I don't mind pandering to the market if it gets a civ that I want."We can never have too many market pandering civs."--Firaxis, probably
And I don't mean Mexico.
Olmecs not a major civ
- Thread starter Stringer1313
- Start date
And I don't mean Mexico.
Evie
Pronounced like Eevee
I wouldn't really be a fan of Mexico (I only play Canada as a joke because, well, I l ive there, and I'm not even particularly attached to it), and would vastly prefer Mesoamerican anything (even the Olmec and Toltecs) to more modern civs, but whatever.
BuchiTaton
Emperor
- Joined
- Jul 8, 2019
- Messages
- 1,261
The president Benito Juárez was zapotec and he is the best option for a on game mexican leader.And that doesn't mean we should give Mexico any uniques or abilities based off of the Zapotecs, Toltecs, Mixtecs etc. for representation.
Here is a very big confusion. Precolombine Yaquis have nothing to do with Mayans, also Yaquis are just distant related to Nahuas (they are from a different branch of the Uto-Aztecs).
I am almost sure than what your edition of the Popol Vuh said about the Yaquis must be some addition about the deportation of the Yaquis from Northwestern México to Yucatán. Yaquis are like maya one of the most combatant natives from the region, they revolted against the government of Porfirio Díaz at the end of the 19th century and were deported in big numbers to Yucatán on the early 20th century.
Evie
Pronounced like Eevee
They're two separate meaning of Yaqui (in two distinct languages). The Yaqui of the Quiche language just describe people from Central Mexico in general, especially Nahua people.
The Yaqui/Yoem of the Rio Yaqui region are a wholly distinct group.
The Yaqui/Yoem of the Rio Yaqui region are a wholly distinct group.
I agree though considering the Olmecs and Toltecs are very unlikely because of lack of information, I think Mexico greatly has a shot over them. I think we'll see them sooner than the Zapotecs, Mixtec etc. as well.
Though I hope we get Argentina first.
I was thinking more on the lines of giving modern day Mexico a Jaguar warrior UU as an example not being good.
Benito Juarez as president, who was also a Zapotec, is fine.
Last edited:
Henri Christophe
L'empereur
Mexico Unique Unit should be that Guerrilheiro:
Toltecs have enought to be a civ, I still not convincent here is mythological, because we have name of their kings, and a good option as unique feature as the Atlantes warriors.
Argentina should be cool because the Gaucho, but I rather prefer Uruguay because his leader is a great heroe.
I mean who knows if the list of kings are completely historical or just part of the the Aztec mythology?
Duke William of Normandy
King of England & Unofficial Welcoming Committee
I'd rather the Rurales be Mexico's Unique Unit. If they make it.Mexico Unique Unit should be that Guerrilheiro:
Henri Christophe
L'empereur
Of course is historically. have 3 spanish cronists who write about Toltec list of leaders. They may don't agree in everything, but the leaders they agree should be considered historically real leaders.
For example, they disagree Xochitl was emperetriz of Toltec empire, that means, choice a woman to lead Toltec may be controversial, but a leader as Quetzalcoalt was real king of Toltec Empire, who come from north sea bringing civilization and conquer.
You call this kind of Mexica, using Sombreros, called they Rurales? I don't know how call they.
Last edited:
Evie
Pronounced like Eevee
What we know about the toltecs is still basically Aztec legends, Henri. Yes, Historians *try* to figure out possible facts behind the legends, and assemble possible chronologies, like they do for the Trojan war (except we arguably have more actual evidence there thanks to Hittite letters), but that doesn't make our information about the Toltecs good.
Teotihuacan, despite being older, would be a better choice still, because (like the Hittitesand the Trojan War) we do actually have what their neighbors (the Mayans) wrote about them.
Teotihuacan, despite being older, would be a better choice still, because (like the Hittitesand the Trojan War) we do actually have what their neighbors (the Mayans) wrote about them.
Henri Christophe
L'empereur
The mayas also wrote about Toltecs, in Popol Vuh have about the invasion of Mayapan.
I guess we know even less about Teotihuacan than we know about Toltecs, about Teotihuacan, who should be the leader? I'm sure none name so impactant as QUetzalcoalt leading the Toltecs.
