English - British

[Smidgey]

They were annexed violently by the English, so you really can't consider them civil war. Union vs. Confederacy in the US is a civil war because the Confederacy was not conquered by the Union first and tried to get its independance back.

Scotland was not annexed violently by the English, they joined the union of their own free will.

People who say that the Celts already cover the 3 countries mentioned are being particularly unfair on the three smaller countries that make up the UK. The Celts also represent France,Germany,Belgium,England and much of Spain and Portugal, why should it be that some countries get represented twice, and people still say that the celts represent the other three, when their capital city in the Civ3 city list is in France...

Make England Britian, the goldenage of the English people happened when united as Britain, the empire barely even existed before, and would never have come to anything without (as mentioned by others) the industrial and resource power of the other 3 nations. Take Glasgow for example, in WWII without that city, Britian/England would ahve succumbed, it was the largest ship building centre in the entire world, and vital to the British surviving the Germans.

 

[Spatula]

Scotland was not annexed violently by the English, they joined the union of their own free will.

Yes, the free will to realise that their economy was in tatters after the New Caledonia distaster. The Hammer had a try at conquest, and would have succeeded if he had had the huge amounts of money to do what he did in Wales: build lots of castles.

If you want to get technical, the 'Golden Age' was in fact the reign of Elizabeth (which is why she's the leader in Civ), which is about a hundred years before the Act Of Union of 1707. The Empire was the zenith of power and majesty, but not really a pivotal era; that all happened before Victoria.

And the biggest ship producer in the world, if I recall correctly, was actually Tyne & Wear (25% of the world's!), unless we are quoting different eras (which we may be).

To be honest I would love Ireland and Scotland to be in there, but at the moment there's no justification in most people's minds to add more European civs (personally I don't care). And as for mingling Scotland and England to form Britain...well to speak the truth I find that a little insulting, and so should the Scots. We are not the same people. 'Britain' is no more than a political fabrication to ease Scotland into joining with England. What most foreign people would perceive as 'British' is actually 'English' - simply because they may not know the subtle differences between our cultures. We're as different as MacLeods and Bennetts.

 

[Smidgey]

The period im talking about is late industrial revolution to early 30's for the Glasgow thing.

And yes i agree with what you are saying that our cultures are uniquely different. One of the main reasons as to the failure of the Darien scheme was that it recieved an embargo by England. The idea was very stable and had some of the best Scottish business men of their time (like the one who set up the Bank of England, forget his name ) except it had most of its foreign investment removed because of English pressure upon other European nations not to help the Scots.

I still feel that Britian should be in the game. Just because the peoples that live in this country are only united politically means nothing. How can you possibly not have the country that had the largest empire ever created by human beings not in the civilization game, it sounds ludicrous. We have the Mongols for their large empire and we have other countries that also had large empires too and to exclude Britian because it is made up of 4 countries and not 1 is crazy, how can the game creators just ignore something so vital to world history?

 

[frekk]

I think a "British" culture should replace the "English" in the game.

This isn't strictly a matter of the British Empire, etc, but to reflect the culture of the sub-nations of the British Islands as a whole. Throughout the entire history of the area, they formed a unique corner of the world.

No, they are not the same thing - but then again, neither were many other groups defined as single civilizations in the game, eg the Maya or Greeks or any number of other groups. There was as much difference between, say, Athenians and Spartans, as there are between Welsh and English, for instance.

This way, the other groups are represented in the game. I'm against including each of them separately; there are already way too many individual European nations represented as civilizations in the game.

 

[Jon Shafer]

I can't believe this topic has gotten so much attention.

 

[Spatula]

Well, the fact that New Caledonia was actually a disease-ridden swampland might have something to do with it as well.....

I still feel that Britian should be in the game. Just because the peoples that live in this country are only united politically means nothing.

Actually, the fact that is only a political union has everything to do with it. You can't say a people are the same from a political union, that's like saying everyone in the Austro-Hungarian Empire were the same (and look how right that turned out to be).

How can you possibly not have the country that had the largest empire ever created by human beings not in the civilization game, it sounds ludicrous. We have the Mongols for their large empire and we have other countries that also had large empires too and to exclude Britian because it is made up of 4 countries and not 1 is crazy, how can the game creators just ignore something so vital to world history?

