What do we know about the Iroquois?

[Ribannah]

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.

KrazyHorse, I'm not British, and the fact that the Spanish killed part of my ancestral family is not the reason why I don't see them in the top 16. As I have explained many times, I simply think they did less than their rivals who were chosen (and even less than some who weren't) to help human civilization progress, and obviously Firaxis agrees with me. So far nobody has convinced me otherwise and childish behaviour like Jay Bee's will certainly not accomplish that.

Take a different criterion (size of the empire) and you will arrive at a different conclusion, but for me size is not the only thing that counts.

[Jay Bee]

Nice try, no cigar. The only one who has been behaving from the very beginning like an angered child has been you Miss. Look around. Ask the people. How many more threads do you still have to ruin with your obsessions? I had thought the story was over. You keep coming and coming and coming and coming. Talk about childish behavior.

[Boris Godunov]

Originally posted by 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);

Main military power in a mostly empty forest land that was uncivilized and untamed with no cities or roads or institutions of learning or centers of art or...oh sure, why not?

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;

Oooooh big whoop! These civs also had economic dealings with many other small cultures. So what?

all aspects of the Iroquois society were well known by the European tribes (they even had a half-Dutch chief at one time!);

I doubt the European "tribes" gave much thought to Iroquois society beyond how they could exploit it. And as I said before, it is a fact that the Iroquois "constitution," and thus many of their cultural complexities, were not known to most Europeans by the end of the 18th century. The U.S. Constitution was written well before the Iroquois constitution was seriously studied among European scholars.

- the Iroquois society had qualities the Europeans would only arrive at later;

And the Europeans had more that they would thrust upon the Iroquois. And the qualities you mention were well into being before contact with the Iroquois. Democratic government was first enshrined in ancient Greece, thousands of years before the Iroquois. The current American judicial system is based upon both the ancient Anglo-Saxon concept of a jury of peers, the Latin Habeas corpus and even Biblical concepts. All of this was around in European cultures while the Iroquois were mere bands of hunter-gatherers.

Did the Europeans learn things from the Iroquois. Of course. Did what they learned significantly alter the course of their history? Not much.

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

While the Europeans and Americans have acted many times with glaring stupidity (The Crusades, the Inquisition, Slavery, etc.), not in the twisted, tortured patterns of historical fallacy you are advocating.

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

I never made any such assertion. I was refuting your outragious hyperbole that the Iroquois saved Civilization with their overwhelming contributions to Western Culture. I don't think they should be in the game because they had little if any impact on the course of world events and failed to propogate their culture. Their "civilization" was a failure and has been overwhelmed by a vastly more intrusive amoebic one. It's sad and unfortunate, and thankfully there are many keeping the culture alive. But a major civilization? Not in the slightest.

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.

Yes, the Spanish merely just spread their language. Hmm, how exactly did South and Central America and the Philippines come to be vastly and overwhelmingly Roman Catholic? How did Spanish architecture suddenly start popping up all over the American continents, and even in California and Texas? You've beyond what I can call mere ignorance into what I see as deliberate, ludicrous denial. I have no idea what personal vendetta you have against the Spanish, but this has moved into abject silliness on your part.

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

MATH & MASONRY:

"These huge public works [the Pyramids] were in both the real and figurative sense the biggest things the Egyptians left to posterity. They make it less surprising that the Egyptians were later also to be reputed to have been great scientists: people could not believe that these huge monuments did not rest on the most refined mathematical and scientific skill. Yet this invalid as an inference as well as in fact untrue. Though Egyptian surveying was highly skilled, it was not until our own day that a more than elementary mathematical skill became necessary to engineering; it was certainly not need for the erection of the pyramids. What was requisite was outstanding competence in mensuration and the manipulation of certain formulae for calculating volumes and weights, and this was as far as Egyptian mathematics went, whatever admirers believed. Modern mathematicians do not think much of the Egyptians' theoretical achievement and they certainly do not match the Babylonians in this art." (J.M. Roberts, History of the World, p. 71)

Later that same page: "No doubt a primitive mathematics is part of the explanation of the sterility of the Egyptians' astronomical endeavors - another field in which posterity, paradoxically, was to credit them with great things...but their theoretical astronomy was valueless. Here again they were left far behind by the Babylonians."

