Americas

[Henri Christophe]

We've since established that the Aztec chronicles are semi-legendary and written well after the fact.

If the Aztec chronicles is all we have about Toltec, why not believe in them? I know the Aztecs admire and emulate Toltec behaviors, as the Holy Roman Empire emulates the Roman Empire. But that just made the Toltecs even more amazing then the Aztecs. Maybe the Toltecs can appear in this game replacing the Aztecs for once.

We've already gone over the Popol Vuh. It doesn't say what you claim it says. It talks about Yaqui (which means essentially anyone from Central Mexico) founding the Qiche people. Not about them conquering the Qiche. This is also about the Guatemalan highlands, not the Yucatan. Not about Toltecs conquering anything.

Let's speak about the Yaquis, who are they? If they are anyone from Central Mexico, why they can't be the Toltecs? Because when I read the Popol Vuh I understand that's Yaquis as Toltecs. And the people the Qiche, at least untill the 3rd book, speak about the history of all mayas. Just in the last book, the 4th, is more especific about the Qiche dinasty.
If the Yaquis isn't the toltecs, maybe they are these tribe of Arizona:

 

[Patine]

If the Aztec chronicles is all we have about Toltec, why not believe in them? I know the Aztecs admire and emulate Toltec behaviors, as the Holy Roman Empire emulates the Roman Empire. But that just made the Toltecs even more amazing then the Aztecs. Maybe the Toltecs can appear in this game replacing the Aztecs for once.


Let's speak about the Yaquis, who are they? If they are anyone from Central Mexico, why they can't be the Toltecs? Because when I read the Popol Vuh I understand that's Yaquis as Toltecs. And the people the Qiche, at least untill the 3rd book, speak about the history of all mayas. Just in the last book, the 4th, is more especific about the Qiche dinasty.
If the Yaquis isn't the toltecs, maybe they are these tribe of Arizona:

This is basically two arguments for you just saying, "we really don't know enough to say anything concrete, so let's use my personal favourite viewpoint, and what intuitively makes sense to me, because it's amazing," in a nation-building strategy game series notorious for TONNES of fans who are historical sticklers. This isn't the fast-and-loose historical fiction genre of novels that's becomes popular to a degree of the last three decades or so. This is the Civilization Series.

 

[Evie]

Henri, the problem is we have other sources now. We have decades more of far more in depth archaeology. We have Mayan glyph inscription.

These sources tell is there's no trace of a Toltec empire stretching across Mexico. They tell us Teotihuacan, not Tulla, is far more likely to have been the Central Mexican city that influenced the Mayans. And they're better sources than the Aztec codices.

And even if the Kiche spoke about the history of all Mayans (which they don't), they report legends about the Mayans, as written by people who lived hundreds of miles from Yucatan. (And tje answer to "why would't Yaqui be the Toltec" is *why would they?*)

The history you were told is outdated.

 

[Alexander's Hetaroi]

Tula as a city state would definitely make sense, though Teotihuacan needs it even more.

Pretty much everything Tula did, Teotihuacan did more. It was more populous, more multicultural/multiethnic, more influent across Mesoamerica and Mesoamerican. In a very real way, most of the things that get credited to the Toltec of Tula in chronicles, archaeology points to Teotihuacan having actually come much closer to achieving (in fact, it wouldn't surprise me if some of the Chronicles about the Toltec empire didn't conflate the later Toltec with the actual accomplishments of the earlier Teotihuacani). It's to the Mesoamerican world what Rome was to the European World.

The Americas always feel less behind than the rest of the world when it sometimes comes to adding civilizations and city-states. Considering we most likely won't get anything from Mesoamerica other than Aztecs and the Maya, there's no reason why we can't have several city-states.

If the Aztec chronicles is all we have about Toltec, why not believe in them? I know the Aztecs admire and emulate Toltec behaviors, as the Holy Roman Empire emulates the Roman Empire. But that just made the Toltecs even more amazing then the Aztecs. Maybe the Toltecs can appear in this game replacing the Aztecs for once.

That's like saying "Why don't we have Atlantis, instead of Athens lead Greece, because according to Plato they were the ideal state of the ancient world?"

