Expansion Civilizations

[Hawkeye2007]

Most countries that are already in the game were conquered during the course of history, some even quite a few times.

Yes but they became countries again and rose to power multiple times. If they didn't come to power multiple times such as the Portuguese, they at least would have held a position that molded other countries into what they are today. The Native American tribes did nearly nothing in the area north of the Mexican Border to shape the culture. There are city names and state names with roots in their language but that is not a very significant value. And yes the Iroquois were never conquered but they were assimilated into the U.S. and Canada. That is nearly the same thing as being conquered.

Also I agree with Pratputajao about how the Native American tribes should be included in a second expansion pack. And I also live very close to a reservation so I do have a little insight in what I'm talking about.

I agree with Pratputajao about how another civilization that is pre-gunpowder does appeal to the masses, but then why not add pre-gunpowder civilizations that actually added a good deal to history? Either that or at least make it intereseting. I'll settle for the Khmer, Vikings, and Polynesians.

 

[Ankenaton]

Besides of which, no one seems to argue that the Egyptians shouldn't be in this game, and not only were they conquered (Ancient Egyptian civilization, for all intents and purposes, ceased to exist two thousand years ago), but Egypt must be one of the most frequently conquered countries on Earth.

Quite right my friend. In fact Egypt is the Greek name for Khemet (Land of the Black Earth) as they were part of the successive waves of conquerors starting from about 600BC onward. However prior to that (excluding the intermediate periods between the Old, Middle, and New Kingdoms) Khemet enjoyed at least two thousand years of dominance and prosperity in Africa and the Near East. A record unmatched until Roman times. They were not interested in outright conquest, preferring to dominate vassel states along its boundaries and beyond. In fact the people who are identified as being Egyptians today (especially in Lower <northern> Egypt are the descendants of Arabs, Romans, Greeks, Assyrians, Hebrews and Persians. All of these groups and more would have been referred to by the Pharoahs of Khemet as northern barbarians or Asiatics. Unfortunately instead of seeking a balanced game where every region has adequate representation; we are engaging in for the most part fits of nationalism and jingoism that has been the bane of mankind since the first nation states. It was quinine (the first effective remedy against malaria) and the machine gun, to use two of the many variables involved that resulted in the permanent conquests until the modern era of much of Africa, Asia, South America and the Pacific Islands.

 

[Ribannah]

Yes but they became countries again and rose to power multiple times.

Certainly not all of them. Meanwhile, the Iroquois, to stick to the example, don't need to become a nation again, since they still are a nation.

If they didn't come to power multiple times such as the Portuguese, they at least would have held a position that molded other countries into what they are today.

Portugal is a good example of a nation that was a power for one era only.

The Native American tribes did nearly nothing in the area north of the Mexican Border to shape the culture. There are city names and state names with roots in their language but that is not a very significant value. And yes the Iroquois were never conquered but they were assimilated into the U.S. and Canada. That is nearly the same thing as being conquered.

It is rather the other way around: the settlers were assimilated by the Iroquois (other things, like women's rights, were ignored, unfortunately). The USA constitution, government and legal system, their city planning, combined-troops warfare, and many other things were learned from the Iroquois. Northern Amerind culture spread over Europe under the title Naturalism, which - together with the Iroquois advances of democracy and interplanting - significantly helped shape the world we live in today.

I agree with Pratputajao about how another civilization that is pre-gunpowder does appeal to the masses, but then why not add pre-gunpowder civilizations that actually added a good deal to history?

The Iroquois are not pre-gunpowder. Although established in 1451AD, the League only really rose to power by use of the musket. Their Golden Age is the 17th century, not by accident coinciding with the Golden Age of their trading partner the Dutch. Until around the American revolution, they had more firepower than anyone else in NA.

