Change Vikings to Danes

Just read a really excellent post arguing that the Vikings should be renamed the Danes. It totally convinced me and I think the same should be done in RFC.

The article's key arguments:And my own pro-Dane argument:I think the case for renaming the Vikings the Danes is overwhelming. I would suggest that the Viking-replacement civ start with one settler in Denmark and one or two on the Scandinavian mainland. I hate the way that in RFC the centre of Scandinavian power, right into the modern age, is in the distant north-west.

----------------------------

THE VOTE

We're now holding a vote on this issue, in the hope of delivering a coherent statement of our opinions to our god Rhye

Voting instructions:

-----------------------------------

LATEST VOTING RESULTS

Current vote leaders: (last post checked: #126)

• Norse (7 of 14 votes)
• Copenhagen (11 of 14 votes) (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)

Individual votes:

Detailed results for civ-renaming vote

Detailed results for capital-relocation vote

I agree ! and the Romans should should be renamed the Italians.

Also they should there should be some real Danish/Norwegian/Swedish leaders.

I mean cnut really really should be in there. He was a very powerful leader and proved to be a right **** to the english.

I prefer Norsemen to either Vikings or Danes. The term Viking only became widely used from around the 1800s anyway, nobody called the people from Scandinavia "Vikings" until about this time.

blizzrd said:

I prefer Norsemen to either Vikings or Danes. The term Viking only became widely used from around the 1800s anyway, nobody called the people from Scandinavia "Vikings" until about this time.

Click to expand...

If you read the article, you will see why Norsemen is just as wrong.

The article also put forward some strong arguments against the terms "Scandinavians" and "Norsemen".

RobinHat said:

"Scandinavians"

The word 'Scandinavia' arose in the late Middle Ages. At this time (several hundred years AFTER the Viking Era), the largest university in the present Scandinavian area was the University of Lund... The scholars of Lund mapped out the area of Denmark, Norway and Sweden (due to the similar languages and cultures) and called the area 'Skaana Aua', meaning 'The Scanian Island' (Lund, of course, being situated in Scania)... So the term 'Scandinavian' did not arise until many years after the Viking Age. It was not even used in Scandinavia itself, as the term was a decadent, academic phrase used by high-and-mighty professors.


”Norsemen”

The term ‘Norsemen’ is a phrase that has existed since the Iron Age and is a word that was used mainly by English and French monks who were harassed by raiders from Norway and Denmark. The meaning is simply ‘men from the North’

...

So the term ‘Norsemen’ was not used by the people themselves, but was a term used by others. It was considered an ‘evil’ word. In a version of The Lord’s Prayer found in England, dating from the 9th Century, the line “Deliver us from evil” is actually phrased “Deliver us from the Norsemen”.

So using the term ‘Norsemen’ is as wrong as using the word ‘Barbarians’.

Click to expand...

I, myself a Dane, agree that the vikings are probably the most un-historical civ in Rhye's.

I am leaning towards:
a) either removing the "Vikings" all together because of low impact on history, or

b) calling them Norsemen(or just Norse), and let the dynamic names shift from Denmark to Kalmar Union to Sweden. If people like this I would be wiling to help out with the dynamic names.

I don't like just calling them Denmark, because it wouln't reflect the shift in power towards Sweden in the later periods.

The problem is, that Denmark and Sweden are a combined Civ in the game. They should really be two seperate Civs to begin with. Denmark was the dominant power in the Viking Age and Sweden was the dominant power in the 15th, 16th and 17th Centuries, but at no point AT ALL throughout history have the two nations been combined in one single nation.

And no, Kalmar Union does not count. This was not a single nation, but rather a mutual protection pact and economic union between Denmark/Norway and Sweden. The Swedes hated it and eventually left because it was effectively ruled from Copenhagen - which was unacceptable to the Swedes.

Having the two together in a joint 'Viking' civilization is simply lazy.

I agree to change the name after maybe 1200-1300 AD.

I'm not totally convinced that it should be namned Denmark instead of Sweden. Due to Sweden's larger georgaphical area, you can only fit one city in Denmark but several in Sweden.

