Further Viking expansion needed.
- Thread starter SkippyT
- Start date
I agree, there shouldnt be a settlement in Denmark that flip to Vikings. It simply isnt justified.
Anyway, as far as i know the Danes where of the same heritage as the Swedes and Norwegians. The Danes lived in sourthen Sweden and slowly moved into the lands today known as Denmark. At that point in history it probably doesnt make much sense to speak of Danes/Swedes/Norwegians as seperate nations/people. It just evolved that way.
With that said, from around 1000 AD to around 1600 AD Denmark was the strongest of the nordic kingdoms. So it seems very inaccurate that Denmark is almost never apart of the viking nation and almost always goes to Germany. And when the Vikings once in a blue moon settles the area, they later hand it over to Germany. At the same time, the core of the Viking Nation is way up north in Scandinavia, where almost no people live in reality. Highly inaccurate.
To me this seems as if the core of the roman/italian land was in sourthen Italy/Sicily while northen Italy was almost never Roman, and if the Romans once in a while took it, they would quickly hand it over to Germany, France or whatever.
Anyway, as far as i know the Danes where of the same heritage as the Swedes and Norwegians. The Danes lived in sourthen Sweden and slowly moved into the lands today known as Denmark. At that point in history it probably doesnt make much sense to speak of Danes/Swedes/Norwegians as seperate nations/people. It just evolved that way.
With that said, from around 1000 AD to around 1600 AD Denmark was the strongest of the nordic kingdoms. So it seems very inaccurate that Denmark is almost never apart of the viking nation and almost always goes to Germany. And when the Vikings once in a blue moon settles the area, they later hand it over to Germany. At the same time, the core of the Viking Nation is way up north in Scandinavia, where almost no people live in reality. Highly inaccurate.
To me this seems as if the core of the roman/italian land was in sourthen Italy/Sicily while northen Italy was almost never Roman, and if the Romans once in a while took it, they would quickly hand it over to Germany, France or whatever.
SkippyT
Who?
I don't fully agree with Denmark being the strongest, Sweden was strong..but Ok. Anyway, I disagree. Denmark was the core of Scandinavia. It was from Denmark that the Kalmar Union was formed. England was conquered by Danes. France was conquered by Danes (well..with help from Sweden).
This is around 800-1000. Vikings spawn, when? 700? Don't know. Anyway.. Is that much? Maybe the Vikings should even spawn in Denmark.
There should be a way for Vikings to get Denmark, and that it won't be killed from cultural attacks from Berlin. Having said that, I suggest that Copenhagen/Roskilde/Århus should be one of the earliest Viking cities.
SkippyT
Who?
My bad.Its clear that there definently was a strong rivalry between Denmark and Sweden in parts of the period i mentioned, however i think Denmark was the overall "strongest" most of the time.
The scale started to tip with Sweden revolting against the Danish rule and leaving the Kalmar union in the beginning of the 16th century, and later even more with the 7 years nordic war towards the end of the 16th century (which ended in a stalemate).
Nevertheless as you also imply it makes little difference which of the two countries was actually the strongest in what period. They were both an importent part of what in game terms are considered the Viking nation.
The scale started to tip with Sweden revolting against the Danish rule and leaving the Kalmar union in the beginning of the 16th century, and later even more with the 7 years nordic war towards the end of the 16th century (which ended in a stalemate).
Nevertheless as you also imply it makes little difference which of the two countries was actually the strongest in what period. They were both an importent part of what in game terms are considered the Viking nation.
)
blitzkrieg80
ðrymes ðēoden
- Joined
- Mar 15, 2004
- Messages
- 707
If you bothered to do research into the subject of the Vikings being called "Danes" you would find that it is a generic term applied to any Norse peoples making attacks in England at that time, very much including Norweigans, probably some Swedes too (although they liked the Baltic- who can blame them, amber is good business!)
Before throwing insults you should do better research yourself. Yes, a great deal of Norwegian vikings plundered on the British Isles and in England. But the army the conquered most of todays England in the 9th century was in fact Danish.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Heathen_Army
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Heathen_Army
SkippyT
Who?
