Apolyton ExtraCivs Pack: Iroquois

[Trifna]

Originally posted by Ribannah

Yes, I'm sure. Remember, they had thousands of years to develop their languages since they crossed over from Siberia! Sioux and Iroquois could not understand each other's tongue one bit (unless they learned to, of course).


Give one single example!

Sure. Look at their way of thinking, way of doing. Like towards religion or war (Warpaths, etc) for exemple. Of course, it's a little like comparing two African tribes. They have some differences, but even though, there's maybe some kind of cultural common base. In fact, determining which civ/s should represent native Americans is about the same debate than for African tribes or Polynesia. Or about Aztecs compared to Mayas and Incas. In fact, Aztecs and Mayas/Incas have the same cultural source. Sacrifices, etc, etc. Even if they may do some things very differently.

Yes, I'm sure. The Iroquois did some hunting and fishing to complete their meal, but agriculture was the basis since around 900 AD. Later, when the Dutch and French arrived, they hunted the beaver for trade.

About hunting, Britannica Encyclopedia says in its article titled "Iroquois":
"After harvest, family deer-hunting family parties ranged far into the forest to camp, returning home at mid-winter. Spring runs of fish drew families nearby streams and lake inlets."
I guess it precises the point.

And I'm woundering from where could come these tales about hunting a bear head to head with a simple knife, or the training of a male kid at hunting... Would it be because these aren't Iroquois' tales?

On occasion, Iroquois fought Iroquois. But war between different cultures is just as common! The Iroquois drove the Sioux from their original hunting grounds so they could trade more fur. The Sioux (better: Lakota) did not stand a chance against the superior Iroquois warfare skills. They retreated to the plains, then grew into the horseriding tribe as we now remember them.

Orange, it's like Wulfram says, 4,000 people was quite a town in those days.
The total number of natives north of Mexico is estimated to have been 15 million, which dropped to a mere 500,000 because of the diseases (and slaughter) brought by the Europeans.

Initially, we know that Iroquois tribes were separated. Because of their cultural way about administrating I guess, each village beeing on its own alot (simple hypothesis). Mohawk weren't with Onondaga or othertribes initially, they "officially" joined when Europeans came. They were separated from each other. BUT, they stil had same cultural bases. I'm stil wondering.

[Ribannah]

Originally posted by Trifna
Sure. Look at their way of thinking, way of doing. Like towards religion or war (Warpaths, etc) for exemple.

I'm looking .... ?

Of course, it's a little like comparing two African tribes.

There are vast differences between African tribes, too. Compare the Egyptians with the Zulus, for example, or Mali with the Hottentots!

Aztecs and Mayas/Incas have the same cultural source. Sacrifices, etc, etc. Even if they may do some things very differently.

Yes, these belong to one group IMHO. A different group than the Pueblo's, Plains tribes and Woodland/Lake tribes.

About hunting, Britannica Encyclopedia says in its article titled "Iroquois":
"After harvest, family deer-hunting family parties ranged far into the forest to camp, returning home at mid-winter. Spring runs of fish drew families nearby streams and lake inlets."

This is correct. Harvest came first; not everyone went hunting.

Initially, we know that Iroquois tribes were separated. Because of their cultural way about administrating I guess, each village beeing on its own alot (simple hypothesis). Mohawk weren't with Onondaga or othertribes initially, they "officially" joined when Europeans came. They were separated from each other. BUT, they stil had same cultural bases. I'm stil wondering.

It's a little different than that. The basic level of organization was not the tribe, but the clan (such as the Bear and the Wulf clans). The same clans can be found in all Iroquois tribes. They grouped together into tribes because people within one clan weren't allowed to marry each other.
Village size was determined by the availability of fertile soil, if a village (town) would grew too large it would split up.
The confederacy was formed quite some time before the Europeans arrived (more likely 1400 AD then the date Firaxis uses, 1570 AD), and had nothing to do with them.
Then, when the Europeans came, they brought disease, and the numbers of the
Iroquois diminished. Some villages grew too small to surive and joined, which on occasion led to of several tribes living within the same village. Which was no big deal, the clan system still worked as before. Survivors of enemy villages were also often adopted, if they swore to live by the Great Law of Peace, as were captured Europeans. Most of them were quite happy to do so. Captured European women, when 'liberated', almost without exception refused to leave their new life, since life among the Iroquois was a big improvement for them.

[Wulfram]

Ribannah, what would you suggest as the Iroquois UU, as you obviously don't like the mounted warrior?

[Trifna]

Ok. Well I'll try a response, but it seems I lack some knowledge on some points. But stil, I'll put what I have.



About similarities between Iroquois and Sioux (from what I saw), they both are quite militaristic. They have ceremonies and all kind of things like that. The Warpath is something important for them. They also have the same type of religions. Shamanistic, polytheist, based on nature, totems, etc. It seems to me that they both also had a agricultural AND hunting way of gaining food and making their lives.


Here's what I found.
From the Britannica Encyclopedia (search on "Sioux"):
"the Teton and Yankton divisions were forced permanently from Minesota onto the Great Plains [...] where they ceased to carry on their traditional agricultural activity and adopted the Plains way of life, which centred on the nomadic hunting of buffalo and other big names."