If England was in for its Empire, then Victoria would be the leader. But she isn't - it's Elizabeth. I would like to think we've done more than just conquer some land, and we have: English is the world language, the language of the internet, the writer the pretentious most like to admire was English, etc. The argument to make England 'Britain' on the grounds of Empire is ludicrous, because the Empire wasn't even our greatest achievement.

And the Ancient Greeks were diffeernt, but they all regarded themselves as 'Greek'. You will find it very hard to get someone to say 'British' first time when asking them 'What nationality are you?'. An Englishman will say he is English. A Scotsman would say he is a Scot. These are two very patriotic nations, but patriotic for their own particular nations, not the greater Union (I hate it when people go to England matches with Union flags, and the fact that 'God Save The Queen' is the English anthem as well as the British).

People seem to making the mistake that because we give the impression of unification it makes us the same people. If we had truly united as one people then Britain would deserve to be in Civ. But we aren't. We are different people under the same union. If I were a Scot I imagine lumping me with the English would be a bigger insult than just mulping me under the Celts.

The English are Nordic. The Scots are Celtic/Norse. Only our political institutions are British.

 

[CurtSibling]

Or you could simply change the name by your self.

Indeed! - Many people seem to miss the point that much will be moddable!

 

[Smidgey]

The English are Nordic. The Scots are Celtic/Norse. Only our political institutions are British.

I'm not going to sift through the entire thing and comeback on everything you wrote, but two items did come to mind. the fact that you talk about he English language being everywhere, well that couldnt have happened without the empire...

And also the section i quoted, the English were celts aswell...

We have seperate political institutions, the Scottish parliament accounts for 80% of Scottish peoples lives only reserved powers are similar, defence, foreign policy, immigration etc...

We are Britons, we are the same ethnic group, we have many norse and celtic peoples within our group, but you will find, even though the cultures are different, the people are identical. there is not a sudden change of culture either, we are one people, of the British Isles, take a look at the Scottish-English borders, the cultures are very similar as there is a smooth transition. This can also be seen in Wales in the cardiff area, where a smooth tranition occurs again.

 

[Spatula]

the English language being everywhere, well that couldnt have happened without the empire...

My point was that it is the English language, and not a 'British' language. And the Empire had much less of an effect than you think. The Americans speak English, but only because many of the original settlers were of English descent. The same is true of Canada and Australia. When people were sent to non-English-speaking ares, they learned the native language, and not the other way around. English became predominant because of the world-renowned education establishments of Oxford and Cambridge, and the rising status of America (they just happened to speak the same language).

And also the section i quoted, the English were celts aswell...

I'm not one to claim I know more than an expert, but I'm going to have to do so now. A few years back they did DNA tests across England, and they found that 80% of English DNA was Nordic (although it was hard to distinguish Scandinavian/Germanic). The Celts and Saxons were enemies, and any significant mingling is as mythological as French moving to England after 1066 and mass-marrying into every level of society.

We have seperate political institutions, the Scottish parliament accounts for 80% of Scottish peoples lives only reserved powers are similar, defence, foreign policy, immigration etc...

Oh I'm sorry, I forgot that an institution that is 7 years old counts for the entire history of the British Isles I understand that the legal systems have been different for some time, but that really isn't enough.

We are Britons, we are the same ethnic group, we have many norse and celtic peoples within our group, but you will find, even though the cultures are different, the people are identical. there is not a sudden change of culture either, we are one people, of the British Isles, take a look at the Scottish-English borders, the cultures are very similar as there is a smooth transition. This can also be seen in Wales in the cardiff area, where a smooth tranition occurs again.

Of course there are transition areas. Many people in Northumbria will have Scots blood, many in Bristol will have Welsh blood, but that's only because they live right next to each other. Apart from people descended from migrants going between the countries, you will find very little blending there. The term 'Briton' is as blanketing as the term 'Britain'; there was a tribe called the Bretons, but by no means is every indigenous 'Briton' descended from them, or from any mingling of tribes.

If we were the same, then Glaswegians and Cockneys would only differ in speech and customs. But they don't. England, Wales, Scotland, and Ireland are different countries with different identities with different histories that end up intertwining.

But if you're so set on the matter, go up to a Scot in a pub and tell him he's the same as an Englishman because of the Empire. That is, if you enjoy being laughed at and/or being beaten up.

 

[Smidgey]

Ok, firstly I am a Scot, and no we would not say we are the same as the English, which is not the point I am driving at, we ARE British, NOT English, there is a strong distinction.

