Inca Empire or am I missing a patch?

[Peter Ebbesen]

to Peter Ebbesen: I thought that funding was the issue for the later Columbus voyages, not the first. For the first voyage, as I recall there was almost no funding (he got three rotten, today we would say decommisioned ships and crew that needed to be completed with convicts). I think that if the Earth was round was an issue in order to get the support from the church which had a great ingluence on Castillan court, hence the trials, but I might be mistaken. Read about a long time ago. I'll browse the net a bit to confirm/oppose that.

Ah, it took me all of two minutes, but somebody kindly put "Geographical Background of the First Voyage of Columbus" on the net. See paragraphs C, D, and E.
http://muweb.millersville.edu/~columbus/data/geo/ODLCASE1.GEO

Alternatively see this article on the "flat earth" and Columbus:
http://www.lawrencehallofscience.org/pass/passv10/flat-earth.html
It goes into the distance measurements in more detail than my memory, but that should not be surprising.

All in all, it looks like those who believe the "Columbus proved the churchmen wrong by proving the world was round" story are happily deluded people who jumped on the bandwagon created by Washington Irving in his "Life of Christopher Columbus" and happily propagated in stories ever since. I have to say that that, to me, sounds much more plausible than that the learned churchmen of the council of Salamanca ignored the previous 1800 years of knowledge on the matter.

EDIT: Found a couple more academic links while searching and not surprisingly all were of fundamentally the same opinion on this subject. It would be fun if anybody could dig up an academic link that did not.

 

[Spacehamster]

Ah, it took me all of two minutes, but somebody kindly put "Geographical Background of the First Voyage of Columbus" on the net. See paragraphs C, D, and E.
http://muweb.millersville.edu/~columbus/data/geo/ODLCASE1.GEO

Alternatively see this article on the "flat earth" and Columbus:
http://www.lawrencehallofscience.org/pass/passv10/flat-earth.html
It goes into the distance measurements in more detail than my memory, but that should not be surprising.

All in all, it looks like those who believe the "Columbus proved the churchmen wrong by proving the world was wrong" story are happily deluded people who jumped on the bandwagon created by Washington Irving in his "Life of Christopher Columbus" and happily propagated in stories ever since. I have to say that that, to be, sounds much more plausible than that the learned churchmen of the council of Salamanca ignored the previous 1800 years of knowledge on the matter.

Thanks Ebbesen I think you finally settled this.


I would also like to add that in Dante Aligheris Divina Comedia the Mountain of Purgatory is located on the other side of the globe, which Dante belived to be on the opposite sides of Jerusalem: Thus clearly pointing out that the world was spheric.

Dante was also fully aware of different time-zones as he commented that it was midnight in Jerusalem when it was hig noon on the Mountain of Purgatory.

Divina Comedia was written during the 1360's, that's a 130 years before Columbus discovered America.

 

[Amob_m_s]

I cannot agree with this since there was a significant Incan rebellion in 1780. AD led by Tupac Amaru II, and that last independent Mayan city kingdom fell in 1697. AD, and that last indepenedent Mayan state fell in 1901. AD with survivors contuing guerilla style resistance for several years on.

You make it sound as if the Mayas were not conquered by Europeans completely until the 20th century. In fact, they were largely destroyed in the 16th, completely subdued by the 17th. There was a failed Mayan Revolution in 1847 that succeeded in establishing an unrecognized Mayan state for 54 years in the Yucatan- the Spanish were busy helping the Mexicans in the Mexican-American war, and later fighting the Americans directly, but in 1901 they brought the full weight of their fat white assses down upon the poor, skinny Mayans. Check wikipedia or this link, an article about late Maya history, for more information on this.

As for the "significant Inca rebellion under Tupac Amaru II," both wikipedia and encyclopedia Brittanica cite this as a "native uprising," and mention no attempt to revive the Inca Empire. Infact, this uprising and simultaneous ones extended beyond Incan cultural areas. A large "Rebel" uprising in EU3 would indeed simulate this well.

