Poll: New leaders for existing civilizations

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.
 
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
 
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
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.
 
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
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.

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
 
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.

If the Aztec can be expanded to a Mexican civ, surely there's room to consider adapting the Zulu to have leaders representing more than 71 years of rulers & including individuals not primarily reknowned for warfare?

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.

I think you can change their name to Mexica, and than to include several other leaders.

'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.

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.

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

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.
 
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.

Yeah, you are probably right.
The Aztecs and Mexico are way too distinct.

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.

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
 
Top Bottom