New Scandinavian Leader!
- Thread starter JuuL
- Start date
Garbarsardar.jr
subtitled
Bah! Magrethe was weak... 
I would go for this guy instead:
King Canute I of England
(also spelled Cnut, Knut or Knute; in Danish, Knud den Store; in Norwegian, Knut den Mektige) was also King Canute II of Denmark and King Canute of Norway. For the empire he built in Britain and Scandinavia, he is sometimes known as "Canute the Great."
or Ulof Palme...for peaceful builders
I would go for this guy instead:
King Canute I of England
(also spelled Cnut, Knut or Knute; in Danish, Knud den Store; in Norwegian, Knut den Mektige) was also King Canute II of Denmark and King Canute of Norway. For the empire he built in Britain and Scandinavia, he is sometimes known as "Canute the Great."or Ulof Palme...for peaceful builders
Comrade Pedro
High Partisan Commander
I think Erik the Red would be the most apropriate...
1: Margrethe wasn't weak.
2: Knud's empire was smaller than Margrethe's.
3: Erik the Red was an idiot. He murdered somebody and got banished from Norway. Then he sailed west and colonized Iceland. Then he murdered somebody again and got banished again (
). Then he sailed west again, discovered Greenland and built a few colonies. Then his son sails west, too, and discovers North America. All this discovering is of course very good, but a few decades after Erik died, the Vikings gave up and went home. What kind of a leader is that?
2: Knud's empire was smaller than Margrethe's.
3: Erik the Red was an idiot. He murdered somebody and got banished from Norway. Then he sailed west and colonized Iceland. Then he murdered somebody again and got banished again (
). Then he sailed west again, discovered Greenland and built a few colonies. Then his son sails west, too, and discovers North America. All this discovering is of course very good, but a few decades after Erik died, the Vikings gave up and went home. What kind of a leader is that?
Garbarsardar.jr
subtitled
Bah! I still believe Magreth was weak. What about SVEND FORKBEARD?
he rided England that much that they had to aknoledge him as king to make him stop (997 methinks)
he rided England that much that they had to aknoledge him as king to make him stop (997 methinks)
Svend's empire was smaller than Knud's and Margrethe's. And he lost control of Norway and never ruled Sweden, thus he cannot be the leader of whole Scandinavia.
And how can Margrethe be weak? She ruled Scandinavia for decades with the support of the nobility of all the three countries. She even held back the powerful Mecklenburgian count Albrecht, who tried to sieze the Danish throne. And she founded the Kalmar Union according to which Scandinavia cannot be parted, must have the same King and must protect each other (it didn't last, but it's still an impressive treaty...). It's a huge achievement for a women just to become a leader of a country - and she was even a good one.
And how can Margrethe be weak? She ruled Scandinavia for decades with the support of the nobility of all the three countries. She even held back the powerful Mecklenburgian count Albrecht, who tried to sieze the Danish throne. And she founded the Kalmar Union according to which Scandinavia cannot be parted, must have the same King and must protect each other (it didn't last, but it's still an impressive treaty...). It's a huge achievement for a women just to become a leader of a country - and she was even a good one.
Garbarsardar.jr
subtitled
I still believe Margreth was kind of weak. I think the right person is Harold Bluetooth, king of Denmark. He succeded his father, Gorm the Old, who had united Denmark, and consolidated the kingdom.
1: Harald Blåtand only ruled Denmark and southern Norway. Again: A leader, who has not ruled the entire area included in a civ, cannot rule that civ. It simply doesn't make sense. And why should Harald by a good King? Yes, he officially "christianized" the Danes (though the old religion survived for decades, perhaps even centuries). But he was beaten by the Germans, when he tried to expand to the south. He won back the areas later, but I still wouldn't call it a succesful war. And then he was dethroned by his own son, Sven Tveskæg, and later killed.
Not a good King.
And could you give me a reason why Margrethe was "weak"?
Not a good King.
And could you give me a reason why Margrethe was "weak"?
Garbarsardar.jr
subtitled
I am still not convinced that Margreth was not weak. A better candidate could be Harald Fairhair who subdued the tribes of Norway in 890(?) and made himself king.
I don't think we're getting anywhere.
Just to sum up my opinion:
There is one problem with both Svend Tveskæg, Harald Blåtand and Harald Hårfager. By making them King of Scandinavia, you also make their country the primary Viking country and reduce the two others to less important Viking "colonies". If a leader is to truly represent three countries at the same time, this leader must have ruled all the countries. Margrethe solves this problem. Knud den Store only solves it partially because he only ruled a little part of Sweden and actually ruled from England, which might suggest that Knud was not as much a Scandinavian King, who also ruled England, but perhaps rather an English King, who also ruled Scandinavia.
