What do we know about the Iroquois?

[Ribannah]

The Aztec and Incan civilizations were vastly different.

I don't see it, they both had the same roots, rose and fell in a similar way, lived in a similar way, and learned most of what they knew from the Mayas. But maybe you could point out some of the differences.

The French, Germans and English, on the other hand, have different ethnic backgrounds, and quite a different history.

And America wasn't an Imperial power?

Not at the time, back then they were just rebels. Later, after the nation was formed, the Americans caught up.

Again, I value the Iroquois culture and in no way disparage the Iroquois people. But to include them as a city-building, imperialistic civ is not only ludicrous, it's an insult to them. Such notions were foreign to their very culture.

Hardly. A city is just a large village, and villages - with houses, not tents - they had. They were not imperialistic - so what? There are many ways to win the game.

The civs in the game should be ones of significant impact on history, which is something the Iroquois can't really be said to have.

The Iroquois contributed much to modern ways of government, one could hardly call that insignificant. In addition they helped human civilization to (re-)discover various social skills and values.
Give me a list of contributions by the Turks, Mongols, Spanish, Poles, and Incas (I agree with the Mayas, would like to have them instead of the Aztecs; aren't Russians Slavs?) for comparison, other than "they had a larger empire".

[Boris Godunov]

I don't see it, they both had the same roots

As did the English, French and Germans. The Franks were a Goth tribe that migrated from central Germany. The English were Saxons, and then were heavily integrated with Normans post-1066. All Indo-European (i.e., white) Civilizations can be traced back to the same roots. This is an irrelevant point.

rose and fell in a similar way

Fell, yes. Rose? No. The Aztecs were a brutal, militaristic society that terrorized surrounding tribes and partook in bloody human sacrifices. They exacted harsh tribute and were widely hated by the competing tribes, who looked upon their downfall with glee.

The Incas were a far more peaceful and scientific civilization that created many innovative systems of travel (the great roads), communication and architecture. Their agriculture was ingenious and their mathematics enduringly advanced. They had a zero, and the Romans didn't even have that.

Not at the time, back then they were just rebels. Later, after the nation was formed, the Americans caught up.

Just rebels? What are you talking about? When? The American encroachment into Iroquois land was as much a product of a government policy as anything else. The encroachment and theft continued well after 1779, when we'd gone from "rebels" to a recognized country.

Even so, this makes the Iroquois military power look even weaker...beaten on their own land by mere rebels! Oh, the ignomy!

Hardly. A city is just a large village, and villages - with houses, not tents - they had. They were not imperialistic - so what? There are many ways to win the game.

There was no strong centralized government, no policy of expansion, no sense of national identity, no collective drive for national gain, no sense of borders, no private land ownership, no heirarchy of power, no...the list goes on. Having a few villages does not make a civilization (see Uber's post in the debate over America being in the game about that).

In what way would the Iroquois win then? Couldn't be scientific, either. Or U.N. Or 2/3... or...

The Iroquois contributed much to modern ways of government, one could hardly call that insignificant.

Like what? Not American or English government. It's solidly based in Anglo-Saxon tradition. European democracies are based on ideals from the French Revolution. What, pray tell, did the Iroquois give to our government? Nothing I can think of that is significant.

In addition they helped human civilization to (re-)discover various social skills and values.

Such as? I don't think we have adopted many, if any, Iroquois "social skills and values." Again, solidly rooted in European traditions.

the Turks, Mongols, Spanish, Poles

During the middle ages, the Turks had the most powerful empire in the world and were the most scientifically advance. Turkish culture produced massive amounts of art, architecture, literature, poetry, etc. They also built some of the greatest cities in the world at the time. They profoundly altered the course of world history.

The Mongols? While not my choice for a "civilization," they did profoundly effect world history. The Mongol advance terrorized Europe and the middle east, causing the formation of numerous political entities that other wise might not have existed. The aftershocks og the Mongols was felt for centuries, if just in the numerous states left in their wake (The Golden Khanate, etc.)

Spanish - Uh...See your own post re: fall of the Incas and Aztecs. The Spanish spearheaded the European advance into the new world. They also kicked the Muslims out of Spain and established a powerful empire. Charles V ruled an Empire that spanned half the world. The Conquistadors? The Armada? The Inquisition?

Poles - Copernicus! And Chopin... Contributions to Art, literature, science...as well as having what, at one point, was the largest and most militarily powerful kingdom in Europe (in the 1500s).

Russians and Slavs are of similar ethnic stock, but the Russian civilization and Slavic culture forked well before the fall of Byzantium to the Turks c. 1300

Cheers.

[Roman]

As far as I know, the Mayas did indeed have a very significant influence on the Aztecs and I wouldn't mind exchanging the two in the game. However, to the best of my knowledge, the Incas had no contact whatsoever with either the Mayas or the Aztecs, so how could they be so similar?

(Obviously, some limited contact most likely did take place...)

[Roman]

Originally posted by Ribannah
aren't Russians Slavs?) for comparison, other than "they had a larger empire".

Ethnology is complicated, but by most standards the Russians are indeed Slavs.

Slovakia is s "Slavic" country, so I will summarize what I have learned in our history classes about the early history of the Slavs.

The location of the proto-homeland of Slavs is not entirely certain, but most historians think it covered roughly the area of the Piptine Marshes between the river Visla and Dneper in modern day Ukraine.

At the dusk of the Western Roman Empire during the movement of peoples, the Slavs, probably under pressure from some invading groups (this is uncertain, though), moved out in three main thrusts from their 'original' homeland. Thus came the separation of the Slavs into the three main groups: 1) The Western Slavs, 2) The Southern Slavs and 3) The Eastern Slavs.

