Brazil Unique Unit

[Henri Christophe]

We had that because we had meaningful interaction via the treaty of Waitangi. And thus government CAN claim to succeed Maori.
Anyway, back to the topic- for Brazil UU should only be things from the times of Pedro I and onwards. There was no Brazil before Pedro I. There was no ancient Brazil. And no Natives do NOT count.

By paper our first king was D.João VI when he created the united kingdom of Brazil Portugal and Algarves in 1808.
Who create the myth of Brazil 500 years old was our beloved Pedro II, to legitimize his own power the story he chose to be Brazilian official history was one who beggining with arrival of Portuguese in Bahia in 22 April of 1500.
Our 1 cent coin have the face *suposed* of Pedro Alvares Cabral, the guy who discover Brazil and beggins our history as a country. The coins in Brazil tell brazillian history, I don't know about your coins.

 

[Duke William of Normandy]

@Henri Christophe, no offense, but the Untied States and was not started by the Native Americans. Rather, our Founding Fathers were inspired by the Native Americans who came before. Ben Franklin and Thomas Jefferson were influenced by the Iroquois Confederacy, which was why the United States govenrment is somewhat modeled after the Iroquois. But no, the USA's history was not started by the Iroquois, but instead, it was started by the English colonists who became independent from Great Britain.

 

[Zaarin]

I like to think the first United States of America born in 1142 when Iroquois federation formed it self.

Most modern scholarship places the founding of the Iroquois Confederacy to sometime between 1450 and 1550.

None of USA documents say that it has accquired right of state from them.

The Dutch bought Manhattan Island. William Penn bought Pennsylvania. Penn's successors were less forthright, for which Benjamin Franklin and others criticized them sharply.

Rather, our Founding Fathers were inspired by the Native Americans who came before. Ben Franklin and Thomas Jefferson were influenced by the Iroquois Confederacy, which was why the United States govenrment is somewhat modeled after the Iroquois.

Even that is considered romantic wishful thinking by many scholars. There is no evidence that the Founding Fathers were inspired by or even particularly aware of the Iroquois political system, and there are plenty of European precedents for everything in the Constitution, which TBH is derived 99% straight from Locke.

 

[Duke William of Normandy]

Even that is considered romantic wishful thinking by many scholars. There is no evidence that the Founding Fathers were inspired by or even particularly aware of the Iroquois political system, and there are plenty of European precedents for everything in the Constitution, which TBH is derived 99% straight from Locke.

Ah, Locke. One of the greatest political theorists of the modern era. Yeah, though, you're right. Maybe the other 1% was derived from the Iroquois, who knows?

 

[Henri Christophe]

@Henri Christophe, no offense, but the Untied States and was not started by the Native Americans. Rather, our Founding Fathers were inspired by the Native Americans who came before. Ben Franklin and Thomas Jefferson were influenced by the Iroquois Confederacy, which was why the United States govenrment is somewhat modeled after the Iroquois. But no, the USA's history was not started by the Iroquois, but instead, it was started by the English colonists who became independent from Great Britain.

that is the why each nation have the power to tell ther own history as they want. You can believe USA begins when European colonialist arrived or just when it become independent 1776 or have a better history.
Let's look Mexico case. Most of people believe Mexico starts when it becomes independent *the republician history*. But you will find persons who will answer Mexico is 700 years old (when Mexica arrive in Mexico) or 500 years old (when Spaniards arrive in Mexico). Witch history is the true? There is no true history but one is teachting in the school, so this history will be more relevante.
For Brazilians, since Pedro II, the school teaches we have ~500 years old.

Most modern scholarship places the founding of the Iroquois Confederacy to sometime between 1450 and 1550.

What we know the Iroquois federation started at an Eclipse before Europenas arrive, there is two options 1450 and 1142 (or even earlier). As a nativist I prefeer pick the oldest one, but anyone can say I'm rigth or wrong, because it is unknown.

 

[Alexander's Hetaroi]

that is the why each nation have the power to tell ther own history as they want. You can believe USA begins when European colonialist or just when it become independent or have a better history.

That's a dangerous way to teach. The only way to teach is by facts, not by a feeling.

Even that is considered romantic wishful thinking by many scholars. There is no evidence that the Founding Fathers were inspired by or even particularly aware of the Iroquois political system, and there are plenty of European precedents for everything in the Constitution, which TBH is derived 99% straight from Locke.

I'm pretty sure Benjamin Franklin said along the lines in one of his letters that if six nations could ban together and form some sort of government then 10 to 12 separate English colonies could.

