Hello folks.
I've been thinking about making a thread about this issue for quite some time and I've finally decided to do it.

In the current game we have a civilization called "Viking empire". I know it's been brought up many times to change Vikings to Scandinavia, and it was done in Civ III and made me really happy.

I just don't understand why it has to be a Viking civilization! The Viking period was just the golden age of Scandinavia, from around 750-1000. And that is how long this "civilization" lasted. Obviously the Vikings were great, and they are really cool and people want to play a man with a horned helmet called Ragnar Lodbrok (Ragnar Hairypants) and have crazy warriors called Berserkers. To be honest, it's just plain silly.

My personal wish would be a Scandinavian civilization: Representation to Norway, Denmark, Sweden and Iceland (like the Vikings do) for more than just 250 years!! I would want to have two leaders for that civ: One Viking leader and one Scandinavian (Swedish, Danish, Norwegian or Icelandic).
There's a bunch of awesome leaders for a Scandinavian civ:

Margaret I the Great, Danish - leader of all Scandinavia
Margaret Valdemarsdatter was Queen of Norway, Regent of Denmark and Sweden, and founder of the Kalmar Union which joined the Scandinavian countries for over a century.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Margaret_I_of_Denmark
Fitting traits: Organized (lawmaker, united three different kingdoms), Charismatic (everyone loved her, she remained neutral with everyone), Financial (established a currency), Imperialistic (forged the largest empire in the world at that time), Expansive (large empire..)
Gustavus II Adolphus, Swedish
Gustav II Adolf, widely known by the Latinized name Gustavus Adolphus and referred to by contemporary Protestants as the Lion of the North, was King of Sweden from 1611 until his death. He is the only Swedish king to be styled "the Great". He was born in Stockholm, the son of Charles IX of the Vasa dynasty and Christina of Holstein-Gottorp.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gustavus_Adolphus
Fitting traits: Spiritual (very pious, fought for his religion), Imperialistic (great general, founded numerous cities), Aggressive (fought many offensive battles, stomped over Russians, Poles, Germans and other evil Catholics)
Canute the Great, Danish - Viking
Canute I, or Canute the Great, was a Viking king of England, Denmark, Norway, some of Sweden[1] (such as the Sigtuna[2] Swedes), as well as overlord of Pomerania, and the Mark of Schleswig. He was in treaty with the Holy Roman Emperors, the German kings, Henry II and Conrad II, the vassals of the pontificate, and, in relations with the papacy. His rule was over a northern empire which saw Danish sovereignty at its height.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canute_the_great
Fitting traits: Aggressive (Viking!, conquered England), Spiritual (extremely pious), Financial (was also called Canute the rich)
Harald Hardrada, Norwegian - Viking
Harald III Sigurdsson later surnamed Harald Hardråde was the king of Norway from 1047[1] until 1066. He was also the King of Denmark until 1062. Many details of his life were chronicled in the Heimskringla. Among English-speakers, he is generally known as "Harald Hardrada" and remembered for his invasion of England in 1066. The death of Hardrada is often recorded as the end of the Viking era.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Harald_Hardrada
Fitting traits: Aggressive (Viking), Financial (Viking love for trade?), Expansive (Viking love for exploration)
Egill Skallagrimsson, Icelandic - Viking
Egill Skallagrímsson was a Viking and a skald. He was born in Iceland in the year 910 and died some time around the year 990. Egils saga tells the tale of his deeds. Egill is the great anti-hero of Icelandic literature, in many ways resembling his god, Odin, breaking his oaths, killing for trifles, and practicing sorcery. Many historians consider Egill to be one of the deadliest men that ever lived in bladed combat- several accounts tell of him slaughtering as many as 20 or more armed men singlehandedly, and even dispatching a feared berserker with relative ease. In spite of this, he was considered a great healer, and his saga tells of him curing a girl who had been ill for quite some time where all other efforts had proven futile.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Egil_Skallagrimsson
Fitting traits: Aggressive (true Viking, very deadly in battle), Creative (IMO the greatest poet of the medieval age. Obviously the best of Scandinavian poetry), Financial (filthy rich, raided many lands and gained fame), Spiritual (very pious towards to the Norse gods)
Leif Ericson, Icelandic, peaceful Viking
Leif Ericson was a Norse explorer known to be the first European to have landed in North America (presumably in Newfoundland, Canada). It is believed that Leif was born about 970 AD in, the son of Erik the Red, a Norwegian explorer and outlaw and himself the son of another Norwegian outlaw, Þorvaldr Ásvaldsson. Leif's mother was Thjodhild. Erik the Red had founded two Norse colonies in Greenland, the Western Settlement and the Eastern Settlement, as he had named them.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leif_Ericson
Fitting traits: Expansive (travelled from Norway to Canada, founded the first non-Native settlements in Northern America), Financial (well..he's a great merchant in the game)

My preferred list of leaders:
1. Margaret I (Org/Cha)
2. Canute the Great (Spi/Agg)
3. Gustavus Adolphus (Imp/Spi)
4. Egill Skallagrímsson (Cre/Agg)
5. Ragnar Lodbrok (Agg/Fin)
6. Swein Forkbeird (Agg/Exp)
7. Leif Ericson (Exp/Fin)
8. Harald Hardrada (Fin/Agg)
9. Eric the Red (Exp/Fin)

People might want Sweden and Denmark separatly. I'd put Denmark ahead of Sweden because it had much more influence on the world than Sweden. Although Sweden was a great power at a certain time, Denmark was more of a power at their time. But it's highly unlikely that either of them will make the cut because separated they are not major.

A single Scandinavian civilization would be so awesome. The history of Denmark, Sweden, Norway and Iceland..all together.
We would have Denmark, who conquered England, the Netherlands and was a major factor in conquering France and founding Normandy, center of the Vikings, has given us HC Andersen, Tivoli and it was the first country to legalize porn!
Sweden, settled a great part of Russia and founded both Novgorod (Holmgård) and Kiev (Kjonugård), center of Norse religion, has given us Carl von Linné, Alfred Nobel, Greta Garbo, Abba etc etc.
Norway, cradle of the Vikings, discovered the most beautiful and the best country in the world Iceland, is today the "best country": the richest, best to live in, most peaceful and so on.
Iceland, without this magnificent country we wouldn't even know about the Vikings, explored Greenland and Canada and settled there first of all white people. Is today the runner-up for the "best" country in the world and boasts the most beautiful women in the world.

On the downside, Swedes would not like to be called Norwegians and Icelanders not Danes. But if we just put that behind us, we can see that we have so much more in common than we have different. Religion, language, culture and history.

I've seen someone suggest a Kalmar empire. I think that would be the same rubbish as a Viking empire. It would only be a short period in the long history of the region.

So I say..Scandinavian empire all the way! I can't believe they're putting in the HRE but neglecting this. Having that is like having Vikings and Scandinavia. HRE was a period in German history, and the Vikings were a short period in Scandinavian history.

This must be changed in BtS! I realise it might have been cool to have Vikings in warlords, because they were so aggressive and all. But now let's just wake up and add Margaret I as a leader. Ragnar would be a below average representation of the Vikings, but that's Okay. He's in and won't be taken out.

:viking:

wow... almost as fanatical as my Pho-loving. and i see your interesting point... might be too late for changes, but...

oh don't worry i'm gonna make a Scandinavia civ replacement.

Ragnar's a baaaaaaaaaaaaaad leader for the Vikings, anyways. hes semi-legendary, and they overlooked Canute, and you can still make him a stereotypical horned-helmet guy.

wow... almost as fanatical as my Pho-loving. and i see your interesting point... might be too late for changes, but...

:mischief:
I was full of nationalism today because it's the independence day of Iceland! Can you blame me :lol:

nahh, the viking empire sounds mych cooler. and scandinavia meens countries linked to the mountain skanderna, and that is onyl denmark and sweden and in some cases finland, all the viking countries is togheter called
"norse"¨


btw, im related whit Harald Hardrada

nahh, the viking empire sounds mych cooler. and scandinavia meens countries linked to the mountain skanderna, and that is onyl denmark and sweden and in some cases finland, all the viking countries is togheter called
"norse"¨


btw, im related whit Harald Hardrada

Norse would also be fine with me. Or Nordic for that matter :)

edit: Anything but "Vikings".

Actually norse refers to the vikings and only vikings if i remember.

Actually norse refers to the vikings and only vikings if i remember.
"Norse" is a term which exclusively refers to Scandinavians, but "Nordic" also means Finland (and sometimes the Baltic nations)- Norse is generally understood to be a culturally or ethnic term, while Nordic is geographical.

"Norse" is a term which exclusively refers to Scandinavians, but "Nordic" also means Finland (and sometimes the Baltic nations)- Norse is generally understood to be a culturally or ethnic term, while Nordic is geographical.

Precisely :p

I agree with the suggestion to change the name from Vikings to Scandinavians. However, I'm afraid that even if Firaxis were sympathetic to the request, it would be too late to introduce the change in this XP. Furthermore, a large number of gamers are in love with those silly horned helmets and would object loudly if they were taken out of the game.

Nordic doesn't refer to "Norwegian"? At any rate Scandanavian or Viking , either or , i like that civ. But not having a longboat uu is the greatest oversight of all time.

Leif was a childhood hero of mine.

I agree that Scandanavia is a bettwer way to represent the people and culture and advancements to mankind than the Vikings.

The Vikings never seemed that civil to me...

"How do you do? My name is Ragnar, and these are my associates from the yacht club. We were crewing up this river, and when we saw your picturesque town, we just had to stop and have a picnic! We've built up quite a thirst , and are eager to sample the local ales and meades .We'll take a collection from your church in exchange for some of our genetic wealth, then we'll be on our way. We'll be sure to sing your praises to our brother clubs from the other fjords. May Thor bless your crops, and good day!

I could not agree more. I find it quite stupid that there is a Viking civilization, since it is merely a term for a small period in the Scandinavian timeline. There has never been a "viking civilization," it's a term for scandinavians around year 900. Furthermore, the Vikings is a combination of countries, like you say and if the developers want to combine the "viking" countries, they should call it the Kalmar Union or Denmark-Norway or simply Scandinavia (I'm a little against this also, since it would be the same as "the native americans"). This would cover the same countries (cities) represented in Civ4, even though the Kalmar Union would also cover Sweden.
The American civilization is not called the "Yankee Civilization" either.

"nahh, the viking empire sounds mych cooler. and scandinavia meens countries linked to the mountain skanderna, and that is onyl denmark" - I've lived in Denmark for the most of my life and I'm yet to see a mountain.

"We'll take a collection from your church in exchange for some of our genetic wealth"???

Shame on you, Rusty Edge! :D

"We'll take a collection from your church in exchange for some of our genetic wealth"???

Shame on you, Rusty Edge! :D

:blush:

I tried to be discreet.

Late one night and once upon a time I was watching "The World's Strongest Man Competiton" on cable. After the first episode or so the field thined, leaving a stocky Dutch South African weight lifter and some other guys.

About these other guys- not a dark-haired &dark eyed man among them , even though there are billions on the planet. They were from Iceland, Scotland, Old Scandanavia, The Baltic Republics, and a Russian. These guys weren't just big and muscular, they were tall! What are these guys , part Frost Giant or something?! ...Hey wait a minute, I detect a pattern!

I think the Vikings shared their wealth....;)

Actually one could continue to recognize the Vikings in a Scandanavian civ by renaming their Berserker UU a Viking

This is a rather useless debate. Vikings are more marketable. At most you will get a Vikings/Scandinavia civ like we did in Civ III.

Not to mention this really belongs in the Suggestions thread.

Actually one could continue to recognize the Vikings in a Scandanavian civ by renaming their Berserker UU a Viking
Seconded- the Berserker UU just plays into the horned-helmets stereotype. I mean, no-one's really sure what the Berserkers even were, let alone how important they were as a military force.

Seconded- the Berserker UU just plays into the horned-helmets stereotype. I mean, no-one's really sure what the Berserkers even were, let alone how important they were as a military force.


well, the vikings were very evil people, when christian missionarys came the vikings furst cut their neck and then pillaged all the worthy stuff they were carrying and. HAHA and the word Berserkir were from the viking age, bla bla

Fireaxis should've looked at this forum before finishing this expansion. Alot of good ideas here.

Fireaxis should've looked at this forum before finishing this expansion. Alot of good ideas here.

like PHO. :)

like PHO. :)

And Kielbasa!

And Kielbasa!


of course... naturally, Khan of Kielbasa.

well, the vikings were very evil people, when christian missionarys came the vikings furst cut their neck and then pillaged all the worthy stuff they were carrying and. HAHA and the word Berserkir were from the viking age, bla bla

That's like saying Arabs/Muslims are very evil. There's only a small percentage of people that ruin everything for the others.
The first really evil king, Olafur Tryggvason of Norway, didn't allow any man to get out of Norwegian soil without getting baptized and adopting Christianity. Unfortunatly I share his name.
It was the year 1000 when Christianity was forced upon my country, Iceland. It was much like the cruel Spanish inquistion. The Norse religion was banned, simply.

On the other hand, there were men who raided Ireland, England, Netherlands, France etc. and killed Christian people, stole all the money from monasteries and so on. And Firaxis is selling them like that! A berserker UU..pphhff. Ragnar Lodrok, one of those cruel minded terrorists.

That is not a civilization I am proud of. I would be very proud of a Scandinavian/Nordic civilization, with Canute and Margaret as leaders.

That's like saying Arabs/Muslims are very evil. There's only a small percentage of people that ruin everything for the others.
The first really evil king, Olafur Tryggvason of Norway, didn't allow any man to get out of Norwegian soil without getting baptized

and adopting Christianity. Unfortunatly I share his name.
It was the year 1000 when Christianity was forced upon my country, Iceland. It was much like the cruel Spanish inquistion. The Norse religion was banned, simply.


On the other hand, there were men who raided Ireland, England, Netherlands, France etc. and killed Christian people, stole all the money from monasteries and so on. And Firaxis is selling them like that! A berserker UU..pphhff. Ragnar Lodrok, one of those cruel minded terrorists.




That is not a civilization I am proud of. I would be very proud of a Scandinavian/Nordic civilization, with Canute and Margaret as leaders.

Hey! im proud of that, because they were merchants and also they were not sissy, sweden is the opposite now, now sweden is so nice so they can't say no to anything and that is not good :S


ok, in sweden when christianity came, Norse mythology people and christian people lived side by side, it took a long time for the norse mythology to dissapear in sweden, probadly sometime in the rennesance or something (don't know) (don't know how rennesance spells)

ok, in sweden when christianity came, Norse mythology people and christian people lived side by side, it took a long time for the norse mythology to dissapear in sweden, probadly sometime in the rennesance or something (don't know) (don't know how rennesance spells)

Well, I can't say I know much about that. I know most about the western Scandinavian countries (Norway, Denmark, Iceland). All I know is that the great temple of Uppsala was changed into the place where the archbishop is early after Christian adoption. :)

Hey! im proud of that, because they were merchants and also they were not sissy, sweden is the opposite now, now sweden is so nice so they can't say no to anything and that is not good :S

I'm saying that the "raiding Viking" stereotype is what I'm not proud of. The culture; Much of the greatest literature of the medieval era. The merchants; From the Abbasid Califate to native Indians in Newfoundland. The explorers; First Iceland is discovered by the Norwegians, then Greenland is discovered by Icelanders, then Newfoundland is discovered by Icelanders.

About Sweden being so good. That is the country people want to live in. The Nordic countries have come closest to creating "Uthiopia", the picture-perfect society. Norway scores 96,5% and Iceland 96,0% in the HDI (Human Development Index). That's an average between longetivity, education and dollars per capita. All the 5 Nordic countries are in the top 15. 3 of them in the top 5. It's good!

Well, I can't say I know much about that. I know most about the western Scandinavian countries (Norway, Denmark, Iceland). All I know is that the great temple of Uppsala was changed into the place where the archbishop is early after Christian adoption. :)

yeppp it was :S the christian ruined temple at uppsala. not good,

well we have probadly different meaings about this, i don't know how the leaders are in iceland :)

yeppp it was :S the christian ruined temple at uppsala. not good,

well we have probadly different meaings about this, i don't know how the leaders are in iceland :)

Few people do. We're known for little but having the first female president in the world and the first modern parliament in the world..
Maybe the sagas..:)

Few people do. We're known for little but having the first female president in the world and the first modern parliament in the world..
Maybe the sagas..:)


gj ;) :goodjob:

gj ;) :goodjob:

Unfortuantly the Danes and Norwegians say it's their acheivements :(

edit: the sagas, that is.

How about having viking as a unique unit instead of berserker? Makes more sense to me.

Viking Empire shouldn't be changed into anything imo. Scandinavia is too loose a definition to be called a civ. "Vikings" is the only term that makes it resonable to speak of the norse as a single civilization. If you say "scandinavian" you're just talking about the people from a geographical region, whereas "viking" speaks of the actual people. Modern day scandinavians doesn't really qualify for a spot anyway.

Viking Empire shouldn't be changed into anything imo. Scandinavia is too loose a definition to be called a civ. "Vikings" is the only term that makes it resonable to speak of the norse as a single civilization. If you say "scandinavian" you're just talking about the people from a geographical region, whereas "viking" speaks of the actual people. Modern day scandinavians doesn't really qualify for a spot anyway.

i agree whit you 100% scandinavia doesnt cover the whole norse, and you can't call and empire norse or nordic. like incas can't be called south empire :P

Viking Empire shouldn't be changed into anything imo. Scandinavia is too loose a definition to be called a civ. "Vikings" is the only term that makes it resonable to speak of the norse as a single civilization. If you say "scandinavian" you're just talking about the people from a geographical region, whereas "viking" speaks of the actual people. Modern day scandinavians doesn't really qualify for a spot anyway.
"Viking" is just a Norse word meaning "raider"- it refers to the sea-borne raiders who came from Scandinavia, not the culture or people as a whole.The term is linked to a specific sub-section of the Scandinavian population at a specific time in history, to say it represents all Scandinavians or Norse-descended people is, frankly, an insult to them. It's just plain ignorant.
"Scandinavia" may not be the perfect term, but if the region is to be represented in the game- and I think it should be- it's the only reasonable term. Otherwise the Americans need to be renamed the Cowboys, the Celts need to renamed the Highlanders and the Greeks need to be renamed the Guys-From-300. Historically unfounded stereotypes for all!

And Kielbasa!
I want to make a food mod. Instead of collecting Iron, Coal, Oil, Uranium, etc. You collect Kielbasa, Pho, Corned Beef etc :D

Your making me hungry!

Not a big fan of "Scandinavia", but have no problem with "Norse"

The explorers; First Iceland is discovered by the Norwegians,

... Or by the Gaels. I have a nice image of some drunk Vikings forcing at swordpoint some Scottish/Irish monks to guide them there, and then slaughtering both them and their brethren on the island when they arrived. :mischief: :viking: :devil:

Hey guys, get your history straight, there were no such thing as a "Great pagan temple" in Uppsala. Thats a nationalistic myth made up in the 18th or 19th centry. Yes, I now we are told about it in school, do you belive that Gustav Vasa escaped the (evil) danes by climing into the toilet as well?

And the reason the pagan is Christian and pagan "co-existed" was that all free people was christian and they did care what thier serf belived as long as it did not show (and no, not for "free religion" reasons, they simpely consider serfs animals and who cares what a cow believe)?

I'm having fun in my current game playing Ragnar. It finally hit me a couple of games ago to delay Rifling. The reason is because then you can build Macemen, give them City Raider II and upgrade them to Grenadiers. If you're Ragnar, build Berserkers, give them City Raider II, and upgrade them to Grenadiers. Grenadiers with Amphibious, Melee I and City Raider II are really nice.

I'm sure everybody figured this out and I'm dense.

i agree whit you 100% scandinavia doesnt cover the whole norse, and you can't call and empire norse or nordic. like incas can't be called south empire :P

I have to disagree.

Scandinavia is not used only for Norway and Sweden, because they are on the "Scandinavian peninsula". It also refers to Denmark, Iceland and even Finland.
Peruvians don't call themselves "Andes Empire". But I call myself a Scandinavian. Because I am from Scandinavia. That doesn't have to mean I live in Kiruna, Sweden where the mountains are.

This is from Wikipedia:

Scandinavia is a historical and geographical region centered on the Scandinavian Peninsula in Northern Europe and includes the three kingdoms of Denmark, Norway and Sweden. The other Nordic countries, Finland, Iceland and the Faroe Islands, are also sometimes included because of their close historic and cultural relations to Norway, Sweden, and Denmark.

In linguistics and cultural studies, the definition of Scandinavia is expanded to include the areas where Old Norse was spoken and where the North Germanic languages are now dominant. As a linguistic and cultural concept, Scandinavia thus also includes Iceland and the Faroe Islands.

As a cultural and historical concept, Scandinavia can include Finland as well (of the larger region Fenno-Scandinavia), often with reference to the nation's long history as a part of Sweden. Although Finland is culturally closely related to the other Scandinavian countries, the Finns form a distinct linguistic and ethnic group, with a Finno-Ugric population that has incorporated features from both Eastern and Western Europe.

To your other comments on Norse and Nordic:
..the term "Nordic countries" is used for Norway (including Jan Mayen and Svalbard), Sweden, Denmark (including the Faroe Islands and Greenland), Finland (including Åland) and Iceland.
.. and the term "Norse" is an adjective relating things to Norway, Denmark, Iceland and Sweden.

Back on Scandinavia:
Being a purely historical and cultural region, Scandinavia has no official geopolitical borders.

Scandinavian refers to me, as an Icelander, and you Tronicoz, as a Swede.

Scandinavians did call themselves Vikings, only a few though. Some went raiding (went into Viking). Others sailed down the Volga and joined the Varangian Guard.
Having Vikings is bizarre and very historically inaccurate.

Age of Mythology and Black and White games decided to have the Norse and they would "Go to the Norselands" but historically speaking, Scandinavians would be the best fit.
Nordic comes nr. 2, Norse nr. 3 and I would go down as low to say Kalmar Union would be better than Vikings.

As a Dane I agree that a scandinavian nation would be a nice thing, both in the game as a substitute for the weirdly named viking empire (there really never has been such a thing) and in real life :) .

Hey guys, get your history straight, there were no such thing as a "Great pagan temple" in Uppsala. Thats a nationalistic myth made up in the 18th or 19th centry. Yes, I now we are told about it in school, do you belive that Gustav Vasa escaped the (evil) danes by climing into the toilet as well?

And the reason the pagan is Christian and pagan "co-existed" was that all free people was christian and they did care what thier serf belived as long as it did not show (and no, not for "free religion" reasons, they simpely consider serfs animals and who cares what a cow believe)?

well, you can't just say it wasn't í wanna hear WHY it wasn't . they have found ruins on a temple at uppsala where it now stands a old christian church

I have to disagree.

Scandinavia is not used only for Norway and Sweden, because they are on the "Scandinavian peninsula". It also refers to Denmark, Iceland and even Finland.
Peruvians don't call themselves "Andes Empire". But I call myself a Scandinavian. Because I am from Scandinavia. That doesn't have to mean I live in Kiruna, Sweden where the mountains are.

This is from Wikipedia:



To your other comments on Norse and Nordic:
..the term "Nordic countries" is used for Norway (including Jan Mayen and Svalbard), Sweden, Denmark (including the Faroe Islands and Greenland), Finland (including Åland) and Iceland.
.. and the term "Norse" is an adjective relating things to Norway, Denmark, Iceland and Sweden.

Back on Scandinavia:
Being a purely historical and cultural region, Scandinavia has no official geopolitical borders.

Scandinavian refers to me, as an Icelander, and you Tronicoz, as a Swede.

Scandinavians did call themselves Vikings, only a few though. Some went raiding (went into Viking). Others sailed down the Volga and joined the Varangian Guard.
Having Vikings is bizarre and very historically inaccurate.

Age of Mythology and Black and White games decided to have the Norse and they would "Go to the Norselands" but historically speaking, Scandinavians would be the best fit.
Nordic comes nr. 2, Norse nr. 3 and I would go down as low to say Kalmar Union would be better than Vikings.

well, think i already answered on that :P


well, nearly all people count scadinavia as all norse countries but accurate it is countries linked to "skanderna" think i said this before. so i still think viking is the best way to cover all nordic countries. i don't think there is a better name even if the viking name may not be a perfect one :)

I could not agree more. I find it quite stupid that there is a Viking civilization, since it is merely a term for a small period in the Scandinavian timeline. There has never been a "viking civilization," it's a term for scandinavians around year 900. Furthermore, the Vikings is a combination of countries, like you say and if the developers want to combine the "viking" countries, they should call it the Kalmar Union or Denmark-Norway or simply Scandinavia (I'm a little against this also, since it would be the same as "the native americans"). This would cover the same countries (cities) represented in Civ4, even though the Kalmar Union would also cover Sweden.
The American civilization is not called the "Yankee Civilization" either.


The Kalmar Union was a fairly shortlived accident of history, so I'm against using it as a name for a civ. Basically, it consisted of Denmark, a Norway which was cowed by the Danes when it tried to regain its independence and a Sweden-Finland which kept rebelling (and for long periods actually running their own affirs) until they managed to permanently free themselves from Danish rule. I'd go for "Scandinavians", which could be extended to include Iceland as well as Sweden, Norway or Denmark, or "Nordics", which would also include the Finns.

Viking Empire shouldn't be changed into anything imo. Scandinavia is too loose a definition to be called a civ. "Vikings" is the only term that makes it resonable to speak of the norse as a single civilization. If you say "scandinavian" you're just talking about the people from a geographical region, whereas "viking" speaks of the actual people. Modern day scandinavians doesn't really qualify for a spot anyway.

There never was a "Viking Empire" either, so your argument doesn't hold up. If it were to be taken seriously, both the Vikings and the Celts would have to be removed from the game, because they never had a single civilization (by which I take it you mean a unified country) any more than the Scandinavians did. On top of that, ""viking" was never the name for any people or civilization at all. The word "viking" does not "speak bout the people". It refers to sea-robbers from one or other of the Sandinavian countries during the Viking Age.

And before someone brings up the Union of Kalmar again: Read up on it. It was a dynastic arrangement which was never meant to be permanent, and the Swedes and Finns began to rebel at it almost as soon as Margaret was dead. They didn't mind her, but they disliked that German nephew of hers who succeeded to the throne and started to lord it over all the Nordic cuntries as if he had an automatic right to do so - which he did not. That German - Erik of Pomerania - was succeeded by various other Germans who, to put it mildly, did not respect the ancient rights of Scandinavians, not least those of Scandinavian farmers.

"Viking" is just a Norse word meaning "raider"- it refers to the sea-borne raiders who came from Scandinavia, not the culture or people as a whole.The term is linked to a specific sub-section of the Scandinavian population at a specific time in history, to say it represents all Scandinavians or Norse-descended people is, frankly, an insult to them. It's just plain ignorant.
"Scandinavia" may not be the perfect term, but if the region is to be represented in the game- and I think it should be- it's the only reasonable term. Otherwise the Americans need to be renamed the Cowboys, the Celts need to renamed the Highlanders and the Greeks need to be renamed the Guys-From-300. Historically unfounded stereotypes for all!

Amen, brother! Thank you for these words!

Hey guys, get your history straight, there were no such thing as a "Great pagan temple" in Uppsala. Thats a nationalistic myth made up in the 18th or 19th centry.

Get your history straight. I refer you to Adam of Bremen. Do a google.

As a Dane I agree that a scandinavian nation would be a nice thing, both in the game as a substitute for the weirdly named viking empire (there really never has been such a thing) and in real life :) .

I agree. It is a pity that Margaret's son, the young Prince (Oluf alias Olav alias Olof) who was the last direct descendant of all the three ancient royal dynasties of Scandinavia died. If he had lived, things might have turned out very differently from the way they did.

Get your history straight. I refer you to Adam of Bremen. Do a google.

Actually while Adam of Bremen's ridiculous account of sacrifices and lechery at the pagan celebrations in Uppsala is obviously a fabrication (possibly based on popular legends), the fact that Uppsala was a religious centre is supported by many other chroniclers, most notably Snorri and Saxo..

Few people do. We're known for little but having the first female president in the world and the first modern parliament in the world..
Maybe the sagas..:)

..and you have the highest number of books sold per citizen of any country in the world. Kudos from a librarian and bibliophile.

Hey guys, get your history straight, there were no such thing as a "Great pagan temple" in Uppsala. Thats a nationalistic myth made up in the 18th or 19th centry.

:lol:
I don't know whether to laugh or cry.
Is it? Saying that is like saying Temple of Artemis never existed. 18th-19th century you say? More like 9th-13th century.

I agree. It is a pity that Margaret's son, the young Prince (Oluf alias Olav alias Olof) who was the last direct descendant of all the three ancient royal dynasties of Scandinavia died. If he had lived, things might have turned out very differently from the way they did.
Maybe, maybe not. Margaret had used him as her puppet since he was in her belly..If he would have proved to be a good independent leader, perhaps we wouldn't have Norway today, just Northern Denmark. There would have been no Kalmar Union and Iceland wouldn't have gone under the Danish crown. Sweden might have been German?

The Kalmar Union was a fairly shortlived accident of history, so I'm against using it as a name for a civ. Basically, it consisted of Denmark, a Norway which was cowed by the Danes when it tried to regain its independence and a Sweden-Finland which kept rebelling (and for long periods actually running their own affirs) until they managed to permanently free themselves from Danish rule. I'd go for "Scandinavians", which could be extended to include Iceland as well as Sweden, Norway or Denmark, or "Nordics", which would also include the Finns.

Finland is on the edge I think. If I remember correctly, there are 1 or 2 Finnish city names on the Viking city list. I would include Finland in the Scandinavian civilization, since Sweden ruled over it and influenced it so much.

I want Gustaf Wasa :(

the fact that Uppsala was a religious centre is supported by many other chroniclers, most notably Snorri and Saxo...

Oh yes! I never claimed anything else. (Although Saxo was an unreliable old goat. Snorri on the other hand... :) He's my avatar.)


Adam of Bremen's ridiculous account of sacrifices and lechery at the pagan celebrations in Uppsala is obviously a fabrication (possibly based on popular legends),


Obviously why? I don't agree. Sacrifice is a part of all religions, and we know blood-sacrifice was a part of the old Germanic beliefs. Why not on a large scale once every nine years at this particular temple?

Sacrifice was in the old Norse religion, for sure.
I read Laxdæla saga (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Laxd%C5%93la_saga) two or three years ago and there they mention sacrificing sheep and horses.

There never was a "Viking Empire" either, so your argument doesn't hold up. If it were to be taken seriously, both the Vikings and the Celts would have to be removed from the game, because they never had a single civilization (by which I take it you mean a unified country) any more than the Scandinavians did. On top of that, ""viking" was never the name for any people or civilization at all. The word "viking" does not "speak bout the people". It refers to sea-robbers from one or other of the Sandinavian countries during the Viking Age.

And before someone brings up the Union of Kalmar again: Read up on it. It was a dynastic arrangement which was never meant to be permanent, and the Swedes and Finns began to rebel at it almost as soon as Margaret was dead. They didn't mind her, but they disliked that German nephew of hers who succeeded to the throne and started to lord it over all the Nordic cuntries as if he had an automatic right to do so - which he did not. That German - Erik of Pomerania - was succeeded by various other Germans who, to put it mildly, did not respect the ancient rights of Scandinavians, not least those of Scandinavian farmers.

I know there never was a viking empire but this is also the case with other civs in the game. "Viking" civ, may not be historically correct and such, but it's a term that gives you the right association. When you play as the vikings, you wanna feel you're a viking (whatever the word implyed before it got a popular meaning) and not some awkward constallation of northern european countries :rolleyes: ...

I know there never was a viking empire but this is also the case with other civs in the game. "Viking" civ, may not be historically correct and such, but it's a term that gives you the right association. When you play as the vikings, you wanna feel you're a viking (whatever the word implyed before it got a popular meaning) and not some awkward constallation of northern european countries :rolleyes: ...

I wonder why it is that the national feelings of everyone else must apparently be respected, but when we Scandinavians declare that we don't like the term "Viking Civilization" because there never was a people or ethnic group or linguistic group called "Vikings", then what we say is simply dismissed.

Maybe, maybe not. Margaret had used him as her puppet since he was in her belly..If he would have proved to be a good independent leader, perhaps we wouldn't have Norway today, just Northern Denmark. There would have been no Kalmar Union and Iceland wouldn't have gone under the Danish crown. Sweden might have been German?



Finland is on the edge I think. If I remember correctly, there are 1 or 2 Finnish city names on the Viking city list. I would include Finland in the Scandinavian civilization, since Sweden ruled over it and influenced it so much.

I don't see why Sweden might have become German if Prince Olof had lived. As for including Finns among "Scandinavians", that is all right with me if it is all right with the Finns.

I definitely agree with your points SkippyT, and also with your suggestions on how to improve the situation, but they seem more likely for a mod. I think everyone sees their nations in a particular way, which is often different from Firaxis, because the designers are all from the same country, and it's nowhere in Europe. A scandinavian civ is missing I agree, but at the same time an italian one is missing too. The roman empire died around 450 AD, but after that in Italy flourished an equally important civ (the italian one) which reached its best in the Renaissance. Sure there wasn't political union, but you can say the same about Scandinavia and Greece. I'm sure others can find more example of this... it's just too hard to encompass the history of Civilization in a handful of civs. But I think the guys at Firaxis are aware of this and that's why they made it possible for us to mod in whatever we want, and with the competent community that Civilization can count on, there's really some impressive work out there.

Just as a point of interest do Scandinavians regard the Shetland Islands as Scandinavian ?

Just as a point of interest do Scandinavians regard the Shetland Islands as Scandinavian ?
They would have been, around six hundred years ago. They used to speak Norn- a form of Norwegian, I think- but when the islands were handed over to Scotland 1468 as part of a dowry- the daughter of the Kalmar king was marrying the Scottish King. After that, the already notable Scottish influence on the island increased, and Norn began to be replaced by Scots.
Still, even today some Shetlanders consider themselves a distinct nationality.

I knew that would tweek your interest Traitorfish . Didn't " The blood of the Vikings " on the BBC do a genetic survey of the Islands and find them to be about 45% Norse. I think you should hand them back .:mischief:

I knew that would tweek your interest Traitorfish . Didn't " The blood of the Vikings " on the BBC do a genetic survey of the Islands and find them to be about 45% Norse. I think you should hand them back .:mischief:
I think their was actually a clause in the wedding contract thingy that said Denmark could buy them back for a certain amount of money- they were part of the dowry because the Danes were a little short on cash at the time- so I guess they can have them if they have the cash. I mean, a deals a deal, right?

...people want to play a man with a horned helmet called Ragnar Lodbrok...

Now when you mention it, Vikings did not have horned helmets, not for combat at least.

http://www.straightdope.com/mailbag/mhornedhelmet.html

No self-respecting Viking warrior ever wore a horned helmet in battle--they weren't that dumb.

Worth to think about.. :)

But otherwise I agree, it would be nice to see Gustav II Adolph or similar as an alternative for the viking leader. (After all, like you mentioned, the Viking age were Scandinavia's golden age, and I guess that's why they picked Ragnar.)

Obviously why? I don't agree. Sacrifice is a part of all religions, and we know blood-sacrifice was a part of the old Germanic beliefs. Why not on a large scale once every nine years at this particular temple?

It wasn't the existence of sacrifice I protested against but Adam of Bremen's account of it. Have you read the text? It sounds like some prudish monk's drug- or alcohol-induced fantasy..
Not unlike Ibn Fadlan's description of a burial ceremony of the Vaeringians (Væringer, the bodyguard of the Byzantine emperors). Contrast it with Ibn Rustah's more well-rounded descriptions of the Rus.

Now when you mention it, Vikings did not have horned helmets, not for combat at least.

http://www.straightdope.com/mailbag/mhornedhelmet.html



Worth to think about.. :)

But otherwise I agree, it would be nice to see Gustav II Adolph or similar as an alternative for the viking leader. (After all, like you mentioned, the Viking age were Scandinavia's golden age, and I guess that's why they picked Ragnar.)

I'm just puzzled at why they didn't stick with Canute, who is a historical person and who ruled over Denmark, England and Norway. (Let me add that Denmark was a much bigger country in those days than it is now.)

Gustavus Adolphus would be nice as a second leader.

Few people do. We're known for little but having the first female president in the world and the first modern parliament in the world..
Maybe the sagas..:)

The sagas, fashion models, horses with seven gates, brothers and sisters with different last names, geothermal energy, a superpower summit, high quality fish, short forrests..... wool....

.... and the high cost of Coca Cola.;)

The sagas, fashion models, horses with seven gates, brothers and sisters with different last names, geothermal energy, a superpower summit, high quality fish, short forrests..... wool....

.... and the high cost of Coca Cola.;)

And Björk.

Gustavus Adolphus would be nice as a second leader.
:agree: thank you!

And Björk.

Who?:confused:

Who?:confused:

:) She is a quite well-known Icelandic singer and composer:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bj%C3%B6rk

Now when you mention it, Vikings did not have horned helmets, not for combat at least.

http://www.straightdope.com/mailbag/mhornedhelmet.html



Worth to think about.. :)

But otherwise I agree, it would be nice to see Gustav II Adolph or similar as an alternative for the viking leader. (After all, like you mentioned, the Viking age were Scandinavia's golden age, and I guess that's why they picked Ragnar.)


>The only evidence of the vikings that had hornet helmets has bee found in england. but people think it was a celtic helm

:agree: thank you!

yeah omg, that guy did a lot of stuff, but if he would be a vikign leader it would have ment: "viking civil war"! because he fought against the danes, but Abe fought is own ppll aswell, GAHHHHHHHH this leads owhere

Meep! Meep!

The sagas, fashion models, horses with seven gates, brothers and sisters with different last names, geothermal energy, a superpower summit, high quality fish, short forrests..... wool....

.... and the high cost of Coca Cola.

Those are things that you have to be a superbrain to know ;) It's true. Our sagas are considered the best medieval writings of all, perhaps, our women are the most beautiful in the world, we are the leading country in geothermal energy and all that, but that's something you have to come to the country to know, or read especially about it on the internet :D
I think my country is amazing. We came from being a 3rd world country, isolated until 1940 to being the second most developed country in the world in 2004, and 4th richest per capita.

I'm just puzzled at why they didn't stick with Canute, who is a historical person and who ruled over Denmark, England and Norway. (Let me add that Denmark was a much bigger country in those days than it is now.)

Gustavus Adolphus would be nice as a second leader.

I totally agree with you on Canute as the leader for the Viking era, the Scandinavian golden age.
But Gustavus Adolphus..hmmffpp. He would be well suitable for leading a civilization for sure, but Margaret was a better leader. But having Canute and Margaret wouldn't work because they were both Danish, then we'd be leaving out the Swedish.

I've many times stated out how great and wonderful Margaret was and things like that. I'm not gonna do it again :D You're probably thankful :)
Canute would be a war-leader, Maggie wouldn't. That's one of the advantages she has over Gustavus. But Firaxis wouldn't have a Scandinavian civ and have two Danes as the leaders..even though it might be the right thing. Gustavus is an obvious third choice..but Margaret would have to come nr. 1 and Canute as nr. 2..:(

:) She is a quite well-known Icelandic singer and composer:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bj%C3%B6rk

Known in America for wearing a swan to the Oscars.

i Disagree Charles XII would be a very good choice as well.

Those are things that you have to be a superbrain to know ;) It's true. Our sagas are considered the best medieval writings of all, perhaps, our women are the most beautiful in the world, we are the leading country in geothermal energy and all that, but that's something you have to come to the country to know, or read especially about it on the internet :D
I think my country is amazing. We came from being a 3rd world country, isolated until 1940 to being the second most developed country in the world in 2004, and 4th richest per capita.



I totally agree with you on Canute as the leader for the Viking era, the Scandinavian golden age.
But Gustavus Adolphus..hmmffpp. He would be well suitable for leading a civilization for sure, but Margaret was a better leader. But having Canute and Margaret wouldn't work because they were both Danish, then we'd be leaving out the Swedish.

I've many times stated out how great and wonderful Margaret was and things like that. I'm not gonna do it again :D You're probably thankful :)
Canute would be a war-leader, Maggie wouldn't. That's one of the advantages she has over Gustavus. But Firaxis wouldn't have a Scandinavian civ and have two Danes as the leaders..even though it might be the right thing. Gustavus is an obvious third choice..but Margaret would have to come nr. 1 and Canute as nr. 2..:(

Hm. I want to go on record as saying that I wouldn't mind Margaret at all. But Canute would have to be first, for reasons of chronology.

It wasn't the existence of sacrifice I protested against

(GASP) You are in favour of human sacrifice? Why, you barbarian! I take it you always play as Montezuma?

Those are things that you have to be a superbrain to know ;) It's true. Our sagas are considered the best medieval writings of all, perhaps, our women are the most beautiful in the world, we are the leading country in geothermal energy and all that, but that's something you have to come to the country to know, or read especially about it on the internet :D
I think my country is amazing. We came from being a 3rd world country, isolated until 1940 to being the second most developed country in the world in 2004, and 4th richest per capita.



