1. We have added a Gift Upgrades feature that allows you to gift an account upgrade to another member, just in time for the holiday season. You can see the gift option when going to the Account Upgrades screen, or on any user profile screen.
    Dismiss Notice

British not English ?

Discussion in 'Civ5 - General Discussions' started by jddods, May 9, 2013.

  1. otaman1

    otaman1 Prince

    Joined:
    Mar 14, 2013
    Messages:
    2,697
    Great Britain is a country that contains 3 countries: England, Scotland, & Wales. The United Kingdom is a Kingdom that contains 4 countries: England, Scotland, Wales, & Northern Ireland. Britain refers to the island of Great Britain. Ireland is not a country but an island. The Republic of Ireland & Northern Ireland is situated on Ireland. It gets confusing after this.

    Scotland, Wales, & Northern Ireland people are NOT English. They are British if referring to Great Britain or United Kingdom. Northern Ireland and the Republic of Ireland are not the same. Saying they're the same is like saying Scottish, Welsh, & English people are the same
     
  2. nokmirt

    nokmirt Emperor

    Joined:
    Feb 14, 2009
    Messages:
    5,088
    Location:
    Iowa USA
    Scots are Scottish, as Englishmen are English. Britain may be the collective, but there are still different nationalities there. My point was broad. But people from Britain, south of Scotland and east of Wales are English right? My god common sense man.

    When we look at the British Army at Waterloo for instance. It had Scots, Brunswickers, Welsh, and god knows what else, yet they are still called the British. When we get down to the individual groups then we say something like the 18th Highland regiment, which is full of Scots. As a whole they are grouped as British. Unless you want the devs to have the England civ to be. The EnglandScottishWelshEtcEtc civ. Wouldn't that be a tad confusing. :lol: Imagine the Celts and how long their name would be? :lol:

    The same thing goes for Henry V's army at Agincourt. This army was made up of English, Welsh, Cornish, etc. Yet they are grouped as the English Army. Not the EnglishWelshCornishANDGODKNOWSWHATELSEWECANTHROWINTHERE Army.

    So, in history the English has been a collective word as much as the British is now. We are reaching now. Why are we arguing about this anyway?
     
  3. wilbeard

    wilbeard Chieftain

    Joined:
    Nov 18, 2009
    Messages:
    94
    Location:
    UK
    The important distinction is that in the time of the Battle of Agincourt, the Kingdom of Scotland was a wholly separate entity. Unlike Wales, it has at no point in its history come under the banner of "England", any more than Iowa has come under the banner of "Texas".
     
  4. EulerMcE

    EulerMcE Warlord

    Joined:
    Apr 5, 2012
    Messages:
    297
    Location:
    Ireland
    Ireland is both a country and an island. "Republic of Ireland" is officially just a description, the state is just called 'Ireland' as specified in the 1936 constitution:
    I don't think "Republic of Ireland" is really used that much outside of UK-Ireland contexts.
     
  5. nokmirt

    nokmirt Emperor

    Joined:
    Feb 14, 2009
    Messages:
    5,088
    Location:
    Iowa USA
    And your point is? I don't remember saying Scots were in Henry V's army. :lol: Maybe some Scottish criminals were hiding in there who knows right.

    The thing is Scottish tropps were under Wellington's comand at Waterloo, and were not at Agincourt. If you read more carefully. You will notice that. :lol:
     
  6. wilbeard

    wilbeard Chieftain

    Joined:
    Nov 18, 2009
    Messages:
    94
    Location:
    UK
    Yep.

    Britain as a collective: Correct.

    England as a collective: Incorrect.
     
  7. Calouste

    Calouste Deity

    Joined:
    Mar 17, 2006
    Messages:
    2,725
    It already got confusing at the start. Great Britain is not a country, it's an island. The term 'Great Britain' is also used informally and in a sporting context as a shorthand for 'The United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland'. Talking about sport, depending on the sport and organization, those islands off the West coast of Europe can field one, two, four, five or seven teams.
     
  8. Aztecopi

    Aztecopi Warlord

    Joined:
    Dec 26, 2012
    Messages:
    115
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Finland

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rNu8XDBSn10
     
  9. PhilBowles

    PhilBowles Deity

    Joined:
    Nov 20, 2011
    Messages:
    5,323
    Agreed, but once again this is at a tangent to the point I made, which had nothing to do with the name of the in-game civ.

    The latter point is correct, but the former flies in the face of your own argument. "England" and "Britain" have a somewhat limited cultural connection - indeed, by explicitly including the modern Celtic nations Britain is a very different entity from England. You can select any two cultures from any two widely separated time periods and come up with defining characteristics that differ from one another. Why Rome and Italy but not Anglo-Saxon England and Elizabethan England?

    Or why not "England" - longbows, feudalism, religious iconoclasm and American exploration, up to the cultural developments of Chaucer and Shakespeare - and Britain, the industrial trading empire, exporter of (limited) democracy, scientific pioneer and naval superpower, with no small number of Scots among its high-profile exports, from David Livingstone to Adam Smith, John Logie Baird and Alexander Graham Bell? Certainly in terms you can define in-game, those two entities have as little in common as Rome does with Italy if not less (both Rome and Italy can at least be defined as cultural powerhouses), and in terms of real-world culture it seems nonsensical to equate the French-speaking feudal nation of the Hundred Years War with Victorian Britain. It's if anything easier to draw a connection between Italy's golden age - a golden age built on the Renaissance whose very name points to its Greco-Roman roots, and copious usage of classical mythology in the artworks for which the period's renowned.

    Gauls vs. France is a less direct connection, but then so are Saxons vs. England, and I suspect most people would consider the Anglo-Saxons, at least, implicitly included within English continuity.

    The "Celts in general" were a language group, not a distinct cultural entity or civilisation. As for geographical extent, this varies widely over time in any nation. Britain has had a far greater geographical coverage than England, but you argue against them regardless.

    While I'm in full agreement with your core argument that Britain and England shouldn't be treated separately, you can hardly then turn round and apply a double standard because you're happy for certain civs to be duplicated, or because recognising past duplicates in the game would undermine some of your examples.

    Any "Celts" you arrive at will be a manufactured civ. There were no 'historical Celts'; the definition of the term "Celtic" itself as it applies to anthropology is disputed. There were Gauls, there were British groups with evidence of Celtic artefacts and language, there were widespread 'Celtic' groups elsewhere, but nothing that can be defined as a discrete historical civilisation - archaeologically, 'Celts' are a culture like 'Mississippians', a group defined based on shared artefact styles and language terms, essentially a reference system to describe particular suites of characteristics.

    Having said that, Civ V hit upon possibly the worst resolution possible. If you're going to use Boudicca as a leader, at the very least you should include relevant cities. Norse cities are out, as is a medieval capital (while Edinburgh might have existed in Celtic Scotland in the era represented, it was no more than a hillfort until the Middle Ages). As for a "Druidic" UA, this just highlights the cultural discontinuity between the societies lumped together - druidism wasn't a tradition among groups in what is now Scotland, for instance.

    Part of the confusion comes from the use of specific words like "country". The term in vogue at the moment for ethnic and historically separate groupings within a modern country (=nation-state) seems to be "nation". So the only modern country in the mix is the United Kingdom; each of its four constituents is a nation.

    In political terms, post-devolution Britain is a semi-federal* country with four constituent states, each divided into counties and districts ("parishes" in British terminology), which makes the current status of its four components easier to grasp for non-Brits but doesn't help with the etymology. Even this is an unsatisfactory definition - unlike a true federal system, which typically applies one legislative system at state level and another at national level, each of the four component legislatures (national, Scottish, Northern Irish and Welsh) has its own rules and its own level of independence. And because the British Parliament doubles as the traditional English legislature, there is no separate voting mechanism or cap on the number of delegates who can be appointed from any given state (whereas most countries have either an equal number of representatives from each state, or a number proportional to the population of that state).

    *Semi-federal in this context because only three of the four states have independent or semi-independent legislatures; England has no parliamentary system independent of Britain's as a whole.
     
  10. AriochIV

    AriochIV Colonial Ninja

    Joined:
    Jul 25, 2006
    Messages:
    5,962
    Location:
    Nehwon
    Can we have twenty more threads about this? Because the last twenty threads about it were not enough.
     
  11. alpha2117

    alpha2117 Prince

    Joined:
    Apr 23, 2012
    Messages:
    390
    All this for one throwaway pun in the achievements. Look I'm of Welsh ancestry and they are clearly not English and woe be tide you call them English and that's the Welsh who are the least vocal about it. I get the whole idea of the thread but remember that it's a game and that all of it's civs are in some way cobbled together versions of their history. The names, leaders, units. abilities are not meant to capture the true nature of the actual societies they are based on but rather they give flavor to the totally artificial and mythical representations of those societies in this world building game. If people wanted to they could go to town on every single civ in the game for it's inherent errors and lack of realistic representation of the true society but civ is not a history lesson - it's a game - hopefully if you find a society interesting you might go and learn more elsewhere but the games civs themselves should not be used as an accurate representation of that societies. Attila didn't build cities, Gandhi didn't have nukes and Pacal sure as heck never had a Giant Death Robot! The England represented is a amalgam of the English kingdom and the British Empire although most of the flavor choices are more English, I believe thats partly why we have the Celts represented the way they are to represent the other parts of the British Isles in some way. Neither representation is perfect but both attempt to give at least some elements that are associated with those peoples. None of the civs are perfect but it's the nature of the beast - if you are trying to represent a long span of time in a small cutdown game civ you are not going to be able to represent all of history nor should you really attempt too.
     
  12. Hans Castorp

    Hans Castorp Prince

    Joined:
    Apr 15, 2013
    Messages:
    357
    Location:
    Cambridge, UK
    Sanity.
     
