The worlds two largest EVER empires not in game??

[Monyu]

lol you guys are going off topic. Anyways to me(someone not from the UK) English people come up when most people think of the UK so English culture is probably the dominant one.

 

[j51]

I hope I'm not repeating anyone, but this England/Britain problem is easily moddable. Just change the civ names along the lines of Great Britain/British/British and throw in some Scottish, Welsh, and maybe Irish cities into the city list.

Yes, they should have made it Britain in the first place, but Firaxis is always screwing this stuff up. I've been changing the Chinese and Indian capitals from Beijing and Dehli to Chang'an and Pataliputra since Civ 2. I'm used to making these minor edits before I even play the game once through.

 

[Scaramanga]

Britain is a ship and England is her captain.

 

[Xyan]

Seen the size of Europe? If it were up to me, the whole of Europe would classify as a single civilization called Europeans. The quarrels between the nations would liken to internal civil unrest. Much like how the Han, Shang, Yan, Wei, Wu, Qi, Qin, etc. of China were thought of as different countries years ago before China is unified.

But I know the nationalistic thinking world would disagree. Oh well..

 

[rujikin]

Seen the size of Europe? If it were up to me, the whole of Europe would classify as a single civilization called Europeans. The quarrels between the nations would liken to internal civil unrest. Much like how the Han, Shang, Yan, Wei, Wu, Qi, Qin, etc. of China were thought of as different countries years ago before China is unified.

But I know the nationalistic thinking world would disagree. Oh well..

Once upon a time Europeans almost became one nation and they would all be called Germans

 

[Shackel]

Once upon a time Europeans almost became one nation and they would all be called Germans

You mean Rome, correct? Saying all of the Germans were united would be like saying the HRE of 1700 was united.

 

[bhavv]

I really wonder why Europe was never unified, despite having the Greeks, Romans, and 'English' dominating much of the world at different points in history.

 

[rujikin]

You mean Rome, correct? Saying all of the Germans were united would be like saying the HRE of 1700 was united.

I was referring to most recent attempt to unite europe, WWII.

I really wonder why Europe was never unified, despite having the Greeks, Romans, and 'English' dominating much of the world at different points in history.

Chinese were descended from a central location and became an issue of the new gobbling up the old. Europeans started civilizations here, there, and everywhere so there was no ONE uniting force across the whole of Europe. Rome got close to controlling a large portion, but the Romans were outsiders and resisted by the native populations. Besides that no one succeeded militarily.

 

[Shackel]

I really wonder why Europe was never unified, despite having the Greeks, Romans, and 'English' dominating much of the world at different points in history.

Germany
Russia
America

One of them are related in some way or another.

 

[kaibayashi]

It's amazing how poorly educated English and Scottish people are about their own history.

I'm English, by the way. And a History PhD student.

Chieron sums it up very well. That's the take I would have on it. But of course, being not only English but white, male and middle class my opinion is inherently wrong.

Yeah I gave up history as early as I could. In school I found it dull and boring, now it enthralls me! And according to your second point, I too am screwed!

...

There is no such legal entity as 'Queen of England'. There has been no such entity since the Treaty of Union changed Queen Anne's title. Queen Anne, of course, was also Queen of Scotland - this title, too, was discontinued.

...

And England, sadly, is even less so, as it is not a legally recognised entity like Scotland and Texas are...

Sorry, but my grasp of both history and politics are piss poor. What do you mean by this?

 

[ywhtptgtfo]

Seen the size of Europe? If it were up to me, the whole of Europe would classify as a single civilization called Europeans. The quarrels between the nations would liken to internal civil unrest. Much like how the Han, Shang, Yan, Wei, Wu, Qi, Qin, etc. of China were thought of as different countries years ago before China is unified.

But I know the nationalistic thinking world would disagree. Oh well..

Europe has never really been unified (not even during Charlemagne's time) while China was always engaged in a cycle of unification and fragmentation.

 

[ywhtptgtfo]

Feel free to tell us differently. I don't see any great English culture anywhere, show me what I'm missing?

Shakespearean literature? The industrial revolution? The anglosphere?