 

[Birch617]

For what i understood last time i read about the Toltecs, it was pretty much a cultural influence that lasted a certain amount of time in Mesoamerican history and influenced both Uto-Aztecan speaking people and Mayan speaking people, their influence has pretty much a visual and material impact on people and Tula was most likely one of the places with the biggest demostration of the Toltec tradition; they would be later mythologize by both Aztec and Mayan because it was seen like a golden age for a lot of mesoamerican, so it more mycenaeans kind of situation rather than "atlantis" so technically they could enter as a Civ in the same way we have Greece and Byzantium

 

[Alexander's Hetaroi]

For what i understood last time i read about the Toltecs, it was pretty much a cultural influence that lasted a certain amount of time in Mesoamerican history and influenced both Uto-Aztecan speaking people and Mayan speaking people, their influence has pretty much a visual and material impact on people and Tula was most likely one of the places with the biggest demostration of the Toltec tradition; they would be later mythologize by both Aztec and Mayan because it was seen like a golden age for a lot of mesoamerican, so it more mycenaeans kind of situation rather than "atlantis" so technically they could enter as a Civ in the same way we have Greece and Byzantium

Either way, I'm still not sure there is enough factual information to go off of to make them a full-fledged civ. I think for those reasons they would be better off as a potential city-state material.

 

[Henri Christophe]

That's like saying "Why don't we have Atlantis, instead of Athens lead Greece, because according to Plato they were the ideal state of the ancient world?"

It is not like Atlantis, because we have archaeological sites in Tula who proves at least the Toltec capital was real.
What we are discussing is how big was the Toltec empire, and if they invaded the Mayapan or not.
Speaking about the Mayapan, I want to ask, why all maps I found about Toltecs they have conquered the Mayapan in the map?
Where come this kind of information?

And even if the Toltecs didn't conquer the Mayapan, we still have enought material to do a Civ of they. We know their language (nahualt), we know some cities and have a strong name to be a leader as Quetzalcoalt (or Xochitl if we want a female leader)

 

[Evie]

And we already have a nahua civilization in this game. They're a lot better documented - and historically more important - than the Toltecs. And there's a long, loooong list of Mesoamerican people who deserve included before a second Nahuatl civilization is even something to think about.

But as a matter of fact, Henri, we don't even know the Toltec were real.

We know Tula was real, but we don't know what the people who actually lived there, three centuries before the Aztecs, called themselves. We only know what semi-legendary name the Aztec attributed to them, three centuries later - a generic name that means "The artisans" or maybe "the builders".

It's entirely possible (and many scholars seem to now think) that Tula was merely a city-state. An influential one to be sure, but not part of a bigger population or empire.

The maps you're finding are reflecting older scholarship, back when people (mistakenly) took the Aztec codices at face value, not what we now know. Unfortunately, the internet is great at keeping alive information that's grossly outdated, especially since most of the internet is made by people who are enthusiasts, not historians, whose information come from non-scholarly pop history works.

And for crying out loud, there never was a "the mayapan". You've made up a definition for Mayapan that has nothing to do with the actual meaning of the word (which refers to the later city of Mayapan and the League of Mayapan that was based on it) by mixing butchered greek (pan in greek is a prefix. It goes before the word it's supposed to qualify) and butchered Maya (Maya is a ethnic term, not a geographic one ; pan-maya would designate people, not territory) to arrive at a truly nonsensical word you keep throwing around like it means something. Please stop.

 

[Henri Christophe]

three centuries before the Aztecs

Not that long. Aztecs and Toltecs coexisted for while, at least, was the Aztecs who conquer Tulla and give a end for the Toltec empire.

back when people (mistakenly) took the Aztec codices at face value

Which codices we are talking about? I would like to read the original history of the Toltecs to understand it better.
Because I believe a native source as Aztecs codices should be our principal source of data about a civilization as the Toltecs, even if this was written way before the events, still a realible source, our best source on the events.

a generic name that means "The artisans" or maybe "the builders".

About names, we use a french name to Iroquois, meanwhile we know their right name Haudenosaunee. Why not used a nahualt name as Toltecs?
Even the Aztecs don't call they self as Aztecs, but Mexicas instead and we don't use the name Mexica in the game.
Aztec means everyone who came from Aztlán, a mystical land propably where today is New Mexico-USA. That make even the Tlaxcaltecas, the main rival of the Aztecs, also Aztecs.

 

[Birch617]

Either way, I'm still not sure there is enough factual information to go off of to make them a full-fledged civ. I think for those reasons they would be better off as a potential city-state material.

I mean Ce Acatl Topiltzin has pretty well recorded history and he was pretty much later mythologize by succerors states after the fall of Tula and the Toltec sphere of influence, we also know about Toltec miltitary factions like the Coyote Warriors and the Atlantes are really unique and emblematic piece of infrastructure that the Toltec had; also i'm only addding this info not because i want the Toltec as i also would prefer representation from other mesoamerican cultures, but just to say that the Toltec were still a real people with some potential to be civ; also as a last note i think its pretty stupid to invalidate a civ based on their linguistic family, because if that was the case why would we had like half of the game roster be european, like its just an stupid argument in my opinion.

