Special Units

[ukrneal]

Wow! Lots of wrong info. I'll try to strighten out just the facts I know for sure.

1. Russia has quite a long history, more than some Europeans, depending on how you count it. It's "official" beginning is generally credited to Kieven Rus, which was established in the 700's or so. If you compare against Germans or French, it's probably similar comparing to Huns or Gauls. But we can argue this all day and night and not agree.

2. Ivan the Terrible and Peter the great ruled more than 100 years apart. In the Time after Ivan (Time of Troubles), the Poles and other European neighbors struggled to put their puppet on the throne. So I'd say their tumble doesn't come until after that. It happened in fits and starts during the 1600's and 1700's, but the Battle of Poltava with the Swedes (under Peter) certainly kicked Sweden out of Russia. By the end of that century, the Poles were in decline as well and soon to be partitioned.

3. Someone implied that America has no culture. Though you may wish to believe so, this is not true. You just don't like the culture it has.

4. Someone wrote somehing about civilizations having to exist pre-1400's. That's a load of bull and I don't accept that, to put it mildly. Not sure why you said that.

5. "Russia seems to have taken a fair amount of culture from the Mongol empire." I have a friend who theorizes that all of Russia's problems can be attributed to the Mongols! And there are some oddly convincing ideas in that argument.


Incidentally, we need to be careful about some of the terms we are using. Red Indians can be construed as insulting since Native Americans were referred to in derogatory ways such as this. I am not aware of one of the tribes being called the Red Tribe either.

 

[ellie]

Im english and proud of it sabo10, nothing wrong with that i hope? . With an uncle in the R.A.F and a cousin in the Royal Marines, and my grandfather having served in the R.A.F its no wonder i have an interest in british forces.

Of course we are a small nation now, (although packing punch beyond our size). It could be argued that many units should be english because of the history (for instance look how effectively we used the british square against cavalry etc). And because a large proportion of the earlier innovations were english. But if this was implemented it would mess up game balance.

Someone mentioned the S.A.S they are the best, nuff said

Ellie

 

[sabo]

Originally posted by ellie
Im english and proud of it sabo10, nothing wrong with that i hope? . With an uncle in the R.A.F and a cousin in the Royal Marines, and my grandfather having served in the R.A.F its no wonder i have an interest in british forces.

Of course we are a small nation now, (although packing punch beyond our size). It could be argued that many units should be english because of the history (for instance look how effectively we used the british square against cavalry etc). And because a large proportion of the earlier innovations were english. But if this was implemented it would mess up game balance.

Someone mentioned the S.A.S they are the best, nuff said

Ellie

No I am NOT anti English, I love England in fact I'm leaving for there the day after tomorrow to see my girl, she's British. Guess what her name is?? Elle!! it's not YOU is it?? What's happening here is Strombind is going to give people the impression that the English are all arrogant and they dno't back up their rants and raves with proof, I'm not anti British, just the opposite. But I think Stormbind should chill out or he will give amyone who don't know the British a bad impression of your beautiful country with beautiful women!!

I know better because I've been there but someone that HASN'T been there, and Stormbind is their first impression of any thing British?? Well you get my drift.

The USA could not have a better Ally then the UK, if any country attacks either one the other will come to their aid, together the US and UK make an unstoppable "one, two, punch" and these bad guys (iraq, iran) in the world know that!

 

[jack merchant]

Resistance is futile. you will be culture-assimilated - by the British

 

[stormbind]

Originally posted by ukrneal
3. Someone implied that America has no culture. Though you may wish to believe so, this is not true. You just don't like the culture it has.

4. Someone wrote somehing about civilizations having to exist pre-1400's. That's a load of bull and I don't accept that, to put it mildly. Not sure why you said that.

That someone was me, and it's the same point said differently.

We are talking about unique cultures that make a civilisation distingtive.

The colonies have no unique culture.

You can argue over the date which is a seperate issue, but after the age of expansion trade between civilisations was so rampant that they stopped evolving in their own seperate ways.

The current culture found in Germany, France, England, Canada, America is all the same. We all share the same values, all have roughly the same hobbies, all compete in roughly the same sports, all eat roughly the same food, all have roughly the same military (even if Britains is vastly superior ). There are small differences and I won't deny that, but not enough to constitute a unique culture.

