Disclaimer! After having discussed back and forth on this thread for a long time I have revised many of my original opinions. I realise that many of the things I stated here are very black & white and simplified. I have edited a few things in this post to fit with my new view on things. -RobinHat Hi all, There have been quite a few discussions on these boards about whether the 'Viking' Civilization is really worthy of a place in the game. Many believe that the word 'Viking' should be replaced by 'Scandinavian' or 'Norse'/'Norsemen'. I have taken an active part in these discussions in an attempt to convince people that all these words are in fact wrong. So I thought I'd start this thread. I have posted this in the Ideas And Suggestions forum, as it is really a suggestion for the potential new Civ V game – complete with detailed reasons why. I am a History Bachelor from Aarhus University with semesters of special focus on the early Middle Ages. The so-called 'Viking Era' (793-1066) was my main field of study for a year and I have visited all three Scandinavian countries as well as England. So here goes... First of all, here is a map of present-day Scandinavia. Scandinavia is the common word for the 3 countries: Norway - Blue Sweden - Yellow Denmark - Red http://i35.photobucket.com/albums/d166/RobinHat/presentscandinavia.jpg A word that is often mistaken for 'Scandinavia' is the 'Nordic' countries. This is a broader term as it includes more countries: Norway - Blue Sweden - Yellow Denmark - Red Finland - Green Iceland - Purple Faroe Islands - Not on map, but just North-East of Scotland Greenland - Orange http://i35.photobucket.com/albums/d166/RobinHat/presentnordic.jpg Greenland and the Faroe Islands are not independent countries like the rest. They are under Danish rule, although they effectively have their own parliaments (much like Scotland in the UK). Now we have that settled, I will define the meaning of the different phrases that people use when talking about the 'Vikings' as a Civilization in the Civ games. "Scandinavians" The word 'Scandinavia' arose in the late Middle Ages. At this time (several hundred years AFTER the Viking Era), the largest university in the present Scandinavian area was the University of Lund (present day Southern Sweden). In those days, the southern tip of present-day Sweden was Danish. This area is still known as 'Skåne' (Scania in English). For many scholars in Lund (and other places), Lund was the centre of knowledge in the area and students came from all of Scandinavia to study here. Anyway... The scholars of Lund mapped out the area of Denmark, Norway and Sweden (due to the similar languages and cultures) and called the area 'Skaana Aua', meaning 'The Scanian Island' (Lund, of course, being situated in Scania). The term 'island' is not to be taken literally, but rather understood as 'an island of knowledge' in the dark world... People liked themselves a lot back then... 'Scandinavia' is obviously a Latin variation of 'Skaana Aua'. So the term 'Scandinavian' did not arise until many years after the Viking Age. It was not even used in Scandinavia itself, as the term was a decadent, academic phrase used by high-and-mighty professors. Edit: Although there has been discussion about this claim, I stand by it. Terms similiar to 'Scandinavia' are indeed seen before the time I stated, but using the word as a collected term for the whole region did not start until this time. (Sources: Deleuran, Claus: Deleuran's Illustrerede Danmarkshistorie, 1995 ”Norsemen” The term ‘Norsemen’ is a phrase that has existed since the Iron Age and is a word that was used mainly by English and French monks who were harassed by raiders from Norway and Denmark. The meaning is simply ‘men from the North’ and is of course a reference to all ‘Viking’ raiders or people from what is now known as Scandinavia. The thing to remember here is that this term was only used by OTHER cultures, never the actual people themselves. The term later evolved into ‘Normans’, as the area of Normandy was named after the ‘Norsemen’ who invaded the area and settled there. The Normans did indeed take the name for themselves, but this was much later. At this point, they no longer considered themselves of the same culture as their ancestors (William the Conqueror’s grandfather, Rollo, was from Faxe in Denmark and was the chief who conquered the area later known as Normandy). So the term ‘Norsemen’ was not used by the people themselves, but was a term used by others. It was considered an ‘evil’ word. In a version of The Lord’s Prayer found in England, dating