Why are the Iroquois include?

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by Ribannah


LOVE HIAWATHA

Of course hiawatha wasnt iroqouis, living as she did by the shining big sea water (lake superior, IIRC)


right now the tech tree looks like late republic + federalism + seperation of powers (trias politica?) = US constitutionalism + egalitarianism/nationalism = democracy.

late republic being 18thc models netherlands (before 1780s revolution) and Switzerland, trias from Britain/England, identified by Montesque (sp?) federalism (arguably iroquois contribution) all three together give us the work of Madison,et al.

Then egal/nationalism with roots on both sides of atlantic - French Revolution but also Jefferson later combines to give Jacksonian Democracy - fully recognized by De Toqueville.


Counter argument to iroqois contrib is that 18thc Netherlands was already federal. Any info rib? For myself i had heard the story that founders looked to iroquois, no awareness that they looked at dutch federal institutions.

also how about French 'federalists/girondins' - or were they influenced already by US constitution? (US con in 1789, girondin uprising in 1792)

LOTM

[Ribannah]

Originally posted by lord of the mark
Of course hiawatha wasnt iroqouis, living as she did by the shining big sea water (lake superior, IIRC)

Er ... she? Some mix-up with little Pocahontas?
Hiawatha was chief of the Mohawks IIRC, one of the five tribes.
The most famous Iroquois leader is perhaps Sagoyewatha, one of the greatest Amerind orators. He lived around 1800.

right now the tech tree looks like late republic + federalism + seperation of powers (trias politica?) = US constitutionalism + egalitarianism/nationalism = democracy.

So many trees
I still prefer the one I planted, Tree69

Counter argument to iroqois contrib is that 18thc Netherlands was already federal. Any info rib? For myself i had heard the story that founders looked to iroquois, no awareness that they looked at dutch federal institutions.

Both the Dutch and the French had extensive relationships with the Iroquois from the beginning of the 17th century, when the Dutch were still in the middle of creating a nation (the power was with the cities, not the provinces) taking their time - profits were much more important . They, and the French a bit slower (between wars), may have learned a lot from the Iroquois - not just about federacies and roots of democracy, but also about family values, diplomacy, human rights.

[monkspider]

I am very much in agreement with Ribannah in this discussion. The Iroquois were a very distinct group of people with a very distinct culture and the point of Civ 3 is not to relive history, but to rewrite it. Perhaps in another world, in another time, in another plain of reality the Iroquois ruled the world.
Besides, some of my favorite moments in Civ 2 were seizing Washington D.C with the Sioux, or leading a massive Aztec victory parade down the streets of the recently conquered Madrid. I just have a natural tendency to root for the underdog.

[joseph1944]

Originally posted by monkspider
I am very much in agreement with Ribannah in this discussion. The Iroquois were a very distinct group of people with a very distinct culture and the point of Civ 3 is not to relive history, but to rewrite it. Perhaps in another world, in another time, in another plain of reality the Iroquois ruled the world.

Dido the above statement and all of the other statement that supported the Iroquois and other Indians tribe of the America's.
What I don't understand is why is it so important for one civ to go out and conquer other Civs. We call Rome and Egypt great Civs because they conquer the know world in their day. However we do not call Germany under Hitler Great for trying to conquer the world in his day.
In the America's except for the Aztec, Myans, and Inca's no other tribe had a leader that stood up one and said let's go out and conquer every tribe between the Mississippi and East Coast, or west of Rockies to the Pacific etc.
The Hopi have lived on the same land for 1,300 years, so why are they a civ? The Iroquois league lasted some 370 years, so why are they a civ?
The Sioux roamed the Great Plains for thousand of years, why are they a civ also?

[Steve Clark]

Why the Iroqouis are in...

You guys are missing the obvious answer as to why the Iroqouis are in...geography. They are the only civ in US and Canada to counterbalance the Americans. In South America, you have the Meso-American nations represented by the Aztecs, so what would you have North America along with the Americans? One could argue for the Plains Indians (Sioux) or the some of the mountain/desert tribes (Crows, Utes, Navajos, etc.), but the Iroqouis represents a nice placement (on a real world map) and a good, historically accurate civ for the American Revolution, Seven Years/French and Indian War, Colonial Wars scenarios. Plus, I grew up a few miles from the Onondaga Nation (Keepers of the Central Fire) reservation, so I have an affinity for the Five Nations.