Now to cut the long story short, each of these "streams" consisted of numerous tribes that gradually coalesced into the Slavic nations we see today.

The situation nowadays:

Western Slavs: Czechs, Polish, Slovaks and (Luzite) Sorbs;

Southern Slavs: Bosniaks, Bulgarians*, Croatians, Macedonians, Montenegrins (torn identity - many consider themselves Serbs), Serbs and Slovenes;

Eastern Slavs: Belorussians, Russians** and Ukrainians (and possibly some groups that are more difficult to define, such as the Cossacs);

* These were originally a turkic tribe, but have been assimilated into the Slavic culture.

** Underwent a lot of mixing with other peoples especially the Vikings, but most people would agree that they are Slavic.

Note: It is important to remember that the "Slavic identity" has lost much of it's relevance and there is little enthusiasm for it in most Slavic countries. Many Slavic nations hate each other utterly (I am generalizing now). For example most Poles utterly despise the Russians and we all know the affinity that the Serbs, the Croats and the Bosniaks (popularly reffered to as Bosnian Muslims [they are basically Slavs that accepted Islam under the Ottoman rule]) display for each other.

[Roman]

Another very important info I did not mention about the Slavs, that there is actually a great religious split between two groupings of Slavic nations.

Westen Slavic nations are predominantly Roman Catholic with large Lutheran minorities.
Southern Slavs are a mix. Croats and Slovenes are almost exclusively Catholic, Bosniaks are Muslim and the rest are all Orthodox. The Eastern Slavs are essentially all Orthodox.

[PGM]

This is what I know. This HAS to be the Iroquois CSU. So I'm guessing it's not a war canoe ( ), but the Iroquois' knight version.

[Mars]

Thanks for the pic PGM

[KrazyHorse]

Originally posted by PGM
This is what I know. This HAS to be the Iroquois CSU. So I'm guessing it's not a war canoe ( ), but the Iroquois' knight version.

We've been over this before, but if the Iroquois CSU is a mounted unit, then Firaxis has made an error of immense proportions. The Iroquois inhabited heavily forested, mountainous terrain, making the use of horses impractical at best.

[Ribannah]

Originally posted by KrazyHorse
We've been over this before, but if the Iroquois CSU is a mounted unit, then Firaxis has made an error of immense proportions. The Iroquois inhabited heavily forested, mountainous terrain, making the use of horses impractical at best.

Yes, they were feared for their foot soldiers. When the Sioux, who lost a lot of ground to them, got horses they were finally able to withstand the Iroquois - until they acquired guns, shortly thereafter.

{edit: moved the link}
{Here is a list of names of Iroquois villages.} I have no idea which ones are the oldest or largest.

Cayuga: Chondote, Gandasetaigon (ONT), Ganogeh, Gayagaanhe, Gewauga, Goiogouen, Kawauka, Kente (ONT), Kiohero (Thiohero, Tiohero), Neodakheat, Oiogouen (Jesuit mission of St. Joseph), Oneniote, Onnontare (Onotare) (Jesuit mission of St. Rene), Owego, and Skannayutenate
Mohawk: Canajoharie, Canastigaone, Canienga, Caughnawaga (ONT and NY-2), Churchtononeda, Kanagaro, Kowogoconnughariegugharie, Nowadaga, Onekagoncka, Onoalagona, Oquaga, Osquake, Saratoga, Schaunactada (Schenectady), Schoharie, Teatontaloga (Jesuit mission of Ste. Marie), Tewanondadon, Tionnontoguen, and Unadilla
Oneida: Awegen, Cahunghage, Canowaroghere, Canowdowsa, Chittenango, Cowassalon, Ganadoga, Hostayuntwa, Oneida (Upper Castle), Opolopong (PA), Oriska, Ossewingo, Ostogeron, Schoherage, Sevege, (Tuscarora), Solocka (PA), Tegasoke, Teseroken, Tetosweken, Tkanetota, and Tolungowon (WI)
Onandaga: Ahaouet, Deseroken, Gadoquat, Gannentaha, Gistwiahna, Kanadaseagea (Canandaigua), Kanatakowa, Onondaga, Onondaghara, Onondahgegahgeh, Onontatacet, Otiahanague, Teionontatases, Tgasunto, Touenho, and Tueadasso
Seneca: Buckaloon (PA), Canadasaga, Caneadea, Catherine's Town, Cattaraugus, Chemung, Cheronderoga, Condawhaw, Connewango (2-PA), Cussewago (PA), Dayoitgao, Deonundagae, Deyodeshot, Deyohnegano (2), Deyonongdadagana, Dyosyowan (PA), Gaandowanang, Gadaho, Gahato, Gahayanduk, Ganagweh, Ganawagus, Ganeasos, Ganedontwan, Ganos, Ganosgagong, Gaonsagaon, Gaousge, Gaskosada, Gathtsegwarohare, Geneseo, Gistaquat, Gwaugweh, Honeoye, Jennesedaga (PA), Joneadih, Kahesarahera, Kanaghsaws, Kannassarago, Kashong (Cashong), Kaskonchiagon, Kaygen, Keinthe (ONT), Little Beard's Town, Middle Town, New Chemung, Newtown, Nondas, Oatka, Old Chemung, Onnahee (Onaghee), Onoghsadago, Onondarka, Owaiski, Skahasegao, Skoiyase, Sonojowauga, Tekisedaneyout, Tioniongarunte, Tonawanda, Totiakton, Yorkjough, and Yoroonwago (PA)
Tuscarora: Shawiangto

The list goes on with a lot of mixed and 'sub-tribe' villages.