I've been to the capital . If I were a superbrain, I wouldn't be Icelandic spelling-challenged. That's where I heard the joke "What do you do when you're lost in an Icelandic forest? .... Stand up!"

Leif was a childhood hero of mine since I was about 8 years old- maybe I saw a movie . I enjoyed reading everything I could get my hands on about him and other vikings. That's when I learned about sagas.

I think I first learned about the Geothermal stuff in school ( 5th or 7th grade )

Icelandic fish, wool , and sweaters are marketed in the USA as such.

Oh, I read Red Storm Rising, which told me about 4wheel-drives and fishing.

My wife is a blue-eyed blonde German born Saxon, and she's the cutest woman in the world, - but there's nothing wrong your women -they're sort of flawless.;)

I know Coca Cola costs because it has to be imported as raw materials or finished product....

Just how much does it cost these days?

i Disagree Charles XII would be a very good choice as well.

Well, he wasted a lot of valuable time trying to force a king (Stanislaw Leszczynski) on the Poles instead of striking a deal with August the Strong and enlisting his aid against Peter the Great of Russia. If he had done that, the Russians might have been contained, which would have benefited both Poland and Sweden.

Note to others here who may not know who August was: he was the ruler of Poland and Saxony. He was not, perhaps, all that great a ruler, but given the circumstances, I think Charles XII should have made peace with him when he offered.

I've been to the capital . If I were a superbrain, I wouldn't be Icelandic spelling-challenged. That's where I heard the joke "What do you do when you're lost in an Icelandic forest? .... Stand up!"

Leif was a childhood hero of mine since I was about 8 years old- maybe I saw a movie . I enjoyed reading everything I could get my hands on about him and other vikings. That's when I learned about sagas.

I think I first learned about the Geothermal stuff in school ( 5th or 7th grade )

Icelandic fish, wool , and sweaters are marketed in the USA as such.

Oh, I read Red Storm Rising, which told me about 4wheel-drives and fishing.

My wife is a blue-eyed blonde German born Saxon, and she's the cutest woman in the world, - but there's nothing wrong your women -they're sort of flawless.;)

I know Coca Cola costs because it has to be imported as raw materials or finished product....

Just how much does it cost these days?

Around 70-100 kronas = 50-80 US cents :p
Things are starting to cost less now because our new government is more "Euro"ish than the last one and put down some import costs on all food products. Quite nice ;) But still the Icelandic economy just grows and grows..everybody is growing richer by the day.
I can barely believe it, I was raised up with my mom who had two hard jobs with low pay and all but now she's grown into a rich . .. .. .. .. . who spends half of her year to go to Thailand, Spain, Jamaica .. name it. We're a lucky nation even though we only have sheep, fish and geothermal heat and yeah, that's about it.

After reading what you wrote I'm suddenly full of national pride. I thought we Icelanders were the only ones who read about Leif and had him as a hero when we were little and wore "ullarpeysur" along with our Norwegian friends (which we'll be passing soon in the "most developed country in the world" chart) :)

I have no problem with a Scandinavian civ instead of the current Viking one. In fact, I think it's a great idea, maybe making the civ more 'plausible'. Currently, with Ragnar, it feels a blit like a comic-book civ. Good examples of leaders you have, I'd like a leader from the Viking Age and one from the Middle Ages.

I'd like to visit Iceland some time, either on holiday or for studying in Reykjavik

On the sagas, I remember reading the Saga of Gunnlaug Ormstunge (Worm-tounge) and Njåls saga at school. Cool stuff, in a strange way the writing style reminded me of Tolkien. I know Tolkien was very influenced by the Icelandic writings. We also learned a bit norse/old norwegian and skald poetry. "Drottkved" and so on.

I have no problem with a Scandinavian civ instead of the current Viking one. In fact, I think it's a great idea, maybe making the civ more 'plausible'. Currently, with Ragnar, it feels a blit like a comic-book civ. Good examples of leaders you have, I'd like a leader from the Viking Age and one from the Middle Ages.

I'd like to visit Iceland some time, either on holiday or for studying in Reykjavik

On the sagas, I remember reading the Saga of Gunnlaug Ormstunge (Worm-tounge) and Njåls saga at school. Cool stuff, in a strange way the writing style reminded me of Tolkien. I know Tolkien was very influenced by the Icelandic writings. We also learned a bit norse/old norwegian and skald poetry. "Drottkved" and so on.



mee too, i wanna visit iceland,

poor icelandic people have no forest, *haha*

It wasn't the existence of sacrifice I protested against but Adam of Bremen's account of it. Have you read the text? It sounds like some prudish monk's drug- or alcohol-induced fantasy..
Not unlike Ibn Fadlan's description of a burial ceremony of the Vaeringians (Væringer, the bodyguard of the Byzantine emperors). Contrast it with Ibn Rustah's more well-rounded descriptions of the Rus.

I have read both. Yes, any Christian's or Muslim's description of pagan rites from this time you have to read with sceptisism. That doesn't mean you can't use such texts to infer what might actually have taken place.

I have no problem with a Scandinavian civ instead of the current Viking one. In fact, I think it's a great idea, maybe making the civ more 'plausible'. Currently, with Ragnar, it feels a blit like a comic-book civ. Good examples of leaders you have, I'd like a leader from the Viking Age and one from the Middle Ages.

I'd like to visit Iceland some time, either on holiday or for studying in Reykjavik

On the sagas, I remember reading the Saga of Gunnlaug Ormstunge (Worm-tounge) and Njåls saga at school. Cool stuff, in a strange way the writing style reminded me of Tolkien. I know Tolkien was very influenced by the Icelandic writings. We also learned a bit norse/old norwegian and skald poetry. "Drottkved" and so on.

I agree about the comic-book look of the "Viking Civilization" that Firaxis insists on. AARGH! :mad: As for the Icelandic sagas, I recommend you to read "Gisli Sursson's Saga" some time. That one is a great story too.

Give us Canute, at least! Down with the Hairypants!

I have no problem with a Scandinavian civ instead of the current Viking one. In fact, I think it's a great idea, maybe making the civ more 'plausible'. Currently, with Ragnar, it feels a blit like a comic-book civ. Good examples of leaders you have, I'd like a leader from the Viking Age and one from the Middle Ages.

I totally agree with that. Canute would be the best for the Viking age, quite obviously and Margaret would be perfect to represent "peaceful Scandinavia".

poor icelandic people have no forest, *haha*

We knew our cities couldn't grow beyond 5-7 so we decided we didn't need them for the health bonus, so we chopped 'em down for the National epic wonder so you guys could have something to read! We needed those mines also to build settlers to send over to Greenland and Newfoundland :D

On the sagas, I remember reading the Saga of Gunnlaug Ormstunge (Worm-tounge) and Njåls saga at school. Cool stuff, in a strange way the writing style reminded me of Tolkien. I know Tolkien was very influenced by the Icelandic writings. We also learned a bit norse/old norwegian and skald poetry. "Drottkved" and so on.

It seems people agree that the writings really are Icelandic. I believe they are, but many Norwegian and especially Danes believe they were the ones who "own" the sagas. I remember reading an article just two weeks ago about there being a chart of books that every Norwegian should read before they die to get to know Norwegian inheritage and literature. Icelandic sagas were both #1 and #2 :rolleyes:

I totally agree with that. Canute would be the best for the Viking age, quite obviously and Margaret would be perfect to represent "peaceful Scandinavia".



We knew our cities couldn't grow beyond 5-7 so we decided we didn't need them for the health bonus, so we chopped 'em down for the National epic wonder so you guys could have something to read! We needed those mines also to build settlers to send over to Greenland and Newfoundland :D


It seems people agree that the writings really are Icelandic. I believe they are, but many Norwegian and especially Danes believe they were the ones who "own" the sagas. I remember reading an article just two weeks ago about there being a chart of books that every Norwegian should read before they die to get to know Norwegian inheritage and literature. Icelandic sagas were both #1 and #2 :rolleyes:


i c, icelandic people thinks one step ahead :P

yah the vikings were crazy back then... but why have them only represent themselves? :P Scandinavia can atleast represent Sweden in the medieval era.

Hmm...I disagree with all of you.

SkippyT, I get your point. "The Viking empire" is bull S. But a Scandinavian civilization will never be. I would never be fine with being put in the same civilization as Sweden. We were only united for around 100 years and even though we have much in common we have a totally different history.

I think there should be a separate Danish civilization. A Danish civilization would as well represent Norway and Iceland because they were both under us for hundreds of hundreds of years. I think it's obvious that we had more impact on the world than our friends and neighbors, the Swedish. We had (and have) a larger territory, "better" leaders and have had more variety. You were good in the rennaisense (can't type). Big deal. We were more important in the Viking age and the medieval era as well. Canute and Margaret I would be awesome as leaders.

Both Sweden and Denmark would be cool as well. But Denmark first :)

Hmm...I disagree with all of you.

SkippyT, I get your point. "The Viking empire" is bull S. But a Scandinavian civilization will never be. I would never be fine with being put in the same civilization as Sweden. We were only united for around 100 years and even though we have much in common we have a totally different history.

I think there should be a separate Danish civilization. A Danish civilization would as well represent Norway and Iceland because they were both under us for hundreds of hundreds of years. I think it's obvious that we had more impact on the world than our friends and neighbors, the Swedish. We had (and have) a larger territory, "better" leaders and have had more variety. You were good in the rennaisense (can't type). Big deal. We were more important in the Viking age and the medieval era as well. Canute and Margaret I would be awesome as leaders.

Both Sweden and Denmark would be cool as well. But Denmark first :)


you are from denmark, and danes think danish

im from swden i think swedish:

swedish war history:
m from swden and i think swedish. sweden ond ehad whole finland whole balticum, half germany and have also captured warzawa. and had parts of norway and bornholm and some russian territories, then we lost mostly of the stuff, but on the 1900 we attacked norway so they had to become a vassal of sweden.

well, denmark is bigger if u cont greenland, but it's mostly ice i say :/

i think sweden first!! (strange isn't it?)

