Americans ?

[Moonsinger]

Originally posted by Hank
Why are the americans a tribe in this game ? 4000 BC ?

I don't get it.

It's just a game. Anyway, it's possible for the American to be in the game around 4000 BC. Some ancient Europeans could have traveled to America through the North Pole or something.

[Ribannah]

Originally posted by Damien
[B]I spent much time today surfing on many history sites:

Well done, Damien!
There is a lot more interesting stuff to find if you just google on the word 'Iroquois'.

I don't agree on the fact that native americans were at the level of the europeans. They were better in astronomy.

That is a little narrow, there were vast differences between northern, middle and southern Amerind tribes. Some excelled at astronomy, others at metallurgy, government & society, medicine, trade, warfare, agriculture.

Iroquois used to live in long houses and villages(even if there were some towns,they were scarce and not so populated).

That's by the standards of today. A typical healthy woodland town counted some 3,000 inhabitants, the same or even a little larger than standard European towns of that time.

Iroquois were 25,000 in 1600 then decreased to 5000 after the american revolution and are 50,000 today.

The numbers are higher. Maybe you just counted the League of Five/Six nations?? There are/were a lot of Iroquois outside this League, too, mostly in Canada. In total there were about 100,000 in 1600 and IIRC almost double that number now. Some in other leagues that were modelled after the original one.

As a culture, you might want to include non-Iroquois Iroquians such as the Hurons, Eeries, Neutrals etc. (and yes, the Cherokee also belong to that group).

[Ribannah]

Originally posted by Damien
What kind of participative democracy was the iroquoian one?
I've read that the representatives were nominated for life by some women.there were 50 representants for the whole league.Unanimity was the rule.

That is basically correct. The women nominated, the men voted. Representatives that proved to be unfit could be removed by the council.
While the council cast the vote, everyone had (still has) an equal right to speak at council meetings, this is the participative part.
In addition to the confederate council, there were also national, town and clan councils where local/internal decisions were made.

Food was stored collectively and not owned.Breeding didn't exist i think;men used to hunt.

Agriculture was the basis of the Iroquois diet. Hunting and fishing were secondary, but not neglected. Often a group of men would go hunting in the summer.

This kinda state was the one existing before civs.

Not quite. Nomadic tribes usually appointed a single leader. You might want to read what Friedrich Engels wrote about the Iroquois.

What were the great iroquois achievments?

IMHO the most important ones (apart from establishing a large empire) are:
- the government system (confederacy / constitution / democracy as of 1460 AD)
- social values with regard to women's rights, leisure time, other cultures, refugees, and human rights in general
- agricultural advances in polyculture (the Three Sisters), for significantly increased production (up to 50% higher than European methods)
- ecological treatment of nature;
- (refinement of) certain products such as tobacco and medicinal drugs
- urban planning (site selection, defenses, grid system)
In game terms, I think the Great Law of the Iroquois could count as a Wonder of the World.

Because of where they lived, they did not have significant knowledge of metallurgy beyond copper and silver. Only the Iroquoian Shawnee (Cherokee branch; Tecumseh's tribe) had Iron Working. The Iroquois were good at construction (used the arch to support their roofs, and had elaborate palisades), but used wood, not stone, since good wood was readily available and good stone for masonry wasn't. (Similarly, London at the time was also almost entirely made of wood.)
Iroquois towns were connected by roads, some of these were wide enough to accomodate the later wagon trek of whites to the west.
The Iroquois also had a certain knowledge of chemistry (ao waterproofing).

And Ribannah...are you iroquois or from another native american nation?

I am part Elf.

[zeeter]

---------------------------------
I must make a point to people who talk of America as a prodomently English people. It was only by 2 vote that English was picked as the national language. Of course German, and French were the runners up, and I think there was one vote for Italian.
---------------------------------

Just my 2 cents. The US has no official or national language. Most of our forfathers spoke english, so the original documents were written in english. They stopped short of picking a national language for the same reasons that they stopped short of picking a national religion - even though they were mostly all Christians. Freedom of choice.
In the long run, this hurts the country a little bit as all national documents now must be available in every language upon request. Some voting precincts in NYC require that the election ballots be posted in sixteen languages. English, Spanish, Hebrew, Arabic, etc.... This costs A LOT of money! But it is necessary as we have no official language.

[Ribannah]

Originally posted by Damien
Many natives were nomads in 1492. EX:The Sioux(who were in civ2 );the Navajos;the Apaches.

The Sioux originally lived in/near the woodlands until they were chased off by the Iroquois and were forced to change their ways in order to survive. (Some Siouan tribes split off though and made peace with the Iroquois.)

The Navaho and Apache were Athabascans who migrated to the south. The Navaho were the result of some mixing with the Anasazi, at least that's what they claim. While the Apaches became mainly hunters, the Navaho relied for a good part on agriculture, competing for land with the Pueblo tribes descending from the Anasazi.

