Poll: What new civilizations from the Americas would you like to see in the future?

[Henri Christophe]

The core of what became the Kingdom of Scotland was the Kingdom of Alba, which conquered the Kingdoms of Strathclyde, Galloway, Dal Riatu, Fortiu, the remainder of the Pictish Kingdom, the Hebrides, and for a time the Isle of Mann, as well as Orkney and Shetland directly from Norway. Saying that this was "already in MODERN Scottish borders (key word, MODERN) and that they were all Celts (other than the Hebrides, Orkney, and Shetland, and POSSIBLY the Picts, as there's some doubt on their ethnic and linguistic heritage, though most historians have accepted them as Celts, though not Gaelic Celts), means they did NO conquest or their conquest doesn't count as such, somehow, is a strange, and even revisionist conceit from a modern viewpoint, but one that shows an utter lack of perspective toward the time period in question.

If they are all Celtic kingdoms, that don't fullfil the requirement to be an empire, who is conquer another nation. Cool the kingdom of Alba be able to conquer other Celtic kingdoms and raise a great Scottish-Celtic kingdom, but they aren't an empire, they are just who be able to united the Celts of the Highlanders.

An example to help to understand this concept, Ho Chi Minh defeated the US-Army and conquer the South Vietnan, but he isn't an emperor and Vietnan isn't an empire, because he just united a nation, he doesn't conquer another nation.

As for the Maori, they were a proud and violent warrior culture - that could already be clearly seen by their own tribal warfare and the wars they engaged with against the British when the British first arrived and began dealing with them. I believe they were an offshoot, at some point, of the feared (in it's day) Tu'i Tonga Oceanian Empire (and that was an "Empire," by the way, not just a city-state like someone very recently on this thread suggested). Thus peaceful and gentle assimilation of another people by the Maori seems hard to believe or be a credible guess.

I don't know that much about Maori, but they look like the Tupi-Guaranis of my country, the Tupis also has a violent warrior culture, their society need doing war to fulfill the "ritual canibalism", it's look like Aztec ritual sacrifice, but they also eat their captves. Before the arrival of the Tupis in Brazilian coast also had another society we know as Sambaquis, and even with that violent warrior culture, the archeology suggest the Sambaquis wasn't destroyed by war, but by assimilation. Probably anyone is able to know what really happens in New Zealand or in Brazil, but assimilation can't be discarted so easy.

Why would you think I want Maximilian? I'm saying that there are leaders that Mexicans actually are proud of, why make it a leader that Mexicans aren't proud of?

Maximilian was a Pendejo! Benito Juárez is the great heroe to Mexicans, and he is a hero exactly because defeat the Maximilian. I was working in Mexico this year, and every city I was there have a statue of Benito Juárez and on street called Benito Juárez (and it is always on of the most important street of each city).
Benito Juárez is just fudging amazing, he was the first Indian president of Americas (untill Evo Morales in Bolivia, was also the only one), he born in a Zapotec family, just learn Spanish when had 12 years old, was slave in Cuba and finish his life as President of México, after defeat the troops of Napoleon and dethrone an Habsburgo Emperor.

 

[Patine]

If they are all Celtic kingdoms, that don't fullfil the requirement to be an empire, who is conquer another nation. Cool the kingdom of Alba be able to conquer other Celtic kingdoms and raise a great Scottish-Celtic kingdom, but they aren't an empire, they are just who be able to united the Celts of the Highlanders.

An example to help to understand this concept, Ho Chi Minh defeated the US-Army and conquer the South Vietnan, but he isn't an emperor and Vietnan isn't an empire, because he just united a nation, he doesn't conquer another nation.

A marvelous, and highly inaccurate and uninformed example of clumsy and ham-fisted conflation of ETHNICITY and NATIONALITY. The two are actually different, and just because a nation conquers other nations of their ethnicities does not invalidate it as being conquest. That is very strange and bizarre logic of yours there.

