Brazil Unique Unit

[Henri Christophe]

I never understand why it is a ship Brazilian Unique Unit who never was used in war, just in coups.
Some Ideas for Brazilian Unique Unit replacement in Civ 7.

Bandeirantes
Substitue Mosquetee and have the same walk range as a scout, can transform barbarian camps in workers



Capoeira Fighters
Same status as Monk Warriors, can be purchased with faith.

Cangaceiro
Substitue Rifleman, give culture per unit killed

Gaucho
The same status as Mongolian Keshik

Voluntários da Pátria
Subistitue Riflemann, extra heling in a swamp

 

[Zaarin]

Bandeirantes
Substitue Mosquetee and have the same walk range as a scout, can transform barbarian camps in workers

Oof. I don't want to see the game overly sanitized, but I really can't foresee Firaxis choosing a slaver as a UU. Also the implications of only targeting barbarian camps make it even more sketchy...

 

[Alexander's Hetaroi]

The Gaucho should go to Argentina, not Brazil, if they would be in the game.

 

[Duke William of Normandy]

Oof. I don't want to see the game overly sanitized, but I really can't foresee Firaxis choosing a slaver as a UU. Also the implications of only targeting barbarian camps make it even more sketchy...

They put Eagle Warriors in the game, no? And what's their special ability?

 

[Evie]

For better or for worse, rightly or wrongly, Aztec treatments of war captives and plantation slavery and the attending slave trades are considered pretty differently in western perception.

To a certain degree the distinction make sense: the aztecs thing was more social-cultural status and religious obligations, less turning people into property to be bought and sold for profit.

The Aztec empire is also five centuries gone, and other, more recent scars have replaced any resentment resulting from the flower wars. Transatlantic slavery died out only a bit over a century ago, and the scars are far from healed. (In the same vein that greco-roman slavery is also far less taboo).

 

[Zaarin]

They put Eagle Warriors in the game, no? And what's their special ability?

To add to what @Evie said, the Flower Wars weren't exactly wars between equals insofar as the targets were city-states subordinate to the Mexica, but many were fellow Aztecs/Nahua and there was no racial dimension to them--the Mexica considered the Chichimeca inferior, but they were too far away. What's more, they shared a cultural understanding that being sacrificed was an honor, however appalling it may be to us. By contrast, the bandeirantes were enslaving indigenous people regarded to be inferior at best and subhuman at worst, coincidentally against the laws of Portugal, which the officials in Brazil for the most part overlooked because it benefited them economically (though the Jesuits fought it fiercely--sometimes literally). We can agree that all slavery is bad, but all slavery is not equal. Aztec slavery was not equivalent to Transatlantic slavery.

 

[Evie]

Yep, quite correct on there being no racial element to them - it was a shared cultural element where it was expected for warriors captured in battle to be treated a certain way, regardless of sides.

Now whether Tlaxcala especially was really a subordinate that the Aztec kept around as a helpeful enemy to get captives from, or whether Tlaxcala was actually able to withstand Aztec expansion on their own and the whole 'Oh yeah but we needed them for the flower wars" thing was more of a polite excuse for the Aztec for their failure to actually conquer Tlaxcala...that one is more open to question.

 

[Duke William of Normandy]

To add to what @Evie said, the Flower Wars weren't exactly wars between equals insofar as the targets were city-states subordinate to the Mexica, but many were fellow Aztecs/Nahua and there was no racial dimension to them--the Mexica considered the Chichimeca inferior, but they were too far away. What's more, they shared a cultural understanding that being sacrificed was an honor, however appalling it may be to us. By contrast, the bandeirantes were enslaving indigenous people regarded to be inferior at best and subhuman at worst, coincidentally against the laws of Portugal, which the officials in Brazil for the most part overlooked because it benefited them economically (though the Jesuits fought it fiercely--sometimes literally). We can agree that all slavery is bad, but all slavery is not equal. Aztec slavery was not equivalent to Transatlantic slavery.

Ahhh... That makes sense. At least the slaves the Aztecs sacrificed had the perception of being honored.

 

[Lonecat Nekophrodite]

Bandierante being Musketeer? shouldn't they be Recon choice that becomes ranger later on instead and ability to build improvements?
They maybe Portuguese versions of Conquistadores. but they were more on settlements and land flagging over finding golden cities.

