Americas

[BuchiTaton]

I'd say Mexico should be in. as a different entity to Aztecs, generally led by Hispanic people (Except when Napoleon III sent Hapsburg monarch to rule over them as puppet to French Empire, too bad that puppet's regime fell apart otherwise Mexico might be part of Austrian Empire and people might be educated to speak Austrian Germans instead of ol Mexican Spanish, and his puppet is just like all of his allies... they lost their respective 'civil wars'. The Confederate States of America, and Tokugawa Shogunate and its successor Republic), and strongly catholic, at one point even created Catholic Despotism similiar to Old Spanish Empire
Speaking of Catholic Despot. Santa Ana comes to mind.
his special ability will be akin to Phillip II of Spain. though his UU is Californio (Lancers, heavy shock cavalry that caused headaches to American counterparts (which solely modelled after British Light Dragoons and very shooty) some even said that even Colt Revolvers American cavalrymen have didn't work much against them).
On the other spectrum, the liberator 'Benito Juarez'
His UU would be light skirmisher unit.
Basic civ UA would be associated with banditry maybe? but Mexicans didn't have such reputations before 1840s.

Antonio López de Santa Anna should NEVER be Mexico's leader in game, he was despised at his time and is even more now. Also the specific Californios as mexican UU would turn it in an american history oriented design, a general Charros or if we want an specific unit the Lanceros de Jalisco would be the right ones.
Benito Juárez is the best option for Mexico, but not forget that the Guerra de Reforma was not just a french intervention, Maximiliano was there because in the first place there was a huge part of the mexican population in favor of a monarchy but mainly catholic reactionaries.

But we had a lot of Greeks leaders already. Just Greece have Athens and Sparta. We have a separate civ for Macedonia. Byzantine and Egyptian Cleopatra are also kind of Greeks.
I would like to see an overrepresentation of nahualt people as well. Mainly Toltecs and Tlaxcaltecs.

Like greeks have a lot of historical leaders to not need mythologized ancient heroic kings, neither Quetzalcoatl or Toltecs are needed when are many others options for Nahuas or any mesoamerican culture.

 

[Lonecat Nekophrodite]

Antonio López de Santa Anna should NEVER be Mexico's leader in game, he was despised at his time and is even more now. Also the specific Californios as mexican UU would turn it in an american history oriented design, a general Charros or if we want an specific unit the Lanceros de Jalisco would be the right ones.

1. Did Mexicans of 1830s-1840s also hate Santa Ana as much as Texans (who came from the original USA) do?. In addition to Texans (And Americans) who else cosidered Santa Ana their enemy?
2. What are 'Charros' and 'Lanceros de Jalisco' actually, what made them special particularly when Mexicans were fighting Americans in series of armed conflicts from 19th Century to mid 20th Century? did 'Charros' a cheaper alternative to 'tank'?

 

[Patine]

1. Did Mexicans of 1830s-1840s also hate Santa Ana as much as Texans (who came from the original USA) do?. In addition to Texans (And Americans) who else cosidered Santa Ana their enemy?

Considering he was overthrown several times, called a, "butcher," in several major Mexican cities, the Mexican Congress would not ratify the treaty he made with Texas after the Texians captured him and forced him to sign it to secure his release, which was after said Mexican Congress wouldn't pay his ransom, and other noteworthy anecdotes of the distaste and unpopularity he endured by many Mexicans - common and powerful - during his own tenure in power, I'd say, more or less, yes.

 

[Henri Christophe]

Antonio López de Santa Anna should NEVER be Mexico's leader in game, he was despised at his time and is even more now. Also the specific Californios as mexican UU would turn it in an american history oriented design, a general Charros or if we want an specific unit the Lanceros de Jalisco would be the right ones.
Benito Juárez is the best option for Mexico, but not forget that the Guerra de Reforma was not just a french intervention, Maximiliano was there because in the first place there was a huge part of the mexican population in favor of a monarchy but mainly catholic reactionaries.

