Question about Scandinavia

[Samson]

Quote:
Originally Posted by Cuivienen
Dubh Linn is an Irish name unless I'm much mistaken

It is, meaning 'Black Pool'

Thay had guinness back then?

 

[Reprisal]

I think that in order for there to be justification for a militaristic trait in Civ3, there are two criteria: a militarized society, and relative success in the conduct of warfare.

Of course, all civilizations had militaries and did make war upon others, even themselves, but there are a few that stand out among the rest for a decidedly militaristic society. Tribes like the Romans, Zulu, Germans, Mongols, and the Japanese come to mind... in contrast, there were other civilizations that were not known for their militaristic society -- England, the United States, as well as France, and even the Chinese (they should have been Commercial and Industrious, in my opinion).

Though any civilization can certainly be good at warfare, some civilizations simply never had a militarized society. Contrast the life of an average American during the 1800's and early 1900's to that of an average German, you will find that the military played a much more significant role for the Germans.

I think, at this point, the definition of Militaristic must be expanded to mean more than simply having a well-performing military, but also a militaristic culture.

- Rep.

 

[The Last Conformist]

Conformist - Can you tell me which society which was less warlike than the Scandinavian ones?

Most European societies at the time.

Remember that Medieval Europe was ruled by military aristocracies - war, plunder, pillage was the rule rather than the exception in politics.

That's not saying alot, since the same was true of Chinese politics, and China was ruled by a decidedly non-military elite. Warfare is pretty ubiquitous in human history

Also consider that they only turned aggressive in respons to Charlemagnes aggression - they didn't want to share the fate of the Saxonians(Widukind, the Saxonian king sought refugee in Jutland).

The earliest known Danish attacks on Western Europe were in the 7th C, and by the 8th C at the latest Swedish groups attacked settlements in Balticum. the sudden expansion around 800 AD was not as sudden as commonly thought, and no doubt had alot more to do with internal conditions in Scandinavia than by the Frankish threat, which was never a serious concern outside of Denmark, and even there really only for a short period after 800, culminating with the attack of 814.

That also explains why Lindisfarne was raided - it was an outpost of the papal church which was the symbol of Charlemagnes power.

Yeah. An Irish-founded English monastery far outside Carolingian control way pre-dating the Carolingian dynasty was really a powerful symbol of Charlemagne's power.

Or perhaps it was simply a rich target without adequate protection.

On the other hand the Vikings were terrific tradesmen, even establishing traderoutes down to Constaninople.

The chief trade goods of whom where slaves and furs exacted as tribute from the Slavic and Finno-Ugric tribes of modern Russian and Ukraine. Who just happened to end up as warlords controling the entire area from the Black Sea to the Baltic.

 

[Cuivienen]

It is, meaning 'Black Pool'

I knew it means "Black Pool," but I didn't know if it was Irish.

 

[Richard Cribb]

Conformist, please note that it is usually the victor that writes the history, and that it doesn't hurt to take a more critical approach once in a while, whether it is the things mainstrem media tells us about contemporary political events, or what mainstream-historians wants us to know about the past.
Saying that most european societies at the time were less warlike is not an argument. Anyway I don't buy it.
Im a not an expert on Chinese history, and I fail to see the relevance. China is a complicated topic.
About Lindisfarne. It seems to me that you have a rather shaky grip on reality here.
The whole point is exactly the close ties between Charlemagne and the church which were wellknown even if an alliance was first formalized in 800. Lindisfarne was one of the most important outpost for that church in England. And furthermore, it has been proven beyound doubt, by Per Hernes among others, that the building of a fleet was in process there. Those ships were not build for chartered tours to pittoresque Scandinavia. You are probably a better civ3 player than me, so I think you can easily imagine the combined attack of a fleet from the flank and a massive assault by Charlemagnes army. Seeing Lindisfarne as just a peaceful, ,innocent, rich target in the European perifery misses the mark completely. Monasteries was in general important political institutions. (A bit off the subject, also reflect a bit over where the wealth of the monasteries came from...)
That only Denmark was threated by Charlemagne's aggression is a really odd argument. Once Denmark had been subdued, what then. Remember that Charlemagne was a really dangerous type of aggressor, pretty much resembling a certain contemporary president, both driven by greed and a self-righteous religious zest . I can assure you that also up it Norway Charlemagne must have been a concern, his way of treating beaten enemies surely ensured that his reputation fled before him(I seem to remember that he once let 4500 saxonians be beheaded, but of course he had them baptized first, so that their souls should be saved...)Why should he also deny the Norwegians the benefits of the One True Religion and the privilige to pay taxes to the One True Emperor? That the sudden expansion was not a result of common thought is not all that obvious.Even before the dawn of internet people were communicating.
I think the main problem is an image of the Vikings as an isolated rabble of savages, they were not. I am also sorry if I am idealizing things a bit - I can assure you that I am very well aware of the brutality of Viking societies, but I would still preferred to live up here at the time to be one of Charlemagnes subjects. I just try to understand the epoche on its own premises, and I think that the Viking response to imperialist aggression was a justified one, even if the atrocities they commited was not.And I can also assure you that I am a devoted antiwar-person.
And yes, the Vikings were slavetraders. Must have been the only ones dealing in that dirty trade...I can assure you that they exported other things as well.
I also apologize to the forum readers who may very well be annoyed by all this, which strictly doesn't have anything to do with civ3. If anybody wants to continue this discussion, send me a private message. I will then do my best to respond to any objections.

