[NFP] Civilization VI: Possible New Civilizations Thread

[PhilBowles]

Because, let be honest, before the inclusion of Scotland, the vic led by Victoria was Great-Britain/The UK, and not "England".

We have the most representative of the British Monarch.
The ancient ability (British Museum) is named British. And it was at the height of the British Empire. And even Workshops of the Worlds refered to the British era of England.
Pax Britannica, once again is plainly british in the name, and once again its peak british.
The Royal Navy Dockyard have been there before the Union but it was at its peak under Great-Britain.
No explanation for Redcoats of course.
Only the Sea Dogs are elizabethans.

The problem is not Victoria leading England; the problem is naming "England" a civ that is clearly British. Problem overlayed with the addition of Scotland.

England has always been Britain in Civ: Civ IV had Winston Churchill and Victoria as leader options, with its unit being the Redcoat and its building the Stock Exchange (the London Stock Exchange, the Civilopedia notes, was founded in 1801 - and although it had older origins, that was still in the Union period), and although the abilities and units were all medieval or Renaissance in Civ V the ability was called "Sun Never Sets", a phrase associated with the British Empire. To most practical intents and purposes Imperial Britain *was* England: despite a formal act of union Ireland was ultimately a colonial possession and Wales (with which there has never been an Act of Union and which is formally a possession of the English crown, hence the heir to the throne having been Prince of Wales since I think the time of the Black Prince) a long-conquered province. Scotland's population, for all the achievements of notable Scots, was a small proportion of the British population, and even Scots used the words "British" and "English" interchangeably at the time.

I'm actually quite happy with the Civ 6 approach to England and the fact that, in its multiple forms during the game's life, it has stuck solidly to the specific period represented by the leader. I agree with Zaarin that the actual portrayal of that leader is off, though - they basically reskinned Elizabeth, or would have if the Civ V version of Elizabeth - ironically - hadn't been portrayed more like Victoria.

Choosing to portray Scotland the way they did is indeed very odd in that context - they should have opted for a Civ design more appropriate for Robert the Bruce. It's a weird mix even without England being Victorian.

 

[Thenewwwguy]

I’m not completely sure why Robert gets so much flak.

He’s a lowlands leader. He speaks Scots. Scots is so similar to english that some people consider it a dialect of English. What did you want? a scottish Gaelic leader? Because scottish gaelic stems from when the Irish Dal Riata captured the scottish highlands. At that point, they should’ve just given us Ireland, or both.

edit: i was reading into Robert the Bruce and according to wikipedia, he would’ve been able to speak Anglo-Norman, Scottish Gaelic, Irish Gaelic, Scots and Latin.

He grew up on the border of where Scots, Scottish Gaelic and Anglo-Norman were spoken, but was a Scots leader who went to primarily anglo-norman throughout his education and his father, who knew anglo-norman primarily

 

[Henri Christophe]

Extremely untrue. At a very early point Native Americans adopted a "Red" identity and adopted slavery in order to make certain that the "Red" race was higher in the race hierarchy than the "Black" race. NB the Seminole were an offshoot of the Creek, who owned large plantations and owned slaves, just like their white neighbors.

Yes, it was really very sad.
I guess it always is a issue inside a mix race nation. Some think they are more of one race than another.
(Is that also the reason of the Haitian Civil War - The Black Kingdom of North Haiti My avatar profile and the Mulato Republic of South).

When all Seminoles was in Florida, OK, everyone fine, everyone one big familly.
After lose the war against Andrew Jackson and need to move to Oklahoma. Just wait, South have Slavery!!
How Seminole are you? Hnmmmmm One Drop, Enslaved!
(We also cannot NEVER forget how the Trans-Atlantic Slavery was Unique, just in Americas, the Enslaved are objects. Slaves in Muslim Empire as Ottoman-Rome made all Slavic Slaves in an Elite solider called the Janissary!)

