Or at least en-masse. The pyramids show signs of having been created by well fed and educated craftsmen. Though their ethnicity cant be so easily determined through archaeology.
Er, not to discount but... how would a first century 'historian' know any better? His source material would have been exodus. This would be his distant past as well.
And the history channel has shows about ghosts and alien abductions
Everyone still realizes that evolution is still referred to as a theory, don't they?
...and hopefully everyone also realizes that the word theory when used in the sense of a Scientific Theory has a very different and more rigorous definition than it does when used in everyday language.
Yea, shouldn't start that argument here. but gravity is a theory too. But you don't doubt what happens when you drop something. Theories are as high as it goes for science.
Scientists don't use that word the say way a detective would.
I was hoping no one would be biased about this.
You can't discredit someone on the bases of the fact that they are religious, and we have had a very long debate on evolution already in this forum, and both sides made a good argument.
The word "theory" isn't the same as a hypothesis or guess.
No they did use slaves, but you are right about the pyramids being built by payed workers. The pyramids would've been already built (at least most of them) by the time the Hebrews arrived in Egypt at any rate.
I dont mind them beeing religious, but creationism on the other hand is a different thing entirely.
To me it shows either ignorance of or complete disregard of evidence.
Several of the questions in their question evolution campain shows this (like confusing abiogenesis with evolution and claiming that we havent observed evolution, which we have).
The site isint a reliable source.
If you know of another article on some other site that would be good, some that doesnt end with claiming that the bible is the best history text book ever. It can be used obviously, as almost all stories are based on some truth and it can help with studying the cultural exchange (like gilgamesh and noah). But claiming it can be used as a text book is a bit on he ridicilous side of things.
Well that's your belief. It's an unfair judgement to assume that a creationist is ignorant and disregards evidence, even if that's true for some creationists - it's actually quite presumptuous and closed minded to think that way of all creationists. You should know that many creationists are scientists, doctors, teachers, historians, and of other educated professions.
If you wish to discuss this further it would be best to do it over privet messages, as we are getting off-topic.
How about, Nebu is an eccentric figure because of artistic licence.
And this portrayal of him is pretty cool, distinguishes him from the other leader, and adds flavor to the game.
What other reasoning is required?
That works for me...I like the green fire too
That he is THE most awesome and intimidating leader in the game!
Like the uniques too.
He's awesome. I lol every time I go to his leader screen and am greeted with a booming voice going 'NISH TA TA DI!'
Nebuchadnezzar is so scary, his deep menacing voice and the music and fire. Scary. Moctezuma also, his fire and constant yelling in your ears and asking if you would be his next sacrifice is really terrifying.
Montezuma seems more like comic relief to me. Almost all of his lines make me laugh, and I love the cheering and whooping that goes on in the background. I love this version of him.
I guess I'll see how I feel about Attila. I suspect he'll have dialogue worthy of a Saturday Morning Cartoon villain--dialogue I would fully welcome and enjoy.
I find it hilarious how sometimes the captions don't match what the leader is actually saying. Like when Harald told me he was going to make a Jarl (Earl) and then stormed off.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote