The Lost Civilization

Calouste said:

I had to change the contrast on my screen, otherwise I couldn't read the post above, it is so white.

Click to expand...

Zing!

But we should move away from this before the mods need to get involved. This thread should be about the chances it is or is not in, not judging the decisions of firaxis and the pueblo council

Even if they kept in Pueblo and Pope, they still couldn't finish them off because they would've lacked a voice actor (let's be honest here, with the controversy, nobody would agree to be a voice actor for the game if the whole council refuses to do so).

There are over 60k Pueblo people though. I don't know how many though who speak native languages, I am just surprised it was that difficult to find a speaker.

And as I said earlier, I doubt the council's decision would have had sway over every Pueblo. They were having a hard time so they went to the council to look for an actor. But Pueblo live in Mexico, Arizona, Texas, & New Mexico and there are several diverse languages with little related to them. I guess they were trying to find a Tewa speaker which there are less of (Since Pope was Tewa). But they with with Chuvash for the Huns, would not be a stretch at all for them to pick something like Zuni or Hopi for the language.

What I'm interested in is what sort of north american native groups would it not be difficult to find a decent voice actor in, and whether that really factors in to their decision (given that they've had a bit of time cut short).

cybrxkhan said:

What I'm interested in is what sort of north american native groups would it not be difficult to find a decent voice actor in, and whether that really factors in to their decision (given that they've had a bit of time cut short).

Click to expand...

Lots of Navajo, Cherokee and Sioux speaking natives still. Quite a few, in fact.

seasnake said:

Lots of Navajo, Cherokee and Sioux speaking natives still. Quite a few, in fact.

Click to expand...

I'd rather they add the Sioux than the Pueblo, tbh. I believe they are more populous than the Pueblo and had a far greater impact on the history of the continent (i.e. Wounded Knee, Red Cloud's War, Great Souix War of 1876-1877.)

^

Not at all. The Sioux were probably the least important on the history of the continent of the "Big 4" that are talked about

(Comanche, Pueblo/Anasazi, Mississippians, Sioux)

The Pueblo/Anasazi were the most dominant force in the US for nearly 1,000 years. The Sioux only gained prominence in the later era of fighting with the US unlike the Comanche who literally created a mini-empire and in fact the biggest in the history of North America, they fought and won many battles against the Mexicans, Texans, and US and shaped the culture of a lot of the central US. The Mississippians were admittedly more pre-European contact but they were the most populous of any of the civilizations within the continental US. . Plus the Mississippians have some potential post contact options, like the Shawnee and Tecumseh [Tippecanoe anyone? An event so important that it led to the rise of 3 different US Presidents]

The Sioux were always on the backwater of the continent and were never really as populous or unified in their heyday unlike the other 3 were either.

Gucumatz said:

^

Not at all. The Sioux were probably the least important on the history of the continent of the "Big 4" that are talked about

(Comanche, Pueblo/Anasazi, Mississippians, Sioux)

Click to expand...

Well we can agree to disagree.

But I just remembered that Sitting Bull was already in Civ IV complete so I wouldn't be surprised if Firaxis includes him in BNW if they want to include the Souix since they can't put in the Pueblo.

As others have discussed, a lot of people complained about how they handled the "Native American" civ in Civ 4. That fact they went with the Pueblo shows that the Sioux weren't their primary focus. The fact that we got the Iroquois rather than the Sioux in vanilla, shows that the plains isn't their primary focus.

And if they wanted a plains civ, the Comanche are both just as famous as the Sioux and easily more important than the Sioux if they wanted to go down that route. I sincerely doubt we get the Sioux from the context we have - the odds are not in their favour. In fact I would be willing to bet money that the Sioux do not make it in.

pokeravi said:

I'd rather they add the Sioux than the Pueblo, tbh. I believe they are more populous than the Pueblo and had a far greater impact on the history of the continent (i.e. Wounded Knee, Red Cloud's War, Great Souix War of 1876-1877.)

Click to expand...

As Gucumatz says, you are indeed wrong. Also sorry for the essentially repeat of what he said, i hadn't refreshed the page for a while and got left behind...

The only reason people really know the name Sioux is because they are the Indians in Cowboys versus indians. They're famous for resisting America, like the Zulu are famous for resisting the British.

Similarly there are much more significant civilisations. South Africa has Great Zimbabwe, some of the only stoneworkers in south Africa who carved out a vast empire of vassals and trade routes. The Pueblo built incredible stone houses on top of mesas and in the side of cliffs, and took part in an agricultural revolution that made living in their arid land not only viable, but also conducive to creating a vast trading empire that extended even down to Bolivia and Peru.

The Sioux are more important in American (US) history perhaps, but in the history of the continent you couldn't be more wrong.