From the same source:

Rather than learning political sophistication from Europeans, Europeans learned from the Iroquois, and the League, with its elaborate system of checks, balances, and supreme law, almost certainly influenced the American Articles of Confederation and Constitution. ...
Until their internal unity finally failed them during the American Revolution, the Iroquois dealt with European powers as an equal.

The original homeland of the Iroquois was in upstate New York between the Adirondack Mountains and Niagara Falls. Through conquest and migration, they gained control of most of the northeastern United States and eastern Canada. At its maximum in 1680, their empire extended west from the north shore of Chesapeake Bay through Kentucky to the junction of the Ohio and Mississippi Rivers; then north following the Illinois River to the south end of Lake Michigan; east across all of lower Michigan, southern Ontario and adjacent parts of southwestern Quebec; and finally south through northern New England west of the Connecticut River through the Hudson and upper Delaware Valleys across Pennsylvania back to the Chesapeake. With two exceptions - the Mingo occupation of the upper Ohio Valley and the Caughnawaga migration to the upper St. Lawrence - the Iroquois did not, for the most part, physically occupy this vast area but remained in their upstate New York villages.

And:

... At this point (1656-Rib), no power in North America could have stood against the Iroquois League, even the Europeans. However, rather than choosing to confront the Europeans, the Iroquois decided to deal with them as equals and
use their firearms and trade goods to their own advantage. To this end, it should be noted the Iroquois never tried to eliminate one European power for the benefit of another. Instead, they attempted to maintain a working relationship with each one, even the French. Rather than being a Dutch ally, the Iroquois were in business for themselves to dominate the fur trade with the Europeans and set about creating an empire for this purpose.

Finally:

... As such it has been responsible for the Iroquois being able to retain much of the their culture and tradition despite adversity and defeat. There is still division as to whether the council fire belongs with the Six Nations in Canada or the Onondaga in New York (New York finally returned the wampum belts of the Confederacy to the Onondaga in 1989). Many Iroquois, however, still consider themselves a distinct nation from either Canada or the United States. Canada imposed an election system on the Six Nations in 1924, but many Iroquois tribes have retained their traditional system of hereditary leadership. The Iroquois opposed American citizenship when it was finally extended by the Congress in 1924 to all Native Americans in the United States. They also fought the Wheeler-Howard Indian Reorganization Act (1934) which would have required federal approval of their tribal governments.

LOVE HIAWATHA!! LOVE HIAWATHA!!

[Ribannah]

Originally posted by Boris Godunov
All Indo-European (i.e., white) Civilizations can be traced back to the same roots.

Continue this line of thought and we end up with only two tribes, the Neantherthals being one of them ...

The Incas were a far more peaceful (than the Aztecs-Rib) and scientific civilization that created many innovative systems of travel (the great roads), communication and architecture. Their agriculture was ingenious and their mathematics enduringly advanced.

Most of which they learned from the Mayas. The roads, btw, were only for use by the aristocracy.

Just rebels? What are you talking about? When?

The American revolution, like I said.

There was no strong centralized government, no policy of expansion, no sense of national identity, no collective drive for national gain, no sense of borders, no private land ownership, no heirarchy of power, no...the list goes on.

There was all of this - except for private land ownership, which is no necessary sign of civilization - and more. Just check the link I provided in my post above, for example.

In what way would the Iroquois win then?

Ummm, they could build a lot of tiny village cities, just a few squares apart, does this ring a bell? Maybe add plenty of hunting colonies for Civ3 flavour.

What, pray tell, did the Iroquois give to our government? Nothing I can think of that is significant.

Read the quote in my post above. The French revolution came later.
Social skills and values: freedom of religion, diplomacy, oratory skills, women's rights, social laws, federal laws, freedom of speech. The Europeans had (kept) little of the sort at the time they met the Iroquois.

During the middle ages, the Turks had the most powerful empire in the world and were the most scientifically advance. Turkish culture produced massive amounts of art, architecture, literature, poetry, etc. They also built some of the greatest cities in the world at the time. They profoundly altered the course of world history.

That's not what I'm looking for. I'd like to know what they contributed to advance human civilization. The Iroquois, too, were unbeatable at their peak.

The Mongol advance terrorized ...

Big deal. Put some barbs in. Same for the Spanish: barbs on ships (easily sunk, too; the Inquisition was a Roman wonder of the world btw).

Poles - Copernicus!

Yes, that's something at least. Puts them ahead of the Spanish and the Mongols, but that's about it.

Looking forward to your next move

[KrazyHorse]

What is it the you Brits seem to have against Spain? Is 1588 still in living memory?

I don't know why I'm assuming you're British; I just am.

[Boris Godunov]

Continue this line of thought and we end up with only two tribes, the Neantherthals being one of them ...

Which was my original point, ergo you admit your stating that the Incas and Aztecs being "essentially the same" was in error. Glad to see that.

Most of which they learned from the Mayas. The roads, btw, were only for use by the aristocracy.

So? The Romans borrowed from the Greeks, too. Much of Incan math and architecture developed on its own, a product of the unique terrain of the Andes (and is quite different from Mayan, too.)

The American revolution, like I said.

The dismissal of the American colonists as "just rebels" is pretty naive. I suppose Alexander was just a kid with a few spearmen...

There was all of this - except for private land ownership, which is no necessary sign of civilization - and more. Just check the link I provided in my post above, for example.