Anyways, when it comes to Europeans, it's not a stretch to expect tonnes of nationalistic boasting even if the countries they come from are relatively... meh. However, we do have our equivalents in the far east. For example, the Koreans love to pretend ancient Korean civilization >>> ancient Chinese civilization or that Koreans invented Chinese medicine.

 

[Shackel]

Shakespearean literature? The industrial revolution? The anglosphere?

Anyways, when it comes to Europeans, it's not a stretch to expect tonnes of nationalistic boasting even if the countries they come from are relatively... meh. However, we do have our equivalents in the far east. For example, the Koreans love to pretend ancient Korean civilization >>> ancient Chinese civilization or that Koreans invented Chinese medicine.

But they all unite to try and insult America.

 

[Tavenier]

When playing England and conquering other lands I always change my Civ name in British.

That they didn't include the Mongols is strange (but will probably be the first DLC available). But Spain not in it is even stranger, I think. They had a bigger impact on history than most other Civs in Civ5, I think.

And of course the USA should be in it (and is an empire). One of the largest, most populous, influental, powerful, etc, Civs of the last couple of centuries deserves a place with the first 18/19 Civs.

 

[GMillie]

Surely, though, the "English" empire is one that:

a) Started roughly in the late 11th century with the Plantagenet kings. A sort of mash between Norman feudal lords and the collection of Northern European tribes who had settled there.

b) It grew in size and wealth during the medieval period, with some teething issues. It militarily and culturally dominated the Celtic lands of Cornwall and Wales, and colonised Ireland.

c) It developed a rich culture in the 16th century, and developed a large navy and started to colonise the rest of the world. London became one of the foremost trading cities in the Western World.

d) Around the Act of Union, it made a deal with the Scottish, and eventually came to militarily and culturally subsume that into the empire. It then went on to colonise India and several other places.

Then, as Britain, it became one of the largest Empires ever known.

It depends on your starting point. If you mean "British", then you're tracing the civilisation from the 1700s. If you mean "English", you can probably go back another 600 years. But I would call the English colonisation of America (yes - before the act of union) as a pretty significant part of history, and worthy of a place in the Civilization canon.

Seeing as Elizabeth is one of the leaders of England in Civ, I would suggest that the creators meant the latter. And the constant Shakespeare references would bear that out.

What I don't get with a lot of the complaints that many Scots often make is this idea that they haven't been militarily or culturally subjugated. They have. And that's what you should be angry about. Don't deny the relative historical truth that this has happened, but by rail against the inherent biases in the cultural and political system which forced the colonisation of the Scottish Highlands and made Glasgow and other industrial towns so reliant upon English investment that they were crippled by the end of industrialism.

Scots of the world unite against your oppressors. Don't deny you're oppressed.

Finally - everyone seems happy enough to have "The Spanish" in Civilization. Interesting, considering that "The Spanish" are pretty much "The Castilians". Aragon, Grenada, Catalunya, and the Basque region might take a slight issue with that, given their separate political entities and cultures in the medieval period. Just ask anyone that remembers Franco. Or anyone who remembers the Hapsburgs if you have some sort of time machine dealy.

 

[viz]

The English Empire is the correct term, let's accept it and move on to more pressing matters of civ5 discussion.

Instead of using opinions can we not just get down to the facts, as I posted a while back in an almost identical thread...

The term "British Empire" was used by historians as early as 1708. before that the usual term was "English Empire."

Growth of the English Empire

The first substantial achievements of the colonial empire stem from the Act for Kingly Title, passed by the Irish parliament in 1541. This statute converted Ireland from a lordship under the authority of the English crown to a kingdom in its own right. It was the starting point for the Tudor re-conquest of Ireland.

By 1550 a committed policy of colonisation of the country had been adopted, which culminated in the Plantation of Ulster in 1610, following the Nine Years war (1594-1603). In the meantime, the plantations of Ireland formed the templates for the empire, and several people involved in these projects also had a hand in the early colonisation of North America e.g. Humphrey Gilbert, Walter Raleigh, Francis Drake and Ralph Lane.

