"English" Empire?

[Jonny211]

I've just read this post.... bloody hell, have you lot got nought better to do than split hairs over who's who in the British Isles. If you want to continue the argument why not say the British are the descendants of the Normans and Saxons, who migrated from Europe, who decended from etc etc etc.

 

[whb]

liam1om, as has been pointed out many times, the majority of the Northern Ireland population prefers to remain part of the UK. And the game you tried to play earlier (of suggesting that because the protestants' in NI ancestry as Northern Ireland citizens only goes back a few hundred years their opinion is somehow less valuable) is plain and simple bigotry, verging on racism. I'm constantly surprised that kind of Mosleyist attitude is still seen as acceptable by people such as yourself.

 

[69king]

You people are so touchy, its only a name.

Someone pointed out:

Canadians, Mexicans, Venezuelans and Brazilians are all Americans.

That is not exactly true. Canadians and Mexicans are "North Americans" and Brazilians and Venezuelans are "South Americans"

The term "America" has evolved to refer to solely the USA so Canadians etc. would find it offensive to be called simply "Americans". But there is no offense in being called "North American" even though it includes the word "American". This is because we are refering to a geographic location.

So Irish should not be offended by being included in the "British Isles" but may be rightfully offended in being called British. Because "British" is a political term while "British Isles" is a geographic location.

And if the germans had invaded 50 years ago and were still oppressing us then I would be angry but if I had a good job and was able to lead a normal life then I wouldn't care at all. Anyway, I like german food and beer.

 

[Ulfang]

bloody hell, have you lot got nought better to do than split hairs over who's who in the British Isles.

Not really no

Just class it as one of those hundreds of argumentative posts you see where people argue about nothing inparticular for a dozen or so pages

 

[Chauliodus]

I think hes probably english, the majority of English people still think that Ireland is part of Britain. It really frustrates me when the British media keep referring to Ireland as part of the UK. The other day I had an arguement with someone who just would not accept that Ireland was a seperate country!! WTH! Speak to any American or European and I can guarantee you that they will know more about the UK and Ireland than anyone living in Britain will!

Course it's part of the British Isles, theres just a few desenters that'll be brought into the fold in time

Well ofcourse if you invade somewhere then ship your people over and ask them are you happy for us to rule then yes they are going to say that.

Anyway, its now 52% protestant 48% catholic, give it 30 years and the Catholics will be in the majority.

Sounds like it's time to start shipping some protestants back in to even things out.

 

[Reveilled]

No your wrong, Britons has never been used to describe the people from Ireland.

Irish people would find that offensive the same way the a Jew would find it offensive being called a Nazi. There is a long history of oppresion from Britain on Ireland and to still be linked to them even in the term of British Isles is offensive.

False analogy. Nazi is an ideology, while "British Isles" is a geographical term. If you want a better analogy, try "Eastern European". People in Eastern Europe opressed Jews for a lot longer than the Nazis were around, yet that doesn't change the fact that a Jew born in Eastern Europe is Eastern European. Again, I can see the problem in referring to Ireland as if it's a part of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, yet I've said quite a few times now that I'm making a distinction between "Britain" (shortened form of UKoGBaNI) and "British Isles" (the group of islands off the northern coast of Eastern Europe that were named by a Greek Explorer and Merchant long before any political entity colloquially named "Britain" ever appeared).
If you want to be offended at anything, you should be offended at people using "Britain" and "British" to refer to the UK and the people who live there. Applying those terms solely to them is what's incorrect and plausibly offensive, not the other way around.

And since someone asked, I'm from Glasgow, and I don't consider Ireland to be part of the UK. I consider it (rightfully) to be part of the group of islands off the north coast of Western Europe named the British Isles.


But if it seriously bothers you all that much, then just assume that my original argument for "Britons" left out the Irish and merely included All the residents of the largest of the isles through time. Would that make everyone happy with the idea?

 

[Smidgey]

What gets my goat is not the fact that England is in the game instead of Britain.

The annoyance comes from the UU being the redcoat, which was DEFINETELY a British soldier (e.g. the redcoats fighting the Jacobites were mostly Scottish, there were more Scots fighting on the side of the crown than against it, and they were redcoats. Another example, Waterloo, several regiments Scottish infantry were the first troops sent into battle against the French and what were they? Yep, you guessed it; Recoats).

The second grievance comes from the fact that the Queen is Victoria. Now if anyone calls this the "English Empire" when Queen Victoria is the leader, then they need to open their history books.

 

[Control Group]

I don't see any reason in the game to think that the English Empire includes Ireland or Scotland. As far as I can tell, it's based on England proper. This is consistent through the city naming convention (for the cities I've seen so far, anyway), through the selection of rulers, and through the selection of the UU.

So, rather than be offended that Ireland/Scotland has been lumped into the English Empire, be offended that Ireland/Scotland didn't make the game. Then, at least, you've got a lot of good company.

 

[Reveilled]

I don't see any reason in the game to think that the English Empire includes Ireland or Scotland. As far as I can tell, it's based on England proper. This is consistent through the city naming convention (for the cities I've seen so far, anyway), through the selection of rulers, and through the selection of the UU.