[WarlordMatt]

All due respect to Ribannah and Damien and everyone else arguing about Iroquois, but THIS THREAD IS SUPPOSED TO BE ABOUT THE STRANGE EXISTENCE OF THE AMERICANS IN CIV III, NOT THE IROQUOIS!!!

Thank you. That is all. (I have no intention of insult or offense to anyone by posting this )

[Loopy]

Originally posted by player2
What's wrong with making the Goth's a civ?

Though their cultural impact has become noticable, how impactful they have been is debatable. Besides, all that black clothing and makeup wasn't really around back at 4000 BC either.

[miltonfriedman]

Mr. Player 2,

Here is the reason why:

The word "civilization" was derived from the concept of Roman civil laws. In Toynbee's majestic volume of historical studies, civil laws is the prerequisite for being considered as civilized, and thus, becoming a civilization. Anything short of that was considered to be barbaric.

You are correct-- a civilization needs not to have a system of writing. Civil laws are based on tradition and custom, plus peer jury. Nevertheless, given that it is nearly impossible to have a set of laws without recording them, writing is unanimous in all of the "civilizations".

[Ruffin]

The whole argument about what is a civ can be solved with a dictionary. "Civilized" at its root means "living in a city". Any group that formed cities qualifies. Personally, I'd be happier if there were forty or fifty civs to choose from. I'm getting really sick of Impi tresspassers and hordes of Roman legionaires swamping my borders. Hordes of Goths or Incas would be such an improvement.

As for the "native" Americans - there's serious speculation that the population of the Americas in 1492 was 20-30 million, on par with Europe. "New" diseases killed 90-95% of the population, something we WON'T see in Civ3 (shame). Something about the Spanish bringing pigs with them, I think. By the time LaSalle got to the heavily populated Mississippi the inhabitants were dead and gone leaving empty houses and mass graves. There's a good article on it in Atlantic Monthly from a couple months back called "1491".

[Damien]

What was the political system in clan,national and town councils?
The same as the federal one?Every woman had the right to nominate?About your participative democracy...it wasn't direct democracy so?Representatives weren't obligated to take into account what people said.
U won't make me believe that natives were at the same level
I've read many things on the american civs those past few days.
If the europeans dominated the world,there's a reason.
Mayas had no metallurgy and Incas used to make colored knots called quipus(this can be considered as a form of writing).
European towns had more than 3,000 inhabitants in the Renaissance
Natives of the whole american continent had no wheel.
Iroquois stopped being cannibals in 1570.iroquois isn't isn't a tribe but the confederacy.
Some Mayas and tribes from the NW pacific area(The haida for example) were democratic as well.
Well,they used to hunt,were cannibals till 1570,were 25,000 in the league and 75,000 outside but were nearly vegetarian,stopped eating themselves,had a written constitution that influenced the american one.Y not count em as a civ so?

[Ribannah]

Originally posted by Damien
About your participative democracy...it wasn't direct democracy

If, by direct democracy, you mean every citizen gets to vote on every topic: no, that would be highly impractical on a national or confederate scale. I still is.

Representatives weren't obligated to take into account what people said.

They'd better, because they had to decide unanimously. Representatives that failed to do a good job could be replaced, after several warnings.

U won't make me believe that natives were at the same level.

We are all natives.

I've read many things on the american civs those past few days. If the europeans dominated the world,there's a reason.

In fact, there are a lot of reasons, but first of all Europeans have only 'dominated the world' for a short period of time.
With regard to Europeans v Amerinds, it was a matter of fortunate timing: Europe had just recovered from the Black Plague, while the diseases they brought across the ocean decimated the Amerinds. This was after climatic changes had already destroyed much of eg the Maya and Hopewell civilizations.
In addition, the Europeans found several major empires they encountered in turmoil and easy to topple with a little native aid. The Europeans never 'dominated' Amerind peoples who were well organized such as the Hopi, the Seminole and the Iroquois.

European towns had more than 3,000 inhabitants in the Renaissance.

Only a few metropoles. Normal towns were maller.

Natives of the whole american continent had no wheel.

That is quite correct, although they were probably about to make the discovery (they already had the sledge and the hoop). However, the woodland tribes had the Canoe which was far more useful to them than the Wheel.

Iroquois stopped being cannibals in 1570.

Huh? What are you talking about?
(The League dates from 1460 btw, Firaxis is way off there.)

Iroquois isn't isn't a tribe but the confederacy.

The Iroquois started out as one tribe of four main clans. As they grew, they split into several nations, and the number of clans grew to eight. There is also the larger Iroquoian culture/linguistic group (by earlier splits) which encompasses ao the Erie, Huron, Neutrals and also (the most remote branch) the Cherokee.
The League of 5/6 Nations didn't contain all the Iroquois, and certainly not the larger Iroquoian cultural group.

Keep on reading, so far you've only touched the surface.

