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
Wealth is allowed to accumulate

The kind of people who accumulate the wealth use it to buy the political process and rig the game in their favor at the expense of the kind of people who do the actual work

Eventually the accumulate parasites bleed the working class to death and everything collapses.
Not entirely a fitting analogy as power in North American societies has traditionally been based on what you might call "conspicuous donation." That is to say, where in Western society power and influence have usually been based on an ability to display one's wealth through extravagant indulgence like expensive dyes (Tyrian purple, carmine, etc.), furs (ermine), gold, jewels, castles, and so forth, in indigenous North American societies all across the upper continent power has usually been based on an ability to give away (or, in some cases, destroy) an extravagant amount of wealth through gifts and feasts (the most famous example being the PNW potlatch). So these societies essentially had a built-in system to prevent long-term accumulation of wealth since these extravagant displays were essentially designed to impoverish the person who gave them (and by so impoverishing themselves for the community they gained the respect necessary to command authority). This was probably to some extent true even of the Mississippians, the cultural complex that most imitated the Mesoamerican civs who had a view of wealth much more familiar to the Western understanding of displaying one's wealth. Based on the records of De Soto's expedition, the Mississippian paramount chiefs seem to have certainly displayed their wealth in a fashion more akin to Mesoamerican kings, but they also made extravagant gifts to De Soto that remind one more of a traditional North American wealth redistribution system.

A second place this analogy breaks down is we certainly don't see this kind of cycle between hierarchical and non-hierarchical societies in Europe or the Middle East. Popular uprisings may bring down one hierarchical government, but they inevitably replace it with another. The Lord-Protector did not create a less hierarchical society than the Stuart monarchy, for example. At most you get little non-hierarchical communes (invariably religiously motivated) like the Mennonites or Moravian Brethren who are eyed with suspicion or outright persecuted by their neighbors.

I don't know enough about Oceanic, African, South American, or Siberian societies to say the situation in North America is unique (indeed, I know it has some parallels in Central America), but it's not at all akin to what was happening in Europe, North Africa, West Asia, or East Asia. Popular revolts there invariably led to a new hierarchical government or a brief period of anarchy followed by bloody suppression and the restoration of hierarchical government (in the latter category the peasant revolts of the early sixteenth century spring to mind).
 
Not entirely a fitting analogy as power in North American societies has traditionally been based on what you might call "conspicuous donation." That is to say, where in Western society power and influence have usually been based on an ability to display one's wealth through extravagant indulgence like expensive dyes (Tyrian purple, carmine, etc.), furs (ermine), gold, jewels, castles, and so forth, in indigenous North American societies all across the upper continent power has usually been based on an ability to give away (or, in some cases, destroy) an extravagant amount of wealth through gifts and feasts (the most famous example being the PNW potlatch). So these societies essentially had a built-in system to prevent long-term accumulation of wealth since these extravagant displays were essentially designed to impoverish the person who gave them (and by so impoverishing themselves for the community they gained the respect necessary to command authority). This was probably to some extent true even of the Mississippians, the cultural complex that most imitated the Mesoamerican civs who had a view of wealth much more familiar to the Western understanding of displaying one's wealth. Based on the records of De Soto's expedition, the Mississippian paramount chiefs seem to have certainly displayed their wealth in a fashion more akin to Mesoamerican kings, but they also made extravagant gifts to De Soto that remind one more of a traditional North American wealth redistribution system.

A second place this analogy breaks down is we certainly don't see this kind of cycle between hierarchical and non-hierarchical societies in Europe or the Middle East. Popular uprisings may bring down one hierarchical government, but they inevitably replace it with another. The Lord-Protector did not create a less hierarchical society than the Stuart monarchy, for example. At most you get little non-hierarchical communes (invariably religiously motivated) like the Mennonites or Moravian Brethren who are eyed with suspicion or outright persecuted by their neighbors.