So I do see similarities between Sioux and Iroquois.

[Trifna]

I missed some points from Ribannah's last post so I'll finish what I started...

There are vast differences between African tribes, too. Compare the Egyptians with the Zulus, for example, or Mali with the Hottentots!

I wasn't considering Egypt as a tribe. They are totally separated from African's tribes to me. And I wasn,t saying they didn't have any differences. I said opposit. I said that it was like in North America, where there were many tribes, each one having its dfferences. But they did have some similarities. Disemblance too, of course. It is as "Babylonians" which Firaxis gave a very vast definition, to be able to cover lots of civilisations with some similarities, even if they did also have some differences.

[Trifna]

Sooryyy... It posted even if I didn't touched nothing... don't ask how...

My last thing:

The last part where you said it is more complicated than that, well I just went in Britannica. So I don't think I'm wrong. Maybe you misinterpreted me, I don't know.

[monkspider]

For what it's worth, I will never EVER support any kind of mod which would remove the Iroquois from the game nor would I ever even consider downloading any user-created Civ which would remove the Iroquois. If every other player in the Civ world downloaded some kind of anti-Iroquois mod and in order to play multiplayer against them I would have to download it too, I would still wouldn't download it, if it meant losing the ability to play as the Iroquois. In fact, I would do everything I could to rally against such a mod. Anyone arbitrarily trying to remove a group as worthy and diverse as the native americans from the game is a fool.
"I shall fight until the flesh is hacked from my bones. Now hand me my armor."
-Macbeth, Act III, Scene V

.

[Trifna]

Just a proposition as a unique unit (for those who don't like mounted warriors), I know they were attacking on foot (well, til they got horses) and were making embushes, surprises attacks and rushes (just attack a camp/fort/other, and go away when the enemy is alerted).

I dunno about the mounted warrior, but I know this could be quite representative, from my modest knowledge from high school. Maybe some on-foot unit with a better move/attack.

[Trifna]

I just remembered the word I was searching when I said "rushes". I meant raids. Iroquois used them, using fire and all

[Ribannah]

Originally posted by Trifna
About similarities between Iroquois and Sioux (from what I saw), they both are quite militaristic. They have ceremonies and all kind of things like that. The Warpath is something important for them.

For some info on Iroquois warfare, read this:
http://muse.jhu.edu/demo/eth/46.4keener.html

They also have the same type of religions. Shamanistic, polytheist, based on nature, totems, etc.

Actually the Iroquois were converted to Christianity by the Jesuits. They were already leaning towards monotheism, with the Creator as the only god and other, former gods counting as spirits.
(Btw totem poles are something of the northwest.)

It seems to me that they both also had a agricultural AND hunting way of gaining food and making their lives.

The Sioux once had agriculture, but gave that up when they moved to the plains and started to copy the Apache way of life. To the Iroquois, hunting always yielded only a non-essential part of their diet.

As the Iroquois special unit I would have chosen a musketman that uses all squares as road. The Iroquois did not use horses in combat; they probably used some for construction work.

I wasn't considering Egypt as a tribe. They are totally separated from African's tribes to me. And I wasn,t saying they didn't have any differences. I said opposit. I said that it was like in North America, where there were many tribes, each one having its dfferences. But they did have some similarities.

So do all European tribes, or in fact all human tribes.
The Egyptians, by the way, are closer related to the Nubians and the Ethiopians than the Zulus are. Kings from Nubia and Ethiopia have ruled Egypt, and vice versa.

[kalishatra]

trifna

Native Americans were divided in two: Iroquois and Algonquiens. They both include loooots of tribes (Sious is one of them).

Iroquois and Algonquiens are VERY different, opposite on many aspects. One was constantly at war, other trying to be peaceful. One was patriarcal, opposit for other. Etc, etc.

Lol. i used to tutor the Quebec Ministry exam in history. I see you learned your lessons well

As to the Iroquois, they seem to me to be a more relevant civilization than the Americans, who never existed in the first two ages of CivIII. It is easier to concieve what might have been if the Iroquois civ had started out earlier or not been overwhelmed.

I also get a kick from the city of Kahnawake, which is where i bought the parts to make the computer I'm playing CivIII on ("government free" zone). Oka is renowned for its cheese, so i don't see how one can say they're not civilized,

[Trifna]

Ribannah, I'm seeing the limits of my knowledge on the subject that makes I can't go further in argumentation. To really write something that would have some use, I'd need to invest more, which I cannot realy... (study, etc)

I stil say we shouldn't start dividing Sioux from Iroquois in Civ III. They're not distinctly important enough cultures. I'm even thinking back to my Algonquiens, but not that much, since they cover all the pacifists Amerindians that were mostly more in the north (never heard of them really south in USA). I'll let people make their ideas.

thanks for your link, though

[Ribannah]

Trifna, that's OK, thanks for your input.
I'm planning to build an Iroquois site as soon as I have some time (ugggh, arrgghh ...), since I have a lot of material.
If you're looking for a real peaceful Amerind tribe in the south, take the Hopi. They never tried to conquer anyone in all of their existence and they're around even today, trying to save their culture. They still had to fight defensively against the Spanish and the Navaho, mind you.