And after the defeat there is 3 Seminole nations. Their history cannot be recognizeble as it was.
The Narrative of their Conqueror, Andrew Jackson, about numbers, who much % you are it? are 49% that? hnmmm... There is just 2000 of it and over.

Why we still agreing of this narrative?
Before, when everyone lives in Florida, there is not such question. They are all Seminole. The way of Indigenous organize they self can be weird for us.
Our Roman-Empire Model need to have an Emperor, can't understand a society with 3 or 5 leaders together.

My proposal is:
Negro Abraham as a Seminole Leader.

Tecumseh from North West Territory.

And Andrew Jackson as alternative leader to USA in next Expansion Pack.

And the other 4 Civilized Tribes as City State.

It is very well balanced to a North America pack.
What do you think?

 

[Thenewwwguy]

Yes, it was really very sad.
I guess it always is a issue inside a mix race nation. Some think they are more of one race than another.
(Is that also the reason of the Haitian Civil War - The Black Kingdom of North Haiti My avatar profile and the Mulato Republic of South).

When all Seminoles was in Florida, OK, everyone fine, everyone one big familly.
After lose the war against Andrew Jackson and need to move to Oklahoma. Just wait, South have Slavery!!
How Seminole are you? Hnmmmmm One Drop, Enslaved!
(We also cannot NEVER forget how the Trans-Atlantic Slavery was Unique, just in Americas, the Enslaved are objects. Slaves in Muslim Empire as Ottoman-Rome made all Slavic Slaves in an Elite solider called the Janissary!)

And after the defeat there is 3 Seminole nations. Their history cannot be recognizeble as it was.
The Narrative of their Conqueror, Andrew Jackson, about numbers, who much % you are it? are 49% that? hnmmm... There is just 2000 of it and over.

Why we still agreing of this narrative?
Before, when everyone lives in Florida, there is not such question. They are all Seminole. The way of Indigenous organize they self can be weird for us.
Our Roman-Empire Model need to have an Emperor, can't understand a society with 3 or 5 leaders together.

My proposal is:
Negro Abraham as a Seminole Leader.

Tecumseh from North West Territory.

And Andrew Jackson as alternative leader to USA in next Expansion Pack.

And the other 4 Civilized Tribes as City State.

It is very well balanced to a North America pack.
What do you think?

Andrew Jackson was a horrible person and should not be in civ

Tecumseh doesn’t lead the ‘Northwest territory’, he led the Shawnee

while there’s a significant minority of mixed seminoles, there is a larger minority of mixed cherokee. Neither are ‘mixed race nations’

Ottoman-Rome isn’t a thing

did you just call America a roman empire

 

[PhoenicianGold]

Andrew Jackson was a horrible person and should not be in civ

Tecumseh doesn’t lead the ‘Northwest territory’

while there’s a significant minority of mixed seminoles, there is a larger minority of mixed cherokee. Neither are ‘mixed race nations’

Ottoman-Rome isn’t a thing

did you just call America a roman empire

Actually, I find the idea of a villain leader for America oddly compelling...

I don't really want it, but uncomfortable decisions like that do encourage people to think about history differently.

 

[Grand-Admiral Thrawn]

Yes, it was really very sad.
I guess it always is a issue inside a mix race nation. Some think they are more of one race than another.
(Is that also the reason of the Haitian Civil War - The Black Kingdom of North Haiti My avatar profile and the Mulato Republic of South).

When all Seminoles was in Florida, OK, everyone fine, everyone one big familly.
After lose the war against Andrew Jackson and need to move to Oklahoma. Just wait, South have Slavery!!
How Seminole are you? Hnmmmmm One Drop, Enslaved!
(We also cannot NEVER forget how the Trans-Atlantic Slavery was Unique, just in Americas, the Enslaved are objects. Slaves in Muslim Empire as Ottoman-Rome made all Slavic Slaves in an Elite solider called the Janissary!)

