All of those except America were civilizations long before nation-states developed in the late eighteenth/nineteenth century.
Fair.
That's generous. I've literally seen Steam/YouTube comments along the lines of, "Why do you give us dead Indians [Maya] instead of big, important countries like Montenegro."
Now that's just... wow. Was that real?That's generous. I've literally seen Steam/YouTube comments along the lines of, "Why do you give us dead Indians [Maya] instead of big, important countries like Montenegro."
True but Russia, China, India, and France were lead by Stalin, Mao, Gandhi and Napoleon in Civ 1.
My favorite was "why do we have the Maori when we could have gotten Polynesia instead?"That's generous. I've literally seen Steam/YouTube comments along the lines of, "Why do you give us dead Indians [Maya] instead of big, important countries like Montenegro."
Ooh...
Well, the Chickasaw are the only ones who can be directly linked to a mound site (Chicaza), though the Choctaw believe they come from Nanih Waiya, and there's no particular reason to believe they're wrong. The Muskogee/Creek have a major problem in that their leadership was really just the worst. Their official leaders were corrupt and exploitive, and the Red Stick leaders were not official tribe leaders. Choctaw and Chickasaw are much easier to work with because both had some fantastic leadership (I've been trying to meme Pushmataha into civ for years). Plus the Creek were a multiethnic confederacy and certainly can't be traced back to any specific mound site like the Chickasaw and probably Choctaw can. In practice, all five of the Five Civilized Tribes were post-Mississippian/Hopewell confederacies that formed directly out of the refugee population following the Mississippian collapse (except the Seminole, technically, since they were a second wave of refugees following the Creek civil war).
FYROM?An experience I've had with people getting mad about Civilization 6 is Peaches Lamb's videos with the Macedonian Themes. Guess what they were arguing about there...
Put Tecumseh in as well to contrast Pushtapa, maybe add the Navajo as an added bonus, and I think we've got pretty good NA representation.
Yep.FYROM?
The problem with Tecumseh is that a Tecumseh-led Shawnee civ is going to look an awful lot like the current implementation of The Epic of Gilgamesh--er, I mean, "Sumeria." The Shawnee were known as the most mobile tribe in the East to the extent that Shawnee was the lingua franca virtually everywhere east of the Mississippi. You could represent that to some extent with trade or favor related bonuses, but in a game that doesn't represent nomads well it's hard to really capture the essence of a group like the Shawnee. So it's going to be a Tecumseh civ, really. That being said, he's definitely one of the biggest personalities in Native American history, alongside the likes of Powhatan and Joseph Brant, so I can understand why such a compromise might be compelling.Put Tecumseh in as well to contrast Pushtapa, maybe add the Navajo as an added bonus, and I think we've got pretty good NA representation.
It's a shame so few of Pushmataha's and Tecumseh's speeches are recorded. They were both said to be first-rate orators.)
They were both great Native American Leaders in their own regard. I'm just glad that some of their speeches were recorded. Otherwise, we wouldn't have remembered this. "Sell a country! Why not sell the air, the great sea, as well as the earth? Did not the Great Spirit make them all for the use of his children?"(Pushmataha and Tecumseh met. Pushmataha threatened to have Tecumseh physically thrown off Choctaw land if he didn't leave; Tecumseh wisely chose to go recruit among the Creek instead.
I don't think he's lesser known, but he wasn't really a leader. I think he absolutely ought to be added as a Great Scientist. I think the best leader options for the Cherokee are Attakullakulla or, as was suggested earlier on these boards, the dark horse Nanyehi/Nancy Ward (Attakullakulla's niece).
Were all Native American Leaders great orators?
It just seems like they all have a way with words.
Many were indeed because oration is an important leadership skill in oral cultures. Haudenosaunee oratory traditions were compared (favorably) to those of Greece and Rome very early on by observant Europeans. If you want people to listen to you, you have to learn how to speak effectively. (However, not all were great speakers. Tecumseh's brother, Deganawida, was noted for having a grating voice and an awkward comportment, but he was probably more responsible than Tecumseh was for laying the groundwork for Tecumseh's confederacy. In his case it was the appeal of his message, not his personal charisma. That being said he could apparently be quite dramatic when the need arose.)Were all Native American Leaders great orators?