Dating the beginning of the British Empire can be a bit problematic. For some Celts and Frenchmen, the British (or more nearly, "English") Empire already had been plaguing them for centuries when the British colony at Newfoundland was started in 1496-1497. English kings had fought bloody wars to subjugate the Celtic lands of Wales, Scotland and Ireland to their control and had also laid claim to much of France during the 100 Years War. However, for the purpose of this class, when we say "British Empire," we mean the non-European overseas British Empire, which indeed did begin with the settlement at Newfoundland in 1496-1497.

English Imperialism as Precursor to British Imperialism

The concept of a "British Imperialism", rests on the idea of a consolidated "Britain" as entity, which was the product of an English imperial drive. English Imperial aspirations began with medieval claims on France, Wales, Ireland and Scotland. Edward I successfully subdued the Welsh in 1282, but battles with the Scots and French led to no clear victory. By 1558, England had lost its last remaining French possession, but in 1603, the accession of James VI of Scotland to the throne as James I of England brought the two kingdoms into personal union, uniting the island of Britain for the first time ever.

The foundations of the early British Empire were in its oceanic strength. This started with the development of the English merchant marine system during the reign of Henry VII, which promoted overseas trading. During his reign Henry VII also constructed England's first dry-dock, and expanded its small navy.

In 1603, King James VI of Scotland ascended to the English throne and in 1604 negotiated the Treaty of London, ending hostilities with Spain. Now at peace with its main rival, English attention shifted from preying on other nations' colonial infrastructure to the business of establishing its own overseas colonies. The British Empire began to take shape during the early 17th century, with the English settlement of North America and the smaller islands of the Caribbean, and the establishment of private companies, most notably the English East India Company, to administer colonies and overseas trade.

This was happening way before the 18th century union and way before Victoria was even born. Although you can in Civ, in reality you can't just make up history, it's all there in black and white - and there's a lot of it, you don't have to look far.



http://www.raremaps.com/gallery/enlarge/2033 - "A new map of the English Empire in America"

http://en.citizendium.org/wiki/British_Empire

http://en.wikiversity.org/wiki/British_Empire

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/British_Empire

http://www.martinfrost.ws/htmlfiles/april2007/british_empire.html

http://www.pickeringchatto.com/monographs/english_empire_in_america_1602_1658_the

http://cnrsociety.org/Commonwealth_History-2-English_Empire.pdf

 

[AljayBoy]

Smidgey's post at 23-09-2010, 01:41

and

Smidgey's next post at 23-09-2010, 01:44

and

Sidgey's final post at 23-09-2010, 01:49

^win^

@ Jimbo30 - England has plenty of cultural achievements, some examples have been included earlier in the thread.

@ GMillie - Hmm, not so much.

 

[Jimbo30]

How about you stop this jingoistic nonsense and deal with actual facts? England is a great and ancient nation and should be treated as such.

Perhaps it would be better to explain the strengths of Scotland than attack made-up weaknesses of England? It just reduces you to the level of those who you are replying to.

The problem with these people are, they don't understand the actual facts. Or, they don't want to know. If you tried to explain this to them in person they'd just stare at you blankly. It's too much for their little minds to figure out, as it's not what they got told (from somebody equally as clueless).

What can I say, your methods are admirable, if completely misguided. If you're really a lawyer you should know plenty about these kinds of people, that is you need to lower yourself to their level for them to understand anything.

 

[Jimbo30]

Shakespearean literature? The industrial revolution? The anglosphere?

Shakespeare I'll give, but that's just one man.

The industrial revolution was mostly down to the steam engine, courtesy of a certain Scotsman, James Watt. This is the #1 issue I have with the English, claiming credit for stuff you didn't do.

 

[Jimbo30]

What I don't get with a lot of the complaints that many Scots often make is this idea that they haven't been militarily or culturally subjugated. They have.

Completely wrong. England took our education system for example. How is that being "culturally subjugated"? The English have no culture of their own, they are just a mismash of different cultures all landed in the same area. I'm not saying that's a bad thing but they certainly have no strong culture of their own, they are far more absorbing of other nations culture than they are of spreading their own.

That's why there are so many Indian restaurants all around. English "cuisine" is practically non-existent. At least we have deep fried mars bars. And haggis.

"England" gave the world English, which is actually a Germanic language. Really, not a lot more.