Change England to Britain

[SWETBANG]

There isn't anything to reply to because you didn't make a point.

maybe this one that you put in bold "pointless arguments about whether it was conquest or peaceful unification because it really doesn't matter."

If England forced it's language and politics and culture upon the Scots. Which England did, then how is that pointless? That is one civilization imposing itself on another, hence two civilizations we've talking about here.

The union of Scotland and England is a permanent alliance. You have those in Civilization 4. Yes, two seperate civilizations agreeing to a permanent alliance acting as one. A bit like Scotland and England. So yeah, makes sense to have an England and not a Britain.

Obviously makes sense to Sid Meier. What picture do foreigners paint when they think of Britain? many things associated with England....Simply because England spread it's language, culture, laws, around the world. What did Scotland do apart from show the world that their men once wore skirts.

 

[REDY]

This is not England which settled Canada, South Africa and Australia. It was British and not English Empire. Thats all.

 

[Talkie_Toaster]

Obviously makes sense to Sid Meier.

The noticeable difference is that Sid and his minions designed these to be independent nations spawning in 4000BC on a randomly generated world. They were not trying to be realistic. Notice that Sid chose to have America as a 4000BC spawning option. Yeah...Accurate...

What did Scotland do apart from show the world that their men once wore skirts.

I would love you to meet a scottish historian and say that If you like, I'll show you, through the omniscient Wikipedia. Just because foreigners think of Britain as England does not mean that this is accurate. The majority of the Brits on this forum support the change. We, after all, do live here. Besides, even before the union, even before England, our ancestors were known as Britons (or it's ancient equivalents), as has been pointed out countless times.

Sorry for the rant but I really am getting quite annoyed at this thread. And people's bordering on racist comments.

 

[SWETBANG]

This is not England which settled Canada, South Africa and Australia. It was British and not English Empire. Thats all.

Actually the first settlers of north America were under England, under an English Empire.

Southern US colonies like Virginia were under England. The English settled North American colonies 100 years before there was a British Empire. Those that weren't settled first were captured like New Amsterdam which captured by the English in 1664 and renamed New York.

The British Empire was a continued foreign policy of the English by an English king. Scotland signed a union with England, much to the displeasure of their whole country.

 

[SWETBANG]

The noticeable difference is that Sid and his minions designed these to be independent nations spawning in 4000BC on a randomly generated world. They were not trying to be realistic. Notice that Sid chose to have America as a 4000BC spawning option. Yeah...Accurate...

Well there you go, so it all depends on what criteria you follow. I myself think it would be great to actually have a Scottish civilization in the game.

England is chosen, and the way England is portrayed in the game is OK with me.

 

[Talkie_Toaster]

By "The way england is portrayed" do you mean "as Britain"? Ideally, yes, there would be Scotland, but in game terms it would be impractical and memory guzzling.

 

[Spearthrower]

Ideally every nation that has ever been would be represented in game.... actually scrap that statement as it would just not be fun and this is a game (i.e. fun).

If we set about recreating history perfectly, then we end up with a slideshow where we just click "next turn" repeatedly and get to watch the historical events unfold, rather than what we have which is a game where a set of nations were chosen mostly due to their impact on world's history, chucked into a random map at 4000 b.c. and from there on in have absolutely no basis in historical reality whatsoever.

Swetbang, you are mistaken about Wales, there is nothing similar. What happened to "Wales" was that the kingdoms there were slowly eaten up by Anglo Saxons over a long period of time. Then in the early medieval period a series of inter-marriages between Welsh and English crowns first cemented those fiefdoms and then later paved the way for a full blown military conquest of the Welsh territory which finishes in the late 13th century. Welsh law wasn't changed to English law for hundreds of years at approximately the same time that a formal declaration of unity occurred. Aside from an ultimate political declaration of unity, there's none of the similarity you indicated in your post.

