Euch.. 'England'!

[WartyX]

I hate how Firaxis persistantly chooses to call the British the 'English Empire', and 'England'. I can see the logic behind it, but seriously, it sounds like tripe.

Also most civilisations are named after their name in their Golden Age, for example 'Rome' rather than 'Italy', so why do we not use the name that the British used when they were at their peak (that being '(Great) Britain' or 'United Kingdom'?

 

[Olleus]

Doesn't see why it matters, until WW1, the name Britain an England where interchangeable. Also, the leader is Elizabeth 1st, who reigned before the Union before England and Scotland (and Ireland), so it would be weird for her to be the leader of a country which didn't exist when she was alive!

 

[Dale]

Edited .

 

[craig123]

I hate how Firaxis persistantly chooses to call the British the 'English Empire', and 'England'. I can see the logic behind it, but seriously, it sounds like tripe.

Also most civilisations are named after their name in their Golden Age, for example 'Rome' rather than 'Italy', so why do we not use the name that the British used when they were at their peak (that being '(Great) Britain' or 'United Kingdom'?

I understand your point. In civ4, it was weird having Victoria (Queen of the British Empire) and Churchill (Prime Minister of the United Kingdom) as English leaders. The Redcoats were British too, and the Ship of the Line.

On the other hand, having Britain would mean it would be silly having Elizabeth I as leader. You would also need to decide the order cities are built: where would Edinburgh, Glasgow, Belfast and Cardiff come in the order of things. (And Ireland was part of the UK from 1801 to 1922.)

I guess it depends whether you consider England in the game to be pre-1707 England or post-1707 Britain. I guess most people wouldn't care.

Doesn't see why it matters, until WW1, the name Britain an England where interchangeable. Also, the leader is Elizabeth 1st, who reigned before the Union before England and Scotland (and Ireland), so it would be weird for her to be the leader of a country which didn't exist when she was alive!

They were often used interchangably but that doesn't make it correct

 

[Olleus]

Actually, if two terms are used interchangably by everyone, and everyone thinks that they mean the same thing, then they do. There is no national body which defines English word (unlike the Academie Francaise), so words means exactly what people want them to mean.
But lets not get into an argument about the theory of language.

 

[TM Moot]

at the end of the day it is only a game, but i do think just having liz as leader of the english is better then when churchy and vicky were leaders too...

perhaps if an expansion pack brings multiple leaders then perhaps they could use Edward Longshanks or Henry V (or my fav Alfred the Great, although perhaps thats one for a Wessex mod!)

 

[chopstyx]

Actually, if two terms are used interchangably by everyone, and everyone thinks that they mean the same thing, then they do. There is no national body which defines English word (unlike the Academie Francaise), so words means exactly what people want them to mean.
But lets not get into an argument about the theory of language.

Actually, if only ignorant people used the terms interchangably, then no the meaning doesn't change. Plently of intelligent people knew the difference before, and after, WW1.

 

[Dale]

I hate how Firaxis persistantly chooses to call the British the 'English Empire', and 'England'. I can see the logic behind it, but seriously, it sounds like tripe.

Also most civilisations are named after their name in their Golden Age, for example 'Rome' rather than 'Italy', so why do we not use the name that the British used when they were at their peak (that being '(Great) Britain' or 'United Kingdom'?

By your theory then, America is under the wrong name too.

 

[AljayBoy]

I can also see the logic behind Firaxis' decision, but as craig123 states, it is misleading if the leaders/UU/UB were all British but being portrayed as 'English' only. Most post sofar have made valid points (perhaps not Dales 1st post...)

Ultimately however, gameplay > realism, and for simplicities sake accept Firaxis reason for English over British.

 

[WartyX]

By your theory then, America is under the wrong name too.

Under my theory, America should be called the 'United States of America' in Civilization 5. Oh look!

Civ IV 'England' was quite clearly based on the UK Golden Age of 1800 - 1945, but Civ5 seems all over the place. Hence why I suggested the term 'Britain' which can accurately describe the entire history of the nation.

 

[Dale]

Under my theory, America should be called the 'United States of America' in Civilization 5. Oh look!

Civ IV 'England' was quite clearly based on the UK Golden Age of 1800 - 1945, but Civ5 seems all over the place. Hence why I suggested the term 'Britain' which can accurately describe the entire history of the nation.

In the Civ list it says "America".

 

[Angelscotboi]

Well from what I have seen Civ 5's England does seem to be English as apposed to British.

Its leader is the greatest monarch England ever knew, the Longbowman is a largely English convention, the Ship of the Line was a largely Anglo-Dutch invention. Its city list will no doubt English, and its flag will be St George's cross.

