There was no Britain till 1707! also about redcoats

I note many annoyed Americans that they cannot play USA from 1700 well perhaps this might make them feel better.( I'm annoyed I can't play as Australia- spears and woomeras anyone?)

Quote from wiki, while researching the term redcoats,

"The red coat has changed throughout its history from being a British infantryman's ordinary uniform to a ceremonial garment. Its official history begins on February 1645, when the Parliament of England passed the New Model Army ordinance. The new English Army (

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

there was no 'Britain' until the union with Scotland in 1707

) was formed of 22,000 men, divided into 12 foot regiments of 1200 men each, 11 horse regiments of 600 men each, one dragoon regiment of 1000 men, and the artillery, consisting of 50 guns."


BTW IMHO British line infantry should maybe called Redcoats although the term really refers to a British soldier more generally. Also note other nations wore redcoats("The entire Danish Army wore red coats up to 1848 ")


In the interests of more unit variety I wonder where Fusiliers got too?.

My understanding was that the term 'Redcoats' originated during the American War of Independence and was simply the word used by the rebels to refer to the British infantry (e.g. "The Redcoats are coming, the Redcoats are coming"), most of whom wore red coats. Likewise it was the rebels who first used the term 'Hes-yan's' (Hessians) to refer to any German regiment of the Convention serving with the British in the conflict.

I don't think either term was used by anyone else. The French certainly had other names for the British, and the British always referred to regiments from Northern Europe as 'Germans', even when they weren't.

As for American's wishing to play the USA, they can. Thats the whole reason and justification for including the special 'Road to Independence' Campaign on the disk. If they complete that campaign they get to play the USA is its own special campaign from day one. Nobody else gets a special campaign just dedicated to their own faction I would have thought they'd be satisfied, after all the American Revolution was really just a minor side show compared to the major European conflicts that occured in the period and yet none of the others get a special campaign.

Didz as you're from the UK and I'm only from the colonies perhaps you should feel annoyed you can't conquer the aussie's in ETW , at least that may make up for your forthcoming thrashing at cricket! I on the other hand can play some beaten up down in the dumps country and make the British my protectorate.....


As for redcoats I like the description, many novelists(like Sharpe's novels) use the description and would make a more immersive play than the rather dry and boring "line infantry" tag. Just my 2 cents.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Razor1952

Just my 2 cents.

---

And that's about all it's worth, too. :2cents:

Maybe tuppence?? would be better?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Razor1952

Maybe tuppence?? would be better?

---

Written "two pence" pronounced tupence. :grin:

Technically, there was no de jure "Great Britain" until 1707, but there was a de facto nation under a single throne from 1603. Once James VI of Scotland succeeded to the English throne as James I, there was little chance the two kingdoms ever going their separate ways again. By 1707 the Scots were almost broke, thanks to the failure of the Darrien expedition, and were quite ready to vote for a Union, in return for access to the English exchequer and guaranteed Westminster representation that is (still) out of proportion to the Scottish population.

Given that the Scots still have separate laws, now have their own Parliament and the "West Lothian" question has never been seriously addressed, you could even argue that the UK has never really come to terms with being one country anyway.

But - and this is the important bit - it added nothing to gameplay to make the British player manage three national budgets (England and Wales, Scotland, Ireland) and separate military establishments. Did you really want to spend your game shuffling money between England and its poorer neighbours and playing, in effect, Total Regional Policy? :beam:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Razor1952

Didz as you're from the UK and I'm only from the colonies perhaps you should feel annoyed you can't conquer the aussie's in ETW , at least that may make up for your forthcoming thrashing at cricket! I on the other hand can play some beaten up down in the dumps country and make the British my protectorate.....

---

Given the timeframe in question, what exactly do you mean by 'british' and 'aussies'? :grin:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Razor1952

Didz as you're from the UK and I'm only from the colonies perhaps you should feel annoyed you can't conquer the aussie's in ETW, at least that may make up for your forthcoming thrashing at cricket!

---

Being Australian you no doubt know that Britain never had to conquer Australia we just found it lying about unwanted and decided to claim it before the French did.

Quote:

---

"Notwithstand[ing] I have in the Name of His Majesty taken possession of several places upon this coast, I now once more hoist English Colours and in the Name of His Majesty King George the Third took possession of the whole Eastern Coast . . . by the name New South Wales, together with all the Bays, Harbours Rivers and Islands situate upon the said coast, after which we fired three Volleys of small Arms which were Answerd by the like number from the Ship."

---

Extract from 'The Secret Orders of Lieutenant Cook 30 July 1768
http://www.foundingdocs.gov.au/item.asp?sdID=67

In fact, an estimated 54 people discovered bits of Australia between 1606 and 1770 but nobody really considered it worth bothering with except as a sort of nautical layby where you could pull in and relieve yourself before continuing on your journey.

The Dutch East India Company were the first to start bothering to chart its coast and for a while it was actually called 'New Holland.'

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

http://gutenberg.net.au/ausdisc/illust1-11.jpg

Cook was the first person to make a serious attempt to chart the coastline and document the nature of the country beyond it. But even then the only value Britain placed on the land was as a place to dump our unwanted criminals. Between 1788 and 1850 the English sent over 162,000 convicts to Australia in 806 ships. The first eleven of these ships are today known by Australians as the First Fleet and contained the convicts and marines that are now acknowledged as the Founders of Australia.

The First Fleet consisted of six convict ships, three store ships, two men-o-war ships with a total of 756 convicts (564 male, 192 female), plus 550 officers/marines/ship crew and their families.

The six convict ships were: Alexander, Charlotte, Lady Penrhyn, Friendship, Prince of Wales and Scarborough. Other ships of the Fleet were: H.M.S. Sirius, H.M.S. Supply, The Fishburn, The Borrowdale, The Golden Grove

Even then the British were not aware that they were actually founding Australia, and it was not finally confirmed that what Cook had claimed was a continent until the navigators Bass and Flinders finished mapping its coastline in 1814.

BTW: I am one of those rare Englishmen that has absolutely no interest in cricket, so I actually had no idea there was another game happening soon, and the outcome is a matter of supreme indifference to me.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Razor1952

As for redcoats I like the description, many novelists(like Sharpe's novels) use the description and would make a more immersive play than the rather dry and boring "line infantry" tag. Just my 2 cents.

---

Yep! a lot of novelists have abused the term as a sop to the American market. To be honest I don't think he would have been able to publish what the French called us anyway. Personally, I think CA have done enough to screw up the history in ETW without using trivial labels for the unit types too.

Incidently I thought I'd add a clips showing some real 'Redcoats'.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jTPC...eature=related
Wouldn't want to face those guys on a battlefield, would you?

what can i say
americans should not play at all
they were minor nation till mid of XIX century

Well I'm not complaining about The Road to Independence campaign being included, I just think it ought to be enough. In fact, the RTI campaign is quite well done and I actually enjoyed playing the birth of the USA campaign as you can see from my blog here: https://forums.totalwar.org/vb/showthread.php?t=115971

Its just a bit of a shame that the same effort hasn't gone into the Grand Campaign, which quite honestly is a bit of a mess.

Bravo Didz, BRAVO!

What a beautifully crafted response, scorn and knowledge intertwined to form a perfect fabric of rebuttal. :)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by alh_p

Bravo Didz, BRAVO!

What a beautifully crafted response, scorn and knowledge intertwined to form a perfect fabric of rebuttal. :)

---

Indeed. Take a bow, sir.

And by the way. I happened to love the RTI. Perhaps its my Yankee upbringing?

All things considered, I have to admit that Europen history and the wars therin, are fasinating.

But while the American revolution was in effect a sideshow, I believe it was the only rebelion going at the time. And as we all know (seeing as how most of the folks on this fourm are amature historians) rebelions are like car accidents. Its horrible and maybe someone (or a couple hundred thousand) died, but we just cant keep ourselves from at least taking a glance at it. If not downright stopping to watch the carnage unfold.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Phog_of_War

But while the American revolution was in effect a sideshow, I believe it was the only rebelion going at the time.

---

Ouch! What you just said:jawdrop:

Ok! Bit of a history lesson :study:

Rebellions

1715 First Jacobite Uprising.

1745 The Jabobite Rebellion (take 2) Bonny Prince Charlie, Culloden, the birth of Great Britain and the United Kingdom) Just a minor thing really, unless your a Scot of course. Tartan is banned for something like 100 years.

1773-1774 The Pugachev Revolt in Russia. Emelian Pugachev, a Don Cossack freebooter, rallied thousands of disaffected peasants by proclaiming himself Tsar Peter III, who had been actually been deposed in 1762. “This is a revolt of the poor against the rich, of the slaves against their masters.” Defeated by Catherine the Great. Russian peasants would remain downtrodden until 1914.

1775-1776 The American Revolution

1789 The French Revolution begins. France copies Britian and kills its King, but unlike Britain fails to get rid of the dictator that steps into his shoes. Heroes ??? (The Scarlet Pimpernel perhaps?)

Other key events equally worthy of special campigns.

1700-1721 The Great Northern War (Epic conflict between Sweden and Russia and most of europe, Peter the Great, major hero of)

1701-1714 The War of the Spanish Succession (Austria, Prussia, Britain, Dutch, Savoy, Portugal) v (France, Spain, Bavaria) Duke of Marlborough major hero of, probably the best General in British history. This was the war that set the standard the British Army has aspired to ever since, for which the French have never forgiven us.

1733-1738 The War of the Polish Succession (France, Spain, Savoy) v (Russia, Austria, Saxony)

1740-1748 The War of the Austrian Succession (Frederick the Great, major hero of, also Marshal Saxe famous writer of historical references on the art of war commanded in this conflict.)

1744-1748 King Georges War (France, New France) v (Britain, British America, The Iroquios Confederacy) Essentially the American theatre of the War of the Austrian Succesison

1744-1782 The Rise of the British Indian Empire, Clive of India major hero of, Battle of Plassey, the French learn to hate us even more.

1756-1763 The Seven Years War (Prussia, Britain, Hannover, Portugal, Iroquios Confederacy, Brunswick-Wolfenbuttel, Hesse-Kassel) v (France, Holy Roman Empire, Russia, Sweden, Spain, Saxony, Sardinia) Loads of heroes in this one inlcuding Frederick the Great, Wolfe, Montcalme and Von Daun. Too many great battles to list but Quebec, Minden (more glory for the British over the French), Zorndorf, Rossbach (Big Prussian victory over Russia and then France) French and Indian War in America. France decides to throw in the towel in India and let the British have it.

1778-1779 The War of the Bavarian Succession (Austria) v (Prussia, Bavaria, Saxony) Maria Theresa of Austria v Frederick the Great. Effectively, keeping them out of the American War of Independance

1799 The rise of Napoleon as Emperor/dictator of France.

Well, I stand corrected. I posted very late at nite for me (I work overnites) and my thinking cap may have been a bit askew at the time.


Except that I said, the American Revolution was the only rebelion going at the time. And according to the dates you posted above, I am right. :laugh4: But I'm not here to fight about it.


I should have prefaced my previous post by saying that I have almost no knowlege of Europen history prior to the 1800's or so, aside from a few medieval wars and battles. It simply was not touched on while I was in college. Shame about that. I would have like a bit of a more rounded curiculum regarding European wars in the 1700's. I will have to do a bit of reading and research into some of the other conflicts you mentioned Didz.

Of course I knew about the 7 Years War simply because it was in the foreground of world conflicts at the time of the Revolution, and was a major factor in the War for Independence. The 7 Years War kept England from throwing the full might of her armies at the American uprising. If England was not embroiled in conflict(s) in Europe, the Revolution would have been crushed in its infancy, and we would still be eating crumpets and having tea in the afternoon.:laugh4:

Hummmm... Maybe now it's the right time and place to start all over the old "where-is-my-beloved-Wallachia" argument? :stupido2:

Nah, maybe not. It's just a game. :clown:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Phog_of_War

Except that I said, the American Revolution was the only rebelion going at the time. And according to the dates you posted above, I am right. :laugh4: But I'm not here to fight about it.