As for NA in Africa, my personal reaction is skepticism, because there really appears to have been little evidence for it, just speculation. However, the arguments against it are also pretty weak, I've never heard of decomposing bodies turning into cocaine or anyhting like that, so I won't rule it out. I will say that the exchange obviously was brief and insignificant, as neither culture changed much from it.

And for European views on Earth's shape, unless someone has a 650 year old diary stored in their attic, I doubt we will be able to prove it one way or another. There is no doubt that the knowledge was there, but the debate is over whether many people knew it was there and believed it, which only a first-hand account could prove. I do know Columbus thought the world round, though, as his log indeed shows his speculations on the slight distortion of the earth from a perfect sphere shape- this post is already too long, or I'd type in the whole quote.

Have you managed your script to work?
Looks like great stuff to me and I would like to try it out very much. It would make the simulation much better.

Alas, my EU3 got F***ed up when I switched to version 1.3, so I haven't tried.

Finlly, although this thread appears firmly in the control of pro-Incas-are-not-barbarian-ites, there is a bit here on some very complex Inca geometrics and mathematics that were far ahead of European mathematics at the time- in fact, the author states this to be the same thing as one of Kepler's laws, which is pretty impressive for barbarians.

 

[unmerged(76687)]

About European knowledge of that Earth was round in XV century, my bad. I had several threads on different forums open during the writing of that post and got little carried away. Sorry about that o

You make it sound as if the Mayas were not conquered by Europeans completely until the 20th century.

It certainly wasn't m intention to sound like that. I was merely pointing out that the idea of quick conquest of NA's by the Europeans doesn't hold water.

There was a failed Mayan Revolution in 1847 that succeeded in establishing an unrecognized Mayan state for 54 years in the Yucatan- the Spanish were busy helping the Mexicans in the Mexican-American war, and later fighting the Americans directly, but in 1901 they brought the full weight of their fat white assses down upon the poor, skinny Mayans.

That "failed" Mayan Revolution controlled whole of Yukatan at one point and
actualy it was recongized by the some of the British colonies (I need to check which one). The point was that the Mayan lifestyle had survived to the early XX century, so that is to say that Mayas were not completely subdued.
Mexican conquest of Santa Crus Balam Naa in 1901. was not the final chapter in the Mayan history, since at the start of the Mexican revolution, Mayas have declared their autonomy under the Mayan general Francisco May, which formaly lasted until 1930. and practicaly until 1960.

As for the "significant Inca rebellion under Tupac Amaru II," both wikipedia and encyclopedia Brittanica cite this as a "native uprising," and mention no attempt to revive the Inca Empire.

During the XVIII century there was more than hundred various uprising in Peru
(O'Phelan Godoy, Scarlet 1985. "Rebellions and Revolts in Eighteenth Century Peru and Upper Peru").
Numerous antropological researches point to the fact that that uprising in 1780. had a clear goal of creating independent Inca state throughout the Andes.
(Szeminski, Jan 1987."Why Kill the Spaniard? New Perspectives on Andean Insurrectionary Ideology in 18th century")
The rebellion was lead by the member of Incan dynasty that ruled before Europeans came, i.e. by descendant of Athulalpa & co., Tupac Amaru II belong to the same bloodline as prePisaro Incan rulers, ancient kings.
If the goal of uprising was not recreating Incan Empire than why did the Spanish ban language, music, songs, dances, plays... etc of the Incas?
(Rowe, Ralph L. 1967. "The Book of Chilam Balam of Chumayel")

Btw, the article in Encyclopeadia Brittanica you refer to was originaly written 50 years ago, and was based on the findings of archeological expeditons of more than 70 years ago.

All in all, representing several centuries of resistance through several rebel regiments that spawn from time to time is not very good practice.
If we are already talking about historical plausability then the emerging rebel armies should be Incan, Mayan and other NA armies and not some faceless rebels.

Alas, my EU3 got F***ed up when I switched to version 1.3, so I haven't tried.

Sorry to hear that. Im currently trying to mix MMIV, Terra Nova 3.19 and my own modifications. My progress so far...? This the third time today that I had to reinstall EUIII in order to track down the bug...

