Change Vikings to Danes

RobinHat said:

No mate, you are wrong. I don't care that you've googled a lot of pictures off some websites that think Finland is part of Scandinavia, it IS a definable area and Finland is NOT a part of it.

Click to expand...

Defined where exactly? It isn't, which is entirely my point and why you cannot ever prove to me that Finland isn't part of Scandinavia.

Here is a nice example though: A poster from the 19th Century illustrating 'Scandinavianism'. Do you see a Finnish flag anywhere?

Spoiler :

Click to expand...

Unlike yourself, I am prepared to acknowledge that there are other interpretations of the term Scandinavia than the one which I use. As I have said already, the definition is open to debate and you make a good point above. Now you do realise that you will need to find one more picture which doesn't have Finland than I already posted which do show Finland to win this argument?

I bet you can't find a picture as funny as this one though



On the subject of flags however, another reason to potentially group Finland and also Iceland with Norway, Denmark and Sweden is the likeness between their flags. This image is from the Scandinavian Heritage Society website:

It is important to note, however, that Finland might ONCE have been considered a part of Scandinavia as it was under Swedish rule for many years. The same is true for Iceland which was under Danish rule. But these two countries are now completely independent and are therefore no longer part of Scandinavia.

Click to expand...

Your premise here is self-reliant and thus self-defeating. You argue that because Finland and Iceland are no longer part of Sweden and Denmark respectively, and also because Sweden, Denmark and Norway form Scandinavia, that therefore Finland and Iceland are no longer part of Scandinavia. This proves absolutely nothing about why Finland should not be considered part of Scandinavia though.

A similar (although not identical) example one could use, is Ireland. Ireland WAS considered part of the United Kingdom, but since its independence is no longer considered as such.

Click to expand...

Indeed. But the area of the United Kingdom is defined in international law and border treaty agreements. Scandinavia is not.

I hate to be a stubborn sour grape here, but I am a Dane, living in Denmark, and I know what I'm talking about.

Click to expand...

You certainly are entitled to your opinion, which has nothing to do with sour grapes by the way (you mixed your metaphor here perhaps?), but you have not cited any reason why Scandinavia cannot be considered to include Finland. Other than your picture with the flags (or rather lack of Finnish Flag). You'll need about a dozen more pictures to win.

Finland may have been considered part of Scandinavia ONCE, but only due to its being under Swedish rule.

Click to expand...

It's like you're just teasing, seemingly so close to potentially acknowledging that there might be another acceptable point of view which considers Finland to be a part of Scandinavia.

It is a Nordic country, not a Scandinavian one.

Click to expand...

And then you go and stick your head firmly back in the snow again.

Scandinavia = Denmark, Norway, Sweden

Nordic Countries = Denmark, Norway, Sweden, Finland, Iceland

Double post... sorry...

blizzrd said:

Defined where exactly? It isn't, which is entirely my point and why you cannot ever prove to me that Finland isn't part of Scandinavia.

Click to expand...

You want me to prove a negative. But give me time, and I'll get back to you with some documentation. A dozen googled pictures is not proof of anything.

Unlike yourself, I am prepared to acknowledge that there are other interpretations of the term Scandinavia than the one which I use. As I have said already, the definition is open to debate and you make a good point above.

Click to expand...

But a term like Scandinavia is not something that's up for interpretation. There is a correct meaning and a false meaning. One that we will have cleared up soon.

Now you do realise that you will need to find one more picture which doesn't have Finland than I already posted which do show Finland to win this argument?

Click to expand...

Isn't that a bit of a 'who can shout the loudest' competition?

I bet you can't find a picture as funny as this one though

Click to expand...

Hehe, well no I probably can't...

Your premise here is self-reliant and thus self-defeating. You argue that because Finland and Iceland are no longer part of Sweden and Denmark respectively, and also because Sweden, Denmark and Norway form Scandinavia, that therefore Finland and Iceland are no longer part of Scandinavia. This proves absolutely nothing about why Finland should not be considered part of Scandinavia though.

Click to expand...

True, but then again, your only proof is a bunch of pictures. Give me some accurate, written evidence to support your claim. I don't know where those pictures come from. Wikipedia, for example, is written mostly by people who have no idea what they are talking about - and many people outside Europe think Denmark is the capital of Holland, and Sweden is the capital of the great nation of IKEA...

Indeed. But the area of the United Kingdom is defined in international law and border treaty agreements. Scandinavia is not.

Click to expand...

True, which is also why I stressed that the situation was simliar, not identical.

It's like you're so teasing, seemingly so close to potentially acknowledging that there might be another acceptable point of view which considers Finland to be a part of Scandinavia.

Click to expand...

That was not my intention.

I'll find solid proof for you... Give me a few days.

RobinHat said:

True, but then again, your only proof is a bunch of pictures. Give me some accurate, written evidence to support your claim.

Click to expand...

You have missed my point I'm afraid, although I'm glad to see you're smiling as you write.

My point is that I can no more prove definitively that Finland is a part of Scandinavia than you can prove that it isn't. The term Scandinavia is open to subjective interpretation, unlike the United Kingdom for instance.

I don't know where those pictures come from. Wikipedia, for example, is written mostly by people who have no idea what they are talking about - and many people outside Europe think Denmark is the capital of Holland, and Sweden is the capital of the great nation of IKEA...

Click to expand...

I just googled Scandinavia and pulled the first dozen or so pictures that I liked. There were pictures which didn't show Finland too of course. Which just further supports my position that Scandinavia is not clearly defined.

