The Carthage Thread

[Patine]

Second, eliminating some civs completely just because they have a heavily mythologized history (as in the case of Toltecs we already discussed too much) isn't right. I think I could say this kind of thought is racist because most of civs who fall down in the category of heavily mythologized are no white civilizations.

Calling me racist again in the same statement you apologized is quite the bit of gall. Also, given I've supported the inclusion of ther civ's from Mesoamerica who are better attested and documennted, but don't support the Toltecs, for whom nothing is solidly and definitely known in any verified form, and it's practically all mythologized, without even much of a chasis of facts, to work with, at all, is, "racist," how?

A Mythological spin-off should be cool but would be very different. For example, Rome in a mythological spin-off should be led by Jupiter or Mars. That means the Romulus just could be a leader in a main series game.
Okay, Rome has a bunch of better names and doesn't need a Romulus leader, but some other civilizations as Carthage don't have a bunch of better names and Dido still being a strong option which I can't see any problem with.

This double-standard is quite a transparent ploy.

 

[Evie]

While I disagree with Henri on many particulars, I largely have to join him in calling bovine manure on writing being less susceptible than oral to exaggeration and mythologizing. The entire history of history is rather more proof positive of the opposite: nationalism, bias, misconceptions and the desire for the history works to answer fundamental questions (an ever present problem) has led to vastly overreaching. All the same things that result in history being mythologized in oral history affect writing history just as well, and while being able to check older sources help, past a certain point in history the only remaining written sources we have are copies of copies of copies that cites lost texts and that mention other texts of which we know nothing that may have contained additional information or not - about as unverifiable as any oral history.

Writing's reliability in keeping history has been significantly exaggerated (it is better, yes, provided the writing is suitably preserved, but it's not some absolute rule of reliability), and while not all who echo that sentiment share that reason (and, so we're very clear, I do NOT believe for one second Patine is doing it for that reason), one reason it has been exaggerated has been as part of a generalized effort for erasing the history of people outside Europe.

That said, the Aztecs history itself tell us that the Aztec emperors went out of their way to erase the Aztec people's knowledge of their own history (by burning down the older codices). So, in their particular case, it's not that their history is unreliable because it's oral, or because it's written: it's that their history is unreliable because they outright tell us that they deliberately erased their own history.

 

[Patine]

While I disagree with Henri on many particulars, I largely have to join him in calling bovine manure on writing being less susceptible than oral to exaggeration and mythologizing. The entire history of history is rather more proof positive of the opposite: nationalism, bias, misconceptions and the desire for the history works to answer fundamental questions (an ever present problem) has led to vastly overreaching. All the same things that result in history being mythologized in oral history affect writing history just as well, and while being able to check older sources help, past a certain point in history the only remaining written sources we have are copies of copies of copies that cites lost texts and that mention other texts of which we know nothing that may have contained additional information or not - about as unverifiable as any oral history.

Writing's reliability in keeping history has been significantly exaggerated (it is better, yes, provided the writing is suitably preserved, but it's not some absolute rule of reliability), and while not all who echo that sentiment share that reason (and, so we're very clear, I do NOT believe for one second Patine is doing it for that reason), one reason it has been exaggerated has been as part of a generalized effort for erasing the history of people outside Europe.

That said, the Aztecs history itself tell us that the Aztec emperors went out of their way to erase the Aztec people's knowledge of their own history (by burning down the older codices). So, in their particular case, it's not that their history is unreliable because it's oral, or because it's written: it's that their history is unreliable because they outright tell us that they deliberately erased their own history.

To be fair, I didn't address the failings and biases of written records, which often tend to have more calculated and insidious elements (of which I have read some skincrawling examples of, in my day) when done than being an entertaining storyteller keeping old stories and catching the youths' attention and interest, and thus was not in denial of that. Nothing I was discussing with Henri dealt with any burden of proof on that side, save that my viiew on mythologized leaders would have to account to for how very many had been in written record for a long time. I think what is accused of as, "bovine manure on writing being less susceptible than oral to exaggeration and mythologizing," is a misrepresentation, though probably not malicious or deliberate, due to my omission in the discussion of seriously touching upon the other part of this topic.

 

[Boris Gudenuf]

While I disagree with Henri on many particulars, I largely have to join him in calling bovine manure on writing being less susceptible than oral to exaggeration and mythologizing. The entire history of history is rather more proof positive of the opposite: nationalism, bias, misconceptions and the desire for the history works to answer fundamental questions (an ever present problem) has led to vastly overreaching. All the same things that result in history being mythologized in oral history affect writing history just as well, and while being able to check older sources help, past a certain point in history the only remaining written sources we have are copies of copies of copies that cites lost texts and that mention other texts of which we know nothing that may have contained additional information or not - about as unverifiable as any oral history.

