 |
| |
|
|
Wulfram
|
 |
England
Nov 2001
time: 05:15
|
|
quote:
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. |
Well your missing the Romans there, but generally yes, those are the only civs that make sense
quote:
Do you have the stats to back that up? |
Regiment VCs
Royal Artillery: 51
Royal Engineers 41
Royal army medical Corps 29 including two bars
Rifle Brigade 27
South wales Borderers 22
King's Royal Rifle Corps 22
Royal Fusiliers 19
Lancashire Fusiliers 18
Seaforth Highlanders 18
Gordon Highlanders 17
You can see that of the location specific regiments the top are the Borderers the the Highlanders
quote:
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. |
True, but Wellingtons army was one of the best Britain ever had.
quote:
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. |
The point is that Scots regard themselves as Scots before British
quote:
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? |
Well I have already conceded that the 17th Century was the time when England was powerful enough to have an effect on the world, but capturing Dunkirk isn't exactly something major. If you don't accept the pre 1453 England as English then the English only lasted 254 years which is no where near enough to be a Civ, especially considering the power of civs contempory to that.
quote:
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? |
Well actually it's Anglish, but they're generally counted with the Saxons. The very name comes from that. I don't think that England has a Distinct culture, especially compared to the amount of variation in Civs such as the Indians. In world terms is just a standard Northern European Culture with formerly more emphasis on seafaring because of it's Island position.
[quote[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! [/quote]
That's now, in victorian times it was pretty bad, it's just we avoided any serious wars, when it was put to the test we did rubbish (WW1, Crimea)
Now the Army is a highly trained, well equipped but tiny force. It has just dropped to a size smaller than it was in Wellingtons time.
Other points
I'm using Germany for the Germanic Peoples as we are talking in Civ terms and Germany is an existing Civ which I can accept as the Germanic Peoples
Molly Bloom: Right so the English is a mix of Roman, Celt and Germanic all of which need to be represented, the english don't.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Tolls
|
 |
Hereford, UK
Jan 1970
time: 05:15
|
|
Just done a check on the Borderes, and the % of Welsh in the regiment at the time of Rorkes drift was on the order of 10-15% (half were English). Considering that 11 of their 22 VCs came from that battle, sort of knocks them down a bit.
Not sure about the Highlanders, but I'd bet they weren't all Scottish.
Edit:
Here we go - http://www.btinternet.com/~james.mckay/linintro.htm
The important quotes being:
"In April 1809 an order was issued stating that as the population of the Highlands of Scotland was found to be insufficient to supply recruits for the whole of the Highland corps in His Majesty's Army, and as some of these corps, by laying aside their distinguishing dress, which was objectionable to the natives of South Britain, would induce the men of the English Militia to enter, the 72nd, 73rd, 74th, 75th, 91st and 94th Regiments were ordered to discontinue wearing the Highland dress for the future. "
and:
"Up to 1881 the Lowland regiments were dressed like English line regiments although pipers had been given to some of them. The result was, to some observers, that they had to some extent lost their nationality and had as many English and Irish as Scots in their ranks."
Last edited by Tolls on 08-11-2001 at 21:15
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Tolls
|
|
Hereford, UK
Jan 1970
time: 05:15
|
|
I hate to push this, but did you miss the bit where I pointed out that 60% of the British army in the 1800s was English?
That that ties in quite well with the fact that approximately 60% of the population of GB and Ireland is English?
The other nations did were not disproportionately represented.
As for the armies in general, our forces were on a par with the French forces during the Napoleonic wars...you just need to look at the Peninsular campaign to see that.
After that...well, the Crimea was a bloody silly place to campaign, but the troops performed well. I'll ignore our colonial wars (since they were generally against poorer troops, using poorer troops)...which brings us to the Boer Wars. Which weredefinitely a disaster...but resulted in the changes to army training which gave us (little more than a decade later) the top of the line troops we had in 1914.
Yes...I'm glad we had the channel, since I expect we'd have ended up like the Dutch...stuffed by all and sundry. With the channel we could at least use our navy to defend ourselves from the continental toings and froings.
Anyway...having said all that I think the English ought to be a civ, along with the Scots, Irish and (of course) the Welsh. British doesn't really cut it for me. I can understand the desire to start with only the ancient core civs, but then you'd never get any of the later ones...
|
|
| |
|
|
|
ranskaldan
|
 |
Beijing ~ Singapore ~ Toronto ~ All hail to the new Rome
Sep 2001
time: 00:15
|
|
The problem here, as I see it, is that Germany no better represents the Germanic than England or Norway. The modern languages of English, German, and Norwegian are all equally descended from proto-Germanic. And anyway, a common ancestral language doesn't mean they all had the same ancestors.
As for the civilizations as cultures part, i know it is pretty weird to have the Americans, English and Russians all start in 4000BC. However, since the civilizations in civ3 all *act* as coherent nation-states (and not cultures), people want to see important nation-states. Like USA. or the British Empire. Since the USA and the British Empire existed at the same time, and they still do, in fact, people see no problems if they exist together in civ3 too.
The Javans? Oh... that was just an attempt at filling out Southeast Asia. As for the Romans, their culture is obviously built on top of the Greeks, so there's no reason to include them by your logic.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Rogan Josh
|
|
Oh dear, so many misconceptions. I don't know where to begin!
quote:
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.
quote:
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.
quote:
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
|
|
London, U.k
Nov 2001
time: 05:15
|
|
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
|
|
London
Nov 2001
time: 05:15
|
|
quote:
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
|
 |
Reads too many books...
Oct 2001
time: 23:15
|
|
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
|
|
Upstate New York
Oct 2001
time: 00:15
|
|
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
|
 |
Lundenwic
Oct 2001
time: 15:15
|
|
quote:
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.
|
|
| |
|
| |
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
|
|
|
|
|
|
08-11-2001 17:33
|