huh?? i think thears such a difrence between native american tribes in north america, its gunna be a lil hard to group them all together as one civ.. civ is geting realy historicly bad hear... any way i think this is just plain wrong.. if u wanted a civ that represtented north american natives, i think the irqua *what ever thear called, the guys from civ 3* or siuox*agin, how ever its spelt* whould have dont nicely..

first thing im gunna do is mod the civs name!!

guh another fight over native america.

Could we go back to the argument about HRE now?

huh?? i think thears such a difrence between native american tribes in north america, its gunna be a lil hard to group them all together as one civ.. civ is geting realy historicly bad hear... any way i think this is just plain wrong.. if u wanted a civ that represtented north american natives, i think the irqua *what ever thear called, the guys from civ 3* or siuox*agin, how ever its spelt* whould have dont nicely..

first thing im gunna do is mod the civs name!!

Iroquois should be a seperate civilization hopefully. I don't actually mind 'Native American' because I know in real-time they would never actually get to represent them individually before they scrapped it all to begin work on CivV or another game.

I think that civ4 probably just made a mistake cuz they probably wouldn't do that because they could add more native american civs otherwise.

Well they really could make it OK by giving the NA civ 2 Leaders from the start*
(so that with 2 Leaders they can represent a range of NA cultures through 2 different approaches, as well as having a UU/UB from different NA cultures)

*Preferably one with a significantly different personality than Sitting Bull
Say an Iroquois leader attempting a science/diplomacy win,

geronimo would be a good one

Geronimo is from the Apache civilization, if they mix Sioux with Apache then it will make this game a flop.

I consider this idea pretty weird too… Why not call the civilization with corresponding tribe name? They will have one UU (I think?) anyways so it wouldn't make a big difference.

Think about it:

Capital: Sioux City
city: Sioux Falls
city: Iroquois city
city: Eskimo city

etc. wtf?

or...

Capital: Lakota
City: Iroqouis
City: Cherokee
City: Apache
City: Eskimo

better, but still wierd.

Being that Civ IV is a historical simulation that also toys heavily with speculative "what if" elements, I think native tribes of North America are deserving of better recognition in the game. While there are practical limits to getting what we all want, surely the biggest cultural groups of North American Natives would be interesting and enjoyable to add to the game! :)

Geronimo is from the Apache civilization, if they mix Sioux with Apache then it will make this game a flop.
Yes, because the success of the Civ games is based entirely on it's painstaking historical accuracy. The gameplay has nothing to do with it... :rolleyes:
Most people don't really give a damn what the civs are. The only ones who care are nerds like us, and we make up a rather small percentage of the audience.

Most people don't really give a damn what the civs are. The only ones who care are nerds like us, and we make up a rather small percentage of the audience.

and history professors, and history buffs, and people who think they know history.

and history professors, and history buffs, and people who think they know history.
And we all fall into at least one of those categories, right? :rolleyes:

And we all fall into at least one of those categories, right? :rolleyes:

righto. and i forgot to add in another category: Pho lovers. :D

That's a category that I'd really rather forget. They... They scare me... :rolleyes:

Me too. :shifty:

anyhow, back on topic, i have to say that the "Native American" civ is still a better idea than the HRE.

any guesses on the UU?

I can surely live with Native Americans as civ if Alexander is leader of Greeks for example.
Afterall this game is not an historical simulation.

I can live with a "native american" civilization using the current leader system, so long as it starts with multiple leaders. I can always choose to play with the leader "Sequoia" and rename the civ "Cherokee" in the start up screen.

I'd actually rather have them do that with the various "roman" empires, because europe is so crowded. But I'm not going to complain too loudly.

I'd rather have different Native American tribes (I think a great argument could be made for the Iroquois and a decent argument for the Souix. No one in their right mind would include anything else, but the Cherokee wouldn't be bad). In all honesty, I'd rather they had picked a specific tribe than making one civ to represent them all, but I'm glad they are at least in.

i prefer war-like western tribes run by the likes crazy horse - who were those tribes, Apache Commanche, ect.
A good war choice if you wanted to play as "north american tribe".

I like the idea of grouping the tribes, because let's face it -- they were tribes. United they are notable enough to be called a civilization (at least for being recognized in a game where there's a select group included), but individually, I'd almost rather see Canada than one specific tribe of Indians.

ok we finally get some native north american representation.......but wha? they are grouping them all together? This is absolutely rediculous!

Why is Sitting Bull leading a unified native american empire that clearly never ever existed? Why are these striking and profound cultures being watered down and pasted together in what seems like a lazy and feeble and maybe even stereotypical move on the dev's part? I really rather they just left them out completely.

why isn't there a 'the africans' civ? why isnt' there a 'the asians' civ? why isn't there a 'the latinos' civ? because these would be outrageously simplified and racist, and i don't see how lumping all them 'injuns' together is any different...

at least the holy roman empire existed....

I agree, but . . . what can you do? Except mod in what should have been there all along, and protest here on the forums. Maybe in a patch they will add the real Native american civilizations. Mound Builders, sioux, cherokee, iroquois, pueblo. . .

The Sioux were certainly worthy warriors..

Considering that they were nomads who lived in tents, I'm not sure they meet my criteria for a civilization.

Perhaps honoring their leaders is the best approach.

There's no end to the political problems the designers face- they're damned if they do/ damned if they don't , and damned if they quit trying.


I'd like to take this opportunity to thank everyone responsible for recognizing The Iroquois as a civ in Civ III.

That was the final piece of my heritage puzzle to be credited and included in the series . It's given me a sense of what it's like to be both recognized and overlooked by my favorite game. At least I had my turn.

Gamers who find themselves passed over once again, I feel your pain.

It's silly to have it this way. It'd be like having a civ called the Europeans led by Napoleon. The term Native Americans is way too broad for civ. If you consider every other civ that's in the game there's never been anything broad like this.

Also they've used the Iroquois in civ 3, and the Sioux in civ 2. I think the best apporach is call them the Sioux, but give them an Iroquois style unique, like they did for the Iroquois in civ 3.

Since they've started putting really random civs - Native Americans and HRE and one still left, maybe they've run out of ideas. I it not possible that they've already done all the civilizations that are worthy enough of being in CIV?
Just a thought.

Of the dozens of peoples that populated the modern US and Canada, perhaps only four groups made any real strides towards being considered civilizations the way this game defines them: the Navaho, the Hopi, the Anasazi, and perhaps the Iriquiouis. Despite the time they had and the resources afforded them, none of the other tribes progressed beyond the level of simple hunter-gatherer societies. If anything, the bulk of the groups making up the Native American civilization would be better termed as Barbarians under the game's paradigm (and they are).

There was an agricultural mound-building civilization in the Mississipi valley which traded with the Aztecs and Iriquois and had a large population. The river system facillitated their transportation and communication networks.

The trouble is they were wiped out "overnight" by an epidemic after the earliest contact with the Spanish.

I know of the mound builders. The problem is, there's not enough information about their culture to make a suitable Civ anyone would recognize or want to play.

The Anasazi are probably also too obscure, but we do know a bit more about them due to tales from the Navaho and Hopi histories.

Speaking as a Tlingit, I'd rather see some recognition by being lumped in with other tribes than having just one or two tribes present.

While it's true that the Indians tribes are quite different from each other and it's not really fair to lump them all together, I figure better that than no recognition at all.

Speaking as a Tlingit, I'd rather see some recognition by being lumped in with other tribes than having just one or two tribes present.

While it's true that the Indians tribes are quite different from each other and it's not really fair to lump them all together, I figure better that than no recognition at all.

That's a different way of looking at it. I can see the logic :)

But this suggests to me then that another expansion could be made to introduce a few "global" civs to account for all the cultures/powers that were not influential enough to "make it on their own" in terms of influencing continental (if not worldwide) affairs enough to count for a game featuring global history... I dunno, whether excluding civs that were historically of lesser significance, or include them under some umbrella global civ, one runs the risk of offending people one way or the other. It becomes an exercise of trying to make everyone happy and ending up with compromise, mediocrity and disappointment all over.

In a way, I am glad it is not my decision to make! I just buy and play ;)

I think 5 civilizations would be enough

Native americans
Native asians
Native europeans
Native africans
America aka USA

That's a different way of looking at it. I can see the logic :)

But this suggests to me then that another expansion could be made to introduce a few "global" civs to account for all the cultures/powers that were not influential enough to "make it on their own" in terms of influencing continental (if not worldwide) affairs enough to count for a game featuring global history... I dunno, whether excluding civs that were historically of lesser significance, or include them under some umbrella global civ, one runs the risk of offending people one way or the other. It becomes an exercise of trying to make everyone happy and ending up with compromise, mediocrity and disappointment all over.

In a way, I am glad it is not my decision to make! I just buy and play ;)

It wouldn't work with a 'Native European' or 'Native Asian' civ. People tend to shove all Indian tribes into one group, when we're quite varied in culture. I do equate it with people lumping all the Oriental or European cultures into one gruop.

I don't see what's so terrible about having a Sioux and/or Iroquois civ. Sure, you'd have to leave out the Apache, Navajo, Cherokee, Inuit, and all the rest, but it seems much more realistic and fair to the tribes themselves.

You completely missed what I said, didn't you?

No, I just disagree. The other tribes are represented already, just not as civs. Of course, I guess it's kind of insulting to be a barbarian in the game ;), but the Angles and Saxons are, too, and that's most of England.

Don't play Civ4, so I'm not familiar with the barb 'tribe' names. But if it's anything like Civ3, it depends on what culture group you're part of that determines the tribe names for barbs.