Said another way: You don't get a culture shock travelling around Europe, but you might if you had a time machine and visited the ancient Greeks.

 

[stormbind]

Originally posted by ellie
And because a large proportion of the earlier innovations were english. But if this was implemented it would mess up game balance.

Had the British Empire never been dispanded, it's quite likely Earth would have colonised Mars by now. They were not as militaristic as they were expansionist, and they had some very much "ahead of their time" ideas, and were more outward looking than most.

It's also worth noting that the Britain didn't just invent democracy, they also had the only working global government. A few tweaks here and there in history, and we would be all one happy United Earth

Originally posted by ellie
Someone mentioned the S.A.S they are the best, nuff said

Indeed they are, no other nation maintains regiments of anywhere near that calibre. The Colonies do have elite regiments, but these have their equals in other areas of the British forces.

 

[stormbind]

Originally posted by sabo10

What's happening here is Strombind is going to give people the impression that the English are all arrogant ...

Hey! I accept correction (and welcome it) but you have to come up with some proof. You have never posted evidence to support your claims.

I am actually very chilled, but I do get a little aggressive with Americans (won't deny it) because I lived there and I know first hand how arrogant they are, and how self-righteous they are... they actually believe they contributed huge amounts to the world... when the evidence shows they just absorbed other people's ideas and stuck their label on it.

I lived in other countries too. Ofcourse people had national pride, but it was nothing alike. I found Americans to be by and large brain washed. My "big claim" posts are written that way because I expect dissagreement and it makes people search for something to discredit the post ... which they won't even bother to do if I posted diplomaticly ... so it's the only way to get the truth imported into the discussion

What I am saying is, I have learnt that I need to be heavy handed with The Colonies because they don't notice anything less.

Edit: Also, you get all defensive and claim I have no evidence when the evidence is posted! Did anyone even bother to see how the Challenger 2 MBT runs rings around an Abrams? Statistics show that it would take 10 Abrams M1 to take down 1 Challenger 2. Evidence in the field shows that the Challenger 1 was by the far the most effective MBT serving in Desert Storm.

 

[taper]

Originally posted by stormbind


Had the British Empire never been dispanded, it's quite likely Earth would have colonised Mars by now.

And everyone is in awe of the British space program

It's also worth noting that the Britain didn't just invent democracy, they also had the only working global government. A few tweaks here and there in history, and we would be all one happy United Earth

Now I know for sure that you're pulling facts out of your a**. Britain didn't invent democracy, ancient Greece did. And several countries, including USA had working democracies before England switched from a monarchy to a constitutional monarchy.

Back to where you said the colonies didn't have a unique culture, you're right. The *colonies* weren't much different than the rest of England, but after we formed our own country our culture became different in many ways.

PS. The British Empire let most of it's far off colonies go when they realized they had overstepped their authority and couldn't successfully govern those areas. I'm sad to say it looks like the US is heading the same way, just hope our leaders realize it.

 

[jack merchant]

Originally posted by stormbind



It's also worth noting that the Britain didn't just invent democracy, they also had the only working global government. A few tweaks here and there in history, and we would be all one happy United Earth

Hrm, we need to update the history books. Clearly the idea that the Greeks invented democracy around 500 B.C. is wrong - those were in fact Anglo-Saxons who got lost in Attika
Also the sun did in fact set on the Habsburg Empire ca. 1500 A.D.
And English government from London over India, Oceania, parts of Arica and the Caribbean is the same as a 'working global government'.
Hey, you learn something round here every day !

 

[stormbind]

Originally posted by taper
And everyone is in awe of the British space program

At least it works. But that's not fair because the British Space program to which I was refering was ended when the British Empire dispanded.

Also, the British (I think the engineer was Scotish) invented breathing engines which make flight to space a doddle. Unfortunately, the prime minister of the time put it under the secret services act (where it remains) and so it cannot be built.

However, the same engineer went to work in Russia where he made something similar and is currently working on the next generation of space vehicles.

Most here would laugh at NASA, the biggest organisation to fail in supersonic transports. Russia tried to help them out but they quit again by 1999. Look up Concorde (Anglo-Franco) and TU-144 (Russia). Boieng and NASA have tried to match these and both failed misserably.

Originally posted by taper

Now I know for sure that you're pulling facts out of your a**. Britain didn't invent democracy, ancient Greece did. And several countries, including USA had working democracies before England switched from a monarchy to a constitutional monarchy.