 

[Zaarin]

What we know the Iroquois federation started at an Eclipse before Europenas arrive, there is two options 1450 and 1142 (or even earlier). As a nativist I prefeer pick the oldest one, but anyone can say I'm rigth or wrong, because it is unknown.

The archaeological record clearly indicates that Iroquoian peoples have been in the New York/Ontario/Great Lakes area since about the 12th century (where they came from is unclear), but the archaeological evidence does not support the existence of a sophisticated confederacy in the region until at least the 15th century. See Bruce C. Trigger's The Children of Aataentsic: A History of the Huron People to 1660 for an excellent summary on the prehistory and archaeology of the Iroqouian peoples (not just the Huron).

that is the why each nation have the power to tell ther own history as they want.

There's nothing more dangerous than revisionist history.

There is no true history

I agree that historical truth is unknowable, but that doesn't mean it shouldn't be pursued. There is an enormous leap of faith between "we can't know the precise truth" to "it can mean whatever we want it to mean." I had a literature professor who offered an excellent analogy that is applicable here: there are many possible interpretations of Emily Dickinson, but you cannot decide that Emily Dickinson wrote about igloos. Not all interpretations are equally valid.

I'm pretty sure Benjamin Franklin said along the lines in one of his letters that if six nations could ban together and form some sort of government then 10 to 12 separate English colonies could.

It does not follow that he was conscious of their form of government or particularly had it in mind.

 

[Patine]

despite he rly was a fascist dictator, he is not racist as Hitler and Mussolini. The only fascist guy I like is Getúllio Vargas. He give up the power after won WWII and gave his life to avoid a militar coup.

To be pedantic and fair (and NOT to be an advocate of the man), Mussolini's domestic policies were not notably racist in nature - not like Hitler or some of the minor European Axis powers or puppets states. However, his generals in the war with Ethiopia were downright barbaric, savage, and brutal, and an obvious racist streak drove this - and Mussolini made no chastening, sacking, or untoward comment toward them for this.

This account of how brazil became an independent state is very... strange.
Regardless, for all posterity, the 1825 Treaty of Rio de Janeiro literally opens with this:

Maybe they teach it different in brazil, but elsewhere it's a fairly straightforward story of fighting for independence from a european power.
What's unique about brazilian independence is that you have a transition from a European monarchy to a local monarchy with the same royal figure on the throne. How often do you hear of something like that? Basically never.

The problem with generating Unique units, of course, is that with the entrance of numerous post colonial nations into the franchise, the UUs all end up clustered in the same few eras (occasion renaissance, but mostly industrial+modern) which means that FXS has to be careful to try to make sure we have unique versions of units that aren't just riflemen and infantry. That certainly makes things harder, but all "young" nations have this issue. Does the trend of giving the USA unique WW2 airplanes serve us better than some other thing? The Minas Gerais isn't a terrible pick for unique battleship, I think you could maybe pick the actual HMS dreadnought, or maybe the Yamato for japan, instead. Most battleships never saw much action.
That said, I do think Voluntarios de Patria could have some interesting gameplay aspects given the name translates to something like "homeland volunteers." It's also fun because Pedro II created them. Especially if you had some kind of levy mechanic or unit line to work with. (Past games have had levy action, Humankind has a unique Levy/militia unit line too.)
In any case we are talking about a somewhat limited set of units to replace, and while you could make an entirely unique unit like some civs get, I'm not sure a ranger/scout esque thing really fits the gameplay of the time period. (Rangers in civ6 struggle a lot as it is.)

Strikes me as a traditional dividing of royal dominions between heirs after - or to avoid - a succession war that was a very common tradition in Europe for over a millennium, frankly.

I like to think the first United States of America born in 1142 when Iroquois federation formed it self.
BUT! It isn't teach in USA schools, they teach the born of USA was 1776

Other than European- and African-Americans (and later immigrant ethnicities), I think every single NON-Iroquois Native American group, as well as Alaskan Inuit, Yupik, and Aleuts, and Native Hawaiians, would all STRONGLY disagree with this claim, on principal, on top of what the next three quoted statements, also say on it.

unfortunately Native Americans =/= USA. None of USA documents say that it has accquired right of state from them.
It isn't just what you think.

@Henri Christophe, no offense, but the Untied States and was not started by the Native Americans. Rather, our Founding Fathers were inspired by the Native Americans who came before. Ben Franklin and Thomas Jefferson were influenced by the Iroquois Confederacy, which was why the United States govenrment is somewhat modeled after the Iroquois. But no, the USA's history was not started by the Iroquois, but instead, it was started by the English colonists who became independent from Great Britain.

