I don't think that the game being made in english matter in the way was suggested here. The game may have been written in english first, but not neccesary using anglo-saxon culture as a reference, or aiming to portray that cultural context here.
In most of the world, includding the american culture of the developers. Knight is a perfectly accurate term, even more, is the only term that can be applied. Even if in the very specific anglo-saxon context the term is not totally accurate; the fact is, there is not a better word for that context and the term (or its equivalent in other languajes) describe perfectly the type of unit the game represents in all other european countries that shared those types of soldiers.
And even more importantly, is the appropriated name regarding universal cultural understanding.
That said, and with these and other considerations expressed here, this issue is in my opinion completely solved. As to say, there was no issue to beguin with.
Im sorry, but this argument is kind of embarrassing.
Civ always tried to have a layer of accuracy and educational info, if a game can be instructional in addition to fun, that is NOT a bad thing. Even more, the game has obviously a lot of effort in presenting languajes, cultures, music, architecture and many other historical elements with care and accuracy when possible.
Discussing about posible improvements in this regard is cool and apreciated, and I hope none of us thinks that games (or entertainment in general) has the obligation to be stupid and ignorant. If that time ever comes count me out of the human race, please.
Finally I think this is probably a perfect quote to conclude:
"The terms knight and man-at-arms are often used interchangeably, but while all knights equipped for war certainly were men-at-arms, not all men-at-arms were knights. "
Last edited:
