View Poll Results: What should we do with the British?
Sid is right, British it is. The Scots and Welsh were never real civs 54 24.88%
Sid is right, British it is. The Scots and Welsh could still be seperate civs though 42 19.35%
British, Schmitish! Call them English; the Scots and Welsh are distinctly different 77 35.48%
British, Schmitish! 'English' is a better name but it covers the Scots and Welsh as well 25 11.52%
Other (please post suggestions) 8 3.69%
Banana 11 5.07%
Voters: 217. You may not vote on this poll

 
 
Thread Tools
Old November 8, 2001, 08:33   #31
Wulfram
Chieftain
 
Wulfram's Avatar
 
Local Time: 16:01
Local Date: October 31, 2010
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: England
Posts: 54
Quote:
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.
Well your missing the Romans there, but generally yes, those are the only civs that make sense

Quote:
Do you have the stats to back that up?
Regiment VCs
Royal Artillery: 51
Royal Engineers 41
Royal army medical Corps 29 including two bars
Rifle Brigade 27
South wales Borderers 22
King's Royal Rifle Corps 22
Royal Fusiliers 19
Lancashire Fusiliers 18
Seaforth Highlanders 18
Gordon Highlanders 17

You can see that of the location specific regiments the top are the Borderers the the Highlanders

Quote:
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.
True, but Wellingtons army was one of the best Britain ever had.

Quote:
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.
The point is that Scots regard themselves as Scots before British

Quote:
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?
Well I have already conceded that the 17th Century was the time when England was powerful enough to have an effect on the world, but capturing Dunkirk isn't exactly something major. If you don't accept the pre 1453 England as English then the English only lasted 254 years which is no where near enough to be a Civ, especially considering the power of civs contempory to that.

Quote:
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?
Well actually it's Anglish, but they're generally counted with the Saxons. The very name comes from that. I don't think that England has a Distinct culture, especially compared to the amount of variation in Civs such as the Indians. In world terms is just a standard Northern European Culture with formerly more emphasis on seafaring because of it's Island position.

[quote[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! [/quote]

That's now, in victorian times it was pretty bad, it's just we avoided any serious wars, when it was put to the test we did rubbish (WW1, Crimea)

Now the Army is a highly trained, well equipped but tiny force. It has just dropped to a size smaller than it was in Wellingtons time.

Other points

I'm using Germany for the Germanic Peoples as we are talking in Civ terms and Germany is an existing Civ which I can accept as the Germanic Peoples

Molly Bloom: Right so the English is a mix of Roman, Celt and Germanic all of which need to be represented, the english don't.
Wulfram is offline  
Old November 8, 2001, 08:39   #32
Tolls
King
 
Tolls's Avatar
 
Local Time: 16:01
Local Date: October 31, 2010
Join Date: Dec 1969
Location: Hereford, UK
Posts: 2,184
"when it was put to the test we did rubbish (WW1, Crimea) "

I'll give you the generalship in the Crimea (which was an absurd idea anyway), but we were the best trained army in the world in 1914.
Tolls is offline  
Old November 8, 2001, 11:50   #33
Wulfram
Chieftain
 
Wulfram's Avatar
 
Local Time: 16:01
Local Date: October 31, 2010
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: England
Posts: 54
Quote:
"whenI'll give you the generalship in the Crimea (which was an absurd idea anyway), but we were the best trained army in the world in 1914.
Best trained possibly, but too small and not enough machine guns. Think about it Britain, France and Russia vs Germany and Austria. It should have been over by christmas!

Same in WW2, a country which had been on the verge of collapse 7 years ago defeated one powerful country, blocked another country and nearly captured Moskow. In both world wars we did rubbish and Germany did amazingly well.
Wulfram is offline  
Old November 8, 2001, 11:59   #34
Tolls
King
 
Tolls's Avatar
 
Local Time: 16:01
Local Date: October 31, 2010
Join Date: Dec 1969
Location: Hereford, UK
Posts: 2,184
Sorry, but in WW1 the French and Russians have far more to blame than us for the situation in 1914...if anything it was the British army that prevented a collapse in France!

We have never had a large army, because we refuse to use conscription (except in war)...the nation would never have agreed to it. In any case, a big army isn't everything...look at the Russians.

Again, in WW2 the BEF was the only entirely mechanised army in the world, but we (us and the French) cocked it all up). Once more it was French reluctance to attack in '39 that screwed us over...we would have been happy launching an attack, but the French were in charge.
Tolls is offline  
Old November 8, 2001, 12:07   #35
Tolls
King
 
Tolls's Avatar
 
Local Time: 16:01
Local Date: October 31, 2010
Join Date: Dec 1969
Location: Hereford, UK
Posts: 2,184
Just done a check on the Borderes, and the % of Welsh in the regiment at the time of Rorkes drift was on the order of 10-15% (half were English). Considering that 11 of their 22 VCs came from that battle, sort of knocks them down a bit.

Not sure about the Highlanders, but I'd bet they weren't all Scottish.

Edit:
Here we go - http://www.btinternet.com/~james.mckay/linintro.htm

The important quotes being:
"In April 1809 an order was issued stating that as the population of the Highlands of Scotland was found to be insufficient to supply recruits for the whole of the Highland corps in His Majesty's Army, and as some of these corps, by laying aside their distinguishing dress, which was objectionable to the natives of South Britain, would induce the men of the English Militia to enter, the 72nd, 73rd, 74th, 75th, 91st and 94th Regiments were ordered to discontinue wearing the Highland dress for the future. "

and:
"Up to 1881 the Lowland regiments were dressed like English line regiments although pipers had been given to some of them. The result was, to some observers, that they had to some extent lost their nationality and had as many English and Irish as Scots in their ranks."

Last edited by Tolls; November 8, 2001 at 12:15.
Tolls is offline  
Old November 8, 2001, 13:25   #36
Wulfram
Chieftain
 
Wulfram's Avatar
 
Local Time: 16:01
Local Date: October 31, 2010
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: England
Posts: 54
OK Toll, I'll concede the best troops are Scot/welsh/irish from that, although still a higher proportion than would be expected from population.

I know we don't have conscription and I'm glad for it, but we still have done pretty poorly in all major wars since 1815 and in the Napoleonic Wars we merely did well compared with Non-French Europe

When looking at history all I can say is I'm very glad we had the channel
Wulfram is offline  
Old November 8, 2001, 15:35   #37
Dauphin
Civilization IV PBEMPolyCast Team
Deity
 
Dauphin's Avatar
 
Local Time: 17:01
Local Date: October 31, 2010
Join Date: Dec 1969
Location: Seouenaca, Cantium
Posts: 12,426
Quote:
Originally posted by Wulfram
Lancashire Fusiliers 18
Does this mean that Lancastrians are the best soldiers in England?

__________________
"Everybody knows you never go full retard. You went full retard man. Never go full retard"
Dauphin is offline  
Old November 9, 2001, 10:52   #38
Tolls
King
 
Tolls's Avatar
 
Local Time: 16:01
Local Date: October 31, 2010
Join Date: Dec 1969
Location: Hereford, UK
Posts: 2,184
I hate to push this, but did you miss the bit where I pointed out that 60% of the British army in the 1800s was English?

That that ties in quite well with the fact that approximately 60% of the population of GB and Ireland is English?

The other nations did were not disproportionately represented.

As for the armies in general, our forces were on a par with the French forces during the Napoleonic wars...you just need to look at the Peninsular campaign to see that.

After that...well, the Crimea was a bloody silly place to campaign, but the troops performed well. I'll ignore our colonial wars (since they were generally against poorer troops, using poorer troops)...which brings us to the Boer Wars. Which weredefinitely a disaster...but resulted in the changes to army training which gave us (little more than a decade later) the top of the line troops we had in 1914.

Yes...I'm glad we had the channel, since I expect we'd have ended up like the Dutch...stuffed by all and sundry. With the channel we could at least use our navy to defend ourselves from the continental toings and froings.

Anyway...having said all that I think the English ought to be a civ, along with the Scots, Irish and (of course) the Welsh. British doesn't really cut it for me. I can understand the desire to start with only the ancient core civs, but then you'd never get any of the later ones...
Tolls is offline  
Old November 9, 2001, 13:38   #39
Wulfram
Chieftain
 
Wulfram's Avatar
 
Local Time: 16:01
Local Date: October 31, 2010
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: England
Posts: 54
OK, I've had enough of this so I'll just edit them out of my copy when I get it and leave you in peace about this.
Wulfram is offline  
Old November 9, 2001, 14:03   #40
History Guy
PtWDG RoleplayACDG Planet University of TechnologyInterSite Democracy Game: Apolyton TeamPtWDG2 TabemonoAlpha Centauri Democracy GameApolyton Storywriters' GuildC4DG Gathering Storm
King
 
