Joined
Aug 17, 2018
Messages
1,510
Location
Rio de Janeiro, K11 (Kwanza)
First I want to argue about Germany in civ 6, despite the fact the Germany country just born in 1864, he is lead by a man (Frederick Barbarossa) who died in 1190, that means 674 years before the existence of a Germanic state. Of course, this game does that because the interpretation of the Germany country is the legitim heir of the Holy Roman Empire.
In Civ 5 the power of Germany was the Teutonic Furor, also an interpretation as Germany being the legit heir of Germanic orders of Baltic sea.


Follow this kind of interpretation of the development of civilizations I want to propose 3 civs to be annexed in the next Civ 6 expansion.
Zapotecs
Leader: Benito Juares (1806-1872)

This man often appears as a Mexican leader in MODS, but I want to argue to he becomes not a Mexican leader (because modern states don't have a great appeal with players) but he comes as leader of the Zapotec civilization.
The Zapotec civilization starts to rise as civilization around 700 BC and was conquered by the Spanish empire in 1563 AD. The land area of Zapotec civilization is nowadays the State of Oaxaca in México, Benito Juares was governor of Oaxaca (1847 - 1853).
Benito was a Zapotec child and just learn speak Spanish when he was 12 years old, that is the reason I believe he will perfect be able to be a Zapotec leader. (Maybe one day also be a leader of Mexico state, if this civilization be annexed after, as Eleanor of Aquitaine leads France and England :)).
Side note: Benito is remembered as the most important president of the Mexican republic because he was able to overthrow the King Maximilian Habsburgo and lead Mexico free of Napoleonic France influence.

Guaranis
Leader:
Francisco Solano López (1827 - 1870)

The Paraguayan republic have the narrative about they own history very similar of Germany, they believe they are the legit heir of Guarani civilization, ethnically speaking Paraguay is more one Mestizo nation of South America, but have two things that make they special, first they are Mestizo of Guaranis and Spaniards (and not other Indigenous nation) and more important of all, they still speaking the Guarani language (even the white population speak this language).
Solano López is an interesting figure in Latin America history, he leads Paraguay in the most deadly war in American soil until today, in my country (Brazil) we call this war as Paraguayan War (1864-1870).
To motivate his army, the Paraguayan dictator like to remember another's wars the Guarani fight against Brazil as the Guaranitic Wars (1754 - 1756) or the Paulists invasion of the Battle of M'bororé (1641). Just remember the independence of Paraguay was 1811, so, like Germany, they claim this battles of their nation against Brazil before Paraguay was officially born.

Botswana
Leader:
Seretse Khama (1921 - 1980)

That history I discover because that movie, A United Kingdom, and I was astonished by that, first Serestse Khama was King of Tswana people and he moves to England to study and fall in love to a Britsh girl, that marriage cause a lot of problems because at the time his kingdom was a British colony called Bechuanaland, in the end, this marriage lead to independence of Botswana and Khama also become the first president of this country.
First of all, I never heard one history about that, one king become a president, and because that I think is cool have his as leader of Botswana in civilization, also this game have few Africans Civs and anyone modern Africa state in this game, also Zulu need someone pacific next they in a World Map :lol:.
Just side note, Botswana is one of the best economics of Africa, the high HDI of South Africa and one of the most homogenous country of Africa, circa 80% os Botswana population are Tswana.
 

Zaarin

Diplomatic Attaché to Londo Mollari
Joined
May 14, 2016
Messages
10,410
Location
Babylon 5
Strange trio of civs to associate together. :p I wouldn't mind a Zapotec civ (not sure I'd choose Benito Juares as its leader, though), but I'd prefer Mixtec led by Eight Deer Jaguar Claw as a third Mesoamerican civ (I say "third" because Firaxis will feel my wrath if we don't get the Maya... :p ). Honestly we just need more variety in general in terms of pre-Columbian Mesoamerican civs: it's one of the few regions of the New World where we can safely build civs that existed before Columbus and the Aztec alone are not sufficient. (In fact, I wouldn't mind seeing the Aztec sit out Civ7; replace them with the Maya and aforementioned Mixtec.)
 