So, even my assertion of astronomy was incorrect!

ART:

"It [Egyptian art] did not prove transplantable. . . . What is clear apart from this is that although the monuments of Egypt continuously fascinated artists and architects of other lands, the result, even when they exploited them successfully to their own purposes, was always superficial and exotic. Egyptian style never took root anywhere else...Only one great contribution was made by Egyptian art to the future, the establishment for the delineation of the huge incised and painted figures on the walls of tombs and temples of the classical canons of proportion of the human body." (Roberts 75)

"Undoubtedly, the rumored prowess of her religious and magical practitioners and the spectacular embodiment of a political achievement in art and architecture largely explain Egypt's continuing prestige. Yet if her civilization is looked at comparatively, it seems neither very fertile nor very responsive. Technology is by no means an infallible test...but it suggests a people slow to adopt new skills, reluctant to innovate once the creative jump to civilization had been made." (Roberts 76)

"...it is impossible to resist the feeling that the last centuries of the New Kingdom expose weaknesses present in Egyptian civilization from the beginning...the creative qualityof Egyptian civilization seems, in the end, strangely to miscarry... [Egypt] has no philosophical or religious idea comparable to those of the Greek or Jew to give the world. It is difficult not to sense an ultimate sterility, a nothingness, at the heart of this glittering tour de force." (pp. 82-83)

"Egypt's military and economic power in the end made little permanent difference in the world. Her civilization was never successfully spread abroad. Perhaps this is because of...its setting. If it was a positive success to create so rapidly institutions which with little fundamental change could last so long, this could probably have been done by any ancient civilization enjoying such a degree of immunity from intrusion." (p. 83)

Roberts also goes on at length (will spare you) about how Egyptian agricultural acheivement was minimal. Since they had the steady flooding of the Nile to rely on, agriculture invention was virtually non-existent. In less predictable areas, such as in Sumeria and Babylon, far more major agriculture developments occured because the land was not as condusive to predictable weather cycles. Egyptian agriculture did not contribute to the rest of the world one bit.

Egyptian literature is virtually non-existent. Read any good Egyptian books lately? Do they teach Egyptian philosophy in universities? No.

Roberts says history credits the Egyptians with only two significant acheivements: medicine and papyrus.

Cheers.

PS--"The fate of the Western Hemisphere was to be culturally European and that meant, politically, that from Tierra del Fuego to Hudson Bay it would eventually be organized in a series of sovereign states based on European legal and administrative principles." (p. 631)

Pages devoted to Spanish - 38
Pages devoted to Ottomans - 56
Pages devoted to Mongols - 15
Pages devoted to Poles - 34
Pages devoted to Iroquois - 0

Oh dear...

[Boris Godunov]

Originally posted by Jay Bee
Surprisingly she's Dutch.

Ahhhh, NOW I see. Still smarting over the whole Flanders thing?

Geez, and I thought my grandpa who thought the Civil War was still going on was living in the past. That was only 140 years ago! We're talking ancient history here!

The Spanish must be given their due credit if just for one man...

Placido Domingo.

Genius. Scholar. Artist. Humanitarian. Divine Voice.

ahhhhhh

[Ribannah]

Originally posted by Boris Godunov
Main military power in a mostly empty forest land that was uncivilized and untamed with no cities or roads or institutions of learning or centers of art or...oh sure, why not?

This goes for The Netherlands, France, Britain, and everywhere else where there were forests, too. So what's your point?

These civs also had economic dealings with many other small cultures

So they had, and when these other cultures, large or small, had knowledge that was new for them, they took notice.

I doubt the European "tribes" gave much thought to Iroquois society beyond how they could exploit it.

Doubt all you want, but all the available sources say they did, and why would they not?

And as I said before, it is a fact that the Iroquois "constitution," and thus many of their cultural complexities, were not known to most Europeans by the end of the 18th century.

And your point is? Most people don't even know their own constitution!

Democratic government was first enshrined in ancient Greece, thousands of years before the Iroquois.

