What do we know about the Iroquois?

[Ribannah]

The Aztec and Incan civilizations were vastly different.

I don't see it, they both had the same roots, rose and fell in a similar way, lived in a similar way, and learned most of what they knew from the Mayas. But maybe you could point out some of the differences.

The French, Germans and English, on the other hand, have different ethnic backgrounds, and quite a different history.

And America wasn't an Imperial power?

Not at the time, back then they were just rebels. Later, after the nation was formed, the Americans caught up.

Again, I value the Iroquois culture and in no way disparage the Iroquois people. But to include them as a city-building, imperialistic civ is not only ludicrous, it's an insult to them. Such notions were foreign to their very culture.

Hardly. A city is just a large village, and villages - with houses, not tents - they had. They were not imperialistic - so what? There are many ways to win the game.

The civs in the game should be ones of significant impact on history, which is something the Iroquois can't really be said to have.

The Iroquois contributed much to modern ways of government, one could hardly call that insignificant. In addition they helped human civilization to (re-)discover various social skills and values.
Give me a list of contributions by the Turks, Mongols, Spanish, Poles, and Incas (I agree with the Mayas, would like to have them instead of the Aztecs; aren't Russians Slavs?) for comparison, other than "they had a larger empire".

[Boris Godunov]

I don't see it, they both had the same roots

As did the English, French and Germans. The Franks were a Goth tribe that migrated from central Germany. The English were Saxons, and then were heavily integrated with Normans post-1066. All Indo-European (i.e., white) Civilizations can be traced back to the same roots. This is an irrelevant point.

rose and fell in a similar way

Fell, yes. Rose? No. The Aztecs were a brutal, militaristic society that terrorized surrounding tribes and partook in bloody human sacrifices. They exacted harsh tribute and were widely hated by the competing tribes, who looked upon their downfall with glee.

The Incas were a far more peaceful and scientific civilization that created many innovative systems of travel (the great roads), communication and architecture. Their agriculture was ingenious and their mathematics enduringly advanced. They had a zero, and the Romans didn't even have that.

Not at the time, back then they were just rebels. Later, after the nation was formed, the Americans caught up.

Just rebels? What are you talking about? When? The American encroachment into Iroquois land was as much a product of a government policy as anything else. The encroachment and theft continued well after 1779, when we'd gone from "rebels" to a recognized country.

Even so, this makes the Iroquois military power look even weaker...beaten on their own land by mere rebels! Oh, the ignomy!

Hardly. A city is just a large village, and villages - with houses, not tents - they had. They were not imperialistic - so what? There are many ways to win the game.

There was no strong centralized government, no policy of expansion, no sense of national identity, no collective drive for national gain, no sense of borders, no private land ownership, no heirarchy of power, no...the list goes on. Having a few villages does not make a civilization (see Uber's post in the debate over America being in the game about that).

In what way would the Iroquois win then? Couldn't be scientific, either. Or U.N. Or 2/3... or...

The Iroquois contributed much to modern ways of government, one could hardly call that insignificant.

Like what? Not American or English government. It's solidly based in Anglo-Saxon tradition. European democracies are based on ideals from the French Revolution. What, pray tell, did the Iroquois give to our government? Nothing I can think of that is significant.

In addition they helped human civilization to (re-)discover various social skills and values.

Such as? I don't think we have adopted many, if any, Iroquois "social skills and values." Again, solidly rooted in European traditions.

the Turks, Mongols, Spanish, Poles

During the middle ages, the Turks had the most powerful empire in the world and were the most scientifically advance. Turkish culture produced massive amounts of art, architecture, literature, poetry, etc. They also built some of the greatest cities in the world at the time. They profoundly altered the course of world history.

The Mongols? While not my choice for a "civilization," they did profoundly effect world history. The Mongol advance terrorized Europe and the middle east, causing the formation of numerous political entities that other wise might not have existed. The aftershocks og the Mongols was felt for centuries, if just in the numerous states left in their wake (The Golden Khanate, etc.)

Spanish - Uh...See your own post re: fall of the Incas and Aztecs. The Spanish spearheaded the European advance into the new world. They also kicked the Muslims out of Spain and established a powerful empire. Charles V ruled an Empire that spanned half the world. The Conquistadors? The Armada? The Inquisition?

Poles - Copernicus! And Chopin... Contributions to Art, literature, science...as well as having what, at one point, was the largest and most militarily powerful kingdom in Europe (in the 1500s).

Russians and Slavs are of similar ethnic stock, but the Russian civilization and Slavic culture forked well before the fall of Byzantium to the Turks c. 1300

Cheers.

