Apolyton ExtraCivs Pack: English vs Brittish

[Locutus]

Read my first post in this thread for an elaborate introduction: if we make an Apolyton Pack for Civs, should the British remain British or be changed to English? And should it be possible to have the Scots and Welsh (and possibly Irish) next to them or should they be included in this civ (presuming this should ever become an issue)?

[Dauphin]

I thought they were already called English. Hence the "English" civ of the week.

[Wulfram]

Why was my thread closed and linked to a thread started later on a different if similar topic? (I have no interest in the extracivs pack)

Just to be on topic I don't think the English or the Brits should be a civ as the english are too insignificant and the Brits are too disunited to be a Civ

Actually I think that the english are covered by the Germans as we're basically saxons from saxony.

[Ribannah]

Well I would suggest to go with the Frysians instead since they settled Kent which, as everybody knows, is the most sophisticated part of the isles.

[August Borms]

Yes, they're already called English in the game and I like it that way

[Locutus]

Hmm, you're right. I only now notice that Firaxis changed the name from British to English in the release version of the game. Apparently a lot of people complained about it... Much better like this IMHO.

[Lung]

Originally posted by Wulfram
Why was my thread closed and linked to a thread started later on a different if similar topic? (I have no interest in the extracivs pack)

Just to be on topic I don't think the English or the Brits should be a civ as the english are too insignificant and the Brits are too disunited to be a Civ

Actually I think that the english are covered by the Germans as we're basically saxons from saxony.

What a load of bullshit! If you can break down England into it's component tribes, then you can do the same to any civ. What does that make the Americans? What are the Germans but a bunch of united tribes? What about any of the civs in Civ3? What counts most of all is how powerful a country had ever been and how much their culture has pervaded the rest of world. Take a look at a world map from, say, 1897, and show me another world map that had that much land all over the world! And as for culture, the institutions of much of the western world and beyond owe much to the English.

You can't complain that the British is an insult to Scots, Welsh, and Northern Irish, then in the next breath say the English on their own never amounted to anything!!

Go and do something constructive, like join Imbeciles Anonymous or something

[molly bloom]

Originally posted by Wulfram
Why was my thread closed and linked to a thread started later on a different if similar topic? (I have no interest in the extracivs pack)

Just to be on topic I don't think the English or the Brits should be a civ as the english are too insignificant and the Brits are too disunited to be a Civ

Actually I think that the english are covered by the Germans as we're basically saxons from saxony.

This will come as great surprise to all those living in what formerly was known as the Danelaw, and who can count amongst their ancestry, Danes, Norwegians, Swedes...or indeed, the Cornish, who presumably are included within the grouping English, if the England you are referring to stretches from Cornwall to the Scottish and Welsh borders. As for the English being insignificant...well, the lingua franca, if you like, of the world is now English. A language which was spread through mainly the King James Bible and also the works of Shakespeare, and the Book of Common Prayer. The Bible may have been authorised by a king who was also a king of Scotland, but it represents the beginning of English as a world language, and not just a language restricted to England, small parts of Ireland and a few scattered overseas colonies.
England as a nation state, with a global policy, made its first appearance on a world scale with the English Commonwealth and the 'British Republic', when under Cromwell, England defeated the Spanish in Jamaica (1655) and at the Battle of the Dunes (1658, a triumph for the New Model Army) and Admiral Blake defeated Tromp's Dutch ships off Dover (1652), and off North Foreland (1653), and then the Barbary pirates of Algiers(1655). If you include Cromwell's pacification of Ireland,1649-1650 ( a policy more thorough then Thomas Wentworth's policy of 'thorough' ever was), and the defeat of the Covenanters in Scotland(1650), then what you have is the germ of the British Empire, which would have to wait until the reign of William and Mary and the accession of Queen Anne and the triumphs of Marlborough in Europe and British fleets in the colonies to make its reappearance. As for the British being too disunited, what exactly are you referring to? The last significant revolt was the 1745 uprising, with sporadic disturbances confined to Ireland, and social unrest such as the Chartists and the Peterloo massacre and anti-Catholic riots in England. Not much disunity there in comparison with similar major powers...