Even in the history of Modern America, the Pueblo are more important. The Spanish crown had plans to settle the interior of the US. But the Pueblo revolt that destroyed the Spanish colony cost the Spaniards billions in today's money, destroyed confidence and was the most devastating defeat of a colonial empire ever at that time, and without the Pueblo the Apache, Comanche, and Sioux wouldn't exist as we know them. The scrapping of Spain's plans to settle eastward and northwards forced the Spaniards to consolidate in Mexico and California. Without the Pueblo, much more of the US would have spoke Spanish and could have changed the map for the next several hundred years

The Pueblo captured thousands of horses from the fleeing Spaniards or killed the Spaniards who rode them and then later traded them to the Apache, Comanche, and other interior tribes. Without the Pueblo, cavalry culture in the US would not exist.

Gucumatz said:

Even in the history of Modern America, the Pueblo are more important. The Spanish crown had plans to settle the interior of the US. But the Pueblo revolt that destroyed the Spanish colony cost the Spaniards billions in today's money, destroyed confidence and was the most devastating defeat of a colonial empire ever at that time, and without the Pueblo the Apache, Comanche, and Sioux wouldn't exist as we know them. The scrapping of Spain's plans to settle eastward and northwards forced the Spaniards to consolidate in Mexico and California. Without the Pueblo, much more of the US would have spoke Spanish and could have changed the map for the next several hundred years

The Pueblo captured thousands of horses from the fleeing Spaniards or killed the Spaniards who rode them and then later traded them to the Apache, Comanche, and other interior tribes. Without the Pueblo, cavalry culture in the US would not exist.

Click to expand...

I did not know this, that is very cool.

The only way I see the Sioux getting in is if Firaxis was rushed for a replacement when the Pueblo civ got canned. The only thing from the Sioux that would've been a time saver was the city list.

Gucumatz said:

And if they wanted a plains civ, the Comanche are both just as famous as the Sioux and easily more important than the Sioux if they wanted to go down that route. I sincerely doubt we get the Sioux from the context we have - the odds are not in their favour. In fact I would be willing to bet money that the Sioux do not make it in.

Click to expand...

"The odds are not in their favor." Speculation of course.

True_Candyman said:

The only reason people really know the name Sioux is because they are the Indians in Cowboys versus indians. They're famous for resisting America, like the Zulu are famous for resisting the British.

Click to expand...

I think the Sioux have a fair chance because of exactly what you said. The are the "famous" quintessential "Indians". Famous well know civs sell expansions (or DLC). Pueblo is another name that could have been marketable, and unique from the Iroquois gameplay-wise. My speculation, Pueblo are nixed (good luck with those letters by the way Gucu). The marketable, Sioux return with Sitting Bull wearing the eagle feather headdress infront of a rolling plain, filled with buffalo leader screen.

We can only wait to find out which path Firaxis took though!

Snoopaloop said:

We can only wait to find out which path Firaxis took though!

Click to expand...

Indeed! Until then we wait. We should create a "Pick the civilizations pool" for civ fanatics .

If we're going by the famous Indians then Pocahontas of the Powhatan has a chance. Though personally I doubt it given that... well, that's just be a really odd choice. Maybe insulting, even. I know a lot of Powhatan folks and Native AMericans in general were not too happy with the Pocahontas movie, and frankly I'm not too happy too.



Anyhow, if we ignore the eastern native american unit thing, I still say the Sioux are a good contender because of their iconic status in modern US pop culture.

Gucumatz said:

Even in the history of Modern America, the Pueblo are more important. The Spanish crown had plans to settle the interior of the US. But the Pueblo revolt that destroyed the Spanish colony cost the Spaniards billions in today's money, destroyed confidence and was the most devastating defeat of a colonial empire ever at that time, and without the Pueblo the Apache, Comanche, and Sioux wouldn't exist as we know them. The scrapping of Spain's plans to settle eastward and northwards forced the Spaniards to consolidate in Mexico and California. Without the Pueblo, much more of the US would have spoke Spanish and could have changed the map for the next several hundred years

The Pueblo captured thousands of horses from the fleeing Spaniards or killed the Spaniards who rode them and then later traded them to the Apache, Comanche, and other interior tribes. Without the Pueblo, cavalry culture in the US would not exist.

Click to expand...

This is very interesting! and it only means that I am more that the Pueblo council of today did not want to share this amazing story through Civilization V.....

And the thing is that's only the modern history of the Pueblo/Anasazi/Hohokam/Mogollan/Oodham. They have been around for a long time (depending on your definitions we have Pueblos/Clifftowns going back over a thousand years of residence). During the time of the Aztecs their culture established a mini-empire based largely on trade of goods from Mesoamerica to the rest of the continental US. They were literally the connection between the two worlds. The empire from Chaco Canyon led to sort of a form of "colonization" too, we have evidence of Pueblo communities being set up in far flung regions to both expand people and trade.

Its a culture that goes back for more than a thousand continuous years. Popey wanted to re-unify the Pueblo peoples [It had been a while since the Chaco Canyon based empire] and create a Pueblo state. He succeeded for a while too, creating a unified state despite different languages and certain different cultures. The Spanish couldn't return to Pueblo lands as long as he was alive, but the Pueblo state broke up on his death as the Spanish returned to try and capitalize on his death.