No angry Swedes, Danes?

[Osymandias]

wouldn't that make Englad scandinavian aswell?

england hasn't the scandinavian cross.....it's the saint georges cross

 

[Mortac]

And my dear Swedes, much as I like Sweden and enjoy being there, why are you underappreciating the Viking Age and our common Nordic ancestry? I find such dismissive attitudes to be arrogant but unfortunately that's all too common in Europe. Sweden was a great power in the 17th and 18th centuries but then almost every European nation has had a period of glory so in the end it doesn't really impress anyone.
(let's see if we can get some angry Swedes now )

I'm not underappreciating it for one. I find the Vikings to be a better choice than Scandinavia since it's one people instead of combined nations. The reason I said Sweden would be a good choice is because it has historically had the highest political influence of the scandinavian countries and definitely also more than the vikings have had, and it'd be one nation instead of Scandinavia. I.e. if a civ called 'Middle East' would appear I think everyone would agree that it'd be a little odd since it's a region and not a nation. I do still think the Viking civ is the best choice because it incorporates Scandinavia as one people without naming a region consisting of several nations. And finally, like someone said before me, who doesn't like vikings?

 

[Willowmound]

Yeah, it's different. Look:

Norway


Finland


England

 

[Ingvina Freyr]

we would have had a great hockey team...

Being Olympic champions and World champions is not good enough for you?

I was under the impression that the term "Scandanavia" was used to collectivly refer to the northern peninsula consisting of Norway, Sweden, and Finland.

For the entire world the term "Scandinavia" refers to the countries of Iceland, Norway, Denmark, Sweden and Finland. For the entire world except these very countries, that is, wich instead uses the term "the North". When we say Scandinavia we generally mean Denmark, Norway and Sweden but sometimes also Iceland. To make it even more complicated some Icelanders (according to one I spoke to) refers to only Norway and Sweden (ie the Scandinavian Peninsula). IMO the first example (all five countries) is the best as long as you're not involved in a linguistic discussion.

Whether Finland is Scandinavian or Nordic or whatever is just semantics. Finland just is what it is. That said, I can understand people grouping it with "Scandinavia" (a very ambiguous and debated term) on the cultural level because, after all, the Finns have much more in common with Scandinavia than any other part of Europe. The language family is mostly irrelevant and if that were to decide the matter, wouldn't we have to exclude the northern provinces of Norway and Sweden from Scandinavia?

Exactly hr_oskar, the majority of the people in Finland speak a Finno-ugric language and originates from a forest/hunting culture (instead of a seafaring/agricultural one), but onethousandfivehundred years of common history, shared hardships and successes plus having the same values and traditions makes Finland a very good part of this region that most people call Scandinavia.

And my dear Swedes, much as I like Sweden and enjoy being there, why are you underappreciating the Viking Age and our common Nordic ancestry? I find such dismissive attitudes to be arrogant...

Right on the dot again hr_oskar, Swedes not appreciating Sweden and it's history is unfortunately a common thing, and many times to a level that can only be described as arrogant!

Oh, just one more thing... Some people seem to think that Vikings are a people when they're really a kind of unit. As a comparison; "The Japanese Empire" with the Samurai unit and "The Scandinavian Empire" with the Viking unit.

 

[Robban]

not a historian but histrically interested (or rather was maybe... never time to read books anymore...)

to make a correct scandinavian/viking scenario trade would have to be a great part of it. maybe start with many great people/merchants? the viking/warrior part was minor and i think its very much propaganda by those who suffered from it... the biggest part was trade. look at leif eriksson in america. traded with the indians (väringarna i think they called them) and some think they had to abandon the settlement because of fighting with the indians (heard som explanation that they traded fur for milk and the indians where lactosintollerant or something and thought they tried to pison them... but thats theories).

about sweden as a great power... that would be better for a game like rome total war where mercanaries play a great part. when swedens started to appear in the european theatre they had lots of money from the mines and from plundering/pillaging northern europe... later when the war came to defend the empire and regular swedish troops where used it totally depleted swedens resources (men and money). many of the battles sweden won was because of good leaders, luck and veterans. I bought a book that was called something like "SWEDISH BATTLES". Many of the battles which has been presented as great swedish victories by a fantastic swedish army often seems to be more luck than anything else. later in the wars against russia when sweden lost finland the tide had turned and luck/good leaders/veterans was the other way around. smaller russian units kicked swedens butt.

you may correct my faults. a lot of rationalisation here.

 

[Mortac]

about sweden as a great power... that would be better for a game like rome total war where mercanaries play a great part. when swedens started to appear in the european theatre they had lots of money from the mines and from plundering/pillaging northern europe... later when the war came to defend the empire and regular swedish troops where used it totally depleted swedens resources (men and money). many of the battles sweden won was because of good leaders, luck and veterans. I bought a book that was called something like "SWEDISH BATTLES". Many of the battles which has been presented as great swedish victories by a fantastic swedish army often seems to be more luck than anything else. later in the wars against russia when sweden lost finland the tide had turned and luck/good leaders/veterans was the other way around. smaller russian units kicked swedens butt.

you may correct my faults. a lot of rationalisation here.

Swedish armies were very well equipped and their weaponry were of exceptional quality. But it's true however that great leaders were behind their achievements.

 

[netbjarne]

Its not strange its confusion. Nevertheless, we were all part of the great danish empire once, so you might say that the vikings in civ are simply speaking a sort of danish dialect ;-)

For more info on scandinavia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scandinavia

And no, I can't really get upset whatever the vikings are speaking - its just a game to have fun with, not a interactive historylesson.

 

[majk-iii]

Norway, Sweden and Denmark is Scandinavia.

Finland is not Scandinavia.

The Scandinavian languages are very simmilar. In the Viking Age it was the same language. This language is one branch of Germanic (English is another branch. German another branch too.)

The Finnish language is not Germanic. It is Finno-Urgic. It is related to Hungarian, among others.

This is what makes Finns not Scandinavian.

I will continue to say this until everyone in the world finally gets it!

-Yes and No... the "scandes" are a mountain-range, scandinavian as a lingo of sorts is a sub-category stemming somewhat from proto-germanic tounge.
Scandinavia, or as we call it; "The North" is a cultural and in some ways also political entity comprised of Sweden, Norway, Finland, Denmark and (Yes) Iceland!

 

[majk-iii]

-We're FIVE!

Now AND in earlier in history.

 

[Masquerouge]

For the rest of the world it makes much more sense to have a Viking civ rather than a Scandinavian civ.
As far as the historical accuracy is concerned, it can pretty much go screw itself. Civ4 is a game, loosely based on world history, and should be played as such.
I mean, when I read Asterix, I'm not complaining about the fact that his helmet is nothing like the REAL gallic helmets, am I?

 

[hr_oskar]

The Finnish language is not Germanic. It is Finno-Urgic. It is related to Hungarian, among others.

This is what makes Finns not Scandinavian.

Willowmound, you're right about the language and most people in Scandinavia (aka the North) are aware of that or at least should be.

However, as a linguistics enthusiast I just want to warn that things are never as simple as the language family trees would have some people think. We can sort the world's languages into neat little pigeon holes and that helps us understand some things but it also oversimplifies a very complicated reality.

In the case of Finnish for example, although the origin of the language is very different from the Germanic tongues of Scandinavia, the Finns have been borrowing Germanic words from a very early time. Wikipedia on Finnish borrowings:

The usual example quoted is kuningas "king" from Germanic *kuningaz, but another example is äiti "mother", from Gothic eiþai, which is interesting because borrowing of close-kinship vocabulary is a rare phenomenon. The original Finnish word for mother is emo, which still exists, though its use is now confined to animal species, as is the variant emä.

As I said earlier, modern Finns have so much in common with other Nordics that it would never make sense to me to exclude them from the group.

 

[Leif Roar]

The Scandinavian languages are very simmilar. In the Viking Age it was the same language. This language is one branch of Germanic (English is another branch. German another branch too.)

Actually, by the Viking age proto-norse had already split into west-norse, east-norse and old gutnic, although it's a question of classification if you want to consider those as three different languages or as three dialects of the same language.

 

[Ingvina Freyr]

Actually, by the Viking age proto-norse had already split into west-norse, east-norse and old gutnic, although it's a question of classification if you want to consider those as three different languages or as three dialects of the same language.

