Tecumseh of Shawnee. Worthy North American representations for Civ7?

[Lonecat Nekophrodite]

Is Shawnee under Tecumseh a worthy North American civ in Civ7? (He was often portrayed to wear Redcoat officier / General unifrm. I'm not sure if he bought from Brits or the Britsh Government gifted him with it so to sting the fledging US of A (containing westward expansion) at the very early years of 19th Century? (One of many many Casus Beli of War of 1812 between the USA and British Empire, i'm not sure when or where did Americans found incriminating evidence of British sponsorizations of Shawnee warpaths or did Wayne's Legion discovered some clues linked Tecumseh with British Empire or is there any reports that American troops had 'captured British persons found amongs Shawnee' ?)
If so what's his UU?

 

[Eagle Pursuit]

He is definitely a 'Big Personality'.

When I've tried to create a Shawnee civ idea, I gave them Red Sticks, which are technically Muskogee, but were strongly allied to Tecumseh and acted as his enforcers.

 

[Zaarin]

No for several reasons. The first is that the Shawnee were the most mobile people in North America at the time. They ranged as far north as Canada and as far south as Florida and as far West as the Mississippi and the Great Lakes. This mobility made them the traders and diplomats par excellence of indigenous North America, and Shawnee was tantamount to a lingua franca in almost all Native communities east of the Mississippi. There is no good way to represent that kind of mobility in a Civ game, at least not yet. IMO this is even a bigger issue for the Shawnee than it is for, say, the Scythians or Mongols.

The second is that Tecumseh has become an icon of Manifest Destiny: the great Noble Savage whose brave resistance to American imperialism proved the futility of resisting America's inevitable destiny to spread from sea to sea. There's a reason he's the most famous Native American, and it's only partially a result of sincere respect for the man.

The third is that Tenskwatawa is often overlooked but was as essential to the formation of Tecumseh's confederacy. While woefully incompetent when actually left in charge, he was charismatic, and his religious visions were essential to Tecumseh's movement. Historians argue whether Tecumseh was a sincere convert or a pragmatic operator, but that's not really relevant to the massive influence Tenskwatawa's religious movement had. I recommend R. David Edmunds's The Shawnee Prophet if you want to learn more.

If you want someone who fills the role of a visionary Native American leader who championed pan-Indian unity without becoming a romantic icon of American expansionism, I'd recommend Joseph Brant (Thayendanegea) in his stead.

He was often portrayed to wear Redcoat officier / General unifrm. I'm not sure if he bought from Brits or the Britsh Government gifted him with it so to sting the fledging US of A (containing westward expansion) at the very early years of 19th Century? (One of many many Casus Beli of War of 1812 between the USA and British Empire, i'm not sure when or where did Americans found incriminating evidence of British sponsorizations of Shawnee warpaths or did Wayne's Legion discovered some clues linked Tecumseh with British Empire or is there any reports that American troops had 'captured British persons found amongs Shawnee' ?

Prior to the War of 1812, the relationship between Tecumseh and the British was...complicated. They spoke words of encouragement and gave limited material support, but at the same time they didn't want to alienate the Americans prematurely. Tecumseh was very frustrated by their professions of friendship that were rarely backed up by actions. At the same time, however, Tecumseh was not a rabid warmonger. He tried very earnestly to find a peaceful solution with the American settlers. NB the officials in Washington generally also wanted to find a peaceful solution--but territorial governor William Henry Harrison (yes, the future president) was more interested in his own political career and actively antagonized Tecumseh and the Shawnee, figuring an Indian war would look good for his career. A great deal of the tragedies between the Shawnee and Americans are squarely Harrison's fault.

Tecumseh and his supporters moved to Canada during the War of 1812, and Tecumseh was given a formal commission by the British. Without question he was the most talented general on either side of the Northern theater, and he also worked hard to make sure atrocities weren't committed against prisoners by his frustrated followers. Ultimately, he wasn't given the support he needed by the British, and he died in battle. The War of 1812 was an embarrassment for everyone involved, horribly mismanaged by both sides, and of no real lasting consequence except in launching a few political careers.

When I've tried to create a Shawnee civ idea, I gave them Red Sticks, which are technically Muskogee, but were strongly allied to Tecumseh and acted as his enforcers.