And I'm sure most civs that people want included want more than a token nod by being a barb tribe.

its kinda insulting for Vietnamese to NOT be a barbarian. ;)

Well, there is merit in what you say, Turner. Maybe the Native American city names will be the names of different tribes to include everyone (which I suppose amounts to the same thing, but que sera sera). Still, it is kind of funny playing as Sitting Bull with the Totem Pole as your UB. :crazyeye: But I'm happy they're in.

But I'm happy they're in.

Me too. Always nice to be recognized.

Me too. Always nice to be recognized.

now they just need to recognize the greatness of PHO.

With the Apache's in, at least you can say they had conquered the Pueblo, Hopi, Navaho, White Mountain and much of the Native Americans. They could be a great contender with Geronimo as their leader. The Sioux would be fine as well. Iroquis and the Cherokee, yeah the Fox and all the other Wisconsin and Ohio river civilizations fought never endingly. But I don't see people turning a game away if the mound building Mississippi tribes were included. We know general storytelling about their existance. The Choctaw and Natchez are fair representations or speakers of their ancestors. I would also not be offended if the Ashanti represented the West African region. No person from west Africa looks at the group badly, they actually all call the Ashanti their ancestors. I wont get into the Alexander the Great conversation, unless we are speaking in Greek, because the empire he conquered spoke Greek after his death and all anyone can say on here is that Alexander was followed by Macedonian soldiers, not Greeks. All I can bring to the table is that worl spoke Greek and the Bible was then written in Greek. Claims to Alexander's mother not being Greek from Epirus and his father Philip a Greek word and name, with Philip's grave written in Greek. All I know is I can read Macedonian artifacts without trouble. Can a national Macedonian read Alexander's tomb without first learning Greek?

If you want a real native American civilization, you have to go with one that disappeared before European colonization started, like Hopewell, Mississippian, or mound builders, or the original inhabitants of Florida. There is unfortunately not enough known about them, but there is some speculation that North American natives may have at one point been at least the equal of those of south or central Americans. If only European explores didn't bring pigs here....


While I hate the Idea of one overarching Native American civ, I can think of at least 1 thing that might support it: Native Americans from throughout North,, Central, and South American are genetically more closely related to each other than are the people within almost any old world nation. They have a very limited genepool (yet almost no genetic diseases). (This is one major reason why European diseases were so devastating. Almost all Native Americans were susceptible to the same pathogens.Their immune systems in general were better suited than Europeans' for fighting parasites, but not vs bacteria and viruses. There were not many bacteria or viruses that effect humans native to the new world because Native Americans generally didn't handle domestic animals.)

now they just need to recognize the greatness of PHO.

ok this is starting to get annoying **gets on the phone with alexman* "Hey i need a favor, can you confirm that Vietnam is a civ so cybrxkhan will shut up . . . . .what, they arent in better not let him know"


:joke: i actually think that 'Nam should be in

:joke: i actually think that 'Nam should be in

another convert, hehe. :)


anyways, back on topic. the best Native American "civ" would be the Cahokian/Moundbuilders/Whatever they are. Problem is, we don't know any leaders name, so unless we want "Hello, my name is Leader of the Moundbuilder People"... I don't think this is possible.

now they just need to recognize the greatness of Kielbasa.

Great another convert for me to!

I'm fine with the Native Americans. Not as bad as HRE in my opinion.

Great another convert for me to!

hmmm.... i don't remember saying that... :assimilate: :mwaha:

i do think the NA's should be split but for logical reasons it does make more to recognize all of them instead of a few of them

OK, so the Native American uu is a Dog Soldier, which apparently is Cheyenne. So they have both Sitting Bull and Dog Soldiers for plains Indians and a Totem Pole for Pacific Indians. Nothing really representing Eastern Woodlands Indians (be them Algonquin or Iroquois speaking). I also wonder if it might be better to give a post-gunpowder unit to Native Americans. It was when the Dutch began to give guns to the Iroquois that they became a significant power (and built an empire stretching from Upstate New York to the Ohio River Valley and Mississippi). At Little Bighorn, the Lakota didn't just fight with bows and arrows, they had rifles, just like Custer did, and used them to win. As much as we like to think of Indians as relying only on nature, they made as good a use of gunpowder as Europeans did (they just didn't invent the guns they used).

Hmm, here's another perspective -- the Celts were lumped, even though there are several variation of tribes/clans... (just ask the Irish/Scottish) - why can't American Indians be too? They were far less "civilized"...

Amerindians had far more distinct cultures than celtic people. If you didnt happen to know already calling a civilization "the Irouquois" for example is lumping several tribes/clans together aswell... Calling them "Native Americans" is like having a civ called "Europeans".

The Celtic tribes were a lot closer culturally than major Indian regions (Pacific Northwest, Plains Indians, Pueblo Indians, Eastern Woodland Indians, American Eskimos). When discussing tribes, I've never seen any serious in-depth discussion go into any less detail than that. I've never really seen anything mention the differences between the Senones and the Iceni (that would be Brennus and Boudicca, for those who want to know). It would have to be a very detailed source to do that. It only takes a glance at a picture to see the difference between the Souix and the Iroquois (aside from some similarities in clothing and maybe weapons, almost everything else differs).

Once I saw the pic of Sitting Bull in full Eagle feather headdress, I knew the "Native American" civ would be a letdown. I expected better with Sid (he's pretty good about the historical details, by and large), but I suppose it is better than not including any tribe at all.

I would've liked to have a leader other then sitting bull because quite frankly, i want something new.

I would've liked to have a leader other then sitting bull because quite frankly, i want something new.

the other possible NA Civ candidates would've been (And feel free to add if you would like, anyone):

- Geronimo
- Hiawatha
- Crazy Horse
- Pochahontas (hehe... Disney!!!!)
- Some Cherokee chief

Pocahontas would be a terrible choice. Powhattan might not be.

Joseph Brant (Thayendanegea) wouldn't make a bad Iroquois chief either (in addition to Hiawatha). Sequoyah (inventor of the Cherokee alphabet) might make a good Cherokee leader.

Squanto and Massasoit are some others.

Sitting Bull's okay. His people certainly won his big battle.

Some other choices: Chief Joseph of the Nez Perce, Little Turtle (who defeated not one but two American Armies), and Tecumseh.

Tecumseh would be an amazing option.

Pocahontas would be a terrible choice. Powhattan might not be.

well, yes, Pocahontas is a pretty bad choice, i agree, but, hey, most Americans can recognize her more than Thayendanegea... :) and she's a girl, not to be sexist or anything, but its kinda the same thing with Boadicea.

Well i wonder if she made it in for native american's, i wonder how she would've looked. :)

Ok Octavius is right. i do sound like Grimus now.

Let us not forget Osceola, Red Cloud, "King Phillip", Pontiac....

Chief Joseph or Seattle would be my pics.

I would glady welcome a hot Pocahontas. :D

I like historical realism but who cares if the leader is hot? ;)

The Celtic tribes were a lot closer culturally than major Indian regions (Pacific Northwest, Plains Indians, Pueblo Indians, Eastern Woodland Indians, American Eskimos). When discussing tribes, I've never seen any serious in-depth discussion go into any less detail than that. I've never really seen anything mention the differences between the Senones and the Iceni (that would be Brennus and Boudicca, for those who want to know). It would have to be a very detailed source to do that. It only takes a glance at a picture to see the difference between the Souix and the Iroquois (aside from some similarities in clothing and maybe weapons, almost everything else differs).
Amerindians had far more distinct cultures than celtic people. If you didnt happen to know already calling a civilization "the Irouquois" for example is lumping several tribes/clans together aswell... Calling them "Native Americans" is like having a civ called "Europeans".
Good to know, still the bulk of my point was that at least the Celts have ruins today... amerindians do not. Aztecs? yes -- and they are in the game. Amerindians? better off as 'barbarians' though I'd love to see a 'migrating' civ in the game, or at least a renaming of "barbarians" to something not so stereotypically negative.

Good to know, still the bulk of my point was that at least the Celts have ruins today... amerindians do not. Aztecs? yes -- and they are in the game. Amerindians? better off as 'barbarians' though I'd love to see a 'migrating' civ in the game, or at least a renaming of "barbarians" to something not so stereotypically negative.

IGN has a screenshot of a Native American city, Mesa Verde. Mesa Verde is a city of adobe brick built on the side of a mountain in Colorado. Chaco Canyon is another example of a ruined Native American city, with stone edges as mathematically flat as those of the Incans or the Egyptians. In the Ohio River Valley, there are hundreds of intricate mounds, similar to those like Cahokia. The "city ruins" argument does not work here.

IGN has a screenshot of a Native American city, Mesa Verde. Mesa Verde is a city of adobe brick built on the side of a mountain in Colorado. Chaco Canyon is another example of a ruined Native American city, with stone edges as mathematically flat as those of the Incans or the Egyptians. In the Ohio River Valley, there are hundreds of intricate mounds, similar to those like Cahokia. The "city ruins" argument does not work here.

That's the only exception, but SW tribes are very similar or maybe influenced by Aztecs? The "Native Americans" seem to be more based upon migratory "Plains Tribes" and the Iroquois and such. That's the part I don't like. I think you should be able to play a migratory Civ in the Ancient Era, but not for the long haul...

I just can never play a game and be in the modern age fighting a super power of "native americans" -- it's ridiculous. they haven't made enough presence in my eyes... to include them is to include "native afrikans" or "native oceana"...

I just can never play a game and be in the modern age fighting a super power of "native americans" -- it's ridiculous. they haven't made enough presence in my eyes... to include them is to include "native afrikans" or "native oceana"...
Agreed- if we are to believe that their nation is a world power, then why would they feel it necessary to prefix their name with "Native"? We never had the Native British Empire or Native Chinese Empire, so why this?