The differences by the end of the viking age are so small that they're hardly worth mentioning, but OK, I can go for dialects; Rolf Kraki (WN)/ Rolf Krake (EN) or Einar (WN)/ Enar (EN)

 

[Mozza]

Calling the Norse the Vikings is akin to calling the Japanese the Samurais. A friend of mine is a battle re-enactor, as an experiment they tried fighting as Vikings in horned helmats, just to see if it's feasible. They found that in combat, opponants can grab the horns and wrench it down, basically meaning that fighters in horned helmats are stupidly ineffective. The fact that the Vikings were very effective fighters shows that they couldn't possibly have horned helmats.

Flags appart, Britain has a lot of common culture with Scandinavia, as does Estonnia (Estonnia pretty much means "the eastern Norse"). Apparantly Old Norse is very similar to Black Country slang (the Black Country is the area around Birmingham in England)

All said though, few of the Civs in the game are accurate, New York gets built before York many times. Ancient Americans, all cultures starting at the same time, the French existing at the same time of the Romans, the list can go on and on, but truth be told, the point of the game is not to recreate history, the Civs are abitrary tribes to enact a fictional history.

 

[Willowmound]

majk-iii, hr_oskar:

I make a distinction between the Nordic countries (Norden) and Scandinavia. Norden includes Scandinavia and the other two countries.

My bringing up language was a sort of short-hand for peoples in the broadest sense. No matter how you look at it (I am quite adament), Norway, Sweden, Denmark was one people. Finland was another. A people is a difficult thing to define, but includes culture, language, genetics and mythology at the very least. Of course the boundaries blur. All the time. But I'm still not convinced Finland should be considered Scandinavian. Of course, they are Nordic, and nice guys to boot.

Leif Roar:

The difference between West Norse and East Norse is minimal. They were dialects of the same language, nothing more. Here is a comparison (text is from the Rök rune stone):

EAST N.: Aft Væmoð standa runaR þaR. Æn Varinn faði, faðiR, aft faigian sunu.

WEST N.: Eptir Vémóð standa rúnar þær. En Varinn fáði, faðir, eptir feigjan son.

(The line reads: "In memory of Vémóð stand these runes. And Varinn coloured them, the father,
in memory of his dead son.")

 

[TrailblazingScot]

The first Viking Rock band

 

[Willowmound]

Notice how the Norwegian (on the left) is an accomplished contortionist as well!

 

[hr_oskar]

majk-iii, hr_oskar:

I make a distinction between the Nordic countries (Norden) and Scandinavia. Norden includes Scandinavia and the other two countries.

My bringing up language was a sort of short-hand for peoples in the broadest sense. No matter how you look at it (I am quite adament), Norway, Sweden, Denmark was one people. Finland was another. A people is a difficult thing to define, but includes culture, language, genetics and mythology at the very least. Of course the boundaries blur. All the time. But I'm still not convinced Finland should be considered Scandinavian. Of course, they are Nordic, and nice guys to boot.

I agree Willowmound, and I use the terms 'Nordic' (Norden) and 'Scandinavia' in the same way that you do (Scandinavia = "the Big Three", Nordic = the whole thing including Finland).

The Finns are clearly, ethnologically and linguistically speaking another people. I'd actually expect the genetic relations to be closer than you may think - we "Vikings" do in fact have a lot of "Proto-European" ancestry which we most likely share with the Finns.

I just wanted to make it clear to those less intimately familiar with the North that the Finns are in most respects just like the Scandinavians and they get very well along with each other.

Anyway we agree completely.

 

[Willowmound]

Anyway we agree completely.

That is always a good thing

 

[Ingvina Freyr]

The difference between West Norse and East Norse is minimal. They were dialects of the same language, nothing more. Here is a comparison (text is from the Rök rune stone):

EAST N.: Aft Væmoð standa runaR þaR. Æn Varinn faði, faðiR, aft faigian sunu.

WEST N.: Eptir Vémóð standa rúnar þær. En Varinn fáði, faðir, eptir feigjan son.

(The line reads: "In memory of Vémóð stand these runes. And Varinn coloured them, the father,
in memory of his dead son.")

Good example, Willowmound! But where are the latin alphabet versions from?