• Civilization 7 has been announced. For more info please check the forum here .

British not English ?

They need to rename England to Britain, England didn't achieve anything alone.

No. That would be totally wrong. The biggest reason is that the Celts that we have in the game are in fact Britons. If Celts truly would be Celts in the game then we could have this discussion. On the other hand I must say that I was really surprised how Celts are represented in the game.
 
I think England is ok. there is Celts for other Britain people.
 
I think the "British Invasion" achievement can be done by any Civ, it simply means that you need to use a Great Musician who is British (irrespective of which civilization owns him) - so Gustav Holst for example.

Nice theory, I'm going with this now :)
 
"I may have the body of a weak and feeble woman, but I have the heart and stomach of a Carthaginian elephant."
 
Ever heard of the English Empire? No, didn't think so.
The Celts can be based on Ireland instead, theres a whole bunch of Irish cities that could be used. Elizabeth was under control of both England and Wales, therefore it wasn't just English and also the Longbowman is infact Welsh, not English. The Ship of the Line was used by the BRITISH Empire, not the nonexistant English empire, thank you very much.

1) Um. The English Empire was simply the Empire before 1707. So, yes, I have heard of it. I will agree that Britain reached greater heights than the Kingdom did, but the groundwork for the Empire took place under the Kingdom of England before the Act of Union.

2) Not all longbowmen were Welsh.

3) It was still the Kingdom of England, and there was little Welsh participation in, well, anything in the government, and only a small amount of the army.

4) Agree about the Ship of the Line, but honestly, does it really matter that much? The 18th century British state would've been fairly English in character. They kept trying to repress the Welsh identity quite a way through the 19th century.

Don't get me wrong, I'm not knocking the Celtic contribution here, nor their own proud history, but to claim that England was nothing before it was absorbed into the UK is just bad history.
 
England represents England. The Celts represents Scotland & Ireland. And Wales ... well, idk
 
England represents England. The Celts represents Scotland & Ireland. And Wales ... well, idk
Scotland, Ireland, Wales, Cornwall, Brittany and Mann in terms of city list.
Basically just Britons, Picts and Gaels. It's a bit insular.

Celts slightly overlap with England and France because of Cornwall (and Wales sort of) and Brittany. Though ideally you'd want them overlapping with most of Europe. That or you'd want a bunch of linguistically confused tribes raiding each other and sacking Romans.
 
1)



3) It was still the Kingdom of England, and there was little Welsh participation in, well, anything in the government, and only a small amount of the army.

Not actually strictly true. The Tudors, including Queen Elizabeth I as seen in CivV where a family of Welsh origin, originally spelled Tewdwr (or similar). The Welsh flag (the Ddraig Goch) is the same one unfurlled by Henry VII (Liz's Grandpa) when he marched through Wales on his way to seizing the crown at Bosworth Fields.
 
Not actually strictly true. The Tudors, including Queen Elizabeth I as seen in CivV where a family of Welsh origin, originally spelled Tewdwr (or similar). The Welsh flag (the Ddraig Goch) is the same one unfurlled by Henry VII (Liz's Grandpa) when he marched through Wales on his way to seizing the crown at Bosworth Fields.

QFT

Personal grumbling:

It annoys me to have a Welsh person leading "England". I would much rather have Alfred the Great or one of his pre-conquest kin rather than a Norman, Plantagenet, Welsh, Scot, Dutch, or German leader of "England".
 
We're getting into dodgy territory now, aren't we?, with talk of nationality being inherited along with a surname.

Elizabeth v1.0 was obviously not Welsh, whatever her surname was, in the same way that Charles I Stuart wasn't a Scotsman, and that FDR wasn't a Dutchman, and that Malcolm X wasn't one of the X-men.

When it comes down to it, if anyone'd called QE1 Welsh to her face, she probably would've had their pelt turned into buskins.
 
I think it should be just England as it has always been in every civ. At the end of the day the civ is based on the post 1066, pre industrial, Middle Ages English Monarcy and not the British empire ie it only has English cities in its list, the celts cover the rest of the UK and Ireland. And there's nothing in the UA or UUs that scream overseas empire.

Plus what would you call it?

Britain doesn't make sense as there is no "Britain" as such. There is a Great Britain but that's just a geographical name for the largest island in the island group ie England, Scotland and Wales combined. And the term British is the adjective of the nationally of someone or something belonging to the UK so I suppose you could call the civ British Empire but no other Civ is described as such ie Romans not Roman Empire, The Ottoman not Ottoman Empire etc.
You could maybe use UK but there is very little in the civ as it is that pulls from the rest of the kingdom outside England.