The oldest Parliament in th UK dates to 1295 and included representatives of the land, but the Glorious Revolution was in 1688 - a long time before the The Colonies did much.

You should check your facts, both UC and US governments were largely influenced by the British.

If the Greeks/Anglo-Saxons/Habsburgs (whoever they were) had democracy before that then I take my hat off to them.

I could argue that the USA is a lot less democratic than the UK by a fair margin. A written constitution denies future generations the freedom to govern themselves.

Originally posted by taper
The British Empire let most of it's far off colonies go when they realized they had overstepped their authority and couldn't successfully govern those areas. I'm sad to say it looks like the US is heading the same way, just hope our leaders realize it.

The British Empire was dispanded after WW1 in the interest of world peace because it was believed that empires (or colonies) were the cause of friction. France and others did the same - it was a big event.

 

[stormbind]

Originally posted by taper
Back to where you said the colonies didn't have a unique culture, you're right. The *colonies* weren't much different than the rest of England, but after we formed our own country our culture became different in many ways.

I want to make a clear distinction between different cultures (i.e. Luxembourg/Scotland/Hawaii) and notably different cultures.

The cultures across "Western Civilisation" are marginally different but the difference is so small that it can be considered negligeable.

The difference between ancient cultures (where trade was limited) was vast and very noticeable.

If you visit New York, and then Berlin... they are just big cities with little to distinguish them.

If you visited Ancient Egypt and then Ancient Briton you would see entirely different ways of life, with entirely different values, entirely different governments and the peoples would be clearly incompatible.

My argument isn't that the USA has no culture, but that the small culture it does have is not noticeably different from other western countries - and it never will be because of trade. If a great new idea crops in Tilburg tommorow that changes everyone's life for the better, you can be sure that the people in Chicago, Manchester and Stockholm will get it almost emmediately thanks to globalisation and active trade.

You can also be sure that the people in Chicago will claim it was theirs!

No unique cultures can develop in a post-globalisation era.

 

[barron of ideas]

I think Iceland has the oldest parliament.

In the Napoleonic era, everyone but the Austrians used square to hold off cavalry. The austrians has a sort of double column called battalions mass where everyone stood really close together and the horses (no fools) wouldn't charge them. It is not unique to the english. Whose army of the period was not highly thought of by its officers (wellington said it was the scum of the earth enlisted for drink.).

There are unique non-western cultures.

OK, mr politically correct, how do you want to distinguish the "indians" of north and south america from the indians of asia (the subcontinent of india.) Both contain lots of different cultures, the hopi and navaho are a lot different (agriculture for one) than the apache. The seven nations in the east had a much different approach than the pacific northwest natives. Where do you put the inuit (eskimo) they don't want to be called indians. I think it was Columbus, who was geographically challenged and though he had reached the "indies" who called the inhabitants indians. For the most part, in their own languages they called themselves "the people."

 

[jack merchant]

Originally posted by stormbind


The oldest Parliament in th UK dates to 1295 and included representatives of the land, but the Glorious Revolution was in 1688 - a long time before the The Colonies did much.

You should check your facts, both UC and US governments were largely influenced by the British.

If the Greeks/Anglo-Saxons/Habsburgs (whoever they were) had democracy before that then I take my hat off to them.

I could argue that the USA is a lot less democratic than the UK by a fair margin. A written constitution denies future generations the freedom to govern themselves.

The British Empire was dispanded after WW1 in the interest of world peace because it was believed that empires (or colonies) were the cause of friction. France and others did the same - it was a big event.

Actually, that was after WW2. Also, the case that the Empire was disbanded because the British were no longer able to hold on to it is much stronger.
As I and others mentioned, the Greeks, or more specifically, the Athenians, did have a form of democracy before the British. In fact, they had it 1500 years earlier.
My mention of the Angles/Saxons in Greece referred to your idea that the British invented democracy, when, despite your enthusiastic claims to the contrary, they did not.
I'm sorry to hear that with all frequent assertions about historical facts, you have not heard of the Habsburg Empire, which was global before the British Empire was.

That being said though, I'd appreciate anyone correcting me - after all, my Latin has been proven to have some holes in it, too.

 

[stormbind]

I think democracy evolved, so it may be impossible to say who invented it and it may continue to evolve to an extent that current day democracies look possitively antique.