 

[Atropos]

It is rather the other way around: the settlers were assimilated by the Iroquois (other things, like women's rights, were ignored, unfortunately). The USA constitution, government and legal system, their city planning, combined-troops warfare, and many other things were learned from the Iroquois. Northern Amerind culture spread over Europe under the title Naturalism, which - together with the Iroquois advances of democracy and interplanting - significantly helped shape the world we live in today.

Locke was Iroquois? Oh, and if you think that "naturalism" originated in America, try reading Cowper, Grey, or any of the eighteenth-century poets of sensibility.

If you seriously think that the ideas behind the US constitution were non-European, then please read Montesquieu's Esprit des Lois. If you seriously think that the American legal system originated with the Iroquois, then please read any basic text on the development of the British common law system.

If you can present specific examples of European adoption of Iroquois government, law, whatever, please go ahead. I would be delighted to be corrected but I have often seen the "Iroquois adoption" thesis aired on web forums and it has never hitherto been accompanied by any evidence.

 

[jar2574]

It is rather the other way around: the settlers were assimilated by the Iroquois (other things, like women's rights, were ignored, unfortunately). The USA constitution, government and legal system, their city planning, combined-troops warfare, and many other things were learned from the Iroquois.

First, let me say that I would like the Iroquis to be in the expansion pack. But to argue that the settlers were assimilated by the Iroquis is ridiculous. Even today America's European roots are impossible to ignore.

The USA constitution was made by white elites whose ideas were derived from Locke, Rousseau, Montesquieu, and other European thinkers. The USA government was based off of the ideas of these thinkers and the British government.

The legal system was totally imported from Britain, with very few exceptions. This makes since, since the USA were colonies of Britian.

City planning was more inspired by Europe than by the Natives. Washington DC was designed by a Frenchman. Early American architecture was much more inspired by Classical themes than by native ones.

The USA, under leadership of General Washington, certainly used tactics inspired by the French-Indian Wars. But throughout the war Washington hoped to mold his troops into a fighting force capable of matching European troops in the open field.

In short, while the Iroquis may deserve to be included, they didn't influence the colonists to the degree you claim.

 

[Ribannah]

The USA constitution was made by white elites whose ideas were derived from Locke, Rousseau, Montesquieu, and other European thinkers.

Follow the trail back, read where Locke and Rousseau got their ideas from. To quote Locke: "In the beginning, all the world was America." Read the Iroquois constitution, and about the life of Franklin and Jefferson.

City planning was more inspired by Europe than by the Natives. Washington DC was designed by a Frenchman. Early American architecture was much more inspired by Classical themes than by native ones.

Architecture is not city planning, and Washington DC is a special case.
What was adopted from the Iroquois was the grid system, applied to the fullest in New York City.

If you seriously think that the ideas behind the US constitution were non-European, then please read Montesquieu's Esprit des Lois.

Read, instead, Colden, Lafitau and Paine.
The added influence of Montesquieu, if any, was only negative: he was a racist and denied women any rights, the two points where the USA constitution differed from that of the Iroquois. We had to go a long way to remedy that, and we still haven't got it right. The separation of powers, however, is the backbone of the Iroquois constitution.

 

[jar2574]

Follow the trail back, read where those thinkers got their ideas from. To quote Locke: "In the beginning, all the world was America." Read the Iroquois constitution, and about the life of Franklin and Jefferson.

Ummm, Rousseu did not base his social contract theories on Iroquois ideas. Montesquieu did not get the idea of seperation of powers from the Iroquois. And obviously Locke did not develop his views on property from them. Locke's ideas on property were as influencial in the early USA as the ideas of social contract and seperation of powers.

European thinkers were fascinated by the existence of the native tribes, and viewed them as living in a state of nature. Just because they knew of the Iroquois does not mean that their ideas were copied from earlier, Iroquis ones.

You completely misinterpret Locke's statement. Locke's sentence "In the beginning..." is meant to illustrate life before civil society, not as a credit to the wellspring of his ideas. He hoped that America would function as a new beginning for Europeans, provided that they were able to take the land from those pesky natives. Locke actually believed it was just to take common land and turn it into private property, he argued this in England and his ideas were applied in the USA.

