The most glaring omission...

[orange]

Guy - While you haven't changed my opinion of the Iroqoius being in the game, you have IMO given a great reason to why the Inca, Maya, and Aztec should be in the game (well, Aztec already are...but...)

I don't think the Iroquois should be, because I don't think they were as advanced as the southern, more dominant tribes as before mentioned were. The population of the Iroquois and their range of influence was not great enough to be seen as a dominant civ. Not many Native North American tribes could have, except maybe the Sioux. The numbers and influence was simply never great enough. Too many warring independant tribes...

I know this gives no justice to the accomplishments of any individual Native American civ...but I liked how there was a "Native American" civ in CtpII...each city being a name of a tribe (IE: Sioux, Apache, Iroquois). It makes it sound like a group of city states, which is the best way of going about including Native Americans in CivIII.

[Guynemer]

Originally posted by orange
Guy - While you haven't changed my opinion of the Iroqoius being in the game, you have IMO given a great reason to why the Inca, Maya, and Aztec should be in the game (well, Aztec already are...but...)

Oh, I agree as far as the Inca and/or Maya go; I'd like to see them in as well. But as far as North American (as opposed to Latin American) civs go, I still hold that the Iroquois make the most logical choice. The Sioux (Lakota) may have had the greater population and larger land area, but the Iroquois (as Rib has pointed out) were somewhat more advanced in their society/governmental structure, as well as more adaptable to the European invasion. I don't think putting them all under the same civ is appropriate, as many of the tribes were fierce rivals and didn't consider themselves the same at all--neither should we. We're probably splitting hairs as far as Sioux-vs-Iroquois go, but I hope you understand where I'm coming from, at least in so far as having a specific North American civ goes.

[Guynemer]

Originally posted by Waku
All these arguments prove civ3 will be stillborn, it will only be a game, not the best game ever I was waiting for

Not sure what you're trying to say here, Waku.

[Roman]

How about just having the American civ as the North American representative?

[Ribannah]

Originally posted by orange
I know this gives no justice to the accomplishments of any individual Native American civ...but I liked how there was a "Native American" civ in CtpII...

What! The Incas and the Aztecs as the same civilization?

[Sarxis]

I think the Iroquis (spell?) were selected to represent the 'whole' of all the Native American tribes and kingdoms. Not that the Iroquis were themselves greater or less than, say, the Cherokee or Sioux. But having a civ called 'Native Americans' just doesn't work, does it?

[orange]

Originally posted by Guynemer
We're probably splitting hairs as far as Sioux-vs-Iroquois go, but I hope you understand where I'm coming from, at least in so far as having a specific North American civ goes.

Of course And I definitely agree with the factual points you made. As far as which Native American civs should be in it...It's just a matter of opinion, and a bit of realism vs. gameplay thrown in.

[orange]

Originally posted by Ribannah
What! The Incas and the Aztecs as the same civilization?

I do note the smiley here...but to clarify...

I do not believe that all native american tribes are the same civilization. I was bringing up something from CtpII which, although historically innacurate, worked quite well in the game.

Your quote stated that (regardless of the content around it) essentially Aztecs and Incas are the same civilization, which is false.

[Boris Godunov]

Originally posted by orange
Guy - While you haven't changed my opinion of the Iroqoius being in the game,

To clarify, he hasn't for me, either...but I just liked how he put it.

Please see my post in the Iroquois forum about Toynbee's list of civs. He actually, believe it or not, lumps the West Europeans all together (English, French, German, Spanish), and seperately includes the Aztecs, Mayans and Incas. Whoa!

Personally, I loved the way Colonization handled the native americans. Distinct tribes that you couldn't play, halfway between the Civ I barbarians and an actual civ. It struck me as being more accurate than any other representation.

I miss Colonization.

Wonder how I can find it again...