...even though we have much in common we have a totally different history.
So? Different US states have "totally different histories". Different villages in Suffolk have had "totally different histories". Any spot on the planet has had a "totally different history" than any other spot. All you can really argue is the level of difference, the existence of a difference is taken for granted.
So, with that in mind, would it not make more sense to focus on the non-universal aspects, i.e. the similarities? Would it not make sense to include a pan-Scandinavian civ on the basis that it represents a whole cultural group, rather than just national boundaries?
Put it this way, I'm Scottish, which means in Civ terms I'd be a Celt. Now, I may say to myself, "Why, we Insular Celts are of far more importance than those lousy Gauls! We should have our own civ!" Then I can say "Why, we Gaels are far more important than those lousy Britons! We should have our own civ!" Then I say, "Why, we Scots are far more important than those lousy Irish! We should have our own civ!" And it goes on like this until I'm saying "Why, we Maxwood Road-dwellers are far more important than those Keir Hardie Crescent-dwellers! We should have our own civ!" Get my drift?
Besides, a Danish-Swedish argument is just going to end up as the same circular, nationalistic nonsense that all those Poland/HRE threads have.

So? Different US states have "totally different histories". Different villages in Suffolk have had "totally different histories". Any spot on the planet has had a "totally different history" than any other spot. All you can really argue is the level of difference, the existence of a difference is taken for granted.
So, with that in mind, would it not make more sense to focus on the non-universal aspects, i.e. the similarities? Would it not make sense to include a pan-Scandinavian civ on the basis that it represents a whole cultural group, rather than just national boundaries?
Put it this way, I'm Scottish, which means in Civ terms I'd be a Celt. Now, I may say to myself, "Why, we Insular Celts are of far more importance than those lousy Gauls! We should have our own civ!" Then I can say "Why, we Gaels are far more important than those lousy Britons! We should have our own civ!" Then I say, "Why, we Scots are far more important than those lousy Irish! We should have our own civ!" And it goes on like this until I'm saying "Why, we Maxwood Road-dwellers are far more important than those Keir Hardie Crescent-dwellers! We should have our own civ!" Get my drift?
Besides, a Danish-Swedish argument is just going to end up as the same circular, nationalistic nonsense that all those Poland/HRE threads have.

I just want to say that I completely agree with you. Including both Denmark and Sweden would be excessive. What I want is that the silly fixation on Vikings in silly, unhistorical horned helms disappears from the game. And I'd be quite comfortable with a Scandinavian civ where both leaders - Canute and Margaret - are Danish.

I wonder why it is that the national feelings of everyone else must apparently be respected, but when we Scandinavians declare that we don't like the term "Viking Civilization" because there never was a people or ethnic group or linguistic group called "Vikings", then what we say is simply dismissed.

Just to make it clear, I'm a swede myself so I'm not disregarding the national feelings of scandinavians. I just consequently disregard national feelings as a whole.

And my point remains, even if there was never a viking empire or ethnic group called the vikings, it's still just a minor terminology issue. Firaxis obviously want's the viking civ to represent the viking age scandinavians only. And like it or not, but "viking" is a term that's commonly used when speaking of the entire population of viking age scandinavians.

Just to make it clear, I'm a swede myself so I'm not disregarding the national feelings of scandinavians. I just consequently disregard national feelings as a whole.

And my point remains, even if there was never a viking empire or ethnic group called the vikings, it's still just a minor terminology issue. Firaxis obviously want's the viking civ to represent the viking age scandinavians only. And like it or not, but "viking" is a term that's commonly used when speaking of the entire population of viking age scandinavians.

I know that they only want to include the Scandinavians of the Viking Age - complete with ridiculous horned helms - and I find that weird. If the Scandinavians had died out completely after the end of the Viking Age, that would have been another matter.

And no serious historian uses the word "Viking" as a generic name for Scandinavians during the Viking Age. That is, not to put too fine a point on it, just ignorant.

Sing to the tune of "Jingle Bells":

[CHORUS]
Hornéd helms, hornéd helms, that is what we wear
Some say they're too dangerous,
But we say we don't care.

Hornéd helms, hornéd helms, looking like a fool
Some say they're ridiculous,
But we say they are cool!

Dashing to the fight
With a helmet on each head
They kind of block our sight
And soon we'll all be dead.

But we're a hardy race
And so we hold them tight
What fun it is to trip and sing
A slaying song tonight!

[CHORUS]
Hornéd helms, hornéd helms, that is what we wear
Some say they're too dangerous,
But we say we don't care.

Hornéd helms, hornéd helms, cluttering our path
They're not just ceremonial,
They make our victims laugh!

Merry Christmas everybody!!!

Merry Christmas everybody!!!
Merry Thormas, you mean.

Around 70-100 kronas = 50-80 US cents :p
Things are starting to cost less now because our new government is more "Euro"ish than the last one and put down some import costs on all food products. Quite nice ;) But still the Icelandic economy just grows and grows..everybody is growing richer by the day.
I can barely believe it, I was raised up with my mom who had two hard jobs with low pay and all but now she's grown into a rich . .. .. .. .. . who spends half of her year to go to Thailand, Spain, Jamaica .. name it. We're a lucky nation even though we only have sheep, fish and geothermal heat and yeah, that's about it.

After reading what you wrote I'm suddenly full of national pride. I thought we Icelanders were the only ones who read about Leif and had him as a hero when we were little and wore "ullarpeysur" along with our Norwegian friends (which we'll be passing soon in the "most developed country in the world" chart) :)

Coca Cola has become resonable? Maybe I'll have to stop over on the way next time I go to Germany.;)

Sounds like you're integrating with Europe economically, Skippy. Isolation is a large part of Iceland, it's what made it a time capsule for Scandanavia, the language, sagas, sheep and horses being prime examples. Of course the geography is another important element.

Did I mention that our Apollo astronauts went there for moon practice in the old lava fields?

One other question- was there a guy named Magnus in one of the sagas?



Besides , a Scandanavian civ could have those ultra cool looking Saab fighter jets for flavor:cool:

(GASP) You are in favour of human sacrifice? Why, you barbarian! I take it you always play as Montezuma?

Play? I do not understand this "play" of which you speak..

Now, if you don't mind, I really need to sharpen my ceremonial dagger. Busy night ahead.. :evil:

About the temple, as most people here do not believe me, even wikipedia:
The chief controversies concerning the temple focus specifically on determining where in Old Uppsala the temple was located and whether or not it was a building. Some believe that the temple was confused with the hall of the Swedish kings (located some tens of metres to the north of the present church). Churches were usually built and consecrated on top of older pagan temples and other sites that witnessed ritual activities. In 2003 and 2004, scientists using ground penetrating radar found the remains of what was interpreted as three wooden feasting halls dated from the 11th century, with at least one of them directly under the currently standing cathedral.[1]

denies there was a great temple. Uppsala was the center of pagan worship, yes. But that does not imply that there was a great temple there. As for the sources of it, Adam of Bremen never visited Uppsala and neither the Norse sagas and nor the Saxo Grammaticus' Gesta Danorum were written in the time of temple was said to exist. Hence, there is no historically valid evidence that it did exist. And as ground penetrating above found halls rather than temples at the searched sites, there is no archeology evidence either.

So it is not proved that the "Great Pagan Temple" existed (that, of course, does not guarantee that it did not either, but most likely we will never know).

I know that they only want to include the Scandinavians of the Viking Age - complete with ridiculous horned helms - and I find that weird. If the Scandinavians had died out completely after the end of the Viking Age, that would have been another matter.

And no serious historian uses the word "Viking" as a generic name for Scandinavians during the Viking Age. That is, not to put too fine a point on it, just ignorant.

Sing to the tune of "Jingle Bells":


:rotfl:

thats the most i ever laughed at a CivFanatics post. thanks! :lol:


maybe i should make a song for Pho too... :)

Well, I'll still vote for an inclusion of an additional Scandinavian civ instead of a replacement... I like the Vikings just as much as an alternate Sweden or Scandinavia. Doubles have been seen in the game already, as Rome/Byzantium/Greece, HRE/France or HRE/Germany as well as the Celt/Gaul (France).

So if I were to decide which civs were going to be included from Scandinavia, I'd say

Viking Empire
- Represents the 'Ancient' Era in Scandinavia. Even though it was the Middle Ages, Scandinavia's infrastructure was awfully undeveloped and primitive, as well as the legal organization (Scandinavia was never affected by Roman culture, so they'd never received the same power-boost as France or England).

Kalmar Empire
- Represents the 'Medieval' Era in Scandinavia. I speak with nationalism, as I'm from Denmark and I think that the Kalmar Union was the peak of the Scandinavian power (As all of Scandinavia was unified), and that Denmark was the center of that power, aka Denmark ruled scandinavia yay xD
However, it is the best representation of all Scandinavia I think, as Scandinavian Empire is a kind of generalization because of the several wars between Denmark-Norway and Sweden.

Swedish Empire
- Represents the Renaisscence and Modern Era in Scandinavia. Many people think of Sweden as the superior country in the Medieval Era btw... that is incorrect, Sweden was terribly poor initially, they blossomed because of a economical boost in the 17th century (Conquering Baltic provinces and ruling the trade in the Baltic sea).
Sweden did later manage to archieve a very powerful kingdom in the north, almost conquering the former Danish rulers (They didn't manage it because of Russia).

If only 2 Civs should be included, it should be Sweden and Vikings, as they cover the longest period.

Btw, why did they not add a Pho resource????? :(

You all have a fair point. And me saying Denmark was "better" than Sweden was incorrect of me. (Even though I still believe it, like Lord Joakim says: We were the ones who ruled Scandinavia. National pride, like everyone has)

About having a "Kalmar Empire" .. it would be even worse than Viking empire I have to say. It would represent an even shorter period in Scandinavian history than the Viking era (which was IMO the peak of Scandinavian history). I guess that the only way Firaxis could have a civilization to represent us Scandinavians is "Vikings" even though there would be many better options. Danish civilization wouldn't work, because the Swedes would get upset and a Swedish civilization wouldn't work because we'd get upset. And having both wouldn't be good.

Öjevind Lång:
:xmassign: :rotfl: :rotfl: :rotfl:
That was one of the best reads I've read :D

When Wasa got the throne sweden got better...

i c, icelandic people thinks one step ahead :P
Of course, and we got two great people from it, Leif Erickson and Snorri Sturluson ;)

One other question- was there a guy named Magnus in one of the sagas?
I believe not. Magnus got into the language through Norway and it got to Norway through Charlemagne, "Karlamagnus". And that is relatively late. It might be, but the sagas might as well speak about that Norwegian king or some people. It's an endless fountain of names and things that have happened. You could google it ;)

Samurai. A separate Danish and Swedish empire wouldn't work. Scandinavian empire is the only rational thing I can see.