So, rather than be offended that Ireland/Scotland has been lumped into the English Empire, be offended that Ireland/Scotland didn't make the game. Then, at least, you've got a lot of good company.

Except that Queen Victoria was queen of Great Britain (and lots of other places), and the Redcoats were the main part of the British army, never having been a feature solely of the English. In fact, the Kingdom of England (and thus, by default, the English Empire) ceased to exist in 1707.

Considering, though, that it is only a game, and that the name can be easily changed, I don't consider it that big a deal. When the White House's press staff make the mistake, it's annoying. When a PC game makes it, it's trivial, really.

 

[Chauliodus]

Considering, though, that it is only a game, and that the name can be easily changed, I don't consider it that big a deal. When the White House's press staff make the mistake, it's annoying. When a PC game makes it, it's trivial, really.

Yes, however the English remained the dominant member in the union, just as Prussia did withthe rest of Germany.

 

[Control Group]

Except that Queen Victoria was queen of Great Britain (and lots of other places), and the Redcoats were the main part of the British army, never having been a feature solely of the English. In fact, the Kingdom of England (and thus, by default, the English Empire) ceased to exist in 1707.

By similar rationale, however, you could make a solid case for the English Empire including Canada, Australia, and New Zealand (along with, IIRC, 50 other countries). After all, Queen Elizabeth II is Queen of the Commonwealth. Or, if it's specifically the reign of Queen Victoria that rankles, do you do about Queen Elizabeth I? What nationalities/cultures does the English Empire presumptively include based on her reign (late 16th century?)?

Or a solid case that France should include America, since during the reign of Louis XIV, much of the modern-day US was (at least nominally) owned by France.

The problem is that the "English Empire" as the game presents it spans more than 6000 years. It obviously can't be accurately representative of each point in time within that 6000 years. So, instead, they borrow various things from various times which seem representative of some abstracted concept of "English."

Just like they did with Russia. Despite including the Kremlin (accurate image or not), they refer to it as the Russian Empire, not as the USSR or CIS. Or the Bismarck/Prussia issue mentioned by others in this thread.

*shrug*

As you say, it's easy to change; if it is offensive to you or anyone else, by all means rename the civ as appropriate. All I'm getting at is that it's as reasonable a choice as most of the other decisions they made regarding what to name civs and who to pick as leaders.

 

[Chauliodus]

By similar rationale, however, you could make a solid case for the English Empire including Canada, Australia, and New Zealand (along with, IIRC, 50 other countries). After all, Queen Elizabeth II is Queen of the Commonwealth. Or, if it's specifically the reign of Queen Victoria that rankles, do you do about Queen Elizabeth I? What nationalities/cultures does the English Empire presumptively include based on her reign (late 16th century?)?

Yes, I always name my overseas colonies in game after the Dominions.

 

[incubuspawn]

Hi folks. The title says it all really. There was no such thing as an English Empire. There was a British Empire. This is not an unimportant detail. Try playing this game as a Scot and see how it feels.

Surely the developers could have got this right? Is there any way to contact them to see if this can maybe be put right in a subsequent patch? I sure hope so as the game is brilliant otherwise. Once this is publicized I think they'll lose a lot of sales, which would be a shame.

While this is true, and I have no desire to to even get to know this age old debate ( IM still fumeing over the fact that Joan of Arc is gone, so what if she never actualy rulled france ) There is something you can do if you play England. You have the option to change names. You can for instance change the english empire name to Britain empire or somethign less flatering . As scottish you may not want to play england however lol. I don't know maybe there is an ini file where you can change the name permanently to affect all games???

 

[Jabba]

By similar rationale, however, you could make a solid case for the English Empire including Canada, Australia, and New Zealand (along with, IIRC, 50 other countries). After all, Queen Elizabeth II is Queen of the Commonwealth. Or, if it's specifically the reign of Queen Victoria that rankles, do you do about Queen Elizabeth I? What nationalities/cultures does the English Empire presumptively include based on her reign (late 16th century?)?

Or a solid case that France should include America, since during the reign of Louis XIV, much of the modern-day US was (at least nominally) owned by France.

Well, who's to say what all those fictional bits of land on a civilization map are not called "Australia", "America", "New Zealand" etc? My civilizations usually end up expanding into all sorts of new and exotic places, but we don't know what they're called.

Actually I'm in agreement with you on the English/British thing. The argument "But the redcoats were British, Queen Victoria was British" etc overlooks the simple fact that if the civilization was instead called British you could just as validly retort "But the first settler units were English, the warriors were English, the archers were English, the pikemen were English, Elizabeth was English" and so on.

Lets' face it, when a country is called one thing up to 1707, then a different thing after 1707, you are never going to find a term that is valid for all its history. No matter how much you argue!

How do we solve this problem? Well, here's one way:

"English" civilization c400AD to 1707 = 1307 years
"British" civilization 1707 to 2005 = 298 years

1307 > 298

The English win!

The fact that the English came before the British, and account for 85% of Britain's population, are just added bonuses.

Just the way I look at it. I have no problem with people who'd prefer to play with a "British" civilization instead.