[ranskaldan]

Just to be on topic I don't think the English or the Brits should be a civ as the english are too insignificant and the Brits are too disunited to be a Civ

The English were insignificant? Oh... and which empire was it on which the sun never set.... the Iroquois Empire?

And as for the mixing up of the English, and that the English are just Saxons...
Which civilization ISN'T a mixing of previously existing groups? Can you name a single race that popped out of nowhere? Every and any race is a descendent of other races. That doesn't disqualify the English as a distinct race and culture.

(Unless you're against the French and Spanish as civs... because they are extensions of the Romans.)

[Wulfram]

The empire on which the sun never sets is the British Empire, all our best troops are Scots or Welsh (and formerly Irish).

The Disunity was peaceful, but the UK was never truly one Country, it was 3 (or 4) countrys mixed together. I don't complain that British is an insult to the Scots, Welsh and Irish. I don't say that England never amounted to anything, merely that it never became anything other than a Second Rate Power. As for the Existance of the Danelaw well that's just my point, it's not one cultural grouping, and the basic english culture is German if it exists at all

I am against the inclusion of the French and Spanish civs as they are merely extensions of the Romans.

I would be in favor of there only being Vikings, Celts, Romans, Greeks, Mesopotamians (thats all those Middle East civs), Ehyptians, India, China, Germans, Phoenicians, South African (People who know about the ancient history of the Area can find a name for this one), Sioux, Iroquois, Incas and Aztecs (although Olmecs or someone might be better).

The Americans in this would be Germans.

The English aren't appropriate because you don't get areas starting they're own countrys. If you could have "Revolution Civs", Civs which start later in the game from the rebellious cities of other empires, then they work, but not as a starting Civ.

[ranskaldan]

The empire on which the sun never sets is the British Empire.

Ok, point taken.... but the 'British' really doesn't sound like a 'civilization'. It sounds more like a 'location'. Whoever lives in Britain, whether Scottish, English or Welsh is 'British'. 'English' is more .... 'civilizational'.

I am against the inclusion of the French and Spanish civs as they are merely extensions of the Romans.

I would be in favor of there only being Vikings, Celts, Romans, Greeks, Mesopotamians, Egyptians, India, China, Germans, Phoenicians, South African , Sioux, Iroquois, Incas and Aztecs (although Olmecs or someone might be better).

Vikings are Germanic too... by your argument, they'd be out of civ3 for the same reason as the English.

If you really really want to push the family tree back, then the Roman, Greek, Germanic, Celtic and Aryan-Indian cultures all have their roots in the Indo-European culture of Central Eurasia of 6000 years ago.... that's why I'm against the 'common ancestry' argument which eliminates the English, Vikings, French and Spanish.

If you want to go back by, say, just 7000 years, no presently recognizable civilization would be left. They would be replaced by unrecognizable Stone Age cultures like the pre-Aryan Dravidians, the Indo-Europeans, the Sino-Tibetans, the Uralics, the Altaics, the Austronesians... races that don't exist except as their present day extensions (English, Greeks, Chinese, Indians, Russians, Polynesians etc.)

All civilizations are splintered off versions of other civilizations. Thus being 'splintered off' doesn't disqualify a civilization.

[Wulfram]

Originally posted by ranskaldan

Ok, point taken.... but the 'British' really doesn't sound like a 'civilization'. It sounds more like a 'location'. Whoever lives in Britain, whether Scottish, English or Welsh is 'British'. 'English' is more .... 'civilizational'.

Probably because they were in Civ1 and 2

Vikings are Germanic too... by your argument, they'd be out of civ3 for the same reason as the English.

Are they, my education mainly focuses on British history so I didn't know that.

If you really really want to push the family tree back, then the Roman, Greek, Germanic, Celtic and Aryan-Indian cultures all have their roots in the Indo-European culture of Central Eurasia of 6000 years ago.... that's why I'm against the 'common ancestry' argument which eliminates the English, Vikings, French and Spanish.