 

[Xandinho]

Bandeirantes should be a kind of stronger and earlier Ranger, they were explorers. But maybe their inclusion would be a bit of controversial.
Gaucho would be better for Argentina.
Capoeiristas aren't exactly military units, don't make sense as Brazilian unit. They'd make sense as unique unit of Palmares city-state, if they go for this way in Civ7.
Voluntários da Pátria would be my choice, expecially if Brazil keeps focused on Empire. Pedro II considered himself as the first Voluntário da Pátria. They'de be a replecement of Musketman, would come a bit later but cheaper to buy, produce and mantein and still cheaper if Brazil receives a war declaration, would be stronger against occupied cities and wouldn't require resources.

 

[Henri Christophe]

Bandierante being Musketeer? shouldn't they be Recon choice that becomes ranger later on instead and ability to build improvements?
They maybe Portuguese versions of Conquistadores. but they were more on settlements and land flagging over finding golden cities.

Bandeirantes was slave hunters, but they just enslave Native Americans and push the boarders inland surching for gold (and they find a lot of gold in Minas Gerais state).
Bandeirantes also fought in Palmares wars and Guarani wars, they aren't just recon unities, they should have both hability

Aztec slavery was not equivalent to Transatlantic slavery.

I totally agree on that, the trans-atlantic slavery was unique, but Bandeirantes wasn't play a big roll in transatlantic slavery, they were more focused in hunt native americans.

I really think Bandeirantes should be the best option to be Brazilian Unique Unit, but we cannot forget the roll they played in Native American slavery in South America.

 

[Zaarin]

I totally agree on that, the trans-atlantic slavery was unique, but Bandeirantes wasn't play a big roll in transatlantic slavery, they were more focused in hunt native americans.

Fair (though some Native American slaves were transported to Madeira and the Canary Islands during the very early period of exploration, before the African slave trade was in full gear), though I still suspect that Firaxis would avoid the bandeirantes since the same racial component that fueled the African slave trade fueled the Native American slave trade.

 

[Evie]

They may not have participated in the transatlantic slave trade specifically, but they were certainly part of the broader transatlantic/European colonial model of slavery, since the slaves they captured were destined to the same uses and ends by the same people for the same reasons as the slaves that got carried across the Atlantic.

 

[Henri Christophe]

Fair (though some Native American slaves were transported to Madeira and the Canary Islands during the very early period of exploration, before the African slave trade was in full gear), though I still suspect that Firaxis would avoid the bandeirantes since the same racial component that fueled the African slave trade fueled the Native American slave trade.

I never heard about native americans being enslaved in Canarias and Madeira islands...

I still think Bandeirantes is the best option to be Brazilian Unique Unit, despite all horrors of slavery they enlarger our boarders to become the biggest country in South America, before they Brazil Map look like that>


Also Bandeirantes are a good unit to remember all Brazil is the oldest country in modern America with 520 years old (the second oldest country, USA, have less than 300 years). An old country as Brazil deserve an ancient unit substitue MOsquetee and not very modern units as Minas Geraes or Pracinhas (of Civ 5).

 

[Zaarin]

I never heard about native americans being enslaved in Canarias and Madeira islands...

It was only a few thousand, and needless to say they died off very quickly. Canarian slaves were also taken to the Caribbean. Both were quickly replaced by Africans.

 

[Evie]

Also Bandeirantes are a good unit to remember all Brazil is the oldest country in modern America with 520 years old (the second oldest country, USA, have less than 300 years). An old country as Brazil deserve an ancient unit substitue MOsquetee and not very modern units as Minas Geraes or Pracinhas (of Civ 5).

This is wrong on so many level.

One, if we use 1500 for Brazil (520 years), then that is the first European discovery and claiming (Cabral) of Brazil. By that standard, Brazil is not the first mainland country - Venezuela wins that (1498, Columbus). Canada and the United States coast may also have been claimed by England between 1497-1500, according to Juan de la Cosa's 1500 map. This would likely be Cabot's work. Using those dates, Brazil is fourth - and also the youngest American colonial civ in the game (since Venezuela is part of Gran Colombia)

If we use the date of first permanent settlement instead, then Brazil is 488 years old (Sao Vicente, 1532). Ahead of America (Jamestown, 1607 - 413 years old), but not Venezuela (Cumana, 1502, 518 years old). Mexico also beats Brazil (Veracruz, 1519), as do Panama (Nombre de Dios, 1510) Colombia (Santa Marta, 1525), Nicaragua (Granada, 1524) and Guatemala (Tecpan Guatemala, 1524). Canada is probably later (Quebec City, 1608), but a bit in the air, as the founding of St John's, Newfoundland is one of the most disputed date in history, and whether that count for Canada is also disputed, and whether that count as a mainland country is also also disputed).

In any event, America and Canada are more than 400 years old, not less than 300 - unless we use the date of independence, in which case America is 244 years old, Brazil 198 and Canada 153. But then America is far older than Brazil.