from the 9th Century, the line “Deliver us from evil” is actually phrased “Deliver us from the Norsemen”. So using the term ‘Norsemen’ is as wrong as using the word ‘Barbarians’. Edit: This claim I stand by. Norsemen is a very simplified term and was not used by the people themselves. It is a collected term for 'those people who come from the north'. ”Vikings” This is without a doubt one of the greatest misunderstandings in the history of language. The term ‘Viking’ was indeed used by the people themselves, and it is definitely the most recognisable of all the phrases. However, the word ‘Viking’ is not a noun; it is a ‘verb’! ‘Viking’ was not something you were, but rather something you DID! In many of the Icelandic Sagas, this word appears, but always in contexts like this: ”Han samlede en hær og drog i viking.” = “He raised an army and went viking.” ‘To go viking’, can roughly be translated as ‘to go plundering’ or ‘pirating’. So using the term ‘Viking’ is actually as wrong as calling them ‘The Killings’ or ‘The Fightings’. Edit: This has been up to a lot of debate. Some people believe that the term 'Viking' comes from 'viken', but the only real source I have seen that states this is Wikipedia! Regardless of the meaning however, the word is still wrong to use when defining a civ, because it did not refer to the people but rather only the raiders. ”Danes” The term ‘Danes’ dates back to Roman times and is the name of the tribe of people who lived in present-day Denmark and Norway (as well as southern Sweden). The first time the ‘Danes’ are mentioned is in accounts of the barbarian raids on Rome in the 5th century. There are also accounts of the ‘Kimbrer’ tribe that were a break-off tribe of the ‘Dani’ in earlier centuries, who wreaked havoc throughout Europe. The term ‘Denmark’ is first mentioned in Frankish texts from the early 8th century and describes the area of present day Denmark, Norway, Iceland and southern Sweden. It means ‘The borderland of the Danes’ The term ‘Norway’ comes from the present-day word ‘Norge’, which again comes from the term ‘Nord Rige’ or ‘Nord Rike’ which means ‘The Realm to the North’. ‘Sweden’ is actually called ‘Sverige’, which comes from ‘Svea Rige’ or ‘Svea Rike’, which means ‘The Realm of Svea’. There is debate in historical circles as to whether ‘Svea’ was a man or a people, but the legends say that he was the brother of a Danish king ‘Dan’ who settled his own land to the east. The historical facts of this are doubtful. Throughout Western Europe, the term ‘Danes’ was universally used to describe the raiders from Denmark and Norway. By the 10th century the Danes were feared throughout Europe. The greatest of all the kings was Knud den Store (Canute the Great) whose kingdom rivalled that of many other great kings in Europe. His Empire consisted of Denmark, Norway, England, parts of Scotland, Iceland, southern Sweden, Faroe Islands, Shetland Islands, Greenland, northern France and parts of Northern Germany. Here is a map of Knud’s empire: http://i35.photobucket.com/albums/d166/RobinHat/knudsrige-2.jpg Edit: Now here I have simplified a bit. Although this is not entirely wrong, Canute's Empire had little influence over Iceland and Greenland. Norway was, however, ruled by Canute so placing the areas under his empire is not completely wrong (although a bit simplified). To understand why the Norwegians were not distinguished from the Danes, one must understand the cultural links between the two. Denmark and Norway have historically always been linked. Of the three Scandinavian languages, Danish and Norwegian are by far the most similar – Swedish is considerably different. Edit: Apparently, there are more complicated links here that I did not know of. I am not a linguist. So this may be wrong. Norway was part of the Danish kingdom throughout the Viking era and all the way up until the early 19th century, where it was taken over by Sweden. During the Viking era, Norway had its own vassal kings that often were in conflict with Danish kings, the most powerful of these was Harald Harderaade, who challenged Denmark on several occasions and who even tried to take over England after the Danes left. In the 14th century the final Norwegian royal bloodline died out and Norway was effectively a part of Denmark. In 1814 Norway came under Swedish rule (due to years of Danish stupidity). In 1905 Norway finally became independent and offered the crown to the Danish prince Carl, who took the name Haakon. The fact that they gave the crown to a Danish prince is also proof of the feeling of unity between the two