You guys are missing the point. Most of the Civs in the game are not still around. The idea is to include diverse civilizations from around the world and from different time periods. They do not need to be world powers, as many of the Civs in the game already are not and have not been world powers. Civ is based on history, but it is not history. It provides the player with the chance to change history.

If you want a game that only includes European Civilizations, then I'm sure you can find something. Civ is not based merely on European history, it is based on world history...

You guys are missing the point. Most of the Civs in the game are not still around. The idea is to include diverse civilizations from around the world and from different time periods. They do not need to be world powers, as many of the Civs in the game already are not and have not been world powers. Civ is based on history, but it is not history. It provides the player with the chance to change history.
Oh, I agree, I just think that a "Native American" civ is stupid. I'd be perfectly happy with an Iroquois or even Sioux civ.
If you want a game that only includes European Civilizations, then I'm sure you can find something. Civ is not based merely on European history, it is based on world history...
Your leaping to an unfair conclusion- expressing a dislike for the idea of a "Native American" civ, whether for my reasons or another, is not inherently indicative of a Eurocentric viewpoint.

actually, you know what i realized... what happens when there is a "Native American" civ and an "American" civ? perhaps we shouold change the "American" civ to the Non-Native American Civ! :D

Traitorfish: My apologies, but I meant to direct my post more so for sourboy, who seemed more upset that the Native Americans could become a superpower in the Modern era. Perhaps I misunderstood him as well, but from how I interpreted his post, his problem was not with the name "Native Americans" as much as their existence beyond the Ancient era...

actually, you know what i realized... what happens when there is a "Native American" civ and an "American" civ? perhaps we shouold change the "American" civ to the Non-Native American Civ! :D

If we did that then Rome will become the "unholy roman empire"

precisely, as one other thread suggested it.

i think of all the native american tribes, the only one that realy has the beast argument for a civilazation are the iraqua*sp* the guys from ny.

Guys, look. Native Americans/Australians did NOT have cities. They did not have buildings. I'm convinced they should be represented by the Barbarians, not by a generic "Native Americans" civ.

Guys, look. Native Americans/Australians did NOT have cities. They did not have buildings. I'm convinced they should be represented by the Barbarians, not by a generic "Native Americans" civ.
But didn't the barbarians which fought the Roman Empire have cities? I don't think having cities is a distinguishing characteristic of a civilization.

North America native inhabitants didn't even had a writing system, as Ishon mentioned - they didn't build cities nor buildings... how this might be a civilization? Probably the person responsible for choosing new civs in Firaxis will answer: "This is a what-if, a game, not a history" - OK, but why they include Rome, Greece and other REAL civilizations then? Let's add only tribes: Siouxs, Navajo, Eskimoo, Aborigens etc etc...
I think that this is a dead-end.
I played civ since civ1 - I was around 14-15 years old then and I remember that this game triggered in me a will to read about all those historical things which I saw in this game. Ancient civilizations, Wonders, Leaders, it was a game that caused also that I learned English (there was Polish version, but I had only English civ1). This educational aspect of civ now is disrupted - especially by adding this 'Native American Civilization'.
Last sentence concerns also HRE, it was not a unitary state, and there is many more arguments, but I don't want to make it another HRE thread.

The Greeks referred to the Persians as "barbarians", too. We should distinguish between the historical term "the Barbarians" coming from the ancient times (Greece/Rome) and the "Civ barbarians". There are many peoples that Firaxis has labeled as barbarians in Civ.

What I mean is that the native American tribes should also be represented by Civ barbarians, because their level of development was so extremely low that they did not even have any cities/buildings.

We should either decide there should be no Barbarians in Civ at all or agree that the Native Americans were such "Civ Barbarians", not any civilization comparable to France or Germany.

Guys, look. Native Americans/Australians did NOT have cities. They did not have buildings. I'm convinced they should be represented by the Barbarians, not by a generic "Native Americans" civ.

That's not true. Plenty of tribes had cities (just the nomadic plains tribes didn't). The Pueblo tribes, such as the Hopi, have cities that leave ruins (the fact that someone leaves ruins has to do with what building materials are around. Woodlands tribes used trees, because they were plentiful. The reason the Sumerians used mud brick is because there was no wood. It wouldn't suprise me if an Iroquoan longhouse was better built than a Sumerian house). They also had buildings. I don't know where this idea is coming from.

North America native inhabitants didn't even had a writing system

Do they need a writing system? The Aztecs and Inca didn't have one, they are in the game. Also, some tribes did have a writing system (the Cherokee did). Finally, most of history was transmitted orally for many centuries without a need to write it down. The bible, the quran, Beowulf, the Illiad were all spoken. Writing leaves a record for historians, it isn't necessary for a civilization (especially since, throughout history, 90% or more of the population was illiterate).

OK, you think that Indians were a "Native American Civilization", right?

In my opinion it takes much more than few tents and a totem to form a civlization. No need to argue - we have different opinion, that's all.

Native American Peoples were diverse. Some had writing, agriculture, and forms of industry. All had commerce, government, and language. Sedentary Peoples constructed buildings and planned cities, while nomadic Peoples did not. It is wrong to say that they did not have these things. And it is with ignorance and disrespect that someone would say "In my opinion it takes much more than few tents and a totem to form a civlization."

Native American Peoples were diverse. Some had writing, agriculture, and forms of industry. All had commerce, government, and language.

Almost none had writing and I wonder what forms of industry you mean. If barter trading is commerce, then every tribe in the history of the world had commerce. If we call tribal chieftains governments, then indeed all tribes in the world had and have governments. All the peoples in the world have languages too, this does not make them Civilizations.

i agree with ishon on some.

The Maya had a writing to. if you say the maya did not have a form og writing, well then niether did the egyptians.

Not really on topic (but heck Im bored stupid with politically correct discussions)...I was just thinking that in game turns, they'll be a great candidate for a feudalism / oracle slingshot. Longbows with first strike/cg I and 8xp to spend without even being in a combat, supported by dog soldiers immune to melee attacks, makes a great offensive force in a decent players hands...they have the advantage of "leave one bow in each conquered city and its a safe as a bank vault"...there is no early counter to longbows.....

OK, you think that Indians were a "Native American Civilization", right?

In my opinion it takes much more than few tents and a totem to form a civlization. No need to argue - we have different opinion, that's all.

But to say that Native Americans were just a few tents and totem poles is a rediculous misconception. For starters, not every tribe had tents or totem polls. The Iroquois built perminent structures made of wood, known as Longhouses (Vikings had Longhouses as well, incidentally). Certain Algonquin-speaking tribes made Wigwams. The Hopi made Pueblos, which were extremely complicated and required a coordinated society. Like civilization in Sumeria, that began because of warfare leading to city defenses, such as walls, many tribes had defenses because of warfare. The Iroquois built palisades around their villages. Pueblos are designed specifically for defense (they are impenetrable from the ground and the villagers would pull up the latters when they withdrew from the enemy).

The Iroquois had a complicated, established government with roles for each position (and checks and balances installed, something unheard of for any absolute monarch, but taken for granted today). They had a constitution that endured for centuries. Trade existed in as complicated ways as it existed anywhere else (with international trade, its always been a barter system, it always will be. Desired goods are traded for something of value. The fact that precious metals are something of value hasn't always been universal. When metals were too scarce, even Europeans would find something else to trade instead). The Iroquois even acted as middlemen (much like the Italian merchants in the Renaissance or Mali in the Sahara). In the great fur trade after the Europeans arrived, they often forced other tribes to trade with them, instead of the Europeans, and profited from that.

Honestly, what are the Iroquois missing in order to be considered a civilization? And, what are they missing that other tribes lack as well?

Honestly, what are the Iroquois missing in order to be considered a civilization?

they are missing westerno-centric approval. :D

I'm actually very supportive of the Native American civ as opposed to one specific group, because I like that Civilisation is speculative and abstract and not too bogged down in the specifics of who dominated who in real history... but I wish they had a less clunky name. It's kind of a pity they're so linguistically diverse or a name could have been derived from a language family.

As it is, I'll probably rename them Amerindian just because it at least looks like a name of a people.

The Native American Empire has allied with the Holy Roman Empire in their continuing war against the "Plain Alliance" - The Roman Empire, the America Empire and the Byzantine Empire.

Do they need a writing system? The Aztecs and Inca didn't have one, they are in the game. Also, some tribes did have a writing system (the Cherokee did). Finally, most of history was transmitted orally for many centuries without a need to write it down. The bible, the quran, Beowulf, the Illiad were all spoken. Writing leaves a record for historians, it isn't necessary for a civilization (especially since, throughout history, 90% or more of the population was illiterate).

The Inca had Quipas and the Aztecs had a wrtiting system, but only limited to 1% of 1% of the elite religious class.

I know it would make more sense to have multiple Native American civs, but honestly what would the cities be for the nomadic ones (ieg Sioux).

Guys, look. Native Americans/Australians did NOT have cities. They did not have buildings. I'm convinced they should be represented by the Barbarians, not by a generic "Native Americans" civ.

Actually the mound builders of the ohio valley did have cities, so did the pueblo (pueblo actually means town I think), and the Cherokee stole the idea of towns from us and had entire plantations complete with slaves. The iroquoise also had towns before George Washington ordered them all burnt down in the middle of winter. LOL

Native Americans should be in, but not as one unified civilization. instead, the Iroqouis (real traditional-sense civilization) or Sioux (pop culture steoreotype = kaching) should be in

Native American Peoples were diverse. Some had writing, agriculture, and forms of industry. All had commerce, government, and language. Sedentary Peoples constructed buildings and planned cities, while nomadic Peoples did not. It is wrong to say that they did not have these things. And it is with ignorance and disrespect that someone would say "In my opinion it takes much more than few tents and a totem to form a civlization."