And after the defeat there is 3 Seminole nations. Their history cannot be recognizeble as it was.
The Narrative of their Conqueror, Andrew Jackson, about numbers, who much % you are it? are 49% that? hnmmm... There is just 2000 of it and over.

Why we still agreing of this narrative?
Before, when everyone lives in Florida, there is not such question. They are all Seminole. The way of Indigenous organize they self can be weird for us.
Our Roman-Empire Model need to have an Emperor, can't understand a society with 3 or 5 leaders together.

My proposal is:
Negro Abraham as a Seminole Leader.

Tecumseh from North West Territory.

And Andrew Jackson as alternative leader to USA in next Expansion Pack.

And the other 4 Civilized Tribes as City State.

It is very well balanced to a North America pack.
What do you think?

I’m all for Native American civs, but Andrew Jackson would be a not-so-great alt; he is remembered for systematic oppression of natives. Lincoln, Washington, JFK would be better

and from what I can tell from Zaarin’s posts, the reason why a mixed-race native leader wouldn’t be good it that could be seen as taking representation from the natives

 

[Thenewwwguy]

I’m all for Native American civs, but Andrew Jackson would be a not-so-great alt; he is remembered for systematic oppression of natives. Lincoln, Washington, JFK would be better

and from what I can tell from Zaarin’s posts, the reason why a mixed-race native leader wouldn’t be good it that could be seen as taking representation from the natives

i don’t think there’s necessarily anything wrong with a mixed-race native leader, my understanding of zaarin’s gripe is that this user has consistently fetishized people who are mixed race and views the catagorization that a native leader is also part black as more important than the actual civ’s deservingness, or the leader’s specific deservingness. And that doesn’t even begin to consider discussions about whether an east coast nation is the best one to go for if we get native civs (I’d personally say no. I’m still hoping that we’ll get the Navajo and Salish or Tlingit)

Speaking of Tlingit, who should be their leader if we get them

Presumably with Navajo it would be Manuelito or Barbacito

and with the Salish it would obviously be Chief Seattle

 

[Henri Christophe]

I also want to share this map of Oklahoma. It was a very sad history of Seminole. Put betwwen other 4 Civilized tribes and the White Man.

We need to remember sad history, mans as John Horse and Negro Abraham need to be remeber, they was AMERICAN HEROES!

Actually, I find the idea of a villain leader for America oddly compelling...

I don't really want it, but uncomfortable decisions like that do encourage people to think about history differently.

I like the idea of Good and Bads!
Hitler was bad. Defetead. I like this history.
I want to play as Tecumseh and defeted the Governor of Indiana in the game. It is just a game after all...

Andrew Jackson is the bad guy in this narrative, if someone have a good narrative with him, please share.
It also can be made in a game, your game...
I will never play as Jackson, but it will be my game.

About Good and Evil
I guess one way to not be racist is all races have their Good guy and their Bad guy.
I will speak about the Black race because I like it more.
The Black Heroe can be Toussaint L'Overture leading the Haiti Empire.
The Black Villain can be Ghezo from Dahomey Empire (The Emperor of the Slavery Coast!!!!!!!!!!!!)

If we have good and bad guys black, it isn't racism, it is representation. We are all Humans after all.

GOOD BLACKS: The Last King of Botswana, Paul Kagami of Ruanda, Nelson Mandela as a South African Leader (But it replaces the Zulu Empire)
BAD AFRICANS: Robert Mugabe from Zimzabwe, Idi Amin from Uganda.

As a War game, I don't like to invade pacific civs. I need someone to I have my own Causas Belis.

 

[Thenewwwguy]

I don’t think it’s a good idea to have ‘villains’ in the new form of the word

Inevitably whenever we talk about villains someone brings up genghis and ill just say for the millionth time that he wasn’t any worse than any other leader for his time.

Now, the reason why I think having evil people in the game, like Hitler or Andrew Jackson, is that it gives people who still are around today who sympathize with those views representation, if not an outlet to act out their beliefs and hopes.