PhoenicianGold

Emperor
Joined
Jan 30, 2018
Messages
1,828
Really, given that we have Chandragupta leading India and Dido leading Phoenicia, and the Aztecs were "Mexica," and the devs can only do so much...

BenitoandMontezumashouldbothleadaMexicocivkthxbye

*runs away*
 

Patine

Deity
Joined
Feb 14, 2011
Messages
8,491
First I want to argue about Germany in civ 6, despite the fact the Germany country just born in 1864, he is lead by a man (Frederick Barbarossa) who died in 1190, that means 674 years before the existence of a Germanic state. Of course, this game does that because the interpretation of the Germany country is the legitim heir of the Holy Roman Empire.
In Civ 5 the power of Germany was the Teutonic Furor, also an interpretation as Germany being the legit heir of Germanic orders of Baltic sea.


Follow this kind of interpretation of the development of civilizations I want to propose 3 civs to be annexed in the next Civ 6 expansion.
Zapotecs
Leader: Benito Juares (1806-1872)

This man often appears as a Mexican leader in MODS, but I want to argue to he becomes not a Mexican leader (because modern states don't have a great appeal with players) but he comes as leader of the Zapotec civilization.
The Zapotec civilization starts to rise as civilization around 700 BC and was conquered by the Spanish empire in 1563 AD. The land area of Zapotec civilization is nowadays the State of Oaxaca in México, Benito Juares was governor of Oaxaca (1847 - 1853).
Benito was a Zapotec child and just learn speak Spanish when he was 12 years old, that is the reason I believe he will perfect be able to be a Zapotec leader. (Maybe one day also be a leader of Mexico state, if this civilization be annexed after, as Eleanor of Aquitaine leads France and England :)).
Side note: Benito is remembered as the most important president of the Mexican republic because he was able to overthrow the King Maximilian Habsburgo and lead Mexico free of Napoleonic France influence.

Guaranis
Leader:
Francisco Solano López (1827 - 1870)

The Paraguayan republic have the narrative about they own history very similar of Germany, they believe they are the legit heir of Guarani civilization, ethnically speaking Paraguay is more one Mestizo nation of South America, but have two things that make they special, first they are Mestizo of Guaranis and Spaniards (and not other Indigenous nation) and more important of all, they still speaking the Guarani language (even the white population speak this language).
Solano López is an interesting figure in Latin America history, he leads Paraguay in the most deadly war in American soil until today, in my country (Brazil) we call this war as Paraguayan War (1864-1870).
To motivate his army, the Paraguayan dictator like to remember another's wars the Guarani fight against Brazil as the Guaranitic Wars (1754 - 1756) or the Paulists invasion of the Battle of M'bororé (1641). Just remember the independence of Paraguay was 1811, so, like Germany, they claim this battles of their nation against Brazil before Paraguay was officially born.

Botswana
Leader:
Seretse Khama (1921 - 1980)

That history I discover because that movie, A United Kingdom, and I was astonished by that, first Serestse Khama was King of Tswana people and he moves to England to study and fall in love to a Britsh girl, that marriage cause a lot of problems because at the time his kingdom was a British colony called Bechuanaland, in the end, this marriage lead to independence of Botswana and Khama also become the first president of this country.
First of all, I never heard one history about that, one king become a president, and because that I think is cool have his as leader of Botswana in civilization, also this game have few Africans Civs and anyone modern Africa state in this game, also Zulu need someone pacific next they in a World Map :lol:.
Just side note, Botswana is one of the best economics of Africa, the high HDI of South Africa and one of the most homogenous country of Africa, circa 80% os Botswana population are Tswana.

