Why Montezuma?

[Alien Marksman]

I just watched a show about the Aztecs and Montezuma. Why is he on this game? He was a terrible leader. He let the Spanish take over Tenochtitlan without force. He gave them it! Literally! The conquistadors marched to the capital and Montezuma did nothing. Next, The Spanish arrested him! They arrested the leader of a foreign country on his own turf. The Aztecs outnumbered the conquistadors by so much. There were about 300 Spanish and 20,000 Aztec warriors. Then Montezuma and Cortez(the Spanish leader of the city) became great friends!
When the Spanish had the city(they have 900 soldiers now) the Aztec people rioted. The conquistadors started killing all the people in the city. Montezuma begged for them to stop, and his own people killed him with stones. After Montezuma's death, the warriors came out and killed all the Spanish and took back the city.
Can someone explain why Montezuma is in Civilization?

 

[automator]

He's a recognizable name. Ask some random folks in the street today "Who was a leader of the Aztecs?" If they can think of a name, they'll mention Montezuma.

 

[MrCynical]

He's the only leader of the Aztecs the average person has ever heard of. Similar accusations can be leveled at an number of other leaders. The main criterion for inclusion is fame. Whether they are famous for being good leaders or bad is a secondary issue.

 

[Bierp]

Being a bad leader is no exclusion for being a civ leader.

Mao and Stalin killed MILLIONS of their own citizens. Clearly being a good leader is not a requirement.

What's the addage? Any publicity is good publicity?

B

 

[Mango]

Supposedly he ruled while the Aztecs were at the height of their power.

Also, there are reasons why the Aztecs were defeated. It had nothing to do with them outnumbering the Spanish obviously. The Spanish had superior weapons which frightened the Aztecs to begin with. Second, the Aztecs conquered a lot of tribes and pissed off a lot of people. Cortez managed to rally those tribes against the Aztecs, which in turn evened the numbers out. Also, the Spanish had horses, which also frightened the hell out of the Aztecs. They thought the Spanish were not human supposedly.

Oh and perhaps the most important reason is the Aztec warriors did not try to kill the Spanish at first. Aztec warriors tried to capture the Spanish alive, because a captured enemy was more valuable to them because they could be used as sacrifices. It was also a sign of courage. The Sioux were the same way. Instead of trying to kill their enemy they had sticks that they were touch the enemy with. If they could get close enough to their enemy to touch them with their stick (called "counting coup" I believe) then it was considered an act of bravery. Naturally the Spanish were just trying to kill the Aztecs. You can probably guess that this gave the Spanish a decisive advantage.

 

[Codeman]

if for no other reason, the history lesson makes it worth it.

i would hate civ not to include less than perfect civs. would there be a game at all if it only included perfect civs and leaders? i think not.

i love this game!

 

[tlucky4life]

Also one of the viewpionts of the Aztec were that the Spaniards were the fufillment of a prophesy were there god had come back to destroy them. In some of the records that the Spanish wrote they were suprised by the ferocity of the various tribes of the "Aztec". Specifically how fast there suited warriors would close on the enemy. Also the records of these acounts are writen by the Spanish and are highly biased and racist. Also there are Spanish accounts of Aztec warriors taking horses down with obsidian swords. google it. Montezuma continuously plays civ4 like a fool that demands everything and goes to war with everyone. His strategy is not representative of him. There needs to be another Aztec leader.

 

[drkodos]

It was disease that defeated the Aztec, not failed leadership.

 

[Alien Marksman]

The diseases happened way after Montezuma's death. For you other guys, I see your point.

 

[drkodos]

The diseases happened way after Montezuma's death. For you other guys, I see your point.

No.


The diseases were introduced at first contact, and were the single most instrumental component in wiping out the civilization. More deaths to disease than gunshots. More deaths from disease than any other single factor.

Period.

 

[curtadams]

Being a bad leader is no exclusion for being a civ leader.
Mao and Stalin killed MILLIONS of their own citizens. Clearly being a good leader is not a requirement.
B

I think the poster meant good as in competent, not good as in ethical. Mao was pretty evil, but he obviously knew what he was doing. Most of the other leaders were at least capable and most were quite remarkable (OK, Victoria was a figurehead - but a very well-respected one)

They didn't have a problem using Huayna Capac rather than the better-known Atahualpa, the guy the Spanish kidnapped. (Admittedly Montezuma's much better known) They also didn't have a problem using Asoka, who isn't well known to Americans but who left quite a mark on history. Nezahualcoyotl would have been a much better choice for the Aztec leader. I'm sure there are other choices if they wanted somebody with the game Monty's bloodthirsty personality.