 

[Evie]

The codices are collection of pictographic documents (ie, they're not text, but images),, and they are not the original history of much of anything

They're post-conquest (there's three of them that people have at time suspected might be pre-conquest, but that's highly questionable) accounts given by the Aztecs to the Spanish - meaning that they date back to nearly four centuries after the fall of Tula. And it gets worse.

First off, there's every reason to believe that the post-conquest codices were essentially a form of propaganda, trying to explain and justify the metaphysical and spiritual necessity of the Conquest. That's where the idea of Moctezuma mistaking Cortez come from, and they lean hard on the idea of cyclical history. The Toltec Empire presented in the codices is essentially a stand-in of the Aztec themselves ; a Mesoamerica-spanning empire that fall under a bad ruler mislead by a deity, in a way that echo the Aztec's own fall under Moctezuma misled by Cortez.

Second off, most of the original Aztec Empire era codices were destroyed by the conquistador. The post-conquest codices were not able to draw on those earlier documents for information. Note that this is different from actual oral history (where people are specifically trained to remember the precise details of their history, and which is actually underrated as a way of preserving history); it's equivalent to asking people to tell you what was in a book decades after they last read that book. It's an unreliable method of transmission.

Third off, that allegedly wasn't even the first time the Aztec codices were destroyed. According to those post-conquest codices, one of the early Aztec Emperors ordered the Aztec's own archives burned. He said (per the codices) that he didn't think it wise for people to know the paintings (eg, the content of the codices). The codices themselves tell us that the Aztecs destroyed whatever records of the early empire and pre-empire era they had because they didn't want people to know what was in them - that they didn't want people to know the real history.

All in all, they're an okay source for the Aztec empire itself (provided you remember the pro-conquest propaganda), especially in the later years (which would have been closer to the time of the people writing the codices, and more easily remembered), but that's about it. Calling them "our best source" is not only unfair to modern archaeology which is a really good source, but it's also unfair to the Mayans, who, unlike the Aztec, had an actual complete writing system, wrote down inscriptions in stone (so we do still have surviving inscription from ten, fifteen and more centuries ago) describing current and recent events (they also wrote their own codices, but, well, conquistadors happened).

The reason the codices loom so large in our understanding of Mesoamericna history isn't that they're a good source, it's that they're an *old* source. The Aztec codices were the first records to be studied, and the most accessible, long before we were doing archaeology in Mesoamerica, let alone good archaeology (ie, actual careful documentation of the past with radiocarbon dating and all as opposed to just walking through the jungle in search of lost cities to loot for your local museum), and even longer before we deciphered the Mayan Script, both of which really come around in the late twentieth century. We only managed to date the architecture at Chichen Itza (including the Mexicanized architecture, which is about the same age as the Mayan architecture, not a later addition),

By that time, people had been studying the codices for centuries, and our entire conception of Mesoamerican history was based on them ; especially as the Codices version has become deeply entrenched in popular history via tourists visiting sites like Tula and Chichen Itza and hearing it there. We're rewriting it to match the newer, better sources now, but it's a slow process in the face of people clinging to the myths they learned.

 

[Alexander's Hetaroi]

And even if the Toltecs didn't conquer the Mayapan, we still have enought material to do a Civ of they. We know their language (nahualt), we know some cities and have a strong name to be a leader as Quetzalcoalt (or Xochitl if we want a female leader)

I didn't think we knew for sure if they actually spoke nahuatl, or a pre-nahuatl language?

It is not like Atlantis, because we have archaeological sites in Tula who proves at least the Toltec capital was real.

Maybe Atlantis wasn't the best comparison, I give you that. But it's still along the lines of let's add in Mycenae or the Minoans, because we know several names of mythological leaders thanks to the Greeks.

I mean Ce Acatl Topiltzin has pretty well recorded history and he was pretty much later mythologize by succerors states after the fall of Tula and the Toltec sphere of influence, we also know about Toltec miltitary factions like the Coyote Warriors and the Atlantes are really unique and emblematic piece of infrastructure that the Toltec had; also i'm only addding this info not because i want the Toltec as i also would prefer representation from other mesoamerican cultures, but just to say that the Toltec were still a real people with some potential to be civ; also as a last note i think its pretty stupid to invalidate a civ based on their linguistic family, because if that was the case why would we had like half of the game roster be european, like its just an stupid argument in my opinion.

I'm not doubting we could find potential unique units or unique infrastructure. That being said I feel like there are a lot of better options in Mesoamerica, such as the Zapotecs, Mixtec, Purépecha etc., which could make for a better potential third Mesoamerican civ.

 

[Henri Christophe]

I'm not doubting we could find potential unique units or unique infrastructure. That being said I feel like there are a lot of better options in Mesoamerica, such as the Zapotecs, Mixtec, Purépecha etc., which could make for a better potential third Mesoamerican civ.

I agree if Aztecs still the main Civ of Meso-America, the best option to a second civ should be Zapotecs, Mixtecs or Purépecha (Tarascos).
But what I'm arguing is to the Toltecs replace the Aztecs as the main Meso-American Civ. Because the Toltecs had the largest empire of pre-columbian America. Way bigger than Aztec empire. The Aztecs is just well know because they was the last big empire of Meso-America.
I'm not convinced the Toltecs are mythological and I will never be, since we have Aztecs source about them, we should believe in them and not think the Aztecs as liers, why should they lie? If Aztecs are saying the Toltecs conquer parts of Yucatán, I just believe in them.
And I just take again my Popol Vuh book and it said the Yaqui people was the Toltec, with all letters, Toltecs. That means we also have Maya sources about the existence of the Toltecs.

I would like to have more books about this issue, to understand it better, but with what I have, at least, I'm sure Toltecs isn't mythological at all.

 

[Evie]

You're taking the word of people who lived hundreds of miles from Yucatan (both the Aztecs and the Kiche maya) and who wrote centuries after the fact (the Popol Vuh is also a post conquest text) over fact that the people who lived there have nothing to say of Toltec invasion. You'd think the Mayans would know if they had been invaded (and we know from their recordings dealing with Teotihuacan that they did record being conquered).

(And reread the part I said about how outdated historical interpretations are still common because we had the Aztec codices long before other sources. Yaqui = Toltec is people trying to fit the Popol Vuh to what they thought they knew from the codices. No more.)

Having both Toltec and Aztec would be bad. Having Toltec instead of Aztec would be a crime against common sense, like having Trojans instead of Greeks in the game because you like the Illiad and you think their depiction of almighty Troy is history.

 

[Alexander's Hetaroi]

I'm not convinced the Toltecs are mythological and I will never be, since we have Aztecs source about them, we should believe in them and not think the Aztecs as liers, why should they lie? If Aztecs are saying the Toltecs conquer parts of Yucatán, I just believe in them.

I never said that the Toltec people weren't real. But what little information we know of aren't really based in historical facts. You keep on bringing up the Popoh Vuh, which by all accounts is a collection of mythological stories.

The Aztecs also thought that Hernan Cortez was a god when he showed up. In that case do you believe he was a deity because the Aztecs said so?

 

[Patine]

I agree if Aztecs still the main Civ of Meso-America, the best option to a second civ should be Zapotecs, Mixtecs or Purépecha (Tarascos).
But what I'm arguing is to the Toltecs replace the Aztecs as the main Meso-American Civ. Because the Toltecs had the largest empire of pre-columbian America. Way bigger than Aztec empire. The Aztecs is just well know because they was the last big empire of Meso-America.
I'm not convinced the Toltecs are mythological and I will never be, since we have Aztecs source about them, we should believe in them and not think the Aztecs as liers, why should they lie? If Aztecs are saying the Toltecs conquer parts of Yucatán, I just believe in them.
And I just take again my Popol Vuh book and it said the Yaqui people was the Toltec, with all letters, Toltecs. That means we also have Maya sources about the existence of the Toltecs.

I would like to have more books about this issue, to understand it better, but with what I have, at least, I'm sure Toltecs isn't mythological at all.

I never said that the Toltec people weren't real. But what little information we know of aren't really based in historical facts. You keep on bringing up the Popoh Vuh, which by all accounts is a collection of mythological stories.

The Aztecs also thought that Hernan Cortez was a god when he showed up. In that case do you believe he was a deity because the Aztecs said so?

There's also the issue that the only leaders you can come up with (or that most people could) for the Toltecs, @Henri Christophe, are those deified by the Aztecs, and so thoroughly mythologized, that, like certain other ancient historic figures in the same boat, we have no idea anything about them as HUMAN rulers - as PEOPLE. This is why Gilgamesh and a few others in the game bug me so much.