Bretons are people who live in Brittany in France

Not only law is was seperate, we also had seperate Education, Health, Social and Economic systems, why do you think we had the Scottish Executive before the parliament?

And Australia and Canada happened to be part of the British Empire. An Empire need not be conquered peoples, as is the case in the Aformentioned countries. Take India for example, the language of State was English during the Empire, and many British people who lived and governed indian could infact not speak hindi or any other Indian language, it was seen as a way of seperating themselves form the population, which were classed as " inferior " back then.

Speaking from personal experience, I live in Edinburgh, and there is a HUGE population of English immigrants living here, I am uncertain about English cities, but this is a clear example of the peoples integrating between the countries.

The fact that you say it is an English Language and not a British language is quite odd, when the people of Borders and Lowlands Scotland have spoken English in the form of Lallans Scots for many centuries and have never spoken Gaelic or Norse (the other two languages which were spoken in Scotland). It is only English in name, yet British, American, Canadian, Australian, etc... in use.

 

[Crazy Jerome]

As long as "small culture group" and "full-blown civ" and "entity that I happen to be playing a certain way and needs a name" are lumped into one category, you'll have this discrepancy. And there is no way to solve it under those criteria. You think "English/British" is a problem, what about America? Never mind Yank/Rebel or Easterner/Westerner. You get regional variations in Appalachian/coastal even within the same states--some that would make English/Welch seem cozy!

Now whether this issue is worth the time and effort (and gameplay changes) necessary to fix it, I have no idea. I suppose it would need some kind of cultural/civic grouping much more detailed than the 5 culture groups in Civ3. So you could start as Angles or Scots or Welch and have a fairly good chance of attracting the other two into your fold. The influence doesn't run one direction after all--no matter who is the dominant tribe. Perhaps the English turn into Great Britain if the need for the distinction arises. Or perhaps the Welch or Scots do.

 

[ivailo_ign]

How about putting in Bulgarian civ in Civ 4, because Bulgaria[my home country] was one of the 3 most powerful states in Europe. From 8 century till the fall of Ottoman empire[14 century] Bulgaria was a equal rival to the East Roman empire - Byzantium. Bulgaria was most powerful in its history during tzar Simeon I and tzar Ivan Asen II. Also Bulgaria was one of the first to have its own alphabet made by Kiril and Metodii brothers in 9th century. This alphabet was the first slavic.

 

[ivailo_ign]

Don't you think this is enough for puttin Bulgarian civ in?

 

[sir_schwick]

In general most Americans know very little about Eastern Europe or Africa. Not saying that Bulgaria, Poland, and Ehtiopia should not be civs, just that is probably the reason they were not included in Civ 3.

 

[searcheagle]

Civs being put in has nothing to do with a civ's real power. It has to do with the the appeal of civs. The civs that players say: Hey: I want to be them! Usually its the same thing. Before Civ 3, it didnt matter what the name was- it didnt change anything!

So, if you cant get enough people to say x is one of the top 3 civs I want to play, then it won;t make it into civ!

 

[Spatula]

Ok, firstly I am a Scot, and no we would not say we are the same as the English, which is not the point I am driving at, we ARE British, NOT English, there is a strong distinction.

If by 'British' you mean a citizen of the island of Britain, then yes. But Civ is more about people than nations - if it weren't then the Iroquois wouldn't be in on account of having about 7 different Iroquois nations. 'British' people do exist, but only in the sense of nationality and citizenship, not peoples. After all, you could class any immigarnt that ahs lived here for 7 years as 'British'.

Not only law is was seperate, we also had seperate Education, Health, Social and Economic systems, why do you think we had the Scottish Executive before the parliament?

And Australia and Canada happened to be part of the British Empire. An Empire need not be conquered peoples, as is the case in the Aformentioned countries. Take India for example, the language of State was English during the Empire, and many British people who lived and governed indian could infact not speak hindi or any other Indian language, it was seen as a way of seperating themselves form the population, which were classed as " inferior " back then.

And your point is? All that you are saying here is that Australia, Canada, and Scotland are in the same boat: unconquered but politically unified. By your logic then all Australians and Canadians are the same people, and part of Britain in more than just the political sense.

Speaking from personal experience, I live in Edinburgh, and there is a HUGE population of English immigrants living here, I am uncertain about English cities, but this is a clear example of the peoples integrating between the countries.