[Roman]

As far as I know, the Mayas did indeed have a very significant influence on the Aztecs and I wouldn't mind exchanging the two in the game. However, to the best of my knowledge, the Incas had no contact whatsoever with either the Mayas or the Aztecs, so how could they be so similar?

(Obviously, some limited contact most likely did take place...)

[Roman]

Originally posted by Ribannah
aren't Russians Slavs?) for comparison, other than "they had a larger empire".

Ethnology is complicated, but by most standards the Russians are indeed Slavs.

Slovakia is s "Slavic" country, so I will summarize what I have learned in our history classes about the early history of the Slavs.

The location of the proto-homeland of Slavs is not entirely certain, but most historians think it covered roughly the area of the Piptine Marshes between the river Visla and Dneper in modern day Ukraine.

At the dusk of the Western Roman Empire during the movement of peoples, the Slavs, probably under pressure from some invading groups (this is uncertain, though), moved out in three main thrusts from their 'original' homeland. Thus came the separation of the Slavs into the three main groups: 1) The Western Slavs, 2) The Southern Slavs and 3) The Eastern Slavs.

Now to cut the long story short, each of these "streams" consisted of numerous tribes that gradually coalesced into the Slavic nations we see today.

The situation nowadays:

Western Slavs: Czechs, Polish, Slovaks and (Luzite) Sorbs;

Southern Slavs: Bosniaks, Bulgarians*, Croatians, Macedonians, Montenegrins (torn identity - many consider themselves Serbs), Serbs and Slovenes;

Eastern Slavs: Belorussians, Russians** and Ukrainians (and possibly some groups that are more difficult to define, such as the Cossacs);

* These were originally a turkic tribe, but have been assimilated into the Slavic culture.

** Underwent a lot of mixing with other peoples especially the Vikings, but most people would agree that they are Slavic.

Note: It is important to remember that the "Slavic identity" has lost much of it's relevance and there is little enthusiasm for it in most Slavic countries. Many Slavic nations hate each other utterly (I am generalizing now). For example most Poles utterly despise the Russians and we all know the affinity that the Serbs, the Croats and the Bosniaks (popularly reffered to as Bosnian Muslims [they are basically Slavs that accepted Islam under the Ottoman rule]) display for each other.

[Roman]

Another very important info I did not mention about the Slavs, that there is actually a great religious split between two groupings of Slavic nations.

Westen Slavic nations are predominantly Roman Catholic with large Lutheran minorities.
Southern Slavs are a mix. Croats and Slovenes are almost exclusively Catholic, Bosniaks are Muslim and the rest are all Orthodox. The Eastern Slavs are essentially all Orthodox.

[PGM]

This is what I know. This HAS to be the Iroquois CSU. So I'm guessing it's not a war canoe ( ), but the Iroquois' knight version.

[Mars]

Thanks for the pic PGM

[KrazyHorse]

Originally posted by PGM
This is what I know. This HAS to be the Iroquois CSU. So I'm guessing it's not a war canoe ( ), but the Iroquois' knight version.

We've been over this before, but if the Iroquois CSU is a mounted unit, then Firaxis has made an error of immense proportions. The Iroquois inhabited heavily forested, mountainous terrain, making the use of horses impractical at best.

[Ribannah]

Originally posted by KrazyHorse
We've been over this before, but if the Iroquois CSU is a mounted unit, then Firaxis has made an error of immense proportions. The Iroquois inhabited heavily forested, mountainous terrain, making the use of horses impractical at best.

Yes, they were feared for their foot soldiers. When the Sioux, who lost a lot of ground to them, got horses they were finally able to withstand the Iroquois - until they acquired guns, shortly thereafter.

{edit: moved the link}
{Here is a list of names of Iroquois villages.} I have no idea which ones are the oldest or largest.

