Apolyton ExtraCivs Pack: English vs Brittish

[Dauphin]

Originally posted by Ribannah
Kent which, as everybody knows, is the most sophisticated part of the isles.

OF course. We also have the (in)famous Kentish maids.

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

Define best. That is very insulting to the English in the armed forces. (Do you mean "were" or "are"?). Anyway, it is statements like that lead me to say your posting mannerism was "un-English" on the other thread. Additionally to call ones nation insignificant is very unusual. If someone said the US were insignificant what are the chances of that person being American. Slim I would say.

Combined with the fact that I can imagine Ec making a DL and having a conversation with himself I presumed you were a DL. Sorry if you are not.

[Dauphin]

DP

[Ribannah]

Originally posted by Wulfram
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.

Are you thinking the Incas were planted on the world?
They are an offshoot of the Tiahuanaco.

[molly bloom]

[QUOTE] Originally posted by Wulfram

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

Really? Give examples, then, citing the battles and regiments you mean.

The Disunity was peaceful, but the UK was never truly one Country, it was 3 (or 4) countrys mixed together.

That's why it's called the 'United' kingdom....a common culture, a state religion, a monarch both head of state and of the Church.

I don't say that England never amounted to anything, merely that it never became anything other than a Second Rate Power.

A second rate power that twice defeated the Dutch (Europe's then paramount naval power) and defeated the hitherto invincible Spanish tercios (admittedly, France had also done the same at Rocroi). Not bad going for a '2nd' rate country.

As for the Danelaw...it disproves the point you made about the English being basically Saxons. No civilization, even the insular Shogunate era Japan, exists without contact or influence from another country or civilization. Civilizations don't spring fully blown like Athene from the head of Zeus.

As for the French and Spanish being extensions of the Romans...I think perhaps you're confusing languages and civilizations and nations. Unless of course you think the Jews, Visigoths, Basques, Moors, Berbers and Phoenicians and Carthaginians, who all contributed to what we think of as Spain, were all Romans too...

[Dr. Nick]

I'm pretty sure the 'English' will have cities like Edinmburgh.

Therefore, it's bad taste to call them English. Besides, the English would have been nothing without the Scots and Irish.

Besides, it was the BRITISH Empire the one on which the sun never set, not the English.

[Wulfram]

[QUOTE] Originally posted by molly bloom

Originally posted by Wulfram

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

Really? Give examples, then, citing the battles and regiments you mean.

To many and varied to give specific examples, but the fact that Welliangtons army was 1/3 Irish should tell you something, and the South Wales Borderers have won the 5th most VCs after the Artillery, engineers, medics and rifles.

The Disunity was peaceful, but the UK was never truly one Country, it was 3 (or 4) countrys mixed together.

That's why it's called the 'United' kingdom....a common culture, a state religion, a monarch both head of state and of the Church.

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

I don't say that England never amounted to anything, merely that it never became anything other than a Second Rate Power.

A second rate power that twice defeated the Dutch (Europe's then paramount naval power) and defeated the hitherto invincible Spanish tercios (admittedly, France had also done the same at Rocroi). Not bad going for a '2nd' rate country.

England still lost half of France, and the defeat of the spanish was mostly luck

As for the Danelaw...it disproves the point you made about the English being basically Saxons. No civilization, even the insular Shogunate era Japan, exists without contact or influence from another country or civilization. Civilizations don't spring fully blown like Athene from the head of Zeus.

As someone recently pointed out, the Vikings were germans too, and still any way in which England does have a distictive culture, it's Saxon.

As for the French and Spanish being extensions of the Romans...I think perhaps you're confusing languages and civilizations and nations. Unless of course you think the Jews, Visigoths, Basques, Moors, Berbers and Phoenicians and Carthaginians, who all contributed to what we think of as Spain, were all Romans too...

Maybe, but I never said the Spanish could be entirely counted as the Romans, they also have other earlier civs mixed in which would also need to be represented.

Are you thinking the Incas were planted on the world?
They are an offshoot of the Tiahuanaco.

No, but they're not the descendants of any Civs which are also in the game, therefore they're OK.

