America and England?

[Verenti]

Okay, I've long accepted that Civilization IS an American game and they're going to be in the game regardless despite ... it starting at 4000BC (I always thought that Civil wars should be more common in these games and the US should be created by that effect... althought those revolter nations should be selectable to play from square one. Just never for the AI) but I've been thinking: There is an England, but No Scotland (occasionally Celts which seems to incompass Wales, Scotland and Ireland). Now if we have the US, and there isn't a scotland, SURELY we can have Great Britain, I mean we even have a British Queen in this one.

Historical Accuracy be damned! Up with the Union Jack!

[Ninot]

For a second i was scared this was another anti-american civ thread.

[Boris Godunov]

Since the only civs that would have been around in 4000 BC would be Sumeria, Egypt, and maybe India, criticizing them for putting America in at that point is just unfairly singling us out.

[Verenti]

Where did I critisize them for it?

All I said was: I want Britain instead of England

[Ninot]

Originally posted by Boris Godunov
Since the only civs that would have been around in 4000 BC would be Sumeria, Egypt, and maybe India, criticizing them for putting America in at that point is just unfairly singling us out.

I think all he wants is a different flag for England, not be be rid of America.

[Boris Godunov]

Well, his entire first sentence describes him as being resigned to the fact that America is in at 4000 BC, which hardly seems like a positive or even neutral view of it...

[Verenti]

I may not have a positive view of it, but that doesn't mean I'm suggesting action to change it.


Edit:
Indepth, what I was suggesting was a Different Flag/Name and the inheiriting of Scottish/Welsh(maybe North Ireland/Ireland... Barring the entry of the Irish) City Names and Great People! Maybe replacing Elizabeth with a British King, maybe.

Edit2: ANYHOW, America IS the only Colonial Country in the game and is an infant is not even 300 years old. Every other country is a nation state, America isn't.

And putting in Britain is no worse than putting in Germany.

[Nikolai]

I see no problems changing England to GB, but I see why the civ is called England. After all, England was the country that incorporated the other countries into itself and proclaimed GB. And outside GB(where I've heard you can insult a, for instance, Scot by calling him English, go figure...) the country often is called just England.

[Kingof the Apes]

Given that this game is supposed to be incredibly moddable, changing a civ name and flag should hardly be a difficult feat.

[LordShiva]

Originally posted by Verenti
Edit2: ANYHOW, America IS the only Colonial Country in the game and is an infant is not even 300 years old.

Umm.. no?

Russia was a colony of the Vikings that became its own country... Spain, of Rome/Visigoths; France, of Roman/Frankish Empire; England, of the Normans, Romans, Celts... All nations were "colonies" of some preceding people that assumed country-status much later.

Originally posted by Verenti
Every other country is a nation state, America isn't.

Are you saying that there ever was any such thing as a nation-state before the industrial era (or thereabouts)? I hope not, because if you were, you'd be wrong...

[Verenti]

I'm saying that the British, French, Germans, Russians, Indians, Chinese, Japanese, Arabs, Spanish, et cetera, Are nations and are repersentations of Modern Nation States (Like Germany, I'm not saying Germany existed before the Victory over the French in 1871, but the German peoples did. England didn't exist until like the 10th century, but the "English" did... Sorta). The US, Canada, Mexico, Brazil, Argentina, Australia, New Zealand: These aren't Nations, They're countries. Austria isn't a nation, its a country, Its a part of the German Nation.

and those weren't Colonization, they were more of Conquests and Migrations. Otherwise Babylon would have been a colony of the Babylonians: It wasn't. India wasn't a colony of the British, It's inhabitants were mostly Indians. Hong Kong wasn't a colony of the British. However, New England WAS a colony, Nova Scotia, Quebec, Mexico, Louisana, Australia, Cuba, Brazil: THESE are colonies. The British colonized the new-world (not exclusively), Alexander the Great did not Colonize Eygpt. Large difference in conquering and settling and Colonizing.


Edit: Wikipedia says Unifcation of England is 6th Century. My bad.

[H Tower]

thanks for the lesson in geographical history, so what?

[LordShiva]

Originally posted by Verenti
I'm saying that the British, French, Germans, Russians, Indians, Chinese, Japanese, Arabs, Spanish, et cetera, Are nations and are repersentations of Modern Nation States (Like Germany, I'm not saying Germany existed before the Victory over the French in 1871, but the German peoples did. England didn't exist until like the 10th century, but the "English" did... Sorta). The US, Canada, Mexico, Brazil, Argentina, Australia, New Zealand: These aren't Nations, They're countries. Austria isn't a nation, its a country, Its a part of the German Nation.

I understand your point. Certainly, there is a difference between nations and countries - the Vatican is a state, not a nation; Kurdistan and Palestine are nations, not states (unfortunately). But I'm reluctant to dichotomise as much as you do. Identity, and by extension what you call "peoples," is a constantly evolving and complex thing, and I'm sure there are plenty of Americans, Canadians, Mexicans, Brazilians, Argentines, Australians, New Zealanders and Austrians itching to point out elements of their history and culture that make up their national identity.

Also, the people that modern nation states represent are in many cases not the same as the peoples that have come and gone in that geographic area throughout history. It's inaccurate to say, for instance, that today's France represents the Frankish people of 1000 years ago, or that modern Egypt has anything at all to do with the "peoples" who lived in Egypt under Hatshepsut.

Lastly, I don't buy your distinction between colonisation and conquest+migration. The colonisation of the new world was: conquest of the natives + migration (albeit limited) of people from the old world. This has happened throughout history; only the length of time elapsed since then decides what we call it.

[GeoModder]

A pre-colonial American nation should replace the American state!

[Verenti]

H Tower: I was pointing out the difference between The US and the Rest of the Nations in Civ, and how when it comes down to Isn't the same thing as Greece or Russia. That was my clarfication because LordShiva thought by saying every other team is a Nation-State that I mean that they were their post 19th century incanation (or somthing or other). That statement was made because my first post said that I don't think the Americans deserve to be in Civ (atleast to start) and somone disapproved of it causing me to justify the fact the only reason I said that is because I thought that Great Britiain should be in the game instead of England because this game is only loosly based on history. That's the story in full. Do you understand why I wrote this piece or should I revise it?

LordShiva: I agree that the peoples of the Colonial Countries of the world have since taken on unique cultures and such, But I think the key point I never wanted to make when making this topic is that Although cultures have influenced and interbred to create things that look nothing as they did two thousand years ago, The English were "around" in England even though our culture has been changed and shape through interaction with other populations, Five hundred years ago, the Americans were English (or whatever their particular heritage reflects ie. Spanish, Irish) and no matter if they are a unique culture now and their own idenity on the global stage, five hundred years ago they were English in England.

And I can see why you say what you do on War, but We did not march into the Native Villages and raise our Flag and Garrison them to make them good loyal subjects: We moved in and set up cities. Most of the Battles against the natives in my province were not military in nature, but small raiding parties to collect bounties on scalps, in reaction to the Native Agression.

And now this is SERIOUSLY off topic.