It's hard to find somwhere more ethnically diverse in this country than London (where everyone goes to pull up a slab of gold from the streets), and I can safely say I haven't met many Scotitish people at all, despite having mixed with people from all over the city (I have gone to many different schools). Even when I used to live in Newcastle it was hard to find an actual Scot there. Perhaps our cities are lowly compared to yours, that would account for it

The fact that you say it is an English Language and not a British language is quite odd, when the people of Borders and Lowlands Scotland have spoken English in the form of Lallans Scots for many centuries and have never spoken Gaelic or Norse (the other two languages which were spoken in Scotland). It is only English in name, yet British, American, Canadian, Australian, etc... in use.

Let's see.....the English language was the language of the Germanic settlers that came over, it was partly mixed with the Celtic of the 'true Brits' on account of them living near each other (let me repeat that there was very little mingling). Those Germanic settlers eventually had a kingdom called something along the lines of 'Angleland' (that's why it's called 'England'), after the Angles (I have no idea why them over the Saxons and Jutes). I won't bore you with the evolution of the language, because the point here is that the language is in origin 'Angle-ish'. The Scots may have later adopted it to their own form, I don't know much about the Gaelic languages. Your point here seems to be that because the Lowlanders and Border Scots took up English that somehow that makes it a 'British' language. And if that's not enough, tell me, what was the language lesson you and millions of others studied for all your young life called? British? Er.....

The English are English, the Scots are Scots. We may have similar cultures, on account of living in practically the same place (on the world scale) and having suffered largely the same crises and cultural revolutions, and sure some people have interbred. Put England (and Wales) and Scotland together and you get the country of Great Britain. But that's the only time Britain is nothing but the name the Romans gave to the new province (and that was for the most part only up to, and not including Scotland anyway), and geographically the term is used for the island itself. 'Britain' is a political enitity, and NOT a people. It is a testament to the effectiveness of calling the place Britain in order to soften the blow on the Scots having to join with England that people today think that the name actually means something more than an Act passed in 1707.

PS: Might the fact that Lowland and Border Scotland was settled by many English people seeking new oppurtunities both directly after and the decades following the unification of the crowns (not to mention the proximity of those areas to England) account for the fact that the Scots there seem so Anglicised?

 

[ivailo_ign]

In general most Americans know very little about Eastern Europe or Africa. Not saying that Bulgaria, Poland, and Ehtiopia should not be civs, just that is probably the reason they were not included in Civ 3.

Yes, I understand you completely

 

[Spatula]

Hopefully Civ 4 will make it easy to mod in new civs so that none of this ever needs be argued over again.

 

[sir_schwick]

Unfortunately adding civs now means lots of playbalancing. That is the big reasons there are not more, also leaderheads. If they seperated tratis and UUs from specific civs, i.e. you choose the combo fo traits and UUs(those combos are all playtested) then a civ is a list of city names, graphics, and dialogues, etc. Its flavor but being Chinese should not determine your stats.

 

[teccuk]

Nice to see this ones still rolling.

Spatula what do you mean 'some of them have interbred' some?? where on earth do you live? Rhegreanoch? Rum? Stornoway? Yeah okay some bits of Britain are still a little inbred, Cornwall, West Wales, deepest darkest Somerset etc but generally the mixing has been nearly total, London’s full of Scots as is where i live at the moment, Bristol. Although I get you up to a point: as the councillors of the Western Isles prove, inbreeding is still alive and well, (http://www.w-isles.gov.uk/members/wards.htm) Harris East and West wards are particularly interesting, or sorry, is that you mum/aunt and dad/cousin (only joking of course ). I've got Jocobite blood on one side and Imperialist Cromwellian blood on the other, but who cares?

I dunno, its about a shared identity, things like a love of battery acid strong milky tea (im drinking some as i speak, mmm) and battered food like black pudding or haggis, and of course a shared history, I don't think any of the 'home countries' would be anything much without the others.

The next Prime Minister of Britain is likely to be a Scot (be that Labour or the Liberals) and half the bloody government is Scottish! Anyway, we'll all be in the U.S.Europe soon enough. Scotland, England and Wales are simply the most beautiful, wonderful places I can imagine, diverse and wonderful landscapes and wonderful people, why can't we all just live on our green and lovely island together?