I can totally imagine a crowd of people who don’t think native americans deserve rights playing Andrew Jackson bcs of who he was, for example.

Leaders in civ don’t have to be the most morally upright people, don’t get me wrong, but they should be people who weren’t outright tyrannical, evil, bigoted or hating of another race on record.

It’s why (hopefully) we’ll never see Churchill again, for example.

 

[clapyourhands]

I don’t think it’s a good idea to have ‘villains’ in the new form of the word


Now, the reason why I think having evil people in the game, like Hitler or Andrew Jackson, is that it gives people who still are around today who sympathize with those views representation, if not an outlet to act out their beliefs and hopes.

To add to that, people also just generally want their own culture/their favorite civ to be represented as something they're proud of. It's a big reason why people were upset about Maria I in Civ V or Seondeok in VI (among... other reasons for the latter... but let's not get into those). Even if a civ had multiple leaders, I'm sure people would still get upset. Like if America got a third leader in a future expansion and it was Jackson, people would definitely be miffed that it was Jackson and not Washington or Lincoln, because there are always gonna be more potential leaders than available slots, and choosing a controversial leader could still be seen as "taking a spot" from a revered one.

 

[PhoenicianGold]

I don’t think it’s a good idea to have ‘villains’ in the new form of the word

Inevitably whenever we talk about villains someone brings up genghis and ill just say for the millionth time that he wasn’t any worse than any other leader for his time.

Now, the reason why I think having evil people in the game, like Hitler or Andrew Jackson, is that it gives people who still are around today who sympathize with those views representation, if not an outlet to act out their beliefs and hopes.

I can totally imagine a crowd of people who don’t think native americans deserve rights playing Andrew Jackson bcs of who he was, for example.

Leaders in civ don’t have to be the most morally upright people, don’t get me wrong, but they should be people who weren’t outright tyrannical, evil, bigoted or hating of another race on record.

It’s why (hopefully) we’ll never see Churchill again, for example.

A modest (if unlikely) hypothetical proposal:

A civ game where you can't play as villains, but you can play against them. Maybe even make it so each civ has a hero you can play as, and a villain you can play against.

That way there's no sympathizing with the villains, and in a way which naturally makes the game more competitive.

(My personal opinion on the idea: I think American culture has moved past the idea of villains a bit and a change like this would be somewhat regressive from VI's attempt to make each leader feel like a dimensional personality. But the idea would still be an interesting way of showing off the darker side of imperialism.)

 

[Zaarin]

I’m not completely sure why Robert gets so much flak.

He’s a lowlands leader. He speaks Scots. Scots is so similar to english that some people consider it a dialect of English. What did you want? a scottish Gaelic leader? Because scottish gaelic stems from when the Irish Dal Riata captured the scottish highlands. At that point, they should’ve just given us Ireland, or both.

edit: i was reading into Robert the Bruce and according to wikipedia, he would’ve been able to speak Anglo-Norman, Scottish Gaelic, Irish Gaelic, Scots and Latin.

He grew up on the border of where Scots, Scottish Gaelic and Anglo-Norman were spoken, but was a Scots leader who went to primarily anglo-norman throughout his education and his father, who knew anglo-norman primarily

As Phil already pointed out, Robert in-game isn't speaking Scots; he's speaking a northern dialect of Middle English, the ancestor of Scots. In all likelihood, the language he should be speaking is Norman. I'm just thankful he's not speaking Gaelic, which would have been stereotyped and historically incorrect.

Speaking of Tlingit, who should be their leader if we get them

That is indeed the rub. I think Gush X'een (aka Shakes I) is one of the better options. NB Tlingit chief names are inherited with the office, making it both a name and a title.

And that doesn’t even begin to consider discussions about whether an east coast nation is the best one to go for if we get native civs (I’d personally say no.