That was city-democracy, not state-democracy. It was also lost.

was refuting your outragious hyperbole that the Iroquois saved Civilization

Could you provide a quote where I even remotely hinted at such a claim?

don't think they should be in the game because they had little if any impact on the course of world events and failed to propogate their culture. Their "civilization" was a failure and has been overwhelmed by a vastly more intrusive amoebic one.

Many civilizations were overwhelmed. Where is the Roman empire now? The Algonquin, Cherokee, Huron and other neighbouring tribes were all influenced by the Iroquois culture. To claim that European tribes who entered the region could not have been, is hopelessly arrogant.

How exactly did South and Central America and the Philippines come to be vastly and overwhelmingly Roman Catholic?

Listen to yourself! Roman Catholic! And what progress did that bring to those lands anyway?

How did Spanish architecture suddenly start popping up all over the American continents, and even in California and Texas?

Could you enlighten me? What is so special about Spanish architecture that it propelled human civilization to great heights?

MATH & MASONRY:

"5,000 years ago, the Egyptians possessed a serviceable and surprisingly sophisticated arithmetic. As their monumental history unfolded, this body of knowledge was refined, expanded, and developed to eventually include the rudiments of what we would call geometry" ("Mathematics - people, problems, results", Douglas M. Campbell & John C. Higgins, 1984)
Surveying is quite an essential aspect of Masonry even today. I did not claim that the Egyptians excelled at Engineering.

So, even my assertion of astronomy was incorrect!

Because at some point the Egyptians were overtaken by others we should ignore all their accomplishments that allowed these others to do so in the first place? Let's throw out ALL the ancient civs, then!

ART:

Please explain why this is so relevant in your opinion.

[Egypt] has no philosophical or religious idea comparable to those of the Greek or Jew to give the world.

So? Greeks and Jews didn't excel at every aspect of civilization either.

"Egypt's military and economic power in the end made little permanent difference in the world.

Tell that to the Arabs, the Phoenicians and the Nubians.

Roberts also goes on at length (will spare you) ...

Thank you thank you thank you, I don't think I could stomach much more from this guy, everything he says is twisted!
The Egyptians invented irrigation, for goodness sake!

Egyptian literature is virtually non-existent.

It took me only 2 seconds to find this source.
I suggest you do away with that Roberts book before it clouds your mind even further!

[aaglo]

Originally posted by Boris Godunov
...
Pages devoted to Spanish - 38
Pages devoted to Ottomans - 56
Pages devoted to Mongols - 15
Pages devoted to Poles - 34
Pages devoted to Iroquois - 0

Sooo, that book must be the book of ultimate wisdom on how to determine the most meaningful/meaningless civilization of all times. Woohoo
Jeezus, people can be childish...

[Martinus]

Originally posted by Ribannah

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.

Geezus!!! I do not normally flame, but this is simply the most ridiculous preposition I have seen for a veeery long time.

Haven't you heard of Marsilius of Padua? Miachiavelli? Thomas Moore? Hobbes? Montesquie? Locke?

Freedom of religion or freedom of speech? It was proposed as early as middle ages by Abelard and Marsilius of Padua, not to mention the ancient times, when it flourished.

Diplomacy? Are you claiming European had no diplomacy when they met Iroquois. Can I have some of that you are smoking right now? It must be damn strong

Oratory skills? Do the names of European poets or politicians of that time speak something to you?

Federal laws? Have you ever heard of the Holy Roman Empire? Or the Parliamentary systems of England or Poland-Lithuania? Not to mention free city republics of Venice, Genoa or many others? Or Swiss canton system?

The only thing I can say after your statement is

[Martinus]

Originally posted by Boris Godunov
[Egypt] has no philosophical or religious idea comparable to those of the Greek or Jew to give the world.

Well, this is not true.

The Greek philosophy was influenced greatly by Plato and Pytagoras, wasn't it? Well, they started by learning the Egyptian lore and touring the land. Actually, many ideas of the Greek philosophy were adopted from Egypt.

