No angry Swedes, Danes?

Jeppson said:
Because in real life we all hate eachother, thats why it has never come to my mind to play as the scandinavians or the vikings.
Why do you all vote for eachother in eurovision then?:p
 
Willowmound said:
I've been waiting for a thread to pop up with some angry Dane or Swede lamenting both the Viking civ and the Viking scenario.

But all is quiet! Don't you guys care?

I am of course talking about the fact that the Vikings in Civ4 speak Norwegian. Trøndersk to be exact (dialect from Trondheim). Now, the Vikings didn't speak Norwegian. Nor did they speak Swedish or Danish. They spoke Norse, which is pretty much the language still spoken in Iceland. If I were Danish or Swedish I'd be mightily upset by this. Luckily, I'm neither! :viking:

And then there is the fact that in the Viking scenario, neither Denmark nor Sweden is included in the map. All you get is western Norway. Which is oh so very, very wrong.

And I was wondering why no one seems to care..?

Don´t give a f**k really.

The viking leader has horns on his helmet. Something they might have had on a very few ceremonial helmets if they even had it so realism in Civ 4 isn´t something I get mad about. Firaxis could spend time on a more acurate game design but they choose to work on the game-engine and AI. But sure, by looking through a couple of books at the library or talking to an expert or two they could have made the design of the civs more "correct".

I see Civ as more of a "what if" game than a simulator of mankinds developments.
 
Not angry, nor surprised but still confused. It would be very interesting to hear how they reasoned at Firaxis when putting this civ together. Choice of leader, cities, graphics etc. What did they aim for? IMHO it all seems inconsistent. Having said this, I should point out that having a not-perfect norse civ in the game is better than not having it at all. So thank you, Firaxis for including them. :)
 
Here are some thoughts on previous comments on this thread:

Scandinavia as one civ: Germany is in the game although the country is not more than ca 140 years old (the modern version at least). Still, I haven't read any complaints about this and I don't think I will. Except for in a scenario, who would prefere Prussia, Brandenburg or Bavaria over Germany? The same goes for Scandinavia IMO. Even though the north is not fully united at the moment, why would you want a Scandinavian region instead of the entire land?

Language: Personally I don't care if the units speak with a dialect from Copenhagen, Stockholm or Trondheim. But if the intention from Firaxis was to make a Norse civ, the units should of course speak Old Norse or at least Icelandic. (The differences between the last two are minor IMO; Small spelling issues, some prenounciation and some new modern words of course).
 
Ingvina Freyr said:
Here are some thoughts on previous comments on this thread:

Scandinavia as one civ: Germany is in the game although the country is not more than ca 140 years old (the modern version at least). Still, I haven't read any complaints about this and I don't think I will. Except for in a scenario, who would prefere Prussia, Brandenburg or Bavaria over Germany? The same goes for Scandinavia IMO. Even though the north is not fully united at the moment, why would you want a Scandinavian region instead of the entire land?

Language: Personally I don't care if the units speak with a dialect from Copenhagen, Stockholm or Trondheim. But if the intention from Firaxis was to make a Norse civ, the units should of course speak Old Norse or at least Icelandic. (The differences between the last two are minor IMO; Small spelling issues, some prenounciation and some new modern words of course).

Hereby offering you the award, 'Best post in thread': :trophy:

Good work, Freyr.
 
Dagenham Dave said:
Hey guys I'm Swedish. If I'm allowed to speak on behalf of the other nine million people in my country, which surely I am, I don't think Swedes identify particularly with viking culture etc. It's seen more as a historical curiosity and so forth. Of course there are some people who are interested and passionate about it but I don't think it's a touchy subject with massive influence on our national identity. (oh the identity!)

I am also Swedish and I agree with Dagenham Dave. I don't really care either I belive that swedes are more interested in the history of the 17th and 18th century when Sweden/Finnland was a major power in northern Europe. To bad Russia kicked our asses. We would have had a great hockey team...
 
Lars_Domus said:
And if any single Scandinavian country should be a Civ, it's obviously Norway :smug: We were as strong as any Scandinavian country during the viking era, and in the modern era we're so filthy stinking rich we could buy the rest of Scandinavia if we so wished :p So what if we spent centuries as a vassal to certain other countries that shall remain nameless? :p

:rolleyes: Just wait when Norway is all out of oil...
 
How DARE they compare brilliant and efficient raiders and warriors to people in Scandanavia today? The nerve of Firaxis! :lol: (/heavy sarcasm).

