Americas

[Zaarin]

About the only speculation we might need are the appearance of the leader (not too taxing, and Mayan stelae can still help)

It's Firaxis. Just coat him in enough resplendent quetzal feathers to depopulate the species and call it a day.

and language (and there the main problem is just chosing one of the existent language we're reasonably suspecting are related to what they spoke in Teotihuacan)

Yeah, this is the chief area where speculation is required since I'm pretty sure a good dozen languages have been hypothesized to be associated with Teotihuacan. The good news is that, as I understand it, a growing number of historians and archaeologists believe that Teotihuacan was multiethnic, which means there may not be just one right answer. Plus it can't be worse than Attila's Chuvash.

 

[Xandinho]

Teotihuacan didn't even appear as a city-state in Civ6, I doubt that it will appear as a playable civ any time soon. Zapotec has a better chance, imo.

 

[Zaarin]

Teotihuacan didn't even appear as a city-state in Civ6, I doubt that it will appear as a playable civ any time soon. Zapotec has a better chance, imo.

I want the Mixtec just because Eight Deer Jaguar Claw has the best leader name ever.

 

[Henri Christophe]

Considering we know next to nothing about either as PEOPLE, neither is a better - or even good choice. Better to leave Tollan as a city-state, at best, due to lack of real information about leaders, culture, religion, government, society, etc. Same with Teotihuacan.

I agree we don't know that much about Teotihuacan, but about Toltec we know enouth to do a civ, they propably speak the same language as Aztecs, what we know the language. We know some leaders names as Quetzalcoalt or Xochitl. And for Unique Units we can have the Atlantis warriors.

And about you say about Toltec history is Aztec propaganda, I don't care for that, it's source avaiable and we need to use to know better about the Toltecs.

Teotihuacan didn't even appear as a city-state in Civ6

That was a great mistake, Teotihuacan should appear as a city state in civ7. Is the most important city of pre columbian Americas.

I want the Mixtec just because Eight Deer Jaguar Claw has the best leader name ever.

That's a great name, for sure I would like to see Eight Deer Jaguar Claw in the game.
By the way... I think Mexico should be full of civilization as Europe is in other games of the franchise.

 

[Evie]

We know more *fiction* about the Toltecs.
We know more *facts* about Teotihuacan, though.

And as far as fictional civilizations go, we don't even know that much about the Toltecs.

 

[Henri Christophe]

We know more *fiction* about the Toltecs.
We know more *facts* about Teotihuacan, though.

Herotodo and Homero have a lot of "fictions" in his history, as fantastic creatures, monster, gods and etc...
Why do we don't say Greece is a "fiction" as the Toltecs?

 

[Evie]

Because they're very far from our only source about the greeks - we have dozens if not hundreds of sources, both greeks and from the other people around them about the greeks. And because we're able to confirm a lot of those details from archaeology as well.

We have overwhelming evidence that whatever fiction Herodotus may have written (and he mostly wrote fiction about others, far away place - not about Greece), we've been able to find plentiful evidence that what he tells us about the greek is mostly true.

Same with Homer: we don't believe him about Troy existing because he's trustworthy (he's not); we believe him about Troy existing becsuse we found the ruins of Troy, and we found texts from a completely different (Hittites) people that seem to give the city corresponding Hittite names (Willusa/Truwisa).

Atlantis and the country of the Amazons, also from Greek writing, are NOT considered historical civilizations, precisely because we only have the words of a few Greek texts about their existence, without any supporting evidence, and these texts appear to report legends, not facts. The Toltecs are in the same category,

Multiple independent contemporary sources and actual archaeological evidence for a Toltec empire is precisely what we don't have (and no, the Kiche Popol Vuh is not a contemporary source, and modern translations question whether it speak about the Toltec as a separate people at all - that was what earlier European translators thought, but they were interpteting the Popol Vuh based on the Aztec legends, so the earlier translations are NOT an independent source).

 

[Birch617]

Herotodo and Homero have a lot of "fictions" in his history, as fantastic creatures, monster, gods and etc...
Why do we don't say Greece is a "fiction" as the Toltecs?

Also here is a cool video about the Toltec for anyone who cares

Moderator Action: Post has been edited and inappropriate content removed ~ LK
Please read the forum rules: http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=422889

 

[Henri Christophe]

Also here is a cool video about the Toltec for anyone who cares

Cool video!
The main point of the discussion is, I think the informations we have is more then enouth to construct a civ for Toltecs, don't exatcly matter if it was Aztec propaganda. Even if Quetzalcoalt itself become a feathered serpent don't will change it's a source good enouth to do a game. The toltecs existed and ruled far way lands as Chichen Itzá.