About leaders of Mexico I need to agree with BuchiTaton, Benito Juárez is by far the best option to lead Mexico.
I don't know that much about Antonio López de Santa Anna to speak bad about him. But Maximiliano I know who is and think it is a very poor choice to lead Mexico, I know he was the last king of Mexico and it's a great title for a civ leader, but he is a Habsburgo in Americas, what is an abomination. And more important, Maximiliano was take out of the power by the best option of all, Benito Juárez, who is also a Zapotec. What also helps in native american representation in the game.

Like greeks have a lot of historical leaders to not need mythologized ancient heroic kings, neither Quetzalcoatl or Toltecs are needed when are many others options for Nahuas or any mesoamerican culture.

Why we are so sure the greeks are not mythologized? Every time I read something related to the greeks have gods and mythical creatures envolved.
I was reading how the Troy war begans, and was a party in Olimpics and the god of discord bring an apple to the most beautifull god and some greek general was suppose to choice the most beautifull god, he choice Afrodite and in return she give to him the most beautifull women, Helen of Troy. And as that, very mithological way, the war of Troy begins.

The only reason you say the Toltecs are mythologized is because the books about Toltecs are written down after the fall of Toltecs, but, we forget the importance of oral tradition! And we already have books about Toltecs from around 1500 when the Latin alphabet arrive in New World, it is by far the best sources we can have and we must to agree on they.

If some day some aliens destroy the human race and just I survive, for example, I'm pretty sure I can write down the history of Rome (for example) and it don't will be mythological, even if it is written after the events.

 

[Duke William of Normandy]

Why we are so sure the greeks are not mythologized?

Because they have far more extensive historic records, accurate historic records about them from other Civilizations around them, their records still exist and are not lost to the sea of time, and the fact that most of what we know about them isn't just from people who conquered them.

Every time I read something related to the greeks have gods and mythical creatures envolved.
I was reading how the Troy war begans, and was a party in Olimpics and the god of discord bring an apple to the most beautifull god and some greek general was suppose to choice the most beautifull god, he choice Afrodite and in return she give to him the most beautifull women, Helen of Troy. And as that, very mithological way, the war of Troy begins.

1. We know that these parts are mythological, no one is claiming otherwise.
2. You're comparing apples to oranges, here. If the Civ Leaders of Greece were Achilles, Hector, or Odysseus, then you would be correct in pointing this out. However, that is not the case, and we instead have Leader like Pericles and Alexander the Smug, who have extensive records that prove they do indeed exist.

 

[Alexander's Hetaroi]

Antonio López de Santa Anna should NEVER be Mexico's leader in game, he was despised at his time and is even more now. Also the specific Californios as mexican UU would turn it in an american history oriented design, a general Charros or if we want an specific unit the Lanceros de Jalisco would be the right ones.
Benito Juárez is the best option for Mexico, but not forget that the Guerra de Reforma was not just a french intervention, Maximiliano was there because in the first place there was a huge part of the mexican population in favor of a monarchy but mainly catholic reactionaries.

What is your opinion on Father Miguel Hidalgo as a potenital leader? I know he didn't yield any political power, but he was seen as the Father of the Nation during the Mexican War of Independence.

Why we are so sure the greeks are not mythologized? Every time I read something related to the greeks have gods and mythical creatures envolved.
I was reading how the Troy war begans, and was a party in Olimpics and the god of discord bring an apple to the most beautifull god and some greek general was suppose to choice the most beautifull god, he choice Afrodite and in return she give to him the most beautifull women, Helen of Troy. And as that, very mithological way, the war of Troy begins.

I don't think anyone is disputing works, like the Iliad, from Homer being mythologized. However, works from Thucydides, such as the Peloponesian War, are not mythologized and are proven historical records.

 

[Henri Christophe]

What is your opinion on Father Miguel Hidalgo as a potenital leader? I know he didn't yield any political power, but he was seen as the Father of the Nation during the Mexican War of Independence.

I'm not a fan of Hidalgo as one civ leader, mostly because he never took power as leader of México. But, I will understand if FIreaxis choice him as Mexico leader because his importance in the beginning in the Mexican revolution, but still... Benito Juárez is more solid.

I don't think anyone is disputing works, like the Iliad, from Homer being mythologized. However, works from Thucydides, such as the Peloponesian War, are not mythologized and are proven historical records.