Overall the naming of anything to do with England and the UK is actually very complicated especially when you throw history into it as well. It's much easier and much more accurate to actually just stick with the name England and try and base the civ on just the English where possible which they have done quite well. Then use the Celts cover the rest.

If you want to see how complicated the names of the different entities of the British Ilses are just watch this video.

http://youtu.be/rNu8XDBSn10


The guy explains very well, most Brits don't get these things right.
 
QFT

Personal grumbling:

It annoys me to have a Welsh person leading "England". I would much rather have Alfred the Great or one of his pre-conquest kin rather than a Norman, Plantagenet, Welsh, Scot, Dutch, or German leader of "England".

Don't confuse Anglo-Saxon with English. Normans and Plantagenets are as much a part of English history as Alfred and co.

Queen Elizabeth, was born in England, to an English father and an English mother, and ruled England from England. To describe her as Welsh stretches the imagination somewhat, and would call into question so many other leaders.

Yes, Henry Tudor was born in Wales, and made a big fuss about his connections to the Welsh aristocracy, but that's about as far as his Welshness goes. Not that the distinction is particularly relevant by this stage in history.
 
http://youtu.be/rNu8XDBSn10


The guy explains very well, most Brits don't get these things right.
Some of the stuff he says about Ireland is wrong. "Ireland" is a political term, its the name of the state that's "described" as the Republic of Ireland. Officially it's just "Ireland" in English and "Éire" in Irish. Also plenty of people in Northern Ireland are ethnically Irish, identify as such, hold Irish citizenship and many forgo any British identity. It's complicated, definitely not Northern Ireland => British not Irish.
 
The history of the British Isles is complex, lengthy and very difficult to fully understand. It is also old, so that all "facts" are open to interpretation.

There is disagreement of varying amounts with almost every fact from before 1900, and certainly any interpretation.

Having said that, "English" was a term coined in about the 5th Century to encompass the amalgamation of the Germanic tribes and the Brytons.

Here is where the real problem develops. Although the Welsh, and the Scottish, like to use the term Celtic to describe themselves, the term "Brytons" seems to have specifically referred the the portion of the Celtic people that lived in Great Britain (the island), ie not the Germanic tribes, or the Danes (their culture did not stick well, they were not good joiners).

The Brytons great contribution to the culture, leadership and population led to the term British later (eary medieval) coming to mean all the residents of the island of Great Britain (also named after them). Being offended by being called British is a bit barmy IMHO, as the name actually derived from them, but oh well, that's history for you.

In the game, we have the Celts (which should include the Brytons). The English should include the Brytons. And as soon as they use "British" it is a bit of a mess.
 
Don't forget that Wales doesn't have the same history of legal separateness within the Union that Scotland has. It was entirely annexed to England, and was generally seen as part of England; it entered the Union as part of England.
 
Don't forget that Wales doesn't have the same history of legal separateness within the Union that Scotland has. It was entirely annexed to England, and was generally seen as part of England; it entered the Union as part of England.

True, but most of the terms we are talking about were in use well before Edward Longshanks.
 
Some of the stuff he says about Ireland is wrong. "Ireland" is a political term, its the name of the state that's "described" as the Republic of Ireland. Officially it's just "Ireland" in English and "Éire" in Irish. Also plenty of people in Northern Ireland are ethnically Irish, identify as such, hold Irish citizenship and many forgo any British identity. It's complicated, definitely not Northern Ireland => British not Irish.

Well, he's not wholly wrong as Ireland is the name of the island as well, and he makes some indication that United Kingdom is technically a theocracy (which would be wrong), but the gist of what he's saying is about right. The part about Northern Ireland being British not Irish I believe is in respect to the passport/citizenship issue. Although it's pretty common to hold both the default in Northern Ireland is British, not Irish, citizenship.

The history of the British Isles is complex, lengthy and very difficult to fully understand. It is also old, so that all "facts" are open to interpretation.

...

The Brytons great contribution to the culture, leadership and population led to the term British, later (eary medieval) coming to mean all the residents of the island, including the English. Being offended by being called British is a bit barmy IMHO, as the name actually derived from them, but oh well, that's history for you.

So that is why we have, in the game, the division between the Celts (including the Brytons). The term English is not so well used as it also includes should include the Brytons. And as soon as they use British it is a bit of a mess.

Very much agree until that last two points. British, as an identity, didn't kick off until the early 1700s. Britons (or Brytons, if you prefer) are a different kettle of fish and refer to the people on the island of Great Britain (south of Scotland I think?) pre-500 AD or so. There's no link between the two except in approximate spelling.