I don't think anyone, except a tiny minority, see Benito Juarez as a Zapotec leader. He's certainly an honoured and glorified leader of MODERN MEXICO, one of the greatest 19th Century Mexican Presidents along with Guadelupe Victoria and Antonio Lopez de Santa Ana (and, in some books, Porfirio Diaz), but I think it would be a hard sell indeed to couch a 19th Century Mexican national hero as the leader of a pre-Columbian Civilization which has not been an independent polity or nation since the 16th Century (plus, Zapotec temples, religion, and astrology, a signature part of their culture and identity, like with any Pre-Columbian Mesoamerican civilization, is a bit jarring with Juarez being a devout Roman Catholic). Plus, did Juarez even speak the Zapotec language, and how much TRUE understanding did he have of pre-Columbian Zapotec, and how much was fed to him, with all the stereotypes and such, from Catholic-run Mexican schools of the day? He is a very dubious choice.
 

Lord Lakely

Idea Fountain
Joined
Aug 28, 2008
Messages
1,951
Location
Belgium
I wouldn't mind a Colombian Civ that has a distinctly Muisca component; either a building, improvement or Civ Ability. Otherwise, I'm satisfied with what we have in Latin and Mesoamerica (provided we get the Mayans at some point.)
 

Zaarin

Diplomatic Attaché to Londo Mollari
Joined
May 14, 2016
Messages
10,410
Location
Babylon 5
I wouldn't mind a Colombian Civ that has a distinctly Muisca component
Now that we've had the Mapuche, we'd better get the Muisca in Civ7.
 

awesome

Meme Lord
Joined
Dec 29, 2009
Messages
2,839
Location
behind you
I guess I could maybe see Paraguay, but definitely not Juarez for Zapotec.
Best guess is Juarez leads Mexico in civ7 and we get no Aztecs.
 

PhoenicianGold

Emperor
Joined
Jan 30, 2018
Messages
1,828
Now that we've had the Mapuche, we'd better get the Muisca in Civ7.

Nope. You're getting the Tupi. You're getting the Arawak. :p
 

Xandinho

Deity
Joined
Feb 11, 2013
Messages
2,153
Location
Brazil
The series of civ games follows a trend of each edition adding more civs than the previous edition (I believe we will have a third expansion), so I think there will be a civ edition that we will have for the first time a third civ of Mesoamerica, I think Zapotec is a strong candidate.
I think it is unlikely that we will have a civ called "Paraguay", maybe a Guarani civ with some Paraguayan cities is more likely.

Now that we've had the Mapuche, we'd better get the Muisca in Civ7.

Right, Muisca was always in demand here, I found it strange that they went to Mapuche instead. I really like the inclusion of the Mapuche, but in Civ7 we'll probably have another native civ to South America instead, most likely Muisca.
 

Zaarin

Diplomatic Attaché to Londo Mollari
Joined
May 14, 2016
Messages
10,410
Location
Babylon 5
Best guess is Juarez leads Mexico in civ7 and we get no Aztecs.
When I said let the Aztec sit out a game, that wasn't what I had in mind. :p

Nope. You're getting the Tupi. You're getting the Arawak. :p
I'll take the Tupi. :p

I think Zapotec is a strong candidate.
Problem with the Zapotec is finding a leader. Neither Cosijoeza nor Cosijopii seem like promising candidates...That's one reason I like the Mixtec, because they have Eight Deer Jaguar Claw. Plus anyone with such an awesome name deserves to be a Civ leader. :p
 

AmazonQueen

Virago
Moderator
Joined
Nov 25, 2007
Messages
7,823
Location
Sailing the Homeward Ocean
When I said let the Aztec sit out a game, that wasn't what I had in mind. :p


I'll take the Tupi. :p


Problem with the Zapotec is finding a leader. Neither Cosijoeza nor Cosijopii seem like promising candidates...That's one reason I like the Mixtec, because they have Eight Deer Jaguar Claw. Plus anyone with such an awesome name deserves to be a Civ leader. :p

If we had to have another colonial civ Mexico led by Juarez would be my choice but hopefully we don't . I still think they'd be a better choice than Australia or Canada but we already got them.
 

ehecatzin

Emperor
Joined
Jun 29, 2007
Messages
1,491
Other have brought up what I was thinking much more clearly than I could, the fact that Benito Juarez was of Zapotec origin means very little as he grew up and had his presidency on modern Mexico...it would be as weird as having Porfirio Diaz lead the Zapotecs as well because he was born in Oaxaca, or what about Vicente Guerrero leads Nigeria, he was a mulato after all, it doesn't quite make sense.