Writing's reliability in keeping history has been significantly exaggerated (it is better, yes, provided the writing is suitably preserved, but it's not some absolute rule of reliability), and while not all who echo that sentiment share that reason (and, so we're very clear, I do NOT believe for one second Patine is doing it for that reason), one reason it has been exaggerated has been as part of a generalized effort for erasing the history of people outside Europe.

That said, the Aztecs history itself tell us that the Aztec emperors went out of their way to erase the Aztec people's knowledge of their own history (by burning down the older codices). So, in their particular case, it's not that their history is unreliable because it's oral, or because it's written: it's that their history is unreliable because they outright tell us that they deliberately erased their own history.

Nor were the Aztecs alone in destroying written records, and every time that happens 'history' becomes that much harder to define amongst the ashes.
I cast a somewhat wider net, and regard 'mythology' as simply a part of history - one that needs more work to make it useful, but frequently with things in it from which 'history' can be extracted. For example, the coast Salish tribes of the Pacific northwest have stories that are all obviously mythological, but some of them are set in backgrounds of terrain and climate that very accurately describe the conditions at the very end of the last glaciation/ice age in the region. Thus, the 'mythology' provides some evidence that the mythologizers have been present in the area for over 10,000 years, which given the relative lack of surviving physical (archeological) evidence would have otherwise been impossible to find direct evidence for.

History in its root word (istoriya - early Greek) means 'to learn by study', and that to me is the defining characteristic: every source has to be studied, whether it is written or oral, purports to be a 'Tall Tale', a Myth, or History. Whatever the source is, it has to be studied, and checked, and proven, disproven, verified or labeled true, half-true, or speculation - and then rechecked as we learn more, because, for something supposedly dead and buried in the past, history is changing constantly as it is re-examined. And of all of the sources, whatever they come from, a quote one of my professors decades ago can be applied:

"It may not be history, but it is the stuff from which history can be made."

 

[Patine]

To be fair, I didn't address the failings and biases of written records, which often tend to have more calculated and insidious elements (of which I have read some skincrawling examples of, in my day) when done than being an entertaining storyteller keeping old stories and catching the youths' attention and interest, and thus was not in denial of that. Nothing I was discussing with Henri dealt with any burden of proof on that side, save that my viiew on mythologized leaders would have to account to for how very many had been in written record for a long time. I think what is accused of as, "bovine manure on writing being less susceptible than oral to exaggeration and mythologizing," is a misrepresentation, though probably not malicious or deliberate, due to my omission in the discussion of seriously touching upon the other part of this topic.

@Evie I am wondering if you will address the comment I made to dispell what I feel is a harsh and unfair indictment seemingly based on a presumption due to an omission of a certain part of the topic from explicitly being detailed, and defending posts by Henri that inappropriately called me a racist twice. If you still have contrary view to mine, I'm open to hear it. But an utter lack of response feels as though your indictment remains, unchanged by my post.

 

[Caesar of Bread]

I’ve been trying to find a female Phoenician leader that’s not Dido.


I tried. I gave it my all. I failed you guys.
Wait
no
hold on
there’s still hope

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sophonisba (went into the Numidian political landscape but whatever)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Imilce (we’re pulling a Gorgo here)
Maybe we don’t need Dido after all

We did it.

 

[Evie]

Patine - fair enough. I'm glad for the clarification. I agree Henri's accusations were unfair. (Apologies, started writing this earlier, then got called away and forgot this entirely)

Boris - as I see it, the study of the past is a spectrum concerned with finding answers in some form to "where do we come from?" And "why are we where we are here and now", of which modern scholarly history and ancient mythology are merely different colors - different in their method, but alike in their interest and pursuit. And all forms of historical recording, oral or verbal, all forms of non-fiction storytelling, all belong somewhere on that very same spectrum.

 

[Henri Christophe]

For example, the coast Salish tribes of the Pacific northwest have stories that are all obviously mythological, but some of them are set in backgrounds of terrain and climate that very accurately describe the conditions at the very end of the last glaciation/ice age in the region. Thus, the 'mythology' provides some evidence that the mythologizers have been present in the area for over 10,000 years, which given the relative lack of surviving physical (archeological) evidence would have otherwise been impossible to find direct evidence for.

That's a cool example how a myth can be used in the search of the "truth". So isn't a good idea to discard a history of a civilization just because it have myths and religious elements on it. And for a game purpose, really don't matter if the history of a civilization is full of myths, that matter if we do have enought elements to build a civ,as a leader or knowledge of their language.