---

Well if you discount the ongoing problems Britain had in India then the American Revolution was the only event in the British diary for the two years 1775-1776, but the issue of the AWI was originally raised in the context of the period covered by the game e.g. 1700-1799, and in that respect it has a lot of competition as a significant historical event beyond the borders of the USA.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Didz

Being Australian you no doubt know that Britain never had to conquer Australia we just found it lying about unwanted and decided to claim it before the French did.

---

I'm pretty sure these guys wanted it. http://cache.eb.com/eb/image?id=95159&rendTypeId=4

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Didz

Well if you discount the ongoing problems Britain had in India then the American Revolution was the only event in the British diary for the two years 1775-1776, but the issue of the AWI was originally raised in the context of the period covered by the game e.g. 1700-1799, and in that respect it has a lot of competition as a significant historical event beyond the borders of the USA.

---

True.

My knowlege of the era is unfortunatly shaped by my Ameri-centric viewpoint, education and upbringing. And didnt Britian have problems in India from day one all the way up till India was granted independence by Britain?


Anyway, back on topic, because this thread has morphed into something else that the OP probably did not intend. :focus:

Weren't English Redcoats also called Lobsterbacks in New England??

It would have been fun playing as the 3 colonies in campaign though :)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Noncommunist

I'm pretty sure these guys wanted it. http://cache.eb.com/eb/image?id=95159&rendTypeId=4

---

Eurocentrism is a pain in the ass.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Noncommunist

I'm pretty sure these guys wanted it. http://cache.eb.com/eb/image?id=95159&rendTypeId=4

---

No disrespect to the aboriginies, or the maories, or the native american's but I get the impression from what I've read that none of them had the same concept of territorial possession as the European settlers that walked in and started claiming their land.

Can't say I've studied much on the subject but I did read an interesting book about the Dutch in South Africa and the problems there were largely affected by the lack of a concept of ownership and centralised leadership amongst the natives. e.g. they would do a deal with one guy in the morning to secure a piece of land, and in the afternoon two or three different guys would turn up expecting the same deal for the same piece of land.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Didz

No disrespect to the aboriginies, or the maories, or the native american's but I get the impression from what I've read that none of them had the same concept of territorial possession as the European settlers that walked in and started claiming their land.

Can't say I've studied much on the subject but I did read an interesting book about the Dutch in South Africa and the problems there were largely affected by the lack of a concept of ownership and centralised leadership amongst the natives. e.g. they would do a deal with one guy in the morning to secure a piece of land, and in the afternoon two or three different guys would turn up expecting the same deal for the same piece of land.

---

Yes, but I think they still would have got a bit ticked off when they were told that they couldn't use (use in the meaning of foraging and living on) the land they'd been using for 80,000 years.
Also, any idea what book that was?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Phog_of_War

Weren't English Redcoats also called Lobsterbacks in New England??

---

Not specifically.

The terms 'Lobster' and or 'Bullocks' were apparently rather unflattering naval expressions used to refer to the Marines that served on their ships. Some of these marines would have been drawn from regular army regiments at times and so I'm pretty sure the two terms would have been used to refer to any soldier, who the seaman considered rather 'dumb', 'docile' and 'uninteliigent'. The relationship was not helped by the fact that the Marines were there as much to protect the Captain and Officers from the crew as to form a valuable contribution to the fighting of the ship.

However, neither term caught on outside the navy and the only real reason I know about them is through reading books by Cornwell and Kent.

Incidently, I had a look at the official British Army record of what nicknames were used for British Soliders and found a few more interesting ones.

1. 'Tommy Atkins' or 'Tommy' for short. The origins are obscure but most probably derive from a specimen army form circulated by the Adjutant-General Sir Harry Calvert to all units in 1815 where the blanks had been filled in with the particulars of a Private Thomas Atkins, No 6 Company, 23rd Regiment of Foot. Present day British soldiers are often referred to as 'Toms' or just 'Tom'.