I have no issue with an East Coast civ personally, though the Seminole specifically would be a low priority for me as essentially Creek refugees. I think featuring the Choctaw or Chickasaw would satisfy some of the demand for a "Mississippian" civ, as they were direct successors of the Mississippian culture, not to mention that they were stable, wealthy, and both had some great leaders (the last of which being the big challenge with a PNW civ).

I don’t think it’s a good idea to have ‘villains’ in the new form of the word

I agree, and to go further it embraces a rather simplistic view of history. Most leaders have done bad things, even the ones we'd generally regard as "good." That's just a fact of life. Real life isn't as morally clear cut as a 1950s superhero comic.

Besides, Civ6 already has the ultimate villain: Dom Satan of Brazil.

A modest (if unlikely) hypothetical proposal:

A civ game where you can't play as villains, but you can play against them. Maybe even make it so each civ has a hero you can play as, and a villain you can play against.

That way there's no sympathizing with the villains, and in a way which naturally makes the game more competitive.

(My personal opinion on the idea: I think American culture has moved past the idea of villains a bit and a change like this would be somewhat regressive from VI's attempt to make each leader feel like a dimensional personality. But the idea would still be an interesting way of showing off the darker side of imperialism.)

If it comes to a vote, I'm mashing the "no" button on this so hard it might break my aeronautics-grade aluminum keyboard.

 

[Alexander's Hetaroi]

I’m not completely sure why Robert gets so much flak.

He’s a lowlands leader. He speaks Scots. Scots is so similar to english that some people consider it a dialect of English. What did you want? a scottish Gaelic leader? Because scottish gaelic stems from when the Irish Dal Riata captured the scottish highlands. At that point, they should’ve just given us Ireland, or both.

edit: i was reading into Robert the Bruce and according to wikipedia, he would’ve been able to speak Anglo-Norman, Scottish Gaelic, Irish Gaelic, Scots and Latin.

He grew up on the border of where Scots, Scottish Gaelic and Anglo-Norman were spoken, but was a Scots leader who went to primarily anglo-norman throughout his education and his father, who knew anglo-norman primarily

I think it's Scotland as a whole that gets flack compared to other Civs in the game, maybe on par with Georgia:
Scottish Enlightenment and Highlanders based off when they were incorporated into the U.K.
Golf course as a UI.
Robert the Bruce getting another Declare War of this type early and more production and speed.
No Celtic influences/very little whatsoever.

I personally don't mind these, but these upset a lot of people. I've gotten around quickly to the golf course but I do agree that the Highlander could have been based off of an earlier time and available earlier than rifling. I think his dialect and language is way down the bottom of things I would change for Scotland.

 

[Henri Christophe]

I don’t think it’s a good idea to have ‘villains’ in the new form of the word

Inevitably whenever we talk about villains someone brings up genghis and ill just say for the millionth time that he wasn’t any worse than any other leader for his time.

Now, the reason why I think having evil people in the game, like Hitler or Andrew Jackson, is that it gives people who still are around today who sympathize with those views representation, if not an outlet to act out their beliefs and hopes.

I can totally imagine a crowd of people who don’t think native americans deserve rights playing Andrew Jackson bcs of who he was, for example.

Leaders in civ don’t have to be the most morally upright people, don’t get me wrong, but they should be people who weren’t outright tyrannical, evil, bigoted or hating of another race on record.

It’s why (hopefully) we’ll never see Churchill again, for example.

To add to that, people also just generally want their own culture/their favorite civ to be represented as something they're proud of. It's a big reason why people were upset about Maria I in Civ V or Seondeok in VI (among... other reasons for the latter... but let's not get into those). Even if a civ had multiple leaders, I'm sure people would still get upset. Like if America got a third leader in a future expansion and it was Jackson, people would definitely be miffed that it was Jackson and not Washington or Lincoln, because there are always gonna be more potential leaders than available slots, and choosing a controversial leader could still be seen as "taking a spot" from a revered one.

