Choosing Harald Bluetooth as a Danish leader=********

[Oatse]

lol that dudes name is knut

 

[BlakeTheDrake]

He's conventionally called Canute in England. He's not, sadly, a figure in the popular consciousness and probably only a name to most less historically-literate people, best-known for a legend that he commanded the sea to turn back (which presents him as somewhat foolish, if he's stereotyped at all, I suppose)

Ah yes, that's a good details to keep in mind for anyone who has the misconception of Canute as a rampaging viking warlord... that famous 'Commanding the tides to turn back' thing was actually a demonstration of religious piety. He specifically did it to remind his courtiers that no king could command the forces of nature, and that God is far greater than any mortal king. If God commands the tide to roll in, and a king commands it to turn back, which will the tide to? Demonstrably, it will continue unimpeded...

In other words, the part of his reign that most sticks in popular consciousness was part of his religious piousness, as far removed from the 'Asatro' practiced by his ancestors as you can get. By all means, keep him outta the game - there's more than enough fanatical Christians in it as is. (Though I'm sure he and Isabella would get along SWIMMINGLY...)

I don't know why great big rocks inscribed with runes are necessarily "hard evidence" (other than in the most literal sense) compared to the mythology of oral tradition.

While, on a philosophical level, I agree with the rest of what you said, this part I feel I must address... the reason why a runestone constitutes hard evidence is that making a full-sized Runestone took a LOT of time, work, and skilled labor. Intricately carved symbols in solid granite isn't the same thing as random graffiti. So when there's a great big stone, still standing and entirely legible after over a thousand years, saying "I ruled this place", you know he probably wasn't just blowing steam.

Also, more archeologically, there's the simple fact that contemporary sources have much greater validity than later records. Ask any historian - any record set down a hundred years or more after the fact will be automatically regarded with caution, but a contemporary record - no matter how primitive - will be considered as solid evidence as long as it dovetails with archeological findings. Which, in this case, it does. While the details of Gorm the Old's reign, and the exact extent of his kingdom, may be lost to the mists of time, we know that he existed, and reigned, as much as we can know ANYTHING of events that transpired before we were born.

 

[78stonewobble]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=61a0qHFcQE4

As good an explanation as any others.

 

[havuoksa]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=61a0qHFcQE4

As good an explanation as any others.

THAT DOES IT. Say.no.more.

 

[Louis XXIV]

He's conventionally called Canute in England. He's not, sadly, a figure in the popular consciousness and probably only a name to most less historically-literate people, best-known for a legend that he commanded the sea to turn back (which presents him as somewhat foolish, if he's stereotyped at all, I suppose).

Yeah, the commanding the sea legend is what I was thinking of. The wikipedia page uses Cnut, for what it's worth.

 

[Himmurabi]

I've always seen it written 'Canute' in the U.S.

 

[GThreepwood]

Tsch. I really can't see why you guys pick Knud/Knut/Canute/whatever over Harald.
I mean seriously! How can you be like that to the guy who invented ''Bluetooth'' which you use every day to send pictures and stuff. Wow!

He was so dude. He used one hand to thrust his sword , and the other to send images by Bluetooth using his prehistoric Nokia.

 

[Koiranputki]

Ah yes, that's a good details to keep in mind for anyone who has the misconception of Canute as a rampaging viking warlord... that famous 'Commanding the tides to turn back' thing was actually a demonstration of religious piety. He specifically did it to remind his courtiers that no king could command the forces of nature, and that God is far greater than any mortal king. If God commands the tide to roll in, and a king commands it to turn back, which will the tide to? Demonstrably, it will continue unimpeded...

In other words, the part of his reign that most sticks in popular consciousness was part of his religious piousness, as far removed from the 'Asatro' practiced by his ancestors as you can get. By all means, keep him outta the game - there's more than enough fanatical Christians in it as is. (Though I'm sure he and Isabella would get along SWIMMINGLY...)



While, on a philosophical level, I agree with the rest of what you said, this part I feel I must address... the reason why a runestone constitutes hard evidence is that making a full-sized Runestone took a LOT of time, work, and skilled labor. Intricately carved symbols in solid granite isn't the same thing as random graffiti. So when there's a great big stone, still standing and entirely legible after over a thousand years, saying "I ruled this place", you know he probably wasn't just blowing steam.