I don't know that much about Maori, but they look like the Tupi-Guaranis of my country, the Tupis also has a violent warrior culture, their society need doing war to fulfill the "ritual canibalism", it's look like Aztec ritual sacrifice, but they also eat their captves. Before the arrival of the Tupis in Brazilian coast also had another society we know as Sambaquis, and even with that violent warrior culture, the archeology suggest the Sambaquis wasn't destroyed by war, but by assimilation. Probably anyone is able to know what really happens in New Zealand or in Brazil, but assimilation can't be discarted so easy.

Well, it doesn't matter that the Maori have a superficial resemblance to the Guarani to you. It doesn't mean them sharing the same historical likelihood in a similar instance is far more ascertained. Again, a very strange and bizarre logic of yours there.

 

[Lonecat Nekophrodite]

So who else you think should Lead Mexico? Ben Juarez or what? (and yes you guys think all good Mexican leaders must be Republic Presidents) or you have much more recent choices that made Mexico a worthy rival to Anglophonic Americas?

Are you sayin' that I don't like Mexicans? read my comments regarding to Santa Ana and you'll understand why I choose him. Because he almost win the war against Texan rebellion, his defeat was due to surprise attack by Anglophonic Texans and that's a real turning point because he's leading his army towards the seat of Texan Rebellion and bound to finish them off. Hadn't this happen he'd be victor and might contain expansions of the US of A to what the Congress bought from Napoleon Bonaparte (as Emperor or as Consul Premier?)

If you think Benny should lead Mexico, what will his UU be? what will be Mexican Identity. Wildwest Gunslingers? or what?

 

[Lonecat Nekophrodite]

Damnit i've confused Max with Augustin I

 

[Henri Christophe]

A marvelous, and highly inaccurate and uninformed example of clumsy and ham-fisted conflation of ETHNICITY and NATIONALITY. The two are actually different, and just because a nation conquers other nations of their ethnicities does not invalidate it as being conquest. That is very strange and bizarre logic of yours there.

Nation is the hardest thing in the world to do a good definition. Nowadays ONU's definitions is the auto-declaration. That means everyone knows what nation they are and each case follow their own logic.

Ethinicity is hard as well, you are probably as a canadian don't be able to understand that very well, but countrys as China, Egypt or Brazil, where can have persons who have totally diferent phenotype and are of the same Ethinicity. (I guess in NorthAmerica they have more strong the feeling what is a White person, a Latin-American, an Arab and so on... because of that, for you is harder to understand this topic, because of that you think that is bizarre.)

The easiest country to understand how hard is to define ethinicity is China, the Han ethinicity go from white people in Manchuria and dark-skin next to the boarder to the Vietnan, and even they don't speak the same dialect and also don't have the same ethic features, they are all of the same ethinicity called Han.

I don't know if I'm not speaking clear because my poor english or you is just a player who don't like to read books that much, but my logic is not bizarre at all. It is pretty easy by the way, nations can conquers other nations, other ethnicities. But to be an Empire, one definition made by ONU to help us define empires out-side of the Western influence was that, a nation who conquer another nation. Of course the concept of nation it-self is always anachronic, because the concept of nation appear only in the XIX century and we are speaking about events before the XIX century.
But as Scotland was in the Western world, we also can use the other method to define an empire, the auto-definition. The king of Scotland call himself king or emperor?

Well, it doesn't matter that the Maori have a superficial resemblance to the Guarani to you. It doesn't mean them sharing the same historical likelihood in a similar instance is far more ascertained. Again, a very strange and bizarre logic of yours there.

Anyone knows well about their pre-historic and a violent warrior society don't mean they kill everyone who is in front of them, your logic isn't bizarre. Is just racist.

 

[Henri Christophe]

So who else you think should Lead Mexico? Ben Juarez or what? (and yes you guys think all good Mexican leaders must be Republic Presidents) or you have much more recent choices that made Mexico a worthy rival to Anglophonic Americas?

Are you sayin' that I don't like Mexicans? read my comments regarding to Santa Ana and you'll understand why I choose him. Because he almost win the war against Texan rebellion, his defeat was due to surprise attack by Anglophonic Texans and that's a real turning point because he's leading his army towards the seat of Texan Rebellion and bound to finish them off. Hadn't this happen he'd be victor and might contain expansions of the US of A to what the Congress bought from Napoleon Bonaparte (as Emperor or as Consul Premier?)

