Question about Scandinavia

[rhialto]

At the time the Ottomans were attacking Vienna and most of Europe, their science was far ahead of anything in Europe. At the height of their power, they were easily the most science-friendly culture anywhere.

 

[Breunor]

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?

JKP,

I guess I would vote that scientific is OK for the Ottoman Empire. I would say no for religious -- they were very secular for a Muslim country. Expansionist is fine. But Scientific is good, too, I think. I think its best to look at a civilization during its glory period. The Ottomans in the 20th century are a different group.

I think scientific works better than traits like religious and expansionist to contrast them to the Arabs. The Muslim world was very scientifically developed from the late 8th century on. The European world largely closed the gap and started to catch up in the renaissance, but before the Muslim world had terrific science. Not all of this credit goes to the Ottomans, but they lived in a scientifically advanced society.

Examples:

In Mathematics, the Muslims developed trigonometry to its fullest extent before calculus, and Nasaruddin Tusi (13th century) was a great mathematician. The word 'sine' is a translation from the word for curve. The famous Omar Khayyam was a leading mathematician. Muhammad ibn Musa al-Kwarazami was the founder of Algebra (9th century) -- his name is the basis of the word 'algorithm'.

One only needs to see Muslim architecture from the period to see how advanced their mathematics are.

The Muslim world was the great leader in astronomy. A great mind was al-Biruni (11th century). Ibn al -Haythim (Alhazan) measured the effect of the atmosphere on astronomical observations (also 11th century). Copernicus relied strongly on texts translated from Muslim scholars.

Medicine was also an area of great advancement. Rhazes wrote many books including an important encyclopedia of medicine. Ibn Sina wrote a famous book on Medicine, which was considered a great source for 500 years. The Syrian Ibn al-Nafis (13th century) discovered minor circulation of blood.

All of these great discoveries came before the Ottoman period. However, the Ottomans during their glory period (after the defeat by Timurid, probably starting with Murad II through Sulayman the Magnificent) they lived in a scientifically advanced society with great education and advances.

Like many of the great civilizations, I can justify a LOT of traits for the Ottoman Empire. Militaristic, scientific, even seafaring, commerical, expansionist are all justifiable I would think. My first guess was I thought of them was scientific and expansionist, but the traits they have seem good too.

Breunor

PS I guess I can agree with you on the Egyptians, although I still like Agricultural!

 

[Dreadnought]

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.

In the 1800s America wanted to stretch from the atlantic to the pacific (at this time they were still on the east coast) the Manifest Destiny. The Mexican American War, the covered wagons going across the plains, the Indian Wars... If that doesn't make them expansionist, then other civs, Mongols are a good example, shouldn't be expansionist either.

I know that commercial would have been a good trait but almost (about) 65% of the years of America's history was gaining land in the west...most Americans at the time believed in the Manifest Destiny.

 

[jkp1187]

Breunor:

True, although Avicenna (Ibn Sina) was actually Persian....and an argument can be made that the Muslim scholars of which you speak were actually more Arab than Turkish.

My (subtle) point is really what you said....at ANY point in its history, almost ANY civilization could rasonably claim ANY of the traits. I think the decisions were made based on popular perceptions at the time. But even here, the decision seems not to stand very well. Whatever their initial accomplishments, the Ottomans also conquered the Arabs, assaulted Europe, and their rule culminated in a period of cultural stagnation (at least, relative to Europe). Hence, my inclination is that they are more militaristic (or expansionist) than scientific.

Now the Arabs....well, yes, I'd be less inclined to argue that they were not scientific....

 

[Breunor]

Dreadnought,

Of course expansionist fits the US, certainly in the 19th century (and most Europeans then, social Darwinism in its most raw form.) An even worse example was the war of 1812. The US wanted to conquer Canada!? They had more room to settle by far without Canada! US expansionism was strong, in fits and starts.

As JKP1187 says, my point is that I can attach many characterists to most civilizations, especially the more powerful and succesful ones. We have the Mongols as militaristic and expansionist -- with few other exceptions, I think people will disagree with designations. (And I wouldn't be surprised if somebody takes exception to my statement about the Mongols).