I don't know enough about Oceanic, African, South American, or Siberian societies to say the situation in North America is unique (indeed, I know it has some parallels in Central America), but it's not at all akin to what was happening in Europe, North Africa, West Asia, or East Asia. Popular revolts there invariably led to a new hierarchical government or a brief period of anarchy followed by bloody suppression and the restoration of hierarchical government (in the latter category the peasant revolts of the early sixteenth century spring to mind).
All good points, and the North American model, as elaborated on by Hämäläinen in both Comanche Empire and Indigenous Continent , combined both Gift Giving to cement relationships and Kinship as the basis for ties between groups: the North American natives adopted (voluntarily or not) constantly, and adopted members of the group became points of contact with their original people. The Spanish had real problems with both mechanics: they attempted to bring the Comanche under their wing as junior members of the Spanish Empire in America partly by making them dependent through trade, but the Comanche view of 'trade' was We All Share and Him Who Has The Most (the Spaniards) Should Share (Give Away) The Most. The Spanish just thought they were being robbed, having missed the Native Point completely. The Spaniards also took the European View that anyone captured by the Comanche was a Prisoner to be ransomed or otherwise gotten back, whereas the Comanche thought of them as New Members of the Tribe who could make their own decision about who they wanted to stay with. As in most European - Native relationships, the Native society had a lot more to offer, and very few decided to go back to grueling labor as a Spanish peasant or religious oppression under the Puritans of New England, for two of the most extreme examples. New England lauded the few men and women who 'escaped' from the Indians, simply because they were such a tiny percentage of the total who stayed with the Indians by preference!

The Mississippian chiefs, from what little I've read specifically on them, appear to have presided over a thin layer of Mesoamerican-type heirarchial, ceremonial-based polity over the older and more common (and longer-lasting) North American Gift and Kinship model of external relationships.
 
All good points, and the North American model, as elaborated on by Hämäläinen in both Comanche Empire and Indigenous Continent , combined both Gift Giving to cement relationships and Kinship as the basis for ties between groups: the North American natives adopted (voluntarily or not) constantly, and adopted members of the group became points of contact with their original people. The Spanish had real problems with both mechanics: they attempted to bring the Comanche under their wing as junior members of the Spanish Empire in America partly by making them dependent through trade, but the Comanche view of 'trade' was We All Share and Him Who Has The Most (the Spaniards) Should Share (Give Away) The Most. The Spanish just thought they were being robbed, having missed the Native Point completely. The Spaniards also took the European View that anyone captured by the Comanche was a Prisoner to be ransomed or otherwise gotten back, whereas the Comanche thought of them as New Members of the Tribe who could make their own decision about who they wanted to stay with. As in most European - Native relationships, the Native society had a lot more to offer, and very few decided to go back to grueling labor as a Spanish peasant or religious oppression under the Puritans of New England, for two of the most extreme examples. New England lauded the few men and women who 'escaped' from the Indians, simply because they were such a tiny percentage of the total who stayed with the Indians by preference!

The Mississippian chiefs, from what little I've read specifically on them, appear to have presided over a thin layer of Mesoamerican-type heirarchial, ceremonial-based polity over the older and more common (and longer-lasting) North American Gift and Kinship model of external relationships.
Yes, no matter what European or Native group you read about, this comes up again and again. Cartier takes three Laurentians back to France with him: Cartier sees captives to impress the king; the Laurentians see an exchange of kin and are appalled when the French don't reciprocate. Cartier finds them much colder and less welcoming when he returns (without their kin, who died in France). Champlain leaves a Frenchman with the Huron to learn their language and takes a young Huron to learn French. Champlain sees a practical means of learning more about a potential ally or enemy; the Huron see mutual adoption and alliance and are displeased by Champlain's lack of care for the young Frenchman and poor treatment of their kinsman. Powhatan adopts John Smith (assuming John Smith's account is true--it sounds precisely like an Algonquian adoption ceremony, but the catch is that, according to Smith, women seemingly threw themselves at him to save his life all over the world so...grain of salt and all that) and is confused when he does not act to advance his new "father's" interests. (And as a reminder that these misunderstandings went both ways, Powhatan was granted titles on behalf of the English king, which, according to the English, should make him an agent of the English crown--but Powhatan accepted them as proper tribute from an equal.) The Powhatan bring gifts of food to the English settlers at Jamestown, but the settlers do not reciprocate. Etc. ad nauseum.
 
