The Scots Should be Added to Civ3 in the New XP?

[Pangur Bán]

Originally posted by jack merchant
After that exhaustive post I would almost have voted 'yes', were it not for your dismissive attitude towards other civs, and I quote:

It' s not a dismissive attitude, but a comparison. Pease don't confuse the two. If the Netherlands are included but Scotland isn't, it'd be a farce. I'm entitled to compare the two.

Originally posted by jack merchant

Now I must admit that the discovery of the adhesive postage stamp revolutionized history, but I fail to see why Earl Haig, who

That's pretty cheap Jack. I'd have thought better of you than that. The list contains many people who did revolutionize history in significant ways.

Originally posted by jack merchant



I submit that the only reason that the Scots had a colonial impact was because of Union. If we're talking colonial impact, the Portuguese have an even stronger right to be in.
Also, as a commercial civ, the Dutch blow the Scots away. I'd suggest Jonathan Israel's Rise and Fall of the Dutch Republic for a good view of the Dutch role in history.
Now I must admit that the discovery of the adhesive postage stamp revolutionized history, but I fail to see why Earl Haig, who sent hundreds of thousands of men to a senseless death is in any way a shining example of the greatness of Scotland
.

The Dutch do not "blow the Scots" away as a comercial civ. Now, who's being dismissive. In the 18th and 19th centuries, Scotland became one of and then the wealthiest nation in Europe. Glasgow merchants dominated ( esp. tobacco) trade the America for instance.

Anyway, there were a number of reasons I gave as to why the Scots have a better case. You'll need to focus on them all, because focusing on one merely distorts the argument.

There is no way that I would consult a 19th century text about the happenings centuries before when there are plenty of modern works.

Haig is important for his role in world history. He didn't send people to their death on purpose. BTW, I hope I don't find you praising Napoleon or Caesar in any other threads

Originally posted by Gainy bo


...and thats quite a long list you've got there calgacus (methinks the clipboard feature was... exploited )

Actually, much more effort went into that than you'd believe.

 

[troytheface]

voted no. Some people can really convince themselves of things if they want to. Masking a very basic human need. "I want to be included too"

 

[Pangur Bán]

Originally posted by troytheface
voted no. Some people can really convince themselves of things if they want to. Masking a very basic human need. "I want to be included too"

Are you going to repost the ridiculous and ignorant post you made in Guess Them Eight New Civs or do you not believe that you can back up and defend your "view".

 

[chocmushroom]

Well, if there is to be another European Civ in exp then you give a very good reason for the Scott's to be included.
There are also a few reasons that it may have some problems. It seems that one of the main strenghts of the Scotts was Edinburgh Universirty and the derth of great Men that it helped produce. This must mean that Scientific should be one of the civ abilities for the Scott's. The problem is that during this time Scotland was part of the UK (there are even a few Scotts who were PM of the Union during this time according to the list) This may make it hard to separate the Scotts out.

The other problem is with it's UU. This must be some type of warrior. A Fierce fighter who has something to do with hills and mountians. Now this sounds good, but the problem with Scotland was that it has such a long history. With a UU from before the 15th Century, and it's main trait being it's Science in the 19th & 20th Century, when would you take the other trait from?

So, it will not be included as it is to close to UK in it's recent achivments.

 

[Pangur Bán]

Actually, I'm not sure of Scottish PM until the 20th century. The annexation of Scotland in 1707 only led a loss of control in foreign policy and such matters. Scotland's civic and religious community effectively formed an independent state until the Napoleonic Wars, after which the scale of British interference destroyed this.

The UU could be the "Highlander", which is also at its peak during the height of Scotland's intellectual golden age.

 

[Knight-Dragon]

I don't know... To me, the Scots were indistinguishable fr the English. We just lumped them all together as the 'British', in these parts...

Hell, didn't even know that many of the people on the list are Scottish...

Another major problem I have - most of Scotland's greatest contributions seemed to take place after its joining with England. Wasn't an independent entity - like the Netherlands, or Portugal e.g.

And had Scotland stayed independent, probably the English would continue to savage it. Would the Scots then be able to contribute as much as they did - as a nation under siege?

BTW, I voted no.

 

[Pangur Bán]

Hypothetical questions. A point I've made several times is that Scotland was an independent country in most ways during the Enlightenment and her Golden Age arguably started while she was independent. English overlordship made little difference.
It was certainly a Scottish phenomenon, because England was an intellectual wasteland in the period of the Enlightenment, and contributed almost nothing. (Although I must stress the a century before, England produced men like Hobbes, Locke and Newton whose monumental importance is obvious).

Scotland for most its history was much more distinctive from its neighbours than Holland or Portugal, even if that is not the case today.

 

[troytheface]

Must have touched a nerve. Some Acedemic types like to regurgitate things they have read and pass it off as "knowledge".
Wordiness taken for being "thorough". One could take any group,
lets say the Swiss and find a list of famous Swiss that did famous things- tho few would actually repilcate this list -as "backup for a view" lol. Mark twain...I never let education get in the way of learning.
We are driven by unconcious motives was all I implied, and I suggest that anyone that wants to associate themselves with a group and is passionate about it will find reasons-intellectaul gymanstics-when it is more a matter of identity. That is understandable.