Surely they were diverse.
They had writing - which tribes exactly? Do not enumerate those, who already are included as separated civs in Civ4.
They had agriculture - most of them didn't. Don't pretend that Siouxs (Sitting Bull is the leader of NAC) had agriculture. NAC represents North America Indians who were mostly hunters. Even if we consider that NAC covers also those tribes that actually knew agriculture - does it make them a Civilization? In my opinion no.
Forms of industry - I see that we are starting to make jokes now... what kind of industry? Do they knew metal casting? Do they knew metal at all??? No, even most organized South America and Mesoamerica Indians like Mayas, Incas, Aztecs - they used obsidian to make knifes. Please write what kind of industry was known to NAC.
They built buildings - again only few tribes built something different than tents made out of animal's skin or furs. Out of those few very few built something more robust than wooden houses. Does it make them a Civilization? How does it compare to (a real Empire) Roman Empire, which in times B.C. built using concrete and bricks?
"ignorance and disrespect" - it's not ignorance, this is my opinion about NAC, I had supported it with arguments, if you have other arguments, please post them. Why disrespect? If some tribe is not a civilization, is it disrespect to say so? I was never referring to people, only to this (artificial in my opinion) term: "Native American Civilization".

Do they knew metal casting? Do they knew metal at all??? No, even most organized South America and Mesoamerica Indians like Mayas, Incas, Aztecs - they used obsidian to make knifes.
Firstly, the Mesoamericans, while primarily lithic, did indeed know how to work metal. The problem was that they only knew how to use precious metals, which aren't much good as a tool.
Secondly, obsidian/flint is a actually a pretty good material to make tools out of, and is often stronger than copper or even bronze. It's problem is that it's a bit heavier and is harder to work, but that didn't stop the Mesoamericans building a rather substantial civilisation, did it? Their cities were on a level unseen in Mesoamerica until well into the Bronze Age, and unseen in Europe until the Iron Age.
Thirdly, the Incas, if not the Mesoamericans, did have metalworking technology- they used bronze weapons, including bronze spears and axes, clubs with bronze heads and wooden swords with serrate metal blades.

In the immortal words of Patrick Milton, learn things. Learn things.

Oh boy, again you mention the civs which were included in Civilization long time ago! I'm not referring to Incas, Aztecs and other Indians who are included in civ, only to NAC (Native American Civilization) which is included in BtS.

I admit that civs like Incas knew metal casting, but as you wrote they used it only for gold and silver, not too good to create tools.

Please do not write about Incas, Mayas, Aztecs and other civs from Mesoamerica and South America - we're discussing only North America Indians here. I still think that the only reason for which they are included are their colorful clothing made out of feathers (you know, cultural diversity) ;)

thear was a battle befor the spanish came that the aztecs lost badly, but it was mostly becus the other tribe had bronz weapons i heared.

the inca and aztech had wrighting

the aztecs and incas probably had the capabilities to defeat eh Spanish, even without a technological edge, but the Spainish struct at their infrastructure - i.e., destroying their government - so that is why they lost more easily then they did. for example, the Mayans, who weren't united and thus didn't have a kind of central core that the Spainish could destroyed, sucessfully resisted the Spainish for a long time, their last city being taken in 1697 AD - about two hundred years after the Spainish arrived. and even after, they gave the Spanish a hard time.


now to Quote Wars!

They had agriculture - most of them didn't. Don't pretend that Siouxs (Sitting Bull is the leader of NAC) had agriculture. NAC represents North America Indians who were mostly hunters. Even if we consider that NAC covers also those tribes that actually knew agriculture - does it make them a Civilization? In my opinion no.

actually, a good number of the NA did know how to farm. however, once horses were introduced by the Europeans, the NA decided to go more nomadic. farming was common with such cultures such as the pueblo cultures and the missisipan cultures, for example.


Does it make them a Civilization? How does it compare to (a real Empire) Roman Empire, which in times B.C. built using concrete and bricks?

some of the Civilizations already in the game didn't have a real empire, like the Celts and Vikings. and some big civs didn't use concrete, and even if they did know how to use them, they used something else - like the Chinese, Egyptians, Mayans, etc.

but i myself have a question for you - would you prefer a complete NA civ, or maybe a certain "civilized tribe", like the Iroqouis?

i like quote wars. :D

I admit that civs like Incas knew metal casting, but as you wrote they used it only for gold and silver, not too good to create tools.
No, that was the Mesoamericans. The Incas knew how to work bronze and used it to make tools and weapons.

Please do not write about Incas, Mayas, Aztecs and other civs from Mesoamerica and South America - we're discussing only North America Indians here.I still think that the only reason for which they are included are their colorful clothing made out of feathers (you know, cultural diversity)
Hey, you're the one who brought them up. I was merely debunking your ignorant assertions.
Besides, metal-working isn't a necessary prerequisite to civilisation- some Native American tribes had larger settlements and complex government, two of the most significant aspects of a civilised society. They may not have had writing, but, as the Inca show, writing isn't necessary to create a civilised society, albeit a common element.
I agree that a generic "Native American" civ is a poor choice, as it covers various nomadic, non-civilised tribes as well. However, this does not invalidate the inclusion of a native American civ, such as the Iroquois.
Besides, what's wrong with cultural diversity? Personally, I'd rather have an interesting yet historically "unsuccessful" civ than yet another European nation-state.

http://i22.photobucket.com/albums/b318/WhiteElk/writing2.jpg

They had writing - which tribes exactly?It is true that anthropologists don't recognize many of the forms of writing as such. But information placed on an object for the purpose of communication is writing to me. And it is true that the Native Americans in general, passed on their histories in the oral tradition. Sitting alone reading a history of ones people is a very different dynamic than sitting at fireside and hearing the retelling of your peoples history from a revered elder. I don't see that a written history is superior to the oral history as such as applies to questions of civilization. I do however see how it assists the accumulation of knowledge and how that furthers science etc. But I don't see the differences between the oral and written tradition to be a defining point for calling a people a civilization. And I see the sharing of information through drawn caricatures on animal hide or stone as a form of writing. Albeit a basic form, but a form of writing nonetheless.

Later many Nations developed 'legitimate' forms of writing after contact with European civilizations. One example is a Cherokee man by the name of Sequoyah. He was not educated in the english language but through his own analysis of the written and spoken word he then devised an 80 character Cherokee alphabet (as opposed to the english 26 characters). I think it is safe to say that nearly every civilization has adopted developments from others. Some things like agriculture and language develop independently. But many, if not most of civilizations developments have been 'borrowed' from others. If you were to define civilization as just those peoples who came up with key developments on their own, then yours would be a short list indeed. My point being that here in the case of the written language of the Native Americans... it developed as contact with other nations made it a necessary addition to the culture. The ability was always there, but not until the need arose did it develop fully.


http://i22.photobucket.com/albums/b318/WhiteElk/agriculture.jpg

They had agriculture - most of them didn't. Don't pretend that Siouxs (Sitting Bull is the leader of NAC) had agriculture.You are quite mistaken. Most of them did have agriculture and it began in BC. Even many nomadic peoples farmed. Being nomadic doesn't mean you are constantly on the move. And it doesn't mean that you are solely a hunter gathering society. The plains region of the US provided rich sustenance in the summer, but it was extremely harsh in the winter. It is no wonder that peoples of that region moved to the protection of woodland forests every winter and then back to the bounty of the plains every spring. And you should also know that the sedentary tribes far outnumbered the nomadic tribes.

The history of agriculture in the Americas goes back many thousands of years. Over 7,000 years ago peoples of Central America began to evolve a wild grass (Teosinte) into Maize (corn). This was a purposeful and systematic process of cultivation for the purpose of increasing the plants nutritional value. Naturally this crop spread throughout the Americas. From this developed other agriculture advances. Such as using various seed stocks depending upon growing conditions for that year. For example using a quick growing stock for times of spring drought. Or a slower grower which can withstand cool wet springs. Other advances include polyculture techniques. Such as the Iroquois "Three Sisters" ~ Corn, Beans, and Squash. The quick growing corn provides shade and shelter for the beans and squash. It also provides the stalks for the beans to grow up. The beans then fix the nitrogen in the soil so that it can be utilized by plants. The squash provides the ground cover which reduces evaporation and prevents the growing of weeds which would otherwise leech nutrients from the soil for no nutritional gain. Polyculture is superior to monoculture for a number of reasons. This would take another thread to discuss but suffice it to say that these techniques were a more advanced form of agriculture than the monoculture techniques of most of the world at that time and even to this day. The future of agriculture may well shift from predominantly monoculture based to polyculture techniques (such as permaculture).

Another aspect of Native American agriculture is that over half of the crops the world grows today were first cultivated as food crops in the Americas... Corn, potatoes, beans, pumpkins and squash, tomatoes, and more. Also cotton, rubber, tobacco, and cocoa are results of early American agriculture. Your country of Poland, and all of Europe would have a different history (mid to late 1700s) if not for the agriculture of the Americas. Today Poland is Europe's leading producer of potatoes.

http://i22.photobucket.com/albums/b318/WhiteElk/fishtrap.jpg

Forms of industry - I see that we are starting to make jokes now... what kind of industry? Do they knew metal casting? Do they knew metal at all??? Industry is not defined by metal working. Industry is the specialized production of a product for the purpose of trade. The Fur Trade is one well known industry of the Native Americans. But industry has existed long before the arrival of the European. For the purpose of trade tribes and nations would produce more of certain products than they needed for their own communal needs. This ranged from food items, to weapons and tools, to pottery and jewelry and more. The process by which they produced these items is an industrial endeavor. They set aside resources and designed methods by which to produce more than they consumed. This surplus was planned and purposefully acquired for the sole purpose of trade. That is industry.