...Pangaea was millions of years before humans or even hominins appeared, and the Olmecs were all Native Americans, despite various racially-motivated theories to prove that Native Americans couldn't have developed such an impressive civilization.
Roughly two hundred millions years ago. It was millions of years before even T-rexes!
Guys, thanks for that correction. I once believed that La Venta existed in Africa and North America only but the Olmec heads appeared in Asia also which made their location questionable. All I know for sure is that Olmec were here before Aztecs and Mayans.
 
Guys, thanks for that correction. I once believed that La Venta existed in Africa and North America only but the Olmec heads appeared in Asia also which made their location questionable. All I know for sure is that Olmec were here before Aztecs and Mayans.
Olmec heads in Asia are almost certainly part of the much more recent stolen antiquities black market.
 
A note on the Mississipians and Cahokian 'civs'. In the relatively new book, Indigenous Continent by P. Hämäläinen, the author makes the point that the 'mound builder' cities/urban concentrations of the Mississippi valley were the ONLY known group in North America that emulated the hierarchial cultural/political structure of Mesoamerica or Eurasia, and they appear to have abandoned the whole idea when it stopped working for them - as in, maintaining the urban centers became too much of a job in the face of floodplain hydrodynamics, drought, and possible earthquakes. As a result their descendants/successors and other cultural groups in North America were all remarkably Unheirarchial by the time the Europeans arrived.
What is/are (an) evidence(s) that Cahokian models that they learned from Aztecs/Mehicas, of centralized urbanized empire doesn't work for them and instead they reverted to tribal society? is it because Peoples of Mississipi didn't have the same management/administration skills/tolls Aztecs and other Mesoamerican 'Golden Empires' do or 'Kingdom of Cakokia' disintegrated within a few generations after foundings. or is it because Mesoamerican 'man eating gods' didn't grant any blessings Aztecs, Incas, Mayas and others or is it because of Missisipi hydrodynamics + Hurricane are too much for Mesoamerican tools and skills available and it requires 'Whitemen's wisdoms' to do so? and thus European settlers (Particularly French under Bourbon Monarchy, and later 'British' (After Louisianne Purchase in 1800) ) became more successful peoples of the Missisipi valley and even to the point of founding St. Louis (Named after King Louis IX) right next to Cahokia.
Is there any 'American Settlement' that later took the name 'Cahokia' built atop or right next to the original Cahokia?
Did the French (and for a brief period, Spanish) Authority ever aware of the existence of Cahokian Pyramids?
 
The Mexica-based agricultural system based on Maize spread north out of Mexico across the southwestern USA, up the Mississippi and Ohio Rivers to rthe Northeast. This is one of the primary pieces of evidence of contact between the Mesoamerican Urban states and the North American tribes, because the advent of Maize shows up pretty clearly in archeological sites (middens, latrines, pollen count analysis, etc) so pretty exact dates can be extracted for when people started growing and eating Maize - and Maize as it was modified into a basic food crop is completely domesticated and cannot reproduce without Human help, so there's no such thing as 'wild' Maize to confuse the evidence.
The Cahokians, at least, seem to have abandoned the heirarchial Mesoamerican-style social structure (and probably politics, but that has to be assumed) because of natural disasters enhanced by human activity - they chopped all the forest within reach of the mound-based concentrations of people (probably mostly for firewood, the same thing happened in Europe), which caused worsening soil erosion and flooding, which caused massive damage to the earth mounds, to the point where the 'aristocracy' lost its legitimacy because things kept getting worse under their management. There's little sign of revolt or military action, the people just walked away and abandoned the entire mound/heirarchial system as Not Worth The Effort.

There's a similar event noted in Catal Huyok, an early urban concentration in southern Asia Minor. It had over 200 residences/family units, so probably had a population between 1500 - 2500 and subsisted on both hunting and agriculture, but a prolonged drought (covering the entire area, brought on by the Lake Ojibway Event around 6200 BCE) caused the entire site to be abandoned - the population apparently simply walked away when food got scarce, and went back to nomadic hunter-gathering.
 
There was a french settlement of Cahokia, but it is not named for the city (despite Hamalainen mistakenly stating otherwise in an aside in his book, one of the few times I winced reading the otherwise excellent book) - rather, both it and the name we give to the city are derived from the Cahokia/Kahokiaki tribe of the Illini/Illinois/Inoka tribe who lived in the area in colonial times.