If you think Benny should lead Mexico, what will his UU be? what will be Mexican Identity. Wildwest Gunslingers? or what?

Benito Juarez, Porfirio Díaz and José María Morelos are the best options, if we remember the Aztecs never called they self as Aztec, but instead they called they self Mexican (Or Mexica-teca), Montezuma or Cuauhtemoc are great names, by the ways, as all cities in México have a street called Benito Juarez, also all cities have a street called Cuahtemoc, he was the last Tlatoani of the Mexica-Empire.

 

[Patine]

Nation is the hardest thing in the world to do a good definition. Nowadays ONU's definitions is the auto-declaration. That means everyone knows what nation they are and each case follow their own logic.

Ethinicity is hard as well, you are probably as a canadian don't be able to understand that very well, but countrys as China, Egypt or Brazil, where can have persons who have totally diferent phenotype and are of the same Ethinicity. (I guess in NorthAmerica they have more strong the feeling what is a White person, a Latin-American, an Arab and so on... because of that, for you is harder to understand this topic, because of that you think that is bizarre.)

The easiest country to understand how hard is to define ethinicity is China, the Han ethinicity go from white people in Manchuria and dark-skin next to the boarder to the Vietnan, and even they don't speak the same dialect and also don't have the same ethic features, they are all of the ethinicity called Han.

I don't know if I'm not speaking clear because my poor english or you is just a player who don't like to read books that much, but my logic is not bizarre at all. It is pretty easy by the way, nations can conquers other nations, other ethnicities. But to be an Empire, one definition made by ONU to help us define empires out-side of the Western influence was that, a nation who conquer another nation. Of course the concept of nation it-self is always anachronic, because the concept of nation appear only in the XIX century and we are speaking about events before the XIX century.
But as Scotland was in the Western world, we also can use the other method to define an empire, the auto-definition. The king of Scotland call himself king or emperor?

My point is that, just to declare that conquering others nations is invalidated as being "conquest" JUST because those other nations share an ethnic heritage is a bizarre declaration to make.

Anyone knows well about their pre-historic and a violent warrior society don't mean they kill everyone who is in front of them, your logic isn't bizarre. Is just racist.

No, what I'm saying is not racist. What you're saying, however, is stereotyping by saying because of superficial similarities between two cultures in YOUR eyes means that a specific historic similarity must be there - or most likely is.

 

[Henri Christophe]

My point is that, just to declare that conquering others nations is invalidated as being "conquest" JUST because those other nations share an ethnic heritage is a bizarre declaration to make.

It was a conquest, but isn't an empire. Why is it bizarre?

No, what I'm saying is not racist. What you're saying, however, is stereotyping by saying because of superficial similarities between two cultures in YOUR eyes means that a specific historic similarity must be there - or most likely is.

So why do you think Maori seens "so agressive" they propably kill everyone who was before in the New Zealand, based in what? Please, tell me.

 

[Lonecat Nekophrodite]

Benito Juarez, Porfirio Díaz and José María Morelos are the best options, if we remember the Aztecs never called they self as Aztec, but instead they called they self Mexican (Or Mexica-teca), Montezuma or Cuauhtemoc are great names, by the ways, as all cities in México have a street called Benito Juarez, also all cities have a street called Cuahtemoc, he was the last Tlatoani of the Mexica-Empire.

Why Montezuma is chosen instead of Cuahtemoc? and what is 'Tlatoani'? King, Hegemon King? (A leader with a title of King who does not only rules his own domain, but also other kingdoms through Vassalage. This system was common in many regions of the world, Southeast Asia where I live was once ran by this system) or Emperor?

 

[Alexander's Hetaroi]

If they are all Celtic kingdoms, that don't fullfil the requirement to be an empire, who is conquer another nation. Cool the kingdom of Alba be able to conquer other Celtic kingdoms and raise a great Scottish-Celtic kingdom, but they aren't an empire, they are just who be able to united the Celts of the Highlanders.