So I dont mind it being called England. Im not getting Civ 5 anyway tho.

I objected to it in Civ 4 because it was clearly a BRITISH Civ not an English one; with british UU, UB, and leaders. They just erroneously stamped England over it.

They seem to have learned their lesson on this one.

 

[Schuesseled]

I hate how Firaxis persistantly chooses to call the British the 'English Empire', and 'England'. I can see the logic behind it, but seriously, it sounds like tripe.

Also most civilisations are named after their name in their Golden Age, for example 'Rome' rather than 'Italy', so why do we not use the name that the British used when they were at their peak (that being '(Great) Britain' or 'United Kingdom'?

Because it kinda is the English Empire, i do see your point butEngland conquered Scotland, Wales and Ireland long long ago. And now were basically the same country, in the eyes of the foreigners

 

[WartyX]

In the Civ list it says "America".

Yes, but when you click on that link you are welcomed by the 'people of the United States of America' and the page title clearly says 'United States of America'.

Besides, 'America' is an accepted shorthand for the 'USA', whereas calling 'Great Britain' or 'United Kingdom' the incorrect 'England' is just ignorant.

 

[craig123]

Because it kinda is the English Empire, i do see your point butEngland conquered Scotland, Wales and Ireland long long ago. And now were basically the same country, in the eyes of the foreigners

Sorry but that's just factually incorrect.

 

[Olleus]

Actually, if only ignorant people used the terms interchangably, then no the meaning doesn't change. Plently of intelligent people knew the difference before, and after, WW1.

It wasn't only ignorant people, it was everyone. I have read articles by great 19th century British commentators and they use the word england/britain completely interchangeably.

 

[Dale]

Yes, but when you click on that link you are welcomed by the 'people of the United States of America' and the page title clearly says 'United States of America'.

Besides, 'America' is an accepted shorthand for the 'USA', whereas calling 'Great Britain' or 'United Kingdom' the incorrect 'England' is just ignorant.

So.... a word of 7 letters is the shorthand for a word of 3?

But besides that, if you actually analyse the era that "England" represents through the unique units, leader, etc, England is a better fit than Great Britain.

 

[12agnar0k]

Tbh I have to agree with Angelscotboi here, With Elizabeth and Longbowmen this is a English Civ, similarily, you wouldn't call the Italian Civ "Roman" if you had Silvio Berlusconi as its leader, obviously though Rome is and always will be the better choice for a Civilisation. England will also be the better choice over Britain, it's existence is longer than that of Great Britain or The United Kingdom, It also allows for Scottish/Irish/Welsh Civ's to be considered, Scottish would probably be the better of the three, viva la William Wallace.

Truely though, the Civ "England" refers to the English and not the British Empire. Thus it is named correctly. However, Britain could be used just as easily as England for the Civ.

However you would be referring to more than simply "Wales Scotland and England" you would be reffering to periods such as Roman Britain as well as Great Britain. Where as with England you know what you get.

P.s "America" is not an accepted short for "The united states of america" (even the proper title is incorrect, it should be "selected united states of America". America or as it was also known "The America's" consist of South America & North America. Their are many countries in South America, such as Brazil and Mexico and many more, where as North America only consists of (correct me if i'm wrong) the USA and Canada. But Canada is in America, so are all the countires of South America, so no America is not known or a correct short hand for The USA. Anyone who uses it as such is just as ignorant as people who think thier is no difference between the United Kingdom, Britain and England. The only reason America is used as a "ignorant shorthand" is because its easier than saying "The United States of" each time you say it, just as we call the United Kingdom the UK for short. That doesn't however make the "shorthand saying of America" in any way correct. Perhaps you should have chosen a better name for your country than that of the continent. So yes the USA is also known and refered to a lot as simply America, but that doesn't make it any more correct, it just makes a lot of people more ignorant.

 

[AriochIV]

Since Elizabeth I is now the only leader, and I'm pretty sure they were calling it "England" during her reign, I don't see the basis for objection.

 

[Carver]

Actually, if two terms are used interchangably by everyone, and everyone thinks that they mean the same thing, then they do. There is no national body which defines English word (unlike the Academie Francaise), so words means exactly what people want them to mean.
But lets not get into an argument about the theory of language.

No.

That argument is weak enough when applied generally; it is totally flawed when applied to political systems with defined identities and terms. The government seal has a name on it; it doesn't say England/UK/GB/whatev.

Of course, when you mention "everyone" you're really just talking about the ignorant masses. Everyone does not, has not, and will not use the terms interchangeably, even if the people in your "social circle" do.