We do not know what the ancient people of the city we call Cahokia called their city.

The rest of your post is, uh...wow. Assuming they abandoned the urban lifestyle because it was too hard for them or that it requires white men's tools to settle in the area?

Is it really that hard to accept that people might just decide hierarchical urban societies...aren't worth it? That the might not be the better or superior model that everyone would do if they could?
 
Olmec heads in Asia are almost certainly part of the much more recent stolen antiquities black market.
I don't even know the size of those heads. They seem so big in the pictures that I'm not sure how they got to Asia during that era. That's a good explanation though because people built the pyramids, the Stonehenge and we don't know how the primitives were able to do it and those structures were really big for their technological capabilities.
 
I don't even know the size of those heads. They seem so big in the pictures that I'm not sure how they got to Asia during that era. That's a good explanation though because people built the pyramids, the Stonehenge and we don't know how the primitives were able to do it and those structures were really big for their technological capabilities.
You're starting to sound like one of those type of people who believe the Pyramids of Egypt, the Mesoamerican and Andean Pyramids, and the, "Pyramids," of Mars are all related through extraterrestrial intervention because of the derisive belief in the lack of capability in in Ancient Peoples.
 
There was a french settlement of Cahokia, but it is not named for the city (despite Hamalainen mistakenly stating otherwise in an aside in his book, one of the few times I winced reading the otherwise excellent book) - rather, both it and the name we give to the city are derived from the Cahokia/Kahokiaki tribe of the Illini/Illinois/Inoka tribe who lived in the area in colonial times.

We do not know what the ancient people of the city we call Cahokia called their city.

The rest of your post is, uh...wow. Assuming they abandoned the urban lifestyle because it was too hard for them or that it requires white men's tools to settle in the area?

Is it really that hard to accept that people might just decide hierarchical urban societies...aren't worth it? That the might not be the better or superior model that everyone would do if they could?
Hey, I was taught the Inexorable March of Progress school of history back in school (back in the time that Going to the Moon was Science Fiction instead of History) and, basically, have had to 'un-learn' it the more I learned what the professionals have learned about what (may have) really happened. I had read the reports about Catal Huyok and a number of other 'abandonments' in roughly the same area and time, but they were all related to a Mega-Drought that hit the Near East just when the primitive agricultural and food storage technologies simply couldn't handle multiple years of Nearly No Food (the "Seven Lean Years" phrase may date back to this period, as the time beyond which you simply could not store enough food and tighten your non-existant belts enough to survive as a society). As a result, some populations migrated north and brought agriculture into Europe (up the Danube valley is the current hypothesis, bringing with them not only ard plows and farming, but also oxen as draft animals and milk and cheese as secondary products from cattle, a whole new 'suite' of technologies) while others scattered back into hunter-gatherer groups because they couldn't support concentrations of population in year after year of drought.
The thesis that Cahokia was also abandoned, but due to more localized food shortages, is much more recent, at least to me. - And this time it was largely Man-Made (cue Diamond's thesis about human-caused ecological disasters), because in fact the Cahokia area is extremely prone to flooding, and flooding is not friendly to earth mounds. Apparently the actual type of earth/clay used also didn't help, and the de-forestation of the area and re-routing of some local streams contributed to trhe severity and persistance of the flooding and degeneration of the mound: a 'perfect storm' of unfortunate decisions and human activites by a large group of humans that all led to Unsustainability in the area. Since there is strong evidence at Cahokia of a Mesoamerican-type heirarchial organization (literally: on top of the mound) the assumption is that, like elsewhere, the people on top took credit for everything that went right - and therefore, got the blame when everything started going wrong.

Among other things, this has caused me to modify my assumption that Heirarchy is a requirement Social Policy/Civic for starting a City and maintaining it. That is still true, I believe, but Heirarchy is also apparently pretty easy to abandon if other events make Heirarchy appear to Not Work to sustain the population. My entire basic assumption that cultural/soft factors in the form of Social Policy and/or Civics is pretty basic and hard to change needs to be re-thought, which could make for a much more dynamic Civ VII if the mutability of 'soft factors' is considered Normal: the basic characteristics of your Civ could change radically in all directions almost regardless of your Technological progress . . .
 