At the end, the key was one civ had to have pair, and choices are made. Is Portugal 'expansionist'? The key is, if you want to change somebody, you have to work it out so that every combiantion is covered.

Simple switches are possible -- for instance, I personally would flip China and Rome, but again, I'm sure many would disagree.

My only effective criticism, then, would be gameplay. If you play with randon set-up, then I don't think it matters very much. If you play with culturally linked starting positions, I do think you wind up with a lot of New World civilizations that are agricultural and can be powerhouses on Pangea type maps; or you can end up with Europeans, and find yourself fighting the Dutch, English, and Potugal which can be real bad on small islands. So, from a practical standpoint, I would like somebody not in the New World to be agricultural, for instance.

Otherwise, just enjoy the game. Or, if the desginations bother somebody too much, just use the editor!

Breunor

 

[morchuflex]

So, from a practical standpoint, I would like somebody not in the New World to be agricultural, for instance.
Breunor

That should be France...
As a Frenchman, I was surprised by the traits my country has been given. France isn't any more commercial or industrious than other European countries. It should obviously have been agricultural. As for the second trait, I'm not sure. We have been highly seafaring, militaristic and expansionistic at times, but not permanently.
IMO, the best pick would be religious (we had a lot of religious civil wars in the 16th century, and France is considered "the elder daughter of the Catholic church") or maybe scientific: the list of French great minds throughout history and Nobel prizes is impressive to say the least (Laplace, Lavoisier, Pasteur, Poincaré, the Curies to name just a few).

So overall, France should be agricultural AND either religious, either scientific.
But anyway, I agree that realism isn't as important as gameplay.

 

[Breunor]

BTW, doe this whole line of discussion belong on another thread now?

Anyway, Morchflex, making France agricultural would help the problem that agricultural is dominated by New World Civilization. I think France is one of those civilizations that a case can be made for almost any of the traits! I'm not sure if I would give religious .....(However, agricultural and Scientific now is the Sumerians, so that combo doesn't break the new world block.)

Breunor

 

[rhialto]

They chose a SAINT for the French leaderhead. That alone makes me wonder why they then idn'T make it a religious civ.

 

[Breunor]

Yeah, while we discuss civ traits, there are some weird picks fo rthe leaders and even the unique units. I guess they needed some women leaders, and Joan is one of the more famous ones. If we want important leaders for France, would she rand in the top 30? With choices like Charlemagne, Clovis, Napolean, Lous XIV, Richelieu, Philip IV, etc, they pick Joan??

Cleopatra for Egypt? What? She wasn't even the best woman choice!

I guess I'm still not a fan as religious for France or the Ottoman Empire. I jsut don't think the French were any more religious than the other civilizations in Europe so I don't see it as 'defining' them. I have the same view of the Ottomans relative to the other Muslim countires.

 

[Richard Cribb]

Yeah, while we discuss civ traits, there are some weird picks fo rthe leaders and even the unique units.

I totally agree, especially Persia is quite odd.
I will use this opportunity to say that I think you are completely right on most of your points from your last few posts, and I should have known better. I got mixed up in some controversy with a geek who I later learned seems to live for controversies on these forums, I really should have raised myself above that level.
I think I got a bit carried away because I am a bit fed up with the savages from the North and the innocent, peaceloving, cultivated continent, this is one stereotype I can do very well without.The historian and patriot got the better of me, I am afraid.
But as I have already stated, I don't want to discuss this topic further.

 

[jkp1187]

Someone mentioned this on another thread (I'd link, but I'm lazy this morning)....perhaps it would be interesting if in Civ IV (or whatever) there were multiple leaders for each civ. E.g., Russia would have Stalin, Lenin, Catherine, Peter the Great....each of whom would allow different advantages based on THAT LEADER'S personalities. I think Master of Orion II did this as well....that way you were never sure how the others were going to act until you met them. I like this idea...and probably wouldn't be TOO AWFULLY difficult to implement.... Because, after all, the individual leaders at any given time can often have a great impact on how the nation acts/reacts....

 

[morchuflex]

Interesting idea!