Thucydides was the first to try cut out of the history what he think was mythologized. I know him lived at the time of Peloponesian war, but why should we believe in his works?
I'm not saying his work isn't good, actually I try to read once his book and don't understand well (he speak about geography of greece what I don't have knowledge to understand whiling was reading).
But why we believe in Thucydides and not in Ixtlilxochitl?

 

[Evie]

Among other reasons: because Thucydide lived at the time of the Peloponesian war, and Ixtilxochitl lived six centuries after the so-called Toltec Empire, Henri

Contemporary sources matter. A lot. They are able to tell us what happened either as direct witnesses or by repeating what direct witnesses reported, without centuries of oral tradition (and, in the case of the Aztec, propaganda) altering what happened and mixing nearly as many myths into it. .We do not have contemporary sources about the Toltec. All our sources date to centuries later.

In comparison, we actualy do have, thanks to the Maya, contemporary sources about Teotihuacan - that's how we know about Spearthrower Owl and his conquest of Tikal: because the Mayans recorded "this dude conquered us".

 

[Henri Christophe]

In comparison, we actualy do have, thanks to the Maya, contemporary sources about Teotihuacan - that's how we know about Spearthrower Owl and his conquest of Tikal: because the Mayans recorded "this dude conquered us".

That's not solve our problem, just change it a little.
If was Teotihuacan the greatest empire of Mesoamerica, they deserve the spot of meso america civ instead of Aztecs.
But Teotihuacan is hard to draw, okay we can have Spearthrower Owl as leader, but, what langugage they spoke? What city list they should have?
At least Toltec we are confident about their language, Nahualt. But Teotihuacan language is unknown.

 

[Duke William of Normandy]

At least Toltec we are confident about their language, Nahualt. But Teotihuacan language is unknown.

While Teotihuacan's primary language is unknown, it was likely multi-ethnic, and as such, Totonac and Nahua are plausible languages for a Teotihuacan Leader to speak.

 

[Zaarin]

While Teotihuacan's primary language is unknown, it was likely multi-ethnic, and as such, Totonac and Nahua are plausible languages for a Teotihuacan Leader to speak.

Totonac and Otomi are probably the best candidates.

 

[Evie]

Better a civ that require a little speculation than one that requires mythology.

 

[Patine]

Why we are so sure the greeks are not mythologized? Every time I read something related to the greeks have gods and mythical creatures envolved.
I was reading how the Troy war begans, and was a party in Olimpics and the god of discord bring an apple to the most beautifull god and some greek general was suppose to choice the most beautifull god, he choice Afrodite and in return she give to him the most beautifull women, Helen of Troy. And as that, very mithological way, the war of Troy begins.

The division in sources between the Mythic Cycle and Ancient Greek History is clearly defined and delineated. In fact, to all indications, it was also so clearly divided in Ancient Greece.

I'm not a fan of Hidalgo as one civ leader, mostly because he never took power as leader of México. But, I will understand if FIreaxis choice him as Mexico leader because his importance in the beginning in the Mexican revolution, but still... Benito Juárez is more solid.


Thucydides was the first to try cut out of the history what he think was mythologized. I know him lived at the time of Peloponesian war, but why should we believe in his works?
I'm not saying his work isn't good, actually I try to read once his book and don't understand well (he speak about geography of greece what I don't have knowledge to understand whiling was reading).
But why we believe in Thucydides and not in Ixtlilxochitl?

Among other reasons: because Thucydide lived at the time of the Peloponesian war, and Ixtilxochitl lived six centuries after the so-called Toltec Empire, Henri

Contemporary sources matter. A lot. They are able to tell us what happened either as direct witnesses or by repeating what direct witnesses reported, without centuries of oral tradition (and, in the case of the Aztec, propaganda) altering what happened and mixing nearly as many myths into it. .We do not have contemporary sources about the Toltec. All our sources date to centuries later.

In comparison, we actualy do have, thanks to the Maya, contemporary sources about Teotihuacan - that's how we know about Spearthrower Owl and his conquest of Tikal: because the Mayans recorded "this dude conquered us".