As for the Jewish religion - before the Jewish "slavery" in Egypt it was largely undeveloped. The period of slavery, both in Babylon and Egypt, influenced it heavily. BTW, the Egyptian religion was not as polytheist as it seems - at least since Akhenaton one god was worshipped above all else, who were considered his incarnations. Besides, one cannot deny the influence of Egyptian religion on mithraism or zoroastrianism - and everybody who had studied religion theory for a bit knows how many of these systems were adopted by Christianity.

So actually Egyptian development forms the basis for Greek philosophy or Jewish religion (of course not denying the last two their originality, as they built greatly upon this basis).

Actually, I would say the more unique development was the Roman law, as there was no similar system before.

[Ribannah]

Ah, I see that the Armada has once more been summoned!

Originally posted by Martinus
Haven't you heard of Marsilius of Padua? Miachiavelli? Thomas Moore? Hobbes? Montesquie? Locke?

Let's see ....
Marsilius of Padua: "Limit the power of the church". Excellent contribution, but not related to what I said about the Iroquois.
Machiavelli: Propagated court intrige. Exactly the opposite of Iroquois social values
Thomas More: Beheaded for high treason! Guess the Europeans weren't ready yet for new social values
Hobbes: Argued AGAINST separation of church and state
Locke: The first in the list AFTER Iroquois impact, and behold: refutes absolutism!
Montesquieu: Also AFTER Iroquois impact, arguing in favour of Trias Politica

Hmmm, you're making a stronger case in favour of Iroquois influence than even I thought possible

Freedom of religion or freedom of speech? It was proposed as early as middle ages by Abelard and Marsilius of Padua

Proposed is the key word here.

.. not to mention the ancient times, when it flourished.

Really? Where? And how did the Iroquois find out about it?

Diplomacy? Are you claiming European had no diplomacy when they met Iroquois.

Nope.

Oratory skills? Do the names of European poets or politicians of that time speak something to you?

Not as great speakers, sorry.

Federal laws? Have you ever heard of the Holy Roman Empire?

Feudalism is not the same, sorry.

Sunk ... again! ...

LOVE HIAWATHA!! LOVE HIAWATHA!!

[KrazyHorse]

Is it just me, or are you on a mission to attempt to prove the most ridiculous historical claim that you can? Erik von Dannigen (sp.) must be proud...

[Martinus]

Originally posted by Ribannah
Ah, I see that the Armada has once more been summoned!
Let's see ....

Actually, your knowledge is quite superficial IMHO:

Marsilius of Padua: "Limit the power of the church". Excellent contribution, but not related to what I said about the Iroquois.

The first theory of social agreement was what he proposed. Which, BTW, influenced Rousseau and through him, democracy.

Machiavelli: Propagated court intrige. Exactly the opposite of Iroquois social values

Another missed shot. If you know Machiavelli only from popular knowledge and the word "machiavellan" than you don't know anything.
Read his Discourses or History of Florence.

Thomas More: Beheaded for high treason! Guess the Europeans weren't ready yet for new social values

Pleeeassseee. He was beheaded for supporting catholicism, not for writting Utopia. Besided, Campanella and Bacon were not beheaded for writing exactly the same.

Hobbes: Argued AGAINST separation of church and state

Yeah, iroquis were great in separating church from state. But wait a minute - they did not have church. And the state was in a pretty abysmal state.

Locke: The first in the list AFTER Iroquois impact, and behold: refutes absolutism!

Yeah, Locke spent his youth among Iqroquis. Actually he was brought up by chimpanzee who taught him basics of liberalism as we know it.

Montesquieu: Also AFTER Iroquois impact, arguing in favour of Trias Politica

Yeah, another of the "Tarzans".

Really? Where? And how did the Iroquois find out about it?

Not sure what are you talking about
I didn't say Europeans brought freedom of religion to Iroquis. It is you who claim it was other way around.

Nope.

You say Europe didn't have diplomacy? Or that you are not claiming it?

Not as great speakers, sorry.

Yeah, Petrarca, Dante. They were just abysmal in comparison to those Iroquis poets and orators.

Feudalism is not the same, sorry.

Ever heard of the Diet of Empire?

Sunk ... again! ...

In your dreams.

LOVE HIAWATHA!! LOVE HIAWATHA!!