Evie
Pronounced like Eevee
We have ALREADY gone over this - the passage of the Popol Vuh you refer to says nothing about the Toltecs invading the Maya, you're misinterpreting it. And it certainly says nothing about the Toltecs invading Mayapan because Mayapan didn't exist in Toltec times. It was founded during the collapse of Tulla. It's the last of the great Mayan cities, and it became the capital of the last major Mayan polity (the League of Mayapan) well after the Toltec (if they ever actually existed) had vanished. It's strictly impossible that Tulla invaded Mayapan.
Second, even if the Popol Vuh did say that, it wouldn't change anything, because the Popol Vuh would also be a third party source (people in Guatemala writing about events in Yucatan - if they are indeed talking about Toltecs in lowland Maya cities like Chichen Itza or Mayapan), written long after the fact (it was set down after the Conquest), and very clearly a mythological source (it tells us about the origin of the gods, their relation with the Kiche people, and so forth). That doesn't mean it has no value, just that it comes with significant question marks and need outside confirmation to properly understand the historical reality behind the myths - much like the Illiad.
On the other hand, the sources we have for the Teotihuacan invasion of the Mayans are first-hand sources (the stellae were carved by the people of Tikal, about events in Tikal), written at or around the time of the actual events (the stellae are dated roughly to the same time period as the events they describe) and are description of recent events. This makes them far more reliable as a source, rather like the Hittite letters considering events surrounding the city of Wilusa (Willios-Illion-Troy) - absent any reason to believe otherwise, we can assume that what they describe is roughly the historical reality (especially as it corresponds to the archaeological records).
What do these Mayan first-hand sources tell us about Teotihuacan? That in 374 AD, a leader they represent using the glyph Spearthrower Owl became lord of a powerful city outside the Mayan lands (which we can largely confirm is Teotihuacan from multiple other sources - and from the fact that it's the only city powerful enough to fit the history). That four years later, that lord sent his vassal or general Siyaj K'ak' to the Mayan lands, and that in 378, Siyaj K'ak' captured Tikal and installed a son of Spearthrower Owl, Yax Nuun Ayin, as king of the city. Other records indicate that similar events took place in Uaxactun and Copan. All those characters are commonly depicted on Mayan stelae around Tikal in traditional Teotihuacani clothings and war equipment, and archaeology confirms that this is a time when Central Mexican and Teotihuacan styles of architecture and art become very common in the cities of the Mayan highlands, indicating that under Spearthrower Owl, Teotihuacan at the very least exerted significant political influence in the Mayan lands, and quite possibly carried out direct military conquest.
Archaeology also tell us that at this time, Teotihuacan was a massive multicultural metropolis (far more so than the Toltec capital of Tula; at their largest, Tula was about half the size of Teotihuacan at best), with quarters and neighborhoods representing cultures from across Mexico (including, yes, evidence of a Mayan quarter in Teotihuacan). Of the three great pre-colonial cities of the valley of Mexico (Teotihuacan, Tulla, Tenochtitlan), Teotihuacan remained at the height of its power the longest, with cultural influence ranging over most of Mesoamerica. It is basically to Mesoamerica what Rome is to the Mediteranean.
Essentially, everything Aztec mythology credits to the Toltecs regarding the Mayan, we know Teotihuacan in general and Spearthrower Owl in specific (the Mayan conquest) actually did (and it would not be all that surprising if Aztec mythology and the Spanish who wrote it down had mixed up oral history of what Tula did, and what Teotihuacan did - especially since the Aztec called both cities Tollan).
You're looking for an impactful lord in pre-Aztec central Mexico? Spearthrower Owl is your guy.
Second, even if the Popol Vuh did say that, it wouldn't change anything, because the Popol Vuh would also be a third party source (people in Guatemala writing about events in Yucatan - if they are indeed talking about Toltecs in lowland Maya cities like Chichen Itza or Mayapan), written long after the fact (it was set down after the Conquest), and very clearly a mythological source (it tells us about the origin of the gods, their relation with the Kiche people, and so forth). That doesn't mean it has no value, just that it comes with significant question marks and need outside confirmation to properly understand the historical reality behind the myths - much like the Illiad.
On the other hand, the sources we have for the Teotihuacan invasion of the Mayans are first-hand sources (the stellae were carved by the people of Tikal, about events in Tikal), written at or around the time of the actual events (the stellae are dated roughly to the same time period as the events they describe) and are description of recent events. This makes them far more reliable as a source, rather like the Hittite letters considering events surrounding the city of Wilusa (Willios-Illion-Troy) - absent any reason to believe otherwise, we can assume that what they describe is roughly the historical reality (especially as it corresponds to the archaeological records).