If you want to go back by, say, just 7000 years, no presently recognizable civilization would be left. They would be replaced by unrecognizable Stone Age cultures like the pre-Aryan Dravidians, the Indo-Europeans, the Sino-Tibetans, the Uralics, the Altaics, the Austronesians... races that don't exist except as their present day extensions (English, Greeks, Chinese, Indians, Russians, Polynesians etc.)

All civilizations are splintered off versions of other civilizations. Thus being 'splintered off' doesn't disqualify a civilization.

Basically I think that when there are two civilizations where one is an offshoot of the other one then the later one should be removed. No time limit, because then we have problems finding recognizable civs all over the world, just no descendants. This way you get reasonable coverage of the world without having too innacurate history because all these civs must have had ancestors. If I was going to take a date as a cut of point it would be about 500bc as thats when history starts getting reliable and not mixed up with myth, however a solid cutoff point is not necessary as you can just use the descendants rule

Also I must say that I think too much emphasis is put on modern and the middle ages instead of on ancient times.

[Ribannah]

Originally posted by Wulfram
Basically I think that when there are two civilizations where one is an offshoot of the other one then the later one should be removed.

Let's see ... this leaves us with the Cro Magnon, Neantherthal, Yeti and Sasquatch civilizations.

[Va-Toran]

Just because the Angles, Saxons and Jutes once shared a pan germanic culture this should not disqualify the English/British from inclusion. The cultures of Germany and England have grown apart while those of England and Scotland have grown together over the past 1500 years. Nowadays there are seperate cultures with seperate histories.

Incidentally saying that Britain too diverse, would also disqualify India, China and probably Germany on the same count. Germany is a federal state due to 500 years of disunity and subsequent cultural divisions between North and South.

[Wulfram]

Originally posted by Ribannah


Let's see ... this leaves us with the Cro Magnon, Neantherthal, Yeti and Sasquatch civilizations.

You misunderstand, what I want is that the existance of one civ should get rid of all of the descendant civs of that one. So the existance of Germany stops there being an English civ, an american civ and a viking civ as they're all offshoots of germanic peoples. This way you can still have the Incas for example, even though they come very late in the history of the world as they're not represented by any other civs.

Va-Toran: The reason why I say that Britain is too diverse (not good phrasing, but I can't think of a better way) is that Britain has never become one whole, just three seperate countries working together.

India probably should be repreasented by more than one Civ considering it's size and China as well probably (though putting in the Mongols might suffice). However that's out of my area of knowledge as I know practically nothing about Indias history until about 1800 AD

EDIT: Yeti and Sasquatch are too similar, you only need one civ for them

[Dauphin]

Originally posted by Ribannah
Kent which, as everybody knows, is the most sophisticated part of the isles.

OF course. We also have the (in)famous Kentish maids.

The empire on which the sun never sets is the British Empire, all our best troops are Scots or Welsh (and formerly Irish).

Define best. That is very insulting to the English in the armed forces. (Do you mean "were" or "are"?). Anyway, it is statements like that lead me to say your posting mannerism was "un-English" on the other thread. Additionally to call ones nation insignificant is very unusual. If someone said the US were insignificant what are the chances of that person being American. Slim I would say.

Combined with the fact that I can imagine Ec making a DL and having a conversation with himself I presumed you were a DL. Sorry if you are not.

[Dauphin]

DP

[Ribannah]

Originally posted by Wulfram
You misunderstand, what I want is that the existance of one civ should get rid of all of the descendant civs of that one. So the existance of Germany stops there being an English civ, an american civ and a viking civ as they're all offshoots of germanic peoples. This way you can still have the Incas for example, even though they come very late in the history of the world as they're not represented by any other civs.

Are you thinking the Incas were planted on the world?
They are an offshoot of the Tiahuanaco.

[molly bloom]

[QUOTE] Originally posted by Wulfram

The empire on which the sun never sets is the British Empire, all our best troops are Scots or Welsh (and formerly Irish).

Really? Give examples, then, citing the battles and regiments you mean.

The Disunity was peaceful, but the UK was never truly one Country, it was 3 (or 4) countrys mixed together.

That's why it's called the 'United' kingdom....a common culture, a state religion, a monarch both head of state and of the Church.

