Apolyton ExtraCivs Pack: English vs Brittish

[Locutus]

Read my first post in this thread for an elaborate introduction: if we make an Apolyton Pack for Civs, should the British remain British or be changed to English? And should it be possible to have the Scots and Welsh (and possibly Irish) next to them or should they be included in this civ (presuming this should ever become an issue)?

[Dauphin]

I thought they were already called English. Hence the "English" civ of the week.

[Wulfram]

Why was my thread closed and linked to a thread started later on a different if similar topic? (I have no interest in the extracivs pack)

Just to be on topic I don't think the English or the Brits should be a civ as the english are too insignificant and the Brits are too disunited to be a Civ

Actually I think that the english are covered by the Germans as we're basically saxons from saxony.

[Ribannah]

Well I would suggest to go with the Frysians instead since they settled Kent which, as everybody knows, is the most sophisticated part of the isles.

[August Borms]

Yes, they're already called English in the game and I like it that way

[Locutus]

Hmm, you're right. I only now notice that Firaxis changed the name from British to English in the release version of the game. Apparently a lot of people complained about it... Much better like this IMHO.

[Lung]

Originally posted by Wulfram
Why was my thread closed and linked to a thread started later on a different if similar topic? (I have no interest in the extracivs pack)

Just to be on topic I don't think the English or the Brits should be a civ as the english are too insignificant and the Brits are too disunited to be a Civ

Actually I think that the english are covered by the Germans as we're basically saxons from saxony.

What a load of bull****! If you can break down England into it's component tribes, then you can do the same to any civ. What does that make the Americans? What are the Germans but a bunch of united tribes? What about any of the civs in Civ3? What counts most of all is how powerful a country had ever been and how much their culture has pervaded the rest of world. Take a look at a world map from, say, 1897, and show me another world map that had that much land all over the world! And as for culture, the institutions of much of the western world and beyond owe much to the English.

You can't complain that the British is an insult to Scots, Welsh, and Northern Irish, then in the next breath say the English on their own never amounted to anything!!

Go and do something constructive, like join Imbeciles Anonymous or something

[molly bloom]

Originally posted by Wulfram
Why was my thread closed and linked to a thread started later on a different if similar topic? (I have no interest in the extracivs pack)

Just to be on topic I don't think the English or the Brits should be a civ as the english are too insignificant and the Brits are too disunited to be a Civ

Actually I think that the english are covered by the Germans as we're basically saxons from saxony.

This will come as great surprise to all those living in what formerly was known as the Danelaw, and who can count amongst their ancestry, Danes, Norwegians, Swedes...or indeed, the Cornish, who presumably are included within the grouping English, if the England you are referring to stretches from Cornwall to the Scottish and Welsh borders. As for the English being insignificant...well, the lingua franca, if you like, of the world is now English. A language which was spread through mainly the King James Bible and also the works of Shakespeare, and the Book of Common Prayer. The Bible may have been authorised by a king who was also a king of Scotland, but it represents the beginning of English as a world language, and not just a language restricted to England, small parts of Ireland and a few scattered overseas colonies.
England as a nation state, with a global policy, made its first appearance on a world scale with the English Commonwealth and the 'British Republic', when under Cromwell, England defeated the Spanish in Jamaica (1655) and at the Battle of the Dunes (1658, a triumph for the New Model Army) and Admiral Blake defeated Tromp's Dutch ships off Dover (1652), and off North Foreland (1653), and then the Barbary pirates of Algiers(1655). If you include Cromwell's pacification of Ireland,1649-1650 ( a policy more thorough then Thomas Wentworth's policy of 'thorough' ever was), and the defeat of the Covenanters in Scotland(1650), then what you have is the germ of the British Empire, which would have to wait until the reign of William and Mary and the accession of Queen Anne and the triumphs of Marlborough in Europe and British fleets in the colonies to make its reappearance. As for the British being too disunited, what exactly are you referring to? The last significant revolt was the 1745 uprising, with sporadic disturbances confined to Ireland, and social unrest such as the Chartists and the Peterloo massacre and anti-Catholic riots in England. Not much disunity there in comparison with similar major powers...

[ranskaldan]

Just to be on topic I don't think the English or the Brits should be a civ as the english are too insignificant and the Brits are too disunited to be a Civ

The English were insignificant? Oh... and which empire was it on which the sun never set.... the Iroquois Empire?

And as for the mixing up of the English, and that the English are just Saxons...
Which civilization ISN'T a mixing of previously existing groups? Can you name a single race that popped out of nowhere? Every and any race is a descendent of other races. That doesn't disqualify the English as a distinct race and culture.

(Unless you're against the French and Spanish as civs... because they are extensions of the Romans.)

[Wulfram]

The empire on which the sun never sets is the British Empire, all our best troops are Scots or Welsh (and formerly Irish).

The Disunity was peaceful, but the UK was never truly one Country, it was 3 (or 4) countrys mixed together. I don't complain that British is an insult to the Scots, Welsh and Irish. I don't say that England never amounted to anything, merely that it never became anything other than a Second Rate Power. As for the Existance of the Danelaw well that's just my point, it's not one cultural grouping, and the basic english culture is German if it exists at all

I am against the inclusion of the French and Spanish civs as they are merely extensions of the Romans.

