Why the English (and Germans) Should and are Included

History Guy · November 8, 2001, 15:08

I've noticed some complaints about the inclusion of England into the game as it was too insignificant and was never a world power. I should like those who believe this to pick up a good book on England and read it. Anyone who believes that England was a midget on the world stage is clearly in error, as the English have always been one of the most important civilizations around (at least since Boudica's rebellion). In fact, England controlled the greatest empire at the time back in the 18th, 19th, and early 20th centuries. They controlled Canada, Panama, the Americas, and India in the 1700s, and Canada, Panama, India, Afghanistan, the Sudan, part of North Africa, South Africa, Bermuda, and all of the Isles back in the 1800s, and a good deal of the 1900s.

I also wanted to mention that those who have said that the Germans were never major figures on the world stage were also mistaken, as they had a huge empire in the 1800s, ending in 1918, and then another giant empire in the 1930s and '40s under Adolf You-Know-Who until they were finally whooped in 1945. So yeah, they were also a major world power at one point.

Wulfram · November 8, 2001, 15:14

Britain, not England had the Empire, and Afghanistan is debatable. You do realise that England was ruled by the Romans for about 300 years after Boudicca's rebellion don't you?

Dauphin · November 8, 2001, 15:27

Quote:

You do realise that England was ruled by the Romans

Quote:

as the English have always been one of the most important civilizations around (at least since Boudica's rebellion).

England was around in the first few centuries AD was it?

Equivalent statment....

I hope everyone realises the Mexicans were ruled by the Aztecs for centuries before Cortes.

History Guy · November 8, 2001, 16:40

Wulfram, Actually, you are entirely wrong. England had the empire. The English conquered it, the English ran it. When they united the rest of the Isles (for better or for worse), Wales, Ireland, and Scotland, it was called the British Empire, because the British Isles were where England lay. Afghanistan was just as much a part of the empire as Bermuda or Nepal. Also, Boudicca's rebellion did not succeed but it made England really famous for the first time in their history (and showed that they were good fighters!).

History Guy · November 8, 2001, 16:55

Hmmmm...I posted a response...Why isn't it showing up? Here's what I wrote: Wulfram, Actually, you are entirely wrong. England had the empire. The English conquered it, the English ran it. When they united the rest of the Isles (for better or for worse), Wales, Ireland, and Scotland, it was called the British Empire, because the British Isles were where England lay. Afghanistan was just as much a part of the empire as Bermuda or Nepal. Also, Boudicca's rebellion did not succeed but it made England really famous for the first time in their history (and showed that they were good fighters!).

Wulfram · November 9, 2001, 09:27

Big Crunch, the actual equivalent would be

"I hope everyone realises Mexico was ruled by the Aztecs before Cortez"

Which makes perfect sense, just like "Dinosaurs used to walk on the Isle of Wight" makes sense even though it wasn't called that then or "the Iroquois lived in Canada before the Europeans arrived"

History Guy: After Boudiccas rebellion the roman part of Britain continued to be a minor backwater part of the empire which no one could really be bothered with and the only interesting thing about it was that it was the most northerly outpost of the empire and had some nice natural springs. I could also mention the fact that Boudicca was a celt and is therefore more welsh than english and that being defeated by an army you outnumber 10 to 1 doesn't enhance your military reputation.

The British empire was called that because it was ruled by Britain, that is England, Scotland and Wales and saying anything else is just silly

Afghanistan was officially British but not practically as we couldn't control the desert and hills. Nepal certainly wasn't ruled by Britain, it was a friendly independant state ruled by the same family it is ruled by today.

History Guy · November 9, 2001, 10:08

Wulfram,
I won't deny you the pleasure of undermining your own kinsmen in history. Boudicca was most certainly English, she was from a tribe in Yorkshire. The same thing Boudicca did at Colchester and Londinum is what the Germans had been doing for years, so maybe we should cut out the Germans as well, as they didn't defeat the Romans in their rebellions until late in Roman history. Same thing with France. Cut them out too. Boudicca may well have outnumbered the Romans, but so did the Germans who were defeated by Marius in the 100 BCs, it wasn't that they were in any way poor fighters, it is that the Roman Legion was the most powerful thing around and were armored, and the English weren't. But who in Scotland and Wales really had much control over the British Empire? It was England from which the real power came. Nepal was British. The Nepalese even asked for the Brits to rule them during the Opium Wars. Remember the Gurkhas?

Tolls · November 9, 2001, 11:02

HG:
Boudicca was in no way "English".
The English weren't to exist for a thousand years (post Norman conquest).

Boudicca was Celt through and through...they were pushed to the fringes of the islands over the next several centuries, what with the invasions from the Saxons, the Danes, and anyone else who had a boat...until they were left with the north and the west.

Dauphin · November 9, 2001, 12:51

Quote:

Originally posted by History Guy
was most certainly English, she was from a tribe in Yorkshire. The same thing Boudicca did at Colchester and Londinum is what the Germans had been doing for years,

She was from what is now East Anglia, not Yorkshire

Quote:

The British empire was called that because it was ruled by Britain

That was a political name change to placate the Scots. They were more willing to live under a "British" banner than an "English" one.