To be fair, the Red Stick Rebellion was coming with or without Tecumseh. Tecumseh did have supporters among the Chickasaw, Cherokee, and Creek (he was raised among Chickamauga Cherokee for a time and his mother may have been Chickasaw), but he was never actively leading them--more spurring them to act on behalf of the British. Pushmataha had stern words for Tecumseh's attempts to recruit among the Choctaw.

 

[Henri Christophe]

Tecumseh is a good name for a bloobed civ of North West Indians, since he leads not just the Shawnee but also several other tribes of this part of America.

 

[pineappledan]

First off, I don’t think it is likely that more than 1 eastern woodlands nation would be in a civ game at a time, and I would be quite surprised if the Shawnee managed to unseat the Haudenosaunee from that spot. There are more effective leaders of eastern woodlands people that I would see as more credible candidates, like Pontiac leading the Anishinaabe/three fires confederacy, or Little Turtle leading the Miami.

As @Zaarin pointed out, Tecumseh is a figure that embodies the trope of the Dead Indian. A figure whose stand against settler-colonialism was too little too late, and feeds into a politics of inevitability. Having one of the precious Native American slots that are so chronically underrepresented in the franchise given to a doomed figure like Tecumseh would be kind of tragic.

 

[Henri Christophe]

First off, I don’t think it is likely that more than 1 eastern woodlands nation would be in a civ game at a time, and I would quite surprised if the Shawnee managed to unseat the Haudenosaunee from that spot. There are more effective leaders of eastern woodlands people that I would see as more credible candidates, like Pontiac leading the Anishinaabe/three fires confederacy.

You are right as a nation of the Iroquois are way better choice then a nation as the Shawnee.
But speaking about leaders the Shawnee have the great name of Tecumseh (okay, the only name, but a great name).
Meanwhile Iroquois don't had a center leader, so we need to pick a semi-mithological leader as Hiawatha to lead the Iroquois, and have people in this forum as @Patine who dosen't like mythological leaders.

 

[pineappledan]

The idea that oral histories are completely illegitimate sources of history, that the confederacy itself is not evidence enough that someone must have started it, and that mythic histories aren't histories of a kind are each separate discussions that I would find myself on the other side of. We've had a million discussions on this forum about Dido over these exact topics, as an example. A slightly safer choice might be Tadodaho. It still refers back to the founding of the confederacy, but the name continued to act as a title for a spiritual and political leader at the helm of all 5-6 nations. If Hiawatha or Jigohnsasee are too shrouded in storytelling then the man who lends his name to an unbroken line of political functionaries at least provides 1 more line of evidence.

Regardless, this isn't about picking a Haudenosaunee leader.

 

[Zaarin]

Pontiac leading the Anishinaabe/three fires confederacy

I'd prefer Neolin personally. A lot of Pontiac's fellow rebels accused him of being a selfish glory-seeker, and many modern scholars believe that Europeans overestimated his influence and importance.

Meanwhile Iroquois don't had a center leader, so we need to pick a semi-mithological leader as Hiawatha to lead the Iroquois

They don't have to have a central leader. There's no reason a chief like Joseph Brant, Handsome Lake, or Cornplanter couldn't lead the Iroquois. Plus most scholars agree that Hiawatha and the Great Peacemaker existed, though I'd still prefer Joseph Brant. As I said earlier, Brant could fill much the same role as Tecumseh but without the Manifest Destiny baggage.

 

[Henri Christophe]

Brant could fill much the same role as Tecumseh but without the Manifest Destiny baggage.

I can't understand that Manifest Destiny estigma.
US start to think on the Manifest Destiny because Tecumseh?
And more important, we are already almost in 2023. Why a racist doutrine of a long time ago still influent to be proibitiv to have Tecumseh in the game?
As I understand, Tecumseh was a hero and should appear or as leader of Shawnee or a leader of a bloobed civ of North West Indians.

 

[Patine]

I'd prefer Neolin personally. A lot of Pontiac's fellow rebels accused him of being a selfish glory-seeker, and many modern scholars believe that Europeans overestimated his influence and importance.


They don't have to have a central leader. There's no reason a chief like Joseph Brant, Handsome Lake, or Cornplanter couldn't lead the Iroquois. Plus most scholars agree that Hiawatha and the Great Peacemaker existed, though I'd still prefer Joseph Brant. As I said earlier, Brant could fill much the same role as Tecumseh but without the Manifest Destiny baggage.