I did find some good reading on the matter, some suggesting the Summaritans have a claim. I think it's a case of what you call a "democracy".

I do not consider a written constitution do be at all democratic, and the USA has had many problems as a result of their dictated and almost "hard coded" laws. Regardless, modern democracies were in Europe and UK a long time before the USA.

The ancient Greek word demokratia was ambiguous. It meant literally 'people-power'. Only men who were citizens of the state had any influence, women/slaves/immigrants were not included. Is this what you consider a democracy?

The Early Greek Democracy

 

[barron of ideas]

I think the reason the colonies were given their "freedom" to be mismanaged by their own residents was financial.

I understand the only good thing the French did for the Vietnamese was to teach them how to make bread. On the other hand, Hong Kong was sorry, mostly to see the British go, and Gibraltar doesn't want the English to go and the Spanish to take over.

where was I, oh yes, the reason having colonies became unpopular was financial. After WW2 it became politically imposible to pay to support the kind of forces needed to retain colonies. The Portugese kept theirs for a long time but there were political reasons (Salazar) and the army didn't want to give up. For the most part it wasn't a military problem to keep control of the cities. Guerilla war is realtively low cost for the guerillas, especially if you can capture weapons from the colonial power. The British knocked out the comunists in Malaya, and overcame the Boers earlier, so guerilla warfare isn't always successful. But if politically you don't want to pay the price, and the British and French didn't, letting the colonies go was "cheaper" than keeping them. Even the US of A benefited from "war wearyness". There isn't any reason England couldn't have sent another army after Yorktown. They had the forces or could have raised them, they just didn't want to pay the price to continue to hold cities and the area ouside cities within bayonet range of forces marching between them.

 

[barron of ideas]

The US has lots and lots of culture. Look at all the yogurt, mostly has culture.

 

[stormbind]

Originally posted by jack merchant
My mention of the Angles/Saxons in Greece referred to your idea that the British invented democracy, when, despite your enthusiastic claims to the contrary, they did not.

I'm sorry to hear that with all frequent assertions about historical facts, you have not heard of the Habsburg Empire...

Unfortunately I have not heard of them. Should they too be included in Civ3?

Rather than mean that England invented Democracy which I didn't expect to hold up to scrutiny, I was actually hoping to bring out the information on British and United Colonies governments prior to the formation of the United States - which introduced practically nothing new.

It should also be noted that I do not think that UU from the "British Empire" have any place in Civ3 because the civs are never guaranteed to acquire an empire - rather a UU from the Celts/Britons would have a stronger claim as they were genuinely unique but I still think that UU associated with the name of a Civ is absurd

 

[Sgt.Hellfish]

and jet fighters were 'invented' in Germany


actually no they werent they were a British invention, however the germans at the time had more faith in them.

also the british empire still exsisted after WW1, however countries were allowed more self governing. WW2 was when the empire fell due to German advances in Africa and Japanese conquests in the pacific

 

[barron of ideas]

The Hapsburg Family ruled Austria, Hungary, Czeckoslovakia (Bohemia), parts of Polandand Germany, most of middle Europe) Spain and its empire in africa and the americas, I think they had Portugal too (could be wrong) and the Netherlands (hoilland, Belgium parts of what is now france.) They had parts of Italy too.

What they didn't have was France, England, Russia, Sweden. and a bunch of tiny German states. It was too big to administer with the kind of transportation they had, so it spilt into Spanish and Austrian Branches. If Queen Elizabeth hadn't succeeded queen Mary they might have had England too, Mary married Philip of Spain, who was pretty sure the deal included being king of England, and sent the Armada in 1588 to try to enforce his claim.

 

[stormbind]

Originally posted by barron of ideas
I understand the only good thing the French did for the Vietnamese was to teach them how to make bread. On the other hand, Hong Kong was sorry, mostly to see the British go, and Gibraltar doesn't want the English to go and the Spanish to take over.

This is a very serious topic. If we are democratic (Americans, British, Spanish, French, Dutch, German...) are we not morally obligated to respect the views of the people who live in Gibralter?

It will be evil if Gibraltar is given to the Spaniards. Democratic nations everywhere should be rallying to the side of Gibraltar.

The Hong-Kong situation was also very unpopular, but it was caused by stupid politicians (in the past) who didn't care about the future