Everything I've read about the Aztecs, Mayans and Incas seems to say that they were past the tribal stage. They lived in cities, were ruled by monarchs, and had a number of achievements in the arts, architecture, engineering, etc. But when I played EU3, which is supposed to be about history, they are depicted as tribes with absolutely no technology whatsoever. Right now I'm reading The Maya, Eighth Edition by Michael D. Coe and now I'm pretty sure that the EU3 depiction of the Americas is horrendously inaccurate, but I was reading about the Magna Mundi game the other day and they have them depicted as tribes too, although in their game they're supposed to be more capable.
So the popular notion, even among history buffs, seems to be that the Mesoamericans and Incans were tribal and I'm wondering where that comes from. Do people just assume that they were tribes because they were Indians and they used stone tools or am I wrong and I don't understand the difference between a tribe and a state? I don't dare ask the Magna Mundi people because they seem touchy on the subject. I did try to argue that the Mayans should be given a higher level of government and I even included an excerpt from my book about their society and politics but the devs just ignored me.
I've been wondering a bit about that as well but I think that it comes down the game being Eurocentric in its design and I think it may also be a mechanic to ensure that the Indians don't develop to fast and thus resist the European colonization of the Americas.
Iirc mesoamerican cultures were ruled by many semi-divine dynasties, each with its own central capital...
So they were a tribal state, with alliances and internal struggles coming and going; this doesn't mean they were a backward country...
Tenochtitlan was one of the largest cities in the world at that time...
Advanced astronomy, hydroponics, writing system, urbanism, mathematics, individuals were able to assert dominance over large areas, structured societies etc...
They lacked iron metallurgy afaik, but their obsidian and bronze weapons were quite fierce: you can't cut down tuberculosis though :S
Originally Posted by Gurkhal:
I've been wondering a bit about that as well but I think that it comes down the game being Eurocentric in its design and I think it may also be a mechanic to ensure that the Indians don't develop to fast and thus resist the European colonization of the Americas.
I've realized that about EU3 but I thought Magna Mundi was supposed to be more historically balanced.
Originally Posted by Arjos:
Iirc mesoamerican cultures were ruled by many semi-divine dynasties, each with its own central capital...
So they were a tribal state, with alliances and internal struggles coming and going; this doesn't mean they were a backward country...
Tenochtitlan was one of the largest cities in the world at that time...
Advanced astronomy, hydroponics, writing system, urbanism, mathematics, individuals were able to assert dominance over large areas, structured societies etc...
They lacked iron metallurgy afaik, but their obsidian and bronze weapons were quite fierce: you can't cut down tuberculosis though :S
I guess this is where I'm getting confused, I don't really know what the word "tribal" means. I always thought it meant a more primitive society, but you seem to be saying it means something different. So this leads me to my next question: What does the word "tribe" mean, in an anthropological context?
Vladimir 19:05 02-03-2012
Tribal systems exist in some modern countries. It's about how the society is organized and not their level of technology.
Originally Posted by Tuuvi:
What does the word "tribe" mean, in an anthropological context?
It's a society, where its divisions and organization are decided by kinship relationships among its members...
Originally Posted by Arjos:
It's a society, where its divisions and organization are decided by kinship relationships among its members...
Ah ok I get it now. That describes the Maya exactly actually.
Single Sign On provided by
vBSSO