 

[Amob_m_s]

Sorry to hear that. Im currently trying to mix MMIV, Terra Nova 3.19 and my own modifications. My progress so far...? This the third time today that I had to reinstall EUIII in order to track down the bug...

That sucks, I've been avoiding reinstalling for a couple days now, eventually I'll just have to bite the bullet. I'm gonna wait for my thread in the bug forum get s a few more replies first, see if I really have to reinstall.

It certainly wasn't m intention to sound like that. I was merely pointing out that the idea of quick conquest of NA's by the Europeans doesn't hold water.

...

All in all, representing several centuries of resistance through several rebel regiments that spawn from time to time is not very good practice.
If we are already talking about historical plausability then the emerging rebel armies should be Incan, Mayan and other NA armies and not some faceless rebels.

I agree that the NA are not as rebellious as they should be- there needs to be a distinction so that provinces with cultures in an entirely different culture group never get 0 % revolt risk, because that never happens historically.

However, I think that the revolts do quite well being portrayed as the "faceless rebels" because every culture uses them. The idea behind Paradox's inclusion of this is that historically, revolts did not organize themselves into full-fledged countries, no matter what culture they were, until they had had some success in the field. Alone, they were easy to crush; however, when countries like France, Spain, or Britain got vast empires, some revolts managed to become secure. While the time they needed to become secure varied, for matters of simplicity in EU this is one year: if a FR revolt in Peru is strong enough to last one year, they will become the Inca Empire. This also fits the Maya 1800s revolt: a group of angry Maya peasants with some higher-class leaders starts rioting and violence and organizes a militia, and takes over the Yucatan. When the Spanish don't respond, they have time to sit down and figure out how exactly the movement is governed.

Think of it this way- in EU3, being "rebels" means they are under revolutionary or interim government, while establishing a nation means that the country's government now holds legitimate, non-interim power.

And yes, the 1800s revolt was a failed revolt, much like Nazi Germany's European Conquest was a failed one- they accomplished the goal, and held it for a long time, but before their enemies gave up they lost it. I concider a successful revolt to be one in which the country wins the whole revolution and makes a peace treaty, as an equal, with the former overlord. And the British in Belize provided weapons and advisors to the Maya, but neither the King nor Parliament issued a formal article of recognition, which would have drawn Britain and Spain close to war and maybe into total war. Think of this as similar to the US position towards Kurdistan right now- treating it as independent, but not officially recognizing it.

 

[unmerged(76687)]

However, I think that the revolts do quite well being portrayed as the "faceless rebels" because every culture uses them. The idea behind Paradox's inclusion of this is that historically, revolts did not organize themselves into full-fledged countries, no matter what culture they were, until they had had some success in the field.

I understand your point of view, however I disagree with the game that makes no distinction between national uprising throughout the country, lead by nobles, king, etc. with the idea of creating new country, recreating old country, separating from the old country on one hand and local revolts of unsatisfied peasants over high taxes, local nobles over one feud or another, etc. on the other.
Uprisings with different goal, ideology, leadership qualities etc. ought to be different in the realisation in the game.
As an example in Total War games you got two types of rebels, plain faceless rebels:
(i) plain faceless rebels that are unsatisfied over quality of life
(ii) rebels that have national identity.
Same distinction should be introduced in EUIII.
Of course there is the mechanism that allow province under rebel rule to change owner to however has core on it, or is adjacent to it, but I think it needs a lot of improvement, since I cann't remember of a national uprising that lasted for decades and wasn't recognized by at least some other country.

Alone, they were easy to crush;

Please, define "easy to crush".

To conclude, civil wars, coal mine workers rebellions, peasant uprising, revolutions should be simulated through "red-and-black faceless rebels". National rebellions against foreign ruler by emerging of armies wtih allegiance to previous or the owner of the province.
Can we agree on that?