I disagree. While they did have the Iroquois constitution, reading it refutes this. There was not a centralized government, as the 5 "nations" enjoyed an autonomy that states within a nation could not. The "constitution" also dictates religious ceremonies. Hmm, freedom of religion...

Read the quote in my post above. The French revolution came later.

Please cite the source when quoting. My hunch is it is a bit of a biased source.

The French Revolution was the product of The European Enlightenment. The Enlightenment is the single-most important influence for Democratic government in the Western world. The notions of individual liberty, freedom of religion and progressive government that permeate current Western culture began in 1245 with the Magna Charta and developed through the Renaissance and Enlightenment. I don't think Thoms Jefferson, James Monroe and John Adams gave much thought, if any, to Iroquois tradition when they set about forming the government. In fact, I know they didn't. They DIDN'T CARE ABOUT THE IROQUOIS. Their philosophy originated in the univerisities of Europe, not the woods of upstate New York.

Social skills and values: freedom of religion, diplomacy, oratory skills, women's rights, social laws, federal laws, freedom of speech. The Europeans had (kept) little of the sort at the time they met the Iroquois.

Freedom of Religion - Well entrenched in American culture regardless of the Iroquois. Many people came to the colonies to escape religious persecution.

Diplomacy - How so?

Oratory skills - Yeah sure. I'm certain Patrick Henry and Daniel Webster took cues from Hiawatha.

Women's rights - You mean the way America denied women the right to vote until 1924? Or any say in government? And kept them as second-class citizens?

Social laws - Firmly rooted in Anglo-Saxon tradition, not Native American.

Freedom of Speech - Again, while the Iroquois may have had this, it in no way means they "gave" it to American Culture. Such a freedom was a product of Enlightenment thinking, which was scarcely touched by Iroquois ways.

I called a published American historian (my mom) and asked her about this. Her quote: "The Iroquois did have a constitution which was part of giving rights, but this was not studied by Europeans until well after the Constitution was already in place. There may be similarities, but American government and society is a product of European philosophies and values. The influence of any Native American groups on it is minimal at best."

That's not what I'm looking for. I'd like to know what they contributed to advance human civilization. The Iroquois, too, were unbeatable at their peak.

You seem to be selectively ignoring what I wrote. See the art, architecture, religion, and science and culture items. The Turkish civilization contributed vastly to all of these. The middle east today and the Balkans are still affected by the aftershocks of the Ottoman expansion and collapse.

Beyond that, you seem to be confusing territorial expansion vs. cultural expansion. One of the key indicators of the importance of a civilization to historians (see J.M. Roberts for further details) is the ability of a culture to not only withstand the influence of alien cultures, but also spread its own culture to a significant part of the world. Islamic influence, spearheaded by the Turkish Caliphate, spread its language, culture, art and architecture from the south of Spain to western/central-western India. Their influence can even been seen as far away as Malaysia.

The fact that 100s of millions speak Spanish across the world--from Argentina to the Philippines--is testament to the strength of Spanish culture. Particularly for the 100s of miliions in South America alone, where Spanish culture has by and large supplanted the native ones.

As I said, I wouldn't pick the Mongols either, but their impact on the world is indisputable and certainly far greater than the Iroquois.

In fact, if you want a Civilization that both failed to propogate its culture and failed to contribute much to future civilization, look no further than the Egyptians. Their two contributions were Astronomy and papyer. Otherwise, they did not spread influence or contribute greatly to man's wealth of knowledge. Their architectural achievements seem a little hollow when one realizes the religion behind it was pretty superficial.

Many Iroquois, however, still consider themselves a distinct nation from either Canada or the United States.

Yeah, and I have a grandfather who still considers himself a Confederate citizen. So what? Lots of cultures are reasserting cultural independence. That does not a great civilization make!

Cheers

[Ribannah]

Boris - to summarize, you seem to be claiming that while
- the Iroquois were the main military power in the region and controlled a large part of the land (and influenced the culture of many other native tribes);
- the Dutch, English and French (and on a smaller scale also the Danes and Swedes) had many dealings with the Iroquois, both military and economically;
- all aspects of the Iroquois society were well known by the European tribes (they even had a half-Dutch chief at one time!);
- the Iroquois society had qualities the Europeans would only arrive at later;
neither the Europeans nor the Americans learned a thing from them, but insisted on discovering everything by themselves in their own good time.

That makes the Europeans and Americans look very stupid, doesn't it?

In addition, you are saying that because the Europeans and Americans refused to study them, the Iroquois should not be included in the game!!

Now, much of what you say about the Turks, is usually attributed to the Arabs. I already said I would replace the Persians with the Arabs.
The spreading of a language (Spanish) doesn't say anything but that at one time they or their descendents were boss in those regions (note, however, that many native tongues are still being spoken in South and Middle America). So what. Just paint them red. I have played many games of civ where the barbarians were a major annoyance.

The Egyptians, by the way, also advanced human knowledge of mathematics, masonry, writing, literature and agriculture.

[Jay Bee]

Originally posted by KrazyHorse


What is it the you Brits seem to have against Spain? Is 1588 still in living memory?

I don't know why I'm assuming you're British; I just am.

KH, Brit posters have been generally supportive of Spain in this matter. Surprisingly she's Dutch. And I say surprisingly cos I always thought the Dutch were among the most cultivated people on Earth. Well, I still think they are. After all a rotten tulip is just that, a rotten tulip. There are rotten flowers in almost every country. Her posts speak for herself As I posted elsewhere Rib still ignores that Philip II, Spinola, Juan of Austria and the Duke of Alba died more than 400 years ago.

