The Iroquois Debate: Lets clean up the mess we've created.

[orange]

By page 5, most of us don't know who is arguing for what, or what people have said, and it's become a rather confusing and messy debate. So, I took a few minutes to pull out as many quotes pertaining to the topic and nothing else, backed up by strong opinion and fact, and organize them into sections. This way, everyone knows what people have said, and why they feel the way they do. It might be easier to continue the debate here, especially because that thread was originally brought up about Arabs not being included in Civ III.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

1) Does the Iroquois Nation deserve a spot in Civ III
a) Can Iroquois culture be considered "great" enough to be included in Civ III (16 civs)

Chris62

The truth is, American cultures, while interesting to read and study, were not significant to history, and cannot be considered great.
The same is true of Meso-American (Although far more advanced), still can't be considered great.
Worthy of inclusion in a game about great civilizations? Absoulty not.

Jay Bee

Chris may have exaggerated a bit to get his point straight, but he's right in the end. The Iroquois, like all other Native American tribes, were hundreds of years behind the Europeans at the time of their encounter. That's an undisputed fact and that's what Chris meant to say.

orange

In the overall scheme of human existance, Native North American tribes such as the Iroquois play a minimal role...and that is dominated by their place in European based wars, like the seven years war, or the American revolution.

Guy - While you haven't changed my opinion of the Iroqoius being in the game, you have IMO given a great reason to why the Inca, Maya, and Aztec should be in the game (well, Aztec already are...but...)

I don't think the Iroquois should be, because I don't think they were as advanced as the southern, more dominant tribes as before mentioned were. The population of the Iroquois and their range of influence was not great enough to be seen as a dominant civ. Not many Native North American tribes could have, except maybe the Sioux. The numbers and influence was simply never great enough. Too many warring independant tribes...

static

I don't think I'm backing up what Chris is saying. He's making assertions that the Iroquois were only the equal of Cro-Magnon man, and that they were the aggressors to the Europeans. I just find his comments really misguided and uninformed. I think people need to keep in mind the the Iroquois were the dominant Civ in Native America, and were significant for centuries. Just because they weren't huge in European history, doesn't mean they weren't important in World history.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

b) Comparison of Iroquois to Cro-Magnon man

Chris62

Perhaps they will tell you that American indian culture is akin to Cro-Magon man before the coming of Europeans, and are only included in the game as a poltically correct choice.

Did they have:

Permanent settlements?
Yes, rudimentuary, usually log huts, arranged in circular fashion
(Stone-age man equivilent were found in Turkey, that date back to 10,000 BC)
Written language?
No, relied on oral tradition, recorded matters on "wampum" (explained in the links)
Leagal code?
Again, only traditions, as they had no written language.
Agriculture?
Yes, were famers.
Education?
None, outside of passing of traditions.
Did they live peacefully?
No, not at all.
Religion?
Believe in a number of spirts and superstions reguarding a large number of things in the world around them.
Science?
None.
Metalurgy?
No

In fact, all of their moments in history come after contact with the Europeans.

Cro-Magnon man:
Permanent settlements?
None,as such, were just begining to go from hunter-gatherer to farmer.
Written language?
None, oral only.
Leagal code?
None.
Agriculture?
Ruidmentuary, at very beginings of understanding.
Education?
None, really.
Did they live peacefully?
Not really.
Religion?
Similar to our Iroquois friends.
Science?
None.
Metalurgy?
Rudimentuary.

See the similarity?

...what I was attempting to point out was that they (the Iroquois) were not advanced at all, and in fact, had reached a "status-quo" as a society, but stopped growing and advancing as a people.
Other parts of the world have moved on, they had not.

Boris

I have to disagree with comparing the Iroquois to Cro-Magnon man in Europe. There was a level of sophistication to Iroquois culture that far surpassed this. While I don't agree with their inclusion, I would not go so far as saying this.

