Question about Scandinavia
- Thread starter Malakar
- Start date
norwegianviking
Viking Chief
- Joined
- Aug 11, 2004
- Messages
- 302
A. they terrorized coastal Europe
B. They used alot of ships
C. they never captured the cities they attacked, they either destroyed them or left them with nothing
B. They used alot of ships
C. they never captured the cities they attacked, they either destroyed them or left them with nothing
bingen
Prince
C. This is not entirely true. While they did sack, they also conquered. For example, Danish Vikings conquered and held most of England under Canute the Great, the French made a deal with the viking chief Rollo (Gange-Rolf) conceding Normandie(hence its name) in return for protection, and Dublin was also Norse controlled.norwegianviking said:
In addition to being plunderers they also traded extensively.
Richard Cribb
He does monologues
- Joined
- Nov 5, 2003
- Messages
- 4,291
Compared to reality, Scandinavia (read the Vikings)is one of the least convincing in the game. They have a leader who is half-mythical, obscure city-names, and should rather be commercial than militaristic. Which is not that hard to argue with, Breunor. However, I suppose that they needed a cicilization which was militaristic and seafaring, and everybody knows about the bad, bad Vikings...
Cuivenen - yes there was a pre-Viking settlement. Ptolemaios in the 2nd century called it Eblana. Anybody interested in the history of Dublin can check out this: http://indigo.ie/~kfinlay/
Cuivenen - yes there was a pre-Viking settlement. Ptolemaios in the 2nd century called it Eblana. Anybody interested in the history of Dublin can check out this: http://indigo.ie/~kfinlay/
) who killed some god or a bull or a bull that was a god... or something, who needs details anyway? 
Richard Cribb
He does monologues
- Joined
- Nov 5, 2003
- Messages
- 4,291
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.
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.
philippe
FYI, I chase trains.
the bull of heaven????????????????luceafarul said:
Why did he wanted to plunge the world into darkness?
The Last Conformist
Irresistibly Attractive
Why not Militaristic? Viking Age Scandinavian society was very warlike.luceafarul said:
The city-names are mostly little towns in Norway.
Richard Cribb
He does monologues
- Joined
- Nov 5, 2003
- Messages
- 4,291
Conformist - Can you tell me which society which was less warlike than the Scandinavian ones? Remember that Medieval Europe was ruled by military aristocracies - war, plunder, pillage was the rule rather than the exception in politics. 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). That also explains why Lindisfarne was raided - it was an outpost of the papal church which was the symbol of Charlemagnes power. On the other hand the Vikings were terrific tradesmen, even establishing traderoutes down to Constaninople.
Philippe - the Gilgamesh epos is a very complicated story, and I fear I would be deviating too much from the thread if I elaborated it, but if you are interested , you really should read it. It can be found on-line.
Philippe - the Gilgamesh epos is a very complicated story, and I fear I would be deviating too much from the thread if I elaborated it, but if you are interested , you really should read it. It can be found on-line.
Richard Cribb
He does monologues
- Joined
- Nov 5, 2003
- Messages
- 4,291
Oops I forgot: Yes, I know very well where the city-names comes from - after all I am Norwegian myself living in a rather obscure place. What I meant was just that there are more representative city-names for the Scandinivian civ. Anyway I realize that it is not a big deal - one can always change the names oneself.
Akka
Moody old mage.
Oh, please, Luceafarul 
Vikings were living FOR being a warrior. They believed that Valhalla was gained by dying with a sword in hand in a battle. They had the Berserkers. They spent centuries pillaging and raiding all Europe, from Russia to Constantinople, via Sicily and Great Brittain.
Not militaristic ?
Vikings were living FOR being a warrior. They believed that Valhalla was gained by dying with a sword in hand in a battle. They had the Berserkers. They spent centuries pillaging and raiding all Europe, from Russia to Constantinople, via Sicily and Great Brittain.
Not militaristic ?
Dave the Monkey
Chieftain
Cuivienen said:
It is, meaning 'Black Pool'
Richard Cribb
He does monologues
- Joined
- Nov 5, 2003
- Messages
- 4,291
Akka - Please read more carefully, I wrote that medieval societies, including the Vikings, was ruled by military aristocracies.
And yes, the vikings were warriors. But not only that. Most of the people were in fact farmers, merchants, craftsmen. Their societies had more democracy, justice and equality for more people than ancient Greece (also a society that highly praised warriors and courage) or the feudal Christian Europe. Contrary to the last mentioned there was also religious fredom.
If you really think that they were just considered of swordswinging savages, I strongly recommend you to learn a bit more about the subject. Just consider their abilities in shipbuilding, consider the literature, the craftship and the political organization.
You still seem to be under the impression that they were aggressors against a peaceful, innocent, cultivated Europe. As I already wrote, the Vikings raids were responses to agression. Please read a bit about how Charlemagne could treat his enemies. Or the fate of the Merovinges. Of course the Vikings were spoilers refusing to end up the same way and to beat their enemies in their own game...
About Valhall, pagan religions usually idealized warriors. But do you know what Valhall really was? A training camp for Ragnarok. And the post-Ragnarok world is not a bad place.
What is worse with a berserk than any other warrior-type I don't know. A medieval knight harassing downthrodden serfs is not all that appetizing to me.
The question is not if they were militaristic, because civilizations were that at the time, but if they should be militaristic in civ3. For me there are better candidates, for instance Greece, France or "America"(read USA)
And yes, the vikings were warriors. But not only that. Most of the people were in fact farmers, merchants, craftsmen. Their societies had more democracy, justice and equality for more people than ancient Greece (also a society that highly praised warriors and courage) or the feudal Christian Europe. Contrary to the last mentioned there was also religious fredom.
If you really think that they were just considered of swordswinging savages, I strongly recommend you to learn a bit more about the subject. Just consider their abilities in shipbuilding, consider the literature, the craftship and the political organization.
You still seem to be under the impression that they were aggressors against a peaceful, innocent, cultivated Europe. As I already wrote, the Vikings raids were responses to agression. Please read a bit about how Charlemagne could treat his enemies. Or the fate of the Merovinges. Of course the Vikings were spoilers refusing to end up the same way and to beat their enemies in their own game...
About Valhall, pagan religions usually idealized warriors. But do you know what Valhall really was? A training camp for Ragnarok. And the post-Ragnarok world is not a bad place.
What is worse with a berserk than any other warrior-type I don't know. A medieval knight harassing downthrodden serfs is not all that appetizing to me.
The question is not if they were militaristic, because civilizations were that at the time, but if they should be militaristic in civ3. For me there are better candidates, for instance Greece, France or "America"(read USA)
Similar threads