[Ribannah]

Originally posted by Anunikoba
I think the Iroquis (spell?) were selected to represent the 'whole' of all the Native American tribes and kingdoms. Not that the Iroquis were themselves greater or less than, say, the Cherokee or Sioux. But having a civ called 'Native Americans' just doesn't work, does it?

The Iroquois took a lot of land from the Sioux. The Sioux (better: Dakota) were no match for them on Sioux territory(!) except for a very brief period when they had horses before the Iroquois had guns.
The Cherokee are related to the Iroquois but nonetheless lost land to them as well. They learned a lot from them, too, and had their golden year in history when they were almost united by Tecumseh.
I agree with you that the Iroquois were probably selected by Firaxis to represent all native North-American tribes (north of the pueblo tribes, that is). They all had the rudiments of Iroquois law and social system. But it was not a random pick.

[Chris 62]

Originally posted by orange
Hey no kidding Chris? Masters in History? That's my major at Uni Where did you go to college?

Columbia, here in NYC.

As for our Iroquois friends, some links:

http://school.discovery.com/homeworkhelp/worldbook/atozhistory/i/281880.html

http://www.ohiokids.org/ohc/history/h_indian/tribes/iroquois.html

http://www.library.utoronto.ca/robarts/microtext/collection/pages/iroqouis.html

http://tuscaroras.com/pages/irlinks_na.html

Did they have:

Permanent settlements?
Yes, rudimentuary, usually log huts, arranged in circular fashion
(Stone-age man equivilent were found in Turkey, that date back to 10,000 BC)
Written language?
No, relied on oral tradition, recorded matters on "wampum" (explained in the links)
Leagal code?
Again, only traditions, as they had no written language.
Agriculture?
Yes, were famers.
Education?
None, outside of passing of traditions.
Did they live peacefully?
No, not at all.
Religion?
Believe in a number of spirts and superstions reguarding a large number of things in the world around them.
Science?
None.
Metalurgy?
No

In fact, all of their moments in history come after contact with the Europeans.

Cro-Magnon man:
Permanent settlements?
None,as such, were just begining to go from hunter-gatherer to farmer.
Written language?
None, oral only.
Leagal code?
None.
Agriculture?
Ruidmentuary, at very beginings of understanding.
Education?
None, really.
Did they live peacefully?
Not really.
Religion?
Similar to our Iroquois friends.
Science?
None.
Metalurgy?
Rudimentuary.

See the similarity?
You are all guilty of being politically correct, when you assert the the six nations were a "great civilization".

In the modern world, we now have a tendancy to view history through rose colored glasses in reguards to native american cultures.
The fact is, and always was, these primative societies were on subsistance survival level (which is why there was so few of them in the Americas to start with), and were accustomed to taking what they wanted from others by force as the first option (read the links if you disagree).
They had the monumental misfortune of meeting a people (the Europeans) whom would also take what they wanted, and were better at it, but would have lived peacably if not continually attacked (Native custom, for the Six Nations, the yearly tribal raid on neigbhors).
Over time, as the Europeans multiplied, they would become cronic aggressors, and constant treaty breakers, but the fact is, the natives began this pattern, having "sowed the wind, they were forced to reap the whirlwind" so to speak.
We can't say that the europeans would have behaved any differently had the natives not continually attacked them, but we will never know that with any certaincy.

The Native Americans were a Politically Correct choice by Firaxis, and should not have been in the new game.

Orginally posted by Guynemer
You folks are correct, I was perhaps a little harsh. I've noticed Chris has a tendency to also get a little over-the-top and insulting when it comes to people who disagree with him (certainly not always), and I suppose I got prematurely defensive. I apologize.

No need to apologize, I'm not offended in the least, it is simply a misunderstanding.

Yes, when dealing with Off Topic know it alls, whom insist they know everything, when in fact, most are teens who know nothing.