 

[The Civs 6]

To add to what @Evie said, the Flower Wars weren't exactly wars between equals insofar as the targets were city-states subordinate to the Mexica, but many were fellow Aztecs/Nahua and there was no racial dimension to them--the Mexica considered the Chichimeca inferior, but they were too far away. What's more, they shared a cultural understanding that being sacrificed was an honor, however appalling it may be to us. By contrast, the bandeirantes were enslaving indigenous people regarded to be inferior at best and subhuman at worst, coincidentally against the laws of Portugal, which the officials in Brazil for the most part overlooked because it benefited them economically (though the Jesuits fought it fiercely--sometimes literally). We can agree that all slavery is bad, but all slavery is not equal. Aztec slavery was not equivalent to Transatlantic slavery.

Yeah. There wasn't a racial dimension to that, and they had a "shared cultural understanding", so the mass slaughter of tens of thousands of people was totally okay. God forbid there was a racial dimension to it. Almost makes it sound like the racism is worse than the indiscriminate and pointless slaughter of human beings for literally no purpose.

Let me be the first to say, and I'll take all the hate mail for it, that at least slavers wanted to keep their chattel alive and in working condition, rather than torturing and killing them wantonly.

 

[Henri Christophe]

This is wrong on so many level.

One, if we use 1500 for Brazil (520 years), then that is the first European discovery and claiming (Cabral) of Brazil. By that standard, Brazil is not the first mainland country - Venezuela wins that (1498, Columbus). Canada and the United States coast may also have been claimed by England between 1497-1500, according to Juan de la Cosa's 1500 map. This would likely be Cabot's work. Using those dates, Brazil is fourth - and also the youngest American colonial civ in the game (since Venezuela is part of Gran Colombia)

If we use the date of first permanent settlement instead, then Brazil is 488 years old (Sao Vicente, 1532). Ahead of America (Jamestown, 1607 - 413 years old), but not Venezuela (Cumana, 1502, 518 years old). Mexico also beats Brazil (Veracruz, 1519), as do Panama (Nombre de Dios, 1510) Colombia (Santa Marta, 1525), Nicaragua (Granada, 1524) and Guatemala (Tecpan Guatemala, 1524). Canada is probably later (Quebec City, 1608), but a bit in the air, as the founding of St John's, Newfoundland is one of the most disputed date in history, and whether that count for Canada is also disputed, and whether that count as a mainland country is also also disputed).

In any event, America and Canada are more than 400 years old, not less than 300 - unless we use the date of independence, in which case America is 244 years old, Brazil 198 and Canada 153. But then America is far older than Brazil.

Once I made a thereat just to discuss that matter> https://forums.civfanatics.com/threads/off-how-old-is-your-country.651080/

If you ask any Brazilian, how old is Brazil, he would think in the date 22 Abril of 1500. It is our birthday, but if you ask a Colombian or a Mexican (I ask for both) they always remember the independence movement as born moment of nation (even Mexico who can claim 700 years old prefer claim be younger than USA)
So, by self-recognition of nations Brazil is the oldest country.

 

[Evie]

Frankly, Better to die a man (or woman, or none of the above) than to live a trapped beast of burden.

Besides which, if we want to start casting stones over murdering people in horrifying way because MUH RELIGION, shall we take a look at a little something called the witch hunts? Because that's what Europe was up to while those big meanie Aztecs were sacrificing people. At least in the Aztec religion, they were literally doing it to save the world; the Europeans did it because people prayed wrong.

(Also, this is a time when Europeans routinely killed war prisoners unless a ransom could be expected, so, again, not exactly that different.)

Henri, self-recognition is a nonsense statistic, because it results in precisely what you did: comparing apples and oranges.

 

[The Civs 6]

Frankly, Better to die a man (or woman, or none of the above) than to live a trapped beast of burden.

Besides which, if we want to start casting stones over murdering people in horrifying way because MUH RELIGION, shall we take a look at a little something called the witch hunts? Because that's what Europe was up to while those big meanie Aztecs were sacrificing people. At least in the Aztec religion, they were literally doing it to save the world; the Europeans did it because people prayed wrong.

(Also, this is a time when Europeans routinely killed war prisoners unless a ransom could be expected, so, again, not exactly that different.)

Henri, self-recognition is a nonsense statistic, because it results in precisely what you did: comparing apples and oranges.

Eh I'm not here to squabble over this, not the proper thread. I just disagree with that premise. And frankly not interested in arguing with someone who thinks that witch hunts and the Aztec practice of human sacrifice are comparable, let alone that they make the assumption that one would defend the witchhunts.

Bad is bad.