History Guy's Avatar
 
Local Time: 10:01
Local Date: October 31, 2010
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: A bleak and barren rock
Posts: 2,743
Wulfram,
You are the kind of guy I shall never understand. O.K., well have loads of fun editing the British out of Civilization III.
History Guy is offline  
Old November 9, 2001, 15:03   #41
ranskaldan
Prince
 
ranskaldan's Avatar
 
Local Time: 11:01
Local Date: October 31, 2010
Join Date: Aug 2001
Posts: 300
Wulfram, you will probably also edit out the French. And why don't you edit out the Romans too, since they derived most of their culture from the Greeks?
Since you're editing out the English I suggest you do the same for the Germans. In 2000BC there were only Germanics, no English or Germans yet.

So your civlist would look like:
Egypt
Sumeria
Assyria
India
China
Hebrews
Olmecs
Incas
Germanics
Slavs
Celts
Greeks
Phoenicians
Javans
Australians
Iroquois

What we have here is basically an ancient civs modpack! And you're going to play with these civs right through to the spacerace?

.... History Guy's right. We'll never understand you.
ranskaldan is offline  
Old November 9, 2001, 16:01   #42
Wulfram
Chieftain
 
Wulfram's Avatar
 
Local Time: 16:01
Local Date: October 31, 2010
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: England
Posts: 54
Actually I'm keeping Germany to represent the Germanics. And I'm going to keep them until the space race (if I survive that long) because I see Civs as cultures and cultures don't die very easily, so in the end it works out quite well. I don't understand how people can call a game historical and put the Americans and the English starting at the same time, if your going to do that you might as well add dragons and turn it into the midgard scenario in Fantastic Worlds. I'd never thought of the Javans by the way, why do you suggest them? And you forgot the Romans, or do you have a reason for not including them?
Wulfram is offline  
Old November 10, 2001, 10:33   #43
ranskaldan
Prince
 
ranskaldan's Avatar
 
Local Time: 11:01
Local Date: October 31, 2010
Join Date: Aug 2001
Posts: 300
The problem here, as I see it, is that Germany no better represents the Germanic than England or Norway. The modern languages of English, German, and Norwegian are all equally descended from proto-Germanic. And anyway, a common ancestral language doesn't mean they all had the same ancestors.

As for the civilizations as cultures part, i know it is pretty weird to have the Americans, English and Russians all start in 4000BC. However, since the civilizations in civ3 all *act* as coherent nation-states (and not cultures), people want to see important nation-states. Like USA. or the British Empire. Since the USA and the British Empire existed at the same time, and they still do, in fact, people see no problems if they exist together in civ3 too.

The Javans? Oh... that was just an attempt at filling out Southeast Asia. As for the Romans, their culture is obviously built on top of the Greeks, so there's no reason to include them by your logic.
ranskaldan is offline  
Old November 10, 2001, 12:07   #44
Wulfram
Chieftain
 
Wulfram's Avatar
 
Local Time: 16:01
Local Date: October 31, 2010
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: England
Posts: 54
Well, I prefer to say Germany instead of the Germanic Peoples, it's less clumsy. I am intending to change the Leader to Arminius though.

The Romans were not built on top of the Greeks, they learnt from the Greeks and were certainly influenced by them, but their culture was very different at the start and remained different even after they conquered Greece.
Wulfram is offline  
Old November 10, 2001, 19:04   #45
ranskaldan
Prince
 
ranskaldan's Avatar
 
Local Time: 11:01
Local Date: October 31, 2010
Join Date: Aug 2001
Posts: 300
Quote:
The Romans were not built on top of the Greeks, they learnt from the Greeks and were certainly influenced by them, but their culture was very different at the start and remained different even after they conquered Greece.
Well then, that's my point, isn't it? Why not include British, Vikings, Spanish and French?
Just as Greece is a contributor and not the creator of Rome, Rome is also a contributor but not the creator of France and Spain.
ranskaldan is offline  
Old November 11, 2001, 05:01   #46
Wulfram
Chieftain
 
Wulfram's Avatar
 
Local Time: 16:01
Local Date: October 31, 2010
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: England
Posts: 54
Because the Romans were not started by the Greeks, they merely learnt from them after they started.
Wulfram is offline  
Old November 11, 2001, 09:39   #47
History Guy
PtWDG RoleplayACDG Planet University of TechnologyInterSite Democracy Game: Apolyton TeamPtWDG2 TabemonoAlpha Centauri Democracy GameApolyton Storywriters' GuildC4DG Gathering Storm
King
 