Would most Scots be more unhappy being labelled "British" or "English"? That is the question to which all us British posters here know the answer but which seems to totally fly over the heads of the others. When ignorant of the political and social reality of a country, it's odd to get to heavily involved in discussing it. This is not to say that all Scots were ever happy (you have to spell out these clear cut statements or some people put words into your mouth) or are happy now about being part of the U.K.

At the time it was a far better proposition for them to join the crowns than to continue as an independent nation continually at war with a more powerful and aggressive neighbour. The Scots ceded their crown and independence to achieve peace.

Today, their economic stability is tied to the United Kingdom - there is a popular movement against it which uses Ireland as the model for it's evidence. However, there is also the same kind of "break-away" movement in Cornwall (SW England).... what would be considered the seat of real Old England (and Wessex while we're on the subject!!). The political reality is that if all these states break off, then everyone loses out. The social reality is that it's far from unanimous and is more of an extremist nationalism (are you guys sure that's what you want to support?) - there are plenty of English people like that too but we aren't obliged to give them credence, are we?

Personally, I think that the way the English treated the Scots was awful.... but we are talking about hundreds of years ago and a different world, we can't judge actions of the remote past through modern eyes.

Calling it the English Empire is historically and politically inaccurate. A search on the internet for "English Empire" will bring up only American references -we've already talked about how many countries dont distinctualise between the two and that is where this debate is going wrong. If I were to make a categoric statement about another country based upon the prejudices and limitations of my own society's knowledge - should that in and of itself be used as a basis for discussing facts? Basically, a flawed proposition here has lead to a spiralled debate over nothing. There are facts there without need for interpretation.

 

[kairob]

Oh dear its started again. Maybe if we just had a rule where people couldn't talk about the nature of the union on this thread? Oh and this comment "I myself think it would be great to actually have a Scottish civilization in the game." makes me remove the title of worlds stupidest quote that I gave just one post ago.

Edi: Anyway here is that list just so it can be on this page too, can you please argue with one of these points, again I repeate The Nature Of The Union Is Not Important Here

Seriously a perfectly reasonable thread has indeed been ruined by politics, the main protagonist of this is Abegweit.

Britain is the clearest choice from a none political view point:
Britain is an older word.
British empire was the largest empire in the world.
More people want "Britain" than "England".
Most British people are in favour of Britain.
The UU was British.
The flip area includes Scotland.
If the Romans found Londinium then refuse the flip, you end up with England with its capital as Edinburgh (or if you raised that first) Glasgow, with Aberdeen and Dublin as its other cities.

Now put aside any political viewpoints or pointless arguments about whether it was conquest or peaceful unification because it really doesn't matter. So Abegweit if you want to argue against this I would like one simple clear reason as so far the only ones I have seen you give are not correct.

The first is that the British empire was the English empire, which is just weird.

The Second is that England spawns at London and then invades the Scots (which isn't true, they flip and England can start at Scotland as explained above).

The third is that England is an older term, also not true as was shown earlier.

 

[Abegweit]

/unsubscribe

I said what I had to say and there is no point in hanging around anyone. SWETBANG is doing a credible job of defending Truth anyway. He doesn't need me and my anger at this attempt to wipe away my history. It won't help the cause of Truth.

Before I leave, I will say that I appreciate Sprearthrower's latest post. While I don't entirely agree with it (and I'm sure no one is surprised with that), it does show a lot of finesse, honesty and ability to to face history as it really was. There are other posts which don't quite reach that standard....

Congrats to him.

And goodbye.

Apparently you folks are not willing to let this thread die a decent a death. Whatever. Only thing I ask is that you keep it from spilling over onto other threads, something which has already happened.

 

[Elhoim]

It´s good to see that things are settling down

I´m expecting more guides from you Abegweit!

 

[Abegweit]

Oh geez. I promised not to post to this thread again and now see what you made me do.

Maybe in a week or so.

 

[Elhoim]

Cool!