When Wasa got the throne sweden got better...

Ofc, but Denmark ruled over Sweden in a long period before that, and after the rule we were a lot stronger. Sweden managed of course to make a great power boost through some years.

It's like when you say France is stronger than Italy today (The Romans IMO), so we shouldn't include Rome.

Btw, what's frikadeller called on English? :D :crazyeye:

Öjevind Lång:
:xmassign: :rotfl: :rotfl: :rotfl:
That was one of the best reads I've read :D

The old Scandinavians have better claims to fame than silly helmets! For example, they discovered Mickey Mouse a thousand years before Disney. During excavations at a very ancient site in the Scanian village of Uppåkra,
archaeologists have discovered an ancient brooch which is remarkably similar
to Mickey Mouse - or Musse Pigg, as he is called in Swedish. This is no
joke. Here is a link to a a couple of reports about it, with a picture of
the brooch:

http://www.nyteknik.se/art/51291

http://www.gp.se/gp/jsp/Crosslink.jsp?d=119&a=353665

Reports in English:

http://www.upi.com/NewsTrack/Quirks/2007/06/09/viking_mickey_mouse_brooch_found/3200/

http://feeds.bignewsnetwork.com/?sid=257171

http://forum.bcdb.com/gforum.cgi?post=77763

The last of these reports in English also includes a picture of the Mickey
brooch. Apparently, Disney have declared that Mickey is "a timeless figure".
French conspiracy theorists claim that this proves that time machines exist.
The archaelogists say the brooch "probably was meant to depict a lion and
fashioned by someone who had never seen an animal of that species."

Ofc, but Denmark ruled over Sweden in a long period before that, and after the rule we were a lot stronger. Sweden managed of course to make a great power boost through some years.

It's like when you say France is stronger than Italy today (The Romans IMO), so we shouldn't include Rome.

Btw, what's frikadeller called on English? :D :crazyeye:

The main reason I believe Denmark was "better" than Sweden is because Iceland was a part of the Danish kingdom and made it as brilliant as it was :) And frikadeller are better than Swedish meatballs, quite obviously :D Plus, the Danes came up with a name for theirs!

Öjevind Lång:
The old Scandinavians have better claims to fame than silly helmets! For example, they discovered Mickey Mouse a thousand years before Disney. During excavations at a very ancient site in the Scanian village of Uppåkra,

The Danes once again, if I'm not mistaken :crazyeye:

The old Scandinavians have better claims to fame than silly helmets! For example, they discovered Mickey Mouse a thousand years before Disney. During excavations at a very ancient site in the Scanian village of Uppåkra,
archaeologists have discovered an ancient brooch which is remarkably similar
to Mickey Mouse - or Musse Pigg, as he is called in Swedish. This is no
joke. Here is a link to a a couple of reports about it, with a picture of
the brooch:

http://www.nyteknik.se/art/51291

http://www.gp.se/gp/jsp/Crosslink.jsp?d=119&a=353665

Reports in English:

http://www.upi.com/NewsTrack/Quirks/2007/06/09/viking_mickey_mouse_brooch_found/3200/

http://feeds.bignewsnetwork.com/?sid=257171

http://forum.bcdb.com/gforum.cgi?post=77763

The last of these reports in English also includes a picture of the Mickey
brooch. Apparently, Disney have declared that Mickey is "a timeless figure".
French conspiracy theorists claim that this proves that time machines exist.
The archaelogists say the brooch "probably was meant to depict a lion and
fashioned by someone who had never seen an animal of that species."


when firaxis hear that sweden invented mickey mouse, thing's will be different! haha

when firaxis hear that sweden invented mickey mouse, thing's will be different! haha
..
The old Scandinavians have better claims to fame than silly helmets! For example, they discovered Mickey Mouse a thousand years before Disney. During excavations at a very ancient site in the Scanian village of Uppåkra

aka Danish :D

..

aka Danish :D

Hey, I'm from Scania. From Lund, in fact. And yet, I am a Swede because that's what Scanians gradually became after Sweden conquered our province from Denmark in 1658. We are yet another piece of proof that there are no watertight compartments between the various Scandinavian ciountries. (We still have some special feelings for Denmark, though.)

Furthermore, that brooch was manufactured before Scania had even become part of Denmark! :p

Hey, I'm from Scania. From Lund, in fact. And yet, I am a Swede because that's what Scanians gradually became after Sweden conquered our province from Denmark in 1658. We are yet another piece of proof that there are no watertight compartments between the various Scandinavian ciountries. (We still have some special feelings for Denmark, though.)

Furthermore, that brooch was manufactured before Scania had even become part of Denmark! :p

I know that Skåne (Scania) is now Swedish, but I thought when you said 1000 years it meant when the area was under Danish rule. My mistake :crazyeye:

I know that Skåne (Scania) is now Swedish, but I thought when you said 1000 years it meant when the area was under Danish rule. My mistake :crazyeye:

No, actually the mistake was mine. I owe you an apology. Somehow I had formed the impression that the brooch was from the 6th century, before the Viking Age and before Scania became part of Denmark. However, I have checked those reports again, and the fact is that the brooch depicted is thought to be from the 10th century, when Scania was without question part of Denmark and its inhabitants regarded themselves as Danes.

Still, sticking out one's tongue at people is fun.

Ojevind! make another song! yours was so awesome i made one for Vietnam! :D

and Canute should've been in.

SCANDINAVIA ALL THE WAY!!!

Seriously Vikings shouldn't represent Scandinavia.

No, actually the mistake was mine. I owe you an apology. Somehow I had formed the impression that the brooch was from the 6th century, before the Viking Age and before Scania became part of Denmark. However, I have checked those reports again, and the fact is that the brooch depicted is thought to be from the 10th century, when Scania was without question part of Denmark and its inhabitants regarded themselves as Danes.

Still, sticking out one's tongue at people is fun.

Well, Swedish or not Swedish, it doesn't matter ;) It was Scandinavian! :D

SCANDINAVIA ALL THE WAY!!!

Seriously Vikings shouldn't represent Scandinavia.

Unfortunately no-one in position of power never reads these threads. They're quite useless :) But it doesn't really matter. I got my opinion in the open, and I remain a follower of the idea that a Scandinavian civ should represent the Scandinavian people.

Ojevind! make another song! yours was so awesome i made one for Vietnam!

:lol: Where can we read it? :p I'm quite sure it includes the word "Pho" ;)

and Canute should've been in.

Probably better than Boudica and certainly better than Ragnar :p He managed to conquer the English for Christ's sake, Boudica didn't even manage to throw out invaders from there! (Not the start of another "Boudica sucks!" or "Racism! Celts are people too!")

So it is not proved that the "Great Pagan Temple" existed (that, of course, does not guarantee that it did not either, but most likely we will never know).

I don't see your point. :confused: If it was a religious center, as you seem to agree, what difference does it make what buildings existed? The basic statement, that the Christians established a religious center (archbishopry) on top of a pagan one, is still valid.

how can u be s sure that scania is swedish :O !!

I don't see your point. If it was a religious center, as you seem to agree, what difference does it make what buildings existed? The basic statement, that the Christians established a religious center (archbishopry) on top of a pagan one, is still valid.

The "Great Pagan Temple" was one of the (main) arguments for the great glory of the ancient Scandinavia. Just a pagan religious center can not be used as an argument for a "glories past".

I actually think the discussion should be "Should there be a civilization from the Nordic region?" rather when "Should THE civilization from the Nordic region be called Vikings or Scandinavian".

Sure there was successful invasions from this area, but they never left a culture impact as they were either absorbed into the local population (Vikings in England and Russia) or beaten back (Swedish invasions of the Baltic region in the 17th century).

Sure there was successful invasions from this area, but they never left a culture impact as they were either absorbed into the local population (Vikings in England and Russia) or beaten back (Swedish invasions of the Baltic region in the 17th century).

Excuse me? Scandinavians have had great influence on three civilizations (even four) that are in the game: England, France, Russia (and Byzantine Empire). 1. England - The Old Norse had a huge influence in the English language. About 1 of every 6 words, people claim. And many many many towns in Eastern England have Scandinavian names..today. That's culture impact. 2. They conquered France and got Normandy. Ring a bell? Norman-dy. From the north?

The Normans were a people from medieval northern France, deriving to a large extent their aristocratic origins from Scandinavia (the name is adapted from the name "Northmen" or "Norsemen"). They played a major political, military and cultural role in the northern and Mediterranean parts of medieval Europe and the Near East, eg. the colonisation (and naming) of Normandy, the "Norman Conquest" of England, the establishment of states in Sicily and southern Italy, and the crusades.

3. Russia: They founded Kiev (Kjonugård) and Novgorod (Holmgård) which were the two most important Russian cities in the Medieval era. Furthermore, the Russian tsars..they were all Swedish. And the names Olga and Oleg? Directly traced back to Scandinavian influence: Helga and Helgi. I would call that culture impact.

5. Byzantines: Look up Varangian guard.

About the Baltic region. Scandinavians did manage to influence them. Estonia and Latvia were Catholic areas, but the Swedish had the influence to convert the Estonians to Protestantism and also half of Latvia. I would call that culture impact.

I actually think the discussion should be "Should there be a civilization from the Nordic region?" rather when "Should THE civilization from the Nordic region be called Vikings or Scandinavian".
There is a civilization from the Nordic region, the Vikings. And we are unpleasant about it!

SkippyT..

You are of course right about the cultural impact on England . Danish place names are everywhere . Jorvik which became York which in turn gave it's name to New York was a Viking settlement. How's that for cultural influence !


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:England-878ad.jpg

BTW If Canute the Great were in the game he could perhaps also be available to England as a leader.

Well, Scanians speaks a very rough accent...

BTW If Canute the Great were in the game he could perhaps also be available to England as a leader.

Possibly, like Kublai Khan could also be a Chinese leader. But Kublai was Mongolian and Canute was Danish so Mongolia is more suitable for Kublai and Scandinavia for Canute :)

SkippyT..

You are of course right about the cultural impact on England . Danish place names are everywhere . Jorvik which became York which in turn gave it's name to New York was a Viking settlement. How's that for cultural influence !


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:England-878ad.jpg

BTW If Canute the Great were in the game he could perhaps also be available to England as a leader.

The Norsemen (in this case, Danes) founded Dublin. But Jorvik/York existed before the Norsemen conquered it and twisted the name from the Old English Eoforwic to Jorvik. Eoforwic in its turn was a corruption of the Celtic-Roman Eburacum.