History Guy's Avatar
 
Local Time: 10:01
Local Date: October 31, 2010
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: A bleak and barren rock
Posts: 2,743
Wulfram:
Well, maybe you should edit out the Romans and replace them with the Etruscans, under Porsenna of Clusium.
History Guy is offline  
Old November 12, 2001, 22:20   #48
ranskaldan
Prince
 
ranskaldan's Avatar
 
Local Time: 11:01
Local Date: October 31, 2010
Join Date: Aug 2001
Posts: 300
Sigh....

well, wulfram, basically my point is that England is not a branch or colony of Germany. The English and Germans had common ancestors, and that's about all. (And these ancestors were called Germanics, not Germans.) It's like using the Romans to represent the Greeks, because they had common ancestors.
ranskaldan is offline  
Old November 13, 2001, 03:31   #49
Eddin
Chieftain
 
Eddin's Avatar
 
Local Time: 17:01
Local Date: October 31, 2010
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Netherlands
Posts: 51
I quote from several posters:
"many elite English regiments were actually scottish/Welsh/Irish."

So what? It only strengthens the point of keeping them together as British. And if you think otherwise, I think it is just petty nationalism (don't feel offended). What have the Scots/Irish/Welsh actually achieved that is worthy of noting, what the Celts (their overall civilisation) have not done twenty times better? I know there was no common Celtic empire since Brittain was conquered, but even then, it was divided into clans who saw themselves as different cultures (at times).

Point I'm trying to make: keep british british. If you don't do that, drop america too. Make a Celtic civ for all the Irish out there, or even the few hundred years the Scottish meant something and weren't usurped (they weren't even bloody conquered, they were usurped!) scottish)
__________________
Elen sila lumenn' omentielvo
Eddin is offline  
Old November 13, 2001, 04:44   #50
Grumbold
Emperor
 
Grumbold's Avatar
 
Local Time: 17:01
Local Date: October 31, 2010
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: London, UK
Posts: 3,732
Why are we having a big ruckus with one guy? Let him go his own way, as long ass the rest of us are happy about which Civs should be represented in the game and Apolyton extras.

In the same way I fully intend to create a Scottish civ irrespective of the wishes of anyone else. I'm not so interested in a nations historical greatness as their potential to be made great under my enlightened rulership
__________________
To doubt everything or to believe everything are two equally convenient solutions; both dispense with the necessity of reflection. H.Poincare
Grumbold is offline  
Old November 13, 2001, 10:01   #51
madmario
Chieftain
 
madmario's Avatar
 
Local Time: 16:01
Local Date: October 31, 2010
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: Ithaca, NY
Posts: 83
Quote:
Originally posted by Lung


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.

So the americans should include all of it's tribes by extension? Especially the conquered ones...

I mean, this isn't exactly a neutered political topic. I find your crass attitude is offensive, but I won't go into any kind of flaming. I'm just sounding an objection.

-mario
madmario is offline  
Old November 13, 2001, 11:04   #52
Rogan Josh
Prince
 
Local Time: 17:01
Local Date: October 31, 2010
Join Date: Dec 1969
Posts: 366
Oh dear, so many misconceptions. I don't know where to begin!

Quote:
Originally posted by Wulfram
You've never been to Scotland have you? The UKs breaking up at the moment. The United is more statement of intent than fact.
Er... no. Have you ever been to Scotland yourself? The UK is perfectly united thank you very much. The Union is made stronger by devolution, not weaker.

Quote:
Originally posted by MollyBloom
Yes, I have been to Scotland, and the head of the Church of Scotland is the Queen, like it or not.
No again. The head of the Church of Scotland is God - it is run by the Presbytary (a sort of council of ministers). The Queen is the head of the Church of England.

Quote:
The Queen of course, has Scottish ancestry, as does her mother who was of course, born there.
I would dispute that the Queen is Queen of Scotland (although many Scots, like my Mum, would disagree with me) not least because she calls herself Queen Elizabeth the Second. There was no Queen Elizabeth the First of Scotland or Britain. It was her choice when she took the crown, so as far as I am concerned, she is not my queen.

As for the civilization issue, I think the game should have had the British as a civ, with Victoria as leader, and a redcoat or dreadnaught as SU. Then I would have advocated the Celts as a separate civ.

If you are going to have the English, then you could have the Scots and Irish too. I wouldn't include the Scots if you have the British though.
Rogan Josh is offline  
Old November 13, 2001, 13:53   #53
evanjroberts
Settler
 
Local Time: 16:01
Local Date: October 31, 2010
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: London, U.k
Posts: 1
I live in britain and was born in England but with welsh parents.