 

[Danger Bird]

Would most Scots be more unhappy being labelled "British" or "English"? That is the question to which all us British posters here know the answer but which seems to totally fly over the heads of the others.

Given the choice between being labelled "British" or "English", I'm sure Scots would choose "British" (although many would prefer "Scottish"). That fact doesn't fly over my head. This is not about people confusing Britain with England; I think that most (if not all) of the posters favouring "English Empire" are aware of the difference.

I think the point being made is that the empire was made by the English, and that, for a long part of the history which the game represents (820-1707), "English Empire" is more accurate.

Yes, there were people calling themselves Briton or Brythonic far before there were people who identified themselves as English, and if the spawn was in several centuries B.C., this would be an accurate name. But the red civ spawns in 820 A.D., so they obviously represent the Germanic conquerors, who, after a few centuries and mixing with the previous inhabitants, came to think of themselves as "English", and who formed an idea of this time being the dawn of their nation (e.g. English lit courses often start with Beowulf).

Yes, there are many major states and events which are not represented in the approximation that a civ game has to be, like the various kingdoms (Wessex, etc.) and the Norman conquest, and I don't claim to know about them in detail.

But, in the game, for the red civ that starts in the 9th century in southern Britain, isn't "English" the most suitable adjective?

 

[Spearthrower]

Given the choice between being labelled "British" or "English", I'm sure Scots would choose "British" (although many would prefer "Scottish"). That fact doesn't fly over my head. This is not about people confusing Britain with England; I think that most (if not all) of the posters favouring "English Empire" are aware of the difference.

I disagree - in fact many people said otherwise i.e. it's just the same.

You are definitely right that Scots would prefer to be called Scottish, but given that would be a worse misnomer for the game situation and for a latter day, globe spanning empire, I only gave the 2 options - the one as is in the game now and the one being proposed.

I think the point being made is that the empire was made by the English, and that, for a long part of the history which the game represents (820-1707), "English Empire" is more accurate.

There never was an English Empire, only an English Kingdom.... it started in the 11th century and concluded in the 18th.... aside from a few wars in Europe with neighbours, it's "greatness" (in the popular sense of the word) did not begin until after the union with Scotland. The true empire was created by the British, i.e. people from England, Scotland and Wales

Yes, there were people calling themselves Briton or Brythonic far before there were people who identified themselves as English, and if the spawn was in several centuries B.C., this would be an accurate name. But the red civ spawns in 820 A.D., so they obviously represent the Germanic conquerors, who, after a few centuries and mixing with the previous inhabitants, came to think of themselves as "English", and who formed an idea of this time being the dawn of their nation (e.g. English lit courses often start with Beowulf).

At the time it starts, English is not a known term. You are right that this game represents the English as Anglo-Saxon invaders (shall I get upset with Germans for what they did to the original peoples of this country?) but the spawn time would still reflect a large number of independent Kingdoms - mostly Anglo Saxon but not all.... it would take another 200 years for any unity between them to allow providence of an English throne.

Yes, there are many major states and events which are not represented in the approximation that a civ game has to be, like the various kingdoms (Wessex, etc.) and the Norman conquest, and I don't claim to know about them in detail.

It's a fairly torturous bit of history and for the most part, not very interesting!

But, in the game, for the red civ that starts in the 9th century in southern Britain, isn't "English" the most suitable adjective?

Hehe, I think you'll notice that a lot of us say "No" it isn't. The major objective of this thread I think is to reflect the unity of the island rather than the differences. As any Scottish city will flip to "England" within a turn or 2, and the borders of London will cover Wales practically instantly, it is definitely indicative of a time when all 3 countries were united under one banner i.e. Britain. I just dont want to make English sound exclusive and not reflect the truth that was the unity of the peoples that lead them to global empire, not their differences.

 

[Enkidu Warrior]

I think the point being made is that the empire was made by the English, and that, for a long part of the history which the game represents (820-1707), "English Empire" is more accurate.