I agree that the scandinavians center of power should be along the triangle Stockholm, Copenhagen, Oslo. It's unhistorical to have the most cities in the north as it's too cold there. The terrain on the map is too good there too.

For gameplay purposes having Copenhagen as capital, might not be the best as it's culture there competes heavily with German and Dutch culture and might even flip to germany.

You mentioned Lund in the article. Maybe that could be the capital and the settlers move north after that, only problem is that Lund square is occupied with pigs I think. Or everyone could start in Stockholm and first two settlers walk to Oslo and Lund. I think there is such a mod already.

Probably danes, swedes and norweigans cannot agree which name for the civilization. And you gave reasons against the name Scandinavia.

Maybe could use the name scandinavians call their area themselves: "Nordic" "Nordic people".
However that area includes Finland and Iceland, but those are often settled in the game.

I thought Sweden and Denmark was the same country 1520-1523. But sure it is only 3 years out of 1400 they are in the game.

RobinHat said:

The problem is, that Denmark and Sweden are a combined Civ in the game. They should really be two seperate Civs to begin with. Denmark was the dominant power in the Viking Age and Sweden was the dominant power in the 15th, 16th and 17th Centuries, but at no point AT ALL throughout history have the two nations been combined in one single nation.

And no, Kalmar Union does not count. This was not a single nation, but rather a mutual protection pact and economic union between Denmark/Norway and Sweden. The Swedes hated it and eventually left because it was effectively ruled from Copenhagen - which was unacceptable to the Swedes.

Having the two together in a joint 'Viking' civilization is simply lazy.

Click to expand...

There's only room for a certain amount of civs in the engine, so 2 norse civs in the game is a no-go, so it's either we come up with a common name, or we remove them altogether. I agree that the present name "Viking" is a bad one.

The sub-categories of names in the Dynamic name files can be discussed. There are many other categories like "kalmar union" among other civs; like greek league etc..

Heathcliff said:

Probably danes, swedes and norweigans cannot agree which name for the civilization. And you gave reasons against the name Scandinavia.

Click to expand...

Why not, I am danish and I just argued against using Denmark.

I am in favour of this change.

And why not just do it in a modmod. Then one could compile all these different small modmods if possible into an "alternative RFC" ;-) (and no go, do it ;-))

There's only room for a certain amount of civs in the engine,

Click to expand...

It can be increased, see all these Earth34's/48's.

While thinking that Scandinavian countries combined deserve RFC representation, I don't think that they do individually, so I think that the name "Nordic" is the best.

TDK said:

I, myself a Dane, agree that the vikings are probably the most un-historical civ in Rhye's. I am leaning towards:

a) calling them Norsemen(or just Norse), and let the dynamic names shift from Denmark to Kalmar Union to Sweden. If people like this I would be wiling to help out with the dynamic names. or

Click to expand...

I have suggested this idea in the Italy thread and think this would benefit several civilizations the dynamic naming system could be linked to the calendar or the number of respawns.

TDK said:

b) either removing the "Vikings" all together because of low impact on history, .

Click to expand...

After thinking about it for a while this might actually make the most sense, although I'd be sad to the "vikings" go. To stop the german/english expanding too much into this region the simple answer would be made the conditions there worse ie add more peaks/tundra.

For historical accuracy there should of course be two civs: Denmark and Sweden. But that would be a bad idea in RFC of course: no room for more civs and there's other more important civs than Sweden anyway.

So the question is whether a historically inappropriate, unflavorsome amalgamation (Vikings/Norsemen/Scandinavians) is better than a historically accurate, flavorsome term like the Danes, even though it includes Sweden.

I would much prefer Danes - I would just imagine that Sweden falls under Danish influence every RFC game. If people can tolerate Scotland+England being called England, Germany+Austria (and Poland and others?) being called Germany, Netherlands+Belgium being called the Netherlands, Cambodia+entirity of South-East Asia being the "Khmer" and many similar situations, I don't see why Denmark for Denmark+Sweden should be so hard to swallow. Or would it be better to have the "Central-Northern European civ" and the "South-East Asian" civ?