I don't say that England never amounted to anything, merely that it never became anything other than a Second Rate Power.

A second rate power that twice defeated the Dutch (Europe's then paramount naval power) and defeated the hitherto invincible Spanish tercios (admittedly, France had also done the same at Rocroi). Not bad going for a '2nd' rate country.

As for the Danelaw...it disproves the point you made about the English being basically Saxons. No civilization, even the insular Shogunate era Japan, exists without contact or influence from another country or civilization. Civilizations don't spring fully blown like Athene from the head of Zeus.

As for the French and Spanish being extensions of the Romans...I think perhaps you're confusing languages and civilizations and nations. Unless of course you think the Jews, Visigoths, Basques, Moors, Berbers and Phoenicians and Carthaginians, who all contributed to what we think of as Spain, were all Romans too...

[Dr. Nick]

I'm pretty sure the 'English' will have cities like Edinmburgh.

Therefore, it's bad taste to call them English. Besides, the English would have been nothing without the Scots and Irish.

Besides, it was the BRITISH Empire the one on which the sun never set, not the English.

[Wulfram]

[QUOTE] Originally posted by molly bloom

Originally posted by Wulfram

The empire on which the sun never sets is the British Empire, all our best troops are Scots or Welsh (and formerly Irish).

Really? Give examples, then, citing the battles and regiments you mean.

To many and varied to give specific examples, but the fact that Welliangtons army was 1/3 Irish should tell you something, and the South Wales Borderers have won the 5th most VCs after the Artillery, engineers, medics and rifles.

The Disunity was peaceful, but the UK was never truly one Country, it was 3 (or 4) countrys mixed together.

That's why it's called the 'United' kingdom....a common culture, a state religion, a monarch both head of state and of the Church.

You've never been to Scotland have you? The UKs breaking up at the moment. The United is more statement of intent than fact.

I don't say that England never amounted to anything, merely that it never became anything other than a Second Rate Power.

A second rate power that twice defeated the Dutch (Europe's then paramount naval power) and defeated the hitherto invincible Spanish tercios (admittedly, France had also done the same at Rocroi). Not bad going for a '2nd' rate country.

England still lost half of France, and the defeat of the spanish was mostly luck

As for the Danelaw...it disproves the point you made about the English being basically Saxons. No civilization, even the insular Shogunate era Japan, exists without contact or influence from another country or civilization. Civilizations don't spring fully blown like Athene from the head of Zeus.

As someone recently pointed out, the Vikings were germans too, and still any way in which England does have a distictive culture, it's Saxon.

As for the French and Spanish being extensions of the Romans...I think perhaps you're confusing languages and civilizations and nations. Unless of course you think the Jews, Visigoths, Basques, Moors, Berbers and Phoenicians and Carthaginians, who all contributed to what we think of as Spain, were all Romans too...

Maybe, but I never said the Spanish could be entirely counted as the Romans, they also have other earlier civs mixed in which would also need to be represented.

Are you thinking the Incas were planted on the world?
They are an offshoot of the Tiahuanaco.

No, but they're not the descendants of any Civs which are also in the game, therefore they're OK.

Define best. That is very insulting to the English in the armed forces. (Do you mean "were" or "are"?). Anyway, it is statements like that lead me to say your posting mannerism was "un-English" on the other thread. Additionally to call ones nation insignificant is very unusual. If someone said the US were insignificant what are the chances of that person being American. Slim I would say.

Combined with the fact that I can imagine Ec making a DL and having a conversation with himself I presumed you were a DL. Sorry if you are not.

Best as in generally get more VCs. I'm not saying that the english are bad troops, in fact the Britsh army is man for man one of, if not the, best in the world. It's just that the truly elite regiments are usually the HighLanders and the Borderers.

It would be very unusual to see an American saying the US is insignificant, but the US is in a I'm the Best stage like the British were in during the time of the Empire. Don't get me wrong, I'm proud of my country, and the acievements it's made in science and its generally tolerant history, but that doesn't mean I'm going to blindly support it, or grant it undue importance.

[ranskaldan]

Well, Wulfram, the set of civs that you are proposing is basically just Egypt, Babylon, Mycenae, Celts, Germanics, India, China, Japan, Aztecs and Incas..... right?