Also, more archeologically, there's the simple fact that contemporary sources have much greater validity than later records. Ask any historian - any record set down a hundred years or more after the fact will be automatically regarded with caution, but a contemporary record - no matter how primitive - will be considered as solid evidence as long as it dovetails with archeological findings. Which, in this case, it does. While the details of Gorm the Old's reign, and the exact extent of his kingdom, may be lost to the mists of time, we know that he existed, and reigned, as much as we can know ANYTHING of events that transpired before we were born.

Nicely explained...and sad to think that Canute is being forgotten in the modern era....

Unco-operative bodies of water seem to have been a bit of a bugbear for ancient conquerors....e.g., Exodus and the Pharaoh's armies... And I seem to remember some ancient Byzantine emperor in Constantinople flogging the Bosphorus for not being more co-operative...Or, was it one of the Sultans leading up to Constantinople's fall...???...

Ahhh...here it is...according to legend, it was none other than the great Xerxes....after a storm destroyed his pontoon bridges, he had the builders beheaded and the Bosphorus itself, given three hundred lashes and branded with red-hot irons....

 

[BlakeTheDrake]

Ahhh...here it is...according to legend, it was none other than the great Xerxes....after a storm destroyed his pontoon bridges, he had the builders beheaded and the Bosphorus itself, given three hundred lashes and branded with red-hot irons....

Hah... that's pretty hilarious. And a good example of how some of those old 'god-kings' literally thought that the forces of nature should bow before them. (Hence why Knud's show of attempting to command the tides was actually a fairly powerful gesture back then.) Shame Xerxes isn't available as a leader of Persia. Actually, I don't think he ever HAS been, has he? That's kind of weird.

 

[Ravellion]

Hah... that's pretty hilarious. And a good example of how some of those old 'god-kings' literally thought that the forces of nature should bow before them. (Hence why Knud's show of attempting to command the tides was actually a fairly powerful gesture back then.) Shame Xerxes isn't available as a leader of Persia. Actually, I don't think he ever HAS been, has he? That's kind of weird.

I think he was in Civ 3. Civ 3 also gave us Joan of Arc for France though, so Civ 3's record is rather spotty.

 

[Koiranputki]

And I've muddled up the legend a bit...it was actually the Dardenelles he had flogged.... Of course, as with the "sane" Roman emperors, these guys didn't really think they were gods...they just wanted the populace to think that for obvious reasons. And I think Xerxes was sending a message to his "human" subjects...this is what will happened to you if you screw up....

But I think it's a "toss-up" whether to use Darius or Xerxes in the Civ series...they were both powerful and impressive historic figures....

 

[BlakeTheDrake]

Of course, if they included Xerxes as the Persian civ-leader, they'd almost HAVE to include King Leonidas of SPARTAAAAAA!

...not that that'd necessarily be a bad thing. >_> There's nothing wrong with Alexander, but when it gets right down to it, he's a Macedonian who just CONQUERED Greece and thought the place was so great, he decided to spread its culture across the world.

 

[Flying Mathias]

The leader choices in V are fine, the only one I'd like to see changed would be Elizabeth to Churchill, but Elizabeth if fine too, and I understand why she's the leader.

 

[chazzycat]

danes encompass norway and sweden encompasses finland. one viking civ and one more modern scandivanian civ. seems pretty reasonable to me. norwegians & finns may not like it, maybe they will be switched in the next version, but honestly its not that big of a deal. 4 Scandinavian civs would be too many.

 

[Option]

I don't think that any of the leader choices in Civ V are bad at all. All of the choices make sense to me, except maybe Wu Zetian, but even she is reasonable. Not minding any of the other female additions, really.

When selecting civilizations for a game that is basically giving you the entire world history, from pre-historic era to modern times, compacted into a few hours of gameplay, you have to select countries that do the same, including all of the different eras. Of course, there are many obvious choices, like for instance China or France, but beyond them, who are you going to choose?

Getting to the "issue" of the Nordic countries in particular, something to keep in mind:
When they decided to include the Vikings as a civilization, but tie it to a specific nation, the only really noteworthy countries that come to mind are Norway and Denmark - Swedish vikings existed but never where as dominant as the other 2 (additionally, there might already have been planning for the expansion going on). However, in the grand scheme of things, Denmark simply had more impact in history than Norway, which was part of Denmark for a long time.