This leads to my conclusion: Only Margrethe can truly represent both the three countries and the fact that Scandinavia had dominated northern Europe and the islands in the northen Atlantic Ocean.
Just to sum up my opinion:
There is one problem with both Svend Tveskæg, Harald Blåtand and Harald Hårfager. By making them King of Scandinavia, you also make their country the primary Viking country and reduce the two others to less important Viking "colonies". If a leader is to truly represent three countries at the same time, this leader must have ruled all the countries. Margrethe solves this problem. Knud den Store only solves it partially because he only ruled a little part of Sweden and actually ruled from England, which might suggest that Knud was not as much a Scandinavian King, who also ruled England, but perhaps rather an English King, who also ruled Scandinavia.
This leads to my conclusion: Only Margrethe can truly represent both the three countries and the fact that Scandinavia had dominated northern Europe and the islands in the northen Atlantic Ocean.
Garbarsardar.jr
subtitled
Why not Gongu-Hrolf who was the first scandinavian to occupie lands in normandy triggering the roman conquest. I think he has a good potential for a leader. Why do you insist so much upon Margreth? Even if she was not weak you couldn't call her strong. 
Gongu-who? 
Before we continue to discuss a few hundred other random names from Scandinavian history, I think we should get one thing clear first:
Do you or do you not agree that a Scandinavian ruler should have ruled all of Scandinavia? I actually thinkt that this is a basic principle when selecting af leader for any civ.
(And no: Somebody, who just happens to have conqoured a little area in northern France, cannot be the leader of one of the mightiest empire in northern Europe)
... and I'm going to bed now. I'll be back with a few more arguments for making Margrethe the leader of our glorious empire - ca. 1pm or so...
Before we continue to discuss a few hundred other random names from Scandinavian history, I think we should get one thing clear first:
Do you or do you not agree that a Scandinavian ruler should have ruled all of Scandinavia? I actually thinkt that this is a basic principle when selecting af leader for any civ.
(And no: Somebody, who just happens to have conqoured a little area in northern France, cannot be the leader of one of the mightiest empire in northern Europe)
... and I'm going to bed now. I'll be back with a few more arguments for making Margrethe the leader of our glorious empire - ca. 1pm or so...
Garbarsardar.jr
subtitled
I think we could agree then on Olof Skötkonung. He was the first King to be christianed. He was also the first king to make coins and to collect taxes.
( A possible translation of the name Skötkonung might be "Tax King". On one of the coins one can read the Anglosaxon word "sceat", which means tax. )
( A possible translation of the name Skötkonung might be "Tax King". On one of the coins one can read the Anglosaxon word "sceat", which means tax. )
Although Ragnar Lodbrok is better known as a mythical worm-slayer, I thought I read somewhere that he was a Danish chief who led a great Viking raid on Spain in 830 (approximately). His sons would later return to the Mediterranean a few decades later with the aim of sacking Rome, but they attacked and destroyed another Italian city by mistake (and then claimed to have destroyed Rome).
Aside from the problem of finding a great leader who is representative of the whole Scandinavian civilization and not just one tribe/nation, there´s already the problem of the city list - why is Trondheim the capital of the Viking civilization? And for that matter, why is the UU a cartoonish giant with a double-bladed axe? And why is it called a ´Berserker´when it doesn´t really look like one (the ´Gallic Swordsman´ looks more like a berserker actually). Berserkers where not exactly the backbone of Viking armies either...
It´s obviously not so much about what Scandinavian civilization was like in reality but rather about being in line with a popular conception of Vikings. As many of you know, historical Vikings did not use huge double-bladed axes nor did they have horns on their helmets...
I suppose if Firaxis wanted to actually make a historically true representation of Scandinavia then I´d vote for Canute the Great, since he ruled the greatest ever Viking empire and was also a leader of the actual Viking Age, unlike Margarethe I. And some other capital please - how about Hedeby or Uppsala or Kalmar? The city list is really tricky though, since it´s hard to decide if Copenhagen should come before Stockholm or vice versa, for example.