 

[Pangur Bán]

Originally posted by troytheface
Must have touched a nerve. Some Acedemic types like to regurgitate things they have read and pass it off as "knowledge".
Wordiness taken for being "thorough".

It's hardly regurgication. All historical knowledge is acquired through other people, but at least I've made an original argument out of it. Cut the slander and back up the silly post you made in that other thread

Originally posted by troytheface
One could take any group,
lets say the Swiss and find a list of famous Swiss that did famous things- tho few would actually repilcate this list -as "backup for a view" lol. Mark twain...I never let education get in the way of learning.

Well, do the same for the Swiss then. Trust me, you won't be able to. Several people tried and failed on another forum with the Poles and Hungarians, I urge you to back up your claim and do liekwise with the Swiss.

Originally posted by troytheface
We are driven by unconcious motives was all I implied, and I suggest that anyone that wants to associate themselves with a group and is passionate about it will find reasons-intellectaul gymanstics-when it is more a matter of identity. That is understandable.

That's possibly true, but doesn't make a difference to the argument. The arguments are there independent of my imputed feelings.

 

[jack merchant]

Originally posted by calgacus

It' s not a dismissive attitude, but a comparison. Pease don't confuse the two. If the Netherlands are included but Scotland isn't, it'd be a farce. I'm entitled to compare the two.

I'm sorry, but the use of terms like 'indistinctive', 'insignificant', 'so what' cannot be described in any other way - at least where I come from. Sure, Indonesia was only a small colony. So what ?

Originally posted by calgacus

That's pretty cheap Jack. I'd have thought better of you than that. The list contains many people who did revolutionize history in significant ways.

I know, it was a cheap shot. But the point of the shot was to show that you were inflating the size of the list there. I must admit I'm impressed though.

Originally posted by calgacus

The Dutch do not "blow the Scots" away as a comercial civ. Now, who's being dismissive. In the 18th and 19th centuries, Scotland became one of and then the wealthiest nation in Europe. Glasgow merchants dominated ( esp. tobacco) trade the America for instance.

I can't compare that with the Dutch, as obviously the high point of the Dutch Republic lay in the 17th century, as an independent country. Not with the help of English military and commercial channels.

Originally posted by calgacus

Anyway, there were a number of reasons I gave as to why the Scots have a better case. You'll need to focus on them all, because focusing on one merely distorts the argument.

There is no way that I would consult a 19th century text about the happenings centuries before when there are plenty of modern works.

What gives you the idea that Rise and Fall of the Dutch Republic is a 19th century work ? It was published in the mid-1990s...
Anyway, your casual dismissal of the Dutch accomplishments leads me to believe that you consulted no work at all for the comparison.

Originally posted by calgacus

Haig is important for his role in world history. He didn't send people to their death on purpose. BTW, I hope I don't find you praising Napoleon or Caesar in any other threads

The point is not that Haig was a general - rather that he was an utterly incompetent one. He didn't have a choice about whether to fight or not, but he did have one in how to fight. And the way he chose did lead to hundreds of thousands of unnecessary deaths.

Originally posted by calgacus

Actually, much more effort went into that than you'd believe.

Believe me, it's appreciated. Let's not get into a flame war here. But my patriotic pride was piqued a little by your post

 

[LouLong]

No need for th scots, in the creation forum you already have :

- Robert the Bruce leaderhead

- galloglass, higlanders (2), Pict (well OK it is not a Scot) Warrior for UUs (that is a lot).

The Scottish Enlightment was important but not THAT influential over the rest of the wrold or even Europe.

The British (I mean British, not English) domination was maybe diminishing for your jingoism but it is mostly through that influence that Scots succeeded (like the Hong Kong first Tycoons).
On the other hand I have to agree without Scottish people and troops, British imperialism would not have probably gone so far.

BTW : nice try

PS. Calgalus : try to bring Zulu in. You will have one person that agrees with you (I hope about Scottish pride, not about the quality of arguments).

 

[Pangur Bán]

Lot's of people have alredy registered their agreement. I don't want ot say anything about many of the others however

I think my arguments are enough. What I believe is that people are not trying to understand them.

I doubt that you know very much abbout the history of ideas or the Scottish Enlightenment. After all, what you said about the Enlightenment is totally unsupported. If you were knowledgable, you would have backed it up without much thought. Given that I have backed up my contention so much, it is kind of disrepectful for you to simply state a contradiction of it without evidence

 

[Stapel]

Calgulus, if your story has done one thing, it is convincing me that Scotland should not be with the new civs.

You seem to be able to post a whole lot of nonsense in favour of your own viewingpoints. Backing up your arguements with tons of text won't help!

I think this crap does belong in the history forum, but I will post my view:

-I have never heart of any Scottish colony (there might be though)
-I have never heart of any Scottish Golden Age (there might be though)
-Most people in the world do have a clue about Dutch Golden Age (especially painters) and colonies, with nowadays New York as the most famous one.
-Indonesia has the size from Glasgow to Moscow
-Scotland is not an independent nation
-80% of the people on your impressive list do not even ring a bell to me. And I am pretty sure that not just me!