First, the links you provided, while by no means placing the Iroquois on a level of "Great Civilization," also do not support your thesis of equating them to Cro-Magnon man. Your comparison is quite dubious, because you say the Iroquois recorded things via wampum. This in itself shows a sophistication (while not comparable to our written language) of record-keeping that eluded Cro-Magnon. You say the Iroquois had no legal code, but they had an eloborate constitution (which you can read for yourself here: <http://www.law.ou.edu/hist/iroquois.html>

The level of cultural complexity spelled out in this document far surpasses anything we know about Cro-Magnon many times over. As for science, don't forget that the Iroquois did have an inventive agriculture system, again far more complex than anything known to be Cro-Magnon. And you can't say Cro-Magnon had no legal code or education or science, as we don't know since there are no written records.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

c) Which Civ better desreves to be in Civ III, the Spanish or Iroquois?

orange

I think comparing them to Cro-Magnon man is wrong, but it's a lot closer than saying that they rival the Spanish or any Euro civ in world impact. The Iroquois are a dominant civ in Native America, you're right. But as I said before, overall, when compared with all other civs, they are insignifigant. 16 spots and the Iroquois make it, but the Spanish don't? That to me, is a bit hard to swallow.

Rib

1c)
Technology Spanish, obviously (2:0)
Architecture I would pick construction but the conclusion is the same:
Spanish win easily (they had mills ) (2:0)
Economics Since the Spanish weren't able to feed themselves (which practically drove them to plunder and oppression) and the Iroquois thrived on their trade, an easy victory for the Iroquois (0:2)
Size In absolute terms: Spanish, relative to population: Iroquois (1:1)
Military On par, they were both master in their golden age / region (1:1)
Artistry Spanish win (2:1)
Social Iroquois have my vote (1:2)
Political Easy victory for the Iroquois (0:2)

So by this measurement they come out equal (10:10). Who would have thought!

But, and this is the point I am trying to get across, these are your criteria. You don't take into account that about everything the Spanish had, they learned from others, while the Iroquois made major progress all by themselves in several fields, and hand-in-hand with their rivals in others. As I consider that very important, for me there is no contest: I pick the Iroquois from the north-Amerind tribes any day, but many European tribes ahead of the Spanish.

static

I put the Spanish in my top 10 Civs (Romans, British, Chinese, Egyptian, American,French, Spanish, Greek, Russian, Ottoman Empire) IMHO, and definantly think they should be included, however I also put the Maya and Iroquois in my top 25 and feel they also have a legitimate claim to be included. I think its a toss up from 11-25, and no matter who was chosen in the top 16 it would have been controversial.

I will definantly agree that the Spanish should be in ahead of Iroquis, I can't understand how they could be left out. But the Iroquis influence was much greater than many Euro, Asian, African Civs, they would be in my Top 25. After the Top 10 Civs, IMHO(Romans, British, Chinese, Egyptian, American,French, Spanish, Greek, Russian, Ottoman Empire) its kinda a toss-up for the next 15, so picking only 16 Civs is ALWAYS going to a controversial process.

KrazyHorse

KrazyHorse
Judge a civ on the following:

Technology
Architecture
Economics
Size
Military
Artistry
Social
Political

Tech, Architecture, Economics, Size and Military, the Spain of 1700 and the Iroquois Nations of 1700 are in different worlds (I set you up last time, but don't try to twist: Spain>Iroquois).

Now: Artistic, Social, Political

Politically, the Iroquois seem to be more advanced. Though not as democratic as, say, the English, they were more so than the Spanish Empire.

Socially, it's hard to compare. Given the disparate levels of the economies of both entities (one is highly developed and specialised, the other is subsistence-level), such terms as "equality", etc. become fairly meaningless. The Iroquois lived more equally than the Spanish did for the simple reason that their economic system couldn't support inequality.

Artistically is going to be the one where you and I probably disagree, but I'll step out on a limb and say that Spain had a more sophisticated and developed level of art than the Iroquois did. Either way, add up the score, and see what you get.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

2) Were the Iroquois added to the game for political correctness and multiculturalism?

Chris62

You are all guilty of being politically correct, when you assert the the six nations were a "great civilization".

In the modern world, we now have a tendancy to view history through rose colored glasses in reguards to native american cultures.
The fact is, and always was, these primative societies were on subsistance survival level (which is why there was so few of them in the Americas to start with), and were accustomed to taking what they wanted from others by force as the first option (read the links if you disagree).
They had the monumental misfortune of meeting a people (the Europeans) whom would also take what they wanted, and were better at it, but would have lived peacably if not continually attacked (Native custom, for the Six Nations, the yearly tribal raid on neigbhors).
Over time, as the Europeans multiplied, they would become cronic aggressors, and constant treaty breakers, but the fact is, the natives began this pattern, having "sowed the wind, they were forced to reap the whirlwind" so to speak.
We can't say that the europeans would have behaved any differently had the natives not continually attacked them, but we will never know that with any certaincy.

