South American representation in Civilization 7

Technically speaking, neither Gran Colombia nor Argentina are terrible directions to take the Incans. Gran Colombia had some pretty significant territorial overlap, and Argentina was a key player in the Peruvian War for Independence.
I agree. At least it's less crazy than their current situation which just is Mexico, I believe.
San Juan had some scheme that was never begun to be enacted of recreating an Incan Monarchy as part of the South American Libertad. Details are hard to find, and he may not have articulated it much, but it was known to be there.
 
In the same way Colombia was actually flavoured to be Gran Colombia, couldn't Peru or Bolivia be flavoured to include the Peru-Bolivian Confederation? Not that Inca into Colombia is bad, but a full Andean playthrough would be awesome.
In a way, the central and most populated area of Colombia is Andean. Also, both Colombia (during the Gran Colombia period) and Argentina were the main forces behind the independence of Perú. Most Peruvians were actually opposed to independence back in the early 19th century, but both Simón Bolívar in Colombia and José de San Martín in Argentina viewed the continued presence of the Spanish in Perú as a threat to their "liberty", that's why they decided to jointly "liberate" Perú. Most indigenous peoples opposed the armies of Colombia and Argentina during the independence of Perú.

Also, the Inca empire included territories both in Argentina and Colombia, and there's still some Quechua speakers in both countries. Still, the Inca changing into either Colombia or Argentina feels similar to the change from Shawnee to America.
 
San Juan had some scheme that was never begun to be enacted of recreating an Incan Monarchy as part of the South American Libertad. Details are hard to find, and he may not have articulated it much, but it was known to be there.
Francisco de Miranda, the Venezuelan independence leader, was the one who wrote a text in 1798 titled something like "Constitutional Project for the Hispanic-American Colonies". In that document, he proposed a federation of all the Spanish colonies in the New World, from Louisiana and California in the north down to Chile and Buenos Aires in the south. He wanted this federation to have the name "Colombia", which is why Simón Bolívar later used the name for the union of New Granada and Venezuela, hoping that other former Spanish colonies would later join. Miranda's ideal form of government for such Federation was a Republic with separation of powers, but the executive branch would be under the rule of two persons holding the title "Sapa Inca", but elected democratically, not a monarchy. It was just giving what in essence was two presidents the honorific title of the Inca emperors.
 
Francisco de Miranda, the Venezuelan independence leader, was the one who wrote a text in 1798 titled something like "Constitutional Project for the Hispanic-American Colonies". In that document, he proposed a federation of all the Spanish colonies in the New World, from Louisiana and California in the north down to Chile and Buenos Aires in the south. He wanted this federation to have the name "Colombia", which is why Simón Bolívar later used the name for the union of New Granada and Venezuela, hoping that other former Spanish colonies would later join. Miranda's ideal form of government for such Federation was a Republic with separation of powers, but the executive branch would be under the rule of two persons holding the title "Sapa Inca", but elected democratically, not a monarchy. It was just giving what in essence was two presidents the honorific title of the Inca emperors.

TIL. Makes Pachacuti feel a little more justified, tbh, and gives me hope we will see Gran Colombia again in VII.
 
Francisco de Miranda could have also been an interesting South American leader choice. He participated in the independence of the United States, the French revolution and the Hispanic American revolutions, not many people can claim to have been taken part on the three main revolutions of his era.
 
Francisco de Miranda could have also been an interesting South American leader choice. He participated in the independence of the United States, the French revolution and the Hispanic American revolutions, not many people can claim to have been taken part on the three main revolutions of his era.

I think unlikely at this point now that we have Lafayette and Bolivar. But yeah, he easily could have replaced both.
 
Pelé, the greatest Brazilian of all time, would be a awesome choice.
indeed, Edson Arantes died too recently, but Pelé trascend him.

Senna could also work.
Personally, I'd be extremely cross if they chose a sportsman to represent Brazil, regardless of whether they're good people or not. All other leaders are significant figures either politicially of culturally. Why should we, a country who's already stereotyped globally as the "soccer country", have our representation defined by someone whose only accomplishment is being good at a game? Like... how would Americans feel if they were represented by Tom Brady? Or, even worse, if they went for the stereotype that Americans eat fast food and had the founder of McDonald's leading the U.S.? I'm sure people would, rightfully, criticise those choices. There are so, so many Brazilian figures with invaluable contribuitions not just to Brazil, but to humankind in general: Machado de Assis, Paulo Freire, Luís Carlos Prestes, Darcy Ribeiro, Lélia Gonzales, Maria da Conceição Tavares, Jorge Amado, just to name a few.

Brazil is surely more than soccer, but even now you talk about the ball ;)
That pun was 100% intentional, glad someone noticed, lol
 
Yeah, I know the toothpaste is kind of already out of the tube a bit, but I'd hope that most leaders would be at least politically-adjacent if you will.
 
Back
Top Bottom