An empire is defined as a multinational state with political/military domination over other peoples with different culture and ethnic backgrounds than the ruling group. It's hard to tell how diverse their cultures were since they were all on the same island, other than one side being more French, and the other Spanish. Plus Haiti never conquered the nation of Santo Domingo as it was under Spanish rule at the time, and did not exist as it's own sovereign state. It's hard to justify even if the leader does indeed call himself an "emperor."

On the other hand the kingdom of Alba did not just conquer other Celtic people, as was mentioned Scotland was comprised of many different ethnic groups. I'm not saying it makes them an empire by any means.

At the same time I think it's arbitrary as to why we are arguing on who should qualify as being an empire when the game doesn't include only them. That being said Haiti could still be a civilization in the game.

 

[Henri Christophe]

Why Montezuma is chosen instead of Cuahtemoc? and what is 'Tlatoani'? King, Hegemon King? (A leader with a title of King who does not only rules his own domain, but also other kingdoms through Vassalage. This system was common in many regions of the world, Southeast Asia where I live was once ran by this system) or Emperor?

In the Mexican history had two emperor called Montezuma, Montezuma Ilhuicamina (1440-1468) and other when the Spanish arrived called Montezuma Xocoyotzin (1502-1520), I guess in this game they always put the first one, because he is a bad ass, and as had this other Montezuma who is well know because the Spanish conquest. But this second Montezuma was a Pendejo, as saying the mexican. That means a terrible leader.
I said about Cuahtemoc because when I was in Mexico I saw, in every city, at least a street (and mainly streets) called Cuahtemoc, I guess he is the Aztec leader that the mexican people is most proud about. Just to put another name in this list, Axayactl (1469-1481) would be also a great name, I guess he was the one who more land conquer in name of the Mexica-Empire.

Tlatoani is just the name "king" in the Nahualt language, I thought it is well knowed because Civ6 use this name.

An empire is defined as a multinational state with political/military domination over other peoples with different culture and ethnic backgrounds than the ruling group. It's hard to tell how diverse their cultures were since they were all on the same island, other than one side being more French, and the other Spanish. Plus Haiti never conquered the nation of Santo Domingo as it was under Spanish rule at the time, and did not exist as it's own sovereign state. It's hard to justify even if the leader does indeed call himself an "emperor."

On the other hand the kingdom of Alba did not just conquer other Celtic people, as was mentioned Scotland was comprised of many different ethnic groups. I'm not saying it makes them an empire by any means.

At the same time I think it's arbitrary as to why we are arguing on who should qualify as being an empire when the game doesn't include only them. That being said Haiti could still be a civilization in the game.

First, I need to agree, don't need to be an empire to be part of this game, but since we start this discussion, I fell I need to go on and on...

Santo Domingo was under the Spanish rule and Touissant Louverture conquer the Spanish side under the French flag, it was like ~11 years before the Haitian indepedence. Touissant Louverture never proclamed him self an emperor or even a king, despite he was the most bad-ass leader in Haiti history he just was the Vice-Roy of the French colony of Saint Dominique. The point is, after the Haitian indepence 3 mens proclamed him-self as emperor. The first was Jean Jaque Dessalines, but he was a bad leader, he made the "White-Genocide" and don't treaty well his close friends, who together made a coup and divided the country in two.
The second emperor of Haiti was also self-proclamed, he is Henri Christophe, a man I admire so much, than I choice him to be my profile in this forum.
The third emperor was the only one I agree can be compared to the Central-African-Republic emperor, becuase he don't have any legitimacy, and under his empire the Dominician proclamed their independence, that moment, in my opinion, it is when the Haitian nation start to crash and become the poor nation we know today.

The Haitian empire, in my opinon, fullfil two requirement to be an empire, as being part of the western world, that mean, they have the knowledge of the "Empire" word, they proclamed they self as an empire.
And second, as the rule the Dominician nation, who were not so black as them, and have Spanish and Taino heritage, making they really diferent from the Haitian who speak a French Cryole and have a Fon heritage (Heritage from today's Benin Republic). So, for me, the Dominician and Haitians are clear example of totally diferent nations/ethinicity, even if they share the same small island in Caribe.
So, it's don't metter if the east side of Hispaniola Island was under the Spanish crown or not, the important is the people their is totally diferent for the people of the west side, and the west side conquer the east side for more than 50 years.