As an analog, here, who would be a better source on Pre-Christian Norse Culture - 13th Century Icelandic skald and historian Snorri Sturluson whom Christianization was ongoing in Iceland in his lifetime, and he had many fresh (comparatively) runic records, or Pan-German Propagandists like Count Reventlow, Moltke, Nietzsche, or even Goebbels.

 

[Duke William of Normandy]

Nietzsche,

Slight correction, his sister was the Ultranationalist German, misconstruing his views to fit her narrative. The rest of your analog works fine, though.

 

[Henri Christophe]

As an analog, here, who would be a better source on Pre-Christian Norse Culture - 13th Century Icelandic skald and historian Snorri Sturluson whom Christianization was ongoing in Iceland in his lifetime, and he had many fresh (comparatively) runic records, or Pan-German Propagandists like Count Reventlow, Moltke, Nietzsche, or even Goebbels.

I didn't know Nietzsche had works about Germanic history, I just read one book of him Also sprach Zarathustra. Where he used a Persian messias we know as Zoroastro but change his mensage. Instead of the duality of God and Devil, Zarathustra speak about the death of god. Gott ist tot, Gott bleiben tot und wir haben ihn getötet.
But I don't saw in the book any trace of pan germanic ideas.

I don't know who is Count Reventlow or Moltke.
But, what Goebbels said wrong? He used the history for a bad meaning, to support the nazis.
But I'm pretty sure Goebbels would agree with the interpretation as Frederick Barbarrosa as leader of the first Reich as Fireaxis made for civilization.
Fireaxis can use a Goebbels interpretation of Germany, but we can't have Tecumseh (for example) because the Manifest Destiny...
However... the hipocrisy.

 

[Patine]

I didn't know Nietzsche had works about Germanic history, I just read one book of him Also sprach Zarathustra. Where he used a Persian messias we know as Zoroastro but change his mensage. Instead of the duality of God and Devil, Zarathustra speak about the death of god. Gott ist tot, Gott bleiben tot und wir haben ihn getötet.
But I don't saw in the book any trace of pan germanic ideas.

I don't know who is Count Reventlow or Moltke.
But, what Goebbels said wrong? He used the history for a bad meaning, to support the nazis.
But I'm pretty sure Goebbels would agree with the interpretation as Frederick Barbarrosa as leader of the first Reich as Fireaxis made for civilization.
Fireaxis can use a Goebbels interpretation of Germany, but we can't have Tecumseh (for example) because the Manifest Destiny...
However... the hipocrisy.

Friedrich Barbarossa being legitimately and by contemporary records and viewpoints Holy Roman Emperor and King of the Germans is NOT a fabrication or narrative of Goebbels' Pan-German propagandist narrative, nor is such an narrative why he has been chosen on two different, I believe, accounts, to be a Firaxis Civ-iteration game German leader.

 

[Zaarin]

Friedrich Barbarossa being legitimately and by contemporary records and viewpoints Holy Roman Emperor and King of the Germans is NOT a fabrication or narrative of Goebbels' Pan-German propagandist narrative, nor is such an narrative why he has been chosen on two different, I believe, accounts, to be a Firaxis Civ-iteration game German leader.

Civ6 was his first time; we had Frederick the Great before (in Civ4 ETA: and in Civ1) and Frederick II, Holy Roman Emperor (in Civ2).

 

[BuchiTaton]

1. Did Mexicans of 1830s-1840s also hate Santa Ana as much as Texans (who came from the original USA) do?. In addition to Texans (And Americans) who else cosidered Santa Ana their enemy?
2. What are 'Charros' and 'Lanceros de Jalisco' actually, what made them special particularly when Mexicans were fighting Americans in series of armed conflicts from 19th Century to mid 20th Century? did 'Charros' a cheaper alternative to 'tank'?

