The worlds two largest EVER empires not in game??

[carm3]

Man, this thread is ridiculous. For those complaining:

Civ includes the English and not the British because the [civilization/nation/whatever you want to call it] that it is representing is the one formed in the high middle ages, of which Britain is a recognizable, if not identical, continuation. Unless the name of the civilization were to change part way through the game, either one would be unhistorical at some point; at least this way the name of the nation represented in the modern age is an extant entity, and arguably the most important element of Britain, whereas the use of the term 'British' to describe the medieval nation would be anachronistic.

Think of how Prussia became Germany, how Russia became the Soviet Union, etc. In those cases they chose the modern names likely because the other names for those nations were either obscure and unknown to many people (e.g. Prussia), or because of the problem of anachronism (e.g. Soviet Union). Since neither of these is the case with England, the name seems fine and, I think, offensive only to those looking to be offended.

I know that this was a completely unnecessary post, as those against whom I'm railing are clearly not looking to be convinced, but I felt like I had to get it out .

 

[darrelljs]

Doesn't it make you proud to be Scottish?

It's SHITE being Scottish! We're the lowest of the low. The scum of the ing Earth! The most wretched, miserable, servile, pathetic trash that was ever shat into civilization. Some hate the English. I don't. They're just wankers. We, on the other hand, are COLONIZED by wankers. Can't even find a decent culture to be colonized BY. We're ruled by effete s. It's a SHITE state of affairs to be in, Tommy, and ALL the fresh air in the world won't make any ing difference!

Darrell

 

[CornPlanter]

But the real kill is that America is in ther correct me if I'm wrong but what empire has America ever had? Does Hawaii and Alaska count as an empire?

You surely are aware that all of the United States land used to belong to different nations, commonly known as Native Americans, right. If you define Empire by the lands conquered, then US was Empire since the day first.

British Empire was English Empire. It was ruled from London, not from Glasgow. Yes it seems to me a bit strange why they didn't call it British Empire, but no biggie. English played the most important part in it anyway.

Mongols. Now that's something you cannot justify. Give us Mongols!

 

[Eejit]

Can you imagine the outcry if Greece were included in the Ottoman civ for reasons of 'simplicity'?

Like the Macedonians?

Seriously, the England/Britain thing isn't as bad as the Greek/Macedonian. At least the leader is from the correct nations. It's like if England were included instead of Britain but had James I/VI as king.

 

[jjkrause84]

CYMRU AM BYTH!


But in all seriousness I have NO problems with calling the British Empire "England" if for no other reason than England was an influential state for a much longer period of time than the British Empire existed. Not to mention the fact that Wales, Scotland and Ireland became a part of the British Empire through CONQUEST BY ENGLAND. This fact simply cannot be ignored.

If it causes a fuss just change the name to "Britain" when you play as them....problem solved.

 

[Anomaly]

I once got to explain an english lady the difference between England, Great Britain and the United Kingdom. That made me feel most excellent.

Oh, and for those of you who don't know:
United Kingdom = Great Britain + Northern Ireland
Great Britain = England + Scotland + Wales

 

[grayggr]

In the grand scheme of things who gives a monkeys' nuts!!!

I'm English/British/European/Human.

It's a computer game for crying out loud. A computer game.

 

[crag]

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.

It was. Almost. The French almost achieved it. The Germans did, except for England, Spain (neutral), the Swiss (neutral), and Russia.

And frankly, Russia and England probably would've gone down had it not been for the US. England especially. Russia may have been able to force a peace. But England was on life support when America entered the war.

As for the Scots.. a minor power. Including the Scots would be like including Liechtenstein or Andorra. I'm not against it, I'm just saying.. there are other European powers that played much bigger roles in history, like Spain, Holland, Denmark, the Vikings (in general), Prussia, Austria-Hungry, Portugal - that are not in the game.

 

[esnoeijs]

I wonder if austria will ever make it as a civ. I'm no history buff, but perhaps even more so then an england/GB, spain, bavaria/germany or the netherlands, they played a extremely important role in the shaping of europe and in a large part where the continuation of the roman empire.

 

[crag]

I wonder if austria will ever make it as a civ. I'm no history buff, but perhaps even more so then an england/GB, spain, bavaria/germany or the netherlands, they played a extremely important role in the shaping of europe and in a large part where the continuation of the roman empire.

Also missing is the Vatican, as a state as in the Papal States and by extension, the Holy Roman Empire anyone?

And if you want to talk ancient civ's (besides babylon) what about the Hittites?

And I'm taking a western view in all of this. M point is we can argue to death about which civ should and should not be in release. When the toolkit is released, create them.

 

[kaltorak]

Can we also please get the Ireland civilization in? And then a civ that is a mix of ireland and wales. And another of only scotland and england. That's very important, thanks.

 

[Paradigne]

I didn't read through k pages of posts but the OP is really looking at this backwards. Yes, Britain is one of the largest empires in history, but its roots were always England. They conquered their way to Britain. Not to anger the Scots. but they would be a city state in this game.