[Fiil]

As Steve pointed out the iroquois civ is properly in because they are from North America.
Though so is the Aztec (depends on definition of North and South) - In Civilization the Aztecs mostly go north from Mexico. If we're lucky maybe in Civ 3 the Aztecs might go south or even stay in Mexico when it is 6 times bigger...

I have another guess on why the iroquois are in: After drawing french, german, british and russian 1500-1850 AD leaders, they got tired and wanted to draw someone with feathers, strange haircuts and paint in the face no offence to any native americans.

I like this part because the variations in the art/style (city appearence and names) of different opponent civilizations simply makes the game cooler!! In addition when you're on a random map this gives you the feeling that you're not just wandering around somewhere in Europe-world.

[DarkCloud]

Iroquis league was as democratic as the "Magna Carta" twh:

If any North American Indian group should be in it sould be
a: The Mound Builders "Mississippians:
b: Anasazi

Iroquis League was as democratic as the English system of representatives or the Jamestown League or the Mayflower Compact... The latter being more democratic than the Iroquis... and the latter probably never hearing about the league...

[Tingkai]

Re: Iroquois in civ?

Originally posted by Fiil
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?

As the information provided by Ribannah shows, the Iroquois provided the model for a federal state --domestic independence, but united on foreign policy -- that was copied by the Americans, Canadians, Dutch (?) and others.

It could be argued that the Iroquois federal system was later incorporated into the League of Nations and then into the United Nations and the EU.

If our world ever has a single government with true powers, it will likely be based on the Iroquois federal system.

The Iroquois developments of a federal system, and the concept of a written constitution outlining the rules of government, are so significant that it makes the Iroquios one of the most significant civs in history.

[KrazyHorse]

Joseph, the Egyptians never really conquered any significant portion of land outside the Two Kingdoms; that's not why they're known as great.

Personally, I'm for the inclusion of the Iroquois, and I already pointed this out in another thread quite a while ago. My reasoning is now what it was then (and in this, I share common ground with at least one other on this thread): geography. Geography is why I don't understand the inclusion of both the Persians and the Bablonians. IMHO, the Baylonians don't rate if the Persians are in. Maybe it's Eurocentric of me, but I would advocate tossing out the Babs in favour of the Spanish.

[Fiil]

Re: Re: Iroquois in civ?

Originally posted by Tingkai


As the information provided by Ribannah shows, the Iroquois provided the model for a federal state --domestic independence, but united on foreign policy -- that was copied by the Americans, Canadians, Dutch (?) and others.

It could be argued that the Iroquois federal system was later incorporated into the League of Nations and then into the United Nations and the EU.

If our world ever has a single government with true powers, it will likely be based on the Iroquois federal system.

The Iroquois developments of a federal system, and the concept of a written constitution outlining the rules of government, are so significant that it makes the Iroquios one of the most significant civs in history.

If federal state simply is "domestic independence, but united on foreign policy" then medieval France and the Holy Roman Empire already had unofficial federal governments.

I can understand that people living in federal nations see this type of government as an achievement. It is a good system I guess, but isn't it a bit to much to say that it is only succesful system and that it will be like this forever.

Also, I think that you're giving credit to the wrong nations. The real achievement must be in implementing this system into nations covering millions of sq.miles with millions of citizens living in a modern world.

By the way if was common knowledge that the EU system had iroqouis/american roots several countries would leave the union at once. It is a very high priority in Europe not to make a USA2. (I don't share this vision, I think that EU indirectly learns from the US and I see this as a strengh.)


I did not know that the iroquois had a written constitution, did they really have their own alphabet and/or written language? If they did then this would surely make them a true civilization in my eyes.

Anyway I like the iroqouis in my completely unrealistic random map games.

[Tingkai]

Re: Re: Re: Iroquois in civ?

Originally posted by Fiil


If federal state simply is "domestic independence, but united on foreign policy" then medieval France and the Holy Roman Empire already had unofficial federal governments.

But the difference is that the Iroquois officially divided power between the league (aka confederation) and the individual nations (aka tribes). In France and the Holy Roman Empire, the ruler had absolute power in theory, although in practice, you are correct that individual groups had power.

[QUOTE] Originally posted by Fiil
I can understand that people living in federal nations see this type of government as an achievement. It is a good system I guess, but isn't it a bit to much to say that it is only succesful system and that it will be like this forever.
[QUOTE]

I wouldn't go so far as saying the federal system is the most successful. It is simply a system that allows individual nations to retain their authority domestically while belonging to a larger government. That is a more acceptable to people then a system where one government rules over the others (e.g. the Soviet Union). That's why it is likely to become the model for a single world government.

