Apolyton ExtraCivs Pack: English vs Brittish

[Wulfram]

Because the Romans were not started by the Greeks, they merely learnt from them after they started.

[History Guy]

Wulfram:
Well, maybe you should edit out the Romans and replace them with the Etruscans, under Porsenna of Clusium.

[ranskaldan]

Sigh....

well, wulfram, basically my point is that England is not a branch or colony of Germany. The English and Germans had common ancestors, and that's about all. (And these ancestors were called Germanics, not Germans.) It's like using the Romans to represent the Greeks, because they had common ancestors.

[Eddin]

I quote from several posters:
"many elite English regiments were actually scottish/Welsh/Irish."

So what? It only strengthens the point of keeping them together as British. And if you think otherwise, I think it is just petty nationalism (don't feel offended). What have the Scots/Irish/Welsh actually achieved that is worthy of noting, what the Celts (their overall civilisation) have not done twenty times better? I know there was no common Celtic empire since Brittain was conquered, but even then, it was divided into clans who saw themselves as different cultures (at times).

Point I'm trying to make: keep british british. If you don't do that, drop america too. Make a Celtic civ for all the Irish out there, or even the few hundred years the Scottish meant something and weren't usurped (they weren't even bloody conquered, they were usurped!) scottish)

[Grumbold]

Why are we having a big ruckus with one guy? Let him go his own way, as long ass the rest of us are happy about which Civs should be represented in the game and Apolyton extras.

In the same way I fully intend to create a Scottish civ irrespective of the wishes of anyone else. I'm not so interested in a nations historical greatness as their potential to be made great under my enlightened rulership

[madmario]

Originally posted by Lung


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.

So the americans should include all of it's tribes by extension? Especially the conquered ones...

I mean, this isn't exactly a neutered political topic. I find your crass attitude is offensive, but I won't go into any kind of flaming. I'm just sounding an objection.

-mario

[Rogan Josh]

Oh dear, so many misconceptions. I don't know where to begin!

Originally posted by Wulfram
You've never been to Scotland have you? The UKs breaking up at the moment. The United is more statement of intent than fact.

Er... no. Have you ever been to Scotland yourself? The UK is perfectly united thank you very much. The Union is made stronger by devolution, not weaker.

Originally posted by MollyBloom
Yes, I have been to Scotland, and the head of the Church of Scotland is the Queen, like it or not.

No again. The head of the Church of Scotland is God - it is run by the Presbytary (a sort of council of ministers). The Queen is the head of the Church of England.

The Queen of course, has Scottish ancestry, as does her mother who was of course, born there.

I would dispute that the Queen is Queen of Scotland (although many Scots, like my Mum, would disagree with me) not least because she calls herself Queen Elizabeth the Second. There was no Queen Elizabeth the First of Scotland or Britain. It was her choice when she took the crown, so as far as I am concerned, she is not my queen.

As for the civilization issue, I think the game should have had the British as a civ, with Victoria as leader, and a redcoat or dreadnaught as SU. Then I would have advocated the Celts as a separate civ.

If you are going to have the English, then you could have the Scots and Irish too. I wouldn't include the Scots if you have the British though.

[evanjroberts]

I live in britain and was born in England but with welsh parents.

Personally I would prefere to play England rather than bitain as I feel fighing as the british is wierd as England and wales never really merged, nor were they united. Wales was conquoured and their language was opressed.
If i'm correct Wales and England were enemies for a long time. Yes, so did other ancient civilisation who ended up becoming one civilisation but the difference is the welsh still exist and so does there language. You can't fight as the british, it's silly, but that's just my oppinion.

Britain is different from america too. America is a brake away of european civilations, Britain is a group of countries who only in recently have been united.

My History isn't as good as most of yours here but I think i've made a valid point.

[Kookullin]

Originally posted by El Awrence
The British Army was not popular until the 1890s... before that it was seen as a corrupt organisation and the people despised it.

The reason why the majority of the armies of Britain were made up of Irish or Scottish or Welsh was because:

1) They were probably drafted. Heaven forbid that the English should do the dirty work (which was typical colonial attitude).
2) Officer corps were made up entirely of Englishmen mostly. There were very few non-English commanding officers (so maybe there were a bunch of Irish sergeants)

The last thing the Irish and the Scots wanted to do ever was serve in the British army. Remember that they still mostly despised the English, let alone serve in the army under the English knowing that they would never go far in a career where you went far if you could pay for your promotion.

As an Irishman currently serving in the British Army, I have been following this discussion with detached interest. But I could not let the observations quoted above go without comment, given their facetiousness and the complete ignorance of the Army's history they display.

Compulsory military service was introduced in Britain in the early 20th century, so the first of the two explanations does nothing to explain the contribution of the Scots, Welsh or Irish to the excellence - or otherwise, if that is your view - of the British Army in earlier periods. Indeed, very controversially, mandatory service in the armed forces was never extended to Ireland. As a consequence, the thousands of Irishmen who died in both world wars fighting in the British armed forces were volunteers. The most surprising fact of all is that of the nine Victoria Crosses awarded to Irishmen from both parts of that country for gallantry during the second world war, seven went to nationals of what was then the Irish Free State - an independent country.