 

[Godwynn]

Someone mentioned this on another thread (I'd link, but I'm lazy this morning)....perhaps it would be interesting if in Civ IV (or whatever) there were multiple leaders for each civ. E.g., Russia would have Stalin, Lenin, Catherine, Peter the Great....each of whom would allow different advantages based on THAT LEADER'S personalities.

Are you saying have multiple leaders at the same time? Or they change throughout the ages? Or you can pic one from the beggining?

I prefer the 3rd one. Multiple Leaders at the same time will let every civilization have every attribute, if they change throughout the ages, that would make me change my strategy mid-way.

 

[crazyluke2001]

Hey, if you're not happy, use CivEdit.

 

[Smagsdommer]

Interesting thread, not many games would inspire discussions like these. I'd like to give my opinion on a couple of things. I just got my master in history, but of course there is a lot of blank spots in my knowledge anyway, so please correct me if im wrong.

About the scandinavian names.
The citynames are really bad; I think Regnar Lodbrog is an ok choice. Though there are myths about him, we know he is more than a myth; he was some kind of a danish king. Otherwise Canute the Great or Svein Forkbeard would probably have been more appropiate choices, or if they wanted someone for whole of scandinavia: Margrethe the 1., queen of the Kalmar-union. But then they would have moved out of the viking age, and I think they have good reason not to, as I wil return to in a sec.

About the scandinavian traits.
Seafaring..yes Militaristic..yes, I think it is the right choice. Yes, they were farmers and merchants and artists and so on, and No, they were not just barbaric. Their religion however is extremely masculine and warlike. No matter what happened after Ragnarok it didnt change that if u died in battle u either went to Odins hall to eat, drink and battle or to Freja (goddes of love and fertility) If u died outside of battle u went to Hel, the dark underworld. If that is not a warmongering religion...Of course that dont make them militaristic alone, but they seemed to live after this culture of war and fighting, and with succes. The most revered of the gods were not Odin, the king and father of the gods, but Thor, his muscular son, the god of close combat fighting.
Excavations have hinted the vikings were pretty tall at that time compared to the rest of Europe (around 1,76m), that further gave them an advance in fighting. Much more could be said on this, and u could argument against this, but I think it has some of a connection with the next subject.

On traits in general and civilisations.
As all can see, many of the civs in civilization are not civilisations at all. I mean..the dutch? No offense meant. If they should limit themselves to real civilisations there wouldnt be that many to chose from though, and how do you define them anyway. But it has something to do with the traits and the difficulty of assigning them. The scandinavians, are they a civilisation? (yeah! I'm a Dane ) No, of course not. Not today. But in the viking age u could make an argument of it. They had their own distinct way of living, religion, government, culture, social forms, relationship between genders and so on. And it is of cource because of this (glorious ) past, they have been deemed worthy of a place in civ, so it the charateristics and traits of this distinct period in history that should characterize the civilisation in civilization. The alternative, which I think some is actually indicating without saying it, is to try and capture the essence, the spirit, the national character of being eg. a scandinavian throughout a 1000 years. That would be wrong. After the viking age the danes got europeanised, the danish court started to talk german and french as it was considered to be finer. They became a part of european civilisation. But many of the civs in the game, has never had so distinct a way of life compared to their surroundings. Eg. the germans. When did they stand out? During the roman age, where german was the common name for scandinavians, franks, goths, vandals and so on. The german civ lived on in scandinavia through the viking ages, but what the german civ has gotten its traits from in the game is not this period. I dont think u can say the germans is particular industrious, maybe they have been in some parts of their history, in others they dont, more militaristic than most? probably, after Bismarck, otherwise not, and even after bismarck not that much. All in all, seen from the overview of history and talking about civs, the germans have not been that different from their neighbours around them. What I want to illustrate is, that if a civ doesnt have a period in history where they were uniquly different from their surroundings giving them traits in the game is an almost impossible job, and that goes for most of the civs in Civ.
Eg. the americans, they are not that unique today, but a part of western civ. Giving them traits u should look for a period where they were unique, and not try to grasp even their short history with two traits.

Well, just my opinion.
I'm new to the forum, and found this thread interesting. Hope I have not bugged anyone by writing so much. That certainly hasnt been my intention.

