1. We have added a Gift Upgrades feature that allows you to gift an account upgrade to another member, just in time for the holiday season. You can see the gift option when going to the Account Upgrades screen, or on any user profile screen.
    Dismiss Notice

Poll: New leaders for existing civilizations

Discussion in '[MAC+WIN] Civ4 - History Rewritten' started by Xyth, Mar 8, 2013.

  1. Absolution

    Absolution Prince

    Joined:
    Mar 6, 2010
    Messages:
    591
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Israel
    Making Juarez a leader of the Aztecs is similar to making Stalin a Georgian leader...

    I think you can change their name to Mexica, and than to include several other leaders.
    Beside Juarez, other leaders of modern Mexico could be added, along with leaders of the different nahual altepetls (not only Tenochtitlan).
    Anyway, Topiltzin was a mythical leader, so adding more "Mexican" leaders can be justified.
     
  2. AbsintheRed

    AbsintheRed Deity

    Joined:
    Jul 27, 2009
    Messages:
    8,288
    Location:
    Szeged, Hungary
    IMO the difference between the Aztec and Mexico is similar to the difference between the Tupi and Brazil
    Not sure if it's a good idea to expand the Aztecs into Mexica
     
  3. Absolution

    Absolution Prince

    Joined:
    Mar 6, 2010
    Messages:
    591
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Israel
    According to my understanding of HR it is a good idea.
    Akbar and Asoka under the Indian civilization, Isabella and Arganthonios under the Spanish civilization - So it seems reasonable that Juarez and Montezuma would be under the Mexican civilization.
     
  4. AbsintheRed

    AbsintheRed Deity

    Joined:
    Jul 27, 2009
    Messages:
    8,288
    Location:
    Szeged, Hungary
    Oh, yeah, not sure where my mind was when I wrote that :crazyeye:
    That's exactly the case with Brazil: it has Cunhambebe and Pedro as leaders
    Still, I would prefer to continue calling the civ Aztecs (as they are significant and recognizeable enough, unlike the Tupi), and adding Juarez as a new "Aztec" leader
    IIRC that's what Realism Invictus did as well
     
  5. Xyth

    Xyth History Rewritten

    Joined:
    Jul 14, 2004
    Messages:
    4,054
    Location:
    Aotearoa
    The more I think about the Mexico idea, the less I like it and think it's inappropriate. One of the key things I consider when trying to define a civilization are its cities. Akbar as an Indian leader works: the Mughals invaded India and established a dynasty, but they didn't wipe out the Indians or level their cities. There was no separate Mughal state, no separate Mughal cities. They merged into the Indian civilization.

    In contrast the Spanish killed millions of native people and destroyed most of their cities. Mexico city isn't Tenochtitlan renamed or redeveloped - it's an entirely new city built over the ruins of the Aztec capital. There are few pre-Columbian cities in Mexico that survived. There was a seperate Spanish state, there were separate Spanish cities both in Mexico and abroad. The Aztecs that weren't killed were forced to assimilate into the Spanish civilization.

    With Brazil it's a bit different, for reasons discussed at length before. Ultimately though, Brazil is an exception to my selection/definition philosophy, made to fill a vital geographical gap. I don't want to use it's inclusion to justify other selections or changes.

    For a while I considered redesignating the Zulu as the Bantu, but it was just too broad and wouldn't allow for separate Swahili or Kongo civilizations.

    'Mexica' is actually a more narrow term than 'Aztec'. 'Mexica' refers specifically to the people that founded Tenochtitlan, while 'Aztec' includes the other members of the Triple Alliance and their many subject city-states. 'Nahua' is probably a more accurate term for the civilization as I've defined it, but civ names are one place where I like to stick with more familiar terms where possible.

    The problem with adding Juarez to the existing Aztec civ is he's Zapotec, and the Zapotec were not part of the Aztec empire, nor are they even a Nahua people (I consider the Zapotec to be unrepresented thus far in HR). It's kinda tempting to overlook that, though there's still the significant problem regarding the citylist - Juarez' capital would have to be Mexico City and that starts to makes things messy.
     
  6. AbsintheRed

    AbsintheRed Deity

    Joined:
    Jul 27, 2009
    Messages:
    8,288
    Location:
    Szeged, Hungary
    Yeah, you are probably right.
    The Aztecs and Mexico are way too distinct.

    I'm indifferent on this one
    I myself don't insist on a more modern leader to the Aztec civ, but if one is added, it should definitely be Juarez.
    Lumping a Zapotec leader with the Aztecs isn't that bad IMO
     

Share This Page