(and no, the Kiche Popol Vuh is not a contemporary source, and modern translations question whether it speak about the Toltec as a separate people at all - that was what earlier European translators thought, but they were interpteting the Popol Vuh based on the Aztec legends, so the earlier translations are NOT an independent source).

Good to remember! The Toltecs are also speaking in Popol Vuh and you, somehow, want to say that was a bad translation of my book edition...

 

[Evie]

Bad translation or good translation isn't the problem, Henri,

The problem is that that translation was written by people who understood Mesoamerican history from the Aztec stories, so they interpreted the Popol Vuh - and translated it - based on those legends. So, the translated popol vuh you have is not an independent source.

That makes it an entirely invalid source for confirming that the Toltecs exist.

Which, there is very little evidence of. And the idea that they ruled a unified empire as far as Chichen Itza is entirely unsupported (on the other hand, we have specific independent, contrmporary Mayan record that show Teotihuacan dynasties did take control of Mayan cities. THAT one is real. Which makes your insistence on the Toltecs all the more surprising - why push for them so hard, when we have Teotihuacan who achieved all the things Toltecs are credited with in mythology, did it even earlier and had a far more impressive capital city to boot?)

Besides which, even if they somehow were real, there are half a dozen groups in Mesoamerica that should be added before we add another Nahuatl civilization - the Toltecs would just be the Aztecs all over again. That in itself should be enough to rule them out. They bring nothing to the game that the Aztecs cannot bring, and you would add them at the expanse of far more unique and interesting civs with their own culture and language.

They are in every imaginable way a bad choice to add.

 

[Henri Christophe]

The problem is that that translation was written by people who understood Mesoamerican history from the Aztec stories, so they interpreted the Popol Vuh - and translated it - based on those legends. So, the translated popol vuh you have is not an independent source.

We rly have a problem of sources here... Because I prefer to believe the Yaquis said in Popol Vuh are the Toltecs. It's is clearly write it down in my book:
Los Mexicanos, los antiguos toltecas, el pueblo náhuatl, que uniéndose a los mayas del sur, fueron el origen de las naciones indígenas de Guatemala. El autor llama a los yaquis los sacerdotes y sacrificadores, y estos mismos nombres les da en varios lugares a los jefes quichés Balam-Quitzé y compañeros.

on the other hand, we have specific independent, contrmporary Mayan record that show Teotihuacan dynasties did take control of Mayan cities.

Cool Teotihuacan have some achievements, the problem we don't know their language and don't know even a good civ leader. Teotihuacan shoul be a city state!
On other hand, Toltecs have the very cool name of Quetzalcoalt, the dude who sail the Atlantic sea promissing come back and Hernan Cortez took the legend to claim him self Quetzalcoalt!!!!!!!!!

And the idea that they ruled a unified empire as far as Chichen Itza

Just the concept a large Toltec empire should made they the largest empire of Meso America.

Besides which, even if they somehow were real, there are half a dozen groups in Mesoamerica that should be added before we add another Nahuatl civilization - the Toltecs would just be the Aztecs all over again.

Okay, maybe we have a lot of good names in Mesoamerica as Zapotecs or Mixtecs. But Toltec is one of the good ones, is so good I think it can replace the Aztecs in Civ7. I'm tired of Montezumas in every game, I want to set my world conquest with Quetzalcoalt now.

And I really think we cannot avoid to use sources of Toltecs just because it is a "Aztec propaganda", Toltecs isn't fiction, they were pretty real, they found Tula, I was there. I saw with my eyes the atlantis warriors.

They are in every imaginable way a bad choice to add.

and for end, no. They are a good choice.




Now, backing in what @Birch617 said and was removed, I want to clarify I'm not a Black guy...
I just use a Black avatar and like to Black history, but I'm a white (for Brazilians)... Maybe in US I should be a latin, when I lived in Germany I was often missconfused as Turk. But for sure I'm not Black.

 

[Zaarin]

the problem we don't know their language and don't know even a good civ leader.

Spearthrower Owl is a good candidate for leader. A number of languages have been proposed for Teotihuacan, but Totonacan and Otomanguean are good guesses.