Similarly, Finland was part of Sweden for a long time. It never was called Sweden-Finland as our Finnish OP here is imposing, but only Sweden. No offense to him, or any other Finns, of course. Atop of that, the Finns never had as much of a historical impact than Sweden, Denmark, or even Norway. Additionally, I do not think that the developers intend to insult Finns by selecting Finnish town names for Sweden - but there is no way in denying that Finland was a part of Sweden, and the developers actually acknowledge that fact.

You have to see beyond your national pride - Finland is not a "civilization" in the game's depiction, it is a culture and nation. It never was a major player in any time of the world. It wasn't even independent until the early 20th century. Proposing Finland as own civilization is akin to selecting Albania, Navarre, or Cuba. Countries that have had a local history, that are (or were) nations, cultures, but in no way do they have enough impact on global history to be actual "civilizations" in this game.

Moving on. What I think also heavily influenced the choices for the G&K expansion are the scenarios, something that has been prevalent and important to all of the DLC expansions that have been released since the very first actual DLC addition.
Sweden, Austria, Huns, all those choices seem quite arguable from a general standpoint, but they make quite sense when you look at the 2 historical scenarios, in which all of them were major players (one way or another).

In any case, using demeaning language such as ******** for a matter so trivial such as national pride in a video game, goes, in my opinion, generally too far.

 

[Louis XXIV]

Ah yes, that's a good details to keep in mind for anyone who has the misconception of Canute as a rampaging viking warlord... that famous 'Commanding the tides to turn back' thing was actually a demonstration of religious piety. He specifically did it to remind his courtiers that no king could command the forces of nature, and that God is far greater than any mortal king. If God commands the tide to roll in, and a king commands it to turn back, which will the tide to? Demonstrably, it will continue unimpeded...

I meant to post this earlier. It's as good an explanation as any:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KeQVq7nqEK0

 

[PhilBowles]

I don't think that any of the leader choices in Civ V are bad at all. All of the choices make sense to me, except maybe Wu Zetian, but even she is reasonable. Not minding any of the other female additions, really.

Well, Dido and Ramkhamhaeng are mythical figures, but that's still better than "Shakala" from Civ II... Graphically, Ramkhamhaeng is a bit too obviously based on Thaksin Shinawatra to seem plausible to anyone familiar with recent Thai current affairs (I was in Thailand just before and just after the coup that deposed him, so I'm familiar with the ex-PM's appearance).

Askia is an obvious leader choice for the Songhai, but I'm equivocal about the extent to which his ability reflects him (and his graphic, while great, certainly doesn't). On the face of it, it's a fairly poor fit since it's a warmongery ability to look at - in practice it works better since the Songhai are among the most powerful economic civs, but I'm still unconvinced it's the best way to represent Songhai economic success. They flourished by opening trade with Europe, not through conquest.

Getting to the "issue" of the Nordic countries in particular, something to keep in mind:
When they decided to include the Vikings as a civilization, but tie it to a specific nation, the only really noteworthy countries that come to mind are Norway and Denmark - Swedish vikings existed but never where as dominant as the other 2 (additionally, there might already have been planning for the expansion going on). However, in the grand scheme of things, Denmark simply had more impact in history than Norway, which was part of Denmark for a long time.

And personally I think it was a very good decision, and while I've no idea (if anyone does) of the extent to which Harald's portrayal is realistic, I find him one of the most characterful leaders in the game, with a personality, graphic, text and accent that all fit together perfectly. The game is not short of fairly bland "able administrator" types (Washington, I'm looking at you), and just on those grounds I'd rather have a Viking Denmark than one led by Canute.

Moving on. What I think also heavily influenced the choices for the G&K expansion are the scenarios, something that has been prevalent and important to all of the DLC expansions that have been released since the very first actual DLC addition.
Sweden, Austria, Huns, all those choices seem quite arguable from a general standpoint, but they make quite sense when you look at the 2 historical scenarios, in which all of them were major players (one way or another).

Came across an alternate history novel the other day that posited Gustavus Adolphus being victorious in the Thirty Years War and forming "The United States of Europe".

Probably getting a large bonus to Great People generation through DoFs in the process.