And I was thinking, the history of Portugal, for example,it is full of myths. The greatest book of the Age of Discoverys, Os Lusíadas, tell how the Portuguese go around Africa to get to India and along the book there was a lot of Gods intervention. So why a heavily mythologized history as Portugal can be made a civ of they and the Toltecs can't?

 

[Evie]

Because the only significant source we have on Toltec history is the Aztecs, and we know - because they tell us - that the Aztecs deliberately erased their own knowledge of their own ancient history.

You can be oral history and be reliable. You can be written history and be reliable. You can have gods in your story and be reliable.

But you cannot deliberately destroy your own knowledge of a topic and then be a reliable source of that topic.

On top of that, there's a little something called supporting evidence. We have plenty of evidence beside the mythologized accounts that Portugal really did exist and really did send ships to explore the world and really did have a colonial empire. We have no such evidence for the existence of a Toltec Empire that covered most of Mesoamerica. THAT, Henri, is the difference.

 

[Caesar of Bread]

Because the only significant source we have on Toltec history is the Aztecs, and we know - because they tell us - that the Aztecs deliberately erased their own knowledge of their own ancient history.

And I too am not too fond of the Aztecs - after they had a religious switch, the demand for human sacrifice skyrocketed. Tenochtitlan was at 500,000 before the switch, and by the time the Spanish came, they were only at 200,000.

You can be oral history and be reliable. You can be written history and be reliable. You can have gods in your story and be reliable.

But you cannot deliberately destroy your own knowledge of a topic and then be a reliable source of that topic.

On top of that, there's a little something called supporting evidence. We have plenty of evidence beside the mythologized accounts that Portugal really did exist and really did send ships to explore the world and really did have a colonial empire. We have no such evidence for the existence of a Toltec Empire that covered most of Mesoamerica. THAT, Henri, is the difference.

I agree. I am in an AP World History course and nowhere do we talk about the Toltecs.

 

[BuchiTaton]

And I too am not too fond of the Aztecs - after they had a religious switch, the demand for human sacrifice skyrocketed. Tenochtitlan was at 500,000 before the switch, and by the time the Spanish came, they were only at 200,000.

Source of this please, bacuase it do not make any sense at all with either the historical or archeological research.

 

[Evie]

Ehhhhhh, I wouldn't put too much stock in the alleged amount of human sacrifices that some of the more...suspicious...pro-colonial books quote. The idea that the Aztec managed to wipe out 60% of the population of Tenochtitlan via sacrifice is an enormous claim that would require truly extraordinary evidence on a scale we simply do not have.

It's a common claim, but one deserving of a very healthy dose of suspicion.

In any event, the amount of human sacrifice they carried out has precisely zero relevance to their value as a source. It doesn't matter whether they sacrificed one person or a hundred million: their records of early history are untrustworthy because they opelny admit to deliberately erasing their own early history.

 

[pineappledan]

I think I recall someone actually mathing out how large the skull racks would have had to be in order to hold all those supposed human sacrifices, and it was larger than the entire footprint of the city.

 

[BuchiTaton]

I think I recall someone actually mathing out how large the skull racks would have had to be in order to actually hold all those supposed human sacrifices, and it was larger than the entire footprint of the city.

The numbers given by Spaniards and Aztecs themselves in the chronicles were definitely exagerated, and this is clear for both the Huey Zompantli and the Huey Teocalli, since neither the mathematic models or archeological evidence fit the disproportionate numbers from their propaganda (spanish to justify the conquest and aztec to intimidate their enemies and subjects).

And I too am not too fond of the Aztecs - after they had a religious switch, the demand for human sacrifice skyrocketed. Tenochtitlan was at 500,000 before the switch, and by the time the Spanish came, they were only at 200,000.

This dubious number (to say the less) dont even make sense in narrative terms since Tenochtitlan itself was founded by the Mexica that were already ruthless fanatics like we can see for example in the fate of the princess of Culhuacan. Someting like a triving non-fantic Tenochtitlan that turned to fanatic killing their own people never happened, the isotope, morphological and genetic evidence points that most of the sacrifice victims in Tenochtitlan were foreigns.

 

[BuchiTaton]

And I was thinking, the history of Portugal, for example,it is full of myths. The greatest book of the Age of Discoverys, Os Lusíadas, tell how the Portuguese go around Africa to get to India and along the book there was a lot of Gods intervention. So why a heavily mythologized history as Portugal can be made a civ of they and the Toltecs can't?