These would make some fairly defendable claims. It would also rather eloquently solve the issue of two romes (Roman culture covers both Rome and Byzantium) the game has at times.
Byzantium is not so clear cut IMO. Medieval Byzantium developed a very different culture from Western Rome, especially if one focuses on it as a Medieval Orthodox power (which IMO is how it should always be portrayed).
I am baffled that they chose to make both England and Scotland so transparently British in Civ6. It seems like if Scotland is included at all it should focus on Medieval Scotland, yet aside from Robert the Bruce Scotland as portrayed in Civ6 is very nineteenth century--just like England. It seems to me that no matter which way you slice it Medieval Ireland would have been an infinitely better choice on all fronts.
As much as I appreciate that that would help exclude Canada and Australia, I'm really hoping to see Lizzy back in Civ7 with an Elizabethan Renaissance focus. England's always been "the Naval civ" or "the Industry civ"; it's well past time it gets to be the Culture civ. (It got a hint of that with the British Museum in vanilla, but even that's gone now...) And let her speak Elizabethan English this time. And quote Shakespeare. And her own poetry and speeches.
And yet, despite a history practically defined by militancy, France gets eternally pigeonholed into the culture niche.
Let France be a religious/militant civ under Philippe Auguste and let England be the European cultural powerhouse for once. I always struggle with this because America certainly has dominated pop culture (which I do understand is what culture in Civ represents), but in terms of cultural achievements America lags considerably behind the mother country. There have been some fine American authors (like Edith Wharton or Mark Twain) and a few good poets (T.S. Elliott, Emily Dickenson...Robert Lowell was a great poet who is criminally underappreciated--have a reading of "The Public Garden"), but we lack the giants like Shakespeare, Jonson, Donne, Milton, Keats, Austen, the Bronte Sisters, etc. Plus Hemmingway practically invented the terse, economical prose that dominated the twentieth century, and I can't forgive him for it.
And yet, despite a history practically defined by militancy, France gets eternally pigeonholed into the culture niche.
I always struggle with this because America certainly has dominated pop culture (which I do understand is what culture in Civ represents), but in terms of cultural achievements America lags considerably behind the mother country. There have been some fine American authors (like Edith Wharton or Mark Twain) and a few good poets (T.S. Elliott, Emily Dickenson...Robert Lowell was a great poet who is criminally underappreciated--have a reading of "The Public Garden"), but we lack the giants like Shakespeare, Jonson, Donne, Milton, Keats, Austen, the Bronte Sisters, etc. Plus Hemmingway practically invented the terse, economical prose that dominated the twentieth century, and I can't forgive him for it.
At least Eleanor was a step in the right direction in that regard, also not making the civ completely British.
Not surprising considering culture victory=tourism victory, and France, particularly the Eiffel Tower in Paris, is the place that attracts the most visitors worldwide.And yet, despite a history practically defined by militancy, France gets eternally pigeonholed into the culture niche.
Perhaps you're thinking of post-Reformation France, and that's because France had to walk on eggshells while a considerable and influential minority of the population (including, at one point, the king's sister) was Protestant. TBH religious bonuses are always a safe bet for any pre-Enlightenment civilization, but Medieval France certainly stands out for its devotion. Plus I specifically mentioned Philippe Auguste, the Crusader.
Like I said, I understand what Civ culture represents. I just resent it.
(Not to say film--sometimes even mainstream film like Arrival--can't be good art. Just most of it isn't. )Like I said, I understand the intent. I just appreciate that Civ6 has shaken up how certain standbys are represented, and I'd like to see that continue in Civ7. (Aside from cultural England and religious/militant France, I'd really like to see a religious/cultural Korea.)