Most modern scholarship places the founding of the Iroquois Confederacy to sometime between 1450 and 1550.


The Dutch bought Manhattan Island. William Penn bought Pennsylvania. Penn's successors were less forthright, for which Benjamin Franklin and others criticized them sharply.


Even that is considered romantic wishful thinking by many scholars. There is no evidence that the Founding Fathers were inspired by or even particularly aware of the Iroquois political system, and there are plenty of European precedents for everything in the Constitution, which TBH is derived 99% straight from Locke.

 

[Henri Christophe]

That's a dangerous way to teach. The only way to teach is by facts, not by a feeling.

what is a fact?
There is no fact, just interpretations.

For example, this game interpretation of Germany as something before the unification is the same interpretation of Nazi germany of Third Reich, but this game used this interpretation without any polemic. Frederick Barbarosa is king of the first reich

I agree that historical truth is unknowable, but that doesn't mean it shouldn't be pursued. There is an enormous leap of faith between "we can't know the precise truth" to "it can mean whatever we want it to mean." I had a literature professor who offered an excellent analogy that is applicable here: there are many possible interpretations of Emily Dickinson, but you cannot decide that Emily Dickinson wrote about igloos. Not all interpretations are equally valid.

I super agree on that, not all interpretations are right, but who have legitimicy to say something is worng or rigth and why? Nowadays we used consensus of one scientific community but before is the most powerfull write down the history as he want.

There's nothing more dangerous than revisionist history.

I guess that is the why I'm so polemic, I love revisionist history

 

[Patine]

what is a fact?
There is no fact, just interpretations.

For example, this game interpretation of Germany as something before the unification is the same interpretation of Nazi germany of Third Reich, but this game used this interpretation without any polemic. Frederick Barbarosa is king of the first reich



I super agree on that, not all interpretations are right, but who have legitimicy to say something is worng or rigth and why? Nowadays we used consensus of one scientific community but before is the most powerfull write down the history as he want.


I guess that is the why I'm so polemic, I love revisionist history

Paradigm para-psychology and consensual reality theory are bunk! There are such a thing as facts - and lots them. You should really abandon the magical thinking if you want more people to take your posts seriously.

 

[Alexander's Hetaroi]

what is a fact?
There is no fact, just interpretations.

For example, this game interpretation of Germany as something before the unification is the same interpretation of Nazi germany of Third Reich, but this game used this interpretation without any polemic. Frederick Barbarosa is king of the first reich

Well for starters the current queen of England is Elizabeth II and that's a fact. Instead I can believe I'm the queen of England instead and interpret it how I want, but that's far from the actual truth.

I guess that is the why I'm so polemic, I love revisionist history

Well you can do that in the Civ games. Not in real life.

 

[Henri Christophe]

Other than European- and African-Americans (and later immigrant ethnicities), I think every single NON-Iroquois Native American group, as well as Alaskan Inuit, Yupik, and Aleuts, and Native Hawaiians, would all STRONGLY disagree with this claim, on principal, on top of what the next three quoted statements, also say on it.

I'm not US-American, I don't will tell your history. I just have one new interpretation who came in my mind playing Civilization. Iroquois had 5 states and they are United in Americas. That means they was an United States of America, maybe not the USA but one USA.

And when we look in history, just Iroquois were allied with WASP and Iroquois federation desapear during the American Revolution, so they are ally of USA before USA even existed and desapear to start USA, if I need to choice one nation to represented the USA I would pick Iroquois as Mapuche represent Chile, the Aymara Bolivia, Guarani Paraguay, Inca Peru, Tupi Brazil and so on.

 

[Duke William of Normandy]

Guys... Where in the world did the topic at hand go? Ok, bad Carmen Sandiego joke aside, I think Pedro II should get the Fatherland Volunteer as a Unique Unit. Maybe unlocked at Nationalism or something.

 

[Patine]

I'm not US-American, I don't will tell your history. I just have one new interpretation who came in my mind playing Civilization. Iroquois had 5 states and they are United in Americas. That means they was an United States of America, maybe not the USA but one USA.

And when we look in history, just Iroquois were allied with WASP and Iroquois federation desapear during the American Revolution, so they are ally of USA before USA even existed and desapear to start USA, if I need to choice one nation to represented the USA I would pick Iroquois as Mapuche represent Chile, the Aymara Bolivia, Guarani Paraguay, Inca Peru, Tupi Brazil and so on.