The Native Americans were a Politically Correct choice by Firaxis, and should not have been in the new game.

Boris

While I have never asserted this, nor will, I don't think it's wise to presume the intentions of others or why they feel this way. Political correctness is a red-herring statement misused all over, so I wouldn't bandy it around here. It's a label meant to infer illegitimacy on the in-depth consideration of previously ignored or little-valued subjects. Most people who throw this label at people are doing so because they're afraid of having their assumptions and prejudices uprooted.

Guy

Also, I don't think that it is fair to say that the Iroquois are only in for PC reasons. If we are rewriting history, it seems fair to include representatives of a variety of different cultural groups--Asian, European, Classical, Ancient, North & South American. I can't think of a better choice for a North American civilization than the Iroquois. Strictly speaking, if you just wanted civilizations that dominated the world (or a large portion of it), you'd see a lot of Europe and very, very little else--maybe China and Japan. Again, we're trying to rewrite history; to that end, we need a variety of civilizations.

Ubik

But, as for the Iroquis deal... well, because of the Iroqui confederation and their constitutional system it was considered the dominant (culturaly speaking) civ of North America.

Others know more than me about this and I should let them speak of, but this whole "let's have a civ from every corner of the world" exceeds the PCness of Firaxis. It is not about PCness, it is about cultural diversity...

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Ok...those are the major points made in the debate, at least in that one thread. If you have things to add now, or rebut, please do so using this material only, and anything introduced in this thread. If you think I missed a major point that you or someone else made in the other thread, post it and I'll put it up there. But it has to be strong opinion or something backed up with facts, and it must pertain to the 4 points in question.

[Imran Siddiqui]

The Iroquois should not be in the game (the Arabs should) but they weren't included for PC reasons.

Firaxis put them in for a sense of cultural diversity (seeing how culture is so important). There is no other civ in the game like North AmerIndian civilization. You can make the case the Arabs are represented by Persians, Babylonians, Egyptians (though I'd rather have the Arabs than the Babylonians), and that the Spanish civ is similiar to French and English.

[orange]

There is no other civ in the game like North AmerIndian civilization. You can make the case the Arabs are represented by Persians, Babylonians, Egyptians (though I'd rather have the Arabs than the Babylonians), and that the Spanish civ is similiar to French and English.

That is a good point, Imran, though I see it more with the first example (Babylonians, Arabs, Persians, Egyptians) than with the second (Spanish, French, English)

[Melios]

I don't see what is wrong with the Iroquois being in Civ3. You're rewriting history anyways.

Besides you can make your own Civs with the tools that come with the game.

[orange]

Melios - If there were 32 Civs, I would agree with you. However, since there are only 16, wouldn't you rather have a Civ with more impact on world history, science, and culture than the Iroquois? Arab - 1 billion + people follow Islam, evolved and eventually controlled all of Middle East
Spanish - Over 20 countries recognize Spanish as the official language, controlled new world and Europe for 100+ years, as well as obvious navigational advances.
Phoenician - Planted the seeds of the Carthaginian Empire, which rivaled Rome in power during the 4th and 3rd centuries BC and excelled in trade among Mediterranean countries.

...not to mention the Maya and Inca being more advanced "New World" choices.

I don't like talking about how it'll effect the world map, but in any event...the American and Iroquois capitals will be dangerously close!

[Jay Bee]

Clowns excepted, I think there is general agreement that four civs are sorely missing from Civ3: Spanish (or Iberians if you wish -- to me Portugal and Spain are pretty much the same), Muslims (Arabs + Turks), Vikings and Mongols.


I wonder why nobody has yet mentioned the UNESCO's World Heritage List. I know it's not a very big thing but even with all its shortcomings it should tell something about the cultural richness of some countries. Discount natural sites and take a few minutes to count how many countries can boast of having more entries in that list than Spain. Not many indeed.

