 |
| |
|
|
molly bloom
|
 |
Lundenwic
Oct 2001
time: 15:15
|
|
quote:
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...
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Wulfram
|
 |
England
Nov 2001
time: 05:15
|
|
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
|
 |
Beijing ~ Singapore ~ Toronto ~ All hail to the new Rome
Sep 2001
time: 00:15
|
|
quote:
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'. 
quote:
I am against the inclusion of the French and Spanish civs as they are merely extensions of the Romans. |
quote:
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
|
|
England
Nov 2001
time: 05:15
|
|
quote:
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
quote:
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.
quote:
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.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
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.
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
molly bloom
|
|
Lundenwic
Oct 2001
time: 15:15
|
|
[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...
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Wulfram
|
|
England
Nov 2001
time: 05:15
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by 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. |
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.
quote:
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.
quote:
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
quote:
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.
quote:
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.
quote:
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.
quote:
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
|
|
Beijing ~ Singapore ~ Toronto ~ All hail to the new Rome
Sep 2001
time: 00:15
|
|
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.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
molly bloom
|
|
Lundenwic
Oct 2001
time: 15:15
|
|
quote:
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.
|
|
|
| |
|
|
|
ranskaldan
|
|
Beijing ~ Singapore ~ Toronto ~ All hail to the new Rome
Sep 2001
time: 00:15
|
|
quote:
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.
Last edited by ranskaldan on 08-11-2001 at 09:59
|
|
| |
|
|
|
molly bloom
|
|
Lundenwic
Oct 2001
time: 15:15
|
|
quote:
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
|
 |
Hereford, UK
Jan 1970
time: 05:15
|
|
"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.
Last edited by Tolls on 08-11-2001 at 17:29
|
|
| |
|
| |
All times are GMT. The time now is 05:15.
Apolyton Time is 00:15. |
top of page
|
| archivepost |
|
Forum Rules:
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
|
HTML code is ON
vB code is ON
Smilies are ON
[IMG] code is ON
|
|
|
|
|
|
04-11-2001 19:39
|