 

[PhoenicianGold]

But as Scotland was in the Western world, we also can use the other method to define an empire, the auto-definition. The king of Scotland call himself king or emperor?

I would like to point out that Britain was unified under James VI of Scotland, so Scotland can take some small credit for the British Empire given that prior to that all of the colonies were merely "English."

Scotland also briefly colonized the Americas, if unsuccessfully. So even before unification they were vaguely imperialistic, with a few tiny footholds reaching as far from Nova Scotia to Panama.

So I consider Scotland to be the other half of the "British" Empire as far as the roster limiting itself to imperial powers. While there's certainly argument to be made about whether we needed a second British civ, I do think that if any civ deserved to be split, the British seemed the most necessary (along with America, Canada, and Australia, even). It remains the largest and most globally influential empire to date, and frankly we needed stronger Celtic representation than blobby Boudicca. Scotland was an okay compromise on many fronts.

Of course, now that the British Empire is pretty judiciously split across the globe, I must now make demands for things like Morocco in the face of Arabia, Oman/Swahili in the face of Ottomans, Timurids in the face of India, some sort of Spanish colony in the Americas. Maybe even making demands for Siam in the face of Khmer after we whine our way into getting Vietnam and Burma. If all of this conceptual streamlining was done and then never applied to the rest of the globe, I'll just be sorely disappointed.

 

[HumanMap]

Benito Juarez, Porfirio Díaz and José María Morelos are the best options

Why Diaz? He's known for literally trying to whiten himself and turning Mexico into a factory for the French and US. His Rurales are infamous thugs. It'd be like having the SS be the German special unit. F--K THAT

 

[HumanMap]

So who else you think should Lead Mexico? Ben Juarez or what? (and yes you guys think all good Mexican leaders must be Republic Presidents) or you have much more recent choices that made Mexico a worthy rival to Anglophonic Americas?

Are you sayin' that I don't like Mexicans? read my comments regarding to Santa Ana and you'll understand why I choose him. Because he almost win the war against Texan rebellion, his defeat was due to surprise attack by Anglophonic Texans and that's a real turning point because he's leading his army towards the seat of Texan Rebellion and bound to finish them off. Hadn't this happen he'd be victor and might contain expansions of the US of A to what the Congress bought from Napoleon Bonaparte (as Emperor or as Consul Premier?)

If you think Benny should lead Mexico, what will his UU be? what will be Mexican Identity. Wildwest Gunslingers? or what?

So then you think Hoover would be a good choice as a US leader? He followed US ideology and was a hero up until his presidency. Now he is seen as a failed presidency.
Why do you have so much animosity toward Benito Juarez? I have critiques of him for sure, but you seem to really not like him as leader choice, why? Possible Mexican UU could be the Adelitas to represent the Revolution which was a globally influential event and what most Mexicans see as the birth of the modern state.

 

[Eagle Pursuit]

(Gran) Colombia. Because, if we are doing all kinds of post-colonial civs, there should be Latinx representation.

And then a nice mix of Native Americans:
Navajo: an Athabascan culture that migrated several thousand miles within a few generations and settled in the SW desert.
Comanche: A surprisingly complex society of raiders and traders that established a wide-ranging hegemony on the southern plains, inhibiting Spanish and American expansion.
Tlingit: a potentially tall and cultural civ from the PNW
Shawnee: an Eastern Woodland people that could be set up as a Diplomatic warmonger with Tecumseh as a big personality leader.

 

[Henri Christophe]

Why Diaz? He's known for literally trying to whiten himself and turning Mexico into a factory for the French and US. His Rurales are infamous thugs. It'd be like having the SS be the German special unit. F--K THAT

Before I moved to Mexico to Work I also thought the Diaz was a terrible leader, but in Mexico I noted, acctually, a lot of Mexicans like the Porfirio Diaz. Of course he was a dictator and fall in a revolution. But he also was a great president and a war hero, with Benito Juárez they defeat the French Army and dethroned the Habsburgo emperor.

But, two things. I don't want a Mexican civilization, and if that happens, Benito Juárez is by far the best option.