Talking about Brits, Rib's paranoia with Spain reminds me so much of John Lennon's "How do you Sleep" song. He tried to ridicule Paul McCartney but in the long run what he got was to generate more sympathy for Paul. Get the analogy?

[Jay Bee]

Originally posted by jdd2007
ahhhh... i see. i feel so stupid now...

Don't feel. You were basically correct. Where does the name of that Salamanca city come from? Unless Ribannah ignores it (which I doubt) she's, as usual, revealing the part that serves her interests and concealing the rest.

[Ribannah]

Originally posted by KrazyHorse
What is it the you Brits seem to have against Spain? Is 1588 still in living memory? I don't know why I'm assuming you're British; I just am.

KrazyHorse, I'm not British, and the fact that the Spanish killed part of my ancestral family is not the reason why I don't see them in the top 16. As I have explained many times, I simply think they did less than their rivals who were chosen (and even less than some who weren't) to help human civilization progress, and obviously Firaxis agrees with me. So far nobody has convinced me otherwise and childish behaviour like Jay Bee's will certainly not accomplish that.

Take a different criterion (size of the empire) and you will arrive at a different conclusion, but for me size is not the only thing that counts.

[Jay Bee]

Nice try, no cigar. The only one who has been behaving from the very beginning like an angered child has been you Miss. Look around. Ask the people. How many more threads do you still have to ruin with your obsessions? I had thought the story was over. You keep coming and coming and coming and coming. Talk about childish behavior.

[Boris Godunov]

Originally posted by Ribannah
Boris - to summarize, you seem to be claiming that while
- the Iroquois were the main military power in the region and controlled a large part of the land (and influenced the culture of many other native tribes);

Main military power in a mostly empty forest land that was uncivilized and untamed with no cities or roads or institutions of learning or centers of art or...oh sure, why not?

the Dutch, English and French (and on a smaller scale also the Danes and Swedes) had many dealings with the Iroquois, both military and economically;

Oooooh big whoop! These civs also had economic dealings with many other small cultures. So what?

all aspects of the Iroquois society were well known by the European tribes (they even had a half-Dutch chief at one time!);

I doubt the European "tribes" gave much thought to Iroquois society beyond how they could exploit it. And as I said before, it is a fact that the Iroquois "constitution," and thus many of their cultural complexities, were not known to most Europeans by the end of the 18th century. The U.S. Constitution was written well before the Iroquois constitution was seriously studied among European scholars.

- the Iroquois society had qualities the Europeans would only arrive at later;

And the Europeans had more that they would thrust upon the Iroquois. And the qualities you mention were well into being before contact with the Iroquois. Democratic government was first enshrined in ancient Greece, thousands of years before the Iroquois. The current American judicial system is based upon both the ancient Anglo-Saxon concept of a jury of peers, the Latin Habeas corpus and even Biblical concepts. All of this was around in European cultures while the Iroquois were mere bands of hunter-gatherers.

Did the Europeans learn things from the Iroquois. Of course. Did what they learned significantly alter the course of their history? Not much.

That makes the Europeans and Americans look very stupid, doesn't it?

While the Europeans and Americans have acted many times with glaring stupidity (The Crusades, the Inquisition, Slavery, etc.), not in the twisted, tortured patterns of historical fallacy you are advocating.

In addition, you are saying that because the Europeans and Americans refused to study them, the Iroquois should not be included in the game!!

I never made any such assertion. I was refuting your outragious hyperbole that the Iroquois saved Civilization with their overwhelming contributions to Western Culture. I don't think they should be in the game because they had little if any impact on the course of world events and failed to propogate their culture. Their "civilization" was a failure and has been overwhelmed by a vastly more intrusive amoebic one. It's sad and unfortunate, and thankfully there are many keeping the culture alive. But a major civilization? Not in the slightest.

The spreading of a language (Spanish) doesn't say anything but that at one time they or their descendents were boss in those regions (note, however, that many native tongues are still being spoken in South and Middle America). So what. Just paint them red. I have played many games of civ where the barbarians were a major annoyance.

Yes, the Spanish merely just spread their language. Hmm, how exactly did South and Central America and the Philippines come to be vastly and overwhelmingly Roman Catholic? How did Spanish architecture suddenly start popping up all over the American continents, and even in California and Texas? You've beyond what I can call mere ignorance into what I see as deliberate, ludicrous denial. I have no idea what personal vendetta you have against the Spanish, but this has moved into abject silliness on your part.

The Egyptians, by the way, also advanced human knowledge of mathematics, masonry, writing, literature and agriculture.

MATH & MASONRY:

"These huge public works [the Pyramids] were in both the real and figurative sense the biggest things the Egyptians left to posterity. They make it less surprising that the Egyptians were later also to be reputed to have been great scientists: people could not believe that these huge monuments did not rest on the most refined mathematical and scientific skill. Yet this invalid as an inference as well as in fact untrue. Though Egyptian surveying was highly skilled, it was not until our own day that a more than elementary mathematical skill became necessary to engineering; it was certainly not need for the erection of the pyramids. What was requisite was outstanding competence in mensuration and the manipulation of certain formulae for calculating volumes and weights, and this was as far as Egyptian mathematics went, whatever admirers believed. Modern mathematicians do not think much of the Egyptians' theoretical achievement and they certainly do not match the Babylonians in this art." (J.M. Roberts, History of the World, p. 71)

Later that same page: "No doubt a primitive mathematics is part of the explanation of the sterility of the Egyptians' astronomical endeavors - another field in which posterity, paradoxically, was to credit them with great things...but their theoretical astronomy was valueless. Here again they were left far behind by the Babylonians."