I would agree with you that even if a global federal government is created, whether it would last forever is a totally different question.

Originally posted by Fiil
Also, I think that you're giving credit to the wrong nations. The real achievement must be in implementing this system into nations covering millions of sq.miles with millions of citizens living in a modern world.

Why? The Iroquois League showed European colonists in North America the benefits of federal government and written constitution. That led to its adoption by others. That makes it significant.

[QUOTE] Originally posted by Fiil
By the way if was common knowledge that the EU system had iroqouis/american roots several countries would leave the union at once. It is a very high priority in Europe not to make a USA2. (I don't share this vision, I think that EU indirectly learns from the US and I see this as a strengh.)
[QUOTE]
Denying reality doesn't change the facts, even if it makes their egos feel better.

[QUOTE] Originally posted by Fiil
I did not know that the iroquois had a written constitution, did they really have their own alphabet and/or written language? If they did then this would surely make them a true civilization in my eyes.
[QUOTE]

Their constitution was called the Great Wumpan (Sp?) Don't know much about it other than that.

[Tventano]

Within the United Netherlands, the "Staten Generaal" which was a meeting of representatives of all "Provinciale Staten", was the highest body. In fact like still our first chamber of parliament is chosen by the represenatatives in the provences. This republic was really federal, every member (province) had to agree otherwise no agreement. That is a reason why the talks in Muenster for the peace with Spain (and formal recognition of the republic) took so long. Representatives of all provinces were regularly travelling back home to gettheir consent. I agree with Ribannah that within the provinces the power was with the important cities. And the province of Holland, being the largest economic power, had the largest influence in the republic.

Btw the US declaration of independence was largely a translation of the "Verklaring van Verlatinghe" of the republic of the United Netherlands. Because of Lodewijk Napoleon we got a monarchy and after him the family of Orange became our royal family, this is badly remembered.
That we took over some ideas from the Iroquois I cannot believe. That the US took over ideas from us and also from the Iroquois and others, I think is quite logical. A new nation would take all known examples into account.

[Saint Marcus]

On the Dutch: Tventano wrote exactly what I was thinking. The whole federal system was around in Holland since the formation of the Union of Utrecht. Or perhaps even before that, when we were still under Spanish/Burgundian rule. Only after the Napoleonic wars did we get a "real" centralised governement like most nations.

On democracy: I do think the Greeks invented that long before the Iroquis.

On a federal governement: The Dutch, as has been pointed out, had "invented" this. However, one could argue that the Roman Empire had this structure too. Especcially before the Emporers appeared. A lot of provinces had their own leaders and kings, their own laws (just read the bilbe for examples) and even their own armies. Like Egypt under Cleoparta (though that wasn't a real province) or Judea under Agrippa (or whatever his name was).

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by Mark L
On the Dutch: Tventano wrote exactly what I was thinking. The whole federal system was around in Holland since the formation of the Union of Utrecht. Or perhaps even before that, when we were still under Spanish/Burgundian rule. Only after the Napoleonic wars did we get a "real" centralised governement like most nations.

On democracy: I do think the Greeks invented that long before the Iroquis.

On a federal governement: The Dutch, as has been pointed out, had "invented" this. However, one could argue that the Roman Empire had this structure too. Especcially before the Emporers appeared. A lot of provinces had their own leaders and kings, their own laws (just read the bilbe for examples) and even their own armies. Like Egypt under Cleoparta (though that wasn't a real province) or Judea under Agrippa (or whatever his name was).

No roman republic was not federal, citizens outside the city of Rome were treated as members of tribes in the city, and had to show up in the city to vote, leading to domination of plebian assemblies by those resident in rome, who were subject to bribery by powerful leaders like Pompey or Julius Caesar. Ultimately this was one of the causes of the downfall of the Republic. And Egypt under Cleo, Judea under Herod the Great and later Herod Agrippa, Pontus, etc were not federal provinces - they were protectorates or puppet states - less like US states or Netherlands provinces, more like Indian Rajahs under British India, or like Poland and Czecho under Soviet rule.

LOTM

[Gangerolf]

Re: Why are the Iroquois include?

Why are the Iroquois included?

10% History, 20% Geography and 70% Political Correctness.

yep that's my little theory