Define best. That is very insulting to the English in the armed forces. (Do you mean "were" or "are"?). Anyway, it is statements like that lead me to say your posting mannerism was "un-English" on the other thread. Additionally to call ones nation insignificant is very unusual. If someone said the US were insignificant what are the chances of that person being American. Slim I would say.

Combined with the fact that I can imagine Ec making a DL and having a conversation with himself I presumed you were a DL. Sorry if you are not.

Best as in generally get more VCs. I'm not saying that the english are bad troops, in fact the Britsh army is man for man one of, if not the, best in the world. It's just that the truly elite regiments are usually the HighLanders and the Borderers.

It would be very unusual to see an American saying the US is insignificant, but the US is in a I'm the Best stage like the British were in during the time of the Empire. Don't get me wrong, I'm proud of my country, and the acievements it's made in science and its generally tolerant history, but that doesn't mean I'm going to blindly support it, or grant it undue importance.

[ranskaldan]

Well, Wulfram, the set of civs that you are proposing is basically just Egypt, Babylon, Mycenae, Celts, Germanics, India, China, Japan, Aztecs and Incas..... right?

Well go ahead if you want... i'd prefer to play some non-super-ancient civs myself.

[Dauphin]

Best as in generally get more VCs

Do you have the stats to back that up?

but the fact that Welliangtons army was 1/3 Irish should tell you something,

If that were true I would think that it was due to economic conditions not the fact that they were the best. Joining the army was a popular choice for those without formal education or other means to earn money.

Being the "best" and being the most populace does not equate. If it were then China would be the best army in the world. Or you could say Privates are "better" than Leiutenants who are better than Captains.

[molly bloom]

Originally posted by Wulfram


To many and varied to give specific examples, but the fact that Welliangtons army was 1/3 Irish should tell you something, and the South Wales Borderers have won the 5th most VCs after the Artillery, engineers, medics and rifles.

It tells me nothing about comparisons, like for like, of quality of fighting men in the various regiments. 'Too many and varied' is, frankly, a cop out. If you are going to make sweeping generalizations about the fighting capabilities of different nationalities, then provide some proof.

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

I have no idea why you make this statement. Yes, I have been to Scotland, and the head of the Church of Scotland is the Queen, like it or not. Scottish Protestants, both at 'home' and abroad, in Canada, New Zealand and Australia, East Africa and India, have been most assiduous in cultivating a British culture and identity. The Queen of course, has Scottish ancestry, as does her mother who was of course, born there. Representation for Scotland and Wales and Northern Ireland hardly implies imminent destruction of the United Kingdom.


England still lost half of France, and the defeat of the spanish was mostly luck

England in the 17th Century, the period I am referring to, possessed Dunkirk, won at the Battle of the Dunes, and then sold it back to the French for 400 000 sterling. The England you seem to be referring to may be the Anglo-Norman-French entity wiped out by the Hundred Years' War, ending in 1453. I'm not sure which English history it is you're learning, but it seems somewhat vague with respect to dates, dynasties, wars and facts.
As for the defeat of the Spanish being luck- what lucky happenstance do you mean?


As someone recently pointed out, the Vikings were germans too, and still any way in which England does have a distictive culture, it's Saxon.

The Vikings (by which presumably you mean Swedes, Danes and Norwegians, the hybrid Anglo-Vikings of Jorvik and hybrid Hiberno-Vikings of Dublin) were not Germans. They had a distinctive and different culture, they shared some religious beliefs, had different languages and expanded territorially in different directions. You may as well say the Romans were Greek on that basis.
If as you say, England has a distinctive culture, and it's Saxon, then back it up. To which bits of English culture are you referring?



Maybe, but I never said the Spanish could be entirely counted as the Romans, they also have other earlier civs mixed in which would also need to be represented.

You said the Spanish and French were extensions of the Romans. Ignoring the earlier input in Spain's case, of Phoenicians, Carthaginians, Iberians and Celts, and later influence of Visigoths, Moors, Berbers, and Jews ( the Mozarabic civilization of Cordoba, for instance).
Spain now is not the Roman province it was, as a brief holiday in Al-Andalus might show you.



Best as in generally get more VCs. I'm not saying that the english are bad troops, in fact the Britsh army is man for man one of, if not the, best in the world. It's just that the truly elite regiments are usually the HighLanders and the Borderers.