 

[Blueberry]

As a city, Dublin was founded by the vikings. But there was a small native
settlement before.

 

[Dreadnought]

I'm not favoring one or the other, but in the begining of the Viking civilization they were more warlike, but towards the end they became more civilized and became traders, setting up markets from Normandy to Silcily to Constantinople to Russia. You know, Russia was first permenatly settled by vikings, but the nomads living there at the time called them 'Rus', hence the name Russia. A little bit off topic. Anyway, we all agree the Vikings should be seafaring, right? Well, that leaves only one slot left for a civ trate. They probaly thought that militaristic would be a better choice than commercial simply because if you randomly pick a person off the street of a city and asked them "Do you think that the Vikings were traders or warriors?" they would probaly choose that they were warriors. All that I am saying is that most people think that the Vikings were more militaristic than commercial, and hence the choice they made.

 

[Zandrew]

Very interesting stuff, and since the topic is 'Scandinavia' I don't see anything that's off topic, so I hope you'll all continue to post here instead of privately.
I've done some research about the Vikings and agree with a lot of what's been said here. In many ways the Vikings were no different from their contemporaries. Raiding, pillaging, and slave trade were common throughout Medieval Europe. Perhaps their reputation arose because they excelled in these areas, but they were not unusual. They also excelled in trading, which was more sustainable than raiding, and founded many commercial centers including Dublin and York. I'd never heard the theory of their outward expansion resulting from concerns over Charlemagne. I'd always heard it was more a result of their scarcity of arable land (in Norway especially), as well as a desire to colonize areas beyond the reach of their Scandinavian overlords. Did they colonize Iceland, Greenland and Newfoundland to get away from the Carolingians?
As far as their traits in civ., I agree with seafaring/militaristic. Yes, they had their commercial side which I'm sure they engaged in more than military. But, there's a good reason why Irish monks included in their nightly prayers: "And save us from the wrath of the Norsemen!"

 

[Richard Cribb]

Zandrew - I never wrote that all Viking settlement was due to a military and political threat from Charlemagne, but rarther that the raids against monasteries and cities in general, and against Lindisfarne in particular was a response to this.
I haven't specialised in the Viking era (rather the early modern epoche and the Enlightenment) and I haven't kept myself so up to date with what has been published in this area. So unfortunately I can't give you any tips about what to read. The pioneer work is by the Norwegian historian Torgrim Titlestad "Kampen om Nordvegen", that is in English something like "The battle of the Northway" - I don't know if there exists an English translation, but I am afraid not. You can check out this:http://www.arild-hauge.com/eraids.htm
Of course the factor you mention are also highly relevant, but doesn't really concern the subiect discussed. However I don't want to go more deeply into this, because I don't want to feed certain persons on this forums.
And my point, which was admittedly clumsy presented, was that the civilization in question is Scandinavia. Of course throughout its history Scandinavia has also had its periods of war, especially during the time that Sweden was a great power (a German lullaby from the Thirty Years war contains the lines "Bet, Kindchen, bet, morgens kommt der Schwed"), however there is France,still rather militaristic in certain ways, USA whose whole economy is centered around the military sector+countless military interventions in other countries, and Greece whose ancient period (not only Sparta)very much stress the military aspect. Those civs qualify more for the military trait in my opinion, but I perfectly well recognize that there is plenty of room for discussion here, and I fully respect and understand your position.
Dreadnought - This also goes for you, your arguments are very sensible, and your last sentence is rather accurate. Anyway it is not a big deal, after all it is only a game, there is always the editor.
And with this post this debate is over for my part, if somebody is really interested in this subject, they can send me a private message and I will try to do my best to be of some use.

 

[Sayounara]

Yup, they are seafaring and militaristic.

Pretty hard to argue with it! Now, if somebody can tell me how Egypt ISN'T agricultural ......

They aren't though, the only reason they survived is because like all their population settled along the Nile. Check a population density map if you like. Heh, Not that I know a thing about their actual ancient agricultural achievments though.

 

[Raio]

My post.
Is a bit hard to say which civ should be militaristic or not or at least more militaristic.
After all, being militaristic is a condition to survive isnt it?

Note that when looking to all civs, we have to compare some with 6000 years (Egypt for exemple) with others with 2000 or even 300 (USA). And here is the main problem.

I think that if we look for the amount of time civs where at war, comparing with total existing time, maybe the more militaristic civ should be USA. Agree?
RR

 

[jkp1187]

Agreed...and it was Viking-settled Iceland that established the world's first Parliament (the Althing) in the 1200's, when the ink on the Magna Charta was barely dry.

Of course, there's also the question of game balance.... A commercial/seafaring civ with a monster UU might be too much.

 

[Incubuz]

I agree with luceafarul =)

I dont mind the traits in Civ3, but I agree that the vikings were no more barbarians than any other civilization at that time.