2. 'Squaddies'. Outside the services soldiers are generally known as 'Squaddies' by the British popular press. Urban Dictionary: A member of the Army. They hang about in squads for safety (even when off duty), hence squaddie. Often found wearing an unofficial style of uniform while in town drinking consisting of: - A pair of faded blue jeans, - Desert boots (or Rockports, CAT's etc) and a fleece style top.

3. 'Jocks' Another nickname which applies only to soldiers in Scottish regiments is 'Jocks', derived from the fact that in Scotland the common Christian name John is often changed to Jock in the vernacular.

4. 'Taffs' Welsh soldiers are occasionally referred to as 'Taffy' or just 'Taff'. This most likely only applies to those from the Taff-ely Vally in South Wales, where a large portion of men, left unemployed from the decline of the coal industry in the area, enlisted in the military during WW1 and 2.

5. Paddy's or Mick's Irish soldiers are referred to as Paddy's or Mick's, this from the days when many Irish recruits had the name Patrick or Michael.

5. 'Ruperts' Junior officers in the army are generally known as 'Ruperts' by the Other ranks. This nickname is believed to be derived from the children's comic book character Rupert Bear who epitomizes traditional public school values.[8]

6. Pongo or Perce: The term 'Pongo', as in 'where the army goes the pong goes', or 'Perce' is often used by Sailors and Royal Marines to refer to soldiers. It is not considered complimentary.

French Nicknames for the British Soldiers they were fighting are surprisingly hard to find on google. However, the most common one I've come across is 'Goddam's', which originated in the 100 years war and was an attempt to riddicule the British soldiers speech which apparently often started with that expression. The term is still in use amongst the French speakers of Canada and Louisiana and was apparently used recently in a song by Zachary Richards. http://www.zacharyrichard.com/lyrics/reveille.html

The French seem to have a habit of trying to do this with foriegn soldiers, I've read other accounts of French troops trying to make fun their enemies by mimicking their language. There was an incident in the Napoleonic Wars where French Cavalry took to shouting 'Au Rat! Au Rat!' at the Austrian's. As far as I can tell the phrase itself is meaningless but they obviously thought it was somehow funny, and it must have sounded like an Austrian drill command or something. As usual with the French the idea completely missed the point and neither the Austrian's nor the British were insulted by these actions, merely concluding that all Frenchmen are mad. In fact the British would have considered being called 'God Damned' a compliment.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Megas Methuselah

Eurocentrism is a pain in the ass.

---

:beam: ha! This is about the only place we can indulge in it -the era of Europe's pre-eminence (some might say relevance) is long over...

If you fancy the currently more orthodox "US-centrism", then just turn your TV on.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ishmael

Also, any idea what book that was?

---

I've had a scan of my bookshelves but I think its long gone and I can't be sure about the title or author. It was just a paperback I picked up in a second hand book shop for some holiday reading. As I recall it was set in the area around Table Top Mountain and was the story written from the natives viewpoint of the ('for want of a better word') geopolitical/diplomatic situation of the tribe that occupied the summit.

It was very well written and showed how the differences in cultural values made any sort of peaceful settlement virtually impossible. What was most noticeable was that the Boers seeking to avoid bloodshed actually tried very hard to negotiate with the chief of the tribe on the mountain, but completely failed to understand the problems he had in maintaining his position as head of the tribe.

For example, the Boar farmers were settling the land between the mountain and the river but were constantly having their cattle stolen by natives which had led to numerous violent confrontations. They went to the chief to get him to stop his tribe raiding the farms, and he accepted gifts etc. in return for agreeing to try. But he was completely powerless to stop the young men of the tribe raiding the farms as they needed the cattle to prove their manhood and win themselves warrior status and the right to marry. Had he tried to stop them he would have been challenged and probably killed, or exiled, but the Dutch couldn't understand that and so kept coming back complaining that he hadn't done anything.

One soon felt considerable respect and sympathy for the old chief who did try as best he could within the limits of his power to minimise the conflict between the white settlers and his warriors but the lack of any common ground made it virtually impossible, made worse by the fact that he didn't really understand why the Dutch farmers limited themselves to one spot anyway as it merely made their cattle easier to find and steal. His own were always well hidden and protected and he rarely had any problems.