As to the second observation, namely that there "were very few non-English commanding officers", I should point out that the Duke of Wellington was an Irishman, born south of Dublin and a graduate of Trinity College Dublin. Famously, when someone made light of his origins, he once observed that "being born in a stable need not make one a horse". The irony of the great "Franco-British" confrontation between Napoleon and Wellington was that it was actually between an Irishman and a Corsican.

So to say that "the last thing the Irish and the Scots wanted to do ever [sic] was serve in the British army" is plain wrong (as well as ignorant).

A more considered explanation of the view that triggered the silly comments I have just addressed is that the Scots, Welsh and Irish were for a long time over-represented in the British armed forces for the sensible reason someone has already mentioned: as a route out of poverty. But the primary motive for their being there has no bearing at all on the gallantry of their contribution.

As to the topic of this thread ("British" or "English"): I urge anyone sufficiently interested to read the opening chapter of Norman Davies' history of Britain and Ireland, "The Isles". As he makes clear, use of the term "British" to mean the peoples of these islands poses a lot of difficulties. Indeed, "Britain" has never been coterminous with "United Kingdom"; and "Great Britain" is a creation of the early 18th century.

The civilisation that pre-dates Great Britain by centuries and that will continue in existence even if the United Kingdom fragments is that of the English. It is "England" that has stood the test of time, not "Britain". Whether it is or was a great civilisation ought to be obvious to any objective observer.

[History Guy]

Though Britain produced many great army leaders, Wellington, Gordon, Kitchener, for example, the British army was never very large, which is why they were hesitant to become engaged in overseas wars that would be fought on land. This is the major reason, I believe, that they did not enter into the American Civil War, for example. Had the Union focused it's war effort on the sea, and built up a gigantic navy for the sea (and not just the rivers) then I believe Britain would have jumped to the chance of attacking, and would have blown Old Abe out of the water. Britain's greatest military asset since James I had been her navy.

[Styria]

Anglo-Saxons as the name

I think that Brittish should be dropped altogether, and at least be changed to English. But you could go farther than that, and dissolve the Americans into it, and claim to also include Canada and Australia (by using their city and great leaders names too). Change the name to the Anglo-Saxons, and maybe call the country Anglaland.

They have long been grouped, and were often refered to together as Anglo-Saxon civilization. For a leader, why not use the only king England ever had who was called "the Great"? - Alfred; he did a lot to earn that title, after all, and the new cultural sense of the game is really geared to reflect him.

For a special unit, keeping the Man of War would be alright. But even better would be the old Germanic concept of the freeman, who brought his own arms to battle. In most of Western Europe, the Germanic and Roman fused to eventually form feudalism, but the Angles, Saxons, and Jutes were too thorough moving into the parts they held of the Roman-abandoned Brittish Isles for that to happen there. So England kept the freeman, and America got it too. For a special unit to reflect this, use an upgraded musket man (+1 move would be good to simulate country movement and for retreat when losing to a more powerful opponent), and drop its saltpeter requirement (like with the Indian's elephant unit).

[molly bloom]

Originally posted by Rogan Josh


I would dispute that the Queen is Queen of Scotland (although many Scots, like my Mum, would disagree with me) not least because she calls herself Queen Elizabeth the Second. There was no Queen Elizabeth the First of Scotland or Britain. It was her choice when she took the crown, so as far as I am concerned, she is not my queen.

'....Queen Anne, Daughter of James VII. On 1st April 1707 the Union of Parliaments extinguished the Kingdoms of Scotland and England replacing them with the new United Kingdom of Great Britain. Queen Anne died in 1714 and was succeeded by George I of the House of Hanover - the great grandson of James VI by the female line. '

Obviously Scotland didn't have an Elizabeth I...as Mary of Guise (as Regent), then Mary Queen of Scots, and then her son James were busily ruling during Elizabeth's reign. But Mary Queen of Scots, as a granddaughter of Henry VIII's elder sister had a legitimate claim to the English throne, and as a result of her losing her head, Elizabeth remaining unmarried and childless.....
As far as the Scottish Parliament is concerned she does appear to be Queen of Scotland.

[MustPost]

I think English and British both sound cool.
Im not sure which one I like, better.
Im leaning towards British, so the puny scots, and welch cant claim to have their own civs. Hehe, hope my history teacher isn't reading this.

[Dauphin]

Had the Union focused it's war effort on the sea, and built up a gigantic navy for the sea (and not just the rivers) then I believe Britain would have jumped to the chance of attacking, and would have blown Old Abe out of the water.

I think that we stayed because of our own reasons. Sorry to disuade you from your Americo-centrism....

[madmario]

I think it should be left alone. In leaving it alone there is the appearance of neutrality; basically, levaing it alone is something we all can live with. England was, and is, a significant world power, culturally and materialy. It's ethno-cultural center is muddled and is downright ugly in places (as in America -- Bloody Sunday and Easter 1916 coming to recent thought tho). Leave muddled enough alone (since I can't say "well enough"). It's a game. Very little of the game is real -- neuclear weapons in 1550AD? If we got super accurate, there would be no names, no leaders, etc. If youwant detail you can always play Europa Universalis II. This is civ which is more cartoonesque.

-mario