Well go ahead if you want... i'd prefer to play some non-super-ancient civs myself.

[Dauphin]

Best as in generally get more VCs

Do you have the stats to back that up?

but the fact that Welliangtons army was 1/3 Irish should tell you something,

If that were true I would think that it was due to economic conditions not the fact that they were the best. Joining the army was a popular choice for those without formal education or other means to earn money.

Being the "best" and being the most populace does not equate. If it were then China would be the best army in the world. Or you could say Privates are "better" than Leiutenants who are better than Captains.

[molly bloom]

Originally posted by Wulfram


To many and varied to give specific examples, but the fact that Welliangtons army was 1/3 Irish should tell you something, and the South Wales Borderers have won the 5th most VCs after the Artillery, engineers, medics and rifles.

It tells me nothing about comparisons, like for like, of quality of fighting men in the various regiments. 'Too many and varied' is, frankly, a cop out. If you are going to make sweeping generalizations about the fighting capabilities of different nationalities, then provide some proof.

You've never been to Scotland have you? The UKs breaking up at the moment. The United is more statement of intent than fact.

I have no idea why you make this statement. Yes, I have been to Scotland, and the head of the Church of Scotland is the Queen, like it or not. Scottish Protestants, both at 'home' and abroad, in Canada, New Zealand and Australia, East Africa and India, have been most assiduous in cultivating a British culture and identity. The Queen of course, has Scottish ancestry, as does her mother who was of course, born there. Representation for Scotland and Wales and Northern Ireland hardly implies imminent destruction of the United Kingdom.


England still lost half of France, and the defeat of the spanish was mostly luck

England in the 17th Century, the period I am referring to, possessed Dunkirk, won at the Battle of the Dunes, and then sold it back to the French for 400 000 sterling. The England you seem to be referring to may be the Anglo-Norman-French entity wiped out by the Hundred Years' War, ending in 1453. I'm not sure which English history it is you're learning, but it seems somewhat vague with respect to dates, dynasties, wars and facts.
As for the defeat of the Spanish being luck- what lucky happenstance do you mean?


As someone recently pointed out, the Vikings were germans too, and still any way in which England does have a distictive culture, it's Saxon.

The Vikings (by which presumably you mean Swedes, Danes and Norwegians, the hybrid Anglo-Vikings of Jorvik and hybrid Hiberno-Vikings of Dublin) were not Germans. They had a distinctive and different culture, they shared some religious beliefs, had different languages and expanded territorially in different directions. You may as well say the Romans were Greek on that basis.
If as you say, England has a distinctive culture, and it's Saxon, then back it up. To which bits of English culture are you referring?



Maybe, but I never said the Spanish could be entirely counted as the Romans, they also have other earlier civs mixed in which would also need to be represented.

You said the Spanish and French were extensions of the Romans. Ignoring the earlier input in Spain's case, of Phoenicians, Carthaginians, Iberians and Celts, and later influence of Visigoths, Moors, Berbers, and Jews ( the Mozarabic civilization of Cordoba, for instance).
Spain now is not the Roman province it was, as a brief holiday in Al-Andalus might show you.



Best as in generally get more VCs. I'm not saying that the english are bad troops, in fact the Britsh army is man for man one of, if not the, best in the world. It's just that the truly elite regiments are usually the HighLanders and the Borderers.

Again, explain 'elite' and give instances. It sounds like you're relying on some biscuit tin lid/Ealing film version of history.

Don't get me wrong, I'm proud of my country, and the acievements it's made in science and its generally tolerant history, but that doesn't mean I'm going to blindly support it, or grant it undue importance.

Pride for me doesn't enter into it. Facts, and not assertions, do.

[Lung]

Wulfram, your skating on thin ice and the birds have come out to play! While it's refreshing to see someone be the devil's advocate about their own country, your arguments have deteriorated to excuses which seems more like desperation!!

So, the English weren't really successful because;-

a) luck
b) They used foreign soldiers
c) they didn't win every battle they participated in
d) they were a mixture a people from other places over time

One word. FEEBLE!!