I could see a name change to Britain after they reached XX population, but what would be the point. If you want tobe accurate, you should be petitioning the name Engla Land

 

[mattosika]

I'm American and we're in the game so I don't care. True story.

 

[Sc_0pe]

The Celts were introduced in an expansion "The Warlords" for Civ IV.
There is hope that they get added into CiV too.
I'm sure the game developers know that England != The British Empire.

 

[Disgustipated]

It was. Almost. The French almost achieved it. The Germans did, except for England, Spain (neutral), the Swiss (neutral), and Russia.

And frankly, Russia and England probably would've gone down had it not been for the US. England especially. Russia may have been able to force a peace. But England was on life support when America entered the war.

As for the Scots.. a minor power. Including the Scots would be like including Liechtenstein or Andorra. I'm not against it, I'm just saying.. there are other European powers that played much bigger roles in history, like Spain, Holland, Denmark, the Vikings (in general), Prussia, Austria-Hungry, Portugal - that are not in the game.

umm no. This is what american schools teach perhaps. USSR and England would not have fallen no matter what. They might not have "won", but they certainly wouldn't have lost (although they did need USA material support in lend-lease).

 

[craig123]

It was. Almost. The French almost achieved it. The Germans did, except for England, Spain (neutral), the Swiss (neutral), and Russia.

And frankly, Russia and England probably would've gone down had it not been for the US. England especially. Russia may have been able to force a peace. But England was on life support when America entered the war.

You're joking right? Have you ever read a history book? I realise that Hollywood films and computer games like to focus on America's contribution to the war but you surely understand it was called World War II for a reason. For a start, Russia was by far the most important Allied country. Russia lost around 10 million soldiers, compared to about 400,000 each for Britain and America. If it wasn't for Russia, Germany would have conquered all of Europe (including Britain)...and then what? Are you saying America would have single-handedly defeated Germany while at the same time fighting Japan? Yes, America did have a large contribution to the Allied war effort but it's ridiculous to imply the US won the war. All of the Allies played their part and without any one of them, there could have been a different outcome.

 

[mattosika]

And frankly, Russia and England probably would've gone down had it not been for the US. England especially. Russia may have been able to force a peace. But England was on life support when America entered the war.

Ok, now I'm an American and this embarassess me because it's so increadibly inacurate. However as someone guessed it is what we Americans learn in school about WWII.

The British, before we entered the war, held off a German invasion, tore their airforce apart, and otherwise gave Hitler a huge black eye with the fact that tiny island nation held off a largely Nazi held Europe.

The Soviets would have beaten Germany with or without our help. That wasn't even a question. The Soviets won the European war for the Allies, we Americans just took most of the credit afterwards because they were communists and no matter how much they helped our dislike for communists was not going to go away.

So the fact is we Americans take too much credit for what we did in Europe. Our biggest contribution was material, allowing the Brits to hold off against Hitler and the Soviets to continue their drive to Berlin. Now, in the Pacific there is no denying we were pretty much the force that won that war. Many commonwealth forces helped and a few other countries that were affected helped but the majority of that war was determined by the United States Navy, Army, and Marines.

 

[Verenti]

Everybody knows that England, United Kingdom, Great Britain, British Empire whatever you want to call them are all the same in the sense that their capital is London and their motherland is England.

As are the Roman Empire and the Republic of India. Also The City State of Athens and Modern Greece. Carthage and Tunisia, also, pretty much the same thing. And if Nordrhein-Westfallia became independent and declared its capital Aachen, it's pretty much the same as the Carolingian Empire.

edit: whoops, I seriously didn't see there were 8 pages after the first, and, strange thing is, I looked.

 

[darrelljs]

umm no. This is what american schools teach perhaps. USSR and England would not have fallen no matter what. They might not have "won", but they certainly wouldn't have lost (although they did need USA material support in lend-lease).

I think most Americans realize the British and especially the Russians contributed the most to the allies victory in Europe, but without all three major powers actively involved its far from clear what would have happened. Hypothetical example:

1. Pearl Harbor doesn't happen and the U.S. stays out of the war.

2. Japan is free to attack northern Siberia to obtain critical resources.

3. Stalin is unable to pull his forces out of the far east (these forces contributed to halting the German advance on Moscow).

4. Moscow is in real danger of falling, and Stalin decides that the best course of action is to sue for peace, leaving the UK to fight on their own.

I think in this scenario the UK would be hard pressed indeed to survive as more than a puppet. At the least they would have probably had to abandon Australia, and maybe India.

I'm not saying this is a likely scenario, and again I agree that the U.S. (beyond lend-lease) did not make anywhere near the contribution in the European theater that England and Russia did. To say, however, that without active U.S. involvement England would not have fallen "no matter what" is going a bit far .

Darrell

 

[darrelljs]

it's ridiculous to imply the US won the war.

Its funny, when I read his post I didn't think he implied that at all.

When he said "Russia and England probably would've gone down had it not been for the US" I didn't take that to mean the U.S. won the war, but rather the U.S. was an essential piece of the eventual victory. Maybe I misunderstood because I'm a stupid American who has never read a book, since I learn all my history from Hollywood films and computer games .

Darrell