Toltecs can be a civ in game (I also dont mind some oral and possible mythical leaders if is needed), BUT...
1- Portugal have a LOT more of sources plus historical significance and recognition to be in game, some little mythical elements are irrelevant for Portugal. Toltecs are in no way in any of these terms at the same level than Portuguese so is not fair to equate them.
2- Toltecs are already a "less than ideal" option for a civ from Mesoamerica:

- There were less significative than the others power of Central Mesoamerica, both the previous Teotihuacans and the later Mexicas had clear influence over the regions while the once claimed "Toltec Empire" have less support the more we know from archeology.​

- The Toltec site of Tula is smaller than both Teotihuacan and Tenochtitlan and the name itself of Tula "Tollan" comes from the original identity of Teotihuacan, in fact is likely that many of the greatness attributed to the Toltecs by the Aztecs were actually Teotihuacans achievements.​

- Toltecs not only inhabited basically the same region than the Aztecs, they also were likely related, since were in great part of Chichimec origin in the broad sense that also was the origin of the Aztecs and others Nahua peoples. So Toltecs are quite a redundant civ with the Aztecs in-game.​

- We are sure that all the supposed social and technological innovations of the King Quetzalcoatl were already done by previous Mesoamerican cultures, included ones like Zapotecs and Maya that already are the tech civ of Mesoamerica in game.​

So Toltecs could be a civ in game, but there are little reasons to add them when are various others candidates from Mesoamerica with better recorded history, more unique identity, more significance and recognized achievements like Teotihuacans, Zapotecs, Purepechas, Totonacs, etc.

 

[Henri Christophe]

So Toltecs could be a civ in game, but there are little reasons to add them when are various others candidates from Mesoamerica with better recorded history, more unique identity, more significance and recognized achievements like Teotihuacans, Zapotecs, Purepechas, Totonacs, etc.

I do agree with you maybe could have other meso-american names to fullfill this spot of the game, Aztecs are more well know and are a stable civ since the first game.
And it's true the Aztecs and Toltecs should be very similar, propably the same language and etc.
And I'm fine with this argue to don't have Toltec.

What I think is a weak argue is calling all Toltec history a myth in order to desqualify their civilization.
Okay, maybe was controversial if the Toltecs achieve to be the greatest meso-american empire of México, maybe who conquer the Mayapan was the Teotihuacans and not the Toltecs. But, what we do have is more then enouth to we know there was an empire in México before the Aztecs, and one who could be bigger then the Aztecs who the Aztecs share a heritage.

I don't want to transform this in a Toltec thread, but, I would like to say meso-america need more civs then just Mayas and Aztecs and the Toltecs are very viable name.

Henri that inappropriately called me a racist twice

Here we discuss ideas, some ideas could be racists.
I do sometimes had racist ideas too, we need to recognize it in order to not perpetuate the racism.
For example, you often say my view of human races are racist because I used sometimes ideas as Negroides, Caucasoides and Mongoloides division of earth.
And I need to admit this is a view racist of earth, but if I separete in more sub-divisions, will still being a racist view because I'm analysing races.
And some kind of racism could be positive, as racial quota. Give quota to black people in countries who had slavery, as Brazil,it is a rightness think to do.

 

[Caesar of Bread]

Alright guys, let’s not be calling each other racist.

 

[Caesar of Bread]

This dubious number (to say the less) dont even make sense in narrative terms since Tenochtitlan itself was founded by the Mexica that were already ruthless fanatics like we can see for example in the fate of the princess of Culhuacan. Someting like a triving non-fantic Tenochtitlan that turned to fanatic killing their own people never happened, the isotope, morphological and genetic evidence points that most of the sacrifice victims in Tenochtitlan were foreigns.

Tell that to the AP World curriculum

 

[Patine]

Here we discuss ideas, some ideas could be racists.
I do sometimes had racist ideas too, we need to recognize it in order to not perpetuate the racism.
For example, you often say my view of human races are racist because I used sometimes ideas as Negroides, Caucasoides and Mongoloides division of earth.
And I need to admit this is a view racist of earth, but if I separete in more sub-divisions, will still being a racist view because I'm analysing races.

I didn't call YOU a racist, I called the 19th Century German naturalist who devised the debunked and discredited scheme a racist. However, inexplicably, rather than reconsidering this flawed and repugnant viewpoint, you doubled down on it. Also, you called me racist last night based on some presumption of something I wasn't even saying.

 

[Evie]

Tell that to the AP World curriculum

I know that in theory AP is supposed to be undergraduate-level content (and those too should be approached with a critical eye), but at the end of the day, it's still a high school class for high school students. I'd recommend not overestimating what you learn from them.