The Vikings at their peak were feared and respected as warriors, leaders, and powerful people. I would think that Swedes/Norweigans/Finns/Danes would appreciate the reference and the connotation the Viking people draw upon - vicious, cunning, effective and intelligent.
 
Diamond621 said:
The Vikings at their peak were feared and respected as warriors, leaders, and powerful people. I would think that Swedes/Norweigans/Finns/Danes would appreciate the reference and the connotation the Viking people draw upon - vicious, cunning, effective and intelligent.

Finns - who are not Scandinavians - had nothing to do with Vikings.

Still, the Vikings were cool. ;)
 
I was under the impression that the term "Scandanavia" was used to collectively refer to the northern peninsula consisting of Norway, Sweden, and Finland. If I'm wrong, then sorry. Didn't mean any disrespect :) I'll admit my geography is a testament to the sorry state of the American public schooling system :P
 
Panda said:
Finns - who are not Scandinavians - had nothing to do with Vikings.

Still, the Vikings were cool. ;)


Finns are Scandinavians (alltough it's a fluid concept nowadays) but you are right that they were not (at least not in the modern sense of the word) Vikings.
however; "...had nothing to do with Vikings" cant be correct.
The English weren't but had a LOT to du with vikings, as did the "russians", greeks, french, poles etc... i don't belive that Finns in particulary were especially isolated from their surroundings during the period.
 
i thought only norwegians, swedes and danes are scandinavians?
 
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!

:)
 
that's it.
i wonder why some people believe finland is also sacandinavian.
 
gusten said:
I am also Swedish and I agree with Dagenham Dave. I don't really care either I belive that swedes are more interested in the history of the 17th and 18th century when Sweden/Finnland was a major power in northern Europe. To bad Russia kicked our asses. We would have had a great hockey team...

You mean Russia, joined by Denmark, Poland-Saxony and Prussia kicked our asses. Russia couldn't do it alone. ;)

StarWorms said:
Why do you all vote for eachother in eurovision then?:p

Everyone votes for their neighbours in that competition. Worst is southeast Europe, however, and that includes the voting frenzy of former Yugoslavia that only vote for each others now that they're a whole bunch of separate countries. :p


Now, regarding the thread topic, the Civ games have never been much for realism in the details and that's what's always been bugging me about it. When Caesar asks me to try his fruit sallad, the vikings wear a horned helmet and the 'american civilization' exists in 4000BC, even wearing suits at the time, it gets hard to get a sense of realism. If you want great realism, go play Europa Universalis 2, it's a truly awesome strategy game with very indepth realistic events. EU3 is due for release in Q1 2007, and that's a definite buy for me.

Anyway, I'm Swedish, and it doesn't anger me how Firaxis have decided to go through with things. It's their product and I love the game. I just don't agree with some decisions they have made, but it's so extremely rare to find a game you agree with how it's made 100%.

About there being a Viking and no Scandinavian or Swedish civ: I'm all fine with a Viking civ since Civilization has always had some tribe or nation that haven't been around for a long time as a civ. Scandinavia (or Nordic for that matter) would work out as well due to the Kalmar Union and the closely similar culture, however, Vikings were closer to one people than the Scandinavian countries have ever been, and Firaxis had to settle for one choice. I think Sweden would have worked out great as a civ due to the historical impact they have had and since it would be more realistic with a nation as a civ over a short-lived people, but I'm sure people from other parts of Scandinavia would, understandably, dislike that change. I definitely don't think that change would have them refrain from buying the game though.

Finally, there is no definite answer afaik to if Finland is part of Scandinavia or not. They're not Scandinavian linguistically, but they were part of Sweden in the past and in that sense they are part of Scandinavia. Many think they were no longer part of Scandinavia after Sweden lost the territory, and it's generally correct to say that Finland is NOT part of Scandinavia, but there are still many that will disagree because it's a little complicated. Finland is part of the Nordic, but supposedly not part of Scandinavia.
 
Willowmound said:
Maybe it's because their flag features the sometimes-called 'Scandinavian cross'. Who knows?


wouldn't that make Englad scandinavian aswell?

Finland is not Scandinavian although there exists a large ethnically swedish minority in the country (due to is history), and places like Åland could be considered historically scandinavian and swedish.
 
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?

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 ;))


Diamond621 said:
The Vikings at their peak were feared and respected as warriors, leaders, and powerful people. I would think that Swedes/Norweigans/Finns/Danes would appreciate the reference and the connotation the Viking people draw upon - vicious, cunning, effective and intelligent.
Exactly! :)
(except the Finns weren't Vikings, fair enough)
 
Back
Top Bottom