Cayuga: Chondote, Gandasetaigon (ONT), Ganogeh, Gayagaanhe, Gewauga, Goiogouen, Kawauka, Kente (ONT), Kiohero (Thiohero, Tiohero), Neodakheat, Oiogouen (Jesuit mission of St. Joseph), Oneniote, Onnontare (Onotare) (Jesuit mission of St. Rene), Owego, and Skannayutenate
Mohawk: Canajoharie, Canastigaone, Canienga, Caughnawaga (ONT and NY-2), Churchtononeda, Kanagaro, Kowogoconnughariegugharie, Nowadaga, Onekagoncka, Onoalagona, Oquaga, Osquake, Saratoga, Schaunactada (Schenectady), Schoharie, Teatontaloga (Jesuit mission of Ste. Marie), Tewanondadon, Tionnontoguen, and Unadilla
Oneida: Awegen, Cahunghage, Canowaroghere, Canowdowsa, Chittenango, Cowassalon, Ganadoga, Hostayuntwa, Oneida (Upper Castle), Opolopong (PA), Oriska, Ossewingo, Ostogeron, Schoherage, Sevege, (Tuscarora), Solocka (PA), Tegasoke, Teseroken, Tetosweken, Tkanetota, and Tolungowon (WI)
Onandaga: Ahaouet, Deseroken, Gadoquat, Gannentaha, Gistwiahna, Kanadaseagea (Canandaigua), Kanatakowa, Onondaga, Onondaghara, Onondahgegahgeh, Onontatacet, Otiahanague, Teionontatases, Tgasunto, Touenho, and Tueadasso
Seneca: Buckaloon (PA), Canadasaga, Caneadea, Catherine's Town, Cattaraugus, Chemung, Cheronderoga, Condawhaw, Connewango (2-PA), Cussewago (PA), Dayoitgao, Deonundagae, Deyodeshot, Deyohnegano (2), Deyonongdadagana, Dyosyowan (PA), Gaandowanang, Gadaho, Gahato, Gahayanduk, Ganagweh, Ganawagus, Ganeasos, Ganedontwan, Ganos, Ganosgagong, Gaonsagaon, Gaousge, Gaskosada, Gathtsegwarohare, Geneseo, Gistaquat, Gwaugweh, Honeoye, Jennesedaga (PA), Joneadih, Kahesarahera, Kanaghsaws, Kannassarago, Kashong (Cashong), Kaskonchiagon, Kaygen, Keinthe (ONT), Little Beard's Town, Middle Town, New Chemung, Newtown, Nondas, Oatka, Old Chemung, Onnahee (Onaghee), Onoghsadago, Onondarka, Owaiski, Skahasegao, Skoiyase, Sonojowauga, Tekisedaneyout, Tioniongarunte, Tonawanda, Totiakton, Yorkjough, and Yoroonwago (PA)
Tuscarora: Shawiangto

The list goes on with a lot of mixed and 'sub-tribe' villages.

From the same source:

Rather than learning political sophistication from Europeans, Europeans learned from the Iroquois, and the League, with its elaborate system of checks, balances, and supreme law, almost certainly influenced the American Articles of Confederation and Constitution. ...
Until their internal unity finally failed them during the American Revolution, the Iroquois dealt with European powers as an equal.

The original homeland of the Iroquois was in upstate New York between the Adirondack Mountains and Niagara Falls. Through conquest and migration, they gained control of most of the northeastern United States and eastern Canada. At its maximum in 1680, their empire extended west from the north shore of Chesapeake Bay through Kentucky to the junction of the Ohio and Mississippi Rivers; then north following the Illinois River to the south end of Lake Michigan; east across all of lower Michigan, southern Ontario and adjacent parts of southwestern Quebec; and finally south through northern New England west of the Connecticut River through the Hudson and upper Delaware Valleys across Pennsylvania back to the Chesapeake. With two exceptions - the Mingo occupation of the upper Ohio Valley and the Caughnawaga migration to the upper St. Lawrence - the Iroquois did not, for the most part, physically occupy this vast area but remained in their upstate New York villages.

And:

... At this point (1656-Rib), no power in North America could have stood against the Iroquois League, even the Europeans. However, rather than choosing to confront the Europeans, the Iroquois decided to deal with them as equals and
use their firearms and trade goods to their own advantage. To this end, it should be noted the Iroquois never tried to eliminate one European power for the benefit of another. Instead, they attempted to maintain a working relationship with each one, even the French. Rather than being a Dutch ally, the Iroquois were in business for themselves to dominate the fur trade with the Europeans and set about creating an empire for this purpose.

Finally:

... As such it has been responsible for the Iroquois being able to retain much of the their culture and tradition despite adversity and defeat. There is still division as to whether the council fire belongs with the Six Nations in Canada or the Onondaga in New York (New York finally returned the wampum belts of the Confederacy to the Onondaga in 1989). Many Iroquois, however, still consider themselves a distinct nation from either Canada or the United States. Canada imposed an election system on the Six Nations in 1924, but many Iroquois tribes have retained their traditional system of hereditary leadership. The Iroquois opposed American citizenship when it was finally extended by the Congress in 1924 to all Native Americans in the United States. They also fought the Wheeler-Howard Indian Reorganization Act (1934) which would have required federal approval of their tribal governments.