Although the Northern Native Americans didn't smelt metals from ore, they did acquire raw metals in trade and then manufactured products from them. Some of these products were made for the purpose of value added trade. In other words they traded for the raw material and then manufactured a valuable trade item from it. As to the lack of metal smelting technologies one must understand a little of their nature to understand why such an endeavor might not be considered. The destruction of one aspect of nature does not justify the acquisition of another. Flint and Obsidian and Turquoise etc could be harvested without destroying habitat. Nature did the excavation which allowed the people to do the harvesting. But the refining of metal ore takes an enormous amount of earth which brings about much destruction. When you already have the tools you need to do what you need to do; then why would you develop a technology that went against a core tenet of your believe system?

http://i22.photobucket.com/albums/b318/WhiteElk/mv.jpg

They built buildings - again only few tribes built something different than tents made out of animal's skin or furs. Out of those few very few built something more robust than wooden houses.You are mistaken. Far more than a few tribes built durable buildings. Nations built cities and tribes built adobe, stone, and wood houses. The homes of hides were mobile homes. The sedentary societies built far more durable homes than that. Even some of the nomadic peoples had permanent structures they lived in for part of the year.

Some peoples constructed very sturdy adobe homes and cities like the Taos Pueblo in New Mexico which has been inhabited for over a thousand years and is still inhabited to this day. The Acoma Pueblo is also still inhabited and was built in the 12th century. Some standing ruins date prior to 6th century AD. Other examples of ancient Pueblo peoples cities include the Anasazi's Mesa Verde. The Pueblo peoples have left ruins throughout the states of Utah, Colorado, New Mexico, Arizona, and Nevada. The state of New Mexico alone is larger than your entire country of Poland (New Mexico = 314,917 km² > Poland = 312,683 km²). And that is just one FIVE states in which they left ruins. And that is just one grouping of Peoples. Other Native Nations had other sturdy buildings. My favorite are the Pacific Northwest Plank Houses built of cedar. These are massive and strong buildings, some housing over a hundred people. I've been in one and I was quite impressed. The wooden houses that are built in my country today do not come close to the durability of some of the houses built by the Native Peoples hundreds of years ago. I know first hand, I have been involved in the building of a few dozen modern homes. And I have been in a an actual Alaskan Cedar Longhouse, and I have been in reconstructions of a variety of other peoples buildings. I would much rather sit through a hurricane in one of those Native buildings than in any modern home.

http://i22.photobucket.com/albums/b318/WhiteElk/cedarlh.jpg

http://i22.photobucket.com/albums/b318/WhiteElk/ph1.jpg

How does it compare to (a real Empire) Roman Empire, which in times B.C. built using concrete and bricks?LOL and how does Poland compare? I had to do some web research in an attempt to better understand Polish history and I can't find anything that I didn't already know regarding the lack of anything extra special that Pollocks have brought to the world. There is Copernicus and there are other scientists who worked with other nations to make discoveries. But I couldn't find anything that on their own would put them on the level of the Romans. By your standards I think Poland wouldn't be considered a civilization. I would disagree with that though. But by your reasoning regarding the Native Americans, then yes Poland wouldn't be considered a civilization. I find that as wrong as I find your error filled arguments against classifying the Native American Nations as civilizations.

To me the term civilization describes a society that creates and passes on a generational history. A people who have some form of governance and commerce. Who have distinct traditions and culture which sets them apart from other societies. A structured society for which rules and customs are observed and passed on. Anthropologists have a wide range of definitions for the term Civilization. Common themes are writing, agriculture and industry. But however you define it, I don't see how you can not classify the Native American Nations as civilizations. Their societies date back to BC. They formed social systems that defined them. They progressed their societies and knowledge as far as they needed to. In some ways their medical and agricultural developments surpassed the best in Europe at the time. If not for the near total decimation of the Native population, they would have progressed similarly to other nations of this modern age and would have no doubt made important contributions to humanity. As it was their contributions to agriculture alone is worthy of recognition.

There is so much more that could be said in an attempt to reverse the erroneous stereotypes of the Native American. They were far more advanced and sophisticated than some people give them credit for. But I have to stop somewhere. I will close with some quotes from respected anthropologist David Stannard from his book American Holocaust (http://www.thirdworldtraveler.com/History/BeforeColumbus_AH.html)....

By the time ancient Greece was falling under the control of Rome, in North America the Adena Culture already had been flourishing for a thousand years. As many as 500 Adena living sites have been uncovered by modern archaeologists. Centered in present-day Ohio, they radiate out as far as Vermont, New York, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, Maryland, and West Virginia. We will never know how many hundreds more such sites are buried beneath the modern cities and suburbs of the northeastern United States, but we do know that these early sedentary peoples lived in towns with houses that were circular in design and that ranged from single-family dwellings as small as twenty feet in diameter to multi-family units up to eighty feet across.

Overlapping chronologically with the Adena was the Hopewell Culture that grew in time to cover an area stretching in one direction from the northern Great Lakes to the Gulf of Mexico, in the other direction from Kansas to New York. The Hopewell people, who as a group were physiologically as well culturally distinguishable from the Adena, lived in permanent communities based on intensive horticulture, communities marked by enormous earthen monuments, similar to those of the Adena, that the citizenry built as religious shrines and to house the remains of their dead. Literally tens of thousands of these towering earthen mounds once covered the American landscape from the Great Plains to the eastern woodlands, many of them precise, geometrically shaped, massive structures of a thousand feet in diameter and several stories high; others-such as the famous quarter-mile long coiled snake at Serpent Mound, Ohio-were imaginatively designed symbolic temples.

No society that had not achieved a large population and an exceptionally high level of political and social refinement, as well as a sophisticated control of resources, could possibly have had the time or inclination or talent to design and construct such edifices. In addition, the Hopewell people had trade networks extending to Florida in one direction and Wyoming and North Dakota in the other, through which they acquired from different nations of indigenous peoples the copper, gold, silver, crystal, quartz, shell, bone, obsidian, pearl, and other raw materials that their artisans worked into elaborately embossed and decorative metal foil, carved jewelry, earrings, pendants, charms, breastplates, and other objets d'art, as well as axes, adzes, awls, and more. Indeed, so extensive were the Hopewell trading relationships with other societies throughout the continent that archaeologists have recovered from the centers of Hopewell culture in Ohio more materials originating from outside than from within the region.

To the west of the Hopewell there emerged in time the innumerable villages of the seemingly endless plains-large, usually permanent communities of substantial, multi-family homes and common buildings, the villages themselves often fortified with stockades and dry, surrounding moats. These were the progenitors of the people-the Mandan, the Cree, the Blood, the Blackfoot, the Crow, the Piegan, the Hidatsa, the Arikara, the Cheyenne, the Omaha, the Pawnee, the Arapaho, the Kansa, the Iowa, the Osage, the Kiowa, the Wichita, the Commanche, the Plains Cree, various separate nations of Sioux, and others, including the Ute and Shoshoni to the west-who became the classic nomads on horseback that often serve as the popular American model for all Indian societies. But even they did not resort to that pattern of life until they were driven to it by invading armies of displaced Europeans.

http://i22.photobucket.com/albums/b318/WhiteElk/ph3.jpg

"An advanced state of intellectual, cultural, and material development in human society, marked by progress in the arts and sciences, the extensive use of record-keeping, including writing, and the appearance of complex political and social institutions"

when did the north american indians have all that, not saying that didnt have some of it.. the fact of the matter is, all the difrent tribes of north america had very difrent culters, and part of being a civilazation is haveing a comman culter. thay didnt have any real forms of record keeping, or any complex political or social strucers.
i dont think a civ needs to be unified nation. for ex the celts, geeck city states, summaria, much of inda and even china, for most of chinas history it wasnt a single state, same for japan.
but i cant imagin a native american civ, i cant realy see a suirox or what ever civ, i can see new elngland tribs as a civ, but besides them thers not many native tribs that qualifie

@White Elk- You rock. (Alternatively, "Thou doth rock most mightily", if you're feeling pseudo-medieval.)

"An advanced state of intellectual, cultural, and material development in human society, marked by progress in the arts and sciences, the extensive use of record-keeping, including writing, and the appearance of complex political and social institutions"

when did the north american indians have all that, not saying that didnt have some of it.. the fact of the matter is, all the difrent tribes of north america had very difrent culters, and part of being a civilazation is haveing a comman culter. thay didnt have any real forms of record keeping, or any complex political or social strucers.
i dont think a civ needs to be unified nation. for ex the celts, geeck city states, summaria, much of inda and even china, for most of chinas history it wasnt a single state, same for japan.
but i cant imagin a native american civ, i cant realy see a suirox or what ever civ, i can see new elngland tribs as a civ, but besides them thers not many native tribs that qualifie

that probably summarizes my opinion. yay for A native american civ, boo for THE native american civ. and nice big posts, white elk.

Nice long posts - thanks.
I'm still not convinced that those primitive tribes might be called 'civilization'. If we consider that North America Indians formed a civilization, then in my opinion each single tribe deserves to be named a 'civilization'.

I'm a typical European, for me civilization must have organized society, cities and achievements way (really way) bigger than North America Indian tribes.