Regarding Jefferson and Franklin: Jefferson did not write the Constitution. He wasn't even at the convention. Franklin did not write it either, though he was at the convention. Franklin was more sympathetic to the natives than almost any other founder.

Architecture is not city planning, and Washington DC is the wrong era. What was adopted from the Iroquois was the grid system, applied to the fullest in New York City.

Gee, Americans got the idea of the grid from the Iroquois? Absurd. I suppose that next you'll explain how they couldn't have gotten it from Giza, Babylon, China, India, or Europe, since all of those places had grid cities. This might be tough to do, considering that ancient civilizations had grid cities as far back as 2500 BC, and European towns were built on grids in the 1200-1300s.

Pierre-Charles L'Enfant's planned the city of Washington in 1791. I can't even hazard a guess why you would argue that this is the wrong era.

I'm well away that architecture is not city planning. I did not say that the two were the same. I was pointing out yet another part of American life that was dominated by European ideas.

You argue that the Indians assimilated the settlers and ignore the fact that the settlers kept their legal system, religion, ideas of property, ideas about sexuality and basic worldview.

I'm all for the Iroquois being in the game, but I don't think that we need to revise history to argue for their inclusion.

 

[Human Map]

That was entertaining!

 

[Human Map]

I think Hawaii would be a good inclousion to Civ. as well as Aleutians and Inuit. They would be good to represent the unwell represented Americas. After all Iroquios, Aztecs and Incas may be my faviorite civs to play as in Civ. 3 but they hardly represent all the Americas.

 

[Depravo]

What was adopted from the Iroquois was the grid system, applied to the fullest in New York City.

Bollocks! The grid pattern is one of the more obvious ways to organise an urban population.

Vedic 'ideal' city...


Chang'an...


Kyoto...


... even Saxon Southampton...


Christ Jesus, I've seen some crackpot theories in my time but...

 

[jar2574]

Christ Jesus, I've seen some crackpot theories in my time but...

My thoughts exactly.

Thanks for those illustrations.

 

[Human Map]

Marie Antoinette would be a good leader for France. Though she was hated it was mainly due to rumours and the such. Poor Antoinette is now reconized by many as a wounderful leader and mother and a woman who was more sinned against then sinned. I just read the article on her on the Wikipedia and if you read it I bet you'll argree.

 

[Ribannah]

Ummm, Rousseu did not base his social contract theories on Iroquois ideas. Montesquieu did not get the idea of seperation of powers from the Iroquois. And obviously Locke did not develop his views on property from them.

Follow the path back in time. You are in the wrong period, thereby skipping the missing links. The topic of social contract was already treated by Hobbes, who was inspired by the Iroquois. The Iroquois also had defined property rights. Read their constitution.

Regarding Jefferson and Franklin: Jefferson did not write the Constitution. He wasn't even at the convention.

The Iroquois were, however. Read about the lives of these two, to understand how that happened.

Gee, Americans got the idea of the grid from the Iroquois? Absurd. I suppose that next you'll explain how they couldn't have gotten it from Giza, Babylon, China, India, or Europe, since all of those places had grid cities.

It is really very simple. The Iroquois were a thriving nearby society, and these others a faint memory. They may have had grid cities, too, but the Americans knew it not.

I'm well away that architecture is not city planning. I did not say that the two were the same. I was pointing out yet another part of American life that was dominated by European ideas.

Actually, American architecture was dominated by their own ideas, after the initial medieval style. They were also influenced by the native pueblo's which eventually led to the scyscrapers that, as it so happens, were built mainly by Mohawk crews.

You argue that the Indians assimilated the settlers

That I did not. What I said was that they rather assimilated the settlers than the other way around. Obviously, the assimilation was not complete.

and ignore the fact that the settlers kept their legal system, religion, ideas of property, ideas about sexuality and basic worldview.