LOVE HIAWATHA!! LOVE HIAWATHA!!

[Ribannah]

Originally posted by Boris Godunov
All Indo-European (i.e., white) Civilizations can be traced back to the same roots.

Continue this line of thought and we end up with only two tribes, the Neantherthals being one of them ...

The Incas were a far more peaceful (than the Aztecs-Rib) and scientific civilization that created many innovative systems of travel (the great roads), communication and architecture. Their agriculture was ingenious and their mathematics enduringly advanced.

Most of which they learned from the Mayas. The roads, btw, were only for use by the aristocracy.

Just rebels? What are you talking about? When?

The American revolution, like I said.

There was no strong centralized government, no policy of expansion, no sense of national identity, no collective drive for national gain, no sense of borders, no private land ownership, no heirarchy of power, no...the list goes on.

There was all of this - except for private land ownership, which is no necessary sign of civilization - and more. Just check the link I provided in my post above, for example.

In what way would the Iroquois win then?

Ummm, they could build a lot of tiny village cities, just a few squares apart, does this ring a bell? Maybe add plenty of hunting colonies for Civ3 flavour.

What, pray tell, did the Iroquois give to our government? Nothing I can think of that is significant.

Read the quote in my post above. The French revolution came later.
Social skills and values: freedom of religion, diplomacy, oratory skills, women's rights, social laws, federal laws, freedom of speech. The Europeans had (kept) little of the sort at the time they met the Iroquois.

During the middle ages, the Turks had the most powerful empire in the world and were the most scientifically advance. Turkish culture produced massive amounts of art, architecture, literature, poetry, etc. They also built some of the greatest cities in the world at the time. They profoundly altered the course of world history.

That's not what I'm looking for. I'd like to know what they contributed to advance human civilization. The Iroquois, too, were unbeatable at their peak.

The Mongol advance terrorized ...

Big deal. Put some barbs in. Same for the Spanish: barbs on ships (easily sunk, too; the Inquisition was a Roman wonder of the world btw).

Poles - Copernicus!

Yes, that's something at least. Puts them ahead of the Spanish and the Mongols, but that's about it.

Looking forward to your next move

[KrazyHorse]

What is it the you Brits seem to have against Spain? Is 1588 still in living memory?

I don't know why I'm assuming you're British; I just am.

[Boris Godunov]

Continue this line of thought and we end up with only two tribes, the Neantherthals being one of them ...

Which was my original point, ergo you admit your stating that the Incas and Aztecs being "essentially the same" was in error. Glad to see that.

Most of which they learned from the Mayas. The roads, btw, were only for use by the aristocracy.

So? The Romans borrowed from the Greeks, too. Much of Incan math and architecture developed on its own, a product of the unique terrain of the Andes (and is quite different from Mayan, too.)

The American revolution, like I said.

The dismissal of the American colonists as "just rebels" is pretty naive. I suppose Alexander was just a kid with a few spearmen...

There was all of this - except for private land ownership, which is no necessary sign of civilization - and more. Just check the link I provided in my post above, for example.

I disagree. While they did have the Iroquois constitution, reading it refutes this. There was not a centralized government, as the 5 "nations" enjoyed an autonomy that states within a nation could not. The "constitution" also dictates religious ceremonies. Hmm, freedom of religion...

Read the quote in my post above. The French revolution came later.

Please cite the source when quoting. My hunch is it is a bit of a biased source.

The French Revolution was the product of The European Enlightenment. The Enlightenment is the single-most important influence for Democratic government in the Western world. The notions of individual liberty, freedom of religion and progressive government that permeate current Western culture began in 1245 with the Magna Charta and developed through the Renaissance and Enlightenment. I don't think Thoms Jefferson, James Monroe and John Adams gave much thought, if any, to Iroquois tradition when they set about forming the government. In fact, I know they didn't. They DIDN'T CARE ABOUT THE IROQUOIS. Their philosophy originated in the univerisities of Europe, not the woods of upstate New York.

Social skills and values: freedom of religion, diplomacy, oratory skills, women's rights, social laws, federal laws, freedom of speech. The Europeans had (kept) little of the sort at the time they met the Iroquois.

Freedom of Religion - Well entrenched in American culture regardless of the Iroquois. Many people came to the colonies to escape religious persecution.

Diplomacy - How so?

Oratory skills - Yeah sure. I'm certain Patrick Henry and Daniel Webster took cues from Hiawatha.

Women's rights - You mean the way America denied women the right to vote until 1924? Or any say in government? And kept them as second-class citizens?

Social laws - Firmly rooted in Anglo-Saxon tradition, not Native American.

