Tecumseh of Shawnee. Worthy North American representations for Civ7?

[Evie]

There are so many interesting historical figures that there is no reason to rely on mythological ones.

 

[Zaarin]

I don't have strong objections to Dido. She probably existed, and we don't know a lot about any Phoenician leaders beyond a barebones list of accomplishments and perhaps some light correspondence with Babylon or Egypt. Carthaginian leaders we know more about, but TBH I'm delighted to have Phoenicia rather than Carthage. I would have no objection to someone like Ḥīrom/Hiram II of Tyre (𐤇𐤓𐤌) or Dido's father Pumayyaton/Pygmalion (𐤐𐤌𐤉𐤉𐤕𐤍‎), nor to Carthaginian leader like Hanno I the Great, Mago I, or a suffete like Hamilcar or Hannibal Barca as long as Carthage doesn't become the "enemy of Rome" civ, but Dido is fine. I strongly dislike Gilgamesh, though. There are so many great Sumerian kings we could choose from, any one of which would be more interesting than Gilgamesh. Gudea is my favorite choice, but there's also Ur-Nammu, Shulgi, Kuĝbau, Lugal-Anne-Mundu, Ur-Ninurta, Enlil-bani (the guy was the king's gardener, was appointed to the throne to take the fall for the king's ineptness, and managed unexpectedly to hold onto the throne and flourish for 24 years)--or even Sargon or Naram-Sin, who spoke Akkadian but were culturally Sumerian. There's no need for Gilgamesh.

 

[Henri Christophe]

There are so many interesting historical figures that there is no reason to rely on mythological ones.

Not all civilizations relly in interesting historical figures, as for example the Toltecs (what you said all leaders are mythical ones) and Yoruba, because their religion, all ancient kings become gods (orixás).

 

[pineappledan]

Re: Phoenicia, I'm team Ithobaal I. But Dido is fine.

Ithobaal is the closest thing Phoenicia ever had to an emperor, conquering Sidon and being the undisputed big boy of Phoenicia during his reign. Making alliances with Israel basically on all of Phoenicia's behalf and settling new colonies. Plus fun trivia, like being Jezebel's dad, and Dido's great grandfather.

Dido's father Pumayyaton/Pygmalion

In Josephus' writings, Dido and Pygmalion are siblings, and their father was Mattan I. Is there another source that claims Dido is Pygmalion's child?

 

[Zaarin]

Re: Phoenicia, I'm team Ithobaal. But Dido is fine.

Ithobaal is the closest thing Phoenicia ever had to an emperor, conquering Sidon and being the undisputed big boy of Phoenicia during his reign. Making alliances with Israel basically on all of Phoenicia's behalf and settling new colonies. Plus fun trivia, like being Jezebel's dad, and Dido's great grandfather.

ʾittobaʿl I's historicity is as suspect as Dido's, both chiefly relying on the same single source: Josephius. Josephius was a good historian, but he was relying on secondhand sources. After the Ahirom sarcophagus has been shown to refer to a King Pillesbaʿl* rather than ʾittobaʿl, the latter's historicity is probably more in doubt than Dido's. Further, I'm not sure I'd agree that he was the closest Phoenicia had to an emperor. In the early period of Phoenician history, most of Lebanon was dominated by the kings of Byblos, and for most of Phoenician history the kings of Tyre and Sidon alternated in so dominating the region (to the extent that "Tyre" and "Sidon" both became metonymy for Phoenicia in all the neighboring languages, including Hebrew). Phoenicia was never politically unified except by conquest, but the Phoenicians were always conscious of being a single people (cf. the Hellenes) and they always looked to Tyre and Sidon as their mother-cities (after the decline of Byblos). Carthage continued to refer to Tyre as its mother-city pretty much until the Islamic conquest.

*Wikipedia refers to him as "Pilsibaal," but √P-L-S was always in the piʿel binyan to my knowledge. Names in Pilles-DN/DN-pilles, including Pillesbaʿl, are well-attested throughout the Phoenician corpus.

 

[Evie]

The fact that the Toltecs only have mythological emperors, and that their empire is also mythological, is why we should not have the Toltecs as a civ in the game.

 

[Patine]

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.

I don't disagree with on EVERY issue. But I do stand firm that mythologized leaders distort the game horribly - especially given Gilgamesh's absolute cheesy portrayal in Civ6.

 

[Patine]

At least Gilgamesh didn't have an, "Enkidu," unit in Civ6 like he did in Civ3...

 

[Henri Christophe]

At least Gilgamesh didn't have an, "Enkidu," unit in Civ6 like he did in Civ3...

I was thinking about Enkidu as unit, and I don't think it is a very bad choice. I like to play civilization because I learn while I play, and learn about sumerian religion is also fun. And I think it's open a prescedent to other civs have their own unique mythological unit.

Taking the example of the Yorubas, their unique unit can be Ogum. The god of war, metal and sciences.
Different from Xangô who was propably the 3rd king of Oyo, Ogum is more ancient and have it's origin in the Olodum creation of the world. Together with others important Orixás as Oxalá and Exu.
As Ogum's ability it can be, each Ogum killed in battle, all other ogums raise it's power +5.

 

[Zaarin]

I was thinking about Enkidu as unit, and I don't think it is a very bad choice. I like to play civilization because I learn while I play, and learn about sumerian religion is also fun. And I think it's open a prescedent to other civs have their own unique mythological unit.

I would love a mythology Civ spinoff, but not in a mainline game.

 

[Lonecat Nekophrodite]

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.


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.

So that if Harrisson isn't involved
1. Ohio would be independent 'Native Soverign Nation' recognized by all other European Powers and not a state of the USA?
2. Will there still be 'War of 1812'? (North American chapter of Napoleonic Wars, particularly with British veterans of Peninsular campaign were deployed against Americans and led by Wellington's underbosses. not sure if Wellington himself came there what will happen?)

 

[Zaarin]

1. Ohio would be independent 'Native Soverign Nation' recognized by all other European Powers and not a state of the USA?

No. American settlers were already pouring in the Ohio, which is what Tecumseh and his allies were protesting in the first place. Washington wanted a peaceful solution, but their "peaceful solution" would have involved, at best, purchasing the land and relocating the indigenous people West, to Oklahoma, or to Canada. An independent Ohio Valley was Tecumseh's goal, but it was never within the realm of possibility.

2. Will there still be 'War of 1812'? (North American chapter of Napoleonic Wars, particularly with British veterans of Peninsular campaign were deployed against Americans and led by Wellington's underbosses. not sure if Wellington himself came there what will happen?)

It wouldn't have affected the War of 1812, which was just a local chapter of the broader Napoleonic Wars. If anything, even had America recognized an independent Native American nation in Ohio, that recognition would have been rescinded when Tecumseh and his allies sided with the British.