Again, explain 'elite' and give instances. It sounds like you're relying on some biscuit tin lid/Ealing film version of history.

Don't get me wrong, I'm proud of my country, and the acievements it's made in science and its generally tolerant history, but that doesn't mean I'm going to blindly support it, or grant it undue importance.

Pride for me doesn't enter into it. Facts, and not assertions, do.

[Lung]

Wulfram, your skating on thin ice and the birds have come out to play! While it's refreshing to see someone be the devil's advocate about their own country, your arguments have deteriorated to excuses which seems more like desperation!!

So, the English weren't really successful because;-

a) luck
b) They used foreign soldiers
c) they didn't win every battle they participated in
d) they were a mixture a people from other places over time

One word. FEEBLE!!

Oh, and i forgot to mention that they weren't really successful despite;-

a) in fact the Britsh army is man for man one of, if not the, best in the world

Your words, not mine!

We Aussies laugh at you blokes all the time because of your woeful attempts at most sports, but even more so because you were once so good at them! Perhaps we should have a poll? Not another one!!

[Dr. Nick]

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.

[molly bloom]

Lord Nelson's Victory:

Average age of crew:22

703 men on board, approx. 40 of whom were over 40 yrs of age.

100 aged under 20, some as young as 12 or 13.

Preponderance of English: 452 Englishmen

74 Irish

72 Scots

24 Welshmen

28 Americans

53 others from France, India, Africa, and the Caribbean.

One is alleged to have been a woman disguised! Less than half were forced or pressganged into the Navy, most volunteering, or being quota men sent as punishment by magistrates.

[ranskaldan]

wulfram:
As someone recently pointed out, the Vikings were germans too, and still any way in which England does have a distictive culture, it's Saxon.

molly
The Vikings (by which presumably you mean Swedes, Danes and Norwegians, the hybrid Anglo-Vikings of Jorvik and hybrid Hiberno-Vikings of Dublin) were not Germans. They had a distinctive and different culture, they shared some religious beliefs, had different languages and expanded territorially in different directions. You may as well say the Romans were Greek on that basis.
If as you say, England has a distinctive culture, and it's Saxon, then back it up. To which bits of English culture are you referring?

Just to clear it up, I was the one who said that the Vikings were Germanic. Germanic is a grouping used to lump together the English, Dutch, German, Norwegian, Swedish and Danish languages. All these languages are proven to have descended directly from a common language, which is why they are placed in the same group in the first place. Speaking languages that descend from the same ancestral language can mean ethnic closeness.

Ok... that's all that I said. I didn't say that the English are Germans... nor did I agree with that.

[molly bloom]

Originally posted by ranskaldan


Just to clear it up, I was the one who said that the Vikings were Germanic. Germanic is a grouping used to lump together the English, Dutch, German, Norwegian, Swedish and Danish languages. All these languages are proven to have descended directly from a common language, which is why they are placed in the same group in the first place. Speaking languages that descend from the same ancestral language can mean ethnic closeness.

Ok... that's all that I said. I didn't say that the English are Germans... nor did I agree with that.

Fortunately, having studied English literature and linguistics I am aware of the indebtedness of the English language to the Germanic mother tongue, and the folly of many generations of teachers to try to teach English grammar as if it had its roots in Latin....

The point Wulfram keeps labouring is that the English, by dint of having some connections linguistically with the Germans, are somehow culturally Saxon. Which will be big news to the Cornish, amongst others. Given that the word for law comes from old Norse, that other law terms derive from Norman French, that the coronation ceremony of the reigning monarch derives from Byzantine marriage rites, that the national drink is a Chinese beverage...attempting to pigeonhole English/British as ultimately being Saxon is pretty futile.

[Tolls]

"the South Wales Borderers have won the 5th most VCs after the Artillery, engineers, medics and rifles. "

Most (if not all) of which were from a single battle...hardly a consistent record. Never mind that not all members of the regiment were actually Welsh....one of them was Michael Caine after all.

Edit:
Just done some checking on regiment breakdowns for the Napoleonic Wars and they give English forming approximately 60% of all regiments...taking a total population of the islands as about 16 million, and an English population of about 8 to 9 million (these are 1800 figures) you get a pretty balanced result.