I agree with both.
And about the Heroes of this Narrative?
Negro Abraham can lead the Seminole People?
Tecumseh can lead the North West Territory?

Tecumsew was the Chief of State of the:
Shawnee
Qjibwe
Wyandots
Fox
Sauk
Odawas
Kickapoos
Lenape
Miami
Seneca
Onondaga
Delawares.

They found a capital city called Prophets Towns in Nowadays Indiana (State of Indiana).

They never have a name for their union, but the war who defeted they is know as North-West-Territory War. So I Believe Tecumseh can lead a CIv called as it.
North-West Territory.


Most of places in America have geographical names...
West Virginia,
South Carolina,
Baja Califórina,
Rio Grande do Sul,
Mato Grosso do Sul,
Rio Grande do Norte. ...

In this game, I also want to celebrate the one who lose in the World History, I would like to celebrate the life of Tecumseh too.

 

[Zaarin]

I think it's Scotland as a whole that gets flack compared to other Civs in the game, maybe on par with Georgia:
Scottish Enlightenment and Highlanders based off when they were incorporated into the U.K.
Golf course as a UI.
Robert the Bruce getting another Declare War of this type early and more production and speed.
No Celtic influences/very little whatsoever.

I personally don't mind these, but these upset a lot of people. I've gotten around quickly to the golf course but I do agree that the Highlander could have been based off of an earlier time and available earlier than rifling. I think his dialect and language is way down the bottom of things they would change for Scotland.

Yeah, the problem with Scotland isn't the idea; it's the implementation. A more Medieval Scotland, whether focused on its Anglo-Norman or Irish heritage (focusing on its Norwegian heritage would be weird because, you know, Norway ) would have been an interesting civ; shoehorning in its UK attributes is where it gets...awkward. All around, if Firaxis wanted a specific Celtic civ from the British Isles, Ireland or even Wales would have felt both more unique and more Celtic than Scotland, but Scotland could still have been implemented with Robert the Bruce as leader and still have been a more distinctive civ than the end product (and coincidentally Robert the Bruce's voice actor is so wooden it hurts ).

Tecumseh can lead the North West Territory?

Tecumseh was a Shawnee chief; it makes no sense to call his civilization something other than Shawnee. The other nations you mentioned were his allies, not his vassals. I think Tecumseh of the Shawnee would make a great double pack with his rival Pushmataha of the Choctaw, though.

 

[Thenewwwguy]

I agree with both.
And about the Heroes of this Narrative?
Negro Abraham can lead the Seminole People?
Tecumseh can lead the North West Territory?

Tecumsew was the Chief of State of the:
Shawnee
Qjibwe
Wyandots
Fox
Sauk
Odawas
Kickapoos
Lenape
Miami
Seneca
Onondaga
Delawares.

They found a capital city called Prophets Towns in Nowadays Indiana (State of Indiana).

They never have a name for their union, but the war who defeted they is know as North-West-Territory War. So I Believe Tecumseh can lead a CIv called as it.
North-West Territory.


Most of places in America have geographical names...
West Virginia,
South Carolina,
Baja Califórina,
Rio Grande do Sul,
Mato Grosso do Sul,
Rio Grande do Norte. ...

In this game, I also want to celebrate the one who lose in the World History, I would like to celebrate the life of Tecumseh too.

you’re not listening to anyone but yourself...

 

[PhoenicianGold]

I think it's Scotland as a whole that gets flack compared to other Civs in the game, maybe on par with Georgia:
Scottish Enlightenment and Highlanders based off when they were incorporated into the U.K.
Golf course as a UI.
Robert the Bruce getting another Declare War of this type early and more production and speed.
No Celtic influences/very little whatsoever.

I personally don't mind these, but these upset a lot of people. I've gotten around quickly to the golf course but I do agree that the Highlander could have been based off of an earlier time and available earlier than rifling. I think his dialect and language is way down the bottom of things they would change for Scotland.