I meant to post this earlier. It's as good an explanation as any:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KeQVq7nqEK0

I like that - and yes, I think it was the version with the courtiers I'd always heard now that you (or David Mitchell) mention it.

 

[Option]

Well, Dido and Ramkhamhaeng are mythical figures, but that's still better than "Shakala" from Civ II... Graphically, Ramkhamhaeng is a bit too obviously based on Thaksin Shinawatra to seem plausible to anyone familiar with recent Thai current affairs (I was in Thailand just before and just after the coup that deposed him, so I'm familiar with the ex-PM's appearance).

Well, I prefer Dido over Hannibal, to be honest. And as for Ramkhamhaeng, Thailand is literally the only civilization in this game where I'm not very familiar with the history to judge it. I borrowed this book about it from a friend a few years ago, maybe I should finally read it.

Askia is an obvious leader choice for the Songhai, but I'm equivocal about the extent to which his ability reflects him (and his graphic, while great, certainly doesn't). On the face of it, it's a fairly poor fit since it's a warmongery ability to look at - in practice it works better since the Songhai are among the most powerful economic civs, but I'm still unconvinced it's the best way to represent Songhai economic success. They flourished by opening trade with Europe, not through conquest.

Oh, I absolutely agree with this sentiment. I think the developers were trying to shoot for the Songhai empire that actually took over Mali, but I think that for that, they should have selected Sunni Ali as leader, instead of the administrative Askia. He did do military expansion, although he definitely shouldn't be portrayed as a warmongerer, especially not with burning Djenne in the background - that should be Sunni Ali.

And personally I think it was a very good decision, and while I've no idea (if anyone does) of the extent to which Harald's portrayal is realistic, I find him one of the most characterful leaders in the game, with a personality, graphic, text and accent that all fit together perfectly. The game is not short of fairly bland "able administrator" types (Washington, I'm looking at you), and just on those grounds I'd rather have a Viking Denmark than one led by Canute.

I think he's a good portrayal for the general medieval warrior king. I really like Harald's portrayal in this game. And I think that for representing the Vikings, he's definitely one of the better choices as leader.

 

[Civciv5]

Well, Dido and Ramkhamhaeng are mythical figures

How dare you!
Ramkhamhaeng is a 100% real person!

 

[PhilBowles]

Well, I prefer Dido over Hannibal, to be honest.

I'm sure Carthage had actual rulers who weren't either mythical (Dido) or, indeed, not rulers (Hannibal).

And as for Ramkhamhaeng, Thailand is literally the only civilization in this game where I'm not very familiar with the history to judge it. I borrowed this book about it from a friend a few years ago, maybe I should finally read it.

I find Southeast Asian history very interesting, although the Sukothai period specifically is not one I'm very familiar with. Visiting Bangkok's royal museum provides a good crash course too (including the story of Naruresan, he of the eponymous elephant).

Oh, I absolutely agree with this sentiment. I think the developers were trying to shoot for the Songhai empire that actually took over Mali, but I think that for that, they should have selected Sunni Ali as leader, instead of the administrative Askia. He did do military expansion, although he definitely shouldn't be portrayed as a warmongerer, especially not with burning Djenne in the background - that should be Sunni Ali.

I actually think the ability (and cavalry UU) would be a perfect fit if the civ represented was not the Songhai, but the Oyo of Nigeria.

I think he's a good portrayal for the general medieval warrior king.

I think the designers made an interesting choice with their portrayal of African civs - they chose the ones that came to fruition fairly late and were well-developed, with UUs representing knights or riflemen, rather than bowing to stereotypes of Africa as the continent of spear-wielding tribesmen (as the Zulus were Africa's only representatives in two incarnations of the game).

Ramkhamhaeng is a 100% real person!

Okay, poorly-phrased. He existed as a person, but probably not as a particularly significant figure - rather one to whom mythical achievements were pinned centuries after his death. Someone here a while back compared him to King Arthur, which is a good analogy. A genuine Romano-British warlord called Arthur probably existed, but he certainly didn't have any knights (too early), quest for the Holy Grail, or have a magic sword. Most of what's known about Ramkhamhaeng comes from the Ramkhamhaeng stele, thought likely to have been partially or wholly a 19th Century forgery based on elements indicating that its writing postdated European contact.