  13. SMA333M

    SMA333M Warlord

    Joined:
    Jul 21, 2003
    Messages:
    148
    Location:
    Romania
    I think it's just the way your country is known beyond borders. Here, we call it "Great Britain" or "England"... for us, it means the same. I guess it's wrong but that's the way we know it.

    So, for me, England means U.K. ... I can never understand why you have different national teams for football (for example...). Why isn't there just 1 national team ? But ok, I'm getting offtopic...

    Maybe they should change the name to "United Kingdom"...
     
  14. alpha2117

    alpha2117 Prince

    Joined:
    Apr 23, 2012
    Messages:
    390
    But now that the Celts are in they represent the Scots, Welsh, Irish etc so post G&K England really is meant more to rep England than them. I think as I said it's just a throwaway pun in an achievements list that has sent people off on this particular tangent again. Once people get some juicy info threads like these will return to the depths from whence they came.
     
  15. trueblue

    trueblue Prince

    Joined:
    Oct 30, 2010
    Messages:
    353
    Location:
    Scotland

    And I will be voting No.




    Better Together, it really is that simple.
     
  16. otaman1

    otaman1 Prince

    Joined:
    Mar 14, 2013
    Messages:
    2,697
    Yes. Or else England will take over Scotland again like what happened in the 14th century 600 years ago
     
  17. rastak

    rastak Emperor

    Joined:
    Oct 18, 2005
    Messages:
    1,571
    Location:
    Minnesota
    I can't comment being a yank........they have Celts at least? * ducks *


    So a couple of women were chatting in New York and a man overheard them. He said "Excuse me ladies, are you ladies from Ireland"?


    "Wales, you moron" one said.


    "I'm sorry", "Are you whales from Ireland"?
     
  18. alpha2117

    alpha2117 Prince

    Joined:
    Apr 23, 2012
    Messages:
    390
    Independance would be a terrible idea. Countries with a large amount of diversity are better able to survive in the modern world. Scotland by itself may experience economic issues and all sorts of issues that would not occur as part of a greater British structure.
     
  19. Menzies

    Menzies Menzies

    Joined:
    Apr 27, 2007
    Messages:
    1,898
    Location:
    Australia


    This post is a bizarre mix of decent points about the structure of the United Kingdom and ridiculous statements such as claiming that Renaissance Italy is closer to Rome than medieval England to Britain. Put bluntly, you have written a lot, but it's quite disjointed and it would be pointless to try and respond to it all. It reads like the writings of someone who is educated only in the history of the British Isles and lacks much of an understanding beyond that. Yes, cultures evolve over time, but the point is about continuous threads of culture. Gaul and the Franks are quite different, Northern Italy (which had a great deal of Germanic influence) and the rest of Italy is not only quite different, but the cultural centres themselves are entirely different. It's almost ridiculous to compare the Italy of the Renaissance to Classical Rome for example.
     
  20. PhilBowles

    PhilBowles Deity

    Joined:
    Nov 20, 2011
    Messages:
    5,323
    I didn't say Italy was "closer to" Rome, I said it was easier to draw a direct line of descent between the two culturally (particularly in game terms, in which Rome could very reasonably be depicted as a culture-heavy civ) - hence the point about the origins of Italian Renaissance art (which, regardless of the ethnic origina of the Italian cities, was not culturally Germanic). Of course they're more distinct than England vs. Britain - the timescale involved is far longer. But arguing that temporal distance should be the deciding factor is no different from suggesting (to take the example of civs defined by dynasties you disparaged) that the Plantagenets and Tudors shouldn't be considered separate civs, but the Plantagenets and the Windsors should. The point is a qualitative one - there is direct cultural continuity, in both Britain compared with England and Rome compared with Italy (and both contain ethnically distinct cultures not well-represented in the predecessor states). Any subdivision within that is ultimately arbitrary based on selecting a set of key features from one period and describing it as a civ distinct from a set of key features found in another time period. You quite reasonably lambasted me for not looking closely enough at the evidence (in this case available city-state colours) in another thread, so it's surprising to see a blanket dismissal of demonstrated differences between two periods as "ridiculous" and merely asserting the distinctiveness of two other periods of a country's history.

    I don't deny that my knowledge of Renaissance Italy is relatively limited, but to me it's your case that appears rather parochial. It comes across as the attitude of a Brit (and likely an Englishman) brought up in the national history who can't conceive that, because we're taught the nation's history as a continuous progression, the different stages of that progression can be considered separate phases of civilisation ... but at the same time, looking outwards at foreign cultures, you can only see the headline states to emerge in those regions, divorced from their own internal continuity. If you want to divide Italy from Rome, fair enough, but you can't claim anything other than arbitrary justifications for doing so.

    All that aside, in terms of the topic that opened this thread it's still not clear why "British" was used in that achievement, however since another achievement confirms that "England" is the name of the civ in Scramble for Africa, it's effectively certain that there is no British civ in BNW. It would, after all, be perverse to introduce a British civ and then use England in its place in a 19th Century scenario.
     

Share This Page