• Civilization 7 has been announced. For more info please check the forum here .

Charlemagne

What would be the best way to incorporate Charlemagne?

  • Alternate dual leader for France & Germany

    Votes: 8 66.7%
  • Leader of unique Frankish civ

    Votes: 4 33.3%

  • Total voters
    12
Thirding the point about "green native" having a healthy dose of "noble savage" mythology to it. There are aspects of idigenous lifestyles (including, yes, smaller populations) that may have resulted in adopting more ecologically compatible values, but they were still a human people, not freaking elves or dryads.
 
In truth, these nomadic hunter cultures didn't actually have special techniques for herd population preservation and number management that was never innovated by European or Eurasian horse nomads, though many people seem to believe they did. Their historical small numbers (and thus small demand), hunting seasons (as opposed to all-years hunting), and using the whole buffalo, every part, was all there was. If they had, in fact, become much more successful, by the general definition of the game, without a European conquest, their population and needs would have eventually overwhelmed the herd populations like European hunting historically did. There was, in fact, no grand, "magical trick," to it beyond that. After all, the ancestors of the Indigenous Western Hemisphere peoples apparently hunted mammoth, mastadons, sabre-toothed tigers, giant armadillos, and other such things right to extinction.
Just that most of the NA megafauna died out around 12000 years ago leaving another 10K years of assemblage of great mammals that did not changed significantly until the introduction of the domesticated horse and others old world innovations. Also, it was already said that more agrarian sedentary/urban societies collapsed in the region leaving the hunting way as a viable option all that time.

Anyway civs in game gain their designs from characteristic historical elements, waste the most notable example of hunting based economy for something like previous "extra city range" is disingenuous when that territory was extense but of a low population density.
 
However, I also agree that a Mughal civ could theoretically stand independently from a unified India civ, though that probably means sacrificing Akbar or Jahan for Babur, who could have his capital at Kabul.
Or we can just have another Constantinople/Istanbul situation, but instead be Agra/Akbarabad. :mischief:
 
During my research during my master's, one article mentioned that archaeology in Eastern North America suggests a repeated cycle, going back centuries, of centralization and hierarchy followed by decentralization and anti-hierarchy followed by confederation leading back into hierarchy and centralization, rinse, lather, repeat, with the decentralized stage generally lasting longer. Which is yet another mark against the March of Progress model. (Also funny Hämäläinen should come up. He seems to really be a rising star in Native North American studies; I cited a number of his articles in more than one paper.)
Hämäläinen is the Rhodes Professor of American History at Oxford, and the author of two other superb books on Native Americans: Comanche Empire (which won the Bancroft Prize for 'exemplary work on American History') and Lakota America. Both highly recommended, and reading them you can see the evolving of the ideas and concepts in Indigenous America, his latest work. He is a prime mover in the on-going struggle to consider 'American History' as including the native American groups as prime Actors, not just peripheral subjects of the actions of the Europeans. The specific point made by Indigenous America, in fact, is that for the first 300 + years of European settlement in North America the native American groups were the Prime Actors in diplomacy, trade and warfare and native groups from the Mohegan to the Haudenosenee to the Lakota and Comanche frequently dictated events to the English, Spanish, French, and American settlers.
 
Since we already have Sioux (Siouan), Haudenosaunee (Iroquoian), Shoshone (Numic) and Cree (Algonquian) NA civs I think Choctaw (Muskogean) would be a nice options with leaders like 16th century Tuskaloosa and 19th century Pushmataha, both options linking the last Mississippian cultures to the "Five Civilized Tribes".
 
Since we already have Sioux (Siouan), Haudenosaunee (Iroquoian), Shoshone (Numic) and Cree (Algonquian) NA civs I think Choctaw (Muskogean) would be a nice options with leaders like 16th century Tuskaloosa and 19th century Pushmataha, both options linking the last Mississippian cultures to the "Five Civilized Tribes".
From the 5 civilized tribes I should choice the Seminole one, because it can be lead by a black character as John Horse.


But I also think Sioux and Iroquois should come back to civ7, they are very emblematics.
 
Homestly a bit flabbergasted that that needs to be said. But then I come from the French-Canadian historical and legal perspective which tends to emphasize "yeah, they were our partners, except the Haundenosaunee* who were our fierce and kinda badass enemies and we kinda wish they had been our friends too" and of "yeah, they did save our rear...well, a lot", and B)I specifically spend time in my studies on the actual legal history of Native-Canadian legal interactions. Which isn't entirely accurate either, but does tend to lead to a different perspective on natived.

*and the Mesquakie, and the Natchez, but that was in the Mississippi valley so didn't register as much on the local radar in French Canada

And for the one billionth time Henri, it's downright insulting on your part to suggest including indigenous people but make their leader black. Seriously, give that one up.
 
Since we already have Sioux (Siouan), Haudenosaunee (Iroquoian), Shoshone (Numic) and Cree (Algonquian) NA civs I think Choctaw (Muskogean) would be a nice options with leaders like 16th century Tuskaloosa and 19th century Pushmataha, both options linking the last Mississippian cultures to the "Five Civilized Tribes".
A think a Pacific Northwest civ would be preferable - and more distinct - myself, actually.
 
Since we already have Sioux (Siouan), Haudenosaunee (Iroquoian), Shoshone (Numic) and Cree (Algonquian) NA civs I think Choctaw (Muskogean) would be a nice options with leaders like 16th century Tuskaloosa and 19th century Pushmataha, both options linking the last Mississippian cultures to the "Five Civilized Tribes".
A think a Pacific Northwest civ would be preferable - and more distinct - myself, actually.
I'd be delighted to see the Choctaw or a PNW civ like the Tlingit or Haida. I also wouldn't mind seeing the Powhatan--led by Powhatan, and not Pocahontas for the love of...
 
From the 5 civilized tribes I should choice the Seminole one, because it can be lead by a black character as John Horse.


But I also think Sioux and Iroquois should come back to civ7, they are very emblematics.
Garifuna would be a more homogenous mix of Native and African people/culture turning also in the first Caribbean civ on game.
 
From the 5 civilized tribes I should choice the Seminole one, because it can be lead by a black character as John Horse.


But I also think Sioux and Iroquois should come back to civ7, they are very emblematics.
But, for the umpteenth time, John Horse was a military commander, not the leader of the civ.. Osceola was the leader of the civ, and John Horse was his subordinate. Horse would not be appropriate as the leader of the civ, but maybe a guerilla-oriented Great General.
 
Garifuna would be a more homogenous mix of Native and African people/culture turning also in the first Caribbean civ on game.
The Taino would be more interesting as an Indigenous Caribbean civ, and have more potential city names.
 
The Taino would be more interesting as an Indigenous Caribbean civ, and have more potential city names.
We already have Caguana from Taino heritage as city state in civ6.
I would like to see Tainos in civ7, I really think we need more Native American civs, but I'm wonder if a Taino civ can steal Haiti spot of caribean, between these two I prefer Haiti.
I think Tainos a bit similar with Tupis, from Brazil, so I think Taino can be replaced by Tupis lead by Cunhambebe.

But, for the umpteenth time, John Horse was a military commander, not the leader of the civ.. Osceola was the leader of the civ, and John Horse was his subordinate. Horse would not be appropriate as the leader of the civ, but maybe a guerilla-oriented Great General.
I don't think there is a solid hierarchy in Seminole tribe and they had multiple leaders. But, if I'm wrong. That don't means John Horse can't lead Seminole tribe since we have Gandhi leading India who never actually held power in India.

Garifuna would be a more homogenous mix of Native and African people/culture turning also in the first Caribbean civ on game.
Garifuna is a good option, but I don't know any name to be it's leader... Maybe they fit better as a city state.

it's downright insulting on your part to suggest including indigenous people but make their leader black
I don't think is a insulting! I think is a honor at the time a civilization allow the black community in his reign. And not just allowed but give power positions, is an amazing history who should be empodered by Fireaxis.
 
The Taino would be more interesting as an Indigenous Caribbean civ, and have more potential city names.
I was suggestign for the particular interest of @Henri Christophe for a mixed Native+African civ, the caribbean element is an extra. The Garifuna have their Arawak roots like Taino so they can cover any native element.
Potantial city names is irrelevant, there Grifuna populations in 4 countries with as many people as Cree, so if these later can use any small town for their city name Garifuna can also.
Garifuna is a good option, but I don't know any name to be it's leader... Maybe they fit better as a city state.
Joseph Chatoyer, the national hero of Saint Vicent and the Grenadines.
 
Last edited:
I don't think there is a solid hierarchy in Seminole tribe and they had multiple leaders. But, if I'm wrong. That don't means John Horse can't lead Seminole tribe since we have Gandhi leading India who never actually held power in India.
And, given I've also said many times I am NOT a supporter of Gandhi as leader of India, and think he needs to be replaced, how is this counterpoint supposed to move me, exactly?
 
I don't think is a insulting! I think is a honor at the time a civilization allow the black community in his reign. And not just allowed but give power positions, is an amazing history who should be empodered by Fireaxis.
I think you have a distorted view on what civ's, in general, consider, "an honour," for their leadership, and probably don't see it the same, I'd bet, when Black majority nations are ruled by White people.
 
I was suggestign for the particular interest of @Henri Christophe for a mixed Native+African civ, the caribbean element is an extra. The Garifuna have their Arawak roots like Taino so they can cover native any related element.
Potantial city names is irrelevant, there Grifuna populations in 4 countries with as many people as Cree, so if these later can use any small town for their city name Garifuna can also.

Joseph Chatoyer, the national hero of Saint Vicent and the Grenadines.
I would see no problem with having the Taino AND Haiti, with the Garifuna being a city-state.
 
I'd bet, when Black majority nations are ruled by White people.
What do you mean with that? Do you want a Rodhesia civ?
We already have the colonial power in civilization who ruled no-white majority nations.
 
What do you mean with that? Do you want a Rodhesia civ?
We already have the colonial power in civilization who ruled no-white majority nations.
Indeed. Then why should a Native American be, "honoured," to have a Black leader?
 
I dont thing any nation should be "honoured" by being ruled by people of X or Y "color", but the point @Henri Christophe could do is that these native cultures have the tradition of incorporate people of any origin in their community even in the higher ranges.

Still for this idea Garifuna would be a better option than Seminole since the integration of Maroons and Kalinagos was more significative, also the history of these phenomenon is longer and have more decendants.
 
Top Bottom