 

[FishFishFish]

we should believe in them and not think the Aztecs as liers, why should they lie?

Because elevating a branch of Nahuas to mythical status helps legitimize their own claim for rulership in the Valley of Mexico.

 

[Evie]

Because also they wanted to show the cyclical nature of history in a way that excused the Conquest.

"If the Toltec were an even greater empire than us and they fell there's nothing wrong with us falling."

Never overlook how far people will go to rationalize bad things.

 

[Henri Christophe]

the Popol Vuh is also a post conquest text

I don't agree with that, the Popol Vuh was continuously writen since the bignning of the times untill the conquest of Spain. The last line of the 4th book was writen before the conquest of Maya Quiché, but the third book (where they said about Yaqui) is unknown when it was write down, and I believe they write when the events happens.

Yaqui = Toltec is people trying to fit the Popol Vuh to what they thought they knew from the codices

We need to decide who was the Yaquis, because they invaded the Mayas. I believe the Yaquis was the Toltec, but who you think is the Yaquis? The people of Teotihucan? If was Teotihuacan, why Aztecs don't tell about it? If was Teotihuacan it make they the might empire of Mesoamerica. That don't solve the problem, just change it.

You keep on bringing up the Popoh Vuh

I keep on bringing up the Popol Vuh because is the only book I have about meso americans (I also have the History of Tlaxcalla, but this thread isn't about Tlaxcalla).

like having Trojans instead of Greeks in the game because you like the Illiad and you think their depiction of almighty Troy is history.

I don't will mind if Trojans replaces the Greeks. I just don't know if we have enoough information about Trojan to do a civ, I don't even know the names of it's leaders.

There's also the issue that the only leaders you can come up with (or that most people could) for the Toltecs, @Henri Christophe, are those deified by the Aztecs, and so thoroughly mythologized, that, like certain other ancient historic figures in the same boat, we have no idea anything about them as HUMAN rulers - as PEOPLE. This is why Gilgamesh and a few others in the game bug me so much.

This article in Wikipedia put a list of Toltecs leaders https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Toltec_Empire
We are not sure about all of they and when they reign, but we are sure there is leaders. And thinking about Civ 7 the best option to be the leader is Ce Acatl Topiltzin Quetzalcoatl. Because this is the leader who Montezuma II thought be Hernan Cortez returning from his exile from the North Sea. Both Quetzalcoatl and Hernan Cortez are white and have a big beard.

 

[Evie]

Yeah, historians are increasingly thinking that the whole "mistook him for a god/reincarnated being" story is a bunch of nonsense too.

Most of popular history about Mesoamerica is based on dated and in many cases outdated ideas, which we've started to question for some decades now as better sources - things like translating Mayan inscriptions, better radio-carbon dating (which killed the idea that the Mexicanized pyramids in Chichen Itza were built after Tula). But popular history sources (including wikipedia, because it keeps sourcing them) are slow to adapt, and often keep old ideas alive well past their best before date.

The popol vuh certainly seems (and let me be clear, I absolutely believe it does) to *draw* on pre conquest Mayan texts, but these are lost to us and we cannot check the popol vuh to them. There is however zero doubt that the popol vuh itself was written down after the conquest if only because the authors literally say "this account we shall now write under the laws of God and Christianity."

My copy, which appears to be far more up to date than yours (the preface question the existence of the Toltec, point out that we know the Mexicanized building in Chichen Itza predates the alleged Nahuatl rule in the city, and discuss the Teotihuacan conquest of Tikal). It descrbes the Yaqui as a general term for Nahuatl-speaking people or inhabitants of ancient central Mexico. The author further point out that the Conquering mexicanized people of the Popol Vuh are probably Mexicanized (why they're called "Yaqui") Mayans from the lowlands. Not foreign conquerors, but locals who were culturally influenced by Central Mexican culture for centuries.

My copy also says this:

"The Popol Vuh does not contain what we would call "objective history". It is a collection of traditions, partly based on historical facts and partly on mythic interpretations, that explains the rise to power of (the authors) own lineages".

It is just not a history book - no more than the Nihon-Shoki, the Torah (and Bible), the Illiad and Odyssey, the Aeneid, the Sagas, the Arthurian cycle. All of them draw on historical facts (Schleeman found Troy, the Tel Dan style confirm that the House of David ruled Israel, and L'Anse aux Meadows is proof enough that the saga told the truth about Norse sailors reaching the Americas), but none of them are history books. It's cool to imagine a world where they really are history, but that world doesn't exist.