They didn't. (Kept their world view even, despite the discovery of a new continent? )

I'm all for the Iroquois being in the game, but I don't think that we need to revise history to argue for their inclusion.

We don't. What we need is to revise what the USA schools teach the USA children about history.

 

[Ribannah]

Bollocks! The grid pattern is one of the more obvious ways to organise an urban population.

Not at all. Urban populations tend to grow naturally, and will then with a mathematical certainty form in a roundish way. It is only when an entire city is planned ahead that the more efficient grid system even becomes an option.
Such planning of a complete town was not normally done in Europe at the time, but it was done always by the Iroquois.

 

[jar2574]

Follow the path back in time. You are in the wrong period, thereby skipping the missing links. The topic of social contract was already treated by Hobbes, who was inspired by the Iroquois. The Iroquois also had defined property rights. Read their constitution.

Hobbes proposed that to prevent us from living as savages in the state of nature a Leviathon was necessary to instill fear and order. He did not propose this idea because of the Iroquois.

Please give me your sources regarding Iroquois influence at the Constitutional Convention. I've read plenty about the Convention while doing research on Framer's Intent. There are many records from the time period discussing the debates. I've unfortunately had to comb through many of them. Madison's notes, for example do not discuss Iroquis at all. I've never seen anything indicating that any Iroqoius representatives had the kind of influence on the delegates that you're proposing.

I read the Iroquis Constitution. Long. Neat. Do you have a section you'd like to point out? The existence of the constitution does not prove that anyone was influenced by it.

It is really very simple. The Iroquois were a thriving nearby society, and these others a faint memory. They may have had grid cities, too, but the Americans knew it not.

America didn't know about the grid cities in Europe? All grid cities disappeared from China and India, leaving only the Iroquois as keeper of the grid secret? This is ludicrous.

Grid cities have been common for 4500 years. The Iroquois did not invent them. The Americans were not exposed to grids by the Iroquis, grid cities had been around almost as long as cities had existed.

Actually, American architecture was dominated by their own ideas, after the initial medieval style. They were also influenced by the native pueblo's which eventually led to the scyscrapers that, as it so happens, were built mainly by Mohawk crews.

OK. Monticello, the US Capital, Mt. Vernon. Classical in nature. Not medivel. Definately not pueblo.

That I did not. What I said was that they rather assimilated the settlers than the other way around. Obviously, the assimilation was not complete.

The settlers annihilated most natives through disease and war. The few that survived assimilated or live on reservations. To say that the assimilation went the other way around is just crazytalk.

They didn't. (Kept their world view even, despite the discovery of a new continent? )

Oh good grief. Spain "discovered" the New World in 1492. The British started colonizing America in 1606. So no, colonists did not need to change their basic world view to incorporate the existence of a new continent. England had known about the continent for over 100 years.

The American colonists kept their religion, legal system, ideas on property, and yes, the rest of their basic worldview. They unfortunately placed little value on Iroqouis thought, and on Iroqouis life. If they had valued Iroqouis ideas to the degree you propose, then surely they would not have been so heartless towards their advanced neighbors.

 

[Depravo]

Not at all. Urban populations tend to grow naturally...

Tangent. Your examples of grid cities in the US, including NY, were examples of forward planning, plenty of Old World cities were deliberately founded, and the grid pattern is a common theme almost everywhere.

 

[Ribannah]

Hobbes proposed that to prevent us from living as savages in the state of nature a Leviathon was necessary to instill fear and order. He did not propose this idea because of the Iroquois.

The statement is equal to the statement by Dekanawidah leading to the formation of the League. Hobbes knew of this. A similar statement was not made elsewhere. But, of course, when he wrote his own statement he totally forgot about Dekanawidah, then thought of it himself, and never noticed anything strange ...

Please give me your sources regarding Iroquois influence at the Constitutional Convention.

They did not influence the convention.