Been trying to track it down for you on the internet without much success, all I recall is that the paperback had a picture of what looked like a Zule Warrior on the front cover. Which was actually why I first picked it up, I was expecting a light read about Rorkes Drift or something, but the preface was intriguing as it claimed to be the true story of the settlement of the area around Table Mountain.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Razor1952

there was no 'Britain' until the union with Scotland in 1707

---

At that point in history the terms Britain and England were used interchangeably and didn't have the vastly more specific focus they do today (I am a citizen of Great Britain or the UK, but I am English). Like it or not, no matter the opinion upon it now, Britain was considered to be England and England considered to be Britain in those days, the terms were far more homogenous.

There wasn't a point when we suddenly became 'Britain', it's simply a distinction given much more emphasis today as opposed to some hard line where we were and then we weren't. Tell a hardline, anti-English Scotsman in those days that he's British, he'll gut you like a fish, because you just called him English. Possibly might even happen today in some more completely insane parts of Scotland.

In ETW you are basically playing the English Empire, and as history shows, the 'union' was built on English dominance, both military, industrial and financial, as opposed to being an actual willing and fair union.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Didz

I've had a scan of my bookshelves but I think its long gone and I can't be sure about the title or author. It was just a paperback I picked up in a second hand book shop for some holiday reading. As I recall it was set in the area around Table Top Mountain and was the story written from the natives viewpoint of the ('for want of a better word') geopolitical/diplomatic situation of the tribe that occupied the summit.

It was very well written and showed how the differences in cultural values made any sort of peaceful settlement virtually impossible. What was most noticeable was that the Boers seeking to avoid bloodshed actually tried very hard to negotiate with the chief of the tribe on the mountain, but completely failed to understand the problems he had in maintaining his position as head of the tribe.

For example, the Boar farmers were settling the land between the mountain and the river but were constantly having their cattle stolen by natives which had led to numerous violent confrontations. They went to the chief to get him to stop his tribe raiding the farms, and he accepted gifts etc. in return for agreeing to try. But he was completely powerless to stop the young men of the tribe raiding the farms as they needed the cattle to prove their manhood and win themselves warrior status and the right to marry. Had he tried to stop them he would have been challenged and probably killed, or exiled, but the Dutch couldn't understand that and so kept coming back complaining that he hadn't done anything.

One soon felt considerable respect and sympathy for the old chief who did try as best he could within the limits of his power to minimise the conflict between the white settlers and his warriors but the lack of any common ground made it virtually impossible, made worse by the fact that he didn't really understand why the Dutch farmers limited themselves to one spot anyway as it merely made their cattle easier to find and steal. His own were always well hidden and protected and he rarely had any problems.

Been trying to track it down for you on the internet without much success, all I recall is that the paperback had a picture of what looked like a Zule Warrior on the front cover. Which was actually why I first picked it up, I was expecting a light read about Rorkes Drift or something, but the preface was intriguing as it claimed to be the true story of the settlement of the area around Table Mountain.

---

Sounds similar to the situation in australia. The aboriginal peoples were mostly nomadic, so they would live off the land for a while unitl they had taken so much, and then move on to another area. Of course when the english showed up they bought their livestock with them and all of a sudden there were all these animals just standing around waiting to be eaten. So the aboriginals would just take them as they had no concept of ownership of animals, the animals were a part of the land, and they only "belonged" to those who caught them. Of course the english had a very different veiw of the matter and they would kill the "thief", and then the aboriginals would get very upset that their family member had been killed for no reason and things just went downhill from there.

Cultural differences made peaceful colonisation all but impossible.

I would have quite liked australia to be included, but an accurate portrayal would be all but impossible as there were hundreds of different tribes all over australia, but then again look at the mighty army of the inuit!

Very interesting discussion. Keep it up!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Cheetah

Very interesting discussion. Keep it up!

---

I think we've run out of things to discuss, anything you'd like to suggest?