"English" Empire?

[Jabba]

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.

The UK and English crowns were merged???

Pre-1707 England and Scotland were separate countries. They had one king after 1603, but were not united until the Act of Union. The 17th Century monarchs were never kings of Britain.

I'm not trying to knock the Scots or say they weren't great imperialists. I was just pointing out that, before the Act of Union created the United Kingdom, there was a significant overseas empire belonging to England.

Read the following:

http://www.fpri.org/orbis/4702/taylor.peoplebritishamerica1700.html

which says:

The Atlantic Seaboard colonies gradually emerged during the seventeenth century as part of an English empire, which became “British” in 1707 with the formal union of Scotland and England. This union opened the colonies to Scottish emigrants; prior to it, the majority of the colonial emigrants came from England (including Wales), settling in the West Indies and the Chesapeake, rather than in New England.

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

Did you actually try this? I got 37,000 hits on google

The First English Empire: Power and Identities in the British Isles
1093-1343

Envisioning an English Empire: Jamestown and the Making of the North Atlantic
World (U of ... Armitage, David,Ideological Origins of the English Empire

books on the subject of the post-Restoration English empire,

A New and accurate map of the English Empire in North America

Ralegh is playing with is not only the idea of a golden empire of
Guiana, but the possibility of a golden English empire....

This is just from the first TWENTY of those 37,000 hits

The link I originally posted also refered to the English and British Empires

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?

Now you're just being ridiculous.

 

[Randle]

lol

Oh and I've personally got no problem with the civ being English - I'm English and proud of it but I just don't like the idea of monarchy and one unelected person being head of state - there should be an optionw here the leader changes in modern era when you have democracy.

So does it save your game and randomly send it to someone else to finish playing?

 

[Reveilled]

Seriously, Jabba's correct. Regardless of whether the British Empire was larger, there was an English Empire (which is really neither here nor there, since every civ is referred to as the <x> Empire, even nations like America). And the crowns were indeed not merged into one until 1707. Until the Act of Union, the monarch was King of England and Scotland. After 1707, the monarch was King of Great Britain.

 

[Jimbo30]

The UK and English crowns were merged???

Pre-1707 England and Scotland were separate countries. They had one king after 1603, but were not united until the Act of Union. The 17th Century monarchs were never kings of Britain.

Post 1707, England and Scotland were separate countries...we still are! The Union Act simply unified us under the same parliament. The 17th Century monarchs were indeed the kings of Britain because they were kings of all the countries in Britain.

I'm not trying to knock the Scots or say they weren't great imperialists. I was just pointing out that, before the Act of Union created the United Kingdom, there was a significant overseas empire belonging to England.

The North American seaboard, Gibraltar, Madras, Bombay, Jamaica...this is what you mentioned earlier. Perhaps we disagree on what is significant, but there can be no doubt that those holdings are pretty insignificant in comparison to say, what the British Empire's accepted hayday was in 1921.

As an Englishman, you probably think 'we'd have taken and held those lands anyway without the Scots'. My point is simply...you wouldn't have. Scotland resisted 2 previous attempts by the English to unify before 1707. You needed us more than we needed you. Napolean proved that.

Overall, I'd say that Scotland contributed close to 1/3rd of the total power of the British Empire. Not as much as England, but a helluva lot more than the credit we get for it.

 

[Jabba]

Post 1707, England and Scotland were separate countries...we still are!

I would call England and Scotland &#8220;nations&#8221; and the United Kingdom a &#8220;country&#8221;, but I understand that this term is ambiguous and can be used in different ways.

The 17th Century monarchs were indeed the kings of Britain

Actually you're right. They did occasionally use this title, though there was no "Kingdom of Great Britain" at the time. I discovered confirmation that James I was proclaimed &#8220;King of Great Britain&#8221; in 1604:

http://alt-usage-english.org/english_british_uk_et_al.shtml

However, it turns out that James&#8217;s use of the term was premature. At the time he had hoped to unite the two kingdoms but failed, so the term &#8220;Great Britain&#8221; lacked legal significance until the Act of Union. He also called himself "King of France" for some reason:

http://www.everything2.com/index.pl?node=Great Britain

As discussed earlier, though, the Empire was still called "English" before 1707.

Overall, I'd say that Scotland contributed close to 1/3rd of the total power of the British Empire. Not as much as England, but a helluva lot more than the credit we get for it.

I&#8217;m all in favour of the Scots (actually I&#8217;m part Scottish). I&#8217;ve no wish to argue about their role in history.

 

[Reveilled]

However, it turns out that James’s use of the term was premature. At the time he had hoped to unite the two kingdoms but failed, so the term “Great Britain” lacked legal significance until the Act of Union. He also called himself "King of France" for some reason:

In the final phase of The Hundred Years War (a war originally fought by England to reclaim their French possessions in Normandy and Gascony, and then later to take all of France), there was dispute over whether the Dauphin Charles (Joan of Arc's liege, and later King Charles VII of France) was illegitimate or not. Had he not been, then the legitimate successor to Charles the Mad (so called, incidentally, because he suffered from a combination of bipolar disorder and a delusion that he was made of glass and would shatter if anyone touched him) would have been Henry V Plantagenet of England (thus, it's no surprise that they were the ones that claimed the Dauphin a bastard). And so, from the Hundred Years War to the French Revolution, the Kings of England (and later Great Britain) were crowned Kings of France

 

[Jimbo30]

Jabba, I've no wish to argue with you either. However, there is a underlying frustration with most Scots that we simply don't get the credit we think we are due. This issue reared it's head when Civ 3 was released also.