That can be done in two ways:
(a) rebels from the start use national flag of the previuos province owner and belong to the faction in question, if the nation doesn't exist, treat the rebels as a horde or nomads for the purpose of game calculations.
(b) much easier way, but in my opinion more crude one, is to simply shorten the time needed to pass before province switches owner. You got your faceless rebels, I got fast province owner change = everyone happy.

I do need feedback on this.

P.S. British Belize, thank you. Btw, they were pirates anyway so I don't think goverment in London was very much concerned with whom they had relations, and btw arms trade with Mayans was a way of undermining Spanish and Mexican authority.

 

[Amob_m_s]

national uprising throughout the country, lead by nobles, king, etc. with the idea of creating new country, recreating old country, separating from the old country on one hand and local revolts of unsatisfied peasants over high taxes, local nobles over one feud or another, etc. on the other.

Which I think is there already. National uprisings rarely occur of their own accord- if the people are happy with their current rulers, they don't care much about having an independent nation to rule. Think of the USA- loyal British citizens for centuries, but then discontent with taxation led to a small Tax Uprising in Massachusetts. When this uprising continued for several months, however, the once small ranks of American nationalists managed to add "Liberty!" to the cries of "No taxation without representation" and, not quite a year after Lexington and Concord, the Red and Black rebels officially stated that they would no longer strive to rejoin the British Empire, but instead would create their own nation.

The reason for this is simple: peasants care more about their stomachs and wallets than they do about nationalism. However, if their stomachs and wallets are threatened, they often look for nationalism to justify their rebellion.

So in EU3, the R/B Rebels represent the rebellions that could take national identity, as all "civil wars, coal mine workers rebellions, peasant uprising, revolutions" might, whereas getting the national flag and identity represents the actual act of declaring independence. Now, national identity isn't just one of a number of causes for which the rebels fight, it is the main cause.

 

[unmerged(76687)]

Which I think is there already. National uprisings rarely occur of their own accord- if the people are happy with their current rulers, they don't care much about having an independent nation to rule.

I agree that if the foreign ruler proves to be up to the task of keeping population in occupied provinces content there will very low probability of any uprising national, social or any other.
But during the time period covered by EUIII national uprisings (as in liberating country of foreign aggressor and returning to the pre-occupation state) were in fact very common thing througout the New World as well as the Old one.

In Europe there were many national uprisings of Balkan nations against Ottoman Empire, for instance. These uprisings were indeed caused by inadequate governing of the Ottomans rather than the strong sense of national identity, but when they started they embraced nationalism as their banner and not pay rise.

I don't think that the example you gave with 13 colonies is relevant since it was the case of colonies becoming independent.
I was more reffering to the situation where a foreing rule over a province is overthrown by the rebels with the purpose of returning that province to the previous owner.
That mechanism in EUIII works when you are in war with some nation and you conquer the province and if rebels emerge in that province and conquer it, rebel army disappears and the province is returned to previous owner if you still haven't signed peace treaty with that nation.
It's a start. But it need to be longlasting as in to work in similar way even after the war has ended.

I'm still not convinced that in EUIII these turbulent events are presented in proper way.

 

[Amob_m_s]

I agree that if the foreign ruler proves to be up to the task of keeping population in occupied provinces content there will very low probability of any uprising national, social or any other.
But during the time period covered by EUIII national uprisings (as in liberating country of foreign aggressor and returning to the pre-occupation state) were in fact very common thing througout the New World as well as the Old one.

In Europe there were many national uprisings of Balkan nations against Ottoman Empire, for instance. These uprisings were indeed caused by inadequate governing of the Ottomans rather than the strong sense of national identity, but when they started they embraced nationalism as their banner and not pay rise.

I don't think that the example you gave with 13 colonies is relevant since it was the case of colonies becoming independent.
I was more reffering to the situation where a foreing rule over a province is overthrown by the rebels with the purpose of returning that province to the previous owner.
That mechanism in EUIII works when you are in war with some nation and you conquer the province and if rebels emerge in that province and conquer it, rebel army disappears and the province is returned to previous owner if you still haven't signed peace treaty with that nation.
It's a start. But it need to be longlasting as in to work in similar way even after the war has ended.