LOL and how does Poland compare? I had to do some web research in an attempt to better understand Polish history and I can't find anything that I didn't already know regarding the lack of anything extra special that Pollocks have brought to the world. There is Copernicus and there are other scientists who worked with other nations to make discoveries. But I couldn't find anything that on their own would put them on the level of the Romans. By your standards I think Poland wouldn't be considered a civilization. I would disagree with that though. But by your reasoning regarding the Native Americans, then yes Poland wouldn't be considered a civilization. I find that as wrong as I find your error filled arguments against classifying the Native American Nations as civilizations.

This is obvoiusly a lie. First of all not Pollocks only Poles, strange that I have to learn English - speaker, secondly come to visit Kraków (Wawel castle), Poznań, Lublin, Zamość and then try to compare it to pueblos... and finally why do you recall Poland? Do you want to turn this this discussion into another "P" thread? We really don't need that, there is plenty of them in this forum ;) and it makes me feel like you want to personally attack me (as I identify myself with my country). Let's stick to the topic.

I would love to post a long and full of arguments post here, but I really have to get back to work :)

It doesn't seem that anyone has replied to me, so I'll repeat.

What would the cities be for the nomadic tribes?

What would the cities be for the nomadic tribes?

do you mean cities in the actual game, or real life?

It doesn't seem that anyone has replied to me, so I'll repeat.

What would the cities be for the nomadic tribes?Before I answer that I want to share a couple things. The Sioux weren't always nomadic. They were a sedentary people (in Minnesota) who built permanent buildings and farmed. Not until the Horse arrived on the continent and European settlements pushed (domino effect) the western bands to the Prairies did some of them become nomadic ~ 17th century. Thats when the Lakota moved to the prairies. For most of their history all of the Dakota were sedentary.

The Sioux were comprised of three distinct groups, the Santee, Yankton, and Teton. They all called themselves "Alliance of Friends". Due to the dialect differences this name sounded slightly different for each of them. The Santee are the Dakhota, The Yankton are the Nakhota, and the Teton are the Lakhota.

To answer your question.... IF instead of a Native American Civ there was in its place the Sioux Nation, then there are 14 city names which I would use. They are the names of the various bands within the 3 main groups of the nation. (note due to the differances in dialect there are some variations in the spelling of these names.. I am not certain that I provide the correct spelling for each of the groups I list)

DAKOTA (Santee)
Mdeakantonwon
Wahpeton
Wahpekute
Sisseton

LAKOTA (Teton)
Oglala
Sicangu
Hunkpapa
Miniconjous
Oohenonpa
Sihasapa
Itazipacola

NAKOTA (Yankton)
Yanktonai
Hunkpatina
Assiniboine


If more than those 14 names are needed then names of offshoot Dakota tribes in Canada could be used... Canupawakpa, White Bear, Whitecap etc. And/or names of honored leaders could be used... Tasunka Witko (Crazy Horse), Hehaka Sapa (Black Elk), hehe or Major Gregory "Pappy" (http://www.acepilots.com/usmc_boyington.html) Boyington who led the Black Sheep Squadron during World War II. Names could come from important locals from within the Nations range... Matho Paha (Bear Butte), Maka Sica (Badlands), Wakpala Sapa (Sappa Creek) etc. And if nothing else more names could come from the reservations they were forced to settle... Pine Ridge, Standing Rock, Rosebud etc.

IF instead of a Native American Civ there was in its place the Sioux Nation, then there are 14 city names which I would use. They are the names of the various bands within the 3 main groups of the nation. (note due to the differances in dialect there are some variations in the spelling of these names.. I am not certain that I provide the correct spelling for each of the groups I list)

DAKOTA (Santee)
Mdeakantonwon
Wahpeton
Wahpekute
Sisseton

LAKOTA (Teton)
Oglala
Sicangu
Hunkpapa
Miniconjous
Oohenonpa
Sihasapa
Itazipacola

NAKOTA (Yankton)
Yanktonai
Hunkpatina
Assiniboine


If more than those 14 names are needed then names of offshoot Dakota tribes in Canada could be used... Canupawakpa, White Bear, Whitecap etc. And/or names of honored leaders could be used... Tasunka Witko (Crazy Horse), Hehaka Sapa (Black Elk), hehe or Major Gregory "Pappy" (http://www.acepilots.com/usmc_boyington.html) Boyington who led the Black Sheep Squadron during World War II. Names could come from important locals from within the Nations range... Matho Paha (Bear Butte), Maka Sica (Badlands), Wakpala Sapa (Sappa Creek) etc. And if nothing else more names could come from the reservations they were forced to settle... Pine Ridge, Standing Rock, Rosebud etc.

You should check out my Sioux civ for CIV Gold. Follows much of what you are saying here.

Personally, I'm not a fan of only 1 native American civ, but I see what they're trying to do.

I can see it now. The NA could be replaced with Suix and they could have cities that could mave and they hold no national borders. That would be awesome.

It doesn't seem that anyone has replied to me, so I'll repeat.

What would the cities be for the nomadic tribes?

When names are unknown, you might substitute the name of the river or lake in the nomadic tribal territory.

One example would be that Poverty Point (big mound-builder site, I think) is a city in one of the screenshots.

Awesome!

Well now I definately support the splitting of the Native American civ.

Surely they were diverse.
They had writing - which tribes exactly? Do not enumerate those, who already are included as separated civs in Civ4.
They had agriculture - most of them didn't. Don't pretend that Siouxs (Sitting Bull is the leader of NAC) had agriculture.

The Sioux had agriculture. They were driven off their lands by the Iroquois during the Beaver Wars that greatly expanded their territory (the Sioux fled to the plains where they made use of the horse, which had been introduced through the Columbian exchange).

They built buildings - again only few tribes built something different than tents made out of animal's skin or furs.

Only a few tribes? Try the vast majority.

Out of those few very few built something more robust than wooden houses.

You have to learn why something was built. The Sumerians built mud-brick houses for one reason. They had very little wood. Also, wood houses were often stronger than Sumerian houses, which took weather damage very easily and would collapse and have to be rebuilt (which led to cities slowly rising, creating the mounds we see as ruins in modern times).

Does it make them a Civilization? How does it compare to (a real Empire) Roman Empire, which in times B.C. built using concrete and bricks?

OK, with the possible exception of the British Empire, nothing compares with the Roman Empire (in fact, for what they accomplished with the technology they accomplished it, I'm not even giving the British Empire that much credit). If I were to compare the Iroquois empire to another empire, I would say the Akkadian Empire that Sargon created in Sumeria. If it wasn't for massive population decline, I'm certain that it would have led to other empires following in their example (actually, others already were, with Powhattan on the Chesapeak, for example).

Nice long posts - thanks.
I'm still not convinced that those primitive tribes might be called 'civilization'. If we consider that North America Indians formed a civilization, then in my opinion each single tribe deserves to be named a 'civilization'.

I'm a typical European, for me civilization must have organized society, cities and achievements way (really way) bigger than North America Indian tribes.

Well, some tribes had very highly organized societies. Do you think the Hopi could exist cohesively without one? The vast majority of tribes (those tribes outside of the Great Plains) had permenent cities. The Iroquois had a concrete constitution (it wasn't written, but it passed orally generation to generation and followed as law) long before any other nation in the world had come up with the concept of a constitution (everywhere else had common law where, if it had happened in the past, it should continue to be that way. Hiawatha actually came up with a constitution and got five seperate tribes to unite under it).

Native Americans had an organized society, cities, and achievements. They are far more than the stereotypical image of guys on horses with feathers in their hair living in tents. In order to understand why I think Native Americans qualify as either a civilization or many civilizations that should be in the game, realize this: The overwhelming majority didn't live in tents, most didn't depend on horses, and not all of them even had feathers in their hair. You have to let go of preconcieved notions about them in order to understand them.

OK, with the possible exception of the British Empire, nothing compares with the Roman Empire (in fact, for what they accomplished with the technology they accomplished it, I'm not even giving the British Empire that much credit).

how about the Chinese or Arabic Empire? :)

Native Americans certainly built buildings, towns, and (before European arrival) even several large cities. Many different tribes were very close to inventing their own writing systems. While it is true that none ever had an Alphabet (even when Sequoya made a written form of Cherokee borrowing English and Germain letters, it wasn't an alphabet but a syllabary), most had some way of recording geneologies and religious visions in written symbols. (The Maya and Aztecs had their own systems of Hieroglyphics as complex as those used in Egypt, and superior mathematical systems. The Inca didn't "write", but they wove Quipu, which conveyed information by means of knots and colors. Of course, these are separate civs in Civ IV, not part of NA). The Hopewell people carved huge Petroglyphs into the land, and probably used some smaller versions of them like Hieroglyphs.

When the Pilgrims landed, they noted how the Native commoners' wooden huts were better at protecting from the elements than were the homes of all but the wealthiest nobles in Europe. Also, their farms produced enough surplus for their average diets to consist of over 2600 Calories of very nutricious food, at a time when Europeans would do well to get 1600 of mediocre nourishment.

Most Native Americans built quality wooden buildings if they had the wood, or quality mud brick buildings if they didn't. The same goes for the people of the eastern hemisphere, the biggest difference is that most NA homes were of similar quality regardless of one's rank in society. The main reason that North America didn't advance is because its tribes were fairly egalitarian and did not enslave their enemies and profit of of their labor.

Most of the Evidence seems to show that the Western Hemisphere was filled with large societies of relatively advanced city dwellers until Europeans arrived and introduced disease and pigs. In fact, the pigs brought by de Soto and Ponce de Leon may have destroyed the Mississippians by destroying their crops and then spreading diseases (for which the natives had 0 immunity). The tribes you are thinking of are the descendants of the refugees of societies destroyed centuries earlier.

