The Iroquois didn’t exist as a confederation when the Vikings arrived.
The Spanish had contact with all of Europe, the Aztecs with Mayans had contact with the Spanish. The Incas with the Spanish as well. All four had well established medieval empires that are historically attested with certainty. Also, the battle you posted was between the nations that formed that Confederacy.
So far it seems that the nations of Iroquois, Pueblans, Mississipians and the Polynesians are a much better fit for AOE3 in my humble opinion. They had historically attested contact with other nations during the colonial era.
Of course, like I said before; if the devs choose these civs as civs for a new expansion, I will be fine with it.
They still existed as a civilization, which is what the game focuses around.
And for a campaign, it would not be the first one to be about Internecene conflict, like the Indian, Malian, Incan and Ethiopian campaigns.
Sounds like an EMPIRE BUILDING moment for the Iroqouis, does it not?
They would fit, by both military expertize and social advancement.
Huns would not, for example, and they are in the game.
They count as imperial civilizations the moment they organize enough to start imposing military and/or cultural influence over other cultures.
By all reason, Huns should have never been a civ in AoE2. They completely lacked civil infrastructure besides the strictly primitivistic, their military was a mess that was solely dependant on one charismatic and overachieving leader, and their “empire” was a buch of land returned to the Stone Age by their ceaseless raiding.
Their empire collapsed so fast after Atilla died, that if it were not for the historical records of the Romans, we would likely not even know they existed. There is no building in Eurasia that you can point at and say: “The Huns built it”.
Yet this ultra-primitivistic raider tribal group is a civ in AoE2. The Iroquois have a much better claim to being a civilization.
With what other civilization did the Iroquiois, Puebloans, Mississipians and Polynesians start imposing military and/or cultural influence?
Doesn’t that definition apply to the Huns? Their Great Migration and their mounted archery warfare had a massive impact in the Early Medieval Era in my humble opinion.
Ultra primitivistic raider culture was indeed their feature until the reached Europe. Later on, they formed a bureacracy of people called Logades. It was a Xiongnu-like confederation with Roman governance elements.
I feel like discussions around the Huns are missing the forest for the trees. Some of the criticism of the Huns may sound valid but because of the setting of the game (i.e. the Medieval world) the Huns were very important and its not just the Romans that referred to them and were effected by them, so I can definitely see that they are thematically consistent with the game as a whole and NOT having them there would leave kind of a gaping hole in the roster of civs in a way that not having Iroquois wouldn’t.
Other local tribes, like the Huns and Mongols started doing. If you are counting Polynesians, they they had trade and conflict with Chinese and Wokou (Japanese) pirates.
If “Vikings” get to be in the game as a civ representing the Norse, then QWokou pirates can alsbe representative of teh Japanese.
Mississipians also had sporadic trade with both the Aztecs and Iroquois, and some straggling european merchants eyeing up the coast for France.
That is conjecture, we do not even know anything about their religion, which is one of the most memetic-imprinting elements any society ever developed (we think they were Tengriist, but we actually do not know).
The Huns were much less of a civilization, and more of a Natural Catastrophe. They came from intellectual darkness, and devolved the territory they conquered to the same state.
We know so little about them because even they themselves did not bother recording anything for the future.
All the Huns did, was take a struggling-but-developed area of the world, and depopulate and ravage it.
They were not. No one in Europe even bothered to develop Horse archery because of the Huns, they did it when teh Magyars arrived.
Not really, they could have perfectly been represented by the Mongols, like the Egyptians and the Syriacs are represented by the Saracens.
I am not sure whether sporadic trade and fights with pirates would suffice or even be described as a cultural and military imposition on other cultures. The 4 cultures you are suggesting do not even stack up to the criteria for which you are arguing.
I am not sure you realize the demographic effect the Great migration had on Europe. Additionally, the Huns contributed majorly in the fall of the Western Roman Empire and set the plane for the Goth advances.
The existence of the Logades is not conjecture. Indeed we do not know much about their shamanistic religion or their scripture. How did the Polynesians, Puebloans, Mississipians and Iroquois fair in that field of scripture?
Iroquois and Mississipians had written law and a basic school system. They also had lawyers, democratic elections, accountants, carpenters and stone masons (all three of these last ones demand you have a basic mathematical system).
Well from your sources I see none of them had an alphabet or extensive scriptures. Unless I horribly misread them. Additionally, the Great Peacemaker Law was oral tradition until it was recorded by European colonialists.
Finally, there is no need to turn to personal attacks.
It is not a personal attack. Every time I have provided sources, you have refused to engage with them, which means you are just trying to discredit the argument for North-Am civs, not actually talk about it.
If the huns are a civ in the game, which is bottom-of-th-barrel as it is, as to what you could actually call a “civilization”; then Iroquois and Mississipians are more than justified as AoE2 civs.
Unfortunately, the civs you are mentioning do not even satisfy your own criteria for a military and cultural impact on other civilizations. Two criteria which the Huns satisfy in my humble opinion.
Anyhow, let’s agree to disagree. Nothing to be upset about.
As I said, the Puebloans, Mississipians, Polynesians and Iroquois are welcome to join AOE2 as civs. But I prefer them as civs for AOE3.
Thank you for your time and the conversation. Take care.
I would suggest to have the new civis historically interact with 2 to 3 current civis when discussing new civis, just having interaction with one really complicates things to an unnecessary level.
Spanish had contact with aztecs and brought aztec warriors when attacking the maya,so those guys are a triangle situation.
Mississipians and Iroquois would be like the Mayans and Aztecs duo of the Conquerors.
Skraelings were likely Inuit, but teh Greenlander Norse also sailed down the Canadian coast and both warred (raided, more likely) and traded with the founding tribes of the Iroquois, like the Mohawks.