I'm still not convinced that in EUIII these turbulent events are presented in proper way.

I doubt either of us is going to give much on this issue, our last six posts have basically been saying the same things over and over. We basically see the same problem and have similar solutions, we just want different factions to take charge of that solution.

I do agree that in EU3, rebellions are not as significant as they should be, whenever I play they are more like pests than a serious threat, and I've never heard of a human player having a rebellion last so long that a new nation is formed (unless they intentionally allow it, that is) which should in fact be a serious threat.

However, I don't even know if it is possible to have new nations rebelling from the start even if I did think that was a good idea: unless you would have them take full control of rebelling provinces, in which case the overlord would have to sign a peace treaty with the rebels to get provinces back, can a nation have a military but no provinces? If they can, wouldn't the overlord get 100% warscore because the rebelling faction holds no provinces?

 

[Plushie]

Caliburn, you are engaging in some of the worst cultural chauvinism, selective historical revisionism, and cherry picking of facts I've seen since I debated a guy who was convinced that the United States government was the Second Coming.

Would you mind citing and quoting some sources for your claims (and avoiding the usage of rolling smilies, please)? You show extreme ignorance (or at least extremely biased selective interpretation) of those actual facts that you chose to bring up and seem to have an almost personel investment in this whole thing.

I highly recommend sitting back, drinking a nice big glass of water, visiting a local library, and ponying up on the facts.

 

[Amob_m_s]

Caliburn, you are engaging in some of the worst cultural chauvinism, selective historical revisionism, and cherry picking of facts I've seen since I debated a guy who was convinced that the United States government was the Second Coming.

Would you mind citing and quoting some sources for your claims (and avoiding the usage of rolling smilies, please)? You show extreme ignorance (or at least extremely biased selective interpretation) of those actual facts that you chose to bring up and seem to have an almost personel investment in this whole thing.

I highly recommend sitting back, drinking a nice big glass of water, visiting a local library, and ponying up on the facts.

And I highly recommend citing some examples and raising specific complaints if you think someone is completely wrong, rather than just flinging insults around. I have actually checked most of his data, and it's almost all based on solid facts, so I really don't see where you get a lot of your complaints from.

 

[unmerged(66531)]

And I highly recommend citing some examples and raising specific complaints if you think someone is completely wrong, rather than just flinging insults around. I have actually checked most of his data, and it's almost all based on solid facts, so I really don't see where you get a lot of your complaints from.

i agree. if you (plushie) are going to say the things you said about caliburn then at least try to prove it.

 

[Plushie]

And I highly recommend citing some examples and raising specific complaints if you think someone is completely wrong, rather than just flinging insults around. I have actually checked most of his data, and it's almost all based on solid facts, so I really don't see where you get a lot of your complaints from.

Ok, a few specific cites he really needs to make:

Yet again I'll say that NA had mortality rate of 85% - 97% because of diseases that Europeans brught with them.

And the last indepedent Mayan city was conquered in 1901. AD. (as I already said in different thread.)

Average speed of a message delivered by the runners was 240km per day, which means that the rulers' orders could reach every part of the realm in matter of days. Now can someone, please, point out any European nation that could match that at that time period. Any nation?

(I'll note that this one is somewhere in the range of physically impossible, outside of telegraph even Victorian Europe didn't have this kind of speed for message sending)

Also, his whole arrogant chauvinism in regards to Incan (and North American in general) civilization is insulting to proper, objective history. I am in no way trying to insult him (and I'm wondering how you can interpret a demand for proof as an 'insult'), I actually agree with him on points (non-European civilizations always get the short end of the stick in Western history). The Incan (and Mayan, and Azten, and Olmec, and Axum, and Kush, and Indus, and Mesopotamian, and Egyptian, and Hittite, and all those others) civilization was definitely a great civilization. They invented and adapted very advanced systems of government that allowed them to hold an Empire comparable in size and population to some of the greatest in European history (right up until the 18th/19th century).