Read 1491. It explains the ways in which the Native Americans were actually more advanced than Europeans (although admitting many ways in which they were more primitive) and explains how they probably could havebeaten the Europeans invaders.

Central and Southern Native Americans were generally better at working precious metals into jewelry than were Europeans. Actually, the first encountered inhabitants of Florida were also experts at working in gold (which was plentiful there). However, they are more impressive for building cities of canals (one or two larger than Venice, iirc) which the Spanish tore down, thinking they were haunted.

Native American Agriculture is far more impressive than that of Eurasia. In the old world, the wild crops were practically domesticated already, with only one or two genetic differences needed for farming to be feasible. Most societies gor their crops from someone else. Many Native American crops required as many as 25 genetic changes, ended up almost nothing like the wild form, and were domesticated independently by many different peoples. Because of the north-south axis of the Americas, crops had to be modified significantly in order to adapt to the climate. Nearly every crop domesticated in America was more nutritious than almost any in the Old World, but, unfortunately, they couldn't compete in terms of crop yield.

Well, after lurking in these forums for quite a while, I think it's time to lay down a first post. And what better time to do it than in the middle of a contentious and divisive issue. First, at White Elk, you said a lot of what I wanted to, in a very convincing way. Thanks.

For myself, I am glad that some representation of North American Aboriginal culture has made it's way into CIV. Yes, it isn't right to lump a very diverse group of cultures into one, but its a game, after all, and imagining what might have been if history had been different is part of what playing CIV is all about. (That and being totally against war in real life yet suprisingly quick to use the nuclear arsenal in game).

Aboriginal issues are complex and divisive, like I've said and like this thread demonstrates. However, there should be no question that Aboriginal societies (and not limited to N. America) are civilizations. Were the European colonists that brutalized Aboriginal peoples more civilized? What would have happened in colonization had been peaceful and cooperative? Is it worth pointing out that Aboriginal people (I can only speak to Canada here), while continuing to experience discrimination, are as much a part of modern civilization as any person? Certainly the capacity of aborginal peoples to be "civilized" can't be questioned regardless of when certain marking posts of advancement were reached.

Yep... I really enjoy these forums by the way. Sometimes work is boring.

Were the European colonists that brutalized Aboriginal peoples more civilized?
Well, yes, they were- they had greater technology, were more urbanised, had more complex government, etc. Not that they were "better" or justified in their crimes, but an objective view of "civilisation" would lead you to the conclusion that the Europeans had a more advanced civilisation than the Native Americans.
I totally agree that the Native Americans included civilised groups, but it's important to retain an objective definition of terms like "civilisation" and "barbarism" in this sort of debate. Allowing subjectivity to enter your argument only serves to dilute it.

there is a difference between being civilized and being part of a civilization, just as there is a difference being barbaric and being part of a "barbaric" horde.

for example, the Third Reich was a "civilization" because it was a state that had its own culture, politics, and economy, no matter how bad. and yet, they were barbaric in their actions.

Is it worth pointing out that Aboriginal people (I can only speak to Canada here), while continuing to experience discrimination, are as much a part of modern civilization as any person?

No, Civilization (or capacity for civilization) is not something that is the characteristic of a person, but of a society.

If I take someone from America and raise them in China, and they adapt perfectly well to all the facets of Chinese civilization, that does not say there is/was an American civilization.

If the Egyptians conquer Rome, and the area of Rome takes on all the advanced characteristics of Egyptian civilization, then that does not mean there is/was a Roman civilization (although a Roman civilization may appear if the Romans sufficiently separate from the Egyptians)

As to whether or not a society was
1. advanced enough
and
2. had enough in common that made them different from others

to constitute a civilization depends on the advancement + distinction characteristics of your definition.

Aboriginal societies (American+Australian) because of their disconnect from the rest of the human population were distinctly less advanced for their time, (although because advancement is not purely linear they did some things other societies did not). So, of societies that are likely to be cut out of the 'civilization' group, they would be some of the first to go for reasons of advancement.

Of course the fact is for almost any definition, "N. Am." fail test #2 they don't have enough in common.

However, Firaxis has a unique test to determine if something is a civilization, and that is "Funness of play". It would be fun to play as/with/against the N.Am.

there is a difference between being civilized and being part of a civilization, just as there is a difference being barbaric and being part of a "barbaric" horde.
The only difference is that one use is scientific and objective, the other is unscientific and subjective. Using words like "barbaric" in a subjective way is fine most of the time, but when you're specifically attempting to decide what fits the definition of "civilisation" and what doesn't, then objective definitions are the only ones that work.

The only difference is that one use is scientific and objective, the other is unscientific and subjective. Using words like "barbaric" in a subjective way is fine most of the time, but when you're specifically attempting to decide what fits the definition of "civilisation" and what doesn't, then objective definitions are the only ones that work.

Very true, but throughout history, when people say that an individual or society is "uncivilized" they mean not like themselves. E.g. If I say "Dave Smith is an uncivilized S.O.B"., by this I imply that I consider myself to be civilized. If the Romans say the Gauls were uncivilized barbarians, they mean that they didn't behave like Romans, i.e. "Civilized".

Its hard to put an objective slant, on what by human nature is a subjective term.

Its hard to put an objective slant, on what by human nature is a subjective term.
True, but you can try- objective definitions for these words do exist, even if they are only one of several definitions, all that's necessary is that you do not emotionally invest in an argument. If you maintain an academic distance from the topic, you can use objective terms quite easily.

First: thanks to White Elk for the posts. It amazes me how people cannot grasp a Native American being more than a tepee-dwelling brave with eagle feathers in his hair and greets people by saying "HOW!"

To answer an earlier post about what the NA cities will be, we have a confirmed city name in one of the screenshots-- Mesa Verde, an Anasazi town in Colorado (very early pre-Columbian tribe). If they are included, then it is only logical that Cahokia, one of the largest pre-Columbian towns in the Americas, would be in. Gauxule, the Cherokee equivalent, would be nice too.

I also think that the city names will be taken from the previous Civ games with Sioux/Iroquois, so expect Little Bighorn. Hopefully, they will refrain from using "Oil Springs" and "St. Regis," for they've already made a mess of things with the "Native American" label.

and remember, guys... i just realized... "civilzed" and "barbaric" are just, again, opinions. so too, are "civlization" and "barbarianism", ultimately, are opinions. history is not fact. its part-fact. so...

???

and remember, guys... i just realized... "civilzed" and "barbaric" are just, again, opinions. so too, are "civlization" and "barbarianism", ultimately, are opinions.
Well, no, they're not. They are defined states which a society can be in, as factual as "green" or "up". They are only opinions when used as subjective terms- an objective term, by definition, is removed from personal opinion.

well, then again, everything does have some bias in it. well, almost everything...

how about the Chinese or Arabic Empire? :)

Well, you could add the Mongols to the list and I'd still probably say no. I'll admit I'm woefully ignorant about empires in China, though. But the scale of the Roman empire isn't the only thing I was thinking of. I was thinking of how it was administrated and how the Romans were before they started expansion. In those ways, it was extremely impressive and very hard to beat.

Traitorfish I agree that some accuracy in our definition of civilization would help. Oxford dictionary says this:

Civilization: noun 1 an advanced stage or system of human social development. 2 the process of achieving this. 3 a civilized nation or region (2 isn't relevant here and 3 is circular and doesn't help - you'd think oxford would avoid circular definitions)

Which I think is in line with what you've said. From the outset, though, it's clear that this is a relative definitionan. The "advanced system of human social development" definition certainly doesn't eliminate Aboriginal nations from inclusion into the "civilization" category as it has been pointed out already that there were complex forms of social organization/governance, there was religion, etc. The "chief" system, referred to a while back as an example of being primitive, for the record, was often imposed by the Canadian government (sorry about my lack of knowledge re: American colonialism) on nations who had alternate means of determining leadership and making decisions that weren't recognized by the government. Ironic that that same system would be used to suggest that they shouldn't be included in this game for being too primitive.

Note that technological development is not an aspect of the definition. It would seem that by this subjective standard all that matters is the form of social organization. I would be happy with that definition. Regarding the distinction between objective and subjective standards, though, I think that as cybrxkhan said, there is always an element of bias. Looking at Aboriginal cultures through the lens of Western thought and language is going to be problematic.

Regarding the "funness to play" criterion, I completely agree. After all, this is a video game, and fun should be the determining factor here. I don't think Fireaxis intended for their to be a value judgement on any included civ.

Sorry for posting twice. Something I forgot to mention though.

Krikkitone, I think I was unclear. I agree that you wouldn't say that there is an American civilization in China as per your example. However, what I meant to say was that there are Aboriginal societies within Canada that are culturally distinct and which, to varying degrees, have their own governments. I'm particularly thinking of the Inuit in Nunavut (a northern Territory in Canada). They are the majority population in that territory and the government is an amalgamation of their culture and parliamentary democracy. In short, the Inuit, the Metis, and many First Nations continue to exist in Canada distinct and apart from (though governed by) mainstream Canadian culture.

Beck99an, couldn't you edit your post?

And I think the Oxford definition is useless. I think we should also make a seperate 'civilization' criteria for the game itself, as opposed to RL.

i found this definition of a civilzation somewhere:

any type of culture, society, etc., of a specific place, time, or group


with this, theoretically, you couold put a "Native American" civ in, but given the broadness of it you might as well make a "Western European" civ and a "Muslim" civ.

@Saim - Thanks, good point. I will edit in the future. Note the noob-ish post count...

The oxford definition is poor, agreed, but it was suggested that we needed a subjective definition (which, as the debate so far seems to indicate, is not something we're all likely to be able to agree on).