In historical discussions, I am frank and to the point.
Do not mistake being criptic with being insulting.
I'm also aware that said young lady delights on bating the Spanish posters, drawing glee at their fustrations, not a situation I find disiarble.
When I see foolishness, I point it out in no uncertain terms, just as facts.
I also listen to people, and am interested in their opinions, but it seems that many are to concerned with not offending other people, instead of looking for truth.

I search for truth, and care not about offending the foolish.
Revisionist history is currently in vogue, and it is destroying the fabric of thruth, because people try to view the past thorugh modern eyes, instead of viewing it from the viewpoint of the people who were on the spot.

The truth is, American cultures, while interesting to read and study, were not significant to history, and cannot be considered great.
The same is true of Meso-American (Although far more advanced), still can't be considered great.

Interesting yes, important, no.

Worthy of inclusion in a game about great civilizations? Absoulty not.

[Fiera]

A brilliant post indeed, Chris.


Now you know that Ribannah is going to tell you that, depite everything you posted above, the Iroquois developed Democracy and taught it to the European colonists, don't you?

[KrazyHorse]

And I still want the Iroquois in for the same reason as always: variety. Without including "indigenous" civilisations, we miss out on a large part of humanity. Only one person here claims that the Iroquois were on the level of, say, the Spanish, but many want the Iroquois included for different reasons than simple "importance".

It's not mere "political correctness"; it's interest in all the branches of humanity.

[Ubik]

Uh, huh... Chris, is that kind of history being taught in Columbia? Oh my, oh my... things are getting worst and worst there...

What excactly did you mastered in, Chris? I mean, yes, history, but this is a great field. Huuuuuge actually. In what kind of history? Mine was in Medieval Balkan history.

So, where to start from? Ok, this absurd statement:

They had the monumental misfortune of meeting a people (the Europeans) whom would also take what they wanted, and were better at it, but would have lived peacably if not continually attacked (Native custom, for the Six Nations, the yearly tribal raid on neigbhors).
Over time, as the Europeans multiplied, they would become cronic aggressors, and constant treaty breakers, but the fact is, the natives began this pattern, having "sowed the wind, they were forced to reap the whirlwind" so to speak.
We can't say that the europeans would have behaved any differently had the natives not continually attacked them, but we will never know that with any certaincy.

Pardon me... WHAT??? Where did you see that written? "the natives began this pattern"? The Europeans "lived peacably"????? Gosh, do you even know what you are talking about?

I am not going even to trash this statement, because it is past logical assumptions and any rational debating. A few words only: Utter and Total Rubish.

The truth is, American cultures, while interesting to read and study, were not significant to history, and cannot be considered great.
The same is true of Meso-American (Although far more advanced), still can't be considered great.

Interesting yes, important, no.

Worthy of inclusion in a game about great civilizations? Absoulty not.

Another precious jewel of pompeous trashing a civ ...on what criteria? What do you mean "important", my friend? As an historian (if you are one) you should be fully aware that the importance of a civilization is not based on personal povs or even the "contribution" of that civilization to the humanity in general.

The "importance" of a civilization lies in it's uniquenes, in it's diversity, it's time/space span, it's cultural productivity and the impact on it's environment. Those are not things you included in your "charts" where you compared Cro Magnon with Iroquis...

That is not revisionist or reformist history, that is standard history. Where did you read or learned that the significance of a civilization is ... for instance... the size of the armies it could produce, or whatever your stupid criteria for trashing the brilliant meso american civilizations are.

Or is it... guilt? Nah, couldn't be... but again, maybe. Yes, maybe because you are a descendant of those who exterminated 90% of the indigenous population of the Americas, and destroyed a dozen important (not interesting, dear, important) civilizations, that is why you trash them as "insignificant", so your scientific conscious should stay unharassed...

Surely, you must be the one and only person on this earth with a masters in history, that supports such a stupid thesis.

Sorry if my vocabulary is kinda harsh, but I am really annoyed because of those copletely unscientific remarks of yours.

[orange]

Wow, I almost went to Columbia for Journalism