Freedom of Speech - Again, while the Iroquois may have had this, it in no way means they "gave" it to American Culture. Such a freedom was a product of Enlightenment thinking, which was scarcely touched by Iroquois ways.

I called a published American historian (my mom) and asked her about this. Her quote: "The Iroquois did have a constitution which was part of giving rights, but this was not studied by Europeans until well after the Constitution was already in place. There may be similarities, but American government and society is a product of European philosophies and values. The influence of any Native American groups on it is minimal at best."

That's not what I'm looking for. I'd like to know what they contributed to advance human civilization. The Iroquois, too, were unbeatable at their peak.

You seem to be selectively ignoring what I wrote. See the art, architecture, religion, and science and culture items. The Turkish civilization contributed vastly to all of these. The middle east today and the Balkans are still affected by the aftershocks of the Ottoman expansion and collapse.

Beyond that, you seem to be confusing territorial expansion vs. cultural expansion. One of the key indicators of the importance of a civilization to historians (see J.M. Roberts for further details) is the ability of a culture to not only withstand the influence of alien cultures, but also spread its own culture to a significant part of the world. Islamic influence, spearheaded by the Turkish Caliphate, spread its language, culture, art and architecture from the south of Spain to western/central-western India. Their influence can even been seen as far away as Malaysia.

The fact that 100s of millions speak Spanish across the world--from Argentina to the Philippines--is testament to the strength of Spanish culture. Particularly for the 100s of miliions in South America alone, where Spanish culture has by and large supplanted the native ones.

As I said, I wouldn't pick the Mongols either, but their impact on the world is indisputable and certainly far greater than the Iroquois.

In fact, if you want a Civilization that both failed to propogate its culture and failed to contribute much to future civilization, look no further than the Egyptians. Their two contributions were Astronomy and papyer. Otherwise, they did not spread influence or contribute greatly to man's wealth of knowledge. Their architectural achievements seem a little hollow when one realizes the religion behind it was pretty superficial.

Many Iroquois, however, still consider themselves a distinct nation from either Canada or the United States.

Yeah, and I have a grandfather who still considers himself a Confederate citizen. So what? Lots of cultures are reasserting cultural independence. That does not a great civilization make!

Cheers

[Ribannah]

Boris - to summarize, you seem to be claiming that while
- the Iroquois were the main military power in the region and controlled a large part of the land (and influenced the culture of many other native tribes);
- the Dutch, English and French (and on a smaller scale also the Danes and Swedes) had many dealings with the Iroquois, both military and economically;
- all aspects of the Iroquois society were well known by the European tribes (they even had a half-Dutch chief at one time!);
- the Iroquois society had qualities the Europeans would only arrive at later;
neither the Europeans nor the Americans learned a thing from them, but insisted on discovering everything by themselves in their own good time.

That makes the Europeans and Americans look very stupid, doesn't it?

In addition, you are saying that because the Europeans and Americans refused to study them, the Iroquois should not be included in the game!!

Now, much of what you say about the Turks, is usually attributed to the Arabs. I already said I would replace the Persians with the Arabs.
The spreading of a language (Spanish) doesn't say anything but that at one time they or their descendents were boss in those regions (note, however, that many native tongues are still being spoken in South and Middle America). So what. Just paint them red. I have played many games of civ where the barbarians were a major annoyance.

The Egyptians, by the way, also advanced human knowledge of mathematics, masonry, writing, literature and agriculture.

[Jay Bee]

Originally posted by KrazyHorse


What is it the you Brits seem to have against Spain? Is 1588 still in living memory?

I don't know why I'm assuming you're British; I just am.

KH, Brit posters have been generally supportive of Spain in this matter. Surprisingly she's Dutch. And I say surprisingly cos I always thought the Dutch were among the most cultivated people on Earth. Well, I still think they are. After all a rotten tulip is just that, a rotten tulip. There are rotten flowers in almost every country. Her posts speak for herself As I posted elsewhere Rib still ignores that Philip II, Spinola, Juan of Austria and the Duke of Alba died more than 400 years ago.

Talking about Brits, Rib's paranoia with Spain reminds me so much of John Lennon's "How do you Sleep" song. He tried to ridicule Paul McCartney but in the long run what he got was to generate more sympathy for Paul. Get the analogy?

[Jay Bee]

Originally posted by jdd2007
ahhhh... i see. i feel so stupid now...

Don't feel. You were basically correct. Where does the name of that Salamanca city come from? Unless Ribannah ignores it (which I doubt) she's, as usual, revealing the part that serves her interests and concealing the rest.