However, since most of the argument here for inclusion/exclusion is based on RL (or N. American cultural myths regarding Aboriginal societies) I think that a RL definition of civilization should suffice. Do you have an alternate suggestion?

Well, it's generally accepted that the underlying feature of a civilisation is the development of large settlements allowing the division of labour, more complex government, etc. Out simply, cities are the defining factor. The Iroquois had what amounts to cities, with all that entails, while the Kalahari San did not. Therefore, the former are a valid candidate for inclusion within the game, while the second are not.

Well, you could add the Mongols to the list and I'd still probably say no. I'll admit I'm woefully ignorant about empires in China, though. But the scale of the Roman empire isn't the only thing I was thinking of. I was thinking of how it was administrated and how the Romans were before they started expansion. In those ways, it was extremely impressive and very hard to beat.

on China... well, at the least i would compare it as an equal to Rome, in terms of administrative and domestic capability, political and military might, as well as cultural influence in their regions.

however... China still lives today, even after a long long long time, so... heh heh, if we're speaking in Civ game terms, Rome is already dead, China is still in the game at 2nd/3rd/4th place.

I don't want to take anything away from China. China is very high on my list of great empires. I think one of the interesting things is when I read some thing about the interaction between the empires. There's no question that both of them were aware that they were the great empires and treated each other differently than they treated others. I do think that the terrain in Europe makes it harder to keep an empire together, though (since very few have been successful at doing so).

I don't want to take anything away from China. China is very high on my list of great empires. I think one of the interesting things is when I read some thing about the interaction between the empires. There's no question that both of them were aware that they were the great empires and treated each other differently than they treated others. I do think that the terrain in Europe makes it harder to keep an empire together, though (since very few have been successful at doing so).

well, i know you don't want to take anything from China. you even acknowledged lack of knowledge in CHinese history; thats understandable.

anyhow, i think the empires could've actually been in even more contact with each other, had not some tricky Parthians tricked the Chinese soldiers into thinking it was a hard long way to Rome. if so, history should be very different. the interaction between the three world empires of the time, the Chinese, Persian, and Rome, could've built into a more worldly world even earlier then we could've seen.

anyhow, China had some things easy on it, Rome did as well. China too had hard things about it, so did Rome.

if we look at it, really, then China is THE civiilization of the East, and Rome is THE civilization of the West.


and now im getting off topic.. back to NA-bashing or NA-basher-bashing or NA-basher-basher-bashing or NA basher-basher-basher-bashing...

if we look at it, really, then China is THE civiilization of the East, and Rome is THE civilization of the West.

Very good point. Actually, a history where Rome and China had greater interaction would make an interesting what-if scenario.

Anyway, let's get back on topic :)

anyhow, i think the empires could've actually been in even more contact with each other...
In fact, if I recall correctly, the Han emperors sent out a few (unsuccessful) expeditions with the express purpose of making contact with the Romans. Would be interesting to see what the world would be like if they had been successful.

In fact, if I recall correctly, the Han emperors sent out a few (unsuccessful) expeditions with the express purpose of making contact with the Romans. Would be interesting to see what the world would be like if they had been successful.

well, yes, they did, but it was not enough, and soon it was forgotten in dusty scrolls or burned to heaps or whatever... too bad. maybe we could've had World War I with Roman legions armed with (black market) Chinese muskets against Chinese cannons and whatever. that would be interesting...


but back on topic, and i still stand on my stance: THE NA civ sholdn't be in, but A NA civ should. one of the best NA civs wouold be the Iroqouis, but if we don't have the leader problem i'd say the Missipans.

I still think Iroquois would be better than Mississippian, partially because Iroquois were well defined, wheras the Mississippians only interacted through archaeology.

However... I think that what they did is actually quite reasonable, as it gives them a wide range of possibilities (ie second leader)
I think they need to put in a major Iroquios leader as the Protective Organized to represent the Six Nations they built.

[and then throw in the Creative Charismatic Leader for someone (China, Japan, Scandanavia, or Arabia)]

I hope that the Iroquois get a suitable unique unit if and when they get back their civilization, rather than a A guy with a lance and feathers on a horse.

Something that looks like an Iroquois, is armed like an Iriquois, and fights like one ( probably a stealth or woodsmanII promotion ).

i wonder which language they'll use...maybe they'll make that up too... or better yet sign language ;)

and i swear to god if sitting bull sais 'HOW' in the diplomacy/negotiation screen i'm gonna send sooo much hate mail lol

I support a Native American civ, so long as Sitting Bull's greeting is always "HEY-how-are-ya, HEY-how-are-ya.":D

I support a Native American civ, so long as Sitting Bull's greeting is always "HEY-how-are-ya, HEY-how-are-ya.":D

omg! that is exactly the rediculiously racist crap i was talking about! having sitting bull say that is the same as giving qin really squinty eyes and buck teeth and offering to do your laundry...really not funny...:mad:

this thread only shows the world's ignorance and intollerance for native americans! why is everyone peachy with the developers getting creative and making more obscure and colorful civs like mali and khmer, but once the native americans get brought up, everyone is up in arms and saying dumb stuff like 'they only lived in tents and acted like barbarians so they don't deserve to be in!' all this proves is that far too many people are too lazy to actually learn about a people before they come on and open up their big mouths and barf out a bunch of old stereotypical crap!

truth is there have been layers upon layers of cultures and civilizations long before the europeons came to the new world. there were large sedintary populations before the disease came and killed allmost all the natives. sure america looked like an empty and uninhabited place by the time europeans make their way west...everyone was already dead. by the way all this stereotypical bull the lot of you are happy in spreading was started by these europeans way back in the day as part of their excuses to justify wiping out what was left. boo! thanks... you all make me sick

omg! that is exactly the rediculiously racist crap i was talking about! having sitting bull say that is the same as giving qin really squinty eyes and buck teeth and offering to do your laundry...really not funny...:mad:

this thread only shows the world's ignorance and intollerance for native americans! why is everyone peachy with the developers getting creative and making more obscure and colorful civs like mali and khmer, but once the native americans get brought up, everyone is up in arms and saying dumb stuff like 'they only lived in tents and acted like barbarians so they don't deserve to be in!' all this proves is that far too many people are too lazy to actually learn about a people before they come on and open up their big mouths and barf out a bunch of old stereotypical crap!

truth is there have been layers upon layers of cultures and civilizations long before the europeons came to the new world. there were large sedintary populations before the disease came and killed allmost all the natives. sure america looked like an empty and uninhabited place by the time europeans make their way west...everyone was already dead. by the way all this stereotypical bull the lot of you are happy in spreading was started by these europeans way back in the day as part of their excuses to justify wiping out what was left. boo! thanks... you all make me sick


Wow, I made a simple joke, so that must make me racist.:rolleyes:

Everyone agrees that what was done to Native Americans was wrong, but we can't change the past. Take a prozac and get over it. They're not the only people who've ever been oppressed.

Wow, I made a simple joke, so that must make me racist.:rolleyes:

Everyone agrees that what was done to Native Americans was wrong, but we can't change the past. Take a prozac and get over it. They're not the only people who've ever been oppressed.

ok i admit i went off on a little rant there...

i didn't call you a racist but your little joke was a stereotypical and racists one...can be hard to convince others your aren't racist though if you go around making racist jokes....

what? i just used the 'n' word that doesn't make me racist!:lol:

Wow, I made a simple joke, so that must make me racist.:rolleyes:

Everyone agrees that what was done to Native Americans was wrong, but we can't change the past. Take a prozac and get over it. They're not the only people who've ever been oppressed.Oppressed is a rather light word to use here. Anthropologists and archaeologists differ in their estimates as to the pre-columbian population of the Americas. Some put it lower than 20 million while others put it well over 100 million. But they seem to agree that 90-98% of the native population were killed. The Holocaust as horrible as it was, pales in comparison to the genocide of the Native Americans. Many many millions died. And as braindrain and others have said, it is that severely reduced population from which judgments of Native American civilization is often based. Many thousands of years of progressive history forgotten for a couple hundred years of genocide.

I agree with you that most people think that what happened to them was wrong. And I agree that you can't change the past. But it is the present and the future that I and others attempt to affect by confronting the erroneous stereotypes. Despite all that they have suffered Native populations exist today. But their tribal governments face much difficulty working with the US government attempting to better their communities. And their peoples face outright racism and erroneous stereotypes which limit their economic opportunities and democratic freedoms. Todays Native American descends from grand civilizations and as individuals they have as much potential for greatness than everyone else. They are not some sub-class of human that never fully developed. They are not heathens and they did not live like wild animals. They were a proud and wise people who deserve respect for who they were and what they did. They do NOT deserve the racial stereotypes given to them by ignorant 16th century imperialists.

They don't need to cover every native american tribe, but they should at least just rename the current native americans to the Sioux. They could add in different ones later, but the only other native civs people would want to play as are the iroquois and the apaches, maybe the chinook. They're better off just representing one tribe than they'd be grouping them all together.

They could add in different ones later, but the only other native civs people would want to play as are the iroquois and the apaches, maybe the chinook.

and the Cherokee and Eskimos. ;)

They don't need to cover every native american tribe, but they should at least just rename the current native americans to the Sioux.

Well the fix isn't that easy...they can't just change the name to Sioux. Sure they have a Sioux leader, but everything else is from different tribes and cultures. The dog soliers are cheyenne, who where allied with the western Sioux, so i guess it could work, but they'd definately need a different uu. i'm pretty interested to see whose language they use and i'd be pretty suprized if it were one of the Sioux derivatives...and i'm sure the cities will be spread accross the board...

I really don't think having just sioux or iroquois or