Link: http://www.unesco.org/whc/heritage.htm

[Christantine The Great]

I think they should be included. It wouldn't have made a difference if Firaxis chose the Sioux of old or the Iroquois, people would and will complain. Someone name a third civ for North America that would be good with placement with the Americans and Aztecs and was also influential.

[JellyDonut]

Where's the "They should be included and they have been added for PC reasons" choice? Oh well, I guess I'll check the first option then...

[orange]

What about South America, since there are no civs there at all...

Inca

[JellyDonut]

Originally posted by orange
I don't like talking about how it'll effect the world map, but in any event...the American and Iroquois capitals will be dangerously close!

They'll be as close as the French and German capitals or the Babylonian and Persian capitals...so what?

[Dr. Nick]

Originally posted by orange
What about South America, since there are no civs there at all...

Inca

Argentinians! Argentinians! Argentinians!

[orange]

Hmmm...not quite as close, if I know my Geography.

Paris and London are much closer than Berlin and Paris...but at least there is a sea between them.

New York State and D.C. are not far away, about what 100 miles of each other? At full growth, the two cities may overlap

[JellyDonut]

But if they do with the maps what they did with the Civ II maps, they'll distort them so the starting locations aren't as close. Did you notice how huge Europe was compared to Africa? Or North America to South America? But for whatever reason, they shrunk Japan to the size of a thimble.

[Christantine The Great]

Originally posted by orange
What about South America, since there are no civs there at all...

Inca

Judging by what I've seen only the Aztecs build down there and only when they are desperate for space. The Incas lived in mountains, very unconventional. I doubt that a regular civ could handle it without all kinds of bonuses.

[Ribannah]

One compelling reason why the Incas will never be in is that in civ3 we aren't even allowed to build cities on mountains!

Talking about a mess, I think Firaxis made more of a mess than all of us did together. Are the Iroquois in the game? Only some of them are!
So the first thing I will do when I get the game is: change 'Iroquois' cities, heroes and unique unit into Iroquois cities, heroes and unique unit.

[Pembleton]

How about a I don't care what civs are in the game option.

[Melios]

Originally posted by orange
Melios - If there were 32 Civs, I would agree with you. However, since there are only 16, wouldn't you rather have a Civ with more impact on world history, science, and culture than the Iroquois?

I don't care.

I could create any omitted civ with the included tools. Like the Spanish. In fact, I will create an Akkadian, Assyrian, and Sumerian custom civ.

[JellyDonut]

Originally posted by Pembleton
How about a I don't care what civs are in the game option.

Because not many people who don't care what civs are in visit this forum.

[Pembleton]

Originally posted by JellyDonut

Because not many people who don't care what civs are in visit this forum.

I don't agree. Just because you don't care what civs are in doesn't mean you aren't interested in their abilities, their unique units, etc. Most of the threads are analyzing the uniqueness of the civs, which is better, game balance, etc. To me you could just put Bangladesh in instead of England while keeping the units and abilities the same and it wouldn't make any difference to me. But analyzing their uniqueness *is* interesting.

[orange]

Originally posted by Christantine The Great
Judging by what I've seen only the Aztecs build down there and only when they are desperate for space. The Incas lived in mountains, very unconventional. I doubt that a regular civ could handle it without all kinds of bonuses.

So? The Egyptians start out on the nile, with nowhere to go but along the nile. But I don't want to get into a world map debate. In my opinion, and in the opinions of many others, the Inca were a greater civilization than the Iroquois. Also, think about the Spanish, Arabs, and other civs that weren't included. Wouldn't you agree that they deserve a place above the Iroquois?

[Dr. Nick]

Look at the arabs, in less than 400 years they had conquered the MidEast and Southern Medit and all of Spain save for a little piece at the top. They brought to these lands technology and surpassed the europeans in all fields in their own homelands.

And they aren't in. Damn Firaxis!

[orange]

So why'd you vote for the first or third choice?