countries. Edit: Here is my most blatant mistake. I apologise for some of these claims, which are simplifications and not thought through. The claim that Harald Harderaade was a vassal king is wrong and I understand that many people have gotten angry about this. Also, claiming that Norway was under Danish rule througout the Viking Age is also wrong and I am sorry for claiming it. I do, however, not accept that Harald Harderaade was ever king of Denmark, as has been claimed several times. The Viking Age was a time of great shifting of power in Scandinavia, but Norway did come under Danish control in the late Viking Age and (for the most part) remained under Danish rule up until 1814. If we go back to the Viking era again and take a look at the Swedes, their focus was much different than that of the Danes. Where the Danes engaged Western Europe, the Swedes looked East and set up immense trade routes along the rivers of Russia and managed to reach the Caspian Sea and beyond. They founded Kiev and other cities along the rivers and were great merchants and traders, unlike any the world had seen. They were, however, not a people of raiders in the same sense as the Danes were, and the shear impact they had on Europe could not match that of the Danes. Edit: This I also stand by. The Swedes who conquered much of Eastern Europe and the Baltic, and set up trade routes along the rivers did indeed have great impact on the region, but power-wise they did not match the Danish and Norwegian kings of their time. Centuries later, the three countries were in a union for a while known as the Kalmar Union, but this was more of a mutual protection pact and an economic union than anything else. The Swedes hated it and eventually left the union, feeling that the Danes were calling too many shots. The Swedes later rose to become a huge power in Europe, almost annihilating Denmark in devastating wars. Edit: Again, I stand by this. The Kalmar Union was a union of countries, not a single united one. There was much strife and discontent within the union. So if we are to speak of the ‘Viking’ civilization, it is foolish and lazy to throw them all together into one, especially when one takes into account the rivalry between Denmark and Sweden. Denmark and Sweden are in fact the two countries in the world that have been at war most times. Since the Viking era, the two nations have been at war 29 times – every single time, Norway has fought on the Danish side. Another interesting thing worth mentioning is the Jelling Stone. This is a large finely engraved stone (well, two stones actually) put up around 965 AD in Jelling, Denmark by Harald Blaatand (sometimes translated as 'Bluetooth' but actually meaning 'Blue King' - Tand = Thane = King) in memory of his father Gorm the Old. This is especially interesting (and is now a world heritage site), as it marks the moment of transition for the Danes from the Asetro religion to Christianity. Gorm was the last Danish king to worship the old Nordic gods, and his son Harald was the first Christian king. The Jelling Stone can be seen here: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/3/39/Jelling_gr_kl_Stein.JPG It is commonly known as "Denmark's birth certificate" as it is the oldest written account of the word 'Denmark' (Tanmaurk) within Danish borders. The Jelling Stone also disproves another misunderstanding: Many people think that the 'Vikings' were heathen raiders. This was only true during the first few centuries, as all of Scandinavia was Christian by the 11th Century. All the great 'Viking' kings such as Canute, Svend Forkbeard, Hardeknud and Harald Harderaade were in fact Christian kings. My conclusion is, that if it is to be remotely historically accurate, the ‘Viking’ civilization in the Civ games should be the ‘Danish Empire’, led by Knud den Store (Canute the Great). Sweden should also be represented as a seperate Civ, only as the immense economic and military powerhouse they were throughout the 16th and 17th centuries. Edit: I am actually starting to move away from my original opinion. Taking into consideration the shifting of power in the Viking Age, 'Danish Empire' is a gross simplification that is not fair to the others. I still have a problem with 'Scandinavian Empire', however, because such an Empire never existed. The closest thing the world ever came to a 'Scandinavian Empire' was the empire of Canute the Great (which was essentially a Danish Empire and would leave out the Swedes). Perhaps it would be better to leave Scandinavia out all together, or simply make a 'what if' Scandinavian Empire.