They just had bad PR

 

[Zurkiba]

Kalach - No, there was a famous sumerian king with the name of Gilgamesh (about 2700 BC), a German-led archeological expedition has discovered what is supposed to be the city of Uruk (from where Iraq got its name) and they also believe they fond his tomb.
In the epics about him, however, he is described as a superhuman, his mother is the wildcow-godess Nimsun. Among his great feats is his killing of the Bull of Heaven.
You should really read the Gilgamesh-epos. It is great stuff.

Dont forget that Gilgamesh also made a boat and saved the world's animals from a huge flood.

 

[thetrooper]

Wasn't Dublin founded by the vikings?

841 - Vikings under the leadership of Turgeis founds Dublin, Ireland.
902 - The Irish regains Dublin from the Vikings, and rules for fifteen years.
917 - Vikings defeats Dublin by military power and regains the throne.

In Middle Ages Scenario (C3C) - Dublin is under norwegian control.

 

[thetrooper]

They just had bad PR

No doubt:

A furore Normannorum libera nos, Domine
"From the fury of the Northmen deliver us, O Lord."

This phrase is alleged to have been the litany of despair raised up in every medieval church and monastic institution, starting after the first Viking raid upon Britain and continuing during the years of Scandinavian attacks upon Western Christendom.

More on:

http://www.vikinganswerlady.com/vikfury.htm

 

[Breunor]

They aren't though, the only reason they survived is because like all their population settled along the Nile. Check a population density map if you like. Heh, Not that I know a thing about their actual ancient agricultural achievments though.

Sayounara, sorry, I do think Egypt should be agricultural. Note that they are in Mesopotamia. Of course, it isn't easy filling in all of the traits. I guess I would say Egypt is agricutural and religious or industrious. Herodotus in the Histories says the Egyptians were the most religious people in the world, so its pretty ahrd to argue with that one either.

As for Scandanvia:

I don't want to get into a flame war -- I still do think Scandanavia is a good choice for militaristic.

In reading Gwyn Jones, I get the impression that the Vikings got 'bad press'. But I remember reading H R Ellis Davidson, who basically said that people are rethinking the Vikings and looking at the violence in theri literature and the like.

Yes the Vikings did other things, and commerical isn't bad. But we can say that about every militaristic civ, except probably the Mongols and maybe the Zulus. If the Vikings are seafaring and commercial, what are the English? Indeed, almost all fo the seafaring people were commercial. Certainly, the Dutch are a much stronger fit to commercial than agricultural. The Carthaginains are probably commercial also as are the Portugese. We can't have everybody being seafaring and commercial!


So, who then is militaristic?

The Romans weren't really militaristic in that they lived to be warriors -- what they were was GOOD at war. In the Republic, they had mostly citizen soliders required to fight. Later, most people became soldiers for economic reasons. However, the Romans did a LOT besides fight. Certainly, industrious fits them, and maybe expansionist.

Japan was almost the opposite. Warriors held special status, and a class learned and trained to be warriors. But Japan rarely conqered. Hideyoshi tried to conquer Korea, and Japan became morr imperialistic in the 20th century, but they didn't wage war on other civilizations very often. Obviously, we can give Japan a lot of characteristics.

China? We can give them pretty much any characteristic, besides maybe seafaring. They certainly could be scientific, agricultural, etc.

Anyway,

I can object to a lot of placements/characteristics. I'm an American -- and I think commercial may be a better for for the US than expansionist. But we do need somebody to be expansionist and industrious. The French are already industrious and commercial, and they aren't a bad pick there either.

If we need a civilization for militaristic and seafaring, I think Scandanavia works well here. Obvioulsy, not everyone will agree with me.

Breunor

 

[bed_head7]

Yup, they are seafaring and militaristic.

Pretty hard to argue with it! Now, if somebody can tell me how Egypt ISN'T agricultural ......

Sorry for the off topic, but this reminded me of something. If you manage to find someone who can explain that, maybe they'll be able to tell me why the Germans aren't industrious. There is a greeting that Bismarck uses that actually says 'industrious Germans'. If asked what is the defining trait of the Germans, people would answer industrious well before scientific and would probably answer that before militaristic if it weren't for Hitler.

 

[thetrooper]

There is a greeting that Bismarck uses that actually says 'industrious Germans'. If asked what is the defining trait of the Germans, people would answer industrious well before scientific and would probably answer that before militaristic if it weren't for Hitler.

If you tell me the keyword "Germany" - I will say "industrious" without any
questions. That must be the modern age trait for Germany. But through history scientific and militaristic suit them just right. What about modern Norway - are we militaristic and seafaring? No - I don´t think so...

 

[jkp1187]

Since we're talking about inappropriate matches...I think the Ottomans being INDUSTRIOUS and SCIENTIFIC is far more egregious than the Vikings being Militaristic, or the Egyptians not being Agricultural. I mean, how were the Ottomans ever EITHER of those traits? Militaristic, sure. Religious, possibly. Expansionist, yes. But Scientific?

As for the Egyptians...they didn't necessarily have to be Agricultural. THey had the Pyramids.