That doesn't, however, mean they weren't 'stone age'. In fact, his angry reprisal against that claim is just one more hint that he may not be an actual historian arguing this. Historians treat labels like 'stone age' and 'bronze age' objectively. They simply describe the material most widely employed in tool manufactury, building construction, and similar. In this way, the native American culture were very much 'stone age', but in the same way the Egyptians that built the pyramids were 'bronze age' and yet their achievements were, in ways, not matched by the iron age civilizations that followed them for thousands of years (in fact, it was only in the last few centuries that we began building on that same scale, and only very recently they we've been able to even imagine matching the sheer volume and bulk of the pyramids).

It's some sort of strange defense mechanism that is causing him to do this, so I'm doing what any proper student of science and history should do and calling in bail for proof.

 

[Amob_m_s]

And the last indepedent Mayan city was conquered in 1901. AD. (as I already said in different thread.)

Check out my earlier post, I provided a link to a site with a lot of good information. It's not the only one I found backing this up, it's just the one with the best succinct yet descriptive information. I agree, this makes it sound like uninterrupted independence until 1901, but that's just a matter of unclear English, not a culturally chauvanistic slur. Sounds like someone else is actually the perpetrator of not reading all sides of the argument here.

Yet again I'll say that NA had mortality rate of 85% - 97% because of diseases that Europeans brught with them.

97% is a bit high, but I think it can be generally agreed on that a huge population drop, from a combination of Civil War and disease, occured just before the Spanish conquest. I'd like to see where the exact numbers came from, too, but it's not that big of a deal, the point is that people were dropping dead like Guantanamo Bay prisoners at the time.

Average speed of a message delivered by the runners was 240km per day, which means that the rulers' orders could reach every part of the realm in matter of days. Now can someone, please, point out any European nation that could match that at that time period. Any nation?

This actually isn't too outrageous, if maybe not the average. With the Inca postal system, runners probably covered at least 10k per hour, so if a message was important, and they kept a relay going around the clock, 24 hr times 10kph = 240k per day.

Also, I like how you call him arrogant and chauvanistic towards NA in one paragraph, then state how you agree with him on how theey get the short end of the stick. Please define how he is being chauvanistic by defending them?

That doesn't, however, mean they weren't 'stone age'...Historians treat labels like 'stone age' and 'bronze age' objectively. They simply describe the material most widely employed in tool manufactury, building construction, and similar.

However, by that standard, Europeans were at the time in the "wood age." I think, in this discusson, at least, "stone age" carries a connotation of primitiveness or stupidity, and this is why no one here likes having NA called that.

It's some sort of strange defense mechanism that is causing him to do this,

Huh? Until you came in all angry, I don't believe anyone was being defensive, we were having a civilized debate over a topic on which no one here is an expert. I've learned a lot of history through this, as I'm sure everyone else has. We could continue to expand our knowledge of the history, and so be better able to apply it to EU3, but this has all of a sudden turned into a personal battle between you and caliburn.

so I'm doing what any proper student of science and history should do and calling in bail for proof.

Another thing students are required to do, besides question opposing views, is provide their own proof for an alternative view. Instead of using more personal remarks, put your own ideas for a historically accurate Inca modification into the discussion, provide evidence if it is necessary or if someone requests proof (in a civil manner) and debate different points in it with the community. That way, we can get back to the point of this thread before the moderators close it because of this personal squabble.

 

[unmerged(76687)]

Caliburn, you are engaging in some of the worst cultural chauvinism, selective historical revisionism, and cherry picking of facts I've seen since I debated a guy who was convinced that the United States government was the Second Coming.

And don't you agree that history as it taught in schools or published in encyclopeadias does need certain amount of revisioning?

Would you mind citing and quoting some sources for your claims (and avoiding the usage of rolling smilies, please)?

Have I not stated my sources (during this thread I and Amob_m_s were practicaly only ones that shown any sources at all)?!
And what is with you people and the rolling smiles?!
You make it sound like some insult.

I highly recommend sitting back, drinking a nice big glass of water, visiting a local library, and ponying up on the facts.

