Why are the Iroquois include?

[kolpo]

A group of villages, without cities, without big buildings, without much influence in any period of historey(they where nothing more then an anoying bug in comparrison with the military power and tech level of England)

I think they would be better represented with some goody huts.

Just for the American natives are there at least 2 other not included civs who where more advanced: incas and mayas.

Which wonder build the Iroquois? Wich important tech invented the Iroquois ? Wich important enemy did they ever beat without colonial help ? which important cities did they build? Is there religion or culture still alive in a big country? To all those answers is the answer no. Quite all other civs(except Zulus) can at least answer some of the questions with yes.

[KrazyHorse]

Zulus built cities and carved themselves out an empire in sub-saharan Africa. The city of Isandlwana had >30 000 people, IIRC.

[kolpo]

oke didn't know that but that makes the Iroquois even more barbaric as the only civ who can't answer any of those questions.

[Ribannah]

From the Iroquois Constitution:

93. Whenever a specially important matter or a great emergency is presented before the Confederate Council and the nature of the matter affects the entire body of the Five Nations, threatening their utter ruin, then the Lords of the Confederacy must submit the matter to the decision of their people and the decision of the people shall affect the decision of the Confederate Council. This decision shall be a confirmation of the voice of the people.

Thus the Iroquois laid the foundation of modern Democracy.

The reason the Iroquois did not have cities is a simple one: until later in the 20th century, they never counted more than 25,000 citizens. Yet they were able to defeat all rival native tribes in battle.
In their relations with the Europeans, they were masters in diplomacy. One war they could not avoid was when their allies at the time, the French, waged war with the English for control over Canada. Alongside the French, they beat the English everywhere they went until the tide turned and the English started to crush the French. The Iroquois then made sure to switch alliances in time.
South of the border, unfortunately, as allies of the British they did not fare well in the American revolution and were driven back to their homelands.

[KrazyHorse]

The Iroquois did no such thing. "Modern Democracy" in no way involves the use of referenda as the standard decision-making process.

[Ribannah]

You are making it too easy, KrazyHorse

"During the bi-centennial year of The Constitution of the United States, a number of books were written concerning the origin of that long-revered document. One of these, The Genius of the People, alleged that after the many weeks of debate a committee sat to combine the many agreements into one formal document. The chairman of the committee was John Rutledge of South Carolina. He had served in an earlier time, along with Ben Franklin and others, at the Stamp Act Congress, held in Albany, New York. This Committee of Detail was having trouble deciding just how to formalize the many items of discussion into one document that would satisfy one and all. Rutledge proposed they model the new government they were forming into something along the lines of the Iroquois League of Nations, which had been functioning as a democratic government for hundreds of years, and which he had observed in Albany. While there were many desirable, as well as undesirable, models from ancient and modern histories in Europe and what we know now as the Middle East, only the Iroquois had a system that seemed to meet most of the demands espoused by the many parties to the debates."

Edit: further down ...

"Some sources place the origin of the Five Nation Confederacy as early as 1390 AD, but others insist it was prepared about 1450-1500 AD; in any case, it was well before any possible contamination by European invaders. Early explorers and colonists found the Iroquois well established, as they had been for many generations: with a democratic government; with a form of religion that acknowledged a Creator in heaven; with a strong sense of family which was based on, and controlled by, their women; and many other surprises you will soon discover."

[Swissy]

Originally posted by KrazyHorse
The Iroquois did no such thing. "Modern Democracy" in no way involves the use of referenda as the standard decision-making process.

You must not live in the USA. Many states have a mechanism in their constitutions enabling constitutional change and direct law enactment by referenda The most famous of these is the California Proposition system. In my home state of Illinois, property taxes cannot be raised more than a few tenths of a percent without a referenda.

[KrazyHorse]

"Standard decision-making process". How many laws are passed per year? How many do you vote on?

Ribannah, note how the word "alleged" is used. The facts themselves are apparently in doubt here.

Now, reading through the actual document, the form of government seems more feudal than democratic. Lordships are hereditary, with the exception of "Pine Tree Lords", but these non-hereditary positions are elected by the hereditary lords. I don't see the democracy here. Where is the provision for a general election on the lines of "one woman, one vote"?