 

[Patine]

We rly have a problem of sources here... Because I prefer to believe the Yaquis said in Popol Vuh are the Toltecs. It's is clearly write it down in my book:
Los Mexicanos, los antiguos toltecas, el pueblo náhuatl, que uniéndose a los mayas del sur, fueron el origen de las naciones indígenas de Guatemala. El autor llama a los yaquis los sacerdotes y sacrificadores, y estos mismos nombres les da en varios lugares a los jefes quichés Balam-Quitzé y compañeros.

Cool Teotihuacan have some achievements, the problem we don't know their language and don't know even a good civ leader. Teotihuacan shoul be a city state!
On other hand, Toltecs have the very cool name of Quetzalcoalt, the dude who sail the Atlantic sea promissing come back and Hernan Cortez took the legend to claim him self Quetzalcoalt!!!!!!!!!


Just the concept a large Toltec empire should made they the largest empire of Meso America.

Okay, maybe we have a lot of good names in Mesoamerica as Zapotecs or Mixtecs. But Toltec is one of the good ones, is so good I think it can replace the Aztecs in Civ7. I'm tired of Montezumas in every game, I want to set my world conquest with Quetzalcoalt now.

And I really think we cannot avoid to use sources of Toltecs just because it is a "Aztec propaganda", Toltecs isn't fiction, they were pretty real, they found Tula, I was there. I saw with my eyes the atlantis warriors.


and for end, no. They are a good choice.




Now, backing in what @Birch617 said and was removed, I want to clarify I'm not a Black guy...
I just use a Black avatar and like to Black history, but I'm a white (for Brazilians)... Maybe in US I should be a latin, when I lived in Germany I was often missconfused as Turk. But for sure I'm not Black.

Civ games are not about mythological civ's and leaders (Gilgamesh, Dido, and some of the Civ2 leaders were bad enough, and should never have been included). If there was a 4X game by Firaxis dealing with that idea, it would likely take after the Ensemble Studios Age of Empires and Age of Mythology divide and make a (hypothetical) mythology-based game a separate, but similar, game, like Colonization/CivCol or Alpha Centauri/Beyond Earth type of thing.

 

[Henri Christophe]

Civ games are not about mythological civ's and leaders (Gilgamesh, Dido, and some of the Civ2 leaders were bad enough, and should never have been included). If there was a 4X game by Firaxis dealing with that idea, it would likely take after the Ensemble Studios Age of Empires and Age of Mythology divide and make a (hypothetical) mythology-based game a separate, but similar, game, like Colonization/CivCol or Alpha Centauri/Beyond Earth type of thing.

But Toltecs isn't fiction, they fit better in a civilization game. And have charchters as Gilgamesh or Dido opens precedent to more mythologized charachters as Quetzalcoalt.
Speaking about mythological characters I think should fit in this game (and since we are in African civilizations thread). Another cool name is Xangô leading the Oyo empire, in nowadays Nigeria. Oyo is the kingdom of Yoruba people and Xangô is the mithological 3rd kings of Oyo.
After the Slavery process, the king Xangô still praised in Americas as god of Thunder, justice and fire.

We need to open more doors to semi-mithological leaders as Gilgamesh and Dido was already choiced, why not Quetzalcoalt or Xangô?

 

[Zaarin]

Gilgamesh, Dido

Gilgamesh is historically attested, though his in-game depiction is based on the myth. Dido is a little more liminal. The existence of her father has been historically verified, and many historians have accepted her historicity on that basis--but it's definitely an edge case. Not mentioned, but the existence of Hiawatha is also generally accepted. The only completely mythical figure in Civ is Kupe. Why they chose him over a historical Māori chief is hard to fathom except to make the civ more "Polynesian"--in which case they should have chosen Tonga, Hawai'i, or some other seafaring Polynesian civ.

But Toltecs isn't fiction, they fit better in a civilization game.

The city of Tollan existed, but general historical consensus is that the Toltec civilization was nothing more than a Nahua foundation myth.

We need to open more doors to semi-mithological leaders as Gilgamesh and Dido

No, we should have fewer, ideally none. There's no reason for Gilgamesh when we could have Gudea, no need for Dido when we could have Hiram II, no need for Hiawatha when we could have Joseph Brant, and no need for Kupe when we could have Hongi Hika.

 

[Patine]

No, we should have fewer, ideally none. There's no reason for Gilgamesh when we could have Gudea, no need for Dido when we could have Hiram II, no need for Hiawatha when we could have Joseph Brant, and no need for Kupe when we could have Hongi Hika.

