British or English, Firaxis?

August 18, 2001, 12:14

In the FAQ section of civ3.com it says a civ civ3 will have is the english. In a screenshot though it says the british. Will it have the english or the british??

Footie Mad · August 18, 2001, 13:16

I think Firaxis has a tendency never to respond to a topic with Firaxis in the title, prove me wrong?

ToD.MB · August 18, 2001, 20:27

This is an interesting point.

My bet would be the English - because the American designers probably have at most a sketchy idea of the difference between the English and the British.

But as long as you can change the name of the English to the British, I'll be as happy as a pig in ****. I love the English but I'd rather be British and then English, if the game can support that.

Best regards,

ToD.MB

August 18, 2001, 20:55

Also, Elizabeth I was ruler of England not Britain. (or is my history wrong which is quite probable??) I think that the player setup screen is meant to say british and that Firaxis have made a mistake.

Pythagoras · August 19, 2001, 04:41

Ok, given that the British Empire in the 19th century was the British Empire, I still think that it will be England and not Britian in Civ3. In my opinion Ireland and Scotland might as well have been diplomatically conquerred by England to form this unified state, that lead down the road to such greatness.

ToD.MB · August 19, 2001, 05:00

True Pythagoras!

Scotland and Ireland were indeed 'diplomatically' conquered by England. Ireland was 'given' to the Normans by the Pope (what the Hell business was it of his?) and Scotland 'voluntarily' joined the Union in 1707: neither state was conquered in a stictly military sense, say like Poland and France, etc. in WWII.

Yet, the Union of England/Wales and Scotland has produced a nation that was and is a great player in the world scene, whereas the England of the Anglo-Saxons and Normans wasn't really. This is why to me a British Civ rather than an Engish one makes sense.

To define a great Civ, you might ask yourself the following questions:

"What did the English do for the world, what acheivement is English?"

"What did the British do for the world, what acheivement is Britlish?"

Who's heard of the English Empire? (Though our friends in Wales and Scotland might term the U.K. as such).

The historical Empire that acheived world power (1/4 of world's surface+ the seas) was the the British Empire - and I think the good chaps at Firaxis should make note of this.

Regards,

Tod.MB

August 19, 2001, 08:55

Do you think that Firaxis have made a mistake in writing that they will use the English when they will actually use the British?

Dauphin · August 19, 2001, 09:51

"What did the English do for the world, what acheivement is English?"

"What did the British do for the world, what acheivement is Britlish?"

They are one and the same thing. It merely had a name change, such as going form EEC to EC to EU. So the achievements are the same, whilst the entity has grown.

I would rather it be English than British, as the English as an entity have been around for over a millenium, the British Empire 150 years at most. Before 1800 it was just called the English Empire, and it was still refered to it as such until the 1850s.

Hasdrubal · August 20, 2001, 07:34

Quote:

Originally posted by ToD.MB

To define a great Civ, you might ask yourself the following questions:

Who rules the waves? England or Britannia?
Which is preceded by 'Great', England or Britain?

Dauphin · August 20, 2001, 13:29

Which is preceded by 'Great', England or Britain

Ahh, but London is Greater.

kittenOFchaos · August 20, 2001, 22:51

England to Britain was merely the extention of english power to scotland...

I don't quite see why the two are separate civs...

The english civilisation began in it's present form (Magna Carta) in 1066 A.D when the Normans invaded and hasn't been successfully invaded since then by another people (our monarchs aren't too pure though).

I would love to see Edward Longshanks as leader of the English OR Cromwell

Pythagoras · August 21, 2001, 02:30

It was Englands parliamentary system that began to take in representatives from the Welsh/Scottish boroughs and countys, that were set up and divided by the English. It was the English Tudor lineage that ruled England, then later Britain. Certainly Scotsmen/Welshmen/Irishmen all contributed to the colonization and management of the British empire, but in the end the govt in London was the master with the Parliament and King of England at its head.

Chief Gnome · August 21, 2001, 05:42

Quote:

Originally posted by Pythagoras
It was Englands parliamentary system that began to take in representatives from the Welsh/Scottish boroughs and countys, that were set up and divided by the English. It was the English Tudor lineage that ruled England, then later Britain. Certainly Scotsmen/Welshmen/Irishmen all contributed to the colonization and management of the British empire, but in the end the govt in London was the master with the Parliament and King of England at its head.

Deary, deary me. The Scottish boroughs and counties were not set up by England. The Westminster Parliament did not begin to take in MPs from Scottish boroughs, Scotland had its own Parliament which eventually voted to merge with the English Parliament in order to form the new UK Parliament in 1707.

The Tudor dynasty ruled England - it never ruled Scotland and became extinct prior to the joining of the kingdoms. It wasn't English anyway - it was a Welsh dynasty.

When the crowns were united it was under the Scottish Stuart dynasty, not under English kings.

Dauphin · August 21, 2001, 16:15

The english civilisation began in it's present form (Magna Carta) in 1066 A.D

Uh?

The Norman invasion affected things like architecture, but the rule of law, the majority of nobles etc were still Saxon. Things like sherrifs was orignially a Saxon system for example.

Magna Carta was a century after 1066 IIRC. Are you confusing with Domesday book written during the second half of the eleventh century

Dauphin · August 21, 2001, 16:27

Just checked

Magna Carta was signed at Runnymede in June 1215

I would love to see Edward Longshanks as leader of the English OR Cromwell

Now they were mean ******* .

No wonder the Scots, Welsh and Irish haven't given us glowing references.

KrazyHorse · August 21, 2001, 16:28

Personally, I'd date the beginning of english civ in its modern form from the end of the 9th century, since the Viking raids did change fundamental aspects of society in large parts of the country (the Danelaw), and these ended up impacting the country as a whole. From this moment on, english society was free from any further substantive changes being forced upon it from abroad. Big Crunch already pointed out that the Norman invasion of 1066 did little to change the actual form of society; the people simply had a new king and new nobles, but the common law from before the invasion still held sway, in large part.

kittenOFchaos · August 21, 2001, 20:14

I'm scottish and I'm the one wanting Edward Longshanks etc...so

As for the Normans not changing much...they formed the new elite and they are the ones that matter (William Wallace was a Norman...this isn't a justification of my point, just a throw away comment) in terms of forming new laws and governing...

I knew that 1066 A.D wiliam the conqueror invaded AND DID not immediately have Magna Carter etc! But the new elite which was Norman WERE responsible for it's construction and enactedment and the foundation of the new elite was Norman families by right of conquest...Saxons remained important because the Normans were few AND because they kept sweet with the new Norman bosses not like a certain myth...twang!

...and somehow I've got a Norman nose...