Oh, and i forgot to mention that they weren't really successful despite;-

a) in fact the Britsh army is man for man one of, if not the, best in the world

Your words, not mine!

We Aussies laugh at you blokes all the time because of your woeful attempts at most sports, but even more so because you were once so good at them! Perhaps we should have a poll? Not another one!!

[Dr. Nick]

The British Army was not popular until the 1890s... before that it was seen as a corrupt organisation and the people despised it.

The reason why the majority of the armies of Britain were made up of Irish or Scottish or Welsh was because:

1) They were probably drafted. Heaven forbid that the English should do the dirty work (which was typical colonial attitude).
2) Officer corps were made up entirely of Englishmen mostly. There were very few non-English commanding officers (so maybe there were a bunch of Irish sergeants)

The last thing the Irish and the Scots wanted to do ever was serve in the British army. Remember that they still mostly despised the English, let alone serve in the army under the English knowing that they would never go far in a career where you went far if you could pay for your promotion.

[molly bloom]

Lord Nelson's Victory:

Average age of crew:22

703 men on board, approx. 40 of whom were over 40 yrs of age.

100 aged under 20, some as young as 12 or 13.

Preponderance of English: 452 Englishmen

74 Irish

72 Scots

24 Welshmen

28 Americans

53 others from France, India, Africa, and the Caribbean.

One is alleged to have been a woman disguised! Less than half were forced or pressganged into the Navy, most volunteering, or being quota men sent as punishment by magistrates.

[ranskaldan]

wulfram:
As someone recently pointed out, the Vikings were germans too, and still any way in which England does have a distictive culture, it's Saxon.

molly
The Vikings (by which presumably you mean Swedes, Danes and Norwegians, the hybrid Anglo-Vikings of Jorvik and hybrid Hiberno-Vikings of Dublin) were not Germans. They had a distinctive and different culture, they shared some religious beliefs, had different languages and expanded territorially in different directions. You may as well say the Romans were Greek on that basis.
If as you say, England has a distinctive culture, and it's Saxon, then back it up. To which bits of English culture are you referring?

Just to clear it up, I was the one who said that the Vikings were Germanic. Germanic is a grouping used to lump together the English, Dutch, German, Norwegian, Swedish and Danish languages. All these languages are proven to have descended directly from a common language, which is why they are placed in the same group in the first place. Speaking languages that descend from the same ancestral language can mean ethnic closeness.

Ok... that's all that I said. I didn't say that the English are Germans... nor did I agree with that.

[molly bloom]

Originally posted by ranskaldan


Just to clear it up, I was the one who said that the Vikings were Germanic. Germanic is a grouping used to lump together the English, Dutch, German, Norwegian, Swedish and Danish languages. All these languages are proven to have descended directly from a common language, which is why they are placed in the same group in the first place. Speaking languages that descend from the same ancestral language can mean ethnic closeness.

Ok... that's all that I said. I didn't say that the English are Germans... nor did I agree with that.

Fortunately, having studied English literature and linguistics I am aware of the indebtedness of the English language to the Germanic mother tongue, and the folly of many generations of teachers to try to teach English grammar as if it had its roots in Latin....

The point Wulfram keeps labouring is that the English, by dint of having some connections linguistically with the Germans, are somehow culturally Saxon. Which will be big news to the Cornish, amongst others. Given that the word for law comes from old Norse, that other law terms derive from Norman French, that the coronation ceremony of the reigning monarch derives from Byzantine marriage rites, that the national drink is a Chinese beverage...attempting to pigeonhole English/British as ultimately being Saxon is pretty futile.

[Tolls]

"the South Wales Borderers have won the 5th most VCs after the Artillery, engineers, medics and rifles. "

Most (if not all) of which were from a single battle...hardly a consistent record. Never mind that not all members of the regiment were actually Welsh....one of them was Michael Caine after all.

Edit:
Just done some checking on regiment breakdowns for the Napoleonic Wars and they give English forming approximately 60% of all regiments...taking a total population of the islands as about 16 million, and an English population of about 8 to 9 million (these are 1800 figures) you get a pretty balanced result.