"English" Empire?

[Chauliodus]

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...

 

[AsnoT]

[...] add in Austria (again)

now there's a Good Idea.

i have to admit i played the conquests WWI scenario for longer than strictly necessary, just because it was fun playing the austrians for once.

EDIT: i'd settle for the celts, but ...

 

[AsnoT]

Originally Posted by oriel94
A few years ago I was talking to a Washington DC policeman, who suddenly asked me: "Are you English or British?".

I'm Australian.

Whats the weather like in Vienna?

rotfl

they sell tshirts here saying:
"We Have NO Kangaroos"

 

[69king]

Originally Posted by oriel94
A few years ago I was talking to a Washington DC policeman, who suddenly asked me: "Are you English or British?".

I'm Australian.



rotfl

they sell tshirts here saying:
"We Have NO Kangaroos"

My mother recently spent a few months in Vienna and nearly every other
person she mentions this too says something like "Oh, How's Vienna doing these days? is it under water yet?" or "Do you speak italian?" (they were thinking of Venice!) OMG, some people are dumb!

 

[Meglomania]

Talk about a minefield thread, probably best as England so that our Welsh, Scotish and especially Irish cousins don't get offended.

LOL @ the Australian comment, whenever I visit America and parts of Europe I often get mistaken for an Australian, maybe I need to start wearing a bowler hat, carry a cane, talk like I'm an inbred noble and constantly sip tea

And I often find the first question to be when they find out I'm British is, "Oh, so how's the Queen". As if I'd know! I often reply "doing OK, though I keep telling her that she should cut back on the sherry in the evening and do less public appearances as she no spring chicken anymore" Great for the look on their faces

 

[Jabba]

Talk about a minefield thread, probably best as England so that our Welsh, Scotish and especially Irish cousins don't get offended.

It was a Scottish guy who started the thread. He wanted to be the British.

He said "Try playing the game as a Scot". Is there a mod for that?

 

[Meglomania]

Fair enough, though I know quite a few Scots who would be most offended to be branded under the British Empire label, national identity and all. By having the British Empire it would mean that for logical purposes a mod that added Scotland would then have to change it back to England.

I'm fine with either, as I consider myself to be both British and English (hell, I'd probably call myself European as well if the EU ever get's it's act together, were all one race of people after all and strong national identity is a cause of a lot of hatred in this world). Despite this, I'm sure that many people with much stronger feelings about the subject than myself would much rather have the option of modding their own country, rather than being branded under the Empire label, which especially in the case of Eire could well cause offence.

BTW, The vast majority of people in England are well aware of the Ireland situation, maybe not the younger generations, but thats more due to a weakening of the education system in terms of teaching basic history, and the news not being full of IRA scares / attacks in recent times.

 

[Jabba]

rather than being branded under the Empire label, which especially in the case of Eire could well cause offence.

Don't see why the Irish should mind one way or another whether it is English or British. No one is saying that the English or British civilization in the game should include anything Irish.

It's not like the cities would go Dublin, Cork, Tipperary...

 

[Reveilled]

Don't see why the Irish should mind one way or another whether it is English or British. No one is saying that the English or British civilization in the game should include anything Irish.

It's not like the cities would go Dublin, Cork, Tipperary...

I can guarantee you that if a British Empire civ didn't include Irish cities, you'd find a ton of Northern Irish Unionists on here complaining about it. And if you did, you'd find the Irish (Republicans) doing exactly the same thing.

They say you can't please all of the people all of the time, but when it comes to nationality and identity in the British Isles, you can't please any of the people any of the time.

 

[Kinkill]

"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.

Well, England did not exist before the 11C, there were various tribes but there was no 'nation'... before that the peoples would more accurately be referred to as peoples of Briton, as in people who lives on those Islands termed British. (As the Romans referred to them)

So you would have

4000BC - 1000AD. - Britons. (a general term for the peoples who lived on the Islands)

1000 AD(ish) - 1707. English

1707AD - Current. British

5000 years of Britons.
700 Years of English. (during which time there are obviously also Scots, Welsh, irish)
300 years of British.

So Britons would be best. But really just ensuring that whichever they chose did not reinforce ignorance (such as specifically British elements being in the English part) would be fine with me.

 

[liam1om]

The Romans called people in Britain Britons.

Ireland is a different story. They were never referred to as British or Britons by the Romans and arent today by anyone else in the world.

Ireland was called Hibernia in Roman times. England had two halfs, Britainia Inferior and Britainia Superior.

Ireland was really a British province during the British Empire, it was also one of the first countries to break away from the Empire in 1922. The only bit which still belongs to Britain is northern Ireland which isnt really a country and is normally called a Province.

 

[Jabba]

Well, England did not exist before the 11C, there were various tribes but there was no 'nation'... before that the peoples would more accurately be referred to as peoples of Briton, as in people who lives on those Islands termed British.

This is not true. A “nation” is not the same as a state. For example, there has been a German nation for centuries, which was recognized as such both at the time and by later historians. However, Germany only become a united state comparatively recently, in 1871.

The question is not when the English state was founded but when English civilization began. It is commonly dated to the fifth century, which is when the first English settler units stopped wandering around the map and went plonk in southern England (so to speak).