Smagsdommer

 

[jkp1187]

Smagsdommer--

Well put. Of course, it's simply inappropriate for "American civilization" to begin in 4000 BC anyway....for much of American (U.S.) history, American schoalrs would have argued that American civilization was little more than an extension of European civilization generaly (and British civilization in particular,) but Civ III without America just wouldn't seem right. This is just one of the many compromises necessary to make the game engaging and fun.


Godwynn:
About the "different leaders = different traits" thread above, Master of Orion II had one ruler chosen at the beginning of the game....but, if that race wasn't doing well, I think it would "have a revolution" and the leadership would change.

I also recall that Civilization I had a randomization feature...you hit "ALT-R" and the personality traits of the other leaders were randomized. I used to hit it whenever things were getting too easy..... It actually made things more fun....for instance, in one game, the Mongols were taking over gobs of territory. I randomized, and they ended up "Perfectionist" or something like that, and all of a sudden actually began IMPROVING the land they'd taken. They were really hard to beat after that....

Considering that the AI doesn't plan ahead per se, I think an option for an occasional change of leadership would make things more challenging for the player while not necessarily hurting AI play. I like that idea!

How would GOlden Ages be effected, though? Probably wouldn't need to change much here.... if the G/A has already gone through, there's no trouble. If no G/A has gone through yet, but (for instance) the civilization already has appropriate wonders that match the NEW leader, then a G/A starts with the new guy's oath of office. (Not unreasonable....new leader, new ideas, the populace is excited about the new direction.)

Only thing is, the player charater's traits should stay constant. Otherwise, there'd be too much potential for meta-gaming abuse by the player.

 

[Breunor]

I totally agree, especially Persia is quite odd.
I will use this opportunity to say that I think you are completely right on most of your points from your last few posts, and I should have known better.

Lucearful,

Thanks for the vote of confidence. I think your points about the Scandanavians are pretty spot on -- it was very appropriate to take up their 'defense'. There is NO doubt that the Vikings suffer from horrendous stereotyping.

Best wishes,

Breunor

 

[Risbinroch]

What about modern Norway - are we militaristic and seafaring? No - I don´t think so...

I would say we are still seafaring. At least up until the latest years, but still. We have allways had a rather large merchant fleet.

Right now I would say seafaring and commercial is what best suits the norwegians. But all in all - through history, I think it's ok with militaristic and seafaring, suits the whole of Scandinavia. But scientific might also fit (not for us norwegians, but swedes especially)

 

[thetrooper]

I would say we are still seafaring. At least up until the latest years, but still. We have allways had a rather large merchant fleet.

Right now I would say seafaring and commercial is what best suits the norwegians. But all in all - through history, I think it's ok with militaristic and seafaring, suits the whole of Scandinavia. But scientific might also fit (not for us norwegians, but swedes especially)

No - we are industrious! Just look at all the people on social security
I give in on seafaring and commercial. The merchant fleet is under foreign flags now. But we have been more or less peaceful for 1000 years now.
Historically militaristic and seafaring suits us just fine.

 

[Richard Cribb]

Well, just my opinion.
I'm new to the forum, and found this thread interesting. Hope I have not bugged anyone by writing so much. That certainly hasnt been my intention.

To start with the end, I think we could need more posts like this! Your contribution is most appreciated.

Interesting thread, not many games would inspire discussions like these. I'd like to give my opinion on a couple of things. I just got my master in history, but of course there is a lot of blank spots in my knowledge anyway, so please correct me if im wrong.

Yes, it is a great game, isn't it? Second only to chess in my experience.
Having a similar degree myself in history has taught me among other things to be humble. I have realized that nobody knows everything, it is simply impossible. Besides as already stated this era is not my speciality, I know that there are certain white spots in my knowledge. So Iam glad if somebody can fill me in.

About the scandinavian names.
The citynames are really bad; I think Regnar Lodbrog is an ok choice. Though there are myths about him, we know he is more than a myth; he was some kind of a danish king. Otherwise Canute the Great or Svein Forkbeard would probably have been more appropiate choices, or if they wanted someone for whole of scandinavia: Margrethe the 1., queen of the Kalmar-union. But then they would have moved out of the viking age, and I think they have good reason not to, as I wil return to in a sec.

