Sioux or Iroquis

[allhailIndia]

I was a bit surprised to find the Iroqouis as a civ in Civ3. Basically they were an Eastern American tribe who put up a fight but, were quite different from the other Indian Tribes, who also fought the White man. Although I may not be an expert on American Indians, I would like to know whether the Sioux or the Iroquis are better representatives or whether both should be included.(Hey if you can have Americans and British as separate civs, why not separate American Indian CIvs)

 

[vulture]

Opps ya If I were to pick a N American Tribe. It would have to be the Cherokee. At least they had a written language with an alphabet.

 

[fantasy_sports]

I don't think either belongs because the Indian tribes in the U.S. and Canada were nomads. I think Spain belongs in the place of the Iroquis because they were the first European world power since the fall of Rome when they became a power around 1590.

 

[muppet]

Originally posted by fantasy_sports
I don't think either belongs because the Indian tribes in the U.S. and Canada were nomads. I think Spain belongs in the place of the Iroquis because they were the first European world power since the fall of Rome when they became a power around 1590.

We should not think of American Indians as only nomads. The aboriginal tribes were as diverse as Europeans. There are a number of aboriginal tribes on the west coast of North America that were permanently settled before the Europeans arrived in America. I am not as familiar with the eastern and central American tribes.

 

[fantasy_sports]

Originally posted by muppet


We should not think of American Indians as only nomads. The aboriginal tribes were as diverse as Europeans. There are a number of aboriginal tribes on the west coast of North America that were permanently settled before the Europeans arrived in America. I am not as familiar with the eastern and central American tribes.

Civilizations have cities and writing, so the Indian tribes were not civilization.

 

[muppet]

Originally posted by fantasy_sports

Civilizations have cities and writing, so the Indian tribes were not civilization.

NO. Civlizations do not have "cities".
Civlizations have settlements - are not nomadic. The size of the settlement is not relevant. West coast aboriginals had permanent settlements; therefore, they were civilized.

NO. Civilizations do not have 'writing'.
Civilizations have recorded history. The method of keeping recorded history is not relevant. West coast aboriginals had recorded history; therefore, they were civilized.

Note: an alphabet is NOT a prerequisite to writing. There are a few billion chinamen that would disagree with that concept.

 

[vulture]

Ok you are right you don't have to have cities to be civilized...

But in this game you are either a city building dominating all kind of guy or you are fertalizer.

 

[Zouave]

The Creeks were likely larger than the Iroquois Confederacy.

All the Eastern woodland Indians were NOT nomads and had permanent farming towns.

The Cherokee even developed writing.

 

[donsig]

The funny thing is that the Iroquois special unit is more like what the Sioux had. The Sioux were plains Indians who fought the US during and after the US Civil War. By that time the Iroquois had been broken as a power. The Iroquois were woodland Indians and I don't think they fought much on horseback.

 

[donsig]

The Cherokee even developed writing.

But wasn't that after the Europeans came over? The Cherokee did try to adapt and incorporate Europeans ways to an extent but they still ended up being sent to Oklahoma.

 

[Ironikinit]

I'm pretty sure the Iroquois didn't wear the eagle feather bonnet the mounted warrior unit sports, too.

 

[allhailIndia]

I just found out. The Sioux were way better with their pinto ponies than any Eastern tribe . Was Firaxis simply looking for a change and any would do??

 

[donsig]

I just found out. The Sioux were way better with their pinto ponies than any Eastern tribe .

"Way better' in what sense? There are many differences between Iroquois and Sioux. For one thing the Iroquois faced the Eruopean colnizers a hundred years before the Sioux did. The Sioux were able to use rifles from horseback. The Iroquois fought on foot (mostly) without guns.

 

[Sodak]

Originally posted by fantasy_sports
Civilizations have cities and writing, so the Indian tribes were not civilization.

You are a dork. Muppet already touched on why. Writing with an alphabet is not the only way to record things. Oral tradition, contrary to euro/american beliefs, is an extremely accurate way of keeping history. Also, other forms of physical records, such as knots and pictographs serve the purpose.

The most advanced amerindians were the Maya, Inca, Aztec, Iroquois, and Huron. There were many other tribes, all of them civilized.

Almost none of the indians east of the mississippi river were nomads. At most, they had two villages - one for the ag season, one for winter. The Iroquois were an organized people living in towns and villages, using a representative gov't. How uncivilized of them.

The mounted warrior of the Civ3 Iroqouis is a Dakota (Sioux) warrior. O well, they combined something similar for game purposes. The Dakota resisted the US onslaught until about 1890, many times defeating the US army. They were, militarily speaking, probably the supreme amerindian people. Their horsemanship was legendary, even US cavalrymen were amazed at the skills Dakota warriors had.

Cherokee writing was developed after the US forced them out of their homelands.

 

[Quafel Asmar]

The pacific northwest tribes had also developed several sophiticated technologies such as metal working. They were porbably influenced by early mongol attempts to cross the pacific from China.

The civilization level they had was primitive compared to Europeans, but it was a civilization.

 

[Genuis]

I just read an interesting article in The Atlantic Monthly (most recent issue) about this. It was called "1491," and was written by Charles C. Mann The article talked about how "uncivilized" the natives of America really were. Mann thinks that these tribes had cities and towns, like in Europe, and that North America was much more densely populated than what we once thought. When the Spanish, English, French, Portugese, and other explorers started to arrive, they brought with them diseases that basically wiped out most of the native population. Mann writes that, in 1491, America was an "altogether more salubrious" (whatever that means) place to live than Europe at the time.

I just looked at http://www.theatlantic.com, but they don't have the March issue up yet. So wait, I guess, or else get the magazine and read it for yourself. I recommend it.

 

[Sodak]

Yes, disease played a huge role. Even "documented" accounts of the death tolls among east coast tribes was mind boggling. Societies teeter or collapse when too many people die in such a short time. Tho the actual numbers will likely always remain educated guesses, even conservative estimates are phenomenally high.

As for salubrious, it means favorable for well-being. That would be a whole debate in itself...

 

[Genuis]

As for salubrious, it means favorable for well-being. That would be a whole debate in itself...

I agree. While it might be better to live with the Sioux or Iroquois, who had a more democratic system of government and a lot of freedom, than in Spain, for instance during the Inquisition, it would be horrible to live under the Incan rule. Sorry about the run-on sentence.

BTW, thanks Sodak for the definition of salubrious. I'm too lazy to use a dictionary.

 

[muppet]

Originally posted by Genuis


I agree. While it might be better to live with the Sioux or Iroquois, who had a more democratic system of government and a lot of freedom, than in Spain, for instance during the Inquisition, it would be horrible to live under the Incan rule. Sorry about the run-on sentence.

BTW, thanks Sodak for the definition of salubrious. I'm too lazy to use a dictionary.

I've heard somewhere that the Spanish Inquisition is a very ironic or curious twist of reality in Europe. While it is true that the Spanish Inquisition was a Spanish conception, the inquisition's barbarism was anything but Spanish.

In the days of the Spanish Inquisition, the Spanish Inquisition was more like a travelling circuit of judges. Very fair and reasonable, and there is no historic evidence suggesting that the iron maiden or other torture devices, or the hanging of witches, or accusation of witchcraft actually occured as a result of the inquisition in Spain. However, during the same time in history everywhere else in Europe, witches were being killed!

Really ironic isn't it?

 

[Genuis]

So the Inquisition started in Spain, and spread to other countries but was worse there? Or other countries used the Inquisition as an example to burn witches, but the Spanish never did? I'm going to look into that. Interesting.