 

[Reveilled]

By similar rationale, however, you could make a solid case for the English Empire including Canada, Australia, and New Zealand (along with, IIRC, 50 other countries). After all, Queen Elizabeth II is Queen of the Commonwealth. Or, if it's specifically the reign of Queen Victoria that rankles, do you do about Queen Elizabeth I? What nationalities/cultures does the English Empire presumptively include based on her reign (late 16th century?)?

You can't really make that case strongly, since all these areas were considered part of the British Empire (i.e. the Empire that belonged to the UK), while the UK itself was a single national entity. Also, Queen Victoria was queen of all these places (Canada, Australia, India) individually, just as Queen Elizabeth II is today, yet neither Elizabeth II, nor Victoria, nor any monarch after Queen Anne has been the monarch of England or Scotland, as these kingdoms no longer exist. In this context, consider if the American civ was named Texas instead of America, and had only Texan cities, but had Minutemen as its UU and John F. Kennedy as its leader.

And as to Queen Elizabeth I, well that's just the thing. In CivIII and before, every ruler of England was in fact a ruler of England. If they'd chosen to make the two English leaders, say, Elizabeth I and Henry V Plantagenet, and made the UU a longbowman (and before someone points out to me that the longbowmen if the English army were Welsh, I know that, but I'm just picking an example), then while it might still rankle some non-English Brits, at least it would be correct.

Consistency is the key, in my opinion. Either they should have stuck with "English" and kept the leaders and UUs actual leaders and units of England specifically, or changed it to "British" and made the leaders and UUs only British. And yeah, the Frederick as leader of Germany thing bothers me a little too. I might see if I can get around to modding in a Prussian Civ...

 

[Control Group]

Consistency is the key, in my opinion. Either they should have stuck with "English" and kept the leaders and UUs actual leaders and units of England specifically, or changed it to "British" and made the leaders and UUs only British. And yeah, the Frederick as leader of Germany thing bothers me a little too. I might see if I can get around to modding in a Prussian Civ...

Fair enough. I understand the desire for consistency, but in my opinion (which is worth exactly what you've paid for it ), this particular problem is an understandable decision. England has more history, but Britain has more recognizability to the modern gamer. England fits better (in general) into the "one supreme ruler" model than Britain does, but I think more people recognize the redcoat as a uniquely British soldier than have even heard of the English longbow. It is definitely a compromise between historical accuracy/realism and game appeal, but it's one I don't find particularly objectionable.

As I say, this is just my opinion. Grain of salt, YMMV, and so forth.

On the other hand, I'm still irked that I can't play the Ottomans anymore.

 

[Jabba]

but I think more people recognize the redcoat as a uniquely British soldier than have even heard of the English longbow.

Beats me why they didn't stick with a naval unit.

 

[Reveilled]

The only thing that really bugs me about it all is how unbelieveably ugly they made Queen Victoria. I mean, damn, that's ugly!

If they could make Catherine into a twenty-something sex kitten, they could have at least made Victoria slightly younger!

Beats me why they didn't stick with a naval unit.

It certainly does strike me as strange that they chose a naval unit for CivIII where large and powerful navies weren't particularly important, while in CivIV they made navies a real going concern in most games and then dropped the english naval unit...

 

[Control Group]

Beats me why they didn't stick with a naval unit.

Now that's a darn good question.

After all, the peak of the Empire rested almost entirely on naval superiority.

On the other hand, as a long time fan of Horatio Hornblower, Captain Aubrey and Commander Maturin, and all their copycats that I've run across, it's possible that I'm a little biased in this regard.

 

[Gloriana]

Now I just need to add my two cents' worth as well, hehe...

I would incite rebellion in all cities of this planet and revert us all to anarchy if Elizabeth I ever left the game!! Back in the Civ 1 days when I was young, naive and knew hardly any English at all I somehow found her an intriguing leader. Looking back, I have done English at university and am a near native speaker of the language now. In addition I'm writing a dissertation on Elizabeth I. I can't say Civ 1's Elizabeth actually made me do all this, but it certainly was a catalyst in peaking my interest and I ABSOLUTELY certainly wouldn't have been writing a dissertation on her now hadn't it been for her presence in Civ 1.

What doest that have to do with the English/British discussion here? I was completely and utterly shocked when I discovered they were going to stick Victoria in the game! A monarch I cannot at all relate to, the absolute opposite of everything Elizabeth is or was, and Liz was to share the stage with her? No way! (Sorry if I offend people who love Victoria... it's just the way I feel). Besides, and here's the point, she was indeed a BRITISH queen, not an English queen. They simply should've stuck with an English queen and English naval UU (isn't that also what Elizabeth's brave seamen/discoverers were known for? What about the defeat of the Spanish Armada? Okok that was the weather for a large part as well...).

They did Native American civs AND America/US, which basically consists of native Americans, British (English) people, French people, Asians, Africans... All of those are in the game together and nobody has a problem with that, so why not make English AND British civilizations? I think the whole point just is that England is too much integrated into the notion of Britain and somehow people can't see THEM separately, whereas they actually are 2 different "empires" if you so please. Naturally, they couldn't ever meet in reality, but then again so couldn't the Romans and Americans...