I mean, yeah, but after your post, and Zaarin's immediate reply where he pointed out recent history does not support the "inexorable march of progress", Lonecat replying (essentially) "did they stop having cities because they weren't capable of having them?!" Juss struck me as missing the poing of what had just been said (rather badly).
 
I mean, yeah, but after your post, and Zaarin's immediate reply where he pointed out recent history does not support the "inexorable march of progress", Lonecat replying (essentially) "did they stop having cities because they weren't capable of having them?!" Juss struck me as missing the poing of what had just been said (rather badly).
Another chunk of evidence supporting the 'Staggering march of Progress" version of human events:

We don't have good evidence (as far as I know) of 'Why', but there is copious archeological evidence of well over a dozen Pre-Chinese urban groups in north and central China, based on rice or millet agriculture, that came and went between about 8000 BCE and 2000 BCE (roughly, the beginnings of the semi-historical Xia Dynasty, the first 'Chinese' Dynasty), leaving behind abandoned city-sites (admittedly, frequently re-occupied later). They lasted from 500 to 2000 years each, with an average span of about 1100 years - in other words, as long or longer than most modern European states, and several times longer than any modern 'Colonial' state in the Americas.

It's more evidence that 'Rise and Fall' is Normal for human states, and also that cities and civilizations have persisted far longer in pre-history than in history. Civ's system of named Leaders and languages for them makes most of this completely unavailable to the game, but it's still good to keep in mind.
 
I'm more of a Charles Martel kind of guy, myself. The battle of Tours is as 'Clash of Civilizations' as it gets.

If the Franks made it in to a game, that would be an elegant way to trim down western European overrepresentation. A nice thought that I don't expect Firaxis to ever follow through on. However, choosing a Merovingian ruler covers a lot of ground and is basically the same thing that civ 6 did by picking Chandragupta Maurya for India: Pick [dynasty] from [subcontinent] that was ethnically and historically from there, and controlled the most of it at 1 time in millennia of history
 
Last edited:
that would be an elegant way to trim down western European overrepresentation.
Back to artificial quotas and caps on representation by continent, again? Some people don't seem to understand - or care - that such a plastic, arbitrary, ham-fisted approach would sink a game like Civ. The choice of civ's should be organic and sensible to the genre of the game.
 
Yeah, I saw you trying to smack talk me earlier in this thread too. Believe whatever you want. Not getting into this again with you.
 
Yeah, I saw you trying to smack talk me earlier in this thread too. Believe whatever you want. Not getting into this again with you.
Are you making an accusation against me? I don't recall, "smack-talking," you. What are you talking about? Or is disagreeing with your viewpoints consistently what you consider, "smack-talking?"
 
You're starting to sound like one of those type of people who believe the Pyramids of Egypt, the Mesoamerican and Andean Pyramids, and the, "Pyramids," of Mars are all related through extraterrestrial intervention because of the derisive belief in the lack of capability in in Ancient Peoples.
Yeah, I guess you're right. The ancient people did have slavery and methods of mass production with the use of people. One must believe in the capabilities of our ancestors.
 
@Evie sums it up pretty well for me--no surprise there.

The footnote I would append to the alternate dual leader compromise is a preference for more distinct leaders. For Eleanor of Aquitaine, for example, there are good arguments to be made in support of French or English leadership, but why impose the same ability on both civilizations? I would rather dual leaders be treated as alternate personas with more intentional tailoring to their respective civilizations.

If a dual leader maintains the same ability across two civilizations, it feels more like a personal union to me. And as far as that mechanic goes, I think Paradox does it better either through role-play management of realms or strategic reduction to another form of diplomatic expansion. Eleanor of Aquitaine did not lead a personal union of England and France, at least as far as I can tell, and her abilities for the two civilizations can reflect her respective claims to leadership.

For Charlemagne, there are many options for separate abilities for leading France and Germany. If dual/alternate leaders make it into Civ VII, I would hope for more streamlined leader-civilization choices.
 
Top Bottom