I have one question. Please tell me where did you get your history lesson? Your teachers should be shot. I HAVE NEVER SEEN ANYTHING MORE PREPOSTEROUS AND RIDICULOUS IN MY ENTIRE LIFE.

Please tell me you are trolling, or I will loose my faith in the "homo sapiens" species.

[Martinus]

Ribannah, can I ask you a question. Do you have any formal historical training, or is it just sort of Daeniken stuff?

[Fiil]

Originally posted by Ribannah
"5,000 years ago, the Egyptians possessed a serviceable and surprisingly sophisticated arithmetic. As their monumental history unfolded, this body of knowledge was refined, expanded, and developed to eventually include the rudiments of what we would call geometry"

Wow impressive arithmetic, thats adding, substracting maybe even taking the square of something (And btw egyptions only used integers (maybe reals maybe fractions) and had no zero).
This is nothing - nothing compared to the discoveries of Descartes, Fermat, Pascal and Newton all from the European Enlightenment!!

Originally posted by Ribannah Machiavelli: Propagated court intrige. Exactly the opposite of Iroquois social values

Does this make him less important?

Originally posted by Ribannah
Thomas More: Beheaded for high treason! Guess the Europeans weren't ready yet for new social values

I hope you know that Thomas More was not beheaded because of his social values but only because he inferred with Henry's marriage policies .

The European Enlightenment and to some degree the European renaissance is by far the most important factors in modern western social life, government, science, philosophy and literature.

If the Iroqouis ever made some contribution to modern federal government as claimed, this is only known because the americans succeeded in applying it... IMO an invention/discovery is only worth something if you can apply it.
It is simply two seperate things: a federal government for 25000 and a federal government for millions. The achievement is in recognizing that one invention can be used for something else, and this was done by the Americans.

Btw nobody I have talked to in Denmark knows who the Iroqouis were (or are)! This showes how much effect they've had outside of their local area.

[Jay Bee]

Ribannah despises Macchiavelli cos she thought until very recently that Macchiavelli was Spanish. She has not had time yet to adapt her neurons to the new situation.

If someone tells her where the basic fundamentals of modern geometry were compiled she will instantly despise geometry as well.


PS. About the Armada joke, keep on saying that others are twisted and childish, dear, it's so appropriate

[Ribannah]

Originally posted by Fiil
Wow impressive arithmetic, thats adding, substracting maybe even taking the square of something (And btw egyptions only used integers (maybe reals maybe fractions) and had no zero).
This is nothing - nothing compared to the discoveries of Descartes, Fermat, Pascal and Newton all from the European Enlightenment!!

Are you in favour of deleting all the ancient civs, then? Because otherwise I don't understand why you make this comparison.

Does this make him less important?

(Machiavelli)
For the purposes of the game and progress of human civilization: yes. As a histiorical figure: of course not.

I hope you know that Thomas More was not beheaded because of his social values but only because he inferred with Henry's marriage policies

That is not true. He was beheaded because he was against Henry proclaiming himself head of the church.

The European Enlightenment and to some degree the European renaissance is by far the most important factors in modern western social life, government, science, philosophy and literature.

There were other important factors such as the Printing Press (with Enlightenment, allowing Nationalism), as well as the wealth gained from Colonialism (together with Coal Mining -> Railroad leading to Industrialization in my tech tree).

IMO an invention/discovery is only worth something if you can apply it.

Or if it leads to new insights, but your point is good.

It is simply two seperate things: a federal government for 25000 and a federal government for millions.

Or a democracy of one city, as I said earlier. Very true. Developments didn't stop after the Iroquois! All I am saying (with Firaxis) is that they played a part.

Btw nobody I have talked to in Denmark knows who the Iroqouis were (or are)! This showes how much effect they've had outside of their local area.

Well, talk to a random group of Iroquois and they won't know where Denmark is. Still they did business with each other, albeit briefly, in the 17th century.
But this is why I think that the choices Firaxis makes about which civs to include in the game are relevant. A few months from now, at least some people will know a little about the Iroquois and their role in the advance of human civilization. Kudos to Firaxis! (That is, if they're going to drop that dog soldier as the Iroqouis UU .)