So What Happened British Empire?

[thomson_2001]

hahah uh oh, here we go again! ill get the blue face paint out

 

[Spearthrower]

I couldn't say why England was chosen over Britain, as I do not care. I just would hate to see the British Flag in this game.

I don't know why you'd hate to see your flag represented in the game... it is after all legally your flag too.... even if you choose to ignore the other components, it has Saint Andrew's cross clearly emblazoned across it.... taking up the largest amount of space proportionately.

 

[Soneji]

And Soneji - how can you both claim that the British Empire would have been less successful without the Scottish and then try to pass all blame off for any mistakes on the English solely? Either you were a significant part or you weren't?

By way of contribution I was leaning towards intellectually, our enlightenment as well as technologically and in the way of merchantism within the free trade environment of the empire. Ultimately, as well as extending the English ruled 'British Empire' by force. It comes down to that, English rule. It wasn’t Scots deciding to go pillage the world. Scotland never had the blood thirsty ambition and traits (internationally) that England had, it only wanted it own self contained bubble (and the odd failed non fledging colony). England had been in the process of building a world empire for some centuries before the inclusion of Scotland into the fold, which England longed for as a possession for years. Further, the manpower of a colonised Scotland formerly in essential opposition could be effectively engaged to the advantage of English ambitions.

The way in which Scotland was drawn into entrapment differed little from the method employed to lure several of England's more distant satellites to grief. India was ripe for just the sort of overwhelming approach which the English had perfected in Wales, Ireland, North America, Scotland and even small fragments of France and Spain which they had held. The technique revolved around the aggrandisement of a section of the indigenous community to be colonised. Easy if they are not materially wealthy, and presented with a perceived invincible fighting force.. really great psychological stimulant for ‘positive co-operation’.

The expansion of the British empire was a source of great opportunity for a minority of Scots, there were benefits of free trade at the time where Scotland was arguable the poorest nation in Europe, if not the world. I am not folly enough to be arguing at all that Scotland did not benefit from the Union of Parliaments and Crowns but clearly Scotland as the concept of a healthy, living, developing human society, which is what Scottish Nationalism is all about was shelved completely during the lost generations of imperial adventurism. Empires seem to have the innate ability to engender the emergence of the whole range of sycophancy in almost any community into which they intrude.

I’ll use this as my example coming back to your question to end my rambling…In India, the British Empire utilised Scottish soldiers. The British Empire used Irish soldiers in India. The British Empire even employed Indian soldiers in India. It is a sad fact that for every Argyll Swordsman there was a Bengal Lancer, though this may offer information about basic human nature rather than about the moral fibre of the average Scot or Indian. None of these exploited peoples themselves bear the blame for the crimes of the empire.

Structural Racism is alive and well and living in Scotland. It is directed at the Scottish People and emanates from relic power structures which are the surviving legacy of the British Empire.


“We look to Scotland for all our ideas of Civilisation” – Voltair

 

[Spearthrower]

It wasn’t Scots deciding to go pillage the world. Scotland never had the blood thirsty ambition and traits (internationally) that England had, it only wanted it own self contained bubble (and the odd failed non fledging colony).

With respect... the fact is that you were rampant pillaging aggressors... and very successful at it.

Your attacks forced constant reprisals from many nations - not just the "English" (who you are I assume meaning post unification England.... but also from the Saxons, Vikings, Celts, Romans..... they all had to deal with your people aggressively as you dealt with them.

Please do not characterise your people as peaceniks... they were as bloodthirsty and aggressive as their enemies.

As it is, rather than being utterly vanquished and swallowed by England, they were given a partial, if not complete, unity that lead to great riches and heightening of culture.

Scotland would not be where it is today if it wasn't a) part of the U.K. and b) Hadn't been involved in colonialism too.

 

[Soneji]

Actually the highland clearances were actually carried out by highland chieftains who need the land for more profitable sheep I think it was. Not right I think, but it was not the English.

It was facilitated by the English, and yes there were Scots alongside English involved. However what I was trying to hint towards, which I should have clarified, was the potato famine of '46. Whatever crops did come up good, were shipped down to the lowlands and England with no concern for the people's well being.. all overseen by English troops. Crofters were not simply given their oatmeal rations, they had to work constantly under the governments Drainage Act (can't remember the year) for their lairds to give some sort of support. Real prospect throughout the period, and certainly it was one of severe malnutrition, serious disease, financial hardship and traumatic disruption leading to the mass exodus of some 16,000 highlanders.

Had the government not borne a hatred for the highlanders, I suspect that the situation would not have been left to stagnate as it did.

 

[Soneji]

With respect... the fact is that you were rampant pillaging aggressors... and very successful at it.

Your attacks forced constant reprisals from many nations - not just the "English" (who you are I assume meaning post unification England.... but also from the Saxons, Vikings, Celts, Romans..... they all had to deal with your people aggressively as you dealt with them.

Please do not characterise your people as peaceniks... they were as bloodthirsty and aggressive as their enemies.