I've read plenty about the Convention while doing research on Framer's Intent. There are many records from the time period discussing the debates. I've unfortunately had to comb through many of them. Madison's notes, for example do not discuss Iroquis at all.

Ah. The Madison Archives. That explains a lot.

The existence of the constitution does not prove that anyone was influenced by it.

Right. Your neighbours became rich and powerful thanks to their constitution. You want one, too, although you really don't know why since you know nothing about your neigbours even though they are standing right in front of you and are explaining to you how things work.
Some of your best people advise you. They know very well the constitution of their neighbours, having lived among them for so many years, but somehow instantly forget. Still, somehow they manage to advise you. Next, you come up with a text that is quite similar to that of your neighbours and resembles no other text that was ever written before. You even happen to choose the exact same national symbol. But, of course, your neighbours did not influence you in any way ... the thought alone ... blasphemy!

America didn't know about the grid cities in Europe?

Name one that they surely would have known.

Grid cities have been common for 4500 years. The Iroquois did not invent them.

They did. Just not the first one to do so. But I never claimed they were.

OK. Monticello, the US Capital, Mt. Vernon. Classical in nature. Not medivel. Definately not pueblo.

And definitely dominating all USA architecture, between the three of them.

The settlers annihilated most natives through disease and war.

Many natives were annihilated or absorbed by the Iroquois. Not only that, the Iroquois adopted many white people as well, while the reverse was a rarity.

Oh good grief. Spain "discovered" the New World in 1492. The British started colonizing America in 1606. So no, colonists did not need to change their basic world view to incorporate the existence of a new continent. England had known about the continent for over 100 years.

The Iroquois knew about Europe for quite a bit longer, having met the Vikings before.
Renewed contact did not start with the English settlers, but with the Cartier expedition of 1530. That is why England was influenced so much later than France and the Dutch.

The American colonists kept their religion

American religion is vastly different from European religion. There are clear and very obvious native influences, Thanksgivings for starters.

legal system, ideas on property, and yes, the rest of their basic worldview.

Really? I thought they changed them because all of these European influences?

They unfortunately placed little value on Iroqouis thought, and on Iroqouis life. If they had valued Iroqouis ideas to the degree you propose, then surely they would not have been so heartless towards their advanced neighbors.

On the contrary, it is precisely the reason why they eventually (we are talking second half of the 19th century) became so heartless. They didn't want to know it, so that they wouldn't hesitate when stealing from their neighbours, who numbered way less souls but still owned the best property. So they rewrote their history books, after the example set by the Chinese, and that is why you know no better today.

 

[Ribannah]

Your examples of grid cities in the US, including NY, were examples of forward planning

Well, that was my point. Grid cities result from forward planning. Even when you plan over an already existing city. Forward planning requires a high degree of socialization. Or a despote who simply likes a cool pattern, of course.

 

[Ribannah]

By the way, the USA were not the first to be influenced by the Iroquois example. Before them, the United Provinces of the Netherlands formed a confederacy in 1579, followed by the United Colonies of New England in 1643. A good number of native nations formed confederacies largely modelled after the League as well, long before the USA followed suit.

 

[jar2574]

The statement is equal to the statement by Dekanawidah leading to the formation of the League. Hobbes knew of this. A similar statement was not made elsewhere. But, of course, when he wrote his own statement he totally forgot about Dekanawidah, then thought of it himself, and never noticed anything strange ....

Nope. The statements at the beginning of the League Constitution and the Leviathon are not the same. They are not even close. Please enlighten me as to how you think they are even remotely similar.

A hypothetical Leviathon unaccountable to the people, who rules with an iron fist in exchange for security is not the same as a group of tribes coming together voluntarily to form a Confederation.

Hobbes's work was a reaction to the English Civil Wars. He knew Francis Bacon and Descartes, among others. But I guess you think that none of this had as much influence on him as a group of tribes thousands of miles away.

They did not influence the convention.

Glad we got that sorted out.

Ah. The Madison Archives. That explains a lot.

