Discussion: Should the Vikings be replaced by Scandinavian civs, or add to them?

[NikNaks]

Not sure if this is necessarily the right place for this, as I've never actually posted on this side of the CFC community, but let's roll with it for now

The discussion has been raised on the modding side about whether a Scandinavian civ pack (that's in the ideas stage) should replace the Vikings, or compliment them. I wanted to open it up to as many people who'd have a useful opinion, so I've stuck it in here, but if that's wrong, my apologies, and please move it to OT

I'm planning to make a pack of 3 civs, namely Sweden, Denmark and Norway, so the idea of simply renaming the Vikings isn't really applicable here. This debate is supposed to be whether we drop the Viking civ completely, or just add those 3 alongside. So, you have a poll to vote on, but please explain your choices if you would, as it'll be my decision when it comes down to it

 

[Badtz Maru]

I think that the best solution would probably be a generic "Scandinavian" civilization. Throughout history the torch of power and political influence has passed around within that area, but they do share a common culture and history, whether you're talking about Viking warriors from Norway or the Swedes in Early Modern times.

 

[TheLazyHase]

My opinion is simple : viking is the name given to marauding pirates with horned helm from the north. Scandinavia is another thing completely, that may be more historically accurate, but does not compete with viking.

Yes, some people can argue that they were not naming themselves that way (native americain neither, and I think there is others examples), or a lot of thing. But, CivIV will never be so historically accurate that it will really be a problem. I think scandinavian and stuff are good for earth scenario, and let the good old viking trample over weak civs with their berserker.

 

[r_rolo1]

I was always for kicking the Vikings out and replace them for the Norsemen ( or whatever name you can give to Norway + Denmark + Sweden ) . Scandinavian OTOH is a very imprecise term that is has no unified definition ( see here , here and here ) in spite of being vaguely related to what I mean by Norsemen . So, my vote goes to "Other"

 

[NikNaks]

Perhaps a brief explanation of the project in hand might be helpful.

I'm planning to make a pack of 3 civs, namely Sweden, Denmark and Norway, so the idea of simply renaming the Vikings isn't really applicable here. This debate is supposed to be whether we drop the Viking civ completely, or just add those 3 alongside. Does that help matters?

 

[Badtz Maru]

My opinion is simple : viking is the name given to marauding pirates with horned helm from the north.

Here's an interesting article about the horned helm myth.

 

[r_rolo1]

Perhaps a brief explanation of the project in hand might be helpful.

I'm planning to make a pack of 3 civs, namely Sweden, Denmark and Norway, so the idea of simply renaming the Vikings isn't really applicable here. This debate is supposed to be whether we drop the Viking civ completely, or just add those 3 alongside. Does that help matters?

That said, drop the vikings out. Having a Viking civ is like having a Yeoman civ , a Cowboy civ, a Samurai civ or a Mandarin Civ

 

[AbsintheRed]

I think it never came up that u should replace the Vikings with the Danes or Sweden or Norway, just to replace them with the Danes and Sweden and Norway (and maybe some more civs).
Vikings are in all of these nations culture, so the poll is not perfect IMO...

 

[NikNaks]

I was just trying to cover more bases. Some people might think that one civ is more closely related than the others, or at least that was what I thought. I might end up just adding those votes together, anyway.

 

[TheLazyHase]

Here's an interesting article about the horned helm myth.

I will try to be a little clearer : i KNOWN that horned helm are a myth. I was trying to put the emphasis on the fact that historical accuracy is not exactly the way to go for Civ. There is a balance to find, and I find this balance way better when we talk about viking with an horned-helmet Ragnar than with some bland "norsemen" or "scandinavian".

 

[pi-r8]

I dunno, I think it's OK having the Vikings as a civ. They weren't just marauders, they had a real civilization of traders, fisherman, and farmers for like 1000 years. Granted they're not around now, but neither is Sumeria.

 

[TheLastOne36]

Keep Vikings, because I would rather have Gustav Vasa, Adolphus and Karl as leaders of Sweden, instead of Aldophus, Canute and Ragnar.

 

[Buck_Nekkid]

"Vikings" was the name given to the collection of Scandinavian lands (not nations at that time) by Christian chroniclers. So, it's become a catch-all reference to Danes, Norse and Swedes. (To an earlier poster, note that Norse is specifically the name for people from what is now Norway.)

Bottom line: keep Vikings. It's more colorful than "Scandinavians" and is inclusive of all who shared that culture.

 

[702]

I voted Other, get rid of the Vikings, replace them with all three core Scandinavian countries, Norway, Sweden and Denmark.
I would argue this is more inclusive, it includes those who shared that culture, but isn't superfluous. When do "Vikings" end and Norway, Sweden and Denmark begin?
Swedens LH's could be Gustav Vasa, Adolphus and Karl.
Canute could be Danish, and Ragnar, well he could be Danish, or mabe just not used (though the LH graphics could be useful for another LH (perhaps lose the horns!))

 

[TheEnforcer]

Keep the Vikings and add in Scandinavian countries.

 

[702]

I have to ask also, what is the difference between the Vikings, and the Danes, Norwegians and Swedes who lived during the Viking age?

 

[r_rolo1]

Viking meant roughly guy that goes on a expedition ( military or not ):

In Old Norse, the word is spelled víkingr.[3] The word appears on several rune stones found in Scandinavia. In the Icelanders' sagas, víking refers to an overseas expedition (Old Norse fara í víking "to go on an expedition"), and víkingr, to a seaman or warrior taking part in such an expedition.

A pretty awful name to give a civ, right? Hence my last comment about yeomen, cowboys and such

 

[TheLazyHase]

A pretty awful name to give a civ, right? Hence my last comment about yeomen, cowboys and such

Well, in english (and in other language), viking does not mean that at all, but "badass pirate with horned helm". So that's why viking is fitting as english name.

Viking is the name given by the receiving end (at least in some country), I agree. That just mean that viking does not mean the same thing in english and in the original language.

Again, if we begin to call every civ by it's name in it's language, then we will have a lot of trouble.

 

[binhthuy71]

Why dump the Vikings? Ol' Ragnar has been a fixture in the game since Civ III. Taking out the Vikings without replacing them with a civ that has a leader, UU and UB like those of the Vikings would leave a hole in the game.
Differentiating the Scandinavian civs is a worthy project. I'm just not sure that it should subtract a longstanding part of the game in order to add to it.

 

[r_rolo1]

Well, in english (and in other language), viking does not mean that at all, but "badass pirate with horned helm". So that's why viking is fitting as english name.

Viking is the name given by the receiving end (at least in some country), I agree. That just mean that viking does not mean the same thing in english and in the original language.

Again, if we begin to call every civ by it's name in it's language, then we will have a lot of trouble.

Well, you are giving me reason Regardless meaning expedition man or pirate, viking refers to a ocupation , not to a people or a civilization. And worse, the terms viking was REintroduced far later as a garbage bag to mean "something vaguely related with the Norse peoples" ,from the varenguian guard to Rurik , the Normandy or Sicily ....

About using what the people call(ed) themselfes vs what others called them ... well, that is a very nebulous issue. I guess a lot of people would not recognize the Kemet or Miṣr civ ( ancient and actual name, respectively ), the ùĝ saĝ gígpe civ or the Tawantinsuyu civ. But if you go the other way, why not include the Karanduniash civ ( as their overlords for 400 years called it ) or the Nambam civ ( as the japanese called them , with the not so dignifying meaning of "southern barbarian" )?