The leaders were selected from a small group of important families, and the only "democratic" provisions I see are in the form of non-binding opinions which delegates from "the people" may present to the War Council.

If anything, the document more resembles Magna Carta than the Constitution of the United States.

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by KrazyHorse
"Standard decision-making process". How many laws are passed per year? How many do you vote on?

Ribannah, note how the word "alleged" is used. The facts themselves are apparently in doubt here.

Now, reading through the actual document, the form of government seems more feudal than democratic. Lordships are hereditary, with the exception of "Pine Tree Lords", but these non-hereditary positions are elected by the hereditary lords. I don't see the democracy here. Where is the provision for a general election on the lines of "one woman, one vote"?

The leaders were selected from a small group of important families, and the only "democratic" provisions I see are in the form of non-binding opinions which delegates from "the people" may present to the War Council.

If anything, the document more resembles Magna Carta than the Constitution of the United States.

The iroqouis may not have been democratic - they WERE federal. It is widely held here that they influenced the federal structure of the US constitution. When the constitution was formulated most Republican models were unitary not federal - ie ancient Athens and Rome, Venice, the Netherlands. Switzerland was federal, but did not have central structures that seemed to fit the needs of the US. Clearly the Iroqouis league did serve as a model, at least to some extent.

LOTM

[lord of the mark]

There was an urban native american civ in the territory that later became the US. Called the mound-builders, they built large towns in the missisippi and ohio valleys. Unfortunately they were destroyed by disease shortly after the Spanish arrived, and were gone by the time europeans began to move into the area. We're not even sure what tribes they were and so dont call them anything but mound-builders. Arguably the Iroquois are a stand in for this civ, and represent all north american natives, just as babylonians represent Sumerians, akkadians, assyrians, etc.


LOTM

[KrazyHorse]

The federal structure certainly seems more apparent; the division in structure as authority trickles down from the Five Tribes as a whole to individual tribes,etc.

Weren't the Netherlands more federal? IIRC, there were 7 provinces, and these had large amounts of authority over their own territory.

[ancient]

for the longest time (before they announced what civs were in in) argued about iroqois mbeing in

they have no features which would make them more important then the spanish

PUT IN THE SPANISH KICK OUT THE IROQUIS

[Ribannah]

Originally posted by KrazyHorse
Ribannah, note how the word "alleged" is used. The facts themselves are apparently in doubt here.

You did not pay attention. The author, who put in the word "alleged", still agreed about the part of the Iroquois being democratic. The "alleged" bit refers to a bit of (possible) mystification with regard to events in USA history, not the Iroquois history.

Now, reading through the actual document, the form of government seems more feudal than democratic.

Not feudal, as there was no monarch, but federal, like the USA who copied their example. Neither Feudalism nor Federalism are government types by themselves.

Where is the provision for a general election on the lines of "one woman, one vote"?

There isn't, they used a different system of choosing representatives.

The leaders were selected from a small group of important families, and the only "democratic" provisions I see are in the form of non-binding opinions which delegates from "the people" may present to the War Council.

You missed the part where anyone has equal opportunity of BECOMING the first of an "important family". The family gains importance BECAUSE it contributes to the tribe's politics.

If anything, the document more resembles Magna Carta than the Constitution of the United States.

The Magna Carta, as such, is on the path to modern democracy. The tree runs like: Feudalism + Theology -> Trias Politica, + Nationalism -> Democracy. So the resemblance is a logical one, the constitution of the USA also has much in common with the Magna Carta.
What is interesting is how much the constitution of the USA resembles that of the Iroquois - not the other way around, as the Iroquois were first.

FORGET THE SPANISH LOVE HIAWATHA

[YefeiPi]

Ancient

Put in the Spanish, and kick out the Iroquois

How about we kick you out? But seriously, we have way too much European civs already, it's not like every one of them had an important impact on the history of mankind. I say we can take the Spanish but get rid of another European civ.

[Fiil]

Iroquois in civ?

Even if the US constitution is somehow derived from the iroquois constitution, does that make the iroquois nation one of 16 most significant civilizations of history?

The iroquois may very well have been civilized in behavior, but they didn't even possess the technology every civ starts with in the game: irrigation, roads and mines. For all I know anyway!