England was already a flourishing civilization by the time it was united. In particular, the adoption of Christianity was landmark in the development of English identity. From the Encyclopedia Britannica:

it is important to notice the religious conversion of the people we commonly call Anglo-Saxons. It began in the late sixth century and created an institution that not only transcended political boundaries, but created a new concept of unity among the various tribal regions that overrode individual loyalties.

England was eventually united under one king in either 828 or 924, depending on how you define it. But the English were a civilization long before then.

As far as “Britons” is concerned. This term refers to people who lived in Britain before the Anglo-Saxons arrived in the fifth century. It certainly doesn’t refer to the dominant inhabitants of England in the period 500-1000, as you imply.

There is a simple reasons why “Britons” is no good as name for the civilization based on England/Britain. They did not create this civilization. They were part of the ancient Celtic civilization, which did not last beyond the Romans.

I can guarantee you that if a British Empire civ didn't include Irish cities, you'd find a ton of Northern Irish Unionists on here complaining about it.

Yes, only Ulster Unionists would have something to complain about. But not citizens of Eire.

Really we're only talking about one northern Irish city, Belfast, which is potentially big enough to get into the game. But the cities are pretty arbitrary anyway. (If they the same as in previous verisons. Unfortunately I don't have the game yet). Hastings and Canterbury grow into giant core cities. Manchester and Birmingham are tiny outposts. So I guess lots of people could complain that their particular city isn't included when it should be.

EDIT I notice that the German cities list includes Koeningsberg, Danzig and Graz, none of which are even in present-day Germany. So no one could legitimately complain about Belfast as a British city historically, which it certainly was when it was founded (in 1603 by Sir Alfred Chichester, apparently, for English and Scottish settlers). Not that I'm advocating inclusion of Belfast. I'm quite happy with an English civ.

 

[lysander]

Perhaps a good solution would be if the civ's official name and city name list changed depending on what leader you picked. Therefore if you are Elizabeth, you are the English and the cities are Plymouth, York, etc, whereas if you are Victoria, you are the British and the cities could include Edinburgh, Belfast, maybe even some Canadian and Australian cities. I don't see how this would offend anyone, it's not like those cities weren't part of Britain during Vic's reign. They could even change the leaders to reflect more of a time difference; you could have Richard I and Churchill as your options, there are many possibilities.
This could be implimented with other civs too. The Romans could get to pick whether you are Caesar (classical empire, cities like Rome, Pompeii, etc) or someone like Justinian (Byzantine Empire, cities like Constantinople, Trebezond, etc). The Greeks could have classical era cities if they played as a classical leader and Macedonian cities if they played as Alexander. The only difference would be in the name, but it would keep people happier and wouldn't be that tough to implement.

 

[Jimbo30]

The easiest way to remedy this is to remove Victoria and find another leader to fit with the 'English Empire'...which at it's height was basically a couple of colonies in Northern America. Now even the Malinese Empire looks good!

 

[Jabba]

with the 'English Empire'...which at it's height was basically a couple of colonies in Northern America.

Eleven of the thirteen North American colonies to be precise.

This link shows when the territories of the English/British empire were acquired:

http://cbsr26.ucr.edu/britem.html

Notice how most of them are pre-1707.

 

[Jimbo30]

Eleven of the thirteen North American colonies to be precise.

This link shows when the territories of the English/British empire were acquired:

http://cbsr26.ucr.edu/britem.html

Notice how most of them are pre-1707.

http://www.britishempire.co.uk/maproom/maproom.htm

Notice the difference after 1707. A few little islands and colonies is hardly an 'Empire'.

Oh yeah I forgot...the UK and English Crowns were merged in 1603, not 1707. Before 1603 (when the Scottish King was offered the English Crown), the 'English Empire' consisted of...

Bantam (never heard of it)
Newfoundland
Ireland
Roanoke Island (never heard of it)

I don't think anyone would agree those four bits of land are enough to get the 'English Empire' included as a civ.

 

[Jabba]

Don't see how this proves that the English empire needs quotation marks, and basically consisted of a couple of North American colonies.

A few little islands and colonies is hardly an 'Empire'.

Oh come of it. The North American seaboard. Gibraltar, Madras, Bombay, Jamaica... If the English Empire wasn't big enough for you, then I suppose we'd better disqualify every other empire of the 17th Century.

 

[Huxley Hobbes]

People sure do get worked up about which side of an arbitrary line they were born on, huh? Sorry, but until I can go to a border and see a giant barrier, mandated by Heaven, I'll consider the idea of national borders to be entierly outdated concepts. Culture is neither restricted by, nor dependant on, any sense of unity with others. Or if it is, you've got a bit of a dodgy culture and you might want to reconsider some things about it.

 

[Jimbo30]

Don't see how this proves that the English empire needs quotation marks, and basically consisted of a couple of North American colonies.

There is no such thing as the 'English Empire', it never existed. Try searching for it on yahoo and see what results come up.

The fact is, England has never done (by itself) anything remotely close to empire building for it to be included as a major civilisation on it's own merits. I mean...700 years trying to conquer Scotland without success when you outnumber us 10-1 is a pretty poor show. I'm not being a smartass or anything, but lets be honest here...how can the English lay claim to be a great empire when they couldn't even conquer their own island?

It's no coincidence than 'Britain' became great only after the Scots and English were united. Up until then, neither of us had acheived squat.

 

[Jabba]

This post came out funny so I deleted it. It's the same post as my next one.