1- Through treason, coup d'etat and changing from spanish royalist to independentist, from mexican monarchists to republicans, from unitarians to federalist and from liberal to conservative was 6 times dictator ("president"). Faced constant rebelions (included the Republic of Yucatan), being deposed and exiled multiple times. So basically half Mexico, Yucatan, Spain and France (Guerra de los Pasteles) were his enemies.
2- Charros are ranchers, mostly great landords to the southeast and frontiermen to the northwest, that by their tradition as riders, authority force and combat experience turned to be the main source of mexican elite troops (like the Lanceros de Jalisco), special police force (Rurales) and guerrilla (Chinacos).

By the way the design is about Mexico not America. Mexican ranchers did not only fight Americans, but Comanches, Apaches, Yaquis, Maya, Spaniards and French. The Californios cavalry were just a small part of the same kind or ranchers throughout Mexico. Also 1910's is early 20th century not mid, at mid 20th century Mexico was ally of USA in the WW2, with a mexican air group on Philippines and Taiwan, but funny enough in 1943 the Asociación Nacional de Charros asked the mexican army to be trained to fight againts the Axis.

What is your opinion on Father Miguel Hidalgo as a potenital leader? I know he didn't yield any political power, but he was seen as the Father of the Nation during the Mexican War of Independence.

Hidalgo is technically and officially the mexican "Padre de la Patria", and mostly a OK option for the average mexican. But any mexican with slightly good and objetive historical knowledge would agree that Miguel Hidalgo was a terrible "father" for the country. He started the movement in an improvised way and in the name of the legitimate king of Spain (remember the Napoleonic invasion of Iberia), was unable to avoid (Guanajuato) and even promoted (Guadalajara) the slaughter of surrendered spaniard civilians, in few time showed delusion of grandeur and wastefulness, and was a terrible militar lider. Because all these the general Ignacio Allende (second in command) was constantly at the edge of depose Hidalgo, but at the end the value of Hidalgo´s figure as leader cost them their lives.

Hidalgo group of insurgents was basicaly destroyed, other groups inspired by Hidalgo revolt (highlighting José María Morelos and Vicente Guerrero) were the ones that had a more organized movement, with a clear plan for the new nation, more successful army and lasted longer. In the end after 11 year practically the spanish royalist had won the war (with insurgents reduced to isolated guerrillas) but since the spanish Cadiz Constitution affected their ambitions royalist militars (like Agustín de Iturbide and Antonio López de Santa Anna) decided to change sides without any significative opposition from the few truly loyal spanish royalist.

 

[Lonecat Nekophrodite]

....Charros are ranchers, mostly great landords to the southeast and frontiermen to the northwest, that by their tradition as riders, authority force and combat experience turned to be the main source of mexican elite troops (like the Lanceros de Jalisco), special police force (Rurales) and guerrilla (Chinacos)....

And what should Charros combat animation be?
1. Chargers (with either lance or sabers)
2. Pistoliers (shooting pistols on horseback)
3. Carabiniers (shooting carbines or shotguns on horseback)
4. Dismount and shoot on foot.

 

[Henri Christophe]

Merry Christimas folks.
Can I change a little bit the subject of this thread? We already talk a lot about Toltecs and others meso-americas civs but we almost never talk about South America native americans.

Have on nation I want to see the most, the Tupinambás. What do you think about they?
Tupinambás means father of Tupis and was founded around 1500 in Rio de Janeiro, Bahia and Maranhão.
Since I'm Carioca (from Rio de Janeiro) I know better about Tupinambás of Rio de Janeiro. And the leader of Rio de Janeiro's Tupinambás is Cunhambebe.
I think Cunhambebe is a good option because he uses a canon in battle, should be very fun to draw him as a civ.

Other name to the nation, instead of Tupinambás, they can be called Tamoios. Tamoios were a confederation of Tupinambás and some other tribes to fight against the portuguese and they allies. The Tamoios have supporter of the frenchs too.
The tupinambás have several enemies, as for example the Tupiniquins of São Paulo. But was the Temiminós lead by Arariboia who defeat the Tupinambás from Rio de Janeiro.
Arariboia should be also a good name to a civ leader, since he is the founder of the city of Niterói, the only city in Brazil founded by a native american. But I don't think the nation of Temiminós are so hot as Tupinambás.

So folks, what do you think of Cunhambebe leading the Tupinambás in civ7?