Change Vikings to Danes

[RobinHat]

If the Danes should be a civ, these are the leaders I can think of:

Knud (Canute): Imperialistic, Spiritual (Canute was a VERY religious Christian) Favorite civic: Vassalage

Valdemar: Philosophical, Expansive, Favorite civic: Nationhood

Margrethe I: Protective, Organized, Favorite civic: Hereditary Rule

 

[merijn_v1]

If the Danes should be a civ, these are the leaders I can think of:

Knud (Canute): Imperialistic, Spiritual (Canute was a VERY religious Christian) Favorite civic: Vassalage

Valdemar: Philosophical, Expansive, Favorite civic: Nationhood

Margrethe I: Protective, Organized, Favorite civic: Hereditary Rule

These aren't important because in RFC we have UP and the trait are useless.

 

[RobinHat]

Sorry, I was just thinking out loud about Danish leaders in general... None the less, these would be the leaders that would be needed for a Danish Civ.

 

[blizzrd]

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

I have read the article and I fail to see why Norse is incorrect. You contend that because there is no evidence that the Norse called themselves Norsemen, the name is not appropriate. I contend that because Norse was a term that was widely used by their contemporaries, it is appropriate. I also contend that because the term Viking was not used by either the Norse or their contemporaries, it is therefore inappropriate.

Another example of a similar situation is China and the various tribes of Mongols. The Chinese called them Mongols. The tribes called themselves various names (Xianbei, Shiwei, etc.) but never Mongols. Because the Mongols didn't write their own history though, we widely accept the name given by their contemporaries in China.

The situation with Norse and the Franks/Saxons/etc is in fact very similar.

 

[Heathcliff]

I suggest one of these:

Christian II http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christian_II_of_Denmark

Gustav II Adolf http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gustav_II_Adolf

Charles XII http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Karl_XII

Personally I think Charles XII because he was the first who made an unsuccessful attempts to attack Russia that later France and Germany twice tried. But his army walked all the way down to Turkey. So I belive he was the most important in a historical context of what happened 100 years later with Napoleon and 200 years later with Germany.

 

[blizzrd]

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 disagree that combining Denmark and Sweden is a problem at all. England is a combination of England and Scotland (given that Inverness flips at spawn to England). The various islamic Caliphates operated somewhat separately but are considered in RFC to be the single civ "Arabia".

The argument that Denmark and Sweden were never combined into a single nation is moot, because nationhood didn't exist as a concept at the time in consideration for application of the "Viking" civ in RFC. Take the Arabia parallel for instance, no single islamic "nation" ever controlled from Spain to Persia either, but in RFC there is just a single civ to represent this.

There is therefore no difference in my opinion and no problem about combining Denmark and Sweden to form the Norse (Viking) for the purpose of gameplay in RFC.

 

[Heathcliff]

From wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Norsemen

"The meaning of Norseman was "people from the North" and was applied primarily to Nordic people originating from southern and central Scandinavia."

This pharagraph say everything we need to know!

Civilization name: Nordic
Citizen name: Norsemen
Scandinavia: The georgaphical name for the Sweden/Norway peninsula.

 

[blizzrd]

Scandinavia: The georgaphical name for the Sweden/Norway peninsula.

The geographical region of Scandinavia is also widely accepted to include Denmark and Finland. Still debateable, but nonetheless generally accepted.

 

[Heathcliff]

It might be even better to call it:

Civilization name: Nordic
Citizen name: Northmen

As Norsemen points at Viking period only.

 

[RobinHat]

The geographical region of Scandinavia is also widely accepted to include Denmark and Finland. Still debateable, but nonetheless generally accepted.

Wrong. Scandinavia is Denmark, Norway and Sweden. Always has been those three, and Finland is not part of Scandinavia (and is not widely accepted as being it either).

 

[blizzrd]

No it is not wrong, although it is debatable. Your grasp of the difference between these is clearly poor.

Scandinavia has no official definition and is only a construct. Whether it includes Iceland is also debatable. Here are a whole bunch of images showing Finland as part of Scandinavia:

Spoiler :

Spoiler :

Spoiler :

Spoiler :

Spoiler :

Spoiler :

Spoiler :

Spoiler :

Spoiler :

Spoiler :

Spoiler :

Spoiler :

Spoiler :

Spoiler :

Spoiler :

Spoiler :

Spoiler :

 

[Panopticon]

This often causes confusion. In the English language, there is no central authority telling us what a word means and what it does not mean. Words mean what we choose them to mean in general use. There is no Académie anglaise that bans us from using words in a certain way. In general use in my country, Scandinavia usually but not always refers to Denmark, Norway, Sweden and Iceland. In other countries, it will be different. English is a very democratic language; in the end, we decide what our words mean.

 

[Mekajiki]

Yessssssssssss.

 

[lumpthing]

So because non-British people frequently use the term 'England' to refer to the whole of UK Scotland really is actually a region of England? I don't think so. Also I wouldn't be surprised if most British people consider 'Europe' to end at Calais. Would that mean that Britain is not in Europe? Is a dolphin a fish because most people think it is?

I think these examples demonstrate that there is a value to the notion of correctness in classification systems, regardless of popular misconceptions.

 

[AnotherPacifist]

I was taught that Finland was part of Scandinavia, although that could have very well been a fluke of history (had Russia kept its hold on Finland, for example).

 

[dragodon64]

I think Danish should be fine because, as several people have pointed out, Scotland in England and all of SE Asia in Khmer are fine. Although I am surprised that no one has brought up the fact the civ that goes by the exonym of India provides an extraordinary example for similar cultures being lumped together as a homogeneous group.

 

[blizzrd]

So because non-British people frequently use the term 'England' to refer to the whole of UK Scotland really is actually a region of England? I don't think so.

I think that there is a value to the notion of correctness in classification systems, regardless of popular misconceptions.

The area of Scotland is defined in law, as per the jurisdiction of the Scottish Parliament. People can refer to Scotland as part of England if they like, although they would be incorrect to do so.

Where is Scandinavia defined though? Which classification system defines Scandinavia? The answer of course is that there isn't one, which is precisely where your point of contention breaks down.

 

[RobinHat]

No it is not wrong, although it is debatable. Your grasp of the difference between these is clearly poor.

Scandinavia has no official definition and is only a construct. Whether it includes Iceland is also debatable. Here are a whole bunch of images showing Finland as part of Scandinavia:

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.

I won't waste time googling pictures, as the internet (and especially Wikipedia) is unreliable anyway.

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

Spoiler :

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.

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.

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.

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

It is a Nordic country, not a Scandinavian one.

 

[TDK]

Scandinavia can be used as a geographical term that can mean Scandinavian Peninsula.

As a political term, it is Denmark, Norway and Sweden, in no specific order.

I don't think it's possible to find a real lexicon that doesn't agree with these uses.

 

[The Capo]

I always thought Scandinavia was just Norway, Sweden and Denmark.