Yes, indeed, it would be hard to say where to stop. Arthur Pendragon of England, Romulus of Rome, Arjuna Pandava of India, Emperor Yu the Great of the Xia Dynasty of China, Jimmu Tenno of Japan, Dangun of Korea, Hippolyta of Greece, Gunnhild of the Vikings (the last two of whom were default female leaders who only appeared in Civ2), Medb of Ireland, and on and on. It would need it's own Civ-like game, where you could also have monster and hero units, mythological wonders and improvements, wondrous techs, and divine intervention, and such.

 

[Evie]

The alleged Toltec capital of Tula-Tollan (see below on the name Tollan) existed, but its 60 000 inhabitants at its height make it less than half the size of Teotihuacan before it, or Tenochtitlan after it. It may not even have been the largest Mesoamerican/Mayan city of its days, because there's some evidence Tikal was actually larger.

The idea that this city somehow held together a larger empire than the much larger Teotihuacan before it or Tenochtitlan after it is very ,very, very hard to credit with any sort of reality.

Tollan is a very treacherous term in Nahuatl history because the term - "Among the reeds", meaning "where people are as numerous as reeds" (so: a big city) has definitely been used of multiple cities, with a general sense of "The City". Tula was, indeed Tollan, but before it, Teotihuacan was also Tollan. And later on, Tenochtitlan and Cholula were Tollan, and I've seen mention that even Chichen Itza may have been Tollan.

And there is some evidence that the confusion with Tollan may date back to the Aztec themselves, and may be part of why so many of the things they credit to the Toltec in their myths actually are things Teotihuacan did: because they're confusign the two historical Tollan, and crediting to Tula-Tollan and its (alleged) empire the things that Teotihuacan-Tollan and its (very real) empire did.

 

[Laurana Kanan]

Moderator Action: Several posts regarding Toltecs have been relocated here from the African civilization & city-states thread - https://forums.civfanatics.com/threads/african-civilizations-and-city-states.677674/

 

[Henri Christophe]

Arthur Pendragon of England, Romulus of Rome, Arjuna Pandava of India, Emperor Yu the Great of the Xia Dynasty of China, Jimmu Tenno of Japan, Dangun of Korea, Hippolyta of Greece, Gunnhild of the Vikings (the last two of whom were default female leaders who only appeared in Civ2), Medb of Ireland, and on and on.

I like all these names, I don't know everyone, but the ones I know I guess should fit very well in a civ game.
Maybe Arthur of England and Arjuna of India was fictional leaders, but Romulus and the Emperor Yu was not, they are pretty real.

It would need it's own Civ-like game, where you could also have monster and hero units, mythological wonders and improvements, wondrous techs, and divine intervention, and such.

I don't think divine mechanic is needed just because the leader is semi-mythical. But, I don't will be mad if we have a civ7 with a more mythological characteristic.... We already have the heroes in Civ6, what was very cool.

Tollan is a very treacherous term in Nahuatl history because the term - "Among the reeds", meaning "where people are as numerous as reeds" (so: a big city) has definitely been used of multiple cities, with a general sense of "The City". Tula was, indeed Tollan, but before it, Teotihuacan was also Tollan. And later on, Tenochtitlan and Cholula were Tollan, and I've seen mention that even Chichen Itza may have been Tollan.

Okay,there are several Tollans around Mexico, but the Toltec's Tollan is Tollan-Xicocotitlan, in nowadays state of Hidalgo. Where is possible to see the Atlanti warriors.

The alleged Toltec capital of Tula-Tollan (see below on the name Tollan) existed, but its 60 000 inhabitants at its height make it less than half the size of Teotihuacan before it, or Tenochtitlan after it. It may not even have been the largest Mesoamerican/Mayan city of its days, because there's some evidence Tikal was actually larger.

I'm not disputting who is better between Toltecs and Teotihuacan. Teotihucan is a mark in American history, being the pre classic before Teotihuacan, pos classic after Teotihuacan and the classic at the time of Teotihuacan. But I just guess we don't have enouthg material to do a civ of Teotihuacan. @Zaarin said about Spearthrower Owl to be leader of Teotihuacan, as I read in Wikipédia, his name survive via a maya inscription. But still, we are not sure about their langugage. Meanwhile the Toltecs we know their languge, Nahualt. And also have the cool name of Quetzalcoalt to be the leader, very strong name, by the way.

 

[Evie]

Toltec Tollan - Tollan-Xicocotitlan - is known in English - you know, the language we speak on this forum - as Tula. So the two are the same thing.

And Quetzalcoat is only a strong name because of the mythology of the Feathered Serpent god associated with it. So, another attempt to turn Civilization into Age of Mythology, which thanks but no thanks.

Keep him in heroes mode.