And you can't have Canute! He's ours! Ours, I tell you, my Preciouss... (Gollum, gollum.)

The Norsemen (in this case, Danes) founded Dublin. But Jorvik/York existed before the Norsemen conquered it and twisted the name from the Old English Eoforwic to Jorvik. Eoforwic in its turn was a corruption of the Celtic-Roman Eburacum.

I think Dyflinni (Dublin) should be a settlement for the Vikings (Scandinavians!) and perhaps Kjonugård and Holmgård too (Kiev and Novgorod).

And you can't have Canute! He's ours! Ours, I tell you, my Preciouss... (Gollum, gollum.)

:lol:

..What traits would you assign to him? Spiritual and Aggressive? Spiritual and Charismatic? :p I'd pick the later one if it wasn't taken by Brennus. He shouldn't be in either.

well, back to the topic i don't really think the name makes much difference, (prefer vikings) that vikings shoulb be renamed to scnadinavia is nothing against that HRE is in the game and all other stuff. but i still think viking is best ;)

but it's just a name

The Vikings did not wear horned helmets; that was an invention of Wagner's custume designer for the Godderdamering Ring but it so caught everyone's fancy that now most everyone believes the Vikings actually wore the things. There is only one extant Viking helmet in the world. It covers the head like a cap and has a nose guard. This could mean two things.

One, the Vikings made most their helmets out of perishable materials like leather or wood. Two, the overwhelming mass of Vikings did not wear helmets at all.

The Vikings did not wear horned helmets; that was an invention of Wagner's custume designer for the Godderdamering Ring but it so caught everyone's fancy that now most everyone believes the Vikings actually wore the things. There is only one extant Viking helmet in the world. It covers the head like a cap and has a nose guard. This could mean two things.

One, the Vikings made most their helmets out of perishable materials like leather or wood. Two, the overwhelming mass of Vikings did not wear helmets at all.

The Vikings did rarely wear helmets (They did wear sometimes) as they were very .... ay, what do you say in English... well they liked being pretty and were somehow very fashionable about their hair. I read it in a Danish Primary School History Book.

The Vikings did not wear horned helmets; that was an invention of Wagner's custume designer for the Godderdamering Ring but it so caught everyone's fancy that now most everyone believes the Vikings actually wore the things. There is only one extant Viking helmet in the world. It covers the head like a cap and has a nose guard. This could mean two things.

One, the Vikings made most their helmets out of perishable materials like leather or wood. Two, the overwhelming mass of Vikings did not wear helmets at all.

i don't know where the myth come from,. but they found a horned helmet in england, scientists says it's celtic . but they are not sure, ^^

i don't know where the myth come from,. but they found a horned helmet in england, scientists says it's celtic . but they are not sure, ^^
Either way, it looks nothing like a stereotypical viking helmet- I believe this is the one you mean:
http://macdonnellofleinster.com/Celtic%20Horned%20Helmet.jpg

SkippyT
Quote:
Originally Posted by Thorrez
Sure there was successful invasions from this area, but they never left a culture impact as they were either absorbed into the local population (Vikings in England and Russia) or beaten back (Swedish invasions of the Baltic region in the 17th century).

Excuse me? Scandinavians have had great influence on three civilizations (even four) that are in the game: England, France, Russia (and Byzantine Empire). 1. England - The Old Norse had a huge influence in the English language. About 1 of every 6 words, people claim. And many many many towns in Eastern England have Scandinavian names..today. That's culture impact.


"People claim" can not be trusted. "People" generally do not know. Give me a valid source and I believe you. Or actually, give me 20 examples, should not be hard if 1/6 comes fron danish (or old nordic).

Viking male, plunderad, conquered and left or stayed and took local wifes. The kids where rased by thier english mothers in the english way. Hence, no cultural inpact after a couple of generations.

Changing towns name is not culture inpact unless you change the customs of the people living in the town (which they did not).


2. They conquered France and got Normandy. Ring a bell? Norman-dy. From the north?

Yes, rings a bell, actually they where given promission to settle Normandy because they threated to burn Paris. Still same story as in England never the less, all Viking influence absorbed into the local population within a couple of generations (so the invation of England can not be seen as a product of Scandianvian/Viking influence).



Quote:
Originally Posted by Wikipedia
The Normans were a people from medieval northern France, deriving to a large extent their aristocratic origins from Scandinavia (the name is adapted from the name "Northmen" or "Norsemen"). They played a major political, military and cultural role in the northern and Mediterranean parts of medieval Europe and the Near East, eg. the colonisation (and naming) of Normandy, the "Norman Conquest" of England, the establishment of states in Sicily and southern Italy, and the crusades.

3. Russia: They founded Kiev (Kjonugård) and Novgorod (Holmgård) which were the two most important Russian cities in the Medieval era. Furthermore, the Russian tsars..they were all Swedish. And the names Olga and Oleg? Directly traced back to Scandinavian influence: Helga and Helgi. I would call that culture impact.



5. Byzantines: Look up Varangian guard.

Please, every country in the world have used mercenaries, just because scandianivan once where used in the Byzantine Empire for a short period does not mean that Scandinavia should be a Civ (especially not as even Byzantine is debated.

Mybe Switzerland should be in: Look up the "Guardia Svizzera Pontificia".

About the Baltic region. Scandinavians did manage to influence them. Estonia and Latvia were Catholic areas, but the Swedish had the influence to convert the Estonians to Protestantism and also half of Latvia. I would call that culture impact.


This is vaild, but inifluence in Estonia and halv of Lativa is a very small thing in World History prospective.


Quote:
I actually think the discussion should be "Should there be a civilization from the Nordic region?" rather when "Should THE civilization from the Nordic region be called Vikings or Scandinavian".

There is a civilization from the Nordic region, the Vikings. And we are unpleasant about it!

Yes, Scandianvia (including the Vikings) has claim to be a Civ. But so has Poland, Austria, Siam, Vietnam and so on. I do not think our claim measure up if neither of those do.

Old norse words that have made it in the English language:
Weekday names!!

Tuesday: comes from Tyr's day (Tyr being a norse god)
Wednesday: comes from Wodin's day -> Odin's day (Odin being the "King" of the norse gods)
Thursday: comes from Thor's day (Thor being the norse god of thunder among other things)
Friday: comes from Frej's / Freja's day (the norse gods of love if I remember correctly).

I say those are some pretty basic elements of the English language that is rooted in old norse language / mythology!!

http://www.krysstal.com/english.html

At this time, the vocabulary of Old English consisted of an Anglo Saxon base with borrowed words from the Scandinavian languages (Danish and Norse) and Latin. Latin gave English words like street, kitchen, kettle, cup, cheese, wine, angel, bishop, martyr, candle. The Vikings added many Norse words: sky, egg, cake, skin, leg, window (wind eye), husband, fellow, skill, anger, flat, odd, ugly, get, give, take, raise, call, die, they, their, them. Celtic words also survived mainly in place and river names (Devon, Dover, Kent, Trent, Severn, Avon, Thames).
Many pairs of English and Norse words coexisted giving us two words with the same or slightly differing meanings. Examples below.

Norse English
anger wrath
nay no
fro from
raise rear
ill sick
bask bathe
skill craft
skin hide
dike ditch
skirt shirt
scatter shatter
skip shift


You can also find more info on wikipedia if you like (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Old_Norse#Relationship_to_English)

Very interesting reading the first link about the Norman aristocracy and their Saxon servants leading to the animals having Saxon names and the meats derived from them Norman names. Just shows the twists and turns of history .If Harolds forces hadn't been fighting Harald Hardrada at Stamford Bridge and had to rush south to Hastings to battle a second Norman invasion English would sound very different today.

"People claim" can not be trusted. "People" generally do not know. Give me a valid source and I believe you. Or actually, give me 20 examples, should not be hard if 1/6 comes fron danish (or old nordic).

We are all living in this world of many men that have done so much. We have many civs from Europe but Scandinavians are left out.
All bold words could be traced back to the Danish or Old Norse.
We = Danish: Vi, Icelandic: Við.
Are = Swedish: är, Danish, Icelandic: er.
all = Danish: alle, Icelandic: öll.
living = Icelandic: lifa.
in = Danish: ind, Icelandic: inn.
this = Danish: dis, Icelandic: þessi (thessi).
world = I might be wrong on this word. It might as well come from German: welt. Danish: verden. Icelandic: veröld.
of = Danish, Icelandic: af
many = Danish: mange
that = Danish: det
have = Danish: har, Icelandic: hafa
so = Danish: så, Icelandic: svo
from = Danish, Icelandic: fra
out = Danish: ud, Icelandic: út

That wasn't so hard. That must have convinced you.
And of course the weekdays come from Danish/Old Norse, all of them. Not only Tuesday, Wednesday, Thursday and Friday. The colors are all from Danish/Old Norse as well. 0-100 are also very similar in English and Icelandic (Old Norse) but they might have reached Iceland through Denmark who got it from somewhere else. Even though I believe the numbers are just bastards.

Yes, rings a bell, actually they where given promission to settle Normandy because they threated to burn Paris. Still same story as in England never the less, all Viking influence absorbed into the local population within a couple of generations (so the invation of England can not be seen as a product of Scandianvian/Viking influence).

Agreed. Just like if the Byzantines were attacking someone, it weren't the Romans who did it even though they formed the Byzantine empire. Just like Scandinavians formed Normandy it weren't them who attacked England, correct.

Changing towns name is not culture inpact unless you change the customs of the people living in the town (which they did not).

Not agreed. The Danish conquered the area and the names were reset by the Danes and they've remained like they are for more than 1000 years. That surely is culture impact.

Please, every country in the world have used mercenaries, just because scandianivan once where used in the Byzantine Empire for a short period does not mean that Scandinavia should be a Civ (especially not as even Byzantine is debated.

Mybe Switzerland should be in: Look up the "Guardia Svizzera Pontificia".

Of course, that's why I said it wasn't really valid. I was just showing you how far and wide the Scandinavians spread. :)

Viking male, plundered, conquered and left or stayed and took local wifes. The kids were raised by their english mothers in the english way. Hence, no cultural impact after a couple of generations.

Changing towns name is not culture impact unless you change the customs of the people living in the town (which they did not).

Yes, rings a bell, actually they were given promission to settle Normandy because they threated to burn Paris. Still same story as in England never the less, all Viking influence absorbed into the local population within a couple of generations (so the invation of England can not be seen as a product of Scandian