Which leads me to a different point that seems to pop up a lot, Mexico is not a continuation of the Aztecs. They are two completely different entities, to me Mexico's inclusion in civ has the same burden Italy's does, they both should have made it by now, but the geographical cluttering on their respective areas seem to prevent it. (and yeah I wouldn't mind Italy in civ either). Which is not only a problem for a Mexico civ, but for the whole of mesoamerica, no Zapotecs, no Mixtecs, Toltecs, or Purepecha (Tho I don't know how come we don't have more mesoamerican CS).

*breathes* I want Mexico in civ, but not if it's in the form of some anomalous blob like Juarez leading a mesoamerican civ.

PD: besides...Porfirio Diaz would be a better leader *runs away*
 

PhoenicianGold

Emperor
Joined
Jan 30, 2018
Messages
1,828
Other have brought up what I was thinking much more clearly than I could, the fact that Benito Juarez was of Zapotec origin means very little as he grew up and had his presidency on modern Mexico...it would be as weird as having Porfirio Diaz lead the Zapotecs as well because he was born in Oaxaca, or what about Vicente Guerrero leads Nigeria, he was a mulato after all, it doesn't quite make sense.

Which leads me to a different point that seems to pop up a lot, Mexico is not a continuation of the Aztecs. They are two completely different entities, to me Mexico's inclusion in civ has the same burden Italy's does, they both should have made it by now, but the geographical cluttering on their respective areas seem to prevent it. (and yeah I wouldn't mind Italy in civ either). Which is not only a problem for a Mexico civ, but for the whole of mesoamerica, no Zapotecs, no Mixtecs, Toltecs, or Purepecha (Tho I don't know how come we don't have more mesoamerican CS).

*breathes* I want Mexico in civ, but not if it's in the form of some anomalous blob like Juarez leading a mesoamerican civ.

PD: besides...Porfirio Diaz would be a better leader *runs away*

England under the Angevin dynasties wasn't the same as England under Victoria. The Maurya weren't same as recently unified British India. Yet we call them "English" and "Indian" because both were major parts of the region's history and have informed the modern English and Indian states.

The Aztec indisputably had a lasting effect on the cultural history of Mexico. It's freaking named after the Mexica. If Chandragupta can lead India, then Montezuma *should* lead Mexico. Especially if he were paired with a modern president of Zapotec heritage. Seems to me the best way to represent Mexico's cultural heritage as a long-standing pre-colonial power.

Just because the Aztec empire wasn't completely Mexica doesn't change the fact that the term is an exonym and what we are really referring to was effectively a Mexican empire. So I don't think it would be improper at all. In any civ game prior to VI? Yes. In VII? Potentially. But specifically within VI's paradigm, the insistance of including the Aztec instead of making a consolidated Mexico was a missed opportunity when it looks like alternate leaders are expressly being used to represent completely different polities sharing a cultural heritage.
 

Patine

Deity
Joined
Feb 14, 2011
Messages
8,491
England under the Angevin dynasties wasn't the same as England under Victoria. The Maurya weren't same as recently unified British India. Yet we call them "English" and "Indian" because both were major parts of the region's history and have informed the modern English and Indian states.

The Aztec indisputably had a lasting effect on the cultural history of Mexico. It's freaking named after the Mexica. If Chandragupta can lead India, then Montezuma *should* lead Mexico. Especially if he were paired with a modern president of Zapotec heritage. Seems to me the best way to represent Mexico's cultural heritage as a long-standing pre-colonial power.

Just because the Aztec empire wasn't completely Mexica doesn't change the fact that the term is an exonym and what we are really referring to was effectively a Mexican empire. So I don't think it would be improper at all. In any civ game prior to VI? Yes. In VII? Potentially. But specifically within VI's paradigm, the insistance of including the Aztec instead of making a consolidated Mexico was a missed opportunity when it looks like alternate leaders are expressly being used to represent completely different polities sharing a cultural heritage.