As it is, rather than being utterly vanquished and swallowed by England, they were given a partial, if not complete, unity that lead to great riches and heightening of culture.

Scotland would not be where it is today if it wasn't a) part of the U.K. and b) Hadn't been involved in colonialism too.

"Saxons, Vikings, Celts, Romans"

We are talking about the British Empire, not the 2,500 year history of the British Isles.

"As it is, rather than being utterly vanquished and swallowed by England, they were given a partial, if not complete, unity that lead to great riches and heightening of culture."

Complete Unity? Are we talking about the same country? Scotland was politically subjugated.

Great riches for whom? A nation? No. A minority already in a position of loftiness? Yes.

 

[Soneji]

hahah uh oh, here we go again! ill get the blue face paint out

I still have my face paint on, Full highland dress for the France game the other night!


'Mon the SCOTS!!!!!

Feck the 'Auld Alliance', they stole our bloody Navy!

 

[Spearthrower]

"Saxons, Vikings, Celts, Romans"

We are talking about the British Empire, not the 2,500 year history of the British Isles.

"As it is, rather than being utterly vanquished and swallowed by England, they were given a partial, if not complete, unity that lead to great riches and heightening of culture."

Complete Unity? Are we talking about the same country? Scotland was politically subjugated.

Great riches for whom? A nation? No. A minority already in a position of loftiness? Yes.

Seems like you didnt actually read what I said.... or more significantly, read what you wanted to in it.

I said that you were given "partial unity" - even if that was not complete unity. Which is still a damn sight more than Wales ever got.... or India... or wherever else.

Your people made the decision at the time, you should rail against them, not against the English who could have done a lot worse. Not that I am in any way supporting or condoning what the English enacted on their subjugated peoples.

You also seem happy to remove the blame from all the other peoples of the empire yet somehow stack all of the blame at the doors of the English. That's just nationalism speaking, it certainly isn't facts. There were plenty of Scots who drooled at the chance to take part in the international plundering that colonialism was.

I know its hard to accept hard facts about the country you love, but dont try to push away all the blame onto another country.

Whatever the case, this is again becoming a platform to bash another group's nation instead of discussing the thread at hand.

If you want to persist in addressing and decrying English domination of Scotland and the subsequent subjugation, why don't you go and make a thread specifically on that in the Off Topic forum.... this one is for BtS and is about a game.

 

[Soneji]

I don't know why you'd hate to see your flag represented in the game... it is after all legally your flag too.... even if you choose to ignore the other components, it has Saint Andrew's cross clearly emblazoned across it.... taking up the largest amount of space proportionately.

Legally my flag? I am a Scottish National. I have never swore allegiance to the British Crown, nor its Governance.

http://heritage.scotsman.com/topics.cfm?tid=525&id=1167462004

Westminster policy is for the St Andrews flag to fly in a lower, subjugated, position to the Jack. Nothing like keeping a good thing down eh?

 

[Soneji]

Seems like you didnt actually read what I said.... or more significantly, read what you wanted to in it.

I said that you were given "partial unity" - even if that was not complete unity. Which is still a damn sight more than Wales ever got.... or India... or wherever else.

Your people made the decision at the time, you should rail against them, not against the English who could have done a lot worse. Not that I am in any way supporting or condoning what the English enacted on their subjugated peoples.

You also seem happy to remove the blame from all the other peoples of the empire yet somehow stack all of the blame at the doors of the English. That's just nationalism speaking, it certainly isn't facts. There were plenty of Scots who drooled at the chance to take part in the international plundering that colonialism was.

I know its hard to accept hard facts about the country you love, but dont try to push away all the blame onto another country.

Whatever the case, this is again becoming a platform to bash another group's nation instead of discussing the thread at hand.

If you want to persist in addressing and decrying English domination of Scotland and the subsequent subjugation, why don't you go and make a thread specifically on that in the Off Topic forum.... this one is for BtS and is about a game.

I’m sorry, but the joining of England and Scotland was not a democratic process.. It depends on your definition of ‘people’. Unless you are talking about a parcel of rouges in a nation (no pun). It was quite evident from the rioting and reaction from the crowds that day that it was not the will of the whole nation.

Do you have evidence of these drooling Scots? (Not confrontationally, I would just like to read if you do.)

Hey don’t try and accuse me of making this OT, I was only answering your question mate!

 

[Spearthrower]

Nationalism - the dearth of reasoning.

Here's my nation

http://www.worldservice.org/


Now can we go back to topic? I'll even discuss with you directly by PM if you really want to continue on this line... but please, lets allow this thread to not be dragged through every individual's nationalist aspirations.... or just create one focused on this in the OT forum... that's what it's for after all.

 

[Soneji]

Reasoning.. bit harsh lol. Imperialism, the death of conscience. People are entitled to their views, if you agree or not.

No I'm not fussed, you bash on! I've got to go get some lunch now anyway

Although I would genuinely like to know the reason for Britain and its non inclusion in the game.