What do these Mayan first-hand sources tell us about Teotihuacan? That in 374 AD, a leader they represent using the glyph Spearthrower Owl became lord of a powerful city outside the Mayan lands (which we can largely confirm is Teotihuacan from multiple other sources - and from the fact that it's the only city powerful enough to fit the history). That four years later, that lord sent his vassal or general Siyaj K'ak' to the Mayan lands, and that in 378, Siyaj K'ak' captured Tikal and installed a son of Spearthrower Owl, Yax Nuun Ayin, as king of the city. Other records indicate that similar events took place in Uaxactun and Copan. All those characters are commonly depicted on Mayan stelae around Tikal in traditional Teotihuacani clothings and war equipment, and archaeology confirms that this is a time when Central Mexican and Teotihuacan styles of architecture and art become very common in the cities of the Mayan highlands, indicating that under Spearthrower Owl, Teotihuacan at the very least exerted significant political influence in the Mayan lands, and quite possibly carried out direct military conquest.
Archaeology also tell us that at this time, Teotihuacan was a massive multicultural metropolis (far more so than the Toltec capital of Tula; at their largest, Tula was about half the size of Teotihuacan at best), with quarters and neighborhoods representing cultures from across Mexico (including, yes, evidence of a Mayan quarter in Teotihuacan). Of the three great pre-colonial cities of the valley of Mexico (Teotihuacan, Tulla, Tenochtitlan), Teotihuacan remained at the height of its power the longest, with cultural influence ranging over most of Mesoamerica. It is basically to Mesoamerica what Rome is to the Mediteranean.
Essentially, everything Aztec mythology credits to the Toltecs regarding the Mayan, we know Teotihuacan in general and Spearthrower Owl in specific (the Mayan conquest) actually did (and it would not be all that surprising if Aztec mythology and the Spanish who wrote it down had mixed up oral history of what Tula did, and what Teotihuacan did - especially since the Aztec called both cities Tollan).
You're looking for an impactful lord in pre-Aztec central Mexico? Spearthrower Owl is your guy.
Last edited:
Henri Christophe
L'empereur
I search a bit about him on internet and he look like cool, super ok. But, Teotihuacan have other issue, they was just a city state. Only if we are thinking to do a Native American Venice. I don't like that much play with just one city but this can be.
Evie
Pronounced like Eevee
Henri, we *know*, because the Mayans wrote it down, that the ruler of Teotihuacan installed his sons and relatives as rulers in Mayan Cities of the Guatemala Basin, such as Tikal, a thousand kilometer away - and there's good reason to believe this was done through military conquest. That's an Empire.
Yes, figuring out their city list may be a challenge. The same problem applies to the Toltec - Tula is the only Toltec city we can definitely associate with them.
But Teotihuacan was much more than a City State.
Yes, figuring out their city list may be a challenge. The same problem applies to the Toltec - Tula is the only Toltec city we can definitely associate with them.
But Teotihuacan was much more than a City State.
BuchiTaton
Emperor
- Joined
- Jul 8, 2019
- Messages
- 1,261
This remind me of how awful is to have Mexico City as a city state 
Was it any less awful when it was Toronto?This remind me of how awful is to have Mexico City as a city state
BuchiTaton
Emperor
- Joined
- Jul 8, 2019
- Messages
- 1,261
Well we are talking about the region of Mesoamerica not Canada, and the real question is why they needed to remplace an awfull city state with another capital of a big country when NA had many mesoamerican city states plus the many small modern nations of Central America and the Caribbean?Was it any less awful when it was Toronto?
By the way, yes Toronto was less awfull since Mexico City is basically Tenochtitlan the "Aztec" (Mexica) capital .
Henri Christophe
L'empereur
I also don't like the city State of Mexico City because the same reason
Would be way better if Teotihuacan come as a city state, or even Tulum from Toltecs than a city state for MExico City.
Evie
Pronounced like Eevee
Henri, Tulum is a Mayan city.
Like all later Mayan sites it shows Central Mexican influences that have been associated with the Toltecs due to similarities with the Tula site, but it is not, has never been, and never will be a Toltec City.
Like all later Mayan sites it shows Central Mexican influences that have been associated with the Toltecs due to similarities with the Tula site, but it is not, has never been, and never will be a Toltec City.
Henri Christophe
L'empereur
ohhh sorry, I want to say Tula Xicocotitlan.
Other city-state of North America should be Quebéc. Should be better than Toronto
Similar threads