Your argument is interesting, but I'm starting to wonder what the hell it has to do with the OP's proposal?

I do agree that:
- Vikings is not an appropriate name for the civ at least after the medieval era.
- One civ could represent both Denmark and Sweden at once

We'd still have to decide which name we should have them switch to. I'd say Sweden, since the "Viking" civ almost always stays in the Scandinavian peninsula. If we decide to give the spawning civ a settler at Copenhagen (I think we should, seeing Denmark in Dutch hands looks very unrealistic), an argument could be made for Denmark.

Why do mod-specific requests always degenerate into arguments about cultural terms? Nordic countries would be fine, but it's a little bland for a name. Scandinavia would be better, if not for the fact that Finland was a bone of contention between Swedish and Russian ambitions. For more flavor why don't we use Fennoscandia (excluding Denmark, Iceland and Greenland but including Finland), since the AI rarely if ever founds cities in Denmark, and only sometimes in Iceland.

Finland did not used to be considered part of Western Europe, but it now is. Explain that.

AnotherPacifist said:

Finland did not use to be considered part of Western Europe, but it now is. Explain that.

Click to expand...

Well, during the Cold War, democratic countries were called part of Wester Europe (including Finland and Greece). But since the fall of communism I guess you could call Finland part of Eastern Europe if you wanted to.

What I meant was Finland was neutral in the Cold War, but has since liberalized its economy despite having one of the most comprehensive welfare states. (In fact I read that the president then had a monopoly on USSR-Finland relations and maintained his popularity doing so)
With a language closer to Estonian and a long history of domination by the Russians, it was conceivable that the Whites could have lost to the Reds during the Finnish Civil War and just like Latvia, Estonia and the other Eastern bloc countries, Finland could have easily been classified nowadays as an Eastern Europe country.
In any case, with Finland usually colonized by both the Vikings and the Russians, it's immaterial whether we use the term Scandic or Nordic in terms of the mod.

I think this argument isn't going to settle soon, and it's highly unlikely one side is going to convince the other.
So how about a fair vote and whoever mods this will choose the name which was voted on the most.
(options being denmark, sweden, norse\nordic, scandinavian, viking.

I'm in favour of a vote, but I think the vote should have preferences and we should also vote on where the Viking/Dane/Scandinavian/Norse capital should be.

So here are my votes:

What should the Viking civ be called?
1st choice: Danes
2nd choice: Scandinavians
3rd choice: Norse
4th choice: Vikings

Where should the Viking capital be?
1st choice: Copenhagen, but with additional settlers on southern Scandinavian peninsula (maybe appearing a turn later (same time as workers) to ensure they don't build a capital there)
2nd choice: Stockholm
3rd choice: Oslo

If other people vote I will keep a tally in the OP (taking into account the preference system – you'll see)

lumpthing said:

Where should the Viking capital be?
1st choice: Copenhagen, but with additional settlers on southern Scandinavian peninsula (maybe appearing a turn later (same time as workers) to ensure they don't build a capital there)

Click to expand...

This seems good, best in my opinion.
EDIT: Anything to stop the AI from founding its capital on the current spawn tile, which is just a useless location for a city.


As previously, I prefer Norse.
EDIT: Scandinavians (distant) 2nd preference.

Do you have 2nd and 3rd choices? If 'Norse' doesn't make it to the top two, your vote won't be counted. I'm taking this vote seriously

OK here's my votes:
Scandinavian for name of the civ.
after that Denmark which by the 15th century changes dynamically to Sweden.
If that doesn't work (only solid names which doesn't change) then Denmark and after that Sweden (the UB, UU, UP and UHV all fit Denmark more than Sweden).
Capital should definetly be Copenhagen, with two settlers in Stockholm and Oslo 1 turn after spawn as suggested.
2nd choice Stockholm 3rd Oslo (But please a settler on Copenhagen!!!).

Danes for name
Copenhagen 1st choice for capital
Oslo 2nd choice for capital

Is it possible to have all the settlers boarded onto galleys in the junction of Danmark, Norge and Sverige? Then the AI would randomly pick one of the nearby tiles, I think, leading to potential captial sites in all three countries.

If it is possible, then that is my vote for starting location.

I vote for the Danes (and the Swedes if another civ is added) with Cnut as the leaderhead since he was the first truly great king of Denmark.

Yes the leaderhead should also change, but I think maybe first we should see which name and capital city are chosen and then it will be easier for us to decide on a good leader to represent the new civ.

Scandinavia is Denmark, Sweden and Norway. Full stop.

Allan79 said:

Scandinavia is Denmark, Sweden and Norway. Full stop.

Click to expand...

Where does this definition exist? I don't wish to just take your word for it, although you are always entitled to your opinion. But that's all your statement is, an opinion - not a fact.

What should the Viking civ be called?
1st choice: Danes
2nd choice: Scandinavians
3rd choice: Vikings
4th choice: Norse

Where should the Viking capital be?
1st choice: Copenhagen, but with additional settlers on southern Scandinavian peninsula (maybe appearing a turn later (same time as workers) to ensure they don't build a capital there)
2nd choice: Oslo
3rd choice: Trondheim

The Swedes should have their own seperate Civ. Also, the capital should not be named 'Copenhagen' as this was never the capital until the 1600s. A more correct capital of the 'Viking' Civ should be Trelleborg which should be located in Skåne (the bottom tip of present day Sweden).