Aside from the problem of finding a great leader who is representative of the whole Scandinavian civilization and not just one tribe/nation, there´s already the problem of the city list - why is Trondheim the capital of the Viking civilization? And for that matter, why is the UU a cartoonish giant with a double-bladed axe? And why is it called a ´Berserker´when it doesn´t really look like one (the ´Gallic Swordsman´ looks more like a berserker actually). Berserkers where not exactly the backbone of Viking armies either...
It´s obviously not so much about what Scandinavian civilization was like in reality but rather about being in line with a popular conception of Vikings. As many of you know, historical Vikings did not use huge double-bladed axes nor did they have horns on their helmets...
I suppose if Firaxis wanted to actually make a historically true representation of Scandinavia then I´d vote for Canute the Great, since he ruled the greatest ever Viking empire and was also a leader of the actual Viking Age, unlike Margarethe I. And some other capital please - how about Hedeby or Uppsala or Kalmar? The city list is really tricky though, since it´s hard to decide if Copenhagen should come before Stockholm or vice versa, for example.
About leaders: You're right that it is a plus for Knud den Store (Canute the Great) that he ruled during our Golden Age (I didn't think of that before).
About capital cities: It depends on the leader. Canute should have Hedeby, while Margrethe should of course have Kalmar.
About UU: You're right. The Berserkers are quite cartoonish. Maybe a Longship would be better (combined transport and combat ship. Allows the units that it transports to perform amphibious attacks).
About Stockholm/Copenhagen: I think Stockholm is older so it should be first (and if Hedeby is the capital, it would be fair to have a Swedish city before another Danish one).
About Ragnar: He might have been a true, historical person. I really don't know. But he is still a bad choice for a leader.
About capital cities: It depends on the leader. Canute should have Hedeby, while Margrethe should of course have Kalmar.
About UU: You're right. The Berserkers are quite cartoonish. Maybe a Longship would be better (combined transport and combat ship. Allows the units that it transports to perform amphibious attacks).
About Stockholm/Copenhagen: I think Stockholm is older so it should be first (and if Hedeby is the capital, it would be fair to have a Swedish city before another Danish one).
About Ragnar: He might have been a true, historical person. I really don't know. But he is still a bad choice for a leader.
Beloyar
Demigod
I thinks he is just fine for a country that didn't exist either.JuuL said:
Beloyar said:I thinks he is just fine for a country that didn't exist either.
I "thinks" this is just a fine comment from a player, who claims his location is "imaginary civ". How dare you say something like that? You, who dare not even tell me where you live so that I can properly insult your country!
Scandinavia might not be a country, but we have very similar languages, history, cultures etc. And we were united under the rule of Margrethe I! (and almost under Knud den Store)
Besides, CivIII is full of civs that "didn't exist":
Celts never really had one, unified country.
Germany united as one nation is a quite new thing.
Spain used to be parted in smaller kingdoms, too.
Zulus haven't been one nation, either.
But these are still very fine civs, which should be in the game, because they represent certain areas with a population that shared/shares certain traits and cultural traditions.
Beloyar
Demigod
JuuL said:I "thinks" this is just a fine comment from a player, who claims his location is "imaginary civ". How dare you say something like that? You, who dare not even tell me where you live so that I properly insult your country!
:shakehead :shakehead
Looks like another daring case of failure to understand good humor.
Some day you, likewise, will find yourself in an imaginary civ!Sure, just ignore Beloyar's comment - Scandinavia is a civilization of its own and should definitely not be divided into its three main "tribes". What constitutes a "country" isn't all that relevant for the purposes of Civ.
In any case it's a very difficult civilization to fit into the Civ-mold because of its divisions and also the fact that early Scandinavian ("Viking") civilization was not urban, making the city list even more of a head-ache. Even those of us who are intimately familiar with Scandinavian history could have a hard time reaching an agreeable solution.
So I'm just saying I'm not really expecting a brilliant, completely satisfactory representation of Scandinavia in Civ4. Just hoping it won't be too cliche and juvenile.
In any case it's a very difficult civilization to fit into the Civ-mold because of its divisions and also the fact that early Scandinavian ("Viking") civilization was not urban, making the city list even more of a head-ache. Even those of us who are intimately familiar with Scandinavian history could have a hard time reaching an agreeable solution.
So I'm just saying I'm not really expecting a brilliant, completely satisfactory representation of Scandinavia in Civ4. Just hoping it won't be too cliche and juvenile.
mourndraken
King
info about the queen
http://www.guide2womenleaders.com/womeninpower/Danske-Ledere.htm
http://www.guide2womenleaders.com/womeninpower/Danske-Ledere.htm
Similar threads