It was definitely a safe design that borders on boring. In theory the idea of bagpipes and highlanders and golf and enlightenment are great. In practice,m all it did was make us realize we never really wanted Scotland or the Celts. What we've always wanted, despite fitting the imperialist mold even less than Scotland, is a boistrous, fun Celtic civ like Ireland. Jigs and ale and blarney and shillelaghs and leprechaun shenanigans.

Even under my gap-filling theory, Scotland was weird and practically doesn't justify itself if the ultimate aim of map-filling is to maximize cultural diversity. As Zaarin observed, Ireland did briefly hold colonies in Scotland, Wales, and Man. Ireland also actually obtained independence while Scotland didn't. The two have different strengths and if the devs were willing to stretch the idea of imperialism to include Scotland with its piddling overseas empire, I have to believe there were other directions they could have taken the definition of "civ." Or at least not choose Ireland or Scotland over the other and either include both or neither.

 

[Zaarin]

What we've always wanted, despite fitting the imperialist mold even less than Scotland, is a boistrous, fun Celtic civ like Ireland. Jigs and ale and blarney and shillelaghs and leprechaun shenanigans.

Actually what I want is a faith/culture superpower Irish civ with monasteries and the Book of Kells and all that, plus the absolute saddest theme music in the game--even more than Norway, Scythia, or Japan.

 

[Thenewwwguy]

It was definitely a safe design that borders on boring. In theory the idea of bagpipes and highlanders and golf and enlightenment are great. In practice,m all it did was make us realize we never really wanted Scotland or the Celts. What we've always wanted, despite fitting the imperialist mold even less than Scotland, is a boistrous, fun Celtic civ like Ireland. Jigs and ale and blarney and shillelaghs and leprechaun shenanigans.

Even under my gap-filling theory, Scotland was weird and practically doesn't justify itself if the ultimate aim of map-filling is to maximize cultural diversity. As Zaarin observed, Ireland did briefly hold colonies in Scotland, Wales, and Man. Ireland also actually obtained independence while Scotland didn't. The two have different strengths and if the devs were willing to stretch the idea of imperialism to include Scotland with its piddling overseas empire, I have to believe there were other directions they could have taken the definition of "civ." Or at least not choose Ireland or Scotland over the other and either include both or neither.

ireland could’ve been a celtic version of the maori with a character with a big big big personality like Kupe

Imagine Brian Boru being like Kupe but Irish

 

[Henri Christophe]

Tecumseh was a Shawnee chief; it makes no sense to call his civilization something other than Shawnee. The other nations you mentioned were his allies, not his vassals. I think Tecumseh of the Shawnee would make a great double pack with his rival Pushmataha of the Choctaw, though.

I appreciate your opinion, it is sound exaclty as the Tecumseh and the governor of Indiana discussion.

The history is narrative, the Tecumseh's Narrative of the world don't fit in US-American Narrative of the world.
Tecumseh demand as leader of Shawnee, Qjibwe,Wyandots,Fox,Sauk,Odawas,Kickapoos,Lenape,Miami,Seneca,Onondaga and Delawares.
was:

White Man can't buy any land in North-West Territory and Tecumseh is the only one who can speak for ALL.
I Mean, the governor of Indian should always ask to Tecumseh to deal any issue of Shawnee, Qjibwe,Wyandots,Fox,Sauk,Odawas,Kickapoos,Lenape,Miami,Seneca,Onondaga and Delawares.

The Governor don't accept, because, as your narrative.
The USA can speak as each "Tribe" as individual to deal of land, and also can go to war of each tribe.

The nations of the Northe West Territory, I Mean Shawnee, Qjibwe,Wyandots,Fox,Sauk,Odawas,Kickapoos,Lenape,Miami,Seneca,Onondaga and Delawares.
Leaded by Tecumseh don't accept US-Governor demand and it was the War of 1812.

I like you Zaarin, you understand the history exaclty as you should, exactly as the founder fathers of the USA thought, full of Civilized ideas...