Again, if you have bothered to check out the links and books I've mentioned you wouldn't be talking like this, and this whole misunderstanding would be avoided.
Again, it wasn't my intention to make confusion and state that Mayans had contious independce (I did not stated any such thing), but to point out that their culture and nationalism survived.
Santa Cruz Balam Naa was founded after 1847. Mayan uprising on Yucatan peninsula.
And the last Mayan city that had continous independence since preColumbian era was conquerd in 1697. (I think...).

As I remember the 85% - 97% mortality rate due to diseases was for the NA as in Native Americans. That estimate varies from region to region.
Here is a quote for you:
In the 1960s, a Berkeley geographer, Carl Sauer, cited evidence of a 1496 census that Columbus's brother Bartholomew ordered for tax purposes on Hispaniola (now Haiti and the Dominican Republic). The Spanish counted 1.1 million Indians. Since that sum covered only Hispaniola's Spanish-controlled half and excluded children, Sauer concluded that 3 million Indians once inhabited the island. But a generation after 1492, a Spanish resident reported Hispaniola's Indian population had shrunk below 11,000.
And another:
By 1650, records suggest that only 6 million Indians remained in all of North America, South America, and the Caribbean. Subtract 6 million from even a conservative estimate of the 1492 population--like Denevan's consensus count of 54 million.

For discussion on disease mortality rates see:
McNeill, William,1976. "Plagues and Peoples"
For estiamtes on population in Western hemisphere (which range between 57 and 112 milion) see:
Thornton, Russell, 1986. "American Indian Holocaust and Survival"

Or simply go to the nearest epidemiologist and ask him or her what would smalpox, plague etc epidemy do to the "virgin soil population" that had no previous encounter with such diseases.
Discoveries of Amazon tribes during second half of XX centuries that were wiped out due to careless antropologists that brought disease with them can be starting model for an estimate of disease mortality rate.

I do not understand why are you confused about Incan messenger system.
Care to explain?

All in all, so far I haven't seen shred of proof from your side that would question any of the things I've sain on the topic of NA.
Your personal opinion could hardly be considered as proof, I hope you are aware of that.

 

[unmerged(76687)]

That doesn't, however, mean they weren't 'stone age'. In fact, his angry reprisal against that claim is just one more hint that he may not be an actual historian arguing this. Historians treat labels like 'stone age' and 'bronze age' objectively. They simply describe the material most widely employed in tool manufactury, building construction, and similar. In this way, the native American culture were very much 'stone age', but in the same way the Egyptians that built the pyramids were 'bronze age' and yet their achievements were, in ways, not matched by the iron age civilizations that followed them for thousands of years (in fact, it was only in the last few centuries that we began building on that same scale, and only very recently they we've been able to even imagine matching the sheer volume and bulk of the pyramids).

Here is a qoute for you:
The Stone Age is part of the history of the world that encompasses the first widespread use of technology in human evolution and the spread of humanity from the savannas of East Africa to the rest of the world. It ends with the development of agriculture, the domestication of certain animals and the smelting of copper ore to produce metal. It is termed prehistoric, since humanity had not yet started writing -- the traditional start of history (i.e. recorded history).

And another qoute:
As a slang term, "Stone Age" is sometimes used to describe living tribal peoples, to imply "backwardness". In 2007, the Association of Social Anthropologists called the term "offensive" when applied to any living peoples, saying such language has been used "as a pretext for depriving such peoples of land and other resources," and "All anthropologists would agree that the negative use of the terms 'primitive' and 'stone age' to describe [tribal peoples] has serious implications for their welfare."

And a link, too:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/education/6422581.stm

Now please, explain to me where did you read that "Historians treat labels like 'stone age' and 'bronze age' objectively. They simply describe the material most widely employed in tool manufactury, building construction, and similar.", because I haven't found any such definition, and I doubt that such definiton even exists.

 

[Amob_m_s]

Ah, welcome back. Must be a shock to leave a thread as a discussion on the proper treatment of rebellions and native poulations in the game, and return later to find an argument on whether or not you are a raving idiot. Really sorry it came down to that. Anyways, thanks for the sources, those should keep Plushie quiet for a while.