Yes. The father of the Constitution. Explains a lot. The other extensive records kept by other Convention delegates explain even more.

And your sources on the matter are? Betcha they're much better than the diary kept by the man who wrote the Constitution.

Right. Your neighbours became rich and powerful thanks to their constitution. You want one, too, although you really don't know why since you know nothing about your neigbours even though they are standing right in front of you and are explaining to you how things work.

The Iroquis were nowhere near as rich and powerful as the British Empire, of which the colonists were subjects. They were British for God's sake. Clearly the British tradition would have more influence over them than people whom they considered savages.

Some of your best people advise you. They know very well the constitution of their neighbours, having lived among them for so many years, but somehow instantly forget.

Oh yeah, all those advisors that lived "among" the Iroquois for so many years. They didn't get a traditional English style education at Harvard or Yale, they were educated amongst the "savages." All the elites sent their kids to live "among" the Iroquis. Quite common!

Still, somehow they manage to advise you. Next, you come up with a text that is quite similar to that of your neighbours and resembles no other text that was ever written before. You even happen to choose the exact same national symbol. But, of course, your neighbours did not influence you in any way ... the thought alone ... blasphemy!

The text is remarkably similar to the work of the aforementioned European philosophers, and the gov't had been outlined by others. It clearly resembles text that had been written before. This didn't come out of the blue.

There are significant differences between the US Const and the Iroquous Constitution. (Including its length. And topics like adoption.) Ignore those if you like, because in your world it was just copied in Philadelphia.

Name one that they surely would have known.

Mannheim. Edinburgh. Medival towns all over Europe. The Romans and Greeks built many grid cities, which the colonists would have been aware of.

Grid cities began in 2500 BC. They were all over the world. But maybe the colonists forgot their grid hometowns when they got on boats and only rediscovered the magic of grids through the Iroquois!

You never claimed that grid cities didn't exist pre-Iroquois but you are making the absolutely outrageous claim that British colonists would be unaware of any grid city. Just silliness.

And definitely dominating all USA architecture, between the three of them.

I offered three of the most famous buildings of the time. Of course, we could look at many other buildings inspired by the Classical tradition. Care to offer three American colonial buildings that were designed off your beloved pueblos!

Many natives were annihilated or absorbed by the Iroquois. Not only that, the Iroquois adopted many white people as well, while the reverse was a rarity.

Yes it was rare for whites to adopt Iroquis. Because the white settlers maintained their European heritage and ideas and looked down on natives. They did not assimilate into native culture.

The Iroquois knew about Europe for quite a bit longer, having met the Vikings before.
Renewed contact did not start with the English settlers, but with the Cartier expedition of 1530. That is why England was influenced so much later than France and the Dutch.

Yup. All true. The English settlers did not have to change their worldview on the way to the colonies. England knew the new world existed for quite some time before settling in it.

American religion is vastly different from European religion. There are clear and very obvious native influences, Thanksgivings for starters.

LOL. Thanksgiving is not a religous ceremony. No one goes to church on Thanksgiving. It is a national civic holiday, not a religious one!

The American religious experience has diverged from the European one, but had not shifted dramatically prior to the formation of the USA. The settlers still practiced basically the same religions they had practiced in Europe.

Really? I thought they changed them because all of these European influences?

I don't even know what you're talking about. I've been saying all along that the European settlers retained their Euro-focused worldview; that they did not adopt new ideas because of native influences. Perhaps you can reread the posts and explain exactly what you meant here.

On the contrary, it is precisely the reason why they eventually (we are talking second half of the 19th century) became so heartless. They didn't want to know it, so that they wouldn't hesitate when stealing from their neighbours, who numbered way less souls but still owned the best property. So they rewrote their history books, after the example set by the Chinese, and that is why you know no better today.

Glad you're here to expose the greatest coverup in world history! This isn't ancient history. We have historical records from the participants. The diaries of the founders indicate that most believed the natives to be no better than savages.