Yes, most of those names are ridiculous.
I think I stated that Ragnar is half-mythological, I know that he did exist, I know about his importance. But he is certainly not my top contender as leader. I think that Knud ("Canute") the Great should have been allowed to take the step from civ2 to civ3.

About the scandinavian traits.
Seafaring..yes Militaristic..yes, I think it is the right choice. Yes, they were farmers and merchants and artists and so on, and No, they were not just barbaric. Their religion however is extremely masculine and warlike. No matter what happened after Ragnarok it didnt change that if u died in battle u either went to Odins hall to eat, drink and battle or to Freja (goddes of love and fertility) If u died outside of battle u went to Hel, the dark underworld. If that is not a warmongering religion...Of course that dont make them militaristic alone, but they seemed to live after this culture of war and fighting, and with succes. The most revered of the gods were not Odin, the king and father of the gods, but Thor, his muscular son, the god of close combat fighting.
Excavations have hinted the vikings were pretty tall at that time compared to the rest of Europe (around 1,76m), that further gave them an advance in fighting. Much more could be said on this, and u could argument against this, but I think it has some of a connection with the next subject..

Just a couple of remarks to the religion. The issue with domains of death is quite complicated if you look into it more closely, Snorre mentions in fact several of them.This Norwegian page: http://www.arild-hauge.com/grav.htm is quite instructive. I haven't done so much research, but I am convinced there are some pretty good Danish pages too.
That Tor is more popular than Odin is because he is the idealized farmer and warrior, a popular figure, while Odin is more the aristocratic and intellectual figure. Odin is a very fascinating god indeed - he has created a world he doesn't understand. By the way, John Carlsen wrote quite an nice book about Scandianvian mythology and our time, "Odin & harddisken"(Odin & the hard-disc").
In any case my point was just that medieval Europe was dominated by military aristocracies, and those who adopted Christianity was not exactly peaceful, neither was the Scandinavs after they adopted this new religion.Anyway this is a really complicated issue, and I think we could just agree to disagree(slightly)about this and just play the game.

On traits in general and civilisations.
As all can see, many of the civs in civilization are not civilisations at all. I mean..the dutch? No offense meant. If they should limit themselves to real civilisations there wouldnt be that many to chose from though, and how do you define them anyway. But it has something to do with the traits and the difficulty of assigning them. The scandinavians, are they a civilisation? (yeah! I'm a Dane ) No, of course not. Not today. But in the viking age u could make an argument of it. They had their own distinct way of living, religion, government, culture, social forms, relationship between genders and so on. And it is of cource because of this (glorious ) past, they have been deemed worthy of a place in civ, so it the charateristics and traits of this distinct period in history that should characterize the civilisation in civilization. The alternative, which I think some is actually indicating without saying it, is to try and capture the essence, the spirit, the national character of being eg. a scandinavian throughout a 1000 years. That would be wrong. After the viking age the danes got europeanised, the danish court started to talk german and french as it was considered to be finer. They became a part of european civilisation. But many of the civs in the game, has never had so distinct a way of life compared to their surroundings. Eg. the germans. When did they stand out? During the roman age, where german was the common name for scandinavians, franks, goths, vandals and so on. The german civ lived on in scandinavia through the viking ages, but what the german civ has gotten its traits from in the game is not this period. I dont think u can say the germans is particular industrious, maybe they have been in some parts of their history, in others they dont, more militaristic than most? probably, after Bismarck, otherwise not, and even after bismarck not that much. All in all, seen from the overview of history and talking about civs, the germans have not been that different from their neighbours around them. What I want to illustrate is, that if a civ doesnt have a period in history where they were uniquly different from their surroundings giving them traits in the game is an almost impossible job, and that goes for most of the civs in Civ.
Eg. the americans, they are not that unique today, but a part of western civ. Giving them traits u should look for a period where they were unique, and not try to grasp even their short history with two traits.Smagsdommer

Good arguments, well thought out. I hope to read more posts from you in the future . Which goes for you also, Breunor, thanks for kind words, and best wishes for both you and Smagsdommer. .