The main factor is the change from 'England' to 'Britain'. Yes, I know that England was a major European (and therefore World at the time) power for a long time before the Union, but the biggest empire the world has ever seen was due to a combination of English and Scottish greatness and without each other it would never it happened.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scotland is a very good and unbiased account of Scotland, from past to present. IMO, the only reason we don't exist as a civ4 civ is because we are basically lumped in with England and Firaxis assume that nobody really gives a damn...When reading this forum, I think it's obvious that many Scots still do. It's a special trait we have.

 

[Reveilled]

Jabba, I've no wish to argue with you either. However, there is a underlying frustration with most Scots that we simply don't get the credit we think we are due. This issue reared it's head when Civ 3 was released also.

The main factor is the change from 'England' to 'Britain'. Yes, I know that England was a major European (and therefore World at the time) power for a long time before the Union, but the biggest empire the world has ever seen was due to a combination of English and Scottish greatness and without each other it would never it happened.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scotland is a very good and unbiased account of Scotland, from past to present. IMO, the only reason we don't exist as a civ4 civ is because we are basically lumped in with England and Firaxis assume that nobody really gives a damn...When reading this forum, I think it's obvious that many Scots still do. It's a special trait we have.

True, but set alongside the White House's press agency referring to the Queen Mother as English, is the terminology in an easily modifiable game that big a deal?

 

[DisruptiveIdiot]

Us Americans don't mind the "American Empire" moniker even though it goes against the very foundations of our nation. We are a federation of states, not an empire. We still tolerate the fact that Civ IV names the "American Empire" instead of "The United States of America".

 

[Kinkill]

Us Americans don't mind the "American Empire" moniker even though it goes against the very foundations of our nation. We are a federation of states, not an empire. We still tolerate the fact that Civ IV names the "American Empire" instead of "The United States of America".

Cool.

Not sure what it has to do with this discussion though.

 

[Gloriana]

Mmm yes well shall we reserve the America discussion for another thread...? LOL

 

[c-mattio]

Us Americans don't mind the "American Empire" moniker ....

Ha! What about Thomas Jefferson's "Empire of Liberty". What about the occupation of Mexican and then Spanish territory by war for no real reason other than land grabbing? The United States of America qualifies as an Empire in all terms but name. Well in some historical aspects it did, but not really anymore...

Mmm yes well shall we reserve the America discussion for another thread...? LOL

well it is about a dubious name...

 

[SCVirus]

700 years. But who's counting

800 years (more like 850). But who's counting.

 

[Big Bottom]

I'm Scottish and I'd have been more disappointed if the civ in the game had been called British. At least there's a chance there might be a Scottish/Celtic civ added in an expansion pack this way, and I suspect that's why they called it what they did - to keep their options open.

 

[Spearthrower]

Most of my Scottish and Welsh friends would strongly disagree with the OP. They would maintain that there was always an "English" Empire and that their countries were entirely distinct.

I actually had some real surprises in my life with this.... at University I had a great friend. She was half welsh, half thai. We shared a house together, slept in the same bed sometimes (nothing naughty! ), were friends for years. One day, England was playing some obscure team from Far Away.... I'm not interested in football but she is so we were half watching it and half chatting. Sometime into the game, she started cheering for the other team. I said "Hey, why aren't you cheering for England?" the answer was: "Because I f*****g hate the f*****g English!" I said hey, I'm English..... her answer in a totally serious and slightly enraged tone "Yeah and I f*****g hate you too!"

I've noticed this deep-seated rage among other, normally placid Scottish and Welsh friends as well.

So yeah, while I am up for a "British Empire" in civ, I am guessing a lot of Scots and Welsh would probably complain more about that!

 

[vonGazza]

Jabba, I've no wish to argue with you either. However, there is a underlying frustration with most Scots that we simply don't get the credit we think we are due. This issue reared it's head when Civ 3 was released also.

Oh you're a funny guy Jimbo30. You're nearly as funny as that other rabid Celtic nationalist who thinks that Northern Ireland is 'occupied' by the English.

Anyway, I can't wait to hear what exactly made the Scottish so indespensable to the creation of the British Empire. No more vague generalities please, let's have some information instead. I'll give you a starting point - they provided cannon fodder for the British Army. Anything else?

If I wanted to be unkind - which I do - I could point you to Scotland's one and only endeavour at setting up an Empire of its own, at Darien. A fiasco so costly it went crawling cap-in-hand to the English and begged them for a Union to avoid bankruptcy. Expert Empire builders - erm, NOT.

 

[warpus]

This is the same as a Ukrainian arguing that there shouldn't be a Russian Empire but a Soviet Empire instead.

 

[boris_k]

Also, your right the Irish were Celts but were not the same band as were in Britain. The Irish are believed to have come over from northern Spain about 3,000 years ago. Where as the Celts that used to occupy Britain came over from Gaul (France).

The Scots are celts that originated in Ireland, they displaced the original Britons (The Picts) that occupied modern day Scotland.

 

[boris_k]

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!

You harangue the ignorant masses but attach so much emotion to a geograhpical term, that you happily ignore facts yourself.

"British Isles" is a geographical term that refers to all the islands of the north west coast of Europe. Just as Great Britain is the term that refers to the largest of those islands.

Just because you found someone who doesn't know that Ireland is a separate country, you conclude that the whole of the UK is afflicted with the same misapprehension.
Perhaps this individual was arguing that NI was part of the UK? If that was the case then they'd be right.

 

[Xenocrates]

Personally I'm with HuxleyHobbes on this. There never was an English Empire, nor a British Empire. Boundaries are arbitrary and therefore these labels are suitable only for teaching children.

It's all about how some people can claim authority and how others will submit to it.

This can't go into Civ though as after a disasterous war or a disasterous peace the Civ leader's authority doesn't evaporate the people don't lynch him.

Up the revolution!