So, even my assertion of astronomy was incorrect!

ART:

"It [Egyptian art] did not prove transplantable. . . . What is clear apart from this is that although the monuments of Egypt continuously fascinated artists and architects of other lands, the result, even when they exploited them successfully to their own purposes, was always superficial and exotic. Egyptian style never took root anywhere else...Only one great contribution was made by Egyptian art to the future, the establishment for the delineation of the huge incised and painted figures on the walls of tombs and temples of the classical canons of proportion of the human body." (Roberts 75)

"Undoubtedly, the rumored prowess of her religious and magical practitioners and the spectacular embodiment of a political achievement in art and architecture largely explain Egypt's continuing prestige. Yet if her civilization is looked at comparatively, it seems neither very fertile nor very responsive. Technology is by no means an infallible test...but it suggests a people slow to adopt new skills, reluctant to innovate once the creative jump to civilization had been made." (Roberts 76)

"...it is impossible to resist the feeling that the last centuries of the New Kingdom expose weaknesses present in Egyptian civilization from the beginning...the creative qualityof Egyptian civilization seems, in the end, strangely to miscarry... [Egypt] has no philosophical or religious idea comparable to those of the Greek or Jew to give the world. It is difficult not to sense an ultimate sterility, a nothingness, at the heart of this glittering tour de force." (pp. 82-83)

"Egypt's military and economic power in the end made little permanent difference in the world. Her civilization was never successfully spread abroad. Perhaps this is because of...its setting. If it was a positive success to create so rapidly institutions which with little fundamental change could last so long, this could probably have been done by any ancient civilization enjoying such a degree of immunity from intrusion." (p. 83)

Roberts also goes on at length (will spare you) about how Egyptian agricultural acheivement was minimal. Since they had the steady flooding of the Nile to rely on, agriculture invention was virtually non-existent. In less predictable areas, such as in Sumeria and Babylon, far more major agriculture developments occured because the land was not as condusive to predictable weather cycles. Egyptian agriculture did not contribute to the rest of the world one bit.

Egyptian literature is virtually non-existent. Read any good Egyptian books lately? Do they teach Egyptian philosophy in universities? No.

Roberts says history credits the Egyptians with only two significant acheivements: medicine and papyrus.

Cheers.

PS--"The fate of the Western Hemisphere was to be culturally European and that meant, politically, that from Tierra del Fuego to Hudson Bay it would eventually be organized in a series of sovereign states based on European legal and administrative principles." (p. 631)

Pages devoted to Spanish - 38
Pages devoted to Ottomans - 56
Pages devoted to Mongols - 15
Pages devoted to Poles - 34
Pages devoted to Iroquois - 0

Oh dear...

[Boris Godunov]

Originally posted by Jay Bee
Surprisingly she's Dutch.

Ahhhh, NOW I see. Still smarting over the whole Flanders thing?

Geez, and I thought my grandpa who thought the Civil War was still going on was living in the past. That was only 140 years ago! We're talking ancient history here!

The Spanish must be given their due credit if just for one man...

Placido Domingo.

Genius. Scholar. Artist. Humanitarian. Divine Voice.

ahhhhhh

[Ribannah]

Originally posted by Boris Godunov
Main military power in a mostly empty forest land that was uncivilized and untamed with no cities or roads or institutions of learning or centers of art or...oh sure, why not?

This goes for The Netherlands, France, Britain, and everywhere else where there were forests, too. So what's your point?

These civs also had economic dealings with many other small cultures

So they had, and when these other cultures, large or small, had knowledge that was new for them, they took notice.

I doubt the European "tribes" gave much thought to Iroquois society beyond how they could exploit it.

Doubt all you want, but all the available sources say they did, and why would they not?

And as I said before, it is a fact that the Iroquois "constitution," and thus many of their cultural complexities, were not known to most Europeans by the end of the 18th century.

And your point is? Most people don't even know their own constitution!

Democratic government was first enshrined in ancient Greece, thousands of years before the Iroquois.

That was city-democracy, not state-democracy. It was also lost.

was refuting your outragious hyperbole that the Iroquois saved Civilization

Could you provide a quote where I even remotely hinted at such a claim?

don't think they should be in the game because they had little if any impact on the course of world events and failed to propogate their culture. Their "civilization" was a failure and has been overwhelmed by a vastly more intrusive amoebic one.

Many civilizations were overwhelmed. Where is the Roman empire now? The Algonquin, Cherokee, Huron and other neighbouring tribes were all influenced by the Iroquois culture. To claim that European tribes who entered the region could not have been, is hopelessly arrogant.

How exactly did South and Central America and the Philippines come to be vastly and overwhelmingly Roman Catholic?

Listen to yourself! Roman Catholic! And what progress did that bring to those lands anyway?

How did Spanish architecture suddenly start popping up all over the American continents, and even in California and Texas?

Could you enlighten me? What is so special about Spanish architecture that it propelled human civilization to great heights?

MATH & MASONRY:

"5,000 years ago, the Egyptians possessed a serviceable and surprisingly sophisticated arithmetic. As their monumental history unfolded, this body of knowledge was refined, expanded, and developed to eventually include the rudiments of what we would call geometry" ("Mathematics - people, problems, results", Douglas M. Campbell & John C. Higgins, 1984)
Surveying is quite an essential aspect of Masonry even today. I did not claim that the Egyptians excelled at Engineering.

So, even my assertion of astronomy was incorrect!