Yes, even some Icelanders. Well, Norwegians who came to the British isles, plundered, brought some 10 people and came to Iceland.
The same can be said about many other areas. All sorts of people were in the Gårds (Russia and the Baltics), not only Swedes.
The world should be thankful we Scandinavians are peaceful!
SadoMacho
spanker of civilizations
When I read all this, it reminds me of a commercial for Belgian beer.
Here the link:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LgC-dciWs8Y
Here the link:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LgC-dciWs8Y
blitzkrieg80
ðrymes ðēoden
- Joined
- Mar 15, 2004
- Messages
- 707
ECV, why should I do research when I never said England wasn't conquered by certain Danes? I'm impressed you think you're showing off with that little tidbit, but your argument doesn't apply and thus doesn't make any sense. I would do research if I stated something obviously in error, like forgetting the wonderful Icelanders 
who are evil and pillage more than any!
Btw, I definitely didn't mean it as an insult, although I will admit I am a rude ass, Skippy, because I have much respect for anybody arguing for Vikings... the poor Northmen get passed over in favor of (wannabe Roman) Britanic nonsense... So think of my words as advice, because all can benefit from greater knowledge of Scandanavia and their history
who are evil and pillage more than any!Btw, I definitely didn't mean it as an insult, although I will admit I am a rude ass, Skippy, because I have much respect for anybody arguing for Vikings... the poor Northmen get passed over in favor of (wannabe Roman) Britanic nonsense... So think of my words as advice, because all can benefit from greater knowledge of Scandanavia and their history
How do you know what i think? Let me gets this straight.
SkippyT says England was conquered by Danes.
You reply that "Danes" was a generic term used for all Vikings attacking in England. In a rude way that is.
I say, it was indeed an army coming from Denmark that conquered England.
And now you say that you never in any way doubted that, and insult me at the same time. Feel free to explain what exactly you meant in post #27, since i must have misunderstood it. Allthough i only see one way of understanding it.
Regardless, dont expect me to continue the conversation any further.
Im sorry for taking the thread further OT, suddenly i remember why participating on boards like these are often such a waste of time.
SkippyT says England was conquered by Danes.
You reply that "Danes" was a generic term used for all Vikings attacking in England. In a rude way that is.
I say, it was indeed an army coming from Denmark that conquered England.
And now you say that you never in any way doubted that, and insult me at the same time. Feel free to explain what exactly you meant in post #27, since i must have misunderstood it. Allthough i only see one way of understanding it.
Regardless, dont expect me to continue the conversation any further.
Im sorry for taking the thread further OT, suddenly i remember why participating on boards like these are often such a waste of time.
SkippyT
Who?
I would do research if I stated something obviously in error, like forgetting the wonderful Icelanders
I mean, if you forget that, you're a fool!
Everyone knows Iceland was the greatest medieval power from 900-1100.
Back "on topic".
I don't think Blitzkrieg was being so harsh. He even made a joke about the Swedish liking the Baltic countries.
We should keep it on the light notes, though.
Although arguing about Scandinavians is fun. Our culture is very rich, and I'm proud of it (especially how great Iceland was, of course
) and the bottom line was: Vikings are totally underrated. They dominated huge parts of Europe and influenced so much.Let's just take a look at the language we're speaking
I'd say one of every five words are from the Viking times.
I say ecv and blitzkrieg should do a Holmgang
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HolmgangThe Everard
Warlord
Gee, Does Rhye ever listen to us?
Disenfrancised
Beep Beep
How about Aarhus/Arus/Aross as a barb city on the Jutland penisula that can flip to the Scandinavians?
Wiki on Arhus
Wiki on Arhus
Wilhelm II
Warlord
He swap the Harbor and Lighthouse
And added UHVs.
Come on guys, afterall it's Rhyes MOD.
Personally, when I play the Vikings, I just send one of my original settlers on a galley to colonize Denmark. Unless there's some evidence of an ancient city in Denmark not populated by the Norse, I don't think it's historically accurate to have a barb city there that flips to them. It would be like having a barb St. Petersburg that flips to the Russians when they spawn. If it was built by the Norse in history, then the player should have to just build it himself.
Similar threads
- Poll
