There was no Britain till 1707! also about redcoats

[Razor1952]

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?.

[Didz]

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.

[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.....


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.

[Megas Methuselah]

Just my 2 cents.

And that's about all it's worth, too.

[Razor1952]

Maybe tuppence?? would be better?

[miotas]

Maybe tuppence?? would be better?

Written "two pence" pronounced tupence.

[Daveybaby]

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'?

[Didz]

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.

"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: 

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.

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?

[Noncommunist]

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

[Megas Methuselah]

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.

[Didz]

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.

[KrooK]

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

[Didz]

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.

[al Roumi]

Bravo Didz, BRAVO!

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

[Phog_of_War]

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.

[Didz]

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

Ok! Bit of a history lesson

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.

[Khorak]

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.

[Calmarac]

There was no Britain till 1707!

Well, many of my fellow 'Brits' get confused over this, let alone the rest of the world. I think you mean there was no United Kingdom until 1707. The term "Britain" has been used since Roman times...

GREAT BRITAIN. Used by cartographers to denote the biggest of the British Isles, containing most but not all of England, Wales and Scotland. The usage goes back to Roman times ("Britannia Major", distinguished from "Britannia Minor", ie Brittany in France).

http://alt-usage-english.org/english...uk_et_al.shtml

“Great Britain” is a purely geographical expression, and has nothing to do with perceived national achievement - i.e. it doesn't mean we think we're "great" (Rule Britannia notwithstanding)

The official use of the word Great Britain dates from 1603 when James 1 united the crowns of England and Scotland and he called himself King of Great Britain

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/lif...cle4271817.ece

From the OED -

"After the Old English period, Britain was used only as a historical term, until about the time of Henry VIII and Edward VI, when it came again into practical politics in connexion with the efforts made to unite England and Scotland; in 1604 James I was proclaimed 'King of Great Britain'; and this name was adopted for the United Kingdom, at the Union in 1707."

The United Kingdom of Great Britain was used after 1707.

The passing of Acts of Union by both the English and Scottish Parliaments led to the creation on 1 May 1707 of the United Kingdom of Great Britain.

http://www.parliament.uk/actofunion/

In 1801 a second Act of Union was passed, creating yet another new country, the 'United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland'

The Anglo-Irish treaty of 1921 removed mainland Ireland from the UK. Six northern Irish counties (Northern Ireland) remained part of the UK.

The current name of the country, the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, was adopted in 1927

Complicated isn't it ? :o)

[Prodigal]

“Great Britain” is a purely geographical expression, and has nothing to do with perceived national achievement - i.e. it doesn't mean we think we're "great" (Rule Britannia notwithstanding)

d00d say it ain't so!!!


Bit off topic but seems to fit with this gen. discussion.

In an effort to reinvigorate my game interest started reading a book I got many moons ago, Age of Battles by Russel F. Weigley, it covers many major battles from Brientenfeld to Waterloo, the emphasis being on tech. advances, army structure, weapon types and of course the battles themselves.

Its a bit dry, but very interesting as its core is how people have worked to achieve decisive warfare.