Personally I would prefere to play England rather than bitain as I feel fighing as the british is wierd as England and wales never really merged, nor were they united. Wales was conquoured and their language was opressed.
If i'm correct Wales and England were enemies for a long time. Yes, so did other ancient civilisation who ended up becoming one civilisation but the difference is the welsh still exist and so does there language. You can't fight as the british, it's silly, but that's just my oppinion.

Britain is different from america too. America is a brake away of european civilations, Britain is a group of countries who only in recently have been united.

My History isn't as good as most of yours here but I think i've made a valid point.
evanjroberts is offline  
Old November 13, 2001, 14:11   #54
Kookullin
Settler
 
Local Time: 16:01
Local Date: October 31, 2010
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: London
Posts: 2
Quote:
Originally posted by El Awrence
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.
As an Irishman currently serving in the British Army, I have been following this discussion with detached interest. But I could not let the observations quoted above go without comment, given their facetiousness and the complete ignorance of the Army's history they display.

Compulsory military service was introduced in Britain in the early 20th century, so the first of the two explanations does nothing to explain the contribution of the Scots, Welsh or Irish to the excellence - or otherwise, if that is your view - of the British Army in earlier periods. Indeed, very controversially, mandatory service in the armed forces was never extended to Ireland. As a consequence, the thousands of Irishmen who died in both world wars fighting in the British armed forces were volunteers. The most surprising fact of all is that of the nine Victoria Crosses awarded to Irishmen from both parts of that country for gallantry during the second world war, seven went to nationals of what was then the Irish Free State - an independent country.

As to the second observation, namely that there "were very few non-English commanding officers", I should point out that the Duke of Wellington was an Irishman, born south of Dublin and a graduate of Trinity College Dublin. Famously, when someone made light of his origins, he once observed that "being born in a stable need not make one a horse". The irony of the great "Franco-British" confrontation between Napoleon and Wellington was that it was actually between an Irishman and a Corsican.

So to say that "the last thing the Irish and the Scots wanted to do ever [sic] was serve in the British army" is plain wrong (as well as ignorant).

A more considered explanation of the view that triggered the silly comments I have just addressed is that the Scots, Welsh and Irish were for a long time over-represented in the British armed forces for the sensible reason someone has already mentioned: as a route out of poverty. But the primary motive for their being there has no bearing at all on the gallantry of their contribution.

As to the topic of this thread ("British" or "English"): I urge anyone sufficiently interested to read the opening chapter of Norman Davies' history of Britain and Ireland, "The Isles". As he makes clear, use of the term "British" to mean the peoples of these islands poses a lot of difficulties. Indeed, "Britain" has never been coterminous with "United Kingdom"; and "Great Britain" is a creation of the early 18th century.

The civilisation that pre-dates Great Britain by centuries and that will continue in existence even if the United Kingdom fragments is that of the English. It is "England" that has stood the test of time, not "Britain". Whether it is or was a great civilisation ought to be obvious to any objective observer.
Kookullin is offline  
Old November 13, 2001, 16:54   #55
History Guy
PtWDG RoleplayACDG Planet University of TechnologyInterSite Democracy Game: Apolyton TeamPtWDG2 TabemonoAlpha Centauri Democracy GameApolyton Storywriters' GuildC4DG Gathering Storm
King
 
History Guy's Avatar
 
Local Time: 10:01
Local Date: October 31, 2010
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: A bleak and barren rock
Posts: 2,743
Though Britain produced many great army leaders, Wellington, Gordon, Kitchener, for example, the British army was never very large, which is why they were hesitant to become engaged in overseas wars that would be fought on land. This is the major reason, I believe, that they did not enter into the American Civil War, for example. Had the Union focused it's war effort on the sea, and built up a gigantic navy for the sea (and not just the rivers) then I believe Britain would have jumped to the chance of attacking, and would have blown Old Abe out of the water. Britain's greatest military asset since James I had been her navy.
History Guy is offline  
Old November 13, 2001, 18:42   #56
Styria
Settler
 
Local Time: 11:01
Local Date: October 31, 2010
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: Upstate New York
Posts: 16
Anglo-Saxons as the name
I think that Brittish should be dropped altogether, and at least be changed to English. But you could go farther than that, and dissolve the Americans into it, and claim to also include Canada and Australia (by using their city and great leaders names too). Change the name to the Anglo-Saxons, and maybe call the country Anglaland.