 

[Kartik]

I have a question regarding the indian civs, sort of off topic, does anyone know how they managed to acquier bows and arrows? ,Is there an explanation for them having bows and arrows?

 

[drkodos]

I have a question regarding the indian civs, sort of off topic, does anyone know how they managed to acquier bows and arrows? ,Is there an explanation for them having bows and arrows?

Possibly from contact with Europeans. They did not invent them. When the first Euros arrived, the indigenous peoples did not have bows and arrows.

The first Bows were present in 8000 BC in Asia and Africa. There is no evidence of neo or mesolithic arrows in North America.

 

[Holycannoli]

It was disease that defeated the Aztec, not failed leadership.

It was both. Montezuma did all the wrong things when dealing with Cortes. He even invited Cortes into Tenochtitlan along with some of his cannons and horses! He was told by his council to eliminate them immediately since his council knew what he did when he arrived on the coast; Montezuma ignored them. I can only imagine his council telling him later, before he was killed "You know, I hate to tell you I told you so, but..."

Disease also played it's part, perhaps the biggest part although Montezuma's lack of foresight played no small part.

I just read an excellent novel, Aztec by Gary Jennings. The author took about 16 years to research and write this so it's pretty accurate even though it's historical fiction (the main character is fictional). Go read this book if you're at all interested in that history and it's stories. It's one of my favorite novels now.

Honestly, even though the Aztecs stood a chance if they never let the first Spaniards return to Cuba with gold, I think the Spanish or maybe another European world power would eventually have arrived at Tenochtitlan and conquered them. Perhaps not as violently a conquering but it was inevitable; Europeans were coming to the New World complete with their diseases and intolerance for pagan religion and there was no stopping them for any peoples of the Americas. Not with their inferior weapons.

You just gotta wonder if it wasn't Montezuma as Uey-Tlatoani at that time. What if it was Ahuitzotl, a bit more violent and not as sedate as Montezuma, or Nezahualpili who was incredibly wise compared to Montezuma. They might have been able to secure the future of the Aztec people even though their assimilation was all but inevitable.

 

[Xarlak]

I always figured that they were talking about Moctezuma I, who I believe was a pretty decent ruler and conquerer, rather than Moctezuma II, who was the one that was conquered by the Spanish. Of course, I could be wrong.

 

[Holycannoli]

Hmm, you might not be wrong. He wasn't as popular (I think "Montezuma's Revenge" is named for Motecuzoma II) but it could be. Motecuzoma I was a celebrated leader from what I understand.

Maybe with the next expansion we will get another Aztec leader. I think all civs should have at least 2 leaders with different traits anyway , even if we have to come up with some pretty obscure leaders that not many would know about (like who would be the Zulu's 2nd leader?)

I wouldn't mind seeing Ahuitzotl, with imperialistic/spiritual, or Nezahualpili, with philosophical/organized. We can only hope.

 

[Agarwaen]

Well, about bows... in South America the indians had bows long before the european came.

 

[curtadams]

Well, about bows... in South America the indians had bows long before the european came.

North America too... http://www.georgiaencyclopedia.org/nge/Article.jsp?id=h-811

 

[curtadams]

I always figured that they were talking about Moctezuma I, who I believe was a pretty decent ruler and conquerer, rather than Moctezuma II, who was the one that was conquered by the Spanish. Of course, I could be wrong.

Learn something new every day! Yes, he's a great candidate http://www.hyperhistory.com/online_n2/people_n2/ppersons5_n2/montezuma.html So Montezuma is a good choice after all.

 

[a4phantom]

Honestly, even though the Aztecs stood a chance if they never let the first Spaniards return to Cuba with gold, I think the Spanish or maybe another European world power would eventually have arrived at Tenochtitlan and conquered them. Perhaps not as violently a conquering but it was inevitable

Actually another conquest might have been even more brutal. The Spanish wanted to own people as slaves and converts. They married and bred with the local peoples, preserving them although always treating them as inferior and being particularly harsh to those who remained closest to native. The English and their American descendents/successors in North America just wanted the land, and practiced genocide.