And last, but not least:
Scotland has only two football clubs, Holland has three.

 

[troytheface]

One cannot argue with how one "feels". That is like saying "U can't be sad because...." I notice the word arguement is used alot but i cannot believe that there is a magical realm of independant arguement that is "truth".
When u say that ur "argeument is independant of ur being....Impossible..by both Freudian and Biological factors.
But i do enjoy the zeal effort. Passion wins out.....

 

[LouLong]

Originally posted by Stapel

And last, but not least:
Scotland has only two football clubs, Holland has three.

I think you definitely won the day.

Well, it will be even worst when all civs of conquests are known I guess.

Peace on earth... and war on Civ III !

I am outta here before nationalism makes France declare waron you all ... I mean after our carrier is out of repair (that leaves only two days of the year to attack).

 

[Pangur Bán]

Well, Stapel, that's ignorance, which you proudly boast, but that's not a good thing.

And if you think that my posts were nonsense, you will have to be comprehensively specific, otherwise it is just slander (which it clearly is )

And most civs in the game are not independent or do not exist any longer. That proves nothing, except that you have no decent counter-arguments

And Scotland has many clubs who've given Dutch teams a good whipping over the years . Only 7 cities in Europe can boast two teams in the Champions Cup/ League semi-finals. Two of them are Scottish (Glasgow and Dundee) and non are Dutch

 

[Pangur Bán]

Originally posted by troytheface
One cannot argue with how one "feels". That is like saying "U can't be sad because...." I notice the word arguement is used alot but i cannot believe that there is a magical realm of independant arguement that is "truth".
When u say that ur "argeument is independant of ur being....Impossible..by both Freudian and Biological factors.
But i do enjoy the zeal effort. Passion wins out.....

Hey, your superior observations don't mask the fact that you made a few silly statements and won't/ can't defend them.

 

[Pangur Bán]

Originally posted by jack merchant


I know, it was a cheap shot. But the point of the shot was to show that you were inflating the size of the list there. I must admit I'm impressed though.

Well, James Chalmers is very important in the history of publishing as well as other things. The point of mentioning him was that he did many things.

Originally posted by jack merchant


I can't compare that with the Dutch, as obviously the high point of the Dutch Republic lay in the 17th century, as an independent country. Not with the help of English military and commercial channels.

Well, the English support was something that helped, but it is just another factor in its origins. The Scots were not passive, they got the English support.

Originally posted by jack merchant

What gives you the idea that Rise and Fall of the Dutch Republic is a 19th century work ? It was published in the mid-1990s...
Anyway, your casual dismissal of the Dutch accomplishments leads me to believe that you consulted no work at all for the comparison.

I must apologize for my mistake. For some reason, I thought that you wrote "Benjamin Disraeli"

My dismissal wasn't casual. I'm not an expert on the Dutch Republic, but I am aware from my own knowledge about some aspects of it, and, more importantly, of general trends in European history

Originally posted by jack merchant

Believe me, it's appreciated. Let's not get into a flame war here. But my patriotic pride was piqued a little by your post

I don't want a flame war either, so I ain't going to get dirty with you. But there are some others on this forum who can do nothing but slander.

 

[Stapel]

Originally posted by calgacus
Well, Stapel, that's ignorance, which you proudly boast, but that's not a good thing.

And if you think that my posts were nonsense, you will have to be comprehensively specific, otherwise it is just slander (which it clearly is )

Let me make clear what I mean:
Your arguements (Golden Age, Colonies, A list of 'famous' people) are completely, completely and almost completely unknown to me. And I am a well educated man with a very broad interest.

There is a way to settle this. Ask a non-dutch-non-scottish person about colonies and golden age and see what he or she comes up with.

And don't be surprised to call half of the world ignorant if they do not have a clue who Patrick Gordon or Sandford Fleming is!

 

[Pangur Bán]

Originally posted by Stapel


Let me make clear what I mean:
Your arguements (Golden Age, Colonies, A list of 'famous' people) are completely, completely and almost completely unknown to me. And I am a well educated man with a very broad interest.

There is a way to settle this. Ask a non-dutch-non-scottish person about colonies and golden age and see what he or she comes up with.

And don't be surprised to call half of the world ignorant if they do not have a clue who Patrick Gordon or Sandford Fleming is!

I already know many people are ignorant, that's why I put in the effort.

I'm surprised that you've never heard of the Scottish Enlightenment (if you really haven't). But that's not my fault.

Scottish history has a history of bieng marginalized. That is highly unfortunate , and a fact which the Scots themselves haven't helped. But that doesn't mean it's justified. There is a movement in north America at the moments to stress its importance. The most famous and high profile instance is Arthur Herman's How the Scots Invented the Modern World:: The True Story of How Western Europe's Poorest Nation Created Our World and Everything in It , or a more popular work like Duncan Bruce's (he is American BTW, despite the name) The Mark of the Scots but also, Robert's Wright's How Scotland Changed the World

That will see its way into Holland in a decade or so (that's the normal time it takes for new ideas to reach continental Europe).