I would be in favor of there only being Vikings, Celts, Romans, Greeks, Mesopotamians (thats all those Middle East civs), Ehyptians, India, China, Germans, Phoenicians, South African (People who know about the ancient history of the Area can find a name for this one), Sioux, Iroquois, Incas and Aztecs (although Olmecs or someone might be better).

The Americans in this would be Germans.

The English aren't appropriate because you don't get areas starting they're own countrys. If you could have "Revolution Civs", Civs which start later in the game from the rebellious cities of other empires, then they work, but not as a starting Civ.

[ranskaldan]

The empire on which the sun never sets is the British Empire.

Ok, point taken.... but the 'British' really doesn't sound like a 'civilization'. It sounds more like a 'location'. Whoever lives in Britain, whether Scottish, English or Welsh is 'British'. 'English' is more .... 'civilizational'.

I am against the inclusion of the French and Spanish civs as they are merely extensions of the Romans.

I would be in favor of there only being Vikings, Celts, Romans, Greeks, Mesopotamians, Egyptians, India, China, Germans, Phoenicians, South African , Sioux, Iroquois, Incas and Aztecs (although Olmecs or someone might be better).

Vikings are Germanic too... by your argument, they'd be out of civ3 for the same reason as the English.

If you really really want to push the family tree back, then the Roman, Greek, Germanic, Celtic and Aryan-Indian cultures all have their roots in the Indo-European culture of Central Eurasia of 6000 years ago.... that's why I'm against the 'common ancestry' argument which eliminates the English, Vikings, French and Spanish.

If you want to go back by, say, just 7000 years, no presently recognizable civilization would be left. They would be replaced by unrecognizable Stone Age cultures like the pre-Aryan Dravidians, the Indo-Europeans, the Sino-Tibetans, the Uralics, the Altaics, the Austronesians... races that don't exist except as their present day extensions (English, Greeks, Chinese, Indians, Russians, Polynesians etc.)

All civilizations are splintered off versions of other civilizations. Thus being 'splintered off' doesn't disqualify a civilization.

[Wulfram]

Originally posted by ranskaldan

Ok, point taken.... but the 'British' really doesn't sound like a 'civilization'. It sounds more like a 'location'. Whoever lives in Britain, whether Scottish, English or Welsh is 'British'. 'English' is more .... 'civilizational'.

Probably because they were in Civ1 and 2

Vikings are Germanic too... by your argument, they'd be out of civ3 for the same reason as the English.

Are they, my education mainly focuses on British history so I didn't know that.

If you really really want to push the family tree back, then the Roman, Greek, Germanic, Celtic and Aryan-Indian cultures all have their roots in the Indo-European culture of Central Eurasia of 6000 years ago.... that's why I'm against the 'common ancestry' argument which eliminates the English, Vikings, French and Spanish.

If you want to go back by, say, just 7000 years, no presently recognizable civilization would be left. They would be replaced by unrecognizable Stone Age cultures like the pre-Aryan Dravidians, the Indo-Europeans, the Sino-Tibetans, the Uralics, the Altaics, the Austronesians... races that don't exist except as their present day extensions (English, Greeks, Chinese, Indians, Russians, Polynesians etc.)

All civilizations are splintered off versions of other civilizations. Thus being 'splintered off' doesn't disqualify a civilization.

Basically I think that when there are two civilizations where one is an offshoot of the other one then the later one should be removed. No time limit, because then we have problems finding recognizable civs all over the world, just no descendants. This way you get reasonable coverage of the world without having too innacurate history because all these civs must have had ancestors. If I was going to take a date as a cut of point it would be about 500bc as thats when history starts getting reliable and not mixed up with myth, however a solid cutoff point is not necessary as you can just use the descendants rule

Also I must say that I think too much emphasis is put on modern and the middle ages instead of on ancient times.

[Ribannah]

Originally posted by Wulfram
Basically I think that when there are two civilizations where one is an offshoot of the other one then the later one should be removed.

Let's see ... this leaves us with the Cro Magnon, Neantherthal, Yeti and Sasquatch civilizations.

[Va-Toran]

Just because the Angles, Saxons and Jutes once shared a pan germanic culture this should not disqualify the English/British from inclusion. The cultures of Germany and England have grown apart while those of England and Scotland have grown together over the past 1500 years. Nowadays there are seperate cultures with seperate histories.

Incidentally saying that Britain too diverse, would also disqualify India, China and probably Germany on the same count. Germany is a federal state due to 500 years of disunity and subsequent cultural divisions between North and South.

[Wulfram]

Originally posted by Ribannah


Let's see ... this leaves us with the Cro Magnon, Neantherthal, Yeti and Sasquatch civilizations.

You misunderstand, what I want is that the existance of one civ should get rid of all of the descendant civs of that one. So the existance of Germany stops there being an English civ, an american civ and a viking civ as they're all offshoots of germanic peoples. This way you can still have the Incas for example, even though they come very late in the history of the world as they're not represented by any other civs.

Va-Toran: The reason why I say that Britain is too diverse (not good phrasing, but I can't think of a better way) is that Britain has never become one whole, just three seperate countries working together.

India probably should be repreasented by more than one Civ considering it's size and China as well probably (though putting in the Mongols might suffice). However that's out of my area of knowledge as I know practically nothing about Indias history until about 1800 AD

EDIT: Yeti and Sasquatch are too similar, you only need one civ for them