[Akka]

Originally posted by Ribannah

Only a few metropoles. Normal towns were maller.

Hu... Keep cool, man. 3000 people was a small town, even in medieval time, not even talking about Renaissance.
A "big city" was about 50 000 inhabitants, and a metropolis about 100 to 500 000.

U won't make me believe that natives were at the same level

By the time they were discovered, the natives were quite ahead of the standards of the time in term of democracy. Except for Switzerland and some free cities, there was not even a start of democracy in Europe at this moment.

If the europeans dominated the world,there's a reason.

These reasons are called "better war technology" and "art of war". Europe has always been the most war-full part of the planet until the past 50 years, and our ancesters were quite good at fighting. More importantly, they always were in advance, technology speaking, compared to their opponents. That does not make Europeans better or more intelligent or more advanced, that just make them more efficient on the battlefield.

[Damien]

Direct democracy exists in Switzerland since the mid-13th century.
Every man was entitled to vote by raising his hand in the Landsgemeinden(people's assemblies)that were held once a year about many issues.So it is possible.I think the standard european town was more than 3,000 inhabitants in 1600(10,000 maybe).And there were many metropoles.
I was wondering where that 1460 came from.It is written everywhere that the league dates back to 1570 to end up cannibalism and war between tribes.
Besides,can u give us a few great iroquois towns(given that there were 25,000 members in the whole league).?
Ribannah...r u goody huts(also known as Border Patrol)?

[Kryten]

Please forgive me for coming into this discussion so late, but I have read EVERY post so far, and it seems to me that everybody is missing the main point.

Civ3 is about cities. If you have cities in civ3, then you have a civilisation. If you don't have cities, then you are a barbarian (hey, don't blame me, I didn't invent the game!). This makes it difficult to portray nations such as the nomadic Huns or native Americans.

So, here are two scenarios:-

Scenario 1:
At the end of the 15th century the Europeans reach North America (the "New World"). They find a continent covered by roads/irrigation/mines/fortifications/bridges/cities, and have to fight a major war just to gain a bridgehead.

Scenario 2:
At the end of the 15th century the Europeans reach North America (the "New World"). They find a continent pratically untouched, with masses of 'unclaimed' game/forests/resources, and have to build all their own cities/roads/mines/fortifications/irrigation/bridges, while sometimes fighting nomadic natives but mostly other European colonises.

Now you tell me....which of these two scenarios best fits what happened in history.

And to all those people who say "i'ts just a game, it's not ment to be historically accurate", well....I hope those people have modded their game so that the English, French and Germans can build elephants (after all, they could in civ1 and civ2.....or maybe that would be "unrealistic"..... ).

[Pygzilla]

Originally posted by Kryten

Scenario 1:
At the end of the 15th century the Europeans reach North America (the "New World"). They find a continent covered by roads/irrigation/mines/fortifications/bridges/cities, and have to fight a major war just to gain a bridgehead.

Hey,
I'd like to play this one

[Kryten]

Originally posted by Pygzilla

Hey,
I'd like to play this one

You're right, it would make a good "what if" scenario. However, it is not what happend in reality.

[Akka]

Originally posted by Kryten


You're right, it would make a good "what if" scenario. However, it is not what happend in reality.

Guess what ? Civilization is PRECISELY about rewriting history.
Time to make this "what if" scenario alive

[Kryten]

Originally posted by Akka


Guess what ? Civilization is PRECISELY about rewriting history.
Time to make this "what if" scenario alive

The problem is, EVERY game of civ IS this "what if" scenario! The only way to get an "historical" game of civ is to have the native American Iroquois be represented by 'barbarians' and leave the American civ out of the game (which makes 20th centuty history all wrong!).

Looks like we can't have our cake and eat it

(BTW, I'm only talking about playing on a real world map. In a random game of civ, anything goes.)

[Afromelonhead]

Akka is right here. Civilization 3 isn't about reliving history (although I suppose it could be considered this way), it's about rewriting it. I suppose though that the main point here is that the great tribes from history should be represented in Civ3, no matter what time period they began at.

On another hand, I suppose that staggered start of tribes would be an interesting idea to implement in Civ3.

[Kryten]

Originally posted by Afromelonhead
Akka is right here. Civilization 3 isn't about reliving history (although I suppose it could be considered this way), it's about rewriting it.

True. But the game is based on history. For example, as I mentioned in an earlier post, I assume we all agree that England/France/Germany (and America for that matter) shouldn't be allowed to build elephant units. Why...because it's not realistic. I think that just about everyone agrees with this. We all want the game to be 'realistic'.

But you can't just pick the bits of reality you want and discard the rest! When I play on a real world map, I want to be able to colonise the New World. I don't want to find a massive civilisation already established there. On the other hand, I also like to play "what if" games, where I have a random map with random civs, and I play to see what happens.

I suppose I just want the choice of sometimes just playing a game and other times recreating history, just to see if I could do better.