Yes, it's generally agreed Hiawatha EXISTED, but, like certain other leaders in that arena, he's been thoroughly mythologized. I'd agree with someone like Brant or Complainter, instead.

 

[Zaarin]

I can't understand that Manifest Destiny estigma.
US start to think on the Manifest Destiny because Tecumseh?
And more important, we are already almost in 2023. Why a racist doutrine of a long time ago still influent to be proibitiv to have Tecumseh in the game?
As I understand, Tecumseh was a hero and should appear or as leader of Shawnee or a leader of a bloobed civ of North West Indians.

Tecumseh was a great man, but he lost his war against the United States. To European Americans, he became a symbol of the futility of resisting American expansion and the inevitability of American supremacy. "We defeated the great Tecumseh! No one can stand against us!" There was a particular historian named Frederick Jackson Turner who particularly dominated American historiography from the late nineteenth through the mid twentieth centuries with an idea called the Frontier Thesis, and you'll still see it crop up in popular history. The idea is that the American settlers came upon a vast untamed wilderness that was practically uninhabited, and taming this wilderness (and the Native Americans who coincidentally inhabited it) was what made the United States exceptional (Turner wasn't interested in Canada or Mexico or anyone else). He particularly brought Tecumseh to the forefront, just about the only Native American he considered worth mentioning, because Tecumseh illustrated Turner's thesis. It wasn't until the 1970s that Native Americans began to reclaim their own history from white colonialism.

Now, with all that being said, I'm all for reclaiming Tecumseh's history from its colonial past. But the Pawnee would be nearly impossible to portray as a civ in the Civ model because of their mobility, which would result in a cult-of-personality civ like Civ6's Sumeria or Macedon. Plus, like I said, there are already alternatives without the baggage. After the American Revolution, Joseph Brant worked tirelessly to promote Native American unity in the Old Northwest against American encroachment, and Tecumseh's confederacy was built on the groundwork laid by Brant. Joseph Brant was also a man caught between two worlds: he was a fierce defender of Haudenosaunee autonomy and the Mohawk way of life, but he was also well educated in English schools, had visited London, was a devout Anglican, and had a white brother-in-law. Much like Pushmataha, he represented a Third Way, which one might even call Realpolitik--unlike Tecumseh, Tenskwatawa, Pontiac, or Neolin, he was under no delusion that Native Americans could drive Americans or Europeans from North America, but he also wasn't going to roll over and play dead. He envisioned a future in which Native Americans put aside their differences and formed a united front to preserve their autonomy but also to coexist with Americans and Europeans, using violence when necessary but peace when possible. He was a charismatic visionary, but his task was ultimately impossible--Native Americans were not one people and had too many immediate concerns to recognize the benefit of standing united against a common opponent.

 

[Evie]

(And the former colonies were never going to accept sharing long term)

 

[Zaarin]

I think many early American intellectuals--before racial theory and Manifest Destiny poisoned any possibility of long-term cooperation--would have been open to welcoming certain Native American nations as states. Many first generation elites--including Washington, Adams, and Jefferson--expressed hope that Native Americans could be assimilated into American culture as equals. The first problem was that the average American wanted land and didn't recognize the Native Americans' rights to it. The second problem was that frontier warfare and the frequency with which Native Americans (understandably) sided with the British, first in the Revolution and again in the War of 1812, soured many American leaders against Native American interests. The third problem was the aforementioned development of racial theory and Manifest Destiny, resulting in American intellectuals believing just as firmly in America's right to dispossess the Native Americans "for not fully developing their land" as the farmer or miner who was coveting said land.

I think there is a slim chance that, for a brief moment immediately after the Revolution, had any Native American nation been powerful enough to assert its sovereignty and had supported the American Revolution (say, if the entire Six Nations had supported the American colonies against the British), then maybe they could have carved a state out for themselves--but the chance was slim and the moment to bring it to pass probably no longer than twelve years (the presidencies of Washington and Adams).

 

[Evie]

I figure even if they get established, it's probably just a temporary peace that blows back up the moment racial theory gets invented anyway. Sadly.

If not earlier. The land speculators and the common people wanted land. The Natives had lands they "weren't using". And they would spin any punishment for trespassing in the so-called empty land as wanton agression against them.

 

[pineappledan]

Many first generation elites--including Washington, Adams, and Jefferson--expressed hope that Native Americans could be assimilated into American culture as equals.