They have long been grouped, and were often refered to together as Anglo-Saxon civilization. For a leader, why not use the only king England ever had who was called "the Great"? - Alfred; he did a lot to earn that title, after all, and the new cultural sense of the game is really geared to reflect him.

For a special unit, keeping the Man of War would be alright. But even better would be the old Germanic concept of the freeman, who brought his own arms to battle. In most of Western Europe, the Germanic and Roman fused to eventually form feudalism, but the Angles, Saxons, and Jutes were too thorough moving into the parts they held of the Roman-abandoned Brittish Isles for that to happen there. So England kept the freeman, and America got it too. For a special unit to reflect this, use an upgraded musket man (+1 move would be good to simulate country movement and for retreat when losing to a more powerful opponent), and drop its saltpeter requirement (like with the Indian's elephant unit).

Styria is offline  
Old November 13, 2001, 19:06   #57
molly bloom
King
 
molly bloom's Avatar
 
Local Time: 02:01
Local Date: November 1, 2010
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: Lundenwic
Posts: 2,719
Quote:
Originally posted by Rogan Josh


I would dispute that the Queen is Queen of Scotland (although many Scots, like my Mum, would disagree with me) not least because she calls herself Queen Elizabeth the Second. There was no Queen Elizabeth the First of Scotland or Britain. It was her choice when she took the crown, so as far as I am concerned, she is not my queen.
'....Queen Anne, Daughter of James VII. On 1st April 1707 the Union of Parliaments extinguished the Kingdoms of Scotland and England replacing them with the new United Kingdom of Great Britain. Queen Anne died in 1714 and was succeeded by George I of the House of Hanover - the great grandson of James VI by the female line. '

Obviously Scotland didn't have an Elizabeth I...as Mary of Guise (as Regent), then Mary Queen of Scots, and then her son James were busily ruling during Elizabeth's reign. But Mary Queen of Scots, as a granddaughter of Henry VIII's elder sister had a legitimate claim to the English throne, and as a result of her losing her head, Elizabeth remaining unmarried and childless.....
As far as the Scottish Parliament is concerned she does appear to be Queen of Scotland.
__________________
Cherish your youth. Mark Foley, 2002

I don't know what you're talking about by international law. G.W. Bush, 12/03
molly bloom is offline  
Old November 13, 2001, 22:12   #58
MustPost
Chieftain
 
MustPost's Avatar
 
Local Time: 11:01
Local Date: October 31, 2010
Join Date: Sep 2001
Posts: 38
I think English and British both sound cool.
Im not sure which one I like, better.
Im leaning towards British, so the puny scots, and welch cant claim to have their own civs. Hehe, hope my history teacher isn't reading this.
MustPost is offline  
Old November 14, 2001, 16:01   #59
Dauphin
Civilization IV PBEMPolyCast Team
Deity
 
Dauphin's Avatar
 
Local Time: 17:01
Local Date: October 31, 2010
Join Date: Dec 1969
Location: Seouenaca, Cantium
Posts: 12,426
Quote:
Had the Union focused it's war effort on the sea, and built up a gigantic navy for the sea (and not just the rivers) then I believe Britain would have jumped to the chance of attacking, and would have blown Old Abe out of the water.
I think that we stayed because of our own reasons. Sorry to disuade you from your Americo-centrism....
__________________
"Everybody knows you never go full retard. You went full retard man. Never go full retard"
Dauphin is offline  
Old November 14, 2001, 19:00   #60
madmario
Chieftain
 
madmario's Avatar
 
Local Time: 16:01
Local Date: October 31, 2010
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: Ithaca, NY
Posts: 83
I think it should be left alone. In leaving it alone there is the appearance of neutrality; basically, levaing it alone is something we all can live with. England was, and is, a significant world power, culturally and materialy. It's ethno-cultural center is muddled and is downright ugly in places (as in America -- Bloody Sunday and Easter 1916 coming to recent thought tho). Leave muddled enough alone (since I can't say "well enough"). It's a game. Very little of the game is real -- neuclear weapons in 1550AD? If we got super accurate, there would be no names, no leaders, etc. If youwant detail you can always play Europa Universalis II. This is civ which is more cartoonesque.

-mario
madmario is offline  
 

Bookmarks

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is On

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 12:01.


Design by Vjacheslav Trushkin, color scheme by ColorizeIt!.
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.2
Copyright ©2000 - 2010, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Apolyton Civilization Site | Copyright © The Apolyton Team