Quote:

Boudicca was most certainly English

And Hannibal was Tunisian. Don't think so.....

Wulfram · November 9, 2001, 13:19

HG: The Germans were one of the most succesful enemies of the Romans and were never permanently conquered. Rome made frequent attempts to pacify the Germans and occasionally had limited success, but never totally succeeded. Have you heard of the Battle of Teutoberger Wald? That was where assorted German tribes under Arminius destroyed 4 entire Legions in 4 AD. The Romans were back later and got there revenge but they never enjoyed the unchallnged superiority they had before and never turned Germany into the peaceful province which what was later to be England (is that better?) became.

As for the name change being purely political, that doesn't sit well with the increased representation that Scotland enjoys relative to population.

Jay Bee · November 9, 2001, 14:05

Quote:

Originally posted by History Guy
They controlled Canada, Panama, the Americas, and India in the 1700s

That's a pretty interesting statement. Mind to point me to your sources for that info?

Martinus · November 9, 2001, 14:10

Come on, people, what is happening to this forum? In the recent few weeks I have seen post defending the extreme global relevance of Zulu and Iroquis civilistions, at the same time denigrating such ground-shaking civs like English, Germans, Spanish or Americans (not necessarily in that order).

Is that forum a beacon for all kind of "historically-challenged" people, coming up with theories that would have been laughed at by every normal historical community? I am not saying that Zulu and Iroquis were completely unimportant, while English or Americans are the only worthy of being included in Civ, but you got to keep the things in certain perspective. Be reasonable, people

History Guy · November 9, 2001, 14:45

It's from Book (and Series) II of Simon Schama's History of Britain, Kenneth's Davies' The Isles, and GM Trevelyan's A History of England.

Jay Bee · November 9, 2001, 15:11

I find it highly disturbing that any book may state that Britain controlled Panama at any time in history. And about controlling 'the Americas', I guess it refers to the N. American colonies and a few islands in the Caribbean, right? The vast majority of the Americas was never in British hands, I believe.

Dauphin · November 9, 2001, 16:19

Quote:

Originally posted by Martinus
Come on, people, what is happening to this forum? In the recent few weeks I have seen post defending the extreme global relevance of Zulu and Iroquis civilistions, at the same time denigrating such ground-shaking civs like English, Germans, Spanish or Americans (not necessarily in that order).

Is that forum a beacon for all kind of "historically-challenged" people, coming up with theories that would have been laughed at by every normal historical community? I am not saying that Zulu and Iroquis were completely unimportant, while English or Americans are the only worthy of being included in Civ, but you got to keep the things in certain perspective. Be reasonable, people

It more about political correctness I think. The idea that everyone is equal, therefore the influence on history has to be equal for all peoples.

The English have something in their psyche which worries me. In the US it is expected of Green Card applicants to know about the US, have a reason to take up residency etc etc.. In England if someone suggested that an immigrant should not be given state benefits they are called racist. This is part of a wider English belief that we are not that great and that we should not acknowledge our greater accomplishments.

Its a mixed up world with liberals at times.

molly bloom · November 9, 2001, 18:02

Quote:

Originally posted by Big Crunch

It more about political correctness I think. The idea that everyone is equal, therefore the influence on history has to be equal for all peoples.

The English have something in their psyche which worries me. In the US it is expected of Green Card applicants to know about the US, have a reason to take up residency etc etc.. In England if someone suggested that an immigrant should not be given state benefits they are called racist. This is part of a wider English belief that we are not that great and that we should not acknowledge our greater accomplishments.

Its a mixed up world with liberals at times.

Uhh...not had many dealings with the U.K. Immigration Service, I take it? I'd have British self-deprecation over vainglorious trumpeting of non-existent feats any day. Modesty is more becoming than standing on a dunghill and crowing about how wonderful you are. ..IMHO

Now as for British and English...the British Isles and Great Britain (Grande Bretagne), distinguishing them from...Bretagne.

It was a linguistic signpost for Francis I and Louis XIV and Napoleon, so that they wouldn't besiege Noirmoutier and Quimper, in the mistaken belief that they were Rye and Winchelsea...

Dauphin · November 10, 2001, 17:08

Quote:

Uhh...not had many dealings with the U.K. Immigration Service, I take it?

What is that supposed to mean?

Compared to most countries in the world the UK has extremely lax immigration laws and provides more accomodation and funding to immigrants than most countries. Yet if a call comes to reduce these benefits or tighten immigration it is considered xenophobic or even racist. David Blunkett suggested that immigrants should attend English lessons and he was vilified by some MPs and the public.

Quote:

Modesty is more becoming than standing on a dunghill and crowing about how wonderful you are. ..IMHO

Why does it have to be an extreme. Why not middle of the road? Feel proud of accomplishments and believe in your own ability without being bigheaded or blind to reality.