This is the same Washington who made his fortune selling the sovereign territory of First Nations people out from under them to other white men, who generalled an army of rebels against his king, who who was trying to curtail that same practice? Who signed onto a document, listing their unmet desire to expand west as a grievance against the crown, and after having won the war prosecuted multiple gruesome campaigns which came to be known as the Northwest Indian Wars to clear/destroy the people inhabiting Ohio and Michigan?

That Washington? Yeah I don't think he was the conciliatory sort, and if he had taken Native American sovereignty and their right to their land seriously in the first place it's likely he wouldn't have become a revolutionary.

 

[Zaarin]

This is the same Washington who made his fortune selling the sovereign territory of First Nations people out from under them to other white men, who generalled an army of rebels against his king, who who was trying to curtail that same practice? Who signed onto a document, listing their unmet desire to expand west as a grievance against the crown, and after having won the war prosecuted multiple gruesome campaigns which came to be known as the Northwest Indian Wars to clear/destroy the people inhabiting Ohio and Michigan?

That Washington? Yeah I don't think he was the conciliatory sort, and if he had taken Native American sovereignty and their right to their land seriously in the first place it's likely he wouldn't have become a revolutionary.

You're misconstruing what I said. In an intellectual, theoretical sense, Washington and other American intellectuals* believed that Native Americans could be equal citizens in the new republic. However, when these intellectual elites said that Native Americans could become equals, it was through education and cultural assimilation, not respecting their land rights or traditional ways of life. Regarding the king trying to curtail violation of Native American land rights, that's true, but at the same time we shouldn't jump to the conclusion that his motives were altruistic, either. American farmers were hungry for land; the Crown was hungry for trade. These desires were mutually exclusive as far as fostering good trade relations with the Natives was concerned. This was a struggle the Crown was doomed to lose so long as the colonies existed, whether they had rebelled or not.

*Washington himself wasn't really an intellectual. He wasn't stupid. He was well-educated and well-read, just not particularly original in his thinking. But he moved in intellectual circles. And Adams and Jefferson were certainly intellectuals in any sense of the word you care to use.

 

[Henri Christophe]

Tecumseh was a great man, but he lost his war against the United States. To European Americans, he became a symbol of the futility of resisting American expansion and the inevitability of American supremacy. "We defeated the great Tecumseh! No one can stand against us!" There was a particular historian named Frederick Jackson Turner who particularly dominated American historiography from the late nineteenth through the mid twentieth centuries with an idea called the Frontier Thesis, and you'll still see it crop up in popular history. The idea is that the American settlers came upon a vast untamed wilderness that was practically uninhabited, and taming this wilderness (and the Native Americans who coincidentally inhabited it) was what made the United States exceptional (Turner wasn't interested in Canada or Mexico or anyone else). He particularly brought Tecumseh to the forefront, just about the only Native American he considered worth mentioning, because Tecumseh illustrated Turner's thesis. It wasn't until the 1970s that Native Americans began to reclaim their own history from white colonialism.

Now, with all that being said, I'm all for reclaiming Tecumseh's history from its colonial past. But the Pawnee would be nearly impossible to portray as a civ in the Civ model because of their mobility, which would result in a cult-of-personality civ like Civ6's Sumeria or Macedon. Plus, like I said, there are already alternatives without the baggage. After the American Revolution, Joseph Brant worked tirelessly to promote Native American unity in the Old Northwest against American encroachment, and Tecumseh's confederacy was built on the groundwork laid by Brant. Joseph Brant was also a man caught between two worlds: he was a fierce defender of Haudenosaunee autonomy and the Mohawk way of life, but he was also well educated in English schools, had visited London, was a devout Anglican, and had a white brother-in-law. Much like Pushmataha, he represented a Third Way, which one might even call Realpolitik--unlike Tecumseh, Tenskwatawa, Pontiac, or Neolin, he was under no delusion that Native Americans could drive Americans or Europeans from North America, but he also wasn't going to roll over and play dead. He envisioned a future in which Native Americans put aside their differences and formed a united front to preserve their autonomy but also to coexist with Americans and Europeans, using violence when necessary but peace when possible. He was a charismatic visionary, but his task was ultimately impossible--Native Americans were not one people and had too many immediate concerns to recognize the benefit of standing united against a common opponent.

