Most Important Pre-Columbian American Civ?

[Ribannah]

i laughed bec i thought it was a lapse of the tongue. bec civ game calls each nation as empire although some of them were only kingdoms in history.

empire, in fact, means a state covering more than 1 nation. so states which are not ruled as monarchy can also be called empire.

if they incorporated other nationalities, maybe they can be called an empire. but i don't know if each of native tribes can be called seperate nations. i don't have much info on them.

Well, there's plenty of info available. The Iroquois empire was in fact known as the League of Five (later Six) Nations. In addition, various other tribes were subservient to them.

From what I've gathered, they seem more like different tribes working together. Like a confederation or something

That is correct, it was a confederative democracy. So no emperor, but still the word empire seems appropriate, because they were conquerors.

 

[Erufailon]

So no emperor, but still the word empire seems appropriate, because they were conquerors.

Don't really need an emperor to be an empire though. No one doubts the British was an empire during the Victorian era, and even the (by today's standards) small civilisation of the assyrians were imperialistic both militarily (is that even a word?) and religiously. Heck, even the republic of Rome was pretty imperialistic despite having no supreme leader at all. I guess the word "empire" has a pretty loose meaning, probably because of the Roman influence on European culture and language and all.

 

[LastLegionare]

I believe fitness in civ comes from there influence. America, a toddler in age compared to the rest, is definetily influental beyond its years. So, I'll have to say the Mayans. They even have a great influence today unlike Aztec and Inca.

 

[EMT]

100 votes so far! The numbers are all nice, even percentages, hehe. Only thing I've got to say, there's more Quechua speakers than Nahuatl or Maya speakers.

 

[Louis XXIV]

That doesn't really matter too much, though, I'd argue. It's a statistic, but doesn't prove that a civ was more important. However, if there are more speakers because the Incan population was larger than the speakers of the other languages (which might be true) or because they were better militarily at resisting invaders (which isn't), that would be relevant. Honestly, because of the nature of the Spanish conquest, I feel the greatest weight has to be placed on their pre-Columbian accomplishments.

 

[Erufailon]

However, if there are more speakers because the Incan population was larger than the speakers of the other languages (which might be true) or because they were better militarily at resisting invaders (which isn't), that would be relevant.

Actually, the reason why Quechua is so wide spread is very diverse. The language was very widespread before the Incan expansion, and the Incas spread it even further, using it as a unifying factor much like romans used latin in the west. However, the most important reason why it is still spoken by so many people is due to the fact that the catholic church in south america used the language to communicate with the natives.

 

[EMT]

I just learned something new. It's the Catholic Church's fault we have 3 dialects of Quechua?! Ah, the dreams of a unified Quechua language that I could finally study......

 

[Erufailon]

Well, in order to have that, you'd probably need to have a unified Incan empire lasting until today, or natural divergence of dialects would automatically happen. Just look at the Roman languages today. Or the Germanic.

 

[Momma Birdflu]

an Eskimo civilization would be fun.

 

[Thormodr]

an Eskimo civilization would be fun.

Just as a note, most Inuit prefer to be referred to by a name in their own language which of course is Inuit.

Inuit (plural; the singular Inuk means "man" or "person") is a general term for a group of culturally similar indigenous peoples inhabiting the Arctic regions of Canada, Denmark, Russia and the United States.[2] The Inuit language is grouped under Eskimo-Aleut languages.[3]

The Inuit live throughout most of the Canadian Arctic and subarctic: in the territory of Nunavut ("our land"); the northern third of Quebec, in an area called Nunavik ("place to live"); the coastal region of Labrador, in an area called Nunatsiavut ("our beautiful land"); in various parts of the Northwest Territories, mainly on the coast of the Arctic Ocean and formerly in the Yukon. Collectively these areas are known as Inuit Nunangat.[4][5] In the US, Alaskan Inupiat live on the North Slope of Alaska and Siberian Coast, Little Diomede Island and Big Diomede Island. Greenland's Kalaallit are citizens of Denmark. The Yupik live in both Alaska and the Russian Far East.