[monkspider]

Well done on the organization of this topic orange. Though, I must respectfully disagree with you. I tend to fall into the camp that sees the Arabs living on in Civ 3 through the various Fertile Valley Civs and Egypt. Also I can definitely see how or why one might want the Mongols or Spanish in the game and I'm sure fair cases could be made for those civs. But I personally stand by the Iroquois. We must remember that the Iroquois represent all north american indian tribes in this game, so they are no longer just one isolated little tribe up in New York and Canada. So although the Native Americans in our version of history were defeated, perhaps the equivalent in Civ III will fare better? Rewrite history, no? There is really no disputing the cutural diversity the native americans bring to the game. There is really Civ remotely similar to them in Europe or Asia or anywhere else in the world. I feel that the Iroquois are far more diverse from the rest of the world than the Spaniards are from, say the French or English. Not to belittle Spanish Culture in any way, mind you. And though Spain may have accomplished more than the Native American peoples in terms of conquest and so forth, again, perhaps in another world the Native Americans landed in Spain and enslaved them. Civ III is to rewrite history, not merely offer superificial variations of it. I hope to see the Spanish well represented in an expansion pack or a mod in the near future, but for now I am more than happy to see the Iroquois in the game and plan on them being one of the civs I use the most.

[Sun Zi 36]

I feel that having the Aztecs already satisfies the need for cultural diversity in the game. There are more cultures that are as unique as the north American indians but had much more influence in history. For example the Javanese or the Mongols.

[Ribannah]

The game, however, is not called "History". It is called "Civilization".

[orange]

monkspider and Ribannah - then why don't we see the Aboriginies in the game? That would certainly add to cultural diversity, and it would also put a civ in Australia. Why do we not see them in the game? They're impact on world history is so minimal, that they are much less worthy than other civs, like the Spanish or Arabs, to be included in the game. I have no problem with having the Iroquois in the game, but to me they would be an expansion pack civ, not something found in the 16 civs of the game, when the Spanish are not included.

[orange]

14:14 with two abstaining Close one

[El hidalgo]

Originally posted by Ribannah
The game, however, is not called "History". It is called "Civilization".

So therefore it should include proper civilizations such the Spanish or the Incas, not the Iroquois, who are worthy of being noted in a history of the world, but who do not qualify as a "civilization."

[Boris Godunov]

Originally posted by Jay Bee
Clowns excepted, I think there is general agreement that four civs are sorely missing from Civ3: Spanish (or Iberians if you wish -- to me Portugal and Spain are pretty much the same), Muslims (Arabs + Turks), Vikings and Mongols.


I wonder why nobody has yet mentioned the UNESCO's World Heritage List. I know it's not a very big thing but even with all its shortcomings it should tell something about the cultural richness of some countries. Discount natural sites and take a few minutes to count how many countries can boast of having more entries in that list than Spain. Not many indeed.

Link: http://www.unesco.org/whc/heritage.htm

First, I voted the Iroquois should not be in, but I don't believe it was PC reasons either. Computer programmers aren't known for being interested in what is PC or not, and the entire concept of Civilization as a game isn't totally PC anyway.

Second, to JayBee, while I agree about the Spanish and Arab/Turks (especially the Arab/Turks--their omission is my biggest sore point about Civ3), but I don't agree about the Vikings or Mongols. I do not consider them civilizations, I consider them primitive cultures. Perhaps advanced primitive, but still primitive. I think the Barbarians cover them fine. It would be cool if Firaxis would have different types of Barbarians (Vikings, Goths, Mongols, Huns, etc.). But that's a small quibble.

As I posted in the other board, my ideal 16 civs would supplant the French with the Spanish (I think between the English, Germans and Spanish, Western Europe would be more than covered), the Iroquois with the Incas, the Persians with the Arabs, and the Zulus with the Malis.

Cheers.

[Boris Godunov]

Originally posted by orange
Hmmm...not quite as close, if I know my Geography.

Paris and London are much closer than Berlin and Paris...but at least there is a sea between them.

New York State and D.C. are not far away, about what 100 miles of each other? At full growth, the two cities may overlap

Salamanca, the Iroquois "capital" in the game, is about 330 miles from Washington D.C.

In the other civ games, the Berlin-Paris thing wasn't an issue because you couldn't have the French and Germans in the same game, due to their using the same color. But from my understanding, this won't be an issue in Civ3, correct? If you can play all 16 civs at once, there has to be 16 unique color sets.

But in Civ I and II, you would have the Germans/French beginning very close to Rome. So this is a moot point, I think.

Cheers.