 

[Patine]

(Gran) Colombia. Because, if we are doing all kinds of post-colonial civs, there should be Latinx representation.

And then a nice mix of Native Americans:
Navajo: an Athabascan culture that migrated several thousand miles within a few generations and settled in the SW desert.
Comanche: A surprisingly complex society of raiders and traders that established a wide-ranging hegemony on the southern plains, inhibiting Spanish and American expansion.
Tlingit: a potentially tall and cultural civ from the PNW
Shawnee: an Eastern Woodland people that could be set up as a Diplomatic warmonger with Tecumseh as a big personality leader.

Maybe some Indigenous peoples outside the current borders of the United States?

 

[TeddyMain]

I guess I'll put down my most wanted civs

Navajo: One of the largest and most influential Native American groups, and being possible representation for a fairly large gap in the map. I can definitely see them being a desert-based religious and food production civ.
Haida (or Tlingit): At first I wasn't very convinced by this possibility, seeing we already had a Canadian Native rep. However, @TahamiTsunami 's posts in the Never Before Seen Civs Thread really peaked my interest in them. Considering the Haida and Tlingit have some cultural similarities, I would embrace either with open arms as a new cultural, maybe naval civ.
Gran Colombia: I feel we need a little more Latino representation, and considering Northern South America is pretty barren, some civ should fill it up. And of course, a shoe-in for Simon Bolivar.
Inuit: The Inuit could have a really unique play style: possibly a disaster-prepared, Arctic-based civ under Ekeuhnick (I know his existence is debated, but we already have Gilgamesh, Dido, and Kupe, so I don't think it would hurt.)
Texas: The personal pipe-dream of this list. Being my home-state with a unique culture from the rest of the United States and a somewhat relative impact on both Mexican and American history, I think it could make for a worthy civ to be included. Most likely a culture/defense civ with combat bonuses inside your own territory. For leaders, Sam Houston is the only one, no other options.

 

[Alexander's Hetaroi]

Texas: The personal pipe-dream of this list. Being my home-state with a unique culture from the rest of the United States and a somewhat relative impact on both Mexican and American history, I think it could make for a worthy civ to be included. Most likely a culture/defense civ with combat bonuses inside your own territory. For leaders, Sam Houston is the only one, no other options.

To another fellow Texan from another, I never thought of including it because I really never thought it would even get a vote. It definitely is a pipe-dream Civ and I don't ever expect it, but I agree with everything else. I think the closest we could get would be a Native American tribe who was influential in Texas such as the Comanche or Apache but who knows.
Mirabeau Lamar would be interesting as a leader with a scientific/educational approach.
If the Texas Ranger isn't the UU either I don't know what else would (well maybe a volunteer UU but that would be a good fit for a Sam Houston UU.)

 

[TeddyMain]

To another fellow Texan from another, I never thought of including it because I really never thought it would even get a vote. It definitely is a pipe-dream Civ and I don't ever expect it, but I agree with everything else. I think the closest we could get would be a Native American tribe who was influential in Texas such as the Comanche or Apache but who knows.
Mirabeau Lamar would be interesting as a leader with a scientific/educational approach.
If the Texas Ranger isn't the UU either I don't know what else would (well maybe a volunteer UU but that would be a good fit for a Sam Houston UU.)

God I completely forgot Lamar existed for a second, I honestly feel a little dishonored knowing he did a lot for the state.

I can see Lamar working as well. I just believe that Sam Houston was just much more notable, and thus would be received better, but yeah Lamar could totally work for a scientific approach, maybe a production bonus to campus buildings maybe.

Regarding the UU, Texas Rangers I believe are the only option that I know of. I actually had an idea that, considering nowadays they have become an elite investigative force, they could also act as counterspies in districts. Wether or not that would work, I have no clue, but its fun as heck to theorize.

For a UI, I had trouble. A ranch i would think would be too similar to the outback stations Australia has. Knowing Texas and especially Austin are known for live music, maybe a live music joint could work, replacing the amphitheater but with great works of music slots and producing great musician points.

But honestly, glad to see a fellow Texan on this forum.