In Alaska, the term Eskimo is commonly used, because it includes both Yupik and Inupiat, while Inuit is not accepted as a collective term or even specifically used for Inupiat. No universal replacement term for Eskimo, inclusive of all Inuit and Yupik people, is accepted across the geographical area inhabited by the Inuit and Yupik peoples.[6] In Canada and Greenland, the term Eskimo has fallen out of favour, as it is considered pejorative by the natives and has been replaced by the term Inuit.[7][8] In Canada, the Constitution Act of 1982, sections 25 and 35 recognised the Inuit as a distinctive group of Canadian aboriginals, who are neither First Nations nor Métis.[9]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inuit

Origin of the name Eskimo
Search Wiktionary Look up eskimo or Eskimo in Wiktionary, the free dictionary.

Two principal competing etymologies have been proposed for the name "Eskimo", but the most commonly accepted today appears to be the Montagnais word meaning "snowshoe-netter". The word assime·w means "she laces a snowshoe" in Montagnais. Since Montagnais speakers refer to the neighbouring Mi'kmaq people using words that sound very much like eskimo, Ives Goddard of the Smithsonian Institution has concluded that this is the more likely origin of the word.[5][6]

Jose Mailhot, a Quebec anthropologist who speaks Montagnais, however, published a paper in 1978 which suggested that the meaning is "people who speak a different language".[7]

Folklore has it that speakers of some Algonkian languages coined the term Eskimo to mean "eaters of raw meat". Linguistic research by anthropologists does not support that etymology, and the majority of academic linguists hold the non-pejorative view of Eskimo, but it is nevertheless commonly felt in Canada and Greenland that the term Eskimo is pejorative.[1][8][9][10][11]

The Inuit Circumpolar Conference meeting in Barrow, Alaska, officially adopted "Inuit" as a designation for all Eskimos, regardless of their local usages, in 1977[citation needed]. However, the Inuit Circumpolar Council, as it is known today, uses both "Inuit" and "Eskimo" in its official documents[12][13]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eskimo

 

[Momma Birdflu]

All righty then an "INUIT" civ will be fun.

 

[Desertsnow]

It was a tough call among the choices on the ballot, but I put in my vote for the Mayans.

I do think that the Apache, Cherokee and Inuit civilizations deserve honorable mention at least, though.

 

[Thormodr]

All righty then an "INUIT" civ will be fun.

I agree an Inuit Civ would be lots of fun. Make it so Firaxis.

 

[Erufailon]

What about viking settlments? do they count as a pre-columbian civ? XP

 

[Momma Birdflu]

yes, they're called the Vikings.

 

[Louis XXIV]

Vinland wasn't all that important on the North American continent, though. It had to be supplied by Greenland, which was barely self-sufficient itself.

 

[Jbselreal]

Hi everyone

I think the mapuches could be an interesting addition to
the game. Their impact on the development of the spanish
empire is not to be left aside so easily. They cost to
the Spanish empire more men than the whole rest of the
conquest of america. Chile was called the cementery of
the spanish by this reason.
They had also other notable characteristic that could be
apply to the game, for example their ability of adapting
strategies and technologies from their enemies easily.
Did you know for example that the mapuches were the first
native tribe of america to use artillery?

Well ... the Mapuche were terribly
fierce and put up ferocious resistance to colonization,
but not really all that important as a civilization.
Mapuche architecture? Philosophy? Engineering? Higher
maths? No, not really.

About philosophy, architecture engineerring,etc they
have the same problem many candidates for civilizations
have, they were almost stone age cultures. But this game
is supossed to show how the civilization could be if they
exist in an earlier age that they were created(Like the
USA) or if they survived to after ages(Like the aztec, or
rome)

 

[Rusty Edge]

I voted for the Mayans but I think all three are very worthy and should be in the game.

The Mayans engineering feats were remarkable, especially considering they lived in quite inhospitable terrain. The same could be said of the Incas. The Aztecs prowess militarily as well as the architectural gem that was their capital are just as worthy.

I'd like to see the Iroquois in one of the expansions. It'd be nice to see a North American aboriginal culture.

I had similar thoughts, but came down on the Inca side of things.

I have a % of Iroquois ancestry, and I like to see previous civs grandfathered in, so I have a bias .

To me, the Sioux, Vikings, and Mongols, for that matter were nomads seeking greener pastures, rather than what I consider a civ, but shaped history so much as to be worthy of inclusion in the game, rather than simply barbs.

 

[Omega124]

The Incas, most definitely. They created a giant empire in a place most civilizations wouldn't be able to survive in. They also made a road system rivaling Rome, have a language still moderately used today, and are the Greeks in Goldmanship. Nice job, Incans.

 

[civ_king]

Incans, they were actually civilized