 

[Spearthrower]

Reasoning.. bit harsh lol. Imperialism, the death of conscience. People are entitled to their views, if you agree or not.

No I'm not fussed, you bash on! I've got to go get some lunch now anyway

Although I would genuinely like to know the reason for Britain and its non inclusion in the game.

You have so far managed to misintepret me ( I am assuming purposefully ) at least 6 times.

Where did I say that you weren't entitled to your opinion? Where did I say that I disagree with you? You seem intent on reading what you want into people's words.

Of course Imperialism is nothing to be proud of, it's now a heritage for Britain - something they need to remain aware of and to remember... but certainly not to be proud of.

I'm also not "bashing" you.... I don't know where that comes from... I just think that you seem to be pushing an agenda that has very little to do with this thread.... I've offered twice now for you to go and make a thread to deal specifically with the topic you seem interested in discussing... and to do so in the correct place, rather than on a topic about a nation's inclusion in the game.

If you dont want to do that, i'd be happy to discuss it with you by PM - I tend to find that people behave more logically and respectfully when it is one on one rather than advertised across a public medium.

 

[Soneji]

Do appologise if I have not read your replies properly or it comes across that way, I am trying to juggle this thread along with work and the telephone!

Can continue it in PM if you like, but I think we've covered most of it tbh!

Although my 'logic' is very unlikey to dishevel.

Oh and bash on is a saying, similar to 'please continue'. I was not hinting at you bashing me..

 

[Spearthrower]

Oh and bash on is a saying, similar to 'please continue'. I was not hinting at you bashing me..

Apologies - I've never heard that one!

 

[Lacaixa]

Please don't conduct your argument by PM. I'm enjoying it.

 

[Quotey]

I personally would rather have it be renamed the British Empire and include at least 1 English leader- whether Liz was British or not, Britain is Scotland, Wales, Eire AND England.

Of course, this is not possible, seeing as 'England' already has 3 leaders, and many Civs STILL have 1.

 

[The Foo]

Steps to getting Britain in the game:
1) Conquer and subjugate the Celts and Indians
2) Start a colony next to the Americans and send your human detritus to a large island
3) Have your tea thrown into the harbour
4) ?
5) Profit

 

[Valadon]

By the by, Andrew Jackson was one of the most interesting and wild of all American leaders. He came to prominence most through the Battle of New Orleans, fought in 1815, some months after the peace treaty for the War of 1812 had been signed (news traveled slow then). He smashed the living hell out of a British army of 6-7,000 veterans of Wellington's Peninsula army and he did it with a smaller army comprised of a small core of US regulars, Indians, Kentucky riflemen, a company of Free Blacks from New Orleans, Pirates from the Carribean (honest - the Pirate Jean LaFite (spelling?), and various Mississippi River rats, an army as mongrel as the US itself. He inflicted over 2,000 causualties on the English, including wiping out the entire command structure, killing the Commander general and the next half dozen people in line of command and Jackson's army suffered less than 150 casualties. Astonishing.

He was also the first US president who was not an eastern aristocrat, a slave owner who threatened, as president, to hang anyone who tried to seceed from the Union and a great devotee of the cult of dueling and carried a couple of pistol balls in his body until the day he died.

Sounds like Hollywood made him up but it all true.

Americans as a group are neither less nor more ignorant of others histories that others are of theirs. As one of Irish descent I deprecate what the English did in Ireland while I can give them great honor for things like standing alone against Hitler for so long. All nations and peoples have done shameful and glorious things.

 

[GeneralMatt]

He came to prominence most through the Battle of New Orleans, fought in 1815, some months after the peace treaty for the War of 1812 had been signed (news traveled slow then). He smashed the living hell out of a British army of 6-7,000 veterans of Wellington's Peninsula army and he did it with a smaller army comprised of a small core of US regulars, Indians, Kentucky riflemen, a company of Free Blacks from New Orleans, Pirates from the Carribean (honest - the Pirate Jean LaFite (spelling?), and various Mississippi River rats, an army as mongrel as the US itself. He inflicted over 2,000 causualties on the English, including wiping out the entire command structure, killing the Commander general and the next half dozen people in line of command and Jackson's army suffered less than 150 casualties. Astonishing.

Considering that most of the Good generals were fighting Napoleon Buonaparte (As Dr Maturin spells it) you guys got, may I say lucky, twice. One when the whole northern country was open to a invading British army, under the lousy Prevost I think it was. The troops were even in the process of attacking (They easily took a forward objective) and Prevost found out that they lost the lake and retreated.
Anyways..
Orleans they were in a strong (Very) defensive position with rifles.. not really astonishing as it is made out to be, though I guess it is how we Canadians make Chrysler farms look so huge. In both cases though, the larger army (At Chrysler Farms it was 8,000 some American regulars vs 800 British and Canadians) lost because of inept command, and a total lack of foresight..

I just wish you Scots and Englishmen would get along, I mean you went and ruled the world together, I am proud to be descended from both your races!