Anyways, back to the discussion. I think we need to decide a direction we're going to go with this. So far, we've mostly been discussing rebels, and ways they need to be modified to be historically accurate as much as it has been about the New World. I think that we really need to pick one and do it justice, and my vote is for rebellion in general. I have never played Terra Nova or any of the other Americas mods out there, but I am sure that they do a decent job handling the NA. However, there is a current shortage of mods that actually change the rebels, although there are some that make them playable and others that simply put the revolt risk higher, etc. I think if we come up with some guidelines here, they could be extremely useful for putting into an actual rebel mod, which, unlike a NA mod, would be a unique contribution to the EU3 community.

 

[kolmy]

Anyways, back to the discussion. I think we need to decide a direction we're going to go with this. So far, we've mostly been discussing rebels, and ways they need to be modified to be historically accurate as much as it has been about the New World. I think that we really need to pick one and do it justice, and my vote is for rebellion in general. I have never played Terra Nova or any of the other Americas mods out there, but I am sure that they do a decent job handling the NA. However, there is a current shortage of mods that actually change the rebels, although there are some that make them playable and others that simply put the revolt risk higher, etc. I think if we come up with some guidelines here, they could be extremely useful for putting into an actual rebel mod, which, unlike a NA mod, would be a unique contribution to the EU3 community.

Well, I think a tweak in the native aggressiveness, revolt risk (the amount in the events and stability, as it seems that with less than 20% of revolt risk, there's no revolts happening in a province (at least not in a short period of time) and in the nationalism, make his effects more severe, and maybe code some events for the new nations that are revolting (I think it's possible a nation to have a army (and navy) and be at war with someone and don't own any province at all, the only problem is that as there's no capital, the AI is dead, so the armies don't move...).
As for a NA mod, I think that all the interested people should join his work in just one mod, instead several mods which show the same. Beyond the better quality of the mod, this would make easier to mod as there's more people working (and working together), if someone wants to play some NA mods in one, he doesn't need to have modding abilities and it's easier for someone who is starting making a mod about NA to see his ideas become true...

 

[unmerged(76687)]

Must be a shock to leave a thread as a discussion on the proper treatment of rebellions and native poulations in the game, and return later to find an argument on whether or not you are a raving idiot.

Well shock is an understatement... :rofl:

I have never played Terra Nova or any of the other Americas mods out there, but I am sure that they do a decent job handling the NA.

In most cases they did, but the problem is that each mod covers only one region in detail.

As for a NA mod, I think that all the interested people should join his work in just one mod, instead several mods which show the same. Beyond the better quality of the mod, this would make easier to mod as there's more people working (and working together), if someone wants to play some NA mods in one, he doesn't need to have modding abilities and it's easier for someone who is starting making a mod about NA to see his ideas become true...

kolmy that is a great idea. I would like very much to see more communication between different NA mod modders. That would prevent overlaping events and other bugs with increased stabilty and more interesting game as a result.
I think that would be shame not to exploit full potential of truly great mods like MezzoAmerica (covering Aztecs, Mayas, Zapotecs), Terra Nova (excellent coverage of South America, with plenty of events, turning NA game in EUIII to dynamic and very interesting game) and lots of others.

Rebels... Well I realy don't know what to do with them...
Making events for nationalist rebels seems to me rather detrministic.
How about describing several historical examples of rebellions from different parts of the world and from different time and trying to find common factors that actualy can be implemented into EUIII game mechanics?

 

[unmerged(76687)]

I forgot one thing that bothered me for some time.
In EUIII time frame Europeans had almost no contact with a lot of NA nations e.g Sioux.
But game developers allowed existance of posibility that a skilfull AI or human player manage to reach that far in shorter time than the historical nations did.
I'm OK with that. But than all "rebels through events" idea looses its appeal to me, since in case of most North American NA nations game is outside historical boundaries.
Any thoughts on if there should exist an event of some rebellion that historicaly took place in lets say 1675., since by then the game would be far from history?