It doesn't matter if the Empire was made by the English (which in any event innaccurate), it's name was the British Empire. The Persians invaded and subjugated countless lands within the Persian Empire. Those people whose names we can't seem to agree on went forth and conquered much of the world, and did so under the name of the British Empire. Failing to include either of these Empires would be a crime against history. If you really are determined to squeeze your politics into this lets call it "The British Empire (made by the English!)"

"English Empire" can hardly be described as more accurate, considering that no such thing has ever existed. The British Empire is certainly not an entirely satisfactory name, but it has the grace of having once actually existed and having been somewhat important in the history of civilization. Even over the earlier time period you mentioned, at least "British Empire" is merely anachronistic (as are almost all the civ names at some point or other), as opposed to simply invented. There really is no contest.

Might I suggest that we stop arguing with those who will never understand, and start addressing the points that Rhye asked us to: namely a suitable flag and the localisation issues.

 

[SilverKnight]

I am officially abandoning this thread.

I haven't even LOOKED at pages 6 through 8. The fact that there ARE pages 6 through 8 is disturbing enough, if they're all on topic.

Is anyone actually enjoying the mod still? Isn't that enough?

SilverKnight

 

[Spearthrower]

I am struggling to find an equitable solution to the flag problem.

To be truly reflective of the 3 component nations (not I am not being anti-Welsh before anyone starts that) then we need to use the tri-colour.... if that is simply not an option, the only other motif that I think can be used for most of the constituent nations is the rampant dragon.... which if wasn't too distinct could also look a bit like a dragon..... no? ok maybe not.

I just can't find an answer - the only bicoloured, non-discriminatory flag I can think of is the Queen's personal flag of the Commonwealth

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Personal_flag_of_Queen_Elizabeth_II.svg

but I think everyone will agree that it is just too absurd to use that.


As for localisation issues, just use the modern term for the unified nation - much like we use "France", "Germany" etc. Even Thai has a name for it with individual names for each of the constituent countries, I am sure every other language must have too!


Ok, I will suggest it and take cover from the ensuing flames, but in truth the only way we could represent it in a bi-coloured format would be to use a red cross on a blue background. The Northern Irish players would have to accept that the red cross was meant to represent them too!

 

[Danger Bird]

There never was an English Empire, only an English Kingdom.

True. And there was no American Empire either, only a Republic called the United States of America.

But the game calls every civ an "Empire" (which I agree is inaccurate). So I think what we should be debating here is the best adjective for the civ. The civ starts out in the Middle Ages, and historians generally refer to the dominant political unit that emerged in southern Britain (say by the time of Richard I, if not before) as "England" -- for these reasons I think that "English" is an appropriate adjective for the civ.

If you really are determined to squeeze your politics into this lets call it "The British Empire (made by the English!)"

Sorry, I didn't explain myself very well there. I don't mean to imply that there is anything praiseworthy about making an empire. I'm politically dispassionate. I just think that, since almost all civ names are approximate and leave someone out, it would feel strange to have a 'correctly' named "British Empire" (post 18th c.), while all the other civs in the game have very rough, approximate, and inaccurate names.

I guess, looking at the good arguments that have been made, that I'd have to agree that "English Empire" is also anachronistic. If the name gets changed to "British Empire", I won't mind that much. I don't think it is any less accurate than "English Empire" (and no more accurate either).

The fact that there ARE pages 6 through 8 is disturbing enough, if they're all on topic.

I think we are on topic now. Nothing disturbing about a civil debate.

Is anyone actually enjoying the mod still? Isn't that enough?

I'm on my fourth attempt to get China's UHV. Very "shaky", but fun.

 

[kairob]

How about this, we have heard everyones point of view, so lets just abandon this argumant and just decide whether to do it or not based on the poll.

 

[Talkie_Toaster]

How about this: Rhye decides to do what the hell he wants?