Why is Jerusalem not a major city?

[Sphinx2318]

It took 3 1/2 years for the Romans to take the city of Jerusalem. When Rome finally captured the city, they tore down Solomon's Temple to show dominance over the Jewish people!!! Historically, Jerusalem was a major city and a problematic one at that for the Romans to keep conquered. In Rome II, it is no more than a village!!! Not very historically accurate in my own opinion. How can you leave one of the most historically important cities out of the game CA?

[MTV]

Reported to Kotaku for great justice

[Oatman]

Should be a historical battle

[arealhumanbean]

Eh, I guess they went with Petra for the province capital.

I'm not too keen on how large Petra was back then, in comparison to Jerusalem, but maybe they have a justification for it. I'm more surprised that they didn't even include Damascus. It's one of the oldest cities in the world.

[Ironstar]

Simple, they made the map too small to properly introduce a province system like what they have, it needs more space, smaller citys on the map and about 3x the provinces to what there are, the sacrifce is that it doesnt have the "historical accuracy" that they were shooting for. we also should have the option to wall in minor citys, not just have province capitals walled it drasticly limits the tactical ability in the campain without being able to fortify your borders properly.

[Blackops]

If the campaign map wasn't going for pretty "Civilization" graphics (not built for playability and fun), we could get an mod out to fix that quickly.

[arealhumanbean]

I'm all for having some minor wallage in the settlements, but only after they fix the siege AI.

Maybe some tier 1 walls, just to help hold-out. Nothing epic like Rome, Athens, or Carthage.

[The Eidahl]

I'm not trolling here, just for the record. But I would imagine it was because it was so far on the fringes of the Roman Empire it was basically considered a backwater. Why isn't it considered a major city? Well, it wasn't to the Romans. Judea had very little to contribute to the Empire when compared to Greece, Carthage, or Egypt (or hell, even Gaul or Germania). If the Parthians hadn't have been interested in advancing their interests in that region, I doubt Rome would have treated it as more than an afterthought. As far as it being a "most historically important city?" Do you honestly think that's so from a Roman perspective during this timeframe? No, to Rome it was the edge of the world. The truth is that the region was nothing more than a hornet's nest of barely comprehensible factions and strange religious practices that's nothing but a headache for anyone to attempt to sort out.

Come to think of it, not much has changed.

[The Eidahl]

I base my comment off the fact it was never powerful enough to threaten Rome, by the way.

[Gromov]

Petra was way more influential at those times.

[Sphinx2318]

Originally posted by Terroraven:

I base my comment off the fact it was never powerful enough to threaten Rome, by the way.

I respectfully disagree with you that the city of Jerusalem was considered a backwater town to the Romans. When the Roman Empire was at the height of its power, the city of Jerusalem required constant imperial supervision. Roman transcripts even show that at one point, the governor of Jerusalem was told by the Emperor Tiberius that if the city had one more uprising he would personally hold the governor mortally responsible. I just don't understand why CA chose Petra to be the region capital in Rome II.

[Aegis]

Originally posted by Sphinx2318:

I just don't understand why CA chose Petra to be the region capital in Rome II.

Jerusalem was dangerous because the Jews were ornery, yes. But that does NOT make Jerusalem a major city by any means. It wasn't structurally impressive, its location was "eh", and it wasn't a center of trade.

Just because the population refuses to bend over to a ruler does not mean that it is important to the region. Get it?

[Sphinx2318]

Just because the population refuses to bend over to a ruler does not mean that it is important to the region. Get it? [/quote]
Yes, I agree with you about the fact that economically it was not a superpower. However, my feeling is that Jerusalem was not a village either like in the game! Also, the city of Jerusalem was not exactly structurally impressive just as you said, but Solomon's Temple was. I wish it was in the game, thats all. And while I'm at it, I don't believe that the Hanging Gardens of Babylon are in the game OR the statue of Colossus at Rhodes either for that matter.

[Aegis]

Originally posted by Sphinx2318:

Also, the city of Jerusalem was not exactly structurally impressive just as you said, but Solomon's Temple was. I wish it was in the game, thats all. And while I'm at it, I don't believe that the Hanging Gardens of Babylon are in the game OR the statue of Colossus at Rhodes either for that matter.

Alright, that's more valid. I, too, wish that cities which had a very specific appearance were given that appearance in-game.