Very cool information, I'm always learning with you. Thanks.
But despite all that, I still thinking Tecumseh should be a great addition to civ 7.
Will be this kind of not well know history who deserves it's spot in global history and just a game as civilization can give voice to them.

Brant could fill much the same role as Tecumseh

And about Joseph Brant of Iroquois, I don't know very well his history. But I think more ancient leaders (even semi mithological leaders) are more cool. That's the why civ5 had Hiawatha, the most ancient leader possible. Despite I would like to see other historical characters of Hiawatha time as civ leader as Jigonhsasee (because I like women leaders) or Tadodaho who was defacto ruler of Iroquois and even today the Iroquois called their leader Tadodaho.

Also, Tadodaho should have a warmonger actitude in the game, what is more cool to play with.

 

[Zaarin]

And about Joseph Brant of Iroquois, I don't know very well his history. But I think more ancient leaders (even semi mithological leaders) are more cool. That's the why civ5 had Hiawatha, the most ancient leader possible. Despite I would like to see other historical characters of Hiawatha time as civ leader as Jigonhsasee (because I like women leaders) or Tadodaho who was defacto ruler of Iroquois and even today the Iroquois called their leader Tadodaho.

Joseph Brant, or by his Mohawk name Thayendanegea, was an extremely charismatic and brilliant Mohawk war chief, orator, and statesman. He led the Haudenosaunee in the war against the Americans, he became the most influential figure in Haudenosaunee (especially Mohawk) politics in the postwar years, and he assembled a multitribal confederacy in the Old Northwest decades before Tecumseh. (Incidentally, Tecumseh was an ardent admirer of Brant's.) For a female leader of the Haudenosaunee, I'd put forward Brant's sister, Molly Brant (Degonwadonti). Like Catherine de Medici, she held no formal position in Haudenosaunee politics, but she was enormously influential (in fact, it was her influence that led to Joseph Brant's status as war chief).

Very cool information, I'm always learning with you. Thanks.
But despite all that, I still thinking Tecumseh should be a great addition to civ 7.
Will be this kind of not well know history who deserves it's spot in global history and just a game as civilization can give voice to them.

I would imagine most Americans are at least passingly familiar with Tecumseh, at least by name; he has been called "the most famous Native American," though, thanks to Disney's mauling of her story, I imagine Pocahontas has that dubious honor now. One could, to some extent, simulate Pawnee mobility by giving them a Scout UU and hefty trade and diplomatic bonuses--but then you just have the Cree. That's not necessarily a bad thing--I rather like the Cree design. I just feel like there are opportunities to do something different with Native American civilizations than what Civ5 and Civ6 have done. For example, a tribe from the Pacific Northwest (like the Tlingit or Haida) could be culture and faith focused with big cities based on few improvements. A better Haudenosaunee design than Civ5's could be based on growing one's cities through warfare. A Choctaw civilization could gain science from relations with its neighbors. A Navajo civilization could focus on desert farming and raiding. A dark horse Paiute civ led by Wovoka or Algonquin/Assiniboine civ led by Neolin could be a faith-focused civ. Plus the Cree-like niche could be filled by the chief who is, in my opinion, one of the most charismatic figures in Native American history, Wahunsenacawh of the Powhatan, the man who, in a single generation, forged a small empire in the Tidewater through a mixture of charisma, shrewd diplomacy, and conquest.

As you say, the Civ franchise has so much opportunity to introduce people to new ideas and new history. I just don't want to see Native American civs always filling the same niche when there are so many interesting opportunities to introduce new Native American nations people may not have heard of and new ways to look at them (in particular, the gorgeous artistic and heraldic traditions of the Pacific Northwest would likely catch many people by surprise).

 

[Patine]

But I think more ancient leaders (even semi mithological leaders) are more cool.

The game would be far better served cutting down on mythological and semi-mythological leaders altogether - cutting down to zero such leaders, ideally.

 

[Henri Christophe]

The game would be far better served cutting down on mythological and semi-mythological leaders altogether - cutting down to zero such leaders, ideally.

It's impressive how we can disagree in every single topic.
I like leaders as Gilgamesh and Dido too much and think other mythological leaders as Xangô (of Yorubas) and Quetzalcoalt (of Toltecs) should be a great addition to the franchise.
The game don't need to become an Age of Mythologe, what I don't will mind if happens, but just to have semi-mithological kings don't will change the mechanics of the game.