But the continuum is not there, nor truly perceived by most. The Angevins and Victoria have the link of the Crown, which has always tied the two eras (and quite a few others) together in national and historical continuity, ESPECIALLY to British historians. Victoria, herself, is a traceably, by lineage and genealogy of an established form, blood ancestors of the Angevins, and that is the master link. Also, if you go to modern India (or Pakistan, or Bangladesh) and poll popular opinions on the British Raj, it will generally be viewed as an era of colonial oppression and injustice, like most African nations view the old colonial regimes, or even like many Americans still quote Thomas Jefferson's pure propaganda piece of the "Tyrant George III," (even though, even back then, Parliament has already making all of his decisions, de facto), so the British Raj is a bad example from a South Asian point-of-view. Mexicans' view of their nation and it's history and heritage (and my sister-in-law - my brother's wife - is from Mexico by the way, and I've had a few chats with her here and there at family gatherings), is not nearly as simple as your portraying. While, indeed, indigenous groups are a VERY important part of their perceived heritage - much moreso than direct indigenous truly, outside uses of language for naming places and other things, and popular symbolism, is in the Canada, the United States, most Caribbean countries, Brazil, Uruguay, or Argentina, in truth - the Spanish and Catholic heritage are also VERY important, arguably just as much so, and the unique and hybrid features that are post-independence endemically "Mexican" are very essential to their national identity indeed. They are NOT just a continuation of pre-Colonial Mesoamerican civilizations, and any such portrayal would look grossly simplistic and under-informed.
 

ehecatzin

Emperor
Joined
Jun 29, 2007
Messages
1,491
England under the Angevin dynasties wasn't the same as England under Victoria. The Maurya weren't same as recently unified British India. Yet we call them "English" and "Indian" because both were major parts of the region's history and have informed the modern English and Indian states.

The Aztec indisputably had a lasting effect on the cultural history of Mexico. It's freaking named after the Mexica. If Chandragupta can lead India, then Montezuma *should* lead Mexico. Especially if he were paired with a modern president of Zapotec heritage. Seems to me the best way to represent Mexico's cultural heritage as a long-standing pre-colonial power.

Just because the Aztec empire wasn't completely Mexica doesn't change the fact that the term is an exonym and what we are really referring to was effectively a Mexican empire. So I don't think it would be improper at all. In any civ game prior to VI? Yes. In VII? Potentially. But specifically within VI's paradigm, the insistance of including the Aztec instead of making a consolidated Mexico was a missed opportunity when it looks like alternate leaders are expressly being used to represent completely different polities sharing a cultural heritage.

Mexico could just as easily end up being called republic of the Anahuac, modern Mexico does have roots in European, mesoamerican, and aridoamerican cultures. all molded into the very distinct American identity that ended up causing the mexican independence, the fact that the country is named after the Mexica has more to do with Iturbides desire to anquor the newly formed empire to a distinctivly American ideal, but the identity that would become Mexico was already in place during Colony.

I must have missed that time I went to study at the Calmecac, afternoons of worshiping Huitzilopochtli, celebrating the new fire ceremony, all while planning how to sacrifice the white men /s. I'm a massive fan of mesoamerican history and mythology, It rubs me the wrong way everytime people try to equate Mexico to the Aztecs, and because of the Illustrations I do, I run into Indigenist that honestly think we should be doing what I just pointed out sacrastically.

As Patine so kindly noted, there's not a continuum between Tlatoanis and Presidents, if that's somehow what you are imagining.
 
Joined
Aug 17, 2018
Messages
1,510
Location
Rio de Janeiro, K11 (Kwanza)
I don't think anyone, except a tiny minority, see Benito Juarez as a Zapotec leader. He's certainly an honoured and glorified leader of MODERN MEXICO, one of the greatest 19th Century Mexican Presidents along with Guadelupe Victoria and Antonio Lopez de Santa Ana (and, in some books, Porfirio Diaz), but I think it would be a hard sell indeed to couch a 19th Century Mexican national hero as the leader of a pre-Columbian Civilization which has not been an independent polity or nation since the 16th Century (plus, Zapotec temples, religion, and astrology, a signature part of their culture and identity, like with any Pre-Columbian Mesoamerican civilization, is a bit jarring with Juarez being a devout Roman Catholic). Plus, did Juarez even speak the Zapotec language, and how much TRUE understanding did he have of pre-Columbian Zapotec, and how much was fed to him, with all the stereotypes and such, from Catholic-run Mexican schools of the day? He is a very dubious choice.

Other have brought up what I was thinking much more clearly than I could, the fact that Benito Juarez was of Zapotec origin means very little as he grew up and had his presidency on modern Mexico...it would be as weird as having Porfirio Diaz lead the Zapotecs as well because he was born in Oaxaca, or what about Vicente Guerrero leads Nigeria, he was a mulato after all, it doesn't quite make sense.

Which leads me to a different point that seems to pop up a lot, Mexico is not a continuation of the Aztecs. They are two completely different entities, to me Mexico's inclusion in civ has the same burden Italy's does, they both should have made it by now, but the geographical cluttering on their respective areas seem to prevent it. (and yeah I wouldn't mind Italy in civ either). Which is not only a problem for a Mexico civ, but for the whole of mesoamerica, no Zapotecs, no Mixtecs, Toltecs, or Purepecha (Tho I don't know how come we don't have more mesoamerican CS).

*breathes* I want Mexico in civ, but not if it's in the form of some anomalous blob like Juarez leading a mesoamerican civ.

PD: besides...Porfirio Diaz would be a better leader *runs away*

Yes, I understand your point, Benito born after the Spanish Conquest of Zapotecs, so don't make sense he becomes Zapotec leader. But I want to argue the Germany leader Barbarrosa died 674 years before Germany be founded, why that makes sense and one Benito Zapotec don't?

He not just born in Oaxaca, he was a full blood Zapotec and was governor of Oaxaca before becoming Mexican president, and Oaxaca is the state heir of Oaxaca civilization.

I don't know that much about Zapotec civilization, but my idea is all other unique features os Zapotec civ is from the period of 700 BC - 1563 AD, just his leader (and leader agenda) from modern ages.
 
Joined
Aug 17, 2018
Messages
1,510
Location
Rio de Janeiro, K11 (Kwanza)
Strange trio of civs to associate together. :p

The idea who unite the 3 civs is they are modern state civilizations with a leader of an ancient civilization who lived before the founding of the modern state. Botswana maybe is not so clear, but Botswana is the modern state and the Tswana are the ancestral civilization who come before.
The other two will make more sense now, Guarani before Paraguay. Zapotecs before the Oaxaca state.
 

Patine

Deity
Joined
Feb 14, 2011
Messages
8,491
Yes, I understand your point, Benito born after the Spanish Conquest of Zapotecs, so don't make sense he becomes Zapotec leader. But I want to argue the Germany leader Barbarrosa died 674 years before Germany be founded, why that makes sense and one Benito Zapotec don't?

He not just born in Oaxaca, he was a full blood Zapotec and was governor of Oaxaca before becoming Mexican president, and Oaxaca is the state heir of Oaxaca civilization.

I don't know that much about Zapotec civilization, but my idea is all other unique features os Zapotec civ is from the period of 700 BC - 1563 AD, just his leader (and leader agenda) from modern ages.

Frederick Barbarossa had "King of Germany," as one of his many titles, and the Holy Roman Empire is viewed by most historians as a direct spiritual predecessor of modern Germany - the First Reich, as opposed to the Second Reich created by Bismarck and Wilhelm I, the ambiguous usage of the word "Reich" during the Weimar Republic, the Third Reich of You-Know-Who, He-Who-Shall-Not-Be-Named, the Dark Lord, and post-Reich Germany - but the HRE is seen as an earlier predecessor of Germany, nonetheless. Juarez was not a pre-Colombian Priest-King of a society of a small number of city-states built around a polytheist religion and single ethnicity in one Mexican State - he was a Roman Catholic, 19th Century President and national hero of all of Mexico - and modern Mexico is not seen as a successor in continuity to any SINGLE ethnic origin within - but Mexicans see themselves as syncretic and synergetic people.
 
Top Bottom