It's actually quite tricky, because the history of rivalry beween the two nations is such that throwing them together in one civ under any name would p*ss someone off...

I know that the Swedes would be insulted if they were thrown into a 'Danish' civ, as well as I know any Dane would be insulted to be thrown into a 'Swedish' civ.

Ideally, the only possible solutions I see are the following:

1) Making two seperate Civs: The Danish Civilization and the Swedish Civilization (Of course, this presents the problem of Northern Europe being even more crowded than it already is).

2) Making one Civ: The Danish Civ (However, this would present a historical hole in the 15th-16th Centuries, and would effectively mean that Sweden never existed).

3) Making one Civ: The Swedish Civ (Again, this would effectively mean that the world's oldest kingdom, Denmark, never existed - and that the Viking power was based in Sweden, which is completely wrong).

4) Leaving things as they are, and calling it the 'Viking', 'Norse' or 'Scandinavian' Civ (which, as I believe we all now are aware, all are completely stupid and historically wrong names).


It is very tricky, and definitely up for discussion.

However, whatever happens, it is definitely time that Ragnar Lodbrok is thrown in the trash, as there is not even any solid historical proof that he even existed.
And for the love of all that is holy... GET RID OF THOSE HORNS ON THE HELMET!!!

lumpthing said:

I would much prefer Danes - I would just imagine that Sweden falls under Danish influence every RFC game. If people can tolerate Scotland+England being called England, Germany+Austria (and Poland and others?) being called Germany, Netherlands+Belgium being called the Netherlands, Cambodia+entirity of South-East Asia being the "Khmer" and many similar situations, I don't see why Denmark for Denmark+Sweden should be so hard to swallow. Or would it be better to have the "Central-Northern European civ" and the "South-East Asian" civ?

Click to expand...

This is why linking the dynamic naming system to dates would be a great idea.

Although in fairness I think for some instance Rhye is trying to suggest the CIV collapsed in Read life.

For instance do the khmer just represent the khmer of all south east asia.
In real life the Khmer were collapsed by the Thai in 1431. If you manage to get the khmer to survie beyound 1431 then are you doing better than the real khmer empire ?

Im not sure what this is meant to represent.

RobinHat said:

It's actually quite tricky, because the history of rivalry beween the two nations is such that throwing them together in one civ under any name would p*ss someone off...

I know that the Swedes would be insulted if they were thrown into a 'Danish' civ, as well as I know any Dane would be insulted to be thrown into a 'Swedish' civ.

Click to expand...

Not if we find a common name like Viking or Norsemen. The rivalry between the nations could not have started before the nation-states appeared, which was early 19th century. Of course before that there was power-struggles between powerful familis and interests, but not between two nations as such.
I think in game terms, and taking into account the starting year, I would say it's one civilization.

RobinHat said:

Leaving things as they are, and calling it the 'Viking', 'Norse' or 'Scandinavian' Civ (which, as I believe we all now are aware, all are completely stupid and historically wrong names).

Click to expand...

I'm not so sure, after all, isn't it normal for people to just call themselves "we" or just name themselves after close social relations like tribes or families?
I mean how many names of civs in this game is really just the colonial names by european powers?

If people on the recieving end called them Norse or Norsemen from the Iron Age on, that is a good enough expression for me.

RobinHat said:

However, whatever happens, it is definitely time that Ragnar Lodbrok is thrown in the trash, as there is not even any solid historical proof that he even existed.
And for the love of all that is holy... GET RID OF THOSE HORNS ON THE HELMET!!!

Click to expand...

Yes!

Yeah, swap the Ragnar leaderhead with Harald, who is somewhere in the database.

I hope you don't mean the Harald Harderaade leaderhead with that god-awful wolfskin on his head... That is the single most inaccurate leaderhead in the entire Civ community.

Ha. Yes.

On a more serious note, RFC Europe uses Gustaf II Adolf, and I'm sure there is a Danish leader somewhere.