To be honest, I'd prefer if they did Irish, Welsh, Scottish and English civs and then kept the Celts more focused on their European incarnation (a la Civ 4), but I'm a bit biased. :p
 
QFT

Personal grumbling:

It annoys me to have a Welsh person leading "England". I would much rather have Alfred the Great or one of his pre-conquest kin rather than a Norman, Plantagenet, Welsh, Scot, Dutch, or German leader of "England".

Her mother and grandmother were unambiguously English. She spent her entire life in England. Although she was a talented linguist, her mother tongue was English and there is no evidence to suggest that she spoke Welsh. Bit of a stretch to call her 'Welsh' just because of her grandfather's ancestry. There is little doubt that she thought of herself as English.
 
The history of the British Isles is complex, lengthy and very difficult to fully understand. It is also old, so that all "facts" are open to interpretation.

There is disagreement of varying amounts with almost every fact from before 1900, and certainly any interpretation.

Having said that, "English" was a term coined in about the 5th Century to encompass the amalgamation of the Germanic tribes and the Brytons.

Here is where the real problem develops. Although the Welsh, and the Scottish, like to use the term Celtic to describe themselves, the term "Brytons" seems to have specifically referred the the portion of the Celtic people that lived in Great Britain (the island), ie not the English, or the Normans.

The Brytons great contribution to the culture, leadership and population led to the term British, later (eary medieval) coming to mean all the residents of the island, including the English. Being offended by being called British is a bit barmy IMHO, as the name actually derived from them, but oh well, that's history for you.

In the game, we have the Celts (which should include the Brytons). The English should include the Brytons. And as soon as they use British it is a bit of a mess.

'Britain' is first recorded as 'Bretannikē', or so Strabo tells us, in the works of Pytheas of Massalia (4th century BC, now lost), who had reportedly travelled extensively in the northern seas and islands. Etymologists speculate that the word is derived from a root 'Pretania' or 'Pritannia', a cognate of Welsh 'Ynys Prydein' (the island of Britain) or Irish 'Cruithen-tuath' (land of the Picts). Irish/Scots root 'cruth' and Welsh 'pryd' gives us 'form', so the British are 'people of forms', ie., tattoos. Cf. Latin 'Picti', painted, ie., tattooed.

The middle ages witnessed a great deal of interest in a romanticised 'British' past with Geoffrey of Monmouth playing a leading role, and the Arthurian romances are its most widespread and lasting legacy. Henry Tudor sought to play upon his Welsh background by invoking the 'British' romance tradition repeatedly, notably in naming his first-born son Arthur. The conceit dwindled under his successors, although the various legal jurisdictions of Wales were brought under the English Parliament in the Laws in Wales acts between 1536 and 1542. The claim that 'this realm of England is an empire' predates these, coming in the 1533 Act in Restraint of Appeals (ie. to Rome), and should be seen as one more in a long line of claims by English kings to sovereign authority dependent on no outside power, whether pope, emperor, or other king.

'Britain' heaves back into view in the writings and speeches of James VI and I and his courtiers, who found it a powerful image to invoke in speaking of his dual monarchy covering the entire island. Talk of a 'British Empire' to describe the composite monarchy and its colonial possessions began in the seventeenth century, analagously to the use of the 'Spanish Empire' as a shorthand for the patchwork of kingdoms and principalities in the hands of the kings of Castile, Aragon, etc.

After the Act of Union in 1707, the term 'Great Britain' referred to the state as well as the island, although the English habit, endlessly irritating to their neighbours, of using 'England and Britain' interchangeably appears well-established within a few decades. This interchangeable use, it is worth noting, has long been common in French, German, Spanish and Italian, and also in America. One constituency for whom the term Briton did carry emotional and political appeal through the eighteenth century were Scottish defenders of the Union. David Hume refers more than once to himself as a 'North Briton', though the name later became associated more with the cause of the radical John Wilkes.

It is worth noting that Ireland has never been subsumed within the term Britain, the Act of Union of 1800 created the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland; the independence of Eire in 1922 leaving the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland. And a final note, the 'Great' in Great Britain is a geographical term, differentiating the largest of the British Isles from the peninsula of Brittany, settled by Britonic speakers in late antiquity. It is clearer in French: 'Bretagne' and Grande Bretagne'. Interestingly French, following Latin, retains the Feminine form first given the noun by Pytheas.

And yes, I am procrastinating.
 
Top Bottom