Why have you called me a "U.S.-American," AGAIN? You were just corrected on this YESTERDAY, and I've said quite a few times, openly, I'm from Canada. So, please, tell me, why did you just call a "U.S.-American," again - and with the tenor of certainly of knowledge?

 

[Henri Christophe]

Why have you called me a "U.S.-American," AGAIN? You were just corrected on this YESTERDAY, and I've said quite a few times, openly, I'm from Canada. So, please, tell me, why did you just call a "U.S.-American," again - and with the tenor of certainly of knowledge?

sorry, my fault.

Guys... Where in the world did the topic at hand go? Ok, bad Carmen Sandiego joke aside, I think Pedro II should get the Fatherland Volunteer as a Unique Unit. MAybe unlocked at NAtionalism or something.

We need a threat off topic to discuss all matters. But the age of nations is just used to argue how possible to have Bandeirantes as Unique Unit even they are an unit before the independence of Brazil. (But speak Brazilian native language know as Nheengatu)

 

[Zaarin]

And when we look in history, just Iroquois were allied with WASP and Iroquois federation desapear during the American Revolution, so they are ally of USA before USA even existed and desapear to start USA, if I need to choice one nation to represented the USA I would pick Iroquois as Mapuche represent Chile, the Aymara Bolivia, Guarani Paraguay, Inca Peru, Tupi Brazil and so on.

The Iroquois fought both for and against the US in the War for Independence, ending a two-century-long policy of neutrality. It tore the Confederacy apart, from which they never recovered (a brief ascendancy of the Mohawk under Joseph Brant notwithstanding). To assert that Native-European relations were only destructive is reductive, but on the whole European Canadians, Americans, and Mexicans have been so destructive to Native cultures that to suggest that they are continuations of their indigenous cultures is patently offensive. They occupy the same geographical locations, but the population was replaced wholesale and left only small cultural influences on their conquerors. (To suggest Native Americans are disappearing is also patently wrong, but they are less than 1% of the population in the USA and for the most part live separately from the general population. Their cultural influence is negligible.)

 

[Henri Christophe]

Their cultural influence is negligible

As I understand the Iroquois is for USA as the Greek are for the USA, they don't be a great number of population by some ideas of Democracy (from Greek) and United States Federation (from Iroquois) still very important in the way the country is today

 

[Zaarin]

As I understand the Iroquois is for USA as the Greek are for the USA, they don't be a great number of population by some ideas of Democracy (from Greek) and United States Federation (from Iroquois) still very important in the way the country is today

Like I said before, the evidence that the Iroquois influenced the US Constitution is slim and highly contentious.

 

[Alexander's Hetaroi]

I'm not US-American, I don't will tell your history. I just have one new interpretation who came in my mind playing Civilization. Iroquois had 5 states and they are United in Americas. That means they was an United States of America, maybe not the USA but one USA.

And when we look in history, just Iroquois were allied with WASP and Iroquois federation desapear during the American Revolution, so they are ally of USA before USA even existed and desapear to start USA, if I need to choice one nation to represented the USA I would pick Iroquois as Mapuche represent Chile, the Aymara Bolivia, Guarani Paraguay, Inca Peru, Tupi Brazil and so on.

The Iroquois influence was (is) in modern day Canada as well, not just inside the U.S.
In fact most members of the Iroquois tribe today live inside the borders of Canada and possibly originated around Montreal, being driven out by the Algonquin into present-day New York. So even trying to say the Iroquois were the original United States of America sounds illogical, from a geographical perspective as Canada has had just as much influence considering there were no national borders.
If you want the Iroquois to represent a modern country though in game, I say we replace Canada with the Iroquois.

 

[Henri Christophe]

The Iroquois influence was (is) in modern day Canada as well, not just inside the U.S.
In fact most members of the Iroquois tribe today live inside the borders of Canada and possibly originated around Montreal, being driven out by the Algonquin into present-day New York. So even trying to say the Iroquois were the original United States of America sounds illogical, from a geographical perspective as Canada has had just as much influence considering there were no national borders.
If you want the Iroquois to represent a modern country though in game, I say we replace Canada with the Iroquois.

maybe today there is more Canadian Iroquois but historically the 5 great states of Iroquois federation was in New York state. If I pick someone to be Canadian a should pick the Huron, from north lake Ontario. Both speak the same language, but have their storical homeland in opposite sides of great lakes, exactly as USA and Canadians