Because at some point the Egyptians were overtaken by others we should ignore all their accomplishments that allowed these others to do so in the first place? Let's throw out ALL the ancient civs, then!

ART:

Please explain why this is so relevant in your opinion.

[Egypt] has no philosophical or religious idea comparable to those of the Greek or Jew to give the world.

So? Greeks and Jews didn't excel at every aspect of civilization either.

"Egypt's military and economic power in the end made little permanent difference in the world.

Tell that to the Arabs, the Phoenicians and the Nubians.

Roberts also goes on at length (will spare you) ...

Thank you thank you thank you, I don't think I could stomach much more from this guy, everything he says is twisted!
The Egyptians invented irrigation, for goodness sake!

Egyptian literature is virtually non-existent.

It took me only 2 seconds to find this source.
I suggest you do away with that Roberts book before it clouds your mind even further!

[aaglo]

Originally posted by Boris Godunov
...
Pages devoted to Spanish - 38
Pages devoted to Ottomans - 56
Pages devoted to Mongols - 15
Pages devoted to Poles - 34
Pages devoted to Iroquois - 0

Sooo, that book must be the book of ultimate wisdom on how to determine the most meaningful/meaningless civilization of all times. Woohoo
Jeezus, people can be childish...

[Martinus]

Originally posted by Ribannah

Read the quote in my post above. The French revolution came later.
Social skills and values: freedom of religion, diplomacy, oratory skills, women's rights, social laws, federal laws, freedom of speech. The Europeans had (kept) little of the sort at the time they met the Iroquois.

Geezus!!! I do not normally flame, but this is simply the most ridiculous preposition I have seen for a veeery long time.

Haven't you heard of Marsilius of Padua? Miachiavelli? Thomas Moore? Hobbes? Montesquie? Locke?

Freedom of religion or freedom of speech? It was proposed as early as middle ages by Abelard and Marsilius of Padua, not to mention the ancient times, when it flourished.

Diplomacy? Are you claiming European had no diplomacy when they met Iroquois. Can I have some of that you are smoking right now? It must be damn strong

Oratory skills? Do the names of European poets or politicians of that time speak something to you?

Federal laws? Have you ever heard of the Holy Roman Empire? Or the Parliamentary systems of England or Poland-Lithuania? Not to mention free city republics of Venice, Genoa or many others? Or Swiss canton system?

The only thing I can say after your statement is

[Martinus]

Originally posted by Boris Godunov
[Egypt] has no philosophical or religious idea comparable to those of the Greek or Jew to give the world.

Well, this is not true.

The Greek philosophy was influenced greatly by Plato and Pytagoras, wasn't it? Well, they started by learning the Egyptian lore and touring the land. Actually, many ideas of the Greek philosophy were adopted from Egypt.

As for the Jewish religion - before the Jewish "slavery" in Egypt it was largely undeveloped. The period of slavery, both in Babylon and Egypt, influenced it heavily. BTW, the Egyptian religion was not as polytheist as it seems - at least since Akhenaton one god was worshipped above all else, who were considered his incarnations. Besides, one cannot deny the influence of Egyptian religion on mithraism or zoroastrianism - and everybody who had studied religion theory for a bit knows how many of these systems were adopted by Christianity.

So actually Egyptian development forms the basis for Greek philosophy or Jewish religion (of course not denying the last two their originality, as they built greatly upon this basis).

Actually, I would say the more unique development was the Roman law, as there was no similar system before.

[Ribannah]

Ah, I see that the Armada has once more been summoned!

Originally posted by Martinus
Haven't you heard of Marsilius of Padua? Miachiavelli? Thomas Moore? Hobbes? Montesquie? Locke?

Let's see ....
Marsilius of Padua: "Limit the power of the church". Excellent contribution, but not related to what I said about the Iroquois.
Machiavelli: Propagated court intrige. Exactly the opposite of Iroquois social values
Thomas More: Beheaded for high treason! Guess the Europeans weren't ready yet for new social values
Hobbes: Argued AGAINST separation of church and state
Locke: The first in the list AFTER Iroquois impact, and behold: refutes absolutism!
Montesquieu: Also AFTER Iroquois impact, arguing in favour of Trias Politica

Hmmm, you're making a stronger case in favour of Iroquois influence than even I thought possible

Freedom of religion or freedom of speech? It was proposed as early as middle ages by Abelard and Marsilius of Padua

Proposed is the key word here.

.. not to mention the ancient times, when it flourished.

Really? Where? And how did the Iroquois find out about it?

Diplomacy? Are you claiming European had no diplomacy when they met Iroquois.

Nope.

Oratory skills? Do the names of European poets or politicians of that time speak something to you?

Not as great speakers, sorry.

Federal laws? Have you ever heard of the Holy Roman Empire?

Feudalism is not the same, sorry.

Sunk ... again! ...

LOVE HIAWATHA!! LOVE HIAWATHA!!

[KrazyHorse]

Is it just me, or are you on a mission to attempt to prove the most ridiculous historical claim that you can? Erik von Dannigen (sp.) must be proud...

[Martinus]

Originally posted by Ribannah
Ah, I see that the Armada has once more been summoned!
Let's see ....

Actually, your knowledge is quite superficial IMHO:

Marsilius of Padua: "Limit the power of the church". Excellent contribution, but not related to what I said about the Iroquois.

The first theory of social agreement was what he proposed. Which, BTW, influenced Rousseau and through him, democracy.

Machiavelli: Propagated court intrige. Exactly the opposite of Iroquois social values

Another missed shot. If you know Machiavelli only from popular knowledge and the word "machiavellan" than you don't know anything.
Read his Discourses or History of Florence.

Thomas More: Beheaded for high treason! Guess the Europeans weren't ready yet for new social values

Pleeeassseee. He was beheaded for supporting catholicism, not for writting Utopia. Besided, Campanella and Bacon were not beheaded for writing exactly the same.

Hobbes: Argued AGAINST separation of church and state

Yeah, iroquis were great in separating church from state. But wait a minute - they did not have church. And the state was in a pretty abysmal state.

Locke: The first in the list AFTER Iroquois impact, and behold: refutes absolutism!

Yeah, Locke spent his youth among Iqroquis. Actually he was brought up by chimpanzee who taught him basics of liberalism as we know it.

Montesquieu: Also AFTER Iroquois impact, arguing in favour of Trias Politica

Yeah, another of the "Tarzans".

Really? Where? And how did the Iroquois find out about it?

Not sure what are you talking about
I didn't say Europeans brought freedom of religion to Iroquis. It is you who claim it was other way around.

Nope.

You say Europe didn't have diplomacy? Or that you are not claiming it?

Not as great speakers, sorry.

Yeah, Petrarca, Dante. They were just abysmal in comparison to those Iroquis poets and orators.

Feudalism is not the same, sorry.

Ever heard of the Diet of Empire?

Sunk ... again! ...

In your dreams.

LOVE HIAWATHA!! LOVE HIAWATHA!!

I have one question. Please tell me where did you get your history lesson? Your teachers should be shot. I HAVE NEVER SEEN ANYTHING MORE PREPOSTEROUS AND RIDICULOUS IN MY ENTIRE LIFE.

Please tell me you are trolling, or I will loose my faith in the "homo sapiens" species.

[Martinus]

Ribannah, can I ask you a question. Do you have any formal historical training, or is it just sort of Daeniken stuff?

[Fiil]

Originally posted by Ribannah
"5,000 years ago, the Egyptians possessed a serviceable and surprisingly sophisticated arithmetic. As their monumental history unfolded, this body of knowledge was refined, expanded, and developed to eventually include the rudiments of what we would call geometry"

Wow impressive arithmetic, thats adding, substracting maybe even taking the square of something (And btw egyptions only used integers (maybe reals maybe fractions) and had no zero).
This is nothing - nothing compared to the discoveries of Descartes, Fermat, Pascal and Newton all from the European Enlightenment!!

Originally posted by Ribannah Machiavelli: Propagated court intrige. Exactly the opposite of Iroquois social values

Does this make him less important?

Originally posted by Ribannah
Thomas More: Beheaded for high treason! Guess the Europeans weren't ready yet for new social values

I hope you know that Thomas More was not beheaded because of his social values but only because he inferred with Henry's marriage policies .

The European Enlightenment and to some degree the European renaissance is by far the most important factors in modern western social life, government, science, philosophy and literature.

If the Iroqouis ever made some contribution to modern federal government as claimed, this is only known because the americans succeeded in applying it... IMO an invention/discovery is only worth something if you can apply it.
It is simply two seperate things: a federal government for 25000 and a federal government for millions. The achievement is in recognizing that one invention can be used for something else, and this was done by the Americans.

Btw nobody I have talked to in Denmark knows who the Iroqouis were (or are)! This showes how much effect they've had outside of their local area.

[Jay Bee]

Ribannah despises Macchiavelli cos she thought until very recently that Macchiavelli was Spanish. She has not had time yet to adapt her neurons to the new situation.

If someone tells her where the basic fundamentals of modern geometry were compiled she will instantly despise geometry as well.


PS. About the Armada joke, keep on saying that others are twisted and childish, dear, it's so appropriate

[Ribannah]

Originally posted by Fiil
Wow impressive arithmetic, thats adding, substracting maybe even taking the square of something (And btw egyptions only used integers (maybe reals maybe fractions) and had no zero).
This is nothing - nothing compared to the discoveries of Descartes, Fermat, Pascal and Newton all from the European Enlightenment!!

Are you in favour of deleting all the ancient civs, then? Because otherwise I don't understand why you make this comparison.

Does this make him less important?

(Machiavelli)
For the purposes of the game and progress of human civilization: yes. As a histiorical figure: of course not.

I hope you know that Thomas More was not beheaded because of his social values but only because he inferred with Henry's marriage policies

That is not true. He was beheaded because he was against Henry proclaiming himself head of the church.

The European Enlightenment and to some degree the European renaissance is by far the most important factors in modern western social life, government, science, philosophy and literature.

There were other important factors such as the Printing Press (with Enlightenment, allowing Nationalism), as well as the wealth gained from Colonialism (together with Coal Mining -> Railroad leading to Industrialization in my tech tree).

IMO an invention/discovery is only worth something if you can apply it.

Or if it leads to new insights, but your point is good.

It is simply two seperate things: a federal government for 25000 and a federal government for millions.

Or a democracy of one city, as I said earlier. Very true. Developments didn't stop after the Iroquois! All I am saying (with Firaxis) is that they played a part.

Btw nobody I have talked to in Denmark knows who the Iroqouis were (or are)! This showes how much effect they've had outside of their local area.

Well, talk to a random group of Iroquois and they won't know where Denmark is. Still they did business with each other, albeit briefly, in the 17th century.
But this is why I think that the choices Firaxis makes about which civs to include in the game are relevant. A few months from now, at least some people will know a little about